packet

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA JUNE 13, 2016 - 7:30 P.M. REVISED TO REMOVE PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 2016-07 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 15 LOOCKERMAN PLAZA DOVER, DELAWARE OPEN FORUM - 15 MINUTES PRIOR TO OFFICIAL MEETING (7:15 P.M.) THE “OPEN FORUM” SEGMENT IS PROVIDED TO EXTEND THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO SHARE THEIR QUESTIONS, THOUGHTS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS, AND COMPLAINTS. DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM APPEARING ON THE AGENDA AS A PUBLIC HEARING IS PROHIBITED DURING THE OPEN FORUM AS AN OPPORTUNITY WILL BE PROVIDED DURING CONSIDERATION OF THAT ITEM. CITIZEN COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES. COUNCIL IS PROHIBITED FROM TAKING ACTION SINCE THEY ARE NOT IN OFFICIAL SESSION; HOWEVER, THEY MAY SCHEDULE SUCH ITEMS AS REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS AND ACT UPON THEM IN THE FUTURE. INVOCATION BY REVEREND THEODORE HENDERSON PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT SLAVIN AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS * CONSENT AGENDA THOSE ITEMS ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA WHICH ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND NON- CONTROVERSIAL SHALL BE MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK (*) AND WILL BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE ROLL CALL VOTE OF THE COUNCIL. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS UNLESS A MEMBER OF COUNCIL SO REQUESTS, IN WHICH EVENT THE MATTER SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED A SEPARATE ITEM. * 1. ADOPTION OF MINUTES A. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 B. SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING - BUDGET REVIEW OF MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 2. CERTIFICATE OF CONGRATULATIONS - TOWNSEND BROTHERS CHEVROLET - 86 YEARS OF BUSINESS 3. PRESENTATION - 2015 ANNUAL REPORT - ROBBINS HOSE COMPANY (DOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT)

COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 13, 2016 PAGE 2 4. PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2016-09 WITH COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE AMENDMENT #1 (CCW/SA&T #1) THE FIRST READING OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WAS ACCOMPLISHED DURING THE COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2016. THE ORDINANCE IS AVAILABLE AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AT WWW.CITYOFDOVER.COM UNDER "GOVERNMENT." A. ORDINANCE #2016-09 WITH CCW/SA&T #1 AMENDING CHAPTER 98 - STREETS, SIDEWALKS, STORM SEWERS AND OTHER PUBLIC PLACES, ARTICLE I. - IN GENERAL, SECTION 98-10 - SPEED REDUCTION DEVICES; APPENDIX A - SUBDIVISIONS, ARTICLE VI - SUBDIVISION - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND DESIGN STANDARDS, SECTION A - STREETS, PARAGRAPH 1; AND APPENDIX B - ZONING, ARTICLE 10 - PLANNING COMMISSION, SECTION 2 - SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL, 2.54 - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED AGAINST ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2016-09 AS WRITTEN BUT TO RE-VISIT THE NEED AND THE LANGUAGE IF THERE IS A THOUGHT THAT THESE ARE A NECESSARY ITEM TO ALLOW) 5. PUBLIC HEARING - ELECTRIC REVENUE FUND BUDGET 6. 60-DAY PROGRESS REPORT - VIOLATION OF THE DANGEROUS BUILDING ORDINANCE - PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1032-1058 SOUTH DUPONT HIGHWAY, OWNED BY BMDR LLC 7. PLANNED NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN: SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING OPTION - THE GRANDE - 90 SAULSBURY ROAD (CLUBHOUSE AND POOL) (CITY COUNCIL SHALL DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS OF SUCH A DESIGN AND TYPE THAT WARRANTS FURTHER REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. STAFF RECOMMENDS FORWARDING THE PLAN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW.) * 8. BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS REPORT - MAY 23, 2016 A. CENTRAL DELAWARE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY (BOARD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR EXEMPTIONS) (1) 67 SOUTH QUEEN STREET (2) 18 SOUTH QUEEN STREET (3) 47 SOUTH KIRKWOOD STREET (4) 27 NORTH NEW STREET (5) 24 NORTH NEW STREET (6) 20 NORTH NEW STREET (7) 101 SOUTH QUEEN STREET (8) 16 SOUTH QUEEN STREET (9) 45 SOUTH QUEEN STREET (10) 19 NORTH NEW STREET (11) 23 NORTH KIRKWOOD STREET (12) 53 SOUTH NEW STREET (13) 223 WEST DIVISION STREET (14) 50 SOUTH GOVERNORS AVENUE B. WHATCOAT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INC. - 992 WHATCOAT VILLAGE DRIVE (BOARD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY MANAGER GIVE THE OFFERED PILOT SERIOUS CONSIDERATION)

COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 13, 2016 PAGE 3 * 9. MONTHLY REPORTS - APRIL 2016 A. CITY ASSESSOR’S REPORT B. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT C. CITY PLANNER’S REPORT D. CONTROLLER/TREASURER’S BUDGET REPORT E. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICE REPORT F. FIRE CHIEF’S REPORT G. POLICE CHIEF’S REPORT 10. EVALUATION OF BIDS - THE ENERGY AUTHORITY (TEA) CONTRACT RENEWAL (STAFF RECOMMENDS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR THE 3-YEAR CONTRACT EXTENSION AND TASK ORDER #1) 11. DISCHARGING THE YOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2008-11 - ESTABLISHING A YOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND RESOLUTION NO. 2010-03 - AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2008-11 * 12. 2016/17 COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - COUNCIL PRESIDENT (DEFERRED DURING THE ANNUAL MEETING OF MAY 9, 2016) A. CITY CHAPLAINS B. CIVILIAN PENSION PLAN - BOARD OF TRUSTEES C. COMPENSATION COMMISSION (COUNCIL PRESIDENT SLAVIN REQUESTS THAT THE COMPENSATION COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS BE DEFERRED) D. CONSTRUCTION CODE APPEALS COMMITTEE E. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE F. OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (OPEB) TRUST FUND BOARD G. PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE H. POLICE PENSION PLAN - RETIREMENT COMMITTEE I. SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE J. UTILITY COMMITTEE * 13. 2016/17 MISCELLANEOUS APPOINTMENTS - COUNCIL PRESIDENT (DEFERRED DURING THE ANNUAL MEETING OF MAY 9, 2016) A. CENTRAL DELAWARE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - LIAISON MEMBERS B. CITY/COUNTY COMMITTEE (LIAISON TO KENT COUNTY) C. KENT COUNTY TOURISM BOARD OF DIRECTORS D. KENT ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP BOARD OF DIRECTORS E. PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL ON PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE FUTURE OF CITY HALL, WEYANDT HALL, FORMER DOVER LIBRARY, AND OTHER CITY PROPERTIES (COUNCIL PRESIDENT SLAVIN REQUESTS THAT THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL APPOINTMENTS BE DEFERRED) * 14. 2016/17 COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - MAYOR (DEFERRED DURING THE ANNUAL MEETING OF MAY 9, 2016) A. COMPENSATION COMMISSION B. DOWNTOWN DOVER PARTNERSHIP BOARD OF DIRECTORS C. ELECTION BOARD (MAYOR CHRISTIANSEN REQUESTS THAT THESE APPOINTMENTS BE DEFERRED)

COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 13, 2016 PAGE 4 * 15. APPOINTMENT RECOMMENDED BY MAYOR CHRISTIANSEN - DOVER PUBLIC LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMISSION - JILL B. STREET - FIVE (5) YEAR TERM TO EXPIRE JUNE 16, 2021 (TO FILL THE EXPIRED TERM OF DOROTHY SNYDER) 16. FIRST READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2016-17 THE FIRST READING IS OFFERED ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. FINAL ACTION BY COUNCIL WILL TAKE PLACE DURING THE SECOND READING ON JUNE 27, 2016. THE ORDINANCE IS AVAILABLE AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AT WWW.CITYOFDOVER.COM UNDER "GOVERNMENT," OR BY CONTACTING THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT 736-7008 OR CITYCLERK@DOVER.DE.US. A. PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2016-17 - 2016/2017 CITY OF DOVER BUDGET ORDINANCES 17. FINAL READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2016-10 THE FIRST READING OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WAS ACCOMPLISHED DURING THE COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016. THE ORDINANCE IS AVAILABLE AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OR ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AT WWW.CITYOFDOVER.COM UNDER "GOVERNMENT.” A. PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2016-10 AMENDING CHAPTER 2 - ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE IV - OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, DIVISION 8 - DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 18. CITY MANAGER’S ANNOUNCEMENTS 19. COUNCIL MEMBERS’ ANNOUNCEMENTS 20. ADJOURNMENT EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO: 29 DEL. C. §10004(B)(2) - PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS ON SITE ACQUISITIONS FOR ANY PUBLICLY FUNDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, OR SALES OR LEASES OF REAL PROPERTY; 29 DEL. C. §10004(B)(4) - STRATEGY SESSIONS, INCLUDING THOSE INVOLVING LEGAL ADVICE OR OPINION FROM AN ATTORNEY-AT-LAW, WITH RESPECT TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION, BUT ONLY WHEN AN OPEN MEETING WOULD HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE BARGAINING OR LITIGATION POSITION OF THE PUBLIC BODY; 29 DEL. C. §10004(B)(6) - DISCUSSION OF THE CONTENT OF DOCUMENTS, EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF "PUBLIC RECORD" IN §10002 OF THIS TITLE WHERE SUCH DISCUSSION MAY DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS OF SUCH DOCUMENTS; 29 DEL. C. §10004(B)(9) - PERSONNEL MATTERS IN WHICH THE NAMES, COMPETENCY AND ABILITIES OF INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES ARE DISCUSSED, UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE REQUESTS THAT SUCH A MEETING BE OPEN /TM S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\COUNCIL-AGENDAS\2016\06-13-2016 REVISED 06-10-2016.WPD THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. PURSUANT TO 29 DEL. C. §10004(E)(2), THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, WHICH ARISE AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING.

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING The Regular Council Meeting was held on May 23, 2016 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Slavin presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sudler, Mr. Neil, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Cole, Mr. Hosfelt, Mr. Hare, and Mr. Hutchison. Council staff members present were Deputy Police Chief Mailey, Mrs. Mitchell, Mr. Koenig, Mrs. Townshend (departed at 7:34 p.m., and returned at 7:36 p.m.), Fire Chief Carey, City Solicitor Rodriguez, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Christiansen (departed at 7:56 p.m.) was also present. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum was held at 7:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Slavin declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council was not in official session and could not take formal action. Mr. Ronald Harmon, 1427 New Burton Road, stated that he and his wife own a self-storage business on New Burton Road. He explained that approximately five (5) years ago, he purchased two (2) pieces of property on Webbs Lane. The smaller of the two (2) properties had remained on the market for the past five (5) years and last year a potential buyer contacted him. Mr. Harmon explained that the potential buyer wanted to extend the property line, so he began that process in November 2015. He stated that he became frustrated because it is a long process, noting that he received final approval from the City in March 2016. Mr. Harmon thanked Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, for returning his call on Friday, May 20, 2016 and offering to work directly with the potential buyer regarding the property. He also thanked Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, for returning his call in regard to his concerns pertaining to sewer impact fees. Mr. Harmon stated that he did not realize that the property had a septic system and was not connected to City sewer. He explained that there was a small building on the property with one (1) toilet and one (1) sink and expressed concern regarding his impact fee of $8,400. Mr. Harmon stated that Mr. Koenig explained the impact fee to him and he did not have any questions regarding it but questioned whether Council could reduce the taxes for his mini storage for a few years in order for him to recover the cost. The invocation was given by Chaplain Wallace Dixon, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Hutchison moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Mayor Christiansen requested that item #10-A-1 - Reappointments/Appointments - Recommended by Mayor Christiansen - Planning Commission - Three (3) Year Terms to Expire June 1, 2019 - Kathleen Welsh - First District (Reappointment) be deferred. Mr. Anderson requested that item #4-B-7 - Progress Report on the Youth Advisory Committee’s Reporting of Their Minutes, be removed from the Consent Agenda.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 2 Mr. Lewis requested that item #4-B-4 - Proposed Ordinance #2016-10 Amending Chapter 2 - Administration, Article IV - Officers and Employees, Division 8 - Deferred Compensation Plan, be removed from the Consent Agenda. Mr. Anderson requested that item #4-B-5 - Evaluation of Trial Period for Council Committee of the Whole Meetings (Council Resolution No. 2015-16), be removed from the Consent Agenda. Mr. Lewis moved for approval of the Consent Agenda, as amended, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - ANNUAL COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 9, 2016 The Minutes of the Annual Council Meeting of May 9, 2016 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Lewis, seconded by Mr. Neil and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION - SOLID ROCK BAPTIST CHURCH The City Clerk read the following Certificate of Appreciation into the record: CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION presented to Solid Rock Baptist Church for opening your facility to provide space for community meetings Your generous hospitality has enhanced community engagement in the City of Dover. May 23, 2016 On behalf of the Mayor and Council, Mayor Christiansen and Councilmen Anderson and Sudler presented the Certificate to Reverend William Grimes and Reverend Ricky Hardy. Mr. Anderson expressed his thanks to these churches for opening their facilities free of charge to the community. Reverend Grimes thanked members of Council for the wonderful award and being able to partner with the City, noting that it’s team work that makes the dream work. Reverend Hardy stated that it was an honor to have the neighborhood watch help celebrate the new community center, noting that they are diligent in their Wednesday and Thursday meetings. He stated the church was glad to have the neighborhood watch, which is doing good work in collaboration with the Police and Public Works Departments. Reverend Hardy expressed his thanks and noted that everyone working together as one City is a good thing.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 3 CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION - MT. ZION A.M.E. CHURCH The City Clerk read the following Certificate of Appreciation into the record: CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION presented to Mt. Zion A.M.E. Church for opening your facility to provide space for community meetings Your generous hospitality has enhanced community engagement in the City of Dover. May 23, 2016 On behalf of the Mayor and Council, Mayor Christiansen and Councilman Anderson presented the Certificate to Councilman Sudler on behalf of Mt. Zion A.M.E. Church. On behalf of Pastor Ellis B. Louden, Councilman Sudler expressed appreciation to the City of Dover for the certificate. CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION - UNION MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH The City Clerk read the following Certificate of Appreciation into the record: CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION presented to Union Missionary Baptist Church for opening your facility to provide space for community meetings Your generous hospitality has enhanced community engagement in the City of Dover. May 23, 2016 On behalf of the Mayor and Council, Mayor Christiansen and Councilmen Anderson and Sudler presented the Certificate to Reverend R. G. Moore’s representative, who thanked Mr. Anderson and Mr. Sudler for being active members of the community. Mr. Cole moved to suspend the rules. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 4 CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION - TRACI A. MCDOWELL Mayor Christiansen read the following Certificate of Recognition into the record: CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION presented to Traci A. McDowell in honor of her 10th Anniversary as City Clerk for the City of Dover Traci A. McDowell has served as an exemplary City Clerk since May 17, 2006, and her dedication to public service, selflessness, and talents continue to increase the quality of life for our citizens. By keeping abreast of laws, regulations, and pertinent professional knowledge she upholds the integrity of the City of Dover and we are proud of her accomplishment in earning her Master Municipal Clerk designation through the International Institute of Municipal Clerks. May 23, 2016 On behalf of the Mayor and Council, Mayor Christiansen and Council President Slavin presented the Certificate to Mrs. McDowell. PRESENTATION BY THE URBAN LEAGUE (DR. SHEKELIA HINES) Dr. Shekelia Hines reviewed a presentation entitled “Metropolitan Wilmington Urban League (MWUL) Dover Committee” (Exhibit #1), explaining that the Dover Committee of the Urban League was brand new and she was present to spread the word and create awareness, in order to work together with the local government to fill the needs of the community. Referring to Page 10 of the presentation, Dr. Hines reviewed the Dover Committee Young Professional’s (YP’s) accomplishments. She explained that the Dover Committee began in March 2015 and in April, the Committee held a campaign bootcamp training, which covered the ins and outs of how to run a campaign, including research, background, marketing, fund-raising, promotion, and mail media. Dr. Hines stated that in May, the Committee held an education event and invited high school juniors and seniors to speak with individuals regarding the transition into college. Dr. Hines noted that in the upcoming year, the Committee would be looking at working with local businesses to find out what the needs are, so that they can work with city government to improve their conditions. She stated that the Committee was also looking at doing a community organizing training in September. Dr. Hines informed members that the Urban League is a resource which is known for its research. She explained that, in the past, the League had done many reports and worked together with local government. Dr. Hines stated that, for example, Lisa Blunt Rochester had worked for Governor Ruth Ann Minner and, when she became the Urban League President, she used her skills

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 5 and knowledge from her previous position to form a report for the city in social change and awareness in education. Similarly, when Mr. James Gilliam, Sr., founder of the Urban League, was Director of Housing and Urban Development, he developed a report and presented it to government to use to better the housing situation in Wilmington. Mr. Hosfelt moved to suspend the rules to allow members of the public in attendance to ask questions regarding this matter. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Mr. Chevis Anderson noted that he had the opportunity to attend some of the Urban League’s events and they are a great organization. He commended Dr. Hines for bringing the group to Dover. Mr. Hutchison welcomed Dr. Hines and the Urban League to Dover, noting that the age group that the League is reaching out to is in need. Dr. Hines stated that the Urban League Dover Committee meetings would be held the first Wednesday at 6:00 p.m. at Delaware State University. Mr. Slavin noted that if Dr. Hines was bringing the work of Mr. James Gilliam, Sr. to the Dover community, she was doing a great job. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT - MAY 10, 2016 The Council Committee of the Whole Meeting was held on May 10, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. with Council President Slavin presiding (departed at 6:34 p.m., returned at 6:35 p.m., departed at 8:02 and returned at 8:04 p.m.). Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sudler (departed at 6:34 p.m., returned at 6:39 p.m., and departed at 8:02 p.m.), Mr. Neil, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Cole, Mr. Hosfelt, Mr. Hare, and Mr. Hutchison (departed at 8:23 p.m. and returned at 8:25 p.m.). Mayor Christiansen was also present (departed at 6:37, returned at 7:18 p.m., and departed at 8:30 p.m.). Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Mr. Keller and Mr. Shelton (Safety Advisory and Transportation), Mr. Caldwell and Mrs. Horsey (Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement), and Mr. Shevock and Ms. Maucher (Legislative, Finance, and Administration). SPECIAL SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee met with Councilman Hosfelt presiding. Review of Position Description/Requirements - City Fire Marshal (Inspector III) Mr. Hosfelt reminded members that this item was deferred during the Council Committee of the Whole/Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting of April 26, 2016 due to time constraints. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, stated that the main issue under deliberation was whether or not the person hired for

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 6 the City Fire Marshal (Inspector III) position needed to have certification from the Council on Police Training (COPT). She explained that in the past 25 years, only two (2) people in the Fire Marshal’s Office (FMO) had COPT training, one (1) of whom was Mr. Timothy Mullaney, the previous Fire Marshal who had transferred to the Dover Police Department. Mrs. Townshend indicated that Mr. Mullaney was sent to the Police Academy to take some of the stress off the Police Department. She noted that the FMO is first and foremost an inspections office with three (3) staff members. Mrs. Townshend estimated that 90% of the workload is related to inspections, plan review, and following up on complaints, and approximately 10% is related to fire investigation. She expressed her concern that if COPT certification is required, this would likely come at the cost of not having National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Inspector I certification. Since the nature of the position is primarily fire inspections, fire plan review, and the prevention of fire, Mrs. Townshend felt that the City would end up with candidates that do not meet both of these qualifications; therefore, too much emphasis would be placed on the police side of the position, which involves the smallest amount of the workload. Mrs. Townshend informed members that staff had met with the Police Department, who had agreed to work with the FMO on investigations. She indicated that staff was also working with the State to see if constable authority could be designated to the Fire Marshal, which would allow for detaining people when conducting investigations. Even without police training and certification, Mrs. Townshend assured members that fire marshals are trained in fire investigation, including arson. She felt it important to ensure that the City recruits and hires in the best interest of the City and the office as a whole, rather than for a narrow portion of the job at the expense of a large portion. Mr. Jason Osika, Inspector II, explained that the FMO is a small office with two (2) deputies, himself and Mr. Matthew Brown, Inspector I, who are not COPT certified, and one (1) vacant position. Mr. Osika reiterated that there had been only two (2) fire marshals who were COPT certified in the past 25 years. He noted that Mr. James Melvin attended the Police Academy run by the Dover Police Department in 1992 and he left the office in 1993. Mr. Osika advised that Mr. Timothy Mullaney attended the Academy in November 2011 and left the office in April 2016. He stated that the three (3) FMO staff members share all duties, including plan review, inspections, and origin and cause investigations, whereas employees in other offices, such as the State FMO, perform only one (1) of these functions. Mr. Osika stated that although fire investigations take approximately 10% of their workload, this variable could change at any time. He informed members that having one (1) COPT officer would not guarantee this individual’s presence in the office 100% of the time due to vacations. Mr. Osika noted that he previously handled an arson fire through the Dover Police Department Criminal Investigation Unit when Mr. Mullaney was away from the office. He explained that the FMO staff uses the Law Enforcement Information Sharing System (LEISS) used by the Dover Police Department, entering and approving their own reports. Mr. Osika indicated that, since Mr. Mullaney’s transfer, there is a temporary agreement with the Police Department to use the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 7 Criminal Investigation Unit whenever the FMO has a criminal fire. He advised that 101 fires were investigated in 2015, 13 of which were classified as incendiary and resulted in four (4) arrests. There were also four (4) incidents involving juveniles and one (1) involving mental capacity which was declined for prosecution by the Attorney General’s Office. Mr. Osika advised members that in 2016 there had been 38 fires, seven (7) of which were incendiary with one (1) arrest, and arrest came under Mr. Osika with the use of the Dover Police Department. He indicated that the Fire Marshal would use COPT certification a very small percentage of the time. Mr. Osika explained that losing one (1) individual in the FMO has a huge impact, noting that staff was now on call 24 hours and off 24 hours coming into the summer. Mr. Osika felt that if COPT were required, there would be a large chance of constant turnover due to the salary and benefits, expressing his belief that this was one (1) reason why Mr. Mullaney was no longer with the FMO. He indicated that the Fire Marshal position has Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) powers. Mr. Osika informed members that the Fire Marshal signs off on everything relating to codes, such as NFPA codes, and this is one (1) of the main responsibilities of the position. He stated that he had provided staff information on other classes that could be required for this position. Mr. Osika advised that Mr. David Truax, former City of Dover Fire Marshal, had served as Fire Marshal for 18 years without COPT and Mr. Osika believed that the City had one of its largest arson periods under Mr. Truax in the late 1990's. Mr. Osika requested that the Committee and Council not require COPT but indicate that it would be preferred, since COPT use is related to arrests and crimes and the remaining work involves investigations, NFPA, and plan review. Mr. Osika felt that the best candidate would be an individual with NFPA, COPT, Fire Inspector I, and Origin and Cause training from the National Fire Academy; however, he felt there was a very small chancing of finding such an individual and if COPT was required, there would be a good chance of losing out on the 90% of other things needed for day-to-day operations. Mayor Christiansen stated that the office of Fire Marshal was established in 1959 and there had been only two (2) COPT certified Fire Marshals over the course of time, noting that some of the other Fire Marshals had also been past chiefs of Robbins Hose Company. Mayor Christiansen advised members that he sits on the Council on Police Training (COPT) and believed that the qualifications for COPT did not necessarily coincide with the City of Dover Fire Marshal. He felt it would be wonderful to have a COPT certified individual but that it exceeded the qualifications needed. Mrs. Kimberly Hawkins, Human Resources Director, informed members that the City’s Inspector III position description applied to two (2) positions within the City, the Fire Marshal and the Code Enforcement Supervisor.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 8 In response to Mr. Sudler, Mrs. Hawkins expressed her belief, based on what Mr. Osika had explained about the position, that knowledge of the NFPA code would be a requirement for the Fire Marshal, noting that she had not studied this. Mrs. Townshend explained that the Code Enforcement Supervisor Inspector III has certification through the International Property Maintenance Code and Mr. Timothy Taraila serves in this position. Mrs. Hawkins noted that the Fire Marshal would have NFPA certification. Mr. Anderson pointed out that the position description required national certification in one (1) of the major areas of responsibility, including basic building code, plumbing code, mechanical systems, fire protection systems, and property maintenance, and that the Fire Marshal could qualify with plumbing code certification and not be certified in fire protection systems. He asked if it would make sense to require a separate description for the Fire Marshal position that includes at least two (2) certifications, with one (1) being fire protection systems. Responding, Mrs. Hawkins stated that City job descriptions were created in the past by the Management Advisory Group, Inc. who reviewed Positional Analysis Factors (PAF) for City positions and they are very generic. She explained that they are reviewed and updated to meet the needs of the position by the Human Resources Department and department heads when recruiting and creating job postings. Mrs. Hawkins advised that once Council makes a decision regarding the Fire Marshal position, staff will review and adjust the job descriptions for the Code Enforcement Supervisor and the Fire Marshal accordingly or create a new job description if it is desired to change the title to Fire Marshal rather than Inspector III. She stated that if the Inspector III title is retained, the current job description would be used as a shell, noting that staff had been inserting language that specifies the requirements for the position in the FMO. Mr. Neil reminded members that the Operational and Administrative Analysis - Dover Fire Department, Dover, Del. - Final Report - March 2016 (Operational and Administration Analysis) had referenced the Fire Marshal position, and he felt this report must be taken into consideration in deciding what to do. He questioned if the citizens of the City would be endangered in any way if this position were left open and, if so, his inclination was to approve recruiting but to review the position when the report was considered and make changes for the successor at that time. Mr. Anderson stated that Council had appointed an Interim Fire Marshal during their meeting of May 9, 2016; therefore, the position was covered in the interim. Responding, Mr. Slavin stated that the position was covered but the FMO was still down a position. Mr. Hosfelt noted that the deputies were on call more often and there was a lot more stress on the Fire Marshal’s Office. Mr. Hutchison stated the importance of listening to the City Planner, who works with the fire marshals and the inspectors and knows the office, noting that she had given

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 9 clear direction on the type of person and guidelines that should be followed. He felt that members should do what was recommended by staff. Mr. Hutchison indicated that someone with both fire investigation and fire service background was needed. Mr. David Truax, 35 Upland Avenue, advised that he served as City of Dover Fire Marshal from 1996 until May of 2014. Mr. Sudler questioned if Mr. Truax believed that creating a new job description specific to the Fire Marshal would be more effective than continuing to use the Inspector III job description for this office. Responding, Mr. Truax indicated his preference for a new job description for the Fire Marshal, explaining that this had been discussed for a long time. Mr. Truax felt that the job description for the Fire Marshal differs from what the building inspector does, noting that it may be possible to modify the Inspector III position description. In response to Mr. Hare, Mr. Truax expressed his opinion that some certifications should be required for the Fire Marshal. Mr. Hare suggested that COPT could be a preferred certification, but he felt that there must be some knowledge and certifications required to be the Fire Marshal. Mr. Truax concurred with Mr. Hare, explaining that he felt that the City was past the point where they should require the Fire Marshal to be certified to carry a gun. Mr. Truax expressed his opinion that if the FMO were to go back to doing things with the Police Department, the individual who oversees criminal investigations must make sure that the police detectives work with the Fire Marshal and take the Fire Marshal’s input seriously. Mr. Truax suggested making COPT training preferred and stressed the importance of getting someone at the helm of the FMO within a reasonable amount of time. Mrs. Townshend stated that she did not believe there should be a delay in posting this position. She acknowledged that this position was part of the public safety study; however, she felt recruitment could be done in such a way that implementation of the study would not be precluded. Mrs. Townshend reiterated that there were two (2) employees on an on-call rotation of 24 hours on and 24 hours off, and this was affecting the workload in the office and their personal lives. In regard to the job description, Mrs. Townshend stated that she, Mrs. Hawkins, and Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, were prepared to create a Fire Marshal position separate from the Inspector III position. She emphasized that certifications had always been required when this position had been posted in the past. When Mr. Mullaney took the position, it was posted as NFPA Inspector I required, COPT certification preferred, and staff was prepared to post it in this way for the current vacancy. Although the position description had some flexibility to include information relevant to both the code enforcement and fire marshal positions, staff had always ensured that the postings included the specific skill sets needed for each position.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 10 In response to Mr. Hosfelt, Mrs. Townshend stated that staff’s recommendation was to use the same posting they used when Mr. Mullaney was hired as Fire Marshal, with COPT preferred but not required. Mr. Koenig requested that the issue be referred to administrative staff to refine the job description and post accordingly. He stated that the Fire Marshal’s position was envisioned in the public safety study and he felt that staff could recruit knowing that those things were under consideration. Mr. Koenig felt it important to get the posting out and begin the process of recruitment to reduce the impact on the current staff. Referencing Mr. Hare’s concerns regarding certifications related to this position, Mr. Sudler questioned what additions Mr. Truax would recommend for the job description. Responding, Mr. Truax stated that he had not seen the job description and felt that Human Resources staff, Mrs. Townshend, and the current FMO staff should be able to determine the requirements. He noted that code enforcement and fire investigation should be included, or that time be allowed for this training. The Committee recommended referring this matter to staff to develop an appropriate job description and post the position accordingly. By consent agenda, Mr. Lewis moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Chairman Hare presiding. Transfer of Real Property from Delaware Civic Center Corporation to Delaware State University During their meeting of May 9, 2016, City Council approved the Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee’s recommendation that Delaware State University (DSU) present the Committee with a proposal for City Council to transfer the property to DSU. Mr. Slavin moved to recommend referring this item directly to City Council without a recommendation and continuing the deliberation on the Council floor 13 days hence. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler. Mr. Anderson questioned if members would hear from the people present at the meeting in regard to this matter. Responding, Mr. Slavin stated that there would be a full vetting of the issue at the City Council meeting. Mr. Sudler called for the question. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutchison and carried with Mr. Anderson voting no.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 11 The Committee recommended referring this item directly to City Council without a recommendation and continuing the deliberation on the Council floor 13 days hence. During the Council meeting, Mr. Slavin reminded members that this issue had been before Council a couple of times and was recently discussed by the Council Committee of the Whole. He stated that the City Clerk had researched this issue thoroughly, members had debated it for hours, and it was thoroughly vetted at the Committee level. Mr. Slavin stated that this land is not owned by the City of Dover, explaining that a vote of a previous Council ceded the land to the Civic Center Corporation. He informed members that the request now before Council was to simply waive the City’s right of first refusal back to the land and allow DSU to use the land, for what he thinks is a very good purpose. Mr. Slavin explained that this Council is not bound by a previous Council’s decision; however, he believed that the previous decision was sound at the time. He felt that DSU could now do something with the land far better than the City could ever have imagined. Mr. Slavin expressed his opinion that Council should support this request, given the contributions that DSU and their alumni have made and continue to make in the community. Mr. Sudler moved that the City of Dover hereby waives, terminates, and renounces any rights it may have in the property conveyed to the Dover Civic Center Corporation, a Delaware Corporation by deed, dated December 11, 2001, pending the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the City of Dover and Delaware State University pertaining to utility easements. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare. Mr. Hosfelt questioned why the City is in this position if the City has no right to the land. Responding, Mr. Slavin stated his understanding that the land is still owned by the Civic Center Corporation, which is still a legal corporate entity in the State of Delaware. Mr. David Sheppard, General Counsel for DSU, stated that in response to some of the questions raised during the Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Meeting of April 26, 2016, he prepared a letter dated May 20, 2016, regarding the prospective relinquishment of the City of Dover’s transfer right in the Delaware Civic Center Corporation land, which was submitted to Council President Slavin (Exhibit #2). Mr. Hosfelt, referring to the Delaware State University Convocation Center Final Report that was presented during the August 24, 2015 Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting, requested confirmation that DSU planned to hold approximately 170 events per year. Responding, Mr. Sheppard stated that the range provided was between 144 and 173. Mr. Hosfelt asked if DSU felt that it should not pay any taxes, noting his assumption that this would be a money making venture. In response, Mr. Sheppard explained that the intent of developing a convocation center had various purposes, including a place for DSU to hold sporting events and graduations. He stated that there certainly should be revenue generated as a consequence of holding University affiliated events or other events at the facility. Mr. Sheppard expressed his opinion that the City, as well as DSU, would benefit from these events, whether in terms of jobs, the taxes paid

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 12 by people who are employed full-time, or businesses located in the City that get traffic as a consequence of the events. Mr. Hosfelt noted that there was no guarantee that the people who would be employed would live within the City. Responding, Mr. Sheppard stated that there was no guarantee of anything, as was the case with the civic center when it was proposed and approved by City Council in 2001. Mr. Hosfelt stated that his concern was that DSU was going to enter into a venture and hold up to 170 events per year with the hopes of making money and they will have to offset the costs somehow. He explained that, across the street from DSU, there is a business that pays in excess of $250,000 per year in taxes to hold events and do things that are similar to what DSU wants to do. Mr. Hosfelt did not believe that it would be fair to do for one (1) entity but not the other. He stated that if DSU was strictly going to hold DSU events like basketball games and graduations, he might be able to understand; however, DSU is planning to hold many other events and will make a profit at some point. Mr. Hosfelt asked how, from DSU’s point of view, this would be fair to the other businesses in the City who are in the same line of work. In response to Mr. Hosfelt, Mr. Sheppard stated that he did not think it was fair or reasonable to compare a non-profit higher education institution, whose fundamental focus is on educating the students that come to the University and does not provide shares of stock to shareholders, to a for-profit entity who regularly has people come through its doors to gamble. Referring to Dover Downs Hotel and Casino, Mr. Sheppard noted that they are a for-profit venture, which has events inside their facility as well as races, concerts, etc. It was his opinion that Dover Downs has a greater material impact on resources, community members, etc. than DSU. Mr. Sheppard stated that DSU has the benefit of having educated many people over many years, including some of the people present, and he did not see DSU in the same vein as a for-profit enterprise. Mr. Hosfelt noted that the Delaware State University Convocation Center Final Report estimates that 40% of the events will be for the college. He asked if the other 60% of the events would be for profit. Mr. Sheppard confirmed that they would be. Mr. Hosfelt asked if it would be fair for DSU to pay taxes on that 60%. Responding, Mr. Sheppard thought that the business that would be drawn in from the events would be a benefit to the City, noting that the businesses who generate revenue from those activities will pay taxes. Mr. Hosfelt explained that the City was still utilizing its resources to support DSU and he was unsure what the benefit would be for the City. He stated that there may be a benefit to the hotel or restaurant industry, but to the Fire and Police Departments and the other public safety services within the City, it would not be a benefit and would continue to tax the City’s resources. Mr. Hosfelt indicated that DSU had $250M in property that they were not paying taxes on and Council would be giving away even more property that would be untaxed. Mr. Cole questioned if underground and above ground easements had been obtained. Responding, Mr. Koenig explained that he had not read the letter that was referenced but had a conversation in this regard with Mr. Sheppard.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 13 Mr. Slavin stated that there would likely be a second motion to authorize the City Manager to negotiate this matter. Mr. Cole questioned who would assume the environmental liabilities on the land moving forward. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated his understanding that when the land was originally transferred to the Delaware Civic Center Corporation, they assumed all of the liability related to environmental conditions on the property. This is why there was concern at the administrative level that any reversionary clause that would transfer a deed back into the City’s name would potentially transfer that liability back to the City. Mr. Koenig understood that the City did not have liability associated with the environmental conditions from the original transfer. He assumed that all of the closure documents would be maintained and the City would not have liability going forward. In response to Mr. Cole regarding a plan for the future of solar fields on seven (7) acres of the property, Mr. Koenig stated that Mr. Harry Maloney, Electric Director, had provided Mr. Sheppard a copy of the plan with a basic layout of a potential solar field. This would impact approximately five (5) to seven (7) acres above the area where potential parking was planned. Mr. Koenig indicated that it would be the City’s intent to pursue an easement and potentially construct a solar field there to meet Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS). Mr. Cole questioned if there was any type of Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) program to help offset any public safety costs. Responding, Mr. Koenig indicated that there had been general discussion on this when he and Mr. Kirby Hudson, Assistant City Manager, had met with Mr. Sheppard in February; however, there had been no additional discussion since. Mr. Sheppard advised that DSU was not prepared to entertain a PILOT program at this time. He indicated that it was inaccurate to state that there would be no benefit to the City if the transfer were approved. Mr. Sheppard stated his understanding, from speaking with Mr. Koenig and from Mr. Koenig’s presentation at the Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative Finance, and Administration Committee meeting on April 26, 2016, that the City incurs about $5,000 a year, on average, in maintaining the grounds, doing environmental assessments, and the like, which would not be borne anymore if the land were transferred. In addition, Mr. Sheppard pointed out that the environmental liability associated with the land would transfer to DSU and not be the City’s responsibility. Mr. Cole suggested that obtaining the easements and realizing the benefits of getting out of the environmental liabilities might help the proposal move forward. Mr. Koenig indicated that he had been on the record on several occasions stating, from an administrative standpoint, that the City was not interested in taking back the environmental liability associated with this property. For four (4) or five (5) years, staff had been authorizing the inspection of the landfill cap by Compliance Environmental, asking them to prepare a report that is submitted to the Department of Environmental Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), and committing to doing grass cutting, mowing, rut filling, and disposal of any type of debris that had been dumped there to maintain a good standing in the closure documents. He estimated that the out- of-pocket expenses to pay the consultant and for staff time needed to inspect or assist with inspection were approximately $3,000 - $5,000 per year.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 14 Mr. Hare stated that there had been discussion in the 1990's on transferring the property; however, he recalled that the property was not transferred to the Civic Center until 2000 or 2001. At that time, there was related discussion on charging a 25 cent ticket fee for non-DSU events which the City would receive. Mr. Hare felt that something like this could be revisited in the future, noting that he saw no benefit to the City keeping the property. He reminded members that the City had planned to give the property away back then, and he did not believe anything had changed. Mr. Hare stated that there was now a different party who was willing to take the property over, assume the liability, and give the City easements. He questioned why the City would want a property that it had not had for 15 years when it may be able to obtain something that would be a benefit. Mr. Hare felt the transfer should move forward. Mr. Anderson felt the convocation center was a very positive idea which would benefit the City. He agreed with Mr. Hosfelt that there should not be a blanket assumption of a tax exemption. Mr. Anderson questioned if the existing tax exemption to DSU included property owned in the future or if members would have to vote separately in the future on whether to make the property tax exempt. Responding, Mayor Christiansen believed that a decision on tax exemption would be made once the property use is known. Mr. Anderson asked if it would be appropriate to make an amendment in that regard at this time. Mr. Slavin stated his preference to vote the motion up or down and have an additional vote after that if necessary. Mr. Anderson clarified that his question was whether an amendment ensuring that a tax exemption is brought before Council on the property would be in order. In response, Mayor Christiansen indicated that this would be in order; however, this would be a separate action that would have to be taken in the future, depending on the use of the property. Mr. Sudler questioned if Mr. Koenig’s estimate of $3,000 - $5,000 for staff and consultant time for the property included the costs of the environmental liability, property tax, and insurance. Responding, Mr. Koenig advised that, to his knowledge, the property was not listed in the City’s property inventory, so it is not insured by the City and there was no insurance cost. He explained that the environmental cost is to engage the consultant to go out with DNREC to do the inspection and for the inspection report of the landfill, in accordance with the closure documents that the City agreed to years ago. Mr. Koenig advised that if this property ultimately reverts to DSU, the University will have to conduct the annual inspection with DNREC staff and make any adjustments required by the report. Mr. Sudler asked how much it would cost to insure the property in case someone were to be hurt on it. In response, Mr. Koenig stated that he did not come prepared to answer that question. He noted that the property would become part of the City’s overall property inventory. Mr. Hare felt that Mr. Anderson had made a good point regarding tax exemption for the property; however, he still felt the property should be transferred to DSU. Once the convocation center is built, if there were many events held that were not related to the University, this matter could be considered again. Mr. Hare noted that DSU had a lot of work ahead of them and questioned if they

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 15 were ready to break ground. Responding, Mr. Sheppard indicated that there are a number of steps involved before the property is shovel ready. For clarification, Mr. Sheppard reiterated that the City would be waiving its right to the reversionary interest in the land and could choose never to exercise it. Assuming the corporation is resuscitated, the City would pay $10 to the corporation, and the land then would be transferred back to the City. Mr. Sheppard explained that the corporation was operated by the Delaware Economic Development Office (DEDO), who would have to resuscitate the corporation, and that entity would then have to decide what to do with the land. Mr. Hare stated that the land would go to DSU, not back to the City. If DSU decides not to build something there, they would retain the land, have to maintain it, and do everything the City had been doing with the property for many years. He indicated that he was not looking for the land to come back to the City and felt that the City should move forward. Mr. Neil noted that the City does not technically own the land since it had been turned over to another corporation and questioned if the motion would bring the property back to the City and allow the City to give it to DSU. Responding, Mayor Christiansen stated that if the City gives up its right, this would be the end of the City’s involvement. He indicated that if it became a profit situation, the City could decide in the future if it qualifies as a charitable purpose. Mayor Christiansen advised that the City could consider taxation based on the profit made. He felt that the decision did not have to be made tonight because the property use was not stated at the present time. Mr. Neil indicated that he was a very vocal supporter of Dover Downs, which had been a great neighbor and had brought people to the area. He stated that this organization makes a profit but cannot keep it because it is taken away, noting that Dover Downs would now be competing with DSU. Mr. Neil indicated that Senators Bushweller and Colin Bonini had shown him the value of the convocation center project and he would be voting to turn the property over to DSU. Mr. Lewis asked if there were any outstanding funds owed to the City. In response, Mr. Koenig indicated that the land was still in the name of the Delaware Civic Center Corporation, and he believed that there was a small amount on the delinquent tax list. He was unsure if it was related to this property or the two (2) other properties. Mr. Koenig advised that there were no maintenance fees. He stated that a tally of annualized costs had not been kept; however, they were estimated at $3,000 - $5,000, which he considered a sum cost. Mr. Koenig noted that maintaining the report was a proactive measure so that there was no failure in the closure actions that could be linked back to the City. He stated the desire not to have to reenact the closure of the landfill if at all possible. Mr. Hutchison stated his strong support of moving forward with this partnership between the City and DSU. Mr. Hutchison called for the question, seconded by Mr. Sudler. The motion to call for the question carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes (Sudler, Neil, Lewis, Cole, Hare, Hutchison, and Slavin) and two (2) no (Anderson and Hosfelt).

