COUNCIL PACKET

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA June 14, 2010 - 7:30 P.M. - Council Chambers - City Hall - City of Dover OPEN FORUM - 15 MINUTES PRIOR TO OFFICIAL MEETING (7:15 P.M.) INVOCATION BY CHAPLAIN WALLACE DIXON PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS * CONSENT AGENDA Those items on the Council Agenda which are considered routine and non-controversial shall be marked with an asterisk (*) and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of Council so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered a separate item. * 1. Adoption of Minutes - Regular Council Meeting of May 24, 2010 2. Presentation - Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Distinguished Budget Award 3. Public Hearing - Electric Revenue Fund Budget 4. Public Hearing/Final Reading - Proposed Ordinance #2010-12 - Zoning Text Amendment The First Reading of Proposed Ordinance #2010-12 was accomplished during the Council Meeting of April 26, 2010. Copies of the proposed ordinance are available at the entrance of the Council Chambers. (Planning Reference: MI-10-10) A. Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 30 - Recreational and Open Space Zone and Article 4 - Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations 5. Council Budget Hearings Report of May 18, 19, 20, and 25, 2010 A. Setting of Property Tax Rate for Fiscal Year 2010/2011 (See Item #13A) B. Budget Ordinances - Proposed 2010/2011 (See Items #13B-1 - #13B-22) C. Budget Ordinance - Downtown Dover Business Improvement District - Cash Receipts/Budget FY 2010-2011 (See Item #13-C)

Council Agenda June 14, 2010 Page 2 * 6. Utility Committee Report - May 24, 2010 A. Request for Alley and Street Abandonments - 100 Block of North Governors Avenue Alley West, the Southern Portion of the 200 Block of North Governors Avenue Alley East, a Portion of the Unit Block of North Bradford Street, the Unit Block of Fulton Street, a Portion of the Unit Block of Cecil Street, a Portion of the 200 Block of North Bradford Street, and the Northern Portion of the Unit Block of North State Street Alley West - Wesley College (Committee Recommended that the Request Be Postponed to Allow Planning Staff to Notify All Property Owners Within 200' and that the Item Be Reconsidered by the Utility Committee During Their Meeting of June 28, 2010) B. Review of Utility Related CIP's (Electric and Water/Wastewater) (Committee Recommended Acceptance of the Report) C. Update - Green Energy Funding and Programming (Committee Recommended Acceptance of the Update Provided by Staff) D. PACE/NAES Monthly Report (February and March) (Committee Recommended Acceptance of the PACE/NAES Monthly Reports for February and March 2010) * 7. Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report - May 24, 2010 A. Medicare Part B Reimbursement Exception (Committee Tabled Pending Receipt of Legal Opinion) B. Discussion - Fiscal Year 2010 Audit Program (Committee Recommended Acceptance of the Fiscal Year 2010 Audit Calendar) C. Downtown Dover Business Improvement District (BID) Assessment (Tax) Rate for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 (Committee Recommended Approval of the Downtown Dover Business Improvement District (BID) - Assessment (Tax) Rate for FY 2010-2011) D. Proposed Ordinance #2010-13 - Furloughs and Pension Plan Closing (Committee Recommended Adoption of Ordinance #2010-13)(See Item #14-A) E. Concerns Regarding Bidding by Minority Businesses (Deferred by Committee Due to Time Constraints) * 8. Monthly Reports - April 2010 A. Budget Report B. Chief of Police Report C. City Assessor Report D. City Manager’s Report E. City Planner’s Report F. Dover Fire Department Report (March and April) 9. Approval of 2010 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Five (5) Year Consolidated Plan and Proposed Resolution #2010-04 10. Evaluation of Bids - East North State Street Phase A Pipe Materials 11. Evaluation of Proposals - Curbside Recycling Services

Council Agenda June 14, 2010 Page 3 * 12. Reappointments - Recommended by Mayor Carey A. Planning Commission - Three (3) Year Terms to Expire June 1, 2013 a-1. John H. Baldwin, Sr. - Fourth District a-2. Ron Shomo - Fourth District a-3. Michael Hemmig - At-Large B. Dover Public Library Commission - Lois J. Dunning - Five (5) Year Term to Expire June 16, 2015 13. First Reading - Proposed Ordinances The First Reading is offered on the following proposed ordinances. Final action by Council will take place during the Second Reading of the ordinances on June 28, 2010. Copies of all proposed ordinances are available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or can be obtained from the City Clerk's Office. A. Ordinance #2010-20 - Notification of Tax Rate Increase Over the Rolled Back Tax Rate [Required in accordance with 22 Delaware Code Section 1105(b)] B. Ordinance #2010-19 - Budget Ordinances - 2010/2011 City of Dover Budget b-1. General Fund - Cash Receipts and Budget b-2. Governmental Capital Projects Fund - Cash Receipts/Revenue and Budget b-3. General Fund Contingency - Cash Receipts/Revenue and Budget b-4. General Capital Asset Replacement Fund - Cash Receipts/Revenue and Budget b-5. Municipal Street Aid Fund - Cash Receipts/Revenue and Budget b-6. Water/Wastewater Fund - Revenue and Budget b-7. Water/Wastewater Improvement and Extension Fund - Cash Receipts/Revenue and Budget b-8. Water/Wastewater Capital Asset Reserve - Cash Receipts/Revenue and Budget b-9. Water/Wastewater Contingency Reserve - Cash Receipts/Revenue and Budget b-10. Electric Revenue Fund - Revenue and Budget b-11. Electric Utility Improvement and Extension Fund - Cash Receipts/Revenue and Budget b-12. Electric Utility Contingency Reserve - Cash Receipts/Revenue and Budget b-13. Electric Utility Depreciation Reserve - Sources and Uses of Funds b-14. Electric Utility Future Capacity Reserve - Sources and Uses of Funds b-15. Electric Utility Insurance Stabilization Reserve - Sources and Uses of Funds b-16. Electric Utility Rate Stabilization Reserve - Sources and Uses of Funds b-17. Workers Compensation Fund - Cash Receipts/Revenue and Budget b-18. Community Transportation Improvement Fund - Cash Receipts/Revenue and Budget b-19. OPEB (Other Post-Employment Benefits) Reserve Fund - Cash Receipts/Revenue and Budget b-20. Parkland/Recreation Reserve - Cash Receipts/Revenue and Budget b-21. Library Reserve - Cash Receipts/Revenue and Budget b-22. Library Grant Fund - Cash Receipts/Revenue and Budget C. Downtown Dover Business Improvement District-Cash Receipts/Budget FY 2010-2011

Council Agenda June 14, 2010 Page 4 14. First Reading - Proposed Ordinances The First Reading is offered on the following proposed ordinances. Final action by Council will take place during the Second Reading of the ordinances on June 28, 2010. Copies of all proposed ordinances are available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or can be obtained from the City Clerk's Office. A. Proposed Ordinance #2010-13 - Furloughs and Pension Plan Closing (Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee) 15. Council Members Announcements /tm S:\AGENDAS & MINUTES\Council-Agendas\2010\06-14-2010.wpd THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING The Regular Council Meeting was held on May 24, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Hogan presiding. Council members present were Mr. Bonar, Mrs. Russell, Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Leary, Mr. McGiffin, Mrs. Williams, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Ruane. Council staff members present were Police Chief Hosfelt, Ms. Russell, Mrs. Mitchell, Mrs. Townshend, Fire Chief Christiansen, Mr. DePrima, City Solicitor Rodriguez, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Carey was also present. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum was held at 7:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Hogan declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council is not in official session and cannot take formal action. Ms. Sue Monaco, resident of Marydel, Delaware, stated that she serves as Partnership Assistant for the U.S. Census Bureau and addressed members regarding the enumeration process and provided an open invitation to partner with the Census Bureau in encouraging community participation (Exhibit #1). She advised members that approximately 69% of the Census Forms issued in the Dover area were returned, with lower returns received from Simon Circle, the Delaware State University area, and Dover Air Force Base. The invocation was given by Chaplain Dixon, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Leary moved for approval of the agenda as presented, seconded by Mr. Bonar and unanimously carried. Mr. McGiffin moved for approval of the consent agenda, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 3, 2010 The Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of May 3, 2010 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. McGiffin, seconded by Mr. Salters and bore the written approval of Mayor Carey. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - ANNUAL COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 10, 2010 The Minutes of the Annual Council Meeting of May 10, 2010 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. McGiffin, seconded by Mr. Salters and bore the written approval of Mayor Carey. PRESENTATION - RELIABLE PUBLIC POWER PROVIDER (RP3®) AND SAFETY AWARDS Mayor Carey presented Reliable Public Power Provider (RP3®) and Safety Awards to Mr. Ronald Lunt, Director of Public Utilities, and Mr. Richard Gardner, Line Crew Superintendent.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 2 Mr. Lunt accepted the award on behalf of the Electric Department and relayed appreciation for the recognition. He advised members that Mr. Gardner submitted the application and could provide further details. Mr. Gardner indicated that the application includes measurements regarding reliability, workforce development, safety and system improvements, etc. He advised members that over 2,000 utilities nationwide submitted applications and the City is one (1) of 94 companies that received the award. This is the second time that the City has received this award. Mayor Carey noted an additional safety award was received by the Electric Department from the American Public Power Association for providing 60,000-109,999 hours of exposure without any safety problems. Mr. Gardner stated that there are 44 employees within the Electric Department and that these employees have worked incident free for over 12 months and deserve recognition. He also relayed appreciation to City Council for providing the funds for necessary safety equipment. PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WHITE OAK ROAD, SOUTH OF MOURNING DOVE LANE, OWNED BY TLFD MANAGEMENT, LLC A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of property located on the south side of White Oak Road, south of Mourning Dove Lane, owned by TLFD Management, LLC. The property is currently zoned R-20 (One Family Residence) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) and the proposed zoning is R-8 (One Family Residence) and subject to the SWPOZ. The Tax Parcel is LC05-068.00-01-18.00-000 and the Planning reference is Z-10-01. Mr. Salters moved that the Final Reading of the proposed rezoning ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of this Ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of February 22, 2010. This item was tabled by the Planning Commission on March 15, 2010, and on April 12, 2010, the Public Hearing was rescheduled for this time and place). Planner's Review Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed the petition to amend the zoning district and the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission (Exhibit #2). The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request. Responding to Mr. Ruane regarding the 1999 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Dover and the State of Delaware as it relates to density and development, Mrs. Townshend stated that the MOU discourages development east of Route 1 and specifically designates that area for low density development. She noted that, according to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the R-8 and R-20 categories are consistent with the low density classification, as they are both one-family, detached, residential districts. Considering the minimum lot area requirement, Mrs. Townshend

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 3 indicated that the R-8 zoning classification could potentially provide more units per acre than the R-20. She explained that staff’s recommendation for approval of the request is due to the R-8 zoning classification being a low density, one-family residence zone and the inclusion of site constraints (such as maintaining woodlands). Mrs. Townshend noted that, although there could be more units, they would typically be clustered on a smaller portion of the site and more likely to have contiguous woodland under the R-8 zoning classification than the R-20 zoning classification. Mr. Ruane questioned how the R-8 zoning classification can be both residential low density and residential medium density, and if the property would be classified as residential low density or residential medium density. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated that the request is for the property to be residential low density and the matrix was developed to provide some degree of flexibility in how the zoning and comprehensive plan relate to each other. Its purpose is to serve as a guide to what would be consistent without constraints. In response to Mr. Leary, Mrs. Townshend stated that many of the Preliminary Land Use Service (PLUS) comments submitted by the State relate specifically to site development. Other than the State’s objection to the rezoning request, the remainder of the PLUS comments would be reviewed upon submission of the site plan. She noted that, if the rezoning application is approved, the applicant would submit a conceptual subdivision plan to the Planning Commission and the PLUS comments would be addressed prior to this submission. Concurring with Mr. Salters, Mr. McGlumphy relayed concern with the State approving the City’s Comprehensive Plan yet objecting to the rezoning application for this parcel. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated her feeling that the State would object to any increase in density east of Route 1. She assured members that the requested rezoning is consistent with the parameters set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Ruane noted that the City of Dover is a signatory to the MOU and that this document is the basis for the State’s comments. He questioned if staff felt that there was an obligation to follow the MOU. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated she did not believe that the MOU was too prescriptive to allow the City to consider rezoning actions in this area. She stated her interpretation that the MOU prohibits the City’s consideration of commercial or high/medium density residential applications, which would create a greater impact. Mr. Ruane felt that the City must follow the MOU and that, if Council wishes to develop the area, staff should be instructed to renegotiate a modified MOU. In response to Mr. McGiffin, Mrs. Townshend confirmed that it was staff’s opinion that the rezoning application complies with the obligation to adhere to the existing Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations for the area east of SR 1 and was consistent with low density development. Public Hearing Council President Hogan declared the hearing open. Mr. Frank DiMondi, an owner of TLFD Management, reiterated the comments he made at the Planning Commission meeting held on April 19, 2010, which were provided to members. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. DiMondi stated that he attempted to contact the State Planning Office twice and received no response.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 4 There being no one else present wishing to speak, Council President Hogan declared the hearing closed. Mr. Bonar moved for approval of the rezoning request, as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and, by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes and one (1) no (Mr. Ruane), Council adopted Ordinance #2010-04, as follows: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WHITE OAK ROAD, SOUTH OF MOURNING DOVE LANE. WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within the limits of the City of Dover; and WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of property described below from R-20 (One Family Residence Zone) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) to R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 1. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation from R-20 (One Family Residence Zone) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) to R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) on that property located on the south side of White Oak Road, south of Mourning Dove Lane consisting of 12.78+/ acres, owned by TLFD Management, LLC. (Tax Parcel: LC05-068.00-01-18.00-000; Planning Reference: Z-10-01) ADOPTED: MAY 24, 2010 Mr. Ruane moved that the Planning Staff be directed to meet with the State Planning Office to seek clarification as to how the MOU should be interpreted and/or to obtain a modification of the MOU, using this rezoning request as an example. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bonar. Mr. McGiffin reminded members that it is the City Planner’s understanding that the requested rezoning is consistent with the MOU; therefore, it was his opinion that there was no need for a modification to the MOU or the type of action suggested by Mr. Ruane. The motion directing the Planning Staff to meet with the State Planning Office, to seek clarification as to how the MOU should be interpreted and/or obtain a modification to the MOU, using this rezoning request as an example, was carried by a roll call vote of five (5) yes and four (4) no (Mrs. Russell, Mr. McGiffin, Mrs. Williams, and Mr. Salters).

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 5 PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HAZLETTVILLE ROAD, WEST OF WYOMING MILL ROAD, OWNED BY MULTIPLE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of property located on the south side of Hazlettville Road, west of Wyoming Mill Road and consisting of 88.10+/- acres, owned by multiple individual property owners. The property is currently zoned RM-1 (Medium Density Residence) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) and the proposed zoning is R-8 (One Family Residence) and subject to the SWPOZ. The Planning reference is Z-10-02. Mr. Bonar moved that the final reading of the proposed rezoning ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of this ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of March 8, 2010). Planner's Review Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed the petition to amend the zoning district and the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission (Exhibit #3). The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request. Public Hearing Council President Hogan declared the hearing open. Mr. Alex Martin, 121 Derbyshire Avenue, stated that the residents of Nottingham Meadows are concerned about the development and seek assurance that it will remain the type of neighborhood that they had originally purchased. There is fear that someone else will purchase the remaining property and develop it in such a way that would be detrimental to residents. Ms. Lynne Widdowson, 15 Derbyshire Court, reiterated how grateful the residents are for the response provided by City Council, State Representatives, and Mayor Carey regarding the concerns of the residents. She explained that the residents are unable to form a homeowners association since their development is not fully developed. She reminded members that the developer of Nottingham Meadows has not been able to complete the subdivision due to the current economic situation. She requested those in attendance from Nottingham Meadows to stand to be recognized (it is noted that several individuals stood) and, on their behalf, requested the City to assist them with this request. Mr. Pete Thomas, 22 Brittingham Drive, responded to Mr. Salters, indicating that there are 76 homeowners who have had to take this action and relayed appreciation for the support provided by the City. There being no one else wishing to speak, Council President Hogan declared the hearing closed. Mr. Leary moved for approval of the rezoning request, as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and by a unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted Ordinance #2010-08, as follows:

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 6 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HAZLETTVILLE ROAD, WEST OF WYOMING MILL ROAD. WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within the limits of the City of Dover; and WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of property described below from RM-1 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) to R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 1. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation from RM-1 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) to R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) on that property located on the south side of Hazlettville Road, west of Wyoming Mill Road, consisting of 88.10+/- acres, owned by multiple owners. (Planning Reference: Z-10-02) ADOPTED: MAY 24, 2010 PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1059 HORSEPOND ROAD, SOUTH OF LAFFERTY LANE, OWNED BY DAVID AND SHERRY BLAKE A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of property located at 1059 Horsepond Road, south of Lafferty Lane and consisting of 1.8612+/- acres, owned by David and Sherry Blake. The property is currently zoned M (Manufacturing) and subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) and the proposed zoning is C-3 (Service Commercial) and subject to the AEOZ. The Tax Parcel is ED05-078.13-01-17.00-000 and the Planning reference is Z-10-03. Mr. McGlumphy moved that the final reading of the proposed rezoning ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of this Ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of March 22, 2010). Planner's Review Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, City Planner, reviewed the petition to amend the zoning district and the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission (Exhibit #4). The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request. Public Hearing Council President Hogan declared the hearing open.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 7 Mr. David Blake, 69 Nanticoke Drive, stated that he is the owner of the property and relayed appreciation for the assistance provided by the City. He stated that the Manufacturing zoning classification is not consistent with his business and that the structure was recently renovated to be suitable for office space. There being no one else wishing to speak, Council President Hogan declared the hearing closed. Mr. Salters moved for approval of the rezoning request, as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Leary and by a unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted Ordinance #2010-09, as follows: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1059 HORSEPOND ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within the limits of the City of Dover; and WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of property described below from M (Manufacturing) and subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) to C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) and subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 1. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation from M (Manufacturing) and subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) to C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) and subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) on that property located at 1059 Horsepond Road (on the east side of Horsepond Road, south of Lafferty Lane), consisting of 1.8612+/- acres, owned by David E. Blake and Sherry A. Blake. (Tax Parcel: ED05-078.13-01-17.00-000; Planning Reference: Z-10-03) ADOPTED: MAY 24, 2010 PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1169 SOUTH STATE STREET, OWNED BY YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF DELAWARE, INC. (YMCA) A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of property located at 1169 South State Street, consisting of 0.6899+/- acres, owned by the Young Men’s Christian Association of Delaware, Inc. (YMCA). The property is currently zoned RG-O (General Residence and Office) and the proposed zoning is IO (Institutional and Office). The subject property is located on the east side of South State Street, north of Roosevelt Avenue/Wyoming Avenue. The tax parcel is ED05-077.17-05-58.00-000 and planning reference is Z-10-04.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 8 Mr. Bonar moved that the final reading of the proposed rezoning ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of this Ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of March 22, 2010). Planner's Review Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, City Planner, reviewed the petition to amend the zoning district and the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission (Exhibit #5). Public Hearing Council President Hogan declared the hearing open. Mr. Gregg Moore of Becker Morgan Group, representing the YMCA, stated that the rezoning request is necessary for the addition of a fitness center and additional parking. There being no one else wishing to speak, Council President Hogan declared the hearing closed. Mr. McGlumphy moved for approval of the rezoning request, as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Williams and by a unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted Ordinance #2010-10, as follows: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1169 SOUTH STATE STREET WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within the limits of the City of Dover; and WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of property described below from RG-O (General Residence and Office Zone) to IO (Institutional and Office Zone). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 1. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation from RG-O (General Residence and Office Zone) to IO (Institutional and Office Zone) on that property located at 1169 South State Street (east side of South State Street, north of Roosevelt Avenue/Wyoming Avenue), consisting of 0.6899+/- acres (30,0523+/- square feet), owned by Young Men's Christian Association of Delaware, Inc. (YMCA) (Tax Parcel: ED05-077.17-05-58.00-000; Planning Reference: Z-10-04) ADOPTED: MAY 24, 2010

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 9 PUBLIC HEARING - VIOLATION OF THE DANGEROUS BUILDING ORDINANCE - PROPERTY LOCATED AT 715 SLAUGHTER STREET, OWNED BY THE ESTATE OF ISAIAH FREEMAN, JR. A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider a violation of the Dangerous Building Ordinance at 715 Slaughter Street, owned by the Estate of Isaiah Freeman, Jr. Mr. Scott Koenig, Public Services Manager/Director of Public Works, stated that the property consists of a single family, wood-framed dwelling that has been in a serious state of disrepair and decline for a number of years. The file indicates the electric service to this property was terminated in 2004. There is a long series of code violations on the property and no attempt has been made to correct the violations. Staff believes that the property owner is deceased and no action has been performed by the estate. Mr. Koenig noted that many, if not all, notices have been returned to the City as unclaimed mail. Mr. Koenig provided a Presentation (Exhibit #6) which included slides depicting the condition of the structure. Staff provided a preliminary estimate of $10,000-$15,000 required for demolition of the structure. Staff recommended that City Council: 1) declare this building dangerous and all accessory buildings on the property dangerous; 2) order the property repaired or demolished by July 1, 2010 by the owner or equity owner at their own risk; 3) order the Building Inspector to cause the repair or demolition of the structures if not completed by the owner within (10) days of the date set by Council (this action is dependent upon the adoption of the FY-2011 Operating Budget for funding); and 4) order the City Manager, with the assistance of the City Solicitor, to cause the cost of repairs or demolition to be charged against the land on which the building exists as a municipal lien or cause such cost to be added to the tax duplicate as an assessment, or to be levied as a special tax, or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owner. Mrs. Russell indicated that she spoke to the homeowner, Mr. Freeman, on May 23, 2010, and requested that the City attempt to make contact prior to taking action, explaining that Mr. Freeman has been traveling. She suggested that attempts be made to preserve the property. Responding to Mr. Koenig, Mrs. Russell indicated that she would provide staff with contact information for Mr. Freeman. Mr. Salters noted that attempts have been made by the City to contact the homeowner. It was his feeling that the homeowner should contact staff tomorrow morning in an attempt to resolve this issue. If the homeowner fails to contact staff in a timely manner, he suggested that the City move forward with staff’s recommendation. Council President Hogan declared the public hearing open. There was no one present wishing to speak during the public hearing. Council President Hogan declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Ruane noted that staff’s recommendation would not authorize the demolition of property; however, it does specify a date for action to be taken by the property owners for the repairs or demolition of the property. He stated that this type of action is sometimes necessary in order to get property owners to make repairs.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 10 Mr. Bonar moved to table action regarding the violation of dangerous building ordinance for property located at 715 Slaughter Street until the next Council Meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and failed by a roll call vote of five (5) no and four (4) yes (Mr. Bonar, Mrs. Russell, Mr. McGlumphy, and Mr. McGiffin). Mr. McGiffin moved that the structure located at 715 Slaughter Street be declared a dangerous building and subject to demolition, as recommended by staff, with the exception of amending Recommendation #3 to allow the owner 30 days from July 1, 2010 (rather than 10 days). The motion was seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. PUBLIC HEARING - VIOLATION OF THE DANGEROUS BUILDING ORDINANCE - 749 WEST NORTH STREET, OWNED BY THE ESTATE OF KNOWLES D. HARMON A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider a violation of the Dangerous Building Ordinance at 749 West North Street , owned by the Estate of Knowles D. Harmon. Mr. Scott Koenig, Public Services Manager/Director of Public Works, advised members that the property consists of a multi-story wood-framed dwelling that was damaged by fire in November of 2006. There are numerous code violations such as broken window glass, holes in the walls, holes in the roof, extensive fire damage throughout the structure, and overall deterioration to the structure from being left open to the weather. He noted that the structure is also a fire hazard and a danger to residents in the surrounding area. Mr. Koenig noted that numerous notifications have been sent to the property owners, and no progress or effort has been made to resolve the code violations and bring the property into compliance. Staff is also receiving complaints from citizens regarding the current condition of the property. Mr. Koenig provided a Presentation (Exhibit #7) which included slides depicting the condition of the structure. Staff provided a preliminary estimate in the amount of $30,000-$35,000 to demolish the structure. Staff recommended that City Council: 1) declare this building dangerous and all accessory buildings on the property dangerous; 2) order the property repaired or demolished by July 1, 2010 by the owner or equity owner at their own risk; 3) order the Building Inspector to cause the repair or demolition of the structures if not completed by the owner within (10) days of the date set by Council (this action is dependent upon the adoption of the FY-2011 Operating Budget for funding); and 4) order the City Manager, with the assistance of the City Solicitor, to cause the cost of repairs or demolition to be charged against the land on which the building exists as a municipal lien or cause such cost to be added to the tax duplicate as an assessment, or to be levied as a special tax, or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owner. Council President Hogan declared the public hearing open.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 11 Mr. Knowles D. Harmon, Jr., advised members that his father purchased the property in the early 1950’s and that he was raised in that house. After his father and mother divorced, his father remarried and, upon his death in 1968, he willed the property to his wife and, upon her death, the property was to be left to him and his siblings. At this time, he stated that the property owner is Ms. Anna M. Perry. Mrs. Russell indicated that Ms. Perry is recently deceased. Responding, Mr. Harmon stated that ownership of the property should be transferred to him and his siblings and assured members that they would take care of the property. Mr. Salters suggested that this matter be deferred to allow Mr. Harmon the opportunity to meet with staff to resolve this issue. There being no one else wishing to speak, Council President Hogan declared the public hearing closed. Mrs. Williams moved to refer the matter regarding the violation of dangerous building ordinance for property located at 749 West North Street back to staff, since this meeting has revealed that there is new ownership of the property. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bonar and unanimously carried. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT - MAY 24, 2010 The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met on May 24, 2010 with Chairman McGlumphy presiding. Except for the following time sensitive issue, the Committee Report from May 24, 2010 will be presented to Council during their Regular Meeting of June 14, 2010 for Council’s review and consideration. Proposed Ordinance #2010-11 - Adoption of Business License Fee Schedule (Referred back to Committee by Council on April 26, 2010 to allow public discussion; due to time constraints, this item has been placed on the Council agenda for the meeting being held later in the evening.) During their meeting of April 12, 2010, the Committee recommended adoption of Ordinance #2010-11 adopting the business license fee schedule. When the Committee’s recommendation was presented to Council during their Regular Meeting of April 26, 2010, Council referred the matter back to the Committee to allow for public discussion. Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, reminded members that Ordinance #2010-11 would provide for an automatic update of business license fees on July 1st of each year based on the published inflation rate for the previous calendar year. He stated that if the Proposed Ordinance is passed, there would be a 3.3% increase in business license revenues on July 1st, which equates to approximately $48,000 additional revenue to the City of Dover. Mr. DePrima advised members that there has not been an increase in business license fees since 2004. He reminded members that he has submitted previous requests to increase these fees, in accordance with the City’s Revenue Manual, which indicates that the City should update business license fees every three (3) years.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 12 Mr. DePrima explained that this matter was referred back to the Committee to allow for public discussion, since the Chamber of Commerce did not feel that they were provided adequate advance notice of the Proposed Ordinance to allow for comments; however, he assured members that staff provided the Chamber of Commerce advance notice. Mr. DePrima provided and reviewed a Presentation - Business License Overview. For informational purposes, members were also provided a proposed Fiscal Year 2011 Business License Fee Schedule to become effective July 1, 2010. He explained that the automatic escalation in fees would apply to approximately 60% of the City’s business license holders who currently pay a fixed license fee. Mr. DePrima noted that the remaining 40% of license holders pay fees based on gross revenues or gross product purchased, which increase with inflation automatically. Responding to Dr. Jones regarding the issue of fairness, Mr. DePrima stated that the business license fees were developed during the 1960’s and that research has not been conducted to determine how these fees were established. Dr. Jones suggested that staff may wish to re-examine the fees to consider their redevelopment by taking into account business earnings, etc. Mr. Phil McGinnis, Owner/President of McGinnis Commercial Real Estate Company, 555 E. Loockerman Street, and Chair of the Kent County Association of Realtors Smart Growth Working Group, provided and reviewed a presentation to members. He noted that the revenue generated by business license fees in 2005 was $1.2M and that for 2010 $1.4M is reflected. He explained that this is a 17% increase resulting from natural growth, which equates to 3.4% per year. Therefore, Mr. McGinnis stated that the City receives a natural fee increase based on the availability of businesses conducting business within the City and felt there is no need for the City to raise fees to receive an increase. He also indicated that the City is proposing an increase during a period of a declining market, which is substantiated by the number of building permits issued and transfer tax revenues. He advised members that a declining market is not the time to institute an increase in business license fees. Dr. Joel Halpern, Halpern Eye Associates, 855 S. Governors Avenue, concurred with the suggestion made by Dr. Jones to review the fees as they relate to business earnings, etc. He felt that the costs incurred by medical establishments in conducting business have increased significantly over the years, stating that there are few “Cadillac doctors” any more. Dr. Halpern encouraged Council to ensure that business license fees are fair for everyone. Mrs. Judy Diogo, Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce, 435 N. DuPont Highway, reiterated that businesses can not handle any type of increase in fees during these challenging economic times. She urged members to reject any proposed increase at this time and that there not be any escalation language included in an ordinance, feeling that there is a need to review fees annually. Ms. Lisa Hastings, Faw Casson and Company, 160 Greentree Drive, reminded members that increases in business license revenues have been realized by the City throughout the years because the unit of measure, which is the number of businesses, has increased, and felt that an actual increase in the fees was not necessary to accomplish an increase. Referring to the escalation clause, Ms. Hastings stated that there are times when such a clause is beneficial for a short period of time;

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 13 however, the current language does not provide for the opportunity for a review. As an example, she explained that the City would never consider a contract with a company that had a perpetual increase; however, would consider a contract that included an increase for two (2) to three (3) years. Mr. Tom Burns, Burns and Ellis Realtors, 490 N. DuPont Highway, noted how wonderful the City of Dover is, including its staff and elected and appointed officials, and he urged members not to grow beyond its small-town, well-run government. He stated that the people want good government but not more government, and when there is more money going to the government, the result is more government. He felt that, due to the difficult economic times, this is not the time to consider any increase. Responding to Mr. Salters regarding Page 8 of the presentation provided by Mr. DePrima, Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, advised members that the substantial increase in the CAFR audit fees from 2006 to 2007 was due to the change in accounting standards. She confirmed that the City has a five (5) year contract for the audit, that there is an annual escalator included in the contract, and that the escalator was included in prior contracts as well. In response to Dr. Jones, Mr. DePrima indicated that there is a relationship between the proposed fees and the development of the portion of the City’s budget attributed to services provided. However, he stated that the escalator clause had more to do with creating equity between the kinds of businesses that have a natural inflation factor and those that do not. He concurred that business license revenues have increased; however, he explained that there are two (2) reasons for the increase: 1) the number of businesses in the City has grown; and 2) 40% of businesses pay fees based on gross receipts, and these have increased. With regards to the comments regarding the re-examination of business license fees, Mr. DePrima suggested that Council could assign this to him as a goal for the upcoming year. He stated he understood the reluctance to incorporate an escalation clause in perpetuity and suggested that a fixed time, such as three (3) to five (5) years, could be established for review and re-evaluation. The Committee recommended striking the language in Section 26-36 regarding the annual increase in the fees (lines 168-174 in red font). The Committee recommended adoption of Ordinance #2010-11, as amended. In response to Mr. Leary, Dr. Jones suggested that the business community be invited to participate when the reconsideration and review of the business licenses is conducted. Mr. McGlumphy moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation to strike the language in Section 26-36 regarding the annual increase in the fees (lines 168-174 in red font), seconded by Mr. Leary. Mr. Leary clarified that the proposed increase for FY 2011 is not excluded in the motion. He also noted that the proposed fees include amounts such as $124.99 and suggested that these amounts be rounded to the nearest 50 cents.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 14 Referring to lines 10-16 of the Proposed Ordinance, Mr. Ruane suggested the need for their deletion since it appears that the escalating clause is mentioned twice in the Ordinance. The motion to approve striking the language in Section 26-36 regarding the annual increase in the fees (lines 168-174 in red font) was carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mrs. Williams move to strike the language in Section 26-35 regarding the annual increase in the fees (lines 10-16 in red font), seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Leary moved to amend Section 26-35 to increase the fees according to the proposed index schedule provided, stipulating that amounts be rounded to the nearest 50 cents, seconded by Mr. Ruane and carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes and two (2) no (Mr. McGlumphy and Mrs. Williams). Mr. Salters moved for the adoption of Ordinance #2010-11 as amended, seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes and two (2) no (Mr. McGlumphy and Mrs. Williams). (The Final Reading and adoption of the Ordinance will take place during the latter part of the meeting). Mr. McGlumphy moved for acceptance of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried. MONTHLY CIP REPORT - MARCH 2010 Mr. McGiffin moved for acceptance of the Monthly CIP Report for March 2010, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. SET PUBLIC HEARING - ELECTRIC FUND BUDGET A public hearing on the Electric Revenue Fund Budget is required for compliance with the 1985 Electric Revenue (Refunding) Bonds Resolution - Annual Budget Section (as amended by 1990 Bond Resolution) prior to adoption of the budget. Staff recommended that the public hearing be set for June 14, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Ruane clarified that the recommendation is to set a public hearing for the Electric Fund Budget and does not include approval of such. Mr. Salters moved to set a public hearing for June 14, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. for the City of Dover Electric Fund Budget, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 15 COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - COUNCIL PRESIDENT Council President Hogan submitted his recommendations for committee appointments and requested approval, as follows: Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Utility Committee Thomas J. Leary, Chairman Eugene B. Ruane, Chairman James G. McGiffin, Jr. David L. Bonar Reuben Salters James G. McGiffin, Jr. Daniel Shevock (civilian member) Richard Snaman (civilian member) Bobby Jones (civilian member appointed by Major Richard Kosior (civilian member Committee Chair) appointed by Committee Chair) Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Civilian Pension Board Committee Thomas J. Leary Sophia R. Russell, Chairwoman William P. McGlumphy Eugene B. Ruane William P. McGlumphy Construction Code Board of Appeals Ann Horsey (civilian member) James G. McGiffin, Jr., Chairman David A. Lewis, Jr. (civilian member appointed by William P. McGlumphy Committee Chair) Police Pension Board Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Thomas J. Leary Beverly C. Williams, Chairwoman William P. McGlumphy David L. Bonar Sophia R. Russell John J. Davis (civilian member) Mark D. Harmon (civilian member appointed by Committee Chair) Mr. McGiffin moved for approval of the Committee Appointments for 2010/2011, as recommended by the Council President, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. MISCELLANEOUS APPOINTMENTS - COUNCIL PRESIDENT Council President Hogan requested approval of the committee appointments, as follows: Liaison to Chamber of Commerce and Greater Dover Committee Liaison to Kent County (City/County Committee) Carleton E. Carey, Sr., Mayor Carleton E. Carey, Sr., Mayor Kenneth L. Hogan, Council President Kenneth L. Hogan, Council President Thomas J. Leary Kent County Tourism W illiam P. McGlumphy Kenneth L. Hogan, Council President Reuben Salters Anthony J. DePrima, City Manager Mr. McGiffin moved for approval of the Miscellaneous Appointments for 2010/2011, as recommended by the Council President, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. APPOINTMENT RECOMMENDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT HOGAN - CHAPLAIN WALLACE DIXON - CITY CHAPLAIN (ANNUAL APPOINTMENT EXPIRES JUNE 2011)

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 16 Council President Hogan recommended the reappointment of Chaplain Wallace Dixon to serve as the City Chaplain for a term to expire June 2011. Mr. McGiffin moved for approval of the reappointment of Chaplain Wallace Dixon, as recommended by Council President Hogan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. REZONING REQUESTS/FIRST READINGS Requests were received to rezone the following properties. Prior to amending the zoning ordinances and zoning map of the City of Dover, a public hearing is required. Staff recommended referral of the rezoning requests to the Planning Commission on June 21, 2010 and that a Public Hearing be set for July 12, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. Property Located on Saulsbury Road, South of Forrest Avenue, Owned by Route 8 & Saulsbury Road, LLC A rezoning request for property located on Saulsbury Road, south of Forrest Avenue, consisting of 1.01+/- acres, owned by Route 8 & Saulsbury Road, LLC. The property is currently zoned CPO (Commercial/Professional Office) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) and the requested zoning is C-2A (Limited Central Commercial) and subject to the COZ-1. (Tax Parcel: ED05-076.11-01-24.00-000; Planning Reference: Z-10-05). By motion of Mr. McGlumphy, seconded by Mrs. Williams, Council unanimously referred the following rezoning request to the Planning Commission for June 21, 2010 and set a public hearing for July 12, 2010 at 7:30 p.m.: In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON SAULSBURY ROAD, SOUTH OF FORREST AVENUE. Property Located at 217 and 223 McKee Road, Owned by Mor-Kath-Ric, LLC A rezoning request for property located at 217 and 223 McKee Road, consisting of 1.12+/- acres, owned by Mor-Kath-Rie, LLC. The property is currently zoned R-7 (One Family Residence) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) and the requested zoning is RM-1 (Medium Density Residence) and subject to the COZ-1. (Tax Parcel: ED05-067.15-02-02.00-000; Planning Reference: Z-10-06). By motion of Mr. McGlumphy, seconded by Mr. Bonar, Council unanimously referred the following rezoning request to the Planning Commission for June 21, 2010 and set a public hearing for July 12, 2010 at 7:30 p.m.: In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows:

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 17 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 217 AND 223 McKEE ROAD. Property Located at 40-60 Ridgely Street, Owned by Robert A. and Nancy H. Kauffman A rezoning request for property located at 40-60 Ridgely Street, consisting of 2.0047+/- acres, owned by Robert A. and Nancy H. Kauffman. The property is currently zoned M (Manufacturing) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) and the requested zoning is C-3 (Service Commercial) and subject to the COZ-1. (Tax Parcel: ED05-076.08-01-26.01-000; Planning Reference: Z-10-07). By motion of Mr. McGlumphy, seconded by Mr. Leary, Council unanimously referred the following rezoning request to the Planning Commission for June 21, 2010 and set a public hearing for July 12, 2010 at 7:30 p.m.: In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 40-60 RIDGELY STREET. FINAL READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2010-11 The First Reading of the following Proposed Ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of April 26, 2010. Council President Hogan noted that the Council’s action taken previously during their consideration of the Committee’s recommendation regarding this matter included amendments; therefore, adoption of the Ordinance will include all amendments. #2010-11 - Adoption of Business License Fee Schedule Mr. Leary moved that the Final Reading of the Proposed Ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried. Mr. Ruane moved for adoption of Ordinance #2010-11 - Adoption of Business License Fee Schedule (Exhibit #8), seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes and two (2) no (Mr. McGlumphy and Mrs. Williams). COUNCIL MEMBERS ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. McGiffin reminded members to mark their calendars for June 26, 2010 for the next African American Festival. Mr. Ruane referred to the comments regarding the 2010 Census made during the Open Forum and requested that residents be cooperative and suggested that the invitation provided be posted on the City’s Website. He noted that the amount of aid provided to the City is directly dependent upon the numbers obtained through the Census. Concurring, Mr. Leary advised members that the Census information is also utilized to determine voting districts and indicated that it is critical that this information is accurate.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 18 Referring to the specific areas mentioned in regards to the lack of responses received for the Census data thus far, Mr. Salters objected to this information being mentioned and suggested that with only a 69% return, responses throughout the City have been low. Mrs. Russell announced that the Dover Housing Authority, in partnership with the Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity, will be hosting a “1-2-3 A-B-C Community Event”. Participants will be going throughout the community within a 20 block area, making small improvements to properties. She suggested that anyone interested in obtaining an application contact herself or Mr. William Neaton, Economic Development Director. Mr. Bonar noted that members of Council will be facing many decisions in the near future regarding the budget. He stated he intends to conduct a survey to determine the opinions of City residents. Mr. Leary moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried. Meeting Adjourned at 9:14 P.M. TRACI A. McDOWELL CITY CLERK All orders, ordinances, and resolutions adopted by City Council during their Regular Meeting of May 24, 2010, are hereby approved. CARLETON E. CAREY, SR. MAYOR /TM/jg S:\AGENDAS & MINUTES\Council-Minutes\2010\05-24-2010 REVISED.wpd Exhibits Attached to Original Minutes and File Copy Exhibit #1 - U.S. Census Bureau Open Invitation Exhibit #2 - Rezoning Petition - White Oak Road, Owned by TLFD Management, LLC Exhibit #3 - Rezoning Petition - Hazletteville Road - Nottingham Meadows Exhibit #4 - Rezoning Petition - 1059 Horsepond Road - David and Sherry Blake Exhibit #5 - Rezoning Petition - 1169 South State Street - YMCA Exhibit #6 - Presentation - Violation of Dangerous Building Ordinance - 715 Slaughter Street Exhibit #7 - Presentation - Violation of Dangerous Building Ordinance - 749 West North Street Exhibit #8 - Ordinance #2010-11 - Adoption of Business License Fee Schedule

Page 1 of 2 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Dover Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, June 14, 2010 at 7:30 PM in the Council Chambers of Dover City Hall to consider adoption of the following proposed Electric Fund budgets for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011. The following budgets have been submitted to the Mayor and Council for their review and consideration and the amounts are subject to change. Reference copies of the proposed budget are available at the Dover Public Library, Weyandt Hall (5 East Reed Street), and the City Clerk’s Office. ELECTRIC REVENUE FUND REVENUES Beginning Balance $ 12,047,275 Direct Sales to Customers 96,595,300 Utility Tax 1,864,800 Green Energy 128,600 Miscellaneous Revenue 891,200 Rent Revenue 186,816 Intrafund Service Receipts Water/Wastewater 299,795 Interest Earnings 65,700 TOTAL REVENUES $ 112,079,486 EXPENSES Power Supply $ 48,059,699 Power Supply Management 2,280,000 PJM Charges – Load 11,850,876 Capacity Charges 11,618,223 Plant Operations 5,694,315 Generations Fuels 297,820 PJM Credits (720,797) Capacity Credits (11,488,785) Transmission/Distribution 3,041,804 Electrical Engineering 2,014,860 Administration 609,993 Meter Reading 223,506 System Operations 518,053 Utility Tax 1,864,800 Direct Expenses Subtotal $ 75,864,367 Other Expenses: Allow for Uncollectibles $ 135,000

Retirees Healthcare 639,110 Intrafund Service Fees 3,401,951 Debt Service 4,058,700 Green Energy 128,600 Interest on Deposits 54,500 Inventory Write Offs 175,000 Other Expenses Subtotal $ 8,592,861 Transfer to: Improvement & Extension $ 3,500,000 General Fund 7,250,000 Transfer to Unfunded Liability 833,000 Transfer to OPEB 1,200,000 Transfer to Depreciation Reserve 1,000,000 Transfer to Future Capacity 500,000 Rate Stabilization Reserve 1,300,000 Transfer To Subtotal $ 15,583,000 TOTAL EXPENSES $ 100,040,228 CARRIED FORWARD BALANCE 12,039,258 TOTAL BUDGET $ 112,079,486 ELECTRIC CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND CASH RECEIPTS Prior Year Balance $ 1,763,860 Interest Earnings 40,700 Transfer from Electric 3,500,000 TOTAL RECEIPTS $5,304,560 EXPENSE SUMMARY Electric Generation $ 1,480,068 Transmission and Distribution 739,000 Electrical Engineering 1,390,429 Current Year Balance 1,695,063 TOTAL EXPENSES $ 5,304,560

PETITION TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT Public Hearing before the Dover City Council June 14, 2010 Proposed Zoning Change: Amendment to Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 – District Regulations, to create a new Section 30 – Recreation and Open Space (ROS) Zones, and Article 4 – Bulk and Parking Regulations, to create the bulk standards associated with this zone. Summary of Amendment: Staff developed the proposed ordinance as an implementation measure associated with the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zone would be applied to areas shown as Open Space on the Land Development Plan of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. This rezoning will require separate action by the Planning Commission and City Council; the amendment currently under consideration would adopt the permitted uses, conditional uses, bulk standards, and design requirements for the proposed zone. In developing the proposed ordinance, staff reviewed the Land Development Plan to ensure that the uses permitted and bulk standards set forth are consistent with the areas where the zone will ultimately be applied. These areas include City parks, protected natural areas, recorded open space in residential subdivisions, and Maple Dale Country Club. The text amendment creating the Recreation and Open Space (ROS) Zone is the first in a two phase process. Staff is currently working on determining which properties in the City will be proposed for rezoning to this classification and notifying affected property owners. Staff expects to bring the parcels proposed for rezoning forward for first reading at the June 28, 2010 City Council meeting. Planning Commission Recommendation: Following a public hearing before the Planning Commission on May 17, 2010, where no members of the public spoke in relation to the proposed text amendment, Planning Commission approved the following motion:

Colonel Welsh moved to approve MI-10-10 Proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance: Recreational and Open Space Zone, seconded by Mr. Nichols and the motion was unanimously carried 8-0 with Mr. Shomo absent. Attachments: Draft Ordinance Ordinance Number: 2010-12 File Number: MI-10-10 The following is an excerpt from the Planning Commission minutes of May 17, 2010. The minutes are in draft form, and are scheduled for approval by the Planning Commission at their meeting on April 19, 2010. MI-10-10 Proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance: Recreational and Open Space Zone - Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council on proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to create the Recreational and Open Space Zone. This Ordinance adds Appendix B: Zoning, Article 3 – District Regulations, Section 30 – Recreational and open space zone (ROS) and amends Zoning, Article 4 – Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan calls for the development of an Open Space Zone that would be applied to both public and private open space areas identified in the Land Development Plan. Staff reviewed the Land Development Plan and drafted an ordinance that we believe meets the needs of the various areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan as Open Space including City parks, protected natural areas, recorded open space in residential subdivisions, and Maple Dale Country Club. Ordinance # 2010-12. Representatives: Staff Mrs. Townshend presented an overview of the proposed amendment. She also noted that if adopted then Phase 2 would be to bring back a Comprehensive Rezoning package. Also, Staff Amendment #1 does not need to be acted on as it can be done administratively. Mr. Hemmig questioned with regards to Section 30.2 “Permitted Uses” is there some restriction either here or somewhere else that would restrict the size of a clubhouse? Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mrs. Townshend stated that the only thing in this ordinance is in Section 30.5 which stated “No structure, equipment, or game court surface permitted under this section shall be located nearer than 30 feet to any lot line.” Typically, if something has come through as the active recreation area or any type of open space associated with development, it is already restricted. They could not come back later and put a building in that open space as it is already constrained by Site Plan or Subdivision approval that it received. Mr. Hemmig further questioned with regard to accessory uses it states “necessary to the operation of the principal permitted use” could that include basically warehouses for equipment and garages? Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mrs. Townshend stated that this would more than likely be in a park where you would have equipment storage or could be restrooms as it would be accessory to the park use.

Colonel Welsh questioned how this would impact Maple Dale Country Club? Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mrs. Townshend stated that it would not unless the plan expired and they brought it back. Mrs. Townshend questioned Mrs. Melson-Williams if the open space for Maple Dale Country Club was required to remain open space on the plan or if there were just certain portions of it? Responding to Mrs. Townshend, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the amenities were clearly referenced that were currently in place at Maple Dale Country Club serving as the active recreation for the proposed residential development. The recreation plan clearly recognizes that there is a golf course there, a pool and tennis courts along with a club house. Mrs. Townshend further stated that if they did come back with something in the future Staff would have to sort thought what they would be requesting. Mr. Friedman opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak closed the public hearing. Colonel Welsh moved to approve MI-10-10 Proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance: Recreational and Open Space Zone, seconded by Mr. Nichols and the motion was unanimously carried 8-0 with Mr. Shomo absent.

