Anexo

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA OCTOBER 13, 2014 - 7:30 P.M. 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 COUNCILMAN LYNN AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS * CONSENT AGENDA Those items on the Council Agenda which are considered routine and non-controversial are 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. SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 25, 2014 B. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 2. PRESENTATIONS A. CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION - AMY MULLEN B. CERTIFICATE OF CONGRATULATIONS - KRAFT FOODS 50TH ANNIVERSARY C. COLONEL ALLEN MCLANE PUBLIC SYMPOSIUM (TOM WELCH) D. 2014 MAYOR'S ARTS AWARDS SHARON CROSSEN ALEX BROWN DELAWARE FRIENDS OF FOLK MARIUS SANDER GARY KNOX TYMIR THOMPKINS ELIZABETH STANT E. DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PROGRAM (CONSTANCE HOLLAND) 3. PROCLAMATION - NATIONAL COMMUNITY PLANNING MONTH

COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 13, 2014 PAGE 2 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/FINAL READINGS OF PROPOSED ORDINANCES THE FIRST READING OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCES WAS ACCOMPLISHED DURING THE COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 25, 2014. COPIES ARE AVAILABLE AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS. A. #2014-18 AMENDING APPENDIX B - ZONING, ARTICLE 3 - DISTRICT REGULATIONS, SECTION 24 - PLANNED NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN OPTION (PND), SUBSECTION 24.62 - BUFFERS AND ARTICLE 4 - ZONING BULK AND PARKING REGULATIONS, SECTIONS 4.10 AND 4.11 B. #2014-20 AMENDING APPENDIX B - ZONING, ARTICLE 10 - PLANNING COMMISSION, SECTION 2 - SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL * 5. UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT - SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 A. AMENDMENTS TO THE LAKELAND INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT (TIDEWATER UTILITIES) (Committee recommended authorizing the City Manager to amend the existing Lakeland Interconnection Agreement with Tidewater Utilities, Inc. to include the monthly facilities charge allowed in Tidewater's tariff and to also include the supply of both domestic water and fire protection at the meter location) * 6. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT - SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 A. PROPOSED FINANCIAL REFORMS - COMPENSATION POLICIES (Committee recommended that the proposed compensation policies be referred to the City Solicitor for a legal opinion) B. BANK QUALIFIED LOAN FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE STREET AND STORM WATER IMPROVEMENTS AT THE GARRISON OAK TECHNICAL PARK (GOTP), SELF-CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS (SCBA)(FIRE), AND RADIOS (FIRE AND POLICE) (Committee recommended acceptance of the PNC Bank proposal and adoption of Resolution No. 2014-12 authorizing the issuance and sale of up to $4,135,000 in General Obligation Bonds) C. PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2014-22 - BUDGET AMENDMENT RELATED TO CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN - FISCAL YEAR 2014 (FY14) CARRY-FORWARD BALANCES (See Item #11) (Committee recommended adoption of Proposed Ordinance #2014-22) D. COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT - THIRD-PARTY SPONSORSHIP - SOLID ROCK BAPTIST CHURCH COMMUNITY OUTREACH CENTER (Committee recommended authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Community Transportation Fund (CTF) agreement with DelDOT, process the funding as a third-party sponsor, work with members of the Solid Rock Baptist Church or their designee to get the correct narrative language for the bid document, and complete the project in a timely manner) * 7. SPECIAL DOVER HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION REPORT - SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 WORKSHOP A. PRESENTATION - DOVER PUBLIC LIBRARY CHANGING AMERICA EXHIBIT STEERING COMMITTEE VOLUNTEERS (MICHELLE HUGHES) (Commission action not required)

COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 13, 2014 PAGE 3 * 7. SPECIAL DOVER HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION REPORT - SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 WORKSHOP (CONTINUED) B. PRESENTATION - RE-ENTRY OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM (KEN ABRAHAM) (Commission action not required) C. DISCUSSION - DHRC AUTHORITY AND COMPLAINT PROCESS/FORMULATION OF COMPLAINT PROCESS AND FORM (CITY SOLICITOR NICHOLAS RODRIGUEZ AND COMMISSIONER GAIL LAUNAY-TARLECKI, STATE OF DELAWARE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION) (Commission action not required) D. REVIEW OF DRAFT DHRC 2015-2018 STRATEGIC PLAN (COMMISSIONER RUANE) (Commission recommended adoption of the City of Dover Human Relations Commission Strategic Plan 2015-2018) (Commission recommended committee assignments, as follows: 1) Government Policies, Programs, and Practices Committee - Mr. Ruane (Chair) and Mr. McGiffin; 2) Community Engagement - Mr. Roach (Chair) and Ms. Hicks; 3) Education Committee - Mr. Henderson (Chair) and Mrs. Sadusky; and 4) Communications Committee - Ms. Smith (Chair) and Ms. Stewart) E. COMMISSION MEMBERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS (Commission action not required) 8. UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT - OCTOBER 13, 2014 (Except for the following time sensitive issue, the Utility Committee Report of October 13, 2014 will be presented to Council during their Regular Meeting of October 27, 2014 for Council’s review and consideration) A. DEDICATION OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE - VILLAGE OF CANNON MILL (PHASES I, II, III, AND IV) * 9. MONTHLY REPORTS - AUGUST 2014 A. CITY ASSESSOR’S REPORT B. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT C. CITY PLANNER’S REPORT D. CONTROLLER/TREASURER’S BUDGET REPORT (JULY AND AUGUST) E. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICE REPORT F. FIRE CHIEF’S REPORT G. POLICE CHIEF’S REPORT 10. EVALUATION OF BIDS A. VILLAGE OF CANNON MILL PAVING IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (Staff recommends awarding a unit price contract, based upon Bid #15-0001PW for the Village of Cannon Mill Paving Improvements Project, to George & Lynch, Inc. The Public Works Director may add or delete from the contract, up to 35%, based on available funding throughout the contract period, and inform the City Manager of such additions and deletions. All work will be paid for at the unit prices bid for work completed and accepted by the City of Dover. Work to be authorized will not exceed available funding) B. ARC-RATED FLAME RESISTANT CLOTHING PROGRAM (Staff recommends awarding the contract to Tyndale Company, Inc.)

COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 13, 2014 PAGE 4 11. FIRST READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2014-22 THE FIRST READING IS OFFERED ON THE FOLLOWING PROPOSED ORDINANCE. FINAL ACTION BY COUNCIL WILL TAKE PLACE DURING THE SECOND READING OF THE ORDINANCE ON OCTOBER 27, 2014. COPIES OF ALL PROPOSED ORDINANCES ARE AVAILABLE AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OR CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. A. PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2014-22 - BUDGET AMENDMENT RELATED TO CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN - FISCAL YEAR 2014 (FY14) CARRY-FORWARD BALANCES (Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee) 12. COUNCIL MEMBERS’ ANNOUNCEMENTS /TM S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\COUNCIL-AGENDAS\2014\10-13-2014.WPD THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING A Special Council Meeting was held on August 25, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. with Council President Bonar presiding. Members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Perza (arrived at 5:04 p.m.), Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Williams, and Mr. Hutchison. Mr. Hare and Mr. Lynn were absent. Council staff members present were City Solicitor Rodriguez, Mr. Koenig, Mrs. Mitchell, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Christiansen was also present. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Slavin moved to amend the agenda to include an update from Police Chief Bernat, seconded by Mr. Hutchison and unanimously carried. Mr. Anderson moved for approval of the agenda, as amended, seconded by Mr. Dixon and unanimously carried. Mrs. Williams moved to recess into Executive Session pursuant to 29 Del. C. §10004(b)(4) - Legal Matters. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dixon and unanimously carried. Meeting recessed at 5:01 p.m. Mr. Hutchison moved to adjourn the Executive Session, seconded by Mr. Dixon and unanimously carried. Executive Session adjourned at 6:10 p.m. POTENTIAL ACTION RESULTING FROM THE EXECUTIVE SESSION Ward Transformer Suit - Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) Remediation During the Executive Session, members consulted with Mr. William White of Moore & Van Allen, via conference call, regarding the status of the Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) Remediation related to the Ward Transformer removal action cost recovery suit. Members also reviewed a draft letter to Vice President Biden seeking assistance in this matter. Mr. Hutchison moved to send the letter to Vice President Biden. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Williams and unanimously carried. By unanimous consent, the meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m. TRACI A. McDOWELL CITY CLERK All orders, ordinances, and resolutions adopted by City Council during their Special Meeting of August 25, 2014 are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /TM S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Council-Minutes\2014\08-25-2014 SPECIAL.wpd

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING The Regular Council Meeting was held on September 22, 2014 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Bonar presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Perza, Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Williams, Mr. Hare, and Mr. Hutchison. Mr. Lynn was absent. Council staff members present were Police Chief Bernat, Mrs. Mitchell, Mr. Koenig, Mrs. Townshend, Fire Chief Carey (departed at 7:52 p.m.), City Solicitor Rodriguez, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Christiansen 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 Bonar declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council was not in official session and could not take formal action. There was no one present wishing to speak during the Open Forum. The invocation was given by Bishop Thomas L. Holsey, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Hutchison moved for approval of the agenda as presented, seconded by Mr. Dixon and unanimously carried. Mr. Hare moved for approval of the consent agenda as presented, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Lynn absent). ADOPTION OF MINUTES - BUDGET WORKSHOP OF MAY 20 AND 21, AND JUNE 2 AND 5, 2014 The Minutes of the Budget Workshop of May 20 and 21, and June 2 and 5, 2014 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Hare, seconded by Mr. Dixon and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - BUDGET WORKSHOP OF JUNE 11, 2014 The Minutes of the Budget Workshop of June 11, 2014 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Hare, seconded by Mr. Dixon and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 8, 2014 The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of September 8, 2014 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Hare, seconded by Mr. Dixon and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. CERTIFICATE OF CONGRATULATIONS - KRAFT FOODS 50TH ANNIVERSARY By unanimous consent, this item was deferred until a later date.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 2 PROCLAMATION - CYBER SECURITY AWARENESS MONTH The City Clerk read the following Proclamation into the record: WHEREAS, we recognize the vital role that technology has in our daily lives and in the future of the City of Dover, whereby today many citizens, schools, libraries, businesses, and other organizations use the Internet for a variety of tasks, including keeping in contact with family and friends, managing personal finances, performing research, enhancing education, and conducting business; and WHEREAS, critical sectors are increasingly reliant on information systems to support financial services, energy, telecommunications, transportation, utilities, health care, and emergency response systems; and WHEREAS, the use of the Internet at the primary and secondary school levels in our city enhances the education of youth by providing them access to online educational and research materials; and at institutions of higher education, the use of information technology is integral to teaching, learning, research, outreach, and service; and WHEREAS, Internet users and our information infrastructure face increasing threats of malicious cyber-attack, invasion of privacy from spyware and adware, and significant financial and personal privacy loss due to identity theft and fraud; and WHEREAS, maintaining the security of cyberspace is a shared responsibility in which each of us has a critical role, and awareness of computer security essentials will improve the security of the City of Dover information infrastructure and economy. NOW, THEREFORE, I, ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE, do hereby proclaim October 2014 as Cyber Security Awareness Month in the City of Dover and urge all citizens to learn about cyber security and put that knowledge into practice. On behalf of City Council and the citizens of the City of Dover, Mayor Christiansen presented the proclamation to Mr. Andy Siegel, Information Technologies Director. Mr. Siegel advised members that the City had accomplished much in the last year, including improving high-speed internet and putting into practice new password and acceptable use policies to improve cyber security. He indicated that up-to-date cyber security training would also be provided. On behalf of the Mayor, Council, and employees of the City, Councilman Hutchison expressed pleasure at seeing Mr. Siegel in attendance. He noted that Mr. Siegel had been through a great deal as a result of a recent collision with a vehicle while bicycling, and many people had been praying for him. Responding, Mr. Siegel stated, for the record, that he could not be more happy and proud of the people of the City of Dover and its employees. He indicated that when the accident occurred, two (2) City of Dover electric trucks came to his aid immediately, and not simply because he was a City employee. He expressed appreciation for the assistance.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 3 Council President Bonar expressed his personal thanks to Mr. Siegel and the IT Department for technical assistance provided in setting up his new office as Public Advocate with the State of Delaware. He stated that the City’s contributions in this regard resulted in savings of approximately $140,000 to Delaware’s ratepayers. Mr. Bonar complimented staff’s professionalism and thanked Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, for facilitating this project. PROCLAMATION - FIRE PREVENTION WEEK The City Clerk read the following Proclamation into the record: WHEREAS, the City of Dover is committed to ensuring the safety and security of all those living in and visiting our City, and fire is a serious public safety concern both locally and nationally; and WHEREAS, in 2011, fire departments in the United States responded to 370,000 home structure fires, which resulted in 13,910 injuries, 2,520 deaths, and $6.9 billion in damages; and WHEREAS, almost three of five of reported home fire deaths in 2007 to 2011 resulted from fires in homes with no smoke alarms or no working smoke alarms, and WHEREAS, working smoke alarms cut the risk of dying in reported home fires in half. When smoke alarms fail to operate, it is usually because batteries are missing, disconnected or dead; and WHEREAS, the 2014 Fire Prevention Week theme, “Smoke Alarms Save Lives: Test Yours Every Month” effectively serves to remind us of the importance of testing smoke alarms every month. NOW, THEREFORE, I, ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE, do hereby proclaim October 5 – 11, 2014 as Fire Prevention Week in the City of Dover and urge all residents to make sure their smoke alarms are working properly, and to support the many public safety activities and efforts of fire and emergency service personnel. Mayor Christiansen and Councilman Hutchison, Chair of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee, presented the proclamation to Fire Chief Matthew Carey. Mayor Christiansen expressed appreciation for the service that the men and women of Robbins Hose Company perform for the City 365 days per year. On behalf of Council, staff, and the employees of the City of Dover, Councilman Hutchison stated that Chief Carey and the Fire Department could not be thanked enough for the services provided. He emphasized the importance of fire protection for all. Chief Carey reminded Council and the citizens that an open house would be held on Saturday, October 4, 2014 to “jump start” Fire Prevention Week and, in conjunction with the Breast Cancer Coalition, free screenings would be offered to the public. He encouraged the public to attend and to check the Dover Fire Department’s website and social media page for exact times and dates of events, noting that there would be fire prevention props, tours of the facility, and perhaps rides on fire trucks. Chief Carey indicated that the Department was looking forward to seeing over 3,500 children this year and requested those interested in booking slots for tours to contact the Fire Department as soon as possible. He stated that the Department was trying to contact as many

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 4 schools and day care centers as possible to spread word of the importance of fire prevention. Chief Carey reminded everyone to check and replace smoke detector batteries and encouraged those with questions to call the Department on its non-emergency line. He thanked everyone for their support. On behalf of Council, Council President Bonar expressed thanks to the Fire Department for their service. He reminded all those present that Dover was the only state capital in the United States that continued to have a volunteer fire department, which he stated spoke highly of the men and women of the Dover Fire Department and reflected their dedication, training, and numerous hours of commitment to the community. PROCLAMATION - HALLOWEEN TRICK-OR-TREAT The City Clerk read the following Proclamation into the record: WHEREAS, the children of the City of Dover enjoy the fun and festivities associated with the observance of the Halloween Trick-or-Treat custom of traveling with friends and family going from door to door in their neighborhood, displaying their costumes, and gathering treats; and WHEREAS, parents are urged to join in the festivities by accompanying their children throughout their journeys in celebrating Halloween Trick-or-Treat; and WHEREAS, residents are requested to indicate their willingness to welcome children by keeping their porch or exterior lights on and that youngsters call only on homes which are lighted; and WHEREAS, the Mayor of the City of Dover has deemed it advisable to observe the celebration of Halloween Trick-or-Treat on Friday, October 31, 2014 between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. NOW, THEREFORE, I, ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE, do hereby proclaim that the Halloween Trick-or-Treat observance be held on the 31st day of October 2014, between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. in the City of Dover and urge all residents, both young and old, to make this a happy and safe occasion for our children. Mr. Bonar conveyed his hope that everyone would have a safe and happy Halloween. PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - SEPTEMBER 8, 2014 The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee met on September 8, 2014 with Chairman Dixon presiding. Review of Active Recreation Area Plan - Tall Pines at 1655 and 1665 Kenton Road Mr. Bill Cook, Planner I, advised members that the proposed project is a multi-family residential development to be known as Tall Pines. A previous Site Development Plan and Parcel Consolidation Plan (S-04-33) for the project were approved by the Planning Commission in December 2004 with Final Site Plan approval in October 2005. Some site improvements commenced, existing buildings were demolished, and foundation work began but subsequently ceased; therefore, the original plan expired.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 5 The proposed project includes a total of 24 dwelling units in two (2) buildings on 2.34 acres, which is a density of approximately 10.2 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Cook advised members that the plan consisted of three (3) areas south of the site: 1) a walking path surrounding the storm water facility, 2) a lawn game area between the two (2) structures, and 3) an area closer to the intersection of the roads. Staff recommended approval of the Active Recreation Area Plan with the following recommended changes: a. Area 1: Relocate horseshoe pits to Area 2 to comply with required setbacks of game/court facilities from adjacent properties (Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §10.15). b. Area 1: Add grills and a picnic table to Area 1. Provide accessible path to the picnic table. Revise ornamental tree plantings in the area to shade tree plantings. c. Area 1: The woodchip/mulch walking path should include a defined edging that will prevent encroachment of grass and/or weeds into the path area. d. Area 2: Relocate a bench from the storm water retention pond Area 1 site to near lawn game area with an accessible path. e. Area 3: This lawn game area is shown to have a sloping grading near the building. Due to its location and configuration it is not a viable area for active recreation activities. In addition, to meet the objectives of Article 10 §10 2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, staff recommended additional outdoor bicycle parking to include a minimum of two (2) spaces per building entrance (total eight (8) spaces). Planned improvements on Kenton Road will include bicycle lanes, and potential improvements in neighborhoods south of the project site which are anticipated to improve bicycle connectivity to parks, schools, shopping areas, and nearby recreational amenities, such as the YMCA. a. The use of “Inverted-U” racks capable of supporting of two (2) bicycles each are recommended, for a total of four (4) which exceeds the code requirement of three (3). b. Any indoor storage areas capable of secure bicycle storage, within individual units or in common, should be noted.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 6 In response to Mrs. Horsey concerning the buffering on the west side of the recreational use area, Mr. Cook advised members that a buffer of existing trees was provided in this area, noting that the requirements for buffering were related to adjacent properties rather than parking lots. Responding to Mr. Anderson regarding the addition of grills to the common area, Mr. Cook stated that it was the request of the City’s Fire Marshal to provide community grills in the active recreational area to minimize the chances that homeowners might try to use personal grills on their balconies or store propane, which are not permitted per the City’s Code. In response to Mr. Hutchison, Mr. Cook indicated that the hours of use for the active recreational area had not yet been established. Responding to Mr. Dixon’s concerns regarding the community’s involvement in the planning process for the active recreation area, Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, advised members that the area was meant to be used exclusively by homeowners within the proposed complex and not by the community; therefore, the public was not involved in the planning process. She noted that the project as a whole would be brought before the Planning Commission for a public hearing. In response to Mr. Caldwell concerning the horseshoe pits in the active recreation area, Mrs. Townshend explained that they were part of the original application in 2004, which was approved. Construction was started and infrastructure was put in place, but the plan then expired. Mrs. Townshend stated that the applicant was simply bringing back the same plan, as originally approved in 2004. Mr. Caldwell inquired who would be responsible for maintaining the active recreation area. Responding, Mr. Joe Petrosky, Woodbrook Ventures, LLC, stated that the residents and homeowners within the community would develop an association to maintain the area, as originally planned when the project began in 2004. Mr. Petrosky noted that the grills were added to accommodate a requirement and not something that he personally favored. The Committee recommended approval of the Active Recreation Plan for Tall Pines at 1655 and 1665 Kenton Road with staff’s recommended changes. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the Committee's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Lynn absent). Statistics for Homeownership/Rentals in the City of Dover (Request of Councilman Hutchison) Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, advised members that, according to the United States Census Bureau, the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 7 homeownership rate in Dover from the period of 2008-2012 was 55.1%. This was an increase over the 2000 Census, when the homeownership rate was documented at 52.3%; however, the methodology for collecting and reporting this data changed between the 2000 and 2010 Census. Mrs. Townshend stated that, at 55.1%, Dover has a higher homeownership rate than Wilmington, Georgetown, and Seaford, but lower than Newark, Smyrna, and Milford, which places Dover in a median rate of homeownership. She noted that there was definitely room for improvement, recognizing the importance of maintaining or increasing the rate of homeownership, especially in the downtown area. Mrs. Townshend advised members that, according to the Restoring Central Dover Study, the project area (bounded by William Street on the north, Hope Street on the south, State Street on the east, and West Street on the west, and including Lincoln Park) had a homeownership rate of 25% and a rental rate of 75%. Mrs. Townshend stated that a key strategy of revitalizing the central Dover neighborhoods would include increasing the rate of homeownership. In the coming months, the City will be looking for opportunities to build upon existing incentives such as tax incentives, potentially building permit fee reductions, etc., to help make it affordable and desirable for people to own homes in the downtown area. Responding to Mr. Hutchison, Mrs. Townsend stated that, according to the 2008-2012 American Community Survey, the City of Wilmington’s homeownership rate was 47.9%, which was significantly less than the City of Dover’s rate. Mr. Hutchison indicated that it was important not only to prevent the rate of homeownership from falling but to work to increase that percentage, particularly in the downtown area, where the current rate of 25% was unacceptable. Mrs. Townshend stated that the two (2) closest municipalities geographically, Smyrna and Milford, had homeownership rates of 66.8% and 60.4% respectively, and this indicated there was room for significant improvement in Dover. Mr. Hutchison stated that in his mind there are two (2) cities in Delaware: Wilmington and the Capital City of Dover, and shared his opinion that the staff and the community should be educated on homeownership statistics to work together for improvement. Expressing his appreciation and support of the efforts being made to promote homeownership in the City of Dover, Mr. Anderson also pointed out that some of the difference between rates in Dover and in the cities of Smyrna and Milford may relate to fact that the population of those municipalities nearly doubled, mostly due to the addition of new developments of single-family homes, during the building boom. He felt that their growth may be the result of these increases rather than changes made by these cities. In addition, Mr. Anderson attributed some of Dover’s rental rates to the volume of renters in Dover due to the Dover Air Force Base and military families. Mr. Dixon reiterated the importance of affordable housing so that people can live in Dover.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 8 Mrs. Tracey Harvey, Planner I, advised members that settlement assistance for homeownership had been increased to $20,000 city-wide to help provide affordable housing for those who qualify. In addition, she explained that part of the discussions held regarding the Restoring Downtown Central Dover Initiative had included adding a provision that some settlement assistance money could be used toward rehabilitating the properties purchased in the downtown area. Ms. Yvonne Hall, 228 North State Street, stated that she is a business owner in the downtown Dover area and also a real estate agent. Ms. Hall noted that the town of Camden was not included in the census, stating their homeownership rate was 70%. Ms. Hall expressed her concern about the percentage of homeownership within the City of Dover and offered to provide assistance wherever needed, stating that, as a real estate agent, she may be able to assist with finding financing programs and other avenues that potential homebuyers could pursue. In response to Ms. Hall, Mrs. Townshend noted that Camden was not included in the figures provided because the U.S. Census Bureau did not provide information for towns whose size and population were much smaller than Dover, such as Camden, Wyoming, Magnolia, etc. Ms. Paula Kinsey, 224 North State Street, owner of “Tea for Two, inquired if the City had a beautification plan, stating the importance of improving the appearance of properties by keeping trees trimmed and houses and buildings painted. She stated that proper care of properties should be enforced. Ms. Kinsey noted some unsightly things she had observed, such as long weeds at the old Dover Public Library and cigarette butts at the Dover Post Office and new Dover Public Library, and suggested utilizing volunteers to assist with clean up and maintenance, as well as adding flowers and just being neat and clean in general. She encouraged everyone to show and take pride in our City. Mr. Hutchison assured Ms. Kinsey and everyone present that the City does have a beautification program and that the City’s code enforcement officers and inspectors work diligently to maintain the appearance of the City; however, recently some of those resources have had to be reallocated toward new issues the City is facing, such as 350 vacant homes and commercial buildings, which had placed many demands on the Planning Department. However, Mr. Hutchison stated that this would improve as some of the issues are addressed and resolved. In response, Ms. Kinsey said she would be happy to offer her time to work toward the City’s efforts. Mr. Dixon expressed his appreciation of the efforts of all of the departments of the City that work toward resolving these issues, stating that the City would continue to work hard to keep its appearance of the City; however, it costs money to do so. Mrs. Horsey expressed her appreciation for Ms. Kinsey’s comments, stating that part of this Committee’s name is “Community Enhancement.” She noted that everyone loves the flowers; however, among those flowers are trash, weeds, and cigarette butts. She stated that homeowners are not taking care of the exterior of their homes, this applied to some government-owned buildings as well, and that promoting a clean City means more than just pretty flowers.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 9 Progress Report - Downtown Development District Application Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, advised members that Ms. Connie Holland, Executive Director, and Mr. David Edgell, Principal Planner, both from the Office of the State Planning Coordination, were present in the audience to field questions. Mrs. Townshend referred to her memorandum dated August 29, 2014 regarding Update on Downtown Development District Application and Incentive Ideas, stating that this memo focused specifically on incentives. She said that the City had been working to gather the data required to complete the application, noting that the recommended Downtown Development District Boundary would go before Council later in the evening. Mrs. Townshend explained that 20% of the application scoring was focused on incentives, and that Dover had several incentives, including a real estate transfer tax waiver for first time home buyers, real estate transfer tax waiver for the seller of homes in the downtown Dover area, building permit fee waiver, impact fee waiver, and ten-year abatement of taxes on the value of improvements. Mrs. Townshend stated that, for the purpose of the Downtown Development District application, the recommended boundary that would be going before Council later this evening was smaller than the current boundary, matching the Downtown Development District target area. The reason for the change was to focus more on development of the downtown area, which would exclude large institutional uses, such as the Bayhealth property. Mrs. Townshend noted that, if approved, the new boundary would be codified and become part of the City’s Code. Mrs. Townshend noted that some of the additional incentives being considered were to waive business license fees for new businesses in the District for a period of three years; provide a 50% rebate for real estate transfer tax upon completion and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for projects that qualify for the incentive; and modify the impact fee waiver to allow it to apply to all eligible projects within the District (currently only applies to multi-story mixed use construction), among other variances involving the impact fees. Mrs. Townshend advised that an additional incentive would be discussed with the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP) Board at their September 24, 2014 meeting. This would involve having the DDP retain an architect and budget funds to provide up to $5,000 in architectural services for businesses that require small renovations or a code data sheet in order to occupy an existing tenant space, which would ease the process of new tenants bringing in their business. Mr. Anderson shared his feeling that the proposal was well thought out. He indicated that he was not in favor of shrinking the codified district to match the boundary because it would not be possible to determine how long the State incentives would be in place, and it appeared the incentives were more specific to the State, whereas the district boundary that City set is more advantageous to the City and the entire downtown area. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Townshend stated there was no requirement for matching grants under the Downtown Development District Program, however, the State was expecting the City to provide incentives as well.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 10 Mr. Anderson inquired about incentives for vacant buildings and expressed interest in getting those buildings occupied. He indicated that he would like to mirror the National League of Cities’ (NLC) participation with banks, so that people can sell tax credits to produce more cash flow. Mrs. Townshend stated that new market tax credits would be a very positive option for the City of Dover and concurred with Mr. Anderson’s suggestion regarding incentives for vacant buildings, so that buildings could be saved rather than demolished. In response to Mr. Hutchison regarding a screening process for those who apply for incentives, Mrs. Townshend advised members that the State would screen those applicants applying for State incentives and was currently working on guidelines. Regarding the City’s incentives, Mrs. Townshend stated that they are included in the Code and that an application must be completed. She reminded members that Council recently approved an amendment to the Code that states that applicants who discontinue paying taxes or utilities can lose their incentives. Mr. Hutchison expressed his opinion that a specific process should be in place to avoid people going into business and, 90 days or a year later, going out of business, which wastes incentive money. He requested Ms. Holland and Mr. Edgell to explain the processes the State has in place. Ms. Holland stated that she, Mr. Edgell, and the State Planning Office were very happy to see the State and the Governor working together on the incentive program. Ms. Holland said that the State Planning Office works with 57 municipalities in three (3) counties and shared her feeling that the only way to get past the recession was to start helping towns to get back on their feet. She informed members that she had been working with Governor Markell’s chief legal advisor to create a user-friendly application; however, noted that it must be thorough to avoid funding businesses that are not sustainable. Ms. Holland also expressed her appreciation for the upkeep the City performs to make the City look nice and for enforcing standards to ensure the appearance of the City. Mr. Edgell advised members that there are two (2) processes involved in determining eligibility. The first part is the application prepared by the City, which includes maps, incentives, etc, and is due November 1, 2014. Once submitted, the State Planning Office will meet with the Cabinet Committee of State Planning Issues in December, who will evaluate the applications from the different cities and towns so that the Governor can designate one (1) to (3) districts for the first program year in early 2015. After the districts are designated, the next phase will be managed by the Delaware State Housing Authority (DSHA), since they administer grants as a daily course of business and are developing a process. Mr. Edgell indicated that there would be a reservation system for developers, business owners, or property owners who wish to undertake projects in a designated district. The DSHA will evaluate the proposal and the applicant and, if consistent with the guidelines, the DSHA will grant them a reservation and allocate funding to reimburse the project owner once they obtain their Certificate of Occupancy (CO), with the purpose being to try to ensure the business is solid and sustainable.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 11 Mr. Edgell noted there had been discussions with Kent County about potentially offering some matching grants to pair with the State incentives. Ms. Holland emphasized the importance of money being allocated to planning, particularly in smaller towns that do not have funding, stating her hope that the designation would not be a one time thing. She and urged members to encourage their legislators to approve this project. Mr. Anderson questioned, if planning money were awarded, if it would be structured to include staff time, overtime, etc. Responding, Ms. Holland advised that parameters had not been fully identified; however, it was their intent to use the funding efficiently and have it dedicated toward projects. Mr. Dixon, Chair, Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee (PR&CE), deferred to Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, to brief Council members on this matter. She reminded members that, during the City Council meeting held on September 8, 2014, members endorsed the Downtown Development District (DDD) Boundary Map and explained that the boundaries approved were currently being used to compile information. She stated that the DDD application asks for incentives that the City would be willing to offer for projects within the DDD and staff was working on completing the application, which would be brought forward. Mrs. Townshend expressed her wish to discuss this matter on the Council floor to ensure that the process was transparent and that any concerns would be highlighted sooner rather than later. She indicated that the possibility had been raised of aligning the City’s current Downtown Redevelopment Target Area boundary with the DDD boundary, presuming the DDD designation is received. She noted that one (1) Council representative on the PR&CE Committee was not necessarily in favor of this and explained that staff had two (2) related concerns, as follows: 1) The DDD application mentioned incentives that apply only to the designated district. If the City did not plan to decrease the Downtown Redevelopment Target area to match the DDD boundary, a discussion must be held with the State to advise them that the City’s district was larger; therefore, the City’s incentives would apply to a broader area; and 2) There would be confusion if boundaries for the Downtown Redevelopment Target Area differed from the DDD boundaries. Consistency between the two (2) districts would make it clearer to those seeking and those administering incentives. Mrs. Townshend explained that the incentives proposed were: 1) a waiver of business license fees for new businesses within the DDD for a period of three (3) years; 2) a 50% rebate of the real estate transfer tax for development projects once they receive a Certificate of Occupancy (CO); 3) changes to the impact fee waivers, which were currently applicable only for multi-story mixed used development but could be changed so that at least a portion would be exempt for all redevelopment in the target area; and 4) for the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP) to budget funds and retain an architect, who would be selected through a competitive process, to help businesses making very minor modifications. Up to $5,000 in architectural services would be provided for businesses, many of which that would not have any intention of bringing an architect on board but must because of building code requirements. She explained that this matter would be discussed at the DDP Board meeting scheduled for September 24, 2014.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 12 Mrs. Townshend advised members that staff was working very hard to pull together the large amount of information that was required for the application and was confident that staff would meet the schedule. In response to Mr. Hutchison regarding the screening process that would be used to review applications submitted, Mrs. Townshend explained that applications for State funds would go directly to the State. She noted that Kent County hoped to expand the program and match the State’s incentive up to $10,000. Applications for City incentives would be reviewed by the Economic Development Office and herself, and ultimately would be approved by the City Manager, and this review structure would be used for any incentives added to the program. Update - Recreation Needs Assessment Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, provided members with a flyer, “Public Workshops for City of Dover Residents” advertising three (3) Public Workshops scheduled on September 29, 2014 at Towne Point Elementary School, September 30, 2014 at the Dover Public Library, and October 6, 2014 at Schutte Park. Mrs. Townshend stated that, to date, there had been approximately 100 responses. Receipt of responses was ongoing and additional paper copies were being distributed. Mrs. Townshend advised members that she would provide a copy of the survey to members of Council if asked, and that she planned to keep the survey open until October 15, 2014 to allow for maximum response. Mrs. Townshend stated that the majority of the responses were coming from City residents, so the survey was reaching the target population. Mr. Hutchison questioned whether staff was receiving updates from recreation programs in surrounding areas. Responding, Mrs. Townshend advised members that the City’s Planning Department meets regularly with a group of recreation providers, including the YMCA, Delaware State University, Special Olympics, and Senior Olympics. She indicated that she had also spoken with Kent County’s recreation director with regards to setting up a meeting to discuss some of their programs. In response to Mr. Hutchison regarding whether schools and churches were included in the discussions regarding recreation programs, Mrs. Townshend stated that the Capital School District is invited to meetings held with recreation providers every other month; however, they typically do not attend. She noted that the City does have a reciprocal relationship with the School District whereby both entities allow each other to use facilities and fields without charge for some events. Mrs. Townshend also stated that the Capital School District, along with Holy Cross, the Charter Schools, and St. John’s Lutheran School, assist by distributing material on behalf of the City. Mr. Dixon stated that he would like to see information distributed in the high schools as well. Mr. Anderson asked if the meeting dates and times scheduled for the Public Workshops were “set in stone,” and suggested adding a meeting at Westminster Village, which is centrally located. Mrs. Townshend stated that this could be considered. Responding to Mr. Anderson regarding the status of the Youth Advisory Committee, Mrs. Townshend stated she did not believe that this was an active committee. Mr. Anderson expressed his desire to reactivate the Youth Advisory Committee.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 13 Mr. Dixon encouraged members of local communities to participate in the Recreational Needs Assessment by completing the survey and to contact the City to obtain a survey. He explained that it was desired to obtain as much input as possible to determine the needs for City parks. Mr. Dixon moved for acceptance of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried (Lynn absent). LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT - SEPTEMBER 8, 2014 The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met on September 8, 2014, with Chairman Slavin presiding. Due to the absence of some members who were expected to arrive later in the meeting, Mr. Slavin requested that agenda items be reordered, as follows: 1. Purchase of Twelve (12) Additional Security Cameras 2. Civilianization of the Sex Offender Unit 3. Municipalities Continuing Disclosure Cooperation (MCDC) Initiative 4. Review of New Ordinance/Ordinance Amendment Process 5. Proposed Financial Reforms - Property Tax Governance 6. Review of Hiring by Council for Senior Positions 7. Discussion - Responsibilities and Reporting Structure for the Mayor and City Manager and Continuation of Full-Time Status for the Position of Mayor Purchase of Twelve (12) Additional Security Cameras Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, advised members that Mayor Christiansen and Police Chief Paul Bernat had requested the purchase of an additional twelve (12) security cameras for the downtown area. He stated that this was an unbudgeted expense; however, the Mayor and Chief proposed to purchase the cameras in the same manner that some of the other downtown cameras had been purchased, noting that the total cost of the additional twelve (12) cameras would be $102,585.00. Mr. Koenig stated that area legislators were interested in supporting this project; however, Community Transportation Funds (CTF) could not be used to directly purchase the cameras. Therefore, staff proposed to transfer $102,585.00 from the FY 2015 Street Program (Project # ST1502) for the proposed purchase. He explained that staff would provide the area legislators with copies of the concrete and paving estimates for various street segments in need of repair throughout the city, and the legislators would be requested to backfill the transfer of funds from the Street Program with an equal amount of CTF funds. Mr. Koenig stated that the Finance Department would create a project number in the accounting system for the camera purchase and transfer the funds upon approval from City Council, and staff would complete all of the necessary paperwork for the CTF agreement.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 14 Staff recommended authorization to transfer up to $102,585.00 in appropriated funds from the FY 2015 Street Program to a new project to be identified as the Downtown Camera Project Expansion. Responding to Mr. Anderson regarding whether any projects would be delayed using this approach, Mr. Koenig stated that there was no expectation of delay. On behalf of himself and Police Chief Paul Bernat, Mayor Christiansen indicated that it was their feeling that the addition of these 12 cameras would assist in providing for the security of neighborhoods throughout the City. He stated that, in the past, cameras had been instrumental in assisting the Dover Police Department in quickly closing cases that might not have been closed otherwise. He indicated that the City was working closely with its State legislative delegation and expressed gratitude for their assistance with this project. Mayor Christiansen requested that the Committee approve the request. Mr. Shevock questioned if the amount of funds for the 12 cameras was similar to the funds spent previously to purchase cameras and if the same contractor would be used. Responding, Chief Bernat stated that the same type of camera would be purchased as those presently in use, although new cameras would be high-definition, and they would be provided by Advantech, Inc., the previous provider. He indicated that the purchase of 12 additional cameras would allow the City to connect to 24 other cameras that the City would not have to maintain; therefore, this purchase would provide an additional 36 cameras. When added to the 35 existing cameras, there would be a total 71 cameras used in the City. Chief Bernat stated that a workstation (computer set-up) and a 65-inch monitor for viewing all of the cameras would be included with the purchase of the 12 additional cameras. In response to Mr. Shevock regarding whether the existing cameras could be updated to high-definition, Mr. Ryan Kelly, representative from Advantech, Inc., stated that the City’s cameras were covered under existing service maintenance and would be replaced with newer, high-definition cameras when they “go bad” and at some point all of the cameras would be the same. Mr. Hutchison expressed his hope that all would embrace and support this request, noting that the cameras had been a great addition to the City and the Police Department. Mr. Slavin stated his understanding that cameras were being used as evidence gathering devices and questioned if the City would move toward devoting employee resources to actively monitor cameras. Responding, Chief Bernat stated that he would like to see this in the future. He advised members that the Department had just become fully staffed, which allowed four (4), three (3) man shifts of dispatchers. He expressed his wish to dedicate one (1) of these individuals to monitoring cameras and to rotate this responsibility. Chief Bernat noted that there was a small kitchen area next to the Department’s dispatch room and that eventually he would like to make this a camera monitoring area, noting that this would be “a lot cheaper than putting a police officer on a corner.”

