Council Minutes and Exhibits 1-4 (revised to include Corrected Exhibit 3)

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING The Regular Council Meeting was held on August 28, 2017 at 7:31 p.m. with Council President Slavin presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sudler, Mr. Neil, Mr. Cole, Mr. Polce, and Mr. Lindell. Mr. Hare and Mr. Lewis were absent. Staff members present were Police Chief Mailey, Ms. Peddicord, Mrs. Mitchell, Mr. Hugg, Fire Chief Carey, City Solicitor Rodriguez, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Christiansen was also present (departed at 7:40 p.m.). OPEN FORUM The Open Forum was held at 7:00 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Slavin declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council was not in official session and could not take formal action. Mr. Steven French stated that Loockerman Exchange and the former library were available and asked why the homeless could not live there. He noted that the homeless would need a home before winter. Ms. Janetta Guinn stated that she was stopped by the Dover Police two years ago for not wearing a seatbelt and the judge said that all vehicles in Delaware were required to have seatbelts. Noting that school buses, public transportation, and Dover Police motorcycles do not have seatbelts, Ms. Guinn asked how there could be one law for one person and not another law for somebody else. She noted that there were 7, 8, 9, and 10-year-old kids on school buses getting hurt every day. Responding, Council President Slavin advised that the State Legislature enacts the laws that govern transportation and that Mayor Christiansen would speak with Ms. Guinn after the Open Forum and relay her concerns to the State Legislature. Ms. Guinn, noting recent news stories, asked why police are placed on administrative leave with pay when they do something wrong. Council President Slavin advised Ms. Guinn that Mayor Christiansen would speak with her at the conclusion of the Open Forum. Ms. Cynthia Quevedo stated that she loves all of Councilman Anderson’s posts and that she agrees with him 100%. Mr. Swann Twitty advised that his issues were jobs and homelessness. He stated that it was difficult for people with records to get jobs and there were not equal opportunities. Mr. Eric Abernathy stated that the homeless need to be helped because the homeless situation is not going away until they can all learn to work together to help the situation and get the people off of the street. He noted that a building or a piece of land could be found or they could build tiny houses or some type of affordable housing. Mr. Abernathy stated that you cannot survive on a minimum wage job in Dover. Pastor Aaron Appling advised that they will serve over 50,000 meals to the Dover community this year and that they give out 100 to 125 banana boxes of food to families every single week, or approximately 5,000 boxes per year. He advised that they receive no government assistance and they

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 2 are able to provide food efficiently. Pastor Appling stated that they run into organizations who are funded, and have money, who are far less efficient than they are. He noted that they would continue with their feeding programs and would be extending the program to other parts of the county in October. Pastor Appling, noting that the City partnered with Interfaith Mission and other organizations in the past, requested assistance, such as a vacant building downtown where they can serve more efficiently without spending so much money on gas running back and forth. Ms. Sue Harris stated that she wanted to address a comment made by Mr. Neil during the last City Council meeting that Council is roundly criticized for supporting NCALL and Habitat’s building of affordable homes. She advised that they have never criticized the City's efforts with NCALL or Habitat for Humanity. Ms. Harris stated that the work that they do is commendable and they wholly support their efforts; however, they have no programs for the homeless or the chronically homeless and their efforts are for home ownership. She advised that they are advocating for those who need very low rentals and asked that the City not use its support of NCALL and Habitat for Humanity in defense of any efforts to help the homeless. Ms. Harris advised that she had originally intended to apologize for some of the things that were said during the last meeting, since it appeared that their questions came across as unfounded, reckless accusations of profiteering. She stated that neither she nor Ms. Teri Staub intended for their questions to be taken as accusations, they were simply questions. Ms. Harris advised that she did e-mail an apology the previous week for some inaccurate research she mentioned at the last meeting. She advised that she realized she was inaccurate on the path of transactions and provided research showing the tax payments for each of the NCALL properties (Exhibit #1) that appear to have been disposed of as surplus properties. Ms. Harris stated that, in this process, a total payment to the Tax Assessor's Office was made in a lump sum of approximately $226,500 for FY 2016 and FY 2017. Ms. Harris asked if a funding stream could be created, supported by those tax lien payments, less the demo fees, for surplus abandoned properties, and allocated to help create affordable rental housing in the City of Dover. Ms. Harris advised that they were not there to make accusations and they do not quite understand the defensiveness because their point is not “what are you doing with these funds?” but “what are you not doing with them?” She reiterated that affordable rental housing for the low and very low income is in short supply and a part of the City’s Consolidated Plan is to address that need. Ms. Harris asked that the City consider partnering with additional non-profits to create affordable rental units from surplus properties. Ms. Harris requested that the City clarify in its Code that a grantee is required to submit a certification that will affirmatively further fair housing; that the City will conduct an analysis to identify its impediments, take appropriate actions to overcome them, and keep records. She stated that these impediments are private sector and government actions or behavior against policy, ordinance, regulations like building codes, zoning ordinances, and practices that have the effect of restricting housing choices or the availability of housing choices due to gender, race, familial status, national origin, real origin, and disability. Ms. Harris provided documentation on the analysis made in 2011 and the recommendations that have yet to be implemented (Exhibit #2). The invocation was given by Captain Elmer N. Davis, Jr., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence in recognition of the loss of Councilman Lewis’ mother.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 3 AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Consent Agenda, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare and Lewis absent). ADOPTION OF MINUTES - SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 2017 The Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of August 7, 2017 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Anderson and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 2017 The Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of August 14, 2017 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Anderson and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 2017 The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of August 14, 2017 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Anderson and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. PROCLAMATION - NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS MONTH The City Clerk read the following Proclamation into the record: WHEREAS, National Preparedness Month creates an important opportunity for City of Dover residents to prepare their homes, businesses, and communities for potential natural disasters or terrorist attack, and investing in emergency preparedness can reduce injuries, fatalities, and economic devastation in our community and nation; and WHEREAS, the 2017 National Preparedness Month theme "Disasters Don't Plan Ahead. You Can" emphasizes the importance that we should all take action to prepare, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency's "Ready" Campaign, Citizen Corps, and other federal, state, local, private, and volunteer agencies are working to increase public activities to prepare for emergencies and to educate individuals on how to take action; and WHEREAS, City of Dover citizens are able to help first responders in the community by being trained on how to respond during an emergency and what to do when disaster strikes. Emergency preparedness is the responsibility of every citizen of the City of Dover, and all citizens are urged to make preparedness a priority and work together to ensure that individuals, families, and communities are prepared for disasters and emergencies of any type. Residents are encouraged to participate in preparedness activities and to be proactive in establishing sound plans for addressing emergencies. NOW, THEREFORE, I, ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE do hereby proclaim the month of September 2017 as NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS MONTH in the City of Dover, and urge all citizens, businesses, and

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 4 organizations to develop their own emergency plan and work together toward creating a more prepared society. On behalf of the Mayor and Council, Mayor Christiansen presented Fire Chief Carey with the Proclamation and thanked Police Chief Mailey; Mrs. Kay Sass, Emergency Management Coordinator; Fire Chief Carey; and all first responders for their service. PRESENTATION - RECOGNITION OF SERVICE - JOHN TINSLEY - DOWNTOWN DOVER PARTNERSHIP BOARD OF DIRECTORS (JULY 2014 THROUGH MAY 2017) The City Clerk read the following Certificate into the record: CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION Presented to JOHN TINSLEY Downtown Dover Partnership Board of Directors July 2014 - May 2017 The City of Dover extends sincere appreciation for your public service. August 28, 2017 On behalf of the Mayor and Council, Mayor Christiansen presented the certificate to Mr. Tinsley and thanked him for his service and continued commitment to downtown Dover. SPECIAL DOVER HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION REPORT - JULY 27, 2017 The Special Dover Human Relations Commission (DHRC) meeting was held on July 27, 2017 at 6:03 p.m. with Chairman Henderson presiding. Election of Committee Chair - Education Committee Mr. Henderson advised that Mr. Fleming had expressed an interest in serving as Chair of the Education Committee and asked if there were further nominees. The Commission elected Mr. Paul Fleming to serve as Chair of the Education Committee. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Commission’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare and Lewis absent).

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 5 DHRC Committee Updates Government Policy, Programs, and Practices Committee (Gaddis) Mr. Gaddis advised that there was no report for the Government Policy, Programs, and Practices Committee. Community Engagement Committee (Mullen) Ms. Mullen stated that St. Andrew’s Lutheran Church had reached out to her because she serves on the White Oak/Towne Point Civic Association. She noted that she had not yet responded to St. Andrews and she asked if she could represent the DHRC or should represent the White Oak/Towne Point community when interacting with them. Responding, Mr. Henderson indicated that he had seen Reverend Mark Walters, Pastor, St. Andrew’s Lutheran Church, earlier in the day at a Rotary Club meeting, and Reverend Walters had provided Mr. Henderson with a formal letter stating that St. Andrew’s wanted to get together and ask questions. Mr. Henderson indicated that he would provide this letter to Ms. Mullen and discuss it with her. He advised that this would be an excellent contact for the DHRC, noting that Reverend Walters seemed willing to do outreach for the DHRC. Ms. Mullen stated that the Church the Body of Christ on Townsend Boulevard was also very interested in what the DHRC does, and she was waiting for the development of a DHRC brochure to move forward. Mr. Henderson stated that he would never say no to churches and noted that he may also approach some churches. Mrs. Herbert informed members that she had been working with the National Council on Agricultural Life and Labor Research (NCALL) Restoring Central Dover community engagement forum planning group, and Ms. Mullen had also been doing so when she is available. Mrs. Herbert advised that it is easier for her to attend than Ms. Mullen because Mrs. Herbert does not work. She stated that the group had established an over-arching topic for a series of forums, and the topic was the things that one should know about education. Mrs. Herbert advised that the first forum, scheduled for September 30, 2017, would address available sources to help with education. She explained that this session would relate to services that exist both inside and outside the public schools to support students and families, how families can learn about these services and take advantage of them, and where the gaps are. Mrs. Herbert advised that another forum would be held on November 4, 2017 regarding how external forces and systems, such as poverty, economics, crime, the criminal justice system, and the political system, can work at cross-purposes to students’ success, and how changes in these areas can bridge some of the gaps identified. She indicated that there had been discussion about placing a special emphasis on crime, since crime was a hot and timely topic in the community. Mrs. Herbert indicated that a third forum would be held on January 27, 2018 regarding transitions from high school to college and would be aimed at high school freshmen and sophomores. She stated that this session would be delivered in large part by Delaware State University (DSU) and Wesley College students and would

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 6 possibly include breakout sessions for students of different ages, so that content could be better targeted to what students need to know and when. Mrs. Herbert asked if this series of forums was something that was appropriate for the DHRC, stating that she felt the first forum was appropriate because it was about resources. She also asked if she should continue to attend the NCALL forum group planning meetings or if this should fall under the purview of Mr. Fleming and the Education Committee. Responding to Mr. Henderson, Mrs. Herbert stated that the community engagement forum planning group was part of NCALL, and NCALL had involved Wesley College, DSU, Wesley College Drug and Alcohol Education, and Central Middle School. She explained that Dr. Chanda Jackson, Community Engagement Specialist, NCALL, oversees the entire program. Mrs. Herbert advised that a member of the State Human Relations Commission (SHRC) had been involved in an initial housing forum put on by the group when the SHRC was working on housing; however, she had taken herself off the planning group because the next series of forums proposed was not about housing. Mrs. Herbert suggested that if the DHRC did not participate in any of the other forums, they may want attend the first to talk to families about educational resources and bring DHRC pamphlets. She explained that the forum planning group had not yet developed a title for the event. Mrs. Herbert noted that the group had been meeting every two (2) weeks at 10:00 a.m. on Fridays, and the next meeting was scheduled for Friday, August 4, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. at the Midnight Roast Coffee Shop at Wesley College. Mr. Gaddis noted that he had taught high school for 33 years, and he suggested that the transitions workshop scheduled for January 27, 2017 not be confined to high school to college transitions. He indicated that he would like kids to have the ability to transition from high school to employment, apprenticeships, technical schools, etc. Mr. Gaddis expressed his opinion that there had always been too much emphasis on college and that credence and value should be given to working. He explained that some young people have their own ideas, do not want to go to college, and want to work and do something productive with their lives, and there is a need to help them as well. Mr. Henderson stated that the forums were worth looking into. Mrs. Herbert advised that the planning group seemed to be concerned about whether or not parents would come and bring their kids and wanted to start advertising early; however, Mrs. Herbert indicated that more focus was needed before advertising. She stated that the group was doing very well and putting in the time that was needed for the forums. Mrs. Herbert stated that she had attended a previous forum put on by the group in April 2017 which was very successful. She noted that the group was working to make central Dover better and must hold their events in that area; therefore, the three (3) forums would be held at Wesley College, and Central Middle School would be involved.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 7 Mr. Henderson stated that the forums sounded great, Mrs. Herbert could educate members about the sessions, and they could attend some of them. Mrs. Herbert suggested bringing the DHRC’s brochure. She stated that she was unsure how the DHRC would fit into the forums; however, the forum planning group wanted the DHRC to provide any resources that members knew of, noting that Dr. Jackson needed this information to be sent to her. Mrs. Herbert noted that she herself had not been in Dover long enough to know all of the available resources. She stated that there was a resource called Parent, Inc. that she had never heard of which is very helpful to parents. Mrs. Herbert advised that the planning group had mentioned only the transition from high school to college in regard to the forum planned regarding transitions. She noted that a lot of parents and kids would be cut out if other transitions, such as technical school and work transitions, were not included. Mrs. Herbert agreed with Mr. Gaddis’s previous comments that the high school to college focus may be too narrow. Ms. Mullen informed members that she had recommended to the planning group that they focus on the middle school to high school transition. She noted that a lot of children are being lost at an early age because they are becoming involved in other things that are offered to them. Ms. Mullen expressed the need to condition children’s mindsets to think about college well before high school. She concurred with Mr. Gaddis and Mrs. Herbert that there was a need to consider children who are not interested in college. Mr. Henderson noted that the forums would apply to the DHRC Education Committee, as well as to the Communications Committee for marketing. He advised that if the DHRC could be a conduit of information to advertise and make people aware, it will have fulfilled its role as a commission. Mr. Henderson indicated that the DHRC could advertise that they are in touch with NCALL and that symposiums would be held. He stated that events could be advertised to the community and members’ districts by way of brochures, radio, and social media, such as Facebook and Twitter. Responding to Mrs. Herbert, Mr. Henderson stated that Mr. Fleming could be involved with the forums due to his role on the Education Committee. Mrs. Herbert stated that she thought other members should be included in these types of events. She expressed her hope that Mr. Fleming could come to the next planning group meeting scheduled for August 4, 2017. Education Committee (Fleming) Mr. Fleming apologized for missing the previous DHRC meeting, stating that he had forgotten that the meeting time was 6:00 p.m. and had come at 7:00 p.m. He noted that his attendance would have provided a quorum for the meeting and apologized for taking up members’ time by not being present on time.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 8 Mr. Fleming stated that he had thought members could get exposure for the DHRC by walking in the Fourth of July parade wearing their DHRC shirts; however, he had brought this up at the last minute and members may not have been available. Mr. Fleming recommended that the DHRC participate in these type of events as often as they can so that people know who they are. He stated that all members would not have to walk, but if more than one (1) or two (2) people could participate, this would help expose the Commission to the Dover community. Mr. Fleming noted that an article in the Delaware State News earlier in the week regarding the Student Excellence Equals Degree (SEED) program stated that one (1) of the legislators was upset because he did not think taxpayers should be paying to send other people’s children to school. Mr. Fleming expressed his opinion that this legislator was completely off base and that SEED is an excellent program. He advised that education is not just about degrees and noted that there are many technical programs, such as solar energy, etc. Mr. Fleming expressed his hope that some of the SEED money would work its way into technical programs for high school graduates. He stated that the SEED program is a wonderful opportunity for the citizens of Delaware to transition into higher education, including both technical and degree programs. He encouraged members to find and read this Delaware State News article, which he stated they would find very enlightening. Mr. Fleming estimated that 98% of those who commented in the newspaper the day after the article was published were in favor of the SEED program and helping kids to obtain higher education. Communications Committee (Paige) Reverend Paige advised that she had no report. She noted that she and Ms. Mullen had agreed to work together, since communications overlaps with the community engagement. She noted that Ms. Mullen had performed outreach with radio networks; however, Reverend Paige stated that she had not been involved and they would correct this for next month. Liaison to State Human Relations Commission During the Dover Human Relations Commission Workshop held on May 25, 2017, members considered a Review of DHRC Strategic Plan 2015-2018 Long-Term Objectives and Development of Work Plans. Members discussed objective 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.” Members discussed appointing a member of the DHRC as a Liaison to the State Human Relations Commission (SHRC) to accomplish this goal. Mr. Henderson nominated Mrs. Herbert to serve as Liaison to the State Human Relations Commission.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 9 The Commission elected Mrs. Sara Herbert to serve as Liaison to the State Human Relations Commission. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Commission’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare and Lewis absent). Mrs. Herbert stated that she had spoken to Ms. Annette Fletcher, Delaware Division of Human Relations, who had encouraged her to attend SHRC meetings, and Mrs. Herbert had attended one (1). She advised that Ms. Fletcher had explained that a public forum is held before the meetings; however, Mrs. Herbert did not observe this and, since they did not have the open forum, she indicated her belief that not many people attend meetings. Mrs. Herbert advised that she attended the SHRC meeting by herself, no one had asked her why she was there, and she was eventually invited to the table. She explained that Ms. Kelly Brown, Delaware Division of Human Relations, takes meeting notes and handles meeting business in Dover. Mrs. Herbert indicated that the meeting is a virtual meeting and is conducted using television, so that those in Wilmington can see participants from southern Delaware. She advised that it was suggested that she talk to Ms. Brown and ask to be placed on an agenda. Mrs. Herbert informed members that she would like to have their feedback regarding establishing a connection with a member of the SHRC who is not from Dover. She explained that she believed that a representative from Dover would already be enmeshed in what is going on in Dover, and she favored being connected with someone who has an unbiased opinion in case questions needed to be asked of the SHRC. Mrs. Herbert advised that she was experiencing difficulty having phone calls returned by the SHRC and noted that SHRC members, like DHRC members, are volunteers. Mrs. Herbert indicated that she wanted to find out how the DHRC and SHRC can interact with each other, noting that she was not absolutely positive that they can. In response to Mr. Henderson, Mrs. Herbert indicated that source of the SHRC meetings is in Wilmington and meetings are run by Mr. Calvin Christopher, Chair, SHRC. She indicated that her phone number had been provided to Mr. Christopher; however, he had not returned the call. Mrs. Herbert reiterated that everyone that sits at the SHRC table is a volunteer, with the exception of Ms. Brown in Dover and Ms. Fletcher in Wilmington. Mr. Gaddis asked what insight Mrs. Herbert was hoping to obtain by connecting with a SHRC member outside of Dover. Responding, Mrs. Herbert stated that she would not know this until she talks to a contact to find out what the SHRC does, versus the DHRC. She noted that during the DHRC Workshop of May 25, 2017, members had discussed subpoenas and other matters. Mrs. Herbert stated that the DHRC handles Dover and the SHRC covers the entire State, which includes Dover, and she wanted clarification so that the DHRC does not step on toes or do something that the SHRC

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 10 is supposed to do. She also noted that connecting with the SHRC relates to long- term goal C.2. of the DHRC Strategic Plan 2015-2018, and is something the DHRC is supposed to do. Mr. Henderson suggested that he accompany Mrs. Herbert to the next meeting and perhaps this connection could be clarified. Mrs. Herbert noted that neither she nor her SHRC contact would be making decisions; however, there was a need to have a bridge to obtain information. She informed members that Mr. Roy Sudler, City Council Representative for the Fourth District, and Kent County Representative to the SHRC, represents the Dover area on the SHRC. She indicated that she had nothing against Mr. Sudler; however, she had noticed that he had not attended some of the SHRC meetings, and she noted that he may be busy and not have the time. Reverend Paige stated that she had excused herself from the conversation. She advised that Mr. Sudler represents Dover on the SHRC and formerly chaired the DHRC. Mrs. Herbert explained that she knew Mr. Sudler and had no problem with him. She acknowledged that he would be much closer than some of the other SHRC members who come from all over the State to attend the meetings. Mr. Henderson advised that he would like to attend an SHRC meeting. In response to Mr. Henderson, Mrs. Herbert stated that she was unsure of the SHRC’s meeting schedule but it was her recollection that meetings are held on the second Thursday of the month at the Cannon Building on Silver Lake Boulevard. She advised that Mr. Henderson could attend with her, and stated that she would contact Ms. Brown first, tell her that they would be coming, and obtain information from her about the meeting date and time. She indicated that she had spoken with Ms. Brown previously and informed her about the long-term objective in C.2 of the DHRC Strategic Plan 2015-2018. Mr. Henderson stated that he and Mrs. Herbert would attend the August SHRC meeting together. DHRC Participation in Radio Segment During the Dover Human Relations Commission (DHRC) Workshop of May 25, 2017, Ms. Mullen informed members that she had an opportunity to participate in a radio talk show segment and asked if this would be permissible. Responding, Mrs. Stein indicated that this item could be placed on a meeting agenda for members' consideration and, if they chose, participation could be recommended to Council. Ms. Mullen advised that she had been in communication with Ms. Benita Gassi from the Ms. Benita Show TV and Radio Network, who had advised her that the cost of DHRC’s participation on the radio would be $125. Ms. Mullen explained that, if members chose to proceed, coverage would be on four (4) networks, including Bomb Baby Radio, Hottest Live Radio, Media Angel TV and Radio, and ACT Boom TV, and there would be continuous advertising and a 15-minute interview segment with

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 11 a member of the DHRC. Ms. Mullen advised that participation would allow the DHRC to update and educate the public on what the Commission is about, its missions and goals, and how the DHRC can help the community. She noted that Ms. Gassi had also offered to provide Twitter and Facebook services, which Mr. Henderson stated would be fine, noting that he is not familiar with this type of media. Ms. Mullen stated that she would have to do some research if members wanted to proceed. Reverend Paige advised, having been in radio herself, that she was not in favor of paying $125 for what the DHRC wants to do. She stated that the DHRC is public service and, in her opinion, there should be no cost for members to discuss who the DHRC is and what they do, and the radio station should invite the DHRC in for this purpose. Reverend Paige noted that radio station WWDE at Delaware State University (DSU) broadcasts beyond DSU and suggested WDOV as well. She indicated that she is acquainted with Ms. Gassi and had no problems with her; however, she was not in favor of paying $125. Reverend Paige advised that she could understand paying this amount to purchase a $125 advertising package but not to inform the community about the DHRC. Ms. Mullen and Mrs. Herbert concurred. Ms. Mullen stated that the $125 cost had been mentioned at the end of her conversation with Ms. Gassi, and she had then advised Ms. Gassi that she wanted to take this information back to the Commission. In response to Mr. Gaddis, Ms. Mullen stated that she was unsure if the radio stations mentioned by Ms. Gassi were licensed. Mr. Gaddis advised that every licensed radio station is required to provide public service time as part of federal licensing. Reverend Paige stated that she was unsure if Ms. Gassi is licensed, noting that Ms. Gassi mostly does internet radio. Reverend Paige advised that Reverend Shonde Greene broadcasts on Faith 1510 in Wilmington, and interviews can be recorded for later broadcast. She indicated that Faith 1510, WWDE, and WDOV are stations in the area with wide listenership that would cover the diverse population that the DHRC is trying to target. Mrs. Herbert noted that Ms. Gassi may not recognize that the DHRC is a public service entity. Reverend Paige advised that she could work with Commissioner Mullen further on this matter, reiterating that communications and community engagement overlap. In response to Mr. Henderson, Ms. Mullen noted that Ms. Gassi had also mentioned blogs and other things. She suggested deferring this item until she and Reverend Paige can collaborate. She stated that radio is a good resource and avenue to utilize to get word out to the public and expressed the desire to reach all segments of people, rather than catering to one (1) type of population. The Commission deferred this matter for collaboration.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 12 Development of DHRC Brochure Referring to the brochure entitled, “Dover Human Relations Commission,” formerly circulated by the DHRC and provided by Mr. Fleming, Mr. Henderson advised that he liked the beautiful logo. During their meeting of April 10, 2017, Council considered the Development of a Concise Statement - Mission and Functions of DHRC and approved the DHRC’s recommendation to accept the concise statement as written. Mr. Gaddis expressed concern that the brochure did not include the concise statement that he and Reverend Paige had developed and was approved by the Commission. Mrs. Stein explained that the brochure being reviewed was used by the Commission previously and had been provided by Mr. Fleming. She noted that it was included to provide members a starting point for a new brochure. Mr. Henderson advised that the brochure was from years ago. He stated that numbers and other things would change and advised that the mission statement could be the first thing to change. Mr. Henderson asked if Mr. Gaddis could take on the task of looking over the excellent but outdated brochure. He stated that this was not intended as a slight to Mr. Fleming and suggested that Mr. Fleming could perhaps do some fine tuning on the brochure. Mr. Gaddis noted that Reverend Paige had also been involved in developing the concise mission statement. Referring to the Mission Statement in the brochure, Mrs. Herbert indicated that she was disturbed by the third paragraph, which stated that “The Commission is authorized to inquire into incidents of inter-group conflicts, disputes and alleged discrimination within the City and to make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council for action to alleviate such conflicts.” Based on the DHRC Workshop held on May 25, 2017, she expressed her understanding that the DHRC is an advisory Commission and noted that this statement sounded more investigative. Mrs. Herbert stated that if the DHRC was allowed to inquire into incidents, this should be listed in the brochure; however, she was unsure that a decision had been made and if the DHRC was allowed to do this. Responding, Mr. Henderson stated that he recalled that it was concluded that issuing subpoenas and getting involved in every small matter was not something that the DHRC would be doing. Mr. Fleming and Reverend Paige concurred. Reverend Paige stated that members had discussed possibly looking into this further down the road, but not now. Reverend Paige stated that she saw the previous brochure as a guideline so that members would know what is needed in the new brochure. She noted that she was delighted to see Mr. Jon Offredo, DHRC Commissioner, Fourth District, when she walked in the door, stating that she did not know that he was a Commissioner. Reverend Paige advised that she had asked Mr. Offredo if he would help her with communications, noting that Mr. Offredo has experience with The News-Journal.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 13 She recommended that she and Mr. Offredo work on the brochure together, stating that she viewed the brochure as falling under communications. Reverend Paige noted that anyone else who wanted to work on the brochure could also do so. The Commission recommended that Reverend Paige and Mr. Offredo work on the brochure, as well as anyone else who wants to do so. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Commission’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare and Lewis absent). Mr. Henderson stated his understanding that Reverend Paige, Mr. Offredo, and Mr. Gaddis would work on the brochure and provide a product at the next meeting. At Mr. Henderson’s request, Mr. Jon Offredo advised that he resides in the Fourth District, and he and his fiancee rent an apartment on The Green above The Delaware Store. He stated that he has been living in Dover for approximately four (4) years and had been a reporter for three (3) of those years at the News-Journal, covering Legislative Hall and the City of Dover. Mr. Offredo stated that he quit this job approximately one (1) year ago and now works for the State of Delaware, Public Defender's Office, where he does legislative policy and communications work. He indicated that he is happy to help in any way possible. Update of DHRC Webpage This item was deferred due to time constraints. Sponsorship of Educational Symposium This item was deferred due to time constraints. DHRC Vacancies This item was deferred due to time constraints. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for acceptance of the Dover Human Relations Commission Report, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare and Lewis absent). COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT - AUGUST 15, 2017 The Council Committee of the Whole met on August 15, 2017 at 6:00 p.m., with Council President Slavin presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson (arrived at 6:23 p.m.), Mr. Sudler (departed at 6:34 p.m. and returned at 6:40 p.m.), Mr. Neil, Mr. Cole, Mr. Polce (departed at 6:34 p.m. and returned at 6:35 p.m.), and Mr. Hare. Mr. Lewis and Mr. Lindell were absent. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Ms. Arndt (Utility), and Mr. Shevock and Dr. Stewart (Legislative, Finance, and Administration).