1 FINAL READING CITY OF DOVER ORDINANCE #2010-12 2 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN 3 COUNCIL MET: 4 5 That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 3 – District Regulations, be amended by adding a new 6 Section 30, as follows: 7 8 Section 30. Recreational and open space zone (ROS). 9 10 30.1 Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this zoning type is to establish zoning 11 regulations that promote preservation and management of natural and recreational open 12 space and responsible development of active communities that promote healthy and 13 active lifestyles. 14 15 30.2 Permitted Uses. No building or premises shall be used and no building shall be 16 erected which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any 17 purpose except the following: 18 19 30.21 Public and/or private parks and playgrounds. 20 21 30.22 Natural areas, woodland areas, public and private open space. 22 23 30.23 Athletic fields, game courts, basketball courts, recreation centers, picnic 24 areas, and pavilions/gazebos. 25 26 30.24 Public and/or private swimming pools. 27 28 30.25 Boat ramps/docks and fishing piers. 29 30 30.26 Golf driving ranges and baseball batting cages. 31 32 30.27 Golf courses and country clubs. 33 34 30.28 Clubhouses and their associated meeting/activity rooms. 35 36 30.3 Accessory Uses. Accessory uses as follows: 37 38 (a) Accessory uses customarily incidental to the principal permitted use and 39 necessary to the operation of the principal permitted use located on the same 40 premises therewith shall also be a permitted use. 41 42 Draft Recreation and Open Space Zone March 29, 2010 Page 1 of 6

43 30.4 Conditional Uses. The following uses are permitted, conditional upon the approval 44 of the planning commission in accordance with the procedures and subject to the general 45 conditions set forth in Article 10 Section 1 and to any specified requirements set forth 46 below: 47 48 30.41 Residential Life-Style Communities inclusive of golf course communities, 49 equestrian communities, and other country club style residential 50 neighborhoods subject to the following: 51 52 (a) Maximum Density. The maximum density for a Residential Life-Style 53 Community shall be no more than one unit per acre of the total site 54 area, with the density to be clustered on the site. 55 (b) Open Space. A minimum of 75% of the total land area must remain 56 open or devoted to natural open space, active recreation, passive 57 recreation, and/or other recreational use. 58 (c) Housing Types shall include: 59 i. One-family detached dwellings 60 ii. Duplex dwellings 61 iii. Multiplex dwellings 62 iv. Townhouses 63 v. Garden apartments 64 (d) Design standards. The design standards and dimensional 65 requirements (bulk and parking regulations) shall be in accordance 66 with article 4, sections 4.10 and 4.11, except that the planning 67 commission may relax any of these requirements where the developer 68 can demonstrate that such action is desirable and consistent with the 69 objectives of this ordinance and the comprehensive plan. 70 (e) Accessory Uses. Accessory, non-commercial uses customarily 71 incidental to the principal conditional use and any other use necessary 72 to the operation of the principal conditional use located on the same 73 premises therewith shall also be a permitted use. 74 (f) Implementation Plan. As part of an application to the Planning 75 Commission for Conditional Use Review, the applicant must provide a 76 detailed Implementation Plan for which completion of such a plan 77 becomes a condition of approval. At a minimum, the Implementation 78 Plan should do the following: 79 80 i. Provided documentation for how the site will provide 81 recreation and open space for its residents. This information 82 will be reviewed by the Parks, Recreation, and Community 83 Enhancement committee under the guidelines of Article 5, 84 Section 10. 85 ii. Provide a procedure or documentation for how community 86 resources, inclusive of the recreation elements approved for the 87 Residential Life-Style Community will be maintained for its 88 residents in the event that any commercial, recreational, or Draft Recreation and Open Space Zone March 29, 2010 Page 2 of 6

89 otherwise associated portion of the community is dissolved or 90 disbanded. 91 iii. Provide a report to the Planning Commission that details how 92 the proposed Conditional Use is in keeping with the 93 surrounding residential or commercial character. If 94 surrounding land uses are residential in nature, the 95 Implementation Plan should note the density and bulk 96 standards of surrounding neighborhoods. If surrounding land 97 uses are commercial in nature, the Implementation Plan should 98 consider issues of traffic, noise, and compatibility. 99 100 30.42 Livery stables and riding academies, provided that the corrals shall be at 101 least 200 feet from any dwelling, school, church, eating place and 102 intermittent or running, natural or artificial watercourses. 103 104 30.43 Museums, nature centers, and cultural facilities. 105 106 30.44 Commercial uses customarily incidental to the principal use 107 located on the same premises inclusive of eating and drinking 108 establishments, retail businesses, and service businesses. 109 110 (a) Off-Street Parking requirements for commercial uses shall refer to 111 Article 6, Section 3. 112 (b) No structure housing a commercial use shall be located within 30 feet 113 of a lot line. 114 115 30.5 Setbacks. No structure, equipment or game court surface permitted under this 116 section shall be located nearer than 30 feet to any lot line. 117 118 30.6 Building height. No structure permitted under this section shall exceed 3 stories or 119 35 feet in height. 120 121 30.7 Signs. Signs shall meet the regulations found in article 5, section 4, supplementary 122 sign regulations. 123 124 30.8 Parking spaces. Parking for non-residential uses and structures, excluding gazebos, 125 is required at a rate of one parking space per 300 S.F. of floor area or in accordance with 126 Article 6, Section 3, whichever is greater. 127 128 30.81 Planning Commission may waive some or all of the required parking if the 129 applicant can demonstrate that development is a fully accessible pedestrian- 130 oriented facility and/or is served by a variety of transportation modes. 131 132 30.9 Performance standards. All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in 133 article 5, section 8.1. 134 Draft Recreation and Open Space Zone March 29, 2010 Page 3 of 6

135 30.10 Site development plan approval. Site development plan approval in accordance 136 with article 10, section 2 hereof shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits 137 for the erection or enlargement of all structures, development of recreation facilities, and 138 prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for any change of use. 139 140 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 141 142 That Appendix B- Zoning, Article 4- Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations be amended by 143 deleting text indicated in red bold strike-through and inserting text indicated in blue bold italics 144 as follows: 145 146 Section 4.10. R-20, R-15, R-10, R-8, RM-1, RM-2 planned neighborhood design option and 147 recreation and open space zone (ROS). 148 149 Bulk and Parking Standards for PND within the following zones: R-20, R-15, R-10, R- 150 8, RM-1, RM-2, as well as Bulk and Parking Standards for the ROS zone are as follows: 151 One-Family Multiplex One-Family Lot Duplex Detached Dwellings Line Dwellings Dwellings Dwellings Minimum requirements per dwelling unit: Lot area (sq. ft.) 7,500 6,000 4,500 4,000 Lot width (ft.) 70 65 40 Lot depth (ft.) 100 90 100 Off-street parking 2 2 2 2 spaces Minimum requirements per building: Front yard (ft.) 25 20 25 30 Minimum side yard 8 -- -- 10 (ft.) Total side yards 20 30 10 30 (ft.) Rear yard (ft.) 30 40 30 20 Lot width (ft.) 80 Lot depth (ft.) 80 Maximum permitted: Building height Draft Recreation and Open Space Zone March 29, 2010 Page 4 of 6

Stories 2 1/2 2 2 1/2 3 Feet 35 24 35 35 Lot coverage 40% 45% 45% 50% Number of dwelling units per 1 1 2 5 building 152 153 Section 4.11. R-20, R-15, R-10, R-8, RM-1, RM-2 planned neighborhood design option and 154 recreation and open space zone (ROS). 155 156 [Planned neighborhood design options Bulk and Parking Standards for PND within the 157 following zones: for R-20, R-15, R-10, R-8, RM-1 and RM-2, as well as Bulk and Parking 158 Standards for the ROS zone zones are as follows:] 159 Patio Townhouses Garden Houses Apts. Minimum requirements per dwelling unit: Minimum average lot area (sq. ft.) 3,500 2,200 1,800 Minimum lot area (sq. ft.) 3,000 2,000 1,800 Lot width (ft.) 40 22 Lot depth (ft.) 70 80 Off-street parking spaces 2 2 2 Minimum requirements per building: Lot area 1 acre Lot width (ft.) 100 Lot depth (ft.) 125 Building setback From street (ft.) 15 30 50 From property line (ft.) -- 20 50 Building spacing -- 30 50 Patio area 60% Patio dimension (ft.) 20 Maximum permitted: Building height Draft Recreation and Open Space Zone March 29, 2010 Page 5 of 6

Feet 24 35 35 Stories 2 3 2 Lot coverage 60% 75% 60% Average No. of dwelling units per 1 8 24 building 160 161 SYNOPSIS 162 The purpose of the proposed ordinance is to create a Recreation and Open 163 Space Zone that would be applied to City parks, protected open space, 164 recreation areas within residential developments, and other areas identified as 165 “Open Space” within the Land Development Plan. 166 167 Actions History 168 April 12, 2010 – Introduced at Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee Meeting 169 April 26, 2010 - First Reading at Council 170 Draft Recreation and Open Space Zone March 29, 2010 Page 6 of 6

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING BUDGET REVIEW A Special Council Meeting was held on May 18, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. with Council President Hogan presiding. Council members present were Mr. Bonar, Mrs. Russell (departed at 7:45 p.m.), Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Leary, Mr. McGiffin, Mrs. Williams, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Ruane. Council staff members present were Mr. DePrima, Mrs. Mitchell, Mrs. Tieman, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Carey was also present. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Council President Hogan noted that the Mayor’s Budget was deferred from the May 3, 2010 Meeting for consideration at this time; however, the Mayor requested that this review be deferred until the May 20, 2010 session prior to the Police Department’s Budget review. Mr. Salters moved for approval of the agenda, as amended, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried. Council President Hogan advised members that there have been several requests for public comment. Mrs. Williams moved to allow a 30-minute period for comment during each budget review session, seconded by Mr. Leary. Mr. Bonar suggested that15 minutes be set aside for public comments at the beginning of the meeting and encouraged groups to designate one (1) spokesperson. Mrs. Williams indicated no objections to the public comment period being at the beginning of the meeting. Mr. Leary clarified that the time permitted for public comments would not exceed 30 minutes. Mr. Ruane felt that the comments should be provided during the middle or at the conclusion of the session, feeling that the public would be better informed to comment after the presentation of the material. Mrs. Williams explained her understanding that those wishing to speak are already prepared to present their comments to Council regarding a particular issue or concern and that the idea is to provide them an opportunity to relay their comments. Mr. Bonar stated that most of the individuals wishing to address members of Council are well educated on the issues. He felt that a majority of those wishing to address members are from the business community and have been informed of what is included in the proposed budget. It was his opinion that anyone who takes the time to appear at the hearings has knowledge of what will be discussed and should be able to address members. The motion to provide up to 30 minutes for public comments at the beginning of each session of the budget hearings was carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes and two (2) no (Mrs. Russell and Mr. Ruane).

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET HEARINGS) MAY 18, 19, 20, and 25, 2010 PAGE 2 City Clerk’s Office Note: A brief introduction and presentation of the 2010/2011 Draft Budget was provided to members during a Special Council Meeting held on May 3, 2010, as well as presentation of Projected Revenues/Expenses for fiscal year 2010/2011 for the General Fund, Water/Wastewater Fund, and Electric Fund; Personnel and Salary Changes; and a presentation of the selected General Fund Division Budgets for FY 2010/2011. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Ms. Kelly McKown, 345 Estates Drive in Camden-Wyoming, addressed members on behalf of the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce (CDCC), indicating their opposition to any fee increases (property taxes, business licenses, utilities, etc.) due to the hardship to business owners. She advised members that the CDCC is concerned that increasing the cost to conduct business in the City will result in a continual decline in successful businesses in Dover. Ms. Kathy Sarchett, 20 McGinnis Pond Road in Frederica, indicated that she had submitted a letter and was addressing members on behalf of the business community and as a responsible landlord in Dover. She concurred with the previous statements regarding the CDCC, and stated that she and her husband provide affordable housing and that there is a need for such in the City. She requested that members take into consideration the effect that any fee increases have on the residents. There being no one else wishing to speak, Council President Hogan declared the public comment period closed. REVIEW OF 2010/2011 DRAFT BUDGET - WATER/WASTEWATER FUND Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, provided a presentation of the Fiscal 2010-2011 Draft Budget Review by Division (Exhibit #1). Mr. DePrima advised members that there are significant increases across the board in water and wastewater rates and the Kent County wastewater treatment fee. He explained that the increases are mainly the result of three (3) factors: 1) high rainwater has caused the City’s Inflow and Infiltration (I & I) problem to be significant, and rainwater entering the City’s system is sent to Kent County for treatment; 2) continuous reduction in water sales over several years, mostly related to the cutbacks and reductions in industrial production, which has been compounded last year and this year by the downturn in the economy, resulting in more empty residences, conservation of water usage by residents, etc.; and 3) the proposed Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Mr. DePrima explained that the CIP is based on three (3) high priorities as directed by Council (Priority #1 - fix the I&I system so that the City is not paying for leaking rainwater into system; Priority #2 - improve water quality and solve brown water issues; and Priority #3 - replacement of the aging infrastructure. Mr. DePrima stated that there is a fourth factor that plays a part in the proposed need for the increases: the City’s historically very low water and wastewater rates. He explained that these low rates, over the years, have made it impossible for the City to sustain the infrastructure. Water/Wastewater Model Presentation Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, provided a presentation of the City of Dover Water and Wastewater Fund Five Year Financial Forecast 2011-2015 (Exhibit #2).

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET HEARINGS) MAY 18, 19, 20, and 25, 2010 PAGE 3 In response to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Mitchell explained that the significance of having the reserves relates to how rating agencies rate credit to assure that there are sufficient cash reserves to cover any unforeseen circumstances. She noted that credit agencies also examine reserves and budget balance policies which ensure that monthly bills can continued to be paid during economic “down” times. She advised members that the City’s current bond rating for water/wastewater is A+ and that in 1997/1998 the City missed its debt covenant, which caused the City’s rating to be downgraded in 1999. The City’s rating was upgraded in 2002 and since then, the rating has been continued to increase. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the debt covenant prescribes how many times debt service requirements must be met, and explained that the City must have enough income to pay the debt service 1.2 times. Referring to Slide #13 of Exhibit #1, Mr. Ruane noted that the rate increases are based on a 1,000 gallon consumption, explaining that other narrative provided to members is based on a 7,000 gallon consumption. He also advised members that the $2.35 proposed rate increase is the amount necessary to cover the budget as presented, which is a continuation of the loan covenant that the City has already authorized for certain projects. Referring to Slide #14 of Exhibit #1, Mr. Ruane indicated that the City already has a commitment to sustain those projects currently underway and that a $1.76 proposed rate increase would be necessary to cover the bond covenant. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell indicated that the chart depicting the $1.76 rate increase is necessary to cover the FY 2010 debt and I & I issues. In response to the concerns relayed by Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Williams stated that the rate increase necessary could be decreased if other funds were received or CIP Projects were eliminated. She explained that Council still has the opportunity to bring other revenues in or remove CIP Projects in order to meet the debt covenant. Mr. Ruane questioned what sources of revenue, other than rates, would be available for utilities, noting that the utility is self-sustaining by rates. Mr. DePrima reiterated that the $1.76 rate increase assumes that there are no more CIP Projects and the City is left only with the debt of existing projects currently under construction and the I & I. Responding to Mrs. Williams, Mrs. Mitchell indicated that 1% of electric revenues ($1M) is maintained in the Contingency Fund. She stated that the $10M referenced by Mrs. Williams is the Depreciation Reserve which is required by the bond indenture. She explained that if funds were taken from one utility to another utility, it would be necessary to charge interest and it would require the transfer of funds to be formulated in the way of a loan. Mr. Salters cautioned members against borrowing from a reserve fund since there would be no means to replenish the reserve, and the City would be punished by lower bond ratings. Mr. Ruane relayed concern with taking money from another fund since it would be violating the sense of it being an enterprise fund that should stand on its own. He felt the alternative would be to choose to not provide the type of water quality that has been desired and not make necessary improvements.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET HEARINGS) MAY 18, 19, 20, and 25, 2010 PAGE 4 Mrs. Mitchell advised members that the City’s bond indenture requires the City’s revenues to be sufficient to meet expenses and debt covenant. If this is not accomplished, a rating downgrade will result. She explained that revenue bonds require revenues to meet debt requirements. Referring to Slide #15 of Exhibit #1, Mr. Hogan requested that staff provide the rate increases for the proposed budget ($4.52). Review of Division Budgets Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, reviewed the Water/Wastewater Fund for Fiscal Year 2010/2011 (Pages 2-7 of Exhibit #1), which included the Water/Wastewater Engineering, Wastewater Management, Water Management, Water Construction, and Water Treatment Plant Divisions. Responding to Mr. McGlumphy, Mrs. Teresa Tieman, Senior City Administrator, advised members that a salary increase of 3% plus 1% for the Pay for Performance system was budgeted for non- bargaining employees and 3% for bargaining employees, which are currently in contract negotiations. In regards to the flushing of the City’s water system and the brown water issue, Mr. Ruane requested that staff provide the Utility Committee with an update regarding these projects. Referring to Page 81 of the proposed Budget provided to members, Mr. DePrima noted that there are several factors that the City does not have control over such as rain (which is causing high water tables that cause an I & I problem), conservation of water by users. However, the City does have control over the CIP Projects. Based on previous comments, he indicated that these CIP Projects are related to the three (3) goals that were previously mentioned (I & I projects, water quality, and infrastructure replacement). By either deferring or eliminating these projects, he stated, rates could be impacted. Mr. DePrima advised members that some of the projects listed in the CIP were included to accommodate future growth of the Water Management System. Due to the current lack of growth being experienced, he indicated that staff considered deferring the Piney Point Well Project ($450,000 for FY2011) and the 1.0MG Elevated Water Storage Tank ($2,390,000 for FY2011) until FY2013, to be reviewed at a later time. Staff also reviewed the replacement of pump stations and selected a couple of these projects to be deferred also. He noted that there is a risk in delaying these projects. Due to the deferral of the I & I project this year, pending State funding, since this project has not begun, staff felt that the budgeted amount of $900,000 could be reduced to $500,000. Staff has not modeled rates based on these suggestions pending Council’s direction in this regard. Responding to Council President Hogan, Mr. DePrima stated that staff has suggested the possibility of deferring the Heatherfield Force Main Upgrade ($229,200), the Dover East Pump Station Abandonment and Sewer Line ($40,000), and the Brandywine Pump Station Replacement ($52,000). He advised members that since staff has utilized a proactive schedule for these projects, staff felt confident in deferring these projects.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET HEARINGS) MAY 18, 19, 20, and 25, 2010 PAGE 5 Mrs. Sharon Duca, Water/Wastewater Manager, advised members that, although all of the pump stations are approaching or have exceeded 30 years in age, due to a very aggressive preventive maintenance program, the City has been able to maintain them. Of those stations included in next year’s budget, with the exception of the Fox Hall Pump Station Replacement and Lepore Road Pump Station Replacement, she felt that the deferral of those projects as suggested by Mr. DePrima should not cause problems for the City. Mr. Ruane moved that the City Manager be directed to provide an alternative CIP Budget with the new modeling to determine the rate and determine if the change is significant, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy. Mr. McGiffin questioned if it was necessary to formalize these requests in the form of a motion or if staff would simply respond. On a call for the question by Mr. Bonar, the motion directing the City Manager to provide an alternative forecast to include the changes as recommended in the CIP Budget for the Water/Wastewater Budget was carried with Mr. McGiffin voting no (Mrs. Russell absent). Mr. DePrima reminded members that, as depicted in the “Average Quarterly Residential Water Rates” graph that was presented to members during their Special Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Page 37 of Attachment #1 to the Special Council Meeting Minutes of May 3, 2010), utilizing the new proposed rates, the City of Dover is within the lower third of water rates for the region and that the graph assumes there are no increases for other utility companies. Mr. Leary moved to recess until Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Williams and unanimously carried. Meeting Recessed at 7:54 P.M. WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2010 - 6:00 P.M. - 9:00 P.M. The Special Council Meeting reconvened on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. with Council President Hogan presiding. Council members present were Mr. Bonar, Mrs. Russell, Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Leary, Mr. McGiffin, Mrs. Williams, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Ruane. Council staff members present were Mr. DePrima, Mrs. Mitchell, Mrs. Tieman, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Carey was also present. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Council President Hogan reminded members that a public comment period of up to 30 minutes has been provided to afford the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed budget. Mr. Gerald Street, 39 Hazel Road, stated that he is addressing members as both a private citizen and on behalf of the Downtown Dover Partnership, of which he has been a member for over 20 years. As a private citizen, he understands there will be difficult decisions to make and expressed confidence that members will make the right decisions for the betterment of the community. On

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET HEARINGS) MAY 18, 19, 20, and 25, 2010 PAGE 6 behalf of the Downtown Dover Partnership (previously known as the Downtown Dover Development Corporation), he stated that for several years the work of this Partnership was accomplished by volunteers and support staff provided by the City. In the last 20 years, the Partnership has grown from owning one (1) property to now having acquired several properties. The Partnership is currently managing nine (9) different properties, with over 11 different tenants and two (2) non-occupied. Due to this growth, the Partnership could not continue to tackle helping the development of downtown Dover with only volunteers effectively. Mr. N.C. Vasuki, 235 Carnoustie Road, stated that he chose to live in the City due to the excellent services. He is not concerned with the City taxes as much as he is with the direction of the City, stating his feeling that the library is an important factor in the City’s future growth. He noted that for the first time in 49 years, the City has a major library project and that the leveraging of funds is being done exceptionally well. With the City’s cost at $4M, he reminded members that $12M is being provided by the State, foundations, etc. and is an excellent leveraging opportunity. He urged Council, as they deliberate in their review of the budget, that they continue to support the library so that it can be completed in the next 1½ years. Mr. Vasuki stated that the City has always provided excellent utility services and that such services need periodic inflationary adjustments. The City has always provided adjustments through incremental step increases or has delayed increases too long, causing the necessity to institute a large increase. It was his hope that Council would consider periodic inflationary adjustments for utilities. He also requested that Council take interest in reviewing the Local Service Function Budget and suggested that if City of Dover residents could be provided the same arrangement as New Castle County residents, the residents of Dover would gladly pay the City’s fee increases, noting that the City residents must currently pay for Kent County taxes and receive very little for this fee. He thanked members and Council and City Staff for providing excellent services to their residents. Mr. Ken Clendaniel, 3867 West Denneys Road, advised members that he serves as the President of the International Union of the Electronic, Electric, Salaried Machine and Furniture Workers - Communication Workers of America (IUE-CWA), representing 164 City positions. He stated that there are currently 152 positions filled, noting that within the last two (2) years, 12 positions have been vacated due to the hiring freeze. The employees that the Union represents work in the Public Utilities, Public Services, and Central Services Departments. Last year, there was a contract approved that provided for a 3.5% raise. He stated that in May, the Union met with City leaders who requested employees to take 12 furlough days, which would result in a salary reduction of 4.5%. After negotiations with the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP Union), employees were given nine (9) furlough days, which resulted in a salary reduction in the amount of 3.4%; therefore, the net result for the IUE/CWA employees was a .1% salary increase. After meeting with the City, Mr. Clendaniel advised members that the Union was requested to provide cost saving ideas. The membership developed 38 ideas which were presented to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee and, to his knowledge, only two (2) have been implemented. At this time, he is requesting that City Council approve some form of salary increase and no furlough days. Ms. Beverly Bresnahan, 14 Deerfield Court, addressed members on behalf of the Friends of the Dover Library (serves as Secretary). She stated that the Friends believe that the library project is very important to the community, should not be delayed, and should move forward on schedule.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET HEARINGS) MAY 18, 19, 20, and 25, 2010 PAGE 7 She stated that she participated as a part of the Friends group that staffed a table at Old Dover Days and that there was a lot of support provided by the community. The Friends also support the addition of the position of Assistant Library Director that is included in the proposed budget. It is their feeling that the library is currently understaffed and, as a result, customer service is suffering. She thanked members for their consideration regarding this matter. Ms. Justina Brewington, 4 Grand Hall, spoke in support of the City of Dover Library, indicating that there should not be a delay in this project. She also supported the proposed Assistant Library Director position, feeling that it would allow the Library Director the opportunity to promote programs and fundraising. She urged members to support the library project and the dire need to assist with the sickness of illiteracy in the community. Mr. Dan Beeker, 1033 Westview Terrace, questioned why the savings garnered by the decrease in electrical consumption was not passed on to the consumer and how much revenue was projected to be borne for the rate hikes and utility rate increases for Fiscal Year 2011. Responding, Mr. DePrima indicated that this information would be provided to Mr. Beeker by tomorrow morning. Mr. Jim Stewart, 742 Bicentennial Boulevard, spoke in favor of the library project, advising members that he has served on the Steering Committee since its inception and serves as a member of the Library Foundation. He advised members that he was recently made aware of an example of what happens when a project is halted and grant money must be returned. He explained the difficulty in obtaining grant funds and how it would become even more difficult for an organization that had returned grant funds to obtain grant funds in the future. He noted that the library project will create progress in the redevelopment of downtown Dover. Mr. Stewart advised members of his familiarity with property management and stated that the library project is one of the best combinations of construction and architectural management he has ever observed. He commended the group the City has obtained for this project. He urged members to retain the budgeted funds for the library project to allow it to move forward as scheduled. Ms. Dorothy Snyder, 9 Douglas Court, advised members that she was appointed to serve on the Dover Library Commission in 2001 and at that time, was made aware of the overcrowding at the library. She stated that the library project is greatly needed and that there has been a lot of support from the community. She relayed concern with the vacancy of the Assistant Library Director position for 14 months. When the current Library Director was hired, there was an expectation that there would be an Assistant Library Director and this need has increased. At the request of the Dover Library Commission, she indicated the desperate need for the Assistant Library Director and requested that members consider these concerns in their deliberations of the proposed Budget. There being no one else wishing to speak, Council President Hogan declared the public comment period closed. REVIEW OF 2010/2011 DRAFT BUDGET - GENERAL FUND Mr. DePrima reviewed the General Fund Budget for fiscal year 2010/2011 (Pages 8-25 of Exhibit #1).

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET HEARINGS) MAY 18, 19, 20, and 25, 2010 PAGE 8 Parks, Recreation, and Library Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, reviewed the Parks, Recreation, and Library Budgets. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima stated that there were some funds granted this year from the Parkland Reserve Fund for additional storage at the Pitts Center, which is now ready for construction. Referring to the $45,000 included in the CIP, he reminded members that funds were eliminated for CIP playground improvements last year. Mr. Zachery Carter, Director of Parks and Recreation, advised members that the operation of the Pitts Center has exceeded what was anticipated. Of the $45,000 included in the CIP, he advised members that $15,000 is for the refurbishment of the basketball court in Mayfair to address safety issues. The remaining $30,000 is for the construction of skate spots, to address the overwhelming need to accommodate skateboarding. It is anticipated that a skate park facility will be constructed sometime in the future. In response to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Carter noted that there are approximately 70,000 users of the Pitts Center and that 50% are users outside of the City limits. The users are dependent upon the programs that are offered. Although Kent County had indicated a desire to build a similar Center, he does not anticipated this occurring within the next fiscal year. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Ms. Margery Cyr, Library Director, advised members that the Library entered into a partnership with the Delaware Economic Development Office (DEDO) last November to create a job center program at the library. The job center is open on Wednesday mornings and Monday evenings to people that are currently unemployed and seeking work. It is staffed by a combination of volunteers and current Library staff, who work one-on-one with unemployed individuals who need to develop resumes or learn skills, such as learning how to dress, participate in interview, answer questions on a resume, create online resumes, and apply for jobs online. It has been discovered that many individuals do not have the knowledge of the technology or the skills necessary to even complete the application process. She advised members that this program has been very successful, has served over 500 individuals, and has found employment for many participants. Ms. Cyr also advised members that the Library provides computer training classes at all levels and programs. These classes are opened to the public and are free of charge. There are 21 computers available for the public and they are limited to 75 minutes per day, due to the demand for this service. It is proposed that the new Library will provide 82 computers for public use. Ms. Cyr felt that the Library is the heart of the community and that the Library’s responsibility is larger than simply providing books. She felt the responsibility includes serving people’s greater needs, such as combating illiteracy, searching for employment, etc., and that the new Library building project should be a priority. Although the job center is adequately staffed, additional staffing is needed in the area of public service, at the circulation desk and children’s services desk. She noted that the Library has had difficulty assuring that these desks are staffed during all hours that the library is open.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET HEARINGS) MAY 18, 19, 20, and 25, 2010 PAGE 9 In response to Mr. Ruane, Ms. Cyr indicated that the Library actually developed the concept for the job center program in response to the number of customers seeking this type of assistance; therefore, the Library responded to a community need. She confirmed that the access to the DEDO was limited and, because the library is open from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., there were many more hours of public access available at the Library. Public Services Mr. DePrima reviewed the Public Services Budget, including the Life Safety, Economic Development, Inspections and Permitting, Grounds, Sanitation, Streets, and Public Services Administration Divisions. At the request of a constituent, Mr. Ruane questioned if staff would consider eliminating half of the bulb plantings. Responding, Mr. DePrima felt that the savings would be minimal and that, in order to realize any type of savings, it would be necessary to make huge cuts in the City’s beautification programs. He advised members that there have been reductions in the City’s plantings, noting that the hanging baskets located downtown have been eliminated to help with expenses and manpower. Mrs. Russell indicated her support of the beautification programs, and although she felt that the employees do an awesome job, she was disappointed in the flowers this year for Old Dover Days. At the request of Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Teresa Tieman, Senior City Administrator, reviewed the graph provided titled “$11.70 Trash Rate Proportioned by % of Cost” (Exhibit #3). She advised members that the landfill fees are mandated by the Delaware Solid Waste Authority (DSWA) and increased approximately 40%. Mr. DePrima advised members that the City is currently in negotiations with DSWA regarding this fee. Although he does not anticipate a reduction in the charges, he is anticipating approval of a deferred payment plan. Staff is waiting for the final language in this regard prior to submitting a recommendation to Council as to whether the City should or should not move forward. For budgeting purposes, he stated that staff felt it best to include the fee approved by DSWA. He indicated that, should the City obtain relief by the DSWA in this regard, staff would present to Council a possible adjustment in the rate in any given month to reflect the deferral. Mr. DePrima advised members that as part of the Recycling Bill, over the next five (5) years, there will be $22M in grants/rebates to the providers of recycling services. There is a chance that the City will receive grant funds to offset the City’s investment for recycling and, if so, Council can make a decision at that time to lower the rate accordingly. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima stated that current operations are funded by the General Fund - property taxes, electric fund transfer, etc. If Council does not accept the trash fee at $11.70, it would cost the City approximately $905,678. Noting that for every .01¢ of property tax the City receives $309,000, Mr. Ruane advised members that an additional .03¢ of property tax would be necessary to cover the trash fees. Mr. Ruane questioned the advantages and difficulties faced by the pay-as-you-throw program. Mr. DePrima explained that under the the pay-as-you-throw program, there is a billing system set up based on the amount of waste put out for pickup. He stated that the highest technical version of

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET HEARINGS) MAY 18, 19, 20, and 25, 2010 PAGE 10 this program provides for bar codes to be put on trash containers which are read by a scanner on the trash truck and individuals are billed based on tonnage. A “low tech” version of this program is based on the size of a container used by a customer, so that a single individual would have a smaller container than that of a family of four (4) and the customer would pay less for the smaller containers. He suggested that the City consider this lower technical version of this program. Responding, Mr. Ruane indicated support of the pay-as-you-throw program, noting that there are many customers who now participate in the recycling program and have very little trash for the sanitation trucks; however, they are continuing to be charged the same amount prior to their participation in the recycling program. Mrs. Russell advised members that there are individuals who bring their trash from outside City limits and put their trash into containers throughout the City. She relayed concern with the fairness of charging residents for trash that they did not discard. There being no objections, Council President Hogan called for a brief recess. Meeting recessed at 7:21 p.m. and reconvened at 7:37 p.m. Referring to the Public Services Administration Division, Mrs. Russell relayed concern with the City providing the proposed salary increases at this time due to the current economic situation. Planning and Community Enhancement Services Mr. DePrima reviewed the Planning and Community Enhancement Budget, including the Planning, Code Enforcement, and Community Development Divisions. In response to Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima explained the difficulty of any planning department generating enough revenues through fees to pay for itself. Noting that the end product of a planning department is a building, house, subdivision, etc., staff grouped the planning department expenses and lumped them with construction code enforcement and others in the division, and matched them up so that their expenses are paid through all the building permit fees, rental license fees, and other fees related to inspections in an attempt to cover the expenses of the department. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, indicated that approximately two (2) years ago, the City proposed a new fee package and at that time, staff conducted a comparison of the fees with Kent County, New Castle County, Milford, Newark, and Smyrna, and the City’s planning application fees were significantly lower. She also reminded members that, at that time, the fee increases proposed for the City were not approved by Council. Mr. Ruane indicated a desire to obtain an updated analysis. Referring to the Code Enforcement Division, Mr. Salters relayed concern with the elimination of a code enforcement officer, feeling that this would delay enforcement of violations and would take longer to resolve such issues. Responding, Mrs. Townshend indicated that there may be a noticeable difference in this regard; however, she advised members that with the realities of the budget, the monies are not available. She stated the probability of delayed action on problem cases, a decrease

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET HEARINGS) MAY 18, 19, 20, and 25, 2010 PAGE 11 in housing inspections, etc. She assured members that staff prioritize issues and that, in regards to problem rental properties, staff will be utilizing another tool and using staff time more effectively. At the request of Mr. Bonar, Mrs. Townshend assured members that staff would provide a (five) 5-year trend of code enforcement inspections next week. Mr. McGiffin advised members that in some jurisdictions, judges have ordered landlords who own and operate dilapidated properties to actually live at one of those properties for a period of time and suggested that this may be something for the City to consider. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend explained that when an issue is presented to the courts, her understanding is that the courts are considering the payment of the fine and not the correction of the violations. After much discussion, Mrs. Townshend assured members that additional information will be obtained to determine if there is a legislative solution regarding these issues. Fire Mr. DePrima reviewed the Fire Department Budget. Responding to Mr. Bonar, Fire Chief Sean Christiansen indicated that the current plan calls for replacement of engines is between 12-13 years and ladders is between 12-15 years. This plan has been compared to other jurisdictions and is in line. In addition, he stated that other companies maintain a reserve of certain apparatus. He advised members that there is no request for apparatus replacement for the upcoming fiscal year and that, although two (2) pieces of apparatus are scheduled for replacement in the following fiscal year, the Fire Department has only included one (1) in the CIP. He assured members that the apparatus is not replaced simply due to age but rather based on issues with maintenance. Chief Christiansen advised members that the Fire Department’s apparatus goes through yearly testing through the Department of Transportation and must meet NFPA standards. In response to Mr. Ruane, Fire Chief Christiansen indicated that, according to Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, the City of Dover receives less than $15,000 from Kent County and New Castle County provides $150,000. He noted that, although the Dover Fire Department responds to more calls, the City receives the same amount as other fire departments within Kent County. Fire Chief Christiansen estimated that a fair amount to be provided to the Dover Fire Department by Kent County would be approximately $150,000. Council President Hogan requested that the Fire Department provide members with the percentage of calls that are made by the company for emergencies outside of the City limits. Mr. Bonar moved to recess until Thursday, May 20, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried. Meeting Recessed at 8:27 P.M.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET HEARINGS) MAY 18, 19, 20, and 25, 2010 PAGE 12 THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2010 - 6:00 P.M. - 9:00 P.M. The Special Council Meeting reconvened on Thursday, May 20, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. with Council President Hogan presiding. Council members present were Mr. Bonar, Mrs. Russell, Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Leary, Mrs. Williams, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Ruane. Mr. McGiffin was absent. Council staff members present were Mr. DePrima, Mrs. Mitchell, Mrs. Tieman, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Carey was also present. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Council President Hogan reminded members that a public comment period of up to 30 minutes has been provided to afford the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed budget. Ms. Annette Hubbard, 24 Belrive Court, relayed appreciation to those members of Council who have voiced their objections to the increase in salaries included in the budget. Although the residents realize that these employees are deserving of a salary increase, she reminded members of the current economic times and the effect it has had on residents. She noted that many of these residents have lost employment, have moved back with their parents, etc. Mr. Phil McGinnis, Owner/President of McGinnis Commercial Real Estate Company - 555 E. Loockerman Street, reviewed a presentation he provided to members (Exhibit #4) and noted that the last page is a summary of his concerns. Mrs. Judy Diogo, Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce - 435 N. DuPont Highway, indicated that the membership has concerns with the proposed 20% property tax increase, services increase (water, sewer, and trash), and the proposed business license fee increases. Although it is understood that the City needs to balance the budget, she cautioned members not to balance the budget based on an increase in taxes but rather a decrease of expenses. She offered a team of Chamber members to meet with City officials to develop solutions and potential means of cutting expenses. It is understood that there will be a need to have some increases, but suggested there may be viable solutions that would be more palpable and reasonable and help businesses during this economic downturn. Mr. David Boothe, President/Financial Advisor of Boothe Investment Group - 450 Kings Highway, stated that, as a financial planner, he is appalled that everyone is “tightening up” except the City government during these economic times. It is his hope that members will accept the offer made by Mrs. Diogo to put together a panel to review expenses to determine if there are areas where there could be decreases. He stated that this is the type of action that is being taken by the residents to make ends meet and that they are not going to their employer and demanding a raise because their expenses have increased. If the proposed increases are implemented, Mr. Boothe advised members that there is going to be absolute anger from their constituents. Ms. Gwen Elliott, 999 Sorghum Mill Road in Lebanon, advised members that she frequently uses the Dover Library. She referred to a recent article titled “Dover’s Library Helping Job Seekers” in the Dover Post and noted that it is an example of what a vital contribution the Dover Library

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET HEARINGS) MAY 18, 19, 20, and 25, 2010 PAGE 13 provides to the community. She urged members to support the new Library and provide the necessary funds to hire an Assistant Library Director. Mr. Dean Holden, Cabe Associates - resides at 10 Rodney Road, stated his support for the skate spots to be included in the proposed budget. With reference to utility and trash rates, he felt that generally the costs associated with providing the utilities to the residents need to reflect the costs associated to the City. He felt it important not to play a “shell game” with these costs. Ms. Lisa Hastings, Managing Partner of the Dover’s Office of Faw Casson and Company - 160 Greentree Road, advised members that no one is getting a raise these days. He stated that businesses are having to recognize that with a “flat top line”, it is necessary to make strategic decisions. Businesses do not have the ability to go to the people who keep them in business and demand more money. She requested that members take into consideration that the decisions they are about to make will impact everyone incrementally. Mr. K.C. Sheth, 21 St. Anne’s Court, advised members that today’s Wall Street Journal headline states, “In 44 years there is only 1% inflation in the United States”. Although the low inflation rate is good, he indicated that this is reflective of the current economy. With reference to the proposed 20% increase in property taxes, he stated that the result would be more than 20% since the City just completed a reassessment. He expressed his understanding of the difficult decisions facing Council in consider the City’s Budget. Mr. Sheth explained his feeling that the City has had to carry the burden of providing everyone with infrastructure services with very little revenue. He suggested that this may not be the time to institute increases. Mr. William Hare, Dover resident and former member of City Council, 23 Woodburn Circle, indicated his concurrence with the comments that have been previously made. He explained that businesses do not have the option to raise costs, they must lower prices, lay employees off, etc., in order to make ends meet. It was his opinion that this type of action has not been taken by the City, explaining that, although development in the City has decreased, the City maintains the same number of inspectors. He urged members to make the difficult decisions they were elected to make and not to be concerned about getting re-elected. Mr. Hare also relayed his opposition to any consideration of pay increases in this economy, noting that everyone in the State has taken a decrease, people are losing jobs, losing homes, etc. He requested that members understand that the decisions they make affect everyone. Council President Hogan relayed appreciation for the comments made and assured the public that every member of Council takes the job seriously. He indicated that over the past two (2) years, the number of City of Dover employees has decreased by 21, the budget was decreased last year, and employee furloughs were instituted, etc. Although the City’s budget is a difficult challenge, City Council makes every effort to make the best decision. REVIEW OF 2010/2011 DRAFT BUDGET - GENERAL FUND Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, continued the review of the General Fund Budget for fiscal year 2010/2011 (Pages 8-25 of Exhibit #1).

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET HEARINGS) MAY 18, 19, 20, and 25, 2010 PAGE 14 Mayor Mr. DePrima reviewed the Mayor’s Budget. He noted that the $5,000 included in the Mayor’s Budget for advertisement (Line Item 30-25), indicates that the funds are for the Home Ownership Initiatives and that, although the Mayor has requested that the $5,000 advertisement funds be retained, the description for its use may not be correct. He also advised members that the $126,000 listed under Other Equipment Purchase (Line Item #40-25), for the purchase of surveillance cameras, should be only $63,000. Mayor Carey explained that the $5,000 budgeted for advertisement is for foreclosures, home ownership in the Blue Print Community Program, and funds for economic development. With regards to the purchase of the surveillance cameras, Mayor Carey noted the receipt of correspondence from the Downtown Dover Partnership in support of the expenditure in the amount of $63,000 for this purchase. With regards to the purchase of a new vehicle, Mayor Carey stated that since this purchase has been deferred for the past three (3) years, and he has included this purchase for consideration if the necessary funds are available. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima stated that the Community Development Director has indicated very limited funds are available in the budget to promote Community Development programs. He explained that the Mayor’s request is to provide individuals information to prevent foreclosures. In response to Mr. Ruane regarding the inclusion of radio paging, Mayor Carey explained that there is a difference in the cost to operate the Reverse 911 System and the radio paging system, as well as the time frame for the dissemination of calls. He advised members that, during the last emergency, it took the Reverse 911 System approximately three (3) hours to complete notifications, and the City would be normally be charged for each telephone call. (He noted that for the last emergency, the Reverse 911 System was paid for by the State.) Mayor Carey advised members that the idea is to install the radio paging system in City buildings and make the purchase of the units available for others such as hospitals, nursing homes, schools, malls, industrial complexes, etc. at a cost of $600 each. He stated that this system can provide emergency notification to everyone within 30 seconds to one (1) minute. Responding to Mr. Bonar, Mayor Carey stated that he has applied for Homeland Security Grants for the past two (2) years and has not received any funds. Referring to the cameras in the downtown area, Mr. Salters noted that the police reports indicated that criminal activity has decreased in the area and that five (5) to six (6) cameras have already been installed. He suggested that there could be a delay in the purchase of any additional cameras at this time. He also felt that the City should delay the purchase of a new car for the Mayor. Responding, Mayor Carey explained his intention was to continue to add a few cameras each year rather than making a large purchase. However, he relayed no objections to eliminating the funds.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET HEARINGS) MAY 18, 19, 20, and 25, 2010 PAGE 15 Police Mr. DePrima reviewed the Police Department Budget. Mr. Ruane requested that staff provide members with the percentage of salary increases for the Police Department, as it compares to the total budget, to reflect the City’s contractual obligations. Responding, Mrs. Tieman indicated that she would have to make some calculations and that, once completed, the information would be provided to members. Responding to Mr. Ruane regarding School Resource Officers, Chief Hosfelt suggested that members observe the use of non-police officers serving in this capacity, as proposed by the State Police, to determine if it proves to be acceptable prior to eliminating police officers for this purpose. He stated that there is a 60/40 split associated with the cost of providing School Resource Officers, noting that the City’s cost is 60% and the school’s cost is 40%. After further review of the budget, Chief Hosfelt advised members of potential savings, as follows: 1) CIP - $18,000 for in-car camera replacement, which is grant funded; 2) Line 30-61, Office Equipment Repairs and Maintenance - $15,000 for live scan, which is a State contract that is expected to continue; and 3) Line 30-68, Radio Equipment and Lease - $15,000 for radios, since the State will be mandating the replacement of all radios within the next few years, and as a result, the State will incur the expenses. He stated that purchase of these radios can be delayed since it is felt that the Police Department currently has enough radios to serve the City until that time. REVIEW OF 2010/2011 DRAFT BUDGET - ELECTRIC FUND Mr. DePrima provided members with the Electric Fund Budget for fiscal year 2010/2011 (Pages 26- 32 of Exhibit #1). Electric Model Presentation Mrs. Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, provided a presentation of the City of Dover Electric Revenue Fund Five Year Financial Forecast 2011-2015 (Exhibit #5). Mr. DePrima reminded members that the City previously utilized a power cost adjustment (PCA) on electric utility bills, whereby the City adjusted power, and suggested that such a PCA could be used to credit customers, should Council wish to utilize the funds in the fund balances for this purpose. He referred to the packet provided to members (Exhibit #6) and explained that Page 10 of the document, titled “Comparison of Power Cost Adjustment (PCA) Rates on Various Consumption Levels”, depicts the adjustments that could be accomplished either monthly or annually. For a typical residential customer utilizing 1,000 kw per month, there could be a savings between $67.19 to $33.60 annually. Noting that the balances are maxed , Mr. McGlumphy suggested that Council consider reducing the minimum requirements for those that require 12% to 8% to meet City policies. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima clarified that the only policy that is maxed for the Electric Fund is the Balance Carry Forward Policy. Mrs. Mitchell indicated that there currently is no amount listed for the Purchased Power Adjustment, as listed on Page 41 of the Draft Budget. She explained

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET HEARINGS) MAY 18, 19, 20, and 25, 2010 PAGE 16 that the $4M, should Council wish, would be listed as a reduction in revenues for the Purchased Power Adjustment. She referred to Page 10 of Exhibit #5, which provides the projected net margins, and advised members that the $4M Power Cost Adjustment (PCA) was run through the model and indicates that the City would meet its debt covenant 1.63 times. The ten (10) year trend has been 2.5 to 3.5; however, she had no objections to taking the $4M and meeting the covenant at 1.63 times. She stressed that any more than the $4M could prevent the City from meeting the covenant requirement. In response to Mr. Ruane regarding the suggestion of transferring funds from the Electric Fund to General Fund, Mrs. Mitchell confirmed that the policy is 6½% or up to $7,250,000, which is the amount that has been included in the draft Budget. In response to Council President Hogan, Mrs. Mitchell confirmed that the City could return $2M to customers through the PCA and transfer $1M to the Water/Wastewater Fund, through the General Fund, to effectively resolve the issue in that fund, and if an additional $1M was transferred to the General Fund, it could result in a reduction of property taxes by approximately .03¢. Elaborating, Mr. DePrima indicated that Council would be required to acknowledge a waiver from the City Policy in this regard. He also reminded members that when the policy was established, it was not envisioned that the City would be losing 3/4 of the City’s transfer tax and noted that these are extraordinary circumstances. There being no objections, Council President Hogan declared a brief recess. Meeting recessed at 7:37 p.m. and reconvened at 7:51 p.m. Review of Division Budgets Mr. DePrima reviewed the Electric Fund for fiscal year 2010/2011 (Pages 26-32 of Exhibit #1), which included the Public Utilities Administration, Systems Operations, Electric Engineering, Electric Transmission and Distribution (T&D), Power Plant Operations, and Power Supply Divisions. Responding to Mr. Bonar, Mr. Ronald Lunt, Director of Public Utilities, indicated that most of the underground conversion projects have been identified through outage reports, including tree and major maintenance issues. Mr. Bonar noted that although there are additional costs for these projects, the conversion of the overhead lines is a reliability issue. FINAL DISCUSSION/ACTION AND WRAP-UP OF ALL BUDGETS Mr. DePrima reviewed the Water/Wastewater Fund -Future Projected Rate Increase (Exhibit #7), which was created as a result of a Council directive from previous hearings. Mrs. Williams noted that staff has attended to modifying some of the expenses included in the draft Budget by offering some cost savings; however, there has been no offer to cut expenses. She questioned what effect reducing the water rates by half would have on the budget.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET HEARINGS) MAY 18, 19, 20, and 25, 2010 PAGE 17 Mr. Mitchell advised members that the annual cost for a customer utilizing 5,000 gallons would be $271.20 under the proposed budget, and with the revised CIP, the cost would be $216.60, resulting in a difference of $54.60. This savings reflects the combined cost for water and wastewater. Mr. Salters moved to recess until Tuesday, May 25, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried. Meeting Recessed at 8:30 P.M. TUESDAY, MAY 25, 2010 - 6:00 P.M. - 9:00 P.M. The Special Council Meeting reconvened on Tuesday, May 25, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. with Council President Hogan presiding. Council members present were Mr. Bonar, Mrs. Russell, Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Leary, Mrs. Williams, Mr. McGiffin, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Ruane. Council staff members present were Mr. DePrima, Mrs. Mitchell, Mrs. Tieman, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Carey was also present. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Council President Hogan reminded members that a public comment period of up to 30 minutes has been provided to afford the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed budget. Mr. Phil McGinnis, Owner/President of McGinnis Commercial Real Estate Company - 555 E. Loockerman Street, reviewed a presentation he provided to members (Exhibit #8). As a downtown property owner, he relayed his opposition to the proposed property tax increase as well as the (Business Improvement District) BID tax. It was his feeling that raising property taxes in a declining market is problematic and also noted that the City has just completed a reassessment, which shifts the tax burden to business owners. Mr. Scott Kidner, 3 Shinnecock Road, suggested that if the proposed budget is adopted as presented, the City will have resolved some of their current problems. However, he noted that there are some systemic issues that the City will be facing in future years. He relayed opposition to the proposed tax increase and suggested that the systemic issues will not continue to be resolved by instituting additional taxes and increasing fees. Mr. Todd Stonesifer, 115 N. State Street, indicated his opposition to the increase in property taxes, noting that his taxes will increase both as a resident and landlord. He stated that he is unable to increase rental fees to compensate for the additional property taxes due to competition in the area. He advised members that he also serves as a realtor and during the past few years, due to the economic climate, he has had a decrease in salary and suggested that members consider whether the City can afford salary increases for their employees. Ms. Jill McKinney, 35 Arbor Drive, relayed opposition to any increase in property taxes or fees. She relayed confusion as to why the salary increases remain in the proposed budget, questioning why this would be occurring during a time when the residents either have no job, are taking salary reductions, taking leave of absences without pay, etc. She also relayed opposition to the inclusion

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET HEARINGS) MAY 18, 19, 20, and 25, 2010 PAGE 18 of a new car for the Mayor, explaining that when individuals can not afford a new car, they must delay such a purchase. She suggested that members of Council consider the funds that they currently receive in order to balance the budget rather than determining how additional funds can be obtained. Former Mayor James Hutchison, Gleneagles Court, stated that he had the distinct honor of serving as Mayor for the City of Dover from 1994 through 2004. During this time period, economic growth in the City was strong. With the support of Council and staff working together, there was never a tax increase in those (ten) 10 years. Although he felt that a tax increase may be necessary, he questioned how much of a tax increase is necessary. He suggested that members consider the following issues: 1) no pay raises for employees during this budget year; 2) do not replace any current employee who leaves the City’s employment without the approval of Council, which he noted is a current policy; 3) request the City Manager to meet with labor groups and request suspension of all contract negotiations for this current budget year, explaining that negotiations should not continue when there is nothing available to negotiate; and 4) review the healthcare plan for new hires, effective January 1, 2011. He suggested that a committee be formulated to review and provide a recommendation that would allow new hires to share healthcare costs. Mayor Hutchison noted that the current trash fee is $5.85 and that the proposed is $11.70. It was his feeling that a $15 trash fee would not be unfair for providing this service. COUNCIL BUDGET MARKUP WORK SESSIONS Mr. DePrima referred to the BID tax that was previously mentioned by Mr. McGinnis and explained that staff’s intention was to maintain the same rate and apply the old assessed values with the old assessed rates to determine the tax. As a result, there would be a rolled-back tax rate to keep the overall amount the same. Since the BID tax had already been presented to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee, who formulated a recommendation for Council, Mr. McGlumphy suggested that the matter may require reconsideration by the Committee. Responding, Mr. DePrima stated that since the Committee’s recommendation is being presented to Council for consideration, staff would correct the information being presented to City Council. Mr. DePrima provided members with a worksheet title “Estimated Schedule of Expenses and Revenues as of April 29 2010” (Exhibit #9) and explained that the worksheet provides information regarding the suggestion of transferring $1M to the General Fund and $1M to help the Water Fund deficit. The model presented provides a transfer of $1M to the General Fund and zeros out the transfer from the Water Fund to the General Fund, maintaining approximately $606,000 in the Water Fund. Therefore, the actual transfer from the Electric Fund to the General Fund was $1.6M, and funds were then shifted back to the Water Fund to help that deficit. Mr. DePrima reviewed the worksheet in detail and utilized the original worksheet (Exhibit #10) as a comparison. (Note: Exhibit #10 was originally presented to Council during the May 3, 2010 Special Council Meeting Budget Hearings and included as Exhibit #2 to those minutes.)