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 15 Mr. Slavin questioned if a ratio had been developed regarding the amount of manpower resources that would be leveraged when a certain number of cameras were available and suggested that such a strategy be developed. Responding, Chief Bernat stated that he did not have this information available; however, stated that “a picture says a thousand words and a video says a million.” He advised members that this was a good program and that murders had been solved using these cameras. The Committee recommended authorization to transfer up to $102,585.00 in appropriated funds from the FY 2015 Street Program to a new project to be identified as the Downtown Camera Project Expansion, as recommended by staff. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the Committee's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Lynn absent). Civilianization of the Sex Offender Unit Police Chief Paul Bernat advised members that the request to hire for these two (2) civilian Sex Offender Registry Enforcement Agent positions was related to a previous request for authorization for the Police Chief and City Manager to sign a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Parkway Academy Central (PAC), an alternative school for youth, and for the Police Department to hire one (1) police officer for the position of School Resource Officer (SRO) for PAC, which was approved by City Council during the Regular Council Meeting of July 28, 2014. He stated that the Police Department signed an MOA with the school's principal in early August that would also generate $60,000 in revenues per school year for the new SRO position. Chief Bernat stated that this was the second part of the SRO agreement with PAC. He informed members that, in addition to the $60,000 provided by the PAC, the Police Department was planning to make up approximately $25,000 through civilianizing the Sex Offender Unit. Chief Bernat advised members that only retiring officers would be replaced with civilians and no positions would be created. He stated that civilizing the Sex Offender Unit would result in a savings of approximately $45,000 for each position and a five (5) year savings of approximately $239,087.40. He explained that one (1) officer would like to retire as soon as possible and, if this occurred, the Department’s total strength would be reduced from 94 officers, for which the Department was temporarily authorized, to 93. If the retired officer were to become a civilian, retraining would not be necessary, and a police officer would be put back on the road. Mayor Christiansen expressed his hope that members would endorse this strategy, as developed by himself and Chief Bernat. He stated that this would result in a net savings to the Police Department and the City and maintain a police presence on the street. He stated that officers in the Sex Offender Unit would be replaced with competent and qualified civilians, and the Sex Offender Unit would still be supervised by a uniformed police officer.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 16 Mr. Anderson questioned how the position would be advertised, noting the importance of complying with Equal Employment Opportunity rules. Responding, Chief Bernat stated his desire to advertise through an in-house posting, which would make eligibility exclusive to the Police Department and the current City of Dover Fire Marshal, who is a certified police officer. He stated that the City’s attorneys in Wilmington had advised that this approach was allowable. Staff recommended approval of the project as requested. The Committee recommended approval of the project to civilianize the Sex Offender Unit and authorization to hire two (2) civilian Sex Offender Agent positions, as recommended by staff. [City Clerk’s Office Note: Subsequent to the meeting, members were provided a Memorandum from Chief Paul Bernat, dated September 10, 2014, which provided clarification and additional details regarding this proposed project.] By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the Committee's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Lynn absent). Municipalities Continuing Disclosure Cooperation (MCDC) Initiative By unanimous consent, this item was deferred until the latter part of the meeting. Review of New Ordinance/Ordinance Amendment Process (Deferred by Committee on August 25, 2014 Due to Time Constraints) Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, informed members that, during the Regular City Council Meeting of July 28, 2014, a Final Reading was held for Proposed Ordinance #2014-15 Amending Chapter 110 - Utilities, Article III - Water Service, Division 3 - Water Impact Fees, Section 110-207 - Establishment of Equivalent Dwelling Units and Article IV - Sanitary Sewer Service, Division 3 - Wastewater Collection Impact Fees, Section 110-282 - Establishment of Equivalent Dwelling Units. He stated that, during the discussion related to this ordinance, several members of Council expressed frustration that staff amended the ordinance between the initial Utility Committee meeting and the First Reading of the Ordinance. Mr. Koenig advised members that someone affected by the ordinance requested a meeting with him and Council President Bonar to obtain clarification regarding the proposed ordinance. As a result, staff amendments were incorporated into the proposed ordinance, and staff believed that typical procedures were followed. He explained that the original ordinance was generated by staff, and staff did not seek additional sponsorship for the staff amendments from the members of Council who sponsored the ordinance. Mr. Koenig questioned how this type of situation should be approached in the future. He expressed concern that there would be a significant burden if a requirement were instituted to go back through the approval process for each proposed amendment, noting that there are often amendments at the Council level that do not go to Committee for consideration. He stated that, although there was a substantial change to the wording of the ordinance, there was no change to its original concept or impact.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 17 Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, stated that typically, if staff recommends a change to an ordinance, this change is called Staff Amendment #1. When City Council acts on the ordinance and amendment, Council has the option to deny the amendment and return to the ordinance as originally proposed; therefore, staff amendments result in no changes without Council approval. She advised members that she and Mrs. Traci McDowell, City Clerk, often perform wordsmithing with amendments, especially with zoning ordinances, and other staff members may point out language that is unclear. Mrs. Townshend expressed concern that staff would not make these clarifications in the future if they were required to go back through the process, resulting in delays and more workload. She could not recall any other instance when this was said to be a problem, noting that these staff amendments are typically explained to Council. She stated that if staff were precluded from offering amendments, an opportunity might be missed to improve the wording of ordinances and leave future staff and future Councils dealing with “murky language,” which staff often encounters with existing ordinances. Responding to Mr. Hare regarding whether staff reviews ordinances before they are initially brought forward, Mrs. Townshend advised members that staff does initially review ordinances but details can become apparent after additional review. Mr. Slavin stated that the goal was the best product with the least process whenever possible. He expressed concern, from the public’s point of view, that changes might be made between the First and Final Readings of an ordinance. He felt that a process change was not needed but a communication change to provide a way to alert everyone to staff amendments or proposed language clarifications. He proposed that those who bring ordinance amendments forward should communicate to Council when there is a substantive change and the reason for it. Noting the large volume of meeting packets that are provided, he felt it would be better if it were stated in plain English why amendments were made, separate and apart from the ordinance. Mr. Koenig questioned if it was desired to add narrative in a memo as a cover page or if the synopsis should detail this information. Responding, Mr. Hare suggested notifying members of the changes via email. Mr. Slavin suggested that these changes be flagged to alert members that the proposed changes are “a little out of the ordinary.” Mr. Anderson expressed his opinion that no changes to the ordinance amendment process were necessary; however, he felt that the public should clearly understand that such changes are proposed amendments, not changes to the ordinance. He stated that when this particular ordinance was pulled up, it appeared to be a complete substitute, which he felt caused concern. He suggested at least alerting the sponsor(s) so that they could agree to the changes. Mr. Slavin stated his belief that staff understood the spirit of the conversation and that no action was necessary.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 18 Proposed Financial Reforms - Property Tax Governance During the Committee meeting of June 23, 2014, Mr. Slavin advised members that during the June 11, 2014 Special City Council Meeting - Budget Review he proposed a series of 14 financial reforms to be addressed over the next six (6) to nine (9) months that would assist in shaping the City's Budget for FY 2015/2016. He stated that the proposed reforms were clustered into four (4) separate areas, as follows: 1) public safety; 2) compensation policies; 3) property tax governance; and 4) restrictions on uses of appropriations. He requested that members consider the public safety area first and that staff be requested to review the reforms, develop recommendations, and provide information on any financial gap that may result. He explained that the review would allow members to identify whether there was a need to create policy, ordinances, or Charter changes to implement any changes that may result from those discussions. Mr. Slavin reviewed the two (2) proposed financial reforms regarding property tax governance, as follows: 9) Council shall not raise the property tax rate more than 9.5% without first holding a referendum on the proposed tax increase. This provision shall not apply in those years when a revenue-neutral adjustment to the tax rate is required because of property revaluation; and 10) Council shall not raise the property tax rate more than 9.5% without two (2) separate votes of a two-thirds majority vote of Council, with the requirement that a municipal election occur between the first and second vote. This provision shall not apply in those years when a revenue-neutral adjustment to the tax rate is required because of property revaluation. Mr. Slavin stated that the spirit of these reforms was to tighten controls that Council has on itself in regard to budgeting, rather than relying on a “pot of gold that might sit at the end of the rainbow” by solving the City’s problems through a dramatic tax increase, which would not be in the best interest of the City or taxpayers. The purpose would be to cap Council’s ability to change the tax rate without requiring additional steps. He noted that the proposed financial reforms were meant to be discussion points that could be adopted as policies and that some may involve charter changes. He indicated that the requirement could be for the conditions of both proposed reforms to be met, or one or the other. Mr. Anderson stated that proposal #9 was his favorite proposed financial reform because he felt it was essential that the people have a say in their government and their taxes, since few things affect them as visibly and directly. He felt that this proposal would allow a nearly 10% tax hike in one (1) year with just a majority vote, without holding a referendum, and that this would allow flexibility. Mr. Anderson indicated that requiring a referendum with any tax increase would unnecessarily handicap Council, who were elected to do a job; however, he agreed with a cap that would guarantee that there would not be a 30% - 50% tax hike in one (1) year, which could send shocks to the economy. He stated this would provide a degree of certainty that would be good for economic development and would be good public policy. Mr. Anderson did not feel that both proposals #9 and #10 were necessary and favored #9. If proposal #9 were not adopted, he felt that #10 might be a possible approach.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 19 Mayor Christiansen expressed his opinion that Proposals #9 and #10 were both viable options to encourage Council to “do the right thing” and that both should be studied very closely. While he believed that most Councils would have a tendency to be responsible to their citizens and taxpayers, he felt it important to have a mechanism in place to protect the taxpayer from unnecessary spending. However, he felt that these two (2) points should never be put in place to remove fiscal responsibility from members of Council. Mr. Hare indicated that he did not have a problem with proposals #9 and #10, but felt that with any tax increase Council must make sure that the City has its “ducks in a row.” He stated that if the City were to continue to dole out large union contracts, hire people for upper management, and then raise taxes, Council would be sending the wrong messages. Mr. Hare felt that if there were a need to raise taxes to make ends meet, then the City must tighten its own belt. Mr. Slavin stated that these points were brought forward because he believed that Council had a fiduciary responsibility to manage and spend wisely, rather than relying on gimmicks and “kicking the can down the road” for someone else to deal with. He expressed the need to be transparent and, when the opportunity is there, to listen to the voters. He indicated that both items were brought forward because he felt that if there were a sitting Council who wanted to raise taxes beyond 9.5% and did not want to go to referendum, this would take away their ability to do so without having an intervening election. In regard to proposal #10, Mr. Hare questioned, for example, if Council approved a tax increase beyond the limit by a two-thirds vote in June 2015, if it would be necessary to wait two (2) years to do so because the next regular election would be in 2017. Stating that he was not in opposition to the proposed change, he noted that this would delay the receipt of funds. Responding, Mr. Slavin stated that this proposal was now a recommendation and if it were to become a policy, Council could “opt out” of it. However, if it were included as an ordinance or charter change, Council would be bound by it. Mr. Hutchison stated that elected officials have the responsibility to serve the City of Dover and that members of Council have tremendous resources in terms of staff and legal advisors to analyze issues and concerns related to raising taxes. He did not like “having hands tied” in this regard and felt that the ultimate decision should rest upon elected officials, and this concept had been honored in years past. Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, expressed his concern that staff had experienced difficulty in getting traction in recent years on any tax increase. He explained that, under current rates, the 9.5% cap would equate to a $0.0321 proposed increase in property tax. For several years, staff had recommended tax increases to stabilize the General Fund, which had been negated in the budget process, either through fee increases, deletions of projects or initiatives, or transfers from the Electric Fund. He stated concern with a hard cap, noting that the budget is typically presented in the May time frame, which would require a “scramble” to bring it to referendum. He indicated that if Council elected to move forward the timing of these initiatives would be important. Mr. Koenig advised

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 20 members that a great deal of time is spent developing the budget, and if it should go to referendum, the budget must be marketed, due diligence must be performed from the public’s standpoint, and the audience would expand from a Council and Committee body to the general public. This would add a significant burden to staff to advocate for those budgets moving into the challenge of a referendum. If a vote were held before and after the election, this would move the roll-out of the budget into the March time frame to allow Council time to review the budget initially, and then bring the issue before a new Council following the election. In regard to the proposed 9.5% cap, Mr. Koenig stated that this would equate to approximately $0.0321, and it had been shown in multiple budget iterations that the need was greater than this. He reminded members that an increase of $0.0722 was proposed in FY 15, which was not palatable at the Committee or Council level, and indicated that 9.5% was not very high when looking at the City’s current tax rate. The Committee recommended that proposed financial reform #9, Council shall not raise the property tax rate more than 9.5% without first holding a referendum on the proposed tax increase; this provision shall not apply in those years when a revenue-neutral adjustment to the tax rate is required because of property revaluation, be referred to staff for drafting as an ordinance and that an opinion be obtained from the City Solicitor regarding whether it should be prepared as a simple ordinance or a Charter change. The Committee recommended tabling proposed financial reform #10, Council shall not raise the property tax rate more than 9.5% without two (2) separate votes of a two-thirds majority vote of Council, with the requirement that a municipal election occur between the first and second vote; this provision shall not apply in those years when a revenue-neutral adjustment to the tax rate is required because of property revaluation. Mr. Slavin reviewed the provisions of proposed financial reforms #9 and #10 related to property tax governance, noting that they were separate but related items. He explained that the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee discussed these items at some length and financial reform #10 was tabled by a unanimous vote of the Committee as the intent of the reform was met with the Committee’s recommendation of reform #9. Mr. Slavin stated that Mr. Koenig had asked that this item be removed from the consent agenda for additional discussion on the floor. Mr. Slavin stated that he was still very much in favor of this reform and saw it as a critical step in ensuring the City’s long-term financial health, while also promoting full transparency. Mr. Koenig expressed his concern, as indicated at the Committee level, that there had been an ongoing debate about the potential need for a tax increase for the General Fund. The draft budget for FY 2015 included a proposed $0.0722 tax increase to address requests from the prior year from Council regarding infrastructure improvements, as well as general operating expenses. Ultimately, after five (5) or more sessions of debate during the 2015 budget hearings, Council elected to transfer $2M from the Electric Revenue Fund to balance the budget; however, Mr. Koenig reminded members that there was still significant pressure on the General Fund. He cautioned members that if a requirement were added for a public referendum, this would probably push the budget presentation back to February or March, when the numbers would be less solid than in May, when hearings were typically held. He indicated that there would be additional costs and work associated with a public referendum, noting that it would be

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 21 necessary to advocate for the budget throughout the City to gain support, and failing to provide this type of presentation across the City would be a disservice to the City. He reminded members that even after the $0.0722 increase was proposed for FY 2015 and was discussed in the newspapers, only a relatively small number of people contacted the City in this regard and general participation was relatively low. From a budgetary standpoint, he stated that adjustments would have to be made to accommodate a referendum, if required. Mr. Koenig was unsure if staff would be prepared for a referendum for FY 2016, and stated that, without a referendum, this proposal would limit staff to bringing forth a budget that would be within the 9.5% prescriptive numbers outlined, which may or may not be a budget that Council would like to consider. He stated his understanding, coming out of the last budget meetings, that Council would like to see several options presented at the budget hearings in May 2015, which staff would begin preparing for very shortly. He stated that a lot of work would need to be done to meet the proposed referendum requirement. Mr. Anderson questioned if Mr. Koenig would consider it a negative if the City had a tax increase that was greater than 10% if it had the support of the people. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that he would not consider such an increase to be a negative; however, he explained that 10% would equate to approximately $0.035 on the property tax rate and each penny would raise approximately $315,000. If Council decided to allocate $1M more to the street program next year, that could create the need for a referendum. In response to Mr. Hutchison regarding the number of tax increases in the City during the last seven (7) years, Mr. Koenig stated his belief that the only tax increases during this period were related to property revaluation. Mr. Hutchison questioned how many times Council had taken funds from the Electric Fund or Electric Reserve Fund in order to meet the General Fund budget in the last seven (7) years. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that for FY 15, $2M was transferred from the Electric Fund to balance the budget. For FY 14, staff proposed bringing forward unused revenue from the FY 13 budget to balance the FY 14 budget; however, the trash fee was adjusted to balance the budget. In 2012, the transfer from the Electric Fund was changed from 8% of the total budget to an $8M flat transfer; therefore, there were flat $8M transfers in FY 2014, 2013, and 2012. Prior to that, transfers were based on a percentage of revenue. He indicated that it was his and Mrs. Mitchell’s belief that adjustments associated with reassessments were made to the tax rate in FY 2010 and FY 2006. Mr. Hare stated his opinion that there were not many funds in the City that could stand on their own and that the electric utility was created years ago to keep the property tax low. He indicated that revenues from the electric utility support a lot of funds in the City and “the money goes wherever it needs to go.” He stated that he was concerned only with the amount of revenue brought into the City, how much was spent, and how much is in the reserves, regardless of the source. Mr. Hare felt that Council had “tied the City Manager’s hands an awful lot.” He stated that when Mr. James O’Conner was serving as City Manager, Council told him to do what must be done to bring a budget forward without raising taxes, rates, and fees. For the most part, this was done and, for the most part, Council did not know the details. Mr. Hare stated that Council was not currently allowing Mr. Koenig to do this and suggested that he be asked to provide a budget that had no increases. Mr. Hare felt that Council should not be telling the City Manager what to do because the City Manager “knows what goes on.” If Mr. Koenig could not develop such a budget, then Council should get someone who can, although Mr. Hare expressed his belief that Mr. Koenig could accomplish this.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 22 Mr. Slavin reminded members that during the time that Mr. O’Conner served as City Manager, revenue streams were increasing, which assisted in the City Manager’s ability to deliver budgets without increases. He indicated that the proposed reforms were intended to be a means for Council to govern itself and not to “handcuff” Mr. Koenig. Mr. Slavin explained that these rules would be set for Council to obey, and if it were desired to raise taxes by $1M or 9.5%, the voters should be consulted. In reference to Mr. Koenig’s comments that it would be a disservice to the City not to advocate for the budget when having a referendum, Mr. Slavin felt that the best way to avoid this disservice would be to invite every voter in the City to participate in that decision. Mr. Perza stated his position that Council representatives had been elected to make decisions on behalf of those in their districts. He felt that Council was capable of deciding whether or not to raise taxes based on the information provided in books, manuals, slides, presentations and budget hearings. When these decisions are formulated, members meet with members of the community and have a sense of what those in their communities want them to do. Mr. Perza felt that extra layers of bureaucracy were being added to micro-manage City management’s decisions. He recognized that big decisions would have to be made, but advised members that if Council goes against the will of the people, they would hear about this and ultimately be replaced. Noting that, in terms of tax increases and spending money, he was probably “the cheapest person in this room,” Mr. Perza expressed his belief that Council was present to make these decisions and if they could not be trusted to do so, the wrong individuals were seated at Council desks. He did not feel that any members would take the decision to raise taxes lightly since this would have direct consequences on every household in each district. Acknowledging that he did not like tax increases, Mr. Perza stated that, by adding extra layers, proposed reform #9 would open the door to extra administrative oversight and unanticipated cost. Mr. Hare concurred with Mr. Perza, stating that the counsel of former Councilman Francis Weyandt was that if the people had to be asked every time Council wanted to do something, then members should not be there; members should do what feels right and if the people do not like this, they will not re-elect their representatives. Mr. Hare noted that the City had provisions in place to require a referendum, for example, if a certain amount of money were spent. He stated that a referendum was required when the construction of the J. W. Pitts Center was proposed and this referendum failed. Consequently, the proposal was redeveloped in an amount below the required referendum amount and the facility was built without air conditioning. Mr. Hare explained that the City was now spending funds to put air conditioning in this facility. He stated that, like Mr. Perza, he would resist a tax increase; however, he did not believe that a referendum should be required for a tax increase. Mr. Anderson stated that he favored proposed reform #9 because it made sense economically. He felt that uncertainty was one of the biggest factors against economic development. It was his belief that Dover would become friendlier for jobs and economic development and more attractive for those opening and relocating businesses due to the certainty that any tax increase would happen gradually and would not be larger than 10% in a year. Mr. Anderson explained that this proposal would apply to significant tax increases that demand public input and a public buy-in. Mr. Anderson advised members that, according to the City’s current charter, a referendum would not be binding. After holding such a referendum, if Council still felt that the City still needed to raise taxes, this could be done, although he believed that if the results of the referendum were negative, taxes would not be raised. Mr. Anderson stated that this was a good proposal and he was glad to support it.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 23 Mrs. Williams stated that she had strong feelings about both sides of this issue and cited two (2) concerns that she had experienced since being elected: 1) the manner in which the City raises taxes, stating that the City always finds a “ghost excuse,” such as an electric rate hike or trash fee, rather than saying directly that more money is needed to run the City; and 2) she expressed disagreement with the construction of the Dover Public Library without a referendum when the public was “screaming” for one. She indicated that the library had been a good thing for the City; however, she also stated that many people thought they had not been given an opportunity to have a say in this. Mrs. Williams indicated that she did not wish to tie Mr. Koenig’s hands behind his back, expressing her belief that he was fully competent and capable of doing what he was asked and of bringing forward factors that Council may not have thought of. However, she was unsure that Council would follow its own best judgment unless pushed by the citizens of the City. In the past, she felt that Council had been very manipulative and stated that perhaps the best way to handle this would be with a referendum which would stop all of the “game playing.” Mr. Perza guaranteed the residents of the Second District that they could be very certain that he would not be voting in favor of raising taxes by 20% or more if Council got to that point. Theoretically, Mr. Hare stated that if a tax increase of 23% were proposed and this was put to a referendum that failed, Council could raise taxes 9.5% but would still be 14% short. He questioned where these funds could be obtained and whether they would be provided by laying off employees, cutting services, or finding the money elsewhere, which would indicate that there was no real need for the 23% increase. Responding, Mr. Slavin stated that there would be many options, including cutting expenses. He noted that this year Council was faced with a tax increase of more than 20% in the proposed FY 2015 budget and got by with a 0% tax increase. Mr. Hare stated that if expenses could be cut to save money, Council should be doing this anyway. Mr. Slavin advised members that the proposed reforms were offered as a package and expressed his opinion that #9 was an important reform that spoke to a very fiscally disciplined and conservative policy that had transparency and accountability attached to it. He stated that he supported and stood by the proposal. Mr. Hutchison agreed that the City needed to fine tune its operations by putting strong measures in place. He stated that he took a great deal of pride in serving as an elected official and did his homework when it came to knowing the budget and what the needs were, as did other Council members. In reference to the FY 2015 budget, he stated that the City Manager brought forth a proposal, but the elected officials, working with the City Manager, came back with a different plan and did not have to raise taxes. He stated that elected officials work together with the City Manager and Controller/Treasurer to address the issues and concerns facing the citizens. In regard to tax increases, he stated that the track record spoke well for the City, noting that tax increases are not often implemented in Dover and no other city in the State has a similar record in regard to tax increases. However, Mr. Hutchison expressed deep concerns with the notion that the City could continue to take funds from reserves and the Electric Fund. He stated that, at some point, it would be necessary to increase taxes, and he felt that this burden belongs on Council as the elected officials.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 24 Mr. Hare stated that, although he would be willing to try proposed reform #9, he did not want to see it implemented as a permanent measure. He felt that it should include a sunset provision to see how it performs. Mr. Perza stated appreciation for the efforts of Mr. Slavin and the Committee to develop methods that are fiscally conservative to protect the City’s and taxpayers’ interests. He reiterated his philosophical position and stated that he was open to suggestions and working with it. Mr. Perza suggested that mechanisms be included to accommodate states of emergency, noting that if Hurricane Katrina or a tornado wiped out half of the City, there would not be time for referendums. He stated that perhaps something could be adopted, such as a super majority vote of Council that a referendum was not required under certain circumstances. Mr. Anderson stated that Mr. Perza’s suggestions could be included when an ordinance is drawn up. He reminded members that the recommendation was to obtain a legal opinion to have an ordinance drawn up, stating his assumption that all of the concerns would be incorporated when the time came. He expressed his belief that it was important to move forward because this proposed financial reform was the one that would make all of the other reforms work, including spending packages and negotiations. Mr. Anderson stated that if union arbitration became necessary, the City would be able to point to an actual limit that could be paid out, which would be in the City’s favor. Council President Bonar stated that, as a legislative body, Council members were elected to do a job and to relate information and respond to constituents. He expressed his belief that the ultimate referendum was the Council member’s term of office. He believed that Council could be forced into a position where it might be necessary to raise taxes more than 9.5% without holding a referendum between two (2) elections. These were decisions that Council would be faced with as elected officials. He stated that no one wanted to raise taxes, and the City had the luxury for many years of having reserves to help balance the budget; however, in the future, members would be faced with a distinct possibility of raising taxes more than 9.5%. Mr. Bonar felt that this topic was food for thought and, judging from what others had said, he felt that there was room for compromise. He stated that Council had hired the City Manager and Controller/Treasurer and if they did not bring forward a budget that was balanced enough without causing undue financial pain, it was up to Council to replace them; however, he cautioned members that it would not be possible to “cut our way” into a balanced budget. Mr. Slavin moved to refer financial reform #9 to staff and legal counsel for drafting as an ordinance, with the provision in the drafting of the ordinance that Council may vacate the provisions in times of unforeseen emergencies, seconded by Mr. Dixon. Mrs. Williams moved to amend the motion to stipulate that the ordinance be reviewed four (4) years after implementation, seconded by Mr. Slavin and carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes (Anderson, Dixon, Perza, Slavin, Williams, Hare, and Bonar), one (1) no (Hutchison), and one (1) absent (Lynn). The motion to refer financial reform #9 to staff and legal counsel for drafting as an ordinance, with the provision in the drafting of the ordinance that Council may vacate the provisions in times of unforeseen emergencies, with the stipulation that the ordinance be reviewed four (4) years after implementation carried by a roll call vote of six (6) yes (Anderson, Dixon, Slavin, Williams, Hare, and Bonar), two (2) no (Perza and Hutchison), and one (1) absent (Lynn).

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 25 Municipalities Continuing Disclosure Cooperation (MCDC) Initiative By unanimous consent, members agreed to consider Agenda Item #3, Municipalities Continuing Disclosure Cooperation (MCDC) Initiative, which was deferred earlier in the meeting. Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, stated that in June 2013, when working on the 2013 Water Sewer Revenue Bonds, it came to staff’s attention that there was a requirement to file a municipal disclosure based on new Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules and that this had been a requirement since 2010. As part of that bond issue, staff developed and Council approved a Disclosure Policy. Mrs. Mitchell advised members that the SEC had provided a “grandfather period” to allow conformance with disclosure. Since this grandfather period would soon be expiring and staff was working on a new loan, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she wished to bring this to Council’s attention. In addition, she stated her desire to provide education on disclosure requirements as this was an annual requirement stated in the Disclosure Policy. Mrs. Mitchell reviewed a presentation, entitled “Municipalities Continuing Disclosure Cooperation Initiative - Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12.” She explained that Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) was the repository where the City puts all of its financial information for bondholders, brokers, and dealers, and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) is the agency that oversees disclosure and ensures compliance for the SEC. Mrs. Mitchell informed members that she examined the information that City staff provided through EMMA and determined that the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs) were submitted in December 2013, within the allowable time frame stated within the City’s Disclosure Policy (275 days after fiscal year end). However, CAFRs prior to 2013 were listed as uncertified, so Mrs. Mitchell contacted EMMA and was told that this was the result of a glitch in their system. Mrs. Mitchell stated that she was able to log into EMMA and correct this problem and these reports were made available. Referring to Event Notices, Mrs. Mitchell explained that rating changes would include anything that impacts the City’s bonds. For example, she stated that the ratings of the companies that insured the City’s bonds were downgraded after problems in the market, and the City was supposed to report these downgradings in addition to the City’s own downgradings. Referring to SEC Rule 15c2-2-12 Violations, Mrs. Mitchell reviewed the violations, as follows: · An issuer fails to accurately report its compliance with the information disclosure requirements of the Rule in the Official Statement of a subsequent securities offering. · An underwriter distributes a municipal security using an issuer’s defective Official Statement because they failed to exercise adequate due diligence and as a result could not form a reasonable basis for believing the truthfulness of the issuer’s official statement.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 26 Mrs. Mitchell advised members that penalties can be imposed for non-compliance, that many entities and bond issuers were not in compliance, and that a grandfather date had been established. She indicated that underwriters, such as J. P. Morgan and Merrill Lynch, were paying associated fines because they were unsure what had been done with bonds that they bought for issues. Mrs. Mitchell noted that the deadline for issuers had been extended from September 10, 2014 until December 1, 2014, and this was the case with the City’s deadline as well. She stated that the Disclosure Policy previously approved by Council should have been listed through EMMA but was not; however, as previously stated, the City’s CAFRs were posted. She noted that the City had received correspondence from Robert W. Baird and Co., Inc., who purchased the City’s water/sewer bonds, and from J. P. Morgan, who bought the City’s most recent electric bonds, asking if the City was in compliance and stating that they would list the City as non-compliant because its CAFRs were not listed until 2013. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the City’s policy was that the CAFR must be posted within 275 days; however, the system only provided options of 120 days or 150 days. When staff loaded the information into the system, 120 days was chosen, which might have made it appear that the City was not in compliance. Mrs. Mitchell stated that she planned to have this corrected, and she felt that having the Disclosure Policy listed would show what the City’s policy is. [City Clerk’s Office Note: Subsequent to the meeting, members were advised that Robert W. Baird and Co., LLC had filed with the SEC that the City of Dover is in compliance with continuing disclosure rules since, as of the time of its bond issue in 2013, the City had completed its disclosure requirements and documented previous non-compliance in the City’s official statement, Moody’s upgrade, and CAFR.] Mr. Shevock inquired, when insurers were downgraded, whether they were supposed to notify the City or if staff must monitor this. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell stated her opinion that the insurers should notify the City; however, this question was being debated. She advised members that issuers and underwriters had stated that this was public information and questioned why they were being asked to put additional information out, explaining that Fitch Ratings Corporation and Moody’s Corporation issue press releases when the City’s ratings are changed. She assured members that staff would list all of this information by December 1, 2014. Mr. Anderson questioned if the City would be completely compliant by December 1, 2014. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell assured members that staff would put all of this information out by this deadline, stating that it might require the expenditure of funds for the assistance of the City’s bond financial advisor or bond counsel and that funds budgeted for training would be used to cover this expense. Responding to Mr. Anderson regarding potential changes in revenue projections in relation to this matter, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she did not anticipate any changes. Review of Hiring by Council for Senior Positions (Request of Councilman Hare) Mr. Hare stated his opinion that when senior positions with salaries of $75,000 - $80,000 become vacant, these positions should come before Council for review, even if these

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 27 positions have been previously approved. He felt that there was a need to evaluate each of these positions and vet them through Council to ensure that nothing changed from the time when the position was approved, and that Council may choose to hold off on filling such positions in the context of making decisions about possible tax increases. Mr. Anderson expressed his opinion that Mr. Hare had a valid concern; however, reminded members that existing procedures required justifications, cost projections, back-up, budget procedures, and separate review by the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee and City Council. He was unsure if it would be advantageous to add an extra layer of oversight, stating that, after Council approval, there must be a point where the City Manager is allowed to perform his job. Mr. Hare clarified that he was not suggesting that this matter come through the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee again but that it be reviewed by Council. Mr. Slavin noted that sometimes there was a difference between the budgeted salary and the actual salary and questioned if there were a related procedure. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that he was not aware of any formal requirement and could think of only one (1) or two (2) upper level positions that might prompt such discussion. He indicated that a position may be budgeted for ten months and occupied for only eight (8) months, creating a difference in salary. He stated that it had not been his experience that staff had gone “way out of the ballpark” on any positions. Mr. Koenig stated that there was concern when hiring the Electric Director that the established limits would be exceeded, but staff was able to meet the budget. Mr. Slavin agreed with Mr. Hare’s comment that this issue should be considered by Council without undue delay, and he noted that this matter would require a very careful evaluation of the personnel issues that require executive session. Mr. Koenig stated that he did not share Mr. Hare’s concerns, noting that setting the bar at $75,000 would likely interrupt police promotions at the higher level and bring about debate for individual positions. Mr. Hare stated that he was considering only positions that are new to the City or newly created positions. Mr. Koenig requested that he be allowed to administer the budget as adopted. Mr. Slavin moved to recommend that Council review senior positions with salaries of $75,000 - $80,000 when they become vacant, even if these positions have been previously approved. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare. Mr. Anderson stated that he was “not sold” on this concept, stating that it may be necessary to hear more on this matter. He felt that the process in place was extensive and was unsure if an additional level of approval was necessary.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 28 The Committee recommended that Council review senior positions with salaries of $75,000 - $80,000 when they become vacant. Mr. Slavin explained that the idea to provide for Council review of higher-paid positions was posited by Mr. Hare during the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting and that the Committee’s recommendation on this matter was based on a vote of four (4) yes and one (1) no. Mr. Slavin advised members that Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, had requested that this item be removed from the consent agenda for additional discussion, and he deferred to Mr. Hare for further explanation. Mr. Hare stated his feeling that it had not been determined if the City’s current form of government was what was desired; i.e., a full-time mayor, city manager, mayor/council, or other structure. He felt that if the Mayor’s position were full-time, mayoral responsibilities should be delineated in writing, and this might mean that some positions, including an Assistant City Manager or other additional or existing positions, might be unnecessary. Mr. Hare stated that he would not be opposed to increasing the Mayor’s pay. However, if the Mayor’s position would be strictly ceremonial, he believed that it should be a part-time position and other responsibilities should be given to the City Manager and Assistant City Manager, if it were desired to have a city manager form of government. Mr. Hare expressed his belief that adding staff without knowing what type of government the City would have did not make sense, indicating that the structure should be determined first. He stated his opinion that the recommended salary limit that would require Council review could be increased from $75,000 - $80,000 to $100,000. Mr. Hutchison concurred that it was way past time to look at the organization of the City, noting that under its current structure, the City Manager reports to nine (9) members of Council and works with the Mayor. He stated that formerly the Mayor presided over Council meetings and there were eight (8) members of Council. Mr. Hutchison felt that Council should have nothing to do with the operation of the City but should set policy and that the City Manager should be the chief operating officer and report to the Mayor. He stated that when the 1988 Consent Decree was implemented, the Mayor was removed from the Council Chambers and the position of Council President was instituted. Mr. Hutchison indicated that, under the current structure, the Council President is the most powerful elected official in the City, as this individual controls the Council agenda and appoints all committee chairpersons. He stated that, although the current Council members do what they are supposed to do and have achieved a City government that works, he felt that the City Manager should become the chief operating officer and be allowed to run the budget and be responsible for the City, which would take politics out of consideration. He expressed his opinion that Mr. Hare’s point was well taken and said that he looked forward to further discussion on this matter. Mr. Anderson expressed concern with the proposal to require Council review of senior positions. He stated that after Council has had staff justify the position, evaluated it, put it in the budget, had the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee review it, and then conducted budget hearings where the entire Council reviewed and approved it, he did not see the value of requiring the City Manager to come before Council again when hiring, since this matter had already been reviewed five (5) different times.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 29 Mr. Slavin stated that Mr. Hare’s suggestion was modeled on federal and state government procedures which require that the senior-level, highest-paid officials in government are appointed with the consent of the legislative body. Mr. Koenig advised members that the City’s charter states clearly that the City of Dover has a council/manager form of government. To his knowledge, at no time in the past had the City Manager come before Council for confirmation when hiring department heads that report to the City Manager and this proposal would be a complete reversal and change from how the City had operated in the past. He reminded members that the Assistant City Manager position had been discussed since December 2013 and had been reviewed in the Council Budget Workshop, budget hearings held in late May and early June, and in the budget approval process. Staff was now in the process of interviewing and would soon make an offer. Mr. Koenig stated that he was confused by the discussion since he had been up front about it when it was first brought up at the Workshop. Council had expressed concern that not enough was getting done from of the City Manager’s Office, this position was his requested remedy for the problem, and he had progressed in that direction ever since. Mr. Koenig felt that any distinctions drawn between positions based on salary level, whether $75,000; $80,000; $90,000; or $100,000, would be arbitrary. In his opinion, this proposal was unnecessary. Mr. Perza and Mrs. Williams expressed concurrence with Mr. Koenig and Mr. Anderson. Mr. Bonar stated that a job description was needed to delineate the Mayor’s responsibilities. In his experience, he felt that the city manager/council form of government had worked well for the City over the last four (4) years. He stated his opinion that there was a time when the Mayor was arguably the most powerful person in the City government and at that time the Mayor had a very powerful personality. Mr. Bonar felt it was up to Council to set a course forward where they wished to go as a body and to determine whether or not it was desired to continue the present system. In regard to Mr. Hutchison’s comment that the Council President was the most powerful elected person in the room, he did not concur. He advised members that when he became Council President and appointed committee members, he sought those who could most easily fill those jobs, given their outside responsibilities and knowing their interests in operations of the City. Mr. Bonar felt that this was not a question of power politics but of selecting members with the best knowledge of the area of responsibility for the committee which they chaired, stating that those who are selected as chairs are asked who they feel would serve well as a civilian member, or the Council President may search out that civilian. Mr. Bonar stated that suggesting that the Council President was the most powerful person on Council was not correct, although this individual could become so if desired. He felt that the Council President’s job was to allow Council members plenty of opportunity to voice concerns and opinions on the floor and facilitate the discussion among the legislative body to allow for decisions. In view of the fact that Dover had a city manager/council form of government, Mr. Hare felt that a full-time mayor was not necessary. In reviewing information from the National League of Cities, he indicated that within a range of almost 400 miles from Dover he had yet to find a city with a population under 40,000 with a full-time mayor. Mr. Hare felt that the City was currently operating as a hybrid government and if it were truly a city manager/council form of government, Council should be more responsible. He indicated that the City Manager was accountable for approximately 40% of the City, but when the other 60% has problems, Council goes to the City Manager. Mr. Hare questioned why the City

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 30 Manager should be responsible for presenting the budget for the whole City and why the Mayor was not responsible for presenting or held accountable for the Police Department budget. He stated that he did not have a problem with whatever government structure was decided upon but felt that a decision should be made. Mr. Hutchison stated his feeling that Mr. Bonar was doing a good job as Council President; however, he reiterated his opinion that the most powerful position as an elected official of the City is Council President; however, it is the individual who occupies this position that chooses how to manage it. In regard to the Mayor’s position, he stated that the Mayor may put in 40-50 hours per week and attend many Council and committee meetings that members of Council do not attend because they may have full-time jobs and cannot be present. Mr. Hutchison stated that this is why there is a full-time Mayor who can be present. He stated that he was very much in favor of a full-time Mayor who would preside over Council. Mr. Bonar stated that there is a difference between power and leadership and that the Council President position is supposed to be about leadership. Having previously occupied the Council President position, Mrs. Williams concurred that power was available in the position, noting that Mr. Bonar and other Council Presidents had chosen not to use this power, to their credit. Mr. Hare withdrew his request for Council review of senior level positions. Council took no action on the Committee’s recommendation that Council review senior positions with salaries of $75,000 - $80,000 when they become vacant. Discussion - Responsibilities and Reporting Structure for the Mayor and City Manager and Continuation of Full-Time Status for the Position of Mayor During the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting of August 25, 2014, members deferred this item for further discussion. Councilman Hutchison stated that he felt it was important to keep in mind that the City currently had a Council/City Manager form of government. He explained that the City previously had a Mayor/Council/City Manager form of government, but the 1988 Consent Decree between the Central Delaware Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the City of Dover changed this and removed the mayor from presiding over council. Mayor Christiansen explained that, during the mid-1980s, the NAACP and others found that the City government and the election process in the City were not fair and equitable to all citizens. The 1988 Consent Decree established the current form of government, did away with dual voter registration and the election of council members by an at-large voting pool and added a ninth council member. This was agreed upon by the parties involved and evolved to the point where the Mayor was to become the full-time chief executive of the City, with council as a purely legislative body presided over by a council