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 14 UTILITY COMMITTEE Alternative Solar Energy Announcement by DSU and Eastern Woodland Holdings LLC., for Potential Public Private Partnership Opportunity sponsored by Councilman Roy Sudler, Jr. 4th District and Brian Lewis 2nd District Councilpersons Mr. Sudler indicated that he thought that this alternative solar energy proposal would be a great opportunity for a potential solar development in the City of Dover, noting that it was a partnership between Delaware State University (DSU) and Eastern Woodland Holdings LLC. He introduced Mr. Chris Coker, a representative for Eastern Woodland Holdings LLC. Mr. Sudler noted that Mr. J.D. Bartlett had an emergency to tend to at DSU; however, he had met with Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Acting City Manager, prior to the meeting to discuss what they were thinking about proposing to the City. Mr. Coker informed members that he was representing Eastern Woodlands and DSU, and announced that they would be partnering up to do some solar together. He stated that they were still considering that; however, after meeting with Mrs. Mitchell, he believed that he would go after the Request for Proposals (RFP) for 30 megawatts (MW), noting that he thought he could fulfill the City’s needs on that with DSU. Mr. Coker indicated that they were looking to do 20MW to 25MW but, if the station could hold it, they could perhaps do 30 MW. Mrs. Mitchell reminded members that in the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) that was presented to Council by The Energy Authority (TEA) back in April, one (1) of the recommendations was that the City do an RFP for 30 MW of solar. She informed members that she had explained to Mr. Coker that the City would soon be doing that RFP, and becoming aware of it had encouraged him to participate in that process. Mr. Slavin cautioned members not to ask any questions of Mr. Coker, otherwise he may be disqualified from responding to the RFP. Conwell Street Discussion Mrs. Sharon Duca, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer, reviewed her memo dated July 28, 2017 regarding Conwell Street Evaluation. She explained that the Department of Public Works was charged with evaluating Conwell Street in conjunction with researching the development history, current status, and upgrade options. Mr. Sudler asked if there would be another option that would be less complex and timing consuming, such as a paved alley, or something another level down from a street with walkways and curb appeal, and drainage. Responding, Mrs. Duca explained that if Council wanted to pursue the enhancements of this road, technically deeming it an alley and making the appropriate authentication in that manner would create the smaller pavement because it would not require the concrete addition. She stated that it would also give more room within the right-of-way for more natural

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 15 swales, etc. to handle the drainage, noting that the concrete sections on a regular road would make it very difficult and definitely require storm sewer. In response to Mr. Hare, Mrs. Duca stated that there were a couple of houses on the front of the street. Mr. Hare noted that this was not a City street. He asked if the residents wanted to bring it into the City and for the City to take it over. Responding, Mrs. Duca stated that this was her understanding. Mr. Hare asked if this would be any different than, for example, if the contractor for Nottingham Meadows was building houses, did not want to finish the street, and wanted the City to take it over and finish it. He asked if the City would do that. In response, Mrs. Duca advised that Conwell Street would be more similar to Cannon Mill, explaining that the City did have to deal with the roads in that development because the developer went bankrupt. Mr. Hare asked if there was a developer for Conwell Street and Mrs. Duca advised that there was not. Mr. Hare asked who owns the land. Responding, Mrs. Duca stated that it could be considered no man’s land at this point, explaining that it was never transferred to the City; therefore, it would be more likely to still be in Kent County. She explained that technically the land owner would be the original developer of the College Road Settlement from 1899 because they never deeded it over to any municipal entity. Mr. Hare asked how staff was going to determine who owns the land. In response, Mrs. Duca, referring to page 2 of her memo dated July 28, 2017 regarding Conwell Street Evaluation, noted that other sections of roads that wound up being vacated went through the Superior Court. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Duca stated that it would be difficult to trace the underlying owner of the road at this point, which, she believed, was the reason it became a matter of the courts. Mr. Slavin asked if the City had any history regarding who originally paved the road or who paid to have it paved originally. In response, Mrs. Duca advised that information regarding the original paving was not part of any of the research or the plans that staff could find. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Duca informed members that Conwell Street was not a publicly identified road in terms of Municipal Street Aid (MSA); however, it was in regard to Google and that type of thing. Mr. Slavin stated his understanding that if the road was not owned by the City, then it would be a State road. In response, Mrs. Duca indicated that it would be a State or County road. Mr. Slavin stated that typically in a development, a developer will build out a development, build out the roads, and then dedicate them over to the City when they are up to the City’s standards, so that the City does not inherit those costs. He noted, however, that in the case where the developer went bankrupt and left the roads sub-standard, the City was forced to take action out of public safety. Responding, Mrs. Duca stated that those subdivisions were legitimately within City of Dover limits. Mr. Neil stated that he thought that this matter was very perplexing and he did not think that it would get a high priority over existing problems. He advised that his suggestion would be for the City to send all of the people who signed the petition a letter basically stating that this is not City land. Mr. Neil noted that there are many

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 16 issues dealing with the ownership and the deeding to the City, and that while the City will look at the process to see what the City can do, he did not think the individuals should expect it to be done quickly because they signed a petition. He explained that the City should be gentle, but should educate the people who have asked for help that this is not an easy question to answer and is not simply moving them up in a priority. Mr. Neil indicated that a significant amount of work would be going on before getting to the point of moving this matter up in priority, and he stated that he did not know how fast the City should be getting to that point. Mr. Hare, referring to the map entitled “Conwell Street Exhibit,” noted that the houses on State College Road were labeled “property not annexed into the City,” and asked if these properties were not in the City. Responding, Mrs. Duca stated that he was correct. Mr. Hare stated that he did not understand why individuals who live in the County would request the City to pave the roads for them. Mr. Sudler stated that he thought that the owners felt that because it said Conwell Street, it was a City road, and the main objective was to assess whether or not it is a City or County road, which had been done. He thanked Mrs. Duca, noting that she had done a great job. Mr. Sudler stated that there were a few homes on Conwell Street, but that he wanted to hear from Ms. Ryder, a resident of Conwell Street who he believed could speak regarding some of the challenges and difficulties. Mr. Sudler asked if Mr. Hare or anyone else had been on Conwell Street to look at it, or had rode their vehicle down it and seen the stumps. Responding, Mr. Hare stated that he had. Mayor Christiansen stated that he had also been out there and had seen the condition of the street. He advised members that approximately 20 years ago the City went through this same process and it was determined that the street was difficult to bring to City standards because it was mostly in the County. Mayor Christiansen noted that, while he has empathy for the people who live there, there are streets in the City that are really under duress as well. He stated that he did not know if a private individual or a consortium of people could get together and have the street paved as they do in other communities. Mr. Cole thanked Mrs. Duca for the research and the work that she did regarding this matter. Ms. Sandra Ryder, 291 College Road, informed members that her property abuts Conwell Street and she was under the assumption that because it was named, it was a road. She stated that the road had never been paved and explained that, with the problems with the road, people tear their cars up driving on the street. Ms. Ryder noted that she would accept an alley, a few stones, or anything; however, after listening to the discussion, she understood that it was a problem. She asked how much it would be if everyone in the community got together and decided to pave it themselves and what that would run up against. Responding, Mr. Cole advised Ms. Ryder that it was not a City road. Ms. Ryder stated that she still felt that while they are paying taxes something should be done. Mr. Hare stated that Ms. Ryder

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 17 might have to check with the County to make sure they do not have a problem with it, noting that the City would not be giving the permits or anything. Ms. Ryder stated her understanding that members were basically saying that it is too big a problem to be addressed at the moment because there are too many legalities. Responding, Mr. Cole explained that he did not think that members were saying it was too big of a problem, but that there were legalities and the control of the right-of- way and the road. In response to Mr. Hare’s question regarding who owns the property, Ms. Ryder stated that she owns the property from the front to 100 feet in the back; however, she noted that she did not have any idea who owned the street. She explained that she thought that the City or the County owned the street and, since it was named, she thought it had to be a street. Mr. Sudler asked if it was standard procedure for the City to put a street sign name on streets that it does not own. Responding, Mr. Slavin explained that if there was a street sign on Conwell Street, the City does not know the origin of the street sign and, if the City did inadvertently place the street sign, it does not transfer legal ownership of the street to the City. He indicated that he thought that the underlying question was if someone could do the deed research to figure out who the underlying owner of the street is, noting that if it is a County street, the City could go to the County and ask them to improve it, and if it is a City street, the City would have responsibilities. Mr. Neil stated that he did not know how much Ms. Ryder pays, but that he pays more in County taxes than he does in City taxes, so he thought that the County should take this one over. Mr. Anderson, referring to the map entitled “Conwell Street Exhibit,” asked if he was correct in his understanding that half of the properties surrounding Conwell Street were in the City, half were not, and the City did not know the ownership of the street. Responding, Mr. Cole stated that this was correct. Mr. Anderson asked if it would be appropriate to make a motion for the City to do the research to find out who owns it. Mrs. Duca clarified that the City had done the plan and deed research. She informed members that deeds are not developed for street right-of-ways; however, there is the original plot plan for the development. She reiterated that the best example would be similar to a defunct subdivision where the owner has gone bankrupt. Mrs. Duca advised members that this matter would involve some movement of the County or the City to take the street over because the ownership of it basically left with the original developer. Mr. Cole stated, for clarification, that the City is not looking to take this street over, and asked if going through the County would be residents’ best avenue to find out

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 18 what they need to do if they wanted to take it upon themselves to pave it. Responding, Mrs. Duca stated that the County and the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) would be the next steps. Mr. Sudler asked, as a point of clarity, if Mrs. Duca was saying that the City did not want to take the street over, explaining that he thought that she was saying that if the City were to do it, these would be the steps that the City would have to take. In response, Mrs. Duca stated that she was not saying that the City did not want to do it, she was just trying to clarify that there are no actual deeds for the right-of-way. Mr. Anderson moved to recommend referring the matter to staff to find more information on the ownership of the street, seconded by Mr. Sudler. Mr. Hare noted that this was not City property and the people who live around it are not in the City. He indicated that he was at a loss as to why the City would proceed, explaining that he could find a lot of properties that are outside of the City that the City could also research and possibly work on. Mr. Hare asked if the people who live around the property wanted to be annexed into the City and pay City taxes, etc., if the City proceeds. He stated that he felt that the County should be doing something, not the City, since it is not City property. Mr. Sudler stated that he thought the motion was just a point on information so that members would be able to make an educated decision, explaining that it was his understanding that the City did not currently know who owns the property. He noted that although it appeared that the City does not own the property or have any responsibility, he thought that out of a genuine consideration for their Dover constituent, members could at least find out who owns it and possibly even send a letter, or partner with the constituent to send a letter, to the County or State asking for financial assistance or for them to make the proper repairs to bring the street up to code. Mr. Sudler stated that this was the same street that a lady was recently killed on, noting that it is dark and a safety issue. He expressed his opinion that this matter was beyond just dollars and was about public safety in the community and for the constituents of Dover. Mr. Slavin indicated that he thought that staff had done due diligence in collecting the information and that, based on that research, a legal opinion was now needed to advise members regarding ownership and what the City’s legal options are in regard to this matter. He stated that he thought that it was time to escalate this matter and send it to legal counsel for an opinion. Mr. Anderson, referring to his motion to recommend referring the matter to staff to find more information on the ownership of the street, advised members that he meant staff in the broadest sense and most appropriate level, which would include the City’s legal counsel. He indicated that referring it to legal counsel may be the next step; however, he would leave that decision to staff’s professional discretion.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 19 Mr. Neil asked that a fiscal note be provided regarding what it will cost to do this research, explaining that he thought members owed it to the taxpayers to find out. Responding, Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Acting City Manager, stated that she would have to find out how long it would take to do the research to be able to explain how much it would cost. Mr. Neil stated his understanding that it would not only take normal staff time, but professional time to complete this research. In response, Mrs. Mitchell stated that Mr. Neil was correct and that staff would have to talk to Deputy City Solicitor William Pepper to determine whether he would have to have staff research it as well. She explained that City staff had done some research but might need his help. Mr. Cole asked Mr. Anderson and Mr. Sudler if they would be amenable to withdrawing the motion to recommend referring the matter to staff to find more information on the ownership of the street, and instead ask for a legal opinion to be provided at the next Utility Committee meeting. Responding, Mr. Sudler stated that he would be willing to rescind his second to the motion because he was in agreement with getting a legal opinion, as recommended by Mr. Cole. Mr. Anderson stated that he did not really think that the motion was being changed; however, if members wanted to change the wording, he was okay with it because the result of the motions would be the same. The motion to recommend referring the matter to staff to find more information on the ownership of the street was withdrawn. The Committee recommended that a legal opinion regarding the ownership of Conwell Street and the City’s legal options in regard to this matter be provided at the next Utility Committee meeting. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare and Lewis absent). Annual Review and Approval of Governing Policy For Energy Commodity Risk Management Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Acting City Manager, reviewed the proposed amendments to the Governing Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management. Referring to page 8, she advised that the proposed amendments would provide the Utility Director and Controller with oversight rather than responsibility, which would provide everyone an equal say to agree on what changes are made and what transactions are entered into. In reference to the proposed amendments regarding delegation of authority on page 13, Mrs. Mitchell noted that the proposed change would not allow the Executive Risk Management Committee (ERMC) to delegate its approval authority limits to individuals authorized to commit Dover to financial obligations, because they did not want non-Dover people committing the City. Referring to Appendix C on pages 26- 27, she advised members that the Business Risks Topology table on page 26 was meant to be struck through because it is proposed to be removed and replaced with

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 20 the table on page 27. Mrs. Mitchell explained that the proposed change to the table related to the regulatory risk, where it was proposed to put the initials for the regulatory agencies rather than the description. Staff recommended approval of the proposed amendments. The Committee recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the Governing Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management, including the new table, as recommended by staff. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the proposed amendments to the Governing Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management, including the new table (Exhibit #3). The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare and Lewis absent). Review of Customer Service Department Shut-Off Procedures (2017 Budget Review - Hare) Mr. Kirby Hudson, Assistant City Manager, encouraged members to review the City Manager’s Monthly Report for June 2017, which was accepted by City Council during their Regular Meeting of August 14, 2017, explaining that it included charts depicting the milestones and accomplishments of the Customer Service Department that he thought members would be pretty happy about. He advised members that, through the utilization of existing policies, the Customer Service Department had been able to reduce the average overall number of daily disconnects from a high of 112 to a low of 50 disconnects per day, noting that people are now starting to pay their bills on time. Mr. Hudson stated that, as part of their research, staff contacted all of the utility companies operating in Delaware and found that the 21-day due date for people to pay their bill was pretty much an industry standard. Mr. Hudson reviewed the Customer Service Department procedure for service disconnection due to non-payment. He explained that everyone gets 21 days to pay their bill and then it takes approximately five (5) days, after the 21st day, before the City disconnects for non-payment. Mr. Hudson noted that this is also around the same time that the second bill is getting generated, so although the individual or family is not two (2) months in arrears, the second bill is getting ready to be sent out, so in a technical sense you could almost say that they are two (2) months behind; however, it is not a full 30 or 60 days. He noted that the billing dates can change for an individual, based on weekends and holidays; however, they still get 21 days to pay. Mr. Hudson advised that Customer Service Department staff who maintain and oversee the disconnection list review it daily for different types of things, such as if it includes any large businesses, or individuals with medical apparatus. He stated that the City does not want to disconnect large businesses, such as Playtex or Edgewell, who tend to pay their bills late, noting that their billing departments may be located out of State, so by the time the check arrives, it could be late. Mr. Hudson informed

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 21 members that when staff notices these types of things on the list, they will make phone calls. Mr. Hudson stated that the list includes codes which indicate if an individual has a history of bouncing checks, which is something else that staff looks for. He noted that staff really tries to do their best and has to perfect this process. Mr. Hudson advised members that staff tries to see if there are individuals on the list who are first-timers or are not usually late with their payments; however, he explained that the list is approximately 50 pages long and there are about eight (8) different screens that they have to go through for each account and staff is trying to do this expeditiously, so they may miss one occasionally. He noted that the City’s current software is unable to indicate whether a person is not usually late with their payments or if they have a good record; however, the new ERP system should be able to indicate these types of things. Mr. Hudson stated that complaints had decreased tremendously, and people were paying their bills. He indicated that, for those individuals who typically pay on time, as well as businesses, who are on the disconnection list, the City’s meter technicians will place door hangers first thing in the morning to provide notice that they will be back around 1:00 p.m. or 2:00 p.m. to disconnect and that they should contact the Customer Service Department immediately. Mr. Hudson stated that the City also makes payment arrangements when individuals contact the Department prior to being disconnected. He noted that the City also has an autopay option and will accommodate the elderly, senior citizens, and other individuals who are on a fixed income or get their money at a particular time during the month, if they sign up for autopay. Mr. Slavin noted that the implementation of this disconnection policy had caused some problems; however, he believed they had leveled out. He thanked the Customer Service Department team, noting that he goes in Weyandt Hall from time to time to either pay a bill or just poke his head in and see what's going on, and had only observed professional, courteous, helpful service. Mr. Slavin stated that he thought that the Customer Service team was one of the leaders in city government when it comes to service because they certainly face some difficult situations and they do it with poise and integrity, which he appreciates. Mr. Slavin reminded members that Council originally made this change because the City was carrying approximately $1M in back utility bills. He noted that electricity is different than phone or cable television service, for which you are billed in advance of the next 30 days you are about to use, because electricity is billed for the 30 days that you already used. Mr. Slavin explained that the City originally began at 30 days and then changed to 60 days which pushed the disconnection out to between 75 and 90 days, and it became onerous to chase down. He stated that the City was spending more money chasing down collections, so it was decided to change the process.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 22 Mr. Slavin indicated that, in implementing the new process, one (1) of the goals was to drive people to automatic payment. He asked if there had been an increase in the number of accounts using automatic payment since the implementation of the new process. Responding, Mr. Hudson, referring to page 3 of the City Manager’s Monthly Report for June 2017, stated that the City had more people signing up for bank draft every month except June and July. He advised that he did not know why the numbers were down in June and July. Mr. Sudler noted that the numbers may have been down in June and July due to the fact that a lot of people were on vacation. Responding, Mr. Hudson stated that it would be interesting to see how the trend moves forward into the next set of holidays at the end of the year. In response to Mr. Hare, Ms. Patricia Marney, Customer Service Director, advised that the City currently had approximately 20,000 residential accounts, 50 disconnections per day, 1,500 disconnections per month, and 18,000 per year. She stated that the City had approximately 24,000 total customers that are billed for electricity each month. Mr. Slavin stated that he thought that some of things that Council wanted to achieve had been achieved. As an example, he shared that he had received a call from the Customer Service Department regarding a constituent in his area who was on the disconnect list and staff noticed that it was an anomaly. Mr. Slavin explained that it took a series of phone calls, emails, and Facebook messages to find out where the individual was; however, it ended up that the customer was simply confused because they had two (2) different accounts and were paying the bills to the wrong account number. Mr. Slavin stated that he appreciated that the City did not just disconnect the customer indiscriminately and everyone worked that issue until it was resolved. Mr. Hudson reminded members that staff was working on getting a new ERP system for the City and he was delighted that the new system would offer automated calling, texting, and emailing. He stated that with this new system, as long as the City has phone numbers and email addresses for each customer, it would be virtually impossible for a customer to say that they did not know their bill was due. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Evaluation of Proposals - Banking and Merchant Services Ms. Lori Peddicord, Acting Controller/Treasurer, advised that the City had solicited proposals for banking and merchant services, and received three (3) proposals. She stated that the proposals were evaluated and scored on several factors, including quality, reputation, location of branches, ability to meet the City's Cash Management requirements, completeness of the proposal, record of performance, technology, future enhancements, government banking experience and the qualifications of the team assigned to the City of Dover. Ms. Peddicord informed members that the Request for Proposals (RFP) required each bank to submit their current audited financial statement including footnotes and the auditor’s opinion, as well as their current Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10K or Form 10Q. She indicated

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 23 that the submission and review of these statements are imperative to the City of Dover’s due diligence to ensure the security of the City’s assets. Ms. Peddicord noted that the RFP also requested a copy of each bank’s ‘SAS’ 70, which is prepared by independent auditors and attests to the banks internal controls in regards to their online banking tools which will be utilized by the City of Dover. She explained that this last piece of due diligence ensures the City of Dover’s funds are safeguarded while being transferred using the banks online software. Ms. Peddicord advised that the estimated combined cost for the services for banking and merchant services, not to include either a earnings credit rating or an interest on balances, were $270,798 for PNC; $302,706 for Wells Fargo; and $249,625 for WSFS. She stated that the City currently had business relations with the recommended bank and merchant provider. Ms. Peddicord informed members that staff was looking to contract the banking services for a five-year contract period; however the contract term for the merchant services would be on an annual basis. She stated that the annual contract term for merchant services was due to the new ERP system the City would be bringing in and other changes that would be occurring. Ms. Peddicord noted that the contract terms had already been discussed with the proposers, and all of the vendors were in agreement that it would be okay. Staff recommended awarding the City's banking services to WSFS Bank and merchant services contract to TSYS. The Committee recommended awarding the City’s banking services to WSFS Bank and merchant services contract to TSYS, as recommended by staff. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare and Lewis absent). Accessibility Evaluation Report Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Acting City Manager, advised members that an Accessibility Evaluation was conducted by Wilson James Associates, Inc. this past April, explaining that the purpose of the evaluation was to identify all elements and spaces that are required to be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and building code standards. She noted that many areas were found to be in compliance and the report only included those items requiring remedial action. Mrs. Mitchell referred to the summary of the major points of the Accessibility Evaluation Report, noting that staff planned to make as many of the improvements as possible within the budget this fiscal year, including the on-street parking signage, the existing doorknobs, and those types of small items. She stated that what could not be done in this fiscal year within the budget, would be programmed into next fiscal year's budget, which would most likely include the toilet rooms off the hallway that need major renovation and the drinking fountain.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 24 Staff recommended making minor improvements in the current year and budgeting for major improvements in FY19. The Committee recommended making minor improvements in the current year and budgeting for major improvements in FY19, as recommended by staff. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare and Lewis absent). Proposed Ordinance #2017-12 Amending Appendix B - Zoning, Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, and Article 6 - Off-Street Parking, Driveways and Loading Facilities (Sponsors: Hare and Slavin) Mr. David Hugg, Acting Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed Proposed Ordinance #2017-12, which would update sections of Articles 5 and 6 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to enhance the flexibility of the Code in several areas, including dumpster, screening and buffer, tree planting, and curbing requirements, as well as add requirements for recycling to Article 5, Section 6 and rewrite Article 5, Section 18 to allow the City to require multi-use path instead of frontage sidewalk under specific circumstances. He informed members that this was the first of a series of zoning and other Code amendments that would be brought forward as a result of recent staff meetings with the development community. Mr. Hugg noted that they had been reviewing the ordinance to find places where it was not clear and make the language easier to follow, address some of the complaints from the development community, and remove language that is no longer relevant. He stated that this is an ongoing initiative and staff would be bringing forward two (2) additional ordinance amendments next month, one (1) regarding adult daycare, and the other dealing with issues with the manufactured home ordinance, which he and Mr. Neil have been working on. In addition, Mr. Hugg advised members that he was working with Mr. Polce on an accelerated site plan review process or rocket docket, noting that he was unsure whether it would be coming forward for consideration in the form of a policy document, a Code change, or both. Staff recommended adoption of Proposed Ordinance #2017-12. Mr. Slavin thanked Mr. Hugg and his staff for developing Proposed Ordinance #2017-12. He advised members that this series of ordinances would be part of the new philosophy of find it, fix it, explaining that as things are found that simply do not pass the common sense test, they are being fixed. Mr. Hare stated that he thought there would also be a proposed ordinance coming forward in regard to reducing the number of notices sent regarding a violation from five (5) to three (3). In response, Mr. Hugg stated that staff would be changing policy and proposing Code amendments in regard to the way the City does code enforcement, as well as the vacant building ordinance to eliminate things that are not

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 25 effective in terms of regulating vacant buildings. He noted that the process needs to be accelerated for people who are not willing to take care of their properties. The Committee recommended adoption of Proposed Ordinance #2017-12, as recommended by staff. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare and Lewis absent). (The First Reading of the ordinance will take place during the latter part of the meeting). Proposed Amendment to Committees, Commissions, and Boards Appointment Process Mr. Slavin proposed that, in deference to the fact that this item was originally introduced at Mr. Lewis' request and he was unable to attend the meeting and Mr. Polce and Mr. Lindell had worked on a compromise, the Committee allow Mr. Polce to explain the compromise and it be forwarded to Council without a recommendation. He explained that by proceeding in this way, when Mr. Lewis and Mr. Lindell return, Council will have the discussion from the Committee to consider and no time will be lost. Mr. Polce indicated that, as a result of the conversation during the Regular Council meeting of July 24, 2017 regarding 2017/18 Annual Appointments Recommended by Mayor Christiansen (deferred during the Annual Meeting of May 8, 2017) (Downtown Dover Partnership Board of Directors and Silver Lake Commission), Mr. Lindell and Mr. Lewis discussed that the right path forward would probably be looking at the application process and determining if a curriculum vitae (CV) or resume is required. Mr. Polce noted that based on the fact that an individual was previously serving, that information and documentation on record would be sufficient; however, if it is a new applicant, the individual would then have to comply with the elongated application that was previously approved. He stated that he thought both Mr. Lewis and Mr. Lindell were in agreement with this; however, he noted that neither was present. Mr. Polce moved to send this matter to Council with no recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil. Mr. Anderson noted that he thought that there was always room to look for improvement. He stated that he believed that there should be a period of time when the applications are signed off on, explaining that they should be checked for new information. Mr. Anderson explained that if members do not regularly check to see if something has changed, there could be conflicts of interest that have arisen and not been asked about, and someone may not have thought to inform the City about them. He noted that just because someone has served on a committee for 10 years does not mean that things have not changed. Mr. Anderson stated that he did not think that the applications needed to be reviewed every year and that it should be simple,

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 26 explaining that if someone has an application on file, they should be able to review it and, if nothing has changed, sign it and say it’s good. He indicated that he did not think a big process was needed but that the applications should be checked. Mr. Sudler stated that, as a suggestion for the future, when members do ordinances or want to make changes, that there is some statistical data stating that something is not working rather than a few people saying it is not working. He stated that he thought it would behoove members to have some tangible data to support changes of ordinances in the future. Mayor Christiansen commended the gentlemen for coming up with a compromise. He explained that it was very frustrating to find people who are interested in serving on committees, as many of the chairmen and the Council President were aware, and a number of people who had served the City for a great length of time had refused to go through the application process because they believe that their service to the City had been a proven fact. Mayor Christiansen advised members that for many of the appointees whom he has reappointed or intends to reappoint to the Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment and other bodies, he had attended meetings to see if they are performing to the expectations of himself, Council and, particularly, the citizens they all serve. He stated that he agreed with Mr. Anderson that members need to always be aware of conflicts of interest; however, he indicated that he thought that the application process was an insult to people who have served with exemplary service. He stated that he appreciated the compromise and concurred with the fact that any new applicant who has not previously served on any committees should fill out an application for the perusal, advice, and consent of Council. Mr. Hare informed members that he would not be at the Regular Council meeting scheduled for August 28, 2017. He stated that he thought that any new applicant should fill out an application, and that anyone who was being considered for reappointment, such as Dr. Stewart or Mr. Shevock, should be asked if anything has changed and if they say no, then they are good. Mr. Hare noted that most of the appointees are professionals and they know if something comes up that is a conflict, they will abstain, just like Council members do. He explained that he did not think that individuals would know if there is going to be a conflict when it is time for their reappointment, and that simply having them sign off on an application to say nothing had changed would be okay. Mr. Sudler indicated that he thought, in the best interest of the City, that the application needed to be on file. He stated that he appreciated the longevity of individuals serving, noting that he had longevity of service in many capacities; however, he noted that they are human and sometimes they forget. Mr. Sudler indicated that he thought that this was about protecting the City and that members cannot leave loopholes which would allow the City to be sued. He explained that, for the best interest of the City of Dover and the 38,000 that members serve, he thought it would behoove them to have something in writing. Mr. Sudler noted that he did not think that a simple five (5) to 10 minute update would be unbearable or