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET HEARINGS) MAY 18, 19, 20, and 25, 2010 PAGE 19 Council President Hogan questioned if members wish to include a Power Cost Adjustment (PCA) and, if so, how much, and whether any of these funds would be transferred to the General Fund to be utilized for the purposes as outlined by staff. Mr. Ruane moved to authorize a Power Cost Adjustment (PCA) of $4M, seconded by Mr. Leary. Mr. Ruane felt that the action would show a good faith effort on the part of the City to make an adjustment based on an excess carry forward in excess of $4M. This money would go back to the rate payers, since this is an Enterprise Fund and was earned by the rate payers who have been paying a higher amount for this service than the City has been paying in the open market. He reminded members that such a refund is what the City had previously indicated would be provided to the rate payers if warranted. He stated that the other option simply puts the burden on another part of the budget and felt it is not a good practice to utilize the Electric Fund to subsidize General Fund needs and services. Mr. McGiffin indicated his support for a PCA; however, he suggested that the burden of operating the City through the General Fund be shared, at least in part, by those who do not pay property tax but pay for electric service. As a result, he indicated support of a $2M PCA and felt that $1M should be utilized to decrease property tax. He also felt that transferring funds to the Water Fund would also be appropriate. Mr. Ruane reminded members that property taxes can be a deduction on income tax, whereas electric bills are not tax deductible. The motion to transfer $4M from the carry forward balance in the Electric Fund into a PCA for electric bills failed by a roll call vote of five (5) no and four (4) yes (Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Leary, Mrs. Williams, and Mr. Ruane). Mr. McGiffin moved to use $2M for a Power Cost Adjustment (PCA), and transfer $1,606,000 to the General Fund, with $606,000 being used to eliminate the transfer from Water/Wastewater Fund to the General Fund, and $1M being used to reduce the property tax increase, seconded by Mr. Bonar and carried by a roll call vote of six (6) yes and three (no) (Mr. McGlumphy, Mrs. Williams, and Mr. Ruane). Mr. Ruane relayed concern with the notion that there is a deficit in the General Fund, which is basically composed of the salary increases. Mr. Ruane moved to allow for salary discussion immediately, seconded by Mrs. Williams and carried with Council President Hogan voting no. Mr. McGiffin felt that there are different issues that should be discussed regarding the salaries: 1) there are three (3) management employees (Mr. DePrima, Mrs. Townshend, and Mr. Carter) who forewent a salary increase last year; 2) salary increases for those employees that are not in a bargaining unit; and 3) salary increase for those employees that are within a bargaining unit.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET HEARINGS) MAY 18, 19, 20, and 25, 2010 PAGE 20 Mr. McGiffin moved that the salaries for the three (3) management employees (Mr. DePrima, Mrs. Townshend, and Mr. Carter) be deferred until the mid-year review. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters. Mr. Leary felt that members should consider all salaries to allow for a better understanding of the larger issue, and then break the issue down later if necessary. He noted that he, along with other members, had requested that staff provide information regarding salaries and their effect on the budget (Exhibit #11 - Leary; Exhibit #12 - McGlumphy; and Exhibit #13 - Williams). Mr. McGiffin advised members that it is his understanding that these employees are willing to continue the holding off their salary increases until the mid-year review, and since these are of such a different character, he felt that it would unfairly distort the rest of the conversation regarding salaries. The motion that the salaries for the three (3) management employees (Mr. DePrima, Mrs. Townshend, and Mr. Carter) be deferred until the mid-year review failed by a roll call vote of five (5) no and four (4) yes (Mrs. Russell, Mr. McGiffin, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Hogan). Mr. Leary moved for a 5-minute recess to allow for staff to provide copies of exhibit information to all members of Council, seconded by Mrs. Williams and unanimously carried. Meeting recessed at 7:04 p.m. and reconvened at 7:14 p.m. Mr. Leary reviewed staff responses to questions he had requested (see Exhibit #11). Mrs. Williams reviewed staff responses to questions she had requested (see Exhibit #13). Referring to the previous motion to authorize $1,606,000 to be transferred to the General Fund, with $606,000 being used to eliminate the transfer from Water/Wastewater Fund to the General Fund, Mr. Ruane questioned what effect this would have in terms of supporting the budget as presented. Responding, Mr. DePrima explained that it would reduce the tax rate from an increase of approximately 20.1% down to approximately 11% and adds $600,000 into the Water Fund. Referring to Exhibit #13, he stated that the “General Fund Gap” consists of the tax increase, trash fee increase, and business license fee increase. Not including the business license fee increase, he stated that the $2.8M would become $1.8M; thereby, reducing the gap by $1M. Considering the action taken by Council during their Regular Meeting of May 24, 2010 regarding the business license fee increase, this gap would be reduced by another $43,000. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima stated that the 2.7¢ increase per $100 on tax rate, trash fee, and business license fees would take care of that difference. Mr. Ruane suggested that the City roll back the taxes, as required by the Dover Code, and then consider instituting a tax rate increase. Mr. Ruane moved to approve the roll back taxes of 31.08¢ per $100 due to the reassessment, which is required by the Dover Code, seconded by Mr. McGiffin.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET HEARINGS) MAY 18, 19, 20, and 25, 2010 PAGE 21 In response to Mr. Leary, Mrs. Tieman stated that the roll back would effectively take the tax rate back to the 2005 revaluation. The motion to approve the roll back tax rate from the current 33¢ to 31.08¢ due to the reassessment required by State law requiring that the taxes be rolled back so that the City receives no more total income than before the reassessment was carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes and one (1) no (Mr. Bonar). Mr. Ruane moved to increase the tax rate by 2.7¢ per $100, seconded by Mr. McGiffin. Mr. Leary advised members that he would not approve a tax increase until complete consideration of the salary issues. The motion to increase the tax rate by 2.7¢ per $100 was carried by a roll call vote of five (5) yes and four (4) no (Mr. Bonar, Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Leary, and Mrs. Williams). Referring to Exhibit #11, Mr. McGiffin felt that if there was a 10% reduction in force for the City, it would create a dramatic, and possibly a tragic, reduction in the level of service that is currently provided by the City and would be extremely difficult for the City to recover; therefore, he could not support such a concept. With regards to those bargaining units that are currently in negotiations, he relayed concern with bargaining in good faith, explaining his feeling that there is not only a moral but a legal obligation to do so. If the City were to budget no salary increases with the intention of directing the bargaining team to agree to no salary increases because there is no money in the budget, the City would not be bargaining in good faith, which he could not support. However, he indicated flexibility on the amount that should be budgeted and then negotiation within that budgeted amount. Relating to the concept of providing zero percent increase for non-bargaining employees, Mr. McGiffin relayed concerns with fairness amongst employees and that the message to those employees would be that they should become a member of a bargaining unit. He reminded members that the City staff is the reason that the City is able to deliver such good service and felt that it would be unconscionable to determine that these employees should receive no pay increase. Referring to concerns of Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. McGiffin indicated that his understanding of the State’s negotiations with employee unions is that the reduction in salaries is the result of negotiations where the unions were considering layoffs versus salary reductions. Mr. Leary moved to grant zero percent (0%) increase in salary to all non-bargaining employees, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy. Mr. Salters stated that the non-bargaining employees should be given the same consideration as bargaining employees and treated equally. He felt that these employees should not be penalized, noting that the non-bargaining employees work just as hard for the City as all other employees. The motion to grant zero percent (0%) increase in salary to all non-bargaining employees failed by a roll call vote of six (6) no and three (3) yes (Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Leary, and Mrs. Williams).

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET HEARINGS) MAY 18, 19, 20, and 25, 2010 PAGE 22 Mr. Ruane moved for approval of the trash fees as proposed (increase from $5.85 to $11.70), seconded by Mr. Bonar. Mr. DePrima provided members a chart depicting the proposed trash fees (Exhibit #14) and noted that there are various rates other than the $5.85 trash fee. These various rates are calculated based on service provided and whether the customer is located within or outside of City limits. Mr. Ruane advised members that the intention of his motion is to adopt the proposed trash fees as detailed in Exhibit #14. In response to Mr. Leary, Mr. DePrima stated that, of the $11.70, $1.18 is the fee that has been included for recycling. He noted that the increase proposed for recycling is $0.27 and that the current recycling fee is $0.91. He reiterated that the more trash that is recycled, there is less trash taken to the landfill, which will reduce landfill fees to the City. On a call for the question by Mr. Ruane, the motion for approval of the trash fees, as proposed in Exhibit #14, was carried by a roll call vote of six (6) yes and three (3) no (Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Leary, and Mrs. Williams). Mr. McGiffin moved to reduce the 3% plus 1% pay increase proposed for non-bargaining employees to 3%, with all of the increase to be allocated by Pay for Performance, seconded by Mr. Salters. Mr. Salters suggested that Council create a Study Committee to re-evaluate the City’s compensation package. The motion to reduce the raise for non-bargaining personnel from 4% to 3% with of it the increase to be allocated by Pay for Performance carried by a roll call vote of six (6) yes and three (3) no (Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Leary, and Mrs. Williams). Mrs. Williams moved to deny the salary adjustments as recommended by the consultants in their review through Pay-for-Performance for Mr. DePrima, Mr. Carter, and Mrs. Townshend. The motion was seconded by Mr. Leary and failed by a roll call vote of five (5) no and four (4) yes (Mr. Bonar, Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Leary, and Mrs. Williams). For clarification, members concurred with Council President Hogan regarding the failed motion, confirming that as such, Council has authorized the salary adjustments for Mr. DePrima, Mr. Carter, and Mrs. Townshend as recommended. Referring to Page 167 of the draft Budget provided to members, Mr. DePrima requested action regarding staff’s requests to hire for new positions, to vacancies resulting from the hiring freeze, and provide upgrades for current positions. Mr. McGlumphy relayed concern regarding the 21 positions not being filled and requested a list of all those positions separately, including the five (5) positions vacant in the Police Department. It was his feeling that there are discrepancies with the information provided for the 2011 Draft Budget

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET HEARINGS) MAY 18, 19, 20, and 25, 2010 PAGE 23 and the 2010 Annual Operating Budget. Responding, Mr. DePrima noted that the list changes due to employees leaving the City’s employment after the preparation of the Draft Budget information. In response to Mrs. Russell, Mr. DePrima advised members that staff is developing a policy (Handbook amendment) that would allow preference for “in City” applicants who apply for jobs with the City. Mr. Ruane moved to approve the requests to fill current positions, as listed on Page 167 of the draft Budget (Exhibit #15), with the understanding that they are included in the budget, seconded by Mr. McGiffin. The motion was carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes and two (2) no (Mr. McGlumphy and Mrs. Williams). Referring to the requests for upgrades as listed on page 168 of the draft Budget, Mr. DePrima stated that staff has only recommended and included one (1) upgrade, which is for the Accountant I to Accountant II. Mr. Salters moved to approve the upgrade for the Accountant I to Accountant II, as listed on Page 168 and included in the budget, seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Referring to the request for permanent placement of employees as listed on Page 169 of the draft Budget, Mr. DePrima stated that there are no additional costs involved, since the budgeted amount for the temporary and permanent salaries is the same. Mr. McGiffin moved for approval to make the two (2) positions listed on Page 169 of the draft Budget (Exhibit #16) permanent employees. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Russell and unanimously carried. Referring to the request for approval of the Career Ladder Development as listed on Page 170 of the draft Budget, Mr. DePrima stated that, although there no funds were allocated in this year’s proposed budget since staff does not anticipate any advancement for the next fiscal year, there are anticipated expenses in future years. Mr. Ruane moved for adoption of the Career Ladder Development that has been proposed for Public Utilities, Civil Engineers, and Electrical Engineers, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes and two (2) no (Mr. McGlumphy and Mrs. Williams). Council President Hogan reminded members that staff will be incorporating all the actions taken by Council for presentation to City Council for final approval. Confirming, Mr. DePrima indicated that the action taken by Council during these hearings will be put into the form of an ordinance for consideration of Council. There being no objections, Council President Hogan declared a brief recess. Meeting recessed at 8:14 p.m. and reconvened at 8:36 p.m.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET HEARINGS) MAY 18, 19, 20, and 25, 2010 PAGE 24 Mr. DePrima provided members with the revised CIP (Exhibit #17), which was reviewed by Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer. She advised members that the rates that were recalculated with the revised CIP reflect a reduction from a combined rate of $9.49 to $9.04, versus $7.14 (the rate with no increase). However, the revised CIP made a difference in the amount of $27 annually for customers with 5,000 gallons usage, which reduced the original proposed increase from $141 to $114. She stated that the CIP requires debt to be issued this year and another debt issue in 2011 and 2013; therefore, the total debt that was originally proposed was $32M, and with the revised CIP is approximately $20M. As a result, she noted that rate increases will still be required in future years beyond 2011 in order to cover the new debt service as well as the current debt service. Mr. McGiffin moved for approval of the water/wastewater rate increases as proposed (water rate from $2.70 to $3.00 - 11.1% increase; wastewater rate from $2.10 to $2.65 - 26.2% increase; wastewater treatment fee from $2.34 to $3.39 - 44.9% increase; and the combined rate from $7.14 to $9.04 - 26.6% aggregate increase). The motion was seconded by Mr. Ruane and carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes and two (2) no (Mr. McGlumphy and Mrs. Williams). Responding to Mr. Leary, Mr. DePrima explained that staff will build a revised draft Budget based on the action taken by Council. Although members will not be provided a new budget book, revised fund summaries will be presented to City Council for their consideration during their June 14, 2010 Regular Meeting. He reminded members that the Electric Fund Budget requires a public hearing. Mrs. Williams moved to eliminate the purchase of a new vehicle included in the Mayor’s budget, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and failed by a roll call vote of six (6) no and three (3) yes (Mr. McGlumphy, Mrs. Williams, and Mr. Ruane). Mr. Leary moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and unanimously carried. Meeting Adjourned at 9:03 P.M. TRACI A. MCDOWELL CITY CLERK All orders, ordinances, and resolutions adopted by City Council during their Special Meeting of May 18, 2010 (continued May 19, 20, and 25, 2010), , are hereby approved. CARLETON E. CAREY, SR. MAYOR

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET HEARINGS) MAY 18, 19, 20, and 25, 2010 PAGE 25 TM/jg S:\AGENDAS & MINUTES\Council-Minutes\2010\05-18, 19, 20, 25 -2010 Budget Hearings.wpd Exhibits Attached to Original Minutes and File Copy Exhibit #1 - Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Draft Budget Review by Division Exhibit #2 - Presentation - City of Dover Water and Wastewater Fund Five Year Financial Forecast 2011-2015 Exhibit #3 - Graph - "$11.70 Trash Rate Proportioned by % of Cost" Exhibit #4 - Public Comments of Phil McGinnis Presentation on May 20, 2010 Exhibit #5 - Presentation - City of Dover Electric Revenue Fund Five Year Financial Forecast 2011-2015 Exhibit #6 - FY2010-2010 Draft Budget Hearings May 20, 2010 Exhibit #7 - Water/Wastewater Fund -Future Projected Rate Increase Exhibit #8 - Public Comments of Phil McGinnis Presentation on May 25, 2010 Exhibit #9 - Worksheet - “Estimated Schedule of Expenses and Revenues as of April 29 2010” Exhibit #10 - Spreadsheet - Estimated Schedule of Expense and Revenues Exhibit #11 - Responses to Questions of Councilman Leary Exhibit #12 - Responses to Questions of Councilman McGlumphy Exhibit #13 - Responses to Questions of Councilwoman Williams Exhibit #14 - Chart depicting the Proposed Trash Fees Exhibit #15 - Requests to Fill Current Positions Exhibit #16 - Request for Permanent Positions Exhibit #17 - Revised CIP

UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee Meeting was held on May 24, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. with Chairman Ruane presiding. Members present were Mr. Hogan, Mr. McGiffin, Major Kosior, and Mr. Snaman. Councilman Bonar and Mayor Carey were also present. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. McGiffin moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Major Kosior and unanimously carried. Request for Alley and Street Abandonments - 100 Block of North Governors Avenue Alley West, the Southern Portion of the 200 Block of North Governors Avenue Alley East, a Portion of the Unit Block of North Bradford Street, the Unit Block of Fulton Street, a Portion of the Unit Block of Cecil Street, a Portion of the 200 Block of North Bradford Street, and the Northern Portion of the Unit Block of North State Street Alley West - Wesley College Members considered a request from Wesley College that the City abandon portions of streets and alleys in the vicinity of Wesley College, as follows: Area #1 - Alley between North Governors Avenue and North New Street from Cecil Street to Fulton Street; Area #2 - Portion of alley between North Bradford Street and North Governors Avenue, north of Cecil Street; Area #3 - North Bradford Street between W. Division and Fulton Streets (portions only); Area #4 - Fulton Street between North Governors Avenue and North State Street; Area #5 - Cecil Street between North Governors Avenue and North State (portion only); Area #6 - North Bradford Street between Cecil and Mary Streets (portions only); Area #7 - Portion of alley between North State Street and North Bradford Street, south of Fulton Street and north of W. Division Street. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, advised members that the request is being made in anticipation of implementation of the Wesley College Master Plan for creating a more pedestrian-oriented campus. She stated that the subject property consists of public streets owned and maintained by the City of Dover. The portions of rights-of-way requested for abandonment are adjacent on both sides to other properties owned by Wesley College. Fulton and Cecil Streets (Areas #4 and #5) connect North State Street with North Governors Avenue and are conduits for through traffic between the two (2) roads. The two (2) segments of North Bradford Street (Areas #3 and #6) that are requested for abandonment end at the college. Mrs. Townshend noted that several alley segments are also proposed to be vacated. Members were provided a diagram depicting the location of each of the areas. Mrs. Townshend indicated that the Planning staff supports Wesley College’s vision of a pedestrian-oriented campus and, should the long-term abandonment of the subject streets help accomplish this objective, staff supports the conceptual request. However, she stated that staff recommends that such approval be conditioned on abandonment coinciding with future site plan approval. Because these are public streets that are part of the downtown grid system, Mrs. Townshend stated that staff believes that Wesley and the City should consider the testimony presented by the public on this matter, as well as a phased abandonment.

UTILITY COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 2 Mrs. Townshend noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the street and alley abandonment, as requested by Wesley College. She advised members that the Planning Commission’s motion did not reference the conditions recommended by Planning staff and requested that these conditions be addressed by the Utility Committee. Referring to the first condition, Mrs. Townshend indicated that the City Manager has recommended that the abandonment be linked to the completion of the implementation of the Wesley College site plan. She stated that the intent is to ensure that the City maintains ownership of the subject streets and alleys until they are altered in accordance with the site plan. Mrs. Townshend explained that the recommended conditions are as follows: 1) Abandonment should be timed so that the City maintains ownership and maintenance of the subject streets and alleys until site improvements involving those areas are made, in accordance with a site plan approved by the Planning Commission. 2) All public electric, water, wastewater, and storm sewer infrastructure must be located within permanent utility easements, in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the Public Utilities comments from the Development Advisory Commission (DAC) report dated April 1, 2010 (provided to members). Mrs. Townshend indicated that she had discussed this request with Fire Chief Sean Christiansen, who indicated that comments from Fire Department staff will occur when the streets are actually altered or blocked off. She stated that, if staff’s recommendation to link the abandonments with the site plan is incorporated in the Utility Committee’s recommendation to Council, this would satisfy the Fire Department’s concerns since they would perform a review at that time. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend assured members that the omission of the DAC comments in the recommendation from the Planning Commission was an oversight. She noted that the Commission’s recommendations normally include DAC comments and that it was realized after the minutes were completed that this was not accomplished. She stated that the applicant was made aware of the conditions. Mr. Gregg Moore, Becker Morgan Group (representing Wesley College), noted that during the public hearing before the Planning Commission, the applicant indicated concurrence with the provision that no improvements, changes, or modifications would be made to any of the roadways until the plan to create the walking campus is accepted by the Planning Commission. Mr. Moore briefed members on the request and the plan to create a walking campus for Wesley College (details, including maps, were provided to members). Referring to the map, he indicated that the plan would include improvements, walkways, easements, etc. He noted that the plan, when presented to the Planning Commission, will depict how a cul-de-sac would be created on the property to allow emergency services into the portion of Cecil Street that will remain unchanged. Responding to Mr. McGiffin, Mrs. Townshend stated that adjacent property owners include Wesley College and one (1) additional property owner, and that these owners were notified, as required.

UTILITY COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 3 Mr. Moore noted that Dr. William Johnston, President of Wesley College, contacted neighbors adjacent to the areas who would potentially be affected and that the College also held neighborhood meetings and provided updates on the long-term plan and the requests for alley and street abandonments. In response to Mr. Bonar regarding adequate parking, Mr. Moore indicated that Wesley College is considering the prohibition of freshman/underclassman vehicle usage, as well as the addition of a parking garage and/or flat parking lots. He assured members that Wesley College understands that if parking is eliminated, parking must be provided elsewhere. Mrs. Townshend noted that staff’s report includes a comment regarding the elimination of parking and that the site plan would require a specific plan to accommodate displaced parking to avoid dispersion of parking into nearby neighborhood streets. Mr. Clarence Savin, 226 N. Governors Avenue, relayed concerns regarding the current parking conditions at Wesley College and the surrounding areas and felt that prohibiting freshman from having vehicles on campus would make parking conditions worse for the neighboring streets. Although he had no objections to the long-term plan proposed by Wesley College, he felt that parking should be addressed prior to any approvals. Mr. Savin indicated that there are already parking concerns on his block, explaining that there are two (2) houses on the block permitted to house Wesley students and that there are currently four (4) houses. He questioned how Wesley College plans to access the parking lot at the old tennis courts and allow for delivery trucks (for the kitchen) if Fulton Street and parts of Cecil Streets will be closed. With reference to the neighborhood meetings held by Wesley College, Mr. Savin indicated that no one on the 200 block of N. Governors Avenue was notified of such meetings. Prior to taking any further action, he felt that the City should require Wesley College to provide adequate parking. Mr. Michael Maciarello, 11 Cecil Street, advised members that, in addition to a neighborhood presentation, Dr. Johnston provided a presentation of the plans for Wesley College to him personally. Mr. Maciarello indicated his opposition to the proposal, explaining his feeling that the pedestrian- oriented campus plan does not fulfill the primary point for the project, which is improved safety. He stated that the majority of traffic on Cecil and Fulton Streets consists of Wesley College students cruising for parking spaces, since proximity to their classes is an issue. Mr. Maciarello noted that the neighborhood association has been working on obtaining cross-walks for school children coming from the west side of Governors Avenue going to Central Middle School, and this took three (3) years to accomplish. It was his feeling that the Wesley College request appears to be “fast tracked”. Mr. Maciarello indicated that the first steps in achieving the goal would be to eliminate parking from Cecil Street to Fulton Street since this would “push” traffic out and would be a less expensive option. He felt that his residence would be the most affected, since the closing of the street would occur right before his home, noting that emergency response would be delayed. He suggested that Wesley College consider development of their properties located on the east side of Governors Avenue and incorporate a parking garage with a pedestrian overpass. This would link the two (2) properties in a manner that would be more conducive to pedestrian traffic and safety. In response to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend explained that the process for street and alley abandonment requires that the matter be presented to Council to set a public hearing (for

UTILITY COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 4 June 28, 2010), if recommended favorably by the Committee. She indicated staff’s reluctance to expand the notification beyond the required adjacent property owners, explaining concern that this could create problems; however, should the Committee make such recommendation, she suggested that property owners within 200’ be contacted. Responding to Mr. Hogan, Mr. Moore stated that there has not been any final determination regarding the location of a parking garage and that the College has considered utilizing property they currently own, as well as purchasing property for this purpose; however, he indicated that no final decision has been made in this regard. In order to assure adequate parking, Mr. Moore stated that there would be a need to replace every parking space lost as a result of the abandonments and, depending upon what building or structures are added, there would be additional parking necessary to assist with the current parking situation. Mr. McGiffin relayed concern with recommending approval of the request at this time due to the lack of public notification. Mr. Snaman noted that the role of the Utility Committee is to assure that utilities are not affected by such an abandonment and suggested that any concerns regarding parking would be addressed by the Planning Commission. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend explained that the parking concerns have been included by the Planning Staff as advisory comments and that all comments, including the requirement to compensate for displaced parking, must be included in the site plan. Mr. Hogan moved to recommend that the request be postponed to allow Planning Staff to notify all property owners within 200’ and that the item be reconsidered by the Utility Committee during their meeting of June 28, 2010. The motion was seconded by Major Kosior and unanimously carried. Review of Utility Related CIP’s (Electric and Water/Wastewater) Members were provided a Project Tracking Report, as of March 31, 2010, for the Utility (Electric and Water/Wastewater) Related Capital Investment Plan (CIP). Mr. DePrima, City Manager, noted that, since the State financing has been finalized, the City has begun construction of several projects, particularly in Wastewater. Mr. Hogan moved to recommend acceptance of the Utility Related CIP’s Report, seconded by Mr. Snaman and unanimously carried. Update - Green Energy Funding and Programming Members were provided an update, as of May 13, 2010, on the Green Energy Funding and Programming, which included details regarding those grants that were paid, pending applications, energy depot fees, and energy efficiency campaigns/education programs. Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, suggested that 2010 applications may surpass those from 2009.

UTILITY COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 5 Mr. Hogan moved to recommend acceptance of the Green Energy Funding and Programming Update provided by staff, seconded by Mr. Snaman and carried with Mr. McGiffin abstaining. Mr. McGiffin noted his abstention was due to his participation in the program. PACE/NAES Monthly Report (February and March) (Deferred by Committee on April 26, 2010) Members were provided the PACE/NAES Monthly Reports for February and March. The reports were provided to allow members the opportunity to monitor what is being sold in electric and the revenues received, which will give members a better understanding of any fluctuations and make improvements if deemed necessary. Although it was not staff’s intention to make a presentation of the reports, they welcomed any questions. Mr. Snaman moved to recommend acceptance of the PACE/NAES Monthly Reports for February and March 2010, seconded by Mr. Hogan and unanimously carried. Noting that Mr. Hogan will be serving as Council President, Mr. Ruane thanked him for his participation and serving as a member of the Utility Committee and welcomed member-elect, Mr. Bonar. Mr. Snaman moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Hogan and unanimously carried. Meeting Adjourned at 5:52 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Eugene B. Ruane Chairman EBR/AC/jg/js/tm S:\AGENDAS & MINUTES\Committee-Minutes\2010\05-24-2010 Utility.wpd

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting was held on May 24, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. with Chairman McGlumphy presiding. Members present were Mr. Leary, Mr. Salters, Dr. Jones, and Mr. Shevock. Members of Council present were Mr. Ruane and Mrs. Williams. Mayor Carey was also present. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Leary moved to delete item #1, Review and Recommendations for Filling Critical Positions - Administrative Assistant - City Clerk’s Office. The motion was seconded by Dr. Jones and unanimously carried. Mr. Leary moved for approval of the agenda, as amended, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried. Medicare Part B Reimbursement Exception Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, reminded members that effective May 1, 2010, the Electric/Water Meter Reading Division was downsized by two (2) Field Service Representatives (FSR’s). One of the FSR’s elected to retire rather than accept a transfer offer. This employee had approximately 33 years of service. Mr. DePrima explained that the International Union of the Electronic, Electric, Salaried Machine and Furniture Workers - Communication Workers of America (IUE-CWA), which represents the FSR positions, has requested that the City make an exception to the Letter of Understanding dated October 12, 2007. This letter indicates that IUE-CWA members who retiree on or after January 31, 2010 will not be entitled to have their Medicare Part B premium payments paid by the City. Mr. DePrima stated that it is believed that, had the IUE-CWA employee known that his position would be eliminated effective May 1, 2010, he would have elected to retire prior to January 31, 2010 and thus would have been entitled to the reimbursement. Staff recommended approval of this non-precedent setting request. Responding to Mr. Leary, Mr. DePrima advised members that the FSR positions were the only reductions in force that occurred within a short period of time of the agreement; therefore, there are no other employees affected by the reductions in force to whom this exception would apply. Mr. McGlumphy questioned if a legal opinion was obtained, as he had requested. He relayed concern that the matter would set a precedent. Responding, Mr. DePrima stated that a legal opinion could be provided prior to this matter being presented to Council for final action. In response to Dr. Jones, Mr. DePrima indicated that the employee’s salary would have been preserved had he accepted the transfer; however, the position offered was not a comparable position. He explained that, although he felt confident that the employee could have learned the job, the position offered had another skill set that would have required additional training. At the request of Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Kenneth Clendaniel, President IUE-CWA Local 88315, advised members that the employee had served as a meter reader for 33 years and that the salary for the position offered to the employee, if transferred, would have been “frozen” for eight (8) years.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 2 Responding to Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Clendaniel stated that he did not foresee a similar situation arising in the future. He assured members that if the employee had anticipated his position being eliminated, he would have retired prior to January 31st; however, he was not advised of the circumstance until after that date. Mr. Salters felt that the employee’s longevity and loyalty to the City should be given consideration and recommended that the request be approved. Mr. McGlumphy reiterated his concerns with the legality of the issue and felt that there should be legal documentation to support any action taken in this regard. Responding, Mr. DePrima relayed no objections to tabling the matter until a legal opinion is obtained. Mr. Leary moved to recommend that the matter be tabled pending receipt of a legal opinion, seconded by Mr. Shevock and carried with Mr. Salters voting no. Discussion - Fiscal Year 2010 Audit Program Staff provided members with a Fiscal Year 2010 Audit Calendar for their review. Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, noted that the agenda reflected Fiscal Year 2011; however, the calendar is for Fiscal Year 2010. She also noted that the draft audit report is scheduled to be presented to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee on October 25, 2010. Mr. Salters moved to recommend acceptance of the Fiscal Year 2010 Audit Calendar, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. Downtown Dover Business Improvement District (BID) Assessment (Tax) Rate for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, explained that, in accordance with Appendix D, Article III, Section 9(f) of the Dover Code, City Council must adopt a Business Improvement District (BID) budget and assessment every year. Members were provided the FY 2010-2011 budget showing BID tax revenue and the expenses charged against that revenue, as well as the tax calculation worksheet with recommended rates. Mrs. Mitchell noted that the revenue percentages by zone have been calculated in accordance with Section 9(e) of Appendix D, Article III of the Dover Code and that the amounts were estimated per the reassessed values. Staff recommended approval of the Downtown Dover Business Improvement District (BID) Budget Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2010-11 (Attachment #1), and the Assessment (Tax) Rate for 2010-11 (Attachment #2) (City Clerk’s Office Note: During the Budget Hearing of May 25, 2010, Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, advised members that staff’s intention was to maintain the same rate by applying the previous assessed values with the previous assessed rates to determine the tax. Since the BID tax had already been presented to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee, who formulated a recommendation for Council, Mr. DePrima stated that the Ordinance would be amended to reflect the rolled-back rate, for presentation to Council on June 14, 2010.)

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 3 Mr. Leary moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation (Attachments #1 and #2), seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried. Proposed Ordinance #2010-11 - Adoption of Business License Fee Schedule (Referred back to Committee by Council on April 26, 2010 to allow public discussion; due to time constraints, this item has been placed on the Council agenda for the meeting being held later in the evening.) During their meeting of April 12, 2010, the Committee recommended adoption of Ordinance #2010-11 adopting the business license fee schedule. When the Committee’s recommendation was presented to Council during their Regular Meeting of April 26, 2010, Council referred the matter back to the Committee to allow for public discussion. Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, reminded members that Ordinance #2010-11 would provide for an automatic update of business license fees on July 1st of each year based on the published inflation rate for the previous calendar year. He stated that if the Proposed Ordinance is passed, there would be a 3.3% increase in business license revenues on July 1st, which equates to approximately $48,000 additional revenue to the City of Dover. Mr. DePrima advised members that there has not been an increase in business license fees since 2004. He reminded members that he has submitted previous requests to increase these fees, in accordance with the City’s Revenue Manual, which indicates that the City should update business license fees every three (3) years. Mr. DePrima explained that this matter was referred back to the Committee to allow for public discussion, since the Chamber of Commerce did not feel that they were provided adequate advance notice of the Proposed Ordinance to allow for comments; however, he assured members that staff provided the Chamber of Commerce advance notice. Mr. DePrima provided and reviewed a Presentation - Business License Overview (Attachment #3). For informational purposes, members were also provided a proposed Fiscal Year 2011 Business License Fee Schedule to become effective July 1, 2010. He explained that the automatic escalation in fees would apply to approximately 60% of the City’s business license holders who currently pay a fixed license fee. Mr. DePrima noted that the remaining 40% of license holders pay fees based on gross revenues or gross product purchased, which increase with inflation automatically. Responding to Dr. Jones regarding the issue of fairness, Mr. DePrima stated that the business license fees were developed during the 1960’s and that research has not been conducted to determine how these fees were established. Dr. Jones suggested that staff may wish to re-examine the fees to consider their redevelopment by taking into account business earnings, etc. Mr. Phil McGinnis, Owner/President of McGinnis Commercial Real Estate Company, 555 E. Loockerman Street, and Chair of the Kent County Association of Realtors Smart Growth Working Group, provided and reviewed a presentation to members (Attachment #4). He noted that the revenue generated by business license fees in 2005 was $1.2M and that for 2010 $1.4M is reflected. He explained that this is a 17% increase resulting from natural growth, which equates to

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 4 3.4% per year. Therefore, Mr. McGinnis stated that the City receives a natural fee increase based on the availability of businesses conducting business within the City and felt there is no need for the City to raise fees to receive an increase. He also indicated that the City is proposing an increase during a period of a declining market, which is substantiated by the number of building permits issued and transfer tax revenues. He advised members that a declining market is not the time to institute an increase in business license fees. Dr. Joel Halpern, Halpern Eye Associates, 855 S. Governors Avenue, concurred with the suggestion made by Dr. Jones to review the fees as they relate to business earnings, etc. He felt that the costs incurred by medical establishments in conducting business have increased significantly over the years, stating that there are few “Cadillac doctors” any more. Dr. Halpern encouraged Council to ensure that business license fees are fair for everyone. Mrs. Judy Diogo, Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce, 435 N. DuPont Highway, reiterated that businesses can not handle any type of increase in fees during these challenging economic times. She urged members to reject any proposed increase at this time and that there not be any escalation language included in an ordinance, feeling that there is a need to review fees annually. Ms. Lisa Hastings, Faw Casson and Company, 160 Greentree Drive, reminded members that increases in business license revenues have been realized by the City throughout the years because the unit of measure, which is the number of businesses, has increased, and felt that an actual increase in the fees was not necessary to accomplish an increase. Referring to the escalation clause, Ms. Hastings stated that there are times when such a clause is beneficial for a short period of time; however, the current language does not provide for the opportunity for a review. As an example, she explained that the City would never consider a contract with a company that had a perpetual increase; however, would consider a contract that included an increase for two (2) to three (3) years. Mr. Tom Burns, Burns and Ellis Realtors, 490 N. DuPont Highway, noted how wonderful the City of Dover is, including its staff and elected and appointed officials, and he urged members not to grow beyond its small-town, well-run government. He stated that the people want good government but not more government, and when there is more money going to the government, the result is more government. He felt that, due to the difficult economic times, this is not the time to consider any increase. Responding to Mr. Salters regarding Page 8 of the presentation provided by Mr. DePrima (see Attachment #3), Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, advised members that the substantial increase in the CAFR audit fees from 2006 to 2007 was due to the change in accounting standards. She confirmed that the City has a five (5) year contract for the audit, that there is an annual escalator included in the contract, and that the escalator was included in prior contracts as well. In response to Dr. Jones, Mr. DePrima indicated that there is a relationship between the proposed fees and the development of the portion of the City’s budget attributed to services provided. However, he stated that the escalator clause had more to do with creating equity between the kinds

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 5 of businesses that have a natural inflation factor and those that do not. He concurred that business license revenues have increased; however, he explained that there are two (2) reasons for the increase: 1) the number of businesses in the City has grown; and 2) 40% of businesses pay fees based on gross receipts, and these have increased. With regards to the comments regarding the re-examination of business license fees, Mr. DePrima suggested that Council could assign this to him as a goal for the upcoming year. He stated he understood the reluctance to incorporate an escalation clause in perpetuity and suggested that a fixed time, such as three (3) to five (5) years, could be established for review and re-evaluation. Mr. Leary moved to recommend striking the language in Section 26-36 regarding the annual increase in the fees (lines 168-174 in red font), seconded by Dr. Jones and unanimously carried. Mr. Leary moved to recommend adoption of Ordinance #2010-11, as amended (Attachment #5). The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried. It was noted that, due to time constraints, this matter will be considered by Council during their meeting held later in the evening. In response to Mr. Leary, Dr. Jones suggested that the business community be invited to participate when the reconsideration and review of the business licenses is conducted. Proposed Ordinance #2010-13 - Furloughs and Pension Plan Closing (Committee referred back to staff for revisions on April 12, 2010) During their meeting of April 12, 2010, members considered proposed Ordinance #2010-13, amending Division 7 - General Employees Pension Plan of the Dover Code. At that time, it was noted that no further action would be required since staff would be making additional amendments based on the Committee’s discussion and that this matter would be brought back to the Committee for further review and recommendation to City Council. Mrs. Kimberly Hawkins, Human Resources Director, advised members that the ordinance has been updated with comments and suggestions from the April 12, 2010 Committee meeting and that the updates are noted in blue font. Mr. Leary moved to recommend adoption of Ordinance #2010-13 as presented (Attachment #6). The motion was seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. Concerns Regarding Bidding by Minority Businesses Due to time constraints, this item was deferred until the next meeting. Mr. McGlumphy advised members that for the next year, he will no longer be serving as Chair and relayed appreciation to the staff and committee members for their service to the Committee during his tenure.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 6 Mr. Leary moved for adjournment, seconded by Dr. Jones and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:12 P.M. Respectfully submitted, William P. McGlumphy Chairman WPM/AC/jg/js/tm S:\AGENDAS & MINUTES\Committee-Minutes\2010\05-24-2010 LF&A.wpd Attachments Attachment #1 - Downtown Dover Business Improvement District (BID) Budget Ordinance for FY 2010-11 Attachment #2 - Downtown Dover Business Improvement District (BID) Assessment (Tax) Rate for FY 2010-11 Attachment #3 - Presentation - Business License Overview Attachment #4 - Presentation provided by Mr. McGinnis regarding Business License Fees Attachment #5 - Ordinance #2010-11 - Business License Fee Schedule Attachment #6 - Ordinance #2010-13 - Furloughs and Pension Plan Closing

ATTACHMENT #1 LF&A Committee Meeting of 05/24/2010 ATTACHMENT A BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT CASH RECEIPTS BUDGET FOR 2010-11 BID TAX REVENUE AND EXPENSES CHARGED AGAINST THIS REVENUE ADMINISTERED THROUGH CITY OF DOVER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 1. The amount hereinafter named aggregating Sixty-one thousand, three hundred and eleven dollars ($61,311) or so much thereof as may be necessary is hereby appropriated from current revenues and other funds for the use by the City of Dover Economic Development for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2010, and ending June 30, 2011: REVENUE PROPOSED Tax Revenue $61,311 EXPENSES Personnel & Administration Expenses $61,311 \\Dover_1\finance\Downtown Dover Partnership\Downtown Dover BID.doc 2

ATTACHMENT #2 LF&A Committee Meeting of 05/24/2010 ATTACHMENT B BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT TAX CALCULATION WORKSHEET JULY 1, 2010 TO JUNE 30, 2011 ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 TOTAL Aggregate Assessments $40,130,000 $61,079,800 $34,517,500 $135,727,300 Assessment Tax Rate per $100 0.0822 0.0362 0.0180 --- Revenue Raised $32,987 $22,111 $6,213 $61,311 % Revenue Raised 54% 36% 10% 100% Number of Parcels 116 105 43 264 Average Assessment $284 $211 $144 $232 NOTE: These figures were estimated per the reassessed values. The revenue percentages by Zone are per the City of Dover Code Appendix D-Article III, Section 9(e). JULY 1, 2009 TO JUNE 30, 2010 ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 TOTAL Aggregate Assessments $31,920,900 $58,906,700 $29,939,400 $120,767,000 Assessment Tax Rate per $100 0.0822 0.0362 0.0180 --- Revenue Raised $26,239 $21,324 $5,389 $52,952 % Revenue Raised 50% 40% 10% 100% Number of Parcels 123 115 49 287 Average Assessment $213 $185 $110 $185 NOTE: These figures were estimated per the reassessed values. The revenue percentages by Zone are per the City of Dover Code Appendix D-Article III, Section 9(e). \\Dover_1\finance\Downtown Dover Partnership\Downtown Dover BID.doc 3

ATTACHMENT #3 LF&A Committee Meeting of 05/24/2010 Business License Overview
3% increase for 60% of the license holders, 40% of license holders no change.
Proposed annual inflation adjustment for 60% of license holders.
Avoid a single large increase through periodic increases.
Competitive with other local governments – not ahead.
Rates last change in 2004. LF&A Committee Meeting of 05/24/2010
Highest Regular Fixed Fee = $908 (utilities) means $18 increase. ATTACHMENT #3
Lowest Regular Fixed Fee = $31 (various) means $1.00 increase.

What are the Typical Increases Business License # of Business Added Fee License Categories Fee ($) $31.00 2 +1.00 $37.00 1 +1.00 $49.00 11 +1.50 $61.00 9 +2.00 $92.00 9 +3.00 $121.00 26 +3.50 $152.00 4 +4.50 $182.00 15 +5.50 $242.00 8 +7.00 $303.00 12 +9.00 $363.00 1 +11.00 $908.00 1 +27.00 $1,210.00 1 +35.00

Inflation Equity Between License Holders 1,522 Retailer, Contractors 2,370 Businesses & Merchants All other category

Prices and Fees that Adjust with Inflation are not Uncommon Public Sector
Business Licenses – Contractor, Realtors
Construction Permits & Fees
Gross Receipts Tax
Hotel Tax Private Sector
Commissions
Mark Ups
Bank Points
Escalation Clauses

Realtors Commissions Inflate with the Cost of Housing Volume BRS Value Year Commission Sales Commission 2001 $189 million 6% $11.34 million 2002 ~ 2008 Boom & Bust 2009 $247 million 6% $14.82 million EQUALS 31% Increase 3.4% Annual

Business License as Fraction of Average Settlement (S.F. House Price) April Avg. Business Year 6% Commission % Settle Price License 2004 $ 159,000 $ 9,540 $49 .051 2005 195,000 11,700 49 .042 2006 215,000 12,900 49 .038 2007 218,000 13,080 49 .037 2008 218,000 12,480 49 .039 2009 195,000 11,700 49 .041 2010 197,000 11,820 50.50 .042 Proposed Business License less than 2004 when compared to price of Home Sales Commission.

Increased 11.5%

Escalators = 2.5% average 2007-2011

ATTACHMENT #4 LF&A Committee Meeting of 05/24/2010 TRADITIONAL AMERICAN BUSINESS MODEL INCOME LESS EXPENSES * EQUALS PROFIT ** LESS INCOME TAXES EQUALS REWARD EXPENSES * COST OF GOODS SOLD WAGES & TAXES, LICENSE FEES, UTILITIES LF&A Committee Meeting of 05/24/2010 INSURANCE, MAINTENANCE, LOCAL TAXES PROFIT ** EFFICIENCY RE-INVESTMENT ATTACHMENT #4 CITY OF DOVER COUNCIL * 2011 BUDGET COMMENTS PHILIP McGINNIS * MAY 24, 2010 * PAGE 1 OF 8 PAGES

BUSINESS VERSUS GOVERNMENT INCOME COMMISSIONS PROPERTY TAXES PRODUCT SALES UTILITIES CHARGES RENTALS PERMIT FEES LICENSE FEES FINES & PENALTIES GRANTS TRANSFERS MARKET LIMITATIONS MARKET LIMITATIONS EXPENSES COST OF GOODS SOLD EXECUTIVE WAGES & SALARIES FINANCIAL PAYROLL TAXES ADMINSTRATION PROPERTY TAXES PUBLIC SAFETY UTILITIES CONSUMPTION ZONINGS/INSPECTIONS INSURANCE PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS COMMUNITY SERVICES PERMITS & LICENSES SUBJECT TO GOVT REQUIREMENTS NO MARKET LIMITATIONS MARKET LIMITATIONS CITY OF DOVER COUNCIL * 2011 BUDGET COMMENTS PHILIP McGINNIS * MAY 24, 2010 * PAGE 2 OF 8 PAGES

SALARIES PROPOSED DEFERRED TOTAL FY 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2011 2011 MAYOR $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $0 $45,000 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% CITY MANAGER $106,555 $112,948 $117,082 $121,180 $126,027 $6,750 $132,777 6.00% 3.66% 3.50% 4.00% 5.57% 9.57% FINANCIAL ADMIN * $243,431 $252,928 $276,815 $282,540 $293,841 $0 $293,841 3.90% 9.44% 2.07% 4.00% 0.00% 4.00% CITY ADMINISTRATION ** $411,362 $433,811 $550,669 $570,186 $594,016 $9,999 $604,015 5.46% 26.94% 3.54% 4.18% 1.75% 5.93% PUBLIC SAFETY # $98,593 $196,311 $384,582 $426,752 $224,058 $0 $224,058 99.11% 95.90% 10.97% -47.50% 0.00% -47.50% INSPECTIONS $118,241 $139,789 $144,905 $149,976 $155,975 $0 $155,975 18.22% 3.66% 3.50% 4.00% 0.00% 4.00% PUBLIC WORKS $394,491 $428,473 $448,811 $464,521 $483,101 $0 $483,101 8.61% 4.75% 3.50% 4.00% 0.00% 4.00% $1,417,672 $1,609,260 $1,967,864 $2,060,155 $1,922,018 $16,749 $1,938,767 13.51% 22.28% 4.69% -6.71% 0.81% -5.89% ** NO LIBRARY ** NO LIBRARY # TWO CHIEFS # TWO CHIEFS # ONE CHIEF * PAY GRADE DIRECTOR IN DIRECTOR IN TWO MAJORS TWO MAJORS ONE MAJOR CHANGE ENTRY ENTRY $18,111 NUMBER PEOPLE 21 21 24 24 22 2 22 AVERAGE SALARY $67,508 $76,631 $81,994 $85,840 $87,364 $8,375 $88,126 GROWTH 13.51% 7.00% 4.69% 1.78% 2.66% CITY OF DOVER COUNCIL * 2011 BUDGET COMMENTS PHILIP McGINNIS * MAY 24, 2010 * PAGE 3 OF 8 PAGES

SALARIES 7 NUMBER PEOPLE 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2016 AVERAGE SALARY $88,126 $91,651 $95,317 $99,130 $103,095 $107,218 $111,507 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 26.53% 7 FY 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2022 AVERAGE SALARY $115,968 $120,606 $125,430 $130,448 $135,666 $141,092 $146,736 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 26.53% 66.51% CITY OF DOVER COUNCIL * 2011 BUDGET COMMENTS PHILIP McGINNIS * MAY 24, 2010 * PAGE 4 OF 8 PAGES

BUSINESS LICENSES YTD ANNUALIZED PROPOSED 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2010 2011 REVENUE $1,243,327 $1,318,621 $1,343,531 $1,409,032 $1,436,715 $1,452,905 $1,465,449 $1,523,675 6.06% 1.89% 4.88% 1.96% 2.00% 3.97% # LICENSES 2,798 3,264 3,657 3,710 3,668 3,892 3,926 4,000 16.65% 12.04% 1.45% -1.13% 7.02% 1.90% $ PER LICENSE $444 $404 $367 $380 $392 $373 $373 $381 -9.09% -9.06% 3.38% 3.13% -4.69% 2.04% FY 2010 30-Jun-10 report as of 30-Apr-10 # months 10 months remaining 2 ILLUSTRATED WITH PROPOSED 3.3 % FEE INCREASE * PROJECTION OF $1,475,000 WITHOUT FEE INCREASE PROPOSE AUTOMATIC CPI VS 5% ANNUAL FEE INCREASE ISSUE : 2010 YTD AHEAD OF 2009 FINAL ANNUALIZED MAY BE UNREALISTIC FOR LAST TWO MONTHS OF YEAR UNWISE TO RAISE FEES IN DECLINING MARKET CONDITIONS AUTOMATIC CPI INCREASE CONTINUES TO PRESSURE DECLINING MARKET 2010 YTD REVERSES TREND OF DECLINING NUMBER OF PERMITS CITY OF DOVER COUNCIL * 2011 BUDGET COMMENTS PHILIP McGINNIS * MAY 24, 2010 * PAGE 5 OF 8 PAGES

BUSINESS LICENSES YTD ANNUALIZED PROPOSED 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2010 2011 REVENUE $1,243,327 $1,318,621 $1,343,531 $1,409,032 $1,436,715 $1,452,905 $1,465,449 $1,475,000 6.06% 1.89% 4.88% 1.96% 2.00% 0.65% # LICENSES 2,798 3,264 3,657 3,710 3,668 3,892 3,926 4,000 16.65% 12.04% 1.45% -1.13% 7.02% 1.90% $ PER LICENSE $444 $404 $367 $380 $392 $373 $373 $369 -9.09% -9.06% 3.38% 3.13% -4.69% -1.22% FY 2010 30-Jun-10 report as of 30-Apr-10 # months 10 months remaining 2 ILLUSTRATION OF PROJECTION WITHOUT FEE INCREASE CITY OF DOVER COUNCIL * 2011 BUDGET COMMENTS PHILIP McGINNIS * MAY 24, 2010 * PAGE 6 OF 8 PAGES

BUSINESS LICENSES 8 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 REVENUE $1,523,675 $1,573,956 $1,625,897 $1,679,551 $1,763,529 $1,851,705 $1,944,291 $2,041,505 3.97% 3.30% 3.30% 3.30% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% # LICENSES 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 $ PER LICENSE $381 $393 $406 $420 $441 $463 $486 $510 2.04% 3.30% 3.30% 3.30% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 33.99% 16 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 REVENUE $2,143,581 $2,250,760 $2,363,298 $2,481,462 $2,605,536 $2,735,812 $2,872,603 $3,016,233 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% # LICENSES 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 $ PER LICENSE $536 $563 $591 $620 $651 $684 $718 $754 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 40.71% 97.96% CITY OF DOVER COUNCIL * 2011 BUDGET COMMENTS PHILIP McGINNIS * MAY 24, 2010 * PAGE 7 OF 8 PAGES

NET EFFECT OF BUSINESS LICENSE ORDINANCE ON BUSINESS COMMUNITY INCREASE BUSINESS LICENSE FEES – IN PERPETUITY AND IN DECLINING MARKET CONSIDER INCREASE OF OTHER CHARGES AND FEES IN DECLINING MARKET INCREASE OPERATING EXPENSES IN DECLINING MARKET LOCAL BUSINESS DOES NOT HAVE THE OPTION OF RAISING FEES AND RATES TO OFFSET INCREASED EXPENSES LANDLORDS DO NOT HAVE THE OPTION OF RAISING RENTS TO OFFSET INCREASED EXPENSES RUNAWAY GROWTH IN FEES AND COSTS DISCOURAGES BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CITY OF DOVER COUNCIL * 2011 BUDGET COMMENTS PHILIP McGINNIS * MAY 24, 2010 * PAGE 8 OF 8 PAGES

ATTACHMENT #5 LF&A Committee Meeting of 05/24/2010 FINAL READING CITY OF DOVER ORDINANCE #2010-11 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN 2 COUNCIL MET: 3 4 That Appendix F – Fees and Fines, Chapter 26-Businesses, Article II-Licenses, be amended by inserting 5 the text indicated in bold, red and deleting the text indicated in red strikeout as follows: 6 7 Section 26-35; License required; fees . 8 Fines not paid within 14 days of the day the fine was issued, including the day the fine was issued, shall 9 be automatically doubled in amount. 10 The annual fee for business licenses, will automatically be escalated on July 1 of each year based 11 on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W); Selected 12 areas, all items index – Philadelphia – Wilmington-Atlantic City PA-NJ-DE-MD (CPI) as 13 published by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics based on the prior 14 December to December change, not to exceed 5% per year , but not less than the current year’s 15 fee. This escalation does not pertain to any business licenses calculated based on aggregate gross 16 receipts, but it does apply to those business licenses’ minimum charges. 17 Sec. 26-35 Subsec. (d)(1) 18 License required; fees 19 Businesses licensed 20 Advertising agency.......... $92.00 21 Amusement operator.......... $152.00 22 Architect.......... $242.00 23 Attorney-at-law.......... $303.00 24 ATM machines (third-party or off bank premises)..........$49.00 25 Auctioneer.......... $152.00 26 Automobile race operator..........$363.00 27 Bank, or loan and trust company..........$303.00

Proposed Ordinance #2010-09 Page | 2 28 Barber.......... $61.00 29 each additional chair over two..........$4.00 30 Beautician.......... $61.00 31 each additional chair over two..........$4.00 32 Broadcasting station...$303.00 33 Broker.......... $152.00 34 Car wash......... $182.00 35 Certified public accountant..........$242.00 36 Cesspool cleaner..........$121.00 37 Chiropractor.......... $303.00 38 Clinical social worker.......... $93.00 39 Coin-operated amusement machine owner 40 Per machine..........$3.00 41 Coin-operating vending machine owner 42 Per machine $3.00 43 Coin-operated electronic video machine 44 Per machine $121.00 45 Commercial sign business.......... $121.00 46 Computer-related services..........$121.00 47 Consultant.......... $49.00 48 Day care operator: 49 Center or home provider with greater than six 50 children.......... $49.00 51 Dentist.......... $303.00 52 Distributor.......... $61.00 53 Dray person or mover..........$121.00 54 Eating establishment and/or eating establishment 55 operator.......... $121.00 56 Employment agency.......... $121.00 57 Entertainer: 58 One--three entertainers per group..........$49.00 59 Four--nine entertainers per group.......... $92.00 60 Ten or more..........$121.00