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 16 The motion that the City of Dover hereby waives, terminates, and renounces any rights it may have in the property conveyed to the Dover Civic Center Corporation, a Delaware Corporation by deed, dated December 11, 2001, pending the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the City of Dover and Delaware State University pertaining to utility easements carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes (Anderson, Sudler, Neil, Lewis, Cole, Hare, Hutchison, and Slavin) and one (1) no (Hosfelt). Mr. Neil moved to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a memorandum of understanding relating to the utility easements on the land previously conveyed to the Dover Civic Center Corporation with counsel from the Delaware State University. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler. Mr. Hosfelt noted that when DSU first came to the City around the same time last year, Mr. Koenig was in favor of a PILOT for this property and asked where he stood on this now. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that he favored a discussion of PILOT; however, he does not have a vote. He discussed this with Mr. Sheppard and advised him, from an administrative standpoint, that Council had conveyed to him that there was interest in a PILOT. Mr. Koenig advised that when initial discussions were held about the transfer in January 2015, the City, administratively, was in favor of it. Mr. Koenig advised that events had occurred since then that had given staff pause, including transfers from State government to local government, realty transfer taxes, municipal street aid, and PILOT and law enforcement payments from the State. He indicated that, from an administrative standpoint, the City is very concerned about revenue streams and being able to maintain them. Mr. Koenig advised that, over the last year, there had been a number of discussions related to PILOT, and this sentiment was conveyed to Mr. Sheppard when they last met around the first week of May. He indicated that he would like to see a PILOT agreement related to either this property or the DSU property; however, he stated that he did not have an administrative path to bring that forward. The motion to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a memorandum of understanding relating to the utility easements on the land previously conveyed to the Dover Civic Center Corporation with counsel from the Delaware State University was unanimously carried. Update - Overgrowth of Bamboo - Rodney Road Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, advised members that code enforcement staff met with the Department of Agriculture’s invasive species staff on Rodney Road and they provided very clear guidance on how to eradicate the bamboo, which is a very labor intensive process. Staff determined that it was important to address this correctly and it would be extremely costly to contract for this service. Mrs. Townshend stated that staff from the Public Works Department would be working both internally and with the City’s contractor for vegetation management to develop a time line for cutting and painting the bamboo with a chemical that will eradicate it over the course of two (2) years, as estimated by the Department of Agriculture. She stated that this was expected to start within the next month or so.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 17 In response to Mr. Hare regarding payment for the eradication, Mrs. Townshend stated that the City would initially pay; however, staff would track all charges and bill them to the property owner and place them as a lien against the property, as is done with demolition or grass cutting charges. Ms. Maucher asked if the City would recoup any of the carrying cost of the expense. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated that the carrying cost would not be recouped, only the out-of-pocket amount. Downtown Dover Business Improvement District (BID) Budget and Assessment (Tax) Rates for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, reviewed the Business District Improvement (BID) Assessment (Tax) Rates for Fiscal Year 2016-2017. He indicated that Appendix D - Downtown Dover Business Improvement District, Article III - Establishment of the Downtown Dover Business Improvement District, Section 9(f) of the Code requires that the BID budget be submitted to City Council for approval on or before the first Council meeting in May each year. Mr. Koenig advised members that the proposed revenue for the BID for FY 2017 is $48,800, with equal expenses for administration. Mr. Koenig reviewed the BID Tax Calculation Worksheet, noting that the proposed % Revenue Raised numbers were prescriptive and were developed based on discussions with Deputy City Solicitor William Pepper. Mr. Koenig indicated that the rate change for Zones 1 and 2 was -1%. He explained that, in order for all numbers to equalize correctly, the Zone 3 rate would increase by 7.8%; however, 41 parcels were associated with this zone. Mr. Koenig stated that this would put the City in compliance with the Code and allow Staff to develop the draft budget for presentation to Council. Mr. Koenig reviewed the Business Improvement Boundary Zones map. Mr. Hosfelt asked if businesses located in the BID are assessed an additional tax. Responding, Mr. Koenig confirmed that the businesses are taxed in excess of the normal property tax, noting that the business owners had attended public hearings in the past and endorsed the BID. Mr. Slavin asked whether action taken on this matter would preclude members from bringing this item up for discussion and making amendments during the budget hearings. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated his belief that Council had complete authorization to amend going forward; however, it had been important to introduce this matter ahead of time so that there would be support to include these numbers in the budget. Mr. Slavin noted his longstanding criticism of this concept and advised that he planned to bring this matter up for a thorough discussion during the budget hearings. He expressed his opinion that it had been a good start-up issue; however, 25 years later it was a disincentive.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 18 The Committee recommended approval of the Business Improvement District (BID) Budget and Assessment (Tax) Rates for Fiscal Year 2016-2017, as recommended by Staff. By consent agenda, Mr. Lewis moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Proposed Ordinance #2016-10 Amending Chapter 2 - Administration, Article IV - Officers and Employees, Division 8 - Deferred Compensation Plan (Sponsors: Cole and Koenig) During the Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting of April 26, 2016, this item was deferred due to time constraints. Mr. Koenig reminded members that changes were made to the deferred compensation plan under the Dover Organization of Employees (DOE) contract, noting that this contract is the governing document with respect to DOE employees. As previously discussed, he reiterated that there is language in the Employee Handbook that extends improvements to the deferred compensation plan to non-bargaining employees. Mr. Koenig stated that the generic changes to Proposed Ordinance #2016-10 address this discussion. He advised that the City Manager’s Office was also requesting that the changes in the Proposed Ordinance and modifications to the deferred compensation plan be extended to non-bargaining employees. Mr. Koenig reminded members that there are approximately 41 positions that would be affected by the proposed changes and the implementation costs would be in the $20,000 to $60,000 range. Mr. Koenig stated that the most recent consideration by the Committee included a discussion about capping the percentage of the City’s contribution for employees who earn more than $100,000. He noted that the impact of a cap was illustrated in the salary spreadsheet provided. Mr. Koenig advised that, if the cap were set at $100,000, five (5) employees would be affected. He requested that there not be a cap for any employees, that the non-bargaining group be treated equally to the DOE group going forward, and that Council not cap the matching percentage, which would escalate from 6% to 9% over the next couple of years. Mr. Koenig stated that the reason for his recommendation was that, at some point, the City would be recruiting for the positions that were capped and competitiveness could become an issue. In addition, if these positions were capped, the percentage of payroll required from the City for employees in the General Employee Pension Plan, as well as police officers in the State pension plan, would well exceed the amount for the benefits extended to the capped employees in the deferred compensation plan. Mr. Koenig reminded members that the General Employee Pension Plan is now closed; therefore, all new hires, excluding police officers, will be in the deferred compensation plan, which is a matching plan. The current match is a minimum contribution of 3% and a maximum of 6%, and this would increase over time to a 6%

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 19 minimum and 9% maximum. Mr. Koenig recommended adoption of Proposed Ordinance #2016-10 and that no changes be made to the Employee Handbook so that this benefit is extended to non-bargaining employees covered under the deferred compensation plan. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Cole. Mr. Anderson expressed his belief that there should be a dollar limit based not on how much an employee is earning but on how much the City is contributing. He stated that the amount discussed was reasonable and he could not support the recommendation without this amendment. Mr. Sudler called for the question, seconded by Mr. Cole. The motion failed by a roll call vote of six (6) no (Lewis, Neil, Shevock, Cole, Anderson, and Hare) and five (5) yes (Sudler, Maucher, Hutchison, Slavin, and Hosfelt). Mr. Hare expressed concern about young employees who start working for the City of Dover and are told that they must put 6% of their pay into a 401(k). He felt this could be a lot of money to those who have young families. Mr. Hare suggested that 6% not be mandatory and that this amount be left at perhaps 3% and increased to 6% possibly after 10 years of employment. He believed that this should be the employee’s choice. Mr. Hare agreed with Mr. Anderson that there should be a cap, such as $10,000; however, he was more concerned about the mandatory contribution. Having been formerly both a city and state employee, Mr. Neil expressed sympathy for the employees; however, he commented that current interest rates were only 1% or 1.5% and that many of his constituents were senior citizens. Mr. Neil felt that a 9% match would be a penalty on the City for years to come. He stated that the match could be changed if there was a sudden glut of money coming into the City; however, there was not a need to fight with the budget to make things work for the people of the City. It was Mr. Neil’s opinion that if the City was going to get good people, they would be attracted by the work conditions. He believed that the additional money would not make a difference; it would be the character of the people hired. Mr. Neil felt that those who were wise would take the 9% maximum, and he thought this was too much because the financial environment was still terrible at this time. Mr. Cole stated his understanding that the DOE contract had already been signed. Mr. Koenig confirmed that the contract had been signed and noted that the contract was prescriptive and the minimums would escalate from 4% to 5% on July 1, 2016 and to 6% one (1) year later. Responding to Mr. Cole, Mr. Koenig clarified that the issues under discussion were Proposed Ordinance #2016-10 and whether to extend the same escalation table to non-bargaining employees.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 20 Mr. Cole stated his understanding that only five (5) positions were being considered for a cap because the other positions with salaries of $100,000 were police positions. In response, Mr. Koenig explained that when this matter was last considered there was a proposed cap, which he opposed because it would be limited to only five (5) people, himself included. These employees would be able to earn up to a certain income, and the City would match up to 9% and then cap its contribution at that point. Mr. Koenig stated that he had not heard previous discussions about employees who are lower in the pay scale being unable to meet the 6% minimum. He advised that the 6% minimum would go into effect on July 1, 2017, so there would be time to adjust. Mr. Koenig advised that when new employees are hired, staff advises them of their commitments in their offer letters so they can make informed decisions. Mr. Koenig advised that there was also an issue of fairness. In his estimation, the percentage of payroll for police lieutenants and captains would likely exceed the 9% discussed because the City pays into a State fund. Mr. Koenig stated that, according to Mrs. Mitchell, the pension fund for police officers is fully funded and has just the normal cost associated with the benefit. Mr. Koenig indicated that the deferred plan is the retirement vehicle that the City had selected going forward for all new hires in the City. He did not feel it fair to exclude the higher earners from the same percentage being extended to all others because it would create a different proportional benefit when moving up the scale, and he requested that it not go forward that way. Mr. Hare reiterated his concern about younger employees, noting that this would be a large contribution for a young family. He stated the desire to start with a minimum contribution of 3% and escalate over time, perhaps by 0.5% per year to reach 6% within possibly six (6) years. Mr. Hare noted that contributing 6% might be offered to employees as an option. In response to Mr. Hosfelt, Mr. Koenig stated that what Mr. Hare proposed would not apply to the DOE union agreement, which had been set, but would instead apply to the 42 non-bargaining positions that are unrepresented. Mr. Koenig reiterated that he had not heard discussion about Mr. Hare’s concerns until this meeting. The Committee recommended adoption of Proposed Ordinance #2016-10 and that no changes be made to the Employee Handbook so that this benefit is extended to non-bargaining employees covered under the deferred compensation plan. During the Council meeting, Mr. Lewis stated that he disagreed with the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Lewis moved to amend Proposed Ordinance #2016-10 to make the contributions optional up to 9%, seconded by Mr. Neil.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 21 Mr. Lewis explained that the amendment would make the contributions optional not mandatory, so that people are not forced to contribute 9%. Mr. Koenig stated that the current minimum contribution for non-bargaining employees is 3% and Staff has outlined a phase-in for the minimum to increase from 3% to 6%. He explained that the current maximum is 6%, which is proposed to phase in to 9%. Mr. Koenig reminded members that during the Council Committee of the Whole meeting, Mr. Hare had expressed concern for the lower income, non-bargaining employees, and Mr. Lewis’ proposal would be to allow the minimum to remain at 3% and the maximum to escalate over time to 9%. Mr. Koenig explained that this proposal is slightly different than what was afforded for during the contract negotiations for the Dover Organization of Employees (DOE) bargaining unit. He stated that Staff had not asked for any deviation from the DOE Collective Bargaining Agreement; however, if Council wants to leave the minimum at 3% for non-bargaining and adjust the maximum to 9%, he believed that would be allowable under the plan document change, although that was not the proposal submitted by Staff. For clarification, Mr. Slavin explained that Mr. Lewis would need to correct his motion to say that the minimum would be 3% and the maximum up to 9%. Mr. Lewis withdrew his motion to amend Proposed Ordinance #2016-10 to make the contributions optional up to 9%. Mr. Lewis moved to amend Proposed Ordinance #2016-10 where the contributions are made optional, from 3% to 9%, not mandatory. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mr. Lewis confirmed that this motion would make two (2) changes: 1) change it from a mandatory program to an optional program; and 2) move the floor from 6% to 3%. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil. Mr. Slavin clarified that the motion was to move this deferred compensation program for non-bargaining employees from a mandatory program to an optional program, and to set the floor at 3% rather than 6%. Mr. Hutchison asked if this motion caused concern for the City Manager, Mr. Koenig. Mr. Koenig clarified that all new employees, except police officers, are being hired in the deferred compensation plan, so plan participation is required, not optional. He explained that Mr. Lewis’ motion gives additional latitude for non-bargaining employees, so if they do not wish to adjust their contribution more than the current minimum of 3%, they do not have to, and, as the maximum increases over time, per the schedule, they have the ability to contribute as much as 9%. Mr. Koenig stated that the employee could contribute more than 9%, but the City would only match up to 9%. Mr. Anderson moved for a division of the question between the mandatory minimum part and the optional part, noting that they are two (2) distinct issues.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 22 Mr. Anderson explained that, as worded, Mr. Lewis’ motion would make participation optional. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Hare clarified that participation is not optional, contribution of 3% to 9% is optional. Mr. Slavin stated that the request to divide the motion is not debatable. The motion to divide the question failed by a roll call vote of eight (8) no (Sudler, Neil, Lewis, Cole, Hosfelt, Hare, Hutchison, and Slavin), and one (1) yes (Anderson). Mr. Hare stated that his primary concern was that he does not like being told where he has to put his money, and a young employee coming to work for the City might have someone else in the family who makes three (3) times more than they do and may want to do something different with their money. He stated that he was okay with the 3% to 9%, with a 3% minimum and an option for the employee to increase the contribution when they want to. Mr. Slavin advised that the motion before members means that one (1) portion of it could go anywhere from 3% to 9%, but also makes the entire program optional. The motion to amend Proposed Ordinance #2016-10 where the contributions are made optional, from 3% to 9%, not mandatory, failed by a roll call vote of seven (7) no (Anderson, Sudler, Cole, Hosfelt, Hare, Hutchison Slavin), and two (2) yes (Neil, and Lewis). Mr. Anderson moved to amend the proposal such that 3% is maintained as the minimum, with the maximum allowable being 9%, and that the increases are at the employee’s option. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare. Mr. Koenig requested clarification that the motion only relates to non-bargaining employees and the collective bargaining agreements would govern the others. Responding, Mr. Anderson confirmed that the motion only relates to non-bargaining employees because Proposed Ordinance #2016-10 only refers to non-bargaining employees and does not affect collective bargaining. The motion to amend Proposed Ordinance #2016-10, the proposal for non-bargaining employees, such that 3% is maintained as the minimum, with the maximum allowable being 9%, and that the increases are at the employee’s option was carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Evaluation of Trial Period for Council Committee of the Whole Meetings (Council Resolution No. 2015-16) During the Regular City Council meeting of November 23, 2015, members approved the recommendation of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee to commence the Committee of the Whole meeting format during the first meetings in January and try it for a few months, and if members decide to adopt the format as one (1) of the protocols for the next Council year, that this be done during the annual meeting.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 23 Mr. Hutchison stated that having all nine (9) members of Council serve as members of the Committee of the Whole in an open meeting over the last several weeks had allowed for open discussion and dialogue shared by members of Council and civilian representatives. He noted that, under this format, Council members serve not only as members of the Committee but also have a vote, which was unlike the previous system where only three (3) members of Council were voting members of a committee. Mr. Hutchison felt that Council was finally moving in the right direction and urged all members to support this change. Mr. Lewis stated that, although this change was good for some, it was not good for all, noting that not everyone is retired or has a nine-to-five job. He advised that he works for the State of Delaware as an essential employee and working different shifts prevents him from attending all of the committee meetings. Mr. Lewis advised members that when Mr. Hutchison brought this idea to his attention, he explained the position he was in. He stated that as this matter goes forth, he would have to hold a press conference or write a letter to the editor informing his constituents that he would be unable to attend all of these committee meetings. Mr. Lewis reminded members that this change was imposed after the election and was coming into play now. He stated his belief that it seemed that the majority of people were in support of it; however, he stated that Mr. Cole had also indicated that he had some job related conflicts. Mr. Slavin informed members that when Mr. Hutchison first brought the idea forward, he did not think it was a good idea but agreed to try it. He now apologized to Mr. Hutchison, stating that he thought the trial format had resulted in a much deeper understanding of issues across Council, which had been lacking. Mr. Slavin thanked Mr. Hutchison for bringing this matter forward, stating that he would move to extend it when the time came to make a motion. Mr. Hosfelt stated that there had been deep, thoughtful discussion at the Committee level, but expressed concern that this discussion does not occur at the Council meetings since items are placed on the consent agenda. He noted that television cameras are present at the Council meeting, which is often the only way the public can hear what Council is doing. Mr. Hosfelt indicated that he would rather have the cameras present during committee hearings so that the public can hear the thoughtful discussions rather than moving through the consent agenda and issues very quickly. He felt that people want to hear what their elected representatives have to say and their thoughts on the issues. Mr. Hosfelt was unsure if this could be worked out with Comcast, noting that it may be a matter of having Council Committee of the Whole meetings on Monday evenings and Council meetings on Tuesdays. Mr. Hosfelt noted that it might be better to hold the Committee meetings before the Council meets. Mr. Anderson stated that he liked the trial format, which engages everyone, and that the idea should continue. He expressed concern about meeting on Tuesday nights and on two (2) evenings in a particular work week, which causes schedule conflicts with his job. Mr. Anderson stated that he sets his schedule for Mondays and would

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 24 like to discuss the particular evening in the future. He indicated that he was not opposed to continuing the concept, noting that it had been a net benefit that he was willing to keep regardless. Mr. Sudler stated that he could relate to both sides of the discussion, acknowledging that the trial format does cut into the job time frames for those who are not retired, such as himself. He noted that the format gives a more in-depth understanding and dialogue, which he liked. Mr. Sudler stated that members were aware when they agreed to serve on Council that it would be a sacrifice, and he felt they were either willing to make the sacrifice or not. Mr. Sudler noted that there would be inconveniences, as when executive sessions are held, and he is unable to attend some meetings due to job responsibilities. He felt that it all boiled down to what was important to members, stating that perhaps those who cannot handle the time commitment should not be councilmen. Mr. Sudler stated that dedication, sacrifice, and determination are what it takes to run the City. He advised that he would support continuing this format, stating the need to be well informed and engaged to make the best decisions for his constituents. Mr. Neil stated that he was sympathetic to Mr. Lewis and Mr. Cole with respect to their regular jobs; however, Mr. Neil felt the trial format gave him a better view of everything that is happening within the City. He indicated that he would bring up at the Council meeting any matter that he disagrees with at the committee level. Mr. Neil stated that he appreciated being able to get a total feel for what is happening within the City and to be a part of that process. Mr. Cole stated that he had discussed this matter with his supervisor, who was very understanding, and that this was something that he could be on board with going forward. Mr. Anderson pointed out that when members signed on to serve they signed on to certain understandings and time commitments and not necessarily these changes. Council had decided to experiment with these changes, and he did not believe that was an issue of anyone’s dedication. He believed that there must be discussion about whether the change is needed. Mr. Anderson noted that Council would be changing to the same format used by a body that receives four (4) times the pay that Council receives, and this change was costing some people on Council money without any changes in compensation. Mr. Anderson stated this was an issue of whether Council would change the rules after everybody had signed on. He indicated that this could be done; however, it was something that should be done carefully. Mr. Anderson stated that the timing should be discussed, whether or not it would be on a separate evening and, if so, which evening. He indicated that he was not asked if this day of the week would work when it was picked. Mr. Anderson questioned whether or not there should be discussion about the best way to execute it. He stated that he was for the new format but wanted to talk about how and when it would be done and expressed his hope that this would be done in the near future, although he was unsure if it needed to be settled at that meeting. Mr. Anderson felt each Council person should be consulted.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 25 Mr. Sudler recalled that Mr. Hutchison had presented to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee what may or may not take place, it was voted on, and the majority agreed. Mr. Sudler disagreed that there had not been discussion on that matter and felt Mr. Anderson’s comment was unfair. Mr. Neil expressed interest in hearing from the civilian members of the standing committees as to whether they had gained value from the change, noting that they are the unelected people who sacrifice their time to offer their wisdom. Ms. Maucher stated that she found it very informative to understand how the City works. She noted that she had been serving a one (1) year term on a committee and did not have the experience of hearing perspectives from sitting through other committees, although she typically comes at 6:00 p.m. and observes the committee before hers. The only issue that Ms. Maucher had was the switch of the nights from Mondays to Tuesdays. She indicated that the mid-term shift was a little awkward; however, it worked out well and she was able to commit to Tuesdays for the rest of the term. Mr. Shevock fully agreed with the change, noting that the full Council had not previously been present at committee meetings. He indicated that, previously, when the committee made a decision on something and it went forward, it seemed to be completely re-discussed at the next Council meeting. Mr. Shevock agreed with Mr. Sudler that when members sign on to help an organization, as the civilian members had done, they must put in their full time and interest. In reference to Mr. Anderson’s comment that no one had asked him about Tuesday nights, Mr. Slavin noted that the action form reviewed at the Council meeting of November 9, 2015 stated that meetings of the Council Committee of the Whole would be held on Tuesday evenings, which was approved unanimously by Council. In regard to the attendance issue, Mr. Slavin stated his impression that attendance by Council, civilian committee members, and the public had been better than the attendance at separate committee meetings held at different times across the calendar. He commented that the public now did not need to know where various committee meetings were held. Referring to Mr. Hosfelt’s concern about consent items on the Council agenda that were not receiving a full vetting, Mr. Slavin stated that items are placed on the consent agenda at the discretion of the committee chair during agenda meetings, and if chairs want to have particular items on the floor, they can simply ask not to have these items on consent. Mr. Slavin noted that every member of Council also has the right to pull items off the consent agenda at every meeting before the consent agenda is approved, which would allow for more complete vetting of issues while the television cameras are on, and that right had not been taken away from anyone by this format. Mr. Lewis did not disagree that members knew what they were getting into when they signed on; however, he reiterated that the rules had changed, which affects some

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 26 people. When members filed for election, the meetings were on the calendar for the second and fourth Mondays of each month, and committee meetings were generally held on Mondays, generally before the Council meetings. Mr. Hutchison reminded members that under the old system, only three (3) members of Council served on each of the committees. He attended all of those meetings and, for the most part, the only members of Council who attended were those who were members of the committee. Mr. Hutchison understood the issues related to Council members’ jobs; however, he pointed out that every member of Council was present for the current committee meeting, allowing for open discussion with representation for the whole City, and he felt the benefit of this approach far outweighed the other system. When looking at the issues being faced every day with the City, he felt it was absolutely critical to receive input from everyone. Mr. Hare agreed that the trial format was good; however, he indicated that there had been suggestions about when meetings would be held, noting that meetings could be held every Monday. He personally liked the current Monday-Tuesday night format, which allowed for the following week to be free. Mr. Slavin moved to recommend extending the Council Committee of the Whole format on Tuesday evenings through May 31, 2017, seconded by Mr. Hutchison. Mr. Anderson asked that Council and committee members be surveyed for the best night for Council Committee of the Whole meetings and indicated that he would concur with the motion if it did not specify a night. Mr. Slavin stated that the motion specified Tuesday night. Mr. Anderson expressed his hope that a survey regarding the night would be done in the future. The Committee recommended extending the Council Committee of the Whole format on Tuesday evenings through May 31, 2017. Mr. Anderson moved to extend the Council Committee of the Whole format through May 31, 2017, with the meetings to be held on Monday evenings preceding the Council meetings. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hosfelt. Mr. Anderson explained that this would be the same time that committee meetings were previously held and the meeting times would be at the discretion of the Council President. Mr. Hutchison questioned what time the meetings would be held on Mondays, noting that one (1) of the reasons why the change was necessary was because so many members of Council are currently employed, which created a serious problem for their participation in the Committee meetings. He stated that one (1) of the advantages of having the meetings on Tuesdays is that almost every member of Council has the opportunity to attend and participate in all of the meetings, which he believes is absolutely critical.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 27 Responding to Mr. Hutchison, Mr. Anderson stated his belief, based on the discussions he has had, that holding the meetings between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Monday evenings would be more advantageous to different members of Council who have expressed concerns. Mr. Hare noted that since switching to the Council Committee of the Whole meeting format, he could not recall one (1) time when a meeting was less than two (2) hours. Mr. Hosfelt felt that it made sense to have the Committee meeting before the Council meetings, noting that members could then communicate to those members of the public that cannot attend, since the television crew is present on Monday nights. He stated that the public would be able to witness the discussion that occurs during the Committee meetings, since members of Council do not always have a full discussion of items at the Council level. Mr. Sudler asked if it would be a violation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for members to discuss a matter at the Council Committee of the Whole meeting and then consider the item at the Council meeting on the same evening. Responding, Mr. Slavin stated that items would not be considered by Council on the same evening that they are considered by the Council Committee of the Whole, explaining that there would still be a one (1) meeting delay. Mr. Slavin advised that having the Council Committee of the Whole meeting on Tuesday nights has cleared Mondays prior to the Council meetings for any executive sessions, noting that it is far easier to schedule executive sessions on an evening when a meeting is already scheduled. He stated that he is not opposed to moving the Council Committee of the Whole meetings to Monday nights; however, it would require Council to start scheduling executive sessions on other evenings. Mr. Slavin noted that the Council Committee of the Whole meetings have been lasting longer, which has led to some very healthy discussions. He reminded members that Council always has the option of recessing a Council Committee of the Whole meeting and reconvening after the Regular Council meeting is complete; however, he expressed concern that members are not at their freshest in the second hour of a Council meeting, which would become the fourth hour if the Council Committee of the Whole meeting is held prior to the Council meeting. The motion to extend the Council Committee of the Whole format through May 31, 2017, with the meetings to be held on Monday evenings preceding the Council meetings failed by a roll call vote of six (6) no (Sudler, Neil, Cole, Hare, Hutchison, and Slavin), and three (3) yes (Anderson, Lewis, and Hosfelt). Mr. Anderson moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation to extend the Council Committee of the Whole format on Tuesday evenings through May 31, 2017. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and carried with Mr. Lewis voting no, and Resolution No. 2016-05 amending Resolution No. 2015-06 was adopted, as follows: A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2015-16 WHICH TEMPORARILY SET ASIDE THE STANDING COMMITTEES AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE DOVER CODE AND ENACTED A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON A TRIAL BASIS

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 28 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2015-16, adopted by City Council on December 14, 2015, temporarily set aside the Standing Committees as provided for in the Dover Code and enacted a Committee of the Whole on a temporary basis; and WHEREAS, City Council wishes for members of City Council and the civilian members of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement; Safety Advisory and Transportation; Utility; and Legislative, Finance, and Administration committees to continue meeting as a Council Committee of the Whole on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month through May 31, 2017. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: THAT the last paragraph of Resolution No. 2015-16 be amended to read as follows: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council and civilian members of the Standing Committees will act as a Council Committee of the Whole, meeting on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month through May 31, 2017. If Council chooses to adopt this meeting format, an Ordinance amendment regarding the Standing Committees will be presented for adoption prior to the Annual Meeting in May. ADOPTED: MAY 23, 2016 Request of Fire Department - Engine #7 Replacement Members were advised that, in accordance with the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Fiscal Year 2016/2016, the Robbins Hose Company was requesting the replacement of Engine #7, a 1997 Pierce Dash Engine. This engine will be 20 years old in 2017 and was originally on a 15-year replacement program; however, the City of Dover and previous Fire Chiefs agreed to push back the replacement to assist the City with funding other projects during the economic fall out. Engine #7 had served the Robbins Hose Company and the citizens of Dover well; however, due to its age, there had been extended down times for maintenance due to parts availability, which reduces fire protection for the Citizens of Dover. Specifications for a new engine were created based on the current apparatus with a few fire suppression and safety upgrades. The proposal for the specifications came in at $609,584, which is $7,084 over the City's projected budget (CIP) of $602,500. The financing of this apparatus over ten years (2017-2026) would translate into a loan payment of approximately $73,400. The difference of $7,084 would have to be added, increasing the total amount to $609,584. The replacement of Engine #7 is needed to provide uninterrupted and continual guarantee of five (5) engines in service to maintain and meet the Robbins Hose Company’s Insurance Services Office (ISO) requirements, which sets the insurance ratings for property owners throughout the City of Dover and allows the Fire Department to respond to multiple emergencies throughout the City simultaneously. This will also allow the Department to maintain the highest level of readiness and safety for firefighters and residents of the City of Dover. The Fire Department has a working relationship with Pierce manufacturing and planned to deal with them on the purchase.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 29 Fire Chief Carleton Carey, Jr., Dover Fire Department, offered to answer any questions regarding the request. In response to Mr. Neil regarding how many miles were on the 18-year-old Pierce Dash Engine #7, Chief Carey indicated that it had 36,000 miles. Mr. Neil, referencing the Operational and Administration Analysis, noted that Table 5-5: Proposed Fire Apparatus Replacement Schedule on page 37 recommended that the unit remain in service for as long as 23 years if it has less than 120,000 miles on it. He stated this was one (1) of his principal concerns. Mr. Neil commented that the report was extremely favorable to the Fire Department and gave them a tremendous pat on the back. He noted that the report had additional recommendations in terms of the first response unit being three (3) engines, one (1) ladder truck, and two (2) command vehicles and in terms of two (2) station houses, and the Fire Department had enough equipment to cover that. Mr. Neil advised that the report had indicated that there should be a method of financing the trucks going forward and a formula on Page 37 describes what has to happen. He stated that members had not looked at this report as a Council, and budget hearings were coming up. Mr. Neil felt it would be necessary to look at whether the engine needs to be replaced at this time based on this report. Referring to a memorandum from Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, dated May 4, 2016, regarding the replacement of Engine # 7 - Robbins Hose Company, Mr. Neil stated that the City Manager had requested that this matter be delayed. Mr. Neil also wished to delay because Mr. Hare had been working on a proposal to attempt to obtain help from some of the many 501(c)(3) organizations in the City that the City supports with fire and police protection, which would be a consideration as far as financing. Mr. Neil felt that this matter should be delayed until Council looks at the report, which contains a lot of serious recommendations, including moving dispatchers to Kent County. He stated that his recommendation was not a slap on the department that does a marvelous job. Mr. Neil felt that the City would not be at risk if no action was taken on this matter tonight. Mr. Sudler questioned if Chief Carey had reviewed the section of the report referenced by Mr. Neil. Responding, Chief Carey stated that he had read the report twice. Mr. Sudler questioned what he could tell his constituents regarding why Council should approve the truck replacement three (3) years ahead of the schedule in the report. Responding, Chief Carey stated that the Fire Department would receive less money for the truck if it was sold three (3) years later and all of the money received from the sale of the truck will go toward equipment for the new truck. He explained that the City buys only the truck and equipping an engine can easily cost from $75,000 to $100,000. Chief Carey indicated that Robbins Hose Company would have to put approximately $75,000 toward the new engine, noting that this purchase would be a little cheaper than the purchase in two (2) years because air bottles had recently been purchased, which would save $25,000. In response to Mr. Sudler regarding whether Chief Carey still strongly urged Council to support the Department’s recommendation after hearing Mr. Neil’s concerns, Chief Carey stated that he did. He indicated that only the Mayor and one (1) member

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 30 of Council had talked to him about the report. Chief Carey stated that Robbins Hose Company did not recommend this report but would do whatever needed to be done and would have their recommendations when the time comes. Based on research that he had done, Mayor Christiansen advised that NFPA standards state that the life expectancy of Class A fire apparatus is 15 years. He noted that it is not based only on mileage but on the engine hours. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Chief Carey stated that he did not know the number of engine hours on Engine #7, noting that there was no monitor on this engine. Mayor Christiansen stated that the standards of a 15-year life span for an engine and 17 years for a ladder truck were the norm across the country. He stated that he served on the committee that put together Engine #7 and Rescue #1 when they were purchased in 1997, and he was a member of Council and a junior officer in the Dover Fire Department. Mayor Christiansen advised that the exterior of the truck looks good; however, after a certain amount of time they become worn and less reliable. He advised that the report stated that the Fire Department could operate with a certain number of pieces of equipment, which Mayor Christiansen took to task because he knew the operation and the responsibility that the Department has for its own fire district and for others. Mayor Christiansen questioned if this engine could be put in service for any great length of time if one (1) of the front line engines were to go down. Responding, Chief Carey stated that he must do what must be done to run the Department when help is needed. He explained, for example, that a month ago there was a truck that would not start at Station No. 2. There was an engine with a flat tire on its rim and the two (2) pumpers were out of service. Chief Carey advised that, fortunately, there were no fire calls at that time and an engine from Station No. 1 was taken to Station No. 2 to support that side of town. Mayor Christiansen questioned if it was reasonable to say that the need had been identified above and beyond what the report stated. Chief Carey stated that there had not been much maintenance on the truck during the last three (3) years. When they replace this truck, Engine #3 would be sitting in Engine #7's spot. He indicated that this was almost like a spare, so that when an engine goes down, which happens frequently, another engine is moved over. For example, they had spent nearly $38,000 in maintenance on Engine #3 alone in almost two (2) years. Chief Carey noted that Engine #7 had not been that expensive because it had been sidelined and they had been fortunate with it. When they do have to run it, it is the first piece. Responding to Mayor Christiansen regarding six (6) month or annual maintenance of apparatus, Chief Carey stated that regular maintenance is performed on all apparatus and is up to date for this year.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 31 Mayor Christiansen questioned if this was in addition to preventive maintenance performed by the dispatchers and if they document all service on the trucks. In response, Chief Carey explained that the certified maintenance is not done in-house; however, the dispatchers check the air bottles, lights, and tire pressure on a daily basis and make sure that the trucks start and the air pressure is holding so they are ready to roll out the door. He stated that the dispatchers are the backbone, helping out so that members of the Department can go home and live their lives. Mr. Hutchison questioned if the Department had a replacement plan in place for fire apparatus and a corresponding financial plan. Responding, Chief Carey stated that there is a plan in place and there was also a plan 20 years ago when he was serving as Fire Chief. He indicated that he had met with Mr. Koenig and Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, so that a future plan could be developed. Mr. Hutchison questioned when the next apparatus would need to be replaced. Responding, Chief Carey indicated that they should start another replacement next year after this truck was purchased. He advised that two (2) engines were purchased in 2003. Chief Carey explained that there had been a set five (5) year plan for engine replacement so that when one (1) was paid off, the other was ordered and the payment plan rolled over to the next truck. He stated that this was how it used to work with the City and the Fire Department. Chief Carey stated that this plan was no longer in place and he was unsure why, noting that this had changed during the 20 year span since he was last Chief. He had explained to Mr. Koenig and Mrs. Mitchell that the specialized pieces, the two (2) ladder trucks and rescue truck, would cost more than $1M. In response to Mr. Hutchison as to whether the City had a finance plan for the Robbins Hose Company, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the Fire Department supplied her with a schedule for when they want to replace trucks and the estimated cost of each apparatus. Because the City uses loans, Mrs. Mitchell set up an amortization schedule for each apparatus and laid it out in a spreadsheet. She indicated that there is a plan in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for five (5) years; however, the truck payment actually goes out 10 years. Mrs. Mitchell stated that all the trucks that were coming up were included, noting that there was one (1) next year and another two (2) years after that. Mrs. Mitchell indicated that she would provide Mr. Hutchison with a copy of the payment plan. Mr. Sudler expressed his appreciation for the Fire Department, stating his belief that if they say they need apparatus, regardless of the report, the City should give it to them. He commented that the Fire Department’s time frame of one (1) year was very close to the three (3) years indicated in the report and noted that members of the Department were waking up in the early morning hours to put out fires for loved ones and businesses in the City. Mr. Sudler moved to support the Dover Fire Department’s request. The motion failed for lack of a second.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 32 Mr. Neil stated that the comprehensive Operational and Administration Analysis was to act as a guideline, and the Proposed Apparatus Replacement Schedule indicated first line service for 18 years or 100,000 miles and five (5) years or 120,000 miles for reserve status. He stated that Engine #7 was in reserve status and was being looked at for trade-in value. With the budget coming up and the request from the City Manager for delay, Mr. Neil felt this matter should be delayed until members consider what this report is, what they would do, and how it fits in with the fiscal year coming up. He reiterated that the City was also looking at possibly getting help from another source. Mr. Hosfelt recalled that there had been discussion relating to Chief Carey returning to give a briefing on the public safety study and questioned if this had been arranged. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that it had not yet been arranged; however, it could be discussed at the agenda meeting. Mr. Slavin stated that the City was still waiting for the draft of the report pertaining to the police. Mr. Koenig explained that the text of the draft companion police report had been received, was being reviewed, and comments must be sent back to the consultant before it can be finalized by the consultant. In response to Mr. Hosfelt, Mr. Koenig stated that the draft police side of the report had been received by himself and Chief Bernat, who were reviewing it for text issues or factual mistakes. Their comments will soon be sent back to the consultant to finalize this portion of the report and submit the final report to Council. Mr. Koenig advised that the same process was implemented with the fire and EMS study. The consultant had submitted the final report, which had been posted to the website; however, no discussion had convened with Council at this point. Responding to Mr. Hosfelt regarding the timetable for receiving the final report, Mr. Koenig projected that the police side would be finalized within the next 30 days; however, members would not be able to hear from the consultant before the budget discussion. He indicated that, at one point, the discussion had been to potentially review the reports in early to late June. Mr. Anderson stated that if the discussion was to replace the engine in year 15 or 16 years of 23 years, he would be in favor of stretching the engine out longer; however, with the time frame being so close, he tended to agree with Mr. Sudler. He stated that, traditionally, discussions of this type of capital project are rolled into the budget discussion and he questioned the proper format to refer this matter to the budget discussion. In response, Mr. Koenig indicated that this would be part of the FY 17 budget discussion because the purchase of this vehicle was not budgeted in FY 16. He explained that this equipment takes approximately a year to be fabricated; however, the FY 17 budget originally had more than $74,000 in debt service associated with this vehicle. In March or April, staff advised Council that there was a $1M gap in the General Fund. That proposed purchase had been cut from the draft budget to close that $1M gap. Mr. Koenig stated his understanding of the Fire

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 33 Department’s request; however, he disagreed from the managerial side because the Fire Department’s 15-year schedule is not supported by manufacturer documentation or in the Operational and Administration Analysis that will be discussed in the future. He indicated that he was not ready to approve a $600,000 purchase since there was a gap in the budget that needs to be closed. Mr. Anderson questioned if Mr. Koenig was looking at a delay of another year or so. Responding, Mr. Koenig felt that this was part of what Council needed to deliberate as they get into the budget discussions. In response to Mayor Christiansen regarding the payment and amortization schedule arrangement with the fire apparatus dealer, Mrs. Mitchell indicated that she had laid out an amortization schedule for approximately $603,000 with a 10-year payback, which would be approximately $74,000 per year. The Committee tabled the discussion of replacing Engine #7 until the budget discussions. Mr. Hutchison commented that the Mayor and Council had always been there to support the volunteer fire service, which is a first-class operation. In fairness, due to the timing, Mr. Hutchison felt it was critical on the part of the Mayor, Council, City Manager, and staff to take the time to look at the budget and go through the process. He thanked Chief Carey for what they do and asked that they bear with the City. Progress Report on the Youth Advisory Committee’s Reporting of Their Minutes Mr. Anderson stated that the Youth Advisory Committee’s (YAC’s) progress was positive and that it had been a priority of the new chair to make sure that the records are well kept. The secretary left the Committee and they now have a rotating secretary. Referring to the memorandum from Chairwoman Rebecca Anderson dated April 6, 2016, RE: Minutes Action Plan, Mr. Anderson stated that there is a recommendation for a contract person and a budget request of approximately $1,000 in the next fiscal year’s budget so that there would not be a burden on the City Clerk’s Office. He felt that the Committee should be treated as every other City committee, noting that no City committees takes their own minutes. Mr. Anderson stated that this was a very important legal responsibility and thought it would be a good idea to have this done by someone who is experienced in that regard. Mr. Hare questioned if the City Clerk had been receiving the minutes. Responding, Mrs. Traci McDowell, City Clerk, stated that the Clerk’s Office had received minutes for the last two (2) meetings but not the outstanding minutes for the previous meetings. Noting that Mr. Anderson had requested staffing funds for the YAC, Mayor Christiansen questioned if the City Clerk’s Office would be capable of handling this responsibility. Responding, Mrs. McDowell stated that the Clerk’s

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 34 Office currently had a backlog of minutes and a new person had just come on staff. She advised members that the Clerk’s Office had never done minutes for the YAC, noting that when former Councilwoman Sophia Russell restarted the YAC in 2008, the Clerk’s Office had done two (2) sets of minutes until officers were installed. Mrs. McDowell explained that the YAC selected a member who attended the meetings, kept records, did the minutes, and submitted them to the adult advisor at that time. It was Mrs. McDowell’s belief that minutes were supposed to be a learning experience, noting that there are high school students who are pursuing this kind of field, and she felt that was the intention to have the youth do their own minutes, since they function as a youth advisory group for the government. In response to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hare stated that the YAC minutes were subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) laws. Mr. Lewis stated his recollection that when he served on the Dover Human Relations Commission (DHRC), an outside contractor was hired to complete minutes and he asked if this still applied. Responding, Mrs. McDowell stated that when the DHRC was recently reconstituted she and then Council President Bonar discussed the Clerk’s Office staffing the commission. She stated that the Clerk’s Office would complete the minutes, attend the meetings, and provide guidance so that they would stay on track. At that time, a proposed ordinance stated that the DHRC would meet quarterly. Mrs. McDowell advised that before the ordinance was adopted, it was amended to allow the DHRC to meet whenever they wished. She advised that the DHRC had met monthly since being reconstituted and had met more often than monthly. Mrs. McDowell stated that DHRC minutes are extremely long, as are the minutes for the Council Committee of the Whole. She explained that one (1) hour of meeting time takes four (4) hours to transcribe; therefore, a three (3) hour meeting is more than one (1) day’s work. Mr. Anderson advised that part of the YAC’s proposal would take care of some of the minutes backlog and explained that the tapes do exist. He stated that the YAC had also requested training, which would be an essential element if they were to take their minutes. Mr. Anderson felt that this would be a positive, one (1) time investment. Mr. Lewis concurred that the youth members should be trained, specifically if they are bound by FOIA regulations. Mr. Slavin stated that the YAC is bound by FOIA and right now the City is knowingly in violation of FOIA repeatedly for this issue. He expressed his opinion that government grows slowly and $1,000 dollars here and there adds up to real money. Mr. Slavin advised that youth had been asked to come forward and give their ideas about how to make the City better and the structure used was one based on how adults do business, not how youth comes up with ideas. His experience dealing with youth is that they are a lot brighter and more nimble, and coming to a place like City Hall on a weeknight evening and having to meet in this format had proven to be a barrier in getting those ideas. Mr. Slavin felt that the City was tripping over issues like composition, noting that YAC members cannot meet out their terms or get to the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 35 meetings, and there are not quorums or minutes, and, in the interim, the City is not getting the ideas that are wanted. Mr. Slavin stated that he planned during budget considerations to propose that the City look at a different initiative that would involve going to key departments where the public interacts with City government, such as Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation, and the Dover Public Library and require those departments to have focus groups with youth through the year and report back to Council with the ideas they have gathered. Mr. Slavin did not see it as the role of City government to train youth on how to be in government, stating that this is what the YMCA Youth in Government program, Boys and Girls State, and civics classes are for. He felt that the City was duplicating these efforts. In regard to the minutes training, Mr. Slavin stated his concern that this would not be a one (1) time cost because there would be new members on the Committee and continuous training would be involved. He expressed his belief that these are the things that add cost to government, although this was not a great cost. Mr. Slavin suggested widening the lens and thinking about the outcome wanted from involving youth with the government. He felt there was a better way to get to that outcome than to ask them to behave like adult members. Mr. Hare advised that he had been to one (1) of the YAC meetings and they had no one to take notes and no quorum and they still held their meeting. Responding, Mr. Anderson indicated that this was not true. Mr. Hare stated that members may not have held the meeting, but they remained in the room for a while. Mr. Anderson stated that, compared to most City committees, he was quite pleased with the youth and their commitment. He advised that, of all the regular meetings they held, there was only one (1) where there was not a quorum. Mr. Anderson noted that one (1) member kept saying that they were coming and they did not. They eventually left the YAC. Mr. Slavin stated that this was not known because there were no minutes of any meetings. In response, Mr. Anderson advised that there were several sets of minutes from older meetings, although there was a period where they were missing. Mr. Anderson indicated that the Chair’s memorandum requested help in transcribing one (1) particular meeting and the recommendation in the memo was very positive and should be adopted. He indicated that there had been enormous community engagement with Restoring Central Dover, Bayhealth Medical Center, the Downtown Dover Partnership, the Parks and Recreation Department, and Kent County Tourism during the last several months under the current leadership. Mr. Anderson felt that going backwards all of a sudden would be a complete waste of time and totally ridiculous. Mr. Hare questioned if the YAC had taken on these initiatives and gone to these entities. Responding, Mr. Anderson indicated that there was partnership with each of those entities. With Bayhealth there would be a summer program for cardio- pulmonary resuscitation (CPR), babysitting, and the like for the youth. In response

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 36 to Mr. Hare regarding funding, Mr. Anderson stated that Bayhealth and Restoring Central Dover’s committee would be picking up the cost. Mr. Hare stated that this was the first he had heard of this, noting that the YAC was supposed to make recommendations to Council before they do it. Responding, Mr. Anderson stated that the YAC were enabled to plan and execute events, noting that there would be no cost for the taxpayer. Mr. Anderson stated that broader things that engage the City are brought forward and the YAC was supposed to recommend advocacy items for the youth. Mr. Hare stated that he did not want to have 14-to-16-year-old children planning and making executions on behalf of the City without advising Council. Mr. Neil stated that he would like to see the minutes, stating his presumption that they existed and could be produced. Responding, Mr. Anderson stated they were on the City website. Mr. Neil stated the desire for minutes so that members could study what the YAC had done, noting that this would have been helpful for this particular discussion. Responding, Mr. Anderson stated that these items were mentioned in the annual report, which passed on consent agenda unanimously. Mr. Cole questioned why members were trying to put a square peg in a round hole. He stated that there were youth who wanted to be involved and suggested looking at how to make this work moving forward. Based on his 18 years of education, Mr. Cole stated that kids want to do things and it was a matter of how to guide this. Mr. Lewis concurred with Mr. Cole and stated that the City was being proactive for the kids and this was a positive thing for today’s society. He stated that he would hate to see the YAC dissolve; however, he believed that it needed some structure and guidance. Mayor Christiansen asked that Mr. Anderson and the YAC memorialize the partnerships that were mentioned in writing, as well as their meetings and conversations, so that Council could review them and help the YAC move forward in the direction needed. Mayor Christiansen stated that he did not want to see another situation such as the New Year’s Eve celebration issue. He noted that there is great advantage for the YAC and its potential energy, but stated the need to provide Council some sense of direction on where they are going so that things would be in hand if Council needs to approve their decisions. Mr. Slavin expressed concerns regarding another round of obligations made by the YAC for the City to be involved in activities with very little knowledge of what the activities are and their scope. He indicated that he was more concerned that it appeared that the youth were being taught that the Freedom of Information Act is optional, noting that it is not and never had been.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 37 The Committee recommended that the Youth Advisory Committee be suspended until all minutes of the missing meetings are approved by Council and until Council can discuss the matter thoroughly. During the Council meeting, Mr. Anderson expressed his opinion that the recommendation of the Youth Advisory Committee should be accepted, noting that it was a reasonable and amenable recommendation. He stated that he would like to request that members of the community, many of whom have been in contact to support the Youth Advisory Committee, volunteer to help with the back minutes. Mr. Anderson stated that he was very pleased with the current leadership of the Committee, which has met, basically, every demand that Council has put forward. He requested that Council support the Youth Advisory Committee in the coming year, to be able to do the things that it has laid out. Mr. Anderson stated that there has been cooperation set with City staff, which is very positive, and with the community interests. It was his belief that the Committee had exceeded the expectations that had been laid out for it. He stated that the Committee is doing a great job and should be supported. Mr. Hare, referring to Mr. Anderson’s request that Council support the Youth Advisory Committee in the coming year, to be able to do the things that it has laid out, stated that nothing had been presented to Council regarding the Committee’s recommendations and no minutes had been provided in this regard, so he did not know what the Committee was planning to do or commit the City to. Mr. Hare stated that he was not ready to let a group of fifteen and sixteen year-old kids make commitments on the City’s behalf, noting that Resolution No. 2010-03 states that the Committee shall present their recommendations to City Council. He stated that he could not support this. Mr. Hare indicated that if there were people willing to help with the minutes, the Committee could get all of the minutes caught up, submit them to Council for consideration, and Council could then discuss the matter. Mr. Anderson stated that the Youth Advisory Committee’s recommendations were provided in the Committee’s 2016 Annual Plan of Work, which was approved by City Council on April 25, 2016. Mr. Lewis stated that he did not have a problem assisting this group; however, he thought that Council needs to give them some direction going forward on where to go and how to take the minutes. He suggested that maybe the members need to be trained on how to take their minutes and asked if the City Clerk’s Office was willing to train them. Responding, Mrs. McDowell stated that the City Clerk’s Office would be able to help them and explained that the Clerk’s Office had sent them several emails with information regarding the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Robert’s Rules of Order. She stated that she did not object to helping them; however, she reminded members that as turnover happens, the training would be required again, noting that, currently, the turnover for this group is very high. Mr. Slavin reminded members that the Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee had recommended that the Youth Advisory Committee be suspended until all minutes of the missing meetings are approved by Council and until Council can discuss the matter thoroughly. He advised that two (2) weeks had passed and no further meeting minutes had been provided; therefore, he did not think that Council should vacate the recommendation, since that condition had not been met. Mr. Slavin stated that the Special Council

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 38 Meeting - Budget Review was scheduled to begin the next evening and he believed that this would be a matter of discussion then. Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation that the Youth Advisory Committee be suspended until all minutes of the missing meetings are approved by Council and until Council can discuss the matter thoroughly. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cole and carried with Mr. Anderson voting no. PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee met with Councilman Anderson presiding. Presentation - Tiny Home Village Concept (Sue Harris) Ms. Sue Harris, 241 Pine Street, reviewed a presentation entitled “Promoting Independence, Cooperation, and Respect for Each Other and the Environment - Port Hope Delaware Inc.” Ms. Harris thanked members for welcoming herself and her co-coordinator, Ms. Cathi Kopera, to present their plans for their vision of a new affordable housing concept, a tiny house village for the homeless. Ms. Harris advised members that their desire was to make members aware of the tiny village concept, noting that the biggest piece of the project would be related to the land. She advised that there was nothing written that would allow for this type of project; therefore, it would have to be made to work wherever possible. Ms. Harris advised members that if such developments are well managed, maintained, and self-governed by a board of directors, they are an asset rather than a detriment to neighborhoods and she expressed her hope that this would happen somewhere around Delaware soon. Mr. Neil questioned if there would be lavatories and food facilities. Responding, Ms. Harris stated that the plans for their village would include bathrooms and kitchens in the units. She stated that a lot of villages have a community house instead. Mr. Neil stated that, from his experience in vocational rehabilitation, there is a mental aspect and some of the people can be very resistant to doing anything that they do not want to do; therefore, there should be a screening process. He stated that there should also be a neighborhood process since there would be those who would not want such a project in their neighborhood. Mr. Neil felt that this concept would be difficult to sell. Ms. Harris agreed; however, she stated her opinion that it made more sense to do something rather than nothing, noting the need and the ability to save the towns money. Mr. Neil advised that the State had passed a common interest community law which applies to communities such as condos and co-ops, and that there is an ombudsman.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 39 He indicated that the tiny village would also be a common interest community and suggested they consider an ombudsman because there are problems that groups cannot agree upon. Ms. Harris stated that they would start by talking with all those who would be involved to learn what they need to do and work through each difficulty one (1) step at a time. She felt that if this could be done elsewhere, it could be done here. Mr. Lewis advised that he personally supported this initiative 100%, stating this issue was close to his heart and he had been volunteering to help the homeless since the age of 15. He expressed his admiration for Ms. Harris and Ms. Kopera in trying to help clean up homelessness in the City, noting that the City has a homeless problem. Ms. Harris commented that some had suggested buying tickets for the homeless and sending them back to where they came from; however, most of the homeless were born, grew up, and went to school here, noting that one (1) specific homeless individual had been a chemist for Dupont. Mrs. Harris advised members that she serves on a committee that is working on legislation relating to land banking. She stated that New Castle County benefitted from land bank legislation recently passed in Delaware and it was her hope that Kent County and the City of Dover would take a look at this concept. Ms. Harris provided members with a press release dated April 27, 2015 related to Land Bank legislation, Senate Bill No. 66, and House Bill 287 and Kent County property information. Mr. Caldwell stated that he had the opportunity to see a tiny home village in Madison, Wisconsin, and was highly impressed with that community. He explained that area residents were somewhat reluctant about the concept, not knowing what was going to take place. Mr. Caldwell indicated that there was no police presence and they did not have a single problem. He stated that there was no drinking or loud music, the area was kept clean, and some of the homeless were able to find jobs, remarking that the Dover community probably needs a lot of help in that area. Mr. Caldwell indicated that, based on his observations, a tiny community of homes can be very impressive. He noted that there would be resistance to the homeless but expressed a desire to help them, stating that when he sees people with bags walking the streets of Dover, he knows they have a problem. Mr. Caldwell felt that it would be very valuable to have an example of a tiny community in Delaware, like the village in Wisconsin. In response to Mr. Caldwell, Ms. Harris advised members that they had already been asked by Sussex County to build a village there. Mr. Anderson stated that affordable housing is one (1) of the goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan as well as Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grants. He expressed his hope that Ms. Harris would work with staff and in the future the City would be able to adapt a Planned Neighborhood Design to accommodate a tiny home