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 27 cause excruciating pain to where individuals could not spend that time and look at it as a precautionary measure to make sure that the City is safe and free from any lawsuits. Mr. Anderson stated that he agreed with Mr. Sudler. He noted that when he had reviewed some of the proposed appointments, there was not even an old application and he had a problem with the idea of only new applicants completing the application. Mr. Anderson explained that he thought that all applicants should have at least one of the new applications on file, so that members can see the information which they are seeking today, not the information from 15 years ago. He stated that no one on Council really has a complete view of the qualifications of the people they are voting to appoint, which was the reason why Council voted to put that system in, in the first place. Mr. Anderson stated that he thought that it was the correct decision then and it is the correct decision now. Mr. Hare stated that he agreed that everyone should have an application on file. He noted, however, that a reappointee, such as Mr. Shevock, should be asked if the information on his application has changed and, if it nothing has changed, that should be okay. Mr. Hare stated that he did not think that members needed to make it a drawn out process. The motion to send this matter to Council with no recommendation was unanimously carried. Noting the absence of Mr. Hare and Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lindell moved to postpone the Proposed Amendment to Committees, Commissions, and Boards Appointment Process. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Mr. Anderson moved for acceptance of the Council Committee of the Whole Report, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried (Hare and Lewis absent). EVALUATION OF BIDS - TELEPHONE SYSTEM UPGRADE The City of Dover completed a telephone system upgrade in 2012. The telephone system consists of three separate servers, each providing different functions. The Call Manager server provides the basic functions of the telephone system (making and receiving calls, forwarding, conferencing, etc.). The Contact Center server allows Customer Service to queue and answer calls. It also gives the Supervisors reporting and analysis functionality. Lastly, the Unity Connection server is the voicemail server. Since the upgrade, a multi-year maintenance agreement was purchased to provide support for the hardware (three servers), the software, and appropriate licensing. The maintenance agreement expires on August 31, 2017. While requesting pricing information to extend the maintenance agreement, it was learned that the vendor, Cisco, will not support the current hardware or software past August 31, 2017. Staff recommended approval of the telephone system upgrade and awarding the work to MTM Technologies for $48,566.47.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 28 Mr. Sudler moved for approval of Staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare and Lewis absent). APPOINTMENT OF DELAWARE MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC CORPORATION (DEMEC) ALTERNATE DIRECTOR (LORI PEDDICORD, ACTING CONTROLLER/TREASURER) By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved to appoint Ms. Lori Peddicord to serve as Delaware Municipal Electric Corporation (DEMEC) Alternate Director. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare and Lewis absent). FIRST READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2017-12 Council President Slavin reminded the public that copies of the proposed ordinance were available at the entrance of the Council Chambers, on the City’s website at www.cityofdover.com under “Government,” or by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at 736-7008 or cityclerk@dover.de.us. Since the ordinances are amendments to the Zoning Code, a public hearing is required. Staff recommended referral of the amendments to the Planning Commission on September 18, 2017 and that a public hearing be set for the Council Meeting of October 9, 2017 at 7:30 p.m., at which time final action by Council will take place. Mr. Neil moved to refer the amendments and set a public hearing before City Council for October 9, 2017 at 7:30 p.m., as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of the Zoning Ordinance Amendments as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows: PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2017-12 AMENDING APPENDIX B - ZONING, ARTICLE 5 - SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE 6 - OFF-STREET PARKING, DRIVEWAYS AND LOADING FACILITIES (LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE) ACTING CITY MANAGER'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Acting City Manager, thanked the City staff, the Library staff, the Public Works staff, the Police Department, the volunteers and everybody else that was involved in the Comic Con event. She noted that they put a lot of hard work into the event and it was very successful. Mrs. Mitchell advised that Street Program work is in progress at Wyoming Avenue and Lincoln Street will follow once Wyoming Avenue is completed. She noted that the Lincoln Street Sanitary Sewer repairs are anticipated to start on September 1, 2017. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the Silver Lake Dam Unit's preconstruction meeting is scheduled for later in the week and there will be a drawdown in October. She advised that the water system flushing will start in October, as well as the leaf collection. COUNCIL MEMBERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS Council President Slavin wished Mayor Christiansen a happy birthday on September 4, 2017.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 29 Mr. Anderson thanked the members of Council for their move to ensure that the regulations on businesses are modernized. Mr. Anderson advised that, sometime in the near future, the Fourth District would be doing a business tour with some of the City Staff to hear concerns that have been expressed to them. In Councilman Lewis’ absence, and at his request, Mr. Anderson read, in part, a statement provided by Councilman Lewis, as follows: “I believe it is important that the following statement be read into the record since I am not in attendance at this evenings council meeting and would like for the people that I represent to be aware of the reason for my recent absence.” As the president mentioned, “Last week my mom passed away to meet her creator and today I am finishing the final arrangements for her journey home. The last couple of weeks have been very sad and difficult for my family and I. I had to leave the state of Delaware and travel to Florida where my mom resided. She became ill and was placed on a ventilator, then Hospice care. I would hope that everyone understands family comes first, and again, it's a very sad time for me. So everyone is aware, on Thursday, August 10th, I notified Council President Slavin and copied City Solicitor Rodriguez of my mother's illness. I asked Council President Slavin if I could be excused from the August 14, 2017 Council meeting and this evening's regular Council meeting, for I knew I would be out of town and didn’t want any problems for missing the meetings. Council President Slavin responded in an email with “no problem” and said my family and I would be in his thoughts and prayers, which I sincerely appreciated. While down in Florida caring for my mom at her bedside, I had my cell phone on me at all times and randomly checked my e-mails and text messages on my phone. I received emails from Councilman Slavin inquiring how I was doing and received text messages from Councilmen Sudler and Anderson asking the same. During my absence from Delaware, I received no communication from Mr. Christiansen or Mr. Lindell pertaining to the evening's agenda item Proposed Amendment to Committees, Commissions and Boards Appointment Process.” And he was forwarded a message about the article in the Delaware State News where it was said “he doesn't seem to be anywhere to get ahold of,” referring to him in a newspaper article. Basically, he thinks that, he said he checked, and he certainly would have responded to a text or email message from Mr. Lindell or the mayor, "If they reached out to me like in the past." He reviewed his phone messages, even junk mail, and found no such record regarding the agenda item. And, we did defer the agenda item, so that's appreciated. And there will be more to be said about that. He says, "I personally believe that the current process that was previously voted on by a unanimous vote be left in place. I believe this issue has been politicized by the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 30 Mayor and have not seen any documented complaints since the process was implemented back in October, 2016. The only comment I have heard was from the Mayor indicating one of his Fourth of July Committee appointees declined to fill out an updated application for whatever reason. On another note, to my recollection, when this process was put in place, there was no objection by the Mayor or anyone else. Why now?” Mr. Anderson asked that the e-mail, in its entirety, be made a part of the record (Exhibit #4). Mr. Neil stated that he concurred with the Acting City Manager’s remarks about Comic Con, noting that he attended and it was a marvelous program that continues to bring people into the City. He noted that Thunder Over Dover was an extraordinary event that brought thousands of people to Dover and the personnel at Dover Air Force Base could not have been better representatives of the service people in our country. Mr. Lindell advised that, if he had known that Mr. Lewis' mother was sick, which he did not know until he received the email advising that she had passed away, he would definitely have moved to change the agenda back on August 10th, or made an outreach. He noted that he had been blocked on Facebook, which makes it hard to reach out and make contact. Mr. Lindell advised that he lost his mom in May, and that August 28th was her birthday. He stated that anyone knows that he is not going to be callous when it comes to these things; however, it is hard to communicate when the other person does not want to communicate. Mr. Lindell advised that, over the weekend, he and his family attended Whatcoat United Methodist Church's Community Day and the hospitality and service were great and his daughter had a great time. He stated that he was definitely looking forward to going back next year for the same event. Mr. Sudler moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. TRACI A. McDOWELL CITY CLERK

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 31 All ordinances, resolutions, motions, and orders adopted by City Council during their Regular Meeting of August 28, 2017, are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /TM S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Council-Minutes\2017\08-28-2017 Council Minutes.wpd Exhibits Exhibit #1 - Property Information Provided by Sue Harris Exhibit #2 - Affirmatively Further Fair Housing in Delaware Provided by Sue Harris Exhibit #3 - Governing Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management Exhibit #4 - E-Mail from Councilman Brian Lewis dated August 28, 2017

EXHIBIT #1 Regular Council Meeting of 08/28/2017 I I City of Dover Property Tax Account History FY 2016 FY 2017 231 N Queen Street 08/17/15 $14933.26 14 S Queen St 08/17/15 $16210.00 67 S Queen St 10/14/15 $7500.00 45 S Queen St 10/14/15 $7500.00 24 N New St 10/13/15 $10500.00 27 N New St 10/14/15 $7500.00 101 S Queen ST 10/14/15 $7500.00 212 N Gov Ave 11/02/2015 28805.96 325 N New St 08/16/2016 $17583.19 08/22/2016 $33672.82 1128 Forrest AVE 02/24/2016 $6149.10 10/12/2016 $25084.86 1126 Forrest Ave 02/24/16 $5130.92 10/12/2016 $1187.61 1124 Forrest Ave 02/24/2016 $1972.12 10/12/2016 $19160.49 10/13/2016 $16164 .19 $113701.4 $112853.20 $226554.50

Page 1 of I Account History Inquiry City of Dover· ~( ;ov ror tal Acc ou11t ID fll 78 Tilx MoJJ Numlier f.D-05-0/G.08-02 -38ll.000 -ll00 Penclrr1<J $ (l.00 Address 231 N QUEEN SI Taxes $ 0.00 Owner nmne NA rIONAL COUNCIL ON AG UFE & Penalty $ 0.00 Add to Total Due $ 0.00 My Properties NQ Payment Due ·J: :JJI J11:J :l•Jol '!;l •I : 01 If you howe any questions, call Customer Service .it (30 2) /3(}-7035 Click on a payment or bill to view more details D0fl') 1yL)f' Y1~1H' i'enod /l !-il,)>1;)' 7/17/17 Payment $ 55 89 - 8/02./16 Payment $572. 30 - 8/02/16 Payment $ 572 30 - 8/02/16 Payment $ 572.JO - 8/02/16 Payment $ 572.30 - 8/07/15 Payment $14,933 .26 - 4 8/07/15 8/07/15 Payment Payment $14,933.2G - $14,933.26 - 8/07 /15 Payment $14,933.26 - 8/07/ 15 Payment $14,93 3.26 - 8/07/15 Payment $14,933.26 - 7/05/12 Payment $ 237 14 - 4/25/12 Payment $ 582. 59 - 4/25/12 Payment $ 582. 59 - 4/25/12 Payment $ 582.59 - 8/31/10 Payment $ 269.00 - 6/30/09 Payment $ 269.50 - 6/12/08 Payment $ 269.SO - 6/06/07 Payment $ 269.50 - 10/27/05 Payment $ 238.27 - 7/29/04 Payment $ !67.28 - 7/31/03 Payment $ 167 .28 - 7/29/02 Payment $ 16/ .14 - 7 /25/01 Payment $ 126.04 - 7/13/00 Payment $ 126.04 - 7/30/99 Payment $ 126.04 - 7/23/98 Payment $ l26 .04 - Ir - - - - - 1 I (i~ Copyngi1l ).000 .. 20 06 Cltv .:.>I [l(l\11.~r, DP:.~w .ire ,\11 n19ht.s He:~erv..:~d I Pnvm.y Polley & Terms of Use I Top of page ! I https://sccurc.cityofdover.com/inde ... 2017-08-18

Page I o I' ·- Own er :I. i'll.'lmc: Inational ' ! ..• v Search J I Reset i'ropci'ty Detail: Parcel ID: Card: S t rce~ Numbc.,,·: Str <:.'. •I. N;im,~ : Zon i ng: LUC: Acres: EDOS-076.08-02-38.00 231 N QUEEN ST RG-1 RESIDENTIAL VACANT LAND 0.17 Owner Information: Property lm;1ges: Owner 1 Name: NATIONAL COUNCIL ON AG LIFE & Picture: Owner 2 Name: LABOR RESEARCH FUND INC Valuation: Appraised Land: $13,800.00 Appraised Bldg: $0.00 Total: $13,800.00 Sketch: There is no sketch available. Sales History: Boole Page: Sa!e Date: Price: Valitlit:y: S;ile Type I&S 26 008 09/28/2012 T 2 VL-8188 114 07/18/2016 T 2 VL-7753 110 08/04/20lS 20,000 L 2 http://dover.ias-clt.com/parccl .dcta ... 2017-08-18

Page I ul' I Home tog111 P.ay Ut.1ity f1 I ax 8dlE; Property Taxes HC!lp :;,,, Support Account History Inquiry Cily of Dover eGov Portal Acr.o11nl llJ 11350 T<lX Milp Nulllbcr ED -05-076.08-06-'l 10.000-000 Pend1n9 $ O.DO Address 1'l S QU~N ST Taxes $ 0.00 Owner nanle NATIONAL COUNCIL ON AG llFE & Penalty $ 0.00 Total Due $ 0.00 "- Ad<1 to, NQ Payment Due :1.:JIUi l':J My Properties '!l·/1l ' 1;1 ;, W! If you have any questions, call Customer Service at (302) 736· 703'j Click on a paylllent or bill lo view more details D~ i tt! ·iync Yt:?tlr f' er!o(i •\/M l >H\ L 8/17/15 Payment $16,210.00. d 8/17/15 Payment $16,210.00 - 10/20/14 Payment $ 124 .63 . 10/20/14 Payment $ 124.b:l . 8/08/14 Payment $ 25.00 . 2/06/13 Payment $ 135.87 . 12/05/11 Payment $13218 · 9/23/10 Payment $ 129.58 - 9/23/10 Payment $ 129.58 - 11/04/09 Payment $ 313.29 - 11/04/09 Payment $ 313.29 . 9/17 /07 Payment $ 143.10. 9/28/06 Payment $ 120.01 . 8/10/05 Payment $ 285.88 . 8/10/05 Payment $ 285.88 . 8/10/05 Payment $ 285.88 - 7/18/03 Payment $ 124.53 . 8/14/02 Payment $ 128.02 - 8/14/02 Payment $ 128.02 . 5/08/02 Payment $ 107.29 . 7/13/00 Payment $ 94.53 - 7/27/99 Payment $ 94.53 . 7/31/98 Payment $ 94.53. _s_.,_,c_h_Re_su_ns_,I ·-~~~ I 1---------·-J__ _ _ _ __ - - - - ----·-- -·----- © Copynght 2000 · 2006 C~ty of Dovef, Dt!law··'.l r~ . All Rights fle~; erv·:~cl Privacy Policy & Terms or Use I Top of page https://sccure.cityofdover.com/inde ... 2017-08-18

Page I of' l Do" fer , DE · I-' SSF.·ssor Da tabase Propc rt\l e a r ch : Pa r e~ ! ID : Own er 1 Nam e: Street N mnhe r : ~ t reet N arn e: ___J L.____ . JJ __. I~ QU EEN ST vi Prope rly Deta H: Pa ree! J.O: Ca r d : Street Number: Streei: N;irne : Zon ing : LUC : EDOS -076.08-06-41.00 14 S QUEEN ST RG -1 EXEMPT VACANT 0.09 Owner lnf<>rrm1tion : Propert:v Images: Owner l Name: CENTRAL DEL HAB FOR HUMANITY Picture : There is no picture available . Owner 2 Name : Sketch: Valu a t i on: There is no sketch available. Appraised Lcind: $10,400 .00 Appraised Bldg: $0.00 Total : $10,400.00 Sales Histo ry: Book: Sale Date: Pri ce: V;ilidity: Sale Type: VL-7726 42 07/23/2 015 10,600 L 2 The information delivered through this on - line database is provided in th e spirit of open i.lccess to govel'nmenl inform ation <111tl is intended as an enhanced service and convenience for citizens of Dover, DE. T1·1e providers of this database: Tyler CLT, Big Room Studios , and Dover, DE assurne no liatJility for any error or omission in the information provided Ile re. Com me nts regard ing this service should be directed to: t im @b igroomstudios.com Fri. Au gust t8, 2 0 17 : 11 :4 S AM : 0.13s: llrnb http: // dover. ias-cl t.com/parcel.deta ... 2017-08-18

Page 4of12 In vestigation by City staff revealed that Ms . Buchanan is correct and her assessment has been revised i n accordance with the co rr ect square footage comp utation ( 14 3 . 03 square feet of 4 " thick concrete and 4 0 . 4 0 squ are feet of 6 " thick concrete) . Also, the sidewalk which was damaged by City t rucks was paid for by t he Cit y and was n ot assessed to t he property owner. A letter was re ce ived from the property owner withdrawing the appeal. No action by Council was ne cessary . 917 S. Bradford Street - Roy Powell An appeal was received from Ro y Powell for s idewalk repairs at 917 S. Bradford Street. Mr. Powell was assessed for 132. 31 square feet of 4" thick concrete at $3. 50 and 30. 0 square feet of 6" thick concrete at $3.75 per square foot, for a total of $575.58. Mr. Powell did not appeal the amount of the assessment, but objected to the construction of the new sidewalk which has caused ponding of water on the sidewalk. Mr. 0' Connor stated that City staff has worked with Mr. Powell and the drainage problem has been corrected. Mr. Powell has agreed to pay the assessment for the replacement of sidewalk. No action by Council was necessary. PUBLIC HEARING - VIOLATION OF DANGEROUS BUILDING ORDINANCE - 14 S. QUEEN -------~ STREET A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider a violation of the Dangerous Building ordinance at 14 S. Queen Street, c--- - - - - -- --__:..·--- owned by Charles E. Murphy, Sr. The Building Inspector, Mr. De Prima, showed slides depicting the structural deterioration throughout the building including rotted timbers, falling ceilings, broken windows and ~ extensive deterioration. The rear of the structure has windows broken out and vagrants sleeping in and around the structure. It is the 11 Building Inspector's opinion that the structure is a fire hazard. The '" ' ' estimated cost of demolition is $7,500. Mr. DePrima pointed out that the lien search is incomplete at this time. The City Solicitor recommended that Council move forward with the public hearing and that the lien search could be completed at a later date. Responding to Mr. Salters, Mr. DePrima stated that rehabilitation costs for the structure would exceed 50 % of its value. Council President Christiansen declared the hearing open. There was no one present wishing to speak during the public hearing. Council President Christiansen declared the hearing closed. https ://www. cityofdover. com/regul... 2017-08-18

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 10, 2015 PAGE4 Mr. Hutchison expressed his opinion that this information could be helpful in the future. Mr. Sudler questioned what one (1) of the major issues was that was identified by the African-American business owners in the downtown area in regard to conducting business in the City of Dover, or an issue related to engaging, encouraging, or advocating for individuals of African-American, Hispanic, or minority descent. In response, Dr. Casson advised members that this study was actually focused on the services and programs that were coming out of the City. Mr. Sudler questioned if a survey could be conducted or if questions could be asked to get current feedback from African-American business owners and minority owners as a whole. Dr. Casson stated that this request went directly to the recommendations of the study in terms of the inclusion plan . He indicated that this would bring the stakeholders to the table to talk about the strategic plan and the focus for addressing some of the needs pertaining to African-American business and workforce development. Dr. Casson encouraged members to consider the economic inclusion plan, which would include the type of surveys that Mr. Sudler mentioned to gather infonnation and find out why African Americans were or were not being engaged. Mr. Hare moved to recommend acceptance of the report as presented, seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. Request to Waive Demolition Liens - 27 North New Street and 45, 67, and 101 South Queen Street Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, advised members that the City had been working in the Downtown Development District (DDD) to improve a number of different components in this area and a number of structures had been demolished there over the last few years. Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity, Inc. had offered to purchase four (4) properties from Dr. Joe Burden, Jr. Under the proposal, the liens would be transferred from Dr. Burden to Habitat, and Habitat would then pay the City of Dover $7,500 for each of the four lots (4), for a total of$30,000. The subject properties were 27 North New Street and 45, 67, and 101 South Queen Street. Each of the properties had been encumbered by a demolition lien due to prior dangerous building declarations. A summary of the offer and associated write-off amounts was as follows: Address Offer Price Total City Lien Write-Off City's 2015 Amount Amount Assessed Land Value 27 N. New Street $ 7,500 $ 22,274.97 $ 14,774.97 $ 13,100 r\"' -'45 S. Queen Street $ 7,500 $ 13,862.18 $ 6,362.18 $ 11,900 67 S. Queen Street $ 7,500 $ 14,348.46 $ 6,848.46 $ 13,800 IOI S. Queen Street $ 7,500 $ 15,684.02 $ 8,184.02 $ 13,400 Totals $ 30,000 $ 66, 169.63 $ 36,169.63

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 10, 2015 PAGES Mr. Koenig advised members that, while the write-off would be substantial, the long tenn benefit of the proposal outweighed the financial impact of this write-off. Mr. Koenig stated that it was staffs strong belief, from an administrative standpoint, that transfening this property would be a good thing for the City of Dover. He noted that the City had preached home ownership in this area and Habitat would virtually guarantee long-tenn home ownership. Staff recommended authorizing the properties to be transfened from Dr. Joe Burden, Jr. to Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity without collecting the City's liens against the properties in exchange for a payment of $30,000 from Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity ($7,500 per parcel). In response to Mr. Shevock regarding whether Dr. Burden owned any other properties in the City, Mr. Koenig stated that Dr. Burden owned a substantial amount of property within the City. Responding to Mr. Shevock as to whether either the write-off or the total lien amount could be transfened to Dr. Burden's other properties and attached for payment, Mr. Koenig stated his belief that this could not be done. He expressed his opinion, in the larger context of dealing with distressed properties, that this would not be a good precedent to start and was unsure if the City could legally do this. Mr. Koenig stated that staff had talked to Mr. William Pepper, Deputy City Solicitor, about this particular transaction and there was no legal reason that the City could not transfer a lien from one (I) property owner to another and then forgive the lien. Mr. Koenig advised members that Dr. Burden had been working with staff and had paid all of his FY 15 taxes. He stated his belief that Dr. Burden had paid FY 16 taxes on all but the subject properties; therefore, progress had been made in a number of areas. Mr. Koenig indicated staff's belief that this land transfer would clear the water in some cases and provide a fast forward to home ownership on these four (4) Jots. He stated that if the City continued to pursue the liens and forced a tax sale, there would be no guarantee that those purchasing the properties would occupy them, as they could be rentals. Mr. Koenig reiterated, under the proposal, that the City would be virtually guaranteed home ownership. Mr. Sudler stated that he was glad that Dr. Burden and the City of Dover had reached an understanding and agreement and were working together. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend approval of Staff's recommendation to authorize the properties to be transferred from Dr. Joe Burden, Jr. to Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity without collecting the City's liens against the properties in exchange for a payment of $30,000 from Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity ($7,500 per parcel). The motion was seconded by Mr. Cole and unanimously carried. Disposition of City Owned Land - Property Located at 710 and 715 Slaughter Street Members were informed that the City of Dover acquired properties located at 710 and 715 Slaughter Street at a monition sale due to liens for taxes and demolition expenses. Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, stated that these were excess properties, as the City had no use for them and would be better served by the properties being redeveloped and restored as taxable properties.

Page 1of 3 KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE 555 Bay Road, DoYcr, Delaware 19901-3615 (302) 744-2300 -- FAX (302) 736-2279 "Serving Kent County With Pride" PROPERTY INFORMATION Pl anning and Building Permits Informati on Reference# ED EAST DOV ER HUNDRED Card# I of l Location ID l 3869 Map Number 2-05-07608-06-4100-0000 I Tax ID 13869 Deed BVP D 7726 0042 Property .P arcel ID 39361 X- EXEMPT Code Current Owner Property Location Q CENTRAL DELAWARE HABITAT FOR, 14 QUEEN ST ..,~ 544 WE BBS LN DOVER, DE 19901 DOVER, DE I 9904 Zoning RGI Acres .09 Additional Owner Sub-Division COMEGYS LOTS Sales History 11 11 I!Liv.Sq.Ft 11.0000 I Date Price 11 Assessment j jTotal Rooms II I 7/29/15 10,600J 1Land 11 1,900l IBedrooms II I 0100100 oj !Buildings 11 I!Full Bath II I I ITotal 11 1,900l 1Half Bath II I jBase Tax Due 11 .ooj !Last Billing Detail I!History I[Farm Info I jTax Penalt~ 11 .ool jTotal Tax Bal. 11 .ooj jsewer Balance 11 .ool lsewer Account# 11 Ii I jNeighborhood # 1100214 !coordinates 11 I10467487 E 0422470 N I !Land Use 11 jLot Dimensions 11 110000025. 00 000015 0. 00 I !Living Units 11 !School District IIt 8 J ICAPITOL I !class IIResiden jFire District 146 j jROBBINS HOSE (DOVER)j !Plat Book Pg 1100000 !sewer District 100 liNONE I !Topography I!Level !Ambulance District 146 ] !ROBBINS HOSE (DOVER)j !street or Road I!Paved jTrash District I Ii I !Fronting IIResiden jLight District I Ii i !Improvement IIv ACANTj !commissioner Dist loo Ii i http ://kent400.co .kent.de. us/cgi-bin ... 2016-09-09

Pa!.!.e 1 ol' I Account History Inquiry City of Dover e(;ov Portill Account ID LOSO 1 ax Milp Number ED-05 -07/ .O'l· 01·O10.000-000 Pendinq $ 0.011 Address 67 s Quu:N ST Taxes $ 0.00 Owner name CEN"IRAL DEL HAB FOR HUMANl'IY Peni1lty $ 0.00 Total Due $ 0.00 - l\.dQ ~Q No Payment Due · 1; l i IJj Ii ~J • My Properties ".ll·Jd •1 ;ri; l h If you have any questions, Cdll Customer Service at (30 2) 116-70:35 Click on a pilyment or hill to view more clctilils Date Tyf)t-:' Year Pt:!n o d t\r!H. Hll lt #' 10/14/15 Payment $7,500.00 - ' 10/1'1/1~ Payment $7,500.00 . 10/14/15 Payment $7 ,500.00 - 2/03/14 Payment $ .108.83 - 2/03/14 Payment $ 308.83 - 12/28/12 Payment $ 291.47 - 3/12/12 Payment $ 307.97 - 8/31/10 Payment $ 274.97 - 6/08/10 Payment $ 9.94 - 2/01/10 Payment $217 .95- 7/31/08 Payment $ 208.56 - 7/31/07 Payment $ 208.56 - 9/01/06 Payment $ 214.82 - 11/30/05 Payment $ 217.95 - 7/30/04 Payment $ 174.68 - 8/29/03 Payment $ 177 .30 - 7/31/02 Payment $ 174.68 - 7/31/01 Payment $ 127.41 - 9/22/00 Payment $ 131.23 - 8/31/99 Payment $ 126 .54 - 10/31/98 Payment $ 130.28 - (C) Cooynght 2000 · 2006 Oty or Dover, Dt.~ldware. AH Right~ R<."se1vcd . Pnva(y Polley & Terms of Use I Top of page https://secure.cityofdover.com/inde ... 2017-08-18

Page 1 or I Property Ta.xes Help & Support Account History Inquiry r City of Dover eGov Portal Ac:rn11nt ID 1910 Ac:cou nt -=-)1H1Hn .-1ry rax Map Numller ED-05·076.08·05 · 730.000 -000 Pendin9 $ 0.00 Address 45 ~ QUEEN sr Taxes $ 0.00 Owner name I'll !:; MILFORD llOUSING DEV CO RP J>enillty $ 0.00 Total Due $ 0.00 No Payment Due u ..Ul 111 ii'.J 'Hj11 ~: ' it!Jf ., If you have any questions, call Customer Servi ce at (302) 736· 7035 Click on a payment or bill to view more details Date l"yµc~ Year Period Amoun t 10/14/15 Payment $7 ,500 .00 . 61 10/14/15 Payment $7,500.00 . 10/14/15 Payment $7,500.00 . 2/03/14 Payment $ 220 .98. 11/16/12 Payment $ 211.98. 12/2 3/11 Payment $ 215.17 . 12/23/11 Payment $ 215 .17 . 7 /05/11 Payment $ 3.27. 9/02/10 Payment $ 199.98 . 12/31/09 Payment $ 181.20 . 7/31/08 Payment $ 170.94 . 7/31/07 Payment $ 170.94 . 9/01/06 Poyment $ 176.07 . 11/30/05 Payment $ 178.63 . 7/30/04 Payment $ 163.58. 8/29/03 Payment $ 166.03 . 7/31/02 Payment $ 163.72 . 11/15/01 Payment $ 115.77 . 7/10/01 Payment $ 287 .71. 7/10/01 Payment $ 287.71 . 12/2 9/99 f'ayrnent $ 100.00 • 12/29/99 Payment $ 100 .00 . fl/0 4/99 Payment $ 50.00 - (9 Copyright 2000 · 2006 City of Dove r, Delaware. All Rights Re::;2rved. Pr'ivacv Policy & Terms of Use I Top of page https ://secure.cityofdover.com/inde ... 2017-08-18

Page 1 nf I Account History Inquiry City of Dover ec;ov J>ort<ll J\ccou11t. m '\c• nu !'l S11n, m;. u r· Tax Map Number E0 -05 -076.08-05·!80.000·000 PendtrHJ $ 0.00 Aclclress 24 N Nf:W ST Taxes $ 0 .(10 Owner name SAFFll:LD,110WARD r & SUE M Penalty $ 0 .00 {:.) Adq tQ Total Due $ 0.00 ·1 : , 1!I iJ1 ::.J ~-:-:. My Properties No Payment Due ii•J•l 'l;J ;! u~ i If you 11ave any questions, call Customer Service at (302) 736··7035 Click on a payment or bill to view more details D.:1te l y1>e Year l ' P,f!(id An10 ; 11tt 7/28/17 Payment $ 44.SS • ·*10/13/15 Payment $10,500 .00 . 4/15/13 Payment $ 228.12. 3/13/12 Payment $ 483. :l!l . 3/13/12 Payment $ 483 .38 . 3/26/10 Payment $ 222.07 . 2/24/09 Payment $ 222 .07 - 4/09/08 Payment $228 . 10- 4/09/07 Payment $ 477.57 - 4/09/07 Payment $ 477.57 • 6/30/06 Payment $ 100.00. 6/30/06 Payment $ 100.00 . 5/03/06 Payment $ 100.00 . 2/14/06 Payment $ JOO 00 · 10/03/03 Payment $ 226.00 . 3/05/03 Payment $ 401.00 - 3/05/03 Payment $ 401.00 - 6/05/02 Payment $ 25.00 . 8/29/01 Payment $ 200.00 - 8/29/01 Payment $ 200.00 - 3/29/00 Payment $ 66.34 • 9/10/99 Payment $ 50.00 - 8/24/99 Payment $ 50.00 · 11/20/98 Payment $ 166.28 . ' l Searcn Resulls / .~~!_::~~~ j \f.) CorvricJhl 2000 2006 C! tv of Dov(:r, De l,w.,.,;! t~ /\ ti H r9!HS !,'.f.!!> l ~ l\1t;d_ Pri vacy Policy & T8ni1 s t 1f IJSe 1 Top of µage https://secure.cityofdover.com/indc ... 2017-08-18