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 31 president. Mayor Christiansen stated that this began the march toward a truly full-time mayor in 1997. He stated that the provisions of the Consent Decree were deemed fair and equitable by all parties involved and led to the structure of the City’s government today. Noting the change in the City’s population and its diversity today, Mr. Hutchison questioned if it would be in the City’s best interest to go back to the parties involved to examine the Consent Decree and determine if it could be removed. Mr. Sudler read the following statement into the record: After listening to Mr. Holden's concerns [during the Committee meeting of August 25, 2014] regarding accountability and clear organizational structure for the City's modified Council-City Manager form of government. In addition to reviewing the minutes and dialogue on the history of a full-time or part-time mayor for the City of Dover, it is my recommendation that the committee should support a full-time mayor's position and consider changing our current form of government to a Mayor/Council form of government where the city manager and chief of police would be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by City Council. I believe that a Mayor/Council form of government will provide City Council with the mayor's job description criteria consisting of strategic goals, objectives, and programs to be orchestrated by the chief executive officer - approved and appraised by City Council. In closing, a Mayor/Council form of government will allow City Council the opportunity to focus more on legislative rules and regulations that navigate our community's climate, but also, will enhance the Mayor's understanding of department's Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats [SWOT] that impact the social, demographic and economic development of our great City of Dover. Mr. Hare stated that he had no problem with a full-time mayor; however, he felt that Council must decide what the City’s form of government would be: a strong Mayor/Council form of government or a city manager form of government, noting that the City was a hybrid right now. He reminded members that a full-time mayor was established through a vote in 1997 and expressed his belief that voters were under the impression that there would be a strong mayor; however, the mayor’s duties were economic development, lobbying the legislature, and public relations. Mr. Hare stated that the City now had three (3) economic development people, which he felt was perhaps more than Kent County or all cities combined within the County, and also a public relations person, but was unsure if the City lobbied the legislature anymore. Mr. Hare felt that there should be a job description for the mayor that was aligned with other positions, rather than continuing to add positions that might not be needed. He felt that an assistant city manager would not be needed with a full-time mayor and suggested that perhaps the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 32 mayor should be paid more. It was Mr. Hare’s belief that a full-time mayor should do more than “breakfast, lunch, and dinners,” and he concurred with Mr. Sudler’s recommendation as long as these changes were made. Mr. Hutchison stated his opinion that the City was where it needed to be at this point. He strongly supported a Mayor/Council/City Manager form of government and indicated that he would like to see the Committee focus in that direction. He felt that the main issue was to review the Consent Decree and that the timing was right. Expressing his reluctance to appear self-serving, Mayor Christiansen stated his interest in serving the City of Dover and doing the job that needed to be done. He indicated that he had great respect for former Mayor Hutchison and felt that the City needed to continue to move into the future with a full-time mayor. He stated that he believed in a strong mayor who would be in charge of the Police Department as conservator of the peace and expressed his belief that the mayor should be chief executive of the City. Mayor Christiansen indicated that a professional manager was needed, as most cities have, who may be termed as managing director or administrative assistant, and that professional departments of the City should report to that manager, who should report on a daily basis to and work in consort with the mayor. He believed that council, presided over by the council president, should be the legislative body of the City and in charge of City Clerk’s Office and an independent Finance Director’s Office for checks and balances. Mayor Christiansen felt it very important that the mayor, as chief executive officer, maintain a veto and not participate in the legislative process, in order to protect the City. He felt that the City had “dallied” since 1997 and not given the mayor responsibilities to be judged and held accountable by the public. He stated that the City was very fortunate in its history to have had two (2) full-time mayors such as former Mayors Crawford Carroll and James Hutchison. Mayor Christiansen felt that Council had been remiss in not assigning the mayor’s responsibilities and had an opportunity now to do so for the betterment of the City’s future. Mr. Anderson stated that this was a worthy idea; however, cautioned members that radical changes in government should not be made lightly. He stated he would like to see this matter studied, although he felt that previous studies supported Mr. Sudler’s proposal. He indicated that he would like to start by seeking a legal opinion, as he was not convinced that a reorganization would necessarily abolish the Consent Decree. He expressed a desire to know how far the City could go with these changes and felt that Mr. Hutchison had raised a very important point. If it were decided to go this route, Mr. Anderson stated that it would be necessary to make sure that certain protections would be in place in regard to the professional staff that the City had taken decades to hire to make sure that council would be involved in the process of appointing a city administrator or managing director and that the current people could not be removed except by cause with council consent. This would be an important check and balance in the system and, if included, he would be open to the idea.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 33 Mr. Dixon stated that he did not agree with Councilman Anderson and Mayor Christiansen. He stated that when Mayor Hutchison was in office, things were taken care of. He felt that it should be strongly recommended to do what needed to be done to make the City strong and more progressive. Mr. Hare stated that he did not have a problem with what Mayor Christiansen said; however, if there was to be a strong mayor form of government, a strong mayor would be needed and the mayor should preside over council. The mayor could still have veto power and the power to break a tie. He felt that the at-large position would then be the mayor’s position and the people would elect a strong mayor. In reference to Mr. Anderson’s comments, Mr. Hare felt that nothing would change in terms of personnel; those who report to council would continue to do so. He concurred with Mr. Sudler that the police chief and city manager would be approved through council. The departments that report to the city manager or administrator would still report to him and if he found cause for termination, this would not have to come before council. Staff members that were council appointees would continue to report to council. Mr. Slavin stated that everyone had brought a lot of energy to the discussion and that the underlying driver for the City’s existing form of government was the Consent Decree, which was the City’s tacit acknowledgment that there had been ills in the City. There was consent to meet those measures, and as a City, seriousness and sincerity was brought to those efforts and the City committed to nearly 25 years of actions to support the Decree. Mr. Slavin felt that it would be in the City’s best interest to open a polite dialogue about the Consent Decree. He stated that a recommendation had been heard from Mr. Sudler that was clear and concise and asked that it be considered for adoption as Option A, noting that there may be additional options, so that a decision could ultimately be reached. Mr. Hutchison stated that if the City should return to a Mayor/Council/City Manager form of government, whereby the mayor presides over council, his personal opinion was that the mayor should vote on every issue. He indicated that there had been a problem in terms of a clear separation of the mayor from issues. The mayor had only the power of veto, which might be exercised only one (1) to three (3) times per year, or perhaps not at all. Mr. Hutchison felt that the mayor should be actively involved in every discussion and part of the voting process, which would allow the mayor to become more actively involved in day-to-day operations of the City. Mayor Christiansen voiced his respect for Mr. Hutchison and Mr. Hare. He explained, however, that the mayor sits on council in the Town of Smyrna and presides over council in the City of Milford, and these forms of government are suitable in these municipalities, but not for Dover, which has a population of 36,000 to 38,000. He pointed out that the growth of Dover was anticipated 25 years ago and the City continues to grow. Mr. Christiansen indicated that Mr. Sudler had made a great point and that it was necessary to move forward rather than stepping back into the past. He asked that members not put his face, as the current mayor, into the position but consider what was in the best interest for the future of the City of Dover.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 34 Mr. Sudler concurred with Mr. Hutchison that a strong mayor form of government was needed and that this was the future of the City. Mr. Anderson stated that when the people are voting, they are not voting on who has the best skills to chair a meeting but on a lot of other factors. He commented that he was aware of no large or medium-sized city where the mayor presides over council and felt there should be a separation of powers and that the mayor should not vote, noting that someone with the ability to vote should not also have veto power. He felt that the current structure, whereby the mayor serves ex officio on committees and makes a number of appointments, gives the mayor an ability to engage early in the process which makes vetoes rare, and that it was important to maintain these provisions. He indicated that if Mr. Sudler were willing to accept a friendly amendment that any proposal would protect the current council-appointed employees with due process, he had no problem with moving this matter forward for further study and legal review, starting with the Consent Decree, to find out what the options were. Mr. Slavin invited members of the public to comment. Mr. Bernhard Greenfield, 901 Wilson Drive, stated that he came to Dover in approximately 1960 with the Air Force and retired from the Air Force. He advised members that he had seen what the City’s mayors could do, including one (1) who said that things must be done his way and insulted people at meetings, and that a street near Sam’s Club was named after this individual. Mr. Greenfield also explained that during a former mayor’s service, trees on State Street uprooted the sidewalks, causing people to fall. Mr. Greenfield advised members that he spent 21 years in the Air Force, where there was one (1) command organization; no one on the base could do what was to be done without asking the commander. He felt that if there were a mayor and a city manager, there could be a problem whereby “one (1) hand doesn’t know what the other hand is doing.” Mr. Greenfield asserted that if there were too many people working in too many places, the work would be fragmented. He stated his opinion that Mayor Christiansen would not “go bullheaded,” stating that he was “a fine man” who came down the street to help people when the snow was three (3) to four (4) feet deep, and that he would do the job. Mr. Sudler moved that his proposal be recommended as Option A, with consideration of Mr. Anderson’s amendment as part of the proposal, seconded by Mr. Hare. For clarification, Mr. Slavin requested Mr. Anderson to summarize the amendment. Responding, Mr. Anderson stated that his recommended amendment was that any positions which currently report to council that are moved to report to the mayor would only be removed for cause and with council approval. Mr. Slavin stated that this would be considered as Option A which would be considered along with any other options presented.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 35 Mr. Shevock questioned if a review or consensus regarding the Consent Decree between the City and the other parties would be required before moving forward. Responding, Mr. Slavin stated that he was prepared to entertain a second motion to open a dialogue in this regard. Mr. Hutchison felt that Option A should be examined to see if there were other things that could be added before returning with a final version. The Committee recommended for future consideration Option A, as follows: a full-time mayor’s position, with consideration of changing the City’s current form of government to a Mayor/Council form of government, where the city manager and chief of police would be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by City Council, and that any positions which currently report to council that are moved to report to the mayor would only be removed for cause and with council approval. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the Committee's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Lynn absent). The Committee recommended that the Council President open a dialogue with the parties to the 1988 Consent Decree. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the Committee's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Lynn absent). Mr. Anderson expressed his opinion that discussion was needed regarding the organization of the City. He indicated that perhaps some functions should be placed under the city manager, reminding members that the City previously had a senior city administrator who dealt primarily with budgets. He suggested the possibility that the individual in this “deputy” position might deal with budgets, Parks and Recreation, or other functions that had been consolidated, which would free finance and other staff to perform their responsibilities. He stated his desire for the Committee to propose that Council hold an Executive Session some time in the future where staff, as those who deal with City issues on a daily basis, could provide their opinions freely and off the record regarding what should be done. Mayor Christiansen cautioned members that Mr. Anderson’s suggestion may not be acceptable under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Mr. Anderson expressed his opinion that personnel issues and reviews would be exempt; however, indicated that it would be necessary to obtain a legal opinion from the City Solicitor on this matter. Mr. Sudler concurred with Mr. Anderson that input from administrative staff would be valuable in this regard.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 36 Mr. Slavin moved for acceptance of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report, seconded by Mrs. Williams. Responding to Mr. Perza, Mr. Koenig confirmed that he was content with the withdrawal of the request to require Council review for the hiring of senior-level positions. The motion to accept the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report was unanimously carried. FINAL READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2014-21 WITH STAFF AMENDMENT #1 (SA#1) The First Reading of the ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of September 8, 2014. Proposed Ordinance #2014-21 with Staff Amendment #1 (SA#1) Amending Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection, Article I - In General Mr. Hare moved that the Final Reading of the proposed ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Enhancement, advised members that this ordinance would set a standard for bollards installed to protect LP and natural gas fixtures from impact, primarily from vehicles. She stated that at the First Reading of Proposed Ordinance #2014-21 on September 8, 2014, Mr. Perza requested that staff provide a definition for bollards. Mrs. Townshend indicated that, in doing so, Mrs. Traci McDowell, City Clerk, determined that definitions were spread throughout Chapter 46, which made the code very difficult to follow; therefore, the staff amendment included a new section 46-0. Definitions, which incorporated all definitions in Chapter 46 for clarity. The remainder of the ordinance would stay the same. Mrs. Townshend stated that the ordinance was sent to Council during the previous week and favorable feedback was received. Mr. Anderson moved for adoption of Staff Amendment #1, seconded by Mr. Dixon and unanimously carried. Mr. Slavin moved for adoption of the proposed ordinance, seconded by Mrs. Williams, and by a unanimous roll call vote (Lynn absent), Council adopted Ordinance #2014-21, as follows: BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: That Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection, Article I - In General, of the Dover Code be amended by inserting a new Section 46-0 - Definitions, to read as follows: Sec. 46-0. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 37 Automatic telephone dialing device and digital alarm communicator system means an alarm system which automatically sends a prerecorded voice message or coded signal over regular telephone lines, by direct connection or otherwise, indicating the existence of the emergency situation that the alarm system is designed to detect. Barbecuing—Commercial means the preparation and cooking of food by way of gas grill, charcoal grill, or other apparatus used for the cooking of food by way of flame produced through wood, charcoal, or gas for the purpose of cooking food for the sale to and/or consumption by the general public. Barbecuing—Recreational means the preparation and cooking of food by way of gas grill, charcoal grill, or other apparatus used for the cooking of food by way of flame produced through wood, charcoal, or gas for the purpose of cooking food for the consumption by a family and/or guests or by the membership of a private organization or church congregation. Bollard means a solid post that conforms to the dimensions outlined in this section which is constructed of concrete, steel, or other durable material approved by the Fire Marshal, cored into a hard surface that is buried in the ground, designed to protect buildings and utilities by absorbing the impact of a motor vehicle collision. Code enforcement officer shall mean fire marshals, police officers, and inspectors employed by the city. Emergency shall mean any situation where the Dover Fire Department or any assisting fire department is called to perform firefighting, rescue, or life saving operations within the limits of the city. Fine means the assessment of a monetary charge, payable to the city, authorized pursuant to this section, to defray the expenses of responding to a preventable alarm or alarm malfunction. Fire alarm installation report means a report, in a form approved by the fire marshal, with the following minimum information: (1) The name, address, business and home telephone number of the owner, lessee, operator, manager or person in possession of the premises wherein the alarm system is installed. (2) The name, address, and telephone number of a minimum of two persons who can be notified by the Robbins Hose Company in the event of the activation of the alarm system, who shall be capable of responding to the premises within 30 minutes, and who are authorized to enter the premises to ascertain the status thereof. Fire alarm malfunction means the activation of any alarm, which results in the response of the fire department, caused by mechanical failure, malfunction, improper installation, or lack of proper maintenance. Fire alarm system means any mechanical, electrical or radio-controlled device which is designed to emit a sound or transmit a signal or message when activated or any such device which emits a sound and transmits a signal or message when activated because of smoke, heat or fire. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the term "fire alarm system" shall be deemed to include audible alarms at the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 38 site of the installation of the detection device, proprietor alarms and automatic telephone direct dial devices or digital alarm communicator systems. A single station alarm device shall not be deemed to be an alarm system under this section. Fire alarm technician means any person who inspects, installs, repairs or performs maintenance on fire alarm systems and is licensed by the state or works under a state licensed alarm contractor. Fire protection system shall include any electronic or mechanical system designed and installed to detect and alert, suppress, or seal off smoke and fire from the occupants of a building. Impact protection means any bollards, walls, concrete barriers or other devices, subject to the approval of the fire marshal, used to stop vehicles or equipment in motion. Impairment means any effective lessening of the equipment to operate as designed, including times of maintenance and annual testing. Means of egress means the most current edition of the National Fire Prevention Association Life Safety Code shall be used to determine the definition of the term "means of egress." Open burning means the burning of materials wherein products of combustion are emitted directly into the ambient air without passing through a stack or chimney from an enclosed chamber. Operative alarm system means an alarm system which the owner of a premises is required to maintain in an operative condition pursuant to statute, law, ordinance, rule or regulation of the state or the city. Outdoor fireplace means any homemade or commercially produced fireplace, fire pit, or fire ring used for the kindling of wood. Owner means any person who owns the premises in which an alarm system is installed or the person or persons who lease, operate, occupy or manage the premises. Premises means any building or structure, or combination of buildings and structures, which serve as dwelling units, single-family or multifamily, or any other area within a building or structure, or combination thereof, which is used for any purpose, other than residential, wherein an alarm system is installed. Preventable alarm means the activation of any alarm, which results in the response of the fire department, caused by the negligence or intentional misuse of the system by the owner or his/her employees, servants or agents; or any other activation not caused by heat, smoke or fire, exclusive of a "fire alarm malfunction" as defined in this section. An alarm is not considered a preventable alarm if the alarm is activated due to malicious causes beyond the control of the owner. Serve means hand-delivery, by a representative of either the fire department or police department, to the owner or authorized representative who responded to the premises. In the event the owner or authorized representative fails to respond to the premises within 30 minutes, the term "serve" shall mean placing the form or other matter in the United States mail, addressed to the owner or authorized representative.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 39 Single-station alarm device means an assembly incorporating the detector, control equipment and alarm-sounding device in one unit, operated from a power supply either in the unit, or obtained at the point of installation. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection, Article I - In General, Section 46-1 - Means of Egress, of the Dover Code be amended to read as follows: Sec. 46-1. Means of egress. (a) Obstructions. The means of egress for an occupancy shall be kept continuously free of all obstructions or impediments to full instant use in case of fire or emergency. (b) Exit doors. All required exit doors shall be unlocked and under the control of the occupants within the building or area. This subsection is to include fenced-in outdoor events. (c) Duty of owner, manager. It shall be the responsibility of the owner, manager, principal or any other person responsible for the day-to-day operations of the occupancy to ensure that exits are unobstructed and unlocked prior to the opening of the occupancy to the general public. (d) Merchandise in exits. In mercantile occupancies, merchandise is prohibited from being displayed in any required exit access, exit, or exit discharge. Merchandise may be displayed in the exit access, exit, or exit discharge of mercantile occupancies that have submitted a written plan for the display of such merchandise and the plan has been reviewed and approved by the fire marshal's office. (e) Penalties. If any exit access, exit, or exit discharge, with the exception of a locked exit door, is found to be in violation of this section, a summons shall be issued as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines. Any required exit door found to be locked against egress shall be in violation of this section and a summons shall be issued for each locked exit as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection, Article I - In General, Section 46-3 - Impairment of Fire Protection Equipment, of the Dover Code be amended to read as follows: Sec. 46-3. Impairment of fire protection equipment. (a) Prohibited. It shall be a violation of this chapter for any owner, renter, lessor, or contractor, after having been notified, in writing, by the fire marshal or code enforcement officer of any impairment to fire protection equipment, including but not limited to fire hydrants, fire alarm systems, sprinkler systems, commercial cooking ventilation and fire suppression systems, standpipes, and smoke removal or pressurization systems, to allow it to remain impaired for any time beyond that allowed by the fire marshal for repair. (b) Impairment of fire protection systems. All fire protection systems, devices, units, and service equipment shall be maintained in an operational condition at all times, and it shall be unlawful for any person owning, controlling, or otherwise having charge of any fire

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 40 protection system to willfully or knowingly tamper with or impair the system from operating as designed without proper approval. An approval form may be obtained from the fire marshal's office. Approvals will not be required for temporary impairments caused by periodic testing and inspection. Any impairment which will render the system non-operational or out of service for more than eight hours for testing and inspection purposes must be approved prior to the start of work. (c) Notification required. The owner, tenant, or contractor shall notify the Robbins Hose Company of any impaired fire protection equipment, and shall renotify the Robbins Hose Company when the fire protection equipment has been restored to normal service. Certification from the repairing contractor shall be required to verify that the system has been fixed and is functioning as designed. (d) Fire watch required. When any impairment would cause a sprinkler system not to operate or a fire alarm system not to detect and signal a fire, and if the building is to remain occupied, a fire watch shall be established in that building or that portion of a building affected. It shall be the responsibility of the owner or tenant to set up the fire watch. The fire watch shall consist of an hourly check of the building or portion of the building affected, and a log kept, there stating the date, time of the checks, and who was making the checks. This log shall be accessible for immediate inspection by the fire chief, fire marshal, or code enforcement officer. (e) Authority of fire marshal. The fire marshal or his/her designee is authorized to close any such building or property where fire protection equipment is found to be impaired or non-operational to ensure the life safety of the occupants. (f) Fines. Any owner, occupant, contractor or body corporate found to be in violation of this section shall be issued a summons as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection, Article I - In General, Section 46-4 - Impact Protection of Natural Gas and LP Gas Devices, of the Dover Code be amended to read as follows: Sec. 46-4. Impact protection of natural gas and LP gas devices. All natural gas and LP gas installations shall be installed per adopted NFPA and International codes, with the following amendments: (a) When required. The installation of natural gas and LP gas meters, regulators, valves, and LP gas bottles shall be protected from impact damage by impact protection. Natural gas and LP gas meters, regulators, and valves located inside structures shall have impact protection, except when located in separate protected utility rooms. The Fire Marshal and/or Chief Building Inspector shall reserve the right to apply this section whenever it is deemed necessary to provide impact protection to address a life or fire hazard. (b) Dimensions of Bollards. Bollards shall be a minimum of 6 inch diameter filled with concrete. The bollard shall be set into the ground at a depth of at least 36 inches (3ft) embedded in concrete at a minimum of 18 inches surrounding the bollard. The bollards must be a least 48 inches (4ft) in height above the finish grade elevation. Any deviation of the stated requirements must be approved by the Fire Marshal and/or Chief Building

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 41 Inspector. The above dimensions shall serve as the requirement for installation; however the Fire Marshal and/or Chief Building Inspector shall have the authority to require more stringent dimensions to fit the needs of devices warranting impact protection. (c) Color of Bollards. Bollards should be of the following colors; yellow, amber or orange. All colors shall be of fluorescent or have a reflective coating. Any deviation of the stated requirements must be approved by the Fire Marshal and/Chief Building Inspector. (d) Responsibility. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner and/or contractor for the new installation to ensure that natural gas and LP gas meters, regulators, and valves are protected in accordance with these regulations. (e) Compliance period. All new construction projects shall comply with the provisions of this section. All existing multiple dwellings, schools, nursing homes, hospitals, and day care centers shall be protected in accordance with this section. All other existing structures shall be protected when deemed a life or fire hazard by the fire marshal. (f) Exemptions. Single-family homes, including townhouses, duplexes, and manufactured housing, except where natural gas and LP gas devices are located directly in front of head-in parking spaces and driveways, and where the fire marshal deems that impact protection is not necessary, shall be exempt from this section. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection, Article I - In General, Section 46-5 - Open Burning, of the Dover Code be amended to read as follows: Sec. 46-5. Open burning. (a) Permit required. Open burning of structures, brush, or bonfires shall not be permitted without a permit obtained from the fire marshal. (b) Fire dimensions. Open burning, when permitted, shall be kindled in such a manner as not to be a danger to other campers, recreational vehicles, tents, or structures and shall not be of a size greater than 18 inches by 18 inches by 18 inches. Height of the fire shall be measured from the ground or from the bottom of the inside of the container being used to kindle the fire. Open burning shall not be kindled directly on the ground unless contained in a fire ring. (c) Fire clearances and time restrictions. Outdoor fireplaces shall have 36 inches clearance from all combustibles when in use. Portable fireplaces, fire pits, or fire rings shall be extinguished in a residential area between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 8:00 a.m. (d) Commercial barbecuing. Commercial barbecuing shall be permitted under the following conditions: (1) The location has been approved by city licensing and inspections and the fire marshal and an outdoor public gathering permit has been obtained.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 42 (2) One fire extinguisher of not less than five pounds ABC is to be located within ten feet of the cooking area. Cooking area and cooking fuels shall be secured from public access. (3) Approval from the board of public health has been obtained. (4) The operator shall make all reasonable attempts to avoid causing a nuisance to nearby property owners with smoke, fumes, or sparks. (5) All compressed flammable gas containers used for cooking shall be secured in such a way as to prevent them from being knocked, tipped, or blown over. Any commercial barbecuing operations which are a continual nuisance because of smoke, fumes, or sparks shall be terminated by the code official or fire marshal and the outdoor public gathering permit revoked until such time as the director of licensing and inspections is satisfied that the problem has been corrected. Barbecuing of any kind shall not be kindled within 200 feet of any fuel pump or storage tank fill. Cooking grease shall not be disposed of by placing it directly on the ground or in storm water drains. (e) Prohibited. (1) Multifamily residential dwelling units. In apartment buildings, condominiums, or any other multifamily residential dwelling of three or more units by any other name, the storage of propane tanks inside units or on balconies is prohibited. Recreational barbecuing shall be prohibited on any balcony or under any overhanging portion or within 15 feet of any structure, except that the use of electrical ranges or electrical grills shall be permitted. The use of outdoor fireplaces on balconies is prohibited. (2) Unattended burning. It shall be prohibited for open burning, commercial barbecuing, and outdoor fireplaces to be unattended at any time. In the event that any open burning, commercial barbecuing, or outdoor fireplaces are found to be unattended, the fire marshal, code official, fire officer, or police shall order the open burning extinguished. (f) Fines. Any owner, occupant, contractor, or body corporate found to be in violation of this section shall be issued a summons as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines. (g) Authority of the fire marshal. The fire marshal is authorized to impose a ban on open burning if weather conditions do not safely permit open burning. The fire marshal or fire officer shall order any fire extinguished that is deemed unsafe or not in compliance with this section of the Dover Code. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection, Article I - In General, Section 46-7 - Preventable and malfunctioning alarms to the fire company, of the Dover Code be amended to read as follows:

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 43 Sec. 46-7. Preventable and malfunctioning alarms to the fire company. (a) Responsibility for malfunctioning and preventable alarms, owner response, and corrective action. (1) Generally. The responsibility for a preventable or malfunctioning alarm shall be that of the owner of the premises in which the fire alarm system is installed. A response to a preventable or malfunctioning alarm shall result when any fire marshal or member of the fire department shall be dispatched to the premises where the alarm has been activated or learns of the activation of the alarm system, by any means whatsoever, and responds thereto by traveling to that premises. After responding to a malfunctioning or preventable alarm, the responding official shall notify the owner or his/her authorized representative and such person shall thereupon travel to the premises to ascertain the status thereof. Should the person notified fail to appear at said premises within 30 minutes after being notified to do so, the fire marshal may issue the owner of the premises a fine as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines. The official or member of the fire department who responded to said premises shall notify the fire marshal's office. (2) Malfunction. In the event of a fire alarm deemed by the responding official to be the result of a fire alarm malfunction, the owner will be served a notice of violation form, indicating that the activation was deemed to be the result of a fire alarm malfunction, and requiring the owner to provide documentation that the fire alarm component that caused the fire alarm malfunction has been corrected, to the satisfaction of the fire marshal, and that the fire alarm system in question has actually been examined by a fire alarm technician and that a bona fide attempt has been made to identify and correct any defect of design, installation or operation of the fire alarm system which was identifiable as the cause of the fire alarm malfunction. Failure to return documentation of service/repair within the period of time stated on the notice of violation, which is satisfactory to the fire marshal, will result in assessment against the owner of a fine for the fire alarm malfunction as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines. (b) Fine charges; multiple fire alarm malfunctions or preventable alarms. (1) Amount of fine. A fine may be assessed for the third and subsequent malfunctioning or preventable alarms at the same premises responded to by the fire department within the prior 12-month period. Thereafter, the fines, as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines, shall be paid by the owner for each preventable or malfunctioning fire alarm responded to by the fire department at the same premises during a 12-month period beginning with the date of the first alarm. (2) Panel reset. Once a preventable alarm or fire alarm malfunction has been responded to by the fire department, it shall be unlawful for the alarm panel to be reset by any person until the authorization of the fire department has been obtained. A fine as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines may be assessed to the owner of a premises where the fire alarm has been reset before the fire department or assisting fire department arrives. (3) Insufficient alarms. When any premises are protected by a fire alarm system that, in the opinion of the fire marshal or his/her deputy(ies), will not safely alarm the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 44 occupants of a fire, the fire marshal or his/her deputy(ies) may close said building, or a portion of said building, to human occupancy until the problem with the fire alarm is corrected and a written report from a licensed fire alarm company is submitted to the fire marshal. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection, Article I - In General, Section 46-8 - Maintaining a known violation or hazard, of the Dover Code be amended to read as follows: Sec. 46-8. Maintaining a known violation or hazard. (a) Known violation or hazard. Any person is guilty of maintaining a known violation or hazard if: (1) After having been informed in writing by a code enforcement officer of a violation of the fire code, property maintenance code, a city ordinance, or state law existing on property he or she owns or occupies, he or she fails to correct the said violation; (2) He or she prevents a fire protection system from functioning as designed; (3) He or she knows that a fire protection system will not function as designed and takes no action to repair the fire protection system; (4) He or she interferes with any occupant's egress from a building; (5) He or she knows of an obstruction that would interfere with any occupant's egress form a building and takes no action to remove the obstruction; (6) He or she engages in any act, written or verbal, within city limits that obstructs, delays, hinders or interferes with the operations of the fire department during an emergency. (b) Penalties. (1) Any fines issued for violation of this section shall be issued as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines. (2) Occupancies that continue to maintain a known violation or hazard may be closed by the code enforcement officer until such time as all violations and hazards have been corrected. ADOPTED: SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 COUNCIL MEMBERS’ ANNOUNCEMENTS At Councilman Lynn’s request, Mr. Slavin extended Mr. Lynn’s apologies for not being present as he was attending a funeral. Mr. Bonar wished Mrs. Williams a very Happy Birthday. Mr. Hare moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Dixon and unanimously carried.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 45 Meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m. TRACI A. McDOWELL CITY CLERK All orders, ordinances, and resolutions adopted by City Council during their Regular Meeting of September 22, 2014, are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /TM S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Council-Minutes\2014\09-22-2014.wpd

CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION presented to Amy Mullen for her countless hours spent organizing and managing the Loockerman Way Farmers' Market held during the Summer and Fall of 2014. Beginning preparations early during the previous winter, Ms. Mullen amassed vendors for the market, developed entertainment enhancements to draw visitors to the downtown area, and facilitated and marketed the event. Her energy and enthusiasm have contributed greatly to the success of the Farmers' Market, and her efforts are greatly appreciated by the Downtown Dover Partnership, the City of Dover, and the entire local community. In grateful appreciation October 13, 2014 ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN DAVID L. BONAR MAYOR COUNCIL PRESIDENT

CERTIFICATE OF CONGRATULATIONS In 1964, Kraft Foods opened its Dover plant and began producing a variety ofpopular household products, such as Jell-0, Kool-Aid, Stove Top Stuffing, and Shake 'N Bake, for national and international distribution. Over the years, Kraft Foods has become a cornerstone of our community, and on September 20, 2014, Kraft Foods celebrated its 501h anniversary ofproduction in the City of Dover. Kraft Foods is the third largest employer in the Dover area, employing approximately 550 employees. Its economic impact to the area has been estimated at a minimum of$45 million annually in payroll, utilities, taxes, and local goods and services. Kraft Foods has also received multiple awards, including the 2013 Capital School District Partner ofthe Year Award, 2010 Delaware Department ofLabor Veteran's Hiring Award, 2010 Kraft Awardfor Safety Excellence, and 2009 Kraft Awardfor Environmental Excellence. Kraft Foods has invested in our community by supporting local organizations and events, such as the Special Olympics, African American Festival, Big Brothers Big Sisters ofDelaware, and the American Heart Walk. It has shown its commitment to fighting hunger and promoting healthy lifestyles by donating a Kraft Mobile Food Pantry to the Food Bank of Delaware and sponsoring the building of a KaBOOM! playground in Dover in 2010. THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE, Congratulate Kraft Foods on its 501h Anniversary October 13, 2014 ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN DAVID L. BONAR MAYOR COUNCIL PRESIDENT

PETITION TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT Report to the Dover City Council October 13, 2014 Proposed Change: Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 – District Regulations, Section 24 – Planned Neighborhood Design Option (PND), Subsection 24.62 – Buffers and Article 4 – Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations, Sections 4.10 and 4.11, relating to the required 40-foot buffer around the perimeter of PND developments and the front and rear yard requirements for houses in PND developments. This Ordinance was submitted by a member of the public and sponsored by members of City Council. Summary of Amendment: The proposed Ordinance would eliminate the requirement for a 40- foot buffer around the perimeter of developments approved under the Planned Neighborhood Design (PND) Option. It would also reduce the front and rear yard requirements for houses in developments approved under the PND Option. Staff Comments: Staff is overall supportive of the proposed Ordinance, but offers the following comments for consideration by the Planning Commission. 1. As it relates to the elimination of the 40-foot buffer requirement around the perimeter of PND developments, staff supports the amendment. While in many cases, this buffer has been part of private open space, when the buffer is on private lots, it has prevented homeowners from making normal improvements to their properties, including the addition of fences, sheds, and decks. The required buffer does not provide any clear benefits to the developments or neighboring properties. 2. As it relates to the reduction in front and rear yard requirements, staff is supportive of this and believes that the change would improve flexibility for builders in lot layout. Staff notes that under the provisions of the Section 24 – Planned Neighborhood Design Option (PND), applicants can currently request that the Planning Commission adopt setbacks and other bulk standards specific to the proposed development, even without the proposed changes. The proposed amendment would reduce the setbacks across the board for all PND developments. 3. Staff notes that the Ordinance, as proposed, does not address the issue of retroactivity to previously-approved PND

developments. To this end, staff offers Staff Amendment #1 to Ordinance #2014-18. Planning Commission Recommendation: Following a public hearing before the Planning Commission on September 15, 2014, where one member of the public spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend adoption of Ordinance #2014-18 with Staff Amendment #1. Ordinance Number: #2014-18 File Number: MI-14-12 Report to City Council on Ordinance #2014-18 Page 2 of 4

Excerpt from DRAFT Minutes of 9/15/2014 Planning Commission Meeting 2) MI-14-12 Text Amendment: PND Buffer and Setbacks – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council of Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 Section 24 – Planned Neighborhood Design Option (PND), Subsection 24.62 – Buffers, Article 4 – Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations, Subsections 4.10 and 4.11. The proposed ordinance revisions would remove the required 40-foot buffer around the perimeter of developments utilizing the PND Option and would reduce the front and rear yards for houses being constructed under the PND Option. Ordinance #2014-18. Staff Amendment #1 proposed. Representatives: None Mrs. Townshend stated that this was a text amendment that was brought forward by a member of the public and sponsored by members of Council. It would do two things. It would eliminate the forty (40) foot buffer requirement around the perimeter of Planned Neighborhood Design Option (PND) developments. She thinks that the idea of a buffer was to ensure compatibility where housing styles are mixed. She thinks that as the PND has played out, they have not created a situation where that buffer is necessary. In many cases it’s in the common open space but in the case where it’s on individual lots, it has created challenges. They have had to deny people the opportunity to have fences, sheds, decks and other things that would be normal improvements on a lot. Staff has recommended in favor of this although Staff did not draft it. It is something that when Clearview Meadow came forward a while ago with their Active Recreation Plan amendment, there were a couple of people that came to speak. One person was very vocal about that forty (40) foot buffer and the impact that it had on his property. Where it is in the open space it wouldn’t change it but this would allow for when that forty (40) feet buffer is on individual lots, it would defer back to the regular setbacks. The other piece to this amendment is that it would change the front and rear yard requirements. It does not address the lot coverage. This would allow for flexibility in lot layout; it does not allow for more lot coverage. It would allow for the flexibility in how the lots are laid out in a development. They note that the Commission is able to relax bulk standards on any individual application. This would make it uniform in how it changes the bulk standards. Staff did put forward an amendment because in their review, they note that it does not address the issue of retroactivity to previously approved PND development. In that end, they consulted the Deputy City Solicitor and added language to the ordinance that would not go in the Code that would state that “the provisions shall be retroactive to developments previously approved by the Planning Commission that utilize the Planned Neighborhood Design Option (PND) provisions of Section 24. What that would do is create a situation where Staff would need to contact property owners that are in that forty (40) foot buffer and give them the opportunity to come back and get something recorded that removes that. Colonel Welsh opened a public hearing. Ms. Nicole Faries – Prickett, Jones & Elliott P.A. 11 N State St Dover DE 19901 Ms. Faries stated that their firm represents a number of real estate developers in the City of Dover and they have worked closely with the Planning Commission and in the past and over the years have made sure that all of their projects meet City Code requirements. They try to help improve the City Code where it’s needed. They think the Ordinance being considered tonight is a welcome improvement to the City Code. The Planned Neighborhood Design Option (PND) regulations as they are currently written, they dictate setback and building envelopes which are overly restrictive and unrealistic. With the result that the only projects that are able to be built in Report to City Council on Ordinance #2014-18 Page 3 of 4

compliance with these regulations have very little demand in the current system. The Ordinance before the Commission tonight will permit a great degree of flexibility in the design which will allow developers to offer residential dwellings that are in the current market demand and that are desirable. For all of these reasons, they support the proposed ordinance and respectfully request the Commission favorable consideration and recommendation for approval. Colonel Welsh closed the public hearing. Mr. Holt moved to recommend approval to City Council for MI-14-12 Text Amendment: PND Buffer and Setbacks to include retroactivity to previous plans and that notification of people affected will take place, seconded by Dr. Jones and the motion carried by roll call vote 7-0. Mr. Cregar voting yes, his vote concurs with the Staff comments and recommendations in accordance with this text amendment. Mr. Tolbert voting yes, Staff has obviously conducted a critical review of the situation and he feels comfortable with the conclusions that they have reached as indicated in the petition to amendment the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Holt voting yes, it was well explained, much needed and long overdue for the community. Mr. Baldwin voting yes, it is a much needed change. He also agrees with the retroactive notification. Dr. Jones voting yes, for reasons that have been previously stated and especially because the past applicants are going to be notified and have the opportunity to make this change. Ms. Still voting yes, in concurrence with all previous comments and she too feel that the Planning Staff did a lot of work and a lot of effort to get this worked out to help better the community. Colonel Welsh voting yes, praising the Planning Staff for their work put into this. Report to City Council on Ordinance #2014-18 Page 4 of 4

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: AUGUST 27, 2014 APPLICATION: TEXT AMENDMENT: PND BUFFER AND SETBACKS FILE #: MI-14-12 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Electric and Public Works Departments CONTACT PERSON: Aren Wright - 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. Our office has no objections to the proposed text amendments. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / SANITATION / STREETS / GROUNDS 1. None 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 .

CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O D.A.C. MEETING DATE: August 26, 2014 T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Texts Amendments: PND Buffer and Setbacks FILE#: MI-14-12 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Julio F. Seneus 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: 1. The Department has no comments. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 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.

FINAL READING CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2014-18 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL 2 MET: 3 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 24 - Planned Neighborhood Design 4 Option (PND), Subsection 24.62 - Buffers, of the Dover Code be amended by deleting it in its entirety and 5 re-designating the remaining Subsections accordingly. 6 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED 7 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 4 - Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations, Section 4.10 of the Dover 8 Code be amended by striking the text indicated in red, strikeout and inserting the bold, blue text, as follows: 9 Section 4.10. R-20, R-15, R-10, R-8, RM-1, RM-2 planned neighborhood design option and recreation 10 and open space zone (ROS). 11 Bulk and parking standards for PND within the following zones: R-20, R-15, R-10, R-8, RM-1, 12 RM-2, as well as Bulk and Parking Standards for the ROS zone are as follows: One-Family One-Family Detached Lot Line Duplex Multiplex Dwellings Dwellings Dwellings Dwellings 13 Minimum requirements per dwelling unit: 14 Lot area (sq. ft.) 7,500 6,000 4,500 4,000 15 Lot width (ft.) 70 65 40 16 Lot depth (ft.) 100 90 100 17 Off-street parking spaces 2 2 2 2 18 Minimum requirements per building: 19 Front yard (ft.) 25 15 20 25 15 30 20 Minimum side yard (ft.) 8 — — 10 21 Total side yards (ft.) 20 30 10 30 22 Rear yard (ft.) 30 20 40 30 20 20 23 Lot width (ft.) 80 24 Lot depth (ft.) 80 25 Maximum permitted: 26 Building height 27 Stories 2½ 2 2½ 3 28 Feet 35 24 35 35 29 Lot coverage 40% 45% 45% 50% 30 Number of dwelling units per building 1 1 2 5

Proposed Ordinance #2014-18 - Appendix B - Zoning - PND Page 2 31 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED 32 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 4 - Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations, Subsection 4.11 of the Dover 33 Code be amended by striking the text indicated in red, strikeout and inserting the bold, blue text, as follows: 34 Section 4.11. R-20, R-15, R-10, R-8, RM-1, RM-2 planned neighborhood design option and recreation 35 and open space zone (ROS). 36 Bulk and parking standards for PND within the following zones: R-20, R-15, R-10, R-8, RM-1 and RM- 37 2, as well as Bulk and Parking Standards for the ROS zone are as follows: Patio Houses Townhouses Garden Apts. 38 Minimum requirements per dwelling unit: Minimum average lot area (sq. ft.) 3,500 2,200 1,800 Minimum lot area (sq. ft.) 3,000 2,000 1,800 Lot width (ft.) 40 22 Lot depth (ft.) 70 80 Off-street parking spaces 2 2 2 39 Minimum requirements per building: Lot area 1 acre Lot width (ft.) 100 Lot depth (ft.) 125 Building setback 40 From street (ft.) 15 30 20 50 41 From property line (ft.) — 20 10 50 Building spacing — 30 50 Patio area 60% Patio dimension (ft.) 20 42 Maximum permitted: Building height 43 Feet 24 35 35 44 Stories 2 3 2 Lot coverage 60% 75% 60% Average No. of dwelling units per building 1 8 24 45 ADOPTED: * 46 S:\ORDINANCES\2014\DRAFT\Ordinance #2014-18 Amending Appendix B - Zoning - PND-Final Reading.wpd 47 SYNOPSIS 48 The proposed ordinance amends the Planned Neighborhood Design to eliminate the 49 40-foot buffer around the perimeter of the development and to reduce the front and rear 50 setbacks. 51 (SPONSORS: HUTCHISON, WILLIAMS, AND TOWNSHEND) 52 Actions History 53 10/13/2014 - Public Hearing/Final Reading Scheduled at City Council 54 08/25/2014 - First Reading Held at City Council 55 08/11/2014 - Introduced at Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee

PETITION TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT Report to the Dover City Council October 13, 2014 Proposed Change: Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 2 pertaining to Site Development Plan approval. The proposed ordinance includes a correction to the amendments approved as part of Ordinance #2014-08, which was approved by City Council on July 14, 2014. Summary of Amendment: On July 14, 2014, City Council adopted Ordinance #2014-08, which rewrote the commercial and office zones within the Zoning Ordinance and streamlined processes for zoning administration. One change that helped to streamline processes allows for an existing building expanding by up to 15% to be reviewed administratively. In drafting the language, staff did not develop similar language for expansion of impervious cover, although that was the intent. The proposed amendment would correct this omission and allow for up to 15% expansion of impervious cover on a site to be reviewed administratively. Planning Commission Recommendation: Following a public hearing before the Planning Commission on September 15, 2014, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend adoption of Ordinance #2014-20. Ordinance Number: #2014-20 File Number: MI-14-14

Excerpt from DRAFT Minutes of 9/15/2014 Planning Commission Meeting 3) MI-14-14 Text Amendment: Site Plan Development Approval – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council of Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 2 – Site Plan Development Approval. The proposed ordinance revision corrects the intent of Ordinance #2014-08 which rewrote commercial and office zone regulations and administrative processes. The adopted ordinance allows for existing building expansion by up to 15% to be reviewed administratively, but omitted a similar provision for impervious surfaces. The proposed amendment would also allow for expansion of up to 15% of impervious cover on a site to be reviewed administratively. Ordinance #2014-20. Representatives: None Mrs. Townshend stated that this amendment is actually a correction that Staff found after the adoption of Ordinance #2014-08 which was approved by City Council on July 14, 2014 after being recommended by the Planning Commission at the June 2014 meeting. That was the ordinance that rewrote the commercial zones but also looked at some of the provisions of Article 10 relating to Site Development Plans to work to streamline and do some more things administratively. One of the things that Staff did in that was create language that allowed for a 15% expansion of an existing structure to be done administratively. They did not make that same language change with the impervious cover. They found with their first applicant that intended to go through that process that if they are expanding their building footprint 15%, they are likely to be expanding their impervious cover by that same amount. They just added language that mirrors the language in Additions to Existing Structures to address Additions of an Impervious Surface to allow up to 15% or 5,000 square feet, whichever is greater, to be done administratively. Colonel Welsh opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Mr. Cregar moved to recommend approval to City Council for MI-14-14 Text Amendment: Site Plan Development Approval for the reasons of correcting a needed part of a previous amendment of an ordinance, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion carried by roll call vote 7-0 with Mr. Holden and Mr. Ambruso absent. Mr. Cregar voting yes, for reasons previously stated. Mr. Tolbert voting yes, the approval of this recommendation to City Council recognizes that the Commission recognized that giving the Planning Staff administrative ability to handle applications of this nature will facilitate the entire process and makes things considerably easier as well as recognized the competency of the Planning Staff. Mr. Holt voting yes, due to the explanation by Mrs. Townshend that it would make it a lot easier for Planning Staff. Mr. Baldwin voting yes, due to the need for uniformity. Dr. Jones voting yes, for reasons previously stated. Ms. Still voting yes, for reasons previously stated and it seems like it was the perfect thing to do to keep things tidy. Colonel Welsh voting yes, for all the reasons previously stated. Report to City Council on Ordinance #2014-20 Page 2 of 2

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: AUGUST 27, 2014 APPLICATION: TEXT AMENDMENT: SITE PLAN DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FILE #: MI-14-14 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Electric and Public Works Departments CONTACT PERSON: Aren Wright - 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. Our office has no objections to the proposed text amendments. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / SANITATION / STREETS / GROUNDS 1. None 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 .

CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O D.A.C. MEETING DATE: August 26, 2014 T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Texts Amendments: Site Plan Development Approval FILE#: MI-14-14 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Julio F. Seneus 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: 1. The Department has no comments. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 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.

FINAL READING CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2014-20 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL 2 MET: 3 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 10 - Planning Commission, Section 2 - Site Development Plan Approval of 4 the Dover Code be amended by deleting the text indicated in red, strikeout and inserting the bold, blue text, as 5 follows: 6 Section 2. - Site development plan approval. 7 2.1 Required. Site development plan approval shall be required for the erection or enlargement of all 8 structures and the establishment of any use for which site development plan approval is required by 9 this ordinance. Site development plan shall be required according to the following criteria: 10 2.11 Planning commission site plan review. Site development plans shall be subject to review and approval 11 by the planning commission if they meet the following thresholds: 12 (a) New structures. Site plans for new structures of 5,000 square feet or greater in floor area; or 13 (b) Additions to existing structures. Site plans for additions to existing structures that (1) constitute 14 15 percent or more of the existing floor area, and (2) new floor area is greater than 5,000 square 15 feet; or 16 (c) Additions of Impervious surface additions. Site plans that propose new or additional 17 impervious surfaces that (1) constitute 15% or more of the existing impervious surface area 18 and (2) are equal to or greater than 5,000 square feet of impervious surface with a total of 19 5,000 square feet or greater of new or added impervious surface, including new structures 20 or building additions ; or 21 (d) Adjacent to residential. Nonresidential site plans with site disturbance greater than 2,500 square 22 feet and adjacent to residential uses or residential zones. 23 2.12 Site development master plan. Site development master plans shall be subject to review and approval 24 by the planning commission in accordance with subsection 2.44. 25 2.13 Zoning review. For site development plans involving construction of a single-family detached, single- 26 family attached, or single-family semidetached dwelling; an accessory structure; or a nonresidential 27 change of use for which no building addition or increase in impervious surface cover is proposed, the 28 city planner or his designee may approve the site development plan in conjunction with building permit 29 review. 30 2.14 Administrative site plan. All site development plans that do not meet the thresholds for zoning review 31 in accordance with subsection 2.13 or planning commission site plan review in accordance with 32 subsection 2.11 shall be reviewed as administrative site development plans. 33 ADOPTED: * 34 S:\ORDINANCES\2014\DRAFT\Ordinance #2014-20 Amending Appendix B - Zoning, Article 10 - Planning Commission, Section 2 - Site Development Plan Approval-Final Reading.wpd

Proposed Ordinance #2014-20 - Appendix B, Article 10, Section 2 Page 2 35 SYNOPSIS 36 The proposed ordinance would clarify that site plans that include an increase in impervious cover of 15% and 37 more than 5,000 square feet require Planning Commission review. Under the current language, any site plan 38 proposes and increase of impervious cover of 5,000 square feet or greater is subject to Planning Commission 39 review. 40 (SPONSORS: HUTCHISON AND TOWNSHEND ) 41 Actions History 42 10/13/2014 - Public Hearing/Final Reading Scheduled at City Council 43 08/25/2014 - First Reading at City Council 44 08/11/2014 - Introduced at Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee

UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee Meeting was held on September 22, 2014 at 5:15 p.m. with Councilwoman Williams presiding. Members present were Mr. Perza (arrived at 5:16 p.m.), Mr. Slavin, Mr. Blakeman, and Mr. Snaman. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson (arrived at 5:23 p.m.), Mr. Dixon, and Mr. Hutchison. Mayor Christiansen was also present. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Blakeman moved for approval of the agenda as presented, seconded by Mr. Snaman and unanimously carried. Amendments to the Lakeland Interconnection Agreement (Tidewater Utilities) Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, informed members that the Lakeland Interconnection is located on South State Street, past Wolf Creek and Highview Avenue, which extend back to St. Jones Commons. He explained that the City of Dover extended water to that area in 2002-2003, and, in May 2004, the City of Dover and Tidewater Utilities, Inc. (TUI) entered into an interconnection agreement for the primary purpose of providing fire protection (water supply) assistance to Tidewater's service territory on South State Street. This interconnection, known as the Lakeland Interconnection, had been functioning in this capacity since the agreement was signed. Mr. Koenig stated that in late July 2014, TUI submitted a request to City staff to alter the agreement so that domestic water supply could be purchased for this area at the "in city" rate. TUI indicated that the domestic demand in this area had been between 800,000 and 1,200,000 gallons per month. Having reviewed the request, Mr. Koenig felt that amending the agreement would be in the best interest of both entities. Provided a monthly facilities charge for the existing 6" meter (currently billed at $497.55 per month per Tidewater's tariff) remained in place, Mr. Koenig stated that staff had no objections to extending the "in city" rate, since this would amount to a substantial bulk purchase of water. Mr. Koenig informed members that Mr. Bruce Patrick, Director of Engineering, TUI, advised him that in order for TUI to continue to provide domestic water service, they would be facing significant upgrades, such as putting in an elevated storage tank or additional pumping system. Mr. Koenig stated that, upon approval of the agreement, the City would bill TUI a monthly facilities charge based on the in-city rate, and TUI would then bill their individual customers. He advised members that the monthly facilities charge was identified in TUI’s tariff; therefore, it would fluctuate based on any changes to TUI’s tariff, noting that it had gravitated upward significantly over time. Mr. Koenig explained that under the initial agreement with TUI for fire protection, the City billed TUI a facilities charge on a quarterly basis and, if there was a fire, they were also billed on the fire demand. Mr. Koenig stated that under the new proposal TUI would buy domestic supply as well as fire supply. Mr. Koenig indicated that the relationship with TUI had been well established since around 1997-1998 and noted the profitability that the relationship had brought to the City. He informed members that the City had several existing interconnection agreements with TUI, including Carlisle Village, Winding Ridge, and Lakeland, as well as a two (2) way, stand-by agreement for an interconnection at Wilmington College that would allow TUI to buy water from the City or vice versa in the event of an emergency. Mr. Koenig stated that if the amendments were approved by Council, TUI would expect to open the connection for domestic supply in early 2015.