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 40 village. It was Mr. Anderson’s opinion that this needed to happen because people had been regulated into homelessness in an effort to manipulate the market. He stated that the current average wage required for the average rent, using income guidelines, is approximately $16 per hour; however, the average renter is earning less than $12 per hour; therefore, the average wage does not meet the average rent. Mr. Anderson indicated that a serious problem is being created, market-based solutions must be allowed for, and this concept was one (1) possibility. He expressed his hope that there would be further discussion of this issue. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Quarterly Update (January, February, and March) The Committee recommended acceptance of the report. By consent agenda, Mr. Lewis moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Anderson suggested that members refer any questions to Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, or Mrs. Tracey Harvey, Planner I. Mr. Sudler moved for acceptance of the Council Committee of the Whole Report, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes (Sudler, Neil, Cole, Hosfelt, Hare, Hutchison, and Slavin) and two (2) no (Anderson and Lewis). SETTING OF PUBLIC HEARING - ELECTRIC FUND BUDGET A public hearing on the Electric Revenue Fund Budget is required for compliance with the City of Dover Electric Revenue Bonds Resolution prior to adoption of the budget. Staff recommended that the public hearing be set for June 13, 2016 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Hare moved to set a public hearing for June 13, 2016 at 7:30 p.m. for the 2016/2017 City of Dover Electric Fund Budget, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. 2016/17 STAFF APPOINTMENTS - CITY COUNCIL (Deferred During the Annual Meeting of May 9, 2016) By consent agenda, Mr. Lewis moved for approval of the Staff Appointments for 2016/2017, seconded by Mr. Neil and, by a unanimous roll call vote, the following appointments were made: City Assessor - Cheryl A. Bundek Building Inspector - Ann Marie Townshend City Clerk - Traci A. McDowell Assistant City Clerk - Denise L. Devine Controller/Treasurer - Donna S. Mitchell Assistant Controller/Treasurer - Lori Peddicord Assistant Treasurers - Traci A. McDowell - Denise L. Devine Fire Marshal - Deferred City Solicitor - Nicholas H. Rodriguez Deputy City Solicitor - William W. Pepper, Sr.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 41 2016/17 COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - COUNCIL PRESIDENT (Deferred During the Annual Meeting of May 9, 2016) Council President Slavin requested that the 2016/2017 Council President Committee Appointments be deferred. By consent agenda, Mr. Lewis moved to defer the 2016/17 Council President Committee Appointments, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. 2016/17 MISCELLANEOUS APPOINTMENTS - COUNCIL PRESIDENT (Deferred During the Annual Meeting of May 9, 2016) Council President Slavin requested that the 2016/2017 Council President Miscellaneous Appointments be deferred. By consent agenda, Mr. Lewis moved to defer the 2016/2017 Council President Miscellaneous Appointments, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. 2016/17 COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - MAYOR (Deferred During the Annual Meeting of May 9, 2016) Mayor Christiansen submitted the following appointments for approval: Compensation Commission Mayor Christiansen requested that this appointment be deferred. Dover Fourth of July Celebration Committee Robin R. Christiansen, Chairman (ex-officio) Greg Patterson, President/Vice Chairman Andrea Maucher, Vice President Jennifer Helms, Treasurer/Secretary Ann Marie Townshend (Staff Liaison) Susan Betts Gail Nemcic Karen Nickerson Sarah Zimmerman Dover Public Library Advisory Commission Scott W. Cole (Council Liaison Member) Downtown Dover Partnership Board of Directors City of Dover Government - Appointed by the Mayor and Confirmed by Council Robin R. Christiansen, Mayor (Ex-Officio Member) David L. Anderson - Council Representative William F. Hare - Council Representative Council Representative - Mayor Christiansen requests that this appointment be deferred. Scott D. Koenig - City of Dover Representative Ann Marie Townshend - City of Dover Representative

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 42 Downtown Dover Partnership Board of Directors (Continued) State Government - Appointed by the Mayor and Confirmed by Council State of Delaware Representative - Mayor Christiansen requests that this appointment be deferred. Private Sector - Appointed by the Mayor and Confirmed by Council Maxine Lewis - Downtown Retailer/Commercial Property Owner Designee Todd Stonesifer - Resident of Downtown Area Real Estate Professional Whose Practice Includes Downtown Area/Commercial Property Owner - Mayor Christiansen requests that this appointment be deferred. Election Board Curtis E. Raymond - Third District Fourth District - Mayor Christiansen requests that this appointment be deferred. Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals Charles Martin, Representative Local Real Estate Adam M. Perza, Representative of Homeowners Scott D. Koenig, City Manager Silver Lake Commission Nicholas Adams Tricia Arndt James Burcham Zachary Carter Dean Holden Lyle Allen Jones Ann Marie Townshend By consent agenda, Mr. Lewis moved for approval of the Committee Appointments for 2016/2017, as recommended by Mayor Christiansen. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. REAPPOINTMENTS/APPOINTMENTS - RECOMMENDED BY MAYOR CHRISTIANSEN Mayor Christiansen requested the following reappointments/appointments to the Planning Commission for a three (3) year term to expire June 1, 2019: John H. Baldwin, Sr. - Fourth District (Reappointment) Kenneth Roach - Fourth District Mayor Christiansen requested the appointment Ms. Andrea Maucher to serve on the Planning Commission, representing the Second District, for a term to expire June 1, 2018 (to fill the unexpired term of Michael J. Ambruso, Sr.). By consent agenda, Mr. Lewis moved for approval of the reappointments/appointments to the Planning Commission, as recommended by Mayor Christiansen. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 43 RESOLUTION NO. 2016-06 AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES FOR BANKING SERVICES ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE - CONTROLLER/TREASURER, ASSISTANT CONTROLLER/TREASURER, AND ASSISTANT TREASURERS By consent agenda, Mr. Lewis moved for adoption of the proposed resolution, seconded by Mr. Neil and, by a unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted Resolution No. 2016-06, as follows: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES FOR BANKING SERVICES ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE WHEREAS, the City of Dover's investment policy includes the investment of funds up to $100,000 per banking institution, investments in the State of Delaware Investment Pool, and the purchase and sale of investment grade corporate bonds, and U.S. Treasury and agency securities; and WHEREAS, the banking institutions, brokerage firms, trust companies, and other various financial institutions require an Authorizing Resolution for the opening of accounts, and for purchasing, selling, transferring, assigning, and handling securities; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council of the City of Dover, that the Controller/Treasurer, Assistant Controller/Treasurer, and Assistant Treasurers are hereby authorized to open accounts with banking institutions and purchase, sell, transfer, assign, and handle securities and that they are authorized to sign all related forms; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the transactions in these accounts be carried out with any one signature; and That the following are the office holders authorized for these purposes, until further notice: Donna S. Mitchell - Controller/Treasurer Lori Peddicord - Assistant Controller/Treasurer Traci A. McDowell - Assistant Treasurer Denise L. Devine - Assistant Treasurer ADOPTED: MAY 23, 2016 FIRST READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2016-10 Council President Slavin reminded the public that copies of the proposed ordinance are available at the entrance of the Council Chambers, on the City’s website at www.cityofdover.com under “Government,” or by contacting the City Clerk’s Office. Final action by Council on the proposed ordinance will take place during the Council Meeting of June 13, 2016. Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, advised members that Proposed Ordinance #2016-10 was prepared by several members of City Staff from the City Clerk’s Office, Finance Department, Human Resources Department, and City Manager’s Office. He explained that the Proposed Ordinance would create the generic template for the deferred compensation plan, so that the City can have various plan documents for the deferred compensation plan. Mr. Koenig noted that all new

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 44 employees, except police officers, hired after September 28, 2009 are required to join the deferred compensation plan as defined in subsection 2-324 of the Dover Code. Mr. Koenig thanked Councilmen Lewis and Hare for granting the additional latitude during the discussion of the Proposed Ordinance earlier in the meeting. He explained that, as amended earlier in the evening, the proposal would allow the non-bargaining component of the workforce to contribute a minimum of 3% and a maximum of 9% on the expansion schedule that was previously discussed. Mr. Koenig stated that the remaining employees under this plan would be defined under the various collective bargaining agreements and/or their plan document. He expressed his appreciation for the time and effort that Staff and Council had put into this revision, noting that, going forward, this is the retirement plan for new employees, except police officers. In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of the proposed Ordinance as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows: < PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2016-10 AMENDING CHAPTER 2 - ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE IV - OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, DIVISION 8 - DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN CITY MANAGER’S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, thanked the staff who had worked over the past few months to help draft the FY17 budget that is scheduled for presentation at the Special Council Meeting - Budget Review beginning tomorrow evening at 6:00 p.m. He stated that there were a number of people that provided input, calculations, and advice in preparing the fiscal spending plan for FY17 and he would like to thank them personally for their efforts, prior to beginning the presentation tomorrow. COUNCIL MEMBERS’ ANNOUNCEMENTS Council President Slavin reiterated that the Special Council Meeting - Budget Review would begin tomorrow evening, Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, noting that the draft budget for FY 2016/2017 was available on the City’s website. Mr. Hutchison thanked Staff for the new television screens in the Council Chambers, as well as the new Council nameplates. He stated that the new television screens were a nice addition. Mr. Slavin wished Ms. Denise Devine, Assistant City Clerk, a happy birthday. Mr. Hare announced that a Second Council District community meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, June 21, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. at Capital Baptist Church. He asked Deputy Police Chief Marvin Mailey to see if someone would be available to attend from the Police Department, and expressed his hope that someone would also attend from the Planning Department, noting that there would be discussion regarding property in that area. Mr. Anderson announced that Nicholas Dadgostar, a Wounded Warrior from Kent County Delaware, was a Silver Medalist in the recent Invictus Games. He stated that Mr. Dadgostar represented the Air Force and was one (1) of the United States service members who participated, noting that it is

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 2016 PAGE 45 good to see a local individual who overcame adversity doing well. Mr. Anderson extended best wishes to Mr. Dadgostar and his family. Mr. Anderson announced that First State Community Action Agency has an office in Dover and is currently looking for participants who need lead removal, home renovation, or assistance with their electric bills. He urged people to contact First State Community Action Agency, indicating that there is more than a million dollars that needs to be spent by November. Mr. Sudler thanked the entire City of Dover, including members of Council, for attending his meeting regarding shootings and illegal gang activity in the City of Dover, on Wednesday, May 18, 2016. He also thanked Ms. Ashton Brown from the Delaware State News, and Mr. Jeff Brown from the Dover Post for covering the meeting. Mr. Sudler indicated that resources were being put together on the State and local level to combat criminal activity, especially illegal gang formation, in the City of Dover. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. TRACI A. McDOWELL CITY CLERK All ordinances, resolutions, motions, and orders adopted by City Council during their Regular Meeting of May 23, 2016, are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /TM S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Council-Minutes\2016\05-23-2016.wpd Exhibits Exhibit #1 - “Metropolitan Wilmington Urban League (MWUL) Dover Committee” Presentation, provided by Dr. Shekelia Hines Exhibit #2 - Correspondence dated May 20, 2016 from Mr. David Sheppard, General Counsel for DSU, regarding the prospective relinquishment of City of Dover’s transfer right in the Delaware Civic Center Corporation land

EXHIBIT #1 Regular City Council Meeting of 05/23/2016 Metropolitan Wilmington Urban League (MWUL) Dover Committee

Introduction Shekelia Hines, PT , DPT Physical Therapist Chair of MWUL Dover Committee ShekeliaHines@gmail.com (302) 300 - 0856

Our Movement Founded in 1910 in New York City, NY Nonprofit, nonpartisan, community based movement Professional Staffed MWUL 115th Affiliate Pursues the National Urban League 5 point Agenda

Five point Empowerment Agenda 1. Education and Youth Empowerment 2. Economic Empowerment 3. Health and Quality of Life Empowerment 4. Civic Engagement and Leadership Empowerment 5. Civil Rights and Racial Justice Empowerment

Founder of MWUL Mr. James H. Gilliam, Sr. ● In 1998, Civil Rights Veteran James H. Gilliam, Sr., a former member of the National Urban League’s (NUL) Board of Trustees, was prompted by Mayor James H. Sills to start an Urban League affiliate in Wilmington Delaware. ● In six months, Mr. Gilliam worked with a small group of colleagues and a minority-owned consulting firm, [ARISE International], to marshal funding and partnership commitments that totaled $1 million. He also assembled a diverse sponsoring committee that included more than 70 community leaders from public, private, and nonprofit sectors. ● In June 1999, Mr. Gilliam made a formal presentation for affiliation to the NUL. One month later, MWUL became the 115th affiliate in the history of the national organization. ● It remains the fastest start of any Urban League affiliate in the later half James H. Gilliam, Sr. of the 20th century.

Mission statement: To empower people of color to achieve economic self-reliance, parity, and civil rights.

Young Professionals (www.mwulyp.org) Auxiliary Organization Fastest growing segment Made up of members who support the mission Defined as “Anyone proficient in what they do.” Various occupations are welcomed

MWUL Young Professional Video Introduction

Mini Recapture of 2015 (See Annual Report for 2015) July 2015 October 2015 June 2015 Civic engagement committee Partnered with Christiana Cultural Economic empowerment committee held a week long community Arts Center to assist with the annual held a financial literacy conference at organizing training. Delaware Technical College concert series at the Grand Opera House. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec September 2015 August 2015 March 2015 Organized the Sunday Breakfast Hosted a weekend with Nascar at Delaware MWUL YP’s Held a Launch week to celebrate the Mission to distribute 3,000 book bags State University for potential career and revitalization of the young professionals. filled with school and worked with internship opportunities with Bubba Wallace. complexities of color to distribute an Worked with Habitat for Humanity in Claymont, DE. additional 1,500 book bags. This is a small sample of all events by the YP’s.

Dover Committee YP’s June May Business and April Entrepreneur Training “What’s In Your Future” Held Campaign Education workshop Bootcamp Training.

Why now in the Dover area? ● Young professionals in the Dover area expressed interest and a need to serve their community.

EXHIBIT #2 Regular City Council Meeting of 05/23/2016 DELA\VARE STATE UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL May 20, 2016 VIA HAND DELIVERY Tim Slavin Council President Dover City Council P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903-0475 RE: Prospective Relinquishment of City of Dover's Transfer Right in the Delaware Civic Center Corporation Land Dear Council President Slavin: I write in response to the feedback received by Delaware State University ("DSU") from the members of the Legislative, Finance and Administration Committee ("Committee") at the Committee's meeting on April 26, 2016 (as part of the meeting ofthe Council Committee of the Whole). In light of the issues raised during the Committee hearing, I thought it advisable to give the Council Members some factual background regarding the Delaware Civic Center Corporation ("DCCC") 1 and the land under its control, as well as specifics on the potentia l economic benefit to DSU and the City of Dover ("City"), if DSU is successful in its efforts to acquire and build a Convocation Center on the land in question. Background Pursuant to a deed entered into between the City and the DCCC on December 11, 2001, the City transferred 41.5 acres of land ("Land") to the DCCC for consideration in the amount of one dollar ($1) ("Deed"). The Land had formerly operated as a landfill, more commonly known as the "Frazier Pit" Landfill. Contemporaneously, the DCCC also obtained, from third parties, ownership of two other parcels adjacent to the Land consisting of 6.34 acres and 1.86 acres, respectively. Collectively, these approximately 50 acres were intended to be used to facilitate the construction and operation of a civic center in Dover and, by so doing, achieve the express purpose for which the DCCC was created . Language within the Deed provided, in pertinent part, that "[i]n the event construction of a civic center project is not commenced ... within ten (10) years of the recording of this deed" the City could compel the DCCC to transfer the Land back to the City by the payment of ten dollars ($10) ("Transfer Right"). However, in 2009, the DCCC was voided by the Secretary of State for failing to file annual 1 The Delaware Civic Center Corporation was created through legislative action by the General Assembly in the FY 199j~ijg~~. ~~'ilJ PONT lllGI IWAY• DU VER, UL LA WARI ~ 19901 -'.1.'.1.7'7 • (302) 857··7~;4 I • FAX (30::') 857- 7-10 I J)di111are Stak l.'11iH·rsit~ i~ an ~q11,d opp,1rl1111i1y employer and docs 110! discT1miuak bccatl';c <>frac..:. \:l'<'t:d. 11atifl11al Pr dh11ir Prigi11. ·c\ i>r disahilit.1.

reports. Because the DCCC was voided before the ten (10) year period had elapsed and the City could exercise its Transfer Right, ownership of the Land has remained with the DCCC. Consequently, in order for the City to regain ownership of the Land, the DCCC would first have to be resuscitated and the City, thereafter, would have to exercise its Transfer Right through the mechanism provided for in the Deed. However, were the City to waive its Transfer Right, the DCCC, upon resuscitation, would be free to transfer the Land to another entity, such as DSU. Potential Economic Benefits The following is a high-level assessment of the potential economic benefits to DSU and, ostensibly, to the City, if DSU is successful in its efforts to build a Convocation Center on the Land: • The Delaware Convocation Center ("DCC") is estimated to temporarily generate a total of 760 full-time equivalent ("FTE") jobs during its construction. Total permanent jobs would range between 130 -180 FTE's depending on the level of operations at the venue. • The DCC is estimated to host between .144 - 176 events annually (60% of which would be non- DSU events catering to the community-at-large and out-of-town visitors). • Estimates reflect that the DCC would generate local spending between $5.4 - $7.2MM annually. • The initial direct spending and subsequent rounds of re-spending would impact the local economy through a multiplier effect, prospectively bringing the total economic activity (output) generated by DCC operations to range from $7.0 to $9.4MM annually. • Over a 30-year period, the net present value of total output generated by the DCC is estimated to range from $135 to $183MM. Proposal Ultimately, DSU seeks to have the City relinquish its Transfer Right to the Land so as to permit the DCCC, once resuscitated, to transfer the Land to DSU, so that DSU can attempt to accomplish the very laudable goal that motivated the City to transfer the Land 15 years ago. In an effort to facilitate this request, DSU is willing to agree to any necessary utility easements on the Land sought by the City. As always, DSU appreciates your, the Council's and the City's attention to and consideration of this request, and is happy to discuss this matter further at the Council's convenience. David K. Sheppard General Counsel

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING BUDGET REVIEW A Special Council Meeting was held on May 24, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. with Council President Slavin presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sudler (arrived at 6:06 p.m.), Mr. Neil, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Cole, Mr. Hosfelt, Mr. Hare, and Mr. Hutchison. Council staff members present were Mrs. Mitchell, Mr. Koenig, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Christiansen was also present (arrived at 6:43 p.m.). AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Hutchison moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Hosfelt and unanimously carried. INTRODUCTION AND PRESENTATION Council President Slavin stated that completing the budget would involve a lot of work over the next two (2) weeks. He advised that the format used during budget hearings in the past was to allow staff the opportunity to present the budget, while remaining open to questions addressing what was said during their presentations. After the presentations, there would be deeper discussion about the issues. Mr. Slavin asked that the rules be suspended at the end of each section to allow members of the public to speak. He indicated that a system was employed last year where a list of potential motions was kept, and these motions were held until the budget mark-up period so that members could go through them after having heard the whole budget process. Mr. Slavin reminded members that they would adhere to Robert’s Rules of Order. Mr. Slavin stated that, after reviewing the draft budget, he was impressed by the work and heavy lift that was done by members in passing last year’s budget, which helped to make structural changes that were needed in regard to revenues and expenses. He noted that this would not dismiss members from the work in front of them; however, some of the key issues that had been plaguing Council had been ameliorated along the way. Mr. Slavin commended some of the changes that members had offered during the year, such as reviewing the preliminary budget earlier than in the past. Noting that the proposed budget had no property tax or utility rate increases, he expressed his opinion that this was a great place to start discussions. Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, provided members with handouts related to the 2016-2017 Draft Annual Operating Budget with 2017-2021 Capital Investment Plans, as follows: • Outlays and Receipts (Property Taxes in as Public Safety) for Governmental Activities, replacing page 16 of the Draft Budget, and Outlays and Receipts (Incl. Property Taxes) for Governmental Activities, replacing page 17 of the Draft Budget (Exhibit #1); • Projected Cost Per Capita by Function - Fiscal Year 2015-2016 (Exhibit #2), which Mrs. Mitchell provided to allow members to compare the projected costs from FY 16 with those on page 30 for FY 17; and

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 2 • Kent County Treatment Fees - Trend of Fees Billed and Charges Paid (Exhibit #3), which was provided in response to a Council member’s question regarding whether the Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) problem was decreasing and if treatment fees were covering the issue. Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, referred to a memorandum from him and Mrs. Mitchell dated May 17, 2016, regarding the Revised FY 16 Budget and FY 17 Proposed Budget (Exhibit #4). He stated that he would not discuss the revised FY 16 budget unless specific questions were asked because he wished to focus attention on the FY 17 budget. Mr. Koenig began the review of the Annual Operating Budget for Fiscal Year July 1, 2016 - June 30, 2017. In reviewing his introduction letter dated May 16, 2016, regarding the Fiscal Year 2016- 2017 Proposed Budget (page 3), he stated that staff had done a lot of work since the preliminary budget discussion in March 2016, noting that they had managed to close a gap of slightly more than $1M in the General Fund budget since that time. Mr. Koenig advised that the fee increases adopted by Council had been incorporated in the proposed budget. He believed that a reasonable spending plan was presented for the General Fund for FY 17 and the proposed budget would provide the level of services expected. Mr. Koenig noted that the current property tax rate of $0.405 cents was the result of the heavy lift by Council during the FY 16 budget deliberations, and it was proposed to keep this rate for FY 17. He explained that the total financial program for FY 17 was proposed at $138,472,000, including an operating budget of $125,566,900 and a capital investment budget of $12,905,100. Mr. Koenig indicated that this represented an increase of 0.9% over last year and included the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) contract, the Dover Organization of Employees (DOE) contract, personnel adjustments, and adjustments to the capital plan. He stated that, from a spending standpoint, staff was happy to be able to come in very close to last year. In regard to the Water and Sewer Fund budget, Mr. Koenig stated that there had been a debate for some time about rates. He indicated that staff was able to balance the budget this year leaving the rates as they are; however, he anticipated requesting a cost of service study in the future with the expectation of gravitating to inclining block rates. Mr. Koenig noted that Calpine had generated a substantial increase in revenue; however, was not quite meeting the expected revenue targets. He advised that Calpine was one (1) year into commercial operation and staff would monitor revenues and see how the system responds and operates over the next six (6) to 12 months to get a better operating history of Unit 1. Mr. Koenig stated that expansions of water and sewer systems were being proposed in the capital plan to meet the demands of both residential and commercial customers and position the City to attract potential commercial clients and customers to the City as part of overall economic development efforts. Mr. Koenig stated that the electric utility was changing very rapidly. The City had benefitted over the last several years from a number of substantial cost reductions in the electric utility related to power purchase. Earlier this year, Council executed a long-term power purchase that would be reflected in revenue forecasting for the electric utility. Mr. Koenig stated that the reductions had been a benefit in the FY 16 budget and in the development of the FY 17 budget.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 3 Mr. Koenig informed members that it was proposed to reduce the total number of full-time positions in the City from 359 to 357. A net increase of two (2) part-time positions was proposed, partially due to the need for a larger bank of part-time employees to fill in within the fire dispatch area. The total number of hours would remain the same, but the number of employees would increase. Mr. Koenig stated that the total personnel budget across all funds was estimated at $36.044M, which was slightly less than a 3% increase from last year’s budget. He indicated that all four (4) labor agreements were signed and in place for FY 17; therefore, labor costs should be predictable. Mr. Koenig stated that the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) unions would begin negotiations in FY 17 just after the calendar year begins and adjustments would be implemented for FY 18. Mr. Koenig referred to his memorandum dated May 17, 2016 RE: Revised FY 16 Budget and FY 17 Proposed Budget (Exhibit #4). In reference to Attachment #2 to the memorandum, Adjustments to the Preliminary Budget, Mr. Koenig stated that staff had looked at revenues and expenses in order to close the $1M gap in the General Fund. He explained that wages and benefits were decreased by approximately $373,000, a large portion of which was related to the Police Department draft budget. Mr. Koenig indicated that, as a follow-up to contract negotiations, there was a change in language that allowed the Police Chief to insert an 84-hour straight time schedule rather than going to overtime at 80 hours, which would have cost the City an additional $232,000. Mr. Koenig stated that the value of this compensation had been included in this draft budget. Mr. Koenig indicated that the total capital budget in the General Fund would be decreased by $356,000 due to deferring some vehicle purchases and decreasing the Street Program from $1M to $900,000. Operating expenses would be decreased by approximately $139,200. Mr. Koenig stated that debt service would be another area of savings. He noted that the tar ditch project had been included in the preliminary budget as debt service. This General Fund stormwater project was approaching the end of the design phase and was estimated at $7.6M. In Mr. Koenig’s opinion, the City of Dover should not be the sole contributor to this project. He indicated that the project was being readied for bid and legwork was beginning with legislators, interested property owners, and State agencies to obtain funding partners to reduce the City’s exposure. Mr. Koenig believed that this debt service would affect the FY 18 budget rather than the FY 17 budget, and it had been removed from the proposed budget. In addition, debt service was included in the preliminary budget for the Enterprise Resource Program (ERP); however, staff was trying to fund this financial program without General Fund debt service. Mr. Koenig stated that additional savings related to budgeting for retirements were included in the proposed budget. He explained that the City had been budgeting for retirements by pulling all requests together, analyzing them, and putting a number into the budget. To help close the gap in the budget, it had been stated that if there was a retirement involving 150 days of payout, that department may have to hold that position open to pay the salary from its budget rather than using the reserve fund. Mr. Koenig advised, for example, if an employee in the Public Works Department retired and all the positions in that division were filled, they may have to carry that open position until the retirement is paid out. If there are other openings and funds are available to pay the

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 4 position’s salary, they will potentially be released to recruit earlier than the payout period. Mr. Koenig stated that the goal would be to have no net increase in the divisional budget. He noted that this may affect the Police Department since officers may have to defer attendance at the police academy due to retirement payouts. Mr. Koenig stated that this retirement payout was used as a premise in the draft budget. Mr. Hare questioned whether a department would be unable to hire for seven (7) or eight (8) months if an employee retired with this amount of accumulated leave. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that there was the potential for the department to be unable to hire. Mr. Hare questioned if a position that remained vacant for seven (7) or eight (8) months was needed, noting that if a position was key, the department could not wait this long to fill it. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that the City Manager has the authority to transfer money between budgets; however, it was being proposed that there would not be a simple right to recruit from the time the vacancy occurs. Mr. Slavin advised that this was a very conservative method of making sure that double salary is not paid for a period of seven (7) to eight (8) months and this process had been used at the State level. Mrs. Mitchell reviewed the presentation entitled “City of Dover Fiscal Year 2017 Proposed Budget” (page 7). In regard to Policy Compliance (pages 10-11), she stated that the budget was within the policy requirement percentages for budget balances and revenues exceed expenses. No rate increases were proposed. Mrs. Mitchell stated that there was an increase of $1,176,700 in personnel costs over the original FY 16 budget. In reviewing General Fund Revenues, Fines and Police Revenue (page 14), Mrs. Mitchell stated that $60,000 of the $61,000 increase in revenue was for a School Resource Officer (SRO) for the Capital School District Intensive Learning Center (ILC), noting that the Capital School District had agreed to pay this amount. She stated that the police head count had not been adjusted for this position and the Police Chief would be bringing forth a presentation regarding this officer; however, the revenue had been built into the budget. Mrs. Mitchell explained that the students in the ILC are troubled teenagers. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the $55,000 increase in Investment Income was a result of moving bank fees and credit card charges to a fund expense rather than being netted against interest. In reviewing General Fund Expenditures (page 15), Mrs. Mitchell noted that expenses increased $1,060,000 or 2.6%. She advised that the decrease in expenditures in the City Manager’s budget was due to funds for a public safety study not being included in the proposed budget. Mrs. Mitchell explained that Retiree Health Care Premiums had increased by 7.6%, resulting in an increase of $144,100 and the decrease in Other Employment Expenses was due to the retirement payouts referenced previously by Mr. Koenig. She advised that the appropriation to the Police Pension Fund was increased based on actuarial valuations. In reference to Computation of Legal Debt Margin - General Obligation Bonds (page 19), Mrs. Mitchell pointed out that “New Bonds without referendum cannot exceed 1/4 of 1% of taxable assessed value and shall not cost the total aggregate principal outstanding at any one time to exceed

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 5 1% of total taxable assessment for a general tax at the time of issue or $7,648,000 based on the 2017 Estimate.” She stated that this provision would relate to the discussion of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects and cautioned members that if the City goes to the bond market, this amount cannot be exceeded in any one (1) year without a referendum. Mrs. Mitchell reviewed Water/Wastewater Fund and Electric Fund (pages 20-21). In regard to the $712,000 increase in revenues in Customer Sales in the Electric Fund, she stated that the power supply budget is based on the load forecast from The Energy Authority (TEA). The load was projected to increase by 0.5% in last year’s budget and by approximately 1% in the forecast for this year, resulting in a 0.5% increase in sales. Mrs. Mitchell, referring to Major Rate and Fee Trends (page 22), stated that the only change listed was the transfer from the Water/Wastewater Fund to the General Fund, which increased by $25,000. In response to Mr. Hutchison regarding the purpose and use of the Inflow and Infiltration (I & I) Fund, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the purpose of the I & I surcharge was twofold, to cover treatment fees that the City pays Kent County and to help pay for I & I capital improvements. She advised that charging the customer dollar for dollar the amount that Kent County charges would not cover treatment fees because of I & I. Mrs. Mitchell indicated that currently in the Water/Wastewater Fund, the City transfers $1M - $1.1M every year to the Improvement and Extension (I & E) Fund to cover I & I improvements. Mr. Lewis questioned the number of School Resources Officers for which the City receives funding. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that, according to Deputy Police Chief Marvin Mailey, the City receives funding for four (4) School Resource Officers, none of which are paid 100%. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the Capital School District has a Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program officer, and there are School Resource Officers at Central Middle School, Dover High School, and a Resource Officer at the Academy of Dover. She explained that the total cost for the SROs, not including the ILC officer, would be $333,000 for three-quarters of the year, because these officers work out of the Police Department during the summertime. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the Capital School District pays the City $100,000 of the $250,000 cost; therefore, the City subsidizes $150,000. The proposal for the Academy of Dover would be for an officer for three-quarters of a year at a cost of approximately $68,000. She noted that these calculations were done before the FOP contract was complete. The Academy of Dover was offering to pay $60,000, so the net difference would be $8,000. Mr. Hare questioned how the amount that the City is reimbursed for SROs compares to amounts reimbursed to other schools or entities. Responding, Deputy Chief Mailey stated that he did not have that information but offered to obtain it for the next budget session. Mr. Cole indicated that he would be in negotiations the following day with the Caesar Rodney School District and could also obtain this information. Mr. Lewis asked if the Capital School District was the only school district in the State where City police officers work, noting that the majority have State troopers. Responding, Deputy Police Chief

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 6 Mailey stated that several school districts have City police officers, noting that the Georgetown Police Department has a School Resource officer and he believed that the City of Newark does as well. Mr. Neil stated that Operational and Administrative Analysis - Dover Fire Department - Final Report - March 2016 conducted by the Center for Public Safety Management (page 5) recommended that the City of Dover transfer its fire dispatch duties to the Kent County 911 Communications Center. He advised that Table 3-1: Comparison of Personnel Costs in this study (page 19) stated a decrease in personnel costs from $409,800 to $322,904 if this were done. Mr. Neil felt that the report should be considered within the FY 17 budget and its recommendations should be discussed. He referenced discussions regarding the purchase of a fire engine during the Council meeting of May 23, 2016, which Mr. Neil also felt was related to this study. Mr. Neil stated his opinion that if the City was spending $100,000 for this report on the Police and Fire Departments, the report should be considered and that the budget would be affected by this report. Mr. Slavin stated that, in an ideal world, the report would have been thoroughly vetted in time for the preparation of the budget and the budget review, but the calendar did not line up that way. He indicated that Council had heard a briefing on the draft report and the consultant had been invited to provide a presentation before the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee in June. The Fire Department would have an opportunity in July to advise members regarding what they saw in the report as beneficial and the things that they may want to explore more, and the matter could be resolved in August. Mr. Slavin stated that these answers would not be available during the budget deliberations unless Council wanted to take pre-emptive action without discussion of the report. Summaries of Fund Revenue and Expenses Mr. Koenig reviewed the All Funds Summary (page 24), noting that this summary showed the starting point for all funds and the beginning balances were roughly $63,164,200. The Revenues/Transfers In for FY 17 were approximately $143M and expenses approximately $138M, for an expected ending balance of $67,848,400. In reviewing General Fund - Cash Receipt Summary (page 25), Mr. Koenig stated that total revenues of approximately $42.261M were expected for the General Fund in FY 17, which was approximately $934,000 over the FY 16 budget. Mr. Koenig believed that staff had done a good job of predicting what is expected in taxes after taking out tax exempt property and other exemptions. Staff had also been doing a good job of conservatively estimating receipts for business licenses. Mr. Koenig advised that the City’s budget is related in many ways to construction activity in the community. The transfer of properties, building of new houses, and renovation or construction of commercial properties are indicators that the City budget is reasonably healthy. Mr. Koenig stated that this translates into construction permits, mechanical permits, impact fees, transfer taxes, licenses, and, in the long run, utility revenue. He noted that there were slight increases in revenues over FY 16 in the General Fund that were not related to the tax increase or new fees. Referring to Expense Summary (page 26), Mr. Koenig stated that expenditures based on the total budget balance would increase approximately 3.2% over FY 16; however, he pointed out that there were increases in expenses in the Dover Public Library, Police Department, and Streets Division.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 7 The Streets Division increase of $489,000 was related to compliance with the City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. Mr. Koenig indicated that the Sanitation budget was proposed to decrease since staff would be bringing forward a new five (5) year differential disposal agreement that proposes to reduce the gate charge per ton at the landfill. Although the landfill costs per ton would decrease, Mr. Koenig noted that if the City grows or the economy improves, there would be an increase in the amount of trash going to the landfill. He explained that the decrease in the expense for Facilities Management was related to the retirement of direct employees of the City and conversion or expansion of private contracting for janitorial services at the Library, Police Department, Electric Administration, 5 East Reed Street, and the warehouse. Mr. Koenig indicated that one (1) janitor remains on staff who performs partial delivery of supplies to buildings and is primarily responsible for services at City Hall. Mr. Sudler asked if independent contractors assist the City trash pick up and what they charge per ton. Responding, Mr. Koenig explained that all residential trash is picked up by the City of Dover. He believed that the landfill rate was approximately $85 per ton, stating that the City pays a per ton charge at the landfill for residential trash, commercial trash, bulk trash, and any debris that is taken to the landfill. In addition, Mr. Koenig noted that the City uses a yard waste facility just outside the City limits if they are open for business and, if not, yard waste is taken to the landfill at their specified charge. The City uses a recycling contractor who provides a truck and a driver who dumps the can. Mr. Koenig stated that this waste is transferred to Milford for transport to the market. He advised that there is no charge for the tonnage delivered to Milford and the City has only a cost for pick-up. Mr. Sudler questioned if independent contractors are used for any kind of waste. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that an independent contractor is used only for recycling services. Mr. Hare questioned the cost per pick-up for recycling. Responding, Mr. Koenig estimated the cost at approximately $1.25 per pick-up, stating that he would have to get the exact number. Mr. Koenig explained that if the City was picking up twice per month from 100 houses, the cost would be $2.50 times 100. In response to Mayor Christiansen, Mr. Koenig stated that the current contract for recycling would end either July 31, 2017 or August 31, 2017. Mr. Koenig indicated that there had been some discussions with the contractor regarding displeasure with the service. He stated that staff would be bidding out this contract over the next 12 months and debating whether the City would put in its own bid for that service versus hiring another contractor. Mr. Koenig believed that the contract had been in place for approximately seven (7) years, noting that there were no issues during the first five (5) years; however, during the last year-and-a-half there had been two (2) significant difficulties. He stated that the company had gone through managerial changes and their service level had greatly diminished. Mr. Koenig advised that the contractor had been able to rebound the service level both in and outside the City, noting that this company is also under contract with Kent County. Responding to Mayor Christiansen regarding whether this company would be considered as a bidder for recycling services if a Request for Proposals (RFP) were issued, Mr. Koenig stated that, considering some of the contractors he had dealt with over the years, staff would probably have to consider this company as a bidder. He reiterated that service delivery had improved over the last few weeks.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 8 Mr. Sudler questioned if Coker Concrete and Recycling Services provided services to the City. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that this company was named E Z Mulch and the City takes yard waste to their facility and is billed based on the number of trucks that deliver. In regard to Fiscal Year 2016/2017 General Fund Revenue (page 27), Mr. Koenig noted that property taxes make up slightly under 31% of the General Fund and utility transfers-in make up almost 26%. He stated that the fact that the City owns and operates its own municipal utilities has been a windfall to the General Fund over many years. Referring to Fiscal Year 2016-2017 General Fund Expenditures (page 28), Mayor Christiansen requested that a breakdown of the percentage of the budget represented by the Police and Fire Department expenses be provided in such charts in the future. Referring to Projected Cost per Capita by Function (page 30), Mr. Koenig stated that police and fire represent a very large expenditure per capita. In reference to Governmental Capital Projects Fund Summary (page 31), Mr. Koenig noted that this showed all expenditures proposed per category with significant spending for streets. Many of the purchases related to vehicles. The $145,700 under Fire related to debt service for existing purchases that were financed and was not new spending. Mr. Koenig reviewed the Water/Wastewater Fund Summary (page 32), stating that the total budget balance and expenses were just under $17M, which is a 0.4% change from FY 16; however, proposed expenses were just under 6% less than last year. The spending plan was close to last year. In regard to the Water/Wastewater Fund Expenses (page 34), Mr. Koenig stated that Kent County treatment fees were the largest expense and were influenced by I & I. He indicated that transfers to the General Fund help support the tax base and offset costs under General Fund services. In reference to the Water/Wastewater Improvement and Extension Fund (page 36), Mr. Koenig stated that the City was expanding some utility components and was in the maintenance mode for other components. Pipes were being replaced and improved, and new wells were proposed for construction. He indicated that there would be a debt release for improvements to the Long Point Road water treatment plant. Mr. Koenig indicated that, over the last few years, staff had done a very good job of beginning to get the capital plan in a position to mirror the budget and was able to get projects underway in design in one (1) year and, with small adjustments in budget and scheduling, move to construction in the next year. He stated that staff was working through a significant amount of pump station upgrades, well rehabilitations, new well construction, and improvements in the water plant to ensure that the water and sewer utility can deliver service for years to come. In regard to the Electric Fund Revenue Summary (page 37), Mr. Koenig stated that the Electric Fund is very complicated and difficult to anticipate; however, the City of Dover receives a significant positive impact from efforts dedicated to the electric utility. In Mr. Koenig’s opinion, the City would be spending a lot more time talking about tax rates and service levels were it not for the electric utility. He indicated that there are challenges with searching for employees and keeping up with

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 9 current technology and trends in the PJM to understand the changing market. Mr. Koenig felt the City had done a good job of keeping current with the market to be able to maintain a modern electric utility. He stated that the balances and expenses were roughly $94.3M, which is approximately 5% more than last year. Mr. Neil requested clarification regarding the increase of almost $7M in Line 1 - Beginning Balance and the large decrease in Line 13 - Power Supply. Responding, Mr. Koenig explained that the City had been fortunate in keeping expenses under control and revenues coming in, resulting in an increase in the beginning balance brought forward from FY 16 to FY 17. He stated that, in regard to power supply costs, there had been a significant decrease in the cost of purchasing energy, both in the hedging program and when buying power on the spot market. Mr. Koenig noted that things worked out perfectly for the City in the hedging program in the current fiscal year. He explained, for example, that if 10 MW of power are needed, 8 MW are purchased ahead of time and 2 MW are purchased a few hours ahead of the market. Depending on demand, this 80/20 split changes a bit, but the target is roughly an 80/20 split. Mr. Koenig advised that 20% was being purchased at very low cost because of low natural gas prices and management and transmission costs associated with PJM. Over the last year, there had been historically low gas prices. Mr. Koenig stated that some of the products being offered, such as a 10-year agreement that Council had executed, were not commonly discussed two (2) to four (4) years ago and had not been brought to the City as recommended products. He indicated that there was a substantial decrease in power supply costs in the FY 17 budget and the City had the good fortune of being able to transfer money from the Electric Fund to the General Fund. Mr. Koenig noted that something to consider would be whether to keep the rates as they are, which would generate money in excess of what had been laid out for the spending plan, or to exercise a power cost adjustment to transfer some of the savings in the cost of power supply back to the customers in all categories to offset the cost of their electric bills. He stated that, when modeling is addressed, a proposed power cost adjustment versus a rate change would be discussed. Mr. Koenig explained that it was unknown how long the present conditions will last, and because of uncertainty about the future, staff would propose a power cost adjustment. In response to Mr. Neil regarding business customers, Mr. Koenig stated that the proposal in the budget would be to rebate a certain percentage of all energy for all customers. Residential, industrial, and commercial customers would all see a credit on their purchase of energy. Mr. Slavin, noting that Utility Taxes were listed on Line 4 and also under Other Expenses on Line 37 of the Electric Revenue Fund Summary, stated his recollection that this is a 100% passthrough tax assessed by the City on behalf of the State, and the City does not retain these funds. Mr. Koenig indicated that he was unsure what the State uses those funds for, and Mr. Slavin felt it would be useful for staff to research this. Mr. Slavin also questioned if there was an opportunity for the City to charge off the indirect expenses associated with collecting and transmitting these funds. Mr. Hare questioned the amount paid to North American Energy Services (NAES) and the revenues received because the City has its plants available to run. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that this would be addressed during the discussions of the forecasting models in a subsequent budget session.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 10 Mr. Hare questioned where the expenses and revenues associated with North American Energy Services (NAES) were reflected in the Electric Fund. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell stated that this was included in the capacity credits; however, these amounts would be easier to review in the schedule in the forecasting models. Mr. Koenig explained that these revenues and expenses were embedded in the numbers but not broken out as NAES. Responding to Mr. Hare regarding the NAES expenses and revenues, Mrs. Mitchell, referring to Net Electric Generation Benefit (page 91), stated that the proposed net income for FY 17 would be $157,500. She noted that the proposed cost of Plant Operations for FY 17 was $6.2M, Capacity Credits were $7.3M, PJM Spot Market (Net of Fuel) was a credit of $500,000, and PJM Credits were $360,000, for a net credit of $2M. Mrs. Mitchell stated that Capital Cost being invested in the plant was approximately $1,842,000, and the net credit would be $157,500. Responding to Mayor Christiansen regarding the bond covenant transfer limits for electric, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the City’s credit limit is predicated on how rating agencies view this transfer, as well as the risk being taken with the electric utility and bondholders. She indicated that the City’s last rating agency discussion occurred during the past year with Moody’s. Mrs. Mitchell advised that it was difficult for her to get a $10M transfer, noting that the City does not include the debt service ratio as an expense and the rating agency argued that it should be included as an expense, which lowers the City’s debt coverage. Mrs. Mitchell advised that she had to involve the City’s bond counsel in this discussion to argue the point that the transfer was not necessarily an expense, and the City was successful in getting through this process. Mayor Christiansen asked if the rating agency realized that this was an enterprise fund that was established to cover excess cost in the City’s budget. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell explained that, although some think that this is the reason for this fund, municipalities go into public power to provide low-cost power to their citizens and not necessarily to fund a general fund. Mayor Christiansen stated that this was not the reason that enterprise funds were established. Mrs. Mitchell stated that rating agencies look at the reason for having public power. Mr. Slavin stated that the City got into the electric business to provide electricity to this area. In response to Mayor Christiansen, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the City’s current bond rating is AA+, which is the best it had been in a long time. In regard to Electric Fund Revenue (page 38) and Electric Fund Expense by Function (page 39), Mr. Koenig stated that this graphic representation showed that almost all revenue is generated from direct sales to customers and the bulk of the expenses are related to power supply and generation. He indicated that the time and effort dedicated to the City’s hedging program is important in this regard. Mr. Koenig explained that, in some cases, the City is subject to the market and must rely on the market and those advising the City to get the best deals, and the market can change quickly. Referring to the Electric Improvement and Extension Fund Summary (page 41), Mr. Koenig stated that staff was working on improvements across the system, including potential substation, transmission and distribution, and metering improvements, as well as capital improvements

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 11 associated with production of power at McKee Run and the Van Sant generating station. This would be a comprehensive approach to maintaining the value of the City’s $2M electric system. Mayor Christiansen noted that there had been an issue with electric services being terminated and there had been discussion of “smart meters.” He questioned the potential of going to a smart meter program in the future and the approximate cost. In response, Mr. Koenig advised that replacing the 26 large electric meters would provide the footprint of a smart metering system at a cost of approximately $150,000. It must be decided what size server should be purchased and whether it should be used to help expand the system. Mr. Koenig indicated that there would be a systematic change of meters in the electric system and, at some point, all new meters installed would be smart meters. He stated that when there are challenging customers who must be cut, staff will likely switch them to smart meters. Mr. Koenig noted that every meter need not be replaced to have a smart metering grid, and staff would try to do this frugally. Staff was trying to implement technology that would also read water meters so that there would not be separate systems running in the field. He felt that this would be a multi-million dollar project. Responding to Mayor Christiansen regarding whether there would be administrative savings if the new system was built, Mr. Koenig stated that savings may not be realized for a long time. He noted, for example, that one (1) municipality in the State decided to replace all of their architecture at a cost of approximately $16M to $18M. He felt that savings must be categorized, noting that currently three (3) employees read and disconnect meters, and there would continue to be a need for staff to go and troubleshoot malfunctioning equipment. The savings would be related to turning meters on and off remotely very quickly, but the operational savings would be hard to quantify. Mr. Koenig felt it was possible an employee would no longer be needed in the same capacity but may be needed as a customer service representative because phone calls would be coming in all at once. He was hesitant to say that it would be a cost reduction over the long term, but it would improve efficiency and enhance services to customers over the long term with gradual implementation. Mr. Anderson questioned where the Green Utility and Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and the construction of a new solar park that had been discussed were reflected in the Electric Fund. In response, Mr. Koenig stated that the Electric Revenue Fund Summary (page 37), Line 14, indicated an expectation to spend approximately $2.3M for solar energy related to the current solar installation. He recalled that compliance with RPS was estimated at approximately $0.5M. Mr. Koenig indicated that the City must soon make a decision regarding whether to add solar energy or purchase it from another entity. He explained that the solar field that was built several years ago is not the current market or technology, and Mr. Koenig believed that the City could build a more efficient, lower-cost field; however, he noted that the City still has a commitment to the current field. If a field were built in 2016 or 2017, he felt that by 2020 this field may be overpriced in the market since solar technology is changing dramatically. Mr. Koenig stated that a benefit of being part of the Delaware Electric Municipal Corporation (DEMEC) is that they are buying and evaluating wind projects and evaluating in-line hydro projects. He noted that the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) will also look at battery technology and LED lighting, which is becoming more commonplace, and all these factors are funneling into the City’s discussions. Mr. Koenig stated that the City realized a load growth of approximately 1% and was forecasting growth at 0.5%; however, the counter argument to this was