Pagl! 1 ol' 1 Hom\! l ogin l"'ay Utility ~( "ra:ii Btllk ~ropcrly ra x e~. H~!p ~ SupprJr l I Account History Inquiry City of Dover eGov Portal I l\ccount ID Tax Map Number 21 :i?. U)-05·076.08-05 · 360.000·0IJO Pending 'f, 0.(l(l l\ddres!; 27 N NEW ST laxes $ 0.00 Owner narne WlSIER,t-ICNRY f, LINDI\ re11alt.y $ 0.00 Ad,d tq Total Due $ 0.00 No Payroent Due !J .:..;j l j,1~ My Properti~ ·)t jif 11;1 "i:~ 1 :t If you have ;rny ~u es tions, call Custorner Service at (302) 736 -/035 Clrck on a payment or bill to viP.w more details Date Ty pt• Y.:.~ d l r e rio l l\n 1 oun~ 7/25/17 Payrnenl $ 53.06 - 10/14/15 Payment $7,500.00 .. ·* 10/14/15 Payment $7,500 .00 - 10/14/15 Payment $7,500 .00 - 2/03/14 Payment $ 289. 87 - 2/03/14 Payment $ 289.87 - 12/28/12 Payment $ 273.56 - 3/12/12 Payment $ 289 .05 . 8/31/10 Payment $ 258.08 - 6/08/10 Payment $ 9.0S - 2/01/10 Payment $ 198.29 - 7/31/08 Payment $ 189.75 - 7/31/07 Payment $ 189.75 - 9/01/06 Payment $ 195.44 - 11/30/05 Payment $ 198.29 - 7/30/04 Payment $ 180.84 - 8/29/03 Payment $ 183.55 - 7/31/02 Payment $ 180.84 - 7/31/01 Payment $ 138.37 - 9/22/00 Payment $ 142.52 . 8/31/99 Payment $ 140.45 - 10/31/98 Payment $ 144.60 - ' ~ eaich Results j NeN Se;uch ' f l (9 Copynghl .WOO · 2006 City of Dover, Delaware . Ali Rights R 1~_;e r\/ e ~1 Privacy Policy & Terms of Use I Top of page https://secure.cityofclover.com/inde ... 2017-08-18

I' age I o I' 2 Dover, DE P ;:irc.c i ID : Owne r :t N;urie : ~-------' IN NEW ST vi !..Search 11 Reset Prop ~ rty Oct;;i!: Parce l ID : Cilrd: Sirnet N um ber : St r eet Nam(! : Zo n ing : LIJ C: Acres: EDOS-076.08-05-36.00 27 N NEW ST RG-1 NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS 0.16 Owner Information: Property I mages: Owner 1 Name: CENTRAL DEL HAB FOR HUMANITY Pic ture: Owner 2. Name: Valuation: Appraised Land: $13,100.00 Appraised Bldg: $0.00 Total: $13,100.00 Ske tch : There is no sketch available. Sales History: Book: Page : Sa le D<l t c : Price: Val i dity: Sil ie Tyµ WB Q 010 164 11 / 07/ 2011 u 2 l&S 026 40 3 03/25/2015 T 2 VL-7817 310 09/29/2015 K http://dover.ias-clt.com/parcel .deta ... 2017-08-18

Page l ol l Account History Inquiry City of Dover eClov Portal Account II) l.. 1]6 rax Map N111111Jer rn -05 -077.09-01 -020.ooo-ooo Pc11d111q $ 0.00 . ,,~JJ.W rr 1.i 1 Address 10 l S QU_I'lN S] _ Taxes Penalty $ 0.00 $ 0.00 ~ I Owner name NATIONAi_ COUNCIL ON AG L!F[ & ~ ...........'""" I Total Due $ 0.00 i. !:: ~ Md to My Properties No Payment Due I If you have any questions , call Cu~torncr Service ,it (302) '/ 36-7035 Click on a payment or bill to view mor~ details !1-'l tc ·1ype Yea r f\~ ri od .l\rno:..nt 10/14/15 Pay1nent $7,500.00 - 0l' io/14/15 Payment $7 ,500.00 - 10/14/15 Payment $7,500.00 - 2/03/14 Payment $ 275.48 - 9/25/12 Payment $ 256.78 - 3/12/12 Payment $ 279.22 - 8/31/10 Payment $ 249.30 - 12/31/09 Payment $ 175.95 - 7/31/08 Payment $ 165.99 - 7/31/07 Payment $ 16$.99 - 9/01/06 Payment $ 170.97 - 11/30/05 Payment $ 17346 - 7/30/04 Payment $ 177.55 - 8/29/03 Payment $ 180 .21 - 7/31/02 Payment $177.42- 7/31/01 Payment $ 130.84 - 9/22/00 Payment $ 134.77 - 8/31/99 Payment $ 132.80 - 10/31/98 Payment $ 125.27 • _J_ (~) Copynyht 2000 · 200G Citv of Dover, Delaware . All Rights Rc~eived Pnv~cy Policy & Terms of Use I Top of page https ://secure.ci tyofdover.com/inde ... 2017-08-18

J>ag1: I o I' 2 f' roperty Sea rch : Parcel ID : .__ ________. IsQUEEN ST vj Search 11 Reset Property De t ail: Parcel ID: Car d : Str e e t ['lllt rflb e:- : S t·i·t:!Ui Na m e : Zorii119 : LUC : A c n.~ s: EDOS-077 .09-01-02 .00 101 5 QUEEN ST RG-1 NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS 0.16 Owner Information: Pr o perty ! m a gt~s: Own er 1 Name: CENTRAL DEL HAB FO HUMANITY P icture : Owner 2 Name: Valuation: Af>praised Land: $13,400.00 Appraised Bldg: $0.00 Total: $13,400 .00 5 k e t.d1: There is no sketch available . Sales History: Boo I<: Page: Sale Date: f>rice : V<i lid it y: Sal(! Typ e WB Q 010 164 11/07/2011 u 2 l&S 026 403 03/25/2015 T 2 VL-7817 304 09/30/2015 K http:!/dover. ias-clt.com/parcel .deta ... 2017-08-18

Page l of 3 KENT COlJNTY, DELAWARE 555 Bay ]~oad, Dover, Delaware 19901-3615 (302) 744-2300 -- FAX (302) 736-2279 "Serving Kent Coun(v With Pride" PROPERTY INFORMATION Planning and Building; Permits Information Reference# ED EAST DOVER HUNDRED Card# I of I Location ID 17247 Map Number 2-05-07709-01-0200-00001 Tax ID 17247 Deed BVP D 7817 0304 Property Parcel ID 39376 X- EXEMPT Code Current Owner Property Location .• CENTRAL DELAWARE HABITAT, FOR 101 QUEEN ST · 7I' 544 WEBBS LN DOVER, DE 19904 DOVER, DE 19904 Zoning RGI Acres .16 Additional Owner Sub-Division Sales History 11 II j jLiv.Sq.Ft 11.0000 I Date Price 11 Assessment I!Total Rooms II I 10/08/15 10! ILand 11 2,6ooj jBedrooms II I 3/25/15 ol lnuildings 11 IIFull Bath II I I!Total 11 2,6ool 1Half Bath II I JBase Tax Due 11 .ool !Last Billing Detail 1IHistocyl jFarm Info I !Tax Penalty 11 .ool !Total Tax Bal. II .ool !sewer Balance 11 .00 !sewer Account# 11 I I jNeighborhood # 1100214 le oo rdina tes 11 j0467847 E 0421976 N I jLancl Use 11 ILot Dimensions 11 10000041.0000001 s i.50 I !Living Units 11 !School District I[18 !CAPITOL I jciass J IResiden jFire District 146 jROBBINS HOSE (DOVER)! !Plat Book Pg 1100000 !sewer District loo !!NONE I jTopography I!Level jArnbulance District J46 J jROBBINS HOSE (DOVER)! !Street or Road J IPaved !Trash District I I1 I jFronting J JResiden 1·J Light District I 11 I !Improvement J Jv ACANTI Jcommissioner Dist Joo 11 I http://kent400.co.kent.de.us/cgi-bin ... 2016-09-09

Page 1 or I Account History Inquiry C:1ty of l) owr p(;ov 1•011,11 i\cco1Jnt II) rax Map Number El>-05-0"16 .08-02-170.000-000 Pendinq $ o.oo Address 212 N GOVfRNORS AVc Taxes $ ll.00 Owner 11dl11P. SAMi\lN,JUSllN Penelly $ 0.00 ·rotill Due $ 0 .00 Add to No Paymi;:nt Due, :1:__\Jl!j 1I: ) My Properties J J!~ol 't;t :1-. r-i lf you have any Q1Jest1ons, call Customer Service at (302) 736- 7035 Clic.k on a payment or bill to view more details Pa l l' l"ype Yea r p,~ ho rl J\niount 7/20/17 Payment $ 43 . 74 - 7/18/16 Payment $ 40.98 - 11/23/15 Payment $ 2.76 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805 .96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805. 96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805 .96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805. 96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805.96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805.96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805.96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805. 96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805.96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805.96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805. 96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805.96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805.96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805.96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805. 96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805. 96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805 .96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805.96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805. 96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805.96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805.96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805. 96 - 7/30/12 Payment $ 335.77 - J/27/11 Payment $ 335.7! - 1/28/11 Payment $ 11.93 - 10/29/10 Payment $ 849.52 - 10/29/10 Payment $ 849.52 - 12/11/08 Payment $ 457.63 - 6/18/08 Payment $ 495.94 - 8/17/06 Payment $ 432.09 - 8/25/05 Payment $ 425_70 - 7/28/04 Payment $ 345.2•1 - 7/23/03 Payment $ 345.24 - 7/08/02 Payment $ 345.24 . 7/31/01 Payment $ 334.97 - 7/31/00 Payment $ 334 .97 - 7/30/99 Payment $ 334.97 - 7/22/98 Payment $ 310.86 - ~ CopyngM :?OOf) • 200t> Ci ty of L11JVe r , l~el,)yv(\i .;;. r\n Ri~111t ~- Reserved . Privacy Policy & Terms of U~r: i rcip of ,,age https://securc.cityofdover.corn/inde ... 2017-08-18

Page l of l DeJ ver ~ J Pro perty Sea rch: Paree! ID: 0 1!'.m er :ii. Name: Street Numb er : Street N arne: L _______=i L ______, [~.?- _____. l N GOVE_RNORS AVE vi I Search J I Reset j Property Detai!: Parcei ID: Card: Stree'i: Nll m!Je r: Street i\l a me: Zan i n ~;: LUC: Ac1e s: EDOS-076 .08-02-77 .00 212 N GOVERNORS AV E RG-1 RESIDENTIAL VACANT LAND 0.10 Owner Information: Property Im ages: Owner 1 Name: NCALLRESEARCHINC Picture : Owner 2 N<une: There is no picture available. Sketch: Valuation: There is no sketch available . Appraised Land: $10,800.00 Appraised Bldg: $0.00 Total: $10,800.00 Sales History: Book: Page: Sale Date: V alidity: Sale Type: 02/02/2002 115,000 0 2 RE VL-35 226 08/09/2006 s 2 REVL5704 . 011 01/11/2011 L 2 VL-7840 157 10/20/2015 20,000 L 2 The information delivered through this on - lin e database is provided in t he spi rit of ope n <1ccess to governm ent informa ti on a11li 1s intended as an enhanced service and convenience for citizen s of Dover, OF. . The providers of this database: Tyler CLT, Big Room Studios, and Dover, DE assurne no liabi li t y fo r any error· or omission in the information provided here . Comments regardi ng this service should be clirectc cl tn: tim @bigrooms tudios.com Fri. August 18, 2017: 11:49 AM: 0.16s: llrnll http:!/dover. ias-clt.com/parcel .deta ... 2017-08-18

P~tgc I o!' 2 1)0.V ER POST Neighborhood eyesore at 212 N. Governors Avenue condemned By Antonio Prado/Dover Post Posted Oct 2, 2012 at 3:54 PM Updated Oct 2, 2012 at 4:12 PM Dover officials continue to target problem properties through the city's dangerous buildings ordinance. The latest to be condemned was 212 N. Governors Avenue. THE RUNDOWN The owner of212 N. Governors Ave. has until Oct. 24 to repair or demolish this dilapidated property due to Dover City's Council's recent condemnation of the two story home. Council ordered the property repaired or demolished under the city's dangerous building ordinance at its Sept. 24 meeting. The city Department of Planning & Inspections had condemned the two story, wood framed, single family as unfit for human habitation on July 20 due to the lack of utilities and the amount of broken windows and unsecured doors, Dover Director of Planning & Community Development Ann Marie Townshend said. The property is owned by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, she said. WHAT'S BEING SAID The city has boarded up this property several times, Townshend said. Yet, unknown subjects still entered the dwelling on Aug. 10 and started a fire in the front bedroom of the second floor, causing additional damage to the home, she said. "Currently, the structure is still vacant, with no active utility services and in serious disrepair," Townshend wrote in her report to council. Councilman David Bonar asked if the fire damage to the home was structural in nature or just to the interior of the structure. Townshend said there was no structural damage, but the interior damage was substantial. http://www.doverpost.com/articlc/ ... 20 l 7-08-15

Page 2 n r 2 Councilman Adam Perza asked if the owner had taken any steps to repair the structure. Townshend said no. Councilman David Anderson asked the requisite question of whether proper notice had been given , and Townshend said several letters from the city to the property owner had been returned. City Council then voted 8-0 to condemn the property. (Councilwoman Sophia Russell was absent.) WHAT'S NEXT? The city would order the building inspector to repair or demolish the structure if Deutsche Bank National Trust docs not perform repairs or demolition within 10 days of Oct. 24, Townshend said. If the city goes through with demolition or repairs, the city manager and city solicitor would then recoup the costs of such work through a municipal lean on the property or a lawsuit against the property owner, she said. The cost of demolition is estimated at between $10,000 and $ l 5 ,000. That money, if needed, would come out the $150,000 budgeted in the 2013 fiscal year budget for all demolitions. http://www.doverpost.com/article/ ... 2017-08-15

Pagi...: I ol' 2 Account History Inquiry i\c.count IO 8766 l\ t:C ol int S L.: 1nr.ur y L 1X M~1~ Nu1111J~ 1 r:D ~ OS-061 . 20-0 .1 170 .000· 000 Pe11'dmg ~ 0.00 /\(fdrc<.;; J;5 N NEVJ ~;T raxe.;; $ 0.00 Owner narne CENl DE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY Penalty $ 0.00 Total Due $ 0.00 <1t:: Add to No Paymont Due ~-~ My Properties If you have ony ciuestions, call Customer Service at (302) 736-'10)5 Uick on a payment or bill to vi ew more dota1ls --fHtlf! L/11/17 rrpe P!lyrncnt ' car i\:r.od f\ 1 11~.,unt $ 59.21 - 8/l7./16 Paym en t $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33.672 .82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/lG Payment $33,672.82 . 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Paym en t $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Paym ent $33,672. 82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payrnenl $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Pay ment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/2 2/16 Payment $33,672 .82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672 .82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/16/16 Payment $17 ,583.19 - 8/16/16 Payment $17,583.19 - 8/16/16 Payment $17,583.19 - 8/16/16 Payment $17,583.19 - 8/16/16 Payment $17,583.19 - 8/16/16 Pay ment $17,583.19 - 8/J 6/16 Payment $17,583.19 - 8/16/16 Paym ent $17,583.19 - 8/16/16 Payment $17,583.19 - 8/16/16 Payment $17,583.19 - 8/16/16 Paym ent $17 ,583.19 - 8/16/16 Payment $17,583.19 - 8/16/16 Payment $17.583.19 - 8/16/16 Paym ent $17,583.19 - 8/28/13 Payment $ 571.11 - 8/28/tJ Payment $ 571.11 - l/18/11 Payment $ 258.42 - 8/31/JO Payment $ 258.42 - 7/29/09 Payment $ 316.47 - 7/29/08 Payment $ 316.47 - 5/16/08 Payment $ 784.85 - 5/16/08 Payment $ 784.85 - 2/15/06 Payment $ 500.00 - 2/15/06 Payment $ 500.00 - 2/15/06 Payment $ 127.51 - 9/16/03 Payment $ 3.35 - 8/12/03 Payment $ 219.89 - 4/17 /03 Payrnent $ 249.58 - 7/19/01 Paymnnt $191.80- 7/27/00 Payment $ 191.80 - https://secure.cityofdovcr.com/inde ... 2017-08-18

Page I ol' I PrQpl'rly laxe" Help t'4 Support Account History Inquiry City of Dover e(;ov Portal Account ID 528B Tax Mi1p Nun1ber (l)-05-017. l0-0J ·'.i20 .000-000 Pen<11nq $ 0.00 Address 528 Bl\Y RD laxe5 $6,'.i3'1.1'1 1 Owner name LOS PAISAS l LC Penally $ 2:J. 01 Total Due $6,557.15 ~Pay Biii Add to :/iJJJl1 rJ'.:) My Properties '}i•p l l;J i:.tri-; 1 If you have any questio ns, call Cuslorn<:r Service at (302) 7 36-7035 Click 011 a µ;iyrnent or i)r\I to view more detilils !)ate rype Ye ar Per it1d Arno 111f 'j 8/01/16 Payment $4,726 .87 ' 8/01/16 Payment $4,/26.87 ' 3/21/16 Payment $ 131.91 - 10/01/15 Payment $2,726.87 - 11/24/14 Payn1ent $ 73.31 - 9/10/14 Payrnent $2,38'1.58 - 9/10/14 Payment $2,384.58 - 9/24/13 Payment $2,360.04 ' 9/24/13 Payment $2,360.04 - 9/25/12 Payment $2,291.30 - 8/16/11 Payment $2,391.30 ' 8/16/11 Payment $2,391. 30 . 12/28/10 Payment $ 100.00 . 8/25/10 Payment $2,291 30 . 10/26/09 Payment $ 21.07. 9/16/09 Payment $1 ,384 .02 - 7/29/08 Payment $1,384.02 . 10/16/07 Payrnent $ 42.14. 9/10/07 Payment $1,381\.02 - 7/31/06 Payment $1,384.02. 8/03/05 Payment $1,38'1.02 - 7/26/04 Payment $1,694.55 - 12/15/03 Payment $1,821.22. l 1/20/03 Payment $1,796. 22 . 10/31/02 Payment $1,770.95. 10/02/01 Payment $1,749.76 - 10/06/00 Payment $1,775.25. 8/18/99 Payment $ 25.48 - 8/13/99 Payment $1,698.80. 7/30/98 Payment $1,698.80 . (9 Copyright 2000 · 2006 City ,1f Dover, Delaware. ;\II Ri~Jht':i R~ ~; i:~rv~'!t1 Pnvdcy Policy & Terms of Use i Top of page - -~ -- - - ----- https://secure.cityofdover.corn/inde ... 2017-08-18

Page I or I Account History Inquiry City of Dover eGov Portal /\,~count ID 6386 /\(~1: ot1 n t: ~;un1 11\ ~''" Y Tax Ma1) Nu111ber f'D-05-ff/6. l l ·02-'.i90.000· 000 Pe11rJi11g $ 0.00 /Id dress 1128 FORR[ST /\VE ·raxes $ 0.00 Owner nilme NIST/\ZOS t~OLDINGS LLC Penalty $ 0.00 Add tq Total Due $ 0.00 My Properties No Payment Dulil • f).1l.JrK1! iJ:i or end d l,i~! tH1·.11v··:.:;, ·!ti 'r ·:.:..:JlH1 1'J J!•)•I 'i;: ;l'lf'I If you have any questions, call Customer Service at (302) 736 -7035 Click on a payment or bill to view more details Dutt~ Type Yt:~ i'lr l' eriod An-1ount 7/19/17 Payment $ 337.70 j)( 10/12/16 Payment $25,084.86 . $25,084 .86 . 10/12/16 Payment 10/12/16 Payment $25,084.86 . 10/12/16 Payment $25,084 .86. 10/12/16 Payment $25,084.86. 10/12/16 Payment $25,084.86 - 10/12/16 Pnyment $25,084 .86 - 5/18/16 Payment $ 713.07 - 2/24/16 Payment $6,149.10 - 2/24/16 Payment $6, 149.10 - 2/24/16 Payment $6,149.10 - 2/24/16 Payment $6,149.10. 2/24/16 Payment $6,149.10 - 2/24/16 Payment $6,149.10 - 2/24/16 Payment $6,149.10 - 2/24/16 Payment $6,149 .10 - 2/24/16 Payment $6,149 .10 - 2/24/16 Payment $6,149.10 - 2/24/16 Payment $6,149.10 - 2/24/16 Payment $6,149 .10 - 12/31/14 Payment $ 658.80 - 1/24/14 Payment $ 666.67 - 1/25/12 Payment $1,230.98 - 1/25/12 Payment $1,230 .98 - 10/30/09 Payment $ 513.25 . 7/30/08 Payment $ 498.30 . 7/31/07 Payment $ 498.30 - 7/26/06 Payment $ 498.30. 8/26/05 Payment $ 498.30 . 7/26/04 Payment $ 628.01 - 7/25/03 Payment $ 628 .01 - 7/30/02 Payment $ 628 .15 .. 7/23/01 Payment $ 339 .08 - 7 /18/00 Payment $ 339.08 - 7/26/99 Payment $ 339 .08 - 7/14/98 Payment $ 339.08 - Search Re-,;ults i ____, Ne.v Scarc11 J © Copyr:gi1l 2000 - 2006 City t:•f D1..W1H , De iawarc.~ . A! I ~iqi".1 5 l~P.5•?:rvt~. J. Pnvacy Policy & Ternis. of Use I Top or pal)e https://secure.cityofdover.com/inde ... 2017-08-18

Page I ol' I Account History Inquiry City of Dover eGov Portal Account llJ 60582 1\c.c o11nt ~ rn n n 1 dr / ~ Tax Map Number fD-05·076.11-02 ·2 00.001-000 Pe11<1111g $ 0.00 Address 1126 FORREST AVE laxes $ 0 00 Owner name NIS IAZOS 110LDINGS LLC l'enillty $ 0 00 _) :,l J!i f l ' J if·Jil 'I~! J! J ~ f°l .;f Add to t. -~::. My Properties NQ Payment QuQ r Total Due $ 0.00 " B 1111'."1• "'• 1~ t ,•nt! fi f l, 1~ t !H,O: lf\ " '"' 1: ,1\ If you have any questions, call Customer Service at (302) 736-1035 Click on a payment or bill to view more details Date lype Year Perioct f\!lhJi..ll l ! 7/19/ll Payment $ 113 36 - j 10/12/16 Payment $1,187.61 10/12/16 Payment $1,187.61 - 10/12/16 Payment $1,187.61. 5/18/16 Payment $ 455.04 . 2/24/16 Payment $5,130.9/. - " 2/24/16 Payment $5,130.92 - 2/24/ 16 Payment $5,130.92 . 2/24/16 Payment $5,130.92 . 2/24/16 Payment $5, 130 .92 - 2/24/16 Payment $5, 130.92 - 2/24/16 Payment $5,130.92 - 2/24/16 Payment $5,130.92 - 12/31/14 Payment $ 894.09 - 1/24/14 Payment $ 904.77 - 1/25/12 Payment $1,670.63 - 1/25/12 Payment $1,670.63 . © Copyri~1l1t .:.{/00 - 2006 Cny of Dover, De!awdH!. All Rights R('serve1t Privacy Pohcy & Terms of Use I Top of page https://secure.cityofdover.corn/indc ... 2017-08-18

Page I of' I tlomc> Logm Pay Ul1l1ty & fax 13ills Propf~rty T,Jx: es Help&. Support Account History Inquiry City of Dover eCiov Portal Account ID l\f:£.GW ll :--=;, !1n 11l1tlf '/ Tax Maµ Number fD ·O'.i·IJ/(;. 11 -02-200.000·000 Pe11d111Q $ (l.1)1) l\ddres5 112<\ FORRE~~T AVE raxes $ O.OIJ Owner name NISTAZOS HOLDIN(iS I.LC Penally $ 0.00 Add tQ Total Due $ 0.00 No P.:iyment Due '.:s JJl 1i~ My Properties !!•1 11 •1;> 11 111-1 If you have any que5tion5, call Customer Service at (302) 7.16· 7035 Click on a payment or brll to view more details L\Ji.t' l"ypf~ Y e ,~r Perio, 1 Ar11oon1! 7/19/17 Payment $ 119 83 - $19,164.19 - ~ 10/13/16 Payment 10/13/16 Payment $19,164.19 - 10/13/16 Payment $19.164.19 - 10/13/ 16 Payment $19,164.19 - 10/12/16 Payment $19, 160.49 . 10/12/16 Payment $19,160.49 - 10/12/16 Payment $19,160.49 - 5/18/16 Payment $ 142.06 - ~ 2/24/16 Payment $1,977..12 - 2/24/16 Payment $1,972.12 - 2/24/16 Payment $1,972 .12 - 2/24/16 Payment $1,972.12 - 2/24/16 Payment $1,972.12 - 2/24/16 Payment $1,972.12 . 2/24/16 Payment $1,972.12 - 1/24/14 Payment $ 386.11 - 1/25/12 Payment $ 712.93 - 1/25/12 Payment $ 712.93 - 10/30/09 Payment $ 400.06 - 7/30/08 Payment $ 388.41 - 7/31/07 Payment $ 388.41 - 7/26/06 Payment $ 388.41 . 8/26/05 Payment $ 388.41 - 7/26/04 Payment $ 348.12 - 7/25/03 Payment $ 348.12 . 7/30/02 Payment $ 347 .98 - 7/23/01 Payment $ 321.27 - 7/18/00 Payment $ 321.27 - 7/26/99 Payment $ 321.27 - 7/14/98 Payment $ 321.27 - © Copynghl 2000 - 2G06 City o f Oov..~ r, OC! l.~w~ re /\ii H?qtll'> ~c~;e;-v.;;d Pnvacy Policy & Terms or Use 1 Top of page https://secure.ci tyofdover.com/incle ... 2017-08-18

RESOLUTION NO. 2017-08 APPROVING TIIE 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) ACTI()N PLAN By consent agenda, Mr. Lewis moved for adoption of the proposed resolution, seconded by Mr. Neil and, by a unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-08, as follows: A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) ACTION PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Dover is entitled to~£_2 0,2~ through the ~--/ United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant program; and WHEREAS, the City of Dover has prepared the 2017 Action Pian, in accordance with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development guidelines, that serve as the primary planning document for identifying and meeting the housing and community development needs for the low and moderate-income residents of Dover; and WHEREAS, the City of Dover is in favor of utilizing the Community Development Block Grant funds for the community development purposes in accordance with the National Community Development objectives of benefiting low and moderate income families, eliminating slums and blight, and meeting other community development objectives; and WHEREAS, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development requires the City of Dover to submit a Consolidated Plan and an Action Plan for Application for Federal Assistance including the proposed use of funds and including certain certifications and policies to obtain its $230,289 entitlement; for eligible activities; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER APPROVE THE 2017 Community Developn1ent Block Grant Action Plan and application for Federal Assistance included in the Action Plan, along with certifications and policies attached and authorize its forwarding to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for consideration. '()j{:· ',/? . ADOPTED: JUNE 26, 2017 '/

CITY OF DOVER ORDINANCE# 2017-08 CDBG GRANT FUND CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2017-2018 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: Th e arnoun t her e inaftc-~r named aggregating Two Hundred Eighteen Thousand Eight Hundred dollars ($218,800) or so much th!:reof as may be necessary are hereby Jppropriall; d from current revenues and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018 : OPERATING REVENUES 2017/18 BUDGET PRIOR VEAR BALANCE $ 2,100 COllG GRANTS RECEIVED 216,700 TOTALS $ 218,800 OPERATING EXPENSES 2017/18 BUDGET EXPENDITURES CURRENT VEAR CLOSING COST/DOWN PAYMENT PROGRAM $ 60,000 CURRENT VEAR CONNECTION SUPP PROGRAM 3,000 CURRENT VEAR DOVER INTERFAITH MINISTRY 24,000 CURRENT VEAR MHDC EMERGENCY HOME REPAIR 25,000 CURRENT VEAR HABITAT FOR HUMANITY 21,300 CURRENT VEAR MHDC HOMEOWNER REHAB. 40,000 CURRENT VEAR ADMIN EXPENSE 43,400 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 216,700 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE 2,100 TOTALS $ 218,800 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. ADOPTED: JUNE 26,_2017 27