UTILITY COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 2 Staff recommended that the City Manager be authorized to amend the existing Lakeland Interconnection Agreement with Tidewater Utilities, Inc., to include the monthly facilities charge allowed in Tidewater’s tariff and to also include the supply of both domestic water and fire protection at the meter location. Responding to Mr. Perza regarding the cost to the City, Mr. Koenig indicated that there would be no additional expense to the City since the interconnection was already in place and the pipe had been in place for 12-15 years. Mr. Koenig said that the only cost was to produce and supply the water; all other costs were imbedded in the already existing agreement. Mr. Perza questioned whether providing domestic water to Lakeland could drain the City’s supply or create shortages in other areas. Responding, Mr. Koenig assured members that this would not create a drain on capacity. He explained that the usage was between 800,000 - 1.2M gallons per month and the City had been planning for capacity. He noted that TUI was a good customer and a substantial user, the agreement would bring revenue, and only one (1) meter would be required, rather than 25 or 50. In response to Mrs. Williams regarding whether this expansion would set a precedent, Mr. Koenig stated that this would not be the case, explaining that the interconnection agreement was already in place relating to fire demand using the “in-city” rate. He said that the City had the right to set rates as long as it follows the Council approval process. In addition, Mr. Koenig noted that the facilities charge was unique to this customer and helped to offset the “in-city” rate. Responding to Mayor Christiansen regarding fire hydrants in the area, Mr. Koenig stated that there were fire hydrants on Highview Avenue and that the feed into the Lakeland Mobile Home Park also had a hydrant. He was uncertain of the number or location of other hydrants in the area. Mayor Christiansen questioned who would bear the expense of additional hydrants, if necessary. Responding, Mr. Koenig assured members the City would not be responsible for adding hydrants in the TUI service territory and confirmed that use of City of Dover fire hydrants would be required if more hydrants were installed. Mr. Blakeman moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation to authorize the City Manager to amend the existing Lakeland Interconnection Agreement with Tidewater Utilities, Inc., to include the monthly facilities charge allowed in Tidewater’s tariff and to also include the supply of both domestic water and fire protection at the meter location, seconded by Mr. Snaman and unanimously carried. Mr. Snaman moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Blakeman and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m. Beverly C. Williams Chairwoman BCW/MK/js/dd/tm S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Committee-Minutes\2014\09-22-2014 UTILITY.wpd

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting was held on September 22, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. with Chairman Slavin presiding. Members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Hare (arrived at 6:32 p.m.), Mr. Shevock, and Mr. Sudler. Members of Council present were Mr. Dixon and Mr. Hutchison. Mayor Christiansen was also present. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the agenda as presented, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Proposed Financial Reforms - Compensation Policies (Deferred during the Committee Meeting of August 11, 2014) During the Committee meeting of June 23, 2014, Mr. Slavin advised members that during the June 11, 2014 Special City Council Meeting - Budget Review he proposed a series of 14 financial reforms to be addressed over the next six (6) to nine (9) months that would assist in shaping the City's Budget for FY 2015/2016. He stated that the proposed reforms were clustered into four (4) separate areas, as follows: 1) public safety; 2) compensation policies; 3) property tax governance; and 4) restrictions on uses of appropriations. He requested that members consider the public safety area first and that staff be requested to review the reforms, develop recommendations, and provide information on any financial gap that may result. He explained that the review would allow members to identify whether there was a need to create policy, ordinances, or Charter changes to implement any changes that may result from those discussions. Mr. Slavin reviewed the three (3) financial reforms related to proposed compensation policies, as follows: 6) Council will not authorize pay raises, bonuses, or other forms of compensation in consecutive fiscal years for any City employee, including Council appointees. A two-thirds vote of Council is required to authorize an exception to this policy. 7) Council will not authorize more than 1% compensation increases (which shall include the total of salary, bonus, and other forms of compensation) for any one fiscal year. A two-thirds vote of Council is required to authorize an exception to this policy. 8) Council will not authorize any compensation package with a bargaining unit which results in a total compensation increase of more than 2.5% in any three-year period. A two-thirds vote of Council is required to authorize an exception to this policy. In reference to proposal #8, Mr. Slavin requested that the phrase “with a bargaining unit” be stricken, noting that the reforms were intended to address all employees equally. He explained that the reforms were intended to provide policy level guidance to executive branch staff on the compensation of all employees, including both employees who were represented by unions and those who were not. He indicated that his experience had been that there had been some “fairly alarming

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 2 miscommunication” occurring between the executive branch and the legislative body regarding compensation. He stated that he did not believe that this was the fault of anyone but Council and that Council needed to state its expectations in relation to compensation early in the process. Absent this policy-level guidance from Council, he felt that the City would continue to find itself in situations similar to one that occurred two (2) weeks ago, when the negotiating team returned with results of negotiations and found that they were unacceptable to Council. Mr. Slavin indicated that these reforms were also intended to send a very plain and simple message that the City was not the type of employer that would be able to give annual increases which are out of alignment with its resources and the status of the rest of the economy. He stated that City employees do “a great job,” expressed pride in serving with them, and indicated that this was not a statement against employees but merely a statement of fact. Mr. Slavin expressed his opinion that the City could not afford to be the type of employer that it had been in the past. Mr. Anderson expressed his feeling that this was a well thought out item and stated appreciation that it was brought forward, noting that it would open up a discussion about where the City was going with its budgets. However, he indicated that he was unsure whether he was “on board” with some of the specifics because he felt they may be too restrictive, with inflation. Mr. Anderson expressed skepticism that the rate of inflation would be less than 2% in a year and 6% over the course of three (3) years. Mr. Anderson stated that it would be important to take inflation rates and other realities into account if a cap were to be set. In addition, he stated that he did not wish to preclude negotiations before they begin. Mr. Anderson noted that he definitely believed in fiscal restraint and had a problem with the 9% raises in a one (1) year period and 6% retroactive raises that were recently proposed for the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) contract. He felt that the City had gotten out of control in the past with raises that became unsustainable and did not want to see the City at that point again, particularly when revenues were not as strong as they could be. However, he was unsure if the proposed numbers were realistic. Mr. Hutchison stated that he firmly believed that this was about building a policy and a partnership with employees regarding future pay raises and he felt that the City must work with employees to reach some standard or understanding about what could and could not be done. He expressed his opinion that sometimes the City is its own worst enemy, noting that discussions are held about the City’s financial matters and then contrary actions are taken, such as building a library or doing other things that are not budgeted for. After having been a part of the City for more than 40 years, he felt that it was “way past time” to clearly establish guidelines in regard to payroll, income, and expenses that everyone could work with. Referring to his memorandum to members of the Committee, dated August 5, 2014, regarding proposed compensation policies, Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, reiterated that he was very concerned about the potential impact of these proposed compensation policies. He stated that the City had been operating in a very contentious union environment since he became City Manager in 2011. He advised members that he realized that the economic conditions facing the City and its citizens were not ideal by any means; however, expressed his opinion that the City’s financial issues were still well within the manageable scale. From a recruiting and retention perspective, Mr. Koenig stated that the proposed compensation constraints, especially by individual employee, would likely

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 3 hinder the City’s recruiting and retention efforts. He noted that there were existing wage compression issues that could be further expounded by implementing the policies as written. He advised members that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) had ranged from 1.1% - 2.5% per year from February 2008 - February 2014 and the proposed compensation increases seem unrealistic, especially in a union-dominated environment. Mr. Koenig stated that, while the implementation of such policies was within the Council’s legal authority, he believed that it may not promote good public policy. From a negotiator’s perspective, as well as management’s perspective, the policies represented initiatives that would ultimately handcuff the ability to be creative at the bargaining table and would, therefore, not be helpful to the negotiating process. The ability to consider all possible solutions to any given issue at the table is critical to success. While Mr. Koenig agreed that these policies represented a strict adherence to fiscally conservative positions, they would likely increase the City’s costs associated with the negotiation process as the unions would be agitated by the restrictions from the start. In addition, he stated that any policy that is limited strictly to bargaining units had the potential to create legal issues for the City. He explained that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects employees’ rights to organize and bargain without employer interference. Mr. Koenig agreed, from a negotiating standpoint, that staff would like clear and concise direction; however, he believed that this direction should be in the form of strategies discussed in executive session rather than formal policies. He noted that staff needed the ability to be flexible and creative in the negotiation process and a lot of ideas, comments, constraints, and opinions go into this. He indicated that he would gravitate toward direction being provided to the negotiating team as informal and directive comments rather than formal policy. Responding to Mr. Sudler as to whether his concerns had been discussed with the City Solicitor, Mr. Koenig stated that these policies had not been discussed with the City Solicitor; however, he had provided them to Baird Mandalas Brockstedt, LLC, the City’s labor attorneys, who were very careful to say that in an ideal world it is best not to be constrained by any specific policies when entering into negotiations because it limits the ability to be creative at the table. Mr. Koenig reiterated that it would be within Council’s legal authority to adopt the policies; however, in some cases it would create additional challenges in the negotiating environment. In response to Mr. Sudler regarding whether feedback had been received from the union, Mr. Koenig stated that he had not received direct feedback. He expressed his belief that someone from the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and a representative from the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) had spoken to Mr. Glenn Mandalas, Baird Mandalas Brockstedt, LLC, regarding this, but there had been no comments on the record from Mr. Mandalas regarding consideration of this item during the current meeting. In response to Mr. Anderson regarding the cost of legal fees and staff preparation for arbitration, Mr. Koenig stated that typically these discussions go to mediation first, and costs had ranged from approximately $5,000 to $15,000 in legal fees, in addition to the cost of staff time. He advised members that legal fees for arbitration with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 4 (IBEW) were roughly $20,000, with an additional $15,000 spent for expert witness preparation. Mr. Koenig estimated that the total costs in arbitration, which involves a lot of detailed submissions and expert testimony, would be easily in the $30,000 - $50,000 range. Mr. Anderson noted that there would be additional time spent prior to arbitration in negotiations and mediation. Responding to Mr. Anderson regarding the percentage of pay that mediation and arbitration costs would represent in an average contract, Mr. Koenig stated that he was unsure of this figure at this time; however, he estimated that approximately 3% of the IBEW contract amount would equate to about $80,000. He indicated that for contracts related to some of the smaller bargaining units, 3% would be in the range of approximately $80,000 - $90,000 for one (1) year, which would be compounded going forward. Mr. Anderson questioned if successful negotiations could result in a potential savings of 1% per year. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that the City’s legal fees could range $50,000 - $80,000 per year, depending on the intensity of negotiations. Mr. Slavin inquired if Mr. Anderson’s questions regarding the cost of arbitration were based on the assumption that the proposed policies would cause arbitration more often. Responding, Mr. Anderson stated his feeling that the potential for arbitration would exist more often. Mr. Slavin indicated that the example that was cited (IBEW) referenced arbitration that occurred before the proposed policies were on the table and noted that the City had been in arbitration before. Referring to the IBEW contract previously referenced, Mr. Anderson stated that a goal of a 0% raise was set at that time for the negotiators, which eventually happened, noting that negotiators did not have a lot of flexibility at the time this contract was negotiated. Mr. Slavin explained that the compensation policies were put forth not to be strictly prohibitive, noting that the changes were proposed at the policy rather than ordinance level, and that there was allowance for an override by a two-thirds vote of Council. He stated that when an annual 3% increase is discussed, the City is often shortsighted and the cost of the contract is not advertised; it is merely stated that a four (4) year contract was presented with 3% raises in each of the four (4) years and that this is an aggregate 12% increase. However, Mr. Slavin noted that these raises are much more expensive because they carry forward beyond the term of the contract and are added onto by the next contract. These costs are not calculated; only the four (4) year cost is considered, and then it is said that funds will be saved with the retirement benefits that are realized over 20 years. He felt that the true picture would show that some of the raises that had been given by contract were hurting the City’s finances because they escalate exponentially as the years go by. Mr. Matt Knight, past President, Dover FOP Lodge 15, advised members that he had been asked to attend by the current FOP President Dave Gist, and that the FOP was monitoring this matter and was concerned. He felt that the proposed policies would be constraints to contract negotiations and explained that the FOP had reached out to its attorney, who reached out to Mr. Mandalas.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 5 Mr. Knight indicated that the union was “keeping an eye” on this discussion. He stated that he understood the override provided but reiterated that these policies would constrain negotiations. Mr. Anderson inquired if the FOP, to Mr. Knight’s knowledge, was skeptical about the idea of any constraints at all or about the numbers reflected in the proposed reforms. Responding, Mr. Knight stated that the FOP was concerned about “both”; however, he indicated that, based on his knowledge of past negotiations, any constraints at all were a concern going into negotiations. He concurred with Mr. Koenig that these matters could be discussed individually among each union negotiating team. Mr. Anderson expressed his opinion that there was some merit to the proposed policies and that they needed to be discussed; however, stated that before proceeding he would like to obtain an opinion from the City Solicitor on these items and to determine, if they are moved forward, how this could be done. He expressed a desire to make sure that everything was “on firm legality” before proceeding. Mr. Anderson moved to recommend that the proposed compensation policies be referred to the City Solicitor for a legal opinion, seconded by Mr. Sudler. Mr. Slavin stated that this was a prudent step, noting that he felt that there was some discomfort regarding the vehicle by which these proposals could be accomplished but not the intent of the proposals. The motion to recommend that the proposed compensation policies be referred to the City Solicitor for a legal opinion was unanimously carried. Bank Qualified Loan for the Completion of the Street and Storm Water Improvements at the Garrison Oak Technical Park (GOTP), Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) (Fire), and Radios (Fire and Police) Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, advised members that City of Dover Finance Department solicited proposals from local banks to finance the following projects as presented in the Fiscal Year 2015 Budget presentation: GOTP - Street & Stormwater Improvements $2,600,000 Radios - Police 329,500 Radios - Fire 296,800 Self Containing Breathing Apparatus - Fire 292,000 Issuance Cost 61,000 Total $3,579,300 Mrs. Mitchell explained that she had reviewed the proposals and they were also reviewed by Public Financial Management, Inc. (PFM), the City’s financial advisor, and PFM indicated that PNC Bank had the best proposal in terms of financing rates. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the rate proposed by PNC Bank was 66% of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), and other proposals were 66% or

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 6 67% of LIBOR plus 1%; therefore, there was a vast difference. She indicated that she had asked PFM to request the other submitters to provide a best and final rate, which was done; however, PNC’s was still the best proposal. Staff recommended acceptance of the PNC Bank proposal and adoption of Resolution No. 2014-12 authorizing the issuance and sale of up to $4,135,000 General Obligation Bonds of the City of Dover. [City Clerk’s Office Note: Subsequent to the meeting, the legal authority for the resolution was revised to list the City of Dover Charter rather than the Laws of Delaware. This change was approved by Ms. Emilie Ninan, City of Dover Bond Counsel, as well as Mr. Nicholas Rodriguez, City Solicitor, and Resolution No. 2014-12 was amended accordingly (Attachment #1).] Noting that the loan was amortized for 20 years, Mr. Anderson inquired if the City was planning to pay it back in seven (7) years. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the amortization schedule was based on 20 years, which would reduce the payments; however, at the end of seven (7) years, it was planned to refinance the loan, along with an additional loan related to the Dover Public Library. She indicated that these loans would probably be merged together and there would be a bond issue to pay them off, or another loan would be obtained to extend payments on the balance. Mrs. Mitchell stated that this loan was broken into two (2) facilities since the City was also refinancing its 2003 bond issue, which had only two (2) remaining payments; however, the interest rate was so much better that the City would save approximately $15,000 - $20,000 in interest. She noted that this amortization would keep the principle payments at the same level they would have been if the bonds were paid. Mrs. Mitchell indicated that payments would be higher during first two (2) years and amounts would then drop off for the last five (5) years. Mr. Sudler questioned what the forecast for the loan payoff would be without merging it with the Dover Public Library loan. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell stated that $190,000 per year was forecast for radio and fire equipment in the budget forecast model. The total in the forecast model for this loan was $440,000 per year, without the additional debt service. Mr. Anderson moved to recommend acceptance of the PNC Bank proposal and adoption of Resolution No. 2014-12 authorizing the issuance and sale of up to $4,135,000 in General Obligation Bonds, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. Proposed Ordinance #2014-22 - Budget Amendment Related to Capital Investment Plan - Fiscal Year 2014 (FY14) Carry-Forward Balances Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, advised members that the purpose of the proposed ordinance was to rebudget project carry-forward balances from Fiscal Year 2014 (FY 14) projects. Balances for those projects had been calculated, and the ordinance would incorporate those project balances in the FY 15 budget. She noted that placing these carry-forward balances into the budget by ordinance would save the Finance Department the time and trouble of having to manually place them in the financial systems and ensure that the projects do not go over budget, and that this matter was being moved along sooner than usual this year. Mrs. Mitchell reviewed the City of Dover - General Fund - Major Capital Investment Plan (CIP) Projects - Quarterly Report as of July 1, 2014. She explained that figures listed under the Total Project - Past, Current & Future Budgets (Original Project Budget, Latest Project Budget, Project To Date Expenses, Project Budget Balance, and %

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 7 Budget Spent) provided information regarding the total project. She noted that the Original Project Budget column included amounts as adopted by Council in the original City budget in the individual CIP sheets. The Latest Project Budget section reflected new project amounts based on any budget revisions brought forth through Council or through staff changes. The columns under Current Fiscal Year (Current Fiscal Year Budget, Revised Fiscal Year Budget, Fiscal YTD Expenses, Budget Balance, and % Budget Spent) applied to the Current Fiscal Year. Mrs. Mitchell explained that rebudgeting the carry-forward balances would result in changes to the Current Fiscal Year Budget and the Revised Fiscal Year Budget columns. Referring to the City of Dover General Fund FY 15 Project Tracking Report As of July 1, 2014, Mrs. Mitchell explained that this document was an internal schedule used by the Finance Department to track projects to make sure that they stay on budget as approved by Council. She stated that amounts in the Addition (Reduction) column were based on action items brought to Council and were also included in the Revised Budget column. The Internal Revisions represented project revisions made internally within the budget amendment procedure, for example, savings that may need to be used in other projects. Mrs. Mitchell indicated that this information was provided to show how report numbers change from the original budget to the revised budget. Noting that projects appeared to be on budget, Mr. Anderson inquired if there were any “red flags” that members should be aware of. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell stated that this process did not indicate that there were any problems at this time. She explained that any projects that were brought forth from July, such as Garrison Oak projects, had been folded into the budget ordinance and that Council was aware of such projects. Mr. Shevock moved to recommend adoption of Proposed Ordinance #2014-22, as recommended by staff, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Community Transportation Project - Third-Party Sponsorship - Solid Rock Baptist Church Community Outreach Center Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, informed members that staff had received a request from the Solid Rock Baptist Church for the City of Dover to become a third-party sponsor so that Community Transportation Funds (CTF) could be used on a portion of a parking lot to be constructed for the Community Outreach Center at 113 North West Street. He stated that staff met with members of the church, their contractor, Senator Brian Bushweller and members of the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) late last week to discuss whether this project would fit into the guidelines of the CTF program. It was agreed that the request from Solid Rock Baptist Church could be brought forward, if endorsed by the City of Dover to enter into a third-party sponsorship agreement, so that approximately $25,000 of CTF funds could be secured. Mr. Koenig stated that this would essentially pay for the paving component of the parking lot, and the church and their contractor would be responsible for the layout, and the stone and base preparation associated with the proposed parking lot. He explained that the church would sign a blanket public easement for the parking area to provide public parking for the next 20 years, as required by DelDOT. Provided that the church the agreed to the 20-year easement, the City, through the City Manager’s Office, would agree to put out a Request for Proposals (RFP) for paving, using prevailing wage to comply with all the components of CTF funds. Mr. Koenig stated that the contractor would be selected based on the

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 8 lowest proposal submitted, and agreements would be put in place before the work could start. There would be no engineering requirements from City staff; however, some administrative time would be required from the City Manager’s Office to prepare the solicitation for quotes. Payment would be routed through the City’s billing system, as had been done for previous CTF projects, such as Wesley College. Mr. Koenig indicated that he originally did not want to participate in this project; however, as the components were discussed with the DelDOT representative, he was assured that the City could maintain its status as an entity that diligently processes these funds by signing the agreements and funding a component of the project. The City could also keep the project on the timeline that had been identified. It was expected that all of the work could be completed by the end of the calendar year. Mr. Koenig stated that the request was for Council to authorize the City Manager to enter into a CTF agreement with DelDOT, process the funding as a third-party sponsor, work with members of the Solid Rock Baptist Church or their designee to get the correct narrative language for the bid document, and complete the project in a timely manner. Noting that the funding was expected to be $25,000, Mr. Shevock questioned where extra funds would come from if bids were received in excess of this amount. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that excessive bids would have to be rejected; however, he noted that the scope of work was very narrow and expectations had been discussed with some contractors. Knowing that the prevailing wage rates were considered when developing the project, staff was reasonably confident that bids would come in under $25,000 because the project had been tailored to meet this criteria. Mr. Shevock questioned if the use of community funds for this project would affect any other funds that come to the City from DelDOT. In response, Mr. Koenig stated that this project would not affect other DelDOT funds. He indicated that each legislator receives approximately $250,000 in discretionary funds to be used for sidewalk, lighting, and paving projects and that associated agreements are project specific. Mr. Hare indicated that he had no problem with this project. He noted that there was a section of West Street near the recycling facility that needed work and questioned if this project could be tied together with the proposed project. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that this was a separate project which would be addressed through the City’s Street Program and assured members that staff would get this project done. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation to authorize the City Manager to enter into a Community Transportation Fund (CTF) agreement with DelDOT, process the funding as a third-party sponsor, work with members of the Solid Rock Baptist Church or their designee to get the correct narrative language for the bid document, and complete the project in a timely manner. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare. In response to Mr. Hutchison as to whether the City had entered into a third-party sponsorship with any other entities, Mr. Koenig indicated that the City had completed a handful of similar projects which were not the norm but were somewhat unique public/private partnerships. He cited projects related to Wesley College, the Inner City Cultural League, and a public easement agreement

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 9 regarding a portion of the brickwork in front of the Wesley United Methodist Church Fellowship Hall. Mr. Hutchison inquired if this project had been reviewed by the City Solicitor. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that this specific project had not been reviewed by the solicitor; however, the Wesley College project did go through the solicitor’s office. He reiterated that an easement would be developed to indicate that it is a public parking lot and would be signed by the property owner, recorded, and a copy would go to DelDOT. The City would solicit and review paving proposals and, once the paving was laid, maintenance and any associated agreement would be the responsibility of the property owner. In response to Mr. Hutchison, Mr. Koenig stated that a 20-year agreement would be developed in relation to this project that would be binding between all parties. Mr. Anderson stated that he favored this project because it would be an effective way to leverage private money and would cost the City only some staff time. He indicated that this would help the community in the very near future without putting the City’s taxpayers “on the hook” for maintenance, building, or anything else. Mr. Anderson noted that the money set aside by the State legislators, if not taken, could end up anywhere else in the legislative district, and he felt that this project would benefit the youth in the community. Mr. Shevock questioned if any of the associated costs, such as advertising for bids, would come from the $25,000 in CTF funds. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that advertising had not typically been charged to these funds in the past; however, expressed his understanding that this could be done, noting that all project costs that qualified under the agreement would qualify for reimbursement. Pastor William Grimes, Solid Rock Baptist Church, thanked members for the opportunity to bring this matter forward. He stated that he met for over an hour with Mr. Koenig and, as stated previously, Mr. Koenig was not initially in favor of the project. However, Pastor Grimes indicated that he left with the opinion “there is someone in the City Manager’s Office who is about integrity,” because Mr. Koenig’s whole focus was to ensure that this approach was legal. He expressed his appreciation that Mr. Koenig took the time to hear the concerns of the church. Mr. Anderson questioned how much money the church had invested in the project. Responding, Mr. Grimes stated that more than $50,000 of the church’s funds had been allocated and that a loan had been secured through the National Association on Life and Labor Research (NCALL) for $625,000. Mr. Slavin questioned, by show of hands, how many of those attending were in support of the project and 10 members in the audience raised their hands. The motion to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation to authorize the City Manager to enter into a Community Transportation Fund (CTF) agreement with DelDOT, process the funding as a third-party sponsor, work with members of the Solid Rock Baptist Church or

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 10 their designee to get the correct narrative language for the bid document, and complete the project in a timely manner was unanimously carried. Mr. Hare moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Timothy A. Slavin Chairman TAS/TM/js/dd S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Committee-Minutes\2014\09-22-2014 LF&A (revised).wpd Attachment Attachment #1 - Resolution No. 2014-12 Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Up to $4,135,000 General Obligation Bonds

REVISED COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2014-12 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF UP TO [$4,135,000] GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE CITY OF DOVER TO REFINANCE CERTAIN PRIOR DEBT; FINANCE STREET AND STORM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AT THE GARRISON OAK TECHNOLOGY PARK, RADIO EQUIPMENT FOR POLICE AND FIRE OPERATIONS, AND SELF-CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS FOR FIREFIGHTERS; AND AUTHORIZING ALL NECESSARY ACTION IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, the City of Dover (the “City”) is authorized pursuant to Section 50 – Debt Limit, of the Charter of The City of Dover, Volume 77, Chapter 130, as amended (“the City Charter”) to issue general obligation bonds for the municipal purposes of the City as set forth in a resolution authorizing such issuance; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the City Charter, the City desires to issue general obligation bonds in one or more series for the municipal purposes set forth herein (the “2014 Bonds”); WHEREAS, the City has (i) certain Series of 2003 Bonds that can be refunded for savings (the “Prior Bonds”), and (ii) approved certain capital construction projects and improvements and desires to issue the 2014 Bonds to finance the costs of said improvements, including, but not limited to the following: 1. Street and storm water infrastructure at the Garrison Oak Technology Park 2. Radio equipment for Police and Fire operations 3. Self-contained breathing apparatus for firefighters (collectively, the “Projects”). NOW THEREFORE THE CITY OF DOVER HEREBY ORDAINS (AT LEAST THREE FOURTHS OF THE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL CONCURRING HEREIN): Section 1. Amount and Purpose of the Bonds. Acting pursuant to the City Charter, the City shall issue its general obligation bonds in the maximum aggregate principal amount not to exceed [$4,135,000] to finance or refinance a portion of the cost of the Projects. The monies raised from the sale of the 2014 Bonds (including the investment earnings thereon) after the payment of the costs of issuance, shall be expended only for the purposes authorized herein or as may otherwise be authorized by subsequent action by City Council. Authorized purposes include the costs of planning, constructing, acquiring and equipping the Projects or any portion thereof; interest on the 2014 Bonds and any interim financing during the construction period and for a period of up to one year following the estimated date of completion; the costs of issuance of the 2014 Bonds and any interim financing; the repayment of temporary loans incurred with respect to the Projects; and the reimbursement of authorized costs previously expended by the City from other funds. DMEAST #19747698 v2

Section 2. Terms of the Bonds. The 2014 Bonds shall be sold in one or more series to PNC Bank, National Association (the “Lender”) pursuant to a proposal dated August 20, 2014 (the “Commitment”) which is hereby approved by the City and the other terms and conditions to be contained in a Loan Agreement between the City and the Lender (the “Loan Agreement”). The new money 2014 Bonds are anticipated to bear interest at a variable rate during the construction period and may be converted to a fixed rate at the end of the construction period or remain at variable rate. The refunding portion of the 2014 Bonds shall bear interest at a fixed rate not to exceed 0.90%. Section 3. Security for the Bonds. The full faith and credit of the City shall be pledged to pay principal and interest on the 2014 Bonds. Section 4. Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligation. The Bond is hereby designated as a qualified tax-exempt obligation within the meaning of § 265(b)(3)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). For purposes of § 265(b)(3) of the Code, the Issuer and all entities that issue on behalf of the issuer do not reasonably anticipate issuing more than $10,000,000, inclusive of the Bond, of tax-exempt obligations in calendar year 2014. Section 5. Details of the Bonds. The Mayor and City Treasurer are authorized to determine the details of the 2014 Bonds including the following: the date or dates of the 2014 Bonds; provisions for either serial or term bond; sinking fund or other reserve fund requirements; due dates of the interest thereon; the form of the 2014 Bonds; the denominations and designations of the 2014 Bonds; registration, conversion and transfer provisions; provisions for the receipt, deposit and investment of the proceeds of the 2014 Bonds; provisions for the replacement of a lost, stolen, mutilated or destroyed 2014 Bonds; and provisions for issuing uncertificated obligations and all procedures appropriate for the establishment of a system of issuing uncertificated debt. The 2014 Bonds shall be executed by the manual or facsimile signature of the Mayor and City Treasurer, shall contain an impression of the City Seal of a facsimile thereof and shall be attested by the manual signature of the City Clerk. Section 6. Further Action. Each of the Mayor, the President of the City Council, the City Treasurer, the City Manager and the City Clerk are authorized and directed to take such other action on behalf of the City, as may be necessary or desirable to effect the adoption of this Resolution and the issuance and sale of the 2014 Bonds and to provide for their security and to carry out the intent of this Resolution, including the publication of notices and advertisements and the execution and delivery of customary closing certificates. Section 7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage. The City Clerk is hereby directed to publish once in a newspaper published in the City a notice in substantially the following form: “NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of The City of Dover, Delaware on _____________, 2014 pursuant to Section 50 - Debt Limit, of the Charter of The City of Dover, Chapter 130, Volume 77, Delaware Laws, as amended, adopted a resolution entitled as follows: “RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF UP TO [$4,135,000] GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE CITY OF DOVER TO REFINANCE CERTAIN PRIOR DEBT; FINANCE STREET AND STORM WATER DMEAST #19747698 v2 2

INFRASTRUCTURE AT THE GARRISON OAK TECHNOLOGY PARK, RADIO EQUIPMENT FOR POLICE AND FIRE OPERATIONS AND SELF-CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS FOR FIREFIGHTERS; AND AUTHORIZING ALL NECESSARY ACTION IN CONNECTION THEREWITH” “The purpose of the issuance and sale of said bonds is to provide funds (approximately [$__________]) to pay a portion of the costs of certain projects including, but not limited to, (a) refinancing certain prior debt; (b) financing (1) street and storm water infrastructure at the Garrison Oak Technology Park, (2) radio equipment for Police and Fire operations, and (3) self- contained breathing apparatus for firefighters; and (c) pay costs of issuance of said bonds.” “Any action or proceeding to contest the validity of said resolution or any of its provisions must be commenced within thirty (30) days after publication of this notice. After expiration of such period of limitation, no right of action or defense founded upon the invalidity of said resolution or any of its provisions shall be asserted, nor shall the validity of said resolution or any of its provisions be open to question in any court upon any ground whatsoever, except in an action or proceeding commenced within such period.” By order of the City Council of the City of Dover. City Clerk ADOPTED this __ day of __________, 2014. CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE Attest: Clerk, Dover City Council President, Dover City Council APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Dover on the __ day of _____________, 2014. Mayor DMEAST #19747698 v2 3

SPECIAL DOVER HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION WORKSHOP A Special Dover Human Relations Commission (DHRC) Workshop was held on September 23, 2014 at 5:30 p.m. with Chairman Wilson presiding. Members present were Ms. Smith, Mr. Henderson, Mr. Ruane, Mr. McGiffin, Ms. Stewart, and Mrs. Sadusky. Ms. Hicks and Mr. Roach were absent. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS By unanimous consent, the agenda was approved as presented. Presentation - Dover Public Library Changing America Exhibit Steering Committee Volunteers Ms. Michelle Hughes, Head of Adult Services, Dover Public Library, advised members that the Dover Public Library would be presenting a traveling exhibit, entitled “Changing America - The Emancipation Proclamation, 1863 and the March on Washington, 1963,” from January 7 - February 20, 2015 and provided members with an informational brochure (Attachment #1). She stated that, as a grant requirement, the library would offer an opening event and at least two (2) adult programs related to the exhibit free of charge to the community. Ms. Hughes invited members to volunteer to be part of a steering committee to develop public programs around the exhibit. She explained that the exhibit would focus on the 100-year span between the Emancipation Proclamation and the March on Washington. She indicated that she had a number of programs planned that would target the 19th century; however, she requested support on programs focused on the 20th century and asked members to email her if they had any suggestions. In response to Mr. McGiffin’s request for clarification of the specific needs, Ms. Hughes stated that several scholars had agreed to attend and speak on the abolitionist movement in the 19th century, but there were not as many who could focus on the 1950s and 1960s. If members knew of local scholars that could address this time period, she said that she would gladly take contact information. Mr. McGiffin inquired if a presentation on desegregation of the Delaware schools would be relevant, and Ms. Hughes affirmed that tying in local history would draw in more people. Mr. McGiffin stated that his wife, Ms. Kathy Doyle, was an expert on the school desegregation issue, had written a book on this topic, and might be inclined to assist. Mr. Henderson questioned if Ms. Hughes had contacted Delaware State University (DSU) history teachers. Responding, Ms. Hughes stated that staff had worked with DSU teachers on the “Created Equal” film series held from July - September 2014, so she had some contacts from DSU; however, she wanted to reach out to members for other contacts who were not used previously in order to obtain different perspectives. Ms. Hughes provided her email address and invited members who were interested in serving on the steering committee to contact her, noting that all final program paperwork must be submitted by the end of November. She explained that serving on the committee would involve helping to provide contact information for members of the community who might be willing to give their time to help with the project, including publicity and marketing. Presentation - Re-Entry Opportunity Program Mr. Ken Abraham advised members that he was involved in a non-profit group, Citizens for Criminal Justice, but was attending on behalf of the Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing (DIMH).

SPECIAL DOVER HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION WORKSHOP OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 PAGE 2 Mr. Abraham explained that he was working with DIMH in a new program assisting men with re-entry into society upon their release from prison, noting that DIMH was the recipient of a three (3) year grant for this purpose. He advised members that he had provided a presentation on this topic to City Council during their meeting held on September 8, 2014. He had requested Council to make a commitment to set an official policy to interview individuals who had been screened by DIMH for appropriate employment opportunities with the City, or to issue a proclamation or statement affirming that the City supported the hiring of qualified convicted felons for appropriate jobs. Mr. Abraham requested that the DHRC recommend that the City respond positively to this request. He also expressed his hope that the City would provide a letter to DIMH, signed by the Mayor, Council, and/or the DHRC Commissioners, to be presented to local major employers, stating that they and other members of the community were encouraged to hire qualified job applicants who may be convicted felons. Mr. Abraham expressed confidence that this would be a win/win situation for those who had made mistakes but paid their dues and for those who employ them in terms of getting good, qualified, responsible employees. Mr. Wilson stated that, as a Commissioner, he believed in this initiative and that he was glad to see that community support was being offered. He indicated that he, personally, would approve of recommending it to Council; however, his biggest concern was making sure that safeguards were there for the public. Mr. Henderson complimented Mr. Abraham on the “great” presentation that he provided previously to City Council and questioned if he could provide an example of a success story. Responding, Mr. Abraham stated that one (1) participant was working as a chef at Dover Downs and offered to follow up with other examples. Mr. Henderson inquired whether the individuals involved were heavily minority, and Mr. Abraham stated this was the case since the prison population was heavily minority; however, individuals were from every background. Responding to Mr. Wilson as to whether individuals involved were from the local community, Mr. Abraham stated that most were local and others came from Sussex and New Castle Counties, as well as Maryland. Mr. Ruane stated that he had researched House Bill 167, the so-called “ban the box” legislation which would prohibit public employers from asking applicants to indicate, typically by checking a box on an employment application, if they have been convicted of a crime until after an initial interview. Mr. Abraham felt that this legislation was “progress but very little,” stating his understanding that it would apply only to government entities and not private employers. In addition, it was his belief that the ban the box requirement would apply only to the initial employment inquiry. Noting that he had reviewed the City of Dover job application and that it did not include such a check box, Mr. Ruane felt that it appeared that the City of Dover had no choice but to give fair and equal opportunity and questioned, therefore, what would be gained from a supportive letter. He inquired if DIMH had spoken to the City of Dover Human Resources Department and whether the City was utilizing any practices that were detrimental to the clients being served by DIMH.

SPECIAL DOVER HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION WORKSHOP OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 PAGE 3 Mr. Abraham stated that there were no such detrimental practices to his knowledge and that DIMH had steered individuals toward jobs with the City. He felt that the City’s relationship with DIMH was “good but could be a lot better” and reiterated his hope of obtaining a commitment from the City to interview qualified, responsible, dependable applicants after screening for technical or other job skills. Mr. Ruane stated that he agreed with the intent of the program and hoped for its success; however, that employers, including the City, were bound by other processes, including qualifying applicants before an interview. He stated that ensuring that a particular group would be granted interviews might result in challenges related to discrimination against other qualified applicants. Mr. Abraham explained that it was not desired that undue favoritism be given to these individuals and stated his expectation that they would go through the normal process. Mr. Nicholas Rodriguez, City Solicitor, stated that Dover had a city manager/council form of government and the City Manager was responsible for overseeing employment in the City; therefore, he felt that this matter would be up to the City Manager. Mr. Rodriguez advised members that he was not familiar with the City’s application process. He indicated that Mr. Abraham had given a very good presentation before Council and that he had told Mr. Abraham that perhaps feedback would be received from the City and staff regarding applications. Mr. Wilson expressed thanks to Mr. Abraham for his presentation. Discussion - DHRC Authority and Complaint Process/Formulation of Complaint Process and Form Mr. Nicholas Rodriguez, City Solicitor, advised members that Chapter 58 - Human Relations, Article II - Human Relations Commission, Sec. 58-32 states that the DHRC is an advisory commission rather than a decision-making commission. He indicated that, in the past, complaints had been submitted to the DHRC, and the Solicitor’s Office had stated that the DHRC should not hear such complaints because it is an advisory body that, in his opinion, was “way beyond the application and complaint process.” Mr. Rodriguez advised members that Sec. 58-33(e) Functions limited, of the Dover Code states that “the Commission shall not involve itself in activities or functions already assigned by law or decree to other governmental bodies,” such as the Department of Labor, the City, and the State. He indicated that the purpose of the Commission was to advise Council, obtain community input, discuss diversity and discrimination, and make recommendations. Simple complaints, in his opinion, were below the role of the Commission. Mr. Wilson questioned if the DHRC had the authority to develop a complaint form of any nature. Mr. Rodriguez recommended that a complaint form not be developed because this would result in the receipt of individual complaints that the DHRC could not hear, as had occurred in the past. He stated that he had reviewed the Draft DHRC Strategic Plan 2015-2018 prepared by Mr. Ruane (subsequent agenda item) which he felt looked “fantastic” and that this type of activity was what the City of Dover had wanted the Commission to do when it was enacted.

SPECIAL DOVER HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION WORKSHOP OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 PAGE 4 Commissioner Gail Launay-Tarlecki, Vice Chair, State of Delaware Human Relations Commission (SHRC), advised members that the SHRC’s website states that the Commission strives to “promote amicable relationships among the various racial and cultural groups within the State of Delaware” and that the DHRC would attempt to perform this function within the City of Dover. She indicated that not having jurisdiction would not prevent complaints from coming before the DHRC so that the DHRC could look for avenues to assist people. It was her belief that a complaint process would be a legitimate method for logging issues and bringing them to the Commission to discuss and work on as a whole; however, she cautioned members to be careful regarding how such complaint forms are viewed, indicating that she did not have the impression that the DHRC was a hearing body. Ms. Launay-Tarlecki advised members that individuals bring concerns to the SHRC, sometimes repetitively, and although the SHRC does not have jurisdiction over some types of issues, they serve as a point of reference and note on the complaint form that an individual was referred to the appropriate place. This gives the appearance that the SHRC is an active, viable body that is doing work for the community. She questioned if Mr. Rodriguez was referring to legal complaints. Mr. Rodriguez stated that he was referencing individual complaints, as opposed to those brought forward from groups. Ms. Launay-Tarlecki explained that there was precedent in other cities for human relations commissions to have a complaint process that is not necessarily to hear cases, noting that the City of Philadelphia’s commission has such a complaint process and their commission sits under their state commission. Mr. McGiffin felt that the existence of a complaint form and acceptance of the form by the DHRC would imply that the Commission could offer some kind of redress, and stated that Mr. Rodriguez had indicated that this was not to be done. He agreed with the City Solicitor that the complaint form could be more trouble than it would be worth since it would suggest a promise that the DHRC could not deliver. However, Mr. McGiffin felt it would be a legitimate and valid function to be open to general information issues, not formal complaints that come to the DHRC’s attention, if the DHRC wanted to be an information and referral source. Mr. Henderson expressed confusion about the role and responsibilities of the DHRC. Ms. Launay-Tarlecki stated that a complaint form would allow members to learn why someone would be coming before the Commission before they do so, which would provide time to consider the issue so that it could be referred to the appropriate body. This referral could then be noted on the complaint form, even if the matter was out of the Commission’s jurisdiction. The complaint form would be an “action document” that showed the work of the Commission. She felt that this would be a way for the Commission to review issues to see if there is a way to provide amicable relations within the City. Ms. Launay-Tarlecki stated that she was not familiar with the DHRC’s empowering legislation; however, she indicated that State commissioners regularly receive such complaints and, through experience and the diversity within the SHRC, offer help, usually including a name and phone number of an appropriate agency. This information is recorded on the State form. Ms. Launay-Tarlecki stated that the SHRC had a sunset review by the General Assembly approximately a dozen years ago and, in the course of this review, the forms proved useful as a way of keeping a record of the SHRC’s activities and tracking issues.

SPECIAL DOVER HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION WORKSHOP OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 PAGE 5 Mr. Wilson suggested that a draft DHRC complaint form be developed and submitted to the City Solicitor to determine if it would be legal and binding for the City. He stated his understanding that the form would help the public understand the identity of the DHRC and would validate the Commission’s existence, as well as the two (2) commissioners in each district who would be receiving complaints. He felt that it was necessary to have an avenue for complaints, even if it this would be just for referral to the State or other agencies that could provide help. Mr. Rodriguez stated that he did not recommend a complaint form, because this would lead to individual complaints, as had been received in the past, which would be referred to the City Solicitor, who would tell the Commission that it did not have jurisdiction because the DHRC is an advisory body. By referring individuals elsewhere, perhaps suggesting a private attorney or the State, the DHRC would be giving advice, and this could create problems. He reiterated his opinion that the DHRC should not have a complaint process, noting that it had not worked in the past, and that the role of the DHRC was to go out into the community to find out where problems were occurring. Mr. Wilson suggested that this issue be further explored and that the DHRC develop a recommendation regarding the complaint process for City Council during the DHRC meeting scheduled for October 28, 2014. He questioned if the functions that the DHRC could and could not perform were already legally in place, and Mr. Rodriguez confirmed that this was the case. Mr. Rodriguez stated that he respectfully disagreed with the State, noting that the State had much more authority than the DHRC and it was his opinion that the DHRC was not created for the purpose of receiving and responding to individual complaints. Ms. Launay-Tarlecki stated that she had not seen the DHRC’s enabling documents; however, she questioned how members would record what they were hearing as the “ears” of their districts, what would be the point of hearing it, and what was desired to occur as a result. She stated her opinion that this is what the form should reflect. Mr. Rodriguez expressed his opinion that Commissioners would receive verbal complaints, and if individual commissioners received written complaints, Chairman Wilson would bring them before the Commission. He stated that it was desired to move the DHRC away from individual complaints that they have no jurisdiction over. Mr. Ruane concurred with Mr. Rodriguez that complaint forms should not be developed and the DHRC should not deal with individual discrimination cases. He noted that one (1) of the long-term objectives stated in the draft DHRC Strategic Plan 2015-2018 (subsequent agenda item) was “to define when a diversity, inclusion and or a human relations issue exists and specify the types of these issues that will be accepted by the Commission” and then develop a process for acceptance, which he stated may or may not include a form. He explained that the DHRC’s first responsibility was to make sure that the City of Dover administration, government, and Council were favoring and promoting diversity, had policies and programs that reflect that diversity, and did not have a practice, service, or program that had systemically become a human relations issue. If a form were needed to document issues, he felt that it would be a DHRC diversity issue statement and the DHRC would then make a recommendation to City Council to change this program. Mr. Ruane stated that once the focus was on diversity, the Commission would be considering much broader issues than anti-discrimination complaints. He indicated that the first focus would be on the City; then on

SPECIAL DOVER HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION WORKSHOP OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 PAGE 6 engaging the community to try to get the same sense of diversity, openness, and inclusiveness in other places in the City; and then supporting and engaging with other groups that are trying to do the same thing, such as the Hispanic Council, and Inner-City Cultural League, and the Dover Public Library. He felt that there were great challenges in determining the status of diversity of the City of Dover, beginning with programs and government. Mr. Wilson mentioned that the City was in the process of distributing a Recreational Needs Assessment survey that may be a matter for consideration. Mr. Wilson thanked Mr. Rodriguez for attending. Mr. Rodriguez expressed concurrence with Mr. Ruane’s comments, stating that they articulated the purpose of the DHRC in his opinion. Ms. Launay-Tarlecki stated that she was not saying that the DHRC would have a court and hear cases; however, she stated that within the function of the Commission, a form or process for keeping track would be the right answer, reiterating that she was not familiar with the DHRC empowering laws. Mr. Ruane questioned if the State’s compliant form could be provided by the City; for example, if the City Clerk’s Office could be empowered to refer an individual with an employment discrimination complaint to the SHRC and provide an SHRC form without giving advice. Ms. Launay-Tarlecki stated that a SHRC business card could be provided and that the State’s complaint form was available online. Mr. Wilson stated that, in this event, he would like to meet with the City Clerk and make sure that the Clerk’s Office was on the same page as the DHRC and the Council President. Mr. McGiffin stated that Mr. Rodriguez had recommended against the DHRC providing information and referral, because by doing so the Commission would be accepting responsibility for sending people to the correct entity. He indicated that the City Solicitor had suggested that if the City Clerk’s Office were instructed by the DHRC to provide a complaint form but gave the wrong type of referral, this could cause problems. Mr. McGiffin stated that if the DHRC decided to provide information and referral, this would be decided knowing that Mr. Rodriguez would have an issue with it. Mr. Ruane withdrew his suggestion to provide referral in view of the legal advice provided. Mr. Wilson suggested that members come forward with their ideas regarding complaint forms at the meeting scheduled for October 28, 2014 and that a decision would be made at that time. He reminded members that the City Solicitor had spoken; however, members could discuss documenting Commission actions, as suggested by Ms. Launay-Tarlecki, and determine what could be developed that was in line with the City’s Solicitor’s recommendation. Mr. Henderson questioned where notes regarding complaints in the community should be referred, if the DHRC could not develop a form and did not have jurisdiction.

