Special Council Meeting - Budget Review Minutes and Exhibit 1

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING BUDGET REVIEW A Special Council Meeting was held on May 29, 2019 at 6:01 p.m. with Council President Hare presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Neil, Mr. Slavin, Mr. Cole (arrived at 6:09 p.m.; returned from recess at 7:27 p.m.), Mr. Polce (arrived at 6:02 p.m.), Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Lindell. Mr. Sudler was absent. Staff members present were Ms. Peddicord, Mrs. Mitchell, Mr. Hugg, Fire Chief Rhodes, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Christiansen was also present. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Taylor and unanimously carried. INTRODUCTION AND PRESENTATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2020 RECOMMENDED BUDGET AND HIGHLIGHTS OF OVERALL BUDGET Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, reviewed a presentation entitled “City of Dover, Fiscal Year 2020 Recommended Budget, Budget Highlights & Discussion Points, May 29, 2019,” pages 41-52 of the budget. She provided members with a handout depicting Commercial Growth, Residential Growth, and Full Time Head Count by Department from 2000 to 2019 (Exhibit #1). Responding to Mr. Taylor’s question regarding unfunded liability, Mrs. Mitchell explained that the City provides pension and medical retirement benefits to employees. She stated that the City’s actuary calculates how much money the City should set aside to pay those benefits when the employees retire, and the City then invests that money in trust funds. Mrs. Mitchell advised that the difference between that liability and the assets is the unfunded liability. She explained that the percentage of payroll for the unfunded liability is the amount that has to be paid into the trust fund each year, noting that because of the amortization cost, it is like paying a mortgage, so it is calculated based on the person’s lifetime. Mrs. Mitchell reviewed the strategic positions that were requested and explained her recommendations for those which were included in the proposed budget. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Mitchell confirmed that all of the recommended strategic positions are budgeted for a full fiscal year, so they are not creating a liability for next year. In response to Mr. Lindell’s concerns regarding whether there would be enough grants to justify the grant writer being a full time position, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the number of grants and time requirements were currently unknown; however, the position could be reviewed in the next fiscal year. Mr. Polce asked how the City is promoting an adequate culture, salary, and benefits to retain current employees, and how the City is incentivizing recruits. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell indicated that Human Resources was currently experiencing difficulty retaining and/or recruiting pump station mechanics, accountants, and engineers. She advised members that she had included a salary survey in the proposed budget, and staff are working on succession planning programs as well as training programs. Mr. Polce noted that he thought it was also important to continue the good work that Mrs. Mitchell and her staff had done in cultivating relationships with the local school districts and

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - BUDGET REVIEW MAY 29, 2019 PAGE 2 tech schools to incentivize the pipeline for future recruitment potential. Mrs. Mitchell advised members that the employee forums for the Diversity and Inclusion Study were getting ready to begin, so there would be more feedback in that area as well. In response to Mr. Hare, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she did not think the grant writer position could be combined with the administrative assistant position for the Mayor because they are two (2) different skill sets. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Mitchell explained that five (5) positions were recommended for the Public Works Department in order to get the City back to the maintenance level that was being achieved in 2000-2010. She stated that this proposal also includes the separation of storm water and streets into two (2) divisions, and ensures that the crews are able to comply with safety regulations. Mrs. Mitchell advised that the arborist position was recommended because she transferred an employee to the Parks and Recreation Department who was a mower, and staff requested an arborist position rather than replacing the mower. In response to Mr. Anderson regarding the proposed administrative assistant for the Mayor, Mrs. Mitchell explained that the volume of work proposed for this position would require a full time employee. Mayor Christiansen stated that this position would also assist with economic development responsibilities that are currently being handled by staff within the Planning Department. Mr. Slavin noted that Council is the legislative body and staff are the experts, explaining that everyone is a team trying to make the City better. He reminded members that for many years Council cut budgets and the reduced the number of positions under the spirit of doing more with less; however, the fact is that the City did less with less, which is evident by looking around the City. Mr. Slavin stated that the City has let infrastructure and other critical programs go and they need to address them now. Mayor Christiansen informed members that he, Mrs. Mitchell, and other staff receive repeated complaints regarding the City’s lack of services, different conditions throughout the City, and 200 miles of infrastructure that are a patchwork. He stated that he is a frugal person; however, former Councilman Francis Weyandt taught him that if the City Manager presented a budget that justified the expenditures and the public was going to get the most bang for their dollar, then Council had done a good job as stewards of the taxpayers’ money. Mr. Neil stated that, at his age, having worked for a major city, seeing what’s happening and looking at the history of the budget and knowing that the City went through a recession where things were cut and infrastructure was not taken care of, the longer the City waits to start building up, the more expensive it’s going to become for the taxpayers when things collapse and they can’t be repaired. Mr. Anderson stated that he thought members were here to represent the taxpayers of the City, and when the taxpayers are being asked for more, it is Council’s duty to ensure that the expenditures are justified. He expressed his belief that Council did not need to rush through this process but should take their time and delve in to make sure they get the proper understanding because that is their fundamental job.