FY 2017 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET - DOVER , DELAWARE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) OPEF<i\ TltjG f~ EVl-O N U E S $ DIFFERENCE 2015/2016 ORIGINAL 2016/17 2017/18 FY18 VS % AClUAL BUDGET PROJECTED APPROVED FY17 BUDGET CHANGE PRIOR YEAR BALANCE CDBG 2 013 2, 100 2, 100 2, 100 0.0 % PRIOR YEAR BALANCE NSP 85,277 0.0% CDBG GRANTS RECEIVED 231_161 23G,500 ;(19 70 0 216,"100 (19.800) -8.4% REVENUE FROM NSP 25.501 0.0% TOTALS 343,952 238,600 281,800 218,800 (19,800) -8.3% OPrnA TING EXPENSES $ DIFFERENCE 2015/2016 ORIGINAL 2016/17 2017/18 FY18 VS % ACTUAL BUDGET PROJECTED APPROVED FY17 BUDGET CHANGE Prior year Closing cost/down payment program 892 900 0.0% Prior year Neall Research Inc. 1,000 0.0% Prior year Connection Supp Program 2,500 0.0% Prior year MHDC emergency home repair 22,300 0.0% Prior year Habitat for Humanity 5,500 3,000 0.0% Prior year Milford housing H/O rehab 13,400 0.0% Current year closing cost/down payment program 59 , 108 50,000 50 ,000 60,000 10,000 20.0% Current year Connection Comm Supp program 4,952 7,200 7,300 3,000 (4,200) -58.3% Current year Dover interfaith ministry 27.000 22,000 22,000 24,000 2,000 9.1% Current year MHDC emergency home repair 12.990 25,000 25,000 25,000 0.0% Current year Habitat for Humanity 37 ,047 30,000 30,000 21,300 (8,700) -29.0% Current year MHDC homeowner rehab. 39.506 55,000 55,000 40,000 (15,000) -27.3% Current year Peoples Place 6.722 0.0% Current year admin expense 37.444 4"1,300 47,300 43,400 (3,900) -8.2% NSP program expenditures 95.453 0.0% CURRENT YEAR BALANCE CDBG 2,013 2,100 2,100 2,100 0.0% CURRENTYEARBALANCENSP 15.325 0.0% TOTALS 343,952 238,600 281,800 218,800 (19,800) -8 .3% 293

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 10, 2015 PAGES Mr. Koenig advised members that, while the write-off would be substantial, the long tenn benefit of the proposal outweighed the financial impact of this write-off. Mr. Koenig stated that it was staffs strong belief, from an administrative standpoint, that transfening this property would be a good thing for the City of Dover. He noted that the City had preached home ownership in this area and Habitat would virtually guarantee long-tenn home ownership. Staff recommended authorizing the properties to be transfened from Dr. Joe Burden, Jr. to Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity without collecting the City's liens against the properties in exchange for a payment of $30,000 from Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity ($7,500 per parcel). In response to Mr. Shevock regarding whether Dr. Burden owned any other properties in the City, Mr. Koenig stated that Dr. Burden owned a substantial amount of property within the City. Responding to Mr. Shevock as to whether either the write-off or the total lien amount could be transfened to Dr. Burden's other properties and attached for payment, Mr. Koenig stated his belief that this could not be done. He expressed his opinion, in the larger context of dealing with distressed properties, that this would not be a good precedent to start and was unsure if the City could legally do this. Mr. Koenig stated that staff had talked to Mr. William Pepper, Deputy City Solicitor, about this particular transaction and there was no legal reason that the City could not transfer a lien from one (I) property owner to another and then forgive the lien. Mr. Koenig advised members that Dr. Burden had been working with staff and had paid all of his FY 15 taxes. He stated his belief that Dr. Burden had paid FY 16 taxes on all but the subject properties; therefore, progress had been made in a number of areas. Mr. Koenig indicated staff's belief that this land transfer would clear the water in some cases and provide a fast forward to home ownership on these four (4) Jots. He stated that if the City continued to pursue the liens and forced a tax sale, there would be no guarantee that those purchasing the properties would occupy them, as they could be rentals. Mr. Koenig reiterated, under the proposal, that the City would be virtually guaranteed home ownership. Mr. Sudler stated that he was glad that Dr. Burden and the City of Dover had reached an understanding and agreement and were working together. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend approval of Staff's recommendation to authorize the properties to be transferred from Dr. Joe Burden, Jr. to Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity without collecting the City's liens against the properties in exchange for a payment of $30,000 from Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity ($7,500 per parcel). The motion was seconded by Mr. Cole and unanimously carried. Disposition of City Owned Land - Property Located at 710 and 715 Slaughter Street Members were informed that the City of Dover acquired properties located at 710 and 715 Slaughter Street at a monition sale due to liens for taxes and demolition expenses. Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, stated that these were excess properties, as the City had no use for them and would be better served by the properties being redeveloped and restored as taxable properties.

EXHIBIT #2 Regular Council Meeting of 08/28/2017 Excerpts from: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing in Delaware Delaware Housing Coalition Michael Allen Reiman, Dane & Colfax, PLLC Georgetown, Delaware April 4, 2013 "Today's Federal housing official commonly inveighs against the evils of ghetto life even as he pushes buttons that ratify their triumph-even as he OK's public housing sites in the heart of the [African-American] slums, releases planning and urban renewal funds to cities dead-set against integration, and approves the financing of suburban subdivisions from which [African- Americans] will be barred .... "These and similar acts are committed daily by officials who say they are unalterably opposed to segregation, and have the memos to prove it.. .. But when you ask one of these [HUD administrators] why, despite the [fair housing legislation] most public housing is still segregated, he invariably blames it on regional custom, local traditions, personal prejudices of municipal housing officials." --Senator Edward Brooke: 114 Cong. Rec. 2281 [1968] FHA requires HUD to "administer [housing] programs ... in a manner affirmatively to further the policies of [the Fair Housing Act]," including the general policy to "provide, within constitutional limits, for fair housing throughout the United States." - 42 USC §3608 42 U.S.C. §S304(b)(2): "Any grant under [the CDBG program] shall be made only if the grantee certifies to the satisfaction of the Secretary that ... the grant will be conducted and administered in conformity with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq.] and the Fair Housing Act [42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.], and the grantee will affirmatively further fair housing." Preventing the Increase of Segregation " ... the affirmative duty placed on the Secretary of HUD by§ 3608(d)(S) ... requires that consideration be given to the impact of proposed public housing programs on the racial concentration in the area in which the proposed housing is to be built. Action must be taken to fulfill, as much as possible, the goal of open integrated residential housing patterns and to prevent the increase of segregotion, in ghettos, of raci al groups whose lack of opportunities the Act was designed to combat." " ... every court that has considered the question has held or stated that Title VIII imposes upon HUD an oblig<ltion to do more than simp ly refrain from

d iscri rn in atin b (and from purposely aiding discrimination by others) ... This broader goal [of truly open housing] ... r:>fl ect'" t h :. d e ir to haw HUD u ·e it ~, v rc: n\' progr · ;wt J ass i - t in ~ n d! 11g d iscr irnin at ion and segreg, ti OL , to t h . po·nt w i1 er " th E! su p ply of 1p nu i n - Iv op ... n ho u".i ng 11 incr e a .~ t-~ ~~. - NAACP v. Sec'y of Housing and Urban Development, Westchester Litigation: A Cautionary Tale County received $52 million+ in CDBG, HOME, ESG funds from 2000-2006 Receipt of funds required repeated AFFH certifications Litigation brought under the False Claims Act: AFFH certifications were false because County did not consider race-based impediments to fair housing choice Westchester Al 2000 and 2004 Analyses of Impediments ("Als"): "The [Fair Housing Plan] describes the housing needs of handicapped persons, larger/smaller families [and] extended families .... " Als do not identify any impediments on the basis of race, color, national origin or any other protected class, even though County is part of one of the most segregated regions in the country No mention of housing discrimination or residential segregation Settlement Terms County required to ensure development of 750 affordable housing units, within 7 years, in the whitest neighborhoods - 660 units must be built in municipalities with African-American population of less than 3% and Latino population of less than 7% - Additional integrative criteria at the census block group level Settlement Terms !llCounty Returns $30 Million to HUD - $21.6 Million to Fund Integrative Units - $7.5 Million to Pay "Relator's Share" for Ferreting out False Claims County Must Supply an Additional $30 Million for Integrative Units County Pays $2 .5 Million in Attorneys' fees and Costs HUD Administrative Complaints City of Atlanta (race and disability) State of Louisiana (race) Jefferson Parish, Louisiana (race) Danville, Illinois (race) Sussex County, Delaware (race and national origin) Waukesha County, Wisconsin (race) State of Maryland (LIHTC/race)

Sussex County, Delaware Attempt to build a new subdivision of single family, for-sale homes in a community land trust for low-income service and agricultural workers blocked by Planning Commission and County Council The lawsuit, filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleges that the county's planning and zoning commission denied land use approval for a 50-lot affordable housing subdivision proposed by Diamond State Community Land Trust, a Delaware affordable housing developer, in southwestern Sussex County near the town of Laurel, Del. The suit alleges that the Sussex County Council later affirmed the denial of the proposed development. The suit alleges that opposition to the proposal was based partly on the assumption that the subdivision's residents would be Latino and African-American and on stereotypes based on race, color and national origin. The lawsuit arose from a complaint to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that was referred to the Department of Justice. The settlement, also filed today as a proposed consent decree that must be approved by the court, requires that the defendants reconsider the affordable housing proposal using nondiscriminatory criteria and take no actions to obstruct or delay the development of the subdivision . It also requires the county to pay $750,000 to Diamond State Community Land Trust in compensation for its damages. In addition, the settlement requires that the county take affirmative steps to provide for future affordable housing, communicate its commitment to fair housing, and establish mechanisms to ensure affordable and fair housing in Sussex County. Among other things, the county must formulate an affordable and fair housing marketing plan to encourage the development of housing opportunities that are available and accessible to all residents of Sussex county regardless of race, color or national origin, appoint a fair housing compliance officer, and ensure that county officials and staff undergo fair housing training. "The Fair Housing Act guarantees that all Americans have the opportunity to live where they choose regardless of the color of their skin," said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Division . " It is especially important that counties employ their land use powers in a manner that does not obstruct housing choice, and we will take action when jurisdictions block housing because of the race or ethnicity of those who would live there."

Lessons for Recipients of Housing a11d Community Development Funds "[T]he c0 ntrnl g:. ai f ti .c 1 1l ligr. ~o n to A FH [1<>] to en : housin g i i::rim in c.ti -n <111d se grc g <~ t i o n." Taking AFFH seriously can alert a recipient to ways in which private sector activity is harming the recipient AFFH certifications Jre material preconditions to the receipt of HUD funds Courts likely to see claims for payment as implicit AFFH certifications Recipients ignore HUD's Fair I-lousing Planning Guide and AFFH regulations at their peril A recipient must identify all impediments experienced by all protected classes, and must keep records of this analysis - Whether created by public or private sector, impediments must be analyzed - Impediments may include actions or policies that discriminate on the basis of protected class, whether by way of intentional discrimination or disparate treatment -A recipient is not excused from such an analysis by identifying the "greatest" or "most challenging" impediment; it must analyze everything it finds Permitting concentration of affordable housing development in minority neighborhoods likely perpetuates segregation and is a violation of the recipient's AFFH obligation A recipient must take appropriate actions to overcome the impediments identified, and keep records of those actions It is impossible to meet this requirement in the absence of an adequate identification and analysis of underlying impediments Recipients are responsible for the AFFH compliance of their sub-recipients - You can't fund jurisdictions whose policies and practices are AFFH non-compliant -There will be more vigorous AFFH enforcement in the coming years : -Administrative complaints to HUD - HUD "front end" and compliance reviews - Litigation by civil rights groups - Litigation by developers and property owners

AFFH FACT SHEET: THE DUTY TO AFFIRM.ATIVELY FUR_ HER FAI . HOUSI. G WHAT IS THE DUTY TO AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING? From its inception, the Fair Housing Act (and subsequent laws reaffirming its principles) not only prohibited discrimination in housing related activities and transactions but also imposed a duty to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH). The AFFH rule sets out a framework for local governments, States, and public housing agencies (PHAs) to take meaningful actions to overcome historic patterns of segregation, promote fair housing choice, and foster inclusive communities that are free from discrimination. The rule is designed to help programs participants better understand what they are required to do to meet their AFFH duties and enables them to assess fair housing issues in their communities and then to make informed policy decisions. For purposes of the rule. affirmatively furthering fair housing "means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The duty to affirmatively further fair housing extends to all of a program participant's activities and programs relating to housing and urban development." For purposes of the rule. meaningful actions "means significant actions that are designed and can be reasonably expected to achieve a material positive change that affirmatively furthers fair housing by, for example, increasing fair housing choice or decreasing disparities in access to opportunity." WHAT IS THE PROCESS PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS MUST FOLLOW? Under the AFFH rule, an "Assessment of Fair Housing" (AFH) will replace the current "Analysis of Impediments" (Al) process. The AFH Assessment Tool, which includes instructions and data provided by HUD, consists of a series of questions designed to help program participants identify, among other things, fair housing issues pertaining to patterns of integration and segregation; racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty; disparities in access to opportunity; and disproportionate housing needs, as well as the contributing factors for those issues. • The Assessment Tool is intended to help communities understand and identify local barriers to fair housing choice. The AFH provides an approach that will help program participants more effectively affirmatively further the purposes and policies of the Fair Housing Act. • HUD will review the AFH within 60 calendar days after the date of submission. An AFH submission is deemed accepted 61 days after submission unless HUD provides notification on or before that it is not accepted. Non-acceptance notifications will explain the reasons for non-acceptance and how a program participant may remedy deficiencies. • The AFFH rule establishes specific requirements for the incorporation of the AFH into subsequent Consolidated Plans and PHA Plans in a manner that connects housing and community development policy and investment planning with meaningful actions to AFFH. • The AFFH rule links existing community participation and consultation requirements to the AFH process to ensure program participants give the public opportunities for involvement in the development of the AFH and in its incorporation into the Consolidated Plan and PHA Plan.

INTERIM GUIDANCE FOR PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS ON STATUS OF ASSESSMENT TOOLS AND SUBMISSION OPTIONS HUD is providing guidance for Program Participants to assist in carrying out certain responsibilities related to their obligation to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) pending issuance of the final Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) Tool for States and Insular Areas. As interim guidance, this guidance will be updated based on the availability of Assessment Tools for States and Insular Areas and Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), 1 or by January 1, 2019, whichever is earlier. STATUS OF ASSESSMENT TOOLS Program participants will not be required to begin conducting their assessments until the full array of on line resources, including both the Data and Mapping Tool (AFFH-T) and the User Interface are complete and operational. The status of these Assessment Tools and related on line resources are as follows: • Local Government and Joint/Regional : Final and available OMB. Control No. 2529-0054). • PHA and PHA-only collaboration: Final and available (OMB Control No. 2529-0055). OMB has approved the AFH Assessment Tool for PHAs. HUD will issue an additional Federal Register notice notifying PHA's of their new submission date at a later time once additional resources become available. • Qualified PHA (QPHA): Currently unavailable-final version subject to full Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) process. • State and Insular Area: Currently going through PRA Process (see additional details below). GENERAL GUIDANCE FOR PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS Pursuant to 24 C.F.R. § 5.160, AFH submission requirements depend on the type of program participant (or lead entity in the case of a collaboration) and the availability of applicable Assessment Tools and their related Data and Mapping Tool. The following tables are meant to assist program participants in identifying options for collaboration 2 and accompanying submission deadlines. 1 HUD has announced its intention to release an Assessment Tool for Qualified PHAs (QPHAs) . This will be subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) process, and the public will have an opportunity to submit comment. 2 Guidance on how program participants can collaborate on their AFH submissions can be found on www.hudexchange.info/programs/affh . Issued January 18, 2017

Local Governments, States, and Insular Areas Option 1: Option 2: Option 3: Submit an AFH Alone Collaboration with one or more Collaboration with State lead Local Governments or PHAs on Entity on an AFH an AFH Ai;mlicable Assessment Tool : AQQlicable Assessment Tool: AQQlicable Assessment Tool: Local Government Local Government Assessment Assessment Tool for States Assessment Tool Tool with option to use and Insular Areas w ith option Local $500,000 or Less Local to use $500,000 or less Local Government Government Insert if the Government Insert ifthe Program Program Participant is eligible Program Participant is eligible Participants with CDBG Submission Deadline: Submission Deadline: Submission Deadline: Grants in 270 days prior to the Based on lead Submitter' s Based on lead Submitter's FY15 of program year start date for Submission Deadline Submission Deadline, which is $500,000 or the next 3-5-year triggered by approval and Less 3 consolidated planning cycle publication of a final State beginning on or after January Assessment Tool 1, 2019. Local AQ1;2 licable Assessment Tool: AQQ licable Assessment Tool : A1;2Qlicable Assessment Tool : Local Government Local Government Assessment Assessment Tool for States Government Program Assessment Tool Tool and Insular Areas Participants Submission Deadline: Submission Deadline: Based on Submission Deadline : with CDBG 270 days prior to the Lead Submitter's Submission Based on Lead Submitter's Grants in program year start date for Deadline Submission Deadline, which is FY15 that the next 3-5-yea r triggered by approval and are Over consolidated planning cycle. publication of a final State $500,000 Assessment Tool States and A1;2~licable Assessment Tool: A1;21;2licable Assessment Tool: I Insular Assessment Tool for States Assessment Tool for States and Areas and Insular Areas Insular Areas Submission Deadline: Submission Deadline: Triggered by approval and Triggered by approval and publication of a final publication of a final Assessment Assessment Tool for State Tool for State and Insular Areas and Insular Areas 3 For any HOME con sortium who se members do not receive CDBG funds or whose members collectively received $500,000 or less in CDBG fund s in FY2015, the con sortium' s first AFH is due 270 days prior to the program year for which a new 3-5-year Consolidated Plan is due sta rting on or after January 1, 2019 . For any HOME consortium in which members re ceived more than $500,000 in CDBG funds in FY2015, the consortium's first AFH is due 270 days prior to the program year for which a new 3-5 Consolidated Plan is due starting on or after January 1, 2017. 81 Fed . Reg . 73129. 2

Public Housing Agencies Option 1: Option 2: Option 3: Option 4: Submit an AFH Alone PHA-Only Collaboration Collaboration with one Collaboration with on an AFH or more Local State as Lead Entity Governments on an on an AFH AFH Applicable Applicable Assessment Applicable Assessment Applicable Assessment Tool: Tool: PHA Assessment Tool: Assessment Tool : QPHA Assessment Tool with option to use Local Government Assessment Tool for Tool PHA Insert Assessment Tool with States and Insular option to use PHA Areas with option to QPHAs Insert use PHA Insert (Fewer than 550 Units) Submission Deadline: Submission Deadline: Submission Deadline: Submission Deadline: 270 days prior to the 270 days prior to the Based on Lead Triggered by program year start program year start date Submitter' s Submission approval and date for the next 5- for the next 5-year cycle Deadline publication of a final year cycle. of the Lead PHA. Assessment Tool for States and Insular Triggered by the Triggered by the Areas announcement of the announcement of the availability of all availability of all resources for resources for completion of the completion of the Final Final QPHA PHA Assessment Tool Assessment Tool PHAs 1250 Applicable Applicable Assessment Applicable Assessment Applicable or fewer Assessment Tool: Tool: Tool: Assessment Tool: Units PHA Assessment Tool PHA Assessment Tool Local Government Assessment Tool for with option to use 1,250 Assessment Tool with States and Insular unit or fewer PHA Insert option to use the PHA Areas with option to ("PHA Insert") Insert use PHA lnsert4 4 While not final, HUD announced its intention to make an insert available to PHAs with 1250 units or fewer in the case of collaboration using the State Assessment Tool, as it has in the Local Government and PHA Assessment Tools . See 82 Fed. Reg. 4388 (Jan. 13, 2017). 3

Public Housing Agencies Option 1: Option 2: Option 3: Option 4: Submit an AFH Alone PHA-Only Collaboration Collaboration with one Collaboration with on an AFH or more local State as lead Entity Governments on an on an AFH AFH Submission Deadline: Submission Deadline: Submission Deadline: Submission Deadline : 270 days prior to the 270 days prior to the Bas ed on Lead Triggered by program year start program year start date Submitter's Submission approval and date for the next 5- for the next 5-year PHA Deadline publication of a final year PHA Planning planning cycle of the Assessment Tool for cycle. Lead PHA. States and Insular Area s Triggered by the Triggered by the announcement of the announcement of the availability of all availability of all resources for resources for completion of the completion of the Final Final PHA Assessment PHA Assessment Tool Tool Applicable Apglicable Assessment Arrnlicable Assessment Apglicable Assessment Tool: Tool: Tool : Assessment Tool: PHA Assessment Tool PHA Assessment Tool Local Government Assessment Tool for Assessment Tool States and Insular PHAs with Areas more than 1250 units Submission Deadline: Submission Deadline: Submission Deadline: Submission Deadline: 270 days prior to the 270 days prior to the Based on Lead Triggered by program year start program year start date Submitter's Submission approval and date for the next 5- for the next 5-year PHA Deadline publication of a final year PHA Planning Planning cycle. Assessment Tool for cycle. States and Insular Triggered by the Areas Triggered by the announcement of the announcement of the availability of all availability of all resources for resources for completion of the Final completion of the PHA Assessment Tool Final PHA Assessment Tool 4

FEDERAL REGISTER Vol. 80 Thursday, No. 136 July 16, 2015 Part Ill Department of Housing and Urban Development 24 CFR Parts 5, 91, 92, et al. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing; Final Rule

42272 Federal Register I Vol. 80, No. 136 /Thursday, Jul y 16, 2015 I Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND conditi ons that res trict fair hous ing The approach proposed by HUD in URBAN DEVELOPMENT choi ce, and dispariti es in access to 2013, and adopted in this final rule, housing a nd opportunity , id eutify the with revis ions mad e in response to 24 CFR Parts 5, 91, 92, 570, 574, 576, factors that primarily contribute to the publi c comments, strengthens the and 903 crea tion or perp etuation of fair housing process for program parti cipants' (Docket No. FR-5173-F-04] issues, and es tablish fair housing assessments of fa ir hous ing iss ues and priorities and goals. contributing fa ctors and fo r the RIN 2501-AD33 DATES: Effective Date : August 17 , 2015. establi shment of fair housing goa ls and prioriti es by requiring use of an Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Assessment Tool, providing data to George 0. Williams, Sr., Deputy AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HUD. program participants related lo certain Assistant Secretary for Policy, key fair hous ing issu es, and instituting ACTION: Final rule. Legislatives Initiatives and Outreach , a process in whi ch HUD reviews Office of Fair Housing and Equal SUMMARY: Through this final rule, HUD program participants' assessments, Opportunity, Department of Housing provides HUD program participants prioritization, and goa l setting. While and Urban Development, 451 7th Street with an approach to more effectively the statutory duty to affirmatively SW., Room 5246, Washington, DC and effici1rntly incorporate into their further fair housing requires program 20410; telephone number 866- 234- 2689 planning processes the duty to participants to take actions to (toll-free) or 202- 402- 1432 (local). affirmatively further the purposes and affirmatively further fair housing, this Individuals who are deaf or hard of policies of the Fair Housing Act, which final rule (as was the case in the hearing and individuals with speech is title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of proposed rule) docs not mandate impairmen ts may access this number 1968. The f'air Housing Act not only specifi c outcomes for the planning via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal prohibits discrimination but, in process. Instead, recognizing the Relay Service during working hours al conjunction with other statutes, directs importance of loca l decisionmaking , the 1-800-877-8339. HUD's program participants to take new approach establishes basic SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: param eters lo help guide public sector significant actions to overcome historic patterns of segregation, achieve truly I. Executive Summary housing and community development balanced and integrated living patterns, planning and inveslment decisions in promote fair housing choice, and foster Purpose of the Regulatory Action being better informed about fair housing inclusive communities that are free from From its inception, the Fair Housing concerns and consequently help discrimination. The approach to Act (and subsequent laws reaffirming its program participants to be better affirmatively furthering fair housing principles) has not only prohibited positioned lo fulfill their obligation to carried out by HUD program discrimination in housing related affirmatively further fair housing. participants prior to this rule, which activities and transactions but has also Summary of Legal Authority involved an analysis of impediments to provided, through the duty to fair housing choice and a certification affirmatively further fair housing The Fair Housing Act (title VIII of the that the program participant will (AFFH). for meaningful actions to be Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. affirmatively further fair housing, has taken to overcome the legacy of 3601- 3619) declares that it is "the not been as effective as originally segregation, unequal treatment, and policy of the United States to provide, envisioned. This rule refines the prior historic lack of access to opportunity in within constitutional limitations, for fair approach by replacing the analysis of housing. Prior to this rule , HUD directed housing throughout the United States." impediments with a fair housing participants in certain HUD programs lo See 42 U.S.C. 3601 . Accordingly, the assessment that should better inform affirmatively further fair housing by Fair Housing Act prohibits, among other program participants' planning undertaking an analysis of impediments things, discrimination in the sale, rental, processes with a view toward better (AI) that was generally not submitted to and financing of dwellings, and in other aiding HUD program participants to or reviewed by HUD . This approach housing-related transactions because of fulfill this statutory obligation. required program participants, based on "race, color, religion, sex, familial Through this rule, HUD commits to general guidance from HUD, to identify status, 1 national origin, or handicap." z provide states, local govern~ents, impediments to fair housing choice See 42 U.S.C. 3604 and 3605. Section public housing agencies (PHAs), the within their jurisdiction, plan, and take 808(d) of the Fair I-lousing Act requires communities they serve, and the general appropriate actions to overcome the all executive branch departments and public, lo the fullest extent possible, effects of any impediments, and agencies administering housing and with local and regional data on maintain records of such efforts. urban development programs and integrated and segregated living Informed by lessons learned in localities activities to administer these programs patterns, racially or ethnically across the country, and with program in a manner that affirmatively furthers concentrated areas of poverty, the participants, civil rights advocates, fair housing. See 42 U.S.C. 3()08. location of certain publicly supported other stakeholders, and the U.S. 1 The term "familial status" is defined in the Fair housing, access to opportunity afforded Government Accountability Office all Housing Act al 42 U.S.C. 3602(k). ll includes one by key community assets, and commenting to HUD that the Al or more ch ildren who are under the age of 18 years disproportionate housing needs based approach was not as effective as being domi ciled with a parent or guardian. on classes protected by the Fair Housing originally envisioned, in 201 cl HUD 2 Although the Fair Housing Acl was amended in Act. Through the availability of such 1988 to extend civil rights protections lo persons initiated the rulemaking process to with "handicaps," the term "disability" is more data and available local data and propose a new and more effective c ommonly used and accepted today to refer to an knowledge, the approach provided by approach for program participants to individual's physical or mental impairment that is this rule is intended to make program use in assessing the fair housing issues protected under federal civil rights laws, the record participants better able to evaluate their of such an impairment, and being regarded as and factors in their jurisdictions and having such an impairment. For this reason, except present en vironment to assess fair regions and for establishing fair housing where quoting from the Fair Housing Act, this housing issues such as segregation, priorities and goals to address them. preamble and final rule use the term "disability."