SPECIAL DOVER HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION WORKSHOP OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 PAGE 7 Responding, Mrs. Traci McDowell, City Clerk, stated that when members take such notes and report comments and issues to the Commission in terms of City programs that the DHRC needs to look at, this would be reflected in the meeting minutes, which are the permanent, formal record on these matters. Review of Draft DHRC 2015-2018 Strategic Plan Mr. Ruane stated that developing the identity and function of the DHRC had been a problem for a long time and suggested that this be settled. He reviewed the Draft DHRC Strategic Plan 2015-2018 and requested that members agree to a mission statement and add to or subtract from the objectives included, emphasizing that the document was a draft. Mr. Ruane advised members that the start year for the Draft Plan was stated as 2015 to allow time to establish the plan and suggested that three (3) year, long-term strategic objectives be organized around the components of the DHRC’s mission, noting that performance measures or short-term action steps were not included at this time. Once objectives were agreed upon, he suggested that three (3) commissioners and/or citizens help flesh out each objective. Mr. Ruane explained that he had taken information from the DHRC legislation and placed it in three (3) concise mission components, as follows: 1. Work to ensure that the City of Dover has and utilizes policies, programs, ordinances, organizational practices, specialized resources and appropriately trained employees to support diversity, inclusiveness and cultural competency in its organization and services. 2. By involving all segments of the community, the Commission promotes an understanding and appreciation of the benefits of diversity, inclusion, and positive intergroup relations among residents of varying backgrounds in the city; and, advocates for an environment of fairness and respect. 3. Works with the City Council and the City Administration and other community organizations to strengthen inter-group relationships and to eliminate discrimination; and, to anticipate, prepare for and resolve incidents of intergroup conflicts and disputes within the city. Referring to the first mission component, Mr. Ruane stated that an example of this function would be for the DHRC to determine if the City’s recreation program is diverse. In reference to the third mission component, Mr. Ruane stated that incidents that had recently transpired in Ferguson, Missouri showed the need to have a plan in place for dealing with conflict at the neighborhood or City level. He proposed that the DHRC determine what type of role it would have in the case of community conflict, noting that training and experience would be necessary for Commissioners to serve in this role. Mr. Ruane suggested that the major goals of the DHRC be organized around its mission statement and reviewed the proposed vision statement, affirming that, “The Commission’s vision is a city whose government, organizations, groups and individual citizens value diversity, inclusion, respect

SPECIAL DOVER HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION WORKSHOP OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 PAGE 8 and trust.” He recommended dividing members into four (4) committees, as follows: 1) Government Policy, Programs, and Practices Committee; 2) Community Engagement Committee; 3) Education Committee; and 4) Communications Committee. Mr. Ruane proposed that committee members meet and bring specifics, such as timetables and measurement tools for objectives, to the Commission. Mr. Wilson suggested that two (2) DHRC members serve on each of the committees and that the at-large commissioner and the DHRC Chair rotate among committees if desired. He requested that members review the committees and decide on which committee they would like to serve, noting that they could serve on more than one if they chose to. He stated that he had reviewed the plan, as well as the City’s related ordinances and code, and compared it with other cities and that Mr. Ruane had done extensive work on this. Mr. McGiffin noted that Mr. Ruane had done a great deal of work on the plan, to the DHRC’s benefit, and thanked him for his efforts. Ms. Smith stated that it was evident that Mr. Ruane had put a great deal of time and energy into the Draft Strategic Plan. Mr. Ruane stated his understanding that committees could assemble before the October 28, 2014 meeting, which could then be dedicated to hearing preliminary specifics on how the larger objectives could be realized during the three (3) year period. Mr. McGiffin moved to recommend adoption of the City of Dover Human Relations Commission Strategic Plan 2015-2018 (Attachment #2), seconded by Mrs. Sadusky and unanimously carried. Mr. Wilson felt that holding meetings of the DHRC on a quarterly basis would not be often enough to accomplish what must be done, noting that the Commission had recently held additional special meetings. Referring to Exhibit #1 to the Draft DRHC Strategic Plan 2015-2018, Definition for Diversity CUNY Queensborough in New York City, Mr. Ruane pointed out that the section entitled, “A diversity issue exists when,” provided some language that might help members understand when the Commission would be activated. He explained that a diversity issue would not apply in an individual case; however, if a policy, business practice, or service had a different impact on a particular group in the City, the DHRC would go into action. Mr. Ruane stated that the DHRC goes beyond the individual and strives to change the system, based on an analysis of current practices and the development of better practices. If something on the street helps to educate a commissioner, this could be brought to the table when a particular program is being discussed. Ms. Smith stated her experience that complaints typically start with one (1) person and can lead a group to follow that individual, referencing the individual who was shot in Ferguson, Missouri, and questioned at what point the DHRC should become involved. In addition, she stated that the

SPECIAL DOVER HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION WORKSHOP OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 PAGE 9 perception of a diversity issue may differ from one (1) person to another based on their varying experiences and questioned, as a commissioner, whether this determination should be based on the commissioner’s perceptions or those of the people being served. Mr. Henderson felt that all diversity issues start with an individual and expressed his fear that if an overly analytical approach were taken, the DHRC would end up “running after the problem trying to solve it.” He felt that the Commission must be proactive. Mr. McGiffin stated that Mr. Ruane had designed a strategic plan that would allow the DHRC to determine ahead of time whether the potential for an incident like Ferguson existed in Dover so that the Commission could encourage the City to address whatever “tinder was out there that might give rise to a Ferguson blaze before it goes on fire;” therefore, this type of action would be inherently proactive. However, the DHRC would only become aware of potential problems by hearing from the community. He indicated that if City policies were reviewed by the Government Policy, Programs, and Practices Committee and determined to be inadequate, then members would improve them so the City would be prepared should that situation arise. The DHRC would have done its job by advising the City that this was a potential problem and providing ideas on how to solve it. Mr. Wilson advised members that they would hear things in their communities and would be able to execute actions and advise Council on what to do. He recalled that during one (1) of his meetings with two (2) of the DHRC Commissioners and two (2) Council representatives, a Commissioner stated that they had never seen the Council members in the City districts before. Mr. Wilson asked members to consider how difficult it would be to obtain conflict resolution without a strategic plan, such as the one developed by Mr. Ruane, and if the entities involved did not know one another, it would result in a disservice to the entire City. Mr. Wilson stated his understanding that the City would be reviewing the 1988 Consent Decree that resulted from the NAACP vs. the City of Dover lawsuit, noting that the City was considering changing its existing type of government and that some would be in favor and others would not. He stated that developing a strategic plan would allow the DHRC to be structured in such a way that the elected officials could be involved in decision making that would advance everyone in the City. Mr. Wilson stated that the Strategic Plan would be on the agenda for October 28, 2014 for further discussion, and that he wished to hear from the State on the plan as well. Ms. Launay-Tarlecki stated that she had read the Draft Strategic Plan cursorily and that a lot of good work went into it. She still felt that members might find use for some type of form, although it might not be the complaint form initially envisioned. She thought that the form might convey information in addition to what was stated in the minutes, provide a way to communicate with and obtain contact information for individuals who approach members on the street with issues, and be helpful in recording and reporting. Ms. Launay-Tarlecki felt that the Strategic Plan was “fantastic” and expressed pride in the DHRC for moving quickly to adopt it. She stated that the SHRC had access to training resources through the University of Delaware conflict resolution and public policy programs, which provided education on mediation, negotiation, and hostages and terrorism. She indicated that these resources may be available to the DHRC members. Ms. Launay-Tarlecki felt that the DHRC Strategic Plan 2015-2018 would provide a good foundation for the Commission.

SPECIAL DOVER HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION WORKSHOP OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 PAGE 10 Mr. Ruane questioned if Mr. Wilson intended for members to sign up for a particular committee and meet before the October meeting and provide a report. Responding, Mr. Wilson inquired if members had made choices in terms of committee assignments. By unanimous consent, members recommended committee assignments, as follows: 1) Government Policies, Programs, and Practices Committee - Mr. Ruane (Chair) and Mr. McGiffin; 2) Community Engagement - Mr. Roach (Chair) and Ms. Hicks; 3) Education Committee - Mr. Henderson (Chair) and Mrs. Sadusky; and 4) Communications Committee - Ms. Smith (Chair) and Ms. Stewart. Mr. Wilson stated that he would serve on all committees and help them as best he could. He advised members that it would be up to the committee chairs to decide when to meet prior to October 28, 2014 and requested that the City Clerk be informed so that emails could be sent regarding the date, time, and place. Commission Members’ Announcements Mr. Wilson reminded members that Diversity, Respect & Harassment Awareness Training for City of Dover employees was available on October 7, 2014 8:30 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.; 10:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m. and October 14, 2014 8:00 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. Mr. Ruane advised members that a Hispanic Heritage Celebration was scheduled for October 4, 2014 from 10:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. and would conclude with a concert at the Schwartz Center for the Performing Arts at 4:00 p.m. He indicated that the Community Engagement Committee might want to touch base and partner with this group and perhaps the DHRC could partner in putting on this event in the future. By unanimous consent, the meeting adjourned at 7:04 p.m. Cecil C. Wilson Chairman CCW/TM/js/dd S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Misc-Minutes\HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION\2014\09-23-2014 Dover Human Relations Commission.wpd Attachments Attachment #1 - Brochure - Changing America - The Emancipation Proclamation, 1863 and the March on Washington, 1963 Attachment #2 - DRAFT City of Dover DHRC Strategic Plan 2015-2018

ATTACHMENT #1 DHRC Meeting of 09/23/2014 THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE THERE ARE MOMENTS IN OUR NATION’S HISTORY WHEN INDIVIDUALS UNITE AND TAKE COURAGEOUS Changing America: The Emancipation Proclamation, 1863 STEPS TO FULFILL THE PROMISE OF DEMOCRACY. and the March on Washington, 1963 is presented by the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture and the National Museum of American History One hundred years separate the Emancipation in collaboration with the American Library Association Public Proclamation and the March on Washington, yet they Programs Office. The tour of the traveling exhibition is made are profoundly linked together in a larger story of liberty A. PHILIP RANDOLPH possible by the National Endowment for the Humanities: and the American experience. Both were the result of OCTOBER 15, 1937 Exploring the human endeavor. people demanding justice. Both grew out of decades of bold actions, resistance, organization, and vision. The exhibition will travel to fifty venues across the nation, In both we take inspiration from those who marched accompanied by public programming that will help audiences toward freedom. understand and discuss the relationship between these two great people’s movements. Changing America was created to commemorate these two pivotal achievements on their 150th and 50th For more information: anniversaries. It explores their historical context, their createdequal.neh.gov accomplishments and limitations, and their impact on ala.org/programming/changingamerica the generations that followed. The Emancipation Proclamation, 1863 and the March on Washington, 1963 COVER: J. J. Smith’s Plantation, Beaufort, South Carolina, 1862, Library of Congress ATTACHMENT #1 Participants at the March on Washington, 1963, Library of Congress Participants at the March, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration INSIDE COVER: Cumberland Landing, Virginia, 1862, Library of Congress At Headquarters, 1963, Library of Congress Civil Rights March on Washington, D.C., 1963, Library of Congress INSIDE PANELS: Marion Chaplin Plantation, St. Helena, South Carolina, 1861, Penn Center Archives Participants at the March, 1963, Library of Congress Smithsonian Institution DHRC Meeting of 09/23/2014 140211_ChangingAmerica_ExhibitionBrochure_revised.indd 1 2/11/14 4:07 PM

FRONT LINES OF FREEDOM THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION THE MARCH ON WASHINGTON THE LEGACY Emancipation was not the product of one act but On September 22, 1862, five On August 28, 1963, work in the nation’s In the months following the march, demonstrations and many. Americans, enslaved and free, chipped days after the Union victory at capital came to a halt as hundreds of violence continued to pressure political leaders to act. away at slavery through daily acts of resistance, the Battle of Antietam, Abraham thousands of Americans gathered for the Following President Kennedy’s assassination on November 22, organized rebellions, and political pressure. Lincoln issued the preliminary biggest demonstration ever seen in the District 1963, President Lyndon Johnson broke through the legislative Emancipation Proclamation. He of Columbia. People traveled from every state stalemate in Congress. For most white Americans, the Civil War was presented the proclamation as in buses, trains, cars, trucks, a war for the Union, but for black Americans, it was a battle a wartime necessity, under his airplanes, and on foot. The The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting for freedom. Determined to end slavery, tens of thousands authority as Commander-in-Chief. world watched as an estimated Rights Act of 1965 were turning points in the struggle for of enslaved African Americans used the war to escape their It ordered that as of January 1, 250,000 people — united across civil rights. Together the two bills outlawed segregated bondage. As the Union Army drove into the Confederacy, enslaved 1863, all enslaved individuals in race, class, and ideological lines, public facilities and prohibited discrimination in employment people stole away and entered Union lines. The people had all areas still in rebellion against and representing organizations, and voting. The success of the March on Washington and spoken, using one of the few political tools available to enslaved the United States “henceforward unions, churches or simply the achievements of the modern black freedom struggle people — the power of coming together to be heard. The sheer shall be free,” and under the themselves — poured into reverberated throughout society and provided a model for number of African Americans arriving in camps and cities Reading Copy of the Emancipation protection of the military. Those Washington and onto the grounds social change. The power of mass nonviolent demonstrations Proclamation, National Museum of pressured politicians, generals, and the U.S. government to act. African American History and Culture willing to enlist would be received of the Lincoln Memorial. inspired Americans fighting for equal rights and access to into the armed forces. Once free, opportunities regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, These thousands of African Americans made their freedom a more than 186,000 African American volunteers fought to liberate The events of that day — the age, sexual orientation, or disabilities. fact. Within two years, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation those still held in slavery. prayers, the electrifying speeches, "Liberator" Flyer, National Museum of Proclamation and made ending slavery government policy. African American History and Culture the stirring music — helped mark The proclamation was limited in scope and revolutionary in impact. the 100th anniversary of the The war to preserve the Union also became a war to end slavery. Emancipation Proclamation and reminded Americans of the UNCOUNTED MILLIONS FROM ACCRA TO ZANZIBAR nation’s long pursuit to fulfill its founding principles of liberty TURNED THEIR EYES TO WASHINGTON AS THEY HAVE and equality for all. FOR FEW OTHER EVENTS IN AMERICAN HISTORY. IF MY NAME EVER GOES INTO HISTORY IT WILL BE FOR THIS ACT, AND MY WHOLE SOUL IS INTO IT. For the millions of people who participated or listened to THE WASHINGTON POST the speakers on radio and television, it was a moving and AUGUST 29, 1963 unforgettable call for social justice. ABRAHAM LINCOLN JANUARY 1, 1863 Family Portrait, Library of Congress UNFULFILLED PROMISES The Emancipation Proclamation committed the nation to ending WE NEED THE STORM, THE WHIRLWIND, slavery. The U.S. Congress responded with Constitutional AND THE EARTHQUAKE…THE HYPOCRISY amendments abolishing slavery, expanding citizenship rights, OF THE NATION MUST BE EXPOSED; AND and giving black men the right to vote. These acts changed ITS CRIMES AGAINST GOD AND MAN the political landscape, but these new freedoms were stripped away in the years that followed. During the darkest days of MUST BE DENOUNCED. Jim Crow segregation, black Americans continued to press for full citizenship. Each Emancipation Day, African Americans FREDERICK DOUGLASS organized parades reminding the black community and the JULY 4, 1852 entire nation of a commitment that remained unfulfilled. These local celebrations set the stage for the national push for freedom in the 20th century. 140211_ChangingAmerica_ExhibitionBrochure_revised.indd 2 2/11/14 4:07 PM

ATTACHMENT #2 DHRC Meeting of 09/23/2014 DRAFT City of City of Dover Human Relations Commission Strategic Plan 2015-2018 I. INTRODUCTION The establishment, purpose, powers and duties of the City of Dover Human Relations Commission (hereinafter, “the Commission”) are provided for in Part II of the Dover, Delaware Code of Ordinances, Chapter 58-Human Relations Article II Human Relations Commission. Broadly representative of racial, religious, gender and ethnic groups residing in Dover the nine volunteer members of the Commission are all residents of the City of Dover. They are appointed by the president of the Dover City Council, based upon recommendations from and subject to confirmation by the Council. The Commission has begun a strategic planning process to better define its strategy, focus, and direction over the next three years: 2015-2018. In developing the first phase of this planning process the Commission has organized its three-year long- term strategic objectives around the components of its mission and its commitment to competency, transparency, and public accountability. II. MISSION Committed to a philosophy of inclusion, intergroup cooperation and fair treatment, the City of Dover Human Relations Commission works to ensure that the City of Dover has and utilizes policies, programs, ordinances, organizational practices, specialized resources and appropriately trained employees to support diversity i, inclusion ii and cultural competency iii in its organization and services. Additionally, by involving all segments of the community, the Commission promotes an understanding and appreciation of the benefits of diversity, inclusion, and positive intergroup relations among residents of varying backgrounds in the city; and, advocates for an environment of fairness and respect. The Commission works with the City Council and the City Administration and other community organizations to strengthen inter-group relationships and to eliminate discrimination; and, to anticipate, prepare for and resolve incidents of intergroup conflicts and disputes within the city. 1

DRAFT City of City of Dover Human Relations Commission Strategic Plan 2015-2018 III. VISION The Commission’s vision is a city whose government, organizations, groups and individual citizens value diversity, inclusion, respect and trust. IV. LONG-TERM OBJECTIVES Mission component: A. Work to ensure that the City of Dover has and utilizes policies, programs, ordinances, organizational practices, specialized resources and appropriately trained employees to support diversity, inclusiveness and cultural competency in its organization and services. Long-term Objectives A.1 In cooperation with the City of Dover Manager and its Human Resources Department evaluate the current “state and climate of diversity and inclusion” and cultural competency within Dover’s government organization, services and vendor relationships; and, make recommendations to the City Manager and the Dover City Council which identify policies and best organizational practices which support diversity, inclusion and cultural competency within city government, its services; and, vendor relationships. A.2 Building on its partnership with the Dover Police Department, identify additional human relations approaches and lessons that can be integrated into the Dover Police Department’s ongoing Community Relations strategy. Mission Component: B. By involving all segments of the community, the Commission promotes an understanding and appreciation of the benefits of diversity, inclusion, and positive intergroup relations among residents of varying backgrounds in the city; and, advocates for an environment of fairness and respect. 2

DRAFT City of City of Dover Human Relations Commission Strategic Plan 2015-2018 Long-term Objectives B.1 Assess how the community of Dover is organized and identify organizations, churches, fraternities, sororities and other organizations with whom the DHRC should establish partnerships; and, to enter into agreements with these organizations to more effectively carry out its mission. B.2 Provide a report to the Dover City Council and to the public which analyzes the current “state and climate of diversity and inclusion” and cultural competency within the Dover community and makes recommendations for programs, policies and practices that support diversity, inclusion and cultural competency. B.3 Identify, support and participate in programs and events within the city of Dover which celebrate its diversity or promote greater understanding of the issues, concerns and needs of our diverse population. (e.g., the African American and Hispanic Festivals and the Dover Public Library’s Created Equal Project) B.4 Create and implement an external education process and program that provides the pubic with a better understanding of diversity, inclusion; and, human relations issues; and, conflict management; and, that develops skills in effectively fostering greater understanding, inclusion and fairness in the city. Mission Component C. Works with the City Council and the City Administration and other community organizations to strengthen inter-group relationships and to eliminate discrimination; and, to anticipate, prepare for and resolve incidents of intergroup conflicts and disputes within the city Long-term Objectives C.1 Define when a diversity, inclusion and or a human relations issue iv exists and specify the types of these issues that will be accepted by the 3

DRAFT City of City of Dover Human Relations Commission Strategic Plan 2015-2018 Commission; and, identify and implement a process for receiving and responding to such issues by taking action to correct or improve the situation. C.2 Develop an understanding with the State Human Relations Commission that will delineate the roles and procedures of the two Commissions in the solution of alleged discrimination complaints which fall within the jurisdiction of the State Human Relations Commission and identify and maintain specific ways the two Commissions will work together. C.3 Review the City of Dover’s Code of Ordinances and make recommendations to the Dover City Council that will improve the city’s efforts to eliminate discriminatory behavior. C.4 In cooperation and partnership with city officials, law enforcement, clergy, community organizations and public and private mediation services, assist in developing plans for monitoring sources of intergroup conflict and for responding to and managing community conflicts and disruptions in Dover; and, participate in managing community conflicts in accordance with these plans. COMPETENCY TRANSPARENCY and ACCOUNTABILITY D. The Commission is committed to acting with a high degree of competency, and transparency and accountability both to the Dover City Council and to the community. Long-term Objectives D.1 Regularly provide an update on the Commission’s activities, progress and accomplishments to the Dover City Council; and, provide opportunities for the Council to review and affirm the Commission’s Strategic Plan, including a process which encourages Council members to identify specific diversity, inclusion and human relations issues that may be particularly critical or relevant within each City Council District. 4

DRAFT City of City of Dover Human Relations Commission Strategic Plan 2015-2018 D.2 Improve community awareness of the Commission and a better understanding of its role by developing, implementing; and, maintaining a comprehensive communications plan which creates a process for routine communications to the community, including supporting policies and procedures for managing communications and for using supporting tools, such as, a web-based hub of information and resources. D.3 Create and implement an internal education process and program that provides the Dover City Council, the City Administration and the members of the Commission with a better understanding of diversity, inclusion; and, human relations issues; and, conflict management; and, that strengthens their skills in effectively fostering greater understanding, inclusion and fairness in the city. D.4 Provide due notice and access to the public by conducting all meetings in accordance with the Delaware Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and City of Dover procedures. D.5 Identify and seek funding from other governmental, philanthropic or private organizations to more effectively carry out its responsibilities. V. IMPLEMENTATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE Once the Commission adopts these proposed long-term strategic objectives the Commission will develop and implement specific work plans for each long-term strategic objective within the assigned year or years. These work plans will include short-term goals/priorities/initiatives with specific performance measures and action items to be accomplished within shorter time periods. The Dover Code of Ordinances centralizes decision making at the Commission level. However, it is suggested that a functional committee structure be utilized to move these long-term strategic objections into actual performance. Each of these Committees shall consist of at least three members of the DHRC and may include outside advisors, citizens, and City staff members to more effectively develop and execute the work plans. Individual Commissioners may serve on one or more Committees. 5

DRAFT City of City of Dover Human Relations Commission Strategic Plan 2015-2018 These functional Committees are advisory, not decision-making. They are transparent and accountable to the Commission and the community at large. They will meet on a regular basis to develop, implement and monitor work plans for the specific long-term strategic objectives assigned to the committee. Their work plans will be presented to and adopted by the full Commission prior to implementation. The Commission may assign one or more long term strategic objectives to the Commission “acting as a whole”. Additionally, in order to respond to an emergent human relations issue that may not be identified in this plan, the Commission may from time to time create an additional functional committee. Such committees are intended to convene, and make recommendations for action to the full Commission; and, then disband when they are no longer relevant or needed. Based on the set of proposed long-term objectives identified in this strategic plan, it is suggested that the following functional committees be established: Government Policy, Programs, and Practices Committee—to develop, implement and monitor work plans for Objectives A.1, A.2, C-3 and C.4 Community Engagement Committee—to develop, implement and monitor work plans for Objectives: B.1, B.2 and B.3. Education Committee—to develop and implement plans for Objectives: B.4, D.3. Communications Committee—to develop, implement and monitor work plans for Objectives D.1, and D.2. The Commission as a “whole” to develop implement and monitor work plans for Objectives: C.1, C.2, D.4 and D.5. Draft prepared by Eugene B. Ruane, City of Dover Human Relations Commissioner, September 8, 2014. i It is critical that the Commission agree on a definition of diversity. Howard J. Ross, one of the nation’s recognized leaders on diversity and organizational change notes that “diversity has generally represented an acceptance of 6

DRAFT City of City of Dover Human Relations Commission Strategic Plan 2015-2018 difference, a lack of discrimination due to difference, and a presence of different kinds of people in organizations”. However, he argues that in this narrow view, diversity “has been related to as a means to erase or fix problems” rather than as a “way to create a new future vision”. The focus of this limited understanding is “the level of challenges (or “illness”)” that some people face: “bias, discrimination, lack of access, oppression, physical and emotional violence, and soon.” The response was then on “passing laws and then instituting compliance measures to make it illegal to continue these practices.” The goal was to “create a state of social diversity, where people were not denied their rights, were more appropriately represented in organizations, and were not actively discriminated against.” He calls this approach “the health-care metaphor” focused on efforts to “create organizations in which people are no longer “sick”. (Howard J. Ross, ReInventing Diversity Transforming Organizational Community to Strengthen People, Purpose, and Performance ( Lanham, Maryland : Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2011, page 33) Mr. Ross promotes a broader understanding that goes beyond simply prohibiting discrimination and getting people in the door. He states that a diversity focus or program “means creating opportunities for people to be a part of the fundamental fabric of the way the organization functions---decision-making, responsibility, leadership—and then creating organizations that are culturally competent, culturally intelligent, and culturally flexible.” We have to “really develop a sense of inclusion” and “a certain level of competence in understanding the needs of various people we are working with and serving”. This requires a “systematic approach to incorporating an awareness of diversity and skills related to diversity into everything an organization does.” ( Ibid. 34) (Author’s Comment: A brief internet search of diversity programs has revealed that many organizations have adopted the broader approach that Mr. Ross has formulated. These programs reframe the conversation to focus on fair treatment and respect, and away from discrimination and “protected classes”. An example from CUNY Queensborough Community College in New York City is attached. See: Definition for Diversity in Exhibit 1.) ii Inclusion “is not simply a function of how fully involved people are in the structures of their organizations and societies”. It is “a function of connection”. “It is the ability of people to feel integrated into the cultural dynamics, leadership, and decision-making structures of the organization”. (Ibid., 38) iii Cultural competency is “the organizational ability to have and utilize the policies, appropriately trained and skilled employees, and specialized resources to systematically anticipate, recognize, and respond to the varying expectations (language, cultural, and religious) of customers, clients, patients, and co-workers of diverse backgrounds.” It requires a certain amount of “cultural intelligence” in that “people need to have knowledge of both distinctions of culture and of the specific traits of different cultures”. It requires a certain amount of “cultural humility “in that we need to be able to recognize that our cultural models may simply be different from , rather than better than, those of other people.” And, “people also require a degree of “cultural flexibility” “to facilitate interaction with others on their own terms.” (Ibid. 38) iv Queensborough Community College in New York has included a description of when “a diversity issue exists” in its Definition for Diversity. See Exhibit 1.) 7

Exhibit 1 City of Dover Human Relations Strategic Plan 2015-2018 Definition for Diversity CUNY Queensborough in New York City Definition for Diversity The concept of diversity encompasses acceptance and respect. It means understanding that each individual is unique, and recognizing our individual differences. These can be along the dimensions of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, age, physical abilities, religious beliefs, political beliefs, or other ideologies. It is the exploration of these differences in a safe, positive, and nurturing environment. It is about understanding each other and moving beyond simple tolerance to embracing and celebrating the rich dimensions of diversity contained within each individual. Diversity is a reality created by individuals and groups from a broad spectrum of demographic and philosophical differences. It is extremely important to support and protect diversity because by valuing individuals and groups free from prejudice, and by fostering a climate where equity and mutual respect are intrinsic. "Diversity" means more than just acknowledging and/or tolerating difference. Diversity is a set of conscious practices that involve:  Understanding and appreciating interdependence of humanity, cultures, and the natural environment.  Practicing mutual respect for qualities and experiences that are different from our own.  Understanding that diversity includes not only ways of being but also ways of knowing;  Recognizing that personal, cultural and institutionalized discrimination creates and sustains privileges for some while creating and sustaining disadvantages for others;  Building alliances across differences so that we can work together to eradicate all forms of discrimination.  Diversity includes, therefore, knowing how to relate to those qualities and conditions that are different from our own and outside the groups to which we belong, yet are present in other individuals and groups. These include but are not limited to age, ethnicity, class, gender, physical abilities/qualities, race, sexual orientation, as well as religious status, gender expression, educational background, geographical location, income, marital status, parental status, and work experiences. Finally, we acknowledge that categories of difference are not always fixed but also can be fluid, we respect individual rights to self-identification, and we recognize that no one culture is intrinsically superior to another. A diversity issue exists when An issue (policy or business practice - formal, informal, internal, or external) has a different impact on a particular group (i.e., impact on men vs. women, black vs. white, American vs. foreign, urban vs. rural, married vs. single, etc.)

Exhibit 1 City of Dover Human Relations Strategic Plan 2015-2018 Definition for Diversity CUNY Queensborough in New York City It happens more frequently to a particular group (i.e., different groups may have dramatically different "numbers" - turnover, terminations, promotions, discipline, few or no role models, etc.) It is more difficult for one group to overcome (i.e., upward mobility for a particular group within an organization - "glass ceilings") A diversity issue exists where the policy or business practice has an impact exclusive of difference (not inclusive of difference). Is there a trend or pattern (intentional or unintentional)? Having a diversity issue is not necessarily a bad thing. Doing nothing about it given you have knowledge of the issue is where organizations go wrong (negligence). Being in denial about these issues do not make them go away. Ignorance is not bliss inside or outside the courtroom. The real question is why do we have this issue and can we take action to correct it or improve the situation. Source: http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/diversity/definition.html Queensborurgh Community College in New York CUNY

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Utility Committee AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Public Works DATE SUBMITTED: 9/26/14 PREPARED BY: Sharon J. Duca, P.E., Public Works Director / City Engineer SUBJECT: Dedication of Rights-of-Way and Public Infrastructure – Village Of Cannon Mill (Phases I, II, III, and IV) REFERENCE: N/A RELATED PROJECT: N/A APPROVALS: City Manager EXHIBITS: Attachment A – List of Public Improvements to be accepted by the City of Dover Attachment B – Map EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A AMOUNT BUDGETED: $ N/A FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): N/A TIME TIMETABLE: All infrastructure improvements will become the responsibility of the City of Dover upon action by City Council. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Acceptance of dedication of rights-of-way and public infrastructure of the Village of Cannon Mill Subdivision. Dedication is to include all of the referenced public improvements. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The City of Dover Department of Public Works requests that all public infrastructure improvements related to the Village of Cannon Mill be dedicated to the City of Dover for permanent ownership and maintenance. Attachment A outlines all of the public improvements associated with each phase of the development, four (4) phases in total. The total construction value of the public improvements is $2,602,919. Attachment B shows the general location and configuration of the subject rights-of-way, broken into phases. The original developer filed for bankruptcy which resulted in work stoppage within the subdivision. The final wearing course and punch list items remain to be completed to meet the City of Dover Standards and Specifications for Public Works Construction and have been outstanding for many years. The Department is prepared to complete the work required pending rights-of-way and public infrastructure dedication as well as paving improvements bid acceptance by City Council.

DEDICATION OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE VILLAGE OF CANNON MILL ATTACHMENT A – PHASE I The following is a list of all public improvements which are to be accepted by the City of Dover: Sewer Utility Infrastructure (Construction Value = $219,040 ): 10” SDR-35 PVC Sanitary Sewer Main - 690 l.f. 8” SDR-35 PVC Sanitary Sewer Main - 2710 l.f. 6” PVC Sanitary Sewer Laterals - 4120 l.f. (72 laterals) 4' Diameter Sanitary Sewer Manholes - 21 ea. (286 v.f.) Water Utility Infrastructure (Construction Value = $116,640 ): 12” Ductile Iron (Class 52 Cement Lined) Water Main - 1295 l.f. 8” Ductile Iron (Class 52 Cement Lined) Water Main - 2270 l.f. 6” Ductile Iron (Class 52 Cement Lined) Water Main - 155 l.f. 1” K Copper Water Service Lines - 3460 l.f. (72 services) 12” Gate Valve - 1 ea. 8” Gate Valve - 11 ea. 6” Hydrant Valve - 6 ea. Fire Hydrants - 6 ea. Storm Water Infrastructure (Construction Value = $169,700 ): Catch Basins - 28 ea. 4’ Diameter Storm Sewer Manholes - 2 ea. (7 v.f.) Outfall Structure - 2 ea. 15” Type III Reinforced Concrete Pipe - 940 l.f. 18” Type III Reinforced Concrete Pipe - 1045 l.f. 24” Type III Reinforced Concrete Pipe - 830 l.f. 30” Type III Reinforced Concrete Pipe - 50 l.f. Street Infrastructure (0.6913 miles) (Construction Value = $510,771): Cannon Mill Dr. Station 00+00 to Station 06+50 650 l.f. East Sheldrake Cir. Station 26+00 to Station 37+50 1150 l.f. West Sheldrake Cir. Station 00+00 to Station 05+50 550 l.f. Quillen St. Station 00+00 to Station 07+00 700 l.f. Lester Court Station 00+00 to Station 06+00 600 l.f.

DEDICATION OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE VILLAGE OF CANNON MILL ATTACHMENT A – PHASE II The following is a list of all public improvements which are to be accepted by the City of Dover: Sewer Utility Infrastructure (Construction Value = $46,060 ): 10” SDR-35 PVC Sanitary Sewer Main - 440 l.f. 6” PVC Sanitary Sewer Laterals - 275 l.f. (5 laterals) 4' Diameter Sanitary Sewer Manholes - 2 ea. (34 v.f.) Water Utility Infrastructure (Construction Value = $45,360 ): 12” Ductile Iron (Class 52 Cement Lined) Water Main - 445 l.f. 8” Ductile Iron (Class 52 Cement Lined) Water Main - 650 l.f. 1” K Copper Water Service Lines - 335 l.f. (5 services) 8” Gate Valve - 2ea. Street Infrastructure (0.0852 miles) (Construction Value = $63,129): West Sheldrake Cir. Station 05+50 to Station 10+00 450 l.f.

DEDICATION OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE VILLAGE OF CANNON MILL ATTACHMENT A – PHASE III The following is a list of all public improvements which are to be accepted by the City of Dover: Sewer Utility Infrastructure (Construction Value = $147,322 ): 8” SDR-35 PVC Sanitary Sewer Main - 2675 l.f. 6” PVC Sanitary Sewer Laterals - 4780 l.f. (110 laterals) 4' Diameter Sanitary Sewer Manholes - 15 ea. (135 v.f.) Water Utility Infrastructure (Construction Value = $109,747 ): 12” Ductile Iron (Class 52 Cement Lined) Water Main - 990 l.f. 8” Ductile Iron (Class 52 Cement Lined) Water Main - 1770 l.f. 6” Ductile Iron (Class 52 Cement Lined) Water Main - 95 l.f. 1” K Copper Water Service Lines - 5095 l.f. (110 services) 12” Gate Valve - 3 ea. 8” Gate Valve - 3 ea. 6” Hydrant Valve - 3 ea. Fire Hydrants - 3 ea. Storm Water Infrastructure (Construction Value = $114,922 ): Catch Basins - 21 ea. 4’ Diameter Storm Sewer Manholes - 4 ea. (14 v.f.) Outfall Structure - 1 ea. 15” Type III Reinforced Concrete Pipe - 1525 l.f. 18” Type III Reinforced Concrete Pipe - 240 l.f. 24” Type III Reinforced Concrete Pipe - 215 l.f. 30” Type III Reinforced Concrete Pipe - 170 l.f. Street Infrastructure (0.6629 miles) (Construction Value = $351,284): East Sheldrake Cir. Station 18+75 to Station 26+00 725 l.f. West Sheldrake Cir. Station 18+25 to Station 18+75 50 l.f. Paradee Dr. Station 00+00 to Station 11+25 1,125 l.f. Alley 2(Paradee Alley) Station 00+00 to Station 08+00 800 l.f. Tribbitt St. Station 00+00 to Station 08+00 800 l.f.

DEDICATION OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE VILLAGE OF CANNON MILL ATTACHMENT A – PHASE IV The following is a list of all public improvements which are to be accepted by the City of Dover: Sewer Utility Infrastructure (Construction Value = $120,536 ): 10” SDR-35 PVC Sanitary Sewer Main - 380 l.f. 8” SDR-35 PVC Sanitary Sewer Main - 1755 l.f. 6” PVC Sanitary Sewer Laterals - 2031 l.f. (37 laterals) 4' Diameter Sanitary Sewer Manholes - 10 ea. (129 v.f.) Water Utility Infrastructure (Construction Value = $114,227 ): 12” Ductile Iron (Class 52 Cement Lined) Water Main - 1095 l.f. 8” Ductile Iron (Class 52 Cement Lined) Water Main - 1170l.f. 6” Ductile Iron (Class 52 Cement Lined) Water Main - 125 l.f. 1” K Copper Water Service Lines - 1750 l.f. (37 services) 12” Gate Valve - 4 ea. 8” Gate Valve - 1 ea. 6” Hydrant Valve - 4 ea. Fire Hydrants - 4 ea. Storm Water Infrastructure (Construction Value = $86,696 ): Catch Basins - 18 ea. 4’ Diameter Storm Sewer Manholes - 1 ea. (4 v.f.) Outfall Structure - 4 ea. 15” Type III Reinforced Concrete Pipe - 855l.f. 18” Type III Reinforced Concrete Pipe - 300 l.f. 24” Type III Reinforced Concrete Pipe - 95 l.f. 30” Type III Reinforced Concrete Pipe - 200 l.f. Street Infrastructure (0.5350 miles) (Construction Value = $387,415): West Sheldrake Cir. Station 10+00 to Station 18+25 825 l.f. Wagner St. Station 00+00 to Station 01+50 150 l.f. Loftland Dr. Station 00+00 to Station 10+50 1050 l.f. Alley 1 (Tribbitt St Alley) Station 00+00 to Station 08+00 800 l.f. Tribbitt St. Station 08+00 to Station 11+25 325l.f.