Proposed Ordinance #2010-09 Page | 3 61 Entertainment agent.......... $182.00 62 Finance or small loan agency.......... $242.00 63 Fitness trainer.......... $67.00 64 Funeral director.......... $242.00 65 Gaming position.......... $150.00 66 Gas, light, power, cable TV and telephone company..........$908.00 67 General repairman.......... $61.00 68 Health spa or health club..........$182.00 69 Home day care operator.......... $25.00 70 Hotel: 71 Per room.......... $9.00 72 Per suite..........$12.00 73 Income tax consultant.......... $182.00 74 Incorporator.......... $121.00 75 Insurance adjustor office.......... $121.00 76 Itinerant merchant, per event....$40.00 77 Janitorial and cleaning service: 78 One--three employees..........$49.00 79 Four--nine employees......... $92.00 80 Ten or more employees....... $121.00 81 Landscape service company: 82 One--three employees.......... $49.00 83 Four--nine employees.......... $92.00 84 Ten or more employees..........$121.00 85 Laundry service operator: 86 Primary facility......... $121.00 87 Additional drop-off locations.......... $49.00 88 Linen supplier.......... $121.00 89 Manicurist.......... $31.00 90 Manufacturer's agent or representative.......... $121.00 91 Mercantile agency or collection agency.......... $121.00 92 Mobile home park, per space.......... $7.00 93 Motel, per room.......... $7.00

Proposed Ordinance #2010-09 Page | 4 94 Motion picture theater......... $182.00 95 Motor vehicle serviceman.....$92.00 96 Nursing, rest or convalescent home.......... $182.00 97 Open market operator: 98 First 20 spaces, per rented space..........$22.00 99 21st--50th space, per rented space.......... $11.00 100 Each space over 50, per rented space.......... $6.00 101 Outdoor tables, per table.......... $6.00 102 Optometrist.......... $303.00 103 Pawnbroker.......... $182.00 104 Pest control services.......... $92.00 105 Pharmacist.......... $182.00 106 Photographer.......... $121.00 107 Physical therapist..........$182.00 108 Physician and/or surgeon.......... $303.00 109 Plant nursery and florist.......... $92.00 110 Podiatrist.......... $303.00 111 Pool table operator, per table..........$61.00 112 Maximum fee.......... $183.00 113 Printer.......... $121.00 114 Private investigator agency.......... $182.00 115 Professional counselor.......... $61.00 116 Professional engineer.......... $242.00 117 Professional land surveyor... $242.00 118 Psychologist.......... $303.00 119 Public accountant....... $182.00 120 Public stenographer....$37.00 121 Publisher.......... $303.00 122 Real estate broker, appraiser, and manager.......... $152.00 123 Real estate development corporation.......... $333.00 124 Real estate property manager: 125 One--three units managed.......... $49.00 126 Four--ten units managed..........$121.00

Proposed Ordinance #2010-09 Page | 5 127 Ten + units managed.......... $121.00 128 Real estate salesperson or associated broker..........$49.00 129 Rental service.......... $121.00 130 Sales representative $49.00 131 School and educational service (nonvocational).......... $61.00 132 School and educational service (vocational).......... $121.00 133 Scientific laboratory.......... $242.00 134 Scrap and waste material service.......... $121.00 135 Secondhand dealer of precious metals.......... $121.00 136 Security service.......... $182.00 137 Self-service laundry or dry cleaner.......... $121.00 138 Shoe repairman.......... $49.00 139 Sound truck, per hour.......... $31.00 140 Tailor and garment service.....$49.00 141 Taxicab or bus operator: 142 First vehicle.......... $25.00 143 Each additional vehicle.......... $25.00 144 Tourist home, per room.......... $7.00 145 Trailer park, per space.......... $7.00 146 Travel agency.......... $121.00 147 Veterinarian.......... $303.00 148 Warehouseman.......... $242.00 149 Wholesale news agency........ $61.00 150 All other businesses not listed: 151 One--three employees......$49.00 152 Four--nine employees......$92.00 153 Ten--50 employees.......... $121.00 154 51--100 employees.......... $303.00 155 Subsec. (d)(2) Manufacturers/contractors rate: $0.00046 of aggregate gross receipts.......... 156 Minimum fee $121.00 157 Subsec. (d)(3) Merchants/bottlers rate: $0.00046 of aggregate gross purchases for resale.......... 158 Minimum fee $61.00 159 Subsec. (d)(4) Sports betting and horse racing (Simulcast), each activity: rate of $0.00046 of the

Proposed Ordinance #2010-09 Page | 6 160 aggregate gross receipts (defined as commission) for the activity.......... 161 Minimum license fee $121.00. 162 163 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, 164 IN COUNCIL MET: 165 166 Section 26-36 Determination of license fee; duties of license officer; refunds 167 (a) Generally. License fees shall be in the amounts established in this article, and as further determined 168 in this section. The annual fee for business licenses, will automatically be escalated on July 1 of 169 each year based on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers 170 (CPI-W); Selected areas, all items index – Philadelphia – Wilmington-Atlantic City PA-NJ-DE- 171 MD (CPI) as published by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics based on 172 the prior December to December change, not to exceed 5% per year , but not less than the current 173 year’s fee. This escalation does not pertain to any business licenses calculated based on aggregate 174 gross receipts, but it does apply to those business licenses’ minimum charges. 175 (b) Duties of license officer. The license officer shall: 176 (1) Higher fee. Require the payment of an additional or higher license fee, to be prorated for 177 the balance of the license period, when a licensee places himself in that status under this article by: 178 a. Increasing the number of his employees. 179 b. Expanding the size of his business, plant or premises. 180 c. Increasing the number or size of his vehicles. 181 d. Making any other lawful and material change of any kind in his business. 182 (2) Partial refund. Refund a proportion of the amount of fee already paid, prorated for the 183 balance of the license period, upon notification by a licensee of his voluntary retirement from business. 184 (3) Late commencement of business. Prorate the license fee for the balance of any license 185 period, including minimum license fees of any business commenced after the beginning of the license 186 period. Prorating of the license fee shall not occur for contractors who receive a per job license, or for 187 itinerant merchant licensees. 188 (c) Refund. 189 (1) Except as provided, no rebate or refund of any license fee or part thereof shall be made by 190 reason of the nonuse of the license or by reason of a change of location or business rendering the use of 191 the license ineffective. The license officer shall have the authority to refund a license fee or prorated 192 portion thereof where:

Proposed Ordinance #2010-09 Page | 7 193 a. Error. The license fee was collected through an error. 194 b. Hardship. Some particular hardship might be involved. 195 c. Death or incapacity. The licensee has been prevented from enjoying the full 196 license privilege due to his death or incapacity to engage in the business. 197 d. Armed services. The licensee has entered the armed services of the United States 198 through induction or enlistment and is thereby rendered unable to conduct the 199 business. 200 e. Government takeover. The licensed business is forced to close before the 201 expiration of the license period by reason of the taking over of the business 202 or licensed premises by the United States government, the state or this city. 203 f. Fire, casualty. The licensed business was destroyed by fire or other 204 casualty through no fault of the licensee. 205 (2) A rebate or refund provided for in this subsection (c) shall be based upon the number of 206 days in the license period remaining after the occurrence of the event relied upon for the rebate. 207 208 (Code 1968, § 18-18; Code 1981, § 11-5; Ord. of 2-23-1998) 209 210 ADOPTED: * 211 212 SYNOPSIS 213 Establishes an annual automated escalation for business licenses. 214 215 216 Actions History: 217 May 24, 2010 - Proposed Final Reading - Council 218 May 24, 2010 - Considered by Legislative, Finance & Administration Committee 219 April 26, 2010 - First Reading - Council; Referred Back to Legislative, Finance & Administration Committee 220 April 12, 2010 - Introduced at Legislative, Finance & Administration Committee

ATTACHMENT #6 LF&A Committee Meeting of 05/24/2010 1 DIVISION 7. GENERAL EMPLOYEE PENSION PLAN* 2 3 __________ 4 *Charter references: Authority of city to establish pension plans, subpart A. 5 6 __________ 7 8 Subdivision I. In General 9 10 Sec. 2-321. Definitions. 11 12 The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this division, shall have the meanings 13 ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: 14 15 Accumulated contributions means the aggregate contributions made by a member under the 16 plan, with interest thereon at the rate of five percent per annum, compounded annually from the 17 last day of the plan year in which such contribution was made to the earlier of the date of 18 commencement of retirement income or the date on which contributions are payable pursuant to 19 the provisions of the plan. 20 21 Continuous service means regularly employed without interruption, except for allowable 22 interruptions aggregating not over five years. Allowable interruptions shall include: 23 24 (1) Leaves of absence granted to employees for illness, research, travel, training or study; 25 26 (2) Employment in an office to which the employee had been elected by popular vote at a 27 regular city election; 28 29 (3) Involuntary severance which shall include a required leave of absence on account of 30 maternity, and the employee returns to active employment at the end of that leave of absence. 31 32 To the extent required by federal law, if an employee leaves the employ of the city to enter the 33 military service of the United States and, upon his discharge from service, is reemployed by the 34 city at a time when his reemployment rights are protected by federal law, the employee shall be 35 considered to have been employed by the city during his period of military service and shall be 36 credited with continuous service which he would have been credited with as an employee of the 37 city but for his military service. The period for which disability pension benefits shall have been 38 paid shall be considered as an allowable interruption which is permitted in addition to the 39 allowable interruptions aggregating not over five years in determining subsequent eligibility for 40 retirement benefits under the terms of this division. 41 42 Deferred compensation plan means the plan defined in division 8 of this article. 43 44 Defined Benefit Pension plan and plan mean the city's general employee pension plan. 45

46 Eligible employee means any person regularly employed in rendering service to the city on a 47 full-time, permanent basis, who is not participating in any other retirement plan to which the city 48 contributes for them, and whose compensation is paid directly by the city. An employee will be 49 considered a full-time employee if he regularly works 37 1/2 or more 40 hours each week. 50 51 Group annuity contract means the group annuity contract entered into between an insurance 52 company and the pension board of trustees. 53 54 Participant means any eligible employee of the city who has met all of the requirements for 55 participation in the pension plan as defined in this section and who has satisfied all of the 56 conditions and requirements set forth in this division. 57 58 Pension board means the pension board of trustees. 59 60 Plan year means the period of one year, commencing on any July 1 and ending immediately 61 prior to the following July 1. 62 63 Retired participant means a participant of the plan who has terminated service and is eligible to 64 receive retirement income under this division. 65 66 (Code 1968, § 2-87; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-176; Ord. of 7-11-1983; Ord. of 7-26- 67 1993, § 1; Ord. of 4-25-1994; Ord. of 5-22-2000) 68 69 Sec. 2-322. Established; purpose. 70 (a) Generally. There is hereby established the city employee pension plan. The purpose of the 71 plan is to establish the terms and conditions under which retirement and disability benefits and 72 other benefits shall be provided to eligible employees of the city. The benefits under the plan 73 shall be in addition to amounts received as social security benefits or from any other pension 74 plan. 75 (b) For employee exclusively. This plan is created for the exclusive benefit of the employees of 76 the city and shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with it being an employee's trust, as 77 defined in section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC 401(a)). Therefore, under no 78 circumstances shall any funds contributed to this plan or any assets of the plan or trust ever 79 revert to or be used or enjoyed by the city, nor shall any such funds or assets ever be used other 80 than for the benefits of the employees of the city and their beneficiaries, prior to the satisfaction 81 of all liabilities under this plan to the employees. 82 (Code 1968, § 2-88; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-177; Ord. of 7-26-1993, § 2) 83 84 Sec. 2-323. Eligibility of participant. 85 Each eligible employee not drawing any retirement benefits from the mayor and city council as 86 of January 1, 1967, shall, upon compliance with the provisions of this division, become a 87 pension plan participant under this division, commencing on July 1, 1967, or at any subsequent 88 time immediately upon his employment. Effective September 28, 2009 the defined benefit plan 89 is closed to new participants. 90 (Code 1968, § 2-97; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-178; Ord. of 6-8-1987)

91 92 Sec. 2-324. Participation mandatory; exceptions. 93 The pension plan shall not be construed to give any employee the right to be retained in the 94 employ of the city. All new employees hired after July 1, 1991, shall be required, as a condition 95 of employment, to join the defined benefit plan or the deferred compensation plan defined 96 contribution plan. All new employees hired after September 29, 2009 are required to join the 97 defined contribution pension plan. All participants of the defined benefit pension plan as of 98 September 28, 2009 will remain members of either plan thereafter unless they shall leave the 99 employment of the city, retire or pass away or elect to terminate their participation in the defined 100 benefit plan and become a member of the defined contribution pension plan as defined in Section 101 2-341(f). 102 103 (Code 1968, § 2-97; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-179; Ord. of 5-28-1991; Ord. of 5-22- 104 2000) 105 106 Sec. 2-325. Defraudment. 107 It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly make any false statement or falsify, or permit to 108 be falsified, any record of the pension plan in an attempt to defraud the plan. 109 (Code 1968, § 2-98; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-180) 110 111 Sec. 2-326. Normal retirement. 112 The normal retirement date for each participant shall be the first day of the month following the 113 attainment of the age of 65 years, provided that he has completed ten years of continuous service. 114 (Code 1968, § 2-99; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-181; Ord. of 6-24-1996) 115 116 Sec. 2-327. Early retirement. 117 (a) Reduced benefits. A participant who has completed ten years of continuous service and who 118 has attained the age of 55 years may retire at any time within the ten years preceding his normal 119 retirement date; provided, however, that his retirement benefits shall be computed at a reduced 120 rate of one-half percent for each month computed from the date of early retirement to age 65 121 years. 122 (b) Unreduced benefits. 123 (1) Hired May 1, 1994, or later. For eligible employees hired on or after May 1, 1994, a 124 participant who has attained the age of 55 years, and whose attained age plus years of continuous 125 service is equal to or greater than 80, may retire at any time prior to his normal retirement date 126 with no reduction in retirement benefits. 127 (2) Hired before May 1, 1994. For eligible employees hired before May 1, 1994, a participant 128 who has completed 25 years of continuous service, or has attained the age of 50 years and 129 completed 20 years of continuous service may retire at any time prior to his normal retirement 130 date with no reduction in retirement benefits. 131 (Code 1968, § 2-100; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-182; Ord. of 10-12-1982, § 1; Ord. of 132 4-25-1994) 133 134 Sec. 2-328. Later retirement.

135 If a participant works beyond his normal retirement date, the payment of the participant's 136 retirement benefits shall be deferred and shall commence on the first day of the month following 137 until his actual retirement. 138 (Code 1968, § 2-101; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-183; Ord. of 7-26-1993, § 3) 139 140 Sec. 2-329. Forced retirement with pension. 141 The pension board of trustees, upon recommendation of the city council or the city manager, 142 may require retirement in any case where deemed necessary due to the lack of work or inability 143 of the employee to perform with a satisfactory degree of efficiency, provided that the employee 144 qualifies for either normal retirement pursuant to section 2-326, or early retirement pursuant to 145 section 2-327. The employee shall then be entitled to receive, commencing on the first day of the 146 month coinciding with or next following his date of retirement, pension benefits equal to the 147 benefits computed in accordance with the provisions of section 2-330 on the basis of the 148 employee's service completed prior to actual retirement. 149 (Code 1968, § 2-102; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-184) 150 151 Sec. 2-330. Amount of retirement benefits. 152 (a) (Eliminate (a) if (b) is deleted) Retirement January 1, 1995, or later. The amount of 153 retirement benefits payable to a participant who retires on or after January 1, 1995, shall be 154 computed on the basis of one-fiftieth of his average actual monthly earnings multiplied by the 155 total number of years of continuous service. Average actual monthly earnings shall be a 156 participant's base pay plus scheduled overtime, payment for being on-call, except those hours 157 reported for being called out, and any retroactive pay corrections which involve any one of the 158 mentioned payments during any period of 36 consecutive months in his final ten years of 159 continuous service, which results in the highest average monthly earnings. In no instance shall 160 actual monthly earnings be less than $150.00. 161 162 If an employee’s approved absence is the result of a workers compensation injury, the base 163 wages that the employee would have earned had he not be on workers compensation leave will 164 be included when determining the highest 36 consecutive months within his final ten years of 165 continuous service. 166 167 The value of lost base salary as a result of mandatory furlough shall be added to an employee’s 168 final average compensation and considered in the calculation of the amount of retirement 169 benefits, if the time period in which the mandatory furlough was required is within the highest 36 170 consecutive months or earnings within the final ten years of continuous service. 171 172 (b) Retirement prior to July 1, 1967. To each retired employee receiving retirement benefits 173 from the mayor and city council prior to July 1, 1967, there shall be payable under this division 174 the same retirement benefits that existed prior to July 1, 1967, except that there shall be no 175 deductions from retirement benefits under this division for any payments received by the retired 176 employee under any state or federal social security program. 177 (Code 1968, § 2-103; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-185; Ord. of 10-12-1982, § 2; Ord. of 178 7-26-1993, § 4; Ord. of 4-25-1994; Ord. of 5-22-2000; Ord. of 7-10-2000) 179 180 Sec. 2-331. Form of benefits.

181 (a) Normal form. Payments of benefits in the normal form shall commence on the first day of 182 the month for which the benefit is for, if the participant is then living, and shall be pro rated and 183 paid on the first day of the month of the participant's actual retirement date. A monthly benefit 184 shall be payable on the first day of the second month preceding the date on which application for 185 such benefit is filed. Payment will be retroactive to the retirement date. Payments of benefits 186 shall be payable monthly thereafter during his lifetime, and terminating with the last payment on 187 the first day of the month of the death of the participant. 188 189 (b) Death of participant, etc. Upon the death of a participant who has retired, or who is eligible 190 to be retired under any of the provisions of this division, payment shall be made to his eligible 191 survivors in the amount of 50 percent of the monthly payments to which the participant was or 192 would have been entitled. Upon the death of a participant who has completed a minimum of 20 193 years of service but is not yet eligible to retire because of age, payment shall be made to his 194 eligible survivors in the amount of 50 percent of the monthly payment that would have resulted 195 by using his service time; however, the benefit is to be computed at a reduced rate of one-half 196 percent for each month the participant was under the correct age for normal retirement. In no 197 instance shall actual monthly payments be less than $200.00, to be effective July 1, 2000. 198 199 Upon the death of both the participant and eligible survivor, if the benefit payments received in 200 aggregate are less than the member's contributions, the balance of the member's contributions, 201 plus 5% interest, will be paid to the surviving beneficiary designated or his estate if no 202 designation has been made and submitted to the pension board. The amount of benefit payments 203 received and the amount of the member's contributions shall be determined from the record of 204 the pension board of trustees. Interest will be paid at the Federal Reserve discount rate on the 205 date of death, plus three percent. 206 (c) Eligible survivor. An eligible survivor shall be one of the following in the order of 207 preference listed: 208 (1) Spouse. The participant's spouse who was married to the participant for at least one year 209 and who was not domiciled apart from the participant at the date of his death; Revised strikeout 210 based upon April 12, 2010 Leg and Fin. Surviving spouse shall be required to provide 211 supporting documents of marriage. and place or residence. Revised strikeout based upon April 212 12, 2010 Leg and Fin. 213 214 (2) Children. Unmarried 215 (a)The surviving children ,biological or legally adopted, of the participant, who have not attained 216 their 18th birthday. 217 (b)If said child is attending school on a full-time basis and provides proof of attendance each 218 year of eligibility, with the payment due for the month in which he ceases to attend school on a 219 full-time basis or with the payment due for the month in which his 22nd birthday shall occur, 220 whichever shall occur first. 221 222 (d) Commencement of payment. Benefits payable to eligible survivors shall commence on the 223 first day of the month following the date of the participant's death. 224 225 (e) Benefits payable. Benefits payable to eligible survivors shall cease:

226 (1) Spouse. With respect to an eligible survivor who is a spouse, with the payment due for the 227 month in which their remarriage or death shall occur, whichever occurs first. 228 (2) Children. With respect to an eligible survivor who is a child(ren), with the payment due for 229 the month in which his 18th birthday or death shall occur, whichever shall occur first. Payments 230 shall be made in accordance with Section 2-331, 2(a)(b). 231 (f) Eligibility for benefits. The eligibility of any person or persons to receive payment of 232 benefits as an eligible survivor shall be determined conclusively by the pension board based on 233 application of such person or persons and any other information which the pension board deems 234 to be appropriate. 235 (Code 1968, § 2-104; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-186; Ord. of 6-8-1987; Ord. of 7-26- 236 1993, § 5; Ord. of 4-25-1994; Ord. of 12-11-1995; Ord. of 4-14-1997; Ord. of 5-22-2000; Ord. of 237 7-10-2000; Ord. of 3-12-2001; Ord. of 5-12-2003) 238 239 Sec. 2-332. Early retirement due to permanent disability. 240 Any employee who, at the time of the effective date of the ordinance from which this division is 241 derived, has completed ten years of continuous service, or Any employee who, after completing 242 at least 10 years of continuous service, shall be injured or whose health shall become 243 permanently impaired to such an extent as to render him totally and permanently disabled, shall 244 be retired upon application and approval of the pension board of trustees. The pension amount 245 will be based upon Section 2-330. There shall be no reduction in benefit. 246 (Code 1968, § 2-105; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-187) 247 248 Sec. 2-333. Total and permanent disability. 249 (a) Definition. As used in this division, a participant shall be deemed to be "totally and 250 permanently disabled" when the pension board of trustees, on the basis of a medical examination 251 by a physician or physicians selected by the pension board of trustees, finds the employee: 252 (1) Work generally. To be totally and permanently prevented from engaging in any occupation 253 or employment for remuneration or profit as a result of bodily or mental injury or disease, 254 whether occupational or nonoccupational in cause; or 255 (2) Employment. To be totally and permanently prevented from continuing in his capacity as an 256 employee as a result of bodily or mental injury or disease, whether occupational or 257 nonoccupational in cause. 258 (b) Exclusions. Total and permanent disability, within the terms of this division, shall exclude 259 disability resulting from or consisting of chronic alcoholism, addition to narcotics, engaging in a 260 felonious criminal act for which he is found guilty, or a willful effort on his part to bring about 261 the injury or illness to himself or any other person or service in the armed forces of any foreign 262 country. 263 264 (Code 1968, § 2-107; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-188; Ord. of 5-22-2000) 265 266 Sec. 2-334. Commencement of disability benefits. 267 (a) Removed from payroll. A participant who files for a disability pension shall not work and 268 be kept on the active payroll and receive credited service from the inception of the disability to 269 the end of the first full calendar month following the date of application.

270 (b) Change in compensation; leave. During the application period above, the participant's 271 compensation shall not be increased, and no vacation time or sick leave shall be debited or 272 credited to the participant. 273 (c) Commencement of benefits. The eligibility for payment of disability benefits under this 274 division shall commence, if approved, on the first day of the month following the application 275 period set forth in subsection (a) of this section. The participant shall receive a lump sum 276 payment for accumulative vacation time and sick leave as provided for in the city personnel 277 policy. 278 (d) Disapproved time away charged. Should the participant not have the application approved, 279 the time away from work during the application period shall be charged against any accumulated 280 sick leave or vacation time. 281 (Code 1968, § 2-107; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-189; Ord. of 8-10-1987) 282 283 Sec. 2-335. Termination of employment. 284 (a) Forfeiture of participation. Any participant whose employment is terminated prior to the 285 date he becomes eligible for retirement benefits and is not reemployed by the city within five 286 years shall forfeit his status as a participant in the pension plan and all accumulated credit for 287 continuous service. 288 (b) Exception. Subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to those persons receiving 289 disability pension benefits under this division. 290 (b) Ten years' service. Any participant with a minimum of ten years of continuous service and 291 whose employment is terminated prior to the date he becomes eligible for retirement benefits 292 under section 2-326, 2-327, 2-328 or 2-332, upon attaining the age of 65 years, shall be eligible 293 for retirement benefits under the provisions of section 2-330, upon application to the pension 294 board of trustees. The form of the benefit will be based on the formula which was in effect at the 295 time of termination. 296 (c) Lay-offs. Upon recall, any participant whose employment is terminated due to a lay-off and 297 is re-called within five years of lay-off, 298 (d) Terminated less than five years. Any participant whose employment had been terminated 299 for less than five years, as detailed in subsection (a) of this section, may apply to the Pension 300 Board to have their previous service credits restored immediately. , provided they meet the new 301 service requirements, and If they have withdrawn their contributions, they must repay them with 302 interest at a rate equal to the investment return assumption used in the most recent actuarial 303 analysis as calculated by the City’s actuary. A returning employee must make an election to 304 return previously refunded amounts, plus calculated interest, within 30 days of approval of the 305 Pension Board. Contributions will be reimbursed based on the gross amount received. 306 Participants who are laid-off and not recalled within five years shall forfeit his status as a 307 participant in the pension plan and all accumulated credit for continuous service.The new service 308 requirements are as follows: 309 (1) Participants reemployed by the city within 90 calendar days of termination shall have their 310 prior service credits immediately restored. 311 (2) Participants with less than 20 years of service must first be reemployed for five continuous 312 years prior to applying for past service credits. 313 (3) Participants with previous service of more than 20 years must be reemployed for a period of 314 two continuous years prior to applying for past service credits.

315 (e) Request for refund. When an employee leaves the employment of the city and is entitled to 316 withdraw his contributions, then he shall submit a written notarized request for a refund of these 317 contributions before payment shall be made. Refunds will be issued 90 days from the date when 318 the notarized request is received. Contributions will automatically be refunded five years from 319 date of separation. 320 (Code 1968, § 2-108; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-190; Ord. of 10-12-1982, § 3; Ord. of 321 11-28-1988; Ord. of 7-26-1993, § 6; Ord. of 4-25-1994; Ord. of 4-14-1997; Ord. of 7-10-2000; 322 Ord. of 5-12-2003) 323 324 Sec. 2-336. Cessation of disability pension benefits. 325 (a) A participant shall cease to qualify for disability pension benefits: 326 (1) Recovered. At the time that a pension board of trustees determines, on the basis of a 327 medical examination by a physician or physicians selected by the pension board, that a 328 participant is no longer totally and permanently disabled or has sufficiently recovered, but 329 refuses to resume his regular occupation as an employee or to be reemployed by the city in some 330 other position for which he is suited or which is appropriate to his training and experience; 331 (2) Refuses examination. When the participant refuses to undergo a medical examination 332 requested by the pension board of trustees; or 333 (3) Age 65 years. On the first day of the month coinciding with or next following the 334 participant's 65th birthday. 335 (b) Upon the occurrence of the earliest of the above events, disability pension benefits shall 336 cease, except that, if the event of subsection (a)(3) of this section occurs, payment of the normal 337 retirement benefits shall commence on that date, in the same amount as the disability pension 338 benefits. 339 (Code 1968, § 2-109; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-191) 340 341 Sec. 2-337. Effect of state workers' compensation on disability benefits. 342 Any disability pension benefits received by a participant under the terms of this division as the 343 result of an injury or illness compensable under the workers' compensation laws of the state shall 344 be reduced by the amount of the workers' compensation payments actually received by the 345 participant. 346 (Code 1968, § 2-110; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-192) 347 348 Sec. 2-338. Benefits to cease upon reemployment; exceptions. 349 Any employee of the city who is receiving, or who shall receive, benefits under this division, and 350 who is thereafter reemployed by the city or appointed to any position by the mayor or council 351 bearing remuneration, shall cease to draw benefits during the period of reemployment. Upon 352 termination of the reemployment, the benefits shall be restored. The provisions of this section 353 shall not apply to any employee who receives remuneration as a result of being elected or 354 appointed to an elective or appointed office in the city, nor to any employee reemployed by the 355 city in a temporary capacity, so long as city earnings do not result in a reduction of the Social 356 Security benefits actually received by the employee because the employee exceeded the earnings 357 limit defined by Social Security for benefit reduction for postretirement earnings. not to exceed 358 180 calendar days. Employees would be eligible to return to temporary status immediately 359 following retirement.

360 (Code 1968, § 2-111; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-193; Ord. of 8-27-1990; Ord. of 4-25- 361 1994; Ord. of 6-11-2007) 362 363 Sec. 2-339. Benefit assignment, transfer, etc. 364 No participant or beneficiary under the plan shall assign, transfer, hypothecate, encumber, 365 commute or anticipate any interest he may have in payments, funds or contracts under this plan. 366 No interest shall in any way be subject to any legal process, levy of execution, attachment or 367 garnishment proceedings for the payment of any claim against the participant or any beneficiary 368 under the plan, nor shall any such interest be subject to the jurisdiction of any bankruptcy court 369 or insolvency proceedings. 370 (Code 1968, § 2-112; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-194) 371 372 Sec. 2-340. Correction of payment errors. 373 Should any change or error in the records result in any member or beneficiary receiving from the 374 plan more or less than he would have been entitled to receive had the records been correct, the 375 pension board of trustees shall have the power to correct the error, and as far as practicable and 376 just, to adjust the payments in a manner that the equivalent of the benefit to which the member or 377 beneficiary was correctly entitled shall be paid. 378 (Code 1968, § 2-113; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-195) 379 380 Sec. 2-341. Contributions. 381 (a) Payroll deductions 382 (1) Amount. For each year, while a participant of the plan, a participant shall contribute, by 383 payroll deductions, an amount equal to 3 1/2 percent of his average actual monthly earnings as 384 described in section 2-330 (effective May 1, 1994). 385 (2) Employer contributions. The city, pursuant to the provisions of section 414(h)(2) of the 386 United States Internal Revenue Code (26 USC 414(h)(2)), shall pick up and pay the 387 contributions which would otherwise be payable by the employee under this section. The 388 contributions so picked up shall be treated as employer contributions for purposes of determining 389 the amounts of federal income taxes to be withheld from the employee's compensation. 390 (3) Employee contributions picked up by city. Employee contributions picked up by the city 391 shall be paid from the same source of funds used for the payment of compensation to an 392 employee. A deduction shall be made from each employee's compensation equal to the amount 393 of the employee's compensation picked up by the employer. This deduction, however, shall not 394 reduce the employee's compensation for purposes of computing benefits under the retirement 395 system pursuant to this division. 396 (4) Employee contributions credited. 397 a. Employee contributions shall be credited to a separate account within the employee's 398 individual account so that the amount contributed prior to the effective date for the pickup of 399 employee's contributions may be distinguished from the amounts contributed on or after the 400 effective date. 401 b. The contributions, although designated as employee contributions, are being paid by the 402 employer in lieu of the contributions by the employee. The employee will not be given the option 403 of choosing to receive the contributed amounts directly instead of having them paid by the 404 employer to the retirement system.

405 (b) City contributions. The city shall make such contributions as necessary to meet the 406 requirements of the plan. Effective May 1, 1994, the city shall pick up the employee 407 contributions by a reduction in current earnings. Such picked up contributions shall be treated as 408 employer contributions in determining tax treatment under the Internal Revenue Code; however, 409 the contributions so picked up shall be included in earnings for purposes of the plan. Participant 410 contributions which are picked up shall be treated, for all purposes of this plan, in the same 411 manner as participant contributions made prior to May 1, 1994. 412 (c) Other contributions. The pension board of trustees shall receive all appropriations, 413 contributions and interest allowances as may be received from time to time by the city from the 414 state or any other source, and designated specifically for employee pensions. 415 (d) Withdrawal from plan. A member who withdraws from the pension plan for any reason, 416 other than retirement, death or disability, may request his accumulated contributions, plus 5% 417 interest, be paid to him after such date of withdrawal; provided, however, his contributions shall 418 not be refunded to him earlier than 90 days after receipt of his notarized application for the same. 419 Interest shall be calculated using the prevailing Federal Reserve discount rate, plus three percent, 420 on the date of request. 421 (e) Death of ineligible member. Upon the death of a member not eligible to retire under any 422 provision of this division, his employee contributions shall be payable in a single sum to his 423 designated beneficiary or his estate if no designation has been made. and submitted to the 424 pension board. 425 (f) Deferred compensation. Defined Contribution. Each eligible employee not drawing any 426 retirement benefits from the city as of February 1 of each year, who makes an irrevocable 427 decision to join the deferred compensation defined contribution plan, shall become a deferred 428 compensation defined contribution plan participant on February 1 of that same year and shall 429 forfeit participation in the city employee’s pension plan. A member who withdraws from the 430 pension plan in this manner shall have his accumulated contributions paid to him after such date 431 of withdrawal and he shall forfeit any other payments from the pension plan. 432 (Code 1981, § 2-196; Ord. of 10-12-1982, § 4; Ord. of 12-13-1982; Ord. of 7-11-1983; Ord. of 433 4-25-1994(2); Ord. of 12-11-1995; Ord. of 7-10-2000; Ord. of 5-12-2003) 434 435 Sec. 2-342. City paramedics transferred to county. 436 Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, all persons employed by the city as 437 paramedics, who are transferred to the county emergency medical services department and who 438 make a written election to remain in the city general employee pension plan, shall continue to be 439 considered eligible employees within the meaning of the pension plan as long as they are 440 employed by the county emergency medical services department. All pension benefits for any 441 such paramedic shall be calculated as if the paramedic had remained a city employee during his 442 employment with the county emergency medical services department. 443 (Code 1981, § 2-197; Ord. of 8-26-1991) 444 445 Sec. 2-343. Limitation on benefits. 446 To the extent necessary, the participant's benefit under this plan and all plans of the city shall be 447 limited in accordance with section 415 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC 415) and the 448 regulations thereunder, and such code section and regulations shall hereby be incorporated 449 herein. 450 (Code 1981, § 2-198; Ord. of 7-26-1993, § 7)

451 452 Sec. 2-344. Distributions. 453 All distributions from this plan shall be made in accordance with section 401(a)(9) of the Internal 454 Revenue Code (26 USC 401(a)(9)) and the regulations thereunder, and such code section and 455 regulations shall hereby be incorporated herein. 456 (Code 1981, § 2-199; Ord. of 7-26-1993, § 8) 457 458 Sec. 2-345. Maximum compensation. 459 The maximum earnings utilized for purposes of determining benefits shall be limited in 460 accordance with section 401(a)(17) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC 401(a)(17)) and the 461 regulations thereunder, and such code section and regulations shall hereby be incorporated 462 herein. 463 (Code 1981, § 2-200; Ord. of 7-26-1993, § 9) 464 465 Secs. 2-346--2-360. Reserved. 466 467 Subdivision II. Board of Trustees 468 469 Sec. 2-361. Established; duties. 470 There is hereby established a pension board of trustees the duties of which shall be to manage the 471 city employees pension plan. 472 (Code 1968, §§ 2-72, 2-89; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-201; Ord. of 5-22-2000) 473 474 Sec. 2-362. Composition. 475 The pension board of trustees shall consist of the following persons: 476 (1) Manager. The city manager. 477 (2) City officials. Two elected city officials who shall be appointed by the council president, 478 subject to confirmation of a voting majority of the city council at its annual meeting. 479 (3) Participants. Three participants or retired participants of the plan who shall be elected by 480 the participants and retired participants of the plan. 481 (4) Finance directorController/treasurer. The city finance directorController/Treasurer. 482 (5) Election. 483 (a) Such election shall be for three-year staggered terms, beginning July 1 and ending June 30 484 three years later. A regular election for filling these positions will be held the third week of June 485 each year. 486 (b) In the first week of April of each year, the city clerk shall notify those eligible to vote of the 487 exact time and place of the election. Any general employee pension plan member that is eligible 488 to vote and appears on the listing of qualified voters who will be unable to appear at the polling 489 place on the date and time of the election may cast his or her vote by absentee ballot in the 490 general employee(s pension plan election for the following reasons: 1) armed forces, 2) public 491 service, 3) occupation, 4) sickness, 5) disability, 6) religion, 7) vacation, or 8) residency outside 492 of the Dover area which makes it infeasible to vote in person. 493 (Code 1968, §§ 2-89, 2-90; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-202; Ord. of 5-10-1982; Ord. of 494 8-23-1982; Ord. of 11-26-1990, § 5; Ord. of 4-25-1994; Ord. of 5-22-2000; Ord. of 10-8- 495 2007(1))

496 497 Sec. 2-363. Term of office of members. 498 The term of office of each member of the pension board of trustees, except the city finance 499 directorController/treasurer, city manager, and elected city officials, shall commence on the first 500 day of the month following his election and continue for a period of three years or until his 501 successor shall be elected and qualified. 502 (Code 1968, § 2-91; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-203; Ord. of 8-23-1982; Ord. of 4-25- 503 1994; Ord. of 5-22-2000) 504 505 Sec. 2-364. Officers and ex officio members. 506 The pension board of trustees shall elect a chairperson, a vice-chairperson who shall serve when 507 the chairperson is absent, a secretary and a treasurer or fiscal agent designated by the pension 508 board. The city finance directorController/treasurer shall be the pension fund treasurer and his 509 bond shall cover all monies deposited with him. 510 (Code 1968, § 2-1992; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-204; Ord. of 4-25-1994; Ord. of 5-22- 511 2000) 512 513 Sec. 2-365. Vacancies. 514 If a vacancy occurs in the offices of the pension board of trustees, the vacancy shall be filled for 515 the unexpired term within 60 days and in the same manner as the office was originally filled. 516 Should a member of the pension board of trustees cease to be in the employ of the city, other 517 than by retiring in accordance with this division, his office as a member of the board shall be 518 declared vacant. 519 (Code 1968, § 2-95; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-205; Ord. of 5-22-2000; Ord. of 10-8- 520 2007(2)) 521 522 Sec. 2-366. Compensation of members. 523 Members of the pension board of trustees shall serve without compensation. 524 (Code 1968, § 2-89; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-206; Ord. of 5-22-2000) 525 526 Sec. 2-367. Meetings. 527 The pension board of trustees shall make all rules as to the time and place of meetings; and a 528 majority of its membership shall be required to transact pension board business. 529 (Code 1968, § 2-94; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-207; Ord. of 5-22-2000) 530 531 Sec. 2-368. Powers. 532 The pension board of trustees, in administering the pension plan, shall have the following powers 533 in carrying out the purposes thereof: 534 (1) Payment of funds. To pay funds to those entitled to receive them. The pension board 535 chairperson shall sign all vouchers for the disbursements of the funds and his written order shall 536 fully protect the pension board treasurer or fiscal agent designated by the pension board in the 537 payment of those funds; 538 (2) Purchase annuity contracts. To purchase and pay the costs of group annuity contracts from 539 any insurance company for the benefit of participants; 540 (3) Employment of agents, employees, etc. To employ agents, employees or experts to assist the 541 pension board of trustees in carrying out the provisions of this division, including an agent to

542 advise and make recommendations concerning the investment of funds, and to pay reasonable 543 compensation for those services, and the compensation may be paid from income or corpus of 544 the pension fund or by direct appropriation by the city council as the pension board of trustees 545 and the city council may determine; 546 (4) Investments. To invest and reinvest money in the pension fund, without any limitation, in 547 United States or state municipal bonds or group annuity contracts. Money in the pension fund 548 may also be invested and reinvested in other types of bonds, stocks, and securities to the extent 549 the pension board of trustees may deem best and as is not prohibited by any law now or hereafter 550 in force limiting the investments of the trustees. The pension board of trustees may from time to 551 time change the investments of the fund and, to this end, may make sales of any investment 552 privately, without advertisement and without the necessity of any court order, upon the terms that 553 the pension board deems proper. The funds and investments may also be from time to time 554 turned over to and placed in the custody of any fiscal agent designated by the pension board; 555 (5) Contracts. To generally contract in matters relevant to effectuating and achieving the 556 purposes of this plan; 557 (6) Pension benefits. To receive and pay out pension benefits in accordance with the provisions 558 of this division, or designate a fiscal agent to receive and pay out the pension benefits; 559 (7) Rules and regulations. To make rules and regulations as may be necessary to effectuate this 560 subdivision. 561 (Code 1968, § 2-93; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-208; Ord. of 5-22-2000; Ord. of 5-12- 562 2003) 563 564 Sec. 2-369. City solicitor to render legal services. 565 The city solicitor shall render whatever legal service the pension board of trustees shall require. 566 (Code 1968, § 2-115; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-209; Ord. of 5-22-2000) 567 568 Sec. 2-370. Appeals. 569 Any employee dissatisfied with the action of the pension board of trustees shall have the right to 570 appeal to the city council within 30 days from the date of formal notification of that action. 571 (Code 1968, § 2-116; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-210; Ord. of 5-22-2000) 572 Secs. 2-371--2-390. Reserved.

CITY OF DOVER FINANCE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY BUDGET REPORT APRIL 2010 PREPARED BY: FINANCE DEPARTMENT PLEASE NOTE – THIS REPORT PROVIDES TOP LINE INFORMATION ON THE THREE MAJOR OPERATING FUNDS. IF YOU WOULD LIKE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

Page 2 of 7 City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Budget Report April 2010 S Strategic Objectives for Fiscal Year 2009 – 2010 1. Coordinate audit program with the Legislative, Finance & Administrative Committee. Meet all deadlines as established in the audit program. 2. Fortis training and implementation for Payroll and Accounts Payable. 3. Each staff member will take three (3) in house Sungard training sessions. ACTIVITY LEVELS FY09 YTD FY10 YTD BANK TRENDS Number of Deposits Made 1,166 939 Total Amount of All Deposits $ 113,979,514 $ 111,239,972 PAYROLL Hours % Amount Hours % Amount Gross wages per registers 795,272 100.0% $ 17,672,719 811,028 100.0% $ 17,741,369 Wages and Hours Worked Regular 684,758 86.1% $ 14,463,681 658,203 81.2% $ 13,894,859 All over time 26,824 3.4% $ 1,031,643 32,538 4.0% $ 1,262,056 Other Paid or Unpaid Wages and Hours Vacation 45,189 5.7% $ 1,142,763 43,758 5.4% $ 1,125,202 Sick 18,419 2.3% $ 404,896 16,697 2.1% $ 375,488 Furlough - 0.0% $ - 18,368 2.3% $ - Terminal Leave - Retiree Vacation/Sick Payout 6,573 0.8% $ 207,005 19,857 2.4% $ 629,563 Comp Time (Police) 3,986 0.5% $ 109,096 4,776 0.6% $ 146,980 Personal 1,887 0.2% $ 50,373 1,756 0.2% $ 47,319 Leave Without Pay 921 0.1% $ - 3,935 0.5% $ - Other (description below) 6,718 0.8% $ 263,264 11,141 1.4% $ 259,901 Other includes: pay adjustments, military differential pay, committee meetings, worker compensation tracking/adjustments, etc. Other Activity Number of Pay Periods 22 22 Number of Payroll Checks Issued 9,673 9,462 Number of Pension Checks Issued 2,234 2,301 Total Pension Benefits Paid - Defined Benefit Plan $ 3,458,994 $ 3,638,331 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Number of Check Vouchers 5,472 4,517 Number of EFT Vouchers 1,589 1,519 Vouchers Dollar Amount Disbursed $ 105,929,102 $ 95,225,329

Page 3 of 7 City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – April 2010 General Fund Summary 83% of Revised Revised Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Receipts Beginning Balance $ 2,816,763 $ 3,628,890 $ 3,628,890 $ - 100.0% Court of Chancery Fees 745,000 745,000 495,670 249,330 66.5% Fines & Police Revenues 965,000 965,000 734,671 230,329 76.1% Franchise Fees 486,000 486,000 343,459 142,541 70.7% Grants 734,000 734,000 231,974 502,026 31.6% Intrafund Services 4,475,714 4,475,714 3,386,438 1,089,276 75.7% Library & Recreation Revenues 668,008 668,008 570,712 97,296 85.4% Licenses & Permits 2,334,000 2,334,000 2,319,438 14,562 99.4% Property Taxes (Includes BID Revenue) 10,237,938 10,237,938 10,014,626 223,312 97.8% Sanitation Revenues 1,420,000 1,420,000 1,143,100 276,900 80.5% Other Miscellaneous Revenues 348,785 348,785 223,221 125,564 64.0% Transfers-In from Other Accounts & Utilities Civil Traffic Penalties 700,000 700,000 548,570 151,430 78.4% Municipal Street Aid Fund 775,200 - - - 0.0% Transfer Taxes 1,400,000 1,400,000 627,829 772,171 44.8% Water/Wastewater Fund 548,020 548,020 548,020 - 100.0% Electric Fund 6,758,100 6,758,100 6,758,100 - 100.0% Total $ 35,412,528 $ 35,449,455 $ 31,574,718 $ 3,874,737 89.1% Expenditures City Clerk & Council $ 403,264 $ 403,264 $ 283,400 $ 119,864 70.3% Mayor, City Manager & Human Resources 1,074,989 1,078,989 812,816 266,173 75.3% Police & Police Extra Duty 12,188,986 12,219,201 10,302,358 1,916,843 84.3% Public Services 4,532,477 4,532,477 3,747,362 785,115 82.7% Central Services 2,520,269 2,520,269 1,942,286 577,983 77.1% Planning & Inspections 1,970,626 1,970,626 1,559,377 411,249 79.1% Finance, Info Tech & Customer Services 2,557,920 2,557,920 1,988,473 569,447 77.7% Library & Recreation 1,906,183 1,906,183 1,438,938 467,245 75.5% Fire Department 750,445 750,445 594,261 156,184 79.2% Assessor 572,526 572,526 432,505 140,021 75.5% Debt Service 328,410 328,410 328,410 - 100.0% Insurance 600,000 600,000 549,938 50,062 91.7% Retirees' Health Care 1,014,820 1,014,820 813,521 201,299 80.2% Street Lights 985,000 985,000 797,112 187,888 80.9% Loss on sale of asset - - - - 0.0% Transfer to CDBG 11,000 11,000 - 11,000 0.0% Provision for Uncollectible 10,000 10,000 10,000 - 100.0% Transfers Out Capital Projects Fund 344,802 344,802 344,802 - 100.0% Police Pension Fund 620,000 620,000 101,733 518,267 16.4% Budget Bal-Working Capital 3,020,811 3,023,523 - 3,023,523 0.0% Total $ 35,412,528 $ 35,449,455 $ 26,047,292 $ 9,402,163 73.5% Reserve Balances Contingency $ 645,254 $ 744,871 $ 762,476

Page 4 of 7 City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – April 2010 Water/Wastewater Fund Summary 83% of Revised Revised Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Revenue Beginning Bal-Water $ 662,079 $ 659,584 $ 659,584 $ - 100.0% Beginning Bal-Wastewater 307,112 327,614 327,614 - 100.0% Beginning Bal-Kent Co Sewer Adj. 100,194 (397,473) (397,473) - 100.0% Water Fees 4,499,000 4,499,000 3,528,491 970,509 78.4% Wastewater Fees 3,045,560 3,045,560 2,499,846 545,714 82.1% Kent County Treatment Fees 3,435,390 3,435,390 2,569,361 866,029 74.8% Water Tank Leases 293,669 293,669 257,740 35,929 87.8% Miscellaneous 149,600 149,600 51,583 98,017 34.5% Impact Fees - Water 280,000 280,000 165,817 114,183 59.2% Impact Fees - Wastewater 475,000 475,000 235,758 239,242 49.6% Total $ 13,247,604 $ 12,767,944 $ 9,898,321 $ 2,869,623 77.5% Expenses Engineering & Inspection $ 697,783 $ 697,783 $ 594,894 $ 102,889 85.3% Water 458,333 458,333 318,164 140,169 69.4% Water Treatment Plant 1,517,663 1,517,663 1,178,021 339,642 77.6% Wastewater 988,455 988,455 732,456 255,999 74.1% Water Meter Reading 72,533 72,533 53,705 18,828 74.0% Construction & Inspection 410,338 410,338 352,338 58,000 85.9% Kent County Treatment Fees 3,435,430 3,435,430 3,856,663 (421,233) 112.3% Retiree’s Health Care 134,680 134,680 110,281 24,399 81.9% Debt Service 832,951 832,951 394,485 438,466 47.4% Intrafund Services 1,262,456 1,262,456 897,009 365,447 71.1% Transfers Out General Fund 548,020 548,020 548,020 - 100.0% Water/Wastewater I & E Fund 700,000 700,000 700,000 - 100.0% Impact Fee Reserve 110,062 110,062 - 110,062 0.0% Budget Bal-Working Capital - Water 1,136,086 1,133,591 - 1,133,591 0.0% Budget Bal-Working Capital - WW 842,660 863,162 - 863,162 0.0% Budget Bal-Working Capital - KSA 100,154 (397,513) - (397,513) 0.0% Total $ 13,247,604 $ 12,767,944 $ 9,736,036 $ 3,031,908 76.3% Reserve Balances Contingency-Water $ 122,431 $ 122,919 $ 121,568 Contingency-Wastewater $ 136,910 $ 137,452 $ 135,980 Impact Fee Reserve - Sewer NO BUDGET NO BUDGET $ 3,583,951 Impact Fee Reserve - Water NO BUDGET NO BUDGET $ 126,000 Bond Coverage Ratio (Covenant 1.20) 3.22 3.28 1.07

Page 5 of 7 City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – April 2010 Electric Revenue Fund Summary 83% of Revised Revised Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Revenue Beginning Balance $ 8,219,350 $ 11,415,737 $ 11,415,737 $ - 100.0% Sales to Customers 99,533,042 99,533,042 79,455,594 20,077,448 79.8% Utility Tax 1,781,500 1,781,500 1,570,971 210,529 88.2% Weyandt Hall Rents 186,816 186,816 164,015 22,801 87.8% Miscellaneous Revenues 1,621,284 1,621,284 1,201,544 419,740 74.1% Intrafund Service Receipts Water/Wasterwater 270,626 270,626 144,899 125,727 53.5% Total $ 111,612,618 $ 114,809,005 $ 93,952,760 $ 20,856,245 81.8% Expenses Power Supply & Generation Power Supply $ 55,619,481 $ 55,619,481 $ 45,995,122 $ 9,624,359 82.7% Power Supply Management/Incentive 3,000,000 3,000,000 2,492,103 507,897 83.1% Capacity Charges 13,469,528 13,469,528 11,321,504 2,148,024 84.1% Rate Stabilization Credit (3,000,000) (3,000,000) - (3,000,000) 0.0% PJM Charges - Load 13,943,413 13,943,413 5,359,569 8,583,844 38.4% Total Power Supply 83,032,422 83,032,422 65,168,298 17,864,124 78.5% Plant Operations 5,798,710 5,848,710 4,025,577 1,823,133 68.8% Generation Fuels 1,275,251 1,275,251 118,909 1,156,342 9.3% Capacity Credits (12,133,285) (12,133,285) (10,130,743) (2,002,542) 83.5% PJM Credits (1,701,066) (1,701,066) (387,695) (1,313,371) 22.8% Total Generation (6,760,390) (6,710,390) (6,373,952) (336,438) 95.0% Total Power Supply & Plant 76,272,032 76,322,032 58,794,346 17,527,686 77.0% Electric Operating Divisions Transmission/Distribution 3,318,622 3,318,622 2,439,928 878,694 73.5% Electrical Engineering 1,500,012 1,500,012 1,051,102 448,910 70.1% Administration 640,535 640,535 577,378 63,157 90.1% Meter Reading 289,103 289,103 230,970 58,133 79.9% Systems Operations 624,520 624,520 398,765 225,755 63.9% Utility Tax 1,781,500 1,781,500 1,570,971 210,529 88.2% Interest on Deposits 54,500 54,500 29,112 25,388 53.4% Retirees Health Care 567,430 567,430 437,330 130,100 77.1% Green Energy Payment to DEMEC 137,600 137,600 108,024 29,576 78.5% Intrafund Services 3,483,884 3,483,884 2,634,327 849,557 75.6% Accounts Receivable Write-Offs 135,000 135,000 135,000 - 100.0% Inventory Write-Offs 175,000 175,000 175,000 - 100.0% Contractual Services 2030 Committee 497,250 497,250 50,549 446,701 10.2% Debt Service 3,956,600 3,956,600 3,389,842 566,758 85.7% Transfers Out Electric Improvement & Extension Fund 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 - 100.0% General Fund 6,758,100 6,758,100 6,758,100 - 100.0% Contingency Reserve 83,500 83,500 83,500 - 100.0% Budget Bal. - Work. Capital 8,837,430 11,983,817 - 11,983,817 0.0% Total $ 111,612,618 $ 114,809,005 $ 81,364,244 $ 33,444,761 70.9% Reserve Balances Contingency Reserve $ 1,036,069 $ 1,039,854 $ 1,034,136 Insurance Reserve $ 395,002 $ 396,603 $ 394,205 Rate Stabilization Reserve $ 1,718,613 $ 1,729,127 $ 4,749,366 Bond Coverage Ratio (Covenant 1.25) 1.60 1.81 2.12 Megawatt Hours Sold & Purchased Sales to Customers MWh (excluding Street Lights) 747,193 747,193 593,346 Sales per MWh $ 135.594 $ 135.594 $ 136.559 Purchased/Generated MWh 788,808 788,808 614,680 All In MWh Supply & Generation $ 96.693 $ 96.756 $ 95.650