Federal Register/Vol 130, No. 136 / Thursday, Jul y 16, 201 5 /Rules and Regulations 42273 Section 808(e)(5) of the Fair Housing Summary of Benefits and Costs sp ec ific local entiti es 1..v ill depe nd on Act (42 U.S.C. 3608(e)(5)) requires th at HUD believes that the rul e, through the extent to which th ey have been I-IUD programs and activities be its improvem ents to th e fair housing complying with th e planning process administered in a manner affirmativel y planning process, has the pot ential for already in place . The local entiti es that furthering th e polici es of th e Fair substantial benefit not only for program have been diligent in compl eting I-lousing Act. participants but also for the rigorous Als may experience a net decrease in administrative burden as a Summaiy of th e Major Provisions of th e communities they serve and the United Slates as a whole. The new approach result of the revised process. Program Rule put in place by this rul e is designed to participants are currentl y required also The Affirmatively Furthering Fair improve the fair housing planning lo engage in outreach and coll ect data in Housing (AfFH) regulations process by providing bett er data and order to meet the obligation to promulgated by this final rule: greater clarity to the steps that program affirmatively fi.1rther fair housing. As a. Replace Lhe AI with a more participants must undertake to assess more fully addressed in the Regulatory effective and standardiZfid Assessment fair housing issues and contributing Impact Analysis that accompanies this of Fair Housing (AFH) through which factors and establish fair housing rule, HUD estimates compliance costs to program participants id entify and priorities and goals to address them. program participants of $25 million evaluate fair housing issues, and factors The fair housing issues, contributing annually, as well as resource costs lo contributing to fair housing issues factors, goals, and priorities identified HUD of $9 million annually. (contributing factors); through this process will be available to The rule covflrs program participants help inform program participants' that are subject to a great diversity of b. Improve fair housing assessment, investments and other decisionmaking, local conditions and economic and planning, and decisionmaking by HUD social contexts, as well as differences in providing data that program participants including their use of HUD funds and other resources. These improvements the demographics of populations, must consider in their assessments of should yield increased compliance with housing needs, and community fair housing-designed to aid program investments. The rule provides for participants in establishing fair housing fair housing and civil rights laws and fewer instances of litigation pertaining program participants to supplement goals to address these issues and to the failure to affirmatively f·urther fair data provided by HUD with available contributing factors; local data and knowledge and requires c. Incorporate, explicitly, fair housing housing. Through this rule, HUD them to undertake the analysis of this planning into existing planning commits lo provide stales, local governments, PHAs, the communities information to identify barriers lo fair processes, the consolidated plan and housing. Also, the rule affords program PHA Plan, which, in turn, incorporate they serve, and the general public, to the fullest extent possible, with local and participants considerable choice and fair housing priorities and goals more flexibility in formulating goals and effectively into housing, and community regional data on patterns of integration priorities to achieve fair housing development decisionmaking; and segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, access to outcomes and establishing the metrics d. Encourage and facilitate regional housing and key community assets that that will be used to monitor and approaches to address fair housing afford opportunity, and document progress. The precise issues, including collaboration across disproportionate housing needs based outcomes of the proposed AFH planning jurisdictions and PHAs; and on characteristics protected by the Fair process are uncertain, but the rule will e. Provide an opportunity for the Housing Act. From these data, program enable each jurisdiction to plan public, including individuals participants should be better able to meaningfully. historically excluded because of evaluate their present environment to II. Background characteristics protected by the Fair assess fair housing issues, identify the Housing Act, to provide input about fair significant contributing factors that A. Legal Authority housing issues, goals, priorities, and the account for those issues, set forth fair HUD's July 2013 proposed rule fully most appropriate uses of HUD funds housing priorities and goals, and set out the legal basis for I-IUD 's and other investments, through a document these activities. authority to issue regulations requirement to conduct community As detailed in the Regulatory Impact implementing the obligation to participation as an integral part of the Analysis (found at www.regulations.gov affirmatively further fair housing, but new assessment of fair housing process. under the docket number 5173- F-03- HUD believes it is important to restate This new approach is designed to RIA), HUD does not expect a large such authority in this final rule. empower program participants and to aggregate change in compliance costs for The Fair Housing Act (title VIII of the foster the diversity and strength of program participants as a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. communities by overcoming historic proposed rule. Currently, HUD program 3601-3619), enacted into law on April patterns of segregation, reducing racial participants are required to conduct an 11, 1968, declares that it is "the policy or ethnic concentrations of poverty, and AI to fair housing choice, take of the United States to provide, within responding to identified appropriate actions to overcome the constitutional limitations, for fair disproportionate housing needs effects of identified impediments, and housing throughout the United States." consistent with the policies and maintain records relating lo the duty to See 42 U.S.C. 3601. Accordingly , the protections of the Fair Housing Act. The affirmatively further fair housing. An Fair Housing Act prohibits rule also seeks to assist program increased emphasis on affirmatively discrimination in the sale, rental, and participants in reducing disparities in furthering fair housing within the financing of dwellings, and in other housing choice and access to housing planning process may increase housing-related transactions because of and opportunity based on race, color, compliance costs for some program race, color, religion, sex, familial status, religion, sex, familial status, national participants , but this final rule, as national origin, or handicap. See 42 origin, or disability, thereby expanding provided in Section lII of this preamble, U.S.C. 3601 et seq. In addition to economic opportunity and enhancing has strived to mitigate the increase of prohibiting discrimination, the Fair the quality of life. such costs. The net change in burden for Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3608(e)(5))

42274 Federal Register /Vo l. 80, No . 136/Thursday, Jul y 16, 2015/Rules and Regul ations requires that HUD programs and In exam ining the legislative history of Th e Act itself docs not define th e activities be ad mini stered in a manner the Fair Housing Act and related precise scope of th e a ffirmati ve ly to affirmatively further the policies of s tatutes, courts have found that the furthering fair housing obligation for the Fair I-lou sing Ac t. Section 808(d) of purpose of the affirmatively furthering HUD's program participants. Over th e the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S .C. 3608(d)) fair hou sing mandate is to ensure that years, co urts have provided so me directs other Federal agencies "to recip ients of Federal housing an d urban guidance for this task. In the first admin ister their programs. . relating deve lopment funds and other Federal ap p el late decision interpreting section to housing and urban development . funds do more thaJ1 simply not 3608, for example, the U.S. Court of in a manner affi rmativel y to further" th e discriminate: Recip ients also must take Appeals for the Third Circuit policies of the Fair Housing Act, and to ac tions to address segregation and emphasized th e importance of racial "coopera te with the Secretary" in this related barriers for groups with and socioeconomic data to ensure that effort. characteristics protected by the Act, as "the agency's judgme nt was an The Fair Housing Act's provisions often refl ected in racially or ethnically informed one" based on an related to "affirmatively .. . concentrated areas of poverty. The U.S. institutionalized method to assess site further[ingJ" fair housing, contained in Supreme Court, in one of the first Fair selection and related issues. Shannon, sections 3608(d) and (el includ e more Housing Act cases it decided, referenced 436 F.2d at 821-22. ln multiple other than the Act's anti-discrimination the Act's cosponsor, Senator Walter F. decisions, courts have set forth how the mandates. NAACP, Boston Chapter v. Mondale, in noting that "the reach of section applies lo specific policies and HUD, 817 F.2d 149 (1st Cir. 1987); see, practices of HUD program participants. the proposed law was lo replace the e.g., Otero v. N. Y. City Haus. Au th., 484 See, e.g., Otero, 484 F.2d al 1132-3 7; ghettos 'by truly integrated and F.2d 1122 (2d Cir. 1973); Shannon v. Langlois v. Abington Haus. Au th., 207 balanced living patterns.'" Trafficante HUD, 436 F.2d 809 (3d Cir. 1970).When F.3d 43 (lsl Cir. 2000); U.S. ex rel. Anti- v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205, 211 Discrimination Ctr. v. Westchester Cnty., the Fair Housing Act was originally (1972). 4 The Act recognized that "where enacted in 1968 and amended in 1988, 2009 WL 455269 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, a family lives, where it is allowed lo 2009). major portions of the statute involved live, is inextricably bound up with the prohibition of discriminatory In addition to the statutes and court better education, better jobs, economic cases emphasizing the requirement of activities (whether undertaken with a motivation, and good living recipients of Federal housing and urban discriminatory purpose or with a conditions." 114 Cong. Rec. 2276-2707 development funds and other Federal discriminatory impact) and how private (1968). As the First Circuit has funds to affirmatively further fair litigants and the government could explained, section 3608(d) and the housing, executive orders have also enforce these provisions In section 3608(d) of the Fair Housing legislative history of the Act show that addressed the importance of complying Act, however, Congress went further by Congress intended that "HUD do more with this requirement. 5 mandating that "programs and activities than simply not discriminate itself; it reflects the desire to have HUD use its B. HUD's July 19, 2013, Propo.~ed Rule relating to housing and urban development" be administered "in a grant programs to assist in ending On July 19, 2013, at 78 FR 43710, manner affirmatively to further the discrimination and segregation, to the HUD published its proposed rule that point where the supply of genuinely described the new assessment of fair purposes of this subchapter." This is not open housing increases." NAACP, housing (AFH) process that would only a mandate to refrain from discrimination but a mandate to take the Boston Chapterv. HUD, 817 F.2d at 154; replace the AI. As stated in the July 19, type of actions that undo historic See also Otero 484 F.2d at 1134 (section 2013, rule, HUD proposed a process that 3608(d) requires that "[a]ction must be should aid program participants to more patterns of segregation and other types taken to fulfill, as much as possible, the effectively carry out the obligation to of discrimination and afford access to goal of open, integrated residential affirmatively further fair housing by opportunity that has long been denied. housing patterns and to prevent the more directly linking the identification Congress has repeatedly reinforced this increase of segregation, in ghettos, of of fair housing issues , prioritization, and mandate, requiring in the Housing and goal selling to housing and community Community Development Act of 1974, racial groups whose lack of opportunity the Act was designed to combat"). development planning processes the Cranston-Gonzalez National currently undertaken by program Affordable Housing Act, and the Quality participants and that is required as a Housing and Work Responsibility Act of identify their overall needs for affordable and supportive housing for the ensuing 5 years, condition of their receipt of HUD funds. 1998, that covered HUD program including housing for homnless persons, and At the jurisdictional planning level, participants certify, as a condition of outline their strategy to address those needs. As HUD requires program participants receiving Federal funds, that they will part of this comprehensive planning process, affirmatively further fair housing. See 42 section 105(b)(15) of NAHA (42 U.S.C. '12705[b)(15)) requires that these program 5 Executive Order 12892, entitled "Leadership U.S.C. 5304(b)(2). 5306(d)(7)(B). participants r.ertify that they will affirmatively and Coordination of Fair Housing in Federal 12705(b)(15), 1437C- 1(d)(16).3 further fair housing. The Quality Housing and Work Programs: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing," issued January 17, 1994, vests primary authority in Responsibility Act of 1998 {QHWRA), enacted into the Secretary of HUD for all federal executive 3 Section 104(b )(2) of the Housing and law on October 21, 1998, substantially modified the departments and agencies to administer their Conunw1ity Development Act (HCD Act) (42 U.S.C. United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 progranlS and activities relating to housing and 5304ro)(2)) requires that, to receive a grant, the state et seq.) (1937 Act), and the 1937 Act was more urban development in a manner that furthers tJie or local governnrnut must certify that it will recently amended by the Housing and Economic purposes of the Fair Housing Acl. Executive Ord er affirmatively further fair housi ng. Section Recovery Act of 2008, Public Law 110-289 [HERA). 12898, entitled "Executive Actions to Address 106(d)(7}(8) of the HCD Act (42 U.S.C. QHWRA introduced formal planning processes for Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 5306(d)(7)(8)) requires a local government that PHAs-a 5-Ynar Plan and an Annual Plan. The Low-Income Populations," issued on February 11 , receives a grant from a state to certify that it will required contents of the Annual Plan included a 1994, declares that Federal agencies shall make it affirmatively furth er fair h ousing. The Cranston- certification by the PHA that the PHA will, among part of their rnission to achieve environmental Gonzalcz National Affordablo Housing Act (NAHA) other things, affirmatively further fair housing. justice "by identifying and addressing, as (42 U.S.C. 12704 et seq.) provides in section 105 (42 •Reflecting the era in which it was enacted, the appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse U.S.C. 12705) that states and local governments that Fair Housing Act's legislative history and early human health or environmental effects of its receive certain grants from HUD must develop a court decisions refer to "ghettos" when discussing program s, policies, and activities on minority comprehensive housing affordability strategy to racially concentrated areas of poverty. populati ons and low-income populations."

Federal Register/V o l. 80, No. 136/Thursday, July 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42275 receiving Commun ity .Development gu id ance and clarity were viewed as more direct link between the AF I-1 and Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment lacking. Specifically, GAO slated that it subsequent program participant Partnerships (HOME), Emergency found that "HUD's limited regulatory planning documents- the consolidated Solutions Grants (ESG), and Housing requirements and oversight" plan an d the PI-IA Plan- that would tie Opportuniti es for Persons With AIDS contributed to many HUD program fair housing planning into the priority (HOPWA) formula funding to und ertake participants placing a "low priority on selling, commitm en t of resources, and an analysis to identify impediments to ensuring that their Als serve as effective specification of activ ities to be fair housing cho ice within the planning tool s." 7 In its undertaken; and (5) a new HUD review jurisdiction and take appropriate actions recommendations, GAO emphasized procedure based on clear standards that to overcome the effects of any that HUD could ass ist program wou ld facilitate th e provision of impediments, and keep records on such participants by providing more effecti ve technical assistance and reinforce the efforts. See§§ 91.225(a)(l), guidance and technical assistance and value and importance of fair housing 91.325(a)(1). 6 Similarly, PHAs must the data necessary to prepare fair planning activities. commit, as part of their planning housing plans. As provid ed in the proposed rul e, the process for PHA Plans and any plans Stemming from substantial interaction new AFH process would be es tablish ed incorporated therein, to examine their with program participants and in regulations in 24 CFR part 5, subpart programs or proposed programs, advocates, and in light of the GAO A, with conforming amendments identify any impediments to fair Report, HUD concluded that t.he current provided in the following regulations: housing choice within those programs, Al process was not well integrated into 24 CFR part 91 (Consolidated address those impediments in a the planning efforts for expenditure of Submission for Community Planning reasonable fashion in view of the funds made by HUD program and Development Programs); 24 CFR resources available, work with participants. HUD recognized that many part 92 (HOME Investment Partnerships jurisdictions to implement any of the program participants actively grapple Program); 24 CFR part 570 (Community jurisdiction's initiatives to affirmatively with how issues involving race, national Development Block Grants); 24 CFR part further fair housing that require PHA origin, disability, and oth er fair housing 574 (Housing Opportunities for Persons involvement, maintain records issues do and should influence grant With AIDS); 24 CFR part 576 reflecting those analyses and actions, decisions as part of housing and (Emergency Solutions Grants Program); and operate programs in a manner that community development. planning. and 24 CFR part 903 (Public Housing is consistent with the applicable I-IUD found that program participants Agency Plans). jurisdiction's consolidated plan. See often turned to outside consultants to collect data and conduct the analysis, A more detailed discussion of HUD's §§ 903.7(0), 903.15. Over the past several years, HUD but that program participants had little July 19, 2013, proposed rule, incl.uding reviewed the efficacy of these incentive or awareness to us e this the specific AFH regulations and mechanisms to fulfill the affirmatively analysis as part of the investments and conforming amendments proposed, can furthering fair housing mandate and other decisions they made as part of the be found at 79 FR 43716 through 43723. concluded that the AI process could be consolidated plan or PHA Plan HUD refers interested parties to the improved to make it a more meaningful processes. HUD further concluded that, preamble to the proposed rul e for a tool to integrate fair housing into in a time of limited resources, HUD detailed discussion of the proposed program participants' planning efforts. could do more to support program AFH process and the reasons for HUD's HUD issued its Fair Housing Planning participants in the process, especially proposal of the features and elements of Guide (Planning Guide) in 1996 to through the provision of data, the new AFH process. provide extensive guidance on how to meaningful technical assistance, and C. Proposed Assessment Tool affirmatively further fair housing. additional guidance. All these findings However, HUD has not, in a systematic led HUD to the decision to offer a new On September 26, 2014, at 79 FR manner, offered to its program approach of linking fair housing issue 57949, HUD published in the Federal participants the data in HUD's identification, prioritization, and goal Register, the proposed "Assessment possession that may better help them setting with program participants' Tool" to be used by program frame their fair housing analysis, and traditional planning processes related to participants to evaluate fair housing HUD generally did not require Ais to be housing and community development. choice in their jurisdictions, to identify submitted to HUD for review. To more effectively carry out its barriers to fair housing choice at the These observations are reinforced by affirmatively furthering fair housing local and regional levels, and to set fair a recent report by the U.S. Government obligation, in the July 19, 2013, rule, housing goals to overcome such barriers Accountability Office (GAO) entitled HUD proposed a new AFH process to and advance fair housing choice . HUD "HUD Needs to Enhance Its replace the Al process. As provided in published the proposed Assessme nt Requirements and Oversight of the proposed rule, the new AFH process Tool for a period of 60 days in Jurisdictions' Fair Housing Plans," involved the following key features: (1) accordance with HUD's July 19, 2013, GA0-10-905, Sept. 14, 2010. See A new fair housing assessment tool; (2) proposed rule, and in accordance with http :I/www.gao.gov/new.items/ the provision of nationally uniform data the Paperwork Red uction Act, 44 U.S.C. d10905 .pdf (GAO Report). In this report, that would be the predicate for and 3501 el seq. the GAO found that there has been would help frame program participants' HUD appreciates the comments uneven attention paid to the AI by local assessment activities; (3) meaningful submitted on the proposed Assessment communities in part because sufficient and focused direction regarding the Tool, and will follow the September purpose of the AFH and the standards 2014 notice with a second notice "For these programs, tlw consolidated plan is by which it would be evaluated; (4) a soliciting comment for another 30-day intended as the program participant's period, as required by the Paperwork comprehensive mechanism to gather relevant 7 The GAO noted Lhat close to 30 percent of the Reduction Act, and advise of changes housing data, detail housing, homelessness, and grantees from whom GAO sought documentation community development strategies, •md commit to had outdated Als and that almost 5 percent of the made lo the proposed Assessment Tool specific actions. These are then updat ed through gran tees were unable to provide Als when in response to the initial 60-day annual action plans. requested. solicitation of comment. ·

42276 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 136/Thursclay, July 16, 2015/Rules and Regulations ln addition, it is important to note d elay the submission date of th e first on where to draw the thres hold for a that th e burd en imposed by the AFH for entitlement jurisdictions small CDBC. Comrnenters suggested that Assessment Tool and additional receiving a grant of 0.0125 p erce nt of the thres hold should be drawn at $1 Assessment Tools issued by HUD must, the CDBG formula appropriation or less . million. A comm enter, co mm enting on in accordance with the Paperwork With respect to Stales and Insular the percen tage th at HUD proposed, Reduction Act, be renewed for approval Areas, HUD advised that it decided to suggested a perce nt.age cutoff of 0.018 by the Office of Management and design a separate Assessment Tool for percent rather than HlJ D's suggested Budget (OMB) every 3 years, al which Stales and Insular Areas. HUD agreed percentage of 0.0125. The cornmenter point, the opportunity is also presented with commenlers responding to the explained tJrnt this thresholu would to assess whether the Assessment Tool Assessment Tool, published on bring the cutoff to approximately is aiding fair housing planning as September 26, 2014, that a separate $500,000, and al that level, intended by this rule. Assessment Tool for States and Insular administrative funds can be up lo Areas would address commenters' $100,000, an increa se from $70,000, D. Solicitation of Comment on Proposed concerns about the AFH approach being Staggered Submission of AFH which is the amount that would be better suited for entitlement available to entitlement jurisdictions On January 15, 2015 , al 80 FR 2062, jurisdictions. HUD also advised that the receiving $348,875- the amount under HUD published in the Federal Register separate Assessment Tool will not be the HUD-proposed threshold. The a document reopening the public provided for public comment as part of public comments received in response comment period on the issue of the second statutorily required public to the January 15, 2015, document can providing a later submission deadline comment period on the Assessment be found at the following Web site: for certain entities. In this document, Tool published on September 26, 2014. http://w·ww.regulations.go1r/ HUD advised that it was considering Rather, HUD will have the Assessment # !docketDetail;D=HUD-2015-0009. providing certain HUD program Tool for States and Insular Areas participants-States, Insular Areas, After consideration of the comments separately undergo the full notice and qualified PI-!As, jurisdictions receiving a comment process (a 60-day notice and on the CDBC threshold , HUD has small CDBG grant-with the option of decided to set the threshold for a small a 30-day notice) under the Paperwork submitting their first AFH at a date later Reduction Act, and this decision CDBG grant at a FY 2015 grnnt of than would otherwise be required for $500,000 or less. HUD believes that this automatically means a later first AFH program participants that are neither submission deadline for States and dollar threshold is appropriate for States, Insular Areas, qualified PHAs, Insular areas. providing a delayed first AFI-1 nor grantees receiving a small CDBG Although not part of the January 15, submission for certain CDBG grantees. grant, as proposed to be defined by the 2015, document, in the preamble to the Therefore, as a result of HUD's January January 15, 2015, document. Assessment Tool published on 15, 2015, proposal and in consideration For PI-!As, section 2702 of title II of September 26, 2014, HUD advised that of comments responding to that the Housing and Economic Recovery the draft Assessment Tool for which proposal, States, Insular Areas, qualified Act (HERA) 8 introduced a definition of public comment was sought is the PHAs, and CDBG grantees receiving an "qualified PHAs" to exempt such PHAs, Assessment Tool designed for use by FY 2015 CDBG grant of $500,000 or less that is, PI-!As that have a combined total entitlement jurisdictions and for joint will have a delayed first-AFH of 550 or fewer public housing units and submissions by entitlement jurisdictions submission deadline, as will all PI-!As, section 8 vouchers, are not designated and for PHAs where the entitlement even those that are not qualified PI-!As. as troubled under section 6(j)(2) of the jurisdiction is chosen as the lead entity. For PHAs, the first AFH submission 1937 Act, and do not have a failing HUD clarified that the Assessment Tool deadline will be based on when the score under the Section Eight is not the tool that will be used by PHA Assessment Tool has been Management Assessment Program regionally collaborating entitlement approved by OMB-following HUD (SEMAP) during the prior 12 months, jurisdictions or PHAs that will not be undertaking the notice and comment from the burden of preparing and making a joint submission, nor will it be process required by the Paperwork submitting an annual PI-IA Plan. Given used by States and Insular Areas. In Reduction Act-and announced by HUD that Congress has determined that brief, HUD committed to provide a as available for use. qualified PHAs should have reduced separate Assessment Tool for PHAs. III. Overview of Final Rule-Key administrative burdens, HUD proposed HUD also advised of its intention to Changes Made at Final Rule Stage that it is appropriate to provide these develop program-specific participant agencies with more time lo submit their Assessment Tools to be available for In the proposed rule, HUD solicited first AFH. public comment al the time that HUD public comment on the new AFI-1 With respect to small CDBG grants, publishes the first Assessment Tool for process and included 19 issues for there is no statutory definition on which its additional 30 days of public which HUD specifically solicited HUD can rely as is the case for qualified comment. HUD since decided to have comment. In Section IV of this PHAs. However, as noted in the January the State and PHA Assessment Tools preamble, HUD provides a summary of 15, 2015, document, in HUD's undergo the full notice and comment the significant comments raised by the Congressional Justifications issued in process under the Paperwork Reduction public comments and provides I-!UD 's support ofHUD's Fiscal Years (FYs) Act (a 60-day notice and a 30-day response to these issues. HUD received 2013 and 2014 budget requests, HUD notice). more than 1,000 public comments on proposed to establish a minimum grant In response to the January 15, 2015, the fuly 19, 2013, proposed rule. HUD threshold of approximately $350,000, document HUD received 21 public appreciates all the questions raised, and based on a percentage of the CDBG comments. The majority of public suggestions and recommendations made formula appropriation. Therefore, HUD commenters were supportive of a by the public cornmenters. After review proposed, similar to qualified PHAs, to delayed submission of the first AFI-1 for and consideration of the public States, Insular Areas, qualified PHAs, comments and upon further 8 Public Law 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654, approved and jurisdictions receiving small CDBG consideration of issues by HUD, the July 30, 2008, sco 122 Slat. 2863. grants. Commenters, however, differed following highlights key clarifications

Federal Register I Vol. 80, No. 136 I Thursda y, July 16, 2015 I Rules a nd Regu lations 42277 and changes mad e by HUD in this final • Acids a definition of "housing specify th e first- AFJ-1. submission rule. programs serving specified populations" deadline, and will ensme th e same level The final rule: to clarify that participation in HUD and of transition as provided for entitlement • Clarifies that HUD supports a Federal housing programs serving jurisdictions, which will be the first balanced approach to affirmatively spec ified populations does not present a program participants to subrnit an AFH. furthering fair housing by revising the fair housing issue of segregation, (See § 5.160(a).) "Purpos e" section of the rule and the provided that such programs com ply • Allows PHAs, whether submitting definition of "affirmatively furth ering with the program regulations and an AFI--l as part of participation with fair housing." Also, HUD has created a applicable Federal civil rights statutes their consolidated plan program now provision listing goals and and regulations. (See § 5.152.) participants, oth er PHAs, or on their priorities a program participant may • Revises the definition of own, to submit an AFH every 5 years, Lake to affirmatively further fair "integration" to provide greater clal'ily imposing on PHAs similar requirements housing, which may include, but are not as to the mem1ing of this term. (See to those placed on jurisdictions subject limited to, place-based solutions and § 5.152.) to the consolidated plan requirements. options to increase mobility for • Adels a definition of "local (See§§ 5.160 and 903.15.) protected classes. (S ee §§ 5.150, 5.152, knowledge" based on and consistent • Provides that a program participant and 5.154.) with the description of such term in the that undertook a Regional AT in • Replaces the term "proactive steps" Assessment Tool. (See§ 5.152.) connection with a grant awarded under in the definition of "affirmatively • Revises the definition of HUD's FY 201 O or 2011 Sustainable furthering fair housing" with the term "segregation" to provide greater clarity. Communities Competition is not " meaninghil actions" and defines (See§ 5.152 .) required to undertake an AFH for the "meaningful actions." (See § 5.152.) • Adds a definition of "qualified first AFH submission st.ago. (See • Revises the definition of PHA." (See § 5.152.) § 5.160(a).) "Assessment Tool" to advise that the • Revises and clarifies how the • Clarifies the conditions under tool is not solely a single form or analysis of data and the identification of which Hlill may not accept an AFH, template, but refers to any form or fair housing priorities and goals should and provides examples of an AFH that template issued by HUD as an be undertaken, including emphasizing is substantially incomplete with respect Assessment Tool for the AFH and that the program participant is to the fair housing assessment, and includes instructions. The definition responsible for establishing appropriate examples of an AFH that is inconsistent makes clear that HUD may issue priorities and goals. (See§ 5.154(d).) with fair housing and civil rights different Assessment Tools for different • Clarifies that although regionally requirements; and emphasizes that HUD types of program participants. collaborating program participants need will work with program participants to • Clarifies, through the addition of a not be contiguous and may cross state achieve an AFH that is accepted. (See new§ 5.151, that implementation of the boundaries, regionally collaborating § 5.162.) new AFH process commences for a program participants should be located • Provides greater flexibility to program participant when the within the same CBSA, as defined by program participants in determining Assessment Tool designated for use by OMB al the time of submission of the when a program participant must revise the program participant has been regional AFH, but HUD allows for an AFH, and specifies conditions when approved by OMB, and the availability exceptions. (See§ 5.156.) HUD may intervene and require a for use of such Assessment Tool is • Emphasizes that "acceptance" of an program participant to revise an AFH, published in the Federal Register. AFH means only that, for purposes of but also provides program participants • Adds a definition of "data" to administering HUD program funding, with the opportunity to disagree with collectively refer to "HUD-provided HUD has determined that the program HUD's determination. HUD also data" and "local data," both of which participant has provided an AFH that expands the lime frame in which to terms are also defined. (See§ 5.152.) meets the required elements. revise an AFH. (See § 5.164.) • Replaces the term "determinant" Acceptance does not mean that the • Revises for PHAs the three options with a more plain language term-"fair program participant has complied with provided in the proposed rule by which housing contributing factor" or simply its obligation to affirmatively further fair a PHA may conduct and submit an "contributing factor." (See§ 5.152.) housing under the Fair Housing Act; has AFH. (See § 903.15.) • Adels a definition of "disability." complied with other provisions of the • Adels a new "certification" (See§ 5.152.) Fair Housing Acl; or has complied with provision, which clarifies that program • Clarifies when disproportionate other civil rights laws and regulations. participants must certify that they will housing needs exist by revising the (See § 5.162.) affirmatively further fair housing when definition of "disproportionate housing • Provides a staggered submission required by statutes and regulations needs." (See §5.152.) deadline for AFHs; that is, the rule governing their programs, and provides • Revises the definitions of "fair specifies the order of submission by that challenges to the certifications will housing choice" and "fair housing which program participants will submit follow the procedures for consolidated issue" by removing outdated their first AFH. The rule provides that plan program participants in 24 CFR terminology (i.e., "handicap") and entitlement jurisdictions receiving an part 91 and for PHA Plan program making certain additional clarifying FY 2015 CDBG grant of $500,000 or less, participants in 24 CFR part 903, as changes. (See§ 5.152.) States, Insular Areas, and PHAs will revised in this final rule. (See § 5.166.) • Adels a definition of "geographic submit their first AFH in the second • Moves fair housing-related material area" which refers lo the area of analysis stage of submission, or at such time as from §903.2(d) to §903.15(d). of a program participant that may be a the Assessment Tool specifically In addition to these changes, HUD jurisdiction, region, slate, Core-Based applicable to one of these program also corrected editorial and technical Statistical Arca (CBSA). or another participants has been approved by OMB errors identified by the commenters. applicable area, depending on the area and announced by HUD as available for HUD believes that these changes, more served by the program participant. (See use. The Assessment Tool specifically fully discussed below, respond to § 5.152.) applicable to a program participant will commenters' requests that they be given

/) ;:/(11 1'(/J' C .\'/(I/(! A11a/1 1.1·i.1· r!/'111111 ~ d11111m ts to Fair l·/011.1·i11g Choi1:r. July lll l I DELAWARE STATEWIDE ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE OBSERVATION: Minimum wage ;md 5ingle-incornc households cannot afford a housing unit renting for the HUD Fair Market Rent in Dover. This situation forces these individuals ;:ind households to double-up with others, or lease Inexpensive, substandard units from unscrupulous landlords. Minorities and female-headed households will be disproportionately impacted because of their lower incomes. OBSERVATION: Persons receiving a monthly SSI check of $674 as their sole source of income, including persons with disabilities, cannot afford a one-bedroom unit rentinp, at the Fair Market Rent of $757. OBSERVATION: Overall, the housing market in the City of Dover is moderately unaffordable, as only 30.9% of the housing units sold in 2009 were considered to be affordable to households earning the median household income of $44,490. When rnedian household income by race is considered, Black households would have a more difficult time purchasing a home than Whites. OBSERVATION: Overall, the housing market in the City of Dover is moderately unaffordable, as only 30.9% of the housing units sold in 2009 were considered to be affordable to households earning the median household income of $44,490. When median household income by race is considered, Black households would have a more difficult time purchasing a home than Whites. OBSERVATION: Black households are disproportionately represented among Section 8 voucher holders. Of the 182 households in Dover using vouchers, 80.2% are Black. In addition, Black households are also disproportionately represented among applicants on the Section 8 waiting list. Of the 641 households waiting for a Section 8 voucher, 81.6% are Black. OBSERVATION: The extensive waiting lists for public housing (614 applicants) and Section 8 (641 applicants) demonstrate a high demand for affordable housing in Dover. Demand is high due to consumer desires to be close to amenities and transit options. OBSERVATION: Analysis of the City's Annual Plan and C/\PER documents reveal a balanced investment of CD!3G funds in both impacted and non-impacted areas. The City should continue its efforts to affirmatively further fair housing by expanding the availability of affordable housing in non-impacted areas. The City should allocate funds for new family housing developments (both sales and rental) on sites outside of impacted areas. OBSERVATION: The City's Planned Neighborhood Design program could be improved from a fair housing perspective by adding incentives for the production of affordable units. The City could provide financial and other incentives to developers in exchan1:5e for the provision of a percentage of housing units to be set-aside for households with incomes at or below a certain rerc entage of the area median income.