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 12 that customers are buying efficiency to reduce their costs. He felt the City would be challenged by all these things, and the RPS will provide more restrictions and challenges to controlling those costs. Noting that he favored a power adjustment credit, Mr. Anderson asked if the City had thought about using some of the extra money to look at using LEDs in the City streetlights, noting that they would be brighter, increase safety, and provide long-term lower costs in power outlays. He asked if staff had looked at encouraging users to conserve and use alternative power in FY 17 to lower the long- term footprint. In response, Mr. Koenig stated that the City is doing some LED lighting upgrades, although this would not be in whole sectors and the numbers would be relatively small. He stated that if Council wished to accelerate conversion to LED lighting, it could be added to the budget. Mr. Koenig felt that understanding the costs of energy efficiency and promoting it, while budgeting and planning for it, would be the next iteration of the energy program, noting that things can change very rapidly. He explained that, in the past, the City could calculate the amount of power needed and buy a unit that fit that perspective, which was very simple. Now there are many dynamics that must be added in, including customers who put green energy sources in their homes, the challenges of net metering and what that does to the system, and how these costs are recovered. Mr. Koenig advised that the challenges for staff are becoming significant because what used to be more of a one (1) way street is a two (2) way street with a lot of negotiation in between. He indicated that the risk would be on the City as the utility because efficiency and a good rate are wanted for customers, but the City must ensure this is done prudently. In regard to RPS standards, Mr. Anderson questioned if the City would get credit or be penalized for encouraging and achieving energy conservation. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that a provider in the State had expressed frustration because they had made efficiency improvements and were concerned that they would not be able to take credit for these improvements. He noted that the timing of change on the City’s part is important from a regulatory standpoint. Mr. Koenig stated that the City knows it must change on a certain schedule, but if certain things are changed too soon, the City may not get credit for those things. He indicated that change must be managed in accordance with the regulations. In response to Mr. Hare regarding the length of the City’s contract with the Dover Sun Park, Mr. Koenig stated that this was a 20-year contract that went into effect in 2011 or 2012. Mr. Hare stated his understanding that the solar park was costing the City approximately $2M per year. In response, Mr. Koenig stated that the expense to date this year was approximately $750,000 above what would have been spent for normal power for the energy coming from the solar field. He indicated that this amounted to at least $750,000 per year. Mr. Hare questioned why the City would want to obtain more of this type of energy. Responding, Mr. Koenig indicated that the City was required to do so and all municipalities must do this. He stated that some municipalities work directly through DEMEC and some are developing their own projects within their municipal boundaries. Mr. Koenig indicated that everyone providing power in the State of Delaware is subject to the RPS standards that the City had signed off on.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 13 In response to Mr. Hare regarding the cost if the City did not do this, Mr. Koenig stated his belief that the City would be penalized. Mr. Harry Maloney, Electric Director, advised that Delmarva Power and the Delaware Municipal Energy Corporation (DEMEC) receive SRECs and the City receives energy at a total cost of approximately $0.175. The City signed an energy agreement in 2010 at a price that was far above the market. If this agreement had not been signed, the City would be purchasing energy from someone else at the market rate of approximately $0.04 and $0.05, after removing the price of SRECs at $0.13. Mr. Maloney indicated that he was unsure of the cost of SRECs in the current market. He noted that everyone had wanted to have the first solar field in the State of Delaware, and the City would be paying the price of its agreement for the next 15 years. Mr. Hare questioned what would happen if the City wished to obtain a buyout of the agreement. Responding, Mr. Maloney stated that the City would have to pay, noting that power developers have bonds against this. It had been Mr. Maloney’s past experience that power developers steal revenue streams and take them to the bond market to see how much they can obtain in bonds. If it costs $10M to build a facility, they may be able bond $15M and pocket $5M. They base their income on the maximum they can bond, develop the project, and receive pure profit on Day 1. Mr. Hare commented that, based on what Mr. Maloney was saying, there was really no benefit to putting more solar fields in. In response, Mr. Maloney stated that this was the case five (5) years ago; however, the cost of solar fields in 2010 and earlier was approximately $8 per watt, compared to less than $4 per watt today. Additionally, he advised that the City would do its own bonding, which was now down to $3.5%. The City would keep the SRECs and the cheap energy, and the capital costs would be reduced. Mr. Maloney indicated that a generation plant today is around $0.01 to $0.02 per watt and it is on peak, so the cost was beginning to come down to where it is actually market based. He noted that the City would also receive capacity credit behind the PJM meter. Mr. Maloney stated that the City is obligated to have SRECs and must look at the total package that it would cost to have them, but this would be nowhere near the cost of the City’s 2010-2011 agreement. He felt that if it would be cheaper for the City to put in solar, the City should do so and would receive side benefits. Mr. Maloney stated that this is part of the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and felt the City should run the numbers. Mr. Maloney indicated that the State had adopted the IRP process and the City’s requirement for solar RECs slowly creeps up each year. This is not something that the City wants to do but is told it must do. Mr. Hutchison questioned what process the City must go through to get additional water towers or wells as the water demand increases on the system. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that there is a State permitting process for water towers, and towers are built based upon what the City needs to run the system from an engineering standpoint. In regard to the actual number, type, or location of wells, it is also necessary to obtain permits from the State. Mr. Koenig stated that staff is evaluating drilling a new well in the Cheswold aquifer, which is from the mid-level down, and is working through the permitting process. He indicated that the Piney Point replacement well was built a couple of years ago at a cost of approximately $1.1M. In regard to permits, Mr. Koenig explained that the City has an allocation permit that will expire in 2018 and staff is working on renewals. He advised that permits used to be issued in 20-year increments, but the timeline may be different now.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 14 Mr. Koenig stated that allocation permits by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) and by the Delaware River Basin Commission are driven by need. The City must prepare detailed reports to show that the resource is being managed, that it is not being used carelessly, how much water is being pumped and billed, expected loss, and how much is going through fire protection, etc. Mr. Koenig stated that staff had been having discussions with the permitting agencies about the fact that Dover is in the growth zone, noting that growth strategies have indicated that they want growth to occur within the State’s municipalities on public water, sewer, and electric systems. Mr. Koenig indicated that the City argues that Dover should be given deference when applying for a permit allocation if it can be shown that the City is in need and if this is done ahead of time and on a planned schedule, rather than if a permit is suddenly needed because a customer comes in and needs 500,000 gallons of water. Mr. Koenig expressed the desire to be on a schedule so that staff could say that the City had been tracking demand and use, doing system improvements and maintenance, and wants to get ahead of the permitting curve to have a safe reserve, not just from a technical standpoint, but so that the City can be promoted as being able to provide utilities to businesses. Mr. Koenig advised, for example, that there had been debate at the State level about the permitting of Calpine relating to whether they should be allowed to drill their own well and provide their own water. He indicated that the problem was that Calpine would be a significant user influencing just the aquifers in the City limits and the City would not receive revenue from that. Mr. Koenig stated that the City’ argument was that Dover was granted a franchise to serve, there was a detailed franchise map area on file with the Public Service Commission, and the City should have the right to say whether or not it wants to serve a customer or tell them to drill a private well. Mr. Koenig expressed the need to look at the comprehensive impact, stating that the City was providing potable water, but this is a major driver in the City’s system. The City could guarantee the quality of the water, the customer was within the City’s franchise, and the City has afforded for that customer to be part of its growth. He indicated this was not a simple matter of turning in the paperwork and saying that another 1M gallons is wanted from the aquifer, there is work to be done to get the permit in place. Mr. Koenig felt that staff had done a commendable job of doing the homework to get to the point of maintaining and renewing permits. Mr. Neil moved to recess, seconded by Mr. Cole and unanimously carried. The meeting recessed at 7:46 p.m. Mr. Sudler moved to reconvene, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. The meeting reconvened at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Anderson questioned if appraisals of the City’s major facilities, particularly Weyandt Hall and the former Dover library, as well as a property on Ridgely Street, were taken into account, noting that appraisals were desired by the President’s Counsel on Public/Private Partnerships and the Future of City Hall, Weyandt Hall, Former Dover Library, and Other City Properties. In response, Mr. Koenig stated that, in the current budget year, the City was working on appraisals for the former Dover Public Library and 5 East Reed Street. He noted that several pieces of property were identified administratively for appraisal and this may happen shortly; however, staff had not engaged in appraisal of the City warehouse or property associated with it. Mr. Koenig advised that facility

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 15 construction was not identified in the capital plan because he thought it was necessary to go through a few more steps before indicating that replacing City Hall or some of these major facilities was favored. From an administrative standpoint, Mr. Koenig encouraged and supported a very detailed discussion of the potential for a new or renovated City Hall and the potential replacement of the City warehouse, noting that the City’s land is now tight and there may be some interested purchasers of City land. Stating that the budget picture seemed to be improving, Mr. Koenig felt that this was a good opportunity to pivot toward the discussion of replacement with a multi-generational facility. He stated that when discussing a new City Hall, he envisions a 50-to-100-year building. Mr. Koenig advised that some of the appraisals had started coming back and a few more were due by the end of May so that there could be a reasonable discussion of the building values at a meeting of the President’s Counsel. Costs of replacing City Hall could start to be crystallized and there could be discussion about how to project a path forward. Mr. Koenig stated that Mrs. Mitchell had indicated that replacing the City warehouse and garage area or City Hall may require bonding to the level of a referendum. He advised members that, rather than bogging the budget discussion down with this debate, staff had set those projects off to the side but was beginning to crystallize their thoughts. Mr. Koenig felt that this discussion would progress in FY 17 without a lot of associated cost. He indicated that costs would be identified, at the earliest, in the revisions to the FY 17 budget; however, he felt it was more realistic to expect this in FY 18. Mr. Sudler questioned if the Ridgely property appraisal had come back and, if not, when it was expected. In response, Mr. Koenig stated that he had discussed the Ridgely property with a specific property owner and a request regarding this property had not been made before the President’s Counsel. He explained that a property owner/developer had approached him and asked if the City may be interested in evaluating a vacant property for a new City facility, such as a warehouse. The property is located on Ridgely Street along the railroad tracks and is potentially for sale. Mr. Koenig stated that this appraisal had not yet been authorized, but as the other appraisals come back, it may be authorized shortly. Personnel Information Referring to the Personnel Summary (page 57), Mr. Koenig stated that it was proposed to reduce employees in Customer Services from 14 to 13 by moving one (1) position to the Key Accounts in the Electric Department. He indicated that this employee will help manage large electric customers initially and will gravitate toward helping to interact with large electric and water/sewer utility customers. Mr. Koenig believed this was important because of the desire to understand the needs of larger customers as they relate to utilities and potential expansion or jobs. For example, he indicated that it is important to understand the advantages of having Kraft as a customer and this facility’s demands when looking at their energy profile. In this way, the City can find out how Kraft can be helped in managing their cost from a supply standpoint, and Kraft can help staff know their needs from the City as a provider. Mr. Koenig stated that the City had been encouraged through the Chamber of Commerce to meet with its large customers. When talking to the five (5) largest customers individually, it was seen that they are very different entities with different needs and desires related to electric supply and power cost. One (1) of the roles of the Key Accounts person would be to identify specific needs from a utility demand standpoint and determine how to encourage these customers. Mr. Koenig advised that this relates to energy efficiency, noting that the City desires efficiency to improve and receive credit for it in the regulatory and permitting process, but

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 16 also wants to be prepared for the potential impact of that efficiency on revenues, load, time of day, etc. The Key Accounts employee will help to interface with these customers and, in the long run, this will also happen with water, sewer, etc. Mr. Koenig stated that Facilities Management employees would decrease from seven (7) to five (5) due to the retirement of two (2) long-term employees and the privatization of those jobs. A contractor was now performing this function, this service would remain a private contract for the immediate future, and the City could realize the benefits of reduced cost and equal or better service. Mr. Koenig advised that the total number of personnel in the General Fund would decrease from 277 to 274, the Electric Fund would increase from 47 to 48, and the Water/Wastewater Fund was proposed to remain flat for full-time equivalents. In regard to part-time employees, Mr. Koenig pointed out that four (4) part-time employees were listed under the City Manager’s Office, explaining that they were Comcast employees who are brought in to videotape meetings. The number of part-time, on-call dispatchers was being increased due to the need for a larger selection of employees. Mr. Koenig advised that the budget, as prepared, assumed no changes to the five (5) full-time and three (3) part-time employees in the Fire Department, noting that there had not been public discussion about potential changes at the Fire Department. Mr. Koenig reminded members that the Operational and Administrative Analysis - Dover Fire Department - Final Report - March 2016 recommended a timeline and step-through process to implement changes. For example, Mr. Koenig indicated that if Council decided to have discussions related to this report in June or July 2016, some actions could be implemented in FY 17 that may or may not be related to personnel. He indicated that Council could lay out an action plan to implement suggestions over several budgets. Mr. Koenig believed that the report referenced changes between six (6) months and three (3) years. He stated that some of the discussion relates to contractual obligations, such as ambulance service, noting that the City has a current contract for these services, and when it expires a more detailed national RFP was recommended that would be beneficial to the City. Mr. Koenig advised that the draft budget also assumes a status quo in the Police Department, and none of the suggestions or discussions related to the operational evaluation of the Police Department were included. Mr. Koenig stated that he would meet with the Police Chief next week to discuss the working draft of the Police Department operational evaluation and would forward comments to the consultant, who would submit the operational document for future debate. In the Finance Department, Mr. Koenig noted that there was a reduction of one (1) part-time person. He explained that in the initial FY 17 budget discussion, it was proposed to hire a part-time person to help prepare the budget. This position was removed to help close the gap in the budget; however, from a strategic and succession planning standpoint, Mr. Koenig recommended a full-time staff budget person be added to the FY 18 budget, noting that the budget was taking a lot of time and resources from the Finance Department. Referring to Electric Engineering, Mr. Koenig stated that Mr. Maloney had requested to obtain a co- op student from a regional college who wants to be a power supply engineer and anticipates having a career in municipal power supply. He stated that Mr. Maloney’s experience using co-op students and training them to be power supply engineers on municipal systems had been positive. It was

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 17 hoped that these individuals would return as full-time engineers for less money than they would make in the private sector because they have an interest in public power or serving their community. Mr. Koenig indicated that if a co-op student was found that suits the City’s need, they would be hired; if not, there would be no expense. In response to Mr. Lewis’s request for clarification regarding the Substance Abuse Grant and the Police Cadet Grant, Mr. Koenig explained that the Substance Abuse Grant is part of the Parks and Recreation Budget. In regard to the Police Cadet Grant, he advised that six (6) cadets are associated with the police cadet program, and three (3) additional cadets are associated with and are funded by the Dover Public Library budget and provide security there. Mr. Koenig believed that the Police Department rotates everyone through those positions; however, six (6) positions are covered by a grant. Mr. Lewis questioned if the increase in the library budget was because of the three (3) cadets. In response, Mr. Koenig stated that it was not. Mayor Christiansen advised that there was a cost savings of approximately $6.00 or $9.00 per hour when the cadets replaced the private security firm that operated in the library previously. Mr. Lewis questioned if more than six (6) cadets would be hired through the grant or if this was all that was presently allowed. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that a total of nine (9) cadets were funded. As those positions come open, the Police Department actively recruits to try to keep a full complement. He indicated that six (6) cadets are funded under the grant and the other three (3) are funded from the library budget. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, explained that the Substance Abuse Grant has two (2) programs, an after school program at Towne Point Elementary School and Camp Small Wonder at Delaware State University. There are 10 employees that perform after school care at Towne Point and they are grant funded. Referring to Personnel Budget - Total Budget by Fund (page 58), Mr. Koenig indicated that the anticipated personnel budget to provide service to the City’s customers would be $36,044,200 based on input across all departments, grants, and funds. Mr. Lewis questioned the reason for the amount of overtime listed for Civilian Police. In response, Mr. Koenig stated that the majority of the overtime was related to 24/7 dispatch and Information Technology (IT) for system upgrades, etc. Referring to Overtime Comparison - Fiscal Year 2014 - 2017 (page 59), Mr. Koenig stated that this document provided details on overtime over the past few years. Mr. Slavin questioned what kind of variances are allowed in a department’s budgets for overtime, what kind of warnings are extended in regard to potential overages in overtime, and how the numbers in the budget are managed. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that this is left to the manager of the department. The departments typically look at the monthly budget reports and an overtime report is sent out through the Finance Department. Mr. Koenig indicated that there are flags in the

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 18 monthly reports when looking at some of the department roll-ups. When there are storms, staff looks at Public Works to see how they are tracking, and he noted that some of the overtime this year was driven by storms. Mr. Koenig advised that, even with the cost associated with overtime this year as well as contract implementations, staff had been able to contain total personnel cost close to the original budget across the board. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the City's current HTE system allows for being locked down to keep from going over a budget, but once this is done, it locks everything down without a threshold, so this feature had not been put in place. She indicated that any line item could go over budget and there are no controls. It is up to each department to manage to their budget. Revenue Review Mr. Slavin suggested the Revenue Review be deferred until the budget review scheduled for May 25, 2016. Mr. Hosfelt questioned if the 2.5% pay raise built into the budget for non-bargaining employees was an average of what Dover Organization of Employees (DOE) and the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) received. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that he could prepare a written explanation of how staff developed this recommendation the following day. He indicated that it was a combination of looking at the union contracts and reviewing data regarding what other municipalities were offering. Responding to Mr. Hosfelt regarding whether this 2.5% increase would pertain to the office of the Mayor, Mr. Koenig stated that it would not because the Mayor's salary is prescribed in Code. Mr. Hosfelt stated his belief that the Mayor's salary was $50,000 at one point and was then cut to $45,000. In response, Mr. Koenig stated that the Mayor's salary is $45,000 and there is also a $5,000 expense account. He was unsure if the salary had ever been $50,000. Mr. Hare stated his belief that the Mayor’s salary had been $45,000 since 1997. In response to Mr. Hosfelt, Mr. Koenig advised that, to his knowledge, the Mayor’s salary had not been increased since 1997. Mr. Hosfelt questioned if the Fire Department was authorized at five (5) full-time employees or if this was the number of current employees. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that the budget included five (5) full-time dispatchers and one (1) part-time Fire Chief’s Assistant, noting that additional people can be called for dispatch. Mr. Hosfelt asked if there was a long-range plan in regard to City buildings and property. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated there was a plan dated 2006 - 2016, and no update to that plan had been authorized by Council. Some of the recommendations and ideas in this plan were being used as a framework by the President’s Counsel on Public/Private Partnerships and the Future of City Hall, Weyandt Hall, Former Dover Library, and Other City Properties. Mr. Koenig indicated that there was currently no long-range facilities plan developed by staff. Mr. Hosfelt questioned if such a plan would be a staff or Council responsibility. Responding, Mr. Koenig advised that it would be a combination of both and would be a major undertaking that would provide foundation documents to make decisions. Mr. Koenig indicated that Council could

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 19 request staff to initiate that process. Mr. Sudler encouraged Council to work with staff to come up with a comprehensive long-term plan for City facilities. Mr. Anderson questioned if a new collections firm was being considered in regard to Customer Service and the electric utility. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that there would be a recommendation from the Assistant City Manager for a new collection agency at the next Council Committee of the Whole meeting. He expressed his hope that this would be authorized by Council so that the new agent could begin after the start of the next fiscal year. Mr. Koenig understood, according to the RFP, that there would not be a direct charge to the City and the customer would receive an added fee if collection is successful. He did not believe that the City would have to pay a retainer fee. Mr. Anderson asked if there were any changes related to the long-term Silver Lake/Mirror Lake/St. Jones River reclamation project. Mr. Koenig stated that, in recent years, Mr. Rick Greene, Engineer, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), had been working with staff on water quality issues associated with Mirror Lake. All the improvements related to this project were performed under a grant and the City did not have to contribute financially. Mr. Koenig advised that Mr. Greene had also worked with staff on the tar ditch project and the abandonment of old PW2 to help with documentation of potential contaminants in the storm drain system and the river. He noted that Mr. Greene is one of the advocates at the State level for the City removing existing piping, making improvements in the area, and creating a wetland that will help improve the water quality of the St. Jones River south of the dam. In regard to Silver Lake improvements, Mr. Koenig stated that there were discussions years ago related to alum treatment, nitrogen loading, etc. for the lake, but those discussions had fallen off and he was not aware of current discussions. He noted that work was either in progress or being proposed related to the valve at the Silver Lake dam, and there would also be enhancements to the earth dam there. Mr. Koenig advised there are a number of projects loosely tied to improvement of the water quality in both the St. Jones River and Silver Lake. He indicated that at one time there was discussion of having a limnologist associated with either DNREC or the City, but this discussion had been low key over recent years and he did not have an update. Mr. Anderson questioned when people would be able to swim in Silver Lake consistently again. Mr. Koenig stated that he did not have that answer. Referring to General Fund - Cash Receipt Summary (page 25), Mr. Lewis noted that some items were pending approval of the State budget, for example, Municipal Street Aid Transfer Tax. He questioned what staff’s plan was if this revenue was not received as anticipated. In response, Mr. Koenig stated that this question had been looming since the last budget. To staff’s knowledge, in regard to municipal street aid and community transportation, the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) was proposing the same level of spending for FY 17 as in FY 16. Mr. Koenig advised that Mrs. Cheryl Bundek, Tax Assessor, met with Mr. Thomas Cook, Secretary of Finance, to try to gauge what may happen in regard to Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT). The number from the State to the City was approximately $283,000 and the recommendation was to keep this figure flat. Mr. Koenig noted that it should not be expected to increase and that there was a very low chance of it being decreased; therefore, that figure was included in the budget. Mr. Koenig

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 20 explained that staff was most concerned about the realty transfer tax, noting that the tax is currently split 50/50 with the City receiving 1.5% and the State receiving 1.5%. Mr. Koenig recalled that 3% was proposed last year, with the State receiving 2% and the City receiving 1%, which would have been a potential loss of $600,000 for the City. Mr. Koenig stated that, after speaking with legislators, it did not seem likely that this proposal would be reconsidered. Mr. Koenig advised that, on May 23, 2016, the Delaware Economic and Financial Advisory Council (DEFAC) projected an approximate $71M or $72M shortfall for the State in FY 17. He advised that there were some changes in revenue transfer from the State to local law enforcement, resulting in $25,000 in radio fees in the police budget, which was included as a City cost. Mr. Koenig stated that the Police Chief had also indicated that federal forfeiture funds were being consumed by the federal government. Following discussion in January 2016 regarding this issue, there had been a ruling from the Attorney General’s Office that these federal forfeiture funds would be reinstated to local law enforcement based on the previous schedule, after applying and showing need. Mr. Koenig indicated that, although some of the discussion anticipated that this funding would not be available, it appears as though it may. In regard to developing an alternate plan, Mr. Koenig stated that if no Community Transportation Fund (CTF) money comes to the City, the City would have $900,000 to do street paving. If the $673,100 for municipal street aid is adjusted, this could potentially reduce the street program or to street related maintenance. If the realty transfer tax is adjusted by $600,000, Mr. Koenig indicated that he would have to recommend reducing the street program by $600,000. He advised that every indication is that the State revenue streams appear to be on track. Mr. Slavin stated that members were very cognizant of the possibility of last minute changes, noting that adoption of the FY 17 budget was scheduled for June 27, 2016, which is a few days short of the end of the legislative session. Mr. Lewis stated that he would like to know that the City has an alternative plan. Responding, Mr. Slavin indicated that less money would mean doing less. Mayor Christiansen advised members that he would be in attendance Legislative Hall and asked available Council members, as well as the Delaware League of Local Governments, to be attend to lobby the legislators, particularly those from upstate. He indicated that he had total confidence that local legislators would fight for every dollar that they could get. Mr. Slavin invited members of the public to come forward to speak. There was no one wishing to speak. Mr. Lewis moved to recess and reconvene at 6:00 p.m. on May 25, 2016. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. The meeting recessed at 8:44 p.m.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 21 WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 2016 - 6:00 - 9:00 p.m. The Special Council Meeting - Budget Review reconvened on May 25, 2016 at 6:01 p.m. with Council President Slavin presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sudler (arrived at 6:21 p.m.), Mr. Neil, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Cole, Mr. Hosfelt, Mr. Hare, and Mr. Hutchison. Council staff members present were Mrs. Mitchell, Mr. Koenig, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Christiansen was also present (arrived at 6:05 p.m.). Mr. Neil moved to reconvene, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Hutchison moved for approval of the agenda, as revised. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, reviewed his memorandum dated May 25, 2016, regarding Non-Bargaining Pay Increase Recommendation - FY 2017 Budget (Exhibit #5). He noted that Mr. Hosfelt had requested more detailed information on the recommendation for a 2.5% increase in base pay for non-bargaining employees and explained the internal and external comparisons that were made. In response to questions during the previous budget review session regarding costs associated with recycling and landfill fees, Mr. Koenig advised that the cost of the City’s current contract with Inland Service Corporation for recycling is $1.21 per can, per pick-up. Assuming two (2) pick-ups per month at a house with one (1) can, the cost would be $2.42 per month. Mr. Koenig indicated that the Delaware Solid Waste Authority (DSWA) gate fee at the Sandtown Landfill is currently $80.50 per ton. He stated that the City uses a company called E Z Mulch for yard waste. Mr. Koenig noted that E Z Mulch uses a scale; however, because it is not currently operational, the City pays $50 per load regardless of weight. He noted that it is to the City’s advantage to maximize the trucks within their operating parameters. Mr. Koenig noted that this number would increase from $50 to $150 at the City’s next billing because that company re-evaluated their pricing. He stated that even at $150 per load, this would be less expensive than driving the waste to Sandtown due to fuel and operating costs. In response to Mr. Hare, Mr. Koenig stated that there was not a fee for recycling with DSWA. Mr. Neil asked if recycling was based on the number of homes or the actual number of containers collected, noting that some residents in his community recycle less frequently than twice a month. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that the contract is based on the number of containers so if a subdivision has 280 houses with 280 cans, the City pays $280 x $1.21 x 2 in a regular month regardless of the frequency or amount collected at each home. In response to Mr. Anderson regarding raises granted to retirees over the last 10 years, Mr. Koenig stated that, to his knowledge, employees in the General Employee Pension Plan had not received any Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) or other adjustment to their retirement payout from the City. He indicated that the City owns the liability for a closed Police Pension Plan that has a built-in 2%

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 22 annual escalator and members of this plan receive an annual 2% increase, stating his belief that this occurs on January 1st each year. Mr. Hare noted that, although there is no COLA built into the General Employee Pension Plan, members have not been charged for increases in retirement health care or Medicare Part B, so he felt that members were receiving an increase. Mr. Hare believed that if these individuals wanted to receive a COLA, their cost for health care should be increased as the City’s costs increase. Mrs. Mitchell reminded members that a question had been raised during the previous session about what utility taxes were used for and whether an administrative fee could be charged. Mr. Slavin clarified that this utility tax, which is assessed by the State, is collected by the City from every customer and the aggregate amount collected is passed back to the State. He noted that he had questioned if there could be a mark up or if the City could retain some of this tax for its own use. Mrs. Mitchell advised that she spoke with the State of Delaware Public Advocate, Mr. David Bonar, who explained that this tax is used to pay for Public Service Commission administrative offices and the Public Advocate’s office, and the bulk of it goes to support the general fund. He was unable to advise Mrs. Mitchell if the City could charge an administration fee but provided her a contact in the Department of Finance. Mrs. Mitchell indicated that she left a message but not heard back yet. She also advised that the utility cost pertains only to certain commercial customers. Members were provided the General Fund Expenses by Department/Division - General Fund Expenses by Major Function (page 1), General Fund Expenses by Major Function (page 2), and Projected Cost Per Capita by Function (page 3) (Exhibit #6). Mrs. Mitchell reminded members that Mayor Christiansen had requested a breakdown of the percentage of the budget represented by the Police Department and Fire Department on Pages 28 and 30 of the draft budget. She explained that pages 2 and 3 provided this information. Mrs. Mitchell noted that the major functions (pages 28 and 30) had been grouped in accordance with the recommendations of the Government Financial Officers Association (GFOA) for award submissions. She advised that the GFOA wants categories grouped by function without the details. Members were provided Outlays and Receipts for Governmental Activities (Exhibit #7) that listed City Functions/Programs. Mrs. Mitchell advised that this list was grouped differently from the GFOA recommendations and correlated with the charts on Pages 16 and 17 of the draft budget, which are used in the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Mayor Christiansen stated that he did not intend to question the way this information had been presented; however, for purposes of showing the value and effect of each department, the revised graphs provided a better and clearer breakdown for himself and for Council. Members were provided the City of Dover Electric Revenue Fund - FY 16 - White Oak Solar Park Incremental Cost report (Exhibit #8). Mrs. Mitchell advised that this was provided in response to Mr. Hare’s questions regarding the expense of the Dover Sun Park. She noted that budget numbers from the current year were included in the last column of the report.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 23 Revenue Review Members were provided the Fiscal Year July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016 Quarterly Revenue Report as of March 31, 2016 (Exhibit #9). Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, stated that this quarterly report is provided to Council and noted that a new Proposed FY 17 column had been included. He indicated that the largest revenue stream for the General Fund is property taxes. Mr. Koenig reiterated that staff does a good job of calculating taxes and expectations and removing exemptions granted to project the primary driver for the General Fund. He explained that Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) relates to a group of properties, with the State’s payment being approximately $283,000 of the $413,000. Mr. Koenig stated that staff had some concerns with this revenue stream at the State level but had met with the Secretary of Finance and believed it would maintained at the $283,000 level for FY 17. He indicated that PILOT also includes payments from the Housing Authority, Luther Towers, and Milford Housing Development Corporation. In regard to Transfer from Electric Fund (line 3), Mr. Koenig stated that the $10M transfer from the Electric Fund to the General Fund represents the second largest source of funding received in the General Fund. He advised that staff is cautious when projecting Transfer from the Transfer Tax Fund (line 5), noting that just under $2.1M in revenue was expected in FY 16 and $1.67M was being earmarked for FY 17. Mr. Koenig noted that staff had reviewed and analyzed large receipts for the last three (3) years and was being very conservative with this number. Mr. Koenig indicated that this number had been as high as mid-$3M in past budget discussions and had also been as low as approximately $1M, which contributed to the City’s budget gap. Referring to Business Licenses (line 6), Mr. Koenig stated that this number reflected changes made in this fiscal year in anticipation of licensing revenue of $4.67M for FY 17. He noted that Sanitation fees (line 8) were projected at $2.5M. In regard to Transfer from Municipal Street Aid (line 10), Mr. Koenig advised that staff expected the formula for this State transfer to remain the same and the City would receive approximately $673,000. He explained that the funding formula takes approximately $5M and distributes it among all municipalities in the State based on population and road mileage. Mr. Koenig stated that the City’s population had been increasing, noting that street dedications periodically approved by Council are included in the City’s submissions for funding. He indicated that Police Extra Duty Fees (line 12) and Transfer from Police Grant Funds (line 13) were covered in other parts of the budget. With reference to Court of Chancery Fees (line 14), Mr. Koenig stated that staff had traditionally been conservative with these budget estimates and the departments are encouraged to stay within the estimated revenues. In regard to Transfer from Water/Wastewater Fund (line 15), Mr. Koenig stated that there was an $875,000 transfer from this fund, noting that the internal rate of return from the water and sewer utility to the General Fund was slowly increasing. He advised that a total of approximately $42.26M in General Fund Revenues was expected. In reviewing the Revenues for the Water/Wastewater Fund, Mr. Koenig stated that staff was monitoring final revenue calculations from Calpine and approximately $15.467M in total revenue was expected from all revenue streams in the utility. He commented that quite a bit of funding is received from water tower leases, and staff diligently reviews leases and requests for changes.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 24 Mr. Koenig hoped that additional cell carriers would express interest in the newly constructed Garrison water tower over time. With the regard to the Electric Fund, Mr. Koenig advised that the largest source of revenue was sales to customers at $78.99M, and the total revenue estimate was $81.259M. Responding to Mr. Hutchison, Mr. Koenig advised that the $283,000 PILOT payment from the State had remained at that level for some time, with small fluctuations related to the value of construction submitted to the State for review. He noted that funds are divided between the three (3) county seats: the City of Wilmington, City of Dover, and City of Georgetown. Mr. Koenig stated that the amount has fluctuated but remains in the $300,000 range. Mr. Anderson questioned the reason that interest income had increased in the General Fund and decreased in the enterprise funds. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell advised that bank fees are no longer netted against this income. She also explained that the General Fund had benefitted from a higher investment balance, the Water/Wastewater Fund had the lowest investment balance, and the Electric Fund balance was increasing. Mrs. Mitchell indicated that the current interest rate is approximately 0.76%. She pointed out that Interest Income for the Water/Wastewater Fund (line 8) reflected a negative $1,800, which was an accounting error that was corrected in April; however, the report was dated as of March 31, 2016. In response to Mr. Anderson regarding the true figure for interest income, Mrs. Mitchell estimated it at $10,000. Mayor Christiansen advised members that, at the end of the legislative session last year, Senator Bushweller requested a modification of the PILOT monies that the City was to receive. He stated that there was an issue with the request because the City of Newark also wanted to be included in the formula for these funds. Mayor Christiansen indicated that he would keep Council apprised if the formula changed or if Senator Bushweller’s proposal is passed in the legislature. Referring to Budget Review - Fiscal Year 2016-2017 (page 202), Mr. Koenig began a review of the individual department budgets. In regard to What You Need to Know (page 203), Mr. Koenig stated that percentage changes were calculated based on the original FY 16 budgets and would not match up with FY 16 revised budgets. He indicated that health insurance rates would increase by approximately 7.67%. Mr. Koenig stated that Other Post-Employment Benefit (OPEB) rates decreased due to paying toward OPEB in past budgets and also reviewing pension funds. Pension rates decreased in the Electric Fund because this pension fund was closer to being fully funded. Mr. Hare stated that the City had not obtained a cost comparison to see if the City’s health insurance rates were the best available, noting that he mentioned this during the budget review last year. Responding, Mr. Koenig advised that a Request for Proposals (RFP) had not been done; however, staff had obtained additional information from Kent County regarding their most recent health insurance. He expected to have a handout in this regard at the next budget review session on May 27, 2016. Mr. Koenig noted that the City was on the State contract for insurance. In response to Mr. Hare regarding the amount of the education assistance expense, Mr. Koenig stated that he would have to obtain that number. Mr. Hare questioned if the education must be associated

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 25 with the employee’s job. Mr. Koenig indicated that there must be a logical connection to what the employee does for the City. He noted that a number of police officers were receiving criminal justice or managerial education and some employees were pursuing a Master’s Degree in management. Mr. Koenig advised that a handful of employees in the total organization receive educational assistance. Once reimbursed for a course, employees who leave within a two (2) year period must reimburse the City the funds received for course work, so there is an ongoing commitment to continue employment with the City. He noted that a relatively low number of employees take advantage of this benefit because going back to school is a large time commitment. Responding to Mr. Lewis regarding the maximum the City will pay for education assistance, Mr. Koenig stated that he believed the policy states that the University of Delaware rate is the maximum amount paid. He indicated that there is also a maximum number of courses that can be taken over the course of a year and very few can achieve this maximum while maintaining a full-time job. He estimated that the maximum reimbursement request had been approximately $10,0000 - $12,000. Mr. Koenig believed that the maximum payment made in a year was less than that. Mr. Koenig began the review of the General Fund departmental budgets. Referring to City Council (page 206), he explained that the increase in administrative expenditures related to a request to budget $25,000 in discretionary funds for Council members, including $5,000 per district and $5,000 for the at-large Council member. There was also a request from the Dover Human Relations Commission (DHRC) to increase their authorization by $1,000. Mr. Koenig noted that rules had not yet been written about how members would go about requesting funds. Council President Slavin advised that he requested that discretionary funds be placed in the budget in order for Council members to respond more quickly to the needs in their districts. While this was nominal amount, Mr. Slavin indicated that it could be used for minor capital improvements, neighborhood associations, speed enforcement signs, or other things that are needed. He had asked the City Manager to prepare an allocation by district on street repaving and Public Works projects where Council could have a little more discretion to direct projects into their districts based on what they know to be critical needs. Mr. Slavin indicated that this would not take away from the needs determined by Public Works, but Council would be additional eyes and would perhaps know the districts a little more acutely than others, especially issues needing quick attention. Mr. Anderson concurred with the idea, noting that a number of local governments have discretionary items. He stated that issues frequently arise, such as the problem on Buttner Place where the road was damaging cars and there was flooding. This was a small, inexpensive repair that made a real difference in people’s lives. Mr. Anderson also referenced a pothole in Lincoln Park off Slaughter Street and noted that having funds to replace missing speed limit signs or for radar enforcement made a lot of sense, rather than having to ask State legislators and others for funding. In response to Mr. Sudler regarding the criteria for these funds, Mr. Slavin stated that Council would have to decide; however, he hoped that members would prohibit its use for food, travel, and other expenses so that the funds would go directly to expenses for district improvements.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 26 Mayor Christiansen asked if Council’s budget included funds to participate in the Delaware League of Local Governments (DLLG) and National League of Cities (NLC) for training purposes. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated his belief that this was included in the training and travel area and there may be funds in subscriptions and dues. Mr. Anderson indicated that funds had been budgeted but not broken out by name. Mayor Christiansen believed it was important for the Mayor and Council to participate in DLLG as well as NLC. Mr. Sudler asked City Council last received a raise and in what amount. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that the Dover Code states that each member of Council shall receive an annual salary of $7,416 to be paid monthly. For the period beginning July 27, 2009 and ending July 26, 2010, each Council member shall receive an annual salary of $6,674.40 to be paid monthly. Mr. Koenig noted that Council decreased their pay in 2009 when an employee furlough was instituted. He advised that the Code specified that the Council President shall receive an annual salary of $8,652 to be paid monthly, and this was adjusted during the furlough time period to $7,786.80. Mr. Koenig stated that the Code states that Council members shall also receive reimbursement of actual and necessary expenses incurred when on official business as prescribed by ordinance or policy. Mr. Slavin recalled that prior to 2003 there was a clause that allowed for Council’s salary to increase automatically and this escalator was removed. He noted that the Compensation Commission was later created, and he believed that the procedure is that the Compensation Commission meets, reviews the market, and makes recommendations on any adjustments necessary; however, there must be an intervening election between approving and implementing the raise. Mr. Slavin advised that Council could not vote themselves an increase but must have an election in between so that a new Council would be seated and receive the benefit. Mr. Sudler questioned how members could raise their salaries, due to the extensive time and work they put in as Councilmen. In response, Mr. Slavin indicated that Council would have to ask the Compensation Commission to look at this issue and make a recommendation to Council. If the recommendation was to raise the pay, Council would have to take action on that. If accepted, this would not go into effect until after an election. In regard to the provision of an intervening election, Mr. Slavin stated that, technically, after each election a new Council is seated, whether or not all the members remain the same. Mr. Sudler expressed his understanding that the next regular election would be in 2017 and questioned if members would have to put a raise into effect prior to this. Responding, Mr. Slavin indicated that a raise would not got into effect until after this election. Mrs. McDowell stated that the last time the Compensation Commission made a recommendation was September 20, 2011, and they recommended no increase for City Council nor the Mayor. Mr. Sudler questioned whether an explanation was provided. Responding, Mrs. McDowell advised that the commission’s explanation was that “in reviewing this matter, the Commission found that current Council salaries are very similar to compensation at the current federal minimum wage level for a half-time 20 hour per week position and there was no empirical data or overwhelming public

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 27 sentiment that demonstrated that change was indicated. Current levels for City Council remain unchanged.” Mr. Sudler questioned how part time was defined. He acknowledged that Council meets part time, but felt that the amount of time spent addressing concerns varies with each district and asked if there was a specific time frame for the individual Council districts. Mrs. McDowell stated that a survey was created for outgoing Council members to evaluate the amount time they spend on activities and meetings. In response to when the last time the survey was implemented, Ms. McDowell stated that it was sent to the most recent outgoing Council members. Ms. Denise Devine, Assistant City Clerk, advised that the survey is included in the orientation packet provided to new members when they begin serving. New members are advised to be aware of how much time they are spending because they will be expected to complete the survey after the term. She indicated that those surveys would be given to the Compensation Commission if they are called. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Devine confirmed that members would submit this survey at the end of their four (4) year term. Mrs. McDowell stated that staff could send this form to members as frequently as they would like, noting that the response rate is not very high. Mr. Sudler indicated that he spends a tremendous amount of time. Mr. Anderson felt that an annual survey would make sense. Mr. Slavin stated that if Mr. Anderson would like the Compensation Commission to consider this issue, members may want to place it on the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee agenda in July. In response, Mr. Sudler requested that compensation be reviewed. Mr. Anderson suggested that members take appointments to the Compensation Commission seriously if this was to be done, noting that he had not made a recommendation for appointment but should do so. In response, Mr. Slavin indicated that he would ask the City Clerk to send a reminder to members that recommendations were needed for the Compensation Commission from each Council member, noting the Councilman Lewis had made a recommendation. Mr. Lewis and Mr. Neil each stated that the individual they recommended had been appointed to the Commission, and Mr. Neil indicated that he had spent time studying this issue. Responding to Mr. Sudler regarding the process for appointing individuals recommended by members, Mr. Slavin stated that members can make recommendations for individuals that they would like to see appointed from their districts. In regard to the Mayor’s salary, Mr. Koenig stated that Code identified the Mayor’s salary at $45,000 annually, noting that it was also decreased to $44,100 during the time frame of the employee furlough. He advised that the Code states that the Mayor shall receive an expense allotment of up to $5,000 to be included in the City’s annual budget. Mr. Koenig noted that the salary was set at $45,000 when the City went to a full-time Mayor in 1994 and has remained at that amount. Mr. Hosfelt stated his understanding that a change to the Mayor’s salary would be made through a change to the City’s charter. Responding, Mr. Slavin stated that the Mayor’s salary must be reviewed by the Compensation Commission as well.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 28 Mr. Hosfelt questioned if the City could change the charter. Responding, Mr. Slavin stated that the charter changes must go through the General Assembly. Mr. Anderson stated his belief that Mayor’s salary was a Code issue, which would be in Council’s purview. Mr. Lewis questioned if more clarification would be provided regarding the $5,000 discretionary funds. In response, Mr. Slavin asked members to send their ideas about what these funds should and should not be used for, which would help to shape the rules, indicating this would be the decision of Council. He believed that this would become part of the Code or a policy. Referring to City Manager (page 207), Mr. Koenig stated that the large percentage of increase in materials and supplies was attributed to the replacement of two (2) computers in the office. He stated the increase in administrative expenditures was related to an increase of approximately $19,000 in legal expenses, which was offset by a reduction in contractual services. Mr. Koenig reminded members that $100,000 had been included in the current year’s budget for a study and next year approximately $5,000 was anticipated to be spent for LEAN related consulting. There was an overall reduction of approximately 12% in the City Manager’s budget, which he stated was slightly distorted because of the study in the current year. In reference to Procurement and Inventory (page 211), Mr. Koenig indicated personnel costs were going up slightly and this division was influenced more by union contracts than some other areas. In regard to Materials and Supplies, Mr. Koenig noted that a number of department heads had deferred computer purchases in previous budget years to help balance their budgets. He stated that this involves risk because a number of computers may fail or need to be fixed at the same time. Mr. Koenig stated that departments had been requested to return to a replacement schedule or develop a path forward to do so; therefore, additional computer replacements were in the proposed budget. Mr. Slavin asked if the number of internal service calls made for older computers correlated with those that have not been maintained. Responding, Mr. Koenig advised that he was unsure. He explained that there is a life cycle replacement schedule and some offices have a more critical need than others, noting that he could wait a day if his computer went down but some offices would not want to do so. Mr. Koenig stated that replacement of computers is not triggered by the schedule, explaining that system upgrades and problems caused to the department are considered. Mr. Koenig stated that there was an overall increase of 4% in operating expenses for this department. In reviewing Fire (page 212), Mr. Koenig noted that the transfer appropriation to Robbins Hose Company was increased last year by $50,000 per the request of the Fire Chief. Mr. Koenig advised that he administratively rolled that back this year to the FY 15 budget level. It was recommended that the capital expense for Engine 7 replacement not be included in the budget. Mr. Koenig explained that the capital outlay will remain the same because there would be $145,700 for payments on existing equipment. The total expenditure for the Fire Department would be decreased by approximately 3%; however, this would include maintaining the dispatch and administrative functions at the Fire Department.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 29 In regard to the personnel costs of $437,700, Mr. Hare questioned if this related to five (5) employees. In response, Mr. Koenig referred to Fire Department (page 248) - 110-1400-514, pointing out that all associated employment costs are included in the 10 series line items, resulting in a total expense of $437,700. Mr. Anderson questioned the reason for the decrease in contractual services for the Fire Department compared to the previous year. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that discussion of additional money had occurred during the previous year between the Fire Chief and the Controller/Treasurer regarding increased maintenance costs associated with equipment. At that time, Mrs. Mitchell requested the Fire Chief to submit a request and support documentation. The Fire Department submitted a one (1) page letter with no documentation, which went through the Council authorization process. Mr. Koenig explained that no support documentation was submitted this year to warrant continuing the level of funding from last year. The budget recommendation for FY 17 was the result of an administrative decision at Mr. Koenig’s level. Fire Chief Carleton Carey, Jr. stated that he did not have an option, and when they sat down to do the budget for FY 17, $50,000 was removed. He stated that there was arguing about the engine, which Chief Carey stated he had asked about in January and went through the process of getting it done. He indicated that he did not fight this battle because he was losing the battle on other issues. Chief Carey advised that he did not want to get into this. Responding to Mr. Sudler as to why he felt he did not have an option, Chief Carey stated that he was told that he was not able to keep the $50,000 because it was misused the previous year. He advised that when he investigated further, he found that it was not misused because Council approved the use of the extra $50,000. Chief Carey indicated that he wanted to keep the $50,000 and would not ask for any more. He stated that he was going to have a line item for everything that they wanted to keep the $50,000 for. Mr. Anderson questioned whether Chief Carey would be able to get this information in 24 hours. Responding, Chief Carey stated that he could provide the information by Friday, May 27, 2016 or the beginning of the following week; however, he indicated that he would not ask for anything now, stating that the Fire Department could survive and operate. Mr. Anderson asked if Chief Carey believed the current budget would adequately protect the citizens, and Chief Carey responded that it absolutely would. Chief Carey stated that the City is a big part of keeping the Department in business and keeping the cost down for everyone in the City. He noted that the Fire Department is considered a career department and receives the exact same training as a career department, but they are volunteers. He stated that the Department had an $8M - $10M membership for zero (0) dollars. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Chief Carey stated that they would prefer to replace an engine rather than upgrade the ladder, which would be approximately $500,000 cheaper. He advised that they would not be looking for another ladder truck for at least another five (5) to eight (8) years.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 30 Chief Carey stated that the Department had a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) plan that they were trying to get back in place. He noted that he met with Mrs. Mitchell around the first of the year to discuss the CIP and he was advised that it would require approval by Mr. Koenig and City Council. Chief Carey noted that, as a returning Chief, he was starting fresh and moving forward. Mr. Anderson expressed his understanding that Chief Carey would prefer to have an engine over the long term. In response, Chief Carey advised that he had to have the $50,000 appropriation for special equipment. Mr. Neil stated that members would be discussing the Operational and Administrative Analysis - Dover Fire Department - Final Report - March 2016 at another time and these questions will be coming up. Mayor Christiansen requested an overview of the administrative expenditures. Responding, Chief Carey believed that the City contributes approximately $1,500 to the pension plan. Mrs. Mitchell stated her recollection that the amount was $1,560, noting that the amount was $60 per volunteer and the Fire Department provides staff with a list of active volunteers. Mayor Christiansen asked if workers’ compensation and insurance were included in these costs. Responding, Mr. Slavin indicated that they were included in personnel costs. Chief Carey stated that Robbins Hose Company contributes more than $40,000. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell stated that these funds were for pension. She indicated that the Fire Department’s insurance cost, maintenance, electricity, and everything needed to run the station were included in administrative expense. Mr. Sudler questioned what the morale for the Fire Department was and what they do for the City. Mr. Slavin asked that this question be deferred. He indicated that budget issues were being discussed and felt that this may lead to possible personnel issues. Mr. Lewis asked how many employees were included in the Fire Department and if this included only dispatchers. Chief Carey advised that employees included strictly dispatchers. He indicated that there are five (5) positions; however, the Department currently had only three (3) dispatchers. Chief Carey indicated that they would go through the testing part of the application process on May 28, 2016. He advised that these are the only employees in the department and they answer emergency and non-emergency calls, take care of the building, and make sure the trucks are running at all times. He stated that they function almost like a career department. Mr. Hare noted that there is also one (1) part-time administrative assistant. Chief Carey confirmed that this employee works 29 hours per week. Chief Carey advised that, as Chief, he worked 42 hours during the first week of May in administrative meetings, 29 hours during the second week, and 33 hours during the past week, not including responding to fires. He advised that he would calculate the total calls and hours at the end of the month to show the hours for Fire Chief. Mr. Koenig reviewed Human Resources (page 213) noting a total net budget increase of 2%. Referring to Human Resources (page 250), Mr. Hare noted that approximately $187,000 was being budgeted for three (3) people and questioned if approximately $84,000 was being contributed to the pension plan. In response, Mr. Koenig advised that the percent of payroll for General Fund