Attachment B Village of Cannon Mill Right of Ways to be Dedicated to the City of Dover rD r te h es rc Wo Pa r ad ee Ct est Dr rn Fai ib b Tr itt St v Westo Pe n ni No r ng er D Lo f th to n tla dow r Pl nd n Dr E Dr Sh eldr ak e Ci r Ja mes ey Ct ffr W ay Ct e Sh el J W a rin drak t Ka St e n Cir i lle Qu Circle fic Traf n r Ca Leste no n ill Rd Ct M e ill Dr e ttv zl Ha 0 175 350 700 Feet Legend ¯ Dover Parcels Right of Way to be Dedicated Date Printed: September 23, 2014 File: m:\gis_data\projects\tech_mxds Phase 1 \street_dedication_map_cannon_mill Phase 2 Department: Public Works GIS City of Dover, Delaware Phase 3 Phase 4

Monthly Report August 2014 Office of City Assessor

Assessor’s Report Number of Deeds Stamped for Transfer Tax Dollar Amount for the Month of August 2013/2014 the Month of August 2013/2014 $69 $84 28 31 29 $100 35 Thousands 30 21 $52 25 $10 20 $50 $14 15 9 8 $10 10 2013 $0 $0 1 2 0 0 2013 5 $0 0 2014 2014 First Time Buyer for the Month August 2013/2014 Realty of August 2013/2014 PropertySales in Dollars 28 Received Prior to Recording 30 $6 21 $4$3 Res. Non‐First $6 Millions 20 $4 $1 Time Buyers $1 $1 $0 $0 9 2013 $2 8 $0 10 Res. First Time Buyers 2014 0 2013 2014 Major Updates June ‐ 14 July ‐ 14 August ‐ 14 Assessment Change ‐$1,532,900 $2,092,500 $1,154,000 Residential Sales Ratio Report Sales in Study Total Assessed Total Sale Price Ratio PRD Value 27 $5,137,200 $5,087,860 1.09 1.06 1

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. 2015 Revaluation ‐ The Assessor’s Office has started the 2015 Revaluation process by visiting various neighborhoods and collecting data, if necessary. 2

SEP 23, 2014 CITY OF DOVER PAGE: 1 11:40 AM SALES RATIO REPORT CA324 PARID NBHD LUC ADDRESS UNITS STYLE YRBLT STORIES SFLA GRADE CDU TOTAL APPR SALE DT PRICE ASR ED05-056.20-01-27.00 24A R10 160 MAPLE GLEN DR 1 5 2004 2 2458 C+ AV 229,100 06-AUG-14 224,000 ED05-056.20-01-44.00 24A R10 103 MAPLE GLEN DR 1 14 2003 1 2025 C+ AV 210,200 25-AUG-14 242,900 ED05-066.02-01-01.00 24A R10 101 HOBBYHORSE CT 5 2011 2 2614 B+ VG 278,200 25-AUG-14 260,000 ED05-067.12-04-06.00 8B R10 76 REPRESENTATIVE LN 13 2014 2 2143 B- AV 181,500 18-AUG-14 188,750 ED05-067.16-01-31.00 10 R10 522 ROSS ST 1 16 1963 1 1657 C+ AV 144,600 22-AUG-14 160,000 ED05-067.16-03-05.01 8 R10 215 WALKER RD 1 14 1955 1 2664 B VG 367,800 22-AUG-14 400,000 ED05-067.18-03-12.00 17 R10 25 FREEDOM DR 1 5 1981 2 2294 B GD 205,200 12-AUG-14 218,000 ED05-067.19-02-16.00 21 R10 947 CLARA ST 1 2 1945 1 1520 D PR 99,400 22-AUG-14 289,000 ED05-067.19-04-22.00 26 R10 58 EIGER CT 14 2014 1 1864 B AV 226,900 27-AUG-14 247,210 ED05-068.09-02-08.00 13 R10 825 BACON CT 1 14 1969 1 1527 C AV 140,000 01-AUG-14 131,000 ED05-068.09-02-28.00 13 R10 12 BACON CT 1 5 1974 2 1723 C+ AV 162,100 15-AUG-14 145,000 ED05-068.15-04-72.00 25A R10 295 TEA PARY TRL 13 2014 2 1914 B- AV 171,000 28-AUG-14 155,000 ED05-068.19-05-55.00 25B R10 159 LEXINGTON PL 13 2010 3 2181 B- VG 207,100 11-AUG-14 160,000 ED05-068.19-05-75.00 25B R10 56 NICHOLAS DR 13 2011 3 2034 B- VG 200,400 26-AUG-14 188,000 ED05-076.00-02-01.01 11C R10 5055 HAZLETTVILLE RD 1 14 1952 1 3228 C+ AV 371,700 05-AUG-14 324,500 ED05-076.03-01-40.00 25 R10 19 CANNON MILL DR 5 2014 2 1588 C+ AV 191,000 28-AUG-14 225,000 ED05-076.03-01-85.00 25 R10 278 E SHELDRAKE CIR 1 8 2007 2 1855 C+ AV 164,100 29-AUG-14 164,100 ED05-076.03-02-32.00 25 R10 380 PARADEE DR 1 13 2007 2 1760 C+ AV 185,100 01-AUG-14 135,000 ED05-076.07-02-16.00 17 R10 6 PEWTER CT 1 5 1988 2 2348 B GD 204,800 20-AUG-14 221,500 ED05-076.13-04-74.00 25 R10 318 NORTHDOWN DR 1 13 2002 2 1364 C+ AV 143,100 29-AUG-14 142,000 ED05-076.20-02-25.00 12 R10 1199 CHARLES DR 1 14 1962 1 1953 C GD 188,200 29-AUG-14 115,000 ED05-077.11-05-26.00 16J R10 72 MER WAY 8 2013 2 2266 B- AV 208,700 26-AUG-14 209,900 ED05-077.17-03-18.00 32 R10 1062 S BRADFORD ST 1 3 1947 1 1156 C AV 135,000 15-AUG-14 130,000 ED05-077.17-04-36.00 32 R10 1017 S STATE ST 1 3 1942 1 1605 C+ AV 153,300 15-AUG-14 136,000 ED05-085.12-02-07.00 12 R10 413 ALDER RD 1 5 1967 2 1688 C+ AV 168,400 28-AUG-14 148,000 LC05-058.18-01-14.00 1 R10 58 KAREN PL 1 11 2001 1 1350 D+ AV 104,100 15-AUG-14 60,000 LC05-058.18-01-85.00 1 R10 131 BETH PL 1 11 1998 1 1344 D+ AV 96,200 28-AUG-14 68,000

CITY MANAGER’S MONTHLY REPORT AUGUST 2014 City Manager’s Monthly Report, August 2014

Customer Services  In the month of August, we processed 4,031 credit card payments for the month totaling $922,481.51. Human Resources  Held diversity and harassment training. Library  410 attended 50 programs for adults.  2,581 attended 17 programs for teens.  479 attended 17 programs for children.  30 volunteers completed 407 hours of service.  173 attended 43 programs/classes coordinated through the Job Center. Public Works  Working on CIP and additional funding for future street program and other projects. 2 City Manager’s Monthly Report, August 2014

CUSTOMER SERVICES WORK ORDERS PROCESSED Extensions of Credit 3,000 400 316 2,500 296 2,136 2,161 300 243 259 244 2,018 239 2,000 1,919 1,809 1,882 1,776 214 198 202 211 208 1,707 1,613 188 177 1,515 200 1,386 1,399 1,366 1,500 100 1,000 500 0 Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May - Jun- Jul- Aug- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 CUSTOMER PAYMENT USAGE CUTS FOR NON PAYMENT 80,000 $2,000,000 60,000 $1,600,000 34,019 $1,200,000 40,000 31,887 11,567 $800,000 20,000 4,592 12,315 3,984 $475,970 4,472 345 229 4,023 $349,052 $400,000 $159,543 $220,768 0 Drive-Thru Over the Mail, Drop Credit Cards Bank Drafts $- Window Counter Box 2015 YTD 2014YTD August 2014 August 2013 FYTD15 FYTD14 FY 2015 FY 2014 Major Program Updates Aug 2014 Aug 2013 Difference Year-to-Date Year-to-Date Number of Customers Served 20,329 23,704 (3,375) 48,650 50,456 Final Bills 818 809 9 1,567 1,637 Estimated Bills 208 189 19 421 351 Penalties Posted $ 13,833 $ 15,434 (1,601) $ 30,075 $ 34,285 Extensions of Credit - Amount Extended $ 57,669 $ 86,850 (29,180) $ 112,645 $ 140,633 Balance Transfers $ 3,236 $ 1,535 1,701 $ 4,287 $ 8,127 Utility Collections $ 27,253 $ 25,297 1,956 $ 33,819 $ 52,930 Special Assessments $ - $ - - $ - $ - Miscellaneous Billings $ 107,249 $ 31,903 75,346 $ 107,249 $ 221,282 CNP through Disconnect Collars $ - $ 37 (37) - 57 Court Cases - - - - - Tamperings - - - - - Taxes Levied $ 1,801,107 $ 1,642,359 158,748 $ 10,914,894 $ 10,886,433 Billing Adjustments $ (2,491) $ (2,892) 401 $ 281,141 $ 377 Total Taxes Collected $ 628,818 $ 684,269 (55,450) $ 10,026,237 $ 9,931,612 Taxes Outstanding $ 1,169,797 $ 955,199 214,599 $ 1,169,797 $ 955,199 Payments in Lieu $ 145,420 $ - 145,420 $ 239,610 $ 595 City Manager’s Monthly Report, August 2014 3

HUMAN RESOURCES August Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May June July August Category Total 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 * Caucasian 279 283 284 285 287 288 288 290 289 290 292 291 290 N/A * Minorities 54 54 56 55 56 57 57 58 58 58 58 58 58 N/A Hired 2 7 4 1 3 5 1 3 0 1 3 1 1 32 Terminated/Resigned/ 3 2 1 1 0 3 1 0 1 0 1 2 2 17 Retired/Other Transferred/Promoted 0 4 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 11 Jobs Posted 5 3 2 0 2 4 4 3 3 2 3 4 4 39 Workers Comp. Injuries 3 7 2 2 1 5 2 2 0 1 1 2 2 30 Workers Comp. Hours 62 384 110 48 120 116 0 128 125 51 130 86 160 1520 Insurance Claims 6 2 2 1 4 5 2 4 4 6 4 0 1 41 Full-time Employees: 330 Part-time Employees: 18 (4 Pitts Center, 1 Recreation, 12 Library, 1 Customer Service) -Numbers do not reflect, temporary, seasonal, relief fire dispatchers, committee or council members. Position Hired: Assistant Finance Director Retired/Transferred/Promoted: Inspector II to Fire Marshall, Police Officer (retired); Residential Assessment Technician (resigned) Positions Posted: Inspector I/II, Fire Marshal’s Office; Engineering & System Operations Superintendent; Library Page; Residential Assessment Technician Recruitment Information (Positions closed in August) Asian/ American In Out Position Total Female Male Unknown Black White Hispanic Pacific Indian/Alaskan Unknown Dover Dover Islander Native Motor Equipment Operator II 32 0 32 - 11 18 2 1 - - 17 15 Library Page 52 15 37 0 14 29 3 2 1 3 32 20 Inspector I/II 40 4 33 3 4 30 3 - - 3 15 25 Assistant City Manager 56 23 33 1 11 37 - 2 - 6 10 46 Unfilled/Open Positions by Department* Unfilled/Open Positions Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug By Department 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Electric 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 Public Works 20 16 15 15 14 13 13 13 13 11 10 11 11 Police 3 3 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 All Other Departments 6.5 6 7.5 6.5 5 6 5 5 5 4 2.5 4 4 Totals 33.5 29 28.5 27.5 25 24 24 23 24 21 18.5 20 22 *Not used for Budgeting Purposes ² The following has been updated to reflected the Fiscal 2014-15 Budget Electric: Electrical Engineer, (3) Lineman 1st Class, Engineering & System Operations Superintendent Public Works: Utility Maintenance Mechanic II/Wastewater, Operations -Construction Manager, Motor Equipment Operator III (Streets), (2) Motor Equipment Operators II (Grounds), Motor Equipment Operator III (Sanitation), Civil Engineer l, Nursery Worker II, Grounds Superintendent, Environmen- tal Scientist, Water Treatment Plant Operator Police: (2) Police Officer All Other Departments: Storekeeper Buyer I, part-time; Fire Dispatcher; Assistant City Manager; Library Page, part-time, Residential Assessment Techni- cian 4 City Manager’s Monthly Report, August 2014

HUMAN RESOURCES continued Workers Comp Injuries 20 15 10 5 0 Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Ja n- Feb- Ma r- Apr- Ma y- Jun- Jul - Aug- 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Electric Public Works Police Others Electric: 0 Public Works: 1 Police: 1 All Other Depts.: 0 Turnover Statistics 2010 2011 2012* 2013 * 2014 Total Turnover % 5.57 6.75 11.00 10.91 2.88 Termination Turnover % 0.27 1.08 0.29 1.47 0 Resignation Turnover % 2.12 4.05 5.21 5.01 1.15 Retirement Turnover % 3.18 1.62 5.50 4.42 1.73 * Healthcare cost sharing implemented ** Healthcare cost sharing implemented for DOE Average Employees 2010 2011 2012* 2013* 2014 Total Number of Employees Separating from Service 21 25 38 37 10 Average Number of Full-time Employees 362 356 333 325 331 Average Number of Part-time Employees 16 15 12 14 17 * Healthcare cost sharing implemented City Manager’s Monthly Report, August 2014 5

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Service Requests Resolved Citizen Action Center - Customers w/ New Issues 200 188 170 150 165 164 164 130 150 115 113 113 111 120 110 104 101 100 90 160 54 70 122 130 112 50 50 102 106 92 87 84 30 55 57 55 55 0 10 Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Programming Requests Completed Page Views - City of Dover Web Page 18 16 35,000 16 15 15 15 30,000 14 12 12 12 11 11 25,000 12 Pages Viewed 10 10 10 8 20,000 31,605 27,721 27,911 28,026 8 25,562 25,827 24,615 26,455 26,498 26,428 15,000 21,692 23,682 19,884 6 3 10,000 4 2 5,000 0 0 Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Aug - Sep - Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr - May- Jun- Jul- Aug - 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Current Performance Indicators Last Month Same Month Month Last Year iSeries Availability 100% 100% 100% Server Availability 100% 100% 100% AS/400 Connections (concurrent/authorized users) N/A N/A N/A PCs Supported 365 364 351 Scheduled PCs Replaced - - - Servers Supported 19 19 19 People Trained 11 12 7 Availability Statistics based on 7:00 AM until 5:00 PM Monday—Friday 6 City Manager’s Monthly Report, August 2014

LIBRARY Reference Transactions 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Adult Teen Children Aug 14 Adults – 1,706 Teens – 412 Children – 605 Circulation Aug 14 FYTD 15 Aug 13 FYTD 14 Dover residents 22,867 47,044 22,356 46,026 Ebooks 1,922 3,796 1,362 2,599 Kent residents* 14,403 31,289 16,666 36,333 Non-county residents 2,103 4,256 2,509 5,496 Registrations Dover residents 439 882 387 826 Kent residents* 37 99 162 311 Non-county residents 7 18 19 27 Other Visiting Patrons 28,279 55,398 28,829 57,309 Meeting Room Usage 1,215 2,602 2,196 3,936 Photocopier Usage 1,375 2,563 975 2,852 Computer Printing Usage 3,350 5,826 2,259 5,305 Computer Users 5,034 10,277 4,941 10,243 Wireless Computer Users 1,846 3,502 1,219 2,514 Holds (Total) 7,102 14,335 7,260 14,808 *Breakout of Kent County Residential Statistics Circulation Registrations Harrington: 188 Harrington: 0 Milford: 36 Milford: 2 Smyrna: 1,056 Smyrna: 8 Outside City Limits: 13,123 Outside City Limits: 27 Total Registered Users: (Card Holders) City: 24,690 Kent County: 12,818 Outside Kent County: 998 Other Points of Interest: Inter/Interlibrary: 45 items loaned out Technical services: 1,224 items added 41 items borrowed 1,352 items deleted Volunteers: 407 hours of service completed City Manager’s Monthly Report, August 2014 7

PUBLIC WORKS Administration Administrative review and inspection services continued on all residential and commercial developments. The following residential subdivisions are in various phases of construction: Oak Shadows Emerald Pointe Eden Hill (Residential) Patriot Village Clearview Meadows Village of Cannon Mill Sanitation Monthly Total Refuse (Tons) Sanitation Hours 1,500 1200 911 927 895 1000 1,000 790 855 875 873 835 827 777 673 679 699 800 551 562 510 518 600 500 411 315 348 238 263 400 171 173 146 146 127 146 171 168 205 166 200 41 54 - 0 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Bulk Collection Mechanized Hand Trash Container 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Collection Collection Repair/Delivery Bulk Automated Aug 14 Aug 13 AUGUST 14 FYTD 15 AUGUST 13 FYTD 14 Trips to DSWA Sandtown Landfill 181 378 237 466 Total Tonnage to DSWA 992.92 2,093.33 1,225.74 2,465.76 90-Gallon Containers Delivered 44 67 25 37 300-Gallon Containers Delivered 10 18 0 0 Total Man Hours-containers Delivered 41 73 45 71 CURBSIDE RECYCLING TOTAL # OF TOTAL # OF STATS HOUSEHOLDS ACCOUNTS WEIGHT/LBS. AVE. LBS. COLLECTED August 2014 20,961 8,958 292,060 15.68 8 City Manager’s Monthly Report, August 2014

PUBLIC WORKS continued Streets AUGUST 14 FYTD 15 AUGUST 13 FYTD 14 Signed Installed 39 86 97 111 Signs Repaired 13 23 15 21 Curbs Painted Yellow (feet) 316 599 120 150 New Post Installed 7 11 22 29 Storm Catch Basins Repaired 3 3 0 2 Storm Catch Basin Repairing (Hrs.) 44 44 0 1 Storm Catch Basins Cleaned 5 7 48 80 Storm Catch Basins Cleaning (Hrs.) 4 8 16 50 Hot Mix Patching (Tons) 6 6 0 0.50 Hot Mix Patching (Hrs.) 73 73 0 0 Cold Mix Patching Hrs.) 26 82 6 8 Concrete Work (Hrs) 27 35 75 191 Concrete Patching (Cubic Yards) 0 0 0 8 Ditch Work (Hrs). 0 0 0 0 Street and Alley Maintenance (Hrs) 67 168 47 143 Street Sweeping (Miles) 1,712 3,192 1,755 2,085 Street Sweeping (Cubic Yards) 342 690 354 354 Grounds Total Work Orders = 17 General = 7 Arborist = 10 Arborist Crew AUGUST 2014 AUGUST 2013 Trees Trimmed 17 61 Trees Removed 13 6 Stumps Removed 1 5  Mowed grass a good portion of the month  Trimmed multiple trees  Cut down multiple trees  Evaluate trees Beautification Crew  Weeded and tiled flower beds  Worked in greenhouse  Sprayed flower beds  Watered flower beds and hanging baskets Mowing Crew  Mowed grass at various city locations  66 hours of spraying  38 hours of spraying training Miscellaneous Projects  Beautify both ends of Silver Lake Bridge trimmed and cut down multiple trees along with vine removal and spraying. City Manager’s Monthly Report, August 2014 9

PUBLIC WORKS continued Geographic Information Systems (GIS)  Created and printed various posters for Economic Development Office, Public Works and Dover Public Library.  Attended HAZUS for Floods training at DTI to better learn how to use HAZUS to predict possible flood results.  Created and exported various reports for Public Works.  Worked on creating the Downtown Development District Boundary with Planning Diredctor.  Attended the Quarterly DGDC meeting as the City’s GIS representative.  Converted multiple documents from PDF to Word and vice versa for various members of the Public Works Department.  Created and maintained various GIS layers such as Parcels, Rentals, Curbside Recycling, Fleet Maintenance, Trash Notices, etc.  Created and printed various maps for the Public Works, Planning & Inspections, City Manager’s Office, Tax Assessor’s Office and Economic Development. Fleet and Facilities Management Fleet Maintenance PM Work Orders Completed: 10 Number of Tire Repairs: 9 Number of Road Repairs: 6.0 Other Work Orders: 45 Repair Hours: 105.5 Road Repair Hours: 6.0 Total Work Orders: 55 Fabrication Hours: 40 Misc. Hours: 4 PM Hours: 50 # Of Scheduled PM’s: 22 # Of Scheduled PM’s Completed: 4 Major Program Updates MEASURE August 2014 August 2013 DIFFERENCE 4 out of 22 18.18 % Fall is upon us and we are preparing for leaf season as well as snow in the upcoming win- ter months. This means the Fleet Shop will Fleet - Scheduled Preventative be spending several hours; even days work- Maintenance appointments be- 17 out of 30 ing on seasonal equipment to ensure opera- - 38.49% ing kept (Quantity and Percent- 56.67 % tions run smoothly. Please be patient, if we age) have to reschedule your vehicles PM, we will work you in ASAP. It is not our intention to put anyone’s vehicle on the back burner. The Fleet Shop is limited with space, so again please be patient. Facilities Maintenance Facilities - Routine work orders 16 out of 16 22 out of 23 completed within 5 days + 4.35 % 100 % 95.65% (Quantity and Percentage) Facilities - Emergency work or- 1 out of 1 7 out of 7 ders completed within 2 days 0% 100 % 100 % (Quantity and Percentage) 10 City Manager’s Monthly Report, August 2014

PUBLIC WORKS continued Water/Wastewater Water Production/Billed Consumption/Flow to Kent County 255000000 205000000 155000000 105000000 55000000 5000000 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Total Water Prod. Billed Consumpt. Total Flow to County City Readings ENGINEERING SUMMARY Major Program Updates AUGUST 2014 AUGUST 2013 DIFF FY15 YTD FY14 State and Federal Violations 0 violations 0 violations - - - Water Quality Complaints 9 7 +2 23 24 Plan Review Completed Within 11 plans 11 plans 0 22 23 30 days of Submission 100% 100% OPERATIONAL SUMMARY Task AUGUST 14 AUGUST 13 CURRENT FY Water Production - Daily Average 4,857,226 4,521,065 305,036,000 Average Field Response Time (goal is <30 minutes) 19.25 16.80 38.25 Water Mains Repaired 2 0 2 Water Service Lines Repaired 0 0 0 Wastewater Mains Repaired 0 0 0 Wastewater Service Lines Repaired 3 2 3 Sewer Lines Flushed - linear feet 179,290 154,760 368,286 Sewer Mains Videoed -linear feet 0 5,486 232 Total Fire Hydrants in Service 1,819 1,806 1,819 Total Water Meters in City Distribution System 14,246 14,139 14,246 City Manager’s Monthly Report, August 2014 11

PUBLIC UTILITIES Electric System Peak Total System Load 200 100,000 156.8 152.7 158.2 73,066 144.8 70,462 69,215 135.4 66,408 65,617 128.14 80,000 60,871 60,375 123.6 118.24 59,792 58,463 150 57,155 55,369 56,064 105.94 108.35 106.4 51,922 99.89 96.14 60,000 100 40,000 50 20,000 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Outages Customers of Gained/Lost 35 8,000 50 25 6,000 39 40 Outages Customers 15 4,000 30 18 20 15 5 2,000 11 10 7 5 5 5 7 2 4 3 4 -5 Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug 0 0 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Outages 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Outages: 7 Customers: 904 Electric Monthly Outage Report The annual outage goal will be less than 295 Controllable Outages Average Response Time minutes per customer, which is a Delaware Annual goal is less than 40 Goal is less than 30 minutes Standard. This will be measured by calculating the System Average Interruption Duration Index. Month Year-to-date Month Year-to-date FY 15 YTD FY 14 FY 13 3 11 18.0 Minutes 23.72 Minutes 67.84 50.74 56.8 AUG 15 AUG 14 FY15 YTD PROGRAM UPDATES Tree Trimming 198 331 535 Number of Oil Releases 2 1 2 Lost Time Accidents – All Electric Utility Divisions 0 0 0 New Services 11 7 15 Major Goals Completed in the Past Two Months 12 City Manager’s Monthly Report, August 2014

City Planner’s Monthly Report Planning, Inspections & Recreation AUGUST 2014 Planning, Inspections & Recreation Highlights  Tim Mullaney Jr. was appointed as Fire Marshal on August 11, 2014.  The Temporary Cer ficates of Occupancy for the new Dover High School were issued in late August allowing for the opening of the new school to students. The new Dover High School held its Dedica on Ceremony on August 16, 2014.  The new building for Serenity Place at 327 Mar n Street was completed and the Cer ficate of Occupancy issued. This replaced a previous building destroyed by fire.  The Recrea on Needs Assessment Survey was released to the public and posted on the Parks and Recrea on Facebook page and the City’s webpage.  Staff began work on the Downtown Development District applica on. A District boundary was reviewed and recommended for approval by the Parks, Recrea on and Community Enhance- ment Commi ee at a special mee ng on August 26, 2014. Personnel and Training  Tim Mullaney, Jr. was promoted from Inspector II/Deputy Fire Marshal to Inspector III/Fire Marshal effective August 4, 2014, with confirmation by City Council on August 11, 2014.  Ann Marie Townshend, Dawn Melson-Williams, and Mike McGregor attend a four-day course on “Managing Floodplain Development through the National Flood Insurance Program.” The training was conducted by FEMA and DNREC staff.  Intern Faith Spady, who joined the Planning Department in June, last day was on August 22, 2014 before returning back as a student at the University of Notre Dame.  Sherwanda Speaks attended the Food Bank of Delaware Kids Café After-School Meals Training pro- gram. Training focused on ensuring children have access to meals after the school day during the school year. Program eligibility, necessary facilities, record keeping, enrollment, and reporting forms were among the topics covered for the 2014-15 Kids Café program.

Planning, Inspections & Recreation Revenue FY '15 Budget FY '15 Actual Revenue Stream LOOKING FORWARD ….. Business License $1,460,000 $ 1,344,772 92% The following ac vi es are Trailer License $23,000 $ 13,226 58% planned for September and Building Permits $565,000 $ 92,709 16% will be reported in the Cert. of Occupancy $6,200 $ 1,630 26% September Monthly report: Public Occupancy $10,000 $ 350 4%  Amish Country Bike Lodging House $16,000 $ 28 0% Plumbing/Heating/Air $75,000 $ 10,272 14% Tour Sprinkler $35,000 $ 4,107 12%  Fireman’s Parade Rental Inspection Fee $345,000 $ 1,685 0%  Recrea on Needs As- Miscellaneous $30,000 $ 6,166 21% Fire Protection Fees $31,000 $ 7,320 24% sessment Workshops Vacant Building Reg. $60,000 $ 55,250 92%  Downtown Develop- ment District Total P&I Revenue $2,656,200 $ 1,537,513.89 58% Recreation $148,800 $ 22,324 15% PLANNING OFFICE The Planning Office is part of the review process for certain types of construction activity permits (Building Permits, Sign Permits, etc.) and Certificate of Occupancy permits. For August 2014, Planning Staff was in- volved with review of 73 Permits and 19 Certificates of Occupancy permits (2014 calendar year total of 637 Permits and COs compared to 626 for 2013). Planning Staff also reviews new applications for Business Li- censes and Rental Dwelling Permits. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Planning Staff continues to focus on the various implementation items identified in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan as amended.  On-going efforts of the Planning Office include research for future ordinance amendments.  The Planning Office is also involved in the following studies and projects: City Recreational Needs As- sessment, Restoring Central Dover Community Plan, and Transportation Improvement Districts.  The Planning Office presented information on the Certified Local Government (CLG) program to the Planning Commission and Historic District Commission in August. Staff is working on gathering the information for the Certified Local Government application.  The Planning Office received the Application Guidelines for the Delaware Downtown Development Districts program and has begun the research and data gathering for the Application submission.

 A proposed package of Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance for the Planning Neighborhood De- sign Option provisions related to buffers and bulk standards was discussed with the Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee of City Council on August 11, 2014. The series of Amend- ments known as Ordinance #2014-18 began the formal review process with the First Reading at City Council on August 25 , 2014 and was referred to the Planning Commission for review in September. (MI-14-12)  A proposed Ordinance #2014-19 to amend Dover Code, Chapter 98 to make it unlawful to discharge glass clippings into the street, sidewalk, stormdrain, or water courses was reviewed by the Legislative, Finance & Administration Committee on August 11, 2014 with First Reading at City Council on August 25, 2014. Final Action on the Ordinance is proposed in September. (MI-14-13)  A proposed Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the Site Development Plan review procedures as related to increases in impervious surfaces was discussed with the Legislative, Finance & Administration Committee on August 11, 2014. The Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance known as Or- dinance #2014-20 began the formal review process with the First Reading at City Council on August 25, 2014 and was referred to the Planning Commission for review in September. (MI-14-14) New Dover High School Project (C-10-05/S-11-18) Construction activities related to completing the site improvements continue at the new Dover High School project site along with the associated inspec- tions of the building and site. The sidewalk improve- ment project for the north side of Route 8 is almost complete and the HAWK signal at the East Entrance has been installed. During the month of August, the Planning Office completed weekly inspections asso- ciated with the Certificate of Occupancy process re- sulting in the issuance of a series of Temporary Cer- tificates of Occupancy with conditions and limita- tions on the authorized use of the high school build- ing and the stadium and athletic field areas. By the end of August, the project with some aspects still under construction was the subject of two Tempo- rary Certificates of Occupancy. With a TCO of 8/21/14, use and occupancy of the high school building was allowed for the opening of the school to students. A separate TCO with conditions was issued 8/29/2014 for the stadium and athletic field areas as areas remained under construction and will be subject to future in- spections. Staff will conduct the next series of inspections at the end of September. Project work remains for the baseball/softball field areas, eastern areas of the site, tree plantings, and other site stabilization work. During August Staff assisted in educational outreach regarding the HAWK signal, work to ensure the avail- ability of accessible pedestrian pathways from Village of Westover and Village of Cannon Mill to the school property, and attended the Dedication Ceremony on August 16th. Construction Activity Planning Staff conducted a Pre-Construction meeting for the Leander Lakes Apartment complex project on August 7, 2014. The 240 unit apartment complex will be located south of Forrest Avenue/Route 8 and west of Dover High Drive. The project includes the construction of the next segment of Dover High Drive to con- nect to Tribbitt Street. Site work on the stormwater management ponds and infrastructure began in late Au- gust.

 Permits were issued in early August for the site improvements to create a parking lot associated with the conversion of the building at 6 South State Street to office space. The Site Plan and Architectural Review Certification for the project had previously been reviewed by the Historic District Commission and the Planning Commission (HI-14-03 and S-14-11). A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued August 28th.  The Planning Staff continues to participate in bi-weekly coordination conference calls with Calpine re- garding the Garrison Energy Center project at 450 Garrison Oak Drive (Lot 7 of the Garrison Oak Tech- nical Park). The project construction is well underway for the Garrison Energy Center Phase 1(S-12-17). In August, the Planning Office received an Administrative Site Plan (S-14-20) for the addition of a Fuel Oil Tank; the proposal remains under review with the technical review agencies.  Site construction activities continue at the Uzin Utz Manufacturing facility at 200 Garrison Oak Drive (Lot 12 of the Garrison Oak Technical Park. (S-13-20) BOARD AND COMMISSION ACTIVITY Planning Commission The Planning Commission met on August 18, 2014. The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for September 15, 2014.  S-14-16 Dover Family Cosmetic Dental at 1084-1086 South State Street - Moved to approve a Minor Lot Line Adjustment to consolidate two (2) parcels to form a single 23,214 S.F. parcel and to approve a Site Development Plan for the development of a dental office building. Also approved was a waiver for partial elimination of curbing.  S-14-17 Office at 970 North State Street - Moved to approve a Site Development Plan to permit conver- sion of an existing 2,199 S.F. +/- residential structure to office use and associated site improvements on a 18,047 S.F. +/- parcel. Approval includes two waivers: one for elimination of upright curbing and the oth- er for the elimination of landscape buffering requirement for the parking lot. Board of Adjustment The Board of Adjustment met on August 20, 2014. The next regular scheduled meeting of the Board of Adjustment is scheduled for September 17, 2014. The following applications were considered:  V-14-09 Variances at 10 Maggies Way—Variance approval was granted by the Board of Adjustment for parking as related to the definition of “floor area” in Article 12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Historic District Commission The Historic District Commission met on August 21, 2014. The next Historic District Com- mission meeting is scheduled for September 18, 2014. There were no new applications, but there was an update on the following application:  HI-11-01 Building at 326 West Loockerman Street: Building Demolition — Approval was granted that no fence be required for the site stabilization following demolition of the building as stated previously in the motion back on February 17, 2011.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM CDBG FY14 Projects  Homeownership Assistance Program Five (5) clients have been approved for the Dover First Start Program and are mortgage ready. Each cli- ent has been approved for $20,000 in down payment assistance to purchase eligible properties in the City of Dover. Two (2) clients have purchased properties using the Dover First Start Program.  Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing CDBG funds will be used for operations costs for the shelter.  NCALL Research CDBG funds will be utilized for pre-purchase homeownership counseling services for up to ten (10) Dover residents.  Elizabeth W. Murphey School CDBG funds will be used for the roof replacements for one building on the campus that services children that are at risk for homelessness. This project is currently under review by the State Historic Preserva- tion Office.  Restoring Central Dover Initiative Interface Studio, the consultants selected to complete the revitalization plan to restore central Dover are pres- ently working on the Draft Plan. The Draft Plan will include feedback from the recent public meeting and open house, in addition to ideas that will be integrated into the plan by the Steering Committee. Members of the Steering Committee will be assembled into three working groups in order to prioritize the ideas for the plan. The Planning Staff will be part of Positive Development Working Group and will focus on the follow- ing topics:  Strengthen Existing Housing Stock  Support New Housing and Mixed Use Development  Work on developing Open Space and Green Infrastructure Serenity Place –327 Mar n Street

Dangerous Buildings, Vacant Buildings & Demolitions  200 N. West Street—The owner was granted their request for a use variance by the City Board of Adjustment on January 27th. Permits have been obtained for renovations and a privacy fence.  409 South DuPont Highway—Notice was sent to the owner to have repairs made or the property will go forward to City Council on April 14, 2014 to have Council declare it dan- gerous. The owner of the property has obtained a structural engineers report and has sub- mitted plans to renovate the structure.  12 N. New Street— The structure was demolished in late July.  640 Nimitz Road—15 day notice sent to owners to repair or demolish the structure by June 8, 2014. On June 25th, Council declared the structure dangerous and ordered the property owner to repair or demolish the structure by July 25, 2014. The asbestos survey has been scheduled for the first week of August.  238 N. New Street—15 day notice sent to owners to repair or demolish the structure by June 8, 2014. On June 25th, Council declared the structure dangerous and ordered the property owner to repair or demolish the structure by July 25, 2014. The asbestos survey has been scheduled for the second week of August.  803 Westview Terrace—A lien search has been ordered for the property. Notice sent to all lien holders to make the pool safe or the City will have it demolished. On August 25th, the Dover City Council declared the pool dangerous and ordered it repaired or demolished by September 25th.  231 Mifflin Rd—A lien search has been ordered for the property. Notice sent to all lien holders to make the pool safe or the City will have it demolished. On August 25th, the Dover City Council declared the pool dangerous and ordered it repaired or demolished by September 25th.  Vacant Buildings—During the month of August, eighteen (18) additional buildings were registered as vacant, and $3,500.00 in vacant building registration fees were collected.

Code Enforcement Activity—AUGUST Case Type # cases current # cases % staff ini ated % staff ini ated month YTD current month YTD No valid Rental Permit 5 146 80% 96% No valid Building Permit 8 61 75% 75% Tall grass and weeds 139 797 87% 87% Unregistered vehicle 5 26 60% 85% Abandoned vehicle 8 66 63% 76% Annual Housing Inspec on 15 251 47% 90% Property Maintenance – 65 438 62% 75% Exterior Electric Termina on 18 214 94% 97% Dover Code of Ordinances 96 490 66% 70% Zoning 14 77 79% 74% Total Cases 373 2566 Total # of Inspec ons For 401 Month

Fire Marshal’s Office, Building Inspections & Licensing Summary LIFE SAFETY Inspec ons AUG 14 FYTD 15 AUG 13 FYTD 14 Annual Fire/Life Safety Inspec ons 14 176 49 377 Fire/Code/DCO Complaints 38 206 28 498 Inspec on Deficiencies from AFI 93 354 100 280 C/O & Acceptance Tests 8 23 12 66 Administra ve Walk Thru 11 11 - - Accidental $21, 500 $41,500 $32,500 $132,450.00 Incendiary $100.00 $100.00 $8,000 $34,600.00 Undetermined $0 0 $40,500 $271,000.00 PERMITTING AND LICENSING Permits Issued AUG 14 FYTD 15 AUG 13 FYTD 14 Administra ve Permit 5 18 1 3 Building Addi on/Renova on Permits 31 259 38 75 Building Permits 15 121 17 37 Demoli on Permits 3 43 5 13 Fence Permits 17 80 5 19 Fire Preven on Permits 8 51 11 22 Mechanical Permits 26 197 17 47 Plumbing Permits 20 176 32 62 Sign Permits 23 158 29 305 Swimming Pool Permits 0 14 1 5 Business Licenses 129 2126 254 1037 Merchant Licenses 41 364 75 245 Contractor Licenses 101 1213 252 681 Lodging House Licenses 0 44 0 0 Mobile Homes 51 319 61 186 Public Occupancy 11 335 4 11 Rental Dwelling 24 2927 27 50 BUILDING INSPECTIONS Inspec ons AUG 14 FYTD 15 AUG 13 FYTD 14 Building 351 680 354 651 Plumbing/Mechanical 294 549 278 550 Cer ficate of Occupancy 19 31 19 30

Fire Marshal’s Office—At a Glance Timothy P. Mullaney Jr. was appointed the Fire Mar- shal for the City of Dover on August 11, 2014. Mr. Mullaney took over the reins from Re red Fire Mar- shal David J. Truax who served in the Fire Marshal’s Office with the City of Dover for 24 years. (Pictured from le to right; Deputy Fire Marshal Jason Osika, Fire Marshal Timothy Mullaney Jr., Code Enforcement Officer/ Deputy Fire Marshal Ma hew Brown and Re red Fire Marshal David Truax.) Recreation Division Enrollment Summary August 2013 verses August 2014 400 300 200 FY14 100 FY15 0 General RecreationSports Trips Leagues Camps Category FY14 FY15 General Recrea on 246 187 Sports 95 60 Trips 0 0 Leagues 0 0 Camps 376 319

Revenue Breakdown: August 2014 verses August 2013 General Recreation General Recreation Sports Sports Trips Trips Leagues Leagues Building & Field Rentals Building & Field Rentals Camps Camps General Recreation 1,826 General Recreation 1,886.50 Sports 645 Sports 600 Trips 0 Trips 70 Leagues 4,080 Leagues 5,650 Building & Field Rentals 3,100 Building & Field Rentals 1,780.45 Camps 3,170 Camps 1,010

John W. Pitts Recreation Center – AUGUST 2014 Total Program Attendance Facility Usage By The Hour 14,000 1,000 12,000 800 10,000 8,000 600 6,000 400 4,000 200 2,000 0 0 Aug 13 Aug 13 Sept 13 Oct 13 Sept 13 Oct 13 Nov 13 Dec 13 Nov 13 Dec 13 Jan 14 Feb 14 Jan 14 Feb 14 Mar 14 Apr 14 Mar 14 Apr 14 May 14 June 14 May 14 June 14 July 14 Aug 14 July 14 Aug 14 Facility Usage By The Hour AUG 14 FYTD 15 AUG 13 FYTD 14 Open Gym 314.5 548 360 579.5 Fitness Classes 41.25 85 44 88.5 Leagues 29 99 50 87 Camps 299.5 731.5 177 555 Sports Classes 35.5 49 14 26 Meetings & Rentals 72 88.5 17 26 Enrichment Classes 0 0 6.5 8.5 Total Facility Usage Hours 791.75 1,601 668.5 1,370.5 Daily Program Attendance** AUG 14 FYTD 15 AUG 13 FYTD 14 Total 3,142 7,223 2,337 5,990 Open Gym 275 535 380 722 Fitness Classes 300 557 244 697 Leagues 1,180 3,550 1,163 2,756 Camps 505 1,141 290 1,308 Sports Classes 149 310 98 181 Meetings & Rentals 733 1,130 140 299 Enrichment Classes 0 0 22 27 Since our opening in late April 2008, we have had 327,972 guests at the John W. Pitts Recreation Center. August Open Gym Registrations and Packages Sold Packages Sold: July. MTD YTD FYTD Daily: 9 $27 15 $45 Individual Quarterly: 1 $15 2 $30 Individual Annual: 0 0 0 0 Family Quarterly: 1 $30 1 $30 Family Annual: 0 0_ 0 __ 0__ Revenue: $72 $105

CITY OF DOVER FINANCE AND PROCUREMENT & INVENTORY DEPARTMENTS JULY 2014 - MONTHLY BUDGET REPORTS PLEASE NOTE – THIS REPORT PROVIDES TOP LINE INFORMATION ON THE OPERATING FUNDS. IF YOU WOULD LIKE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

CITY OF DOVER ACTIVITY REPORTS JULY 2014 SSS FINANCE DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY LEVELS FY14 YTD FY15 YTD BANK TRENDS Number of Deposits Made (Hand, ACH & Wire, Lockbox) 566 658 Total Amount of All Deposits $ 19,873,892 $ 15,273,579 PAYROLL Hours % Amount Hours % Amount Gross wages per registers 65,662 100.0% $ 1,492,799 68,081 100.0% $ 1,567,440 Wages and Hours Worked Regular 55,375 84.3% $ 1,177,403 54,078 79.4% $ 1,151,705 All over time 2,684 4.1% $ 116,132 3,076 4.5% $ 127,282 Other Paid or Unpaid Wages and Hours Vacation 5,075 7.7% $ 137,509 5,329 7.8% $ 148,388 Sick 993 1.5% $ 25,691 1,699 2.5% $ 42,000 Terminal Leave - Retiree Vacation/Sick Payout 71 0.1% $ 2,072 1,473 2.2% $ 41,056 Comp Time 658 1.0% $ 18,246 942 1.4% $ 26,741 Personal 73 0.1% $ 1,795 185 0.3% $ 5,727 Leave Without Pay 519 0.8% $ - 480 0.7% $ - Other (description below) 215 0.3% $ 13,951 820 1.2% $ 24,541 Other includes: pay adjustments, military differential pay, training, committee meetings, worker compensation tracking/adjustments, etc. Other Activity Number of Pay Periods 2 2 Number of Payroll Checks & Direct Deposits Issued 714 745 Number of Pension Checks Issued 259 254 Total Pension Benefits Paid - Defined Benefit Plan $ 429,010 $ 432,177 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Number of Check Vouchers 270 341 Number of EFT Vouchers 85 114 Vouchers Dollar Amount Disbursed $ 2,380,577 $ 2,242,147 PROCUREMENT & INVENTORY ACTIVITY LEVELS Contingency & Warehouse Stock Items on Hand with No Usage $2,700,000 $730 $2,600,000 $630 $2,500,000 Total Dollar Value $2,400,000 $530 $2,300,000 Thousands $430 $2,200,000 $330 $2,100,000 $2,000,000 $230 $130 Series2 Series3 $30 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Value: $2,594,825 Line Items: 1,453 Series1 Series2 Series3 Electric: $620,933 Water: $30,041 General: $34,965 Fuel Use Unleaded: 11,097.0 gallons Diesel: 7,393.0 gallons Total Cost: $ 56,370

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – July 2014 General Fund Summary 8% Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 3,393,000 $ - $ 3,393,000 0.0% Revenues Court of Chancery Fees 1,023,000 - 1,023,000 0.0% Fines & Police Revenues 1,288,800 192,750 1,096,050 15.0% Franchise Fees 636,000 - 636,000 0.0% Grants 623,500 - 623,500 0.0% Intrafund Services 4,863,000 265,465 4,597,535 5.5% Library & Recreation Revenues 670,400 15,821 654,579 2.4% Licenses & Permits 2,814,200 1,493,253 1,320,947 53.1% Property Taxes (Includes BID Revenue) (1) 11,099,200 10,748,565 350,635 96.8% Miscellaneous Revenues 93,900 (268) 94,168 -0.3% Sanitation Revenues 2,595,600 214,676 2,380,924 8.3% Garrison Farm Rent Revenue 101,400 14,807 86,593 14.6% Transfers-In from Special Funds & Utilities Municipal Street Aid Fund 663,900 - 663,900 0.0% Civil Traffic Penalties 500,000 - 500,000 0.0% Transfer Taxes 1,250,000 82,442 1,167,558 6.6% Verizon, Contingency and CI Reserves 4,000 - 4,000 0.0% Police Grants 124,000 - 124,000 0.0% Water/Wastewater Fund 500,000 - 500,000 0.0% Electric Fund 10,000,000 - 10,000,000 0.0% Total Revenues 38,850,900 13,027,511 25,823,389 33.5% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 42,243,900 $ 13,027,511 $ 29,216,389 30.8% Expenditures City Clerk & Council $ 489,800 $ 24,966 $ 464,834 5.1% Mayor, City Manager & Human Resources 1,047,100 44,402 1,002,698 4.2% Police & Police Extra Duty 14,698,600 825,350 13,873,250 5.6% Public Services 4,551,700 285,919 4,265,781 6.3% Engineering 192,600 95 192,505 0.0% Procurement & Inventory, Facilities Mgmt., Vehicle Maint. 1,990,100 120,751 1,869,349 6.1% Planning & Inspections 2,192,400 127,585 2,064,815 5.8% Finance, Info Tech & Customer Services 2,716,100 193,747 2,522,353 7.1% Library & Recreation 2,099,500 132,018 1,967,482 6.3% Fire Department 716,100 20,820 695,280 2.9% Assessor 309,500 20,711 288,789 6.7% Contribution to DDP 70,000 - 70,000 0.0% Miscellaneous Grant Expense 25,000 - 25,000 0.0% Other Employment Expenses 500,000 - 500,000 0.0% Insurance 724,800 1,186 723,614 0.2% OPEB - Retiree’s Health Care Contribution 1,636,500 - 1,636,500 0.0% Police Pension Trust Contribution - State Grant 500,000 - 500,000 0.0% Appropriation to Police Pension Fund 655,000 - 655,000 0.0% Street Lights 774,500 64,811 709,689 8.4% Debt Service 708,600 458,176 250,424 64.7% Transfers Out Capital Projects Fund 2,196,000 - 2,196,000 0.0% Total Expenditures 38,843,900 2,320,537 36,523,363 6.0% Budget Balance - Working Capital 3,400,000 - 3,400,000 0.0% Total Budget Balance & Expenditures $ 42,243,900 $ 2,320,537 $ 39,923,363 5.5% Reserve Balances Contingency $ 467,900 $ 467,886 (1) Property Taxes are the taxes billed and not cash received. The outstanding receivable balance as of 7/31/14 is $1,547,061 as compared to $1,720,053 in July 2013.