Delaware Stale Analysis o/lmp edi111 e111s lo Fair Housing Choice July 20 11 OBSERVATION: The City should simplify its definition of "family" by focusing on whether a hou sehold function s as a cohesive unit rather than distinguishing between related and unrelated persons . A restrictive definition th at limits the number or type of relationship between persons living together as a household unit in a single-family dwelling unit is incompatible with many modern living situations and potentially discriminates against persons with disabilities. OBSERVATION: The City's Planned Neighborhood Design program could be improved from a fair housing perspective by adding incentives for the production of affordable units. The City could provide financial and other incentives to developers in exchange for the provision of a percentage of housing units to be set-aside for households with incomes at or below a certain percentage of the area median income. OBSERVATION: The City of Dover has no provision in Its zoning ordinance to allow more than five unrelated persons with disabilities to live together as a group home. This circumstance limits fair housing choice, particularly for persons with disabilities . The City should amend its ordinance to remove obstacles to the creation of group homes. e. Definition of Family Restrictive definitions of family may impede unrelated individuals from sharing a dwelling unit. Defining family broadly advances nontraditional families and supports the blending of families who may be living together for economic purposes. Restrictions in the definition of family typically cap the number of unrelated individuals that can live together. These restrictions can impede the development of group homes, effectively impeding housing choice for the disabled. However, in some cases, caps on unrelated individuals residing together may be wananted to avoid the health and safety problems created by overcrowding. The City of Dover defines a family as one or more persons occupying a dwelling unit as a single nonprofit housekeeping unit. More than five persons, exclusive of domestic servants, or not more than one boarder or roomer, not related by blood, marriage or adoption, shall not be considered to constitute one family. The City limits the number of wu·elated individuals to five persons. Because the ordinance does not have an exception for group homes for persons with disabilities, this cap unduly restricts the number of persons who can live together in such an arrangement. However, in some cases, restrictions on the number of umelated individuals residing together may be warranted for health and overcrowding issues and to comply with Building and Fire codes adopted at the state and Municipal levels. f. Regulations for Group Homes for Persons with Disabilities Group homes are residential uses that do not adversely impact a community. Efforts should be made to ensure group homes can be easily accommodated tlu·oughout the community under the same standards as any other residential use. Of particular concern are those that serve members of the protected classes such as the disabled. Because a group home for the disabled serves to provide a non-institutional experience for its occupants, imposing conditions are contrary to the purpose of a group home. More impo1iantly, the restrictions, unless executed against all residential uses in the zoning district, are an impediment to the siting of group homes and are in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Two primary purposes of a group home residence are normalization and conummity integration. By allowing group residences throughout the community in agreement with the same standards as applied to all other residential uses occupied by a family, the purposes of the use are not hindered and housing choice for the disabled is not impeded. Towards this end, municipalities may not impose distancing requirements on group homes for persons with disabilities.

Dl'laJ11are State Analy sis 0(111111edi111 1111t.1· to F,1ir Housing Choice .ht(!' :!011 In J-Jorizon House Development Services, inc. v. Township of Upp<!I' Southa111pto11, PA, the court found a 1,000-foot spacing requirement to be in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The court also found the Township's requirement for an applicant to seek and receive a variance from the ordinance to establish a group home within the 1,000-foot distance also to be a violation. The City of Dover has no definition encompassing the "group home" use . Presumably, a group home could be established as a single-family dwelling unit in any residential district as a result. However, the City's definition of "family" does not allow for more than five unrelated persons to share a family household, which would also not allow more than five unrelated persons to live together in a group home. Impediment #1: The City's increasingly diverse minority population may require language accommodations to ensure that all residents can access programs and services. Impediment #2: Minority households have greater difficulty becoming home owners in Dover because of lower incomes. Impediment #3: The City's supply of housing that is affordable to households up to 80% of median household income ls inadequate Impediment #4: The City's supply of affordable and accessible housing units is inadequate to meet demand. Impediment #5: The City's process for allocating and reporting CDBG funds could be improved from a fair housing perspective. Impediment #6: Policy documents utilized by the Dover Housing Authority could be improved from a fair housing perspective. Impediment #7: The 2008 Comprehensive Plan does not recognize the City's responsibility to affirmatively further fair housing. Impediment #8: The City of Dover's zoning ordinance limits fair housing choice for certain families and persons living in group homes. Impediment #9: Members of the protected classes could be more fully represented on City boards and commissions dealing with housing issues. Impediment #1 O: Mortgage loan denials and high-cost lending disproportionately affect minority applicants. ~{. Signature Page for thH City of Dover By my signature I certify that the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice for the City of Dover is in compliance with the intent and directives of the regulations of the Community Development Block Grant Program regulations. (Signature of Authorizing Official) Date

In the Al report The Delaware Code '' Definition of Frtmily" reach: One or more persons occupying ti dwelling unit as a single nonprofit housekeeping unit. Does not include more than five persons not n~l<Jted by blood, marriage or adoption. The comments: No ex plicit exception for group homes for persons with disabilities. In the report Th e Delawcire Treatment of Group Homes reads : "No definition" . Could presumably exist as single fam ily un less it exceeds five residents. The comments: Cap on unrelated residents sharing house prevents any group home from having more than five residents. That is inconsistent with the Fair Housing Act. At a Sept 12, 2011 Dover City council meeting a review of the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice was discussed . As a federal entitlement community that receives CDBG funds from HUD the city is required to certify that funds will be carried out and administered according to the fair housing act. It was noted that HUD defines an impediment to fair housing choice as any actions, omissions, or decisions that restrict, or have the effect of restricting, th e availability of housing choices based on race, religio n, sex, disability, familial sta tus, or national origin . Ann Marie Townshend reported that the city had contracted a consulting firm to conduct the Analysis of Impediment which reviews entitlem ent community's laws, regu lations, and administrative policies and procedures affecting accessibility of housing. This analysis outlines the impediments for Dover and provides recommendations and strategies in order for the city to meet fair housing goals. Approval and implementation of the Fair Housing Action Plan will preserve the City's eligibility for funding from HUD and protect the City in the event of litigation relating to fa ir housi ng. Responding to a question from Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Townshend stated that the current definition pf family, in this context, is "not more than five (5) unrelated people functioning as a household, not including a butler." She explained that the difficulty is determining whether or not people are functioning as a household. Mrs. Townshend indicated that staff plans to conduct research on this topic and will submit an ordinance to redefine "family." Mr. Anderson felt that there shou ld not be any amendment that would hinder college students who are residing together from obtaining affordable housing, noting this is a very important industry for the City. Responding to Dr. Jon es, Mrs. Harvey advised members that 2012 timelines were provided for some of the Strategies to Address Impediments since the consultants felt that these measures could be implem ented within one (1) year; however, others were assigned a later date for completion sin ce the Comprehensive Plan will not be released until 2014. She noted that the consultants suggested a five (5) year timeframe for implementation of many of the strategies. Mrs. Townshend exp lained that she and Mrs . Harvey plan to set annual goals for achievement of the objectives li sted.

Interesting to note that the rch 2006 council min11te5 report thnt M r<;. Trocey 1-furvey orlvi~;cd men1h ers thot the Analysis of Impediments study r.ompletecl by th e Center fo r Comrn11nity l?escarch U of O completed in Sept of 2003 and the addendum of Jon 2004 identified thefollowinr1 imp ediment•; ond th e need for corrective octions to remedy the; l.ack of Affordable f-lou.sing General ond for Persons with Disabilities; lack of rair /-lousing Education ond Outreoch and Segregated /-/ousinq ond r:·oir f-fousinq Programs and Activities for the City of Dover. According to The Federal Office of Housing and Urban Development definitions of what constitutes a family are very clearly defined. The Equal Access Rule defines family as follows: Family includes, but is not limited to, regardless of marital status, actual or perceived sexual orientation, or gender identity, the following: 1. A single person, who may be an elderly person, displaced person, disabled person, near-elderly person, or any other single person; or, 2. A group of persons residing together, and such group includes, but is not limited to: a. A family with or without children (a child who is temporarily away from the home because of placement in foster care is considered a member of the family}; b. An elderly family; c. A near-elderly family; d. A disabled family; e. A displaced family; and, f. The remaining member of a tenant family. Family includes, but is not limited to, regardless of marital status, actual or perceived sexual orientation, or gender identity, any group of persons presenting for assistance together with or without children and irrespective of age, relationship, or whether or not a member of the household has a disability. A child who is temporarily away from the home because of placement in foster care is considered a member of the family. What this means is that any group of people that present together for assistance and identify themselves as a family, regardless of age or relationship or other factors, are considered to be a family and must be served together as such. Further, a recipient or subrecipient receiving funds under the ESG or CoC Programs cannot discriminate against a group of people presenting as a family based on the composition of the family (e.g., adults and children or just adults), the age of any member's family, the disability status of any members of the family, marital status, actual or perceived sexual orientation, or gender identity. Here are two examples of how this might apply: o An emergency shelter, transitional housing project, or permanent housing project that serves households with children. While it is acceptable for a shelter or housing program to limit assista11ce to households with children, it may not limit assistance to only women with children. Such a shelter must also serve the following family types, should they present, in order to be in compliance with the Equal Access rule: o Single male head of household with minor child(ren); and o Any household made up of two or more adults, regardless of sexual orientation, marital st<itus, or gender identity, presenting with minor child{ren). In this example, the emergency shelter or housing program would not be required to serve families composed of only adult members and could deny access to these types of families provided thilt all adult-only families are treated equally, regardless of sexual orientation, marital status, or gender identity.

o A permanent supportive housing project under the CoC Prop,ram rule that serves chronically homeless families. A permanent supportive llou~; ing prop,ran1 tliat serves families must serve all types of families and cannot clisr:riminate ;:igainst any family based on marital status, actual or perceived sexual orientation of the family members, or gender identities of the family members. Therefore, if two adults present together as a family, the recipient or subrecipient must serve the two adults as a family and may not require µroof of rnarriage and may not limit assistance to couples in a heterosexual relationship. Group House of Port Washington v. Board of Zoning ilnd Appr~al' of the Town of North Hempstead. 45 N.Y. 2d 266, ilt 272 (1978). The Town had defined family as o "[o]ne (1) or more persons related by blood, m<miage or legal adoption re~iding or cooking or warming food as a single housekeeping unit; with whom there m~y not be more than two (2) boarders, roomers or lodgers who must live together in a common household." o In a 4-3 decision, Court of Appeals held that the definition of "family" improperly excluded from its scope group homes. The Court explained that in zoning for stable neighborhoods in a single family district, local governments must include the functional and factual equivalents of natural families, as well as traditional families. I. Guidelines to Drafting a Definition of Family In light of the numerous state and federal court decisions on the subject of defining "family," some guidelines may be gleaned as to constitutionally permissible standards. 1. Preservation of the character of single-family areas remains a legitimate purpose of zoning. 2. Zoning may not exclude a group which "in every way but a biological sense is a single family" (White Plains, supra); or a household "which poses no threat to the goal of preserving the character of the traditional single-family neighborhood" (McMinn supra). 3. Court decisions have indicated that the "factual and functional equivalent" of a traditional family of unrelated persons may be evidenced by the following: 1. single housekeeping unit; 2. more or less permanent living arrangement; 3. stable, rather than transient living arrangements (except where the hand1caµped are affected); 4. a grouµ headed by a householder caring for a 1·easonable number of children as one would be likely find in a biologically unitary family (White Plains 34 N.Y.2d at 30G). The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution gives federal ICJws, such as the Fair Housing Act, precedence over conflicting state and local laws. Consequently, the Fair Housing Act prohibits state and local land use and zoning laws, policies, and practices that discriminate based on a characteristic protected under the Fair Housing Act. As defined in the Fair Housing Act, prohibited practices include making unavailable or denying housing (including vacant land that may be developed into residences) because of a protected characteristic.

In a jOlrll stat ernent betwe en HUD and DOJ practicP.s thi.lt rnay viok1te the FHAA are: o Proh i biting or restri cting the developr m~ nl of housing bilsed 011 tlw belief th,1t th e r f~sidi:nts have a particul ar prote cted characteri stic, such as race, disability, or fornily status o Imposing restrictions 011 housing because of alleged public safety concerns l.J<J S t~d on stE!reotype s about the residents or anticipated residents who have protected characteristics. o Refusing to provide reasonable accommodations to land use or zoning policies when such accommodations may be necessary to allow persons with disabilities to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing. A Land use or zoning practice can result in an unjustified discriminatory effect if it cCJused or predictably will cCJuse a disparate impact on a group of persons, or if it creates, increases, reinforces, or perpetuates segregated housing patterns because of protected characteristics. When enacting or applying zoning or land use laws, state and local governments may not act because of the fears, prejudices, stereotypes, or unsubstantiated assumptions that community members may have about current or prospective residents because of the residents protected characteristics. A local government may not block a group home or deny a requested reasonable accommodation in response to neighbors' stereotyping fears or prejudices about persons with disabilities or a particular type of disability. DEFINITION OF DISABILITY/ HANDICAP The Fair Housing Act uses the term "handicap" instead of "disability." Under the Act, "handicap" means, with respect to a person, or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment. This term does not include current, illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance. "Physical or mental impairment" includes: 1. any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological; musculoskeletal; special sense organs; respiratory, including speech organs; cardiovascular; reproductive; digestive; genito-urinary; hemic and lymphatic, skin; and endocrine; or 2. any mental or psychological disorder, such as mental retardation, organic brain 99 syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities. 11 The term physical or mental impi:lirment" includes, but is not limited to, such diseases and conditions as orthopedic, visual, speech and hearing impairments, cerebral palsy, autism, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, multiple scl erosis, can cer, heart disease, diabetes, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection, mental retardation, emotional illness, drug addiction (other than addiction caused by current, illegal use of a controlled substance) and 100 alcoholism. "Major life activities" means functions such as caring for one's self, performing manual tasks, 101 walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.

In July of 201S HUD announced the ''Final Huk~". Mea ningful action~; to add r e ~; ~ signifir..rnt dispariti es in housing needs and in access to <) pµn rl unity, 1epl 1:1cing :,i:greg atf;d living p<Hterns with tnily int egr ated and balanced living patterns, transfom·Jing raci ally <.rnd ethni ca lly cor1 ce nt1nted areas of pove rty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintain complia nce with the civil rights and fair housir1g laws. The AFFH Final rules applies to States and local governments that n~ ccivecl CPD formula grants (CDUG, HOME, ESG, or HOPWA) as well as public housing agencies. Those agencies that were previously required to complete the /\I will now be required to complete will now conduct a new Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). The rights of recovering alcoholics and drug addicts to live in Oxford Houses located in good neighborhoods are well established. A memorandum summarizing cases involving Oxford House precedents under the federal Fair Housing Act entitled Legal Memo Zoning can be downloaded.

EXHIBIT #3 Regular Council Meeting of 08/28/2017 City of Dover, Delaware Governing Policy For Energy Commodity Risk Management Effective: August 28, 2017 Approved by: City of Dover Council (Last Revision August 10, 2015)

TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE OF THE RISK MANAGEMENT POLICY ..................................................................4 A. Introduction.....................................................................................................................4 B. Scope of Policy ................................................................................................................4 C. Objectives and Risk Philosophy ...................................................................................5 D. Policy Administration ....................................................................................................5 MANAGEMENT AND CONTROLS .............................................................................................6 A. Utility Committee of The City Council .......................................................................6 B. Executive Risk Management Committee ....................................................................6 1. City Manager ................................................................................................................. 8 2. Director of the Utility .................................................................................................... 8 3. Controller........................................................................................................................ 8 4. TEA Client Services Manager ...................................................................................... 9 DISCUSSION OF RISKS ...............................................................................................................9 MARKETING AND TRADING PRACTICES ............................................................................10 A. Standards of Conduct ..................................................................................................10 B. Products, Activities and Limitations .........................................................................11 C. Contract Documentation and Confirmations...........................................................11 D. Training..........................................................................................................................12 E. New Product Protocol .................................................................................................12 RISK LIMITS AND RISK MEASUREMENTS...........................................................................12 A. Limits..............................................................................................................................12 1. Delegation Authority .................................................................................................. 12 2. Volume Limits ............................................................................................................. 13 3. Locational Limits ......................................................................................................... 13 B. Stress Testing and Back Testing .................................................................................13 C. Instances of Exceeding Risk Limits............................................................................13 CREDIT POLICY ..........................................................................................................................13 A. Measuring Credit Risk .................................................................................................14 B. Analysis and Extension of Credit Limits ..................................................................14 C. Instances of Exceeding Credit Limits ........................................................................15 REPORTING .................................................................................................................................15 A. Risk Reporting ..............................................................................................................15 B. Credit Reporting ...........................................................................................................16 C. Hedge Effectiveness Reporting ..................................................................................17 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS ............................................................................17 2

POLICY DISTRIBUTION AND COUNSEL ...............................................................................17 A. Distribution Outside The City ....................................................................................17 B. Designated Counsel .....................................................................................................17 APPENDIX A – Approved Products .............................................................................................18 APPENDIX B – Approved Counterparties and Threshold Tables ................................................19 APPENDIX C – Business Risks ....................................................................................................24 APPENDIX D – Glossary ..............................................................................................................25 APPENDIX E – Swap Transaction Representative .......................................................................27 3

PURPOSE OF THE RISK MANAGEMENT POLICY A. Introduction The City of Dover (“City”) and its customers are routinely exposed to energy price risk, volume variability risk, basis risk and credit risk – herein referred to collectively as energy commodity risk - in the normal conduct of serving its electric load requirements. Volatility of energy commodity prices and volumetric uncertainty (either supply/generation or load obligations) impose a substantial and direct risk to the City’s financial and operating performance. By authority of its charter, the City has responsibility for overseeing the City’s electricity operations, including the management of its cost of serving Dover’s customers. By agreement dated May 6, 2011 and approved by the City (the “EMA”), the City has engaged The Energy Authority, Inc. (“TEA”) to assist the City with Asset Management and Strategic Planning Services, Risk Management Services, and Energy Management Services. This Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management (“Policy”) is established the explicit understanding that the City has retained and delegated responsibilities to TEA to provide Risk Management Services. Additionally, the City has issued this Policy for dealing with the philosophy, framework and delegation of responsibilities necessary to govern activities related to Dover’s energy commodity risk management. As set forth herein, the City has established an organizational structure, delegated responsibility and established internal controls and procedures to ensure that all transactional and oversight activities are conducted in compliance with this Policy and in accordance with the City’s normal reporting, legal, financing and regulatory requirements relating to energy assets and transactions. B. Scope of Policy This Policy covers all transactions entered into the by the City of Dover designed to meet the City’s electric load requirement and the management of risk related to these transactions. In the event of conflict between this Policy and the EMA, the Policy shall control. This Policy is separate and distinct from enterprise risk management policies and procedures addressing the City’s safe operation of its generating stations and energy infrastructure, insurance requirements, permit compliance, employee matters regulatory compliance with laws and regulations of the State of Delaware and Federal 4

Agencies such as EPA, FERC, NERC and CFTC or other potential risks to the City beyond the purchase and sale of fuel and electric power and its ancillary products. C. Objectives and Risk Philosophy The objectives of the Policy are to identify energy commodity price and credit risk exposures and give the City a framework for the quantification and management of these exposures. The Policy will identify the reports needed to convey how the identified risk exposures can potentially impact the City’s overall cost of providing electricity service to its customers and report on the risk management of the transactions associated with City’s electric load requirements. Under the Policy, risk management activities will be conducted consistent with the City’s overall objective of appropriate risk mitigation. There are several objectives of the Policy which, when taken and executed together, serve to manage the City’s energy commodity price exposures. Specifically, the Policy:  Establishes framework for developing credit limits for counterparties and quantifies and manages the credit exposures related to potential counterparty abrogation  Quantifies the impact of the above exposures on City’s financial results  Manages the impact of the above exposures in line with the City’s identified level of risk tolerance  Provides clear delineation of responsibilities and authority, outline a separation of duties, and ensure reporting of risk is timely and accurate.  Ensures that the impact of any action affecting the City’s position is consistently quantified, monitored and authorized. The City’s risk management activities will be conducted consistent with its overall objective of appropriate risk mitigation and never for purposes of speculation. D. Policy Administration This Policy has been approved by the Executive Risk Management Committee and The Utility Committee of the Dover City Council. The Utility Committee must approve modifications to the Policy with the exception of the appendix information which can be modified with the approval of the Executive Risk Management Committee. 5

MANAGEMENT AND CONTROLS This Policy articulates the management and organization of the City and TEA to serve as a control framework outlining delegation of duties and responsibilities. A. Utility Committee of The City Council The Utility Committee of The City Council (The Committee) has a responsibility to provide approval of this Policy. With this approval, The Committee also assumes additional duties. They will understand the risks the City is and could be exposed to due to their energy commodity risk management activities. In this role, the Committee will have a responsibility to also understand the City’s policies and procedures, internal controls and systems which are used to help manage the City’s energy commodity risks. The Committee will approve any amendments to the Policy or limits within. The Executive Risk Management Committee will update the Committee periodically regarding the Policy and its functions. It will be the Committee’s responsibility to:  Discuss guidelines and strategic policies that govern the process by which the Energy Risk Management Committee assesses and manages risks  Review and approve the risk policy at least annually  Approve new members of the Executive Risk Management Committee  Acknowledge the risk inherent in transactions covered under this Policy B. Executive Risk Management Committee An Executive Risk Management Committee (“ERMC”) has been formed to provide executive management oversight for the City’s energy commodity risk management activities. The ERMC is charged with the creation, amendment and administration of this Policy, including acquiring any approvals required by the Utility Committee, and will ensure that all energy commodity risk management activities of the City are performed consistent with this Policy. The ERMC will meet at least monthly to review compliance and conduct its business as described in this Policy. The ERMC shall be comprised of the following voting members: The City Manager, The Director of Utility, The City’s Controller and TEA’s Client Service Manager. The City’s ERMC will make decisions following the process outlined in this Policy. TEA’s Client Services Manager may include representatives from other areas within TEA in the monthly ERMC meetings who will attend in person or by conference call as non-voting advisors. Other City employees and TEA staff may also be asked to attend 6

meetings from time-to-time, as the ERMC deems necessary. The responsibilities of the ERMC shall include:  Establish scope and frequency for management reporting to the Utility Committee.  No less than annually, review the City’s Energy Commodity Policies and Procedures for correctness and completeness.  Review and approve any new risk report or change to an existing risk report provided by TEA to monitor risks outlined in this Policy.  Understand and approve any models, methodologies, and assumptions used for measuring risks such as volume risk, process risk, counterparty risk and commodity risk.  Monitor the City’s risks and ensure they are within the limits and are being managed according to what is indicated within the City’s Policy and associated procedures  Understand the City’s risk management objectives and risk tolerances.  Review and approve the risk management and trading strategy programs and associated risk. Each program should be reviewed to ensure alignment with Policy objectives and compliance with risk limits within this Policy.  Periodically review any risk management program approved in light of recent market changes, and ensure continued compliance with its established guidelines  Review and approve new products, markets, trading counterparties and credit limits  Review all violations and exceptions to this Policy and report such to the Committee.  Approve the individuals or companies that engage in the City’s commodity transactions and are subject to the limits within this Policy.  Ensure that the individuals or companies authorized to transact on behalf of the City as well as manage its risks, are appropriately trained and qualified.  Ensure independence and segregation of duties between front, middle and back office at TEA.  Recommend changes to this Policy to the City’s Utility Committee for approval and ensure the Utility Committee understands the City’s overall compliance with this Policy and associated procedures.  The ERMC will meet at least monthly to review risks identified and reported on by the Policy, this meeting shall be chaired by The City Manager. Minutes of each meeting of the ERMC shall be recorded and reflect any decisions and follow-up action items to be performed. These minutes will be reviewed and approved by the members of the ERMC in a timely manner. 7

Each member of the ERMC has a unique role as defined below: 1. City Manager The City Manager is independent of all commercial functions and carries the responsibility of establishment and maintenance of risk management for the City. The City Manager will be a voting member of the ERMC and act as a chair of the ERMC. Other responsibilities include:  Ensure this Policy is maintained.  Oversee reviews of the City’s energy commodity risks, limits, risk measurement methodologies and models, and programs and recommend changes to the ERMC.  Ensure potential transactions and their impacts on the City’s risks and limits defined within this Policy.  Develop and monitor the implementation of the Policy, and oversee other risk management processes and procedures established by this Policy or otherwise by the ERMC. 2. Director of the Utility The Director of the Utility has oversight for all trading, hedging, pricing, structuring, and market and operational risk management activities associated with the City. The Director of the Utility will be a voting member of the ERMC. Other responsibilities include:  Review the effectiveness of transaction processing systems and procedures relating to risk measurement.  Recommend operational risk and business risk assessment guidelines. 3. Controller The Controller is independent of all commercial functions and carries the oversight responsibilities associated with the City’s accounting practices. The Controller will be a voting member on the ERMC. Other responsibilities include:  Perform financial accounting including accounting for hedging and derivatives activities.  Comply with tax rules and make appropriate tax elections.  Record realized and unrealized gains and losses.  Reconcile general ledger, cash transactions and margin accounts.  Implement tax-hedge accounting policies and other regulatory tax requirements. 8

 Develop and maintain documentation outlining standard procedures for conducting business.  Invoice counterparties and resolve billing disputes.  Perform daily/weekly/monthly transaction checkout with counterparties.  Develop and maintain documentation outlining standard procedures for conducting business. 4. TEA Client Services Manager The TEA Client Service Manager roles and responsibilities are defined exhibit B of the EMA between the City and TEA. The TEA Client Service Manager will be a voting member on the ERMC. Other responsibilities include:  Monitor risk reports between ERMC meetings.  Report to the Committee and the ERMC on the City’s adherence to all limits and functions within this policy.  Engage the ERMC in discussions regarding events or developments that could expose the company to potential losses.  Recommend to the ERMC specific risk limits consistent with the City’s risk management objectives, risk tolerance, and risk management policy.  Coordinate and distribute independent market fundamental analysis.  Provide advisory support and recommendations as specified in Article 5 of the EMA.  Update RMC on training of TEA employees. DISCUSSION OF RISKS This Policy covers the management of all material energy market risks faced by the City. A comprehensive list of risks that are or could be relevant to City is shown in Appendix C of the Policy. Among the most critical of these risks are commodity risk, counterparty risk, process risk, volume risk, and budget risk. These risks are measured by the limit structure and controls outlined in the Policy. Commodity risk represents the potential adverse impacts to the value of the City’s portfolio due to changes in the market. Commodity risk encompasses volatility risk, forward price risk, basis risk, correlation risk and liquidity risk. Counterparty risk represents the potential losses the City could incur due to delivery risk and receivable risk. Delivery risk stems from a supplier or trading counterparty that is unable or unwilling to perform on its commitments including but not limited to delivery or receipt of commodities. Receivable Risk includes the City’s risk associated with a counterparty’s timeliness of payment for services rendered. 9