Page 6 of 7 City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – April 2010 General Capital Project Fund Summary 83% of Revised Revised Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Revenue Beginning Balance - Projects $ 375,408 $ 462,693 $ 462,693 $ - 100.0% Transfer from General Fund for Projects 344,802 344,802 344,802 - 100.0% Recreation Grant - - - - 0.0% State Grant - Library 4,000,000 4,180,234 198,381 3,981,853 4.7% Miscelleanous Receipts - - 25,000 (25,000) 0.0% Library Bond Issue/Contributions 1,912,433 1,912,433 - 1,912,433 0.0% Transfer from Library Reserve 3,000,000 3,180,235 157,693 3,022,542 5.0% Interest Earnings 2,700 2,700 9,187 (6,487) 340.3% Income from Sale of Assets - - 35,358 (35,358) 0.0% Total $ 9,635,343 $ 10,083,097 $ 1,233,114 $ 8,849,983 12.2% Expenditures Fire $ 292,210 $ 292,210 $ 228,976 $ 63,234 78.4% Library 8,912,433 9,272,902 362,486 8,910,416 3.9% Recreation - 70,000 28,734 41,266 41.0% Police 73,700 94,706 36,285 58,421 38.3% Streets 350,000 350,000 40,627 309,373 11.6% Information Technology 7,000 7,000 - 7,000 0.0% Transfer to Library Reserve (1) - - 106 (106) 0.0% Budget Balance - Projects - (3,721) - (3,721) 0.0% Total $ 9,635,343 $ 10,083,097 $ 697,214 $ 9,385,883 6.9% Reserve Balances Capital Asset Replacement Reserve $ 242,074 $ 334,369 $ 247,684 Library Reserve $ 3,426,400 $ 3,671,078 $ 3,451,049 Parkland/Recreation $ 192,735 $ 218,245 $ 223,403

Page 7 of 7 City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – April 2010 Water/Wastewater Improvement & Extension Fund Summary 83% of Revised Revised Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Revenue Beginning Balance-Water $ 431,400 $ 1,631,844 $ 1,631,844 $ - 100.0% Beginning Balance-Wastewater 219,375 625,152 625,152 - 100.0% Department of Energy Grant - 45,248 - 45,248 0.0% Income from Sale of Assets - - 4,821 (4,821) 0.0% Interest Earned - - 36,519 (36,519) 0.0% State Loan-Water 2,404,017 2,404,017 - 2,404,017 0.0% State Loan-Wastewater 5,942,481 5,942,481 - 5,942,481 0.0% Transfer from Water Operating Fund for Water 500,000 500,000 500,000 - 100.0% Transfer from Wastewater Operating Fund for Wastewater 200,000 200,000 200,000 - 100.0% Transfer from Impact Fee Reserve 518,230 518,230 - 518,230 0.0% Total $ 10,215,503 $ 11,866,972 $ 2,998,336 $ 8,868,636 25.3% Expenses Water $ 2,987,317 $ 3,753,430 $ 437,716 $ 3,315,714 11.7% Wastewater 6,539,110 6,912,942 343,208 6,569,734 5.0% Water Construction 39,000 39,000 38,793 207 99.5% Budget Bal-Working Capital - Water 309,100 753,431 - 753,431 0.0% Budget Bal-Working Capital - Wastewater 340,976 408,169 - 408,169 0.0% Total $ 10,215,503 $ 11,866,972 $ 819,717 $ 11,047,255 6.9% Reserve Balances Capital Asset Replacement - Water $ 184,698 $ 211,857 $ 210,471 Capital Asset Replacement - Wastewater $ 87,357 $ 67,514 $ 66,086 City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – April 2010 Electric Improvement & Extension Fund Summary 83% of Revised Revised Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Revenue Beginning Balance $ 1,461,547 $ 2,625,760 $ 2,625,760 $ - 100.0% Beginning Balance Bond Proceeds 1,378,257 4,240,034 4,240,034 - 100.0% Bond Proceeds 1,958,107 - - - 0.0% Interest Earnings 33,700 33,700 13,976 19,724 41.5% Transfer from Electric Revenue Fund 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 - 100.0% State Reimbursement for Projects - 710,318 257,707 452,611 36.3% DEMA Grant for Security System - 105,723 33,724 71,999 31.9% Green Energy Grant for Photovoltaic System - 135,152 - 135,152 0.0% Total $ 7,331,611 $ 10,373,694 $ 9,671,201 $ 702,493 93.2% Expenses Power Plant $ 1,254,000 $ 1,576,645 $ 435,655 $ 1,140,990 27.6% Transmission/Distribution 1,127,147 1,108,147 609,543 498,604 55.0% Electrical Engineering 3,525,536 5,865,211 2,884,528 2,980,683 49.2% Administration - 105,723 90,888 14,835 86.0% Budget Bal. - Work. Capital 1,424,928 1,717,968 - 1,717,968 0.0% Total $ 7,331,611 $ 10,373,694 $ 4,020,614 $ 6,353,080 38.8% Reserve Balances Depreciation Reserve $ 7,991,763 $ 8,079,990 $ 7,974,106 Future Capacity Reserve $ 8,900,651 $ 9,023,863 $ 8,970,996

Dover Police Department Monthly Report To Mayor & City Council “To Protect and Serve” April 2010

May 12, 2010 Honorable Carleton E. Carey, Sr., Mayor Members of Dover City Council City Hall Dover, DE 19901 Mayor Carey and Council Members: The following is the report on Police Department activities for the month of April 2010: COMPLAINTS Total complaints received through April 30th, 12,000 numbered 10,228. This is an increase of 1,712* 9,655 10,228 9,333 9,608 complaints over the same time period for last year. 8,516 8,000 *Such a large increase is due in part to all calls for service are now included in total. 4,000 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS 20 15 16 Cases Reported in 12 April 12 Cases Cleared in April 7 7 8 5 5 Cases Cleared from 4 Previous Months 0 1 0 0 Burglary Robbery Rape

Report to Mayor and Council April 2010 Page 2 QUALITY OF LIFE TASK SECTION ENFORCEMENT ACTION ARRESTS ABANDONED VEHICLES 16 ALCOHOL VIOLATIONS/DUI’S 1 ASSIST OTHER 0 WARRANTS ON FILE 0 BIKE ON SIDEWALK 0 CITY PARK VIOLATIONS 0 CRIMINAL ARRESTS 19 DRUG RELATED ARRESTS 7 LOUD MUSIC 10 MISCELLANEOUS VIOLATIONS 3 PARKING VIOLATIONS 14 PEDDLER 0 MEETINGS 0 PROSTITUTION 0 COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT DCO’S 0 WANTED CHECKS/CPC’S 22 TRAFFIC ARRESTS 40 WARNINGS 0 FUGITIVE 14 TOTAL ARRESTS 146 TRAFFIC ARRESTS The department issued 5,923 traffic citations through this 12,000 reporting period. This is a decrease of 1,281 citations over the number issued during the same period last year. 7,204 8,000 6,259 6,091 5,923 5,624 4,000 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TRAFFIC CRASHES 1,200 Through April 30th, Dover Police investigated 607 traffic 736 crashes. This is a decrease of 29 accidents investigated 800 669 636 during the same period last year. 629 607 400 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Report to Mayor and Council April 2010 Page 3 911 CENTER 11% During the month of April, our 911 Center handled a total of 10,757 calls averaging 359 calls per day. 911 Landline Dispatchers handled 2,203 calls on the 911 wireless 20% 911 Wireless lines, an average of 74 calls per day and 1,136 calls on the 911 landlines, an average of 38 calls per day. Administrative 69% 4,000 3,395 3,130 3,175 CITY ORDINANCE SUMMONS 2,610 2,596 3,000 2,377 2,495 2,430 Through April 30th, we issued 2,495 city ordinance 1,862 1,851 summons, a decrease of 101 summons over April of last 2,000 year. *Note: of those summonses issued in April, 24 were issued for handicapped parking violations, 12 for fire 1,000 lane parking violations, 47 for false alarms (22 for 3-5 alarms, 9 for 6-9 alarms, 6 for 10-15 alarms, and 10 for 16 0 or more alarms) and 29 for noise violations (24 for vehicle 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 violations and 5 for residence violations). ISSUED PAID Listed below are the major crimes and activities that occurred during the month of April: • On Sunday, April 4, 2010, Dover Officers responded to an alarm at a business located on South State Street. Upon arriving the officers found that entry was attempted by damaging the glass to the front door. A short time later a Harrington PD officer detained a subject in Delaware State Police jurisdiction after observing him attempting to break into a business. The subject was then arrested by the Dover Police Department after his identity was confirmed by viewing a video from the store showing him attempting to gain entry through the front door. The subject was committed to the T. Vaughn Correctional Center • On April 8, 2010, Dover Officers charged a mother for Murder by Abuse or Neglect 2nd for the death of her child which occurred on October 8, 2009. On October 8, 2009, the 13 month old child was brought into BayHealth by his father. The child died a short time later and through investigation it was determined that the child died as a result of excessive amounts of acetaminophen administered by the child’s mother for teething pain. • On April 14, 2010, Detectives from the Drugs, Vice, & Organized Crime Section observed a subject operating a vehicle on South Dupont Highway in Dover. The detectives knew the subject to be wanted and conducted a traffic stop where the subject was found to be in possession of 15 bags of heroin and a large steak knife concealed in his waistband. During a search of the subject’s residence, Detectives located 3.4 grams of marijuana. • On April 15, 2010, Dover Officers responded to a residence on Blue Beach Drive for a report of a subject barricaded in his room with a container of gasoline threatening to ignite it. The Crisis Negotiation Team and the Special Operations Response Team were activated. The subject was ultimately taken into custody by the Special Operations Response Team who made entry into the residence after the subject refused to come out. He was transported to BayHealth for evaluation. The Dover Police would like to thank Robbins Hose, Kent County EMS, and Prime Care for their professionalism and assistance in helping resolve this conflict.

Report to Mayor and Council April 2010 Page 4 Major crimes and activities that occurred during the month of April continued: • On April 17, 2010, two unknown black males kicked in the rear door of a residence on Venue Drive. Once inside they produced handguns and demanded money. They fled the residence after obtaining an undetermined amount of money, in a vehicle which was parked at the rear of the residence. The suspects were described as wearing blue jeans disguises over faces, and black gloves. The vehicle was described as a dark blue 4 door. • On April 18, 2010, three unknown black males, one of which had a black and silver semi-auto handgun, forced entry into a victim’s residence on Wilson Drive through the front door. Once inside they assaulted the male resident. They then grabbed the female resident and demanded money. The suspects fled toward Schoolhouse Lane after obtaining an undetermined amount of money. • On April 21, 2010, Detectives from the Drugs, Vice, & Organized Crime Section conducted a search warrant at a subject’s residence on Pine Street. The subject was arrested after Detectives located a semi-automatic rifle and 24.1 grams of cocaine inside the residence. Def was arrested for Trafficking Cocaine, Possession of a Firearm During Commission of a Felony, and other related charges. He was released after posting a $72,531.00 secured bond. • On April 29, 2010, Dover Officers responded to a report of a man down in the parking lot on Loockerman Street. Upon arrival officers located the victim. The initial investigation revealed that the subject had jumped from the fire escape on the outside of the building in an apparent suicide attempt. He was transported to Bayhealth Kent General Hospital with severe facial, head and chest injuries. He was later airlifted to Christiana Hospital where he was listed in critical condition. Respectfully Submitted, James E. Hosfelt, Jr. Chief of Police

Monthly Report April 2010 Office of City Assessor

Assessor’s Report Major Updates Feb‐10 Mar‐10 Apr‐10 Assessment Change $1,844,900 $2,330,200 $11,438,900 Residential Sales Ratio Report Sales in Study Total Assessed Value Total Sale Price Ratio PRD 16 $2,175,400 $2,579,400 0.84 0.75 Ratio – Assessed Value divided by Sale Price. PRD – Mean – A PRD above 1.03 tends to indicate assessment regressivity – high valued properties are under appraised relative to low valued properties. A PRD below .98 tends to indicate assessment progressivity – high valued properties are relatively over appraised.

Assessor’s Report Points of Interest Scanning & Filing ‐ All new deeds are being scanned and attached to the CAMA software for easy retrieval. ‐ All appeal documents and correspondence are being scanned and attached to the CAMA software for easy retrieval. ‐ All deeds from 2006 through current day are scanned and attached to our software. ‐ Hard Copies of original property record cards are being scanned and attached to the CAMA software for easy retrieval. of previous years history. Assessor’s Office ‐ Published Assessment Registers ‐ Excepting Appeal Applications Supplemental Bills ‐ Supplemental Bills went out totaling $1,830.

CITY MANAGER’S MONTHLY REPORT April 2010 City Manager’s Monthly Report, April 2010

Customer Services 1,253 payments were processed online or by telephone in April 2010. City of Dover property taxes were due August 31, 2009 and as of April 30, 2010 the delinquent property taxes total $295,130.93. Our collection efforts include sending a delinquent statements, making phone calls, and enforcing the Clean Hands Act. The Planning and Inspections Departments have been providing assistance in collecting these outstanding debts. Budget and Program Development Met with Meter Reading staff regarding department reductions. Participated in the IUE‐CWA contract negotiations. Attended Performance Evaluation Education & Training session. Continued work on the Fiscal 2011 Draft Budget. Human Resources Began contract negotiations with IUE‐CWA. Conducted Performance Evaluation Education and Training sessions for all non‐bargaining employees. Information Technology McAfee antivirus software effected City computers. It took more than two days and two dedicated staff members to complete repairs at each individual PC. Physical installation of surveillance cameras in the downtown area is completed. Currently working on software issues. Parks, Recreation, & Library The Library recorded 704 people attending 20 children’s programs. The Annual Dover Park Easter Egg Hunt drew a crowd of several hundred children and families. Public Services Completed the evaluation of curbside recycling proposals versus in‐house program. Completed bid documents for the 2010 Street Program. Public Utilities Construction began on the Route 13 Sanitary Sewer Interceptor. 2 City Manager’s Monthly Report, April 2010

CITIZEN ACTION CENTER Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 Number of Frequently Asked Ques‐ 495 521 304 253 314 249 222 309 263 tions Citizens view answers to some of the most asked questions. Having this information available online it allows citizens to access the infor‐ mation regardless of the time; day or night. Total Number of Complaints Registered 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 Aug‐09 Sep‐09 Oct‐09 Nov‐09 Dec‐09 Ja n‐10 Feb‐10 Ma r‐10 Apr‐10 Aug 09 Sep 09 Oct 09 Nov 09 Dec 09 Jan10 Feb 10 Mar 10 Apr 10 Site Admin/Other 1 2 1 1 3 0 11 4 1 Public Utilities 3 3 1 1 1 4 0 7 6 Public Services/Public Works 2 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 Police 1 1 3 2 3 0 2 2 6 Planning/Inspections 84 61 38 17 14 24 14 37 102 Average Time to Close Planning and Inspections*: Property Code Violations—6.2 days * Increased number of property complaints is due to the high rate of foreclosures and decreased staff. Police: Community Policing— 5.7 days Public Services: 48.16 days Public Utilities: 1.1 days Site Admin/Other: General Inquires & Account Set Up —0.67 days City Manager’s Monthly Report, April 2010 3

CENTRAL SERVICES Fleet Operations & Maintenance Items on Hand with no Usage over 36 Months 80000 120 $1,000,000 70000 100 $800,000 60000 Total Work Orders 80 Total Dollars 50000 $600,000 40000 60 30000 40 $400,000 20000 20 10000 $200,000 0 0 Apr‐ M Jun‐ Jul‐ Aug‐ Sep‐ Oct‐ Nov‐ Dec‐ Jan‐ Feb‐ Mar‐ Apr‐ Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr 09 ay‐ 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 01 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 09 Total Dollars Tot al Work Orders Elect ric Wat er General Work Orders: 72 Electric: $471,522.26 Fleet Maintenance: $10,209.55 (excludes Melvin’s Sunoco) Water: $ 25,586.56 Fuel: $39,230.99 General: $ 45,644.97 Stock Purchases by Fund Contingency & Warehouse Stock $500,000 $4,500,000 2,700 2,600 $400,000 $4,000,000 2,500 Total Line Items 2,400 $300,000 $3,500,000 2,300 Total Dollars 2,200 $200,000 $3,000,000 2,100 2,000 $100,000 $2,500,000 1,900 1,800 $2,000,000 1,700 $0 Apr M ay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb M ar Apr Apr‐ May‐ Jun‐ Jul‐ Aug‐ Sep‐ Oct‐ Nov‐ Dec‐ Jan‐ Feb‐ Mar‐ Apr‐ 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 Tot al Dollar Value Tot al Line Items Electric Water General Electric: $49,507.68 Total Dollar Value: $3,105,691.84 Water: $ 5,794.55 Total Line Items: 1,875 General: $17,456.80 Major Program Updates MEASURE APRIL 2010 APRIL 2009 DIFFERENCE Issue Effectiveness (>90%) How often the warehouse has what cus‐ 100% 99.8% .18% tomers need when it’s needed. [issues / (issues + back orders)] * 100 Turn Over Rate (4‐5 per yr.) Indicates that the material stocked is the 1 every 8.21 years 1 every 20.89 years 12.68 years material being used. Bids for non‐inventory items converted to 7 of 7 Bids 31 of 36 Bids purchase orders within timeframe 14% 100% FYTD 86% (FY09 Total) (Quantity and Percentage) Sealed bids prepared, received & distrib‐ 8 of 10 Bids 41 of 43 Bids uted within 7 working days of receipt 15.3% 80% FYTD 95.3% (FY09 Total) (Quantity and Percentage) Scheduled Preventative Maintenance 24 of 24 appointments kept 30 of 30 appointments kept appointments being kept. ‐ 100% 100% (Quantity and Percentage) Mail receiving lowest discounted rate 290,357 pieces 391,099 pieces ‐0.78% (Quantity and Percentage) 96.39% as of March 2010 97.1% (FY09 Total) Routine work orders completed within 5 36 work orders completed 37 work orders completed 2.02% days (Quantity and Percentage) 94.7% 92.5% Emergency work orders completed within 6 work order completed 7 work order completed ‐ 2 days (Quantity and Percentage) 100% 100% 4 City Manager’s Monthly Report, April 2010

CUSTOMER SERVICES WORK ORDERS PROCESSED EXTENSIONS OF CREDIT 3,500 800 738 714 698 657 3,000 700 621 613 628 557 542 556 568 600 1,984 2,500 468 1,803 1,875 1,848 1,841 1,737 1,709 500 1,487 1,516 1,526 356 2,000 1,382 1,355 1,399 400 1,500 300 1,000 200 100 500 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 CUTS FOR NON PAYMENT CUSTOMER PAYMENT USAGE $1,800,000 160,000 136,584 138,623 $1,600,000 $1,523,383 $1,531,871 140,000 $1,400,000 120,000 $1,200,000 100,000 53,443 58,982 80,000 $1,000,000 28,450 26,586 60,000 $800,000 19,935 20,389 11,174 40,000 $600,000 20,000 111 $400,000 0 $185,331 $146,477 $200,000 Drive‐Thru Over the Mail, Drop Credit Cards Bank Drafts Window Counter Box $‐ 2010 YTD 2009 YTD April 2010 April 2009 FYTD10 FYTD09 FY 2010 FY 2009 Major Program Updates Apr 2010 Apr 2009 Difference Year‐to‐Date Year‐to‐Date Number of Customers Served 22,749 23,299 (550) 240,394 256,363 Final Bills 620 584 36 6,209 7,081 Estimated Bills 144 135 9 1,423 1,564 Penalties Posted $ 19,300 $ 18,912 $ 388 $ 183,454 $ 178,430 Extensions of Credit ‐ Amount Extended $ 210,093 $ 204,024 $ 6,069 $ 1,567,751 $ 1,722,697 Balance Transfers $ 7,136 $ 4,742 $ 2,394 $ 40,703 $ 129,636 Utility Collections $ 33,057 $ 18,544 $ 14,513 $ 270,069 $ 465,301 Special Assessments $ 750 $ 189 $ 561 $ 33,846 $ 2,801 Miscellaneous Billings $ 355,745 $ 150,362 $ 205,383 $ 1,231,509 $ 693,556 CNP through Disconnect Collars 12 17 (5) 110 261 Court Cases ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Tamperings 5 3 2 32 38 Taxes Levied $ ‐ $ 1,922 $ (1,922) $ ‐ $ 9,658,994 Billing Adjustments $ 903 $ 304 $ 599 $ 421 $ 304 Total Taxes Collected $ 45,649 $ 44,736 $ 913 $ 9,471,177 $ 9,121,439 Taxes Outstanding $ 353,488 $ 306,937 $ 46,551 $ 306,937 $ 306,937 Payments in Lieu $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ ‐ $ 15,000 $ 59,802 Billing Accuracy (on schedule billings) 99.0% 99.0% ‐ 99.0% 99.0% Bills Published on Schedule 99.9% 99.9% ‐ 99.9% 99.9% Meters Read on Schedule 99.9% 99.9% ‐ 99.9% 99.9% Customer Satisfaction Rating 99.7% 99.7% ‐ 99.7% 99.7% Deliquent Accounts Collected 99.7% 99.7% ‐ 99.7% 99.8% City Manager’s Monthly Report, April 2010 5

HUMAN RESOURCES Payroll Hours Customer Service Contacts 7,000 300 250 6,000 5,000 200 4,000 150 3,000 100 2,000 50 1,000 0 0 Apr M ay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb M ar Apr 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 Citizens Assist ed 68 75 75 60 50 41 73 54 83 95 83 76 63 Employees Assist ed 97 150 80 70 65 59 84 91 62 74 67 59 71 Overtime 1,602 1,064 1,375 1,977 1,196 1,727 1,145 1,549 3,543 1,948 5,097 1,099 1,201 Applicat ions Processed 2 0 0 0 125 1 15 0 105 81 6 2 89 Sick 1,969 2,115 2,069 1,776 1,470 1,584 1,473 1,241 1,763 1,656 1,220 2,014 1,501 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Category Total 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 * Caucasian 342 342 332 331 327 324 325 323 322 320 320 318 315 N/A * Minorities 59 61 63 62 62 60 60 61 61 61 61 61 61 N/A Hired ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 2 1 1 1 ‐ 1 ‐ 9 Terminated/Resigned 1 ‐ 1 2 4 6 1 2 2 4 ‐ 3 4 30 /Retired ** Promoted ‐ ‐ 1 1 ‐ 1 ‐ 1 ‐ 1 2 1 6 24 Jobs Posted 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1 1 ‐ 3 1 3 3 ‐ 14 Workers Comp. 3 2 6 4 3 3 1 1 ‐ 4 2 2 3 34 Injuries Workers Comp. Hours 126 350 194 323 417 283 103 25 26 23 50 186 358 2,464 Insurance Claims 6 7 4 5 9 1 2 5 2 1 10 9 6 67 *A review has been completed to ensure the accuracy of the Caucasian and Minority employees. The figures for June 2009 reflect the revised and updated numbers. Workers’ Comp. hours may not be the result of injuries that occurred during the current month. ** Employee was promoted in July, however not indicated on report. Full‐time Employees: 360 Part‐time Employees: 16 (4 Pitts Center, 1 Recreation, 11 Library) Numbers do not reflect, temporary, seasonal, relief fire dispatchers, committee or council members. Resigned: Storekeeper/Buyer I Retired: Two Police Officers, Field Service Representative II Promoted: Librarian II, Motor Equipment Operator III (Streets), Motor Equipment Operator II (Sanitation), Police Chief, Deputy Police Chief and Engineering Fieldman Crew Leader Unfilled/Open Positions Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr By Department 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 Public Utilities 5 5 9 8 8 8 9 10 13 12 Public Services ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1 2 43 3 3 3 Police 1 1 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 All Other Departments 6 8 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 Totals 12 14 20 20 21 22 27 26 27 30 30 January 2010 Public Services was overstated by 1. Individuals on terminal leave (not included in Chart) : Library‐1; Public Utilities‐1 Vacant position filled with temp (included in Chart for Central Services) Public Utilities: One vacant position filled with transfer from Meter Reading Police: One officer retired. Permission was granted to fill; however there are currently no certified officers on the recruitment list. 6 City Manager’s Monthly Report, April 2010

HUMAN RESOURCES continued Bonus Program Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Total Category 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 Stop Program‐Sensibly 12 13 8 17 4 20 57 ‐ 13 20 ‐ 20 24 208 Taking Off Pays‐Program Awarding Your Suggestions ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (submissions) Caught Doing it Right‐ Promotes employees 6 ‐ ‐ 7 ‐ 1 2 2 2 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 21 productivity & creativity (submissions) Breathe Program‐ Rewards for ending ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ 2 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 4 tobacco use (submissions) Ducs in a Row‐Doing Useful Community ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Service (submissions) Workers Comp Injuries 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Apr‐ M Jun‐ Jul ‐ Aug‐ Sep‐ Oct‐ Nov‐ Dec‐ Ja n‐ Feb‐ Ma r‐ Apr‐ 08 a y‐ 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 09 09 09 09 08 Public Utilities Public Services Police Ot hers Public Utilities: 0 Public Services: 2 Police: 1 All Other Depts.: 0 Workers Comp Hours 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Apr‐ May‐ Jun‐ Jul ‐ Aug‐ Sep‐ Oct‐ Nov‐ Dec‐ Jan‐ Feb‐ Mar‐ Apr‐ 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 09 09 09 09 Public Utilities Public Services Police Others Public Utilities: 0 Public Services: 198 Police: 160 All Other Depts.: 0 City Manager’s Monthly Report, April 2010 7

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Service Requests Resolved Citizen Action Center 150 127 118 123 127 250 226 118 123 216 211 125 102 203 102 200 178 182 100 81 170 163 81 162 161 73 153 73 75 57 59 53 59 132 57 150 53 123 50 40 41 36 36 32 34 34 32 100 25 0 50 A pr- M ay- Jun- Jul- A ug- Sep- Oct- No v- Dec- Jan- Feb- M ar- A pr- Apr‐ May‐ Jun‐ Jul‐ Aug‐ Sep‐ Oct‐ Nov‐ Dec‐ Jan‐ Feb‐ Mar‐ Apr‐ 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 New Issues Customers w/ New Issues Supported PCs CityofDover.com Visitors 500 100,000 77,138 450 69,485 400 65,415 66,744 65,764 66,869 350 345 348 352 342 342 341 340 339 333 75,000 61,049 Pages Viewed 60,065 350 318 295 295 53,304 52,462 50,109 300 250 50,000 45,054 200 150 * 100 25,000 Apr‐ May‐ Jun‐ Jul‐ Aug‐ Sep‐ Oct‐ Nov‐ Dec‐ Jan‐ Feb‐ Mar‐ Apr‐ ‐Apr ‐May ‐Jun ‐Jul ‐Aug ‐Sep ‐Oct ‐Nov ‐Dec ‐Jan ‐Feb ‐Mar ‐Apr 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 *Moved the site from Linux to larger Windows resource. Unable to obtain stat for July 2009. Same Current Performance Indicators Last Month Month Month Last Year iSeries Availability 100% 100% 100% Server Availability 100% 100% 100% Programming Requests 23 18 18 Completed AS/400 Connections 42% 41% 35% (concurrent/authorized users) PCs Supported 339 340 295 Scheduled PCs Replaced ‐ ‐ ‐ Servers Supported 16 16 16 People Trained 2 19 12 Availability Statistics based on 7:00 AM until 5:00 PM Monday—Friday 8 City Manager’s Monthly Report, April 2010

PARKS, RECREATION & LIBRARY Library Adult Services Children Services 3500 1200 3000 1000 2500 800 2000 600 1500 400 1000 500 200 0 0 A pr- M ay- Jun- Jul- A ug- Sep- Oct- No v- Dec- Jan- Feb- M ar- A pr- A pr- M ay- Jun- Jul- A ug- Sep- Oct- No v- Dec- Jan- Feb- M ar- A pr- 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 Reference Reader's A dviso ry Outreach Electro nic A ssistance Reference Reader's A dviso ry Outreach Electro nic A ssistance Reference: 107 Reader’s Advisory: 4 Reference: 142 Reader’s Advisory: 49 Outreach: 289 Electronic Assistance: 124 Outreach: 0 Electronic Assistance: 38 CIRCULATION APRIL 10 FYTD 10 APRIL 09 FYTD 09 Dover residents 13,595 151,813 17,402 173,294 Kent residents* 13,287 148,757 17,391 170,854 Non‐county residents 1,217 12,263 1,082 13,073 REGISTRATIONS Dover residents 221 2,285 189 2,669 Kent residents* 113 1,385 140 1,425 Non‐county residents 11 159 20 145 OTHER Visiting Patrons 32,231 291,851 31,352 328,053 Meeting Room Usage 820 2,740 180 1,680 Photocopier Usage 2,066 15,035 1,439 12,463 Dial‐A‐Story 1,267 13,118 1,306 14,649 Computer Usage 4,143 42,435 4,996 48,990 Holds (Total) 7,740 47,430 5,849 52,409 *Breakout of Kent County Residential Statistics Circulation Registrations Harrington: 103 Harrington: 3 Smyrna: 805 Smyrna: 0 Milford: 101 Milford: 7 Outside City Limits: 12,278 Outside City Limits: 103 Total Registered Users: (Card Holders) City: 15,598 County: 13,136 New Castle & Sussex Counties: 863 Other: 5,496 Other Points of Interest: Interlibrary: 2,682 items loaned out Technical services: 1,769 items added 2,901 items borrowed 1,193 items deleted Volunteers: 309 hours of service completed City Manager’s Monthly Report, April 2010 9

Parks and Recreation Recreation Revenue Recreation Revenue Breakdown $30,000 $ 35,000 $25,000 $ 30,000 $20,000 $ 25,000 $15,000 $ 20,000 $10,000 $ 15,000 $5,000 $ 10,000 $0 $ 5,000 M ay- Jun- Jul- A ug- Sep- Oct- No v- Dec- Jan- Feb- M ar- A pr- $0 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 Apr- M ay- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct - Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- M ar- Apr- 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 General Rental Payments Sport s Leagues Trips General: $644 Rental Payments: $1,000 Sports: $500 Leagues: $10,000 Trips: $500 RENTALS APRIL 10 FYTD 10 APRIL 09 FYTD 09 Baseball/Softball Field Rentals* 30 164 46 233 Dover Park Pavilions (2) ‐ 18 ‐ 24 Multipurpose/Field Hockey Field Rentals* ‐ 45 ‐ 28 Recreation Center – Dover Park 15 119 15 125 Silver Lake Pavilions (2) / Schutte (1) 3 36 9 38 Soccer Field Rentals* 3 16 5 23 Stage – Mobile Platform 1 18 2 17 *These numbers reflect groups that utilized our facilities during April. PROGRAM ATTENDANCE* APRIL 10 FYTD 10 APRIL 09 FYTD 09 New York City – Bus Trip 19 102 45 235 *This number reflects activities that took place in April. (not included on the JWP report.) Pitts Center ‐ Total Program Attendence FREE Open Gym Registration Cards* ‐ through 3/31/2010 Total Cards Issued: 3,381 12,043 15,000 City Residents: 1,554 ‐ (46%) Non‐City Residents: 1,827 ‐ (54%) ‐ Kent County: 1,445 ‐ (43%) 7,374 10,000 ‐ Sussex County: 127 ‐ (4%) # of people 6,082 5,753 ‐ New Castle County: 83‐ (2%) 3,975 ‐ Out of State: 172 ‐ (5%) 3,335 2,966 2,761 2,492 2,431 5,000 2,018 1,175 1,315 *The cards permit entrance to the facility during sched‐ uled Public Gym Periods at no charge. 0 A pr- M ay- Jun- Jul- A ug- Sep- Oct- No v- Dec- Jan- Feb- M ar- A pr- 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 City Manager’s Monthly Report, April 2010

PUBLIC SERVICES Administration Administrative review and inspection services continued on all residential and commercial developments. The following residential subdivisions are in various phases of construction: Oak Shadows Emerald Pointe Lexington Glenn Village of Westover (Phase VI) Seskinore Nottingham Meadows Stoney Creek (Phase II) Clearview Meadows Village of Cannon Mill Somerset Park Patriot Village Eden Hill (Residential) Farthing Woods Sanitation Monthly Total Refuse (Tons) Sanitation Hours 1,116 1,118 1,078 1,044 1,032 1,041 1,029 1200 1,200 1,012 987 1,002 928 1000 875 1,000 833 815 738 800 673 800 636 600 531 569 522 600 474 442 600 410 426 419 376 319 318 302 400 233 400 167 200 200 45 55 15 1 ‐ 0 April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Bulk Collection Mechanized Hand Trash Container Electronic Goods Collection Collection Repair/Delivery Pickup 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 Bulk Automated Apr 10 Apr 09 APRIL 10 FYTD10 APRIL 09 FYTD 09 Tons Dry Waste Collected 231.11 1,472.66 171.00 1,413.94 Tipping Fee Savings Realized $4,506.65 $28,716.87 $3,334.50 $27,571.83 Trips to DSWA Sandtown Landfill 279 2,412 272 2,621 Total Tonnage to DSWA 1,598.25 13,106.05 1,517.19 13,411.31 90‐Gallon Containers Delivered 31 279 41 360 300‐Gallon Containers Delivered 7 34 5 74 Total Man Hours‐containers Delivered 45 369 55.0 615 CURBSIDE RECYCLING STATS TOTAL # OF HOUSEHOLDS WEIGHT/LBS. % PICKED UP HOUSEHOLDS PICKED UP MAR 2010* 13,678 9,476 223,480 69% *Numbers are reported one month behind City Manager’s Monthly Report, April 2010 11

STREETS APRIL 10 FYTD10 APRIL 09 FYTD 09 Signed Installed 14 200 8 277 Signs Repaired 11 143 41 175 Curbs Painted Yellow (Feet) 22,735 22,975 24,250 26,852 New Post Installed ‐ 135 4 46 Storm Catch Basins Cleaned ‐ 1,296 50 1,596 Storm Catch Basin Cleaning (Hrs.) ‐ 473 34 278 Hot Mix Patching (Tons) ‐ 653 ‐ 283 Cold Mix Patching (Hrs.) 46 376 60 351 Concrete Work (Hrs.) 169 387 30 398 Concrete Patching (Cubic Yards) ‐ 12 5 31 Street and Alley Maintenance (Hrs) 164 1,398 168 1,471 Street Sweeping (Miles) 1,206 8,658 1,456 10,750 Street Sweeping (Cubic Yards) 390 2,031 228 1,884 Leaves Collected (Cubic Yards) 300 11,161 200 10,175 Leaf Collection (Miles) 186 5,890 237 6,188 GROUNDS Arborist Crew April 10 April 09 Trees Trimmed 39 64 Trees Removed 21 5 Stumps Removed 11 ‐ Injected fungicide into three American Elms on The Green and two Elms by the Governor’s Mansion. This is done each year to prevent Dutch Elm Disease. Removed two trees blocking water drainage in the Puncheon Run stream. Beautification Crew – Continued work in the greenhouse, including potting plugs and seedlings, pinching, watering and fertilizing. – Made up 50 of 77total 20” hanging baskets to go out on Loockerman Street. – Picked up 450 perennials and ferns to be planted along the St. Jones River for Arbor Day/Earth Day. Grounds Maintenance/Mowing Crews – Mowed all 280 acres including parks, around City buildings, ditches and right‐of‐ways. – Hauled planting materials down by the St. Jones River for the Arbor Day/Earth Day commemorative planting – Transported the Dover Days booth and buildings to The Green and on The Plaza for Dover Days. Special Projects Crew – Applied 36 gallons of Round‐Up herbicide on weeds in sidewalks, curbs, parking lots and mulched areas. – Assisted with repairs after stump removals. – Assisted in potting plugs and seedlings in the greenhouse on rainy days. 12 City Manager’s Monthly Report, April 2010

ECONOMIC DEVELOPEMENT UNEMPLOYMENT RATES DEC 09 JAN 10 FEB 10 MAR APR City of Dover 8.8% 9.0% 10.2% 9.6% PENDING National & State averages (US‐9.7% & State‐9.2%) Source: State of Delaware Department of Labor Number of contacts made with small businesses and with out‐of‐town companies interested in locating to Dover. TYPE YTD Contacts Made Small Businesses 9 Out‐of‐town Companies 7 Continued working with ILC and DEDO regarding ILC’s planned expansion at the former Sunroc facility. Presentation given to the Downtown Rotary Club on economic development and the Downtown Dover Partnership. Met with key staff from MOTECH in Newark, who are interested in submitting a bid to manufacture solar panels for use by LS Power at the Dover Sun Park. Maintained contact with GSA and congressional delegation, to monitor progress on the Frear Building. A meeting has been arranged for early in May with GSA, Wesley College, DEDO and the City to discuss the disposal of the Frear Building and its use by Wesley College to expand their nursing program. DOWNTOWN DOVER PARTNERSHIP Planning meetings were held with Downtown merchants in advance of Dover Days and the Spring Fashion Show. Staff attended the Small Business Summit, sponsored by the DEDO. Eight current and potential business owners received technical assistance for the SBA Community Express Loan Program. The Lunch Box opened at 27 W. Loockerman Street and Rejoovinations, Inc. closed at 329 W. Loockerman Street. Updating of the DDP website continues. The Organization Committee approved Conflict of Interest and Whistleblower policies to be forwarded to the Board for adoption. The Committee also approved a fund raising program to be implemented through June 2011. Staff worked with the City Manager to draft a Memorandum of Understanding between DDP and DelDOT for the Transit Center Building project. Staff attended an evaluation and planning meeting with the Entrepreneurial Consortium to critique the March 2010 Confer‐ ence and to begin planning upcoming events. City Manager’s Monthly Report, April 2010 13

LIFE SAFETY Inspections APRIL 10 FYTD10 Fire and Safety Inspections 78 374 Fire Code Inspections 157 702 Certificate of Occupancy 5 73 Non‐Inspection Hours Office 80 1,006 Meetings 41 379 Plan Review 48 552 Training 41 483 Fire Education ‐ 42 Fire Investigations 7 299 Accidental $11,000 $385,300 Incendiary $7,000 $142,800 Undetermined ‐ $53,000 PERMITTING AND LICENSING Permits Issued APRIL 10 FYTD10 APRIL 09 FYTD 09 Building Addition/Renovation Permits 51 394 48 438 Building Permits 7 97 6 88 Demolition Permits 2 36 3 34 Fence Permits 16 76 13 94 Fire Prevention Permits 16 75 11 90 Mechanical Permits 30 331 36 420 Plumbing Permits 227 678 50 561 Sign Permits 14 225 17 191 Swimming Pool Permits 2 3 1 12 Business Licenses 37 1,273 29 1,706 Merchant Licenses 6 290 1 347 Contractor Licenses 25 793 1 927 Lodging House Licenses 1 45 ‐ 48 Mobile Homes 7 730 12 383 Public Occupancy 14 340 4 307 Rental Dwelling 78 2,674 70 2,627 BUILDING INSPECTIONS Permits Issued APRIL 10 FYTD10 APRIL 09 FYTD 09 Building 495 3,744 441 3,370 Plumbing/Mechanical 528 2,589 207 2,320 Certificate of Occupancy 19 198 28 257 14 City Manager’s Monthly Report, April 2010

PUBLIC UTILITIES ELECTRIC System Peak Total System Load 200.0 100,000 78,500 90,000 161.1 71,603 147.2 66,117 80,000 63,350 63,373 133.8 58,013 59,833 127.6 56,420 56,857 57,103 150.0 70,000 122.0 53,597 54,029 52,792 110.2 60,000 103.7 107.0 104.0 107.7 99.1 98.2 98.1 50,000 100.0 40,000 30,000 20,000 50.0 10,000 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 Outages Customers of Gained/Lost 20 25,000 60 20,000 48 50 15 Customers 15,000 40 Outages 10 32 10,000 30 23 5 20 17 17 5,000 15 15 13 11 10 7 7 5 0 0 3 Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr 0 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Outages Customers 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 Outages: 9 Customers: 56 ELECTRIC OUTAGE REPORT # OF OUTAGE # DATE TIME OUT TIME IN LOCATION DEVICE ACTION CUST 1 04/09 10:15 AM 10:48 AM Del State College Blown Fuse 1 Replaced Fuse 2 04/11 08:20 PM 09:18 PM 567 S Governors Avenue Blown Fuse 2 Replaced Fuse 3 04/12 07:45 AM 10:01AM 550 S New Street Bad Transformer 8 Replaced Transf. 4 04/12 09:10 AM 11:12 AM 308 N Queen Street Bad Underground 1 Repaired 5 04/15 11:06 AM 12:48 PM 52 Blades Drive Blown Fuse 14 Replaced Fuse 6 04/18 07:43 PM 10:06 PM 53 N Turnberry Drive Bad Underground 2 Repaired 7 04/26 09:52 AM 10:21 AM 5 N Springview Drive Blown Fuse 26 Replaced Fuse 8 04/30 12:38 PM 02:16 PM 2 N Wilson Avenue Bad Underground 1 Repaired 9 04/30 09:12 PM 10:51 PM 2325 Kitts Hummock Road Bad Secondary Wire 1 Repaired City Manager’s Monthly Report, April 2010 15

ENGINEERING SERVICES Completed Projects Active Projects / % Completed Projects in Design / % Completed  Wawa Bay Court Plaza Redesign ‐ 90%  Grandview Mobile Home Park ‐ 80%  Cahne Medical Building ‐ 0%  Lexington Glenn ‐ 90%  North Street Improvements ‐ 50%  Clearview Phase 1, 2, 3 ‐ 50%  Cannon Mill, Phase III ‐ 100%  Tall Pines, Dover Kenton Road ‐ 10%  Chick –Fil‐A ‐ 0%  Nottingham Meadows ‐ 50%  Wawa Court Street ‐ 100%  Cannon Mill, Phase II ‐ 90%  Kesselring Farm ‐ 100%  Stover Professinal Center 508 ‐ 90%  Culligan Complex, Saulsbury Road ‐ 40%  Dove View Development ‐ 30%  Dover Transit ‐ 50%  Patriot Village ‐ 20%  1600 N. Little Creek Road ‐ 0%  State of Delaware I/T ‐ 99%  Spence’s Bazzar ‐ 0%  DAFB Feeder ‐ 90%  Brentwood ‐ 100%  Eden Hill Residential ‐ 15%  Kent 8 Building ‐ 100%  12707‐12206 Tie ‐ 50%  Walgreens Dupont Highway ‐ 0%  Cross Gates Development ‐ 70%  Silver Lake Blvd Townhouses ‐ 100%  Buchanon Acres ‐ 60%  Governors Lighting Fulton‐State St ‐ 100%  Village of Blue Hen ‐ 40%  Dover Crossroads ‐ 100%  Governors Ave Phase II ‐ 20%  Garrison Fiber ‐ 0%  Farthing Woods ‐ 20%  Vernon Woods ‐ 40%  Riley Brown ‐ 50%  The Arbors Senior Center ‐ 0%  Kent General Hospital ‐ 10%  Eden Hill Commercial ‐ 10%  CVS Forrest Street ‐ 0%  Public Library ‐ 0%  L & W Insurance ‐ 10%  Dover Animal Hospital ‐ 100%  Dover Retail ‐ 40% SR1 & SR9 Sign Project ‐ 50%  McDonalds ‐ 0%  Wyoming Rd Relocation ‐ 100%  Fiber Danner to Blue Hen ‐ 5%  Buchanon/Philchris Drive ‐ 50%  Huntley Circle ‐ 0%  Kitts Hummock Road ‐ 30%  Willow Tree MHP ‐ 0%  NAPA ‐ 0%  Stonebrook West ‐ 80%  Dover Mart ‐ 0%  Acorn Pump Station ‐ 100% TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION Underground Work % Completed Overhead Work % Completed  Clearview Meadows Ongoing  Overhead Maintenance Ongoing  Lexington Glenn Ongoing  Maintenance of City lighting Ongoing  Nottingham Meadows Ongoing  Capitol Park Upgrade to 85% Underground  Seskinore Development 95%  Ridgley Street Storage 60%  Stover Professional Center 90%  Kent Acres 99% 16 City Manager’s Monthly Report, April 2010

MAJOR PROGRAM APR 10 APR 09 DIFFERENCE FY10 YTD FY09 YTD UPDATES Tree Trimming 210 210 ‐ 1,730 2,335 5‐Yr Pole Testing & Program Not Active Repair Program Annual Infra‐Red Completed ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Testing Annual Substation Oil Completed ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Testing Track the amount of spills, clean‐ups, equip. 2 1 1 4 15 sales, & environmental disposals. New Professional Work Personal Safety Practices & Procedures; Awareness/Sabotage ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Implemented Procedures Universal safety/security training, as mandated by federal, ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ state, & local regulations, completed Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr METER STATS 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 Radio Read Meter Installations 38 53 53 122 119 41 50 64 52 62 21 51 105 Meters Tested 59 ‐ ‐ 235 97 159 57 96 170 66 48 167 162 Meters Junked ‐ ‐ ‐ 86 ‐ 102 32 ‐ 74 66 ‐ 47 150 Meters Removed 11 10 10 12 8 8 ‐ 13 4 5 3 8 10 Meter Changes 20 24 24 91 77 13 13 36 35 51 22 36 85 New Services 10 16 16 13 23 13 21 15 5 4 2 48 13 Services Retired ‐ 1 1 4 ‐ 5 1 ‐ 5 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ Switching schedules 14 12 20 7 3 6 4 11 2 6 6 5 8 Work orders 277 279 526 861 1,047 303 286 1,107 249 242 236 309 287 Miss Utility tickets called back 2,283 1,947 2,277 2,022 1,724 2,416 2,118 1,370 1,478 1,210 712 1,590 40 Tickets located 2,256 2,145 2,206 912 873 1,638 1,388 1,091 739 605 356 775 779 SUBSTATION RELAY Substation Status  DAFB New Relay Settings Installed  Mid City Still Under Construction  North Street Scott Paper #2 Finished City Manager’s Monthly Report, April 2010 17

WATER/WASTEWATER Water Production/Billed Consumption/Flow to Kent County 300,000,000 250,000,000 200,000,000 150,000,000 100,000,000 50,000,000 0 Apr 09 May 09 Jun 09 Jul 09 Aug 09 Sep 09 Oct 09 Nov 09 Dec 09 Jan 10 Feb 10 Mar 10 Apr 10 Total Water Prod. Billed Consumpt. Total Flow to County City Readings Water Production: 127,188,000 Billed Consumption: 115,339,000 Total Flow to Kent County: * City Readings: 153,142,620 *Billing behind one month APRIL 10 APRIL 09 Water Production – Daily Average 4,239,600 3,904,833 Fire Hydrants – Flushed 1,393 ‐ Fire Hydrants – Tested 14 ‐ Final Readings 108 730 Cutoffs 6 6 Turn‐on’s 8 2 New Inspections 7 14 Curb Boxes Located 63 41 Curb Boxes Adjusted 6 4 Water Service Lines Repaired 2 3 Water Meters Repaired 37 27 Radio Technology Installations 19 334 New Meters Added 18 5 Total Water Meters in City Distribution System 13,804 13,641 APRIL 10 APRIL 09 L.F. Sewer Lines Flushed ‐ 70,828 Sewer Lines Inspected 35 ‐ Feet Sewer Mains Videotaped ‐ 232 Manholes Inspected ‐ 432 Manholes Cleaned ‐ 378 18 City Manager’s Monthly Report, April 2010

Major Program Updates APRIL 10 APRIL 09 DIFF FY10 YTD FY09 YTD State and Federal Violations 0 violations 0 violations ‐ ‐ ‐ Water Quality Complaints 32 6 26 452 432 Infrastructure Repairs (Water 38 repairs 44 repairs 6 repairs reported 2 repairs reported 4 Distribution) reported reported Infrastructure Repairs 29 repairs 34 repairs 6 repairs reported 2 repairs reported 4 (Wastewater Trans mission) reported reported Water System Flushing 100% 100% ‐ 100% 100% Completed (on schedule) Percentage of Flow Sent to Kent County vs. Gallons Billed 238% 132% 104% 138% 103% (inflow/Infiltration monitoring) Plan Review Completed within 12 plans 12 plans 19 plans 30 days of Submission 97% 95% 92% 100% Inspection Response within 48 100% ‐ 100% ‐ hours of Request City Manager’s Monthly Report, April 2010 19

CITY PLANNER’S MONTHLY REPORT Public Services Group P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Phone: (302) 736-7010 Fax (302) 736-4217 April 2010 EDEN HILL FARM TND For the Residential District of Eden Hill Farm Traditional Neighborhood Design, construction began on the first duplex set of residential units for the project; also permit approval was granted to revisions to the duplex at Lot 2G. Certificate of Occupancy inspections were completed for a series of six townhouses on South Greenberry Lane with Temporary Certificates issued due to lack of street tree plantings. In March, there was no specific activity associated with the Professional Office, Medical & Financial District. The Revised Implementation Plan (March 2009) for Neighborhood Commercial District remains in the Check Print review process working towards Final Plan approval; no plan resubmissions for review were received in April. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION In April, Planning Staff continued to focus efforts on other short term implementation items identified in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan as amended. Staff continues to research and develop a draft ordinance as part of the process to update the Environmental Protections within the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Staff presented a Zoning Ordinance text amendment to create the Recreational and Open Space Zone (ROS) to the Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee on April 12th and as a result the amendment was recommended for the review process beginning with the Planning Commission in May. Other tasks include focusing on the development of other Zoning Ordinance text amendments, continued work on the Historic District Design Guidelines, and assisting with the NPDES Permit. PERMITTING AND LICENSING REVIEW The Planning Staff is part of the Building Permit review process. Our activities involving reviewing specific types of permit applications for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and for compliance with any conditions of approval from the Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment, or Historic District Commission. Permits Reviewed January-10 February-10 March-10 Apr-10 # Reviewed (Issued) (Issued) YTD Building 16 15 25 30 86 Additions/Renovations/ Shed Permits Building Permits 12 10 9 5 36 Demolition Permits 3 5 2 2 12 Fence Permits 4 0 8 16 28 Sign Permits 12 10 12 5 39 Temporary Sign Permits 7 3 9 4 23 Swimming Pool Permits 0 0 0 2 2

Certificate of Occupancy 6 6 9 11 32 Total # Permits Reviewed 60 49 74 75 258 (Issued) Planning Staff also reviews new applications for Business Licenses, Rental Dwelling Permits, and Construction Trailer Placement Permits. CODE ENFORCEMENT Case Type # cases # cases % staff % staff current month YTD initiated initiated YTD current month No valid rental permit 22 45 100% 96% No valid building permit 3 4 100% 100% Tall grass and weeds 104 104 55% 55% Unregistered vehicle 4 28 25% 57% Abandoned vehicle 10 41 10% 46% Annual Housing 19 225 95% 96% Inspection CO Inspection – 1 1 100% 100% Planning Property Maintenance – 30 163 33% 66% Exterior Electric Termination 15 65 7% 9% Dover Code of 57 316 11% 56% Ordinances Zoning 12 54 42% 80% Basketball goal 6 9 50% 44% Total Cases 283 1055 Total # of Inspections 401 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FISCAL YEAR 2008 Dover Interfaith Ministry to the Homeless Renovations are 80% complete for the Homeless Shelter. FISCAL YEAR 2009 Homeowner Rehabilitation Program Three (3) homes have been completed (49 S. Kirkwood St., 420 Court St., 720 Carol St.) Bids will go out early July for (4) owner occupied homes to be rehabilitated. Homeownership Assistance Program (Down Payment Assistance) Three (3) families have purchased homes and all funding for this project has been expended. Elizabeth W. Murphey School The installation of the underground steam pipes is a 100% complete in restoring the buildings heating source and all funding has been expended.