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 31 employees in the defined benefit pension plan was 57% of payroll and two (2) of the three (3) employees in the Human Resources were in this plan. Mr. Hare questioned the percentage of employees in the defined benefit plan versus the deferred plan. Mr. Koenig thought that the number was roughly 50/50 and that it was quickly shifting to more defined contribution than defined benefit employees. He advised that this expense is driven by the plan selected by the employee and would vary by department. Mr. Hare stated that he would like to have a breakdown of this information. In reviewing Library (page 215), Mr. Koenig stated that personnel costs in the Dover Public Library were influenced by two (2) labor agreements. He explained that administrative expenditures would increase due to converting from personnel to a cleaning contract and expanding service for cleaning at the library due to the amount of usage. Mr. Koenig stated that over the last few years, the City converted to privatized cleaning at the library and gravitated away from privatized security to the cadet program. Mr. Hosfelt questioned why one (1) full-time position was not budgeted for all year in FY 16 in the library. Mr. Koenig stated that, although some positions had been modified through downgrading and upgrading, the total head count should not have gone up in the library. Mrs. Mitchel indicated that she would research this issue. In reference to Parks and Recreation (page 216), Mr. Koenig explained that capital outlay was driving this budget, noting that improvements were planned for Schutte Park and Dover Park. These projects were outlined in the capital plan and were driving a budget increase of approximately 25%. In regard to the $52,000 increase in administrative expenses for the library due to the new custodial contract, Mr. Hutchison asked if this would be $52,000 per year. Mr. Koenig stated that it would be yearly and noted that part of the increase was attributed to the custodial expense being moved from Facilities Management’s budget to the Library’s budget. Because the cleaning hours are defined at the library, the cost of that contractual service is charged directly to the library, so some of the increase was due to an accounting change over time. Mr. Koenig advised that all janitorial services related to a specific building are being charged to a specific budget. For example, the Electric Administration building is being charged to the Electric Department budget, the Dover Public Library to the Library budget, and the Police Department to the Police budget. In response to Mr. Hutchison, Mr. Koenig stated that the three (3) cadets at the Dover Public Library are a security feature that comes out of a line item in the library budget. Referring to Library Account 10-13 Temporary Help (page 256), he explained that some temporary help is related to library staff and some to security, which is all being charged to the Temporary Help line item. Mr. Hare questioned if the Police Department had been authorized to replace their janitor. Responding, Mr. Koenig explained that a building craftsperson was assigned janitorial responsibilities at the police station several years ago. There was a request in FY 15 or early FY 16 to convert janitorial service of the public area in front, including the lobby, bathroom, and possibly the public assembly room, to a private contractor because it was too much for the building craftsperson to maintain. Mr. Koenig stated that this was a small contract of approximately $3,000 - $5,000 per year. That craftsperson had since resigned from the City and the janitorial function of

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 32 that position was replaced with a contractor. Mr. Koenig noted that the entire facility was now being cleaned by a contractor, and the Police Chief and staff indicated that they were happy with the contractor. The budget still had the building craftsperson position, which had been rolled back to the initial starting numbers. Mr. Koenig explained that he had not signed off on a permission to recruit because the question of whether the Police Department needed a 40 hour per week building craftsperson in addition to a cleaning service for six (6) or seven (7) days per week remained. He was considering placing the craftsperson position in Facilities and providing service to the Police Department on a work order basis. Mr. Koenig advised that the Police Department and the Police Chief favor the position being in the Police Department because the Chief could then control all the work that this person does related to the facility. Mr. Koenig stated that a decision must be made in this regard within the next week. Mr. Hare questioned if this position could return to being a craftsperson and also perform cleaning. In response, Mr. Koenig stated that there had been a significant enhancement in service at the Police Department and expressed the need to be realistic when debating the budget. He indicated that many things had been done over the past three (3) or four (4) years to expand service at the Police Department, many of which were low key; however, they were driving the General Fund budget. Mr. Koenig noted that the Police Chief had provided him a detailed list of what the building craftsperson does there; however, Mr. Koenig stated that there are just as many needs in other parts of the organization. The actual cleaning portion of the contract was substantially expanded at a cost. Mr. Koenig indicated that if he was trying to contain the Police Department budget in the FY 16 costs, they would not have enough money for this service to expand the janitorial contract and hire the building craftsperson. Mr. Sudler, referring to Parks & Recreation (page 216), questioned why the contribution to the African American Festival was decreased by $3,000. In response, Mr. Koenig stated that decreasing the City’s contribution to the African American Festival was his recommendation, noting that he had made the recommendation that Council consider eliminating this contribution in previous budgets from 2012 to 2015. He advised that the African American Festival was not singled out, explaining that the City had previously contributed to both the Fourth of July Celebration and the African American Festival. Mr. Koenig stated that the $5,000 formerly contributed to the Fourth of July Celebration Committee had been decreased to $0 in previous budgets. Mr. Slavin advised that the Fourth of July Celebration Committee was originally set up as a City committee, funded by the City, and given the responsibility to create private funding to support it, and he believed they reached the point of returning funds a few years ago that the City appropriated. Mrs. Mitchell stated that this had been budgeted and they asked for the City not to pay them because they did not need it. Mr. Slavin stated that the Fourth of July Celebration had successfully become a stand-alone event, which was the exit strategy. Mr. Sudler questioned how much of the $165,000 increase in capital outlay in the Parks & Recreation budget was allocated for Dover Park. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that he would explain this during the review of the Capital Investment Plan.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 33 Mr. Sudler asked what the justification or merit was for exiting from the African American Festival. In response, Mr. Koenig stated that this was the City Manager’s recommendation because he did not consider this a City-sponsored event. He indicated that it is a private event that the City had recognized and supported, and would continue to support by picking up trash, etc. However, if another festival came in with similar goals and objectives, Mr. Koenig did not have a way to say whether or not they should be funded at this level. In response to Mr. Sudler’s previous question regarding the amount of capital outlay for Dover Park, Mr. Koenig referred to FY 2017 Capital Investment Plan - FY 2017 thru FY 2021 - Projects by Department (page 105). Mr. Koenig advised that $165,000 was allocated for Parks and Recreation capital outlay, with $50,000 labeled for a Dover Park master plan, $100,000 related to land improvements at Schutte Park, and $15,000 for small park improvements. He explained that the details of those improvements were identified on pages 106, 107, and 108. Mr. Sudler noted that there are many City parks in Dover that do not have amenities, only grass and a sign that says City park, and asked if the small park improvements mentioned in the Capital Investment Plan consisted of things like edging. He questioned why the City has these parks, such as in Bicentennial Village, with no amenities, such as swings or seesaws, and if the City was paying money for nothing. Mr. Slavin suggested that this question be deferred until Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, was present. He felt that this may relate to the difference between active recreation, passive recreation, and pocket parks. Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner, stated that when some subdivisions in the City were developed, the City took dedication of open space or active recreation areas that were created for some of those subdivisions and, in some instances, this included grass areas. She advised that this is typically not how the City deals with active recreation in new subdivisions. Mrs. Melson- Williams indicated that in some cases there are small areas of grass, and recreation activities can happen in these areas, but there are no amenities in the form of benches or swings. She noted that the areas are probably big enough to allow movement and provide a game-type function for the neighborhood. Mr. Sudler asked how much this was costing the City; however, Mrs. Melson- Williams did not have that information. Mr. Anderson asked if the building craftsperson at the Police Department would be a 100% General Fund expense or if part of the cost would be shared by the other funds. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that if it was in the Police Department it would be 100% General Fund; however, if the position was filled in the manner that he was proposing, it would be in the Facilities Division, which is an allocated fund. Mr. Anderson indicated that if the building craftsperson position was in the Facilities Division, it would serve the City and be shared by all of the funds that generate revenue. Mr. Koenig confirmed that if the position was located in the Facilities Division, it would be a shared resource dedicated to all facilities. While the position may primarily be dedicated to the Police Department, it would be a shared position.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 34 Mr. Sudler moved to recess, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. The meeting recessed at 7:28 p.m. Mr. Anderson moved to reconvene the meeting, seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried. The meeting reconvened at 7:40 p.m. In regard to the African American Festival, Mr. Sudler asked if Mr. Koenig had discussed the $3,000 decrease in funding for the Festival with former Councilman Reuben Salters, the organizer of the event. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that he had not personally talked to Mr. Salters and was unsure if that was communicated to him through the department. Mr. Sudler strongly urged that Mr. Koenig advise Mr. Salters to allow him time to prepare for this. Mr. Sudler indicated that he was not against the decrease but felt that, as a courtesy, Mr. Salters should be informed. Mr. Slavin did not believe that Mr. Salters knew about the potential decrease, since he had not heard from him. Mr. Anderson clarified that the funding for the 2016 African American Festival would not be affected, so Mr. Salters would have a year to prepare. Mr. Koenig confirmed this, noting that Mr. Salters had been working on the current Festival which would be held at the end of June and was included in the City’s FY 2015/2016 budget. He stated that the current discussion pertained to the 2017 Festival. Mr. Koenig stated that Mrs. Kim Hawkins, Human Resources Director, had advised him that the current roster of employees includes 106 employees in the defined benefit plan, 123 in the defined contribution plan, and 101 uniformed officers in the State of Delaware County and Municipal (Police/Firefighter) pension plan. In response to Mr. Hare regarding the other 29 employees, Mr. Koenig believed that there were probably 29 openings across the City. Mr. Hare requested a list of the open positions and how long each had been open, which Mr. Koenig indicated he would provide. Referring to Police (page 217), Mr. Koenig stated that personnel costs would increase in this Department by 7%. He indicated that this would fund 101 police officers, and incorporates the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) contract and proposed raises for non-bargaining employees. Mr. Koenig explained that one (1) officer resigned in FY 16; however, this officer’s salary would be carried until the end of FY 16 at the rate of pay at the time of resignation. Mr. Koenig advised that the City is required to make a payment of $40,000 to the exiting employee, which he believed would occur in January, and this money had not been set aside. He stated that approximately $75,000 was budgeted for this position in FY 17, including a salary of approximately $50,000 plus associated benefits, at the starting wage of an entry-level patrol officer. Of this amount, $40,000 would be used to pay the obligation. Mr. Koenig noted that the potential for another School Resource Officer (SRO) was mentioned and would increase the revenue from the Capital School

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 35 District from $100,000 to $160,000. If the City goes forward with the SRO and receives this revenue, there would be $35,000 left over from the $75,000 budgeted salary and benefits, less the $40,000 payment. Mr. Koenig advised that if $60,000 is added to the $35,000, this would allow $95,000 for the replacement of an officer, assuming the City moves forward with the SRO contract, which is how the budget was prepared. He stated that the last SRO contract was with Parkway Academy. Mr. Koenig indicated that the intent was for the Police Chief to bring back the SRO contract, stating his assumption that it had not yet been signed so that Council could consider this matter within the context of the overall budget discussion. For clarification, Mr. Lewis questioned if the school district would be paying $60,000 toward the SRO. In response, Mr. Koenig confirmed that if the City executes the contract and designates an officer, there would be $60,000 of revenue associated with that contract. Mr. Koenig stated that the City would treat that officer as other SROs are treated, explaining that an officer would be dedicated to the school during the school year and be eligible for other overtime and extra duty. Mr. Koenig indicated that this officer would be eligible to be pulled into the other units for duties at the Dover Police Department at the discretion of the Chief. In response to Mr. Hare regarding whether the City loses money on extra duty, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the rates are calculated so that the City does not lose money. Mr. Hutchison questioned if the contracts for SROs are year to year. Responding, Mr. Koenig believed that the SRO contract are for multiple years, noting that the Mayor and Police Chief had described a three (3) year contract to him. Mr. Koenig was unsure if all resource officers have three (3) year contracts but stated that he would provide this information. It was his belief that the contract for Parkway Academy was a multi-year contract. Mr. Hare questioned if the Capital School District pays $60,000 toward each SRO. Responding, Captain Tim Stump, Dover Police Department, advised that the Capital School District pays $100,000 toward two (2) SROs, and the agreement signed with Parkway Academy in July 2014 states that the school had agreed to pay $60,000 per year for 900 hours of police service based on a three (3) year contract. Mr. Lewis stated his understanding that civilians who were previously police officers were receiving retirement benefits, such as medical, but were being charged for benefits again as civilian employees. He questioned if this was true and, if so, what the reasoning was for it. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that there are three (3) retired Dover police officers serving in this capacity, two (2) Sex Offender Registry officers and one (1) crime analyst. He indicated that when these positions were initially created, they were non-bargaining positions. Mr. Koenig explained that these employees are receiving pensions from the State fund, retired from their service as police officers, and were rehired by the City as civilian employees. The offer letters advised these candidates that they could work for the City with the condition that there was a specified salary and they would purchase health care as active employees. After these positions were filled, each of these employees was incorporated in the AFSCME labor union. Mr. Koenig indicated that the City’s position is that these employees are being paid at their active rate and they will pay for health care in accordance with the AFSCME contract, which has a different cost-sharing allocation. He stated that this issue is being

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 36 debated while moving through the administrative applications associated with the transfer from non- bargaining to AFSCME. Mr. Lewis questioned if these employees were required to pay for health insurance because they fall under the union. In response, Mr. Koenig stated that this was not the reason; however, when they were hired as non-bargaining employees, their offer letters included their salary and stated that they must pay for health insurance as active employees. The conditions at the time were an 85/15 split for all non-bargaining employees. Mr. Lewis noted that the City also contributes to the health insurance cost. He questioned whether the City would save money if these employees continued to receive benefits under their retirement packages and work without contributing to medical benefits, since the City would not have to contribute. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mrs. Mitchell advised that the unfunded liability for OPEB was the driving force for this approach when the proposal to rehire retired officers was original submitted. She explained that the City pays retiree health care whether employees are active or retired. Mrs. Mitchell stated that when employees retire, the City has to fund the liability of their life span from their age of retirement, noting that the mortality table may indicate a life span of 80 years. If they are hired back as active employees, take health care as active employees, and work another 10 years, it would cut 10 years off the City’s unfunded liability. Mrs. Mitchell advised that the State also uses this approach. She stated that these individuals still see the OPEB benefit on their pay statements and have difficulty understanding why this occurs when they are active employees. Mrs. Mitchell explained that this relates to accounting rules for OPEB that require the percentage of payroll funding the unfunded liability to be reflected across payroll. She explained that this is socialized, similar to Social Security. Mr. Koenig reviewed Life Safety (page 223), explaining that it includes the Fire Marshal’s Office and the City’s ambulance contract. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mr. Koenig estimated the cost of the ambulance contract at approximately $20,000 per month or $240,000 per year. He noted that, during the last two (2) years, approximately $15,000 had been given to the Cheswold and Camden-Wyoming volunteer companies, with approximately 50% going to each company. Mr. Koenig indicated that he could obtain exact numbers if desired. In response to Mr. Slavin, Mr. Koenig confirmed that the ambulance contractor receives payment from the City and also from those that they transport. He stated that the City pays a standby fee of approximately $10,000 per shift and has 24 hour coverage, with two (2) units for 16 of those 24 hours. Mr. Slavin advised that the service was set up this way to contain the City’s cost and so the City would not be in the bill collecting business. Mr. Koenig confirmed that the City is not in the bill collecting business. He noted that when the current ambulance contract ends, there is the potential

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 37 to adjust this cost by performing a national Request for Proposals (RFP) and obtaining a vendor who will not charge a standby fee and will provide service purely based on billing. In response to Mr. Slavin regarding whether the City had the ability to know if the vendor is profiting off the contract in addition to the fee they receive from the City, Mr. Koenig did not believe that a financial statement was part of the terms of the agreement. He was unsure if the City could obtain this information but indicated that staff could try. Mr. Slavin commented that there was only a brief mention of Emergency Medical Services in the Operational and Administrative Analysis of the Fire Department, noting that he thought the City would receive more information from this study. He felt this may be an area to explore. Mr. Sudler asked the date when a competitive analysis of the ambulance service was last done and when another vendor was considered. Responding, Mr. Koenig advised that an RFP was done approximately 13-14 months ago. To his recollection, FY 16 was the first year of a three (3) year contract. Three local (3) vendors responded and the vendor being used by the City at the time was selected. Mr. Koenig explained that there was a vendor with a no-cost proposal, but this was a new start-up company that had worked in transport but not Advanced Life Support (ALS)/Basic Life Support (BLS). The third vendor was a proposed spin-off, start-up service from a local volunteer ambulance company. Mr. Koenig indicated that the City had elected to use PrimeCare and would be entering the second year of the contract this year. He stated that it takes approximately one (1) year to adequately vet an RFP for this type of service. Mr. Koenig noted that the Operational and Administrative Analysis of the Fire Department indicated that the City was at the size and had the volume of calls where a national provider may be interested in Dover as the capital City. He felt that by bringing in a national provider, the City could potentially eliminate the $240,000 standby charge. Mr. Sudler asked if the award was made based on cost or service. In response, Mr. Koenig indicated that the lowest cost was not selected. Selection was made based on who staff felt was providing reasonable service. Mr. Koenig indicated that there had been complaints regarding service, which were evaluated and staff felt that the current provider had adequately addressed the concerns. Mr. Hosfelt questioned if the fees for volunteer company providers are paid because PrimeCare cannot make runs. Responding, Mr. Koenig explained that if the City’s vendor is not available and the volunteer companies make a transport or dedicate resources to come into the City for transport, compensation has been offered to them at $25 per run. He stated that in August 2016, staff will review the last 12 months and the City will donate $25 per run. In response to Mr. Hosfelt, Mr. Koenig stated that PrimeCare is sometimes unable to make runs because they have not been released from the hospital, noting that if they bring in someone who may have ingested something, they are not released quickly. In some cases they are responding to multiple incidents and are not available. Mr. Koenig indicated that in some cases the closest unit may have been another volunteer unit that had made a run to the hospital and were immediately available; however, the first call is made to PrimeCare and it does not transfer over to other vendors unless they decline the call or cannot take it. Mr. Koenig stated that PrimeCare and the other vendors provide BLS, and ALS is provided by Kent County paramedics.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 38 Mr. Hare suggested informing PrimeCare that the City intends to look at national providers when this contract is up to see if PrimeCare wants to negotiate. Mr. Hutchison advised that when he served as Chair of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee, the Committee reviewed ambulance services with the City Manager and staff. He stated that a complete analysis was done of the vendors to make sure the City was getting a first-class response. Mr. Hutchison reiterated that there was a back-up system in place with Cheswold and Camden-Wyoming, and the City utilizes the paramedics as well. He noted that it had always been the policy that if there is a complaint pertaining to a 911 ambulance call, staff reviews the details to find out what happened. Overall, Mr. Hutchison felt that PrimeCare provides good service, noting that other options could be considered when the contract is finished. Mr. Koenig explained that there had been a period when there was friction with the volunteer fire associations who were providing additional service, and this resulted in the donation discussion. To Mr. Koenig’s knowledge, the donations made by the City to the Camden-Wyoming and Cheswold fire companies represent their largest single donations from a contributor. Mayor Christiansen questioned how PrimeCare bills for each individual transported. In response, Mr. Koenig stated that he did not know and staff would have to get those records. Mayor Christiansen noted that an ambulance from Hartly recently responded to an incident on Reed Street and questioned if they would be eligible for the $25 fee. Mr. Koenig stated that Hartly had not appeared on the manifest. When the records are reviewed, if Hartly appears enough times, he felt that the City would make an offer to them; however, donations had been made only to Cheswold and Camden-Wyoming. Mayor Christiansen asked if there was a record of the number of times the Fire Department had been called to assist PrimeCare because their personnel on location were not qualified to do the job. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that Ms. Kay Sass, Public Affairs and Emergency Management Coordinator, may have this information; however, he did not. Mayor Christiansen requested that these figures be provided to Council. Mr. Hosfelt stated his concern that PrimeCare knows they can make insurance money if they are in a position to make a run. He felt that they were taking runs when they should be on standby in the City to handle its issues. Mr. Hosfelt stated that when PrimeCare takes a run to make insurance money and the City calls in Camden-Wyoming or Cheswold, the City has to pay them as well. He had been informed by people in the business and people in the hospital that this was occurring. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that staff could check out this complaint. He noted that there had been complaints over the years that were unfounded but had to be evaluated; however, if this was happening, this was not the level of service that the City agreed to. Mr. Koenig reviewed the Economic Development budget (page 224), noting that the proposed budget was $237,700.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 39 In response to Mr. Hutchison, Mr. Koenig stated that three (3) employees are assigned to the Economic Development Office. Responding to Mr. Hutchison, Mayor Christiansen advised that he was unsure how much time he devotes to economic development but that it is quite a few hours. He stated that he and Mr. William Neaton, Economic Development Manager, are continuously trying to bring new businesses to the City and protect jobs that are already in Dover. In response to Mr. Hutchison regarding how many hours he and Mr. Kirby Hudson, Assistant City Manager, devote to economic development, Mr. Koenig noted that he, Mr. Hudson, and Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend attend a number of related meetings. Mr. Koenig estimated that 20% of his time relates to economic development, including phone calls and meetings. He noted that he is not there specifically to promote economic development but to promote the City in general. Mr. Koenig stated that time is not broken down by utilities versus economic development. He estimated that 20% of his office time is spent talking about things such as how to expand the business and residential base, and utilities. Mr. Hutchison stated his understanding that when a proposal is getting ready to be presented, Mr. Koenig’s office and staff would be involved. Responding, Mr. Koenig advised that his office is involved for large projects and to a lesser extent for average projects. The Planning Office is involved in every application to a certain level if it involves a building. Mr. Koenig stated that, at his level, staff had been involved in the Downtown Development District and the applications for funding for projects; however, they do not account for the hours. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Koenig stated that 100% of his time is dedicated to the development of the City. Mayor Christiansen stated that because of the types of projects the City looks at, as soon as there is interest in the City, Mr. Koenig, Mrs. Townshend, and Mr. Hudson all consult, noting that Mr. Hudson had brought some people to Dover under the City’s Downtown Development District program. He noted that staff works as a team so they do not have to go back and consult with each another. Mayor Christiansen stated that when a major project comes in, such as the development of the new shopping center in North Dover or the remodeling of the former K-Mart, the team meets with the developer from the start to consult as a unified group. He pointed out that, due to working with the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP), some of the personnel are split and they focus their emphasis on downtown projects. Mayor Christiansen stated that he was not excited with the current configuration of the Economic Development Office and it may need to be reconfigured in the future. Mr. Hare recalled that the Economic Development Office employees previously came before Council and mentioned that they spent over 50% of their time with the DDP. The DDP hired an individual and these employees came back to work for the City; however, the gentleman that the DDP hired left and now the City was back with the DDP. Mr. Hare questioned what was not being done for the City, if 50% of employees’ time was being spent with the DDP. He suggested the possibility of turning economic development of the City over to the DDP.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 40 Mr. Lewis asked Mr. Koenig if an Economic Development Office was needed for the City. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that this decision was made by Council a number of years ago and economic development is part of the Mayor’s charge. He noted that he was on record as saying that there are many options available for economic development and the current option is not the option that he recommended several years ago. Mr. Koenig stated that he stood by his original recommendation. Mr. Anderson stated that there had been many reports on this. He indicated that many projects, such as parking, are handled within economic development under the DDP, but City staff basically does the work. He cited the farmer’s market, various inventory of buildings that was being compiled, marketing, filling in real estate agents, etc., and noted that the Economic Development Office deals not just with downtown but the whole City. He stated that there was a lot of focus on small businesses, which are very important, noting that job growth in the City is more on the side of businesses with 50 and under employees. Mr. Anderson stated that the City’s unemployment rate has fallen much faster than the State unemployment rate, and the State Economic Development Office had advised that half of the new jobs in the State were created in the Dover area. Mr. Anderson felt that a case could be made that what is being done is working and when the DDP tried something different, it lasted only months, and even then they kept asking City staff to help. He felt that the City was getting more than status quo results with a status quo budget. Mayor Christiansen indicated that this may not be the most workable formula, but this is what was in place. He stated that he was open to all suggestions due to the desire for the City to progress. Mayor Christiansen noted that while the City works closely with the State of Delaware Economic Development Office and Kent County on a regular basis, the major responsibility of the Mayor and the Economic Development Office is to find jobs and businesses to come to the City to increase the tax base. Mr. Sudler questioned how much time Mayor Christiansen focuses on economic development and working with the DDP on a daily basis. Responding, Mayor Christiansen stated that he has a very close relationship with their supervisor and they work together continuously; however, he could not delineate the number of hours, noting that there are many walk-ins that bring complaints to the City Manager and the Mayor fields those that the City Manager does not. He indicated that economic development is his primary job, next to public safety and in addition to handling constituent complaints, because this would increase the tax base and assist those on the street who need jobs. Mr. Hosfelt questioned Mr. Koenig’s comment that he had been on the record in regard to the Economic Development Office. Responding, Mr. Koenig indicated that during a time of budget contraction, there had been discussion about what services the City needed to provide. At that time, he favored an agreement to potentially transfer funds to Kent County to hire a municipal economic development person who would be a subset of the County. Mr. Koenig indicated that he was being encouraged by Council to improve relationships with Kent County, and he and Mr. Michael Petit de Mange, Kent County Administrator, had talked about this concept, which was a major deviation from what the City was doing. Mr. Koenig noted that the concern about this approach was how to guarantee that a prospect would be directed to Dover if the economic development person was not vested in the City. He stated that he liked this concept as a cooperative measure with Kent County

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 41 because he has trouble gauging the opinion of Council regarding whether members think the City is getting value for the dollars being spent on economic development. Mr. Koenig stated that all of the department heads in the City are contributors to economic development at different points in the process. He indicated that he is not the point of contact when taking someone through the steps of constructing a building, but employees in various departments perform that role, and Mr. Neaton was doing this on a couple of projects. Mr. Koenig advised that ultimately City Council must give must give him direction as to whether they are happy with the direction of economic development in the City. Mr. Koenig reiterated that the City had been in a time of contraction when collaboration was being encouraged, and Council had been open to a number of different ideas; however, the stumbling blocks were control and the fact that there were people who were already performing economic development. Mr. Neil asked Mr. Koenig whether realtors play a major or minor role in economic development, and if major, what current economic development personnel were doing to bring them in. In response, Mr. Koenig stated his understanding that commercial realtors are being contacted with the business leads, and some of these realtors were better than others at bringing contacts in. He indicated that the City does not go out of the state or region to promote Dover and funds are not spent to send the Economic Development Director to national or regional conferences to recruit, for example, a biotech company. Mr. Koenig advised that many of the contacts the City receives are funneled through the Delaware Economic Development Office (DEDO), including those who need a specific number of square feet or have a specific utility need. For example, he stated that a number of companies were searching all over Kent County in regard to facilities for medical marijuana and these facilities may pop up in a number of different locations, depending on who obtains a license. Mr. Koenig stated that many of those applicants came through one (1) real estate firm. In that case, the City was contacted and he had not previously known that there were people looking for that type of facility. Mr. Koenig indicated that the economic development market is just as difficult as retail business and noted that success does not occur every day. He advised that if the City gets one (1) project every year or two (2) at the Garrison Oak Technology Park, by some standards that is pretty good, although as City Manager, he would like to see two (2) or three (3) projects every year to achieve a quick return. Mr. Koenig stated that the City had a number of challenges with respect to geographic location in the State, employment, technology, and demographics. He noted that a lot of people were coming to the area to retire and some may want part-time jobs, while others may not want to work at all. Mr. Koenig indicated that this is a difficult environment to work in and that success must be defined, because there may be success in one (1) year that is followed by a dry oasis. In response to Mr. Neil regarding who sold the old K-Mart building to Burlington Coat Factory, Mayor Christiansen stated that he was the initial contact for the project and he directed them to Mr. Neaton, who guided them. Mayor Christiansen advised that there would be another entity at this location and two (2) pad sites because of the salesmanship of the City’s team, including Mr. Koenig and Mrs. Townshend. He stated that they all worked very diligently to bring Burlington to the City. Mayor Christiansen stated that realtors had brought projects to the Economic Development Office and to the City, noting that this was the luck of the draw. He advised that the City continued to work closely with DEDO and Kent County. Mayor Christiansen felt that DEDO’s priority had always

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 42 been New Castle and Sussex County concerns. He noted that some items had been referred by the City to Kent County, and the County had done the same for the City. He stated that the first priority of the Mayor and the Economic Development Office was Dover and bringing jobs to Dover. He noted that some people were not happy with the current configuration of economic development in the City; however, he felt the emphasis should be on Dover growing, which was the case before there was an Economic Development Office and should be in the future. Mr. Anderson questioned how many economic development directors Kent County had gone through in a five (5) year period. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that Mr. James Waddington was the only person he knew who had held this position. Mr. Hare noted that Mr. Waddington had served in this position since the death of Mr. Dan Wolfensburger, former Director of the Kent Economic Partnership. Mr. Anderson indicated there had been discussion with Kent County that diluting Dover with all the municipalities would be a mistake and would have resulted in the Garrison project still being a field. He believed that by the time the Garrison project is complete, the City would realize close to a billion dollars of private investment there. In terms of economic development, Mr. Anderson stated that the City had something that is moving forward and felt it would be a mistake to go back in a different direction that was not working in other places. He felt that economic development is a very competitive market because of the national environment. Mr. Anderson noted that the City’s website could be marketed more and the City could have something for entrepreneurs and smart money in places that would be relatively inexpensive. He did not know why the City was not budgeting for this. Mr. Hutchison stated that he had the opportunity to serve as Mayor and work with economic development for 10 years and the City averaged between $2M - $4M in real estate transfer tax per year during that period. He felt that economic development is one (1) of the most important jobs the Mayor has. Mr. Hutchison advised that, as Mayor, he had visited the Vice President of Wilmington University personally to tell him that the City needed Wilmington University, and a couple of years later he received a call from the Vice President telling him that they were ready to come to Dover. Mr. Hutchison indicated that he did not like the current economic development organizational structure and felt everyone should sit down together, reorganize the Economic Development Office, and make it better. In regard to the City remaining competitive, Mr. Hutchison cautioned that it cannot be assumed that every job in the City today will be here tomorrow, so the City must work every day to promote economic development. Mr. Hare stated that, having worked for a business development company for many years, he had gone to many conferences and events to stay informed. Mr. Hare questioned why the City was not going to summits to promote Dover and the industrial park, and why there was no ad in USA today saying that Dover is open and has land for $1,000 per acre, noting that the State had done this. He reiterated his concern regarding the City’s economic development staff spending half of their time with the DDP. He advocated talking to business owners downtown to get feedback about economic development in Dover.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 43 Mr. Sudler asked Mr. Hutchison, as a former Mayor who dealt with economic development, if he suggested that economic development continue under the Mayor’s leadership if restructured. Responding, Mr. Hutchison stated the importance of looking at the current structure, which he felt could be redefined and improved. He felt that the Mayor is the point person for the City of Dover when it comes to economic development, so the Mayor must be involved. Mr. Slavin felt that a cross team needed to be identified and meet on a regular basis to determine what the City is doing with economic development in terms of daily activities and strategic goals. He expressed concern that he had heard repeatedly that the number one concern was bringing new jobs, which he felt was only half of the job of economic development. Mr. Slavin stated that the other half is keeping the jobs that the City has and taking care of employers who had been here for a long time. He stated that he shared Mr. Hare’s concern about downtown businesses and advised members that he had received open criticism from them about the lack of effect from economic development on their businesses. Mr. Slavin indicated that he has his own ideas about economic development and a motion to propose; however, he stated he would wait until after the discussion. Mayor Christiansen advised that in 1993 when Sunroc was planning to come to Dover, he, as Council President; Mr. Jim O'Connor, former City Manager; and the City Planner met with representatives from the company. After closing the deal for Sunroc to move to the Kent County Aeropark, Sunroc asked when they could talk to the Mayor. Mayor Christiansen agreed with Mr. Hutchison that the Mayor should be totally involved in economic development as much as possible as the leader of a team in a new and improved configuration. He felt that it was important for the Mayor to be involved with businesses that the City wants to keep or move here. Mayor Christiansen advised members that he touches base and attends meetings regularly with plant managers to make sure the City is fulfilling its responsibility to them to protect the jobs that are already here and bring new jobs. Mr. Slavin noted that the time was 8:45 p.m. and the meeting was scheduled to recess at 9:00 p.m. He stated that the budgets for several departments had not yet been reviewed and the review of the Capital Investment Plan, Financial Forecast by Fund, and City Policies and Procedures had not yet been considered. Mr. Slavin reminded members that they were scheduled to begin discussion and mark-up of the budget tomorrow evening, recess by 8:00 p.m., and return on June 1, 2016 to continue discussion and mark-up. He felt that members had made great progress and identified some of the issues, noting that he had a list of possible motions that he believed would be worthy of members’ attention. Mr. Slavin suggested that Mr. Koenig and Mrs. Mitchell provide a compressed review of the CIP, Financial Forecast by Fund, and City policies and procedures, not to exceed 90 minutes. Members could then take a brief break prior to beginning the process of marking up the budget with motions and questions, not to exceed 90 minutes. Mr. Slavin expressed his hope that this would allow members to get through this portion of the process tomorrow night. He reminded members that the budget ordinance would be introduced for First Reading during the Council meeting of June 13, 2016 and that the Final Reading would take place on June 27, 2016, noting that these meetings would provide an opportunity for amendments. Mr. Slavin felt that, from the City’s side, members may by in a position to finish the budget review tomorrow night, and expressed his hope that by June 27, 2016, members would know what would be happening with the State.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 44 Mr. Slavin indicated that the Special Council Meeting - Budget Review agenda would be amended to reflect his suggested changes. Mr. Koenig advised that Mrs. Mitchell had indicated that Staff could forego the review of City Policies and Procedures tomorrow night. Responding, Mr. Slavin stated that this could be included as an item on a Council meeting agenda as an educational item. Mr. Koenig continued his review of the General Fund division budgets, referring to Public Works Admin (page 226). Mr. Koenig, referring to Streets (page 231), reminded members that the budget gap discussion resulted in a reduction in the street program from $1M to $900,000. Mr. Koenig reviewed the Water/Wastewater Fund budget (page 277), advising that this was a balanced fund and no rate increase was proposed. Referring to Water Treatment (page 281), he explained that the capital expansion at the water treatment plant would be bonded in a bundle of projects for long-term financing. Mr. Koenig stated that expenses were up in some divisions and down in others, and the City was still able to deliver a robust capital plan and operating budget within the current rate structure. Responding to Mr. Hutchison, Mr. Koenig stated that trash fees do not cover 100% of the cost of operation. He stated that Staff tried to set them at a level where they were covering the majority of the operating expenses of personnel and the 20-30 series. To his recollection, they did not recover all of the capital costs associated with vehicles. Mr. Koenig estimated the recovery at 70% to 80% of expenses. Mr. Slavin suggested deferring Electric Fund budget until tomorrow evening. Mr. Anderson asked how the Kent Avenue sinkhole problem affected street priorities. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that Council had received notice regarding a failing storm sewer in Division Street at Kent Avenue. The cost of repair was being evaluated and staff would discuss the matter regarding who should make the repair with the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT). Mr. Koenig stated, as a worst-case scenario, the City would have to do the repair and potentially adjust the street program to account for that expense unless staff came to Council for additional funding authorization. He advised that he and Mrs. Mitchell would discuss this to determine whether a budget revision would be needed, if they could possibly wait to see if there would be any funds leftover from this year, or if there would be a windfall before the end of the year. Mr. Koenig noted that, unless he asks for additional money, the funding would likely come from the street program. Mr. Neil moved to recess, seconded by Mr. Cole and unanimously carried. The meeting recessed at 8:57 p.m., to be reconvened at 6:00 p.m. on May 26, 2016.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 45 THURSDAY, MAY 26, 2016 - 6:00 - 9:00 p.m. The Special Council Meeting - Budget Review reconvened on May 26, 2016 at 6:01 p.m. with Council President Slavin presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson (departed at 6:28 p.m., returned at 6:37 p.m.), Mr. Sudler (arrived at 6:40 p.m.), Mr. Lewis, Mr. Cole (arrived at 6:36 p.m.), Mr. Hosfelt, Mr. Hare, and Mr. Hutchison. Mr. Neil was absent. Council staff members present were Mrs. Mitchell, Mr. Koenig, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Christiansen was also present (arrived at 6:13 p.m.). AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Hutchison moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried. Division Budget Reviews Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, reviewed the Electric Fund budget (page 288), noting that this budget included janitorial services for the Electric Administration building. Referring to Electric T & D (page 290), he indicated that capital outlay was increasing due to the addition of the Tar Ditch interceptor project, noting that electric work must be moved so that the stormwater project could be done in the future. He advised that the Electric Fund had done well in putting additional funds toward the unfunded liabilities, resulting in decreased pension costs. Mr. Koenig indicated that the Electric Department staff had done a good job of getting capital projects on schedule and progressing through them. Over the last year, the North American Energy Services (NAES) had been very aggressive in moving through the capital plan, getting projects underway and completing projects both at Unit 3 and McKee Run, as well as making improvements to the Van Sant generating station. Mr. Koenig advised that training and acclimating new employees had been ongoing and the electric utility looked very good moving into FY 17. In response to Mr. Hutchison regarding outstanding vacancies in the Electric Department, Mr. Koenig stated that the Key Accounts Representative position was currently being recruited and an Assistant Generation Superintendent would soon be recruited. This position would be located at the power plan to help bridge the operations side with the power supply side. He explained that Mr. Harry Maloney, Electric Director, was getting ready to recruit for a T & D Coordinator. Mr. Koenig noted that a staff person was recently promoted internally from the Public Works Department to a Substation Technician. He stated that at least one (1) Substation Technician position would be recruited for, and a Grounds Person position had been held open to determine if adjustments were needed to Mr. Maloney’s staffing level to make sure the right type of person is hired. Mr. Koenig stated that some long-time employees planned to retire and employees were being moved around to afford for succession. When this plan is determined, the Grounds Person position will be advertised. Mr. Koenig stated that it was important to get these positions in place as quickly as possible. He noted that Mr. Maloney had been very active and thoughtful in considering what the utility should look like moving forward.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 46 Review of Capital Investment Plan (CIP) Mr. Koenig stated that the Capital Investment Plan (CIP) had changed a lot since it was presented during the Council Committee of the Whole meeting of April 12, 2016. Referring to the FY 2017 Capital Investment Plan, FY 17 thru FY 21, Projects by Department (page 105), he reviewed the proposed General Fund capital projects. Mr. Koenig stated that, in the Parks and Recreation Budget, $165,000 in capital investment was proposed, $50,000 of which related to a master plan proposed for Dover Park, $100,000 to land improvements for Schutte Park, and $15,000 was earmarked for small park improvements. Mr. Koenig stated that one (1) of the shortcomings of the park system was that there were many small parks with needs that do not rise to the level of being included in a separate CIP sheet. For example, he explained that a fence was replaced at the park at the corner of Division and Kirkwood Streets at a cost of approximately $8,000. Mr. Koenig indicated that this project was not budgeted for and there are similar small projects throughout the City. Mr. Koenig advised that the Police Department plans to install a video storage array for in-car video recordings, which will allow the IT staff at the Police Department to download and manage video from their cars. Mr. Lewis asked if the funding for the array could be provided through grants. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that the Police Chief had requested this in the General Fund, noting that, when the budget was initially prepared, it was not thought that federal forfeiture funds could be acquired. Mr. Koenig indicated that Mrs. Mitchell had asked the Chief to seek grant funding if it is available, but the budget shows this as a General Fund expense since there was no commitment that grant funding was available. Mayor Christiansen stated that the Council on Police Training, of which he is a member, is looking at putting protocols in place for body cameras, and he asked members to be aware that this may be an expenditure down the road. Mr. Lewis felt it would behoove the City to inquire if there was funding for the purchase of body cameras. Responding, Mayor Christiansen stated that this had been discussed with the Attorney General’s Office to find out about funding. He noted that body cameras are very expensive, but expressed the desire to keep up with the latest technology. Mr. Koenig stated that, between the initial draft budget introduction and the current draft budget presentation, the street and alley program had been reduced from $1M to $900,000 to help with the gap in the General Fund. Funds had also been added to the Silver Lake Dam improvement project to address insurance issues and improvements to the dam. Combined spending for Public Works under capital projects in the General Fund would be slightly more than $1,026,00 and the total General Fund CIP for projects would be approximately $1.2M. Mr. Koenig indicated that the potential for moving forward with the Tar Ditch project had been discussed in recent weeks and the funding for this project had been moved out one (1) year because the City would be seeking funding partners. He did not believe that the City should carry the full burden of this public improvement. Mr. Koenig advised that staff was anticipating fundraising for this project over the next three (3) to six (6) months and hopefully bidding it out in FY 17. He stated that it would go to construction either in late FY 17 or could potentially become an FY 18 construction project. Mr. Koenig noted

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 47 that in FY 17 the Electric Department would have to move some things out of the way to get the pipe in the ground. Mr. Koenig indicated that Mr. Slavin had suggested rebranding the name of the Tar Ditch project because people do not understand what it is in a positive manner. He explained that this project is the abandonment of PW2 and the restoration of the Meetinghouse Branch tributary to the St. Jones River. He advised that historical mapping reflects Meetinghouse Branch as an open channel stream that fed the St. Jones River at this location. Mr. Koenig felt that rebranding the title of the project would help in getting additional interest moving forward. In response to Mr. Hare regarding the $1M capital improvement in Finance, Mrs. Mitchell explained that this is for the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Solution reflected in the Electric Fund. Mr. Koenig, referring to the FY 2017 Capital Investment Plan, FY 17 thru FY 21, Projects by Department (page 121), reviewed the proposed Water/Wastewater Fund FY 17 capital projects, noting that this project summary was almost identical to the information presented on April 12, 2016. Mr. Koenig advised that a number of design contracts were being rolled together because money would be borrowed from the State Revolving Fund (SRF). He stated that the Public Works and Finance Departments had packaged projects to get an interest rate of 2% and a debt schedule that meets the City’s needs. In regard to the Water Treatment Plant, Mr. Koenig stated that the current treatment system within the plant would be scrapped and the City would go to a new system. He indicated that the design was 95% complete and was being reviewed by the State for finality. Mr. Koenig advised that staff was trying to arrange to visit a plant with technology similar to that being proposed. He stated that the new system was expected to go to construction in FY 17 with a total cost of approximately $2.4M. Mayor Christiansen asked how many of the Water/Wastewater Fund projects could be done in- house. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that a third-party contractor is hired to do all pump station design because this is multi-disciplinary and requires civil, sometimes structural, and mechanical engineering. The surveying is hired out for some water quality improvement projects because the City does not have the technology. He advised that City engineers are doing design for some of the pipe replacement for water quality improvements. Mr. Koenig indicated that some in-house work had been done for sewer design; however, all surveying work is contracted out to approved contractors. He stated that he did not have a breakdown on dollars. Mayor Christiansen asked if competitive bids or Requests for Proposals (RFPs) are solicited. In response, Mr. Koenig believed that there was a three (3) year schedule for RFPs. He indicated that there is more than one (1) contractor, noting that Pennoni Associates and AECOM were under contract right now, so that work can be divided up to different contractors for different things. Mr. Hutchison questioned, with the completion of the water tower and increased flow on the east side of the City, whether the City was receiving complaints about brown water. In response,

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 48 Mr. Koenig stated that a few complaints were received; however, the number coming to his department had significantly reduced and there had not been many claims in quite a while. In regard to the street program, Mr. Anderson commented that the budget typically included a list of street projects and questioned what they were. In response, Mr. Koenig advised that the $900,000 is typically dedicated to a series of streets. He explained that staff was currently assessing the entire road network and was approximately 35% through the system. Mr. Koenig indicated that the survey includes curb deficiencies, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues, the amount of yellow curb, and an inventory of signs. Staff fills out a condition analysis of a section of pavement which goes into a computer program and projects how projects will be prioritized based on needs from the inventory. He noted that if a 200-foot section of street is going to cost $300,000 to repair, in some cases these funds have been used to repair five (5) other streets. Mr. Koenig explained that there is a ranking at the staff level which in the past had been sent to legislators who were asked which projects they may be interested in. Sometimes legislators ask staff where they would like to see the money spent. In some cases they have asked the City to split the cost or it has been split between two (2) legislators. Mr. Koenig indicated that the list for FY 17 had not yet been published because the current street program was being finished. He advised that once the funding level is set, staff will start to insert streets into that funding level. Mr. Anderson requested that Mr. Koenig keep members informed when the list of street program projects is done. Mr. Koenig, referring to the FY 2017 Capital Investment Plan, FY 17 thru FY 21, Projects by Department (page 142), reviewed the proposed Electric Fund capital projects. He noted that the proposed total for FY 17 Electric Engineering projects was $877,500, and these projects would be assigned to in-house crews. Mr. Koenig indicated that contractors would be used if necessary, noting that in some cases outside design may be needed. Referring to the Electric T & D - Public Works Wetlands Project (Tar Ditch), Mr. Koenig stated that a wire line that feeds Kent General Hospital must be moved out of the way so that the old streambed can be restored. He advised that Mr. Maloney must do this work approximately six (6) to eight (8) months ahead of the Public Works project so that any adjustments to his work can be complete prior to the storm sewer project. Mr. Koenig, referring to Electric T & D - New Developments, indicated that new developments were budgeted at approximately $2.5M last year. He indicated that most of the $1.5M included for FY 17 would be passthrough funds. He explained, for example, that if a new service must be installed at a cost of $100,000, the City may recover $90,000 from the developer and spend $10,000 for a system improvement. Mr. Koenig stated, for example, if only $600,000 of new development work is required, the $1.5M listed will not be spent. Mr. Koenig indicated that the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Solution is for the replacement of technology for financial management and control across the City. It would include components such as the Finance Department, Code Enforcement, work orders, billing, Customer Service, and all of the software programs that are running to manage the City’s finances and budgets. He indicated

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 49 that he wished the City did not have to do this, but the current system will be 20 years old in 2017 and the City needs to move to the next generation. Mr. Koenig advised that this project would affect every department across the City, and the hope is that it is robust enough to address all departments’ needs and provide a dashboard of information that can be used to make enhanced managerial decisions. He stated that the cost would be approximately $2.3M and this would be a major system upgrade. Mr. Koenig informed members that a number of different packages were running now, including HTE, ADP, systems at the Dover Public Library and the Police Department, and work order systems. He felt that, next to a facility replacement, this would be as in-depth and detailed as one (1) could get for a system replacement. Mr. Koenig advised that there would be a multi-year implementation schedule. In regard to the power plant, Mr. Koenig explained that the Unit #3 Fast Start Upgrade was listed at $200,000 in FY 18, and NAES would be doing legwork to see how quickly that project could get underway. He stated that the budget may be amended in the future to make sure this project is on a very short timeline. Mr. Koenig noted that these were system and building improvements to ensure that the life of Unit #3 can be extended to the maximum investment possible for return. He stated that plant staff had been working diligently over the last year to get capital projects done and have the units ready for dispatch when called. Mr. Koenig reviewed the CIP for scheduled vehicle replacements in the General Fund (page 185). In regard to Fire/Robbins Hose, he stated that the $145,700 payment was for an existing piece of equipment that was purchased in 2011. In regard to the Police Department, he stated that the initial request from the Police Chief was for 13 vehicles and during the internal review of the budget, two (2) police cruisers and a motorcycle were cut from his request. He stated that the total summary of vehicles and equipment for the General Fund was estimated at $840,900 for FY 17. Mr. Lewis asked if the City had investigated whether it would be more cost effective to lease vehicles rather than purchasing them. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that staff had discussed this with Enterprise Fleet Management and looked at lease programs. The discussion with Enterprise was attractive; however, the purpose of this program was to keep the City with vehicles less than two (2) years old, and the City would pay a premium for that. Mr. Koenig indicated, from a finance standpoint, staff felt this was not the best deal because vehicles in almost every department last longer than two (2) years. A number of years ago, a leasing program was considered, and the City would have made payments for an extra year and owned the vehicles at the end. Mr. Koenig stated that staff proposed purchase rather than lease. He stated that he could not imagine the amount to lease a police vehicle with the expected wear and tear. He stated that staff could look at programs if desired, but he had not seen any articles that focus on police vehicles. Mr. Lewis asked why the City’s Fleet Maintenance shop is not supervising vehicle repair and this is being contracted to a private vendor. In response, Mr. Koenig stated that Fleet Maintenance does maintenance on general government vehicles, including trash trucks. Most electric line trucks are sent out for private maintenance because anything that has to do with the bucket needs review by a certified technician, although the shop may tend to small problems. Mr. Koenig stated that if there is time and room in the shop, staff maintains sedans, although some of them are sent out. He indicated that there are four (4) or five (5) maintenance positions in the shop. For many years, the