Process risk represents the risks associated with process problems including, but not limited to, inaccurate data capture, untimely trade execution or settlement problems. Controls over process risks are embedded in the organizational structure of TEA through the design processes and operating procedures. Volume Risk represents the potential for unforeseen changes from projections of excess or shortfall of capacity or energy from the actual needs. When variances are large coupled with large costs to transact and adverse moves in market prices this risk could be realized. In management of this risk, the City must be aware of the fact that unexpected variations in volume are often highly correlated with price movements. Budget Risk represents the potential to deviate outside of tolerable bounds of the City’s budget. Deviations from budget can be caused by forecast error or unforeseeable adverse changes in market prices. Regulatory Risk arises from participation in regulated markets. With the Independent System Operator (ISO) implementation of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order 741, the City faces increasing regulatory risk when participating in wholesale energy markets. The TEA Compliance department works in conjunction with the TEA Risk Control department to help the City manage regulatory risk. Regulatory risk is managed by:  Annual Compliance Training for all employees participating in regulated markets;  Integration of the appropriate compliance culture within the Trading department through ongoing interaction between Compliance and Trading;  An independent monitoring and exposure measurement on transactions that could trigger an increase in regulatory risk. MARKETING AND TRADING PRACTICES A. Standards of Conduct Individuals authorized to transact for the City shall not misrepresent, conceal or withhold information regarding energy commodity trading and risk management transactions to any person responsible for the accurate recording and/or reporting of such transactions; participate in any such transaction or similar activity for the benefit of any party other than the City; or hold or be a beneficiary of any financial interest in any entity with which the employee is engaged in trading or other business activity (other than ownership of an interest in a mutual fund managed by another party). Further, no employee authorized to place or execute such transactions may engage in trading power or energy commodities derivative instruments for his or her personal account. 10

B. Products, Activities and Limitations Pursuant to achieving the City’s core objectives for the purpose of energy commodity risk management, the following limitations shall apply.  Permissible instruments will be restricted to the products and instruments specified in Appendix A – Approved Products of the Policy; o All physical forward transactions shall be governed by the Edison Electrical Institutive (EEI), North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB), or similar agreements with counterparties approved by the City. o The City reserves the right to enter into financial hedge transactions to effectuate Policy objectives, but does not authorize TEA to enter into financial hedge transactions on its behalf. Any such financial transactions that the City may enter into shall be governed by ISDA agreements with counterparties as approved by the City.  The maturity for each permissible instrument will be restricted to the maturity limits specified in the risk limits section of the Policy.  Transaction volumes for each risk management transaction will be restricted to the amounts specified in the Risk Limits section of the Policy.  Risk management transactions will be outlined in the City of Dover Hedge Program which will be approved by the ERMC. Risk management transactions may include the following: o Hedging the forward price of purchased power for delivery to the City as needed to meet its electric load requirements. o Hedging the forward price of natural gas and fuels as needed to generate power to meet the City’s electric load requirements. o Unwinding of hedges to accommodate changes in expected load requirements, or for economic reasons subject to explicit constraints set by the ERMC. C. Contract Documentation and Confirmations No over-the-counter transaction may be executed until an EEI, NAESB, or similar agreement has been authorized by the City, approved by the ERMC and fully executed by the parties. Written confirmations will be required from counterparties, as defined in the Master Service Agreement between the City and counterparty, within one business day or such longer time as required by the contract in question for all risk management transactions. Contemporaneous with any commitments and prior to receipt of written confirmations, verbal commitments shall be memorialized internally as to instrument structure, quantity, relevant time horizon, price and any other relevant terms; such internal 11

documentation shall be time stamped and correlated to the ultimate written confirmation to or from the counterparty. Both the internal documentation as well as the written confirmation from the counterparty shall be provided to TEA’s Risk Control Group immediately upon receipt for verification. In the event that there is a material failure to provide timely documentation or confirmations, then at the City Manager’s sole discretion, the offending individual’s authorization may be suspended. Similarly, if the failure to provide timely documentation or confirmations is due to the failure of counterparty, then at the discretion of the City Manager, a moratorium may be imposed on transactions with that counterparty. In such cases, the City Manager shall notify the ERMC of the issues leading to the suspension or moratorium shall. Nothing herein shall inhibit the City Manager from bringing control issues to the TEA’s Client Services Manager prior to a decision on materiality or the imposition of a suspension of trading privileges or counterparty moratorium. D. Training The ERMC will ensure that all City employees and/or TEA Staff that will execute transactions on behalf of the City will have appropriate training in the markets in which the transactions occur. E. New Product Protocol As required to manage the City’s energy commodity risk the ERMC shall approve new products provided the requirements of the New Product Approval Procedure are met. RISK LIMITS AND RISK MEASUREMENTS A. Limits The limit structure is designed to quantify the types of risk in the City’s energy commodity portfolio. The City will manage and report on its energy commodity market risk using Delegation of Authority Limit, a Volume Limit and a Locational Limit. 1. Delegation Authority The Utility Committee delegates the following approval authority limits to the Dover ERMC. The ERMC may not delegate these authorities to individuals authorized to commit Dover to financial obligations. 12

Position Maturity Limit Term Limit Notional Value Limit Dover ERMC 5 years 5 years 20,000,000 TEA 1 month 1 month 1,000,000 This limit structure is not intended for use when transacting day-ahead and real time in the PJM market. 2. Volume Limits For no reason should a transaction be executed that exceeds the City’s electric load requirements. If there is an adjustment to the City’s electric load requirements and the existing transactions greater than 100% of the adjusted electric load requirements the ERMC will review and approve the offsetting strategy deployed in sufficient proportion to mitigate the encroachment. 3. Locational Limits Non-Commodity Transactions must support the requirement of one of the City’s generation units, native load or transaction locations. B. Stress Testing and Back Testing The City’s positions shall be periodically stress tested and models shall be back tested. The processes around these tests are outlined in the Stress Testing and Back Testing Procedure. C. Instances of Exceeding Risk Limits Should the City or TEA enter into a transaction that causes the portfolio to exceed any above mentioned limits the Director of the Utility shall, in addition to notifying the ERMC, also notify the Chair of The Committee as soon as practicable and shall provide periodic reports to the Chair on the status the transactions for as long as the City is exceeding its limits. The ERMC will review and determine whether any liquidation or offsetting of transactions is warranted. The incident will be documented as a Policy Exception by the Director of the Utility. CREDIT POLICY Credit Risk is the risk due to the uncertainty in a counterparty’s ability to meet its contractual obligations. The primary objective of this credit policy is to mitigate, to the 13

extent commercially reasonable, the credit risks associated with transactions covered in this Policy while still allowing the City to achieve its objectives. A. Measuring Credit Risk The status of credit risk will be measured and reported through reports provided by TEA. The current credit exposure will be reported at the agreement level via a Counterparty Credit Report provided by TEA. This information will be made available in real time to TEA trading personnel so that it can be checked prior to executing transactions for the City. Those responsible for risk oversight at the City and TEA will have access to this information no less frequently than once per day. The ERMC will monitor overall credit utilization and any credit exceptions at least monthly. When measuring the current credit risk, netting will be applied to the exposure if the City’s contract with a counterparty includes provisions for netting. B. Analysis and Extension of Credit Limits Physical and financial commodity transactions will be executed with counterparties approved by the ERMC with credit available to support the transactions. The creditworthiness of a counterparty will be determined by both qualitative and quantitative factors. Factors shall include, but not limited to:  A company’s debt credit ratings provided by the rating agencies.  Financial data such as an analysis of the income statement, balance sheet, and cash flow, as well as liquidity and capital structure.  Subjective factors such as company’s fuel diversity, overall size, risk management policy and internal controls, geographic diversity, and market intelligence. A credit limit is the amount of unsecured credit granted to a counterparty. Unsecured credit exposure includes amounts owed by the counterparty, whether billed or not, and the mark-to-market differences in value of any collateral which the counterparty has provided the City. Any net exposure above the collateral threshold will require the posting of collateral by a counterparty. Further information on the City’s procedure for establishing credit is contained in the Counterparty & Credit Review Process. Collateral thresholds, term limitations and credit exposure limits will be subject to the maximums indicated in Appendix B, based upon the lower of the S&P and Moody’s credit ratings. At no time will the City incur a credit exposure with any counterparty greater than $60,000,000. 14

C. Instances of Exceeding Credit Limits The City and TEA are restricted by the credit limits approved by the ERMC. The ERMC can suspend trading with a counterparty, if that counterparty’s credit limit has been reached or exceeded. The City or TEA traders shall not exceed the Counterparty Credit Limit by executing transactions with any counterparty without approval of the ERMC. The ERMC will determine when it’s appropriate to require additional collateral if a counterparty’s credit exposure exceeds its credit limit. Collateral includes standing letter of credit, cash, and prepayments. All credit exceptions will be documented and reported to the ERMC and the Committee as Policy Exceptions. REPORTING A. Risk Reporting Preparation of timely reports is critical to monitoring risk. TEA will furnish the required reports on a regular frequency for the City in a format acceptable to the ERMC. In addition, the ERMC and its designees will be provided access to the City’s risk reports as updated daily via TEA’s secure Web Portal. Reports required on a monthly basis and for periodic meetings of the ERMC include the following:  Profit and Loss Report The Profit and Loss (P&L) Report shows the daily realization of transactions at either the transaction price or the market price as transaction roll from unrealized to realized. This report should show volumes, transaction prices and market prices of realized physical and financial power and fuel transactions.  Mark to Market Report The Mark to Market (“MTM”) Report conveys the potential transaction exposure, of all existing forward transactions executed, if the energy commodity portfolio was liquidated at the most recent market settlement prices. This report should show volumes, transaction prices and market prices of unrealized physical and financial power and fuel transactions. 15

 Daily Activity Report The Activity Report presents a summary of the day’s trades executed in the bilateral energy market.  Cost of Service Report The City’s exposure to energy price risk shall be monitored and reported on a Cost-of- Service basis. All calculations are at the wholesale level. The Cost-of-Service recognizes all prior (expired) months within the Power Year on the basis of actual (incurred) costs, and recognizes all forward (pending) months within the Power Year on the basis of expected forward power and fuel prices and expected forward load-following risks. As defined below, the Cost-of-Service is an aggregation of Forward Energy Commodity Portfolio Cost, the Load Following Cost Expectation and the City’s Budget Target for Purchase Power Expense. o The Net Purchased Power Cost shows the net cost of all physical and financial transactions related to the City’s anticipated commodity requirements for power and fuel and is based on the price of all hedge transactions plus the forward market price of all unhedged transactions valued at current forward prices for energy commodities, customer-level cost per MWH of all physical and financial transactions related to Dover’s actual plus anticipated energy. o The expected fixed costs defined as load-serving entity (LSE) capacity costs, transmission costs and TEA management fees. o The Expected Load-Following Cost for a specified power year is defined as the expected cost (or revenue) associated with intra-month load variations due to weather or other events affecting demand. As an interim measure due to lack of necessary market information and the rapid evolution of the PJM RTO market, the ERMC has specified $2.50 per MWH as an estimate of the Load Following Cost to be used for estimating the City’s Forward Cost-of-Service Report. The ERMC will update the Expected Load Following estimate while lack of necessary market information persists no less than annually. o The Budget Target for Purchase Power Expense represents the City’s view of expected purchase power expense. B. Credit Reporting  Counterparty Credit Report The Counterparty Credit Report conveys the exposure to all counterparties with which the City has credit exposure resulting from its energy commodity risk management activities.  CFTC Reporting The City understands that transacting over the counter (OTC) swaps carries an additional Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) reporting function. Once 16

required by the CFTC, the City will report on how the City generally meets its financial obligations associated with entering into non-cleared swaps in a manner acceptable to the CFTC. C. Hedge Effectiveness Reporting If the City’s transactions require a hedge effectiveness test, those testing results will be reported to the ERMC no later than one month after the end of the financial reporting period. The report will include a summary of testing methodology, assumptions of the testing and the outcome of results with a pass or fail by transaction. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS Since information systems play a vital role in The City’s trading abilities, the City shall ensure that the information systems and technology used to store all transaction information is maintained and secure. The City’s transactions will be stored in TEA’s enterprise trading and risk management system. TEA uses the TriplePoint Commodity XL (CXL) system, integrated with Commodity XL for Credit Risk (Credit Risk). TEA has assigned a Database Administrator (DBA) that is charged with the database security and maintenance for the transaction database, CXL. The following safeguards for data security and backup will be installed:  Transaction data stored in the system of record will be replicated daily to ensure data redundancy;  The CXL database will be backed up at least daily after the close of business. POLICY DISTRIBUTION AND COUNSEL A. Distribution Outside The City The City’s Policy is restricted to the use of the City and TEA organizations. It shall not be distributed outside these organizations without the consent the ERMC. B. Designated Counsel Questions about the interpretation of any matters of this Policy should be referred to ERMC. The ERMC will provide clarification and explanation on any updates to this Policy. All legal matters stemming from this Policy will be referred to the City’s Legal Counsel. 17

APPENDIX A – Approved Products The following shall constitute a list of approved products to be utilized by TEA to manage the City’s energy commodity portfolio:  Physical Power  Physical Natural Gas  Physical Residual Fuel Oil (#2)  Capacity  Financial Power  Financial Options  PJM Demand Bids and Generation Offers  PJM InSchedules  PJM Transmission Products o Financial Transmission Rights o Annual Auction Revenue Rights  PJM Tier 2 Synchronized Reserves The above instruments can be executed by TEA on behalf of the City of Dover for the current and next two successive Power Years (July to June). 18

APPENDIX B – Approved Counterparties and Threshold Tables This Appendix establishes approved counterparties and their Collateral thresholds. Collateral thresholds, term limitations and credit exposure limits that are subject to the following maximums based upon the lower of the S&P and Moody’s credit ratings: Credit Thresholds from Dover Extended to the Counterparty Exelon Generation Company, LLC Threshold S&P Moody's $ 60,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 50,000,000 A‐ to AA+ A3 to Aa1 $ 40,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 30,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ 20,000,000 BBB‐ Baa3 $ ‐ Below BBB‐ Below Baa3 AEP Energy Partners, Inc. Threshold S&P Moody's $ 10,000,000 BBB‐ and Above Baa3 and Above $ ‐ Below BBB‐ Below Baa3 BP Energy Company Threshold S&P Moody's $ 60,000,000 AA‐ to AAA Aa3 to Aaa $ 45,000,000 A+ A1 $ 30,000,000 A A2 $ 15,000,000 BBB to A‐ Baa2 to A3 $ ‐ Below BBB Below Baa2 Calpine Energy Services, L.P. Threshold S&P Moody's $ 25,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 15,000,000 AA‐ to AA+ Aa3 to Aa1 $ 10,000,000 A‐ to A+ A3 to A1 $ 5,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 3,000,000 BBB‐ to BBB Baa3 to Baa2 $ ‐ Below BBB‐ Below Baa3 19

EDF Trading North America, LLC Threshold S&P Moody's $ 18,000,000 Fixed Fixed PSEG Energy Resources & Trade, LLC Threshold S&P Moody's $ 20,000,000 BBB‐ and Above Baa3 and Above $ ‐ Below BBB‐ Below Baa3 Sequent Energy Management, L.P. Threshold S&P Moody's $ 5,000,000 Fixed Fixed Conectiv Threshold S&P Moody's Unspecified * Above BBB+ Above Baa3 $ ‐ Below BBB‐ Below Baa3 * Conectiv does not have a defined credit threshold, so for planning purposes, a $10,000,000 threshold is imposed as a conservative limit Macquarie Energy, LLC Threshold S&P Moody's $ 25,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA‐ to AA+ Aa3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A‐ to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ ‐ BBB‐ or below Baa3 or below Morgan Stanley Capital Group Threshold S&P Moody's $ 25,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA‐ to AA+ Aa3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A‐ to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ ‐ BBB‐ or below Baa3 or below 20

NextEra Energy Marketing, LLC Threshold S&P Moody's $ 30,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 25,000,000 AA‐ to AA+ Aa3 to Aa1 $ 20,000,000 A‐ to A+ A3 to A1 $ 15,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 10,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ ‐ BBB‐ or below Baa3 or below Deutsche Bank Threshold S&P Moody's $ 25,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA‐ to AA+ Aa3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A‐ to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ ‐ BBB‐ or below Baa3 or below Barclays Bank Threshold S&P Moody's $ 25,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA‐ to AA+ Aa3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A‐ to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ ‐ BBB‐ or below Baa3 or below Credit Thresholds from the Counterparty Extended to Dover AEP Energy Partners, Inc. Threshold S&P Moody's $ 10,000,000 BBB‐ and Above Baa3 and Above $ ‐ Below BBB‐ Below Baa3 BP Energy Company Threshold S&P Moody's $ 30,000,000 AA to AAA Aa2 to Aaa $ 25,000,000 AA‐ Aa3 $ 20,000,000 A+ A1 $ 15,000,000 A A2 $ 5,000,000 BBB to A‐ Baa2 to A3 $ ‐ Below BBB‐ Below Baa3 21

Calpine Energy Services, L.P. Threshold S&P Moody's $ 10,000,000 AA‐ to AAA Aa3 to Aaa $ 7,500,000 A‐ to A+ A3 to A1 $ 5,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 3,000,000 BBB‐ to BBB Baa3 to Baa2 $ ‐ Below BBB‐ Below Baa3 Exelon Generation Company, LLC Threshold Fitch Moody's $ 60,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 50,000,000 A‐ to AA+ A3 to Aa1 $ 40,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 30,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ 20,000,000 BBB‐ Baa3 $ ‐ Below BBB‐ Below Baa3 Conectiv Threshold Fitch Moody's Unspecified * Above BBB+ Above Baa3 $ ‐ Below BBB‐ Below Baa3 *Conectiv does not have a defined credit threshold, so for planning purposes, a $10,000,000 threshold is imposed as a conservative limit PSEG Energy Resources & Trade, LLC Threshold S&P Moody's $ 12,000,000 * Fixed Fixed *Threshold is $12,000,000 as long as Dover maintains a Debt Service Coverage greater than 1.25% and Total Net Assets of at least $50,000,000 and Total Net Assets do not decline by more than 25% on a fiscal year end basis. Morgan Stanley Capital Group Threshold S&P Moody's $ 25,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA‐ to AA+ Aa3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A‐ to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ ‐ BBB‐ or below Baa3 or below 22

Macquarie Energy, LLC Threshold Fitch Moody's $ 25,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA‐ to AA+ AA3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A‐ to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ ‐ BBB‐ or below Baa3 or below NextEra Energy Marketing, LLC Threshold Fitch Moody's $ 23,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 18,000,000 AA‐ to AA+ AA3 to Aa1 $ 13,000,000 A‐ to A+ A3 to A1 $ 8,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 3,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ ‐ BBB‐ or below Baa3 or below EDF Trading North America, LLC Threshold S&P Moody's $ 18,000,000 Fixed Fixed Deutsche Bank Threshold Fitch Moody's $ 25,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA‐ to AA+ AA3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A‐ to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ ‐ BBB‐ or below Baa3 or below Barclays Bank Threshold Fitch Moody's $ 25,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA‐ to AA+ AA3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A‐ to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ ‐ BBB‐ or below Baa3 or below 23

APPENDIX C – Business Risks Business Risks Topology Commodity Counterparty Process Volume Budget Regulatory Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk Market Receivables Load Market Price Risk Deadline CFTC Risk Uncertainty Uncertainty Risk Performance Reporting Load Volume Risk Supply Risk FERC Risk Risk Uncertainty M2M/Forward Generation Forecast RTO Curve Risk Uncertainty Error Liquidity Risk Basis Risk 24

APPENDIX D – Glossary Back Office – That part of a trading organization which handles transaction accounting, confirmations, management reporting, and working capital management. Bilateral Transaction - Any physical or financial transaction between two counterparties, neither of whom is an Exchange or market entity (e.g. MISO). Capacity – The real power output rating of a generator or system, typically in megawatts, measured on an instantaneous basis. Commodity - A basic good used in commerce that is interchangeable with other commodities of the same type. Commodities are most often used as inputs in the production of other goods or services. The quality of a given commodity may differ slightly, but it is essentially uniform across producers. When they are traded on an exchange, commodities must also meet specified minimum standards, also known as a basis grade. Financial Bilateral Transaction – A Bilateral Transaction that is non-physical and is defined by a Source Point, Sink Point, and Delivery Point that may be any CP Nodes as specified by the Midwest ISO. Financial Forward – An agreement regarding a position in a specified commodity, a specified price, and a specified future settlement date, that does not result in physical delivery of the commodity. Rather one party in the agreement makes a payment to the other party on the basis of the commodity price at the future date. Front Office – That part of a trading organization which solicits customer business, services existing customers, executes trades and ensures the physical delivery of commodities. Hedging Transaction - A transaction designed to reduce the exposure of a specific outstanding position or portfolio; “fully hedged” equates to complete elimination of the targeted risk and “partially hedged” implies a risk reduction of less than 100%. Mark-to-Market Value – A measure of the current value of unrealized positions; includes both Open Positions and Closed Positions. Middle Office – That part of a trading organization that measures and reports on market risks, develops risk management policies and monitors compliance with those policies, manages contract administration and credit, and keeps management and the Board informed on risk management issues. 25

Policy – Dover’s Governing Policy for Energy Commodity Risk, as amended and approved by The Utility Committee. Portfolio – A collection of transactions. Realized Gains/(Losses) – The amount earned (or lost) from a transaction, considered to be realized once the time for performance has lapsed (e.g. delivery of power in the case of physical transactions or expiration of an option in the case of financial transactions). Term – The total duration of a contract, defined as the number of days between the beginning flow date and ending flow date, inclusive. Unrealized Gains/ (Losses) – The amount expected to earn (lose) on a specific transaction(s); however, the time for performance has not lapsed. The total value of Unrealized Gains/ (Losses) is the Mark-to-Market value. 26

APPENDIX E – Swap Transaction Representative Purpose: To ensure that the City of Dover, a Special Entity under the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act, selects a qualified representative (“Representative”) to provide advice and guidance when entering into swap transactions with Swap Dealers or Major Swap Participants. Definitions: Special Entity: As defined in 7 U.S.C. 6s(h)(2)(C) and further interpreted in 17 C.F.R. 23.401(c). The City of Dover is a Special Entity as defined by 17 C.F.R. 23.401(c)(2). Swap Dealer: As defined in 7 U.S.C. 1a(49) and further interpreted in 17 C.F.R. 1.3(ggg) Major Swap Participant: As defined in 7 U.S.C. 1a(33) and further interpreted in 17 C.F.R. 1.3(hhh) Representative: As defined in this policy and 17 C.F.R. 23.450 Policy: Selection: The City of Dover shall endeavor to seek and employ an individual or entity that will voluntarily act as a Representative for all energy commodity swap transactions between XXXX and any Swap Dealer or Major Swap Participant. The Representative must meet the following qualifications identified in 17 C.F.R. 23.450(b): (i) Has sufficient knowledge to evaluate the transaction and risks; (ii) Is not subject to a statutory disqualification; (iii) Is independent of the swap dealer or major swap participant; (iv) Undertakes a duty to act in the best interests of the Special Entity it represents; (v) Makes appropriate and timely disclosures to the Special Entity; (vi) Evaluates, consistent with any guidelines provided by the Special Entity, fair pricing and the appropriateness of the swap; and (vii) In the case of a Special Entity as defined in § 23.401(c)(2) or (4), is subject to restrictions on certain political contributions imposed by the Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or a self-regulatory organization subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission; provided however, that this paragraph (b)(1)(vii) of this section shall not apply if the representative is an employee of the Special Entity. The Representative and the City of Dover shall enter into a legal agreement that binds the Representative to comply with items (i) through (vii) in this policy. At no longer than any 12 month interval, the City of Dover shall review the performance of the Representative to ensure compliance with items (i) through (vii) in this policy. 27

EXHIBIT #4 Regular Council Meeting of 08/28/2017 McDowell, Traci From: David Anderson <davidlevianderson@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 5:05 PM To: Sudler, Roy; Lewis, Brian E. Cc: Anderson, David; City Clerks Office Subject: Re: Fwd: Councilman Lewis would like for you to read this Statement of Absence from Meetings at tonight's Council Meeting Will do. On Aug 28, 2017 4:51 PM, "Roy Sudler Jr" <Roysudlerjr@comcast.net> wrote: Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Brian Lewis <belewis1966@hotmail.com> Date: August 28, 2017 at 12:49:23 PM EDT To: "davidlevianderson@gmail.com" <davidlevianderson@gmail.com> Cc: "roysudlerjr@comcast.net" <roysudlerjr@comcast.net> Subject: RE: Statement of Absence from Meetings I believe it is important that the following statement be read into the record since I am not in attendance at this evenings council meeting and would like for the people that I represent to be aware of the reason for my recent absence. Last week my mom passed away to meet her creater and today I am finishing the final arraignments of her journey home. The last couple of weeks have been very sad and difficult for my family and I. I had to leave the State of Delaware and travel to Florida where my mom resided. She became ill and was placed on a ventilator then hospice care? I would hope that everyone understands family comes first and again this is a very sad time for me. So everyone is aware, on Thursday, August 10th, I notified Council President Slavin and copied City Solicitor Rodriguez of my mothers illness. I asked Council President Slavin if I could be Excused from the 8/14/17, Council Meeting and this evenings Regular Council Meeting for I knew I would be out of town and didn't want any problems for missing the meetings. Council President Slavin responded in an email with "No Problem" and said my family and I would be in his thoughts and prayers, which I sincerely appreciated. While I was down in Florida caring for my Mom at her bedside. I had my Cell Phone on me at all times and randomly checked my e-mails and texts messages on my phone. I received emails from Councilman Slavin inquiring how I was doing and received text messages from Councilman Sudler and Anderson asking the same. During my absence from Delaware I received no communication from Mayor Christiansen or Mr. Lindell pertaining to this evenings agenda item "Proposed Amendment to Committees, Commissions and Boards Appointment Process. In a Delaware State News Article forwarded to me by Council President Slavin on 8/16/17, while in Florida. Mayor Christiansen stated in the article "he doesn't seem to be anywhere to get ahold of" referring to me. (See Newspaper Article) In a email to Mr. Polce and copied to me by Mr. Lindell on 8/18/17, Mr. Lindell states, 1

"Brian is a hard man to find in order to have a conversation"(See Attached Email). In addition to this statement , Mr. Lindell wrote extended comments in his email that I believe were unnecessary or relevant to the matter. In fact, I felt the comments expressed bitterness and animosity towards me. Something, I don't think we need with all Rhetoric of Hate that is going on in this Country today. It is abundantly clear that Mr. Lindell does not believe in Transparency for he criticizes me for talking to the press on city matters as he eluded to when he indicated "he's looking into getting press credentials because Brian seems to have no problem having conversation or being available to those who posses one." I would have certainly responded to a text or email from Mr. Lindell or the Mayor if they reached out to me like in the past. After carefully reviewing my phone records, emails and even junk emails I have found no record of the Mayor or Mr. Lindell ever attempting to contact me in regard to Agenda Item "Proposed Amendment to Committees, Commissions and Boards Appointment Process" to discuss other then the copied email I received from Mr. Lindell on 8/18/17, to Mr Polce. (See Attached Email) In fact the last direct email I received from Mr. Lindell was on 7/5/17, requesting that a traffic matter near Fox Hall be placed on the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Agenda in which he knew how to contact me then (See Attached). So, I believe Mr. Lindell has my email if he needed to reach me within the last 3 weeks. The last text message I received from Mayor Christiansen was 5/30/17. So, I believe the Mayor has my cell phone number and email if he needed to reach me within the last 3 weeks. As far as Mr. Lindells's comment regarding Facebook it is my right to block who I want. As far as the Agenda Item "Proposed Amendment to Committees, Commissions and Boards Appointment Process" At the Council Committee of the Whole - Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting of August 23, 2016, members asked Councilman Anderson and I to come up with recommendations for advancing a more effective recruitment process for city commissions committees and boards which included having current members reapply with an updated application. We introduced recommendations and ideas, that were solidified and then subsequently voted upon by both the Council Committee of a Whole and the Full City Council by unanimous vote. I personally believe that the current process that was previously voted upon by a unanimous vote be left in place. I believe this issue has been politicized by the Mayor and have not seen any documented complaints since the process was implemented back on October, 2016. The only comment that I have heard, was from the Mayor who indicated one of his 4th of July Committee Appointees declined to fill out an updated application for whatever reason. On another note, to my recollection when this process was put in place a year ago there where no objection by the Mayor or anyone else. Why now? Thank you Councilman Lewis Get Outlook for Android 2