RC & D Emergency Home Repairs Emergency home repairs have been completed on eleven (11) homes eliminating health and safety hazards. All funding for this project has been expended. Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) The city was awarded $1,426,740 for the acquisition and rehab of foreclosed properties. A total of $1,168,196 has been expended on the acquisition of 8 properties and renovations for 2 properties. The remaining balance of $258,544 will be utilized for renovations. One property has been sold, 1 is under contract, 1 is being renovated and 3 have gone out to bid. MEETING REPORTS Board of Adjustment: The Board of Adjustment met on April 21, 2010 and took the following actions: The next Board of Adjustment meeting is scheduled for May 19, 2010. A special training session was held on April 15, 2010. 1. Applicant #V-10-04 - 517 Greenhill Road, Robert and Suzanne Taylor – Moved to deny because it does not meet the level of “exception practical difficulties.” Historic District Commission: The Historic District Commission met on April 15, 2010 and took the actions listed below. The next regularly scheduled meeting for the Historic District Commission is May 20, 2010. Discussion is ongoing regarding updating the Historic District Guidelines. 1. HI-09-04 Bayard Hotel at 200-216 West Loockerman Street – Remains on the Agenda – No Action Taken. 2. HI-10-04 Wesley United Methodist Church: Elevation and Canopy Addition: Architectural Review Certification - The legal ad did not run in the newspaper and is considered inadequate public notice and therefore, the application was not heard due to that fact. This application was moved to the May meeting Planning Commission The Planning Commission met on April 19, 2010 and took the actions listed below. The next scheduled Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for May 17, 2010. 1. S-09-06 Lands of Tudor Properties, LLC at Lafferty Lane - Moved to approve a one year extension. 2. C-08-02 The Faith House Outreach Center at 15 South New Street - Moved to approve the continued use with no further review required unless the use of the property changes. 3. Z-10-01 Lands of TLFD at White Oak Road - Moved to forward approval to City Council. 4. Z-10-02 Nottingham Meadows Subdivision at Hazlettville Road - Moved to forward to City Council approval to include the Source Water Protection Overlay Zone. 5. Z-10-03 Lands of Blake at 1059 Horsepond Road - Moved to recommend to City Council approval. 6. Z-10-04 Lands of the YMCA at 1169 South State Street - Moved to forward to City Council approval. 7. MI-10-06 Request for Street and Alley Abandonment: Portions of North Bradford Street, Fulton Street, Cecil Street, and Alleys - Moved to forward to City Council approval. 8. S-10-03 South Dover Plaza at 560 & 600 Bay Road - Moved to approve with all DAC comments of record including PLUS review and comments and to acknowledge that the Arterial Street Buffer will meet the requirements (no waiver required). To include in the motion approval of reduction in the parking requirements specified in Article 6, Section 5.9 to 500 parking spaces with a set aside area for the remaining 229 parking spaces should they be needed based on the occupancy. To approve the Woodland Mitigation Plan and to allow 100% clearing of woodlands of this property and also to include a waiver for the

alternative sidewalk material to be asphalt as specified on the plans instead of concrete and a waiver for loading space size as needed based on administrative review and the use of the building. Submitted by: Ann Marie Townshend, AICP Planning & Community Development Director

City of Dover, Delaware FY 2010 -2014 Five Year Consolidated Plan Prepared by: The City of Dover Community Development Office June 14, 2010

2010-2014 CONSOLIDATED PLAN Acknowledgements Mayor: Carleton E. Carey, Sr. City Manager: Anthony J. DePrima, AICP City Council: Kenneth L. Hogan Parks, Recreation & Community Enhancement Committee Beverly C. Williams Sophia Russell William P. McGlumphy Eugene B. Ruane Eugene B. Ruane Kenneth L. Hogan Sophia R. Russell David Lewis Reuben Salters Ann Horsey David L. Bonar James C. McGiffin Thomas J. Leary The 2010 Consolidated Plan project team: Community Development Staff: Tracey N. Harvey, Community Development Manager City of Dover Planning Staff: Dawn Melson, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Albert, AICP, Planner II Jeremy Gibb, GIS Technician Maretta Purnell, Office Assistant II Dover Housing Authority Ami Sebastian Hauer, Executive Director Delaware State Housing Paula Voshell, Management Analysis III Authority Homeless Planning Council Susan Starrett, Executive Director

ii I Summary of the Consolidated Plan Development Process (24 CFR 91 (a)) ...................................... 1 I.1 Lead Agency (24 CFR 91.200(b)) .............................................................................................. 1 I.2 Managing the Process (24 CFR 91.200(b)) ............................................................................... 2 I.3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 2 II Community Description and Citizen Participation (24 CFR 91.200(b) ........................................... 3 II.1 Background and Trends (24 CFR 91.200 (a)) .......................................................................... 3 Map II-1a State of Delaware ................................................................................................................................ 3 MAP II-1 City of Dover Census Tracts ............................................................................................................ .4 Demographics (24 CFR 91.200 (a) ...................................................................................................................... 5 TABLE II-2a Population Growth ....................................................................................................................... 6 TABLE II-2b Age of Population………………………………………………………………………………...6 TABLE II-2c Age of Profiles in Dover ………………………………………………………………………… 7 TABLE II-2c Racial Composition 2000 ............................................................................................................. 7 TABLE II-2d Median Family Income2000 ........................................................................................................ 8 TABLE II-2e Median Family Income by Race 2000 .......................................................................................... 8 TABLE II-2f Percentage of Persons Living Below the Poverty Line by Race .................................................... 9 II.2AREAS OF RACIAL, ETHNIC AND LOW INCOME CONCENTRATIONS ........................... 10 Map II-2 Areas of Minority Concentration ....................................................................................................... 10 Map II-3 Low-Moderate Income Concentration 2000 ...................................................................................... 11 II.3 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ............................................................................................................12 Citizen Participation Plan .................................................................................................................................. 12 II.4 IDENTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDERS AND THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PROCESS ..................16 III HOUSING , HOMELESS AND SPECIAL NEEDS ASSEESSMENT .....................................17 III.1 GENERAL (24 CFR 91.205 (a)) .................................................................................................17 TABLE 4A…Priority Public Housing Needs-Dover Public Housing Authority ............................................... 17 III.2 CATEGORIES OF PERSONS AFFECTED (24 CFR 91.205 (b)) ......................................................19 Very Low-Income (0 to 50% of median family income). .................................................................................. 19 Other Low-income (51 to 80% of median family income) ................................................................................ 20 Moderate Income (81 to 95% of median family income) .................................................................................. 20 TABLE 2A* Priority Needs Summary Table ................................................................................................... 21 TABLE III-B-7….LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN THE CITY OF DOVER ........... 22 TABLE III-B-8………ESTIMATED LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN THE CITY OF DOVER EXPERIENCING HOUSING PROBLEMS ....................................................................................... 22 III.3 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY...........................................................................................................23 III.4 HOMELESS FACILITIES (24 CFR 91.215(c)) ..............................................................................23 CITY OF DOVER HOMELESS POPULATION ……………………………………………………………. .24 Homeless prevention activities and Chronic Homelessness …………………………………….. 25 TABLE 1A Emergency Families Shetered ....................................................................................................... 26 III.5 SPECIAL NEEDS FACILITIES AND SERVICES (24 CFR 91.215(d)) .............................................28 IV HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS (24CFR 91.210) ...................................................................29 IV.1 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS (A) ...............................................................................................29 IV.2 PUBLIC AND ASSISTED HOUSING (24 CFR 91.210 b) ................................................................30 Table IV B-2……(DHA) PUBLIC OR SUBSIDIZED UNITS BY BEDROOM SIZE .................................... 30 Table IV –B-3 (DSHA)PUBLIC HOUSING UNITS BY BEDROOM SIZE IN THE CITY OF DOVER ....... 31 Table IV – B-4 PRIVATE LOW/MOD INCOME HOUSING PROJECTS ...................................................... 31 IV.3 SECTION 8 HOUSING ..................................................................................................................32 TABLE IV B-5(DHA) SECTION 8 RENTAL VOUCHERS OFFERED ............................................................ 32 Table IV B-6 (DSHA)SECTION 8 RENTAL VOUCHERS OFFERED........................................................... 32 IV.4 BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING ……………………………………………………........33 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS .................................................................................................................... 35 V STRATEGIC PLAN (24 CFR 91.25) .............................................................................................42 V.1 GENERAL (A) .............................................................................................................................42 TABLE V – 1 PRIORITY RANKING RESULTS ............................................................................................ 42 V.2 STRATEGY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (24 CFR 91.215 (b) ...................................................43 PROVIDE DECENT HOUSING. ..........................................................................................................43

iii GOAL AND OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................................43 V.3 BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING( 24 CFR 91.215(e)) ..........................................44 V.4 INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE ............................................................................................44 CURRENT INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE ...................................................................................................44 ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS .........................................................................................................44 AFFITMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING .......................................................................................46 V.5 PUBLIC HOUSING IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................46 PUBLIC HOUSING RESIDENT INITIATIVES .....................................................................................46 V.6 LEAD BASED PAINT HAZARD REDUCTION ....................................................................47 V.7 ANTI-POVERTY STRATEGY .................................................................................................48 Action Plan ...............................................................................................................................50 VI.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................50 VI.2 Application for Federal Assistance ..........................................................................................50 VI.3 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................52 VI.4 Resources (24 CFR 91.220 (b)) .................................................................................................53 FEDERAL PROGRAMS (24 CFR 91.220 (b)(1)) ............................................................................................ 53 NON-FEDERAL PUBLIC PROGRAMS(24 CFR 91.220 (b)(2)) ................................................................... 53 1. STATE PROGRAMS ...........................................................................................................................53 2. LOCAL PROGRAMS..........................................................................................................................53 3. PRIVATE RESOURCES .....................................................................................................................56 VI.5 ACTION PLAN GOALS .............................................................................................................57 VI.6 ACTIVITIES TO BE UNDERTAKEN ........................................................................................57 PROJECT 1 HOMEOWNERSHIP ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ..........................................................................57 PROJECT 2 HOMEOWNER REHABILITATION ASSISTANCE PROGAM.......................................................57 PROJECT 3 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ................................................................................................57 PROJECT 4 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY .....................................................................................................57 PROJECT 5 CONNECTIONS COMMUNITY SUPPORT PROGRAM ...............................................................58 PROJECT 6 FIRST STATE RESOURCE CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL .............................58 PROJECT 7 COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE ..............................................................58 VI.7 MAPS OF DOVER ........................................................................................................................59 MAP II-1 CITY OF DOVER CENSUS TRACTS AND BLOCK GROUPS .........................................................60 MAP II - 2 CITY OF DOVER AREAS OF MINORITY CONCENTRATION.....................................................61 MAP II - 3 CITY OF DOVER LOW TO MODERATE INCOME AREAS .........................................................62 VI.8 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION: ..........................................................................................63 VI.9 SERVICE DELIVERY AND MANAGEMENT: .....................................................................63 VI.10 HOMELESS AND OTHER SPECIAL NEEDS ACTIVITIES: .........................................64 VI.11 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION .........................................................................................65 SUMMARY OF CITIZEN COMMENTS ........................................................................................66 VII.1 General Certifications...........................................................................................................67 VII.2 Specific CDBG Certifications ...............................................................................................71 VII.3 APPENDIX TO CERTIFICATIONS ..................................................................................73 VIII Definitions .........................................................................................................................................75 IX Monitoring ........................................................................................................................................78 IX.1 General Procedures ...................................................................................................................78 X PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS & LISTING OF PROPOSED PROJECTS........................................... 79

1 City of Dover, Delaware Community Development Office Consolidated Plan (2010-2014) I SUMMARY OF THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS (24 CFR 91 (a)) The Consolidated Plan for the City of Dover serves as the primary planning document for identifying and meeting the housing and community development needs for the low and moderate-income residents of Dover. Created through Title I of the National Affordable Housing Act, the Consolidated Plan also serves as a requirement for the receipt of federal funds allocated annually to each reporting jurisdiction. The Consolidated Plan replaced two previously required planning documents, the Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) and the Comprehensive Homeless Assistance Plan (CHAP). The Consolidated Plan approach is also the means to meet the application requirements for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) formula programs. This process replaces prior CPD planning and application requirements with a single document, and satisfy the submission requirements of the four CPD formula programs for local jurisdictions. The City of Dover’s Consolidated Plan development process consisted of the following steps: 1. Identification of Stakeholders. 2. Conduct workshop to develop needs of the community. 3. Conduct workshop with Stakeholders to rank priorities. 4. Conduct first public hearing with results of priorities from workshops. 5. CDBG Advisory Committee meeting for review and recommendations. 6. Unveil Draft Consolidated Plan for 30-day review period. 7. Prepare final City of Dover 2010 Consolidated Plan. 8. Submit final plan to City Council for approval. 9. Submit City of Dover 2010 Consolidated Plan to HUD. I.1 LEAD AGENCY (24 CFR 91.200(b)) The City of Dover is a major City in the state in population, area and employment. A popularly elected nine-member City Council and full-time Mayor represent Dover’s population. All elected officials serve two-year terms with half of council up for election every year. Council appoints a City Manager that oversees most of the day-to-day

2 operations of the City including water, sewer, trash, streets and electric service. The Council also appoints other key department heads such as the Planning and Inspections Director, Finance Director, Fire Marshal, Tax Assessor, and the City Clerk. The Police Department is under the Mayor’s Office. The City privately contracts Emergency Medical Services and the Fire Department is volunteer. The Community Development Office is a part of the Planning and Inspections Department. The Community Development Office has one full time employee, the manger who administers the CDBG Grant and is the Fair Housing Coordinator. Clerical, planning and inspection assistance is provided by the Planning and Inspections Department. The Building Inspections Office also provides housing and life safety inspections throughout the City including property maintenance. The Dover Housing Authority provides responsibility for the public housing needs within the City. The Delaware State Housing Authority who operates both Section 8 vouchers and public housing units also caters to the housing needs of the low-moderate income families. I.2 Managing the Process (24 CFR 91.200(b)) Development of the Consolidated Plan has involved months of effort and coordination by the Manager of the Community Development. Stakeholders assembled included members of the community, elected and appointed officials, private citizens, community groups, housing authorities, various county and state agencies within the City of Dover to consult on topics regarding homelessness, persons with disabilities, elderly, persons with HIV/AIDS, and services for children. After the Stakeholders were assembled and their input solicited, work began by updating all of the information into the Consolidated Plan. The result is formulated in the goals developed to address the needs of the City. The following is a list of stakeholders who participated in the planning process of the Consolidated Plan. • Homeless Planning Council • Delaware State Housing Authority • Dover Housing Authority • City of Dover Planning Department • House of Pride • State of Delaware Department of Health and Social Services • Delaware HIV Consortium • State of Delaware Division of Family Services I.3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Consolidated Plan (2010-2014) is a five-year plan mandated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This plan identifies the specific needs concerning affordable housing, homeownership, housing rehabilitation, and community development needs, such as: infrastructure, economic development and public service needs. The Strategic Plan element of this plan specifies the goals identified in the preparation of this plan and includes five of the goals the Consolidated

3 Plan revolves around. These goals in order of priority are: 1. Provide Aid to special needs persons 2. Preserve the existing housing stock in the City of Dover. 3. Encourage owner occupied housing in low to moderate income areas. 4. Provide safe and livable neighborhoods. 5. Aid economic opportunity in low to moderate income areas. The Action Plan Component of the Plan specifies how the projects will further these goals for Fiscal Year 2010. II Community Description and Citizen Participation (24 CFR 91.200(b)) II.1 Background and Trends (24 CFR 91.200 (a)) Dover, the Capital of Delaware, is centrally located in the state and the region. The City is located approximately 90 miles from both Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. Dover’s population ranks second only to Wilmington in Delaware and the Eastern Shores of Maryland and Virginia, which comprise the Delmarva Peninsula. Dover is also the largest in land area throughout the region with a total land area of over 22 square miles. Map II-1 shows the census tracts within the corporate limits, while Map II-1a reflects the regional influence. Map II-1a State of Delaware Dover has experienced a rapid rise in population over the last decade. The population increased from 1990 to 2000 by 16.3 %. New housing has increased to 5,777 units. Dover’s daytime population is estimated to be greater than 80,000 further galvanized its central role in the region. All indicators of growth do not suggest any slow down in the near future. Dover’s historic role as central to downstate has continued for well over three centuries since it was originally laid out by William Penn in 1683 to serve as St. Jones County Seat. The original grid pattern still exists in the historic downtown area surrounding the

4 Green, laid out in 1717, and Capitol Complex, which serves as both the County Seat and the Capitol of the State. This central part of the City now serves as one of the employment centers with a large concentration of professional and government offices. Merely blocks away, the commercial center of the Downtown along the axis of Loockerman Street has begun to revitalize with the addition of the Main Street designation. The commercial center is not very deep with the beginnings of lower to moderate income housing demands from the mid 19th – mid 20th centuries becoming the norm. The City’s center is a diverse area with income levels varying from street to street within block groups and census tracts. Low-Moderate income areas near the center of the City may even be as close as directly across the street from moderate-upper income levels. This makes it very difficult to target areas by Census tract or block group. The City has undertaken individual surveys to designate areas as target blocks. Map II-3, references those tracts, which qualify as low as to moderate income areas. To the east of the central portion of the city is the Rt. 13, 113 corridors, to which the retail center for the entire region moved beginning in the 1950’s and continues today. Major business and employment centers have shifted to this corridor with the largest employers, retail, service and commercial recreation areas being along this corridor. These include the Dover Mall, Big Box retail, including Wal-Mart, Lowe’s, Sam’s, K- Mart and many other retail chains, and Dover Downs (Home to two NASCAR races annually, Harness racing and 2000 slot machines). Two of Dover’s four institutions of higher learning (Delaware Technical and Community College and Delaware State University) are located along this corridor. In 2000, Delaware State University constructed 84 off campus apartments and an additional 60 were constructed in 2002. In addition to the commercial districts, the City can be broken into four general sections with respect to residential use. Residential new housing starts are an indicator of economic growth and prosperity. From calendar year 2000 to 2004, plans have been approved or pending approval by the planning commission for 20 subdivisions totaling 2,679 housing units.

5 The Eastern section makes up a part of the City that begins with the Route 13 corridor and moves eastward toward the Delaware Bay. These neighborhoods consist of mostly single family neighborhoods constructed during the housing boom of the last half of the 20th century. This area is also sprinkled with some higher density residential developments including a mixture of townhouses and multifamily dwellings. This area is home to the largest concentration of multiple family units in the City. A large new mixed single family development including attached and detached units were constructed and recorded in this section that added 487 units. This broad area includes development such as Baytree, The Laurels, Manchester Square, Luther Towers and higher end residential uses such as the non-traditional Overlook and Silver Mill apartment building. The southwestern section is an area dominated by single family residences and professional offices associated with the hospital. The Dover Air Force Base dominates the southeast section of the City. The fourth and final section of the City is the western half, which can roughly be described as the area west of the Norfolk and Southern Rail Line to the corporate limits. This area is home to the industrial base of the City including Kraft Foods, Playtex Apparel and Proctor and Gamble. Public and private interests groups are involved in projects on Dover’s West Side thus beginning the implementation of the Strategic Plan for that area. Recently a five story office building has been constructed to add to the ongoing revitalization efforts in that area. Other large employers on this side of town are mostly located in the Industrial Parks of West Dover. By far the residential segment in this section continues to grow at a rapid rate. The original developments of the west central section around the Dover High School were supplemented in the 70’s and 80’s by Fox Hall, Bicentennial Village and Woodcrest. These neighborhoods which are largely dominated by single family dwellings interspersed with senior housing town houses and apartment complexes. A recent addition of 227 dwelling units was added with the approval of The Village of Cannon Mill on the western border of the City. From the end of the 80’s these neighborhoods have been joined by the Village of Westover, Cranberry Run, Fox Hall West and Mill Creek to the north. Two clear housing trends exist in Dover with regard to availability. First, continued growth in both the eastern and western sections of the City. New housing has increased by an average of 200 per year over the last decade. The second trend has been towards revitalization of the existing housing stock in the Downtown area. Demographics (24 CFR 91.200 (a) According to the 2000 Census the total population of Dover was 32,135. This represents a 16.3% increase from the official 1990 Census figures from 27,630 in 1990. Of that population a total of 3,118 people resided in group quarters, the vast majority of these people resided in Dormitories associated with Delaware State University and Wesley College, and the barracks of Dover Air Force Base. The remaining 29,017 persons occupied the 12,340 households in the City. The average size of a household in 2000 was 2.5 persons. Revised estimates furnished by the United States Census Bureau in 2000 are reflected in the following table showing the growth over the last two decades. 2000-2020

6 Population projections, furnished by the Delaware Population Consortium, shows continued growth at a stable rate. These projections are estimates based on the 2000 Census numbers and when making projections that far out the numbers are generally lower than will be reflected in the 2000 decennial Census. TABLE II-2a Population Growth Year Population increase % Growth Source of Data 2000 32,135 4,775 16.3% US Census Bureau 2005 33,858 1,587 4.9% Delaware Population Consortium (projection) 2010 34,499 641 1.9% Delaware Population Consortium (projection) 2020 36,459 944 2.7% Delaware Population Consortium (projection) Source: Delaware Population Consortium 2002 Age Distribution In addition to growth, it is useful to consider the future population’s age distribution. This information (such as the number of school age children, elderly, or size of labor force) facilities appropriate infrastructure planning. The 2000 Census revealed that Dover will have an increasingly high proportion of people under the age of 25, in the years between 2005 and 2025. This segment may compromise roughly 40% of the City’s population by 2025. Youths under 19 years of age will consistently compromise between 7% and 15% of the population during this time. This can perhaps be attributed to the influence of major institutions located in Dover including Dover Air Force Base, Wesley College and Delaware State University. Table II-2b demonstrates that Dover’s median age will be slightly younger than either the County or the State’s median age. There will also be a high proportion of senior adults (65 and older) residing within City limits. This can be attributed to the growth of institutional and retirement communities in Dover. TABLE II-2b Age of Population Year Population 0- 64 > 65 % of Population 2000 30,474 26,912 3,562 12 2005 32,070 28,171 3,899 12 2010 33,504 29,203 4,301 13 2015 34,092 29,258 4,834 14 2020 34,486 29,174 5,312 15 Source: Delaware Population Consortium 2000 The population of adults between the ages of 25 and 44 is expected to decrease slightly by 2020. This decrease is not large, and young and middle aged adults are expected to remain concentrated near Dover’s employment centers.

7 Pending population demographics is critical to infrastructure planning. The historical trend that are evidenced by comparing the 1990 and 2000 US Census combined with projections from the Delaware Population Consortium provide a foundation for estimation. Table II-2c depicts population trends. This information assists in planning recreational and educational activities. Table II-2c Age Profiles in Dover, by Percent 2005 2010 2015 2020 Age People Percentage People Percentage People Percentage People Percentage Group of of of of population increase population increase population increase population Increase 0-19 9,634 28% 3% 9,502 28% -1% 9,570 27% 1% 9,929 27% 4% 20-24 3,615 11% 5% 3,716 11% 3% 3,685 10% -1% 3,469 10% -6% 25-44 8,663 26% -6% 8,276 24% -4% 8,422 24% 2% 8,713 24% 3% 45-64 7,392 22% 17% 8,196 24% 11% 8,432 24% 3% 8,318 23% -1% 65+ 4,554 13% 5% 4,809 14% 6% 5,406 15% 12% 6,030 17% 12% 33,858 5% 34,499 2% 35,515 3% 36,459 3% Source: Delaware Population Consortium 2002 Not only is the population growing it is also ethnically diverse. The City itself is above the County average in minority concentration. The following table shows the breakdown. TABLE II-2c Racial Composition 2000 Native American Hawaiian Hispanic Black or Indian and and Some Two or or Latino Geographic Total African Alaska Other Other More (of any Area Population Total White American Native Asian Pacific Race Races race) Islander State of Delaware 783,600 770,567 584,773 150,666 2,731 16,259 283 15,855 13,033 37,277 City of Dover 32,135 31,293 17,655 11,961 146 1,016 12 503 842 1,327 Kent County 36,363 35,340 26,770 7,203 186 521 37 629 861 1,554 Totals 852,098 837,200 629,198 169,830 3,063 17,769 332 16,987 17,736 40,158 Source: 2000 US Census

8 For the purpose of the Census, a household is a group of individuals occupying a housing unit. A household may either be a family unit (Individuals related by blood or marriage) or a non-family unit (individuals living together but not related). This is the basic unit above individuals the census tracks for the purpose of tracking income. The decennial census relies on this unit of measurement to determine poverty status. The 2000 Census average household income in the City of Dover was $ 38,669. The State of Delaware’s average was $47,381. The following table compares Dover’s median Family income to other local political subdivisions. TABLE II-2d Median Family Income 2000 City of Dover Kent County State of Delaware Median HH $38,669 $40,950 $47,381 Income Median Non- $25,909 $28,683 $23,305 Family HH Income Median Family $48,338 $46,504 $40,252 HH Income Source: 2000 US Census The City of Dover is lagging in median income in all areas in comparison to Kent County. This can be explained by the rapid increase in the development of retail strip malls, convenience stores and large retailers throughout the county increasing employment opportunities. By combing the two previous tables one can see that the income characteristics by race of householder are disproportionate. This trend is not unique to Dover as can be seen in Table II-2e; it is apparent throughout the region. In general, white households tend to be more affluent than African American households are. One other trend apparent is that there is a concentration of poor African American households within the City limits, greater than the surrounding county or throughout the state. The income level for both white and African American households in the City is substantially lower than the rest of the state. However the African American households within the City also have a significantly lower income than their counterparts in Kent County. This indicates that there is a large concentration of the poorest African Americans in Kent County, within the corporate limits of the City. TABLE II-2e Median Family Income by Race 2005 City of Dover Kent County State of Delaware White $42,937 $50,722 $55,427 African $30,138 $35,888 $40,553 American Asian $36,406 $48,370 $76,149

9 City of Dover Kent County State of Delaware Hispanic or $29,453 $31,554 $43,547 Latino Other $26,607 $58,054 $44,466 Two or More $38,232 $43,227 $50,155 Races The next area of interest when looking at the demographic makeup of the City deals with those persons living under the poverty level. The following table demonstrates the poverty level for different ethnic groups living in Dover, as compared to the rest of the County and State. TABLE II-2f Percentage of Persons Living Below the Poverty Line by Race City of Dover Kent County State of Delaware Persons below 13.8% 10.7% 9.2% Poverty Level, Total White 6.7% 7.9% 6.3% Black or 23.0% 19.6% 18.6% African American American 35.9% 18.5% 15.5% Indian & Alaska Native Asian 17.6% 13.1% 8.8% Native 0% 37.0% 5.3% Hawaiian & Other Pacific Islander Some Other 43.0% 23.4% 23.7% Race Two or More 13.8% 12.6% 15.5% Races Hispanic or 19.8% 14.9% 22.3% Latino Source: 2000 census of Population & Housing In conclusion it can be said that the demographic makeup of the City is diverse. The fact that none of the large census tracts that lie within the City of Dover show concentrations of low-moderate incomes does not mean that large areas of low-moderate persons do not exist. It is a dynamic of Dover’s diversity that more affluent residents live within blocks if not merely separated by an alley of low-moderate income areas. To accurately establish the concentrations specific studies of individual blocks must be made.

10 II.2 AREAS OF RACIAL, ETHNIC AND LOW INCOME CONCENTRATIONS Dover, the largest municipality in land area, is very diverse City. The community consists of many different neighborhoods with many cultures immediately adjacent to each other. In Dover, neighborhoods of affluent predominantly white residents, border neighborhoods of ethnic diversity with only an alley separating them. The relative large land size of the City combined with the relatively low population, roughly over 32,000, gives Dover its relatively low density, when compared to other cities of similar population. The highest densities are mostly found in the transitional downtown area of Central Dover. Dover’s periphery is dominated by low-density suburban type single- family neighborhoods. Due to these historical development patterns, area of racial, ethnic, and low-income concentrations are dispersed throughout the community. The Census Bureau defines an area of “Concentration” as a neighborhood or development in which the population has more than thirty (30%) percent have common race, ethnicity or income. Map II-2 shows the minority concentrations by census tract within the City. MAP II-2 AREAS OF MINORITY CONCENTRATION The largest minority group in Dover is the African-American Community. This community is located in two major areas. The first area is the historically African

11 American settlement area. These areas were originally laid for and developed by African Americans, included in this category are Lincoln Park, Northwest Dover Heights, The College Settlement on State College Road and the western edges of Central Dover. The second area is dominated by the public housing projects and subsidized private developments, which have attracted a large number of minority residents. Included in this category are Capital Green, Barrister Place, Whatcoat Apartments, Simon Circle, and Manchester Square. In the City of Dover, HUD has designated those Census Block groups, which have greater than a 51% concentration of low-moderate income persons. This is graphically represented in Map II-3 below. The areas within City Limits are limited to Block Group 408-01, 413-01, 412-01 and 410-02. The areas not included that are known to be dominated by low-moderate income families are associated with the Target-Block. MAP II-3 LOW-MODERATE INCOME CONCENTRATION 2000

12 II.3 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION The public participation events planned for the Consolidated Plan (2010-2014) represent the culmination of decades of experience in conducting similar events. In addition to the normal advertising of meetings in the local press, the staff notified stakeholders in writing and by the internet. The public was also notified of all meetings and hearings. The following section summarizes each of the Citizen Participation components of the Consolidated Plan. Citizen Participation Plan A. Purpose The City of Dover’s Consolidated Plan Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) has been prepared by the City of Dover in accordance with the requirements contained in Part 91,115 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The CPP outlines the various methods the City of Dover will use to inform its citizens of, and actively involve them in, developing the Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan serves as the housing and community development planning document of the City and its application for funding under the current Community Planning and Development (CDP) formula grant program (CDBG). B. Parks, Recreation & Community Enhancement Committee (PR&CE) In order to assure citizen participation and involvement in the Consolidated and Action Plan process, the Community Development Department reports to PR &CE Committee which: 1. Is composed of representatives from units of general local government and two (2) private citizens. 2. Meets monthly to provide updates on grant funded projects. 3. Provides the opportunity to review and comment upon all aspects of the Consolidated Plan process including: a. Providing input on housing and community development needs and priorities; b. Recommending funding activities; c. Participating in making amendments to the Consolidated Plan;

13 C. Timely Access to Meetings and Information All citizens, particularly low and moderate income persons, shall be provided with reasonable and timely access to local meeting information and records relating to both the proposed use of funds and their actual use in the Consolidated Plan. Such information shall include but not be limited to: 1. Pertinent mailings relating to the Consolidated Plan; 2. Notice of and records of public hearings; 3. Key program documents, including prior applications, letters of approval, contracts, status reports, audit reports, and proposed applications; 4. Copies of program regulations; 5. Documents on other program requirements such as contracting procedures, environmental/historic preservation policies, fair housing and equal opportunity requirements, and acquisition and relocation provisions. D. Technical Assistance Technical assistance is provided to groups and representatives of persons of low and moderate income that request assistance in developing proposals for funding under any of the programs covered by the Consolidated Plan. The level and type of technical assistance to be provided will be determined by the City and will include those training activities necessary to increase the ability of low and moderate income persons to be involved effectively in the development, planning and design of the program proposals. E. Public Hearings Be held at times and locations convenient to potential and actual beneficiaries and with accommodations for persons with disabilities. To the maximum extent possible, all public hearings shall be held in the evening hours after 5:00 PM. All public hearing sites must be accessible to ramps or elevators and be convenient to parking or public transportation. Two Public Hearings are required. Adequate notice is given through advertisement in the City’s local newspaper, the Delaware State News and copies of the notices are sent to such service agencies and public housing administration offices who serve and advocate for the low and very low income persons and disability communities to encourage citizens participation input by the citizens and their advocates, meet the needs of

14 citizens and particularly those who are beneficiaries of the programs covered in the Consolidated Plan. A minimum of two public hearings are held. The first public hearing the City will make available to citizens, public agencies and other interested parties information that includes the amount of the Entitlement Grant and a list of sub-recipient grant request including the amount that will benefit persons of low and moderate income. The draft plan will be made available for thirty days in the City Hall Planning Department, 15 E. Loockerman Street, City of Dover Public Library, 45 S. State Street and on the City’s website. The plan will also be accessible to persons with disabilities. The City will consider any comments or views of citizens received in writing or orally at the public hearing. A summary of these comments or views and summary of any comments or views not accepted and the reasons therefore, shall be attached to the plan. Any amendments to the plan will be advertised in the local newspaper and sent to Social Service Agencies and Public Housing Officials. The City will provide a thirty-day period to receive comments on the substantial amendment before the amendment is implemented. The same procedure will be followed as explained above. Performance Reports The Citizen Plan will provide citizens with reasonable notice and an opportunity to comment on the Performance Report. A fifteen-day period will be set aside for comments. The City will consider any comments or views of citizens received in writing or orally at public hearings in preparing the Performance Report. A summary of these comments or views shall be attached to the Performance Report. F. Response to Comments The City will consider any comments or views of citizens or units of local government received in writing, or orally at public hearings, meetings, etc., in preparing the City’s final Consolidated Plan and Performance Report. The City must provide a timely written response to written complaints and grievances within 15 working days. The written response must document the reasons for whatever action was taken. A summary of these comments and responses shall be attached to the final Consolidated Plan amendment of the plan or Performance Report.

15 G. Criteria for Amendments to Consolidated Plan The City will publish the proposed amendment in the public notice section of a local newspaper. Comments will be requested for a thirty-day period, after which time, the City will consider any comments received and, if appropriate, modify the proposed actions. A summary of these comments shall be attached to the amendment submitted to HUD. Amendments to the Consolidated Plan The following criteria will be used in determining what actions will constitute a substantive change in the City’s planned or actual activities under the Consolidated Plan, and which will require an amendment to the plan. ● Changes in Allocation Amounts: Any significant change in the allocation of funds under a specific program or activity defined under the Consolidated Plan shall require the City to prepare and pass an amendment to the Consolidated Plan. In the case of changes to specific allocations, significant change will be defined as any change in the allocation of funds under a specific program or activity which is greater than 20% of the total funds allocated to that program or activity. Any change that involves 10% or more of the total allocation (entitlement plus program income) in any given grant year, will also be considered a significant change. ● Changes in the Method of Distribution of Funds: Any significant change in an established method for the distribution of funds defined within the Consolidated Plan for a specific program or activity, will require that the City prepare and pass an amendment to the Consolidated Plan. Significant in this case will imply that a method(s) for the distribution of funds for the program or activity was defined within the Consolidated Plan, and the City subsequently changed this method of distribution (i.e. if the City decided to distribute funds for a program through a process of soliciting proposals through a Request For Proposals, and then decided instead to distribute the funds for the program or activity through a negotiated contract.) The second criteria, which must also be met for a change in method of distribution to be considered significant, will be when the funds in question are greater than 20% of the total CPS funding allocated to that program or activity. ● Using Consolidation Plan Funds for Activities not described in the Consolidated Plan: If the City proposes to use funds from any program covered by the Consolidated Plan (including program income) to carry out an activity not previously described in the action plan, the City will be required to prepare and request an amendment to the Consolidated Plan.

16 ● Changes in the Location of an Activity: If the City significantly changes the location of an activity, the City will be required to prepare and request an amendment to the Consolidated Plan. Changes in the location of an activity shall be considered significant if the City had specifically defined a location for an activity within the Consolidated Plan and subsequently decides to choose an alternative site for the location of that activity and thereby shifts the target benefit of that activity to a new area. ● Changes in the Beneficiaries of an Activity: If the City decides to significantly change the established beneficiaries of a specific activity (a defined “target group”) defined in the Consolidated Plan, than the City will be required to prepare and pass an amendment to the Consolidated Plan. In the case of a change in beneficiaries of an activity, significant shall mean that the estimated number of individuals of the targeted group who will be benefited will change more than 10% of the total number of individuals in that group originally estimated. If an activity benefit is changed from one National Objective to another, the City will not request an amendment unless other Amendment thresholds are met. H. CPP Adoption The draft CPP will be made available to the public per notice in the Delaware State News and the City’s website. Comments received will be considered prior to its adoption. The CPP will be considered adopted if, after publication, comments received were considered and incorporated if necessary. Upon adoption, another notice will be placed in the Delaware State News stating that the CPP has been adopted and is on file at and available from the City of Dover. II.4 IDENTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDERS AND THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PROCESS The Community Development Department identified the major stakeholders. The identification of these groups ranged from state agencies, private non-profit philanthropic organizations, low-moderate income housing development corporations, civic leaders and organizations and the two public housing authorities. In the planning process of the Consolidated Plan, the City conducted two goal setting workshops to determine the needs of the community. Meetings were held by staff on November 19, 2009 and January 7, 2010. Those who attended participated and prioritized the needs of the community. The results of the priorities will be presented at the first public hearing that will be scheduled in May 2010. Detailed results of the goal setting workshops are exhibited in the Strategic Plan.

17 III HOUSING, HOMELESS AND SPECIAL NEEDS ASSEESSMENT III.1 GENERAL (24 CFR 91.205 (a)) Table 4A Dover Housing Authority Housing Needs of Families on the Section 8 Waiting List # of Families % of total families Annual Turnover Waiting list total 657 Extremely low income <=30% 466 71% AMI Very low income >30% but <=50% 158 24% AMI Low income >50% but <=80% 32 5% Families with children 483 74% Elderly families 28 4% Families with Disabilities 19 3% Race/ethnicity White 100 15% Race/ethnicity Black 542 83% Race/ethnicity American Indian 6 <1% Race/ethnicity Asian 7 1% Race/ethnicity Pacific Islander 0 0 Race/ethnicity Latino 2 <1% Characteristics by Bedroom Size 1BR 150 2BR 195 3BR 119 4BR 50 5BR 8 5+BR 0

18 Dover Housing Authority Housing Needs of Families on the Public Housing Waiting List # of Families % of total families Annual Turnover Waiting list total 471 Extremely low income <=30% 362 79% AMI Very low income >30% but <=50% 88 19% AMI Low income >50% but <=80% 19 4% Families with children 286 61% Elderly families 30 6% Families with Disabilities 22 5% Race/ethnicity White 96 20% Race/ethnicity Black 364 77% Race/ethnicity American Indian 0 0 Race/ethnicity Asian 5 1% Race/ethnicity Pacific Islander 0 0 Race/ethnicity Latino 6 1% Characteristics by Bedroom Size for Public Housing only 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR 5BR 5+BR

19 Strategy for Addressing Needs ● Employ effective maintenance and management policies to minimize the number of public housing units off-line. ● Reduce turnover time for vacated public housing units. ● Maintain or increase Section 8 lease-up rates by establishing payment standards that will enable families to rent throughout the jurisdiction. ● Undertake measures to ensure access to affordable housing among families assisted by the PHA, regardless of unit size required. ● Maintain or increase Section 8 lease-up rates by marketing the program to owners, particularly those outside of areas of minority and poverty concentration. ● Maintain or increase Section 8 lease-up rates by effectively screening Section 8 applicants to increase owner acceptance of program. III.2 CATEGORIES OF PERSONS AFFECTED (24 CFR 91.205 (b)) Very Low-Income (0 to 50% of median family income). According to the 2000 CHAS data there are 2,212 households in the very low-income category that are renting housing in the City. Of those a very high percentage (67.5%) has indicated that they have a housing problem. Those problems could range from substandard conditions to overcrowding. A high percentage (65%) pay greater than 30% of their income toward rent and smaller, but still significant, percentage (54.2%) pay greater than 50% of their income toward rent. The numbers of very-low income renters that have housing problems or suffer from a housing cost burden are estimated at 709. In addition a high percentage (53.1%) of very- low households is elderly which further limits their housing options. The Dover Housing Authority has 976 families on its waiting list for public housing and Section 8 assistance. Of those, 719 are very low income. The waiting list is currently open for public housing but closed for Section 8. In terms of owner-occupants, there are 2,896 households in the very-low income category. Of those, a very high percentage (69.3%) indicates that they have a housing problem. A high percentage (67.2%) pay greater than 30% of their income for housing and a significant percentage (55%) pay more than 50% of their income for housing. The numbers of very-low income owner-occupant households that have housing problems or suffer from a housing cost burden are estimated at 684.

20 Other Low-income (51 to 80% of median family income) According to the 2000 CHAS Data Book there are 1,192 households in the other low- income category that are renting housing in the City. Of those a very high percentage (52%) has indicated that they have a housing problem. A high percentage (48.3%) also indicates that they are paying greater than 30% of their income towards rent. The number paying greater than 50% of their income for housing is relatively insignificant. The numbers of other low-income renters that have housing problems or suffer from a housing cost burden are estimated at 489. There are 2,031 households in the other low-income category that own their homes. Of those, 50.3% indicate having either a housing problem or paying greater than 30% of their income for housing. The number paying greater than 50% of their income for housing is relatively insignificant. The numbers of other low-income owner-occupants that have housing problems or suffer from a housing cost burden are estimated at 197. Moderate Income (81 to 95% of median family income) According to the 2000 CHAS Data Book data there are 2,435 households in the moderate-income category that are renting housing in the City of Dover. Of these households, only 9.7% indicate having a housing problem and only 5.8% are paying more than 30% of their income toward rent. The number paying greater than 50% of their income for housing is relatively insignificant. The number of moderate-income renters that have housing problems or suffer from a housing cost burden is estimated at 1,028. There are only 4,953 households in the moderate-income category that own their homes. Of those, only 9.7% indicate having either a housing problem or paying greater than 30% of their income for housing. The number paying greater than 50% of their income for housing is relatively insignificant.

21 The following three tables summarize this information: TABLE 2A* PRIORITY NEEDS SUMMARY TABLE PRIORITY Priority Need HOUSING NEEDS Level Unmet Goals (households) High, Medium, Low Need 0-30% Medium 934 0 Small Related 31-50% Medium 464 0 51-80% Low 431 0 0-30% Low 113 0 Large Related 31-50% Low 59 0 51-80% Low 104 0 Renter 0-30% Low 456 0 Elderly 31-50% Medium 243 0 51-80% Low 168 0 0-30% Medium 709 0 All Other 31-50% Low 393 0 51-80% Medium 489 0 0-30% High 684 0 Owner 31-50% Medium 251 0 51-80% Low 839 0 Special Populations 0-80% Not available Total Goals 0 Total 215 Goals

22 Table III-B-7 LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN THE CITY OF DOVER Total Number of Households in Income Category Very Low Income Renters (0%-30% MFI) 2212 Very Low Income Owners (0%-30%MFI) 684 Low Income Renters (31%-50% MFI) 1047 Low Income Owners (31%-50% MFI) 433 Other Low Income Renters (31%-50% MFI) 316 Other Low Income Owners (31%-50% MFI) 64 Moderate Income Renters (81%-95% MFI) 2435 Moderate Income Owners (81%-95% MFI) 4953 Total Low and Moderate Income Households / Total Households 10664/13180 Low/Mod Income Households as a % of Total Households 42% Source: 2000 US Census of Population and Housing Table III-B-8 ESTIMATED LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN THE CITY OF DOVER EXPERIENCING HOUSING PROBLEMS Total Number of Households in Income Category Experiencing Housing Problems 1437 Very Low Income Renters (0%-30% MFI) 1100 Very Low Income Owners (0%-30%MFI) Low Income Renters (31%-50% MFI) 878 957 Low Income Owners (31%-50% MFI) 265 Other Low Income Renters (31%-50% MFI) 56 Other Low Income Owners (31%-50% MFI) 57 Moderate Income Renters (81%-95% MFI) 115 Moderate Income Owners (81%-95% MFI) Total Low and Moderate Income Households / Total Households 4865 / 10664 Low/Mod Income w/ housing problems as a % of Total Households 51% Source: 2000 US Census of Population and Housing

23 The City of Dover CDBG program does not administer housing projects. The focus of the program is to promote owner occupied housing in low/moderate income neighborhoods. III.3 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY Habitat for Humanity is a national organization that provides home ownership opportunities to low-income families through a no-interest long-term mortgage. Homes are sold on a no profit basis to families who are required to take part in a “sweat-equity” program. Habitat has completed the build of its 14th home in the City of Dover. Their goal is to complete an additional 3 homes in 2010. HOMELESS FACILITIES (24 CFR 91.215(c)) Salvation Army - This organization carries out crisis alleviation through the administration of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) shelter, utilities, rent and mortgage assistance programs. It also coordinates and refers people to shelters, motels, and local service providers. Its youth activities included: the After School Achievement Program (ASAP), summer camp, Alternative School, Christmas toy and food donations. The adult programs include: nursing home and prison visitation, daily hot meal program, home league mothers support, GED education and basketball leagues. Eight-O-One Life Encompassing Living Program - This program houses adolescent’s ages 10-18 years old in a crisis situation for a thirty-day period. It also provides diagnostic treatment services to adolescents and AFDC recipients who have been determined to be "at risk" for being abused and neglected. This facility has 12 beds. Shepard Place, Inc. - This agency operates a relief shelter for homeless persons. It provides emergency food baskets, information and referral services, and transportation for in house clients. The services are available on a 24-hour basis, the average stay at the shelter is 2-3 weeks, but does not exceed 30 days. The facility has 20 beds. Whatcoat Social Service Agency Ruth N. Dorsey Shelter - This agency operates a relief shelter for homeless persons. It provides emergency food baskets, information and referral services, and transportation for in house clients. The services are available on a 24-hour basis, the average stay at the shelter is 2-3 weeks, but does not exceed 30 days. This facility has 46 beds. Connections Community Support Program - This agency is the only agency in the city that exclusively services the chronically homeless. Their facility has 10 beds in addition to supportive services programs for their clients.

24 CITY OF DOVER HOMELESS POPULATION The Homeless Planning Council of Delaware conducted a point-in-time study on January 27, 2009. The number of homeless identified was based on a survey of shelters and other homeless service providers, providers serving homeless individuals with mental health, substance abuse disorders, and anecdotal information. The homeless population for the City of Dover was estimated at 254 individuals. Of the 254 individuals, 200 were adults and 54 were children from the ages of 0-17 accounting for 32 families. Of the unaccompanied adults (159 persons) 53 met the definition of chronically homeless. Table 1A diagrams the emergency families sheltered, transitional families sheltered, permanent families sheltered and emergency shelters in the City of Dover, with subpopulations for Kent County included. HOMELESS NEEDS AND FACILITIES ● The State of Delaware’s new welfare reform legislation essentially replaces the idea of “entitlements” to persons with a new system of incentives linking benefits to obtaining employment. This argues for expanding job opportunities available to low and moderate income persons. ● There are a series of programs, grants, and charity foundations that will help persons “at risk” of homelessness by providing assistance with rent, mortgage payments, and utility bills on a one time basis. Connections Community Support Program also provides vouchers for motel stays on a short-term basis. However, the challenge is to match the program with the persons or households in need. ● There are only two emergency homeless shelters in Kent County, both in the immediate Dover area. The Shepard Place is located just south of the Dover City limits. The Ruth N. Dorsey Shelter is located on College Road. Both have a maximum stay of 30 days, and are usually full to capacity with a waiting list. Other facilities, such as the Salvation Army, open their doors to the homeless during periods of extreme heat or cold. Dover Interfaith Mission to the Homeless is a newly established 501(c) 3 that has plans to open a homeless shelter in the city that will provide 40 to 50 beds year round and provide shelter for 30 to 90 days. Renovations for this project are currently underway. ● Whatcoat Social Service Agency (Ruth N. Dorsey Relief Shelter) constructed 10 transitional housing units on the land adjacent to the shelter. The plan is for clients to participate in the program for at least two years. While in the program, the clients will be expected to receive further education, obtain job skills and accept case management which will prepare them for eventual home ownership. The plan will reduce the housing gap of continuum care in the City of Dover. ● There is a great need for “transitional housing.” It is estimated by the service providers that it takes the average family a period of 90 days to move from

25 homelessness, to a stable job and finally to a new home. With the maximum stay at the emergency shelters limited to 30 days, many families find themselves homeless a second time before they can obtain more permanent housing. Homeless Prevention Activities and Chronic Homelessness Community Development staff has been identified as a stakeholder and serves as a member of The Interagency Homeless Council to oversee the implementation of the plan and educate the community about the need and for the advantages of ending chronic homelessness. The city will continue to participate as member of the Homeless Council to assist in addressing the needs to end chronic homelessness. The City has developed the following goals to assist in homeless prevention: ● Revise zoning and subdivisions ordinances and procedures to encourage low-cost quality housing development. ● Continue to utilize programs to eliminate significant barriers to affordable housing. ● Successfully build the economic capacity of underprivileged residents by helping families earn more money by providing a sufficient number and diverse choice of employment opportunities. ● Continue working with the two housing authorities and other housing providers to provide assistance to very low and extremely low income persons. ● Continue working with the Delaware Fair Housing Task Force to ensure fair treatment and fair housing practices are being administered to City of Dover residents ● Continue to collect and analyze data about the extent of the problem and current state of the service system The following table provided information of the most recent Point in Time survey conducted on January 27, 2009.