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – July 2014 Water/Wastewater Fund Summary 8% Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance - Water $ 658,400 $ - $ 658,400 0.0% Beginning Balance - Wastewater $ (98,500) $ - $ (98,500) 0.0% Beginning Balance - Kent County Treatment $ 155,000 $ - $ 155,000 0.0% 714,900 - 714,900 0.0% Revenues Water Fees 4,616,400 446,718 4,169,682 9.7% Wastewater Fees 3,706,800 331,572 3,375,228 8.9% Kent County Treatment Fees 2,902,600 261,714 2,640,886 9.0% Ground Water Inflow Adjustment 1,862,500 161,021 1,701,479 8.6% Water Tank Leases 331,900 3,084 328,816 0.9% Miscellaneous Service Fee 179,600 6,176 173,424 3.4% Impact Fees - Water 472,700 12,600 460,100 2.7% Impact Fees - Wastewater 427,900 11,400 416,500 2.7% Total Revenues 14,500,400 1,234,285 13,266,115 8.5% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 15,215,300 $ 1,234,285 $ 13,981,015 8.1% Expenses Water/Wastewater Operating Divisions Engineering & Inspection $ 500,900 $ 24,234 $ 476,666 4.8% Water 485,300 29,531 455,769 6.1% Water Treatment Plant 1,576,900 86,447 1,490,453 5.5% Wastewater 974,100 47,211 926,889 4.8% Construction 252,500 12,300 240,200 4.9% Kent County Treatment 3,655,000 304,583 3,350,417 8.3% Intrafund Service Fees 1,354,900 73,805 1,281,095 5.4% OPEB - Retiree's Health Care Contributions 200,000 - 200,000 0.0% Debt Service 1,152,000 43,116 1,108,884 3.7% Other Employment Expenses 17,700 - 17,700 0.0% Transfers Out General Fund 500,000 - 500,000 0.0% Water I & E Fund 1,200,000 - 1,200,000 0.0% Wastewater I & E Fund 1,800,000 - 1,800,000 0.0% Total Expenses 13,669,300 621,227 13,048,073 4.5% Budget Balances Budget Balance - Working Capital - Water 1,020,100 - 1,020,100 0.0% Budget Balance - Working Capital - WW (739,200) - (739,200) 0.0% Budget Balance-Working Capital - KSA 1,265,100 - 1,265,100 0.0% Total Budget Balances 1,546,000 - 1,546,000 0.0% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 15,215,300 $ 621,227 $ 14,594,073 4.1% Reserve Balances Contingency-Water $ 107,700 $ 104,597 Contingency-Wastewater $ 194,800 $ 189,138 Impact Fee Reserve - Sewer $ 1,552,300 $ 2,772,717 Impact Fee Reserve - Water $ 203,900 $ 199,909 Bond Coverage Ratio (Covenant 1.20) 3.23 6.84

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – July 2014 Electric Revenue Fund Summary 8% Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 9,253,600 $ - $ 9,253,600 0.0% Revenues Sales to Customers 78,043,000 7,284,126 70,758,874 9.3% Utility Tax 1,296,900 118,631 1,178,269 9.1% Weyandt Hall Rents 200,000 12,214 187,786 6.1% Miscellaneous Revenues 754,600 55,270 699,330 7.3% Interest Earned 12,000 682 11,318 5.7% Transfer from Rate Stabilization 2,000,000 - 2,000,000 0.0% Total Revenues 82,306,500 7,470,923 74,835,577 9.1% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 91,560,100 $ 7,470,923 $ 84,089,177 8.2% Expenses Power Supply & Generation Hedged Energy $ 21,823,000 $ 2,795,192 $ 19,027,808 12.8% Power Supply Management 996,000 83,000 913,000 8.3% Capacity Charges 9,958,900 808,908 9,149,992 8.1% Dover Sun Park Energy 2,067,600 - 2,067,600 0.0% Solar Renewal Energy Credits 378,600 - 378,600 0.0% PJM Charges - Energy 11,499,800 1,385,223 10,114,577 12.0% PJM Charges - Transmission & Fees 7,234,100 472,210 6,761,890 6.5% Total Power Supply 53,958,000 5,544,533 48,413,467 10.3% Plant Operations 6,141,100 622,716 5,518,384 10.1% Generation Fuels 1,611,100 603,778 1,007,322 37.5% Capacity Credits (8,881,500) (725,759) (8,155,741) 8.2% PJM Spot Market Energy (2,232,800) (54,637) (2,178,163) 2.4% PJM Credits (486,700) (1,180,000) 693,300 242.4% Total Generation (3,848,800) (733,902) (3,114,898) 19.1% Total Power Supply & Plant 50,109,200 4,810,631 45,298,569 9.6% Electric Operating Divisions: Transmission/Distribution 4,028,700 197,181 3,831,519 4.9% Electrical Engineering 1,370,900 58,804 1,312,096 4.3% Administration 636,600 24,927 611,673 3.9% Meter Reading 267,600 22,625 244,975 8.5% Systems Operations 686,300 38,758 647,542 5.6% Intrafund Services 3,508,100 191,660 3,316,440 5.5% Utility Tax 1,296,900 118,631 1,178,269 9.1% OPEB - Retirees Health Care Contribution 513,300 - 513,300 0.0% Interest on Deposits 20,000 1,512 18,488 7.6% Green Energy Payment to DEMEC 130,000 11,974 118,026 9.2% Accounts Receivable Write-Offs 200,000 - 200,000 0.0% Post Retirement Benefit Fund 1,009,800 - 1,009,800 0.0% Other Employee Expenses 54,200 - 54,200 0.0% Contractual Services RFP's 246,800 14,549 232,251 5.9% Debt Service 3,297,000 284,246 3,012,754 8.6% Transfers Out: General Fund 10,000,000 - 10,000,000 0.0% Electric Improvement & Extension Fund 4,750,000 - 4,750,000 0.0% Inventory Reserve 175,000 - 175,000 Total Expenses 82,300,400 5,775,498 76,524,902 7.0% Budget Balance - Working Capital 9,259,700 - 9,259,700 0.0% Total Budget Balance & Expenses $ 91,560,100 $ 5,775,498 $ 85,784,602 6.3% Reserve Balances Contingency Reserve $ 826,000 $ 818,050 Insurance Reserve $ 743,600 $ 736,476 Rate Stabilization Reserve $ 8,583,000 $ 10,451,880 Bond Coverage Ratio (Covenant 1.25) 1.82 7.23 Megawatt Hours Sold & Purchased

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – July 2014 General Capital Project Fund Summary 8% Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance - Projects $ 117,100 $ - $ 117,100 0.0% Revenues State Grant - Other 153,000 - 153,000 0.0% Interest Earnings - 3,541 (3,541) 0.0% Transfer from General Fund for Projects 2,196,000 - 2,196,000 0.0% Miscellaneous Receipts 918,300 - 918,300 0.0% Transfer from Parkland Reserve 39,000 39,000 - 100.0% Subtotal Revenues 3,306,300 42,541 3,263,759 Loan Proceeds - Street Projects & City Hall (1) 2,661,100 - 2,661,100 0.0% Subtotal Library Project Receipts 2,661,100 - 2,661,100 0.0% Total Revenues 5,967,400 42,541 5,924,859 0.7% Total Beginning Balance & Revenue $ 6,084,500 $ 42,541 $ 6,041,959 0.7% Expenditures Fire $ 827,300 $ 145,614 $ 681,686 17.6% Grounds Maintenance 68,100 - 68,100 0.0% Recreation 185,000 - 185,000 0.0% Police 499,100 - 499,100 0.0% Streets 3,956,400 134,691 3,821,709 3.4% Sanitation 256,500 - 256,500 0.0% Loan Issuance Costs 75,000 - 75,000 0.0% Transfer to Parkland Reserve 100,000 100,000 - 100.0% Total Expenditures 5,967,400 380,305 5,587,095 6.4% Budget Balance - Projects 117,100 - 117,100 0.0% Total Budget Balance & Expenditures $ 6,084,500 $ 380,305 $ 5,704,195 6.3% Reserve Balances Capital Asset Replacement Reserve $ 512,300 $ 509,684 Parkland/Recreation $ 200,800 $ 279,382

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – July 2014 Water/Wastewater Improvement & Extension Fund Summary 8% Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance - Water $ 1,021,200 $ - $ 1,021,200 0.0% Beginning Balance - Wastewater $ 1,060,000 $ - $ 1,060,000 0.0% Revenues Interest Earned 25,000 9,779 15,221 39.1% Transfer from Operating Fund for Water 1,200,000 - 1,200,000 0.0% Transfer from Operating Fund for Wastewater 1,800,000 - 1,800,000 0.0% Transfer from Impact Fee Reserve - Wastewater 1,315,600 - 1,315,600 0.0% Total Revenues 4,340,600 9,779 4,330,821 0.2% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 6,421,800 $ 9,779 $ 6,412,021 0.2% Expenses Water $ 1,336,900 $ - $ 1,336,900 0.0% Wastewater 3,273,200 - 3,273,200 0.0% Water Treatment Plant 38,100 - 38,100 0.0% Total Expenses 4,648,200 - 4,648,200 0.0% Budget Balance - Working Capital - Water 858,700 - 858,700 0.0% Budget Balance - Working Capital - Wastewater 914,900 - 914,900 0.0% Total Budget Balances 1,773,600 - 1,773,600 0.0% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 6,421,800 $ - $ 6,421,800 0.0% Reserve Balances Capital Asset Replacement - Water $ 522,700 $ 507,809 Capital Asset Replacement - Wastewater $ 521,600 $ 506,647

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – July 2014 Electric Improvement & Extension Fund Summary 8% Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 3,362,200 $ - $ 3,362,200 0.0% Revenues Interest Earnings 24,800 5,457 19,343 22.0% Transfer from Electric Revenue Fund 4,750,000 - 4,750,000 0.0% General Service Billing 250,000 65,890 184,110 26.4% Total Revenues 5,024,800 71,347 4,953,453 1.4% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 8,387,000 $ 71,347 $ 8,315,653 0.9% Expenses Electric Generation $ 2,240,000 $ - $ 2,240,000 0.0% Transmission/Distribution 1,033,000 59,244 973,756 5.7% Electrical Engineering 1,663,100 10,259 1,652,841 0.6% Total Expenses 4,936,100 69,503 4,866,597 1.4% Budget Balance - Working Capital (Unaudited) 3,450,900 - 3,450,900 0.0% Total Budget Balance & Expenses $ 8,387,000 $ 69,503 $ 8,317,497 0.8% Reserve Balances Depreciation Reserve $ 9,998,200 $ 9,901,859 Future Capacity Reserve $ 10,148,700 $ 10,051,041 City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – July 2014 Community Transportation Improvement Fund 8% Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 78,900 $ - $ 78,900 0.0% Revenues Grants Revenue 500,000 - 500,000 0.0% Interest Earned 500 24 476 4.8% Total Revenues 500,500 24 500,476 0.0% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 579,400 $ 24 $ 579,376 0.0% Expenses Program Expenses - Del Dot $ 500,000 $ - $ 500,000 0.0% Total Expenses 500,000 - 500,000 0.0% Budget Balance - Working Capital 79,400 - 79,400 0.0% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 579,400 $ - $ 579,400 0.0%

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – July 2014 Police Grant Funds 8% Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 77,200 $ - $ 77,200 0.0% Revenues Grants Received 339,000 563 338,437 0.2% Interest Earned - 51 (51) 0.0% Total Revenues 339,000 614 338,386 0.2% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 416,200 $ 614 $ 415,586 0.1% Expenses Program Expenses/Supplies $ 156,000 $ 8,265 $ 147,735 5.3% Computer Hardware 50,000 - 50,000 0.0% Telephone/Fax 15,000 - 15,000 0.0% Training/Conference/Food/Travel 32,000 - 32,000 0.0% Consulting/Audit Fees 1,000 - 1,000 0.0% Contractual services 6,000 - 6,000 0.0% Operating Transfers - Out 124,000 - 124,000 0.0% Total Expenses 384,000 8,265 375,735 2.2% Budget Balance - Working Capital (Unaudited) 32,200 - 32,200 0.0% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 416,200 $ 8,265 $ 407,935 2.0%

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – July 2014 Library Grant Fund 8% Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 17,300 $ - $ 17,300 0.0% Revenues Grants Received 274,100 - 274,100 0.0% Total Revenues 274,100 - 274,100 0.0% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 291,400 $ - $ 291,400 0.0% Expenses Program Expenses/Supplies-State Grants $ 28,000 $ 3,295 $ 24,705 11.8% Office Supplies 24,000 2,677 21,323 11.2% Printing/Duplicating 8,900 - 8,900 0.0% Postage 100 - 100 0.0% Books 128,900 - 128,900 0.0% Furniture 2,000 2,753 (753) 137.7% Audio Visual Supplies 74,000 1,323 72,677 1.8% Training/Conference/Food/Travel 3,500 490 3,010 14.0% Office Equipment/Repairs & Maintenance 2,000 1,811 189 90.6% Other Equipment - Purchases 2,700 - 2,700 0.0% Total Expenses 274,100 12,349 261,751 4.5% Budget Balance - Working Capital 17,300 - 17,300 0.0% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 291,400 $ 12,349 $ 279,051 4.2% City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – July 2014 CJC Grants/Aid 8% Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Revenues Grants Received 31,800 - 31,800 0.0% Total Revenues 31,800 - 31,800 0.0% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 31,800 $ - $ 31,800 0.0% Expenses Contractual Services $ 31,800 $ 2,650 $ 29,150 8.3% Budget Balance - Working Capital (Unaudited) - - - 0.0% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 31,800 $ 2,650 $ 29,150 8.3%

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – July 2014 After School Program/Substance Abuse Prevention Fund 8% Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 41,000 $ - $ 41,000 0.0% Revenues Grants Received 55,600 7,008 48,593 12.6% Recreation Revenue 33,000 1,975 31,025 6.0% Total Revenues 88,600 8,983 79,618 10.1% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 129,600 $ 8,983 $ 120,618 6.9% Expenses Temporary Help/Benefits $ 54,000 $ 4,602 $ 49,398 8.5% Program Expenses/Supplies 55,600 3,426 52,174 6.2% Total Expenses 109,600 8,028 101,572 7.3% Budget Balance - Working Capital (Unaudited) 20,000 - 20,000 0.0% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 129,600 $ 8,028 $ 121,572 6.2% City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – July 2014 CDBG Fund 8% Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Revenues Grants Received 235,000 - 235,000 0.0% NSP Grant Revenue - - - 0.0% Interest Earnings - 14 (14) 0.0% Total Revenues 235,000 14 234,986 0.0% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 235,000 $ 14 $ 234,986 0.0% Expenses Current Year Closing Cost/Down Payment Program $ 102,800 $ - $ 102,800 0.0% Current year Dover Interfaith Ministry 27,500 - $ 27,500 0.0% Current Year Elizabeth W Murphy School 50,000 - $ 50,000 0.0% Current Year NCALL Research Inc. 7,700 - $ 7,700 0.0% Current Year Salaries 47,000 - $ 47,000 0.0% Total Expenses 235,000 - 235,000 0.0% Budget Balance - Working Capital - - - 0.0% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 235,000 $ - $ 235,000 0.0%

CITY OF DOVER FINANCE AND PROCUREMENT & INVENTORY DEPARTMENTS AUGUST 2014 - MONTHLY BUDGET REPORTS PLEASE NOTE – THIS REPORT PROVIDES TOP LINE INFORMATION ON THE OPERATING FUNDS. IF YOU WOULD LIKE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

CITY OF DOVER ACTIVITY REPORTS AUGUST 2014 SSS FINANCE DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY LEVELS FY14 YTD FY15 YTD BANK TRENDS Number of Deposits Made (Hand, ACH & Wire, Lockbox) 1,141 1,271 Total Amount of All Deposits $ 31,647,062 $ 30,954,014 PAYROLL Hours % Amount Hours % Amount Gross wages per registers 130,167 100.0% $ 3,026,514 133,711 100.0% $ 3,065,148 Wages and Hours Worked Regular 108,643 83.5% $ 2,316,591 108,438 81.1% $ 2,324,615 All over time 5,149 4.0% $ 218,453 4,972 3.7% $ 200,717 Other Paid or Unpaid Wages and Hours Vacation 10,282 7.9% $ 279,583 10,459 7.8% $ 284,691 Sick 2,685 2.1% $ 67,586 3,714 2.8% $ 93,077 Terminal Leave - Retiree Vacation/Sick Payout 333 0.3% $ 9,633 1,857 1.4% $ 51,533 Comp Time 1,357 1.0% $ 37,239 1,669 1.2% $ 46,136 Personal 240 0.2% $ 6,185 277 0.2% $ 8,245 Leave Without Pay 1,083 0.8% $ - 733 0.5% $ - Other (description below) 396 0.3% $ 91,244 1,594 1.2% $ 56,135 Other includes: pay adjustments, military differential pay, training, committee meetings, worker compensation tracking/adjustments, etc. Other Activity Number of Pay Periods 4 4 Number of Payroll Checks & Direct Deposits Issued 1,431 1,503 Number of Pension Checks Issued 518 508 Total Pension Benefits Paid - Defined Benefit Plan $ 858,085 $ 865,453 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Number of Check Vouchers 809 877 Number of EFT Vouchers 310 340 Vouchers Dollar Amount Disbursed $ 10,388,926 $ 9,985,754 PROCUREMENT & INVENTORY ACTIVITY LEVELS Contingency & Warehouse Stock $2,700,000 $2,600,000 $2,500,000 Total Dollar Value $2,400,000 $2,300,000 $2,200,000 $2,100,000 $2,000,000 Series2 Series3 Value: $2,517,789 Line Items: 1,449 Fuel Use Unleaded: 11,072.9 gallons Diesel: 6,344.4 gallons Total Cost: $ 50,442

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – August 2014 General Fund Summary 17% Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 3,393,000 $ - $ 3,393,000 0.0% Revenues Court of Chancery Fees 1,023,000 96,240 926,760 9.4% Fines & Police Revenues 1,288,800 154,630 1,134,170 12.0% Franchise Fees 636,000 84,584 551,416 13.3% Grants 623,500 - 623,500 0.0% Intrafund Services 4,863,000 700,794 4,162,206 14.4% Library & Recreation Revenues 670,400 73,072 597,328 10.9% Licenses & Permits 2,814,200 1,626,278 1,187,922 57.8% Property Taxes (Includes BID Revenue) (1) 11,099,200 10,764,924 334,276 97.0% Miscellaneous Revenues 93,900 889 93,011 0.9% Sanitation Revenues 2,595,600 430,205 2,165,395 16.6% Garrison Farm Rent Revenue 101,400 47,132 54,268 46.5% Transfers-In from Special Funds & Utilities Municipal Street Aid Fund 663,900 - 663,900 0.0% Civil Traffic Penalties 500,000 - 500,000 0.0% Transfer Taxes 1,250,000 230,248 1,019,752 18.4% Verizon, Contingency and CI Reserves 4,000 - 4,000 0.0% Police Grants 124,000 - 124,000 0.0% Water/Wastewater Fund 500,000 - 500,000 0.0% Electric Fund 10,000,000 - 10,000,000 0.0% Total Revenues 38,850,900 14,208,996 24,641,904 36.6% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 42,243,900 $ 14,208,996 $ 28,034,904 33.6% Expenditures City Clerk & Council $ 489,800 $ 66,108 $ 423,692 13.5% Mayor, City Manager & Human Resources 1,047,100 113,467 933,633 10.8% Police & Police Extra Duty 14,698,600 1,929,615 12,768,985 13.1% Public Services 4,551,700 653,707 3,897,993 14.4% Engineering 192,600 11,497 181,103 6.0% Procurement & Inventory, Facilities Mgmt., Vehicle Maint. 1,990,100 284,307 1,705,793 14.3% Planning & Inspections 2,192,400 297,699 1,894,701 13.6% Finance, Info Tech & Customer Services 2,716,100 384,076 2,332,024 14.1% Library & Recreation 2,099,500 311,992 1,787,508 14.9% Fire Department 716,100 119,749 596,351 16.7% Assessor 309,500 36,213 273,287 11.7% Contribution to DDP 70,000 - 70,000 0.0% Miscellaneous Grant Expense 25,000 - 25,000 0.0% Other Employment Expenses 500,000 - 500,000 0.0% Insurance 724,800 167,108 557,692 23.1% OPEB - Retiree’s Health Care Contribution 1,636,500 - 1,636,500 0.0% Police Pension Trust Contribution - State Grant 500,000 - 500,000 0.0% Appropriation to Police Pension Fund 655,000 - 655,000 0.0% Street Lights 774,500 129,446 645,054 16.7% Debt Service 708,600 458,176 250,424 64.7% Transfers Out Capital Projects Fund 2,196,000 500,000 1,696,000 22.8% Total Expenditures 38,843,900 5,463,721 33,380,179 14.1% Budget Balance - Working Capital 3,400,000 - 3,400,000 0.0% Total Budget Balance & Expenditures $ 42,243,900 $ 5,463,721 $ 36,780,179 12.9% Reserve Balances Contingency $ 467,900 $ 466,647 (1) Property Taxes are the taxes billed and not cash received. The outstanding receivable balance as of 8/31/14 is $940,877 as compared to $994,954 in August 2013.

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – August 2014 Water/Wastewater Fund Summary 17% Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance - Water $ 658,400 $ - $ 658,400 0.0% Beginning Balance - Wastewater $ (98,500) $ - $ (98,500) 0.0% Beginning Balance - Kent County Treatment $ 155,000 $ - $ 155,000 0.0% 714,900 - 714,900 0.0% Revenues Water Fees 4,616,400 895,363 3,721,037 19.4% Wastewater Fees 3,706,800 676,231 3,030,569 18.2% Kent County Treatment Fees 2,902,600 538,026 2,364,574 18.5% Ground Water Inflow Adjustment 1,862,500 323,979 1,538,521 17.4% Water Tank Leases 331,900 6,168 325,732 1.9% Miscellaneous Service Fee 179,600 10,863 168,737 6.0% Impact Fees - Water 472,700 71,400 401,300 15.1% Impact Fees - Wastewater 427,900 64,600 363,300 15.1% Total Revenues 14,500,400 2,586,630 11,913,770 17.8% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 15,215,300 $ 2,586,630 $ 12,628,670 17.0% Expenses Water/Wastewater Operating Divisions Engineering & Inspection $ 500,900 $ 48,886 $ 452,014 9.8% Water 485,300 73,115 412,185 15.1% Water Treatment Plant 1,576,900 223,838 1,353,062 14.2% Wastewater 974,100 155,619 818,481 16.0% Construction 252,500 32,630 219,870 12.9% Kent County Treatment 3,655,000 656,213 2,998,787 18.0% Intrafund Service Fees 1,354,900 190,197 1,164,703 14.0% OPEB - Retiree's Health Care Contributions 200,000 - 200,000 0.0% Debt Service 1,152,000 86,232 1,065,768 7.5% Other Employment Expenses 17,700 - 17,700 0.0% Transfers Out General Fund 500,000 - 500,000 0.0% Water I & E Fund 1,200,000 - 1,200,000 0.0% Wastewater I & E Fund 1,800,000 - 1,800,000 0.0% Total Expenses 13,669,300 1,466,730 12,202,570 10.7% Budget Balances Budget Balance - Working Capital - Water 1,020,100 - 1,020,100 0.0% Budget Balance - Working Capital - WW (739,200) - (739,200) 0.0% Budget Balance-Working Capital - KSA 1,265,100 - 1,265,100 0.0% Total Budget Balances 1,546,000 - 1,546,000 0.0% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 15,215,300 $ 1,466,730 $ 13,748,570 9.6% Reserve Balances Contingency-Water $ 107,700 $ 104,597 Contingency-Wastewater $ 194,800 $ 189,138 Impact Fee Reserve - Sewer $ 1,552,300 $ 2,772,717 Impact Fee Reserve - Water $ 203,900 $ 199,909 Bond Coverage Ratio (Covenant 1.20) 3.23 6.28

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – August 2014 Electric Revenue Fund Summary 17% Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 9,253,600 $ - $ 9,253,600 0.0% Revenues Sales to Customers 78,043,000 14,677,494 63,365,506 18.8% Utility Tax 1,296,900 237,709 1,059,191 18.3% Weyandt Hall Rents 200,000 24,427 175,573 12.2% Miscellaneous Revenues 754,600 141,412 613,188 18.7% Interest Earned 12,000 (54) 12,054 -0.5% Transfer from Rate Stabilization 2,000,000 - 2,000,000 0.0% Total Revenues 82,306,500 15,080,988 67,225,512 18.3% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 91,560,100 $ 15,080,988 $ 76,479,112 16.5% Expenses Power Supply & Generation Hedged Energy $ 21,823,000 $ 5,581,884 $ 16,241,116 25.6% Power Supply Management 996,000 166,000 830,000 16.7% Capacity Charges 9,958,900 1,608,573 8,350,327 16.2% Dover Sun Park Energy 2,067,600 227,139 1,840,461 11.0% Solar Renewal Energy Credits 378,600 48,899 329,701 12.9% PJM Charges - Energy 11,499,800 1,870,040 9,629,760 16.3% PJM Charges - Transmission & Fees 7,234,100 938,286 6,295,814 13.0% Total Power Supply 53,958,000 10,440,821 43,517,179 19.3% Plant Operations 6,141,100 1,070,439 5,070,661 17.4% Generation Fuels 1,611,100 603,778 1,007,322 37.5% Capacity Credits (8,881,500) (1,442,575) (7,438,925) 16.2% PJM Spot Market Energy (2,232,800) (113,847) (2,118,953) 5.1% PJM Credits (486,700) (1,566,998) 1,080,298 322.0% Total Generation (3,848,800) (1,449,203) (2,399,597) 37.7% Total Power Supply & Plant 50,109,200 8,991,618 41,117,582 17.9% Electric Operating Divisions: Transmission/Distribution 4,028,700 500,325 3,528,375 12.4% Electrical Engineering 1,370,900 161,491 1,209,409 11.8% Administration 636,600 62,871 573,729 9.9% Meter Reading 267,600 51,085 216,515 19.1% Systems Operations 686,300 92,805 593,495 13.5% Intrafund Services 3,508,100 510,597 2,997,503 14.6% Utility Tax 1,296,900 205,523 1,091,377 15.8% OPEB - Retirees Health Care Contribution 513,300 - 513,300 0.0% Interest on Deposits 20,000 2,800 17,200 14.0% Green Energy Payment to DEMEC 130,000 8,382 121,618 6.4% Accounts Receivable Write-Offs 200,000 - 200,000 0.0% Other Employee Expenses 54,200 - 54,200 0.0% Contractual Services RFP's 246,800 32,362 214,438 13.1% Debt Service 3,297,000 567,742 2,729,258 17.2% Transfers Out: General Fund 10,000,000 - 10,000,000 0.0% Electric Improvement & Extension Fund 4,750,000 - 4,750,000 0.0% Inventory Reserve 175,000 - 175,000 0.0% Total Expenses 82,300,400 11,187,601 71,112,799 13.6% Budget Balance - Working Capital 9,259,700 - 9,259,700 0.0% Total Budget Balance & Expenses $ 91,560,100 $ 11,187,601 $ 80,372,499 12.2% Reserve Balances Contingency Reserve $ 826,000 $ 818,050 Insurance Reserve $ 743,600 $ 736,476 Rate Stabilization Reserve $ 8,583,000 $ 10,451,880 Bond Coverage Ratio (Covenant 1.25) 1.82 8.11 Megawatt Hours Sold & Purchased Sales to Customers MWh (excluding Street Light MWh) 712,390 134,377 18.9% Sales per MWh $ 109.55 $ 109.23 99.7% Purchased/Generated MWh 741,522 144,136 19.4% All In MWh Supply & Generation $ 67.58 $ 62.38 92.3%

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – August 2014 General Capital Project Fund Summary 17% Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance - Projects $ 117,100 $ - $ 117,100 0.0% Revenues State Grant - Other 153,000 - 153,000 0.0% Interest Earnings - (3,696) 3,696 0.0% Transfer from General Fund for Projects 2,196,000 500,000 1,696,000 22.8% Miscellaneous Receipts 918,300 - 918,300 0.0% Transfer from Parkland Reserve - 104,000 (104,000) 0.0% Subtotal Revenues 3,267,300 600,304 2,666,996 Loan Proceeds - Street Projects & City Hall (1) 2,661,100 - 2,661,100 0.0% Subtotal Library Project Receipts 2,661,100 - 2,661,100 0.0% Total Revenues 5,928,400 600,304 5,328,096 10.1% Total Beginning Balance & Revenue $ 6,045,500 $ 600,304 $ 5,445,196 9.9% Expenditures Fire $ 827,300 $ 145,614 $ 681,686 17.6% Grounds Maintenance 68,100 - 68,100 0.0% Recreation 146,000 47,959 98,041 32.8% Police 499,100 - 499,100 0.0% Streets 3,956,400 135,136 3,821,264 3.4% Sanitation 256,500 - 256,500 0.0% Loan Issuance Costs 75,000 - 75,000 0.0% Transfer to Parkland Reserve 100,000 100,000 - 100.0% Total Expenditures 5,928,400 428,709 5,499,691 7.2% Budget Balance - Projects 117,100 - 117,100 0.0% Total Budget Balance & Expenditures $ 6,045,500 $ 428,709 $ 5,616,791 7.1% Reserve Balances Capital Asset Replacement Reserve $ 512,300 $ 509,684 Parkland/Recreation $ 200,800 $ 214,382

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – August 2014 Water/Wastewater Improvement & Extension Fund Summary 17% Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance - Water $ 1,021,200 $ - $ 1,021,200 0.0% Beginning Balance - Wastewater $ 1,060,000 $ - $ 1,060,000 0.0% Revenues Interest Earned 25,000 (1,216) 26,216 -4.9% Transfer from Operating Fund for Water 1,200,000 - 1,200,000 0.0% Transfer from Operating Fund for Wastewater 1,800,000 - 1,800,000 0.0% Transfer from Impact Fee Reserve - Wastewater 1,315,600 - 1,315,600 0.0% Total Revenues 4,340,600 (1,216) 4,341,816 0.0% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 6,421,800 $ (1,216) $ 6,423,016 0.0% Expenses Water $ 1,336,900 $ - $ 1,336,900 0.0% Wastewater 3,273,200 116,891 3,156,309 3.6% Water Treatment Plant 38,100 - 38,100 0.0% Total Expenses 4,648,200 116,891 4,531,309 2.5% Budget Balance - Working Capital - Water 858,700 - 858,700 0.0% Budget Balance - Working Capital - Wastewater 914,900 - 914,900 0.0% Total Budget Balances 1,773,600 - 1,773,600 0.0% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 6,421,800 $ 116,891 $ 6,304,909 1.8% Reserve Balances Capital Asset Replacement - Water $ 522,700 $ 507,809 Capital Asset Replacement - Wastewater $ 521,600 $ 506,647

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – August 2014 Electric Improvement & Extension Fund Summary 17% Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 3,362,200 $ - $ 3,362,200 0.0% Revenues Interest Earnings 24,800 (2,602) 27,402 -10.5% Transfer from Electric Revenue Fund 4,750,000 - 4,750,000 0.0% General Service Billing 250,000 65,890 184,110 26.4% Total Revenues 5,024,800 63,288 4,961,512 1.3% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 8,387,000 $ 63,288 $ 8,323,712 0.8% Expenses Electric Generation $ 2,240,000 $ 100,732 $ 2,139,268 4.5% Transmission/Distribution 1,033,000 65,195 967,805 6.3% Electrical Engineering 1,663,100 235,834 1,427,266 14.2% Total Expenses 4,936,100 401,761 4,534,339 8.1% Budget Balance - Working Capital (Unaudited) 3,450,900 - 3,450,900 0.0% Total Budget Balance & Expenses $ 8,387,000 $ 401,761 $ 7,985,239 4.8% Reserve Balances Depreciation Reserve $ 9,998,200 $ 9,901,859 Future Capacity Reserve $ 10,148,700 $ 10,051,041 City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – August 2014 Community Transportation Improvement Fund 17% Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 78,900 $ - $ 78,900 0.0% Revenues Grants Revenue 500,000 - 500,000 0.0% Interest Earned 500 49 451 9.8% Total Revenues 500,500 49 500,451 0.0% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 579,400 $ 49 $ 579,351 0.0% Expenses Program Expenses - Del Dot $ 500,000 $ 8,260 $ 491,740 1.7% Total Expenses 500,000 8,260 491,740 1.7% Budget Balance - Working Capital 79,400 - 79,400 0.0% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 579,400 $ 8,260 $ 571,140 1.4%

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – August 2014 Police Grant Funds 17% Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 77,200 $ - $ 77,200 0.0% Revenues Grants Received 339,000 - 339,000 0.0% Interest Earned - 96 (96) 0.0% Total Revenues 339,000 96 338,904 0.0% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 416,200 $ 96 $ 416,104 0.0% Expenses Program Expenses/Supplies $ 156,000 $ 13,198 $ 142,802 8.5% Computer Hardware 50,000 - 50,000 0.0% Telephone/Fax 15,000 2,548 12,452 17.0% Training/Conference/Food/Travel 32,000 - 32,000 0.0% Consulting/Audit Fees 1,000 - 1,000 0.0% Contractual services 6,000 - 6,000 0.0% Operating Transfers - Out 124,000 - 124,000 0.0% Total Expenses 384,000 15,746 368,254 4.1% Budget Balance - Working Capital (Unaudited) 32,200 - 32,200 0.0% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 416,200 $ 15,746 $ 400,454 3.8%

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – August 2014 Library Grant Fund 17% Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 17,300 $ - $ 17,300 0.0% Revenues Grants Received 274,100 - 274,100 0.0% Total Revenues 274,100 - 274,100 0.0% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 291,400 $ - $ 291,400 0.0% Expenses Program Expenses/Supplies-State Grants $ 28,000 $ 3,789 $ 24,211 13.5% Program Expenses/Supplies-Federal Grants - 150 (150) 0.0% Office Supplies 24,000 4,838 19,162 20.2% Printing/Duplicating 8,900 423 8,477 4.8% Postage 100 - 100 0.0% Books 128,900 - 128,900 0.0% Furniture 2,000 2,753 (753) 137.7% Audio Visual Supplies 74,000 1,995 72,005 2.7% Training/Conference/Food/Travel 3,500 490 3,010 14.0% Computer Hardware - 65 (65) 0.0% Office Equipment/Repairs & Maintenance 2,000 1,811 189 90.6% Other Equipment - Purchases 2,700 - 2,700 0.0% Total Expenses 274,100 16,314 257,786 6.0% Budget Balance - Working Capital 17,300 - 17,300 0.0% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 291,400 $ 16,314 $ 275,086 5.6% City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – August 2014 CJC Grants/Aid 17% Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Revenues Grants Received 31,800 - 31,800 0.0% Total Revenues 31,800 - 31,800 0.0% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 31,800 $ - $ 31,800 0.0% Expenses Contractual Services $ 31,800 $ 2,650 $ 29,150 8.3% Budget Balance - Working Capital (Unaudited) - - - 0.0% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 31,800 $ 2,650 $ 29,150 8.3%

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – August 2014 After School Program/Substance Abuse Prevention Fund 17% Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 41,000 $ - $ 41,000 0.0% Revenues Grants Received 55,600 7,008 48,593 12.6% Recreation Revenue 33,000 2,670 30,330 8.1% Total Revenues 88,600 9,678 78,923 10.9% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 129,600 $ 9,678 $ 119,923 7.5% Expenses Temporary Help/Benefits $ 54,000 $ 9,934 $ 44,066 18.4% Program Expenses/Supplies 55,600 9,531 46,069 17.1% Total Expenses 109,600 19,465 90,135 17.8% Budget Balance - Working Capital (Unaudited) 20,000 - 20,000 0.0% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 129,600 $ 19,465 $ 110,135 15.0% City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – August 2014 CDBG Fund 17% Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Revenues Grants Received 235,000 1,426 233,574 0.6% NSP Grant Revenue - - - 0.0% Interest Earnings - 26 (26) 0.0% Total Revenues 235,000 1,452 233,548 0.6% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 235,000 $ 1,452 $ 233,548 0.6% Expenses Current Year Closing Cost/Down Payment Program $ 102,800 $ 20,000 $ 82,800 19.5% Current year Dover Interfaith Ministry 27,500 3,623 $ 23,877 13.2% Current Year Elizabeth W Murphy School 50,000 - $ 50,000 0.0% Current Year NCALL Research Inc. 7,700 - $ 7,700 0.0% Current Year Salaries 47,000 - $ 47,000 0.0% Total Expenses 235,000 23,623 211,377 10.1% Budget Balance - Working Capital - - - 0.0% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 235,000 $ 23,623 $ 211,377 10.1%

Monthly Report August 2014 Economic Development Office

2014_08 Economic Development  Weekly Calpine conference calls  Weekly Planning staff meeting  Attended mandatory Diversity Training  Met with Senator Carper’s staff and Mayor Christiansen to provide overview of Economic Development initiatives  Reviewed with Compliance Environmental the procedure for removing fuel storage tank and cost of removal at the proposed Pocket Park  Introductory meeting with Mayor Christiansen and Secretary Levin  Discussed ongoing building issues with Whiting Turner and E-ZPass  Reviewed July’s results of the Farmers Market with Downtown Coordinator and chairperson of Marketing & Promotions Committee  Met with Secretary Levin, Mayor Christiansen and Chris Crowell from Playtex to discuss potential retention of drop-in container manufacturing line at Playtex  Meeting with Calpine in Wilmington  Conference call with Alan Perry to discuss site visit with Energizer at SunRoc Building  Provided Kent Economic Roundtable with information regarding Garrison Tract  Discussed site visit at McKee Industrial Park for Energizer with Charlie Rodriguez  Provided incentive information and downtown district information to Mike Marinelli, a developer from Wilmington  Attended Kent County is Open for Business  Attended Restoring Central Dover committee meeting  Attended DEED meeting in Bridgeville  Met with City Planner and Wayne Rossi from Energizer to discuss expansion and traffic issues  Discussed potential contract of sale for Barros law office building with Gerri Street and Greg Moore  Attended DDP Marketing & Promotions Committee Meeting  Attended Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce Board Meeting  Discussed Inclusion Study progress with Dr. Casson from Delaware State University  Attended the site visit with Energizer at McKee Industrial Park and the SunRoc Building  Teleconference with Tom Rossi and Brian McGlinchey  Discussed soil removal from Garrison Tract with Uzin Utz and City Engineer  Attended Leads Group meeting at R&R Commercial Realty  Provided electric information to Energizer for McKee Industrial Park  Discussed water problem at E-ZPass Building with Whiting Turner  Provided closing documents for 22-24 W Loockerman Street mortgage to City Clerk  Interview with reporter from Dover Post with regard to Garrison Energy Center and set up photo opportunity visit  Attended DDP Parking Committee Meeting

 Set up tour for Senator Carper to visit Uzin Utz construction site and tour Garrison Energy Center  Budget meeting with DDP Marketing & Promotions chair and President of DDP  Attended Grand Opening of Quality Roofing Supply  Attended Food Innovation District Conference  Attended Special Parks, Recreation & Community Enhancement Meeting on August 26th  Provided Produce Junction with incentive package information at the old CompUSA facility  Teleconference with Barb DeHaven from DEDO regarding HUB zones  Conducted tour with Senator Carper & staff at Uzin Utz and Garrison Energy Center  Responded to complaint from Wild Meadows regarding the trees stacked in the right-of-way per Eastern Shore Natural Gas, met with Calpine to try and resolve the issue Measures:  1 Maintain an unemployment rate for the City of Dover that is lower than national and state averages 2012-2013 Actual 2013-2014 Actual 2014 - 2015 Actual Results <10% unemployment rate in < 10% unemployment rate in <10% unemployment rate in June 2013 June 2014 July 2014 7.5% - US Rate 6.1 % - US Rate 6.2 % - US Rate 6.9% - DE Rate 6.9 % - DE Rate 6.2 % - DE Rate 8.9% - City of Dover Rate 8.3% - City of Dover Rate 8.1% - City of Dover Rate June 2013 Actual June 2014 Actual July 2014 Actual  2 Monitor number of contacts with small businesses and with out-of-town companies interested in locating in Dover 2012-2013 Actual 2013-2014 Actual 2014 - 2015 Actual Results ≥20 contacts with potential >20 contacts with potential >20 contacts with potential small businesses; small businesses; small businesses; 18 contacts YTD 23 Contacts YTD 9 Contacts YTD ≥11 contacts with out-of-town >11 contacts with out-of-town >11 contacts with out-of-town companies interested in companies interested in companies interested in locating in Dover locating in Dover locating in Dover 7 Contacts YTD 13 Contacts YTD 3 Contacts YTD

2014_08 Downtown Dover Partnership  Provided technical assistance to five (5) prospective small business individuals on overall business development within the Downtown Dover Business District  Continued providing technical assistance to four (4) prospective small business individuals on locating available space within the downtown district to lease  Provided fifteen (15) hours of Technical Assistance to merchants located in the Downtown Business Corridor  Coordinated media (newspaper announcements), website and social media press releases of series of Special Events (Farmers Market) which occurred during August ’14 in downtown Dover  Coordinated media (newspaper announcements), website and social media press releases of the “Out of the Darkness” Suicide Prevention Event scheduled for September 20.  Coordinated logistics for the Dover Urban Music Festival held on August 30  Attended the Downtown Dover Merchant’s Meeting on August 12  Met with Volunteer Market Manager to discuss Logistics, Vendor line up and Market Reports for Farmers Market.  Attended the Downtown Dover Partnership Parking & Safety Committee Meeting on August 5  Attended the Downtown Dover Partnership Design Committee Meeting on August 6  Attended the Downtown Dover Partnership Merchant’s Committee Meeting on August 12  Attended the Hispanic Heritage Month Planning Meeting on August 15  Attended the OktDoverFest Planning Committee on August 19  Attended the Restoring Central Dover – A Strong Community Sub- Committee Meeting on August 5  Attended the Restoring Central Dover-Positive Development Sub-Community meeting on August 12  Attended the DDP Promotion/Marketing Committee Meeting on August 21  Assisted the DDP Parking & Safety Committee with final design of Parking Banner Project.  Attended the Capital Holiday Celebration Planning Committee on August 8  Conference call with Laura Church, from Church Associates to discuss the opening of satellite office in Dover on August 12  Conference call with Steven Solecki from Produce Junction to discuss the availability of vacant properties for Supermarket project in Dover on August 25  Conference call with Charito Calvachi from Delaware Hispanic Commission to discuss the Hispanic Heritage Month Ceremony scheduled for October 4  Conducted the Grand Opening ceremony for Quality Roofing Supply on August 28  Met with Sarah MacDonald from Communities in Schools to discuss the “Back to School- Backpacks for Kids” Drive  Assisted the DDP Executive Director with review of the City wide Inclusion Study Questionnaire facilitated by Delaware State University.