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 50 Police Department had maintained a relationship with Hertrich, who performs maintenance and keeps records and provides them to the Department, and they are happy with this service. Mr. Koenig stated that the City’s shop is not large enough to handle all those vehicles and work schedules would have to be changed to maintain police vehicles. He stated that the police vendor is a State contract vendor, as are vendors for other services not done in-house. Mr. Hare questioned what the 1998 Ford F150 in Fleet Maintenance was used for. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that Fleet Maintenance uses a vehicle for road service and a vehicle to get parts. Although some places deliver parts, Mr. Koenig stated that some parts are needed more quickly than they can be delivered. He stated that staff had requested to replace the 1998 Ford F150 due to age, mileage, and worn our parts, noting that the mileage was 149,450, as of October 2015. Mr. Hutchison commented that the Dover Police Department leased vehicles a number of years ago and, after a couple years, found it to be more costly than purchasing them. Noting that a 2005 Ford F150 was listed, Mr. Sudler commented that he had a 2004 Ford F150 with more than 150,000 miles and the worst repair was replacement of the transmission, which cost approximately $3,000. He also had to replace the engine due to running it while working, so total repairs were $7,000 and the vehicle was functioning effectively. Mr. Sudler felt it would be cheaper to repair the vehicle than to purchase a new vehicle. Mr. Lewis asked how much revenue the City makes from auctioning old vehicles and questioned why the old vehicles would not be used by other departments that are in dire need of vehicles rather than purchasing new vehicles. Mr. Koenig stated that he did not know of any department that was in dire need of a vehicle. He stated that vehicles do not last forever, so the question was at what point the City would be wasting money by putting it into a vehicle. He stated that a 1998 vehicle was scheduled for replacement, and other vehicles from 2005 and 2006 were not very good and wore out faster than expected, noting that in some cases they may not have a lot of miles. Mr. Koenig advised that the value received from the vehicle is considered. He explained that when vehicles are replaced, they are cleaned up, radio equipment is stripped off, and the purchasing agent puts them on GovDeals.com. If the minimum bid is $500 and the City wants to get rid of a vehicle, the City takes the $500. Mr. Koenig noted that vehicles that are not running are still being insured by the City. He noted that in some cases the City had spent $2,000 or $3,000 on a vehicle that was supposed to be taken out of service, only for the vehicle to work for a few months and then develop a larger problem. Mr. Koenig stated that there must be a reasonable systemic approach to vehicles coming into and exiting the City. He indicted that the equipment had been evaluated and staff was requesting that it be replaced. Mr. Hare asked if there was a reason that the vehicle must be a Ford F150. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that this is what the City now had and whatever was on the State contract for that type of pickup would be bought. Mr. Hare questioned if a four (4) door pickup was needed by Fleet Maintenance to pick up parts, noting that $31,000 was a lot of money. Mr. Koenig stated that the vehicle would be set up according to the needs, such as a toolbox, and explained that the $31,000 was based on the

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 51 specifications that were requested by staff when looking at the State contract. Mr. Hare requested to see the specifications, stating that he had seen a lot of parts pick-up trucks that were small Ford F100s. Mr. Slavin stated that a decision must be made regarding the level of granularity Council would get into. He indicated that replacement of vehicles could be discussed at this level; however, members would be there for a longer time than originally scheduled. Mr. Slavin stated that when it comes to many issues that Council deals with, members trust things that are outside of their immediate scope of practice, such as electrical issues, etc., and rely on the experts and people that have been hired. He indicated that vehicles are something that members are all familiar with; however, he cautioned that if members begin the process of comparing their personal vehicle use to how a vehicle is used for a 365-day per year operation, they will lose in that comparison. Mr. Slavin noted that there is a much different demand on cars when they have different drivers and uses, and are used constantly throughout the year. Mr. Sudler suggested, based on his personal experience and in trying to save taxpayers dollars, that the City get an official report from a licensed mechanic to assess the condition, durability, and performance of the F150. Mr. Sudler stated that there may be surveys that indicate it is time for a replacement, but felt that a mechanic should assess whether or not the vehicle could perform the expected duties. Mr. Koenig reviewed the CIP for scheduled vehicle replacements in the Water/Wastewater Fund, noting that the request for FY 17 totaled $222,600. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Koenig stated that vehicles are not prioritized on a one (1) to five (5) scale as capital project purchases are ranked. He explained that a one (1) is the highest priority when looking at capital projects. Mr. Koenig reviewed the CIP for scheduled vehicle replacements in the Electric Fund. He indicated that the total request was for $165,800. Mr. Sudler questioned the range of the vehicles used for electric meter reading, noting that he had witnessed staff reading meters and they did not seem to perform any heavy-duty job tasks that would put a strain on the vehicle. He asked why a replacement was needed for a vehicle that was going only from point to point to turn meters on and off. In response, Mr. Koenig stated that the meter reading vehicles were way past the replacement life. He indicated that they were 2017 vehicles because the vehicles being used now were loaners in some cases. Mr. Koenig indicated that the meter reading division had not purchased new vehicles for probably a decade, until this year when one (1) was ordered. He stated that two (2) vehicles were proposed for replacement in FY 17. Mr. Koenig advised that the majority of a meter reader’s time is spent driving from location to location doing cuts and reconnects. Mr. Sudler indicated that his main concern was to save taxpayer dollars and felt that even if a vehicle had been in use for 10 years, it could still be functional and fulfill its job task. In response,

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 52 Mr. Koenig stated that staff had spent many months reviewing the budget request, and Electric Fund expenses are recovered through the electric rate to the customers. Servicing the meters and getting meter readers out to read the meters are some of the top critical functions of the utility. He explained that without meter readings, staff cannot bill accurately; therefore, people would not be paying their bills and these funds are needed to do other things. Mr. Koenig indicated that he had not been expecting a plethora of questions about the replacement of basic, non-specialized vehicles. He stated that staff is using these pick-up trucks to go from point to point to restore service. Mr. Koenig noted that if these vehicles break down in the afternoon or night on the way to restore service, service will not be restored until someone else is called to do it. He did not feel that these requests were extraordinary, noting that this information had been provided during the preliminary budget discussions six (6) weeks ago. Mr. Sudler asked if any vehicles had broken down associated with cutting and turning on electric service, and if a pick-up was needed or if a basic compact car could be used. Responding, Mr. Koenig explained that different vehicles had been tried; however, the employees who turn on electric service are the same employees who use a water key to turn on water and sewer. He informed members that the water key is seven (7) feet long and would not fit in a small car. Mr. Koenig advised that staff had requested the appropriate type of vehicle based on the analysis of what is done. He indicated that sometimes when these employees are out, they may have to pick up and carry cones and that a pick-up truck can be used for many different things, and a vehicle such as a Ford Focus cannot be. Mr. Sudler stated that the back seat of a car could be collapsed to allow additional footage. In response, Mr. Koenig asked that Council trust that staff were asking for something reasonable, noting that none of these pieces of equipment were Cadillacs, especially the basic components. He noted that members would not redesign a police car on the Council floor and expected the same courtesy when discussing vehicles for service that staff must deliver 24/7 in all weather conditions. Mayor Christiansen stated that he worked for a company that carried water keys and dealt with water-related issues and they provided Ford Escort station wagons to save money. In the long run, money was not saved because they had to call someone with a pick-up truck when other pieces of equipment were needed. He advised that the Ford Escorts lasted one (1) year, then they went to pick- up trucks, which were very versatile. Mayor Christiansen asked if the vehicles being discussed had been used to the maximum of their ability and wherewithal to do the job that needed to be done. Responding, Mr. Koenig advised that all of the general government vehicles coming before members are evaluated by the Fleet Maintenance shop, which has certified mechanics. He stated that they determine if a vehicle is salvageable and if improvements are to be made to the engine or brakes, etc., because staff does not want to waste money. Mr. Koenig indicated that the only vehicles that are not evaluated by Fleet Maintenance are the bucket trucks, which have special requirements, and the police vehicles. He explained that the Police Department controls their vehicles, since the decision of whether a police car should come off the road is not up to the Fleet Maintenance mechanic. Mr. Koenig noted that

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 53 police vehicles are used under very different circumstances, and this evaluation is best kept at the Police Department. Members were provided an email from Mr. Koenig, dated May 26, 2016, regarding Budget Questions (Exhibit #10). Referring to the Police section of this email, he pointed out that a couple of police vehicles were cut from the budget on the Council floor last year, and those vehicles were simply moved to the next year. Mr. Koenig noted that the Police Department had gotten larger over time. Mayor Christiansen questioned if a thorough investigation had been done of all the vehicles that were requested and if they needed to be replaced, and Mr. Koenig stated this had been done. Mr. Hare noted that the pick-up truck for the electric meter readers had a cost of $20,900. Responding, Mr. Koenig advised that Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, believed there was a labeling error on the vehicles for the Electric Meter Reading. She indicated that the cost of the vehicle was correct but she believed the vehicles were Ford F150 pick-up trucks rather than Ford F250 trucks. Mr. Hare questioned why Fleet Maintenance and Power Plant staff could not use a $20,900 pick-up truck. In response, Mr. Koenig stated that each department selected the components for their trucks when the requests were brought forward. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Koenig stated that the evaluations from the Fleet Maintenance shop could be provided to members of Council. Mr. Sudler indicated that he would like this information because members would be voting on this matter and would be held accountable to constituents. Mr. Anderson stated that approximately five (5) years ago the City had a vehicle replacement cycle which was abandoned, and this is now done based on evaluation of condition by a certified mechanic. He questioned if this process had resulted in better use of taxpayer money and savings over the past five (5) years. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that he thought it had; however, it had not reduced the number of questions when coming before Council for replacements. He indicated that not many vehicles were brought forward on a seven (7) or five (5) year schedule, especially in general government. Mr. Koenig believed the evaluations stood for themselves. Mr. Lewis stated his opinion that this could be looked at as time moves on. He felt that staff was trying to be cost effective but suggested being more cost effective because vehicles are not cheap, noting that a basic Ford Escort costs approximately $14,000. Mr. Anderson moved to recess, seconded by Mr. Slavin and unanimously carried. The meeting recessed at 7:11 p.m. Mr. Anderson moved to reconvene the meeting, seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 54 The meeting reconvened at 7:21 p.m. Mr. Hutchison noted that, in looking at the budget and what had been discussed during the last seven (7) hours, the biggest discussion had been about a pick-up truck. He expressed faith in the City Manager. Mr. Hutchison advised that when the budget is brought forth, he looks at things like personnel, overtime, health care costs, and the Electric and Water Departments. He stated that the budget is tremendous and he would not waste time worrying about a pick-up truck. Mr. Hutchison felt that members have a responsibility to pay attention to what the City Manager is saying in discussing the budget. He stated that the City has a first-class operation and the service department does its job well. Mr. Sudler questioned the purpose of having a budget hearing if every component is not scrutinized and reviewed. Mr. Slavin stated that members would agree to disagree politely and with statesmanship and move on. Financial Forecast by Fund Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, reviewed a presentation entitled, “City of Dover General Fund Financial Projections 2017 - 2021” (page 62). Referring to Key Assumptions, Projected Operating Expenses (page 63), she indicated that the retirements listed under other charges had been pulled out and not included. Mrs. Mitchell advised members that the references to slide #4 and slide #5 referred to pages 65 and 66, respectively. She explained that, unlike the utility models, project descriptions were not included in the General Fund forecast model, and there were only numbers by department. Mrs. Mitchell, referring to Revenues, Expenditures & Fund Balance (page 64), stated that the 2017 column showed that revenues equaled expenditures, and the fund balance ending was 9.6%, which was over the 8% minimum by $692,900, which is the minimum fund balance requirement. Mrs. Mitchell noted that the City would start falling short again in 2018, based on the forecast and assumptions built into the model. Mr. Lewis expressed concerns regarding the gap in the out-years, asking how it was intended to pay the bills. In response, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she had not built in increases to say how this would be paid for in revenues or where expenses could be reduced at this point. In the past, this had been done when approaching each year. She indicated that a long-term plan to address things structurally had not been done at this time. Mr. Slavin advised that the forecast for the out-years reflected what would happen if members did not do anything as a Council on the expenditure or revenue side and all revenues continued to grow at the same, relatively static rate that they are now. He advised that this is a type of wake up call to members that things need to be adjusted. In reference Revenue Assumptions (page 65), Mrs. Mitchell stated that property taxes had a growth assumption of 1.3%. She indicated that assumptions were based on historic trends over the last three (3) years. Referring to Expenditure Assumptions (page 66), she stated that the assumed 2.5%

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 55 increase in salaries and wages was based on a combination of contracts and the City’s history for the last three (3) years, noting that attrition and those types of things are built in. Referring to Capital Projects - Funding Sources (page 67), Mrs. Mitchell explained that the appropriation from the General Fund was driving the deficit in the operating fund. She stated that this money comes from the operating fund to pay for capital projects, noting that this transfer increased from $1.8M to $2.9M. Mrs. Mitchell advised that the bond proceeds were placeholders for the stormwater and Schutte Park projects, reminding members that Mr. Koenig planned try to obtain partnerships to fund these projects and the true amount was unknown. She stated that the City’s tax limit without referendum is $7.6M, and just the stormwater portion of this project would be $7.6M. Mrs. Mitchell reviewed the General Fund Projected Debt Service (page 68), explaining that it reflected current debt service; however, new debt service for the projects previously discussed would not be included until staff knows in what direction the projects will go. She explained that the Debt Financing - Old PW2/Schutte Park Redevelopment (page 70), included information regarding the what the debt service would be if $11.3M were bonded. Mr. Anderson asked if there were any areas of potential growth in the forecast for the General Fund. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell indicated that she had not seen any but had used the current growth rate for the out-years and kept it static. She had not heard of any major developments. Mrs. Mitchell indicated that she discusses this with Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, to try to get an idea about land development plans and to get information about business licenses and permits. Mrs. Mitchell stated that did not see it growing at a faster rate than today in any out-year. Referring to the bond issue for Schutte Park buildings, equipment, and grounds, Mr. Anderson asked if this included park improvements. In response, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the bond issue included the Public Works Schutte Park improvements as well as the stormwater project, but did not include fields and the like. Mr. Anderson asked if this was because of the fund that the bonds come from, and Mrs. Mitchell stated that it was not. She explained that a need for a bond issue for fields or other such projects had been programmed. Mr. Anderson commented that there were 14 acres of empty land but not enough fields for the two (2) soccer leagues, and there was a demand for running paths, etc. He stated that these things were planned and questioned why they were not included as part of the bond issue for the park. In response, Mr. Koenig stated that the Tar Ditch project and the naming of the improvements at Schutte Park were causing confusion. The improvements to the land relate to the Public Works and Electric land located at the back of the park that is isolated to the left of the road going in. Mr. Koenig indicated that staff was going through a design process to move all storage from old PW2 to Schutte Park, with a rough estimate of approximately $3M to do this. The City had not signed off on this project because the first thing would be to get the funding commitment for the stormwater project and begin construction. Mr. Koenig advised that two (2) other discussions would

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 56 affect what is constructed at the back of Schutte Park: 1) the future of City Hall and if another City Hall would be built and; 2) whether the City was considering a new City warehouse. He indicated that a new warehouse facility would likely reduce the cost of construction at the back of Schutte Park but would not eliminate it. He stated that salt storage would be moved into a salt barn at the back of the park, and other items, like crusher run, coal patch, street sweeping debris, etc. must be accounted for and stored correctly. Mr. Koenig stated that the City was under pressure from the State to have stormwater permits and plans for each City-owned facility. He felt that the total project cost of $11.1M was a subjective cost that distorts the long-range projection because he was trying to reduce this amount, and the City had not committed to this cost. Mr. Koenig advised that, from outside engineering and analysis, the City knows the approximate cost and if a bid is obtained at that level, that component could come out of play. The design for improvements at the back of Schutte land was approximately 75% on the consultant side. Mr. Koenig stated that staff was not ready to commit to the cost of the project or what it would look like, noting that it could potentially be done in stages. The discussion of other facilities would influence what happens with that. Mrs. Mitchell reviewed a presentation entitled, “City of Dover Water and Wastewater Fund Financial Projections - 2017-2021” (page 72). Referring to FY17 - FY21 Key Assumptions (page 74), she advised that the Wastewater Utility experiences a negative cash position starting in FY18 and the Water Utility in FY19. Unless greater growth occurs or realized costs reductions are sustained, the rates would need to be increased to maintain positive net income and cash, assuming all the above assumptions are met. Staff recommended a cost of service study for the Water/Wastewater Utility to determine appropriate rates and if the current rate structure is equitable among all users. Mrs. Mitchell reminded members that Mr. Koenig had spoken of an inclining block during the Special Council meeting - Budget Review of May 24, 2016. She advised that the wastewater utility does not have classes of customers, PJM charges, and complexity with demand like the Electric Fund does. Mrs. Mitchell noted that rates could almost be done from the forecast model. She stated that when talking about the wear and tear on the system from larger customers, she felt it would behoove the City, if it was planned to look at this for electric in the future, to do this with a consultant for the Water/Wastewater at the same time. Referring to Net Income - Combined Water & Wastewater (page 75), Mrs. Mitchell indicated that this was prepared on a Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) basis to meet bond covenants rather than the budgetary basis usually seen in the budget book. She noted that depreciation and some other items were included that are not normally seen in the budget. Mrs. Mitchell stated that expenses and revenues are the same, but additional information is provided. She explained that transfer to the capital project fund should equal depreciation to make sure the replacement cost of the assets is covered. Mrs. Mitchell stated that this had not quite been achieved in this fund, although it was closer than it used to be. In FY 16 the Net Positive/(Negative Cash) reflected a negative $224,900, which was mostly the result of not receiving the sales from Calpine that were projected. This net amount was projected to be positive in 2017 and 2018 but return to negative in 2019.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 57 In reference to Net Income - Water (page 76), Mrs. Mitchell stated that the projected Net Positive/(Negative Cash) reflected a negative $593,700. This item was projected to be positive in 2017 and 2018, but would return to negative in 2019. She indicated that the debt service calculation was included in these schedules. Mrs. Mitchell indicated that the Net Income - Wastewater (page 77) had a similar scenario with the Net Positive/(Negative Cash) being positive in 2016 and 2017, then becoming negative in 2018. Responding to Mr. Anderson regarding whether Mrs. Mitchell had any recommendations on this, she indicated that the cost of service study that she mentioned earlier would help to determine how the City should structure rates and whether an inclining block should be considered for the Water/Wastewater Fund. She indicated that they had discussed putting an RFP together this fiscal year to move forward next year. Mrs. Mitchell advised members that the Capital Improvement Plan - Funding Sources (page 78) showed the funding sources for the projects previously reviewed by Mr. Koenig. Referring to Debt Issues (page 80), Mrs. Mitchell stated that when using the State Revolving Fund loans, they are issued as revenue bonds. She advised that most communities use general obligation bonds. If revenue bonds are used, the rates must be set to cover bond service payments, and they also require one (1) year of annual debt service to be put aside as a reserve and this had not played in yet. Mrs. Mitchell reviewed a presentation entitled, “City of Dover Electric Revenue Fund Financial Projections, 2017-2021”(page 85). Referring to FY17 - FY21 Key Assumptions (page 87), she stated that the kWh demand for F17 - FY21 was for approximately 1% annual growth, noting that 0.5% annual growth was projected last year. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the transfer to the capital project fund in the Electric Fund would mirror the depreciation cost annually and would be adjusted downward once staff knows more about the decommissioning of Units 1 and 2. In response to Mr. Hosfelt regarding the annual growth rate, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the City obtains the growth and load forecast from The Energy Authority (TEA). They project the demand on the system, what will be used and purchased, and sales are mirrored to grow at the same rate. Referring Net Income (page 88), Mr. Anderson questioned why there was a large increase in electric income projected in 2019 which then decreased. Mrs. Mitchell attributed this to the power supply, which decreased from approximately $50M to $44.8M. She stated that the City had entered into two (2) long-term contracts at favorable rates this year and these numbers were part of the result of these contracts. Referring to Debt Service Coverage (page 88), Mrs. Mitchell stated that the City was meeting its debt covenants. In regard to Cash Flow Position, Net Positive/(Negative Cash), she indicated that this amount was $3.5M in Revised 2016, $2M in 2017, and $1.9M for 2018. The amount would increase to $3.7M in 2019, $2.7M in 2020, and $5.7M in 2021. She stated that a transfer of $773,000 in 2016 from the Rate Stabilization Reserve was used to help cover part of the costs. In proposed 2017, two (2) transfers were proposed to reserves, one (1) for land acquisition for the

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 58 Dover Air Force Base Substation and one (1) to the Rate Stabilization Reserve that was being shored up based on new policy because of potential penalties if there are forced outages. In 2019 and 2020, money would be transferred to reserves for the potential for a new substation at the Garrison Oak Technology Park. Mrs. Mitchell reviewed Purchased Power Expense, (page 90), explaining that the City was 88% hedged in 2019 and 80% in 2020 and that this was the result of the two (2) long-term contracts approved earlier this year. She indicated that the power supply drops off from 2018 to 2019. In regard to Net Electric Generation Benefit (page 91), Mrs. Mitchell stated that this information reflected the net generation cash flow from having the power plants and the amount that would be netted over a five (5) year period. Referring to Capital Improvement Plan Funding 2017 - 2021 (page 94), Mrs. Mitchell stated that $862,500 was projected in FY 2018 related to the ERP system. She indicated that during the preliminary budget review, the ERP system was included in the General Fund; however, she had taken it out of the Finance Department because it was distorting interfund allocations when making projections. Mrs. Mitchell advised that this $1M extrapolates into every year on the inflation rate. She was having to develop an annual amortization table for bond financing and allocate the debt based on the use of the Electric Fund, Water/Wastewater Fund, and the General Fund, which was a complex annual exercise. She felt it would be easier to pay for it through the Electric Fund and have the Water/Wastewater and the General Funds pay their part to the Electric Fund. Mrs. Mitchell advised that $400,000 of the $862,500 is related to the General Fund and $462,000 to the Water/Wastewater Fund. She indicated that she had not yet included payment of this money in the forecast for the General Fund; however, the transfers in the budget related to the Water/Wastewater Fund were included in the forecast over the next two (2) years, with a quarter of these monies included each year for each of the utilities in the Water/Wastewater Fund. Mrs. Mitchell reviewed the Projected Debt Service for the Electric Revenue Fund (page 95), noting that there was currently only one (1) outstanding bond issue and the last payment was made on 2010 bonds in July 2015. Referring to FY17 - FY21 Reserve Account Projections (page 96), she stated that $7M would be transferred to the Future Capacity Reserve in 2019 and 2020 to prepare for a potential substation at the Garrison Oak Technology Park. Mrs. Mitchell explained that $750,000 being transferred to the Depreciation Reserve and the Future Capacity Reserve in 2017 would be for land acquisition for the Dover Air Force Base Substation. Mrs. Mitchell reviewed the Alternative Budget & Forecast (page 97), stating that she and the City Manager would welcome a discussion of the City’s current rate model design to determine if a reset is necessary before any future rate changes are presented. She explained that this would include the potential for winter/summer rates and customer charge increases to cover fixed cost, which in turn would affect energy and demand charges. Referring to Net Income with PCA Credit (page 98), Mrs. Mitchell stated that Revenue from Power Cost Adjustments (PCA) would be $1,798,000 in 2017. There would continue to be positive cash from operations and positive net income. Referring to Debt Service Coverage and Cash Flow Position (page 99), Mrs. Mitchell indicated that the City would meet its debt covenants. Net

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 59 Positive/(Negative Cash) would be cut close in 2017 and 2018, but would increase in 2019, based on all the assumptions made. In regard to the PCA credit, Mr. Hosfelt questioned if this credit would include large commercial or residential customers. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell advised that it would apply to every class of customers. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Mitchell advised that she recommended a reset each year based on how the budget comes out, indicating that she had included the information for five (5) years in the forecast; however, if the assumptions used do not play through for all five (5) years, it would have to be adjusted. She stated that rates would not be adjusted and that this would be a power cost adjustment (PCA) on the bill, separate from the rates. Mr. Anderson questioned if PCA credits are generally intended to be a temporary, one (1) or two (2) year item, noting that otherwise there would be a rate change. In response, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she had recommended resetting the adjustment every year because there had been discussion about having a rate study and possibly resetting the rate. She felt there should be a philosophical discussion about how to structure rates, for example, if a winter/summer rate was desired. Mrs. Mitchell recommending having this discussion and then coming back with a new rate study. Mr. Anderson questioned if the City would spend another six (6) figures on a rate study. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell indicated that this was not known and this matter was being discussed. Referring to Cash Flow Position (page 99), Mr. Anderson questioned why this number was projected down to a level of $147,500 in Projected 2018. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell explained that she used the $0.00252 PCA in the analysis because she was trying to ensure that the City came out with a positive cash amount. Acknowledging that there was still potential for a penalty, etc., Mrs. Mitchell advised that the reserves had been shored up enough that she felt comfortable with the PCA credit. She indicated that this could be changed if Council was not comfortable with it. Mr. Anderson expressed concern, stating that the City sometimes experiences deep winters and is suddenly looking for cash. Mrs. Mitchell advised members that, when going through the model, she was troubled by the question of why rates were increased in FY 16, only to be followed by a PCA credit in FY 17. She stated that she had looked at the model to see if there was a problem with the modeling or if there were circumstances that happened throughout the year that were unknown when putting together last year’s budget. Mrs. Mitchell reviewed the City of Dover Capital Asset Reserve Trend Five Year Analysis Thru April 2016 (Exhibit #11), explaining that she had completed this analysis by fund to determine if something was off with the modeling, and she was comfortable that the variation was due to changes this year. For example, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the OPEB and pension costs decreased substantially in the Electric Fund, and the related actuary study was not received until after the beginning of the fiscal year. She advised that when the economic development rate was discussed, there was a savings in this area. In addition, she noted that in last year’s modeling, debt service for the 2010 bond was not fully considered. Mrs. Mitchell indicated that the final payment for the debt service was made on July 1, 2015, and it was included as an expense for the current year.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 60 She indicated that she had not thought far enough ahead to consider that this expense would be taken care of by July 1. This expense was no longer in the forecast model for FY 17. Mrs. Mitchell stated that she had reviewed the modeling for every fund to see if there was a problem with the way that staff was doing the modeling, stating the desire to send the message to the City’s customers that costs were understandable. Responding to Mr. Anderson regarding the extent of the PCA, Mrs. Mitchell stated that it would be approximately 2%. Mr. Anderson stated his understanding that this would temporarily reverse most of the rate increase from last year. In response, Mr. Koenig indicated that approximately two-thirds of the rate increase would be reversed through the PCA. Members were provided City of Dover Projected Budget Trends (Exhibit #12). Mrs. Mitchell advised that this included projections for budget trends for revenues and expenses by fund based on the forecast. She reviewed the percentages of change in the annual receipts and expenditures for the General Fund over the five (5) year period, indicating that expenditures were trending at a greater rate of growth than revenues, and advised that this was also true in the Water/Wastewater Fund and the Electric Fund. Mr. Slavin stated that this was the conclusion of the formal presentation of the budget. On Council’s behalf, he extended appreciation to Mr. Koenig, Mrs. Mitchell, staff who helped prepare the budget, staff who attended the budget review sessions, and the City Clerk’s Office for staffing the budget meetings. Mr. Slavin advised that it was time for mark-up of the budget, stating that in prior years there had typically been a gap between revenue and expenses which had to be closed by the end of the night; however, there was no gap this year. He suggested, if members wished to add items to the budget, that they suggest an area in which to cut a similar amount so that a gap would not be created. Mr. Slavin stated that, during the mark-up period, items that have a monetary effect on the budget could be brought forward for consideration, as well as programmatic recommendations for Staff to incorporate in the next year’s work plans. Mr. Lewis referred to Parks & Recreation (page 216), reminding members that Mr. Koenig had recommended that the City’s contribution to the African American Festival be decreased by $3,000. Mr. Lewis asked if funds from the proposed $25,000 in discretionary funds for Council members could be made available to assist with the Festival. He referred to correspondence dated May 25, 2016 that members and the Mayor had received from Mr. Reuben Salters, Founder/Chairman, of the Inner City Cultural League, Inc. regarding the African American Festival (Exhibit #13). Mr. Lewis stated that he supported the African American Festival. Responding, Mr. Slavin indicated that if Mr. Lewis wanted to reduce the overall amount of discretionary funds by $3,000, the specific amount of $3,000 could be taken from the funds allotted to the At-Large Council Representative. This would leave the districts’ funds intact. Mr. Slavin stated that, as the At-Large Representative, he would have less funds to divide up among the four (4) districts and that this would be fine. Mr. Lewis moved to contribute $3,000 from the At-Large City Council budget discretionary funds to the African American Festival. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 61 Mr. Anderson moved to adopt the Power Cost Adjustment (PCA) credit alternative, as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hosfelt and unanimously carried. Mr. Slavin indicated that he had a list of approximately nine (9) items from the last three (3) three evenings of budget discussions, that took the form of motions. He expressed his desire to work through some of the issues that had confronted members and needed to be addressed. Mr. Hosfelt moved that the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee assess the possibility of a comprehensive review of emergency medical services within the City of Dover. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson stated that Mr. David Truax, former City of Dover Fire Marshal, had made some interesting points during a previous meeting of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee that had also come up in the Operational and Administrative Analysis of the Fire Department. He expressed his hope that Mr. Truax would be invited to participate in this discussion. Mr. Anderson also asked that the minutes of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting when this was previously discussed be brought back into this discussion. The motion that the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee assess the possibility of a comprehensive review of emergency medical services within the City of Dover was unanimously carried. Mr. Sudler moved that the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee initiate the process whereby the review of the Mayor and Council salaries shall be conducted by the Compensation Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hosfelt and unanimously carried. Mr. Hare moved that the City Manager conduct a Request for Proposals (RFP) pertaining to health insurance coverage for City employees, and that the RFP be issued by no later than December 31, 2016. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson indicated that this matter was about cost savings but also maintaining quality. He expressed the desire not to spend too much for what might be equal or better in quality and to know what is in the marketplace. Mr. Anderson assured City employees that this was not an effort to undermine or lower the quality of health care. Mr. Hare felt that the RFP should mirror the exact coverage that the City has, stating the desire to keep the existing level of coverage or improve it. The motion that the City Manager conduct a Request for Proposals (RFP) pertaining to health insurance coverage for City employees, and that the RFP be issued by no later than December 31, 2016 was unanimously carried.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 62 Mr. Slavin suggested the possibility of offering a cash incentive to employees who choose not to take health insurance, since some employees may be in a position where using a cash incentive toward a spouse’s plan would be better or easier. Responding, Mr. Koenig indicated that if members chose to make such a motion, it could be evaluated without a major cost, but noted that there could be legal implications. Mr. Sudler moved that the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee discuss the possible inclusion of an incentive program for City employees opting not to be covered by the City’s health care plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried. Mr. Slavin stated that he had been concerned about the safety of Council Chambers for conducting public meetings and other events. Mr. Sudler moved that the City Manager conduct an initial assessment of public safety issues related to holding public meetings in the City Council Chambers and report of his findings to the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee by no later than November 1, 2016. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare. Mr. Hare suggested that something be considered to prevent those coming into City Hall from walking down the hallway, noting that there had been some issues. Mr. Sudler requested that his motion include that when a meeting is held by City Council or when a Councilperson holds a meeting in the Chambers that at least one (1) Dover police officer be present for the safety of Council and the community. Mr. Slavin stated that this would be part of the considerations in the assessment. Mayor Christiansen stated that when he and Mr. Kirby Hudson, Assistant City Manager, joined the City, they noticed that there was easy access to the entirety of 5 East Reed Street, where some modifications had been made, and also to the front entrance of City Hall. They had suggested placing doors at the hallway near the front entrance of City Hall, as well as providing shielding for employees in the Inspections Division. Mayor Christiansen hoped that Council would take this into consideration. The motion that the City Manager conduct an initial assessment of public safety issues related to holding public meetings in the City Council Chambers and report of his findings to the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee by no later than November 1, 2016 was unanimously carried. Mr. Slavin stated that he had heard from the discussion that there were a lot of activities and people involved in economic development. He indicated that most of that activity was coordinated, but there was a lack of cohesiveness between what the City was doing and what was being done with the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP). Mr. Slavin stated he did not want to get into performance- related issues, noting that if members wished to discuss this, it would have to be done in executive session. Mr. Slavin proposed wiping the slate clean in terms of how economic development was being done and building a different model in hopes of getting better results. He felt that the primary

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 63 factor was the desire to continuously improve what the City is doing with economic development. Mr. Slavin proposed a series of five (5) motions, as follows: 1) Create an economic development team within the City co-chaired by the Mayor and the City Manager. Other members would be the Chair of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee; a designee of the Downtown Dover Partnership; and the City Planner, with other staff members being pulled in as needed. Mr. Slavin advised that this team would provide monthly reports to Council, noting that there had been gaps in communication. 2) Dissolve the Economic Development Office in its entirety, as well its associated positions, and give the City Manager authorization to incur the necessary expenses to do so. This would include expenses to pay out those positions as a reduction in force for the three (3) full-time employees. 3) Set the Business Improvement District (BID) tax rate, which is a second tax assessed to all the downtown property owners, at zero (0) for FY 17. 4) Increase the appropriation for the DDP from $70,000 to $150,000, with clear direction and instructions to hire their staff from these funds. Mr. Slavin stated that there would no longer be the hybrid approach of City staff performing functions in multiple places, noting that cleaner lines of delineation were needed. 5) The balance of funds that would be available after these actions would be approximately $65,000 - $70,000, which would remain an appropriation to the Mayor’s Office for economic development purposes to be used at his discretion. Mr. Sudler moved that the Mayor and City Manager, or the City Manager’s designee, shall serve as co-chairs of the economic development team for the City of Dover. Members of the team shall include the Chair of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee, a designee of the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP) and the City Planner, and the team will provide a monthly report to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cole. Mayor Christiansen stated that he was not happy with the dissolution of the Economic Development Office; however, since economic development is the major responsibility of the Mayor of the City of Dover, he felt it would be appropriate for the Mayor to chair the economic development committee and for the City Manager to serve as a member of the committee if this direction was adopted. Mayor Christiansen felt it important that the buck stop with the Mayor on economic development issues. He indicated that it was Council’s prerogative to come up with a different model that they believe would be more successful, but asked that the motion be amended to make the Mayor the chair of the committee. Mr. Slavin stated that having a co-chair that reports to Council was not designed to be a slight to the Mayor but to avoid potential charter issues where the Mayor may ask for work service from an employee who does not report to the Mayor.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 64 Mr. Sudler indicated his understanding of the Mayor’s position; however, because the City has a Council-City Manager form of government, he felt the motion should remain as it stood. Mr. Hare advised that in 1997, when the City went to a full-time Mayor, economic development was a duty of the Mayor. He stated he had no issue with the dissolution of the Economic Development Office but agreed with Mayor Christiansen that the Mayor should be in charge of economic development. Mr. Anderson did not think the approach offered would improve the situation and felt it had the potential to take the City backwards. He believed that a positive discussion of a 21st century economic development strategy and the ramifications should be held over the long term with all stakeholders. Mr. Anderson stated that the proposed series of actions would leave out several ongoing things, such as entrepreneurial training and arrangements the City has with workforce development coordination. He also noted that staff was doing a lot with Restoring Central Dover. Mr. Anderson indicated that the Economic Development Office had planned for the farmer’s market, maintained ongoing relationships with the largest employers, and aided many small businesses. He stated that a couple of dozen moving parts would be affected by this type of move and believed that if something was done, it should be done over time, knowing exactly what would be affected. Mr. Anderson felt that quite a few people would be hurt by this type of move and he could not support most of the recommendations, although he indicated that the first motion would be a positive step. Mr. Anderson moved to amend the motion to state that the Mayor would serve as chair of the economic development committee with the members as currently suggested. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Slavin indicated that he had proposed the Mayor and City Manager to be co-chairs. Mr. Slavin did not feel this was an insurmountable problem and he had no issues with the Mayor serving as chair, reiterating that his proposal was not meant to be a slight. Mr. Sudler felt there should be a co-chairmanship. He felt that if the City had a strong mayor form of government, the Mayor should be the focal point; however, since the City has a Council-City Manager form of government, it should be a co-chairmanship. Mr. Hare agreed with Mr. Slavin that chairmanship was not a major concern. He advised that in 1997 there was not an official committee, but there was a similar situation with economic development. The Mayor was in charge, along with the City Manager, and Council members were also involved. He stated that the Mayor was the economic development person; however, if he needed something, the City Manager was there to help, and it was a collaborative effort. Mr. Hutchison stated that he liked the idea of the Mayor and City Manager co-chairing economic development because the City Manager works for Council and is responsible for the budget.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 65 Mayor Christiansen stated that Mr. Koenig, Mr. Hudson, and members of City staff work together well as a team and would continue to do so. He felt that the Mayor should be the point person and assume the responsibilities that Council gave to the Mayor over the years. Mayor Christiansen suggested the possibility of making the City Manager vice chair. Mr. Sudler called for the question. Mr. Koenig advised that Mr. Lewis wished to comment and Mr. Sudler withdrew the call for the question. Mr. Lewis felt that whether or not the Mayor chaired the committee was not a major issue, noting that Council President Slavin chairs City Council meetings but all members are equal and have a vote. Mr. Lewis had no objection to the Mayor serving as chair since economic development falls under his auspices. Mr. Sudler agreed with Mr. Hutchison that the City Manager prepares the budget and has a more in- depth view of economic development. He reiterated that, based on his research regarding the current form of government, the City Manager should take lead because he deals more with the budget and with economic development than the Mayor. Mr. Sudler believed the City Manager and Mayor should have a joint chairmanship. Mayor Christiansen stated that he understood Mr. Sudler’s position; however, he explained that he spends time hunting for people to bring jobs for all citizens to Dover and had been involved in bringing many entities to the City. Mayor Christiansen believed that the City’s current form of government was not the best form of government but that everyone works as a team. He saw no reason why the Mayor should not be the chair of the economic development committee and, referring to a quote from Harry Truman, indicated that the buck would stop here. Mr. Anderson felt that the form of government was not really an issue. He noted that the Economic Development Office reports to the Mayor rather than the City Manager and is the only department besides the Police Department that does so. Mr. Anderson stated that there were three (3) reasons why the office of Mayor was made full-time, as follows: 1) so there would be an elected official on a full-time basis to address the concerns of constituents; 2) to lobby the public relations aspects of the City and address public safety; and 3) for economic development, which is vital to the future of the City. Mr. Anderson desired to have someone responsible to address the issues of jobs and that this function not be divided between the City Planner, City Manager, and Economic Development Director since a focal point of policy responsibility was needed. Noting that economic development was part of the reasoning and logic behind the full-time Mayor, Mr. Anderson did not feel the City should go backwards on this and needed to move more in that direction. Mr. Slavin requested that members not begin with an assumption that people do not work well together. He stated that they do work well together, would continue to do so, and if they did not this would be fixed. Mr. Cole called for the question, seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 66 On a call for the question, the amendment to the motion stating that the Mayor would serve as chair of the economic development committee and the other members remain as suggested carried by a roll call vote of six (6) yes (Anderson, Lewis, Cole, Hosfelt, Hare, Slavin), and two (2) no (Sudler and Hutchison). The motion that the Mayor serve as Chair of the economic development committee for the City of Dover and that members of the committee shall include the City Manager, or the City Manager’s designee, the chair of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee, a designee of the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP), and the City Planner, and the committee will provide a monthly report to Council carried by a roll call vote of six (6) yes (Anderson, Lewis, Cole, Hosfelt, Hare, Slavin), and two (2) no (Sudler and Hutchison). Mr. Cole moved to dissolve the Economic Development Office, authorize the City Manager to incur the necessary expenses to dissolve the Office, and authorize a reduction-in-force of three (3) full-time employees. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis. Mr. Anderson believed that this was not an issue that should be handled in this format without an extensive look at where the City was going and what it was doing. Mr. Anderson moved to refer this matter to Committee. The motion failed for lack of a second. The motion to dissolve the Economic Development Office, authorize the City Manager to incur the necessary expenses to dissolve the Office, and authorize a reduction-in-force of three (3) full-time employees carried with Mr. Anderson voting no. Mr. Hosfelt moved to set the tax rate for the Business Improvement District (BID) for FY 2017 at zero (0). The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare. Mr. Slavin indicated that this would not remove the structure of the tax but simply roll the rate down to zero (0). The structure would be left in place in case it is needed in future years for special projects. Mr. Anderson questioned what would be cut in the budget to achieve this. Responding, Mr. Slavin stated that setting the BID tax rate to zero (0) would be balanced from the funds that were previously appropriated for the Economic Development Office. He explained that additional funds that were previously appropriated for the Economic Development Office would be transferred to DDP and the balance would remain in the Mayor’s Office to use at his discretion. There would a net impact of $0 to the budget. Mr. Anderson felt that Council should be very careful about this, noting that the City spends a good amount money for items specific to downtown for promoting events and marketing. He stated that instead of having a user fee for the people who are benefitting, this would be a general tax. Mr. Anderson stated that certain items are associated with the BID tax that provide funding assurance for the DDP, because once it becomes a general appropriation, there is no longer funding

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 67 certainty. He advised that the DDP has over $2M in loans and it helps to have funding assurance. Mr. Anderson indicated that he was unsure that this was the right way to go. Mr. Slavin stated that he would no longer support double taxation on property owners in a specific area of the City. The motion to set the tax rate for the Business Improvement District (BID) for FY 2017 at zero (0) carried with Mr. Anderson voting no. Mr. Hare moved to increase the appropriation to the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP) from the proposed $70,000 to $150,000 with specific instructions to the DDP that they are responsible for staffing costs from that appropriation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cole and carried with Mr. Anderson voting no. Mr. Hosfelt moved that the balance of funds available after the dissolution of the Economic Development Office, the reduction of the Business Improvement District (BID) tax, and the increased appropriation to the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP) will be appropriated to the Mayor’s Office for economic development purposes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cole and carried with Mr. Anderson voting no. In response to Mayor Christiansen regarding the effective date of the Economic Development Office dissolution, Mr. Slavin indicated that this matter would be left to the City Manager due to personnel issues. Mr. Slavin advised that some economic development activities had been focused on new jobs and the City had also successfully focused on job retention. Mr. Cole moved that the newly formed economic development team make recommendations regarding a job retention initiative for existing large commercial users of utilities in order to proactively protect the existing job base. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hosfelt and unanimously carried. Mr. Slavin noted that there had been previous discussion about a youth focus group initiative. Mr. Sudler moved to establish a youth focus group initiative across City government. The purpose of the program would be to solicit input on ideas, solutions, and issues from the youth of the City. The following departments will be required to hold a focus group with the youth who are residents of the City of Dover: Planning, Parks and Recreation, Dover Public Library, and Police. The focus group will be held before December 1 of each year and reports of the various departments will be made to Council no later than February 1 of the following year. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cole and unanimously carried.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 68 Mr. Slavin expressed his intention to introduce a motion at a future Council meeting that would rescind Resolution No. 2010-03 which established the Youth Advisory Committee and discharge the members from their current duties. In the spirit of fairness, he preferred to have the formal notice placed on an agenda rather than considered during the budget meeting. Mr. Sudler moved to authorize the City Manager to obtain an appraisal for the Ridgely property. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson questioned whether Mr. Koenig would be obtaining the value of the warehouse in the Pear Street area. In response, Mr. Koenig stated that he was seeking appraisals on several properties and these properties could be incorporated. Mr. Anderson indicated that, with this understanding, he would not ask that this property be included in the motion. Mr. Sudler moved to amend the motion to indicate that the appraisal would be completed within four (4) months from this evening, and Mr. Anderson concurred with this change. The motion to authorize the City Manager to obtain an appraisal for the Ridgely property on or before September 26, 2016 was unanimously carried. Mr. Hare moved to bring any position that remains open for over six (6) months without being recruited to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee for approval. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler. Mr. Slavin asked that this discussion take place during a future Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting. He indicated that one (1) of the discipline measures just included in the budget was that positions would be not be filled until all buyout time is completed. Mr. Slavin felt that this was a good disciplinary practice fiscally and he did not want departments to be told it took too long to fill a position if it was Council’s precept that caused the delay. Mr. Hare felt this should be reviewed by the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee because if a long-term employee retires from a department and they are unable to fill the position for eight (8) or nine (9) months, it may not be a key position. In response, Mr. Slavin pointed out that the reason the position would be kept open that long would be because the City was trying to practice fiscal discipline, noting that giving up on fiscal discipline would cause higher personnel costs. Mr. Slavin advised members that the motion before them was to send this matter forward to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee for discussion. Mr. Anderson asked if this would include temporary positions. For example, he stated that a critical employee in the Finance Department was deployed for over a year and temporary help was hired to cover the position. Responding, Mr. Slavin indicated that the motion would encourage this type of discussion by the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 69 The motion to have the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee consider whether any position that remains open for over six (6) months without being recruited should be brought to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee for approval carried with Mr. Anderson voting no. Mr. Sudler moved for adjournment. Mr. Anderson noted that adjourning would end the budget review. Mr. Lewis questioned if members would meet on June 1, 2016. Mr. Sudler withdrew the motion to adjourn. Mr. Slavin stated that if members were finished, there would be no need for an additional budget meeting. Mr. Anderson questioned the amount of $50,000 that was allocated to develop a master plan for Dover Park, noting that this was a lot of money for a master plan. He stated that this would be ignoring everything that the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee; Mt. Zion A.M.E. Social Action Committee, and the City of Dover Recreation Needs Assessment had said, noting that these funds would not be spent on amenities. Responding, Mr. Slavin asked if this matter could be brought up during the First Reading of the budget ordinance, when Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, would be present. He encouraged Mr. Anderson to have a conversation with Mrs. Townshend, who may be able to answer his questions. Mr. Slavin reminded members that adjournment of this meeting would end Council’s hearings on the budget. He stated that the First Reading of the budget ordinance would take place during the Regular Council Meeting of June 13, 2016 and the Final Reading and adoption of the ordinance would occur during the Regular Council Meeting of June 27, 2016, noting that additional measures and clarification could take place during those meetings. Mr. Sudler moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Cole and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m. TRACI A. McDOWELL CITY CLERK

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET REVIEW) MAY 24, 25, AND 26, 2016 PAGE 70 All ordinances, resolutions, motions, and orders adopted by City Council during their Special Meeting of May 24, 25, and 26, 2016, are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /TM S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Council-Minutes\2016\05-24_05-25_05-26 Budget Review.wpd Exhibits Exhibit #1 - Outlays and Receipts (Property Taxes in as Public Safety) for Governmental Activities and Outlays and Receipts (Incl. Property Taxes) for Governmental Activities Exhibit #2 - Projected Cost Per Capita by Function - Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Exhibit #3 - Kent County Treatment Fees - Trend of Fees Billed and Charges Paid Exhibit #4 - Memorandum from Mrs. Mitchell and Mr. Koenig, dated May 17, 2016, regarding the Revised FY 16 Budget & FY 17 Proposed Budget Exhibit #5 - Memorandum from Mr. Koenig, dated May 25, 2016, regarding Non-Bargaining Pay Increase Recommendation - FY 2017 Budget Exhibit #6 - General Fund Expenses by Department/Division - General Fund Expenses by Major Function (list), General Fund Expenses by Major Function (graph), and Projected Cost Per Capita by Function Exhibit #7 - Outlays and Receipts for Governmental Activities Exhibit #8 - City of Dover Electric Revenue Fund - FY 16 - White Oak Solar Park Incremental Cost Report Exhibit #9 - Fiscal Year July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016 Quarterly Revenue Report as of March 31, 2016 Exhibit #10- Email from Mr. Koenig, dated May 26, 2016, regarding Budget Questions Exhibit #11- City of Dover Capital Asset Reserve Trend Five Year Analysis Thru April 2016 Exhibit #12- City of Dover Projected Budget Trends Exhibit #13- Correspondence from Mr. Reuben Salters, dated May 25, 2016, regarding the African American Festival

EXHIBIT #1 2016 Budget Review Special Council Meeting of 05/24/2016

EXHIBIT #2 2016 Budget Review Special Council Meeting of 05/24/2016

EXHIBIT #3 2016 Budget Review City of Dover Special Council Meeting of 05/24/2016 Kent County Treatment Fees Trend of Fees Billed and Charges Paid Beginning Ending Budget Annual Annual Budget Fiscal Year Ended June 30 Balance Revenues Charges Balance 1997 $ - $ 2,399,975 $ 3,664,852 $ (1,264,877) 1998 $ (1,264,877) $ 2,436,182 $ 2,653,835 $ (1,482,530) 1999 * $ (1,482,530) $ 2,452,087 $ 2,284,788 $ (1,315,232) 2000 $ (1,315,232) $ 2,512,562 $ 2,516,910 $ (1,319,580) 2001 $ (1,319,580) $ 2,686,790 $ 2,603,943 $ (1,236,733) Rolled into Total Budget Balance $ (1,236,733) $ 1,236,733 $ - $ 0 2002 $ - $ 2,814,587 $ 2,811,939 $ 2,648 2003 $ 2,648 $ 2,778,521 $ 3,442,420 $ (661,251) 2004 $ (661,251) $ 2,743,359 $ 3,829,289 $ (1,747,181) Rolled into Total Budget Balance $ (1,747,181) $ 1,019,090 $ - $ (728,091) 2005 $ (728,091) $ 2,611,290 $ 3,470,312 $ (1,587,113) 2006 $ (1,587,113) $ 3,865,684 $ 3,628,057 $ (1,349,486) 2007 $ (1,349,486) $ 4,031,540 $ 3,702,815 $ (1,020,761) 2008 $ (1,020,761) $ 4,109,166 $ 3,633,731 $ (545,326) 2009 $ (545,326) $ 3,733,644 $ 3,585,791 $ (397,473) 2010 $ (397,473) $ 3,100,547 $ 4,575,155 $ (1,872,081) 2011 $ (1,872,081) $ 4,230,032 $ 3,601,194 $ (1,243,243) 2012 $ (1,243,243) $ 4,341,095 $ 3,724,238 $ (626,386) 2013 $ (626,386) $ 4,240,649 $ 3,631,516 $ (17,253) 2014 $ (17,253) $ 4,246,542 $ 4,129,646 $ 99,643 2015 $ - $ 4,784,641 $ 4,127,919 $ 656,722 2016 Revised $ - $ 4,963,200 $ 4,130,000 $ 833,200 2017 Proposed $ - $ 5,088,000 $ 4,225,000 $ 863,000 Historical Comments: In 1999 our credit rating was downgraded due to missing our debt covenant in 1997 and 1998. The downgrading was largely attributed to two factors (1) Kent County changed their billing from quarterly to monthly which increased the cost for 1997 and (2) inflow and infiltration associated with both years due to higher water tables. Prior to 2005 City billed the rate paid to Kent County for treatment with no markup for Inflow/Infiltration 2005 - County rate = $1.85 per thousand gallons 2005 - City implemented a $.25 sewer rate increase to pay down budget deficit 2006 - County rate = $2.13 per thousand gallons; $.28 increase 2006 - City implemented a $.20 sewer rate increase to pay down budget deficit 2008 - County increased treatment fee rate $.21; New rate $2.34 2011 - City implemented Groundwater Adjustment Charge $1.05 per thousand gallons included above 2015 - City increased Groundwater Adjustment Charge to $1.50 per thousand gallons included above

EXHIBIT #4 2016 Budget Review Special Council Meeting of 05/24/2016 City of Dover Finance Department PO Box 475 Dover DE 19903-0475 Phone: (302-736-7018 FAX: (302) 760-4930 E-Mail: dmitchell@dover.de.us MEMORANDUM To: Council President Slavin Members of City Council From: Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer & Scott Koenig, City Manager Copy: Mayor Robin Christiansen, Kirby Hudson, Assistant City Manager, Finance & City Clerk's Office Date: May I 7, 20I6 Subject: Revised FYI6 Budget & FYI 7 Proposed Budget - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - Attached you will find (I) a listing of budget amendments by revenue source or department/division expense item for Fiscal Year 20 I 6. Along with the FYI 7 Proposed Budget we will be recommending revisions for these items to the current year budget. These revisions are being recommended to cover the budget variances in several divisions attributed to the following - • Program revenues were revised to reflect updated estimates provided by the Departments • Settlement of FOP and DOE contracts, which were not included in the original budget • Wage, overtime and temp help variances attributed to vacant positions and attrition • Adjustments for change in benefits, i.e. employee's transferred between divisions with higher or lower benefits • Grounds, Streets, & Sanitation contract services (outsourcing janitors) and temp agency help was increased by the offset in personnel savings • All other personnel accounts were trued up and the difference was netted against the Other Employment Expenses (Fund Expense) that we use for vacation sell back, retirement payouts, and education assistance. The General Fund balance of this account prior to these changes was $I67,100 and afterwards it is $52,000. In essence, the personnel savings offset most of the contract negotiations and the unfavorable personnel variances. • There were also some significant adjustments needed for demolitions, legal expenses, and the snow storms this past winter; as well as some unplanned expenses in a few divisions. We combed through all the budgets for savings to cover as much of these adjustments as possible. The remainder is covered through additional transfer tax revenues that were included in the Budget Revision approved by City Council in February. • There was considerable savings in electricity and gasoline accounts across all funds. Therefore, all budgets were adjusted down to reflect these savings. The second attachment (2) is a listing of the items adjusted to close the gap between the FY20I 7 Preliminary Budget presented in early April and the FY20I 7 Draft Budget that is being presented on Tuesday evening. We hope you will find these schedules helpful in your review and understanding of the Budget submission. Please feel free to contact either Mr. Koenig or myself if you have any questions. Thank you.