26 Table 1A Homeless and Special Needs Population Emergency Families Sheltered City of Dover Agency County # of Number Persons in Total Total individuals of beds family with served children year round Peoples Kent 11 12 3 95 121 Place II Shepherd Kent 20 30 13 499 562 Place Whatcoat Kent 28 24 10 583 645 Social Services Total 59 66 26 1177 1328 Subpopulations Served in Emergency housing for Families on January 27, 2009 Kent County Capacity 66 Numbered Sheltered 59 Seriously Mentally III 0 Chronic Substance Abuser 0 Veterans 1 Persons with Aids 0 Victims of Domestic Violence 1 Unaccompanied Youth under 3 18 years of age Total 130 Emergency Shelters, City of Dover (non family) Agency County # of Number of Total Total individuals beds served year round House of Kent 10 24 18 52 Pride Aid in Kent 1 6 16 23 Dover Dover Kent 27 28 200 255 Interfaith Mission Totals 38 58 234 330

27 Subpopulations Served in Emergency Shelters non family on January 27, 2009 Kent County Capacity 58 Numbered Sheltered 38 Chronically Homeless 10 Seriously Mentally Ill 3 Chronic Substance Abusers 5 Persons with Aids 0 Total 114 Permanent Housing Programs Agency County # of Number Total individuals of beds served year round Connections Kent 32 30 46 Easy Access Transitional Housing Programs Agency County # of Number Total Total individuals of beds served year round House of Kent 10 24 18 52 Pride Connections Kent 17 22 25 64 Aid in Dover Kent 6 6 17 29 Totals 33 52 60 145 Transitional Sheltered Subpopulations Served in Transitional Housing on January 27, 2009 Kent County Capacity 52 Numbered Sheltered 33 Seriously Mentally Ill 0 Chronic Substance Abuser 0 Veterans 0 Persons with Aids 3 Victims of Domestic Violence 0

28 Unmet Homeless Needs in Delaware, 2010 All Year –Round Beds/Units 2010 Beds for Units for Beds for Total Year- Households with Households Round Beds Households with Children Children without Children 0 0 0 0 Emergency Shelter 0 0 220 220 Transitional Housing 0 0 0 0 Safe Haven Permanent Supportive 0 15 1398 1398 Housing 30 15 1618 1648 Total SPECIAL NEEDS FACILITIES AND SERVICES (24 CFR 91.215(d)) Elderly and the Frail Elderly – Housing for the elderly population has continued to grow with expansion of existing facilities and the completion of three new senior housing complexes. A total of 711 independent living senior housing units have been built in the City since 1996. The City has a large number of assisted living providers including: Luther Towers, Westminster Village, Owens Manor, Silver Lake, and Courtland Manor. Dover has 1,230 dedicated senior-living units, of which 489 are independent living facilities or apartments, 450 are nursing home beds, and 290 assisted living beds. These facilities typically require a substantial entry fee and $1200 to $2000 per month in rental and service fees. There are no publicly subsidized nursing homes in Kent County. Handicapped Disabled - There is one group home in the City of Dover that serves 8 people. The facility is operated by Ken Crest, Inc. located on Walker Road. There are a number of other single-family dwellings that have been converted to group homes meeting the definition of a single-family dwelling totaling 22 beds. Persons with AIDS – The Delaware HIV consortium has entered into a contract with the Delaware State Housing Authority to provide tenant based rental assistance to people with HIV/AIDS. In August of 2009, a survey of 129 assisted households was conducted by the Delaware HIV Planning Council. According this survey, 70% of the assisted clients indicated they would be homeless if it were not for subsidized housing. As of

29 February 1, 2010, there were 300 eligible clients were in need of affordable rental housing on the Consortium’s HOPWA-funded Tenant Based Rental Assistance waiting list. This grant provides funding for the HIV/AIDS population. Tenant based rental assistance provides ongoing rent subsidies to 150 households in Delaware, but overall the lack of affordable housing creates serious issues for persons living with HIV/AIDS. Connections CSP, Inc. has developed a new permanent housing project which operates in the City of Dover located in the Country Village Apartments. This project provides rental subsidies for the supervision of 10 homeless adults who have substance use disorders and who are receiving treatment in Connections’ Alcohol and Drug Day Treatment Program in Kent County. IV HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS (24CFR 91.210) IV.1 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS (A) At the time of the 2000 Census there were 13,195 dwelling units in the City of Dover. Of these housing units, 12,340 were occupied. Just over half of these (6,454 or 52%) were owner occupied with the remaining 5,886 (48%) are rental units. There was a 6.5% vacancy rate for the rental units. This low vacancy rate indicated a need for rental housing. From this data, the trend over the past decade has been to construct a more equal ratio of multiple family units. The median year of construction for Dover’s Housing Stock was 1968. In 1997 roughly 10% of all units were older than 50 years. The largest segment of the housing stock, (39%) was constructed during the 1960’s and 1970’s. As this stock ages, in the coming decades, these older suburban style units will begin to experience some of the same maintenance issues experienced by the older Downtown housing stock. Dover’s housing stock is of significantly different composition than the housing typically found in the rest of the State of Delaware and Kent County. In keeping with Dover’s more urban environment, multi-family units accounted for approximately 34.8% of housing units in Dover in the year 2000. In the same year, multi-family units composed only 18.7% of units in the entire state and 14.5% in Kent County. Similarly, 44.8% of Dover’s housing units were of the single-family detached variety, while this housing type accounted for 55.9% of all the state’s housing units and 58.4% of all Kent County’s housing units. The age of Dover’s housing stock is comparable to the age of housing stock across the State with the median year of construction for owner-occupied houses in 1,974. Nearly half of all housing units in the City of Dover were occupied by renters in the year 2000, while renters occupied less than a third of housing in Kent County and the State of Delaware. Reflective of a well-educated and significant professional workforce, a higher percentage of Dover’s residents have admitted a Bachelor’s degree or higher than have done so at the State or County level, However, Dover’s median household income of $38,669 is less than the median income for the state ($52,499) and Kent County ($48,282). Also, a

30 greater percentage of Dover’s residents live below the poverty level than do across the state and county. The vacancy for owner and renter occupied units indicates there is not a shortage of housing, but there is a strong demand. The number of new residential housing developments validates this recently approved by the City of Dover. From 1990-2004 the City of Dover’s Planning Commission approved a total of 4,218 new residential units. Of these units, 1,674 were single family detached, 1,288 were single family attached, with the majority being townhouse units, and 1,256 multifamily units. As these numbers indicate, none of the types of units proposed dominates the other. Grouping the single- family unit types does however dominate the multi-family. The trend towards providing alternative affordable housing opportunities indicates that there is and will continue to be a need for first time homebuyers and low to moderate-income buyers’ assistance. IV.2 PUBLIC AND ASSISTED HOUSING (24 CFR 91.210 b) The City of Dover is served by two public housing authorities: the Dover Housing Authority and the Delaware State Housing Authority. The two housing authorities operate public housing units within the City of Dover. The following tables demonstrate the number of units and the bedroom distribution for both housing authority’s public and subsidized units: Table IV B-2 (DHA) PUBLIC OR SUBSIDIZED UNITS BY BEDROOM SIZE 0/1 2 3 4 5 DEVELOPMENT BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM TOTAL Colonial Gardens 0/0 11 22 8 5 46 Senate View 0/0 22 38 0 0 60 Queen Manor 30 / 18 2 0 0 0 50 Manchester Square 0/8 30 22 12 3 75 Manchester Court 0/0 0 8 0 0 8 Hayes Drive 0/0 0 14 0 0 14 Scattered Sites I 0/0 0 9 1 0 10 Scattered Site II 0/0 0 9 1 0 10 Scattered Site III 0/0 0 5 0 0 5 Scattered Site IV 0/0 0 4 0 0 4 Scattered Site V 0/0 2 0 0 0 2 Derby Estates I 0/0 5 8 2 0 15 Derby Estates II 0/0 6 9 0 0 15 TOTAL 30 / 26 78 148 24 8 314 Source: Dover Housing Authority

31 The Dover Housing Authority has a total of 314 public housing units available for occupancy. The majority of these units have 3 bedrooms (47%). DHA also completed the construction of Owens Manor, a 60 unit senior housing building in 2000, bringing the public total of public housing units to 374. Table IV –B-3 (DSHA) PUBLIC HOUSING UNITS BY BEDROOM SIZE IN THE CITY OF DOVER 0/1 2 3 4 5 DEVELOPMENT BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM TOTAL Liberty Court 0/25 71 12 0 0 108 Capital Green 0/6 99 33 6 0 144 TOTAL 0/31 170 45 6 0 252 Table IV – B-4 PRIVATE LOW/MOD INCOME HOUSING PROJECTS UNIT TYPE FAMILY/ELDERLY NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENT UNITS Willis Road Estates Townhouse Family 17 The Laurels Townhouse Family 76 Walker Woods I Townhouse Family 51 Walker Woods II Townhouse Family 19 East Lake Apartments Apartments Family 48 River Chase Apartments Family 78 Whatcoat Village Apartments Family 78 New Hope Housing Apartments Family 23 New Hope Housing II Apartments Family 18 Persimmon Tree Apartments Family 95 Mishoe Towers Apartments Elderly 25 Luther Towers I Apartments Elderly 149 Luther Towers II Apartments Elderly 50 Luther Towers III Apartments Elderly 49 Luther Towers IV Apartments Elderly 44 TOTAL 820 There are at least 820 low to moderate-income rental housing units located in the City of Dover. Of these units, 317 or 39% are designated as elderly with 61% or 503 units being family. Using the estimate that there are 13,195 dwelling units in the City, low to moderate-income rental unit’s account for 7 % of the housing stock. When considered in combination with public housing there are a total of 1,386 rental units available to low to moderate-income persons in the City of Dover at below market rates and account for 11.4 % of the total housing stock.

32 IV.3 SECTION 8 HOUSING Both the Dover Housing Authority and the Delaware State Housing Authority provide rental assistance to low and moderate-income persons through HUD's Section 8 Program. The following tables demonstrate the number of units and the bedroom distribution for both housing authorities Section 8 Rental Vouchers: TABLE III-B-5 DOVER HOUSING AUTHORITY (DHA) SECTION8 RENTAL VOUCHERS OFFERED IN THE CITY OF DOVER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom 1 45 48 70 19 2 0 185 Source: Dover Housing Authority The Dover Housing Authority offers a total of 220 rental vouchers through the Section 8 program issued by HUD. All of these are tenant based, meaning that they are offered only to tenants of DHA’s waiting list. Presently 84% of these vouchers were under lease agreements, with the exception of 30 mainstream vouchers in which 100% are in utilization. Currently 671 applicants are on the waiting list which was closed on January 1, 2010. Table III-B-6 DELAWARE STATE HOUSING AUTHORITY (DSHA) SECTION 8 RENTAL VOUCHERS OFFERED IN THE STATE OF DELAWARE 1 2 3 4 5 Total Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Rental Vouchers 330 307 230 35 3 905 Source: Delaware State Housing Authority OWENS MANOR SENIOR HOUSING 1 2 Total Bedroom Bedroom Rental Vouchers 48 12 60 Source: Dover Housing Authority The Delaware State Housing Authority offers a total of 905 rental vouchers through the Section 8 program for the State of Delaware. These vouchers are offered to families seeking housing within the three Counties of the State. There are no anticipated "losses" to the Section 8 inventory due to prepayment or voluntary termination of a federally assisted mortgage.

33 DSHA is the Public Housing Authority for Kent and Sussex Counties with the exception of the City of Dover. DSHA owns and operates 508 units of Public Housing located throughout both counties and administers 905 Housing Choice Vouchers subsidizing rent in private-sector housing. In addition, DSHA administers 50 Family Unification Vouchers (FUP). FUP is a program under which vouchers are provided to families for whom the lack of adequate housing is a primary factor in the imminent placement of the family’s child, or children, in out-of-home care; or the delay in the discharge of the child, or children, to the family from out of home care. Youths at least 18 years old and not more than 21 years old who left foster care at age 16 or older and who do not have adequate housing are also eligible to receive housing assistance. DSHA currently allocates 20 vouchers for family unification and 30 vouchers for foster youth. Dover’s owner occupied housing units are what one would expect in a community that went through major growth during the Post-War suburbanizing period. Most of these units have three or more bedrooms. Dover had 13,357 dwelling units in 2000, in which 12,340 were owner occupied. This represents a 26% increase in total units available. Of the occupied units, 52% were owner occupied and 48% were rental units, which was a 2% increase in occupied rental units from 1990. The median value of an owner occupied dwelling unit was $111,300 in 2000. The median gross rent for the renter occupied unit was $577. The typical apartment unit has 2 bedrooms. One bedroom and three bedrooms hold 30 and 20% of the market respectfully. IV.4 BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING (24 CFR 91.210 (e)) At this time, it is the City of Dover's contention that there are no "barriers to affordable housing" which is the result of public policy. The following is a sample of current public policies, which support and encourage affordable housing: • Inclusionary Zoning - Unlike many communities, Dover has not practiced “exclusionary zoning” were most of the underdeveloped land is designated for large lot single family detached homes. To the contrary, The Dover Plan (Dover’s Comprehensive Plan) designates a large portion of underdeveloped lands for medium density housing, and a smaller but significant portion for high density housing. The land is subsequently zoned accordingly, permitting a range of residential densities and housing types. The most recent Comprehensive Plan Update was adopted in February 2009. The Land Development Plan specifically identifies a range of residential land uses from low density to high density throughout the city. The plan continues to recommend a range of residential densities and focuses specifically on housing in one chapter. The ordinance establishing the Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) was adopted in 2004 allows for the creation of a walkable pedestrian friendly mixed- use neighborhood with residential, commercial, and professional office areas. As the first TND project in the city, the TND Eden Hill Farm, TND is under construction with work on the first residential housing with the infrastructure

34 (utilities streets) within the residential district and the completion of the first office building in the office district. The general overall master plan for the development incorporates a mix of residential types from single family homes to townhouses and the potential for apartments over commercial uses. Planned Neighborhood Design Option – The Planned Neighborhood Design (PND) encourages superior site design by relaxing bulk standards, requiring more open space and recreational areas, permitting various housing styles in all zones, and providing incentives to mix housing types to encourage less homogeneous development patterns. Accessory apartment associated with single family residences are permitted if certain design criteria are met. Density bonuses for community features (such as neighborhood commercial uses for day care centers) are offered. Although there are no direct requirements for affordable housing or subsidized units, clearly these types of units could easily accommodate within these style developments. Three PND developments are currently under construction (Lexington Glen, Clearview Meadows, and Village of Cannon Mills) pending promise to offer over 800 new housing units including single family detached, townhouses, duplexes, and apartment units. Phase I of the Luther Village PND currently provides 68 units in a Senior Citizen Housing Option for low & very low income persons. Several other PND projects are under the senior citizen housing option including Luther Village Phase 2, The Arbors and Dove View Senior Apartments. Several apartment projects (the Village of Cannon Mill Apartments, Woodmill Apartment Expansion) currently under review will provide this housing type adjacent to other residential types and near commercial areas. • Incentives for Downtown Development - In order to encourage the redevelopment of downtown Dover, special incentives are offered in specified areas. These incentives include parking requirement reductions, tax incentives, sanitary sewer impact fee waivers, and building permit fee caps. • Support of Public and Assisted Housing - In the City of Dover there are two full service housing authorities, and numerous assisted housing projects offering below market rents to those with low to moderate incomes. Currently there are 1,174 of these units in the city, which represents nearly 10% of Dover's total housing stock. It is the City of Dover's policy to support the activities of our two housing authorities. In addition, there are no policy-based disincentives for the construction of additional assisted housing units in appropriate zoning districts. There are a total of 716 senior housing units approved and nearing construction intended to serve the needs of the elderly. • Lien Forgiveness for Habitat For Humanity - The current City of Dover policy to forgive any liens requiring the payment of back taxes on properties which are acquired by Habitat for Humanity. This policy serves to provide an incentive to rehabilitate older properties, and place them back in the housing stock as affordable units.

35 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS In preparation for determining the needs of the community, the City conducted a series of workshops to obtain the views of citizens, State agencies, Civic Leaders and the State public housing authority. The results are listed in below. Homeless Needs: The City of Dover is involved in several efforts to promote homeownership throughout the City, but particularly in the Downtown Target Area. The City will review alternatives for zoning amendments that promote the constitution or general availability of affordable homeownership opportunities as well as continue to provide CDBG funding to projects that will assist with the homeless needs in the city. Housing Needs: Throughout the five years, the City will prioritize housing needs in the target area and throughout the City limits. The housing initiatives will include housing rehabilitation, emergency home repairs, and expand minority homeownership with the assistance of down payment assistance. The City through the Neighborhood Stabilization Program will provide affordable housing with the purchase of foreclosed properties that will be renovated and brought up to code to be sold to qualifying homebuyers. The City will also provide CDBG funding for the renovation of housing units in the target area to be sold to low to moderate income families and continue to partner with NCALL to provide down payment assistance to low to moderate income families throughout the City. Public Service Needs: The City will continue with the Crime Prevention Program as part of a need determined in the public workshop. This program has been very successful in the target area in the area of reducing crime. The city will also continue to support social service programs that will provide services to low income persons. Public Facilities: The Eight-O-One Shelter who provides emergency diagnostic shelter serves for children and youth between the ages of 10 and 18 who are at risk for abuse, neglect, dependency and homelessness, has plans for development of a Youth Activity Center. This center will provide an environment in which homeless children and youth earn access to specialized recreational activities. The Activity Center will assist young people by positively reinforcing behaviors which are directed at the importance of respecting themselves and others, their own property and the property of others. Infrastructure Improvements: The City of Dover began the streets improvement project in FY03 to reconstruct the streets and curbs in the target area to increase the livability of the neighborhood. CDBG funds and other funding sources were used to complete this project. This project will be

36 complete in 2006. The Community Development Department will continue to fund this project in other low to moderate income area throughout the City. Economic Development: The 2008 City of Dover Comprehensive Plan has developed Economic Development Goals that the City will implement throughout the five year plan. Part II – Plan Goals: Economic Development Goal 1: Attract and Retain High-Paying Quality Jobs by Targeting Large Firms and Businesses to Major Growth Areas in the City Recommendation 1: Adopt Economic Development Strategies Recognize and adopt the Dover portion of the Kent County Economic Development Strategy of 2007:  Define an Economic Development Vision for the City including a long-term economic portfolio, land/facility requirements and workforce preparation  Work closely with Economic Development Agencies including Kent County, KCEDP and the State of Delaware Recognize and adopt the Dover portion of the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) of 2006:  Create a diversity of businesses  Maintain and foster workforce development  Build private-public partnerships (P3) to encourage coordination between private, state, county and City stakeholders  Utilize public private partnerships to fund infrastructure development and improvements Recommendation 2: Hire an Economic Development Professional to Attract and Retain Businesses within the City of Dover Hire an economic development professional, under the Director of Planning and Inspections, who would serve as executive director to the Downtown Dover Partnership as well as perform the following citywide economic development functions: Ongoing interface with existing companies (needs assessment) Small business development (target entrepreneurial companies) External marketing and lead management (networking relationships) Secure bonds/grants (industrial revenue bonds, other sources) Management of facilities (industrial park development)

37 Goal 2: Revitalize Downtown Dover as a Vibrant Town Center Integrating the Hospital, the Colleges & Universities, the State and City Governments with Business (Retail and Professional), Housing and Tourism Recommendation 3: Continue to Develop and Promote Incentives for Downtown Redevelopment Understanding the interest of the public for preserving and enhancing the look and feel of Downtown Dover, evaluate the slate of incentives for redevelopment within the downtown target area, and continue to add incentives that will encourage a balanced mix of uses within the City’s core. Recommendation 4: Adopt 2006 Downtown Dover Economic Enhancement Strategy (DDEES) (Hyett-Palma Strategy) The following are some selected recommendations of the strategy which may be assigned to the City’s Economic Development Office or Downtown Dover Partnership Staff the Downtown Dover Partnership. Convene Downtown Dover Forum quarterly. Hire economic development specialist to assist downtown partnership. Explore tax increment financing district for Downtown. Form an arm of the Downtown Dover Partnership to pursue State funding Evaluate the feasibility of and develop a funding plan for three Cameo Infrastructure Initiatives:  St. Jones River Park  Downtown parking garage  Redevelopment of Museum Square. Work with businesses in the Downtown Core District to keep market driven hours, continue to offer specialized products and services, properly maintain building space (inside and out), and enhance window displays. Form and operate Business-to-Business Roundtable. Operate both internal and external business recruitments, as per recommendations of the DDEES. Heavily market all incentives to all Downtown business and property owners, with emphasis in the Downtown Core District. Create and operate a one-stop-shop in City Hall. Create and publish a “how to” brochure for investors. Retain a marketing professional, prepare media relations campaign, and launch campaign, as per recommendation of the DDEES. Design and implement Downtown image and cross-advertising campaign, as per recommendation of the DDEES. Encourage one-on-one consulting with the business owners. This means assigning a Downtown professional to meet individually with Downtown business owners on a regular basis to discuss the concerns and needs of each business owner and to identify service providers/incentives that can help address those needs.

38 The Downtown professional should have a highly visible presence on the street, should drop in and visit with the business owners at least once per month, and should call on new business owners within their first week of business. Businesses should first be recruited for the Downtown core using an “internal approach.” Meaning working with current business owners and encourage them to expand or contract current lines and services, expand existing business space, and open new shops. After internal recruitment has been established, the “external approach” of business development should be used. A media relations campaign should be launched for Downtown. A year-long advertising campaign should be created for Downtown. Recommendation 5: Create a Visual Master Plan and Form-Based Code for Downtown Develop, through a public process, a master plan for the Loockerman Street area that is visually and design based. Subject the master plan to public hearing before Historic District Commission and Planning Commission. Adopt the Plan as a form- based code and require that any plan consistent with the overall master plan would be subject to only administrative review. Recommendation 6: Support Mixed-Use Development Promote zoning districts and regulations that support the traditional mixed-use nature of the Downtown area. Ease restrictions on Loockerman Street to encourage personal and service oriented businesses. Design a “One-Stop Shop” through the Downtown Dover Partnership to provide technical assistance with the permitting process and other processes necessary for opening a Downtown business. Create an Arts Co-op/ Arts & Entertainment District for the Downtown area and recruit artists to live and work in the area. Goal 3: Ensure that Zoning Requirements Encourage the Uses Desired and Do Not Create Impediments to Desired Business Growth Recommendations 7: Review and Modify Zoning Districts to ensure that Desired Uses are encouraged and Incompatible Uses are tightly controlled Review and realign existing industrial, office and commercial zones to ensure that industrial uses are separated from incompatible uses and that zoning districts support the economic development strategy. Separate light and heavy manufacturing to prohibit non-manufacturing entities within the heavy manufacturing zone. Evaluate and update home occupation requirements in the Zoning Ordinance to encourage infill and better align uses. Better define permitted and conditional uses in commercial and industrial zones.

39 Recommendation 8: Protect existing establishments from encroachment: Protect existing industrial, office park, and manufacturing establishments from encroachment by incompatible land uses, which could result in nuisance complaints, hazardous situations, and human conflict via regulations reducing/eliminating development surrounding these areas. Protect Dover Air Force Base (DAFB) from encroachment by preventing incompatible commercial and/or residential development east of SR 1 and within the Airport Environs Overlay Zone (AEOZ). Goal 4: Create an Environment for Long Term Economic Investment in Dover Focusing on Green Technology and Entrepreneurial Businesses Recommendations 9: Separate light and heavy manufacturing to prohibit non- manufacturing entities in that respective zone. Goal 5: Actively Market Garrison Oak Recommendation 10: Develop a Master Plan for Garrison Oak that allows for interested parties to expedite the planning and building phases including the following: Change the minimum lot size requirements for the IPM-2 zone. Acknowledge the need for infrastructure improvements and compose a cost estimate for such improvements in order to make the site “shovel-ready.” Under the direction of the Economic Development Manager, create a committee for marketing Garrison Oak. Pursue cooperation with chairs of cluster groups at the State level of economic development with the Dover Economic Development Manager. Ensure that the intent of the purchase as expressed in the epilogue language of the Delaware FY2000 Bond Bill is incorporated in the planning of the site as a “high technology industrial park.” Recommendation 11: Market Garrison Oak as a potential site for green, alternative and low-carbon energy plant(s), and for large technological and manufacturing firms that support these industries. Recommendation 12: Explore the Creation of a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District for Garrison Oak Explore the creation of a TIF overlay district for Garrison Oak allows the City to fund the necessary infrastructure improvements that will enable the City to market the site as a “shovel-ready” technology park.

40 Table 2B Non-Housing Community Development Needs PRIORITY COMMUNITY Priority Need Level Estimated Estimated Dollars DEVELOPMENT NEEDS High, Medium, Low, Priority Units to Address No Such Need PUBLIC FACILITY NEEDS Neighborhood Facilities Low Unknown Unknown Parks and/or Recreation Facilities High 4 $1,700,000 Health Facilities State Provided Service N/A N/A Parking Facilities High 1 $500,000 Solid Waste Disposal Improvements Medium City Provided $500,000 Service Asbestos Removal High 1 $12,000 Non-Residential Historic Preservation State Provided Service N/A N/A Other Public Facility Needs High 1 Library INFRASTRUCTURE Water/Sewer Improvements High City Provided $12,746,500 Service Street Improvements Medium City Provided 6,500,000 Service Sidewalks Medium City Provided $250,000 Service Sewer Improvements High City Provided $16,764,000 Service Flood Drain Improvements Medium City Provided $250,000 Service Other Infrastructure Needs High City Provided $0 Service PUBLIC SERVICE NEEDS Handicapped Services State Provided Services N/A N/A Transportation Services State Provided Services N/A N/A Substance Abuse Services High CDBG funded Unknown Employment Training High CDBG funded Unknown Health Services State Provided Services N/A N/A Other Public Service Needs Medium CDBG funded Unknown ANTI-CRIME PROGRAMS Crime Awareness High $100,000 Other Anti-Crime Programs Medium $300,000 YOUTH PROGRAMS Youth Centers Medium Unknown Unknown

41 Child Care Centers Low Unknown Unknown Youth Services Medium $5000 Child Care Services Low Unknown Unknown Other Youth Programs Medium Unknown Unknown SENIOR PROGRAMS Senior Centers Low Unknown Unknown Senior Services Medium Unknown Unknown Other Senior Programs Low Unknown Unknown ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Rehab; Publicly- or Privately – Owned High $500,000 Commercial/Industrial CI Infrastructure Development High Unknown Pending Other Commercial/Industrial Improvements Medium Unknown Unknown Micro-Enterprise Assistance Low Unknown Unknown ED Technical Assistance Low Unknown Unknown Other Economic Development Medium Unknown Unknown PLANNING Planning Low Unknown No funding available

42 V STRATEGIC PLAN (24 CFR 91.25) V.1 GENERAL (A) This Consolidated Plan was prepared in compliance with the federal regulations requiring a Consolidated Plan every five years. The majority of the information has been updated however; most of the base population numbers are over ten years old. An analysis of the population information and HUD’s requirements was conducted by the Community Development Staff in conjunction with the City's Focus Groups. The following priorities have been prepared to guide our Community Development Block Grant Program into the next five years. A goal setting workshop was held on November 19, 2009 and January 7, 2010. Participants were given the opportunity to determine the needs of the community. The following table demonstrates the results of the voting exercise of Community Development needs in order of priority. TABLE V – 1 PRIORITY RANKING RESULTS Total # of Priority Categories Priority Needs Participants Surveyed Housing Needs 2 7 Infrastructure Improvements 6 7 Public Service Needs 3 7 Homeless Needs 1 7 Public Facilities Needs 5 7 Economic Development Needs 4 7 The results of the voting led to the formulation of specific goals and objectives for the 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan. The rankings are attributed to actual subcategory voting and combination of similar activities. In total, approximately 7 people participated in the goal setting workshops. The results combined with the guidelines from Housing and Urban Development have led us to establish 5 goals and objectives. The Goals with the Objectives follow in order of priority: Priority Goal Specific 1 Goal Provide aid to special needs persons. 2 Goal Preserve the existing housing stock in the City. 3 Goal Encourage owner occupied housing in low to moderate income areas.

43 4 Goal Provide safe and livable neighborhoods. 5 Goal Aid Economic opportunity in low to moderate income areas. V.2 STRATEGY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (24 CFR 91.215 (b) As the entity responsible for HUD CDBG Entitlement Funds, the City of Dover is responsive to the housing needs of its low-moderate income residents. The City provides a wide variety of services to all of its residents as well as an increased effort to accommodate the needs of low-moderate income families. The City offers the following strategic plan to address the needs identified. The needs were developed through the Consolidated Plan process by the Community Development Department. The following strategies for the affordable housing are grouped together in the three broad categories set forth by HUD: PROVIDE DECENT HOUSING. GOAL 1: Encourage owner occupied housing to low/moderate-income areas. OBJECTIVES: The City through the Neighborhood Stabilization Program will purchase foreclosed properties, renovate and sell to qualifying homebuyers. The City will continue with the Homeownership Down payment and Settlement Assistance Program to qualified families or individuals with assistance of up to $10,000.00. GOAL 2: Preserve the existing housing stock in the City of Dover. OBJECTIVES: The City will continue to rehabilitate owner occupied homes with families who are low to moderate income and provide assistance to emergency repairs housing programs that will eliminate severe housing conditions that constitute health and safety hazards.

44 GOAL 3: Provide safe and livable neighborhoods. OBJECTIVES: The City will work in conjunction with the Dover Police Department to continue Community Policing in the target area. GOAL 4: Provide aid to special needs persons OBJECTIVES: To support the city’s homeless population by working with non-profit organizations and other housing providers. V.3 BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING (24 CFR 91.215(e)) At this time, it is the City of Dover's contention that there are no "barriers to affordable housing" which is the result of public policy. Section IV.8 gives example of current public policies, which support and encourage affordable housing. V.4 INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE Current Institutional Structure Dover's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program is administered by the Dover Community Development Office. This office is a part of the City of Dover Department of Planning and Inspections. As needed, the Department of Planning and Inspections provides planning, administrative, and other assistance to the Community Development Office. The Manager of Community Development has been designated by the Mayor to manage and disperse CDBG funds. In order to assist the Manager in the preparation of plans, drafting of priorities and review of funding applications, the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee (PR&CE) has been designated. This committee is comprised of three City Council Persons and two citizens. The PR&CE Committee also votes on and has final approval on funding applications. Organizational Relationships The City of Dover has close working relationships with the service providers and housing authorities in Dover. These relationships are described below: Public Housing: The City of Dover is served by two housing authorities. The Delaware State Housing Authority (DSHA) is a statewide organization. The Dover Housing

45 Authority (DHA) is a local agency, which only operates within Dover. Both of these Housing Authorities offer Public Housing, Section 8 rental assistance, and supportive services to residents of Dover. The City of Dover supports and assists these housing authorities through direct funding, zoning accommodation, and infrastructure improvements where necessary. The City of Dover and the two housing authorities are also linked through a continuous dialogue about housing and planning issues in Dover. Homeless Shelter: The Ruth N. Dorsey Shelter, operated by Peoples Place II is the only homeless shelter in the City of Dover. This facility provides 46 beds for homeless families. The City of Dover has supported the shelter over the past several years by providing CDBG funding to address their renovation needs. Other Service Providers: The City of Dover regularly works with other members of the local network of service providers. These providers include: The House of P.R.I.D.E. Peoples Place II NCALL City of Dover Police Gaps in the Delivery System There are specific barriers to Fair Housing that continue to permeate the fabric of the City of Dover’s communities that still have not been addressed in the State’s Analysis of Impediments. These impediments will be addressed in the 2010 Analysis of Impediments that will be completed in the fall of 2010. Strengths in the Delivery System The City is in the process of addressing the barriers of fair housing that exists in the City and the State and will include specific actions the City will take to address the impediments to further fair housing as the 2010 Analysis of Impediments is underway. The City is part of the collaboration with Delaware State Housing Authority, New Castle County and the City of Wilmington to implement this plan. Community Development staff is still an active member on the Fair Housing Task Force of Delaware and will continue to provide outreach and education in the community. Gaps in the Delivery System for Public Housing The city has successfully bridged the gap in the system in our relationship with Dover Housing Authority (DHA). Since 2005, the city has provided grants to DHA to renovate two homes in the city’s target area to be sold to low to moderate income persons as part of Senator Carper’s Homeownership Initiative.

46 Strengths in the Delivery System for Public Housing The city has joined a partnership with Dover Housing Authority as one of the three partners for funding received from Delaware State Housing Authority for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program to purchase foreclosed and abandoned properties, renovate them and sell them qualified homebuyers. The city is also working with the housing authority in conjunction with Habitat for Humanity for a one day clean up event in the target area focusing on improving curb appeal and streetscape in the downtown target area. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing The City of Dover has collaborated with Delaware State Housing Authority, New Castle County and the City of Wilmington to complete and Analysis of Impediments that is expected to be completed in the fall of 2010. The study will include a breakdown of the impediments specifically for the City of Dover, in which the city will take measures to eliminate once identified. The Community Development Manager is also a member of the Delaware Fair Housing Task Force that continues to work effortlessly to eliminate the impediments throughout the State of Delaware. V.5 PUBLIC HOUSING IMPROVEMENTS: The Dover Housing Authority has established the following objectives for the coming year: 1. With funds received through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Authority is making energy efficiency improvements in all of its public housing units. The Authority is improving window and door seals, installing additional insulation, and installing energy efficient hot water heaters. At its elderly site, Queen Manor Senior Apartments, the Authority is making improvements to the roof and replacing all unit windows to energy rated windows. 2. The second major project started in calendar year 2010 is major renovations to be completed on units at the Authority’s Senate View public housing development. The renovations will include installation of additional site lighting and installation of a security system to ensure the safety and security of the residents as well as the construction site. 3. Through its subsidiary, Dover Community Partnership, Inc., the Authority will re-start its efforts to revitalize a 20-block area of Downtown Dover. PUBLIC HOUSING RESIDENT INITIATIVES: The Dover Housing Authority continues to provide services and programs that empower residents achieve economic self-sufficiency:

47 1. Family Self-Sufficiency Program 2. Homeownership Program (Public Housing, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher, and the Carper/City of Dover Homeownership Initiative (available to the general public meeting program criteria) 3. GED/ABE Literacy Classes 4. Employment Training for Adults and Youth 5. After school and Summer Programs for Youth 6. Life Skills and Soft Skills Training for Adults V.6 LEAD BASED PAINT HAZARD REDUCTION The City of Dover has 10,815 housing units in its jurisdiction. Of those 4,884 are renter occupied and 5,931 are owner occupied. Of our renter-occupied units 3,376 units or about 70% of the total were built before 1979. Of the owner-occupied unites 4,179 units or about 80% of the total were built before 1979. Although the City does not have detailed data on the potential incidence of the lead-based paint hazard, these statistics at least indicate that the City’s housing stock is highly “at- risk”. In addition, a high incidence of the rental (65%) and owner occupied (35%) units that are “at-risk” are occupied by very-low income families that are at least able to be in position to afford the abatement of the hazard if it does exist. Currently, the State of Delaware of Public Health enforces lead-based paint abatement within the City of Dover. Under the State’s program, families with children who have been diagnosed by the Public Health centers with lead poisoning are referred to a State Lead- Based Paint Inspector. The Inspector then performs the relevant technical analysis of the family residence. If lead-based paint is discovered, abatement is required. The City of Dover Department of Inspections acts in partnership with the State in assuring that lead based paint hazards are reduced or eliminated, and the affected housing units are brought up to code. The City currently requires lead-based paint testing and abatement in conjunction with its Home Repair Loan Program and CDBG rehabilitation programs. The City of Dover Department of Planning and Inspections does not have the equipment necessary to accurately identify lead-based paint during housing inspections. However, the City staff attended Lead-Based paint workshop and is currently working with the State Health Department for Inspector training and certification. In addition to the activities of the City of Dover and the State of Delaware Department of Public Health, the Dover Housing Authority has been active in lead-based paint abatement in the City. The Dover Housing Authority has tested and abated lead-based paint in all its Public Housing units. The Dover Housing Authority also deals with the lead paint hazard in private rental units through the enforcement of the Housing Quality Standards in conjunction with its Section 8 Rental Voucher Program.

48 V.7 ANTI-POVERTY STRATEGY In 2000, the US Census found that approximately 13.8% of Dover's population lived below the poverty level. This percentage was somewhat higher than surrounding areas in Kent County (which had 8.1% of the population below poverty level) and higher than the average for the State of Delaware (6.5%). Clearly, there is a concentration of persons living below the poverty level in Dover. To address poverty within the City of Dover, a multi-faceted anti poverty strategy will be described below. This strategy stresses partnership with and the support of other agencies and organizations. Within the City of Dover there are two full service housing authorities, and various social service agencies which need and deserve the City's support. In addition to these service providers, the City of Dover will direct revitalization, economic development, and code enforcement efforts at low to moderate income neighborhoods. This will provide quality places for people in these neighborhoods to live and work, and provide them with new and better opportunities to earn a living. The following are the four main elements of the City of Dover's Anti-Poverty Strategy: Highest Priority Given to Funding Proposals which Address or Fight Poverty: The City of Dover’s PR & CE Committee will give the highest priority in the Five Year Plan to proposals which are targeted towards those living in poverty. These proposals must be consistent with one or more of the following Priorities identified in this plan: Encourage Affordable Owner Occupied Housing in Low to Moderate Income Areas Improve Quality of Housing Stock Aid in Economic Opportunities in Low to Moderate Income Areas Support Family Self-Sufficiency Programs and other Resident Initiatives/Counseling Programs at Dover's Housing Authorities. Both the Delaware State Housing Authority and the Dover Housing Authority provide their residents with support and assistance in job training, parenting, counseling, financial management, and other skills. These programs are integrated in the housing programs through the Family Self-Sufficiency Program and/or other Resident Initiatives. It is the position of the City of Dover that these programs provide excellent opportunities for those in public housing to become economically and socially self sufficient. The City of Dover will provide assistance and support as requested to encourage the continuance of these programs. Support the Various Social Service Providers that serve Dover's poor. There is a network of service providers presently operating in Dover that serve the City's poor. These providers include The State of Delaware Division of Health and Social Services, the State Service Centers, and Whatcoat Social Services (which operates the Ruth N. Dorsey Shelter.) There are also numerous non-profit corporations within the City, including the House of Pride and Whatcoat Social Service Agency. The City will support the missions

49 and the functions of these organizations by providing technical and planning support, and when possible implementing physical improvements to infrastructure, which serves these facilities. Economic Development. The only way to solve the problem of poverty is to help families earn more money. To do so, there must be an abundant supply of jobs available to low and moderate income persons. It is the strategy of the City to use multiple approaches to job creation. Through the Dover Downtown Development Corporation and Main Street Dover encourage the development and expansion of businesses in the Downtown Area. A special focus should be firms, which provide jobs for low to moderate-income persons. Job creation in the downtown area will serve the dual goals of maintaining and enhancing the older buildings in this historic area, and providing employment in close proximity to a low to moderate income neighborhood. Through the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce and the Kent County Aero Park encourage the development of new business elsewhere in the Dover area. The attraction and retention of new corporations and manufacturing firms to Dover will provide additional jobs for low to moderate-income persons.

50 VI Action Plan VI.1 Introduction The 2010 Action Plan is a supplementary document to the five-year Consolidated Plan (2010-2014). The Goals and Objectives focus on developing and sustaining viable communities and improving low and moderate income persons are addressed in the Consolidated Plan as part of the strategy for addressing the needs of low and moderate income people. The specific goals and objectives are presented in this Action Plan. Each year the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development upon congressional approval allocates to the City of Dover Community Development Block Grant Program. VI.2 Application for Federal Assistance The Application for Federal Assistance from the City of Dover for the 2010 fiscal year will be submitted to the Department of Housing and Urban Development in the final plan.

51 CITY OF DOVER FISCAL YEAR 20105 CDBG FEDERAL RESOURCES City of Dover Federal Resources CDBG Action Plan 7/01/10 – 6/30/11 Dover, DE 19901 CDBG FEDERAL RESOURCES AVAILABLE FOR USE: CDBG anticipated Funds Allocation: $274,000 Anticipated Program Income $ 10,292 Total: ________ $284,292

52 VI.3 BACKGROUND The Congress of the U.S., through the enactment of the “Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, has authorized that Federal funds be allocated to the entitlement community, the City of Dover, Delaware, to support Community Development activities within the boundaries of the City. ADMINISTRATION RESPONSIBILITY AND CERTIFICATION The Mayor and Council has duly adopted as an official act a resolution authorizing Tracey N. Harvey as the official representative of the City of Dover to submit certifications to the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development that are required by Section 106(d) (2) (c)© (iv) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. A copy of the certifications can be found in section VIII titled “Certifications” found on page AP VIII –1 in this document. AMOUNT OF AVAILABLE FUNDS The City of Dover is in receipt of fiscal year 2010 CDBG fund assignment. The total fiscal year 2010 fund assignment for Dover is $296,526. An amendment will be made during fiscal 2010 to allocate the additional funding received from HUD. PROGRAM DESIGN The City CDBG Program has been designed so as:  To give maximum feasible priority to activities which will benefit low and moderate income persons; or  To aid in the prevention of slums or neighborhood blight; and to meet other Community Development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health and welfare of the community where other financial resources are not available to meet such needs.  The funds shall principally benefit persons of low and moderate income in a manner that ensures that not less than 70 percent of such funds are used for activities that benefit low and moderate income.

53 VI.4 Resources (24 CFR 91.220 (b)) FEDERAL PROGRAMS (24 CFR 91.220 (b) (1)) The City of Dover anticipates that it will be pursuing funding opportunities in conjunction with the following federal programs to support the activities specified in this Consolidated Plan: Public Housing Development Program. Provides capital grants to local public housing authorities for the acquisition and/or rehabilitation of existing rental properties, or the construction of new rental units for low-income families. Responsible agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development. Community Development Block Grant. See local program description. Affordable Housing Program. Provides subsidy funds for low-income and moderate- income households through number of institutions of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB) for the purchase, construction or rehabilitation of affordable rental or owner occupied housing. Responsible agency: FHLBB. Community Investment Program. Provides funds through number of institutions of the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLBB) for community – oriented mortgage lending, including home purchase and rehabilitation for both renter and owner occupants, and to finance commercial and economic development activities. Responsible agency: FHLBB. Lead Based Paint Abatement Program. Provides grants to abate lead-based paint and lead dust in low and moderate-income owner occupied units, and in low-income privately owned rental units. Responsible agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development. NON-FEDERAL PUBLIC PROGRAMS (24 CFR 91.220 (b) (2)) 1. STATE PROGRAMS Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program (HRLP). Kent County provides home improvement loans to owner-occupants or landlords interested in moderately rehabilitating existing properties. These loans, up to a maximum amount of $15,000 per unit, are made at 3% interest rate for a term up to ten years. Program is available statewide. 2. LOCAL PROGRAMS City of Dover Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. This program has been designed to expand housing opportunities and housing choices for low and

54 moderate income persons living in targeted areas of Dover, to protect the public health and welfare of Dover citizens, especially low and moderate income persons by: 1) Preventing or eliminating slums or neighborhood blight. 2) Rehabilitation of Substandard Owner Occupied Housing 3) Infrastructure needs met in the target area The following is a brief list of the projects funded through the City of Dover CDBG program from previous funding years to demonstrate the range of activities covered by the program:  From 2008 to 2009 there were 12 owner occupied homes rehabilitated to meet standards of the City Housing code under the Homeowner Rehabilitation Assistance Program.  Since 1995, the City of Dover police Department has been funded to perform Operation Foot Beat, which includes community policing and drug enforcement in the Downtown target area.  From 2000 to 2010, down payment and settlement assistance was provided to a total of 72 first time home buyers who are low to moderate income persons through the Dover First Start Program.  In 2007, CDBG funds were used to rehabilitate 5 residential rental units in the downtown target area in which one unit has been made handicap accessible and all units’ service low to moderate income persons.  In 2007 and 2008, Connections Community Support Program was provided a grant for operating cost to provide meals and furnishings for 10 Easy Access 2 Permanent Housing residents who were seeking support to break the cycle of chronic homelessness. Funding was also provided for motel vouchers to provide temporary housing to homeless persons.  From 2005 to 2010, the First State Resource Development Council has provided quality emergency home repairs to 36 homeowners eliminating conditions that constitute health and safety hazards. Target Block Program The purpose of the target block approach is to concentrate resources available to the public, private, and non-profit sectors for housing programs in a specific area (known as the Target Block). The target block consists of one of Dover’s oldest working class neighborhoods located in west central Downtown. This concentrated approach is to insure the likelihood of an immediate visual impact and long- term stabilizing effect of each area.

55 The major element of the target block program will be concentrated home-to-home internal inspection to determining deficiencies which need to be corrected. Substandard housing requiring plumbing, electrical update to meet the Dover building code, but which is basically sound and suitable for rehabilitation have been targeted. A sufficient number of low and moderate income families must reside in the area. Inclusionary Zoning – Unlike many communities, Dover has not practiced “exclusionary zoning” were most of the undeveloped land is designated for large lot single family detached homes. To the contrary, Dover’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates a large portion of undeveloped lands for moderate density housing, and a smaller but significant portion for high density housing. The land is subsequently zoned accordingly, permitting a range of residential densities and housing types. The City of Dover Zoning Ordinance includes two provisions promoting mixed residential developments. The first called the Planned Neighborhood Design Option encourages superior site design by relaxing bulk standards, requiring more open space and recreational areas, permitting various housing styles in all zones, and providing incentives to mix housing types to encourage less homogeneous development patterns. Accessory apartment associated with single family residences are permitted if certain design criteria are met. Density bonuses for community features (such as neighborhood commercial uses or day care centers) are offered. Although there are no direct requirements for affordable housing or subsidized units, clearly these types of units could easily be accommodated within these style developments. Five PNDO developments currently pending promise to offer over 864 new housing units including single family detached, town house, duplex, and apartment units. The second provision for mixed use development is the Traditional Neighborhood Design Zone. This new zoning classification was adopted in November of 2004. As stated in the ordinance, “the intent of the Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) zone is to create a walk able and pedestrian friendly, economically viable professional, commercial and mixed use residential neighborhood for people of different ages and incomes that draw from the best architectural and community design features of Delaware and the Delmarva Peninsula.” The TND encourages greater integration of land uses and diversity of lot sizes. There are no direct requirements for affordable housing or subsidized units however; these types of units could be accommodated within this style of development. Housing Inspection Program – The City of Dover has adopted the 2003 ICC International Property Maintenance Code as its Housing Code and has three full time inspectors dedicated to investigating housing complaints and doing routine inspections of multiple family dwelling structures. The Inspectors work throughout the City, but has targeted the older neighborhoods in west central Dover as an area where most violations exist. The Housing Inspectors are also an integral part of the Target Block Program. Inspections typically include all exterior and interior structural members, heating, plumbing, and venting systems, space requirements, sanitary facilities and exterior property maintenance.

56 3. PRIVATE RESOURCES For-Profit In the for-profit area the major resources for housing will be local lending institutions that are looking for quality housing projects (Ownership and rental) to support in conjunction with their requirement to comply with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Several local banking institutions in response to CRA requirements have joined together to form the Delaware Community Investment Council. The Council will provide low-interest loans to non-profits for developing affordable housing. Favorable mortgage lending terms for projects not typically financed that are in areas under-served by local financial institutions will be the primary resource expected. Non-Profit There are several non-profit foundations that serve the Dover area and have established housing, and housing related services as priorities for their annual or semi-annual grants. Among them are the following: Delaware Community Foundation Crystal Trust Milton and Hattie Kutz Foundation Gannett Communities Funds In addition to non-profit foundations there are several non-profit organizations that provide housing or housing related services. For example the National Council on Agricultural Life and Labor Research Fund, Inc. (NCALL) provides comprehensive home ownership counseling services and technical assistance to non-profits involved with the HOME program and Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity and Dover’s First Start Home Ownership Down Payment and Settlement Program. VI.5 ACTION PLAN GOALS 1. Provide aid to special needs persons. 2. Preserve the existing housing stock in the City. 3. Encourage owner occupied housing in low to moderate income areas 4. Provide decent and safe neighborhoods 5. Aid economic opportunity in low to moderate income areas.

57 VI.6 ACTIVITIES TO BE UNDERTAKEN The following activities are to be funded by the City of Dover Community Development Office for Fiscal year 2010. Project 1 Homeownership Assistance Program CDBG Funds will be used to provide settlement assistance to low to moderate income persons to purchase homes in the City of Dover. Total Funding……………………………………………………$40,000.00 Project 2 Homeowner Rehabilitation Assistance Program CDBG funds will be used to rehabilitate qualified owner/occupied homes found in violation of the City’s Housing Code. Total Funding…………………………………………………… $48,000.00 Project 3 Program Administration CDBG Funds will be used to oversee management, monitoring and coordination of the CDBG program in the City of Dover. Total Funding…………………………………………………… $56,858.00 Project 4 Habitat for Humanity CDBG funds will be used to renovate a single family residential home that will provide affordable housing to a low income family. Total Funding…………………………………………………. $32,000.00 Project 5 Connections Community Support Program CDBG funds will be used to provide motel vouchers to homeless individuals and families who have no other immediate housing alternatives. Total Funding………………………………………………….. $12,000.00 Project 6 First State Resource Conservation and Development Council (RC&D) CDBG funds will be used to assist very low income homeowners with emergency repairs to eliminate severe housing conditions that constitute health and safety hazards. Project Funding…………………………………………………… $32,000.00

58 Project 7 Community Revitalization Infrastructure CDBG Funds will address the infrastructure needs of the qualifying census tract areas with the reconstruction of the streets and curbs. Total Funding……………………………………………………… $63,434.00 Total CDBG grant funding………………………………………………… $284,292.00

59 VI.7 MAPS OF DOVER The following maps depict the City of Dover. Map II-1 City of Dover Census Tracts and Block Groups This map shows the various Census Tracts and Census Block Groups in the City of Dover area. The Tracts and Blocks are numbered for easy reference to sections of the text which mention specific tract and block numbers. Map II - 2 City of Dover Areas of Minority Concentration This map shows the areas where minorities are concentrated in the City of Dover. Map II - 3 City of Dover Low to Moderate Income Areas This map shows Dover's low to moderate income areas, based on the 2000 US Census Block Groups. HUD has designated that for Dover, areas with more than a 51% population of low to moderate income persons qualify for area benefit activities. The block groups with 51 % low to moderate income population or greater are shown in tan on Map II - 3.

60 Map II-1 City of Dover Census Tracts and Block Groups

61 Map II - 2 City of Dover Areas of Minority Concentration

62 Map II - 3 City of Dover Low to Moderate Income Areas

63 VI.8 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION: Project 10-1 – Homeownership Assistance Program City Wide Project 10-2 – Homeowner Rehabilitation Assistance Program This project will be available City Wide, to low to moderate income residents of Dover. Project 10-3 - Program Administration City Wide Project 10- 4 – Habitat for Humanity West Dover Project 10-5 – Connections Community Support Program City Wide Project 10- 6 – First State Resource Conservation and Development Council City Wide Project 10-7 – Community Revitalization Infrastructure City Wide VI.9 SERVICE DELIVERY AND MANAGEMENT: The City of Dover Community Development Office will assume overall responsibility for the implementation of the Action Plan. In addition, the Community Development Office will directly manage and administer the City of Dover Housing Rehabilitation Grant Program and the Home Ownership Grant Program. NCALL will provide home ownership counseling directly to low and moderate income home buyers in Dover. The City of Dover Public Services Department will implement the streets project through the procurement process.