Monthly Report August 2014

Date Range: From 8/1/2014 to 8/31/2014 Incident Run Log Company: All Companies Dover Fire Department Sorted by: Not selected Date FDID Incident# Alarm ### Address Suite Type 08/01/2014 30046 2014-000693 04:24 217 CHARRING CROSS DR Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 08/01/2014 30046 2014-000694 19:42 827 TOWNSEND BLVD Smoke scare, odor of smoke 08/01/2014 30046 2014-000695 20:18 1129 GARFIELD DR Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) 08/02/2014 30046 2014-000696 01:19 1300 S FARMVIEW DR J False alarm or false call, other 08/02/2014 30046 2014-000697 20:12 911 KENTON RD Carbon monoxide incident 08/02/2014 30046 2014-000698 21:39 231 N BRADFORD ST Cooking fire, confined to container 08/03/2014 30046 2014-000699 10:00 911 KENTON RD Carbon monoxide incident 08/03/2014 30046 2014-000700 15:47 18 AQUAMARINE CT Good intent call, other 08/03/2014 30046 2014-000701 23:30 858 WOODCREST DR BLDG D Dumpster or other outside trash receptacle fire 08/04/2014 30046 2014-000702 06:57 200 BANNING ST 230 False alarm or false call, other 08/04/2014 30046 2014-000703 18:56 827 TOWNSEND BLVD Good intent call, other 08/05/2014 30046 2014-000704 20:13 802 SILVER LAKE BLVD False alarm or false call, other 08/06/2014 30046 2014-000705 10:20 1365 N DUPONT HWY 2000 Unintentional transmission of alarm, other 08/06/2014 30046 2014-000706 20:12 120 REVOLUTIONARY BLVD Forest, woods or wildland fire 08/06/2014 30046 2014-000707 22:50 1121 FORREST AVE Outside rubbish, trash or waste fire 08/08/2014 30046 2014-000708 10:45 1200 N DUPONT HWY False alarm or false call, other 08/08/2014 30046 2014-000709 14:15 725 HORSEPOND RD Emergency medical service incident, other 08/08/2014 30046 2014-000710 15:55 18 BRAEBURN TERRACE Dispatched & canceled en route 08/08/2014 30046 2014-000711 16:21 260 BEISER BLVD Rescue, EMS incident, other 08/08/2014 30046 2014-000712 20:07 21 W LOOCKERMAN ST Alarm system sounded due to malfunction 08/09/2014 30046 2014-000713 06:57 1202 WHITEOAK RD Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 08/09/2014 30046 2014-000714 19:33 1080 SILVER LAKE BLVD Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 08/10/2014 30046 2014-000715 12:10 811 E DIVISION ST Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 08/10/2014 30046 2014-000716 19:20 988 FORREST ST Unintentional transmission of alarm, other 08/11/2014 30046 2014-000717 09:11 299 N DUPONT HWY Good intent call, other 08/11/2014 30046 2014-000718 11:18 591 S DUPONT HWY Good intent call, other 08/11/2014 30046 2014-000719 12:12 99 WOLF CREEK BLVD 3-2 Good intent call, other 08/11/2014 30046 2014-000720 22:01 430 NEW CASTLE AVE Outside rubbish, trash or waste fire 08/11/2014 30046 2014-000721 22:53 213 N BRADFORD ST Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 08/11/2014 30046 2014-000722 23:52 15 E NORTH ST Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 08/12/2014 30046 2014-000723 10:07 301 WALKER RD Alarm system sounded due to malfunction 08/12/2014 30046 2014-000724 13:13 1200 N DUPONT HWY Alarm system sounded due to malfunction 08/12/2014 30046 2014-000725 14:30 1200 N DUPONT HWY Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 08/12/2014 30046 2014-000726 16:05 1200 N DUPONT HWY System malfunction, other 08/12/2014 30046 2014-000727 17:03 893 SCHOOLHOUSE LN Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 08/12/2014 30046 2014-000728 18:12 1 Dover High Drive False alarm or false call, other 08/12/2014 30046 2014-000729 18:49 1124 HORSEPOND RD Power line down 08/13/2014 30046 2014-000730 02:35 1200 N DUPONT HWY Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 08/13/2014 30046 2014-000731 04:50 1200 N DUPONT HWY Alarm system sounded due to malfunction 08/13/2014 30046 2014-000732 09:13 725 HORSEPOND RD Medical assist, assist EMS crew 08/13/2014 30046 2014-000733 14:36 STATE ROUTE 1 Good intent call, other 08/13/2014 30046 2014-000734 21:16 15 E NORTH ST Detector activation, no fire - unintentional 08/14/2014 30046 2014-000735 08:00 120 HAMPTON DR No incident found on arrival at dispatch address 08/14/2014 30046 2014-000736 08:27 32 FAIRWAY LAKES DR No incident found on arrival at dispatch address 08/14/2014 30046 2014-000737 14:45 270 BEISER BLVD Dispatched & canceled en route 08/14/2014 30046 2014-000738 16:21 872 FOREST ST System malfunction, other 08/15/2014 30046 2014-000739 17:09 1102 S DUPONT HWY Brush or brush-and-grass mixture fire 08/15/2014 30046 2014-000740 21:30 811 S GOVERNORS AVE Good intent call, other 08/15/2014 30046 2014-000741 23:18 1 Dover High Drive System malfunction, other 08/16/2014 30046 2014-000742 06:55 591 S DUPONT HWY Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 08/17/2014 30046 2014-000743 07:21 512 BUCKSON DR Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) 08/17/2014 30046 2014-000744 10:05 110 GALAXY DR Smoke or odor removal 08/17/2014 30046 2014-000745 10:20 1706 N DUPONT HWY Malicious, mischievous false call, other 08/18/2014 30046 2014-000746 03:05 631 RIDGELY ST Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 08/18/2014 30046 2014-000747 08:38 222 S DUPONT HWY Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 08/18/2014 30046 2014-000748 14:28 97 COMMERCE WAY 102 Service Call, other 08/18/2014 30046 2014-000749 18:34 122 DAVIS CIR Animal rescue 08/18/2014 30046 2014-000750 20:54 202 S GOVERNORS BLVD Service Call, other 08/19/2014 30046 2014-000751 10:13 2800 N DUPONT HWY Electrical wiring/equipment problem, other Date: 10/1/2014 Page: 1 Time:12:12 PM

Date FDID Incident# Alarm ### Address Suite Type 08/19/2014 30046 2014-000752 15:53 1255 S STATE ST Motor vehicle accident with injuries 08/21/2014 30046 2014-000753 10:25 65 CARVER RD Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 08/21/2014 30046 2014-000754 13:28 130 ST JONES AVE Cooking fire, confined to container 08/21/2014 30046 2014-000755 16:26 305 ALDER RD Cooking fire, confined to container 08/21/2014 30046 2014-000756 18:24 430 COLLEGE RD 100 Malicious, mischievous false call, other 08/22/2014 30046 2014-000757 09:18 900 PUBLIC SAFETY BLVD System malfunction, other 08/22/2014 30046 2014-000758 12:57 21 N STATE ST Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 08/22/2014 30046 2014-000759 13:51 51 WEBBS LN Y Lock-out 08/22/2014 30046 2014-000760 15:20 327 MARTIN ST Service Call, other 08/22/2014 30046 2014-000761 17:52 1200 N DUPONT HWY False alarm or false call, other 08/24/2014 30046 2014-000762 12:12 57 GRISTMILL DR Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 08/24/2014 30046 2014-000763 17:59 38 THE GREEN Animal rescue 08/24/2014 30046 2014-000764 18:21 536 SCHOONER WAY Cooking fire, confined to container 08/24/2014 30046 2014-000765 21:16 129 SPRUANCE RD Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 08/25/2014 30046 2014-000766 08:40 15 KINGS HWY False alarm or false call, other 08/25/2014 30046 2014-000767 14:49 1200 N DUPONT HWY Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 08/26/2014 30046 2014-000768 02:04 820 CARVEL DR E Malicious, mischievous false call, other 08/26/2014 30046 2014-000769 09:51 1137 S STATE ST False alarm or false call, other 08/26/2014 30046 2014-000770 10:04 54 S STATE ST Smoke scare, odor of smoke 08/26/2014 30046 2014-000771 11:21 111 S NEW ST System malfunction, other 08/26/2014 30046 2014-000772 12:05 21 N BRADFORD ST Mobile property (vehicle) fire, other 08/26/2014 30046 2014-000773 12:53 298 S DUPONT WHY Extrication of victim(s) from vehicle 08/26/2014 30046 2014-000774 13:14 500 W LOOCKERMAN ST Explosion (no fire), other 08/26/2014 30046 2014-000775 14:49 758 N DUPONT HWY Outside rubbish, trash or waste fire 08/26/2014 30046 2014-000776 19:22 1137 S STATE ST Alarm system sounded due to malfunction 08/26/2014 30046 2014-000777 23:13 1004 S STATE ST Water or steam leak 08/27/2014 30046 2014-000778 11:32 3282 N DUPONT HWY 2 Good intent call, other 08/27/2014 30046 2014-000779 20:24 1243 N DUPONT HWY Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) 08/28/2014 30046 2014-000780 12:09 190 JOHN HUNN BROWN RD Gasoline or other flammable liquid spill 08/28/2014 30046 2014-000781 13:34 SOUTH GATE & BAY RD Passenger vehicle fire 08/28/2014 30046 2014-000782 14:36 Bay road Motor vehicle accident with injuries 08/28/2014 30046 2014-000783 15:44 1570 N DUPONT HWY Hazardous condition, other 08/29/2014 30046 2014-000784 21:32 1030 S DUPONT HWY False alarm or false call, other 08/29/2014 30046 2014-000785 22:03 986 WHATCOAT DR Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 08/30/2014 30046 2014-000786 11:34 274 S DUPONT HWY Heat from short circuit (wiring), defective/worn 08/30/2014 30046 2014-000787 12:42 800 BAY RD Cultivated trees or nursery stock fire 08/30/2014 30046 2014-000788 16:25 1570 N DUPONT HWY Unintentional transmission of alarm, other 08/31/2014 30046 2014-000789 10:47 34 N PRESTWICK CT Hazardous condition, other Total Incidents: 97

Date Range: From 8/1/2014 to 8/31/2014 Alarms by Time of Day Dover Fire Department Call Time of Day Count 00:00 - 00:59 0 01:00 - 01:59 1 02:00 - 02:59 2 03:00 - 03:59 1 04:00 - 04:59 2 05:00 - 05:59 0 06:00 - 06:59 3 07:00 - 07:59 1 08:00 - 08:59 4 09:00 - 09:59 4 10:00 - 10:59 10 11:00 - 11:59 4 12:00 - 12:59 8 13:00 - 13:59 5 14:00 - 14:59 8 15:00 - 15:59 5 16:00 - 16:59 5 17:00 - 17:59 4 18:00 - 18:59 6 19:00 - 19:59 4 20:00 - 20:59 7 21:00 - 21:59 5 22:00 - 22:59 4 23:00 - 23:59 4 Total Alarms 97 Date: 10/2/2014 Page: 1

Date Range: From 8/1/2014 to 10/31/2014 NFIRS Response Times Dover Fire Department Fractile Response Times Based on Time of Alarm to Time Arrived on Scene Fractile Response Total Calls Percent of Cumulative Total Number of Calls (Minutes) Calls Percent 0:00 - 0:59 12 6.45 6.45 1:00 - 1:59 10 5.38 11.83 2:00 - 2:59 11 5.91 17.74 3:00 - 3:59 2 1.08 18.82 4:00 - 4:59 18 9.68 28.49 5:00 - 5:59 29 15.59 44.09 6:00 - 6:59 7 3.76 47.85 7:00 - 7:59 36 19.35 67.20 8:00 - 8:59 21 11.29 78.49 9:00 - 9:59 7 3.76 82.26 10:00 - 10:59 14 7.53 89.78 11:00 - 11:59 7 3.76 93.55 12:00 - 12:59 2 1.08 94.62 13:00 - 13:59 2 1.08 95.70 14:00 - 14:59 5 2.69 98.39 15:00 - 15:59 1 0.54 98.92 16:00 - 16:59 0 0.00 98.92 17:00 - 17:59 1 0.54 99.46 18:00 - 18:59 0 0.00 99.46 19:00 - 19:59 0 0.00 99.46 20:00 - 20:59 1 0.54 100.00 21:00 - 21:59 0 0.00 100.00 22:00 - 22:59 0 0.00 100.00 23:00 - 23:59 0 0.00 100.00 24:00 - 24:59 0 0.00 100.00 25:00 - 25:59 0 0.00 100.00 26:00 - 26:59 0 0.00 100.00 27:00 - 27:59 0 0.00 100.00 28:00 - 28:59 0 0.00 100.00 29:00 - 29:59 0 0.00 100.00 30:00 - 30:59 0 0.00 100.00 31:00 - 31:59 0 0.00 100.00 32:00 - 32:59 0 0.00 100.00 33:00 - 33:59 0 0.00 100.00 34:00 - 34:59 0 0.00 100.00 35:00 - 35:59 0 0.00 100.00 36:00 - 36:59 0 0.00 100.00 37:00 - 37:59 0 0.00 100.00 38:00 - 38:59 0 0.00 100.00 39:00 - 39:59 0 0.00 100.00 40:00 - 40:59 0 0.00 100.00 41:00 - 41:59 0 0.00 100.00 42:00 - 42:59 0 0.00 100.00 43:00 - 43:59 0 0.00 100.00 44:00 - 44:59 0 0.00 100.00 45:00 - 45:59 0 0.00 100.00 46:00 - 46:59 0 0.00 100.00 47:00 - 47:59 0 0.00 100.00 48:00 - 48:59 0 0.00 100.00 49:00 - 49:59 0 0.00 100.00 Total NFIRS Reports Evaluated 186 100.00 100.00 Total Average 00:06:44 Date: 10/1/2014 Page: 1

FY 14-15 City Funded Account Balance Sheet ACCOUNT BUDGET SPENT BALANCE Apparatus Repairs & Maintenance $ 85,300.00 $ 3,883.30 $ 81,416.70 Gasoline $ 20,000.00 $ 1,542.74 $ 18,457.26 Medical Supplies $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 Other Equipment Repairs $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 Program Expenses $ 37,000.00 $ 11,449.54 $ 25,550.46 Radio Repairs $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 Safety & Security $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 Small Tools $ 4,500.00 $ 243.51 $ 4,256.49 Uniforms & Firefighting Gear $ 30,000.00 $ 4,645.09 $ 25,354.91 Building Expenses- Electricity $ 45,000.00 $ 10,249.72 $ 34,750.28 Building Maintenance Supplies $ 1,500.00 $ 224.16 $ 1,275.84 Heating Expenses- Gas $ 16,000.00 $ 186.87 $ 15,813.13 Telephone $ 10,000.00 $ 934.05 $ 9,065.95 Water & Sewer $ 3,000.00 $ 638.67 $ 2,361.33 Contractual Services $ 10,500.00 $ 10,500.00 Training & Travel $ 10,000.00 $ 1,420.00 $ 8,580.00 Office Supplies $ 2,000.00 $25.68 $ 1,974.32 Balance as of August 2014

5:09 PM Robbins Hose Company # 1, Inc. 10/01/14 Accrual Basis Profit & Loss Detail August 2014 Type Num Name Memo Clr Split Amount Balance Ordinary Income/Expense Income City Quarterly Deposit Deposit 236068 1st Quarter Deposit City Fund Account 70,325.00 70,325.00 Total City Quarterly Deposit 70,325.00 70,325.00 Total Income 70,325.00 70,325.00 Expense Apparatus Repairs & Maintenance Check 1152 Atlantic Emergency Solutions Invoice # EOS09704- ladders City Fund Account 955.00 955.00 Check 1160 Dover Automotive Invoice # 658493- Engine 2 City Fund Account 4.09 959.09 Check 1162 Dover Automotive Invoice # 661942- Engine 3 Batteries City Fund Account 368.72 1,327.81 Check 1163 Kunkel Auto Supply Invoice-56450719 & 56450957 City Fund Account 261.26 1,589.07 Check 1164 Atlantic Emergency Solutions MOR4540MOP- Door handle City Fund Account 486.73 2,075.80 Check 1164 Atlantic Emergency Solutions MOR4542MOP- Engine 2 City Fund Account 700.12 2,775.92 Check 1164 Atlantic Emergency Solutions MOR4559MOP- A/C City Fund Account 242.73 3,018.65 Check 1164 Atlantic Emergency Solutions MOR4560MOP- Ladder 1 A/C City Fund Account 261.25 3,279.90 Total Apparatus Repairs & Maintenance 3,279.90 3,279.90 Electricity Check 1165 City of Dover Utility Acct # 44343-32052 City Fund Account 6,473.10 6,473.10 Check 1171 City of Dover Utility Acct # 44255-31966 City Fund Account 822.95 7,296.05 Total Electricity 7,296.05 7,296.05 Heating Expenses- Gas Check 1170 Chesapeake Utilities Acct # 01-300566-14195-1 City Fund Account 48.51 48.51 Check 1170 Chesapeake Utilities Acct # 01-72348-3180-1 City Fund Account 69.18 117.69 Total Heating Expenses- Gas 117.69 117.69 Program Expenses Check 1155 Universal Licensing Service Increase in FCC filing fee City Fund Account 5.00 5.00 Check 1158 Alpine Software Corp. Software support from 07/01/14 to 07/01/15 City Fund Account 4,646.29 4,651.29 Total Program Expenses 4,651.29 4,651.29 Small Tools Check 1168 Rommel's ACE Ref-37975 City Fund Account 44.36 44.36 Check 1168 Rommel's ACE Ref-37976 City Fund Account 24.22 68.58 Check 1168 Rommel's ACE Ref-38222 City Fund Account 5.42 74.00 Check 1168 Rommel's ACE Ref-38223 City Fund Account 43.22 117.22 Check 1172 Municipal Emergency Invoice Services# 00550258_SNV City Fund Account 126.29 243.51 Total Small Tools 243.51 243.51 Telephone Check 1154 Chief Technologies, LLC Host services from 05/01 to 08/01 City Fund Account 342.00 342.00 Check 1169 Verizon Wireless Cellulat charges from 06/21 to 07/20 City Fund Account 300.20 642.20 Total Telephone 642.20 642.20 Page 1 of 2

5:09 PM Robbins Hose Company # 1, Inc. 10/01/14 Accrual Basis Profit & Loss Detail August 2014 Type Num Name Memo Clr Split Amount Balance Training & Travel Expenses Check 1156 DVFA- Hot Training 14Wesley Liberto City Fund Account 190.00 190.00 Check 1157 DVFA-2014 EMS Conference Wm. Kelly, David Carey,Mike O'Conner,Glenn City Fund Whitt,Chris Account 1,105.00 Jacobs,Wesley 1,295.00 Liberto Check 1161 International Academies of Re-cert for Emergecy GregDispa Parsell City Fund Account 50.00 1,345.00 Total Training & Travel Expenses 1,345.00 1,345.00 Uniforms Check 1159 Dover Army-Navy StoreInvoice- 21535- BDU shorts for dispatcher City Fund Account 47.40 47.40 Check 1166 Dover Army-Navy StoreClass A S/S shirt City Fund Account 39.25 86.65 Check 1167 Harry Louie Laundry Patches sewn on shirt City Fund Account 21.10 107.75 Check 1172 Municipal Emergency Invoice Services# 00548866_SNV City Fund Account 2,342.31 2,450.06 Check 1172 Municipal Emergency Invoice Services 00550270_SNV City Fund Account 342.16 2,792.22 Check 1172 Municipal Emergency Invoice Services# 00548909_SNV City Fund Account 167.98 2,960.20 Total Uniforms 2,960.20 2,960.20 Water/Sewer Check 1153 City of Dover Utility Acct # 44345-32054 City Fund Account 140.46 140.46 Check 1153 City of Dover Utility Acct # 44341-32050 City Fund Account 14.41 154.87 Check 1171 City of Dover Utility Acct # 44253-31964 City Fund Account 33.47 188.34 Total Water/Sewer 188.34 188.34 Total Expense 20,724.18 20,724.18 Net Ordinary Income 49,600.82 49,600.82 Net Income 49,600.82 49,600.82 Page 2 of 2

Dover Police Department Monthly Report To Mayor and City Council “To Protect and Serve” August 2014

DEPARTMENT OF POLICE Paul M. Bernat 400 South Queen Street Chief of Police Dover, Delaware 19904 F.B.I.N.A. 302-736-7111 Fax: 302-672-1842 October 13, 2014 Honorable Robin Christiansen, Mayor Members of Dover City Council City Hall Dover, DE 19901 Mayor Christiansen and Council Members: The following is the monthly report for Dover Police Department activities for the month of August 2014: COMPLAINTS Total complaints received through August 31st, numbered 23,170. This is a decrease of 954 complaints over the same time period last year. 25,000 24,124 23,741 24,000 23,080 23,170 22,541 23,000 22,000 21,000 20,000 19,000 18,000 17,000 16,000 15,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS 25 Cases Reported in 20 August 15 Cases Cleared in August 10 6 3 4 6 6 5 Cases Cleared 4 from Previous 5 0 0 Months 0 Burglary Robbery Rape

Report to Mayor and Council August 2014 Page 3 COMMUNITY POLICING/QUALITY OF LIFE SECTION ENFORCEMENT ACTION Contacts ABANDONED VEHICLES 0 ALCOHOL VIOLATIONS/DUI’S 5 ASSIST OTHER 0 WARRANTS ON FILE 0 BIKE ON SIDEWALK 3 CITY PARK VIOLATIONS 2 CRIMINAL ARRESTS 2 DRUG RELATED ARRESTS 0 LOUD MUSIC 5 MISCELLANEOUS VIOLATIONS 17 PARKING VIOLATIONS 13 PEDDLER 0 MEETINGS 127 PROSTITUTION 0 COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT 0 DCO’S WANTED CHECKS/CPC’S 37 TRAFFIC ARRESTS 12 WARNINGS 14 FUGITIVE 2 TOTAL CONTACTS 239 TRAFFIC ARRESTS 15,000 14,073 13,499 The department issued 10,856 traffic citations 14,000 through this reporting period. This is a decrease of 13,000 11,217 11,680 10,856 824 citations over the number issued during the 12,000 same period last year. 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 TRAFFIC CRASHES Through August 31st, Dover Police investigated 1,500 1,290 1,257 traffic crashes. This is an decrease of 33 1,400 1,254 1,257 1,300 1,194 1,129 crashes investigated during the same period last 1,200 year. 1,100 1,000 900 800 700 600 500 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Report to Mayor and Council August 2014 Page 4 911 CENTER During the month of August, the Dover Police Department handled a total of 10,361 calls 27% averaging 335 calls per day. Dispatchers handled 2,839 calls on the 911 wireless lines, 599 calls on the 911 landlines, and 194 calls on the Voice Over 911 Wireless Internet Protocol lines, the remaining 6,729 were 911 Landline administrative calls. VolP 6% 65% 2% Administrative CITY ORDINANCE SUMMONS 5,595 5,948 Through August 31st, we issued 5,012 City 6,000 5,012 ordinance summons, a increase of 184 5,500 4,893 4,828 5,000 summonses over the same period last 4,500 4,133 year. *Note: Of those summonses issued 3,748 3,762 4,000 3,495 in August, 12 DCO’s were issued for 3,500 handicapped parking violations, 6 for fire 2,724 3,000 lane parking violations, 44 for false 2,500 alarms (0, for 1-2, 31, for 3-5 alarms, 8, 2,000 for 6-9 alarms, 4, for 10-15 alarms, and 1,500 1, for 16 or more alarms) and 18 for noise 1,000 violations (11 for vehicle violations and 7 500 for residence violations). 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 ISSUED PAID Please visit our website at www.doverpolice.org for up to date information on crimes and activities in the City of Dover. Respectfully Submitted, Paul M. Bernat Chief of Police

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: City Council AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Public Works DATE SUBMITTED: 10/03/14 PREPARED BY: Sharon J. Duca, P.E., Public Works Director / City Engineer SUBJECT: Evaluation of Bids – Village of Cannon Mill – Paving Improvements Project REFERENCE: N/A RELATED PROJECT: N/A APPROVALS: City Manager, Controller EXHIBITS: Attachment A – Aerial Map EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $824,740.75 (All Phases) AMOUNT BUDGETED: See Funding Source Below FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): Community Transportation Funds committed as of 10/02/2014 - $320,000; Balance from other developer’s LOC - $129,369; Funds from Ashburn LOC - $40,700; Funds Available from Artisan Bank - $50,000; Total Funds as of 10/02/2014 - $540,069. TIME TIMETABLE: Notice to Proceed to be issued within 60 days of Council approval. Project anticipated to be completed in 120 calendar days from Notice to Proceed issuance. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Award a unit price contract, based upon Bid #15-0001PW for the Village of Cannon Mill Paving Improvements Project to George & Lynch, Inc. The Public Works Director may add or delete from the contract, up to 35%, based on available funding throughout the contract period and inform the City Manager of such additions and deletions. All work will be paid for at the unit prices bid for work completed and accepted by the City of Dover. Work to be authorized will not exceed available funding. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The original developer of the Village of Cannon Mill filed for bankruptcy which resulted in work stoppage within the subdivision. The final wearing course and punch list items remain to be completed to meet the City of Dover Standards and Specifications for Public Works Construction and have been outstanding for many years. As such, the current infrastructure within the subdivision is in disrepair. On October 13, 2014, City Council accepted the Dedication of Rights-of-Way and Public Infrastructure for the Village of Cannon Mill. The City is in the process of obtaining the funds to correct the infrastructure deficiencies by way of community transportation funds and bonds. The total length of street rehabilitation is approximately 10,424 linear feet or 1.97 miles. This development is broken into four (4) phases. The first phase consists of Cannon Mill Drive, portions of East and West Sheldrake Circle, Quillen Street and Lester Court. The second phase consists of portions of West Sheldrake Circle. The third phase consists of Paradee Court, portions of East Sheldrake Circle, portions of Tribbitt Street and Paradee Alley. The fourth phase consists of Loftland Drive, portions of West Sheldrake Circle and Tribbitt Street, Wagner Street and Tribbitt Street Alley. Please reference the aerial map attached. Bids were opened on Wednesday, August 20, 2014. Three (3) contractors submitted unit price bids for the proposed work to be performed. Based on the proposed quantities, the estimated contract values are as provided in the following table.

ACTION FORM Evaluation of Bids – Village of Cannon Mill –Paving Improvements Project Page 2 of 2 CONTRACTOR PHASE I COST PHASE II COST PHASE III COST PHASE IV COST TOTAL GEORGE & LYNCH, INC. $283,206.70 $61,861.75 $291,024.95 $188,647.35 $824,740.75 DOVER, DE $799,998.53* DAISY CONSTRUCTION CO. $336,446.85 $69,508.10 $321,398.10 $217,010.05 $944,363.10 NEWPORT, DE A-DEL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. $369,381.60 $73,103.00 $341,317.00 $254,289.00 $1,038,090.60 NEWARK, DE * = Based on Local Vendor Preference, 3% reduction in evaluated bid price. The Public Works Director may add or delete from the contract, up to 35%, based on available funding throughout the contract period and inform the City Manager of such additions and deletions; therefore, the contract final value may be adjusted to reflect all available funding. Per the contract documents, the City of Dover reserves the right to remove phases from the scope of work with no change to the unit price bid. Based on the above, staff recommends awarding the contract to George & Lynch, Inc. in the total amount of $824,740.75, based upon prevailing wage unit costs, (each phase is outlined above) for the Village of Cannon Mill Paving Improvement Project.

Attachment A Village of Cannon Mill Paving Improvements Project rD r te h es rc Wo Pa r ad ee Ct est Dr rn Fai ib b Tr itt St v Westo Pe n ni No r ng er D Lo f th to n tla dow r Pl nd n Dr E Dr Sh eldr ak e Ci r Ja mes ey Ct ffr W ay Ct e Sh el J W a rin drak t Ka St e n Cir i lle Qu Circle fic Traf n r Ca Leste no n ill Rd Ct M e ill Dr e ttv zl Ha 0 175 350 700 Feet Legend ¯ Dover Parcels Pavement Phases Date Printed: September 25, 2014 File: m:\gis_data\projects\tech_mxds Phase 1 \attachment_a_village_of_canon_mill Phase 2 Department: Public Works GIS City of Dover, Delaware Phase 3 Phase 4

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: City Council DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Electric DATE SUBMITTED: 9/26/2014 PREPARED BY: Harry Maloney and Steve Moxley SUBJECT: Award contract for Arc-Rated Flame Resistance Clothing Program, RFP #15-0006EL REFERENCE: IBEW Contract Local 1238 Dated and signed 4/15/2014 RELATED PROJECT: Contract is require per the IBEW Local 1238 and City of Dover July 2013 to June 2017. REVIEWED BY: Scott Koenig, City Manager EXHIBITS: Bid Price Summary Sheet EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: FY 15 $34,800 AMOUNT BUDGETED: FY 15 $52,861 FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIT & Budget): FY 15 Electric pages 304 & 305; 480-8200-562-20- 29, 480-8300-563-20-29, and each FY budget thereafter. TIME TIMETABLE: RFP received 9-24-2014 and Council action October 13, 2014. Contract shall be for one (1) year, with four (4) one-year extensions allowed at the option of the City. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff Recommends Awarding Contract to Tyndale Company, Inc. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS Per IBEW Local 1238 contract Article 32 Section 3/FR Clothing, the City agreed to set up a vendor to allow the employee to purchaser clothing directly from the vendor and the City will setup an allotment for each employee per the contract. The allotment for FY 15 is $1,200 and contract cover 29 staff therefore the contract total for FY2015 is $34,800. Contract is request to be award to Tyndale Company, Inc. Proposals were solicited and advertised according to the City policy by the City’s Contract and Procurement Manager under RFP #15-0006EL and proposals were received from five (5) potential vendors; however, four (4) were rejected due to vendors not meeting minimum requirements set forth in the RFP. The remaining proposal was evaluated using the following minimum requirements: Sizing, delivering, returning/exchanging, purchasing/selling, and repairing flame retardant clothing. Upon review it was determined that Tyndale Company, Inc. was the only qualified vendor. The main requirement that was not met by the four (4) disqualified vendors was that they do not offer repairs to their garments if needed. The duration of the contract shall be for one (1) year, with four (4) one-year extensions allowed at the option of the City dependent upon satisfactory performance. Tyndale may have a price escalation based on price increases from supplier, not to exceed 4% annually with supporting documentation.

CITY OF DOVER FLAME RESISTANT CLOTHING PRICE SHEET RFP 15-0006EL TekSolv TekSolv Tyndale Company Inc Unifirst Corporation IRBY Deanna Niggebrug Deanna Niggebrug Guy Driesbach 5050 Shaun Bender 710 Charlotte Galek 130 Executive Drive 130 Executive Drive Applebutter Road Naylor Mill Road 12359 Ridge Road Newark, DE 19702 Newark, DE 19702 302- Pipersville, PA 18947 Salisbury, MD 21801 HD Supply Brian Wolcott, NY 14590 302-738-1050 Fax 738-1050 800-356-3433 x106 410-742-7361 Fax Tiley 315-454-7376 302-738-1051 Fax 302-738-1051 Fax 215-766-5661 410-860-0425 51 Steel Drive galek@irby.com dniggebrug@teksolv.com dniggebrug@teksolv.com marketing@tyndaleusa.com shaun_bender@unifirst.com New Castle, DE 19720 # Item Short Description Price Oversize Price Price Oversize Price Price Oversize Price Price Oversize Price Price Oversize Price Price Oversize Price 1 FRMC LAYER1 T-SHIRT LS 4CAL $48.16 $55.59 $ 38.94 $ 46.74 $37.20 $40.80 $47.65 $56.40 $43.18 None $36.50 $40.00 2 FRMC LAYER 1 T-SHIRT SS 4CAL $44.69 $51.43 $ 35.31 $ 42.37 $33.60 $37.20 $41.00 $48.45 $36.14 None $35.00 3 FRMC INTERLOCK T-SHIRT LS 8CAL $77.75 $91.10 $ 41.72 $ 48.81 $44.80 $53.00 $43.18 None $43.50 4 FRMC POLO SHIRT LS 10 CAL $80.09 $93.92 $ 78.67 $ 93.15 $56.50 $64.00 $50.50 $59.85 $64.00 None $43.50 5 FRMC HENLEY LONG SLEEVE 10 CAL $56.71 $63.42 $ 76.22 $ 90.22 $50.50 $59.85 $48.94 None $42.50 6 FR WORK-DRY COTTON LS T-SHIRT 8CAL $44.84 $51.60 $ 76.55 $ 89.41 $49.30 $55.90 $60.95 $72.35 $71.19 None $43.00 $44.25 7 FR WORK-DRY COTTON LS HENLEY 8CAL $56.15 $65.18 $51.70 $56.50 $62.95 $74.75 $71.19 None $44.25 8 FRMC CHAM BTN DN SHIRT LS 9 CAL $62.05 $72.27 $ 52.40 $ 61.63 $51.70 $56.50 $67.60 $80.35 $36.00 None $45.50 9 AMTEX BUTTONDOWN SHIRT LS 9 CAL $52.30 $60.56 $ 56.80 $ 66.91 $44.80 $53.00 $53.48 None $52.50 10 AMTEX BUTTONDOWN LS 8 CAL $52.30 $60.56 $ 46.32 $ 54.34 $51.70 $56.50 $42.95 $50.75 $45.44 None $45.50 11 FR TWILL WORK SHIRT 8CAL $49.23 $56.87 $ 49.54 $ 58.20 $51.70 $56.50 $62.95 $74.75 $31.48 None $45.50 12 6.5 oz Protera Vented Work Shirt 8 Cal $80.48 $87.43 $94.95 $113.15 13 FRMC RELAXED FIT JEAN 15CAL $39.01 $46.01 $ 41.25 $ 49.50 $46.80 $51.60 $66.30 $78.85 $37.93 None $46.00 14 FRMC CANVAS PANT 15 CAL $45.40 $53.67 $ 48.15 $ 57.77 $57.60 $63.60 $70.10 $83.40 $38.20 None $69.50 15 AMTEX RELAXED WORK JEAN 23 CAL $43.35 $51.22 $ 36.70 $ 44.03 $50.40 $55.20 $43.50 $51.50 $42.65 None $49.50 $55.00 16 AMTEX UTILITY CARGO PANT 12 CAL $48.13 $56.95 $ 57.55 $ 69.06 $63.60 $69.60 $69.15 $82.30 $66.83 None $62.50 $68.50 17 AMTEX WORK PANT W/RULE PKT 14CAL $49.93 $59.12 $ 48.15 $ 57.77 $58.80 $64.80 $60.60 $72.00 $70.10 None $56.50 $62.50 18 WORK JEAN $43.35 $51.22 $ 47.79 $ 57.34 $52.80 $57.60 $71.60 $85.20 $35.58 None $50.00 $56.50 19 FR CANVAS LOOSE-FIT JEAN 12CAL $49.93 $59.12 $ 48.15 $ 57.77 $77.60 $92.40 $44.80 None $56.50 $62.50 20 ULTRASOFT COVERALL 12 CAL $65.86 $73.17 $59.50 $66.70 $97.60 $114.90 $65.61 None $53.00 $60.00 21 AMTEX HEAVY BIB OVERALL 46CAL $192.63 $209.70 $ 213.24 $ 254.63 $184.30 $201.10 $196.15 $233.60 $103.89 None $149.00 $163.00 22 FRMC CHAMBRAY WINDSHIRT 9CAL $233.93 $278.52 $ 162.70 $ 193.98 $51.70 $56.50 $77.10 $91.75 $54.97 None 23 AMTEX INSULATED CHORE COAT 45CAL $141.19 $167.23 $ 171.63 $ 204.71 $160.30 $179.50 $195.55 $232.80 $111.66 None $152.00 $170.50 24 AMTEX WEYMOUTH WINDBREAKER 12CAL $155.50 $179.50 $88.30 $104.45 $26.34 None 25 AMTEX 3 SEASON ACTIVE JAC 28CAL $165.81 $186.54 $137.60 $163.25 $122.85 None $149.50 $176.00 26 AMTEX ACTIVE JACKET 46CAL $107.15 $126.39 $ 141.69 $ 168.77 $183.20 $218.00 $122.85 None $149.50 $176.00 27 FRMC HOODED SWEATSHIRT 21CAL $112.18 $120.71 $ 181.25 $ 216.25 $113.10 $134.60 $108.68 None $98.00 $106.00 28 FRMC DOUBLE-PLY SWEATSHIRT 46CAL $ 120.37 $ 143.20 $105.10 $117.10 $176.55 $210.00 $95.31 None 29 FRMC CREWNECK SWEATSHIRT 21CAL $102.43 $108.52 $ 162.70 $ 193.98 $95.50 $101.50 $95.05 $112.95 $109.46 None $88.50 $95.00 30 FRMC ZIP FRONT SWEATSHIRT 21CAL $123.15 $126.81 $ 157.94 $ 188.28 $115.90 $127.90 $126.40 $150.55 $117.15 None $109.00 $112.00 31 FRMC LINED ZIP SWEATSHIRT 44CAL $146.28 $169.44 $ 107.03 $ 127.19 $149.50 $173.50 $169.90 $202.05 $87.70 None $142.00 $164.00 32 FRMC MICROFLEECE ZIP JACKET 21CA $ 162.70 $ 193.98 $158.70 $189.30 $166.48 None $147.50 $171.00 33 NOMEX KNIT CAP 37CAL $21.65 $21.60 $25.80 One size $22.55 None $23.00 34 FR FLEECE 2-IN-ONE KNIT HAT $38.13 $ 31.74 $33.60 $46.70 One size $31.38 None $33.00 35 BEANIE DRAGONFUR HAT $25.94 $ 33.32 $18.00 $26.10 One size $22.55 None $23.00 36 FLEECE DRAGONFUR HAT $37.79 $21.60 $33.45 One size $31.38 None $23.00 $2,537.97 $ 2,526.52 $1,885.50 $3,077.70 $2,281.12 $2,207.75

FIRST READING 1 CITY OF DOVER ORDINANCE # 2014 - 22 2 2014-2015 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT 3 GOVERNMENTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 4 REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2014-2015 5 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 6 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Eight Million, Seven Hundred Fifty Four Thousand, Nine Hundred 7 Dollars ($8,754,900) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues and 8 other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year beginning 9 July 1,2014 and ending June 30, 2015: 10 REVENUES 11 ORIGINAL REVISED 12 2014/15 2014/15 13 BUDGET BUDGET 14 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 117,100 $ 2,323,100 15 BEGINNING BALANCE - LIBRARY PROJECT - 330,500 16 REVENUES 17 STATE GRANTS - OTHER 153,000 208,000 18 PROPOSED BOND/BANK PROCEEDS - Street 2,661,100 2,675,000 19 LEASE PURCHASE OF FIRE AND POLICE EQUIPMENT 918,300 918,300 20 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND FOR PROJECTS 2,196,000 2,196,000 21 TRANSFER FROM PARKLAND RESERVE - 104,000 22 TOTAL REVENUES 5,928,400 6,101,300 23 TOTAL BEGINNING BALANCE AND REVENUES $ 6,045,500 $ 8,754,900 24 EXPENSE SUMMARY 25 ORIGINAL REVISED 26 2014/15 2014/15 27 DEPARTMENT EXPENSES BUDGET BUDGET 28 FIRE $ 827,300 $ 827,300 29 GROUNDS MAINTENANCE 68,100 86,700 30 RECREATION 146,000 364,400 31 POLICE 499,100 499,100 32 STREETS 1,370,300 1,793,800 33 STREETS - GARRISON FARM INFRASTRUCTURE 2,600,000 4,226,700 34 SANITATION 256,500 256,500 35 CENTRAL SERVICES - 55,000 36 BOND/LOAN ISSUANCE COST 61,100 61,100 37 DEPARTMENT SUBTOTAL 5,828,400 8,170,600 38 TRANSFERS & MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES 39 TRANSFER TO PARKLAND RESERVE 100,000 100,000 40 TRANSFER TO CAPITAL PROJECT RESERVE - 330,500 41 TRANSFERS & MISCELLANEOUS SUBTOTAL 100,000 430,500 42 TOTAL EXPENSES AND TRANSFERS 5,928,400 8,601,100 43 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE 117,100 153,800 44 TOTALS $ 6,045,500 $ 8,754,900 45 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 46 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 47 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 48 ADOPTED: 1

FIRST READING 49 2014-2015 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT CONTINUED 50 WATER/WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENT & EXTENSION FUND 51 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2014-2015 52 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 53 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Seventeen Million, Four Hundred Twenty Eight Thousand, One Hundred 54 dollars ($17,428,100) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues 55 and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year beginning 56 July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015: 57 CASH RECEIPTS 58 ORIGINAL REVISED 59 2014/15 2014/15 60 BUDGET BUDGET 61 PRIOR YEAR BALANCE - WATER $ 1,021,200 $ 7,490,100 62 PRIOR YEAR BALANCE - WASTEWATER 1,060,000 5,597,400 63 TOTAL BEGINNING BALANCES 2,081,200 13,087,500 64 RECEIPTS 65 TRANS FROM OPERATING FUND FOR WATER 1,200,000 1,200,000 66 TRANS FROM OPERATING FUND FOR WASTEWATER 1,800,000 1,800,000 67 TRANSFER FROM WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE RESERVE 1,315,600 1,315,600 68 INTEREST INCOME 25,000 25,000 69 TOTAL RECEIPTS 4,340,600 4,340,600 70 TOTALS $ 6,421,800 $ 17,428,100 71 EXPENSE SUMMARY 72 ORIGINAL REVISED 73 2014/15 2014/15 74 EXPENSES BUDGET BUDGET 75 WATER $ 1,336,900 $ 7,526,500 76 WASTEWATER 3,273,200 7,757,300 77 WATER TREATMENT PLANT 38,100 38,100 78 TOTAL EXPENSES 4,648,200 15,321,900 79 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE - WATER 858,700 1,138,000 80 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE - WASTEWATER 914,900 968,200 81 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE SUBTOTALS 1,773,600 2,106,200 82 TOTALS $ 6,421,800 $ 17,428,100 83 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 84 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 85 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 86 ADOPTED: 2

FIRST READING 87 2014-2015 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT CONTINUED 88 ELECTRIC UTILITY IMPROVEMENT AND EXTENSION FUND 89 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2014-2015 90 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 91 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Ten Million, Nine Hundred Eighty Seven Thousand Nine 92 Hundred Dollars ($10,987,900) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from 93 current revenues and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for 94 the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015: 95 CASH RECEIPTS 96 ORIGINAL REVISED 97 2014/15 2014/15 98 BUDGET BUDGET 99 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 3,362,200 $ 5,963,100 100 RECEIPTS 101 TRANSFER FROM ELECTRIC 4,750,000 4,750,000 102 GENERAL SERVICE BILLING 250,000 250,000 103 INTEREST EARNINGS 24,800 24,800 104 TOTAL RECEIPTS 5,024,800 5,024,800 105 TOTALS $ 8,387,000 $ 10,987,900 106 EXPENSE SUMMARY 107 ORIGINAL REVISED 108 2014/15 2014/15 109 EXPENSES BUDGET BUDGET 110 ELECTRIC GENERATION $ 2,240,000 $ 2,739,300 111 TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION 1,033,000 1,574,100 112 ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING 1,663,100 3,030,300 113 TOTAL EXPENSES 4,936,100 7,343,700 114 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE 3,450,900 3,644,200 115 TOTALS $ 8,387,000 $ 10,987,900 116 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 117 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 118 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 119 ADOPTED: 3

FIRST READING 120 2014-2015 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT CONTINUED 121 COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT FUND 122 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2014-2015 123 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 124 The amount hereinafter named aggregating One Million, Eight Hundred Twenty One Thousand 125 Eight Hundred Dollars ($1,821,800) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from 126 current revenues and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government 127 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015: 128 OPERATING REVENUES 129 ORIGINAL REVISED 130 2014/15 2014/15 131 BUDGET BUDGET 132 PRIOR YEAR BALANCE $ 78,900 $ 143,500 133 GRANTS REVENUE - DELDOT 500,000 1,677,800 134 INTEREST INCOME 500 500 135 TOTAL REVENUES 500,500 1,678,300 136 TOTALS $ 579,400 $ 1,821,800 137 OPERATING EXPENSES 138 ORIGINAL REVISED 139 2014/15 2014/15 140 BUDGET BUDGET 141 PROGRAM EXPENSES - DELDOT $ 500,000 $ 1,677,800 142 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 500,000 1,677,800 143 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE 79,400 144,000 144 TOTALS $ 579,400 $ 1,821,800 145 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 146 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 147 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 148 ADOPTED: 4