Attachment 1 City of Dover Fiscal Vear 2015-2016 Personnel Adjustments - 3rd Budget Amendment Department/ Division Original Budget Revised Budget Variance City Clerk $ 354,700 $ 354,100 $ 600 City Council 91,000 86,000 5,000 Assessor 207,200 212,200 (5,000) Fire 409,800 399,800 10,000 Grounds 923,500 812,700 110,800 Library 1,283,500 1,229,500 54,000 Recreation 466,700 476,400 (9,700) Life Safety 220,100 219,500 600 Code Enforcement 385,500 384,300 1,200 Planning 503,400 502,200 1,200 Building Inspections 462,500 466,500 (4,000) Economic Development 210,800 212,800 (2,000) Civilian Police 2,404,700 2,496,500 (91,800) Law Enforcement 11,620,300 12,265,000 (644,700) Police Extra Duty 602,400 634,200 (31,800) Streets 509,300 466,700 42,600 Sanitation 683,700 673,900 9,800 City Manager 496,500 510,500 (14,000) Information Technology 439,800 356,700 83,100 Finance 798,000 801,200 (3,200) Public Works Admin 594,000 553,500 40,500 Facilities 531,200 472,800 58,400 Public Works Engineering 175,400 167,400 8,000 Procurement & Inventory 283,900 285,800 (1,900) Fleet Maintenance 454,800 446,300 8,500 Customer Service 1,052,400 1,007,400 45,000 Human Resources 318,200 325,000 (6,800) Mayor 56,700 56,700 Grounds - Contractual Services for Mowing 43,500 (43,500) Streets - Agency Billing for Temp Help 10,000 (10,000) Sanitation - Agency Billing for Temp Help 27,000 (27,000) Other Employment Expense 468,100 52,000 416,100 Total General Fund $ 27,008,100 $ 27,008,100 $ 1

Attachment 1 City of Dover Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Personnel Adjustments - 3rd Budget Amendment Department/ Division Original Budget Revised Budget Variance Engineering $ 453,700 $ 456,700 $ {3,000) Water 531,500 535,100 (3,600) Wastewater 643,400 512,400 131,000 Water Treatment 1,014,600 1,016,700 (2,100) Other Employment Expense 20,000 142,300 (122,300) Total Water/Wastewater Fund $ 2,663,200 $ 2,663,200 $ T&D $ 3,073,200 $ 2,461,900 $ 611,300 Engineering 1,058,500 849,100 209,400 Administration 370,900 299,700 71,200 Meter Reading 325,400 333,100 (7,700) System Operators 679,800 601,500 78,300 Budget Balance - 2nd Budget Adj Pension/OPEB 681,100 {681,100) Other Employment Expense 72,000 353,400 (281,400) Total Electric Fund $ 5,579,800 $ 5,579,800 $ 2

Attachment 1 City of Dover Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Other Line Item Adjustments - 3rd Budget Amendment Budget Revenues Adjustment Comments Property Taxes $ (60,700) YTD Trend Business Licenses 13,000 YTD Trend Court of Chancery Fees 25,300 YTD Trend Sanitation Fees (50,000) YTD Trend Library Fines (5,000) YTD Trend Kent County Reciprocal Borrowing Receipts (137,400) Reduction carries into future years Police Fines (74,200) JP Court, Court of Common Pleas & Dover Code fines Police Extra Duty (71,500) Based on Extra Duty Expenses Boat Licenses 1,300 YTD Trend Interest Earnings (net of Mgment Fees) 34,800 Removed bank & cc fees from net interest earnings Civil Traffic Penalties 30,000 YTD Trend Miscellaneous Revenues 34,100 YTD Trend Franchise Fees 10,000 YTD Trend Transfer Taxes 104,100 2nd Budget Amendment was +$646,100; Total $750K Police Grants (Extra Duty related) _ ___9_8;_,3_0_0_Based on Extra Duty Expenses Subtotal Program Revenues (47,900) lnterfund Allocations - Water/Wastewater (84,400) Related to interfund Division budget changes lnterfund Allocations - Electric (190,000) Related to interfund Division budget changes General Fund Revenue Adjustments $ (322,300) Budget Department/ Division Expenses Adjustment Comments City Council $ 500 Dover Cups Grounds (10,000) Gasoline Recreation (16,000) Electricity Life Safety (1,500) Gasoline Code Enforcement (2,500) Gasoline Building Inspections 23,500 Demolitions & Gasoline (net) Economic Development 5,000 DSU Economic Study & Telephone exp. (net) Police Administration Adjustments netted to zero Streets (36,000) Gasoline & Program Expenses Sanitation (24,000) Gasoline & Program Expenses (net) City Manager 145,000 Legal Expenses & Contract Services (net) Information Technology 3,800 EVOGov Vendor - Web Page development Finance 8,500 Actuary fees related to new GASB Pensions Public Works Admin (6,000) Subscriptions & Dues Facilities Management (8,000) Electricity & Building Maintenance Procurement & Inventory 7,200 Sprinkler System, HVAC Repairs & Electricty (net) Customer Service (5,000) Office Equip Repairs & Maint Human Resources (14,000) Personnel Related & Unemployment Expenses Streets 52,600 Snow Storm Expenses General Fund Expenditure Adjustments $ 123,100 3

Attachment 1 City of Dover Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Other Line Item Adjustments - 3rd Budget Amendment Budget Revenues Adjustment Comments Water Service Fees (309,400) YTD Trends & Calpine sales Wastewater Service Fees (120,200) YTD Trends & Calpine sales Kent County Treatment Fees (110,400) YTD Trends & Calpine sales Groundwater I & I Surcharge (23,000) YTD Trends & Calpine sales Sewer Impact Fees (27,600) YTD Trends Water Impact Fees 3,400 YTD Trends Miscellaneous Revenues (7,800) YTD Trends Interest Earnings (net of Mgment Fees) - - - -7,000 - - YTD Trends Water/Wastewater Fund Revenue Adjustments (588,000) Engineering $ Water (12,000) Gasoline Wastewater (19,000) Gasoline & Electricity Water Treatment (169,000) Chemicals & Additives, Electricity & Gasoline Water/Wastewater Fund Expense Adjustments $ (200,000) Budget Revenues Adjustment Comments Customer Sales 214,600 YTD Trends Utiilty Taxes 28,500 YTD Trends Transfer from Rate Stabilization Reserve (2,250,000) Reduced as a result of higher sales & lower expenses Miscellaneous Revenues 314,200 Electric Department service work Interest Earnings (net of Mgment Fees) (12,900) YTD Trends Electric Fund Revenue Adjustments (1, 705,600) T&D $ (20,000) Gasoline Engineering (6,000) Gasoline Administration 15,000 HVAC Repairs - Weyandt Hall Meter Reading (5,000) Gasoline -----'---~ Total Electric Fund $ (16,000) 4

Attachment 2 Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Adjustments to the Preliminary Budget Del!artmentJOivlsion or Item line Item# Oescrll!tion of Adjustment Amount 110 412 480 Total Preliminary Revenues $42,370,300 $42,370,300 Inspections 321-23 Public Occupancy 1,000 1,000 1,000 Court of Chancery Fees 341-01 Current trend adjustment (74,600) (74,600) (74,600) Recreation 345-01 No growth expected with new County center (9,000) (9,000) (9,000) Library 347-xx Current trend & reduction in County receipts (67,400) (67,400) (67,400) Police 351-xx Current trend adjustments less $31,000 Police 351-17 Police Extra Duty - current estimate adjustment (100) (100) (100) Police 362-71 Police Extra Duty - Grant Receipts (16,400) (16,400) (16,400) General - Transfer Taxes 362-19 Revised estimate, based on last 3 years 132,500 132,500 132,500 Franchise Fees 369-12 Current trend adjustment 7,700 7,700 7,700 General - Miscellaneous 369-24 Revised estimate, collection of sheriff sale cost 16,300 16,300 16,300 General - Rent Revenue 369-46 Adjustment for escalator - solar park 600 600 600 lnterfund Service Receipts -W/WW 391-01 Adjustments to administrative divisions (19,400) (19,400) (19,400) lnterfund Service Receipts - Electric 391-02 Adjustments to administrative divisions (60,400) (60,400) (60,400) Net Revenue Adjustments (109,000) (109,000) (109,000) Proposed Revenues $42,261,300 $42,261 ,300 Preliminary Expenditures $43,548, 100 City Clerk 10-xx Personnel adjustments 5,700 1,300 1,100 3,300 5,700 City Council 30-35 Community Relations (900) (200) (200) (500) (900) 30-37 Other Expenses - New Item 25,000 5,600 4,600 14,400 25,000 30-92 Human Relations (2,000) (500) (400) (1,100) (2,000) Tax Assessor 10-xx Personnel adjustments 2,200 2,200 2,200 20-21 Office Supplies (400) (400) (400) Fire 10-xx Personnel adjustments (7,400) (7,400) (7,400) 40-25 Engine 7 Truck Payment (73,400) (73,400) (73,400) Grounds Maintenance 10-xx Personnel adjustments (26,700) (26,400) (100) (200) (26,700) 30-24 Heating Oil & Gas (700) (700) (700) 30-62 Gasoline (7,000) (6,900) (100) (7,000) Library 10-xx Personnel adjustments 3,900 3,900 3,900 40-31 Construction of glass wall for TV room (15,000) (15,000) (15,000) Recreation 10-xx Personnel adjustments (3,600) (3,600) (3,600) Life Safety 10-xx Personnel adjustments 1,900 1,900 1,900 Code Enforcement 10-xx Personnel adjustments (20,500) (20,500) (20,500) Planning 10-xx Personnel adjustments 5,700 5,700 5,700 40-23 Vehicle# 3 - 2003 Ford Station Wagon (16,000) (16,000) (16,000) Inspections 10-xx Personnel adjustments (6,100) (6,100) (6,100) 30-31 Contractual Services (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) 40-23 Vehicle# 13 - 2005 Ford F150 Pick Up (16,000) (16,000) (16,000) Economic Development 10-xx Personnel adjustments 2,000 2,000 2,000 Police - Civilian 10-xx Personnel adjustments (27,500) (27,500) (27,500) Police - Law Enforcement 10-xx Personnel adjustments (232,400) (232,400) (232,400) 30-28 Training (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) 30-62 Gasoline (15,000) (15,000) (15,000) 40-22 Motorcycle #256 (24,400) (24,400) (24,400) Police - Extra Duty 10-xx Personnel adjustments (16,500) (16,500) (16,500) Streets 10-xx Personnel adjustments 26,600 26,600 26,600 20-32 Security & Safety - current trend adj (500) (500) (500) 30-31 Contract Services - Ditch & Garrison mowing (20,000) (20,000) (20,000) 30-62 Gasoline (8,000) (6,000) (6,000) 40-23 2001 Intl Dump Truck (132,200) (132,200) (132,200) 40-31 ST1703 Silver Lake Dam Improvements 76,000 76,000 76,000 40-31 Street Program (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) Sanitation 10-xx Personnel adjustments (9,000) (9,000) (9,000) 1

Attachment 2 Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Adjustments to the Preliminary Budget Oeeartmenl/Olvision or Item Line Item# Oescrietlon of Adjustmont Amount 110 412 480 Total 30-62 Gasoline (25,000) (25,000) (25,000) City Manager 10-xx Personnel adjustments (56,300) (22,100) (9,300) (24,900) (56,300) 20-38 Computer Hardware 2,600 1,000 400 1,200 2,600 30-31 Lean Consulting (35,000) (13,800) (5,800) (15,400) (35,000) Information Technology 10-xx Personnel adjustments (19,800) (4,700) (5,200) (9,900) (19,800) 20-38 Computer Hardware - 10 phones & 2 PC's (10,800) (2 ,600) (2,800) (5,400) (10,800) Finance 10-xx Personnel adjustments 12,000 5,100 1,800 5,100 12,000 Public Wori<s -Administration 10-xx Personnel adjustments 6,800 2,500 4,300 6,800 Facillties Management 20-46 City Building Main! Supplies (1 ,000) (600) (100) (300) (1,000) 30-23 Electricity (3,000) (1,900) (200) (900) (3,000) 30.62 Gasoline (1,000) (600) (100) (300) (1 ,000) Public Works - Engineering 10-xx Personnel adjustments 4,300 1,600 2,700 4,300 Procurement & Inventory 10-xx Personnel adjustments 3,000 200 200 2,600 3,000 30-23 Electricity (5,000) (400) (300) (4,300) (5,000) Fleet Maintenance 10-xx Personnel adjustments 1,900 1,000 300 600 1,900 20-46 City Building Main! Supplies (1,000) (500) (200) (300) (1,000) Customer Service 10-xx Personnel adjustments (32,400) (5,600) (6,500) (20,300) (32 ,400) Human Resources 10-xx Personnel adjustments B,300 6,000 900 1,500 8,400 20-21 Furniture & Fixtures (1,000) (700) (100) (200) (1 ,000) 20-28 Medical Supplies & Physicals (1,000) (700) (100) (200) (1 ,000) 20-48 Personnel Related Expense (1,000) (700) (100) (200) (1 ,000) 30-28 Training & Conference (1,500) (1,100) (200) (200) (1 ,500) Mayor 30-37 Reduction of Mayo~s 300th Yr Expenses (15,000) (7,300) (1,900) (5,800) (15,000) Debt Service 90-24 Reduction for ERP system & Tar Ditch/PW II (295,100) (295,100) (295,100) Other Employment Expenses 91-01 Removal of all Retirement Payouts (122,600) (122,600) (122,600) Transfer to Capital Fund 90-82 Bond Issuance Cost & Interest Earned (55,000) (55,000) (55,000) Net Expenditure Adjustments (1,286,800) (1 ,207,800) (17,100) (61,800) (1,286,700) Proposed Expenditures $42,261,300 Excess Revenue (Expenditures) $0 RECAP Wages & Benefits 10-xx Total personnel adjustments from above $ (373,900) Transfer to Capital Fund - Projects 90-82 Total capital adjustments from above (356,000) Operating Expenses 20's & 30's Materials, Supplies, & Administrative expenses (139,200) Debt Service ERP & Tar Ditch/PW II (295,100) Other Employment Expenses Vacation Sell Back, retirements, and education p22.soo2 $ (1,286,800) 2

EXHIBIT #5 2016 Budget Review Special Council Meeting of 05/24/2016

FY 2017 DRAFT OPERATING BUDGET - DOVER, DELAWARE EXHIBIT #6 2016 Budget Review Special Council Meeting of 05/24/2016 General Fund - By Department/Division General Fund Expenses By Major Function CITY ADMINISTRATION RETIREE PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS City Clerk Approp. Police Pension Fund Council Approp. Police Pension - State Grant Economic Development City Manager Human Resources OTHER Mayor Contribution to DDP Miscellaneous Grant Related Exp OTher Employment Expenses LIBRARY & RECREATION Transfer to Inventory Write-Offs Library Recreation PLANNING & INSPECTIONS Life Safety Code Enforcement Planning Inspections POLICE & FIRE Fire Police Police Extra Duty FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION Tax Assesor Information Technology Finance Procurement & Inventory Customer Service Bank & Credit Card Fees Uncollectibles - Trash and Other PUBLIC WORKS Ground Maintenance Streets Sanitation Administration Facilities Management Engineering Fleet Maintenance 1

FY 2017 DRAFT OPERATING BUDGET - DOVER, DELAWARE General Fund Expenses By Major Function TRANSFER TO CAPITAL PROJECTS CITY ADMINISTRATION OTHER 4% INSURANCE 4% 1% DEBT SERVICE 2% LIBRARY & RECREATION 1% 6% STREET LIGHTS 2% PLANNING & INSPECTIONS RETIREE PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS 5% 3% RETIREE MEDICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 5% PUBLIC WORKS 16% POLICE 40% FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION 9% FIRE 2% 2

FY 2017 DRAFT OPERATING BUDGET - DOVER, DELAWARE PROJECTED COST PER CAPITA BY FUNCTION Fiscal Year 2016-2017 OTHER $13.24 TRANSFER TO CAPITAL PROJECTS $49.53 INSURANCE $18.65 DEBT SERVICE $18.26 STREET LIGHTS $21.42 RETIREE PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS $31.17 RETIREE MEDICAL CONTRIBUTIONS $54.33 PUBLIC WORKS $177.62 FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION $100.23 FIRE $19.22 POLICE $449.53 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS $57.30 LIBRARY & RECREATION $63.48 CITY ADMINISTRATION $51.79 $0.00 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 $200.00 $250.00 $300.00 $350.00 $400.00 $450.00 Total per capita based on population estimate of 37,540 = $1,125.77 3

EXHIBIT #7 2016 Budget Review Special Council Meeting of 05/24/2016 City of Dover Fiscal Year 2016/2017 Proposed Budget Outlays and Receipts for Governmental Activities (Pages 16 & 17) Functions/Programs General Government City Clerk Council Mayor City Manager Human Resources Planning Tax Assessor Public Safety Fire Life Safety Code Enforcement Inspections Police - Administration Police - Civilian Police - Law Enforcement Police - Extra Duty Police - Pension Grant Police - City Pension Appropriation Public Works Administration Engineering Facility Maintenance Grounds Streets Sanitation Street Lights WWW Engineering Library and Recreation Library Services Recreation Services Community and Economic Development Economic Development Contribution to DDP Central Services Fleet Maintenance Warehouse & Purchasing Inventory Writeoffs Financial Administration Information Technology Finance Customer Service Insurance Uncollectible Write Offs

EXHIBIT #8 City of Dover 2016 Budget Review Electric Revenue Fund Special Council Meeting of 05/24/2016 FY16 - White Oak Solar Park Incremental Cost Original July August September October November December January February March April YTD Budget Power Supply & Generation Dover Sun Park - Energy $ 241,720 $ 264,734 $ 204,656 $ 175,542 $ 107,183 $ 74,637 $ 121,058 $ 123,391 $ 203,552 $ 257,359 $ 1,773,833 $ 2,313,861 Dover Sun Park - REC's 43,325 42,602 30,249 26,003 15,920 11,012 17,910 18,308 30,249 - 235,579 363,381 Total Power Supply Cost 285,046 307,336 234,905 201,546 123,103 85,648 138,969 141,699 233,801 257,359 2,009,412 2,677,242 Non-Solar Power Supply Cost (119,924) (123,989) (97,565) (81,616) (48,168) (34,958) (64,920) (56,337) (85,309) (105,218) (818,003) (1,172,049) Incremental Energy Cost $ 165,122 $ 183,347 $ 137,340 $ 119,929 $ 74,935 $ 50,690 $ 74,049 $ 85,363 $ 148,493 $ 152,141 $ 1,191,408 $ 1,505,193 Revenues Customer Sales - Electricity (8,419) (8,580) (7,472) (7,473) (7,799) (7,621) (7,766) (7,927) (7,507) (8,447) (79,011) (93,900) Rent Receipts (15,177) - - (15,177) - - (15,557) - - (15,557) (61,468) (93,700) Total Revenues (23,596) (8,580) (7,472) (22,650) (7,799) (7,621) (23,323) (7,927) (7,507) (24,004) (140,479) (187,600) Incremental Sun Park Cost $ 141,526 $ 174,766 $ 129,868 $ 97,279 $ 67,137 $ 43,069 $ 50,725 $ 77,436 $ 140,986 $ 128,137 $ 1,050,929 $ 1,317,593 MWh Purchased/Generated - Solar 2,084.336 2,100.192 1,525.008 1,308.064 798.680 556.160 902.072 919.456 1,516.784 1,917.728 13,628.480 18,159.000 MWh $ Solar Energy $ 115.97 $ 126.05 $ 134.20 $ 134.20 $ 134.20 $ 134.20 $ 134.20 $ 134.20 $ 134.20 $ 134.20 $ 130.16 $ 127.42 Solar REC's MWh 313.000 315.000 228.000 196.000 120.000 83.000 135.000 138.000 228.000 - 1,756.000 MWh $ Solar REC (one month lag)* 138.42 135.24 132.67 132.67 132.67 132.67 132.67 132.670 132.670 - 134.16 MWh $ Non-Solar Energy $ 57.54 $ 59.04 $ 63.98 $ 62.39 $ 60.31 $ 62.86 $ 71.97 $ 61.27 $ 56.24 $ 54.87 Note: Solar REC's are one month behind due to the time the invoice is received.

EXHIBIT #9 2016 Budget Review CITY OF DOVER Special Council Meeting of 05/24/2016 City Council Meeting May 23, 2016 FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2015 TO JUNE 30, 2016 1 of 2 QUARTERLY REVENUE REPORT As of March 31, 2016 75.0% FY16 YTD % BUDGET FY16 FY17 FY15 FY14 GENERAL FUND BUDGET REVENUES RECEIVED PROJ'D Proposed COMMENTS REVENUES REVENUES 1 Property Taxes $ 12,495,500 $ 12,408,600 99.3% $ 12,428,500 $ 12,519,700 $ 10,841,200 $ 10,777,800 2 Payment In Lieu of Taxes 398,700 389,700 97.7% 405,000 413,200 335,500 316,700 3 Transfer from Electric Fund 10,000,000 10,000,000 100.0% 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 4 Intrafund Service Receipts Electric 3,738,500 2,621,200 70.1% 3,586,200 3,564,900 3,478,800 3,427,300 5 Transfer from Transfer Tax Fund 1,340,000 1,820,900 135.9% 2,090,200 1,672,700 1,713,800 1,544,100 6 Business Licenses 1,425,000 1,466,000 102.9% 1,472,000 1,467,000 1,403,100 1,494,300 7 Intrafund Service Receipts Water/Wastewater 1,492,700 1,010,700 67.7% 1,420,000 1,653,800 1,341,600 1,218,900 8 Sanitation Fees 2,580,000 1,900,300 73.7% 2,530,000 2,538,300 2,578,900 2,595,600 9 Permits & Other Licenses 1,436,300 1,332,300 92.8% 1,436,300 1,662,100 1,490,200 1,597,300 10 Transfer from Municipal Street Aid Fund 564,200 504,900 89.5% 673,100 673,100 664,300 664,900 11 Fines & Police Revenue 702,300 491,800 70.0% 651,400 763,300 666,700 653,600 12 Police Extra Duty Fees 533,000 252,600 47.4% 461,500 525,000 503,000 562,900 13 Transfer from Police Grant Funds 74,400 72,100 96.9% 172,700 258,600 127,100 80,200 14 Court of Chancery Fees 1,065,100 811,000 76.1% 1,090,400 1,100,000 1,118,700 1,034,500 15 Transfer from Water/Wastewater Fund 850,000 637,500 75.0% 850,000 875,000 500,000 500,000 16 Transfer from Contingency - - 0.0% - - 50,000 250,000 17 Transfer from Civil Traffic Penalties Fund 450,000 331,300 73.6% 480,000 496,900 495,200 357,500 18 Library Revenues & County Reciprocal Pymt 522,000 290,500 55.7% 379,600 382,900 480,800 498,600 19 Franchise Fees 672,300 338,900 50.4% 682,300 680,000 683,400 648,300 20 General Fund Grant Receipts 673,500 262,300 38.9% 673,500 623,500 733,900 571,000 21 Recreation Revenue 149,000 120,400 80.8% 149,000 150,000 149,300 151,900 22 Other Miscellaneous Receipts 129,600 146,400 113.0% 163,700 151,300 257,500 175,500 23 Interest Income 35,000 139,100 397.4% 140,000 90,000 35,100 34,500 24 2014 Bond Proceeds (Refinance 2003 Bonds) - - 0.0% - - 475,000 - TOTALS $ 41,327,100 $ 37,348,500 90.4% $41,935,400 $ 42,261,300 $ 40,123,100 $ 37,155,400 Final Budget $ 39,795,600 $ 37,127,200

CITY OF DOVER City Council Meeting May 23, 2016 FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2015 TO JUNE 30, 2016 2 of 2 QUARTERLY REVENUE REPORT As of March 31, 2016 75.0% FY16 YTD % BUDGET FY16 FY17 FY15 FY14 WATER/WASTEWATER FUND BUDGET REVENUES RECEIVED PROJ'D Proposed COMMENTS REVENUES REVENUES 1 Water Fees $ 6,200,000 $ 4,088,200 65.9% $ 5,366,600 $ 5,800,000 $ 4,889,000 $ 4,459,800 2 Wastewater Fees 3,728,000 2,854,900 76.6% 3,823,800 3,800,000 3,735,900 3,562,400 3 Wastewater Adjustment Fees - County Trtmt 3,026,500 2,242,000 74.1% 2,997,600 3,000,000 2,952,900 2,930,300 4 Groundwater Inflow Adjustment 1,864,300 1,434,400 76.9% 1,965,600 1,938,000 1,831,800 1,316,200 5 Water Impact Fees 250,000 164,500 65.8% 253,400 252,000 536,900 252,200 6 Wastewater Impact Fees 250,000 144,800 57.9% 222,400 228,000 482,200 230,200 7 Water Tank Space Leasing 341,900 225,600 66.0% 341,900 366,200 344,800 360,300 8 Interest Income 3,000 (1,800) -60.0% 10,000 20,000 2,300 3,616 9 Other Miscellaneous Revenues 64,000 63,700 99.5% 56,200 63,000 75,000 61,300 TOTALS $ 15,727,700 $ 11,216,300 71.3% $15,037,500 $ 15,467,200 $ 14,850,800 $ 13,176,316 Final Budget $ 14,386,300 $ 13,023,500 75.0% FY16 YTD % BUDGET FY16 FY17 FY15 FY14 ELECTRIC REVENUE FUND BUDGET REVENUES RECEIVED PROJ'D Proposed COMMENTS REVENUES REVENUES 1 Sales to Customers $ 78,279,200 $ 60,438,100 77.2% $ 78,493,800 $ 78,991,200 $ 77,011,700 $ 76,928,300 3 Utility Tax 1,281,100 1,005,500 78.5% 1,309,600 1,320,900 1,266,900 1,259,000 4 Transfer from Rate Stabilization Reserve 3,000,000 750,000 25.0% 750,000 - 3,000,000 7,000,000 5 Miscellaneous Revenue 927,800 929,800 100.2% 1,242,000 899,600 1,389,400 906,400 6 Interest Income 47,900 31,300 65.3% 35,000 47,900 21,200 10,500 7 Intrafund Service Fees - Water/Wastewater - - 0.0% - - - 130,800 TOTALS $ 83,536,000 $ 63,154,700 75.6% $81,830,400 $ 81,259,600 $ 82,689,200 $ 86,235,000 Final Budget $ 81,766,000 $ 88,283,600

EXHIBIT #10 2016 Budget Review Special Council Meeting of 05/24/2016 From: Koenig, Scott To: Lewis, Brian E.; City Clerks Office Cc: McDowell, Traci Subject: RE: Budget Questions Date: Thursday, May 26, 2016 5:34:50 PM Importance: High Good Afternoon: Below are the answers (in red) to your questions. Please call if you have further questions. THIS EMAIL HAS BEEN BCC’D TO MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR CHRISTIANSEN. Best Regards, Scott D. Koenig, P.E. skoenig@dover.de.us City Manager City of Dover P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 302-736-7005 (Voice) 302-736-7002 (Fax) "Engineering isn't about perfect solutions; it's about doing the best you can with limited resources" - Randy Pausch p. X - Introduction to The Last Lecture. This email, including attachments, is confidential and intended only for the designated recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient, please delete this email. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. From: Brian Lewis [mailto:belewis1966@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 5:29 AM To: Koenig, Scott; Mitchell, Donna Subject: RE: Budget Questions Scott, To assist in keeping to time constraints during our Budget Hearings, I have listed some questions I would appreciate you answering beforehand that are related to individual departmental budgets. Thank you, Councilman Lewis CITY CLERK 1. Specifically, can you explain in detail why there is an increase from $6,100.00 To $9,000.00 in the election related expenses?

Answer: Election Related Expenses (30-31) is proposed to increase from $200 in FY- 2016 to $9,200 in FY-2017 for the City Wide Election Expenses. Five (5) council seats including the At-Large seat are up for election. 2. What computer hardware had to be replaced in the City Clerk’s office that had a net increase of $4,700.00? Answer: The proposed computer replacements include two (2) basic recording laptops (one in Council Chambers and one in the City Hall Large Conference Room), one (1) basic desktop computers, and two (2) 23” flat panel monitors. Total estimated costs for this hardware is $4,600.00. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 1. There was a $8,400.00 increase in telephone contractual services, office equipment, repairs/maintenance. Can you explain this further? Answer: Telephone expenses (30-21) are increasing by $200 for the Cradle Point Wifi, the device that provides Wifi in the Council Chambers. Under Contractual Services (30- 31) there is an increase of $3,750 for the last payment for the City website refresh. The increase under Office/Equipment Repairs and Maintenance (30-61) is related to the upgrade of Fortis to Docuware (Fortis was purchased by Docuware and now an upgrade is required) for approximately $9,000. These increases were offset by some savings in other components of the line items for a net increase in the referenced line items of $4,600 over the FY-2016 budget. I cannot respond to the $8,400.00 reference as the numbers do not add up to $8,400 as I understand your question. POLICE 1. The budget request (11) new police vehicles. To be fair how many vehicles can be utilized for another year within the department? Is it more cost effective to lease or purchase the vehicles and has anyone ever conducted a cost analysis on how much it would cost if the city were to ever partner with State Fleet Services? Answer: I believe the Chiefs original request was thirteen (13), which has now been cut to eleven (11). If you propose to cut these vehicles, they will simply show up again next year for replacement. The expected life of a patrol car is typically two (2) to three (3) years if I recall past discussions correctly. I believe leasing these vehicles would be more costly than purchasing them; however, this questions has not been specifically answered by seeking lease proposals. We have also not partnered with Fleet Services. The Police Department makes all arrangements for the maintenance of these vehicles and they are serviced by a private vendor rather than the City’s Fleet Maintenance Shop. In all fairness, your questions should be posed to the Chief of Police to get his opinion on this question.

2. It is my understanding that the Mayor is assigned a complete equipment packaged police vehicle for his use. If the Mayor was to return the vehicle back to the Polce department to be utilized on the road by an officer would that save us from obtaining (11) Vehicles and bring it to (10)? Answer: I received an email from and also spoke with the Mayor earlier today. He indicated that since he became Mayor, the Police Department has only provided him a vehicle on an as-needed basis from their reserve rolling stock. This was only for out of town city business. Until his recent surgery, he used his own personal vehicle with no reimbursement expected. The department has recently provided (post-surgery) a high mileage reserve vehicle for him to use until he has recovered to the point where he can once again use his personal vehicle. The reserve vehicle is only used for city business. The gas and repair allotment of $100 under the Mayor’s budget has usually been transferred to pay for veterans advertisement or for an ad for the firemen's convention on behalf of the Mayor and Council rather reimbursement under Mayor Christiansen. TAX ASSESSOR 1. How much was the increase for Training/Travel & Telephone? What kind of training? And what is the Subscription too under this budget and others??? Answer: The increase in the Telephone expense from $1,100 in FY-2016 to $1,300 in FY- 2017 is related to the reimbursement of cell phone expenses for the Residential Assessment Technician. The Training/Travel budget increase from $5,000 in FY-2016 to $7,500 in FY-2017 relates to $2,500 for the Assessor to maintain the AAS designation and $5,000 for the Residential Assessment Technician to get the required Delaware State certification. The subscription and dues are for IAAO memberships, DAAO memberships and Notary renewals. STREETS 1. You stated that Materials & Supplies have increased to $155,800 in program expenses related to MS4 Program of $151,900. What is the MS4 Program? Answer: MS4 is the abbreviation of Municipal Separated Storm Sewer System. Most of the referenced increase is related to Program Expenses which are proposed to increase from $35,000 in FY-2016 to $186,900 in FY-2017 (a net proposed increase of $151,900). This line item includes costs for the following activities: Street sweeping debris disposal at the landfill, NPDES MS4 Stormwater Protection Plan and Monitoring Plan Development, NPDES MS4 Public Education/Public Interaction, NPDES MS4 Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination Program, NPDES MS4 Post-Construction Stormwater Controls, NPDES MS4 Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping, and the NPDES MS4 Water Quality Implementation Plan & Performance Monitoring Plan. All of the proposed costs are considered essential to comply with the MS4 permit conditions. MAYORS BUDGET

1. There is listed Community Relations Exp. $5,500.00. Can you explain what that is for? Also, what is $100.00 for Auto Repairs/Maintenance? Answer: The $5,500 under Community Relations Expenses includes $5,000 for the Mayor’s Annual Reception and $500 for Promotional Items such as Coins, Pins and Shirts. The $100 under Auto Repairs/Maintenance is a placeholder as this line item has had previous expenses (FY-2013 - $170; FY-2014 - $120) CITY COUNCIL BUDGET 1. What is the $11,500.00 Subscription/Dues for? Answer: The $11,500 includes the League of Local Governments membership ($6,000), National League of Cities membership ($3,300), DE State Chamber of Commerce membership ($1,200) and the Central DE Chamber of Commerce membership ($1,000). 2. Community Relations Exp. $3,500.00 ??? Answer: The Community Relations Expense of $3,500 is for Flowers/Donations for Deaths or Illness, Dover Cups, Misc. Engravings, Plaques, etc. CITY MANAGER’S BUDGET 1. Where is your $2,000.00 overtime coming from? Answer: The $2,000 is for overtime expenses related to the Emergency Management Coordinator/Public Affairs Coordinator duties. If additional hours are required for this position, the hours are eligible for overtime payment. Actual expenses were $1,737 in FY-2013, $2,513 in FY-2014 and $517 in FY-2015. 2. What is the $11,500.00 “Temporary” listed for? Answer: The $11,500 under Temporary Help is to pay the contractual labor for the Comcast broadcast of the City Council meetings.

EXHIBIT #11 2016 Budget Review CITY OF DOVER Special Council Meeting of 05/24/2016 CAPITAL ASSET RESERVE TREND FIVE YEAR ANALYSIS THRU APRIL 2016 6/30/2011 6/30/2012 6/30/2013 6/30/2014 6/30/2015 4/30/2016 Beginning Balance $ 249,145 $ 253,420 $ 498,467 $ 507,308 $ 520,986 $ 915,129 Increases Net Interest {less bank fees) 4,275 5,947 8,841 3,055 3,643 14,167 Sale of land proceeds (Garrison Oak) 10,623 92,700 Transfer of Gain on Sale of Assets 39,100 Appropriation to Reserve 200,000 Transfer excess prior year excess budget balance 60,000 229,600 Trf Library Project Balance to Cap Proj Reserve 330,500 253,420 498,467 507,308 520,986 915,129 1,251,596 Decreases Ending Balance $ 253,420 $ 498,467 $ 507,308 $ 520,986 $ 915, 129 $ 1,251,596

EXHIBIT #12 2016 Budget Review Special Council Meeting of 05/24/2016

EXHIBIT #13 2016 Budget Review Special Council Meeting of 05/24/2016 Inner City Cultural League, Inc. “Educational Advancement through the Arts” May 25, 2016 The Honorable Robin R. Christensen and Council City of Dover PO Box 475 Dover, DE 19903-0475 Dear Mayor Christensen and Dover City Council: I am writing this letter with great concern about the possible cut in the City Budget of funding that has been issued for the past 15 years to help finance the African American Festival “Positively Dover.” I am deeply distressed by this possibility and request that any anticipated cut be delayed indefinitely and certainly until the Inner City Cultural League, Inc. secures adequate capital through an investment account to make the difference in what the City donates to the League each year. The African American Festival has been an institution in Dover for more than 25 years. It is with the help of the City that this event has had a tremendous moral, economic and cultural effect on all of Dover, especially the children. This is not a private-local event. The Festival belongs to the City, the State and the County. The African American Festival belongs especially to the people of Dover. The name “Positively Dover” was carved into the construction of the festival from the beginning. The support given by the City of Dover permits the Festival to be the highlight of the Summer experience for many citizens. It is certainly a “Star studded event” for the minority population of our fine city. Tradition, culture, the arts are all on display during this sultry Saturday in June of each year. Families plan their reunions around the African American Festival. It is a time for revitalization, artistic expression, and entertainment for families. It is a time to meet old friends and make new acquaintances. It is recreation for the youth of the community. It permits for artistic expression for old and young alike. It is estimated that upwards of 20,000 persons attend this festival each year. There is no entry fee, and artistic presentations are excellent. The economic impact is measurable as many overnight visitors and business persons visit Dover to participate in “Positively Dover.” Without cost, the Inner City Cultural League, Inc. provides many artistic programs to all segments of the City each year. These venues include the library, various parades, street festivals, community parties and League sponsored events at the studio. The loss of any funding would hurt our small budget. The African American Festival is a quality of life event in Dover. The League appreciates the support received from Dover. Without this support the Festival would find it more difficult to sustain a quality event. I am afraid that to begin cutting the festival allocation would be the beginning of a downward spiral to cut all of the funding for the Festival. Once again, I request that you use your positions as Mayor and Council to keep the allocation to the African American Festival, “Positively Dover,” at the current level. Do this for the growth of arts and culture in Dover. I remain your humble servant in the service of Dover. Reuben Salters Reuben Salters Founder/Chairman “Sankofa, Positively Dover, MLK Holiday Program” 39 S. West Street Dover, DE 19904 Phone: 302.883 3180 sanicaaf@comcast.net

Dover Fire Department Volunteers Since 1882 2015 Annual Report

Mark Hall served as the 2015 Fire Chief. He was instrumental in the department obtaining two new Command vehicles, they were both placed into service during his tenure. He completed five years of dedicated service to the City of Dover as a line officer and continues to serve in the capacity of a Past Fire Chief. He has been an active member for 15 years. He led the department, along with his Officers, in responding to over 1,300 calls for service. During his term, he placed new MSA air packs into service on every piece of apparatus, as well as replacing outdated 800 MHz radios within the department. Both were obtained with the help of the City and 2014 Fire Chief, Matthew Carey. Chief Hall wants to thank the members of the Dover Fire Department , residents of the City of Dover and the personnel in the City that helped him achieve a great year as the Fire Chief.

2015 Deputy Fire 2015 Fire Chief Chief Mark Hall Carleton Carey Jr.

2015 Asst. Chief’s and Captains 1st Asst. Chief 2nd Asst. Chief 3rd Asst. Chief 4th Asst. Chief David Carey Glenn Whitt Duane Reeder Ben Smetana 1st Fire Line Captain 2nd Fire Line Captain Michael O’Connor III William Kelly II

2015 Statistical Run Data Alarm Total for 2015: 1,343 General Alarms: 670 Silent Alarms: 407 Crew Calls: 29 Officer Calls: 234 Multiple Alarms: 3 Average Attendance on Calls: 14.65

Call Volume by Month 160 148 140 128 119 121 120 114 116 112 106 103 100 93 91 91 80 60 40 20 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015

Alarms Broken Down by Type SPECIAL EVENT HAZARDOUS WEATHER CONDITION EXPLOSION FALSE ALARMS RESCUE/EMS SERVICE CALL GOOD INTENT FIRES

2015 was an active, record setting year in call volume for the Dover Fire Department. Volunteers responded to over 1,340 calls for service during the year Members and Officers handled approximately 27 working fires , in which a hand-line was placed into service and crews either made an interior or exterior attack of the fire building. In this report you will see some improvements that the membership was able to obtain to better the service to the citizens of Dover. You will also see some of the major working fire incidents in which the volunteers of the Dover Fire Department responded to. There were zero fire fatalities in the City of Dover for the year 2015 and only a few firefighter injuries, in which a firefighter was transported to Kent General for evaluation. We at the Dover Fire Department are very proud of this and hope this trend continues.

Recruitment and Retention The Departments membership stood at 205 for 2015 29 new members were taken in, increasing the membership by 14.14% 7 members left the department due to relocations and moves 2 members resigned their membership

Training To Hone the Skills

68 in-house training sessions 574 training hours 2,266 man-hours

Noteworthy Incidents

On March 31st, Streamlight Inc. chose the DFD to take part in a marketing campaign for Streamlight and MSA. The department was chosen because we purchased new equipment the previous year and that we were the only State capital with a 100% volunteer fire service in the Nation. This campaign went well and Streamlight not only donated tee shirts, they also gave a monetary donation, as well as 20 new Streamlight flashlights. The campaign was seen Nationally.

April 19th, the DFD responded to Grand View Mobile Home Park for a report of a trailer on fire. Upon arrival of the Command Unit and Chief, it was reported that three trailers were fully engulfed in flames. Units worked for approximately three hours to contain and extinguish the flames.

DFD responded on July 7th Silver Lake Nursing Home , where an unknown electrical fire caused significant damage to the main hallway of the building. Residents were evacuated and firefighters worked well with staff in making sure the residents and staff were safe. Minor injuries were reported, however no residents were transported.

October 7th, the DFD was alerted for a report of a working fire at Legislative Hall. Multiple units responded and found fires from the basement to the roof area. Capitol Police did an outstanding job evacuating the entire building. One Police Officer was transported to KGH for evaluation for smoke inhalation. Units were assisted by Camden VFC, Little Creek VFC, Magnolia VFC and Bowers VFC. Volunteers remained on scene for approximately two hours completing overhaul, helping salvage historical State property inside the building.

October 24th, the DFD responded to Luther Towers for an apartment fire on the 5th floor. Units entered the building and found most of the fire had already been extinguished. However, a heavy smoke condition was found on the 5th and 6th floors. Due to the layout of the structure and the residents that reside there, evacuation was troublesome. A box alarm was transmitted which brought, Cheswold VFC for a rescue truck, Smyrna VFC for a ladder and Little Creek VFC (full response). All crews worked for about one hour to bring the situation under control . No residents were injured at this fire.

The DFD obtained a new 2015 Chevy Tahoe Command vehicle to be used by the Fire Chief in order to better serve the residents of the City of Dover. It is equipped with a full light package. Three 800 MHz radios, EMS equipment, a lockout kit, Command boards for large incident management, iPad, Command console for ease of use during emergencies, and various hand tools.

The DFD placed a second 2015 Chevy Tahoe Command unit into service with the help of the City of Dover. The vehicle is equipped with three 800 MHz radios, various hand tools, full light equipment with siren, Command console for ease of use during emergencies, Command board for incident management, and EMS equipment. The Department fully funded one unit and the City funded the second, utilizing appropriation money. The total cost of both units fully equipped was approximately $90,000.

Appreciation Night Banquet Awards 2015 Dispatcher of the Year 2015 Fireman of the Year Alex Carrow Alan Farling

Appreciation Night Banquet Awards 25 Year Service Ring: 2015 Probationary Member: Paul Eichler (left) Jaquan Dickson

Appreciation Night Banquet Awards 2015 Firefighter of the Year 2015 Chief’s Award and Top Responder Sean Byron Daniel Godwin

Appreciation Night Banquet Awards 2015 Top Ten Responders

Past Chief Charles Boyer represents 57 years of active service to the Dover Fire Department. He was presented with a plaque commemorating his year as 2015 President

Appreciation Night Banquet Awards 2016 Fire Chief Carleton Carey Jr. presents 2015 Fire Chief Mark Hall a memento for his service to the department

Department Social Media Facebook DFD Website Over 4,500 followers Over 1,652,587 views

Department Dispatchers are certified in Emergency Fire Dispatch through the International Academies of Emergency Dispatch which is the national standard

Dover Police & Fire Pipes and Drums

The Officers, men and women of the Dover Fire Department remain the only State capital in the Nation to be protected by a 100% volunteer fire department. We stand true and steadfast in providing this City with the finest fire protection in the State. We look forward to a safe and prosperous year working harmoniously with City officials the Mayor and Council.

PETITION TO AMEND TEXT of Dover Code of Ordinances, Land Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance Report to the Dover City Council for June 13, 2016 Meeting Recommendation from Planning Commission with Development Advisory Committee Review Proposed Changes: Text Amendments to the following:  Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 98 – Street, Sidewalks, Storm Sewers and Other Public Places, Article I. – In General, Section 98-10 Speed Reduction Devices  Land Subdivision Regulations: Appendix A – Subdivisions, Article VI – Subdivision – General Requirements and Design Standards, Section A – Streets, Paragraph 1  Zoning Ordinance: Appendix B: Zoning, Article 10 – Planning Commission, Section 2 – Site Development Plan Approval, 2.54 – Proposed Development Summary of Amendment: The proposed amendment would permit speed cushions on privately owned commercial property. It also defines speed bumps, speed cushions, and speed humps. Ordinance Number: Proposed Ordinance #2016-09 with Council Committee of the Whole/Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Amendment #1 (CCW/SA&T#1) File Number: MI-16-05 The proposed text amendments were developed by the City Council Committee of the Whole/Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee following several meeting discussions and research by the Committee on the topic. This discussion was in response to inquiries from property and business owners regarding the prohibition of speed reduction devices. At its March 29, 2015 Meeting, the Committee recommended approval of the Proposed Ordinance with one amendment (Ordinance #2016-09 with CCW/SA&T#1). As text amendments are proposed to the Zoning Ordinance, a Public Hearing and Recommendation by the Planning Commission is required. City Council will conduct a Public Hearing and take Final Action on the proposal at their meeting of June 13, 2016.