64 VI.10 HOMELESS AND OTHER SPECIAL NEEDS ACTIVITIES: At the present time, there are three scattered site neighborhood homes that have been developed by the Alliance for the Mentally Ill in Delaware. These homes provide housing for persons who are very low chronically mentally ill. The homes have been funded through the HUD Section 202 Program so that the residents pay 30% of their adjusted gross income for rent and utilities. The homes have project based rent subsidies. The Delaware HIV Consortium’s HOPWA (Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS) program. The consortium entered into a contract with the Delaware State Housing Authority to provide tenant based rental assistance to people with HIV/AIDS in the State of Delaware. This program is now fully operational statewide. Clients are referred to the program by staff from agencies that provide HIV case management services such as Kent County Counseling Services and the Division of Public Health located in the City of Dover. In Kent County, the program currently provides rental assistance to approximately 35 families and has an additional waiting list of 270 families. Because the demand for the program is greater than can be met, staff encourages all program participants and potential program participants to apply for alternate forms of subsidized housing through such avenues as Dover Housing Authority and the Delaware State Housing Authority. VI.11 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION The following is the resolution that will be adopted by the Dover City Council on June 14, 2010 to approve the Application for Federal Assistance for fiscal year 2010, the 2010 Action Plan and the 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan.

65 City of Dover MAYOR AND COUNCIL DRAFT PROPOSED COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2010-04 A RESOLUTION PROPOSING APPROVAL OF THE 2010-2014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CONSOLIDATED PLAN. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City of Dover is entitled to $296,526 through the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant program; and WHEREAS, the City of Dover has prepared the 2010–2014 Consolidated Plan, in accordance with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development guidelines, that serves 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 State 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 $296,526 entitlement; and use of $10,292 in program income for eligible activities; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER APPROVE THE 2010 – 2014 Consolidated Plan and application for Federal Assistance included in the Action Plan, along certifications and policies attached, and authorize its forwarding to the United States Department of Urban Development for consideration. ______________________________ ______________________________ CARLETON E. CAREY SR. KENNETH L. HOGAN MAYOR COUNCIL PRESIDENT

66 SUMMARY OF CITIZEN COMMENTS The City of Dover encourages citizen participation in the Consolidated Plan development process. Citizen participation invitations to the development of the Consolidated Plan were advertised in the city’s local newspaper, the city’s website and mailed to interested parties. Public Notice and meetings for the 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan were as follows: - November 19, 2009, a public meeting was held to discuss the development of the Five Year Consolidated Plan. - January 7, 2010, a public meeting was held to determine the needs of the community and the development of the Consolidated Plan. There were 20 people in attendance for this meeting. - May 11, 2010 a public hearing was held to afford the citizens to comment on the Draft Consolidated Plan and the 2010 Action Plan. There was no one in attendance. Public Notice The City of Dover Community Development Office will be holding a public hearing Tuesday, May 11, 2010 at 5:30 pm in the City Hall Council Chambers to afford the citizens an opportunity to comment on the draft five year Consolidated Plan 2010-2014, and the draft FY 2010 Action Plan. The plan will be submitted to the U. S. Department of Housing & Urban Development no later than June 16, 2010. The Consolidated Plan serves as the housing planning document for the city and the Action Plan serves as an application for funding for the Community Development Block Program. The city will consider any comments or views of citizens received in writing or orally at the public hearing. A summary of these comments or views and summary of any comments or views not accepted and reasons therefore, shall be attached to the final plan. If you have a vision, hearing, or physical impairment that requires accommodations either in the reading of this notice or at the public hearing noted above, the city will provide appropriate assistance. Please call (302) 736-7175 to schedule assistance, and for hearing impaired, TDD (302) 739-7428 between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:00 pm Monday through Friday. On January 7, 2010 a public meeting was held to discuss the development process of the Consolidated Plan as well as determine the needs of the community. There were 20 people in attendance. Attendees were asked to complete a community development needs survey to determine the priority needs of the community. Although there were 20 people in attendance, only 7 people participated in the survey. Following a presentation of the Consolidated Plan process, topics of discussion included: a) allocating more funding to assist people with special needs, b) continue to support the housing rehabilitation and homeownership assistance programs and c) provide community policing in the target area and repair the infrastructure in qualifying census tract areas.

67 Certifications VII. I General Certifications In accordance with the applicable statutes and the regulations governing the Consolidated Plan regulations, the jurisdiction certifies that: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing -- The jurisdiction will affirmatively further fair housing, which means it will conduct an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice within the jurisdiction, take appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified through that analysis, and maintain records reflecting that analysis and actions in this regard prepare an analysis of impediments and maintain records pertaining to carrying out this certification. Anti-Discrimination -- The grants will be conducted and administered in compliance with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d), the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601-3620), the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Executive Orders 11063, 11625, 12138, 12432 and 12892, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), the Americans with Disabilities Act (title II) and implementing regulations. Anti-displacement and Relocation Plan -- It will comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, as required under §570.606(b) and Federal implementing regulations; and that it has in effect and is following a residential anti displacement and relocation assistance plan required under section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and the relocation requirements of §570.606(c) governing optional relocation assistance under section 105(a)(11) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended; Drug Free Workplace -- It will or will continue to provide a drug-free workplace by: 1. Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition; 2. Establishing an ongoing drug-free awareness program to inform employees about (a) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; (b) The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;

68 (c) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and (d) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace; 3. Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph 1; 4. Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph 1 that, as a condition of employment under the grant, the employee will - (a) Abide by the terms of the statement; and (b) Notify the employer in writing of his or her conviction for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in the workplace no later than five calendar days after such conviction; 5. Notifying the agency in writing, within ten calendar days after receiving notice under subparagraph 4(b) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction. Employers of convicted employees must provide notice, including position title, to every grant officer or other designee on whose grant activity the convicted employee was working, unless the Federal agency has designated a central point for the receipt of such notices. Notice shall include the identification number(s) of each affected grant; 6. Taking one of the following actions, within 30 calendar days of receiving notice under subparagraph 4(b), with respect to any employee who is so convicted - (a) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination, consistent with the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; or (b) Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency; 7. Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. 8. The grantee may insert in the space provided below the site(s) for the performance of work done in connection with the specific grant:

69 Place of Performance (Street address, city, county, state, zip code) Dover City Hall 15 East Loockerman Street Dover, DE 19901 Check if there are workplaces on file that are not identified here; the certification with regard to the drug-free workplace required by 24 CFR part 24, subpart F. Anti-Lobbying -- To the best of the jurisdiction's knowledge and belief: 1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of it, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement; 2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, it will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions; and 3. It will require that the language of paragraph (n) of this certification be included in the award documents for all sub-awards at all tiers (including subcontracts, sub-grants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all sub-recipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. The jurisdiction is in compliance with restrictions on lobbying required by 24 CFR part 87, together with disclosure forms, if required by that part.

70 Legal Authority -- It possesses legal authority under State and local law to make grant submissions and to execute a community development and housing programs and the jurisdiction's governing body has duly adopted or passed as an official act a resolution, motion or similar action authorizing the person identified as the official representative of the grantee to submit the housing and community development plan and amendments thereto and all understandings and assurances contained therein, and directing and authorizing the person identified as the official representative of the grantee to act in connection with the submission of the housing and community development plan and to provide such additional information as may be required; Applicable Laws -- The jurisdiction will comply with the other provisions of the Acts covering programs covered by the HCD plan and with other applicable laws. Signature Date Title

71 VII.2 Specific CDBG Certifications The Entitlement Community certifies that: Use of Funds -- It has developed its HCD plan one-year projected use of funds so as to give maximum feasible priority to activities which benefit low and moderate income families or aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; (the projected use of funds may also include activities which the grantee certifies are designed to meet other community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community, and other financial resources are not available); except that the aggregate use of CDBG funds received under section 106 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and if applicable, under section 108 of the same Act, during program year(s) 2010-2014 (a period specified by the grantee consisting of one, two, or three specific consecutive program years), shall principally benefit persons of low and moderate income in a manner that ensures that not less than 70 percent of such funds are used for activities that benefit such persons during such period; Community Development Plan -- It has developed a community development plan, for the period specified in the paragraph above, that identifies community development and housing needs and specifies both short and long-term community development objectives that have been developed in accordance with the primary objective and requirements of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended; Special Assessments -- It will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted in whole or in part with funds provided under section 106 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, or with amounts resulting from a guarantee under section 108 of the same Act by assessing any amount against properties owned and occupied by persons of low and moderate income, including any fee charged or assessment made as a condition of obtaining access to such public improvements, unless: 1. Funds received under section 106 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, are used to pay the proportion of such fee or assessment that relates to the capital costs of such public improvements that are financed from revenue sources other than under Title I of that Act; or 2. For purposes of assessing any amount against properties owned and occupied by persons of moderate income, the grantee certifies to the Secretary that it lacks sufficient funds received under section 106 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, to comply with the requirements of subparagraph (1) above; Lead-Based Paint -- Its notification, inspection, testing and abatement procedures concerning lead-based paint will comply with §570.608;

72 Excessive Force -- It has adopted and is enforcing: 1. A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non- violent civil rights demonstrations; and 2. A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such non-violent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction; Signature Date Title

73 VII. 3 APPENDIX TO CERTIFICATIONS INSTRUCTIONS CONCERNING LOBBYING AND DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE REQUIREMENTS: A. Lobbying Certification This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. B. Drug-Free Workplace Certification 1. By signing and/or submitting this application or grant agreement, the grantee is providing the certification set out in paragraph (o). 2. The certification set out in paragraph (o) is a material representation of fact upon which reliance is placed when the agency awards the grant. If it is later determined that the grantee knowingly rendered a false certification, or otherwise violates the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act, HUD, in addition to any other remedies available to the Federal Government, may take action authorized under the Drug-Free Workplace Act. 3. For grantees other than individuals, Alternate I applies. (This is the information to which entitlement grantees certify). 4. For grantees who are individuals, Alternate II applies. (Not applicable to CDBG Entitlement grantees.) 5. Workplaces under grants, for grantees other than individuals, need not be identified on the certification. If known, they may be identified in the grant application. If the grantee does not identify the workplaces at the time of application, or upon award, if there is no application, the grantee must keep the identity of the workplace(s) on file in its office and make the information available for Federal inspection. Failure to identify all known workplaces constitutes a violation of the grantee's drug-free workplace requirements. 6. Workplace identifications must include the actual address of buildings (or parts of buildings) or other sites where work under the grant takes place.

74 Categorical descriptions may be used (e.g., all vehicles of a mass transit authority or State highway department while in operation, State employees in each local unemployment office, performers in concert halls or radio stations). 7. If the workplace identified to the agency changes during the performance of the grant, the grantee shall inform the agency of the change(s), if it previously identified the workplaces in question (see paragraph five). 8. Definitions of terms in the Non procurement Suspension and Debarment common rule and Drug-Free Workplace common rule apply to this certification. Grantees' attention is called, in particular, to the following definitions from these rules: "Controlled substance" means a controlled substance in Schedules I through V of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.812) and as further defined by regulation (21 CFR 1308.11 through 1308.15); "Conviction" means a finding of guilt (including a plea of nolo contendere) or imposition of sentence, or both, by any judicial body charged with the responsibility to determine violations of the Federal or State criminal drug statutes; "Criminal drug statute" means a Federal or non-Federal criminal statute involving the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, use, or possession of any controlled substance; "Employee" means the employee of a grantee directly engaged in the performance of work under a grant, including: (i) All "direct charge" employees; (ii) all "indirect charge" employees unless their impact or involvement is insignificant to the performance of the grant; and (iii) temporary personnel and consultants who are directly engaged in the performance of work under the grant and who are not on the grantee's payroll. This definition does not include workers not on the payroll of the grantee (e.g., volunteers, even if used to meet a matching requirement; consultants or independent contractors not on the grantee's payroll; or employees of subrecipients or subcontractors in covered workplace.

75 VIII DEFINITIONS Certification. A written assertion, based on supporting evidence, that must be kept available for inspection by HUD, by the Inspector General of HUD, and by the public. The assertion shall be deemed to be accurate unless HUD determines otherwise, after inspecting the evidence and providing due notice and opportunity for comment. Consolidated plan (or "the plan"). The document that is submitted to HUD that serves as the planning document (comprehensive housing affordability strategy and community development plan) of the jurisdiction and an application for funding under any of the Community Planning and Development formula grant programs (CDBG, ESG, HOME, or HOPWA), which is prepared in accordance with the process prescribed in this part. Consortium. An organization of geographically contiguous units of general local government that are acting as a single unit of general local government for purposes of the HOME program (see 24 CFR part 92). Cost burden. The extent to which gross housing costs, including utility costs, exceed 30 percent of gross income, based on data available from the U.S. Census Bureau. Emergency shelter. Any facility with overnight sleeping accommodations, the primary purpose of which is to provide temporary shelter for the homeless in general or for specific populations of the homeless. Extremely low-income family. Family whose income is between 0 and 30 percent of the median income for the area, as determined by HUD with adjustments for smaller and larger families, except that HUD may establish income ceilings higher or lower than 30 percent of the median for the area on the basis of HUD's findings that such variations are necessary because of prevailing levels of construction costs or fair market rents, or unusually high or low family incomes. Homeless family with children. A family composed of the following types of homeless persons: at least one parent or guardian and one child under the age of 18; a pregnant woman; or a person in the process of securing legal custody of a person under the age of 18. Homeless person. A youth (17 years or younger) not accompanied by an adult (18 years or older) or an adult without children, who is homeless (not imprisoned or otherwise detained pursuant to an Act of Congress or a State law), including the following: (1) An individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and (2) An individual who has a primary nighttime residence that is:

76 (i) A supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill); (ii) An institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or (iii) A public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings. Homeless subpopulations. Include but are not limited to the following categories of homeless persons: severely mentally ill only, alcohol/drug addicted only, severely mentally ill and alcohol/drug addicted, fleeing domestic violence, youth, and persons with HIV/AIDS. Jurisdiction. A State or unit of general local government. Large family. Family of five or more persons. Lead-based paint hazards. Any condition that causes exposure to lead from lead- contaminated dust, lead-contaminated soil, lead-contaminated paint that is deteriorated or present in accessible surfaces, friction surfaces, or impact surfaces that would result in adverse human health effects as established by the appropriate Federal agency. Low-income families. Low-income families whose incomes do not exceed 50 percent of the median family income for the area, as determined by HUD with adjustments for smaller and larger families, except that HUD may establish income ceilings higher or lower than 50 percent of the median for the area on the basis of HUD's findings that such variations are necessary because of prevailing levels of construction costs or fair market rents, or unusually high or low family incomes. Middle-income family. Family whose income is between 80 percent and 95 percent of the median income for the area, as determined by HUD, with adjustments for smaller and larger families, except that HUD may establish income ceilings higher or lower than 95 percent of the median for the area on the basis of HUD's findings that such variations are necessary because of prevailing levels of construction costs or fair market rents, or unusually high or low family incomes. (This corresponds to the term "moderate income family" under the CHAS statute, 42 U.S.C. 12705.) Moderate-income family. Family whose income does not exceed 80 percent of the median income for the area, as determined by HUD with adjustments for smaller and larger families, except that HUD may establish income ceilings higher or lower than 80 percent of the median for the area on the basis of HUD's findings that such variations are necessary because of prevailing levels of construction costs or fair market rents, or unusually high or low family incomes.

77 Overcrowding. For purposes of describing relative housing needs, a housing unit containing more than one person per room, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, for which data are made available by the Census Bureau. (See 24 CFR 791.402(b).) Person with a disability. A person who is determined to: (1) Have a physical, mental or emotional impairment that: (i) Is expected to be of long-continued and indefinite duration; (ii) Substantially impedes his or her ability to live independently; and (iii) Is of such a nature that the ability could be improved by more suitable housing conditions; or (2) Have a developmental disability, as defined in section 102(7) of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 6001-6007); or (3) Be the surviving member or members of any family that had been living in an assisted unit with the deceased member of the family who had a disability at the time of his or her death. Poverty level family. Family with an income below the poverty line, as defined by the Office of Management and Budget and revised annually. Severe cost burden. The extent to which gross housing costs, including utility costs, exceed 50 percent of gross income, based on data available from the U.S. Census Bureau. State. Any State of the United States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Transitional housing. A project that is designed to provide housing and appropriate supportive services to homeless persons to facilitate movement to independent living within 24 months, or a longer period approved by HUD. For purposes of the HOME program, there is no HUD- approved time period for moving to independent living. Unit of general local government. A city, town, township, county, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State; an urban county; and a consortium of such political subdivisions recognized by HUD in accordance with the HOME program (24 CFR part 92) or the CDBG program (24 CFR part 570).

78 IX MONITORING IX 1 General Procedures Monitoring is basically a review of programs, projects and activities administrative procedures as an on-going process that is implemented. When a sub-recipient receives notification of grant award the process continues through invoices, monthly report submittal, and one site visit\ including activity closeout. The monitoring reports are used to determine the process and identification problems. Staff reviews the reports with the sub-recipient and suggests changes and/or modifications as needed. If issues are identified, staff makes specific recommendations for addressing the problems and identifies action that must be taken and a deadline is included in the monitoring letter.

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: City Council AGENDA ITEM NO.: DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Public Utilities – Water DATE SUBMITTED: 05-28-10 PREPARED BY: Ron Lunt – Public Utilities Director SUBJECT: Evaluation of Bids – East North State Street Phase A Pipe Materials REFERENCE: CIP – Water Quality Improvements RELATED PROJECT: N/A APPROVALS: City Manager, Controller EXHIBITS: Map of Work Area EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $96,669.50 AMOUNT BUDGETED: $846,807 FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): Public Utilities – Water Management, Water Quality Improvements, CIP page 198, Account Number 417-6800-568.40-31, Project Number is WQ0906 (Funded from ODW Grant). TIME-TABLE: Order will be placed following Council approval and construction will begin as soon as the materials arrive. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award the bid to the lowest bidder, Belair Road Supply, for the amount of $96,669.50. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS As part of the proposed Water Quality Improvements to the City of Dover’s water system, the Public Utilities Department is upgrading the existing water main in the following streets: Hazel Road, Maryland Avenue and a portion of American Avenue. This bid will supply the major water line materials to complete this portion of the project. Subsequent bids will include fill material (stone, select backfill, etc.) and paving materials/contractor. This activity is being performed as identified in the Utilities Water Quality Evaluation performed on the water system and will be installed by the Utilities Construction Crew. Bids were advertised according to City Policy by the City’s Purchasing Agent (Bid #10-0035DPU). The City received five (5) bid responses, however, three of the bids have been deemed non-responsive, due to the omission of several materials. The tabulation of qualifying bids is as follows: BIDDER AMOUNT FEI Waterworks (Ferguson) $105,011.50 Belair Road Supply $96,669.50

East North State Street Phase A Not to Scale Hazel Road – 1,380 LF 8” Water Main Maryland Ave. – 319 LF 8” Water Main American Ave – 513 LF 8” Water Main

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council AGENDA ITEM DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Public Services DATE SUBMITTED: June 4, 2010 PREPARED BY: Scott D. Koenig, P.E., Public Services Manager SUBJECT: Evaluation of Proposals – Curbside Recycling Services REFERENCE: N/A RELATED PROJECT: N/A APPROVALS: City Manager, Controller EXHIBITS: N/A EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $235,622.40 +/- in FY-2011 (Estimated) AMOUNT BUDGETED: $235,622.40 +/- in FY-2011 FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): 110-1800-555.30-31, page 257 of the 2011 Draft Operating Budget. TIMETABLE: New vendor to begin operations on or about July 1, 2010. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Inland Service Corporation to provide curbside recycling services within the City of Dover at the below negotiated rates. The estimated value of the contract is as follows: Year 1 - $235,622.40, Year 2 - $239,166.20, Year 3 - $244,758.80. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The contract for Curbside Recycling Services with the Delaware Solid Waste Authority (DSWA) will expire on June 30, 2010 with the last pick day being June 29, 2010. City staff solicited proposal from qualified vendors earlier in the year to provide this service. Four (4) vendors submitted proposals: Inland Service Corporation Republic Services, Inc. Delaware Solid Waste Authority Waste Management Since the submission, state legislation has been passed to require the DSWA to exit the collection business so their proposal was technically withdrawn. Staff has reviewed the proposals and confirmed all of the costs associated with a proposed agreement. In addition, staff has analyzed the cost to provide this service using city labor and equipment. Based on the analysis of this information, staff is recommending to execution of a contract with Inland Service Company at the following rates: July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2011 – Year 1 - $1.18 per pick up (every other week service) July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012 – Year 2 - $1.19 per pick up (every other week service) July 1, 2012 – June 30, 2013 – Year 3 - $1.21 per pick up (every other week service) The estimated annual contract value is as follows: Year 1 - $ 235,622.40 – based on 7,680 customers on July 1, 2010 Year 2 - $ 239,166.20 – based on 7,730 customers on July 1, 2011 Year 3 - $ 244,758.80 – based on 7,780 customers on July 1, 2012

FIRST READING CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2010-20 1 WHEREAS, the 2010/2011 fiscal year property tax rate for the City of Dover is $.33(thirty-three 2 cents) per hundred of assessed value and the Tax Assessor reported that the total assessed value of 3 property as of December 31, 2009 was $2,911,319,620 and that the Supplement Billings for April 4 2010 were $2,219,200 making the FY 2011 (2005 Assessed Value) base $2,913,538,820; and 5 WHEREAS, upon completion of the re-evaluation completed in 2010, the Tax Assessor is reporting 6 that the total assessed value in 2009/2010 to be $3,093,511,459; and 7 WHEREAS, Delaware State Law: 22 Delaware Code Section 1105 (b) requires municipalities to 8 calculate a "rolled-back" tax rate so as to provide the same tax revenue as was levied during the prior 9 fiscal year and to state that the percent, if any, by which the property tax rate to be levied exceeds 10 the "rolled-back" property tax rate. 11 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY 12 OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 13 That the City of Dover "rolled-back" tax rate is $.3108 per hundred of assessed value, and 2010/2011 14 tax rate is to be set at $.3378 per hundred of assessed value, the increase over the rolled-back tax rate 15 being 8.68% 16 ADOPTED: * 17 Actions History 18 June 14, 2010 - First Reading

FIRST READING CITY OF DOVER ORDINANCE # 2010‐19 1 2010‐2011 BUDGET ORDINANCES 2 3 GENERAL FUND ‐ CASH RECEIPTS AND BUDGET FOR 2010‐2011 4 5 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 6 7 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Thirty Seven Million Seven Hundred Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Six 8 dollars ($37,709,966)or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues and 9 other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2010 10 and ending June 30, 2011: 11 2009/10 2010/11 12 RECEIPTS REVISED BUDGET 13 PRIOR YEAR BALANCE $ 3,628,890 $ 2,277,575 14 FINES AND POLICE REVENUE 520,000 536,502 15 911 FEE 45,000 45,000 16 INVESTMENT INCOME 253,000 224,000 17 LIBRARY REVENUES 66,508 64,189 18 KENT COUNTY BOOK REIMBURSEMENT 460,000 460,000 19 BUSINESS LICENSES 1,465,000 1,523,675 20 PERMITS AND OTHER LICENSES 934,000 934,000 21 DEMOLITION REVENUE ‐ ‐ 22 MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES 54,250 54,250 23 POLICE EXTRA DUTY 300,000 300,000 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 PROPERTY TAXES BID REVENUE RECREATION REVENUE FRANCHISE FEE TRASH FEES DSWA TRASH FEE REBATE RENT REVENUE ‐ GARRISON FARM FT 10,155,246 52,692 141,500 486,000 1,201,000 160,000 41,535 10,982,634 52,692 141,500 486,000 2,244,511 143,000 87,000 DR 31 COURT OF CHANCERY FEES 645,000 645,000 32 RECEIPTS SUBTOTAL 20,609,621 21,201,528 33 34 INTERFUND SERVICE RECEIPTS 35 INTRAFUND SERVICE RECEIPTS WATER/WASTEWATER 968,999 975,872 36 INTRAFUND SERVICE RECEIPTS ELECTRIC 3,379,975 3,387,873 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 GRANTS POLICE RELATED SALE OF ASSETS GRANTS SUBTOTAL A INTERFUND SERVICE RECEIPTS SUBTOTAL CAPITAL SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE POLICE PENSION GRANT RECREATION GRANTS MISC GRANT REVENUE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT 4,348,974 100,000 73,500 620,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 793,500 4,363,745 138,350 73,500 620,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 831,850 48 49 TRANSFERS FROM ‐ 50 TRANSFER TAX 830,000 1,000,000 51 MUNICIPAL STREET AID ‐ 526,843 52 CIVIL TRAFFIC PENALTIES 750,000 930,000 53 WATER/WASTEWATER 548,020 ‐ 54 ELECTRIC 6,758,100 8,856,000 55 PARKLAND RESERVE ‐ ‐ 56 LIBRARY RESERVE ‐ ‐ 57 CAPITAL ASSET RESERVE ‐ ‐ 58 WORKER'S COMP FUND 350,000 ‐ 59 CONTINGENCY FUND 9,236,120 11,312,843 60 TRANSFERS FROM SUBTOTAL 61 $ 34,988,215 $ 37,709,966 62 TOTALS 63 1

64 GENERAL FUND CONTINUED ‐ CASH RECEIPTS AND BUDGET FOR 2010‐2011 65 2009/10 2010/11 66 DEPARTMENT EXPENSES REVISED BUDGET 67 CITY CLERK $ 278,229 $ 287,403 68 COUNCIL 113,934 142,619 69 TAX ASSESSOR 565,924 197,249 70 FIRE 718,058 709,862 71 GROUNDS MAINTENANCE 1,104,457 1,055,557 72 LIBRARY 1,128,481 1,126,227 73 RECREATION 754,140 789,648 74 LIFE SAFETY 508,320 501,835 75 CODE INFORCEMENT 359,064 276,481 76 PLANNING 400,895 424,836 77 INSPECTIONS 509,371 494,807 78 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 223,350 247,488 79 POLICE 12,307,566 12,458,373 80 POLICE EXTRA DUTY 449,516 449,516 81 STREETS 895,084 802,029 82 SANITATION 2,078,770 2,347,344 83 CITY MANAGER 566,474 569,096 84 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 797,071 748,214 85 FINANCE 781,791 827,169 86 PUBLIC SERVICES ‐ ADMINISTRATION 354,640 369,752 87 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 996,515 990,757 88 CENTRAL SERVICES 714,165 669,977 89 FLEET MAINTENANCE 712,645 761,929 90 CUSTOMER SERVICES 889,919 869,404 91 HUMAN RESOURCES 430,037 358,890 92 MAYOR 70,699 90,291 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 DEPARTMENT SUBTOTALS OTHER EXPENSES DEBT SERVICE TRANSFER TO CONTINGENCY DSWA RECYCLING PROGRAM INSURANCE RETIREES HEALTH CARE FT 28,709,115 328,410 ‐ ‐ 600,000 1,014,820 28,566,753 331,800 ‐ ‐ 600,000 1,297,509 100 101 102 103 104 DR RETIREES PAYMENTS UNCOLLECTIBLES ‐ TRASH AND OTHER LOSS ON SALE OF ASSET STORM EMERGENCY STREET LIGHTS ‐ 10,000 42,993 350,000 985,000 ‐ 10,000 ‐ ‐ 985,000 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 GRANTS IT EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLAN GRANTS SUBTOTAL TRANSFERS TRANSFER TO OPEBA OTHER EXPENSE SUBTOTAL TRANSFER TO PENSION UNFUNDED LIABILITY TRANSFER TO POLICE PENSION UNFUNDED LIABILITY TRANSFER TO PENSION COLA TRANSFER TO POLICE PENSION FUND TRANSFER TO CAPITAL ASSET RESERVE 3,331,223 ‐ 620,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,224,309 ‐ ‐ ‐ 995,000 95,000 ‐ 620,000 ‐ 116 TRANSFER TO CAPITAL FUND ‐ PROJECTS 44,802 1,307,839 117 TRANSFER TO CAPITAL FUND ‐ RESERVE ‐ ‐ 118 TRANSFER TO STREET PROGRAM ‐ 119 TRANSFER TO PARKLAND/RECREATION RESERVE ‐ 120 TRANSFER TO LIBRARY RESERVE ‐ 121 TRANSFER TO CDBG FUND 5,500 6,000 122 TRANSFER TO VERIZON RESERVE ‐ 123 INVENTORY WRITE OFFS ‐ ‐ 124 TRANSFERS SUBTOTAL 670,302 3,023,839 125 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE 2,277,575 2,895,065 126 127 TOTALS $ 34,988,215 $ 37,709,966 128 129 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 130 inter‐departmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 131 department except that the City Manager shall not make any transfers prohibited by City 132 Procedure #F306 and/or #F306ADD. 2

133 2010‐2011 BUDGET ORDINANCES ‐ CONTINUED 134 135 GOVERNMENTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 136 137 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2010‐2011 138 139 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 140 141 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Eight Million Two Hundred Twenty Nine Thousand Two 142 Hundred Fifty Seven dollars ($8,229,257) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby 143 appropriated from current revenues and other funds for the use by several departments of the 144 Municipal Government for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2010 and ending June 30, 2011: 145 146 CASH RECEIPTS 147 2009/10 2010/11 148 REVISED BUDGET 149 BEGINNING BALANCE ‐ PROJECTS $ 462,693 $ 65,479 150 STATE GRANTS 780,290 3,343,520 151 INTEREST EARNINGS 2,700 10,900 152 INCOME FROM SALE OF ASSETS 29,200 ‐ 153 RECREATION GRANTS ‐ ‐ 154 POLICE GRANTS ‐ 18,000 155 HOMELAND SECURITY GRANTS ‐ ‐ 156 LIBRARY BOND ISSUE/CONTRIBUTIONS 602,384 1,000,000 157 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND FOR PROJECTS 44,802 1,307,839 158 159 160 161 162 163 FT TRANSFER FROM PARKLAND RESERVE (JWP CNTR) TRANSFER FROM LIBRARY RESERVE GIFTS/DONATIONS (RECREATION) PARKLAND RESERVE RECEIPT TRANSFER FROM CAPITAL ASSET RESERVE 40,000 177,906 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,343,519 ‐ ‐ 140,000 164 165 166 TOTALS DR $ 2,139,975 $ 8,229,257 A 3

167 GOVERNMENTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND ‐ CONTINUED 168 169 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2010‐2011 170 171 EXPENSE SUMMARY 172 173 2009/10 2010/11 174 DEPARTMENT EXPENSES REVISED BUDGET 175 CITY CLERK $ ‐ $ ‐ 176 COUNCIL ‐ ‐ 177 TAX ASSESSOR ‐ ‐ 178 FIRE 292,210 288,210 179 GROUNDS MAINTENANCE ‐ 63,675 180 LIBRARY 1,560,580 6,687,039 181 RECREATION 70,000 45,000 182 LIFE SAFETY ‐ ‐ 183 PLANNING ‐ ‐ 184 INSPECTIONS ‐ ‐ 185 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ‐ ‐ 186 POLICE 94,706 282,380 187 STREETS 50,000 481,055 188 SANITATION ‐ 246,075 189 CITY MANAGER ‐ ‐ 190 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 7,000 12,000 191 FINANCE ‐ ‐ 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 PUBLIC SERVICES ‐ ADMINISTRATION FACILITIES MANAGEMENT CENTRAL SERVICES FLEET MAINTENANCE CUSTOMER SERVICES HUMAN RESOURCES MAYOR FT ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 83,323 199 200 201 202 203 DR DEPARTMENT SUBTOTAL TRANSFERS TRANSFER TO CAPITAL ASSET RESERVE TRANSFER TO PARKLAND RESERVE TRANSFER TO LIBRARY RESERVE 2,074,496 ‐ ‐ ‐ 8,188,757 ‐ ‐ ‐ 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 TOTALS A TRANSFER TO GENERAL FUND TRANSFER SUBTOTAL CURRENT YEAR BALANCE $ ‐ ‐ 65,479 2,139,975 $ ‐ 40,500 8,229,257 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make inter‐departmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any department except that the City Manager shall not make any transfers prohibited by City ‐ 213 Procedure #F306 and/or #F306ADD. 4

214 2010‐2011 BUDGET ORDINANCES ‐ CONTINUED 215 216 GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY 217 218 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2010‐2011 219 220 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Four Hundred Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy 221 One dollars ($417,971) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current 222 revenues and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the 223 fiscal year beginning July 1, 2010 and ending June 30, 2011: 224 225 CASH RECEIPTS 226 2009/10 2010/11 227 REVISED BUDGET 228 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 744,871 $ 394,871 229 INTEREST EARNINGS ‐ 23,100 230 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND ‐ ‐ 231 232 TOTALS $ 744,871 $ 417,971 233 234 EXPENSE SUMMARY 235 2009/10 2010/11 236 237 238 239 240 241 TRANSFER TO GENERAL FUND TRANSFER TO OPEB TRANSFER TO LIBRARY FUND CARRY FORWARD TO NEXT YEAR FT $ REVISED 350,000 $ ‐ ‐ 394,871 BUDGET ‐ ‐ ‐ 417,971 242 243 244 245 246 DR TOTALS $ 744,871 $ 417,971 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make inter‐departmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any department except that the City Manager shall not make any transfers prohibited by City 247 A Procedure #F306 and/or #F306ADD. 5

248 2010‐2011 BUDGET ORDINANCES ‐ CONTINUED 249 250 GENERAL CAPITAL ASSET REPLACEMENT FUND 251 252 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2010‐2011 253 254 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 255 256 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Two Hundred Fifty Six Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Five 257 dollars ($256,465) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current 258 revenues and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government 259 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2010 and ending June 30, 2011: 260 261 CASH RECEIPTS 262 2009/10 2010/11 263 REVISED BUDGET 264 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 241,965 $ 248,965 265 INTEREST EARNINGS 7,000 7,500 266 TRANSFER FROM GOVERNMENTAL CAPITAL FUND ‐ ‐ 267 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND ‐ ‐ 268 269 TOTALS $ 248,965 $ 256,465 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 TRANSFER TO GENERAL FUND FOR CAPITAL ITEMS TRANSFER TO GOVERNMENTAL CAPITAL FUND CARRY FORWARD TO NEXT YEAR FT EXPENSE SUMMARY $ 2009/10 REVISED ‐ $ ‐ ‐ 248,965 2010/11 BUDGET ‐ ‐ 140,000 116,465 278 279 280 281 TOTALS DR $ 248,965 $ 256,465 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 282 283 284 A inter‐departmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any department except that the City Manager shall not make any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306 and/or #F306ADD. 6

285 2010‐2011 BUDGET ORDINANCES ‐ CONTINUED 286 287 MUNICIPAL STREET AID FUND 288 289 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2010‐2011 290 291 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 292 293 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Five Hundred Twenty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Seventy 294 One dollars ($527,471) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current 295 revenues and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the 296 fiscal year beginning July 1, 2010 and ending June 30, 2011: 297 298 CASH RECEIPTS 299 2009/10 2010/11 300 REVISED BUDGET 301 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 428 $ 428 302 STATE GRANT ‐ 526,843 303 INTEREST EARNED ‐ 200 304 305 TOTALS $ 428 $ 527,471 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 TRANSFER TO GENERAL FUND CURRENT YEAR BALANCE TOTALS FT BUDGET SUMMARY $ $ 2009/10 REVISED ‐ 428 $ 428 $ 2010/11 BUDGET 526,843 628 527,471 315 316 317 318 DR The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make inter‐departmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any department except that the City Manager shall not make any transfers prohibited by City 319 A Procedure #F306 and/or #F306ADD. 7

320 2010‐2011 BUDGET ORDINANCES ‐ CONTINUED 321 322 WATER/WASTEWATER FUND 323 324 REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2010‐2011 325 326 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 327 328 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Twelve Million Seven Hundred Thirty Eight Thousand Two Hundred 329 Thirty Seven dollars ($12,738,237) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current 330 revenues and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the 331 fiscal year beginning July 1, 2010 and ending June 30, 2011: 332 333 2009/10 2010/11 334 BASE REVENUE REVISED BUDGET 335 PRIOR YEAR BALANCE ‐ WATER $ 659,584 $ 943,545 336 PRIOR YEAR BALANCE ‐ WASTEWATER 327,614 585,053 337 PRIOR YEAR BALANCE ‐ KCSA (397,473) (1,632,876) 338 WATER FEES 4,130,000 4,206,700 339 WASTEWATER FEES 2,700,000 3,308,300 340 WASTEWATER ADJUSTMENT FEES 3,000,000 4,275,600 341 WATER TANK SPACE LEASING 293,669 299,400 342 SEWER IMPACT FEES 320,000 323,000 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 WATER IMPACT FEES INTEREST ‐ WATER INTEREST ‐ WASTEWATER MISCELLANEOUS SERVICE FEE REVENUE SUBTOTAL GRANTS AND REIMBURSEMENTS FT 250,000 900 1,100 71,000 11,356,394 357,000 680 835 71,000 12,738,237 350 351 352 353 DR STATE REIMBURSEMENT GRANT REVENUE GRANTS AND REIMBURSEMENTS SUBTOTAL ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 354 355 356 357 358 359 A TRANSFERS FROM TRANSFER FROM CAPITAL ASSET RESERVE TRANSFER FROM CONTINGENCY TRANSFERS FROM SUBTOTAL TOTALS $ ‐ ‐ ‐ 11,356,394 $ 12,738,237 ‐ ‐ ‐ 8

360 WATER/WASTEWATER FUND ‐ CONTINUED 361 362 REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2010‐2011 363 364 2009/10 2010/11 365 DIRECT EXPENSES REVISED BUDGET 366 ENGINEERING & INSPECTION $ 708,360 $ 642,878 367 WATER CONSTRUCTION 421,040 392,561 368 WATER DEPARTMENT 421,268 412,588 369 WATER TREATMENT PLANT 1,519,732 1,499,857 370 WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT 879,992 969,762 371 METER READING 71,350 ‐ 372 KENT COUNTY TREATMENT CHARGE 4,235,403 4,235,403 373 DIRECT EXPENDITURE SUBTOTAL 8,257,145 8,153,049 374 375 OTHER EXPENSES 376 DEBT SERVICE ‐ WATER 244,000 246,403 377 DEBT SERVICE ‐ WASTEWATER 216,000 316,198 378 RETIREES HEALTH CARE 134,680 177,427 379 INTRAFUND SERVICE FEES 1,250,827 1,275,314 380 ARBITRAGE PAYMENT 60/40 Water ‐ 381 OTHER EXPENSES SUBTOTAL 1,845,507 2,015,342 382 383 TRANSFER TO 384 385 386 387 388 389 GENERAL FUND FROM WATER GENERAL FUND FROM WASTEWATER WATER IMP AND EXT WASTEWATER IMP AND EXT TRANSFER TO OPEB TRANSFER TO PENSION UNFUNDED LIABILITY FT 231,459 316,561 500,000 200,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 500,000 500,000 ‐ 372,000 390 391 392 393 DR TRANSFER TO PENSION COLA EWER IMPACT FEE RESERVE WATER IMPACT FEE RESERVE CAPITAL ASSET RESERVE WATER ‐ 104,000 6,000 ‐ ‐ 6,802 110,597 100,000 A 394 CAPITAL ASSET RESERVE WASTEWATER ‐ 100,000 395 TRANSFER TO SUBTOTAL 1,358,020 1,689,399 396 397 CURRENT YEAR BALANCES 398 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE WATER 943,545 1,347,009 399 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE WASTEWATER 585,053 1,126,117 400 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE KCSA (1,632,876) (1,592,679) 401 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE SUBTOTALS (104,278) 880,447 402 403 TOTALS $ 11,356,394 $ 12,738,237 404 405 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 406 inter‐departmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 407 department except that the City Manager shall not make any transfers prohibited by City 408 Procedure #F306 and/or #F306ADD. 9

409 2010‐2011 BUDGET ORDINANCES ‐ CONTINUED 410 411 WATER/WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENT & EXTENSION FUND 412 413 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2010‐2011 414 415 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 416 417 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Five Million Five Hundred Forty Five Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Nine 418 dollars ($5,545,339) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues 419 and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year beginning 420 July 1, 2010 and ending June 30, 2011: 421 422 CASH RECEIPTS 423 2009/10 2010/11 424 REVISED BUDGET 425 PRIOR YEAR BALANCE ‐ WATER $ 1,631,844 $ 743,431 426 PRIOR YEAR BALANCE ‐ WASTEWATER 625,152 257,168 427 PRIOR YEAR BOND PROCEED BALANCE SERIES 2009 ‐ ‐ 428 PRIOR YEAR BOND PROCEEDS ‐ WASTEWATER ‐ 286,500 429 BOND PROCEEDS ‐ WATER ‐ ‐ 430 BOND PROCEEDS ‐ WASTEWATER ‐ 3,016,200 431 STATE LOAN FUND ‐ WATER 2,404,017 ‐ 432 STATE LOAN FUND ‐ WASTEWATER 5,942,481 ‐ 433 434 435 436 437 438 TRANS FR WATER/WASTEWATER FOR WATER TRANS FR WATER/WASTEWATER FOR WASTEWATER TRANSFER FROM IMPACT FEE RESERVE TRANSFER FROM CAPITAL ASSET RESERVE ‐WATER TRANSFER FROM CAPITAL ASSET RESERVE ‐WASTEWATER MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS FT 500,000 200,000 518,230 ‐ ‐ ‐ 500,000 500,000 242,040 ‐ ‐ ‐ 439 440 441 442 443 DR INCOME FROM SALE OF ASSETS DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS FEDERAL/STATE GRANTS INTEREST INCOME ‐ ‐ 45,248 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 TOTALS WATER WASTEWATER A CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2010‐2011 EXPENSE SUMMARY $ 2009/10 REVISED $ 3,753,430 $ 6,787,443 11,866,972 $ 5,545,339 2010/11 BUDGET 620,000 1,560,700 453 WATER TREATMENT PLANT 39,000 ‐ 454 WATER CONSTRUCTION ‐ ‐ 455 ENGINEERING & INSPECTION ‐ ‐ 456 TRANSFER TO IMPACT FEE RESERVE ‐ ‐ 457 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE ‐ WATER BOND ‐ ‐ 458 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE ‐ WASTEWATER BOND 286,500 2,153,140 459 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE ‐ WATER 743,431 623,431 460 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE ‐ WASTEWATER 257,168 588,068 461 462 TOTALS $ 11,866,972 $ 5,545,339 463 464 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 465 inter‐departmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 466 department except that the City Manager shall not make any transfers prohibited by City 467 Procedure #F306 and/or #F306ADD. 10

468 2010‐2011 BUDGET ORDINANCES ‐ CONTINUED 469 470 WATER/WASTEWATER CAPITAL ASSET RESERVE 471 472 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2010‐2011 473 474 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 475 476 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Four Hundred Eighty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy 477 dollars ($487,770) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues 478 and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year 479 beginning July 1, 2010 and ending June 30, 2011: 480 481 CASH RECEIPTS 482 2009/10 2010/11 483 REVISED BUDGET 484 BEGINNING BALANCE ‐ WATER $ 205,611 $ 212,603 485 BEGINNING BALANCE ‐ WASTEWATER 64,560 66,767 486 INTEREST EARNINGS ‐ WATER 6,991 6,400 487 INTEREST EARNINGS ‐ WASTEWATER 2,208 2,000 488 TRANSFER FROM WATER/WASTEWATER FUND ‐ 100,000 489 490 491 492 493 FT TRANSFER FROM WATER/WASTEWATER CONTINGENCY TOTALS EXPENSE SUMMARY $ ‐ 279,370 $ 100,000 487,770 494 495 496 497 DR TRANSFER TO WATER/WASTEWATER I &E FUND TRANSFER TO WASTEWATER I &E FUND $ 2009/10 REVISED ‐ $ ‐ 2010/11 BUDGET ‐ ‐ 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 A TRANSFER TO WATER/WASTEWATER CARRY FORWARD TO NEXT YEAR WATER CARRY FORWARD TO NEXT YEAR WASTEWATER TOTALS $ 212,603 66,767 ‐ 279,370 $ 319,003 168,767 487,770 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make ‐ inter‐departmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 506 department except that the City Manager shall not make any transfers prohibited by City 507 Procedure #F306 and/or #F306ADD. 11

508 2010‐2011 BUDGET ORDINANCES ‐ CONTINUED 509 510 WATER/WASTEWATER CONTINGENCY RESERVE 511 512 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2010‐2011 513 514 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 515 516 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Two Hundred Sixty Eight Thousand One Hundred Eighty Two 517 dollars ($268,182) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues 518 and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year 519 beginning July 1, 2010 and ending June 30, 2011: 520 521 CASH RECEIPTS 522 2009/10 2010/11 523 REVISED BUDGET 524 PRIOR YEAR BALANCE $ 251,601 $ 260,371 525 INTEREST EARNINGS 8,770 7,811 526 TRANSFER FROM WATER/WASTEWATER ‐ 527 528 TOTALS $ 260,371 $ 268,182 529 530 531 532 533 TRANSFER TO WATER FT BUDGET SUMMARY $ 2009/10 REVISED ‐ $ 2010/11 BUDGET ‐ 534 535 536 537 DR TRANSFER TO WASTEWATER TRANSFER TO CAPITAL ASSET RESERVE CURRENT YEAR BALANCE ‐ ‐ 260,371 ‐ ‐ 268,182 538 539 540 541 542 543 TOTALS A $ 260,371 $ 268,182 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make inter‐departmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any department except that the City Manager shall not make any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306 and/or #F306ADD. 12

544 2010‐2011 BUDGET ORDINANCES ‐ CONTINUED 545 546 ELECTRIC REVENUE FUND 547 548 REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2010‐2011 549 550 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 551 552 The amount hereinafter named aggregating One Hundred Ten Million One Hundred Eighteen Thousand 553 One Hundred Thirty Three dollars ($110,118,133) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby 554 appropriated from current revenues and other funds for the use by several departments of the 555 Municipal Government for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2010 and ending June 30, 2011: 556 557 2009/10 2010/11 558 REVISED BUDGET 559 BASE REVENUE 560 PRIOR YEAR BALANCE $ 11,415,737 $ 12,086,275 561 DIRECT SALES TO CUSTOMER 95,830,100 96,595,300 562 PURCHASE POWER ADJUSTMENT ‐ (2,000,000) 563 UTILITY TAX 1,850,000 1,864,800 564 GREEN ENERGY 128,600 128,600 565 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 891,200 891,200 566 567 568 569 570 RENT REVENUE EMISSION CREDIT SALES TRANSFER FROM RATE STABILIZATION FT INTRAFUND SERVICE RECEIPTS WATER/WASTEWATER REIMBURSEMENT OF BOND ISSUANCE COST 186,816 274,000 ‐ 281,828 ‐ 186,816 ‐ ‐ 299,442 ‐ DR 571 INTEREST EARNINGS 57,000 65,700 572 573 TOTALS $ 110,915,281 $ 110,118,133 A 13

574 ELECTRIC REVENUE FUND ‐ CONTINUED 575 576 REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2010‐2011 577 578 2009/10 2010/11 579 EXPENSES REVISED BUDGET 580 POWER SUPPLY $ 55,619,481 $ 48,059,699 581 POWER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT 3,000,000 2,280,000 582 PJM CHARGES ‐ LOAD 7,356,438 11,850,876 583 CAPACITY CHARGES 13,456,389 11,618,223 584 RATE STABILIZATION CREDIT ‐ ‐ 585 SUB‐TOTAL POWER SUPPLY 79,432,308 73,808,798 586 PLANT OPERATIONS 5,768,710 5,694,315 587 GENERATIONS FUELS 213,529 297,820 588 PJM CREDITS (520,842) (720,797) 589 CAPACITY CREDITS (12,135,127) (11,488,785) 590 GENERATION SUBTOTAL (6,673,730) (6,217,447) 591 POWER SUPPLY & GENERATION SUBTOTAL 72,758,578 67,591,351 592 593 DIRECT EXPENDITURES 594 TRANSMISSION/DISTRIBUTION 3,215,601 3,040,701 595 ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING 1,359,569 2,008,717 596 ADMINISTRATION 679,558 609,169 597 METER READING 281,614 222,908 598 SYSTEMS OPERATIONS 488,131 518,053 599 600 601 602 603 604 UTILITY TAX DIRECT EXPENDITURE SUBTOTALS OTHER EXPENSES ALLOW FOR UNCOLLECTIBLES RETIREES HEALTH CARE FT 1,850,000 7,874,473 135,000 567,430 1,864,800 8,264,348 135,000 639,110 605 606 607 608 609 DR GREEN ENERGY PAYMENT TO DEMEC INTRAFUND SERVICE FEES INTEREST ON DEPOSITS INVENTORY WRITE OFFS BOND ISSUANCE COSTS 128,600 3,379,975 54,500 175,000 ‐ 128,600 3,387,873 54,500 175,000 ‐ 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 A POWER SUPPLY STUDY DEBT SERVICE OTHER EXPENSES SUBTOTAL TRANSFER TO IMPROVEMENT & EXTENSION GENERAL FUND TRANSFER TO CONTINGENCY TRANSFER TO PENSION UNFUNDED LIABILITY TRANSFER TO PENSION COLA 457,250 3,956,600 8,854,355 2,500,000 6,758,100 83,500 ‐ ‐ ‐ 4,058,700 8,578,783 3,500,000 8,856,000 ‐ 833,000 ‐ 619 TRANSFER TO OPEB ‐ 1,200,000 620 TRANSFER TO DEPRECIATION RESERVE ‐ 1,250,000 621 TRANSFER FUTURE CAPACITY ‐ ‐ 622 RATE STABILIZATION RESERVE ‐ 1,300,000 623 TRANSFER TO SUBTOTAL 9,341,600 16,939,000 624 625 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE 12,086,275 8,744,651 626 627 TOTALS $ 110,915,281 $ 110,118,133 628 629 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 630 inter‐departmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 631 department except that the City Manager shall not make any transfers prohibited by City 632 Procedure #F306 and/or #F306ADD. 14

633 2010‐2011 BUDGET ORDINANCES ‐ CONTINUED 634 635 ELECTRIC UTILITY IMPROVEMENT AND EXTENSION FUND 636 637 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2010‐2011 638 639 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 640 641 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Five Million Two Hundred Twenty Nine Thousand Five Hundred 642 Sixty One dollars ($5,229,561) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current 643 revenues and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal 644 year beginning July 1, 2010 and ending June 30, 2011: 645 646 CASH RECEIPTS 647 2009/10 2010/11 648 REVISED BUDGET 649 PRIOR YEAR BALANCE $ 2,625,760 $ 1,688,861 650 PRIOR YEAR BALANCE BOND 4,240,034 ‐ 651 INTEREST EARNINGS 25,000 40,700 652 INTEREST TRUSTEE 2,599 ‐ 653 INCOME FROM SALE OF ASSETS ‐ ‐ 654 ELECTRIC NEW SERVICE FEES ‐ ‐ 655 656 657 658 659 RECEIPT FROM DEPRECIATION RESERVE RECEIPT FROM FUTURE CAPACITY RESERVE DEMA GRANT STATE REIMBURSEMENT FOR SR1 &SR9 STATE REIMBURSEMENT FOR GOVS AVE FT ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 710,318