MI-16-05 Text Amendments: Speed Bumps, Speed Cushions and Speed Humps Planning Commission Recommendation Report Page 2 of 3 Recommendation of the Planning Commission: Following a public hearing before the Planning Commission where no members of the public spoke with regard to the proposed ordinance, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial to City Council for the proposed Ordinance MI-16-05 Text Amendments: Speed Bumps, Speed Cushions and Speed Humps as written but to re-visit the need and the language if there is a thought that these are a necessary item to allow. An Excerpt of the Draft Minutes of the May 16, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting is attached which reflects their discussion of the proposed amendments and the action taken. In making this recommendation the Planning Commission considered the following reviews and recommendations from the Development Advisory Committee including: the Planning Office, the Public Works Department, the Office of the Fire Marshal, and DelDOT. See information below and as attached. Planning Review and Recommendations for MI-16-05: The Planning Staff has reviewed the proposed Ordinance regarding speed reduction devices and offers the following revisions to the Ordinance. The recommended revisions aid in clarifying the requirements and/or limitations proposed regarding speed reduction devices and the concept to allow speed cushions on privately owned commercial property. Staff Ordinance Proposed Revision Reason/Notes Recommendation Lines A 19 Revise “roadway” to “travel Ordinance would allow speed way” cushions on private property. In the Land Subdivision Regulations, roadway is defined as a paved street or alley. B 24-25 Remove reference to residential Remove to avoid confusion streets. Reword to note use is on where speed humps are typically in locations where permitted. speed limits do not exceed 25 miles per hour. C 26 Do not delete “private” street Need to make the distinction from listing. between private street right- of-ways and private property. D 29, 57, Clarify the term “privately The terms ‘private’ and 100 owned commercial property” ‘commercial’ should be clarified. E 29-32 A procedure for the review of a A procedure for Permit or plan request for speed cushions must submission would also depend be developed. on if its existing development or a new development.

MI-16-05 Text Amendments: Speed Bumps, Speed Cushions and Speed Humps Planning Commission Recommendation Report Page 3 of 3 F 54-59 Statement should refer only to This Code section focuses on the limitations of speed reduction the design standards for devices within the right-of-ways “streets” as defined in the of City streets/alleys and the Land Subdivision right-of-ways of private streets. Regulations. Remove references to other locations on properties and the installation of speed cushions. G 97-102 Revise to list topic only: (P) This section of Code focuses Location of any speed reduction on the items to be depicted devices. on a Site Plan. It does not include the requirements or limitations of the items as they are located elsewhere in the Code. H 97-102 Add the details requirements Article 6 is the section of and/or limitations to Zoning Code where details of the Ordinance, Article 6 – Off Street design requirements for Parking, Driveways and Loading parking lots, drive aisles, etc. Facilities located on properties are presented. I 7-25 Add definitions to Zoning These are specialized terms Ordinance, Article 12 – not currently defined in the Definitions. Zoning Ordinance. Attachments:  DAC Comments: Department of Public Works, Office of the Fire Marshal and DelDOT  Excerpt of Draft Minutes from May 16, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: APRIL 27, 2016 APPLICATION: TEXT AMENDMENT: SPEED BUMPS, SPEED CUSHIONS AND SPEED HUMPS FILE #: MI-16-05 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Electric and Public Works Departments CONTACT PERSON: Paul Waddell - Electric Jason A. Lyon, P.E. – Public Works CONTACT PHONE #: ELECTRIC - 302-736-7070 PUBLIC WORKS – 302-736-7025 T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ’ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / SANITATION / STREETS / GROUNDS 1. None. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC 1. None WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / SANITATION / STREETS / GROUNDS 1. The City of Dover Department of Public Works opposes the proposed Ordinance 2016-09 for the following reasons:  Speed bumps, humps and cushions present an operational hazard for our Department, both with respect to maintenance as well as during emergency snow removal operations.  Allowing speed reduction devices on private property would also be an issue for our Department, our sanitation division must access private property to collect trash. These devices would put unneeded stress on the vehicles and operators. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / SANITATION / STREETS / GROUNDS 1. None. I F Y OU H AVE A NY Q UESTIONS OR N EED TO D ISCUSS ANY OF THE A BOVE C OMMENTS , P LEASE C ALL THE A BOVE C ONTACT P ERSON AND THE P LANNING D EPARTMENT AS S OON AS P OSSIBLE .

C F MI-16-05 I I T R CITY OF DOVER Y E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE O M F A APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY R D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 05/04/16 D S O H V A E L R APPLICATION: Text Amendment: Speed Bumps, Speed Cushions, and Speed Humps FILE #: MI-16-05 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Jason Osika, Deputy Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY, AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT: ADDITIONAL / SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN APPROVAL: 1. This office recommends keeping Fire Lanes clear and unobstructed in any way. This office would like the code to stay as is in regards to Fire Lanes and not allow any speed reduction devices. APPLICABLE CODES LISTED BELOW (NOT LIMITED TO): 2012 NFPA Life Safety Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2009 IBC (International Building Code) Latest editions of all other NFPA Codes as defined by the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 2012 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations City of Dover Code of Ordinances *If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person listed.

CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O D.A.C. MEETING DATE: April 27, 2016 T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Text Amendment: Speed Bumps, Speed Cushions, and Speed Humps FILE#: MI-16-05 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Jonathan T. Moore PHONE#: 760-2145 =============================================================== THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY & STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: DelDOT has no comments regarding city & state code at this time. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: DelDOT has no recommendations at this time. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: DelDOT has no advisory comments at this time. If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the planning department as soon as possible.

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION May 16, 2016 Excerpt from Meeting Minutes - Draft MI-16-05 Text Amendments: Speed Bumps, Speed Cushions, and Speed Humps – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council of Text Amendments to the Dover Code of Ordinances, Section 98-10 – Speed Reduction Devices; Appendix A: Subdivisions, Article VI, Section A – Street; and Appendix B – Zoning Ordinance, Article 10, Section 2.54 – Proposed Development. The proposed Ordinance revisions would create definitions for speed bumps, speed cushions and speed humps and allow speed cushions to be installed of private commercial property following review by the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee and approval by City Council. Speed bumps and speed humps would remain prohibited. Ordinance #2016-09. Public Hearing and Final Reading before City Council is scheduled on June 13, 2016. Representatives: None Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is a series of text amendments related to speed bumps, speed cushions and speed humps. It comes to the Planning Commission via discussions that transpired at the City Council Committee of the Whole Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee. That Committee, in response to several inquiries from property owners and business owners regarding what is currently the prohibition of speed reduction devices in the City Codes took up the topic over a number of months. Ultimately, they ended up proposing a series of text amendments. The text amendments themselves touch Chapter 98 of the Dover Code of Ordinances where street, sidewalks, storm sewers and other public places are discussed. In the Land Subdivision Regulations, in Article VI of that document, there is a discussion in the streets description related to this and then the ultimately in the Zoning Ordinance in Article 10 Section 2 they are proposing something and that is the reason why it is here before Planning Commission because any text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance requires a hearing and recommendation of the Planning Commission. The document itself was presented to the Commission. It’s about three pages long and has a variety of amendments to various aspects of the Code. Some of the key components are actually really defining what a speed bump, speed cushion and speed hump are. The intent of the remaining amendments to the text are to basically allow for the use of speed cushions on privately owned commercial property. That would be subject to a review process with the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee. This proposed text amendment did go through our Development Advisory Committee process. Planning Staff did review the Ordinance and they have a series of revisions that they believe aid in what they call clarifying the requirements and/or limitations of this proposal regarding speed reduction devices and specifically about speed cushions on privately owned commercial property. Those are outlined as Staff Recommendations lettered A-I that is part of the DAC Report. The other members of the Development Advisory Committee had some notes as well. The Department of Public Works is opposed to the Ordinance. They indicate in their comments that they present an operation hazard specifically to snow removal operations and also related to private property trash collection in certain instances. The Fire Marshal’s Office recommends that fire lanes should be kept clear and unobstructed in any way meaning that they would look to not

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION - May 16, 2016 Excerpt from Meeting Minutes – Draft Page 2 of 5 have any of these types of speed reduction devices occur in fire lanes. DelDOT also provided comments but they had no comments or recommendations regarding the proposed text amendment. Mr. Holden stated that he understands that there were some local commercial entities that requested the opportunity but he is wondering what problem they are looking to resolve and do we have any sense for the effectiveness of these devices. Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she believes that the specific inquiries came from a shopping center. She believes that their bigger concern was a travelway that was located at the rear of the shopping center related to traffic speeds in that area. The Committee actually looked at some research documents about this whole concept of speed humps, bumps and cushions about ways to actually implement them design wise but the details of that she does not have at this time. There wasn’t anything forwarded specifically from the Committee in the form of written letters that they received or anything of that nature in regards to these types of speed reduction devices. Currently, they are specifically prohibited for use in the City of Dover; any type of speed reduction device is specifically prohibited. Mr. Holt stated that there are certain areas and streets where they have problems with cars driving too fast and they are looking for ways to try to slow the speed down. Are there any other alternatives to speed bumps, humps or cushions? He can see where there are some areas that could be dangerous and people could get run over so they are looking for ways to slow traffic down. Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. Lyon stated that some of the speed reduction devices that you will see proposed nowdays include these types of speed cushions or speed humps. The speed humps are typically installed so that a typical vehicle can’t avoid it but an emergency vehicle that has a bigger wheelspan can go around it. Odessa, Delaware has them in their roads. Other ideas are to bring curb lines out so that it makes the travelway seem narrower so as a motorist you wouldn’t drive as fast. There are also feedback signs that you have seen around the City with radars that show how fast someone is driving. There is also the potential for putting up more stop signs. The problem with that is that it could cause a queuing issue with vehicles traveling and backing up. There are always pros and cons to these situations. Some are cheaper than others and some are more effective than others. The Department of Public Works sees the speed radar signs frequently and to be honest he is not sure if they are that effective. It depends on if there is police presence. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the text amendments that are proposed this evening are not to allow these items on public streets. It is specifically intended as it’s written to allow for speed cushions, which is one of the types, to only allow them on private commercial properties. Dr. Jones questioned if there were a significant number of owners who voiced concern? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she did not know the exact number but she could think of at least two locations. One who she believes made the request wanted to be able to pursue that opportunity and in the other case a private property owner installed a speed reduction device and the City let them know that it was not permitted by Code and it was removed. She would say the number is at least two. With the shopping center, it may have been

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION - May 16, 2016 Excerpt from Meeting Minutes – Draft Page 3 of 5 more than just the shopping center owner. It may have been multiple businesses within the shopping center that made the request. That was done at the Committee level. Ms. Still questioned if the allowance of the speed cushion on privately owned property was after review by the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee and approval from City Council? Responding to Ms. Still, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that is how the text amendment is proposed. There aren’t details beyond that on if it’s a permit or what kind of submission it takes to get such a request before those two bodies. Ms. Still further questioned if there was any feedback from the Public Works Department on the comment that speed reduction devices on private property would be an issue for their Department? Are they talking about just the speed bumps? Responding to Ms. Still, Mr. Lyon stated that the issue with those types of devices is when Public Works has sanitation pickup at private locations it becomes an issue with their trucks maintenancewise. It makes the trucks really bouncy and it’s very difficult to operate the vehicle that way even if you go very slowly over it. That is a concern with private property. They don’t plow any private roads so during the snow season if there’s a speed bump there it’s not demarcated. They aren’t going to flip their truck over. Ms. Still questioned if they had any input about the cushion? To her, it seems like it’s a small device. Responding to Ms. Still, Mr. Lyon stated that at this time they have the same comment for all three of the proposals. Colonel Welsh questioned if a better description could be provided for what a speed cushion was? He asked if there was a photograph available. Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mrs. Melson- Williams stated that a speed cushion, while it extends across the travelway it’s not a quick bump in the road. It has an up, a place in the middle and then a down; that is a speed hump. What makes it a speed cushion is that there are breaks in it meaning that it is not a continuous mountain extension across the road. There are gaps and those gaps would match the wheel base of an emergency vehicle. An emergency vehicle would move so that it it’s wheels travel through the two gaps in the speed cushion. Colonel Welsh questioned if speed cushions were horizontal or vertical? Do they follow the path of the road or are they perpendicular to the road? Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mrs. Melson- Williams stated that the element itself runs perpendicular across the road. The gaps for the wheels would be parallel with the travelway. Colonel Welsh stated that they were also lower. Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mrs. Melson- Williams stated that most of the time the gaps are pavement level. Think of a speed cushion as three pieces of a hump that goes across the road. Colonel Welsh stated that it was almost like a rumble strip. Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mr. Cook stated that having lived somewhere where these were very common. His understanding is that the design of them is such that you can travel at a constant speed over them unlike a speed

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION - May 16, 2016 Excerpt from Meeting Minutes – Draft Page 4 of 5 hump that requires you to slow down. These do require you to slow down but if you maintain the posted speed you can go over them without having to brake for them. Mr. Tolbert stated that it would just be a smaller hump. Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Cook stated that it’s a smoother and longer hump. Mr. Holt stated that they are somewhat effective though with trying to control your speed even though it’s not drastic. Mr. Tolbert questioned if there is anything else that can be done to help deal with the problem other than cushions and bumps? Mr. Holt suggested cameras maybe. Colonel Welsh stated that what they are talking about is private property and private funding. It’s not no adverse effect between the access of emergency vehicles. Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that it depends on where they have to travel on a private property. They may have to cross over and through a speed cushion. Mr. Tolbert stated that they still have snow removal and emergency vehicles going through. Colonel Welsh stated that to me he sees snow removal as one of the biggest obstacles. He doesn’t know how private property owners are going to get snow cleared with even the speed cushion. Mr. Holden questioned if the City of Dover Police can police a speed limit or a stop sign adherence on private property? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she did not know. Mr. Holden stated that he would note that personally he has read that speed bumps, humps or cushions aren’t necessarily as effective as people would like. People often times drive faster or at the same speed and potentially cause damage to the vehicles or others. As noted by Public Works and the Fire Marshal’s comments, there are concerns over heavier vehicles having to travel over them. He understands that the intent is to cut a swath through the speed bump so those larger vehicles have a travelway so their wheels don’t go over the rise in elevation. We aren’t always so lucky that we can travel right where we want to travel. He would also point out that it seems like lines 26 and 54 remove the prohibition in fire lanes which the Fire Marshal did not want them in fire lanes. He is struck by the fact that we have two of the City’s agencies saying we don’t want them and we might have two private entities requesting them. In his view, he thinks there is some time that needs to be spent on either a further look and maybe cleaning up the Ordinance if we really think this is a good idea to prohibit them in the fire lanes. Fire lanes are a certain percentage of the building that has to have access by the Fire Company but doesn’t mean that the Fire Company is not going to utilize the other travelways. This is the same for an ambulance, a trash truck or for snow removal. He doesn’t think it’s so easy or so clean. It also seems like this

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION - May 16, 2016 Excerpt from Meeting Minutes – Draft Page 5 of 5 allows them by removing the prohibition in fire lanes. It seems to him that there are a lot of questions left to be addressed for an issue that doesn’t seem like it’s an emergency issue. Mr. Baldwin stated with the speed bumps and humps, he has seen incidents where people have damaged their automobiles because the car bottomed out. Sometimes it crushes the muffler or even cause the muffler to become detached because it caught on the hump when the vehicle bottomed out. Are the private property owners going to be responsible for those damages? Responding to Mr. Baldwin, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she isn’t sure where the liability lies between the private property owner and the visitor to the site. It’s not something that the City would be in the mix for. Mr. Tolbert stated that usually the under carriage of the vehicle is not so low as to come in contact with the bump or cushion unless something is wrong with the vehicle and it has something hanging. Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Baldwin stated that is depends on what they are driving. Mr. Tolbert opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, he closed the public hearing. Mr. Holden moved to recommend denial to City Council for MI-16-05 Text Amendments: Speed Bumps, Speed Cushions and Speed Humps as written but to re-visit the need and the language if there is a thought that these are a necessary item to allow, seconded by Ms. Still and the motion was unanimously carried 7-0 by roll call vote with Mr. Cregar absent. Mr. Holden voting yes, for the reasons previously stated. Colonel Welsh voting yes, for reasons previously stated. Mr. Holt voting yes, for the reasons previously stated. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; there are too many unanswered questions. Dr. Jones voting yes, for reasons previously stated and a need has not really been established by significant numbers. Ms. Still voting yes, for the reasons previously stated and she too has unanswered safety issues that don’t seem to have been addressed by the current language Mr. Tolbert voting yes, even though he does have concerns. It’s one of those issues that can be difficult to address.

FINAL READING CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2016-09 WITH COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE AMENDMENT #1 (CCW/SA&T#1) (CCW/SA&T Committee Amendment Indicated in Yellow Highlight) 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL 2 MET: 3 That Chapter 98 - Streets, Sidewalks, Storm Sewers and Other Public Places, Article I. - In General, Section 4 98-10 - Speed Reduction Devices of the Dover Code be amended by deleting the text indicated in red 5 strikeout and inserting the bold, blue text, as follows: 6 Sec. 98-10. - Speed reduction devices. 7 (a) Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have the 8 meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different 9 meaning: 10 Speed bump shall mean a transverse hump, generally designed as a rounded, raised 11 pavement structure usually from two to six inches high and one to three feet from front to 12 back, set into the surface of a street, parking lot, or driveway to slow the traffic. Their 13 design generally dictates comfortable crossing speeds of five miles per hour or less so they 14 are usually appropriate only for use where vehicle speeds are typically the lowest to begin 15 with such as parking lots, private roads, and on some residential streets. 16 Speed cushion shall mean a speed hump with an unraised path for fire trucks and 17 ambulances through the hump. Speed cushions are devices designed as several small speed 18 humps installed across the width of the road with spaces between them. They are generally 19 installed in a series across a roadway resembling a split speed hump. 20 Speed hump shall mean a raised area in the pavement surface, usually from three to four 21 inches high and 10 to 12 feet from front to back, extending transversely across the travel 22 way. The purpose of the length of a speed hump is to allow the entire vehicle to be on the 23 hump at once before it descends the far side onto the pavement to reduce the likelihood 24 that a vehicle will “bottom out” when going over the speed hump. Speed humps are 25 typically applied to residential streets where speed limits do not exceed 25 miles per hour. 26 (b) Prohibited. Any device used as a means of speed reduction on any city or private street, drive, 27 parking lot, fire lane or any other driveable surface, which causes a change in elevation which may 28 result in emergency equipment having to reduce speed during a time of emergency, is prohibited. 29 (c) Permitted. Speed cushions may be installed on privately owned commercial property, at the 30 owner’s expense, following review by the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee and 31 approval by City Council. Any other type of speed reduction device on private commercial 32 property within the City is prohibited.

Proposed Ordinance #2016-09 with CCW/SA&T#1- Chapter 98, Appendix A, and Appendix B - Speed Cushions Page 2 33 (d) Installation and Design standards. Installation and design standards for speed cushions shall 34 be in accordance with the Delaware Traffic Calming Design Manual. 35 (Code 1981, § 7-4; Ord. of 5-26-1998) 36 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 37 That Appendix A - Subdivisions, Article VI - Subdivision - General Requirements and Design Standards, 38 Section A - Streets, Paragraph 1 of the Dover Code be amended by deleting the text indicated in red strikeout 39 and inserting the bold, blue text, as follows: 40 A. - Streets. 41 1. The layout, character, extent, width, grade and location of proposed streets shall be established with due 42 regard to: 43 (a) Public convenience and safety. 44 (b) Proposed uses of the land to be served by said streets. 45 (c) Proper relation and connection with, continuation and projection of streets to adjacent areas; whether 46 these streets are existing, or proposed in another subdivision, in a neighborhood plan, in the 47 development plan, or in the official map, as approved or adopted by the commission. Where existing 48 or proposed streets are located on adjacent land, then the planning commission shall require street 49 extensions at points in which the commission determines are suitable for future connections to 50 adjacent developable lands on each side of the development. 51 (d) Topography and other land features. 52 (e) Speed bumps or dips for the purpose of slowing down traffic shall not be permitted on any 53 streets. 54 (e) Speed reduction devices on any city or private street, drive, parking lot, fire lane or any other 55 driveable surface, which causes a change in elevation which may result in emergency 56 equipment having to reduce speed during a time of emergency, is prohibited. Speed cushions 57 may be installed on privately owned commercial property, in accordance with Chapter 98 - 58 Streets, Sidewalks, Storm Sewers and Other Public Places, Article I. - In General, Section 59 98-10 - Speed Reduction Devices. 60 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 61 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 10 - Planning Commission, Section 2 - Site Development Plan Approval, 62 2.54 - Proposed Development of the Dover Code be amended by deleting the text indicated in red strikeout 63 and inserting the bold, blue text, as follows: 64 2.54 Proposed development. 65 (A) Existing buildings and other structures. 66 (B) Location and width of all proposed streets and rights-of-way. Speed bumps or speed dips for 67 the purpose of slowing down traffic on any street shall not be permitted. 68 (C) Location of all proposed structures, except one-family detached dwellings, and an indication 69 of the total number of dwelling units. 70 (D) Location and dimensions of all lot lines. 71 (E) Building setback lines on all lots. 72 (F) Location of all uses not requiring structures, including parks, playgrounds and other open space 73 areas.

Proposed Ordinance #2016-09 with CCW/SA&T#1- Chapter 98, Appendix A, and Appendix B - Speed Cushions Page 3 74 (G) Location and plans for any outdoor signs. 75 (H) Location, direction, power and time of use for any proposed outdoor lighting. 76 (I) The location, size and arrangement of proposed sidewalks, driveways, loading areas, off-street 77 parking areas and other paved areas. 78 (J) Indication of the total amount of impervious surfaces and the development coverage. 79 (K) Any proposed changes in elevation of the site and elevations of all streets, parking areas, and 80 building foundations. The datum to which all elevations, including existing contour elevations, 81 refer shall be clearly indicated on the plan. 82 (L) Plans for surface drainage of the site. Such plans shall include stormwater run-off calculations 83 and shall show the proposed method of accommodating the anticipated run-off. 84 (M) Any proposed below-ground or above-ground utilities and any contemplated public 85 improvements, including road improvements, on or adjoining the property. Plans for such 86 utilities and improvements shall indicate whether the developer, the city, or other agency will 87 bear the financial responsibility for the construction, and which improvements are intended to 88 be dedicated to the city. 89 (N) Proposed grading, screening and other landscaping, including types and locations of proposed 90 street trees. 91 (O) Architectural elevation drawings or other graphic representations illustrating exterior building 92 characteristics of proposed buildings and/or building additions that would be visible from the 93 public right-of-way. Elevation drawings shall be drawn to scale and shall reflect major 94 architectural elements such as exterior surface materials, windows, doors, columns, and 95 wall-mounted signage. Elevation plans are intended to provide a general depiction of the 96 physical appearance, massing and scale of the proposed construction. 97 (P) Speed reduction devices on any city or private street, drive, parking lot, fire lane or any 98 other driveable surface, which causes a change in elevation which may result in 99 emergency equipment having to reduce speed during a time of emergency, is prohibited. 100 Speed cushions may be installed on privately owned commercial property, in accordance 101 with Chapter 98 - Streets, Sidewalks, Storm Sewers and Other Public Places, Article I. 102 - In General, Section 98-10 - Speed Reduction Devices. 103 ADOPTED: * 104 S:\ORDINANCES\2016\DRAFT\ORDINANCE #2016-09 CH 98 SPEED REDUCTION DEVICES\Proposed Ordinance #2016-09 w CCW-SA&T#1 - Ch 98, App A, and App B-Final Reading.wpd 105 SYNOPSIS 106 The proposed amendments would permit speed cushions on privately owned commercial property. 107 (SPONSORS: HOSFELT AND COLE) 108 Actions History 109 06/13/2016 - Scheduled for Public Hearing/Final Reading - City Council 110 05/16/2016 - Public Hearing - Planning Commission 111 04/11/2016 - First Reading/Referral - City Council 112 03/29/2016 - Introduction - Council Committee of the Whole/Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: City Council DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Planning & Inspections DATE SUBMITTED: May 27, 2016 PREPARED BY: Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner and Ann Marie Townshend, Director SUBJECT: 90 Saulsbury Road Clubhouse & Pool for The Grande: Planned Neighborhood Design – Senior Citizen Housing Option (PND-SCHO) Concept Plan (General Sketch Plan) MI-16-09 REFERENCE: RELATED PROJECTS:  MI-03-02 City Council Review of Fountain View PND – SCHO; C-03-08 Planning Commission Review of Fountain View PND – SCHO; C-06-02 Planning Commission Review of Revised DoveView (formerly Fountain View) PND – SCHO;  Z-11-03 Rezoning of Lands at 101-405 DoveView Drive from IO to RG-5;  S-11-12 Planning Commission Review of Site Development Plan for The Grande (formerly DoveView);  MI-14-06 City Council Review of The Grande: Planned Neighborhood Design – Senior Citizen Housing Option (PND-SCHO); C-15-04 The Grande, Building 4: Planned Neighborhood Design – Senior Citizen Housing Option (PND-SCHO) APPROVALS: N/A EXHIBITS:  Statement of Compliance with Comprehensive Plan dated May 24, 2016 from Northpoint Engineering  Sketch Plan for 90 Saulsbury Road Clubhouse & Pool for the Grande: Planned Neighborhood Design – Senior Citizen Housing Option (dated May 24, 2016)  Reference Document: Exhibit Plan of Conditional Use Site Plan C-15-04 The Grande, Building 4: PND- SCHO EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: N/A AMOUNT BUDGETED: N/A FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): N/A TIMETABLE: The Planned Neighborhood Design option review process consists of at least two review steps which involve City Council and then the Planning Commission. This is the first of the steps. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council shall determine whether or not the proposed project known as 90 Saulsbury Road Clubhouse & Pool for The Grande: Planned Neighborhood Design – Senior Citizen Housing Option is of such a design and type that warrants further review by the Planning Commission. If Council determines that further review is warranted, the project should be referred to the Planning Commission. Staff recommends that City Council forward the plan to the Planning Commission for review. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS Existing Conditions and Recent Application C-15-04: The site of The Grande is located northwest of the intersection of Saulsbury Road and Forrest Avenue. The property consists of 6.7326± acres of land. Currently, there are three 4-story buildings existing on the site, each with 48 apartment units. These 144 apartment units are managed as a 55+ community. In December 2015, a Conditional Use Site Plan Application C-15-04 was approved by the Planning Commission to add The Grande Building 4 at the site and to establish the apartment complex as a Planned

ACTION FORM for City Council MI-16-09 90 Saulsbury Road Clubhouse & Pool for The Grande: PND-SCHO Page 2 of 4 Neighborhood Design development of Senior Citizen Housing. With the proposed addition of a four story 62,240 SF apartment building of 48 units (Building 4), the complex will consist of a total of 192 apartment units of Senior Housing. The project for Building 4 is in the Check Print Review process working to finalize the Site Plan and achieve agency approvals as required prior to the commencement of construction activities. Previous Applications: This site has been reviewed under a number of development applications during the last decade. Initially, the senior citizen apartments were planned as part of a Planned Neighborhood Design – Senior Citizen Housing Option (PND-SCHO) known as Fountain View. City Council reviewed the sketch plan for that project in February 2003 and forwarded it to the Planning Commission for further review. A Conditional Use Site Plan (C-03-08) was submitted to the Planning Commission to allow for five (5) buildings with a total of 240 units of senior citizen apartments. As the plan evolved, it was reduced to 192 units within four (4) buildings and resubmitted to the Planning Commission for review, still as a PND-SCHO project with Application C-06-02. This Conditional Use Site Plan C-06-02 was finalized, and Building Permits were issued for the first two buildings. These buildings were abandoned for several years in a state of partial completion, and ultimately were acquired by Sun Bank. Sun Bank applied for a rezoning of the property from IO (Institutional and Office) to RG-5 (General Residence Zone for Mid-Rise Apartments). City Council approved this rezoning request (Z-11-03) in April 2011. The property was subsequently transferred to Doveview Investors, LLC and they submitted a Site Development Plan S-11-12 which allowed for completion of the two partially-complete buildings and construction of a third building utilizing the RG-5 (General Residence for Mid-Rise Apartments Zone) zoning. Application S-11-12 was not reviewed as a PND-SCHO and therefore was not required to be age-restricted as part of the City process. The three buildings on the site were completed and are occupied on the site. In 2014-2015, the property owner filed new Applications to continue development of a fourth apartment building utilizing the Planned Neighborhood Development – Senior Citizen Housing Option. City Council reviewed the sketch plan for the project in April 2014 and forwarded it to the Planning Commission for further review (MI-14- 06). Continuing the review process, the Conditional Use Site Plan (C-15-04) for the project called The Grande, Building 4: PND-SCHO was granted conditional approval by the Planning Commission in December 2015. CURRENT PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to development the adjacent property at 90 Saulsbury Road to construct a Clubhouse & Pool to serve The Grande: Planned Neighborhood Design – Senior Citizen Housing Option. The subject property with frontage on Saulsbury Road is zoned C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) and is subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The use of the property for a clubhouse and pool is not an allowable use in the C-2A; however, the uses may be considered through a Conditional Use process as specifically associated with a Planned Neighborhood Design – Senior Citizen Housing Option. As the proposal was not part of the original proposal for The Grande PND-SCHO, it is required to restart the application process for the PND-SCHO. The first step in this process is submission of a General Sketch Plan to City Council. If referred to the Planning Commission, the applicant will submit a Conditional Use Site Plan for the PND-SCHO project to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. See attached Sketch Plan for 90 Saulsbury Road and an Exhibit Plan of The Grande project.

ACTION FORM for City Council MI-16-09 90 Saulsbury Road Clubhouse & Pool for The Grande: PND-SCHO Page 3 of 4 Planned Neighborhood Design: Senior Citizen Housing Option: The applicant is seeking approval under the Planned Neighborhood Design Ordinance for the Senior Citizen Housing Option (see Zoning Ordinance, Article 3, Section 24.1 (b)). The Ordinance sets forth a two or three-step review and approval process. In the first step, the developer shall meet with the City Council and present a general sketch plan. The City Council shall determine whether or not the proposed project is of such a design and type that warrants further review by the Planning Commission. If City Council determines that further review is warranted, then the project shall proceed to the second step which is a more detailed Conditional Use Site Plan review and public hearing process before the Planning Commission. A third review step with the Planning Commission may be required depending on the type, physical size, and complexity of the project application. For this proposed plan, there are only two steps required. This submission to City Council represents the first step in the review process for the 90 Saulsbury Road Clubhouse & Pool for The Grande PND- SCHO. The PND: Senior Citizen Housing Option is permitted all zoning classifications (with the exception of the M, IPM and C-4 zoning classifications) as a conditional use. Article 3 §24.1b notes that “preference shall be given to those projects which are within close proximity to public transit services and which are situated within one-quarter (1/4) mile of a grocery store, pharmacy, restaurant, physician offices, senior center or similar convenience service establishment.” The PND: Senior Citizen Housing Option is intended to “…encourage the development of high quality housing opportunities design to accommodate the particular needs of senior citizens” by allowing the Planned Neighborhood Design Option through the Conditional Use process. The PND must present a community design that is in accordance with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Sketch Plan shall reflect general layout of streets, open space, and housing areas and types. Comprehensive Plan Recommendations The City of Dover 2008 Comprehensive Plan as amended designates this property at 90 Saulsbury Road with the land use classification of Commercial as per Map 12-1: Land Development Plan (as amended thru 3/14/2016). The adjacent property where The Grande apartment complex exists is identified in the Comprehensive Plan to be utilized for Residential High Density development. As described in the Comprehensive Plan, High Density involves a development pattern of eight or more dwelling units (page 147-148). The Grande, under Application C-15-04 plan was conditionally approved at a site density of 28.5 dwelling units per acre. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan also establishes stated goals for various types of land uses within the City limits. The goals, policies, and recommendation for Commercial Land Uses is described on pages 150- 152 of the Comprehensive Plan. This site is near the Route 8 corridor which is a commercial corridor. The stated goal for Commercial Land Uses is “to maintain and improve the City’s position as a regional commercial center, while providing its citizens convenient access to needed goods and services through well designed and spaces community and neighborhood commercial centers.” The Comprehensive Plan notes the increasing commercial development pressure along the Route 8 corridor. It also notes the roles the Corridor Overlay Zone (COZ-1 zoning district) and the Delaware 8 Concept Plan and Operations Study by the Dover/Kent County MPO play in the design of development along the corridor.

ACTION FORM for City Council MI-16-09 90 Saulsbury Road Clubhouse & Pool for The Grande: PND-SCHO Page 4 of 4 The stated goal from the Comprehensive Plan for Residential Land Uses is “to develop and maintain an adequate supply of housing of varying type, size, and densities that are aesthetically pleasing and located within neighborhoods designed or redesigned to promote convenience, conservation, and access to the greater community, but which are properly buffered through distance and landscaping from incompatible land uses.” The 2008 Comprehensive Plan also acknowledges the fact that the residents aged 65+ is a rapidly growing segment of the population that will require more specialized services (page 23). This trend was also identified in previous Comprehensive Plans and in response, a previous Comprehensive Plan implementation strategy recommended the development of a Zoning Code amendment permitting Senior Citizen housing developments near the community services and transit routes that senior citizens depend upon. As a result, the Planned Neighborhood Design: Senior Citizen Housing Option Ordinance was developed and adopted by City Council on July 14, 1997. SUMMARY COMMENTS It is important to keep in mind that this proposal does not involve a rezoning of the land. The Planned Neighborhood Design – Senior Citizen Housing Option is plan specific. The land at 90 Saulsbury Road would remain zoned C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The Planning Staff recommends this Sketch Plan for 90 Saulsbury Road Clubhouse & Pool for The Grande: PND-SCHO be forwarded to the Planning Commission for further review and consideration through the Conditional Use process. It is important to note that this report provides a summary of the project and does not represent Site Plan review commentary. A detailed Site Plan review for code compliance and design considerations is performed through the Conditional Use Site Plan Review process for a Planned Neighborhood Design – Senior Citizen Housing Options. Advisory Comments to Applicant: Should City Council choose to forward this proposal on to the Planning Commission for Conditional Use review, the applicant shall prepare the Conditional Use Site Plan submission in accordance with the requirements set forth in Article 3, Section 24 and Article 10, Section 1 of the City of Dover Zoning Ordinance. The act of forwarding a proposal to the Planning Commission for further review is not intended to represent, nor shall it be construed to mean that the project is approved. The approval authority over Conditional Use applications rests with the Planning Commission.

May 24, 2016 90 Saulsbury Road Compliance with Goals of the Comprehensive Plan The proposed development of this parcel, construction of a clubhouse and outdoor pool, is intended to provide the residents of the adjacent The Grande apartment complex with additional amenities solely for their use, as they have expressed a desire to have their own pool and clubhouse facility. This site will be annexed to The Grande apartment property. The proposed facility will not be open to the public, only to the residents of The Grande. A connecting walkway will provide handicap accessible walking and golf cart access to the site. The zoning of this parcel is C-2A – Limited central commercial zone. The site will be developed under the Planned Neighborhood Design – Senior Citizen Housing Option requirements and the Corridor Overlay requirements. The development of this site is in accordance with the goals of the current comprehensive plan as it will provide additional amenities and open space for the residents of The Grande without increasing traffic to the site by providing an interconnection between the properties without creating additional traffic on the adjacent roadways. Site landscaping will provide screening for the clubhouse building and the pool and the proposed vegetation will help to improve air quality. The green space adjacent to the proposed impervious areas will also provide filtration of the runoff from the impervious areas prior to entering the existing biofiltration swale and then the existing storm drain system. 102 Larch Circle, Suite 203 Newport, Delaware 19804 phone: 302-992-9881 fax: 302-658-0618

Office of City Assessor June 13, 2016

Board of Assessment Appeals May 23, 2016 The Board of Assessment Appeals was brought to order by Chairman Garfinkel. Board Members present were: Chairman William Garfinkel, Tom Burns and James Galvin. Staff present was City Assessor Cheryl A. Bundek and Administrative Assistant Annette Hart. Exemptions 2.A. Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity Locations: Exempt Request: 67 S. Queen St. $13,800 18 S. Queen St. $0 (already exempt) 47 S. Kirkwood St. $11,900 27 N. New St. $13,100 24 N. New St. $0 (already exempt) 20 N. New St. $47,600 101 S. Queen St. $13,400 16 S. Queen St. $0 (already exempt) 45 S. Queen St. $11,900 19 N. New St. $75,500 23 N. Kirkwood St. $10,000 53 S. New St. $47,500 223 W. Division St. $0 (already exempt) 50 S. Governors Ave. $102,500 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS An exemption request for the above referenced properties was submitted to the Assessor’s Office. These properties are being renovated for low-income families to provide an affordable mortgage. Once these properties are complete and the ownership is transferred, they will be added back to the tax rolls. (As a supplemental billing) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommend that the request for exemption be approved. Mr. Gallo, Executive Director, was present for the meeting. He told the board that Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity is seeking tax exemption for some dilapidated properties the organization purchased, which will be rebuilt and sold to low income families. He also pointed out that with these projects the city streets will be revitalized, therefore bringing in more taxes. Mr. Burns asked how long this process usually takes, Mr. Gallo replied that the process from purchasing to selling usually takes no more than a year. 1

Mr. Burns asked how the organization is able to afford all of these projects. Mr. Gallo explained that they received funds from different organizations. Mr. Burns asked the Assessor what her opinion was, Mrs. Bundek replied that the organization had been working with the city for a while now and that the city is aware that the properties will eventually go back onto the tax roll. Mr. Galvin made the motion to approve the exempt request for items 1-12 and 14 on the agenda. Mr. Burns seconded the motion. Motion carried 3-0. Chairman Garfinkle brought everybody’s attention to 223 W. Division Street, which had been approved for the exempt status by the board a year ago and was to be revisited by the Board of Assessment Appeal in 2016. He asked Mr. Gallo to tell the board what the current status of that property is. Mr. Gallo informed the board members that this building is to be used as an affiliate office for the organization, which would bring them closer to downtown Dover. He mentioned that he is waiting to find out if enough funding for this office has been generated. As soon as the funding is available the building will be converted into office space for Central Habitat for Humanity, which would allow for a closer contact with the community. Chairman Garfinkel mentioned an organization that appeared before the board the year prior, requesting the exempt status for properties that were to be rented and that the Board of Assessment Appeals denied the request as did City Council at the council meeting at a later council meeting, due to the fact that these properties were going to be used as income properties. Mr. Gallo assured that the building would only be used by the Habitat and that none of the offices would be rented out. Mr. Burns inquired about NCALL(National Council on Agriculture Live & Labor Research Fund Inc.), which is another agency similar to the Habitat organization. He asked the Assessor if properties held by this organization are also exempt from taxes. After making a call to the office, the Assessor assured that the property held by NCALL is exempt. Chairman Garfinkel informed Mr. Gallo that he does not see a problem granting the exemption, as long as the building is not going to be rented out. Mr. Gallo assured the Board that the building will only use by his organization. He went on to explain that if he is not able to convert the building within the next couple of years, he will try to sell it, which will put the property back on the tax rolls. Mr. Burns made the motion to accept the exempt request for 223 W. Division Street with the prevision, that the building will only be used for office space for the organization. Mr. Galvin seconded the motion. Motion carried 3-0. 2

Mrs. Bundek informed the appellant, that the City Council has the final decision and that a certified letter with the date of the Council Hearing would be mailed. 2.B. Whatcoat Community Development Inc. Location: Exempt Request: 992 Whatcoat Village Dr. $4,186,800 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS An exemption request was submitted to the Assessor’s Office. This property has been under this ownership since 1970. They are currently paying property tax to the City of Dover RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommend that the request for exemption be reviewed. Present for the meeting were: Christopher Lamb Esq., attorney for the property owner Vandana Sareen, VP of the Development for The Michaels Organization Kara Velez, Community Manager for Whatcoat Village Apartments Mr. Hill and Mr. Adams, Representing Whatcoat Community Development Inc. Mr. Lamb started by informing the Board of Assessment Appeals where the property is located. He went on to let the board know that the current owner is Whatcoat Community Development Inc. which is a 501(c)(3) organization and had been incorporated in 1970. Mr. Lamb went to read the purpose of the organization: “The corporation is hereby organized, exclusively for a charitable and religious purpose, and the Business and object to be carried on and prompted by it is to provide, on a non-profit basis, Housing for low and moderate income families and families in need of housing where no adequate housing exists for groups, pursuant to Section 236 of the National Housing Act.” The attorney explained that the property consists of 78 rent restricted, family apartment units and that 57 units are subsidized by HUD (Housing and Urban Development). He also mentioned that DSHA (Delaware State Housing Authority) and HUD regulate the properties and that tenants are mostly minorities and very low income and that the property qualifies for the exemption under 9 Del. C. § 102-182. 3

Per Mr. Lamb, the property is in need of substantial renovations, costing a lot of money. Therefore, the property would not be able to carry the full tax load. He also explained that the owner realizes the burden the property is putting onto the city and is therefore offering to enter into a $9,000 PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) with the City of Dover. This offer has also been extended to Kent County for $10,000. It was also explained that the property, because of its nature, is eligible for tax credits. These credits are sold to Investors; this money is then used to do this substantial renovation. Ms. Sareen pointed out that under the low income tax credit all units would be subsidized units, meaning by law the income of the residence should be 60% below national average, however the property owner has committed to have the average income at 35% of the median income in Kent County Delaware, which would mean the yearly income per family would be approximately between $15,000 to $20,000. Mr. Burns asked if the property is currently paying taxes and how much those are, since the city would be losing those taxes for a long time to come. The Assessor told the board that the current taxes are approximately $16,000. Mr. Lamb expressed that he is hoping the $9,000 PILOT will be accepted by the city as they do not want to be a burden. Mr. Burns asked the Assessor what her recommendations are? Mrs. Bundek replied that based on the City Solicitors recommendations, the property should be granted the exemption. Mr. Burns made the motion to approve the exempt request with the recommendation that the city manager give the offered PILOT serious consideration. Mr. Galvin seconded the motion. Motion carried 3-0. Mrs. Bundek informed the appellant that the City Council was the final decision and that a certified letter with the date of the Council Hearing would be mailed. Meeting was adjourned at 9:47 A.M. 4

Monthly Report April 2016 Office of City Assessor

ASSESSOR’S REPORT Number of Deeds Stamped for Transfer Tax Dollar Amount for the Month of April 2015/2016 the Month of April 2015/2016 29 $200 30 $147 Thousands 25 19 20 20 14 15 13 15 $100 $19 5 $27 $37 $16 $2 $1 10 1 2 1 2015 $7 2015 5 $0 0 2016 2016 First Time Buyer for the Month April 2015/2016 Realty of April 2015/2016 PropertySales in Dollars 19 Received Prior to Recording 20 14 15 $10 13 $10 15 Res. Non‐First Millions Time Buyers $5 $2$1 $3 $2 10 $0 $0 $0 2015 Res. First Time $0 5 Buyers 2016 0 2015 2016 Major Updates February ‐16 March ‐ 16 April ‐ 16 Assessment Change $449,400 ‐$542,400 $1,815,900 Residential Sales Ratio Report Sales in Study Total Assessed Total Sale Price Ratio PRD Value 23 $3,278,500 $3,452,925 0.94 1.09

ASSESSOR’S REPORT Ratio – Assessed Value divided by Sale Price. PRD – Mean – A PRD above 1.03 tends to indicate assessment regressivity – high valued properties are under appraised relative to low valued properties. A PRD below .98 tends to indicate assessment progressivity – high valued properties are relatively over appraised. Points of Interest Scanning & Filing ‐ All new deeds are being scanned and attached to the CAMA software for easy retrieval. ‐ All appeal documents and correspondence are being scanned and attached to the CAMA software for easy retrieval. ‐ All old property record cards are being scanned and indexed into Fortis. Assessor’s Office Supplemental Billing ‐ April Supplemental bills went out totaling $5,984.49 Appeals ‐ Posted Assessment Register on the web, in City Hall, Dover Library and Assessor’s Office. ‐ Appeals submitted by the April 29, 2016 deadline: Commercial: 3 Residential: 4 Exemption Request: 14

MAY 17, 2016 CITY OF DOVER PAGE: 1 11:55 AM SALES RATIO REPORT CA324 PARID NBHD LUC ADDRESS UNITS STYLE YRBLT STORIES SFLA GRADE CDU TOTAL APPR SALE DT PRICE ASR ED05-067.14-01-38.00 3 R10 132 BALTUSROL RD 1 5 1973 2 2220 C+ AV 198,800 26-APR-16 220,000 .90 ED05-067.17-04-45.00 3 R10 16 ARBOR DR 1 6 1993 2 2166 B- AV 188,100 11-APR-16 209,850 .90 ED05-067.19-03-18.00 17 R10 735 BICENTENNIAL BLVD 1 3 1987 1 2027 B- AV 204,100 18-APR-16 215,000 .95 ED05-068.10-03-81.00 13 R10 936 MCDOWELL DR 1 16 1967 1 1680 C GD 134,800 15-APR-16 139,900 .96 ED05-068.14-03-13.00 13 R10 1231 HARRISON DR 1 5 1964 2 1524 C+ AV 125,200 26-APR-16 138,600 .90 ED05-068.15-05-15.00 6 R10 209 TEA PARTY TRL 1 13 2011 2 1912 B- AV 151,800 29-APR-16 162,000 .94 ED05-076.03-02-83.00 14 R10 328 TRIBBITT ST 1 13 2014 2 1396 C+ AV 118,200 29-APR-16 145,000 .82 ED05-076.05-07-34.00 3 R10 221 PEBBLE VALLEY DR 1 5 1995 2 2276 B+ AV 208,100 05-APR-16 269,000 .77 ED05-076.06-01-29.00 103 R50 10 CHASE HALL 1 20 1973 1 1730 B GD 101,100 18-APR-16 110,000 .92 ED05-076.06-01-48.00 103 R50 5 ESSEX HALL 1 20 1973 1 794 B GD 56,800 27-APR-16 54,000 1.05 ED05-076.06-03-21.00- 17 R10 254 GREEN BLADE DR 1 13 1983 2 1120 C AV 84,500 22-APR-16 85,000 .99

MAY 17, 2016 CITY OF DOVER PAGE: 2 11:55 AM SALES RATIO REPORT CA324 PARID NBHD LUC ADDRESS UNITS STYLE YRBLT STORIES SFLA GRADE CDU TOTAL APPR SALE DT PRICE ASR 001 ED05-076.06-08-36.00 17 R10 137 PERIWINKLE DR 1 13 1994 2 1112 C+ AV 100,100 27-APR-16 121,000 .83 ED05-076.07-02-04.00 17 R10 751 BICENTENNIAL BLVD 1 3 1994 1 1970 B- AV 199,200 19-APR-16 200,000 1 ED05-076.13-04-05.00 14 R10 226 NORTHDOWN DR 1 13 1999 2 1364 C+ AV 118,600 01-APR-16 109,000 1.09 ED05-076.20-02-30.00 12 R10 1128 YEARSLEY DR 1 16 1963 1 1704 C+ AV 143,000 18-APR-16 110,000 1.3 ED05-077.05-02-10.00 8 R10 160 PENNSYLVANIA AVE 1 5 1933 2 2612 B+ AV 219,600 21-APR-16 242,500 .91 ED05-077.07-01-16.00 6 R10 167 HOLMES ST 1 13 2003 2 1440 C AV 118,700 22-APR-16 129,900 .91 ED05-077.09-04-65.00 8 R10 305 S GOVERNORS AVE 1 1 1849 2 3394 C+ AV 195,100 11-APR-16 200,000 .98 ED05-077.11-04-68.00 2 R10 449 BARRISTER PL 1 13 1972 2 1224 D+ FR 48,300 13-APR-16 58,000 .83 ED05-077.17-03-13.00 4 R10 1036 S BRADFORD ST 1 14 196