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - BUDGET REVIEW MAY 29, 2019 PAGE 3 MAJOR FUND HIGHLIGHTS - GENERAL FUND Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, reviewed a presentation entitled “Major Fund Highlights, Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Budget Hearing, May 29, 2019,” beginning on page 53 of the budget. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Mitchell explained that community transportation funding is grant funding which is in the back of members’ budget books under “other funds,” and information regarding the Community Transportation Improvement Fund is on page 409. She stated that $500,000 is earmarked in that fund each year, which is over and above the General Fund budget for those projects. Mrs. Mitchell reminded members that since the City had to do the PW2 cleanup in FY 2019, the Community Transportation Funds were relied upon for the entire street program. Mrs. Mitchell reviewed the “Parks and Recreation Update on Master Plans & Maintenance Crew Activities,” beginning on page 71 of the budget. She advised members that one of the big cost drivers of the Schutte Park Master Plan is the turf for the new soccer fields on the Stover land that was donated to the City, noting that the bids to grade the land came back at approximately $713,000. Mrs. Mitchell stated that she planned to meet with staff to review the master plan to determine what can be done to make it more affordable and still get a good park. She reviewed the five-year Capital Investment Plan (CIP) and suggested that a 501(c)3 could be established to raise funds for some of the park improvement options included in the master plans. In response to Mr. Neil regarding the Can-Do Park funding, Mrs. Mitchell informed members that Mr. Kirby Hudson, Director of Parks and Recreation, reached out to several non-profit agencies, including Easter Seals, to determine if there are any grant opportunities available to help fund the park improvements. She stated that she did not believe the Kent County Rotary was interested in the Can-Do Park because they are currently working on other projects, noting that it was another regional branch of the rotary that originally reviewed the idea with the Council Committee of the Whole. MAJOR FUND HIGHLIGHTS - WATER AND WASTEWATER FUNDS Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, reviewed a presentation entitled “City of Dover Budget Workshop, Fiscal Year 2019-2020, Water & Wastewater Funds” beginning on page 78 of the budget. Referring to the Water Fund, she noted that expenses are increasing and revenues are projected to decrease, and the rate increase is necessary to ensure the City stays within the bond covenants and that revenues cover expenses. Mrs. Mitchell explained that the carry-forward balances were less than projected because revenue was down last year, which affected the Water and Wastewater Funds. She informed members that although a rate increase was needed, she decided to hold off on it this fiscal year because of Kent County’s rate increase. She stated that she felt secure in her decision since the City was meeting the debt covenants. By unanimous consent, the meeting recessed at 7:11 p.m. and reconvened at 7:26 p.m. MAJOR FUND HIGHLIGHTS - ELECTRIC REVENUE FUND Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, reviewed a presentation entitled “City of Dover Budget Workshop, Fiscal Year 2019-2020, Electric Revenue Fund” beginning on page 91 of the budget.

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - BUDGET REVIEW MAY 29, 2019 PAGE 4 Responding to Mr. Hare, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she could provide information regarding how much the solar park is costing the City and the remaining number of years. Mayor Christiansen asked if there is a mechanism in the City’s accounting to write-off those losses. In response, Mrs. Mitchell explained that it is considered an extraordinary loss, so the financial marketing people take it into consideration. She stated that she has requested that the Finance Department talk to the auditors and have that information included as a footnote in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) this year to prepare people that it will be happening in 2021. Mrs. Mitchell explained that when the City decommissioned Units 1 and 2, the deprecation was recognized in the financial statements over three (3) years, so it would be fully depreciated by the final year. STORMWATER UTILITY RECOMMENDATION Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, reviewed a presentation entitled “City of Dover Budget Workshop, Fiscal Year 2019-2020, Stormwater Utility Recommendation” beginning on page 100 of the budget. She reminded members that the model that was previously presented to members included a fee based on a rate times impervious square footage, and advised that she was reviewing options regarding the model because she wants to find an equitable balance between the charge for all customers. Mrs. Mitchell stated that she was hoping to bring forward a recommendation by January 2020; however, in order to allow time to review the model and provide public outreach, she was now looking at bringing it forward in July 2020. In response to Mayor Christiansen, Mrs. Mitchell explained that the City had an engineering estimate completed in regard to the Meeting House Branch improvements and the total is $8,174,000 to remedy the issue. She advised members that Senator Carper’s Office reached out to ask if the City had any funding requests that he could put in a federal appropriations bill, so she submitted a letter on March 29, 2019. Mrs. Mitchell noted that Bayhealth also provided a letter of support because they want to construct an ambulatory care facility on their campus; however, that area currently floods. She explained that the City would still need to apply for the grant, which would be a 50% match if the federal government provides assistance. Mr. Anderson asked how the stormwater utility would affect the mandates that have been imposed in recent years in this regard. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell explained that a stormwater utility would help maintain the stormwater infrastructure, noting that it would be like the City’s current water and wastewater utilities. She stated that having a separate utility will help the City because a user fee would be used for maintenance and operating costs, as well as for capital improvement costs for the stormwater infrastructure assets. In response to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Mitchell explained that the stormwater relates to the tax ditches because the water from the tax ditches should flow out to the tributaries; however, if they are full of vegetation, they cannot flow properly, which causes the water to backup on people’s properties. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Mitchell explained that the City’s Environmental Scientist will be conducting public outreach, education, and training in regard to the stormwater utility. She stated that the City had sent out flyers and she had contacted the Chamber of Commerce to let them know. Mrs. Mitchell advised that she wanted to have the outreach conducted in the next six (6) months in order to determine where there may be challenges.

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - BUDGET REVIEW MAY 29, 2019 PAGE 5 In response to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she did not know whether the City would be able to reclaim the property tax currently used for stormwater maintenance if the stormwater utility is created, since there will be other General Fund increases over the next several years. She advised that she thought that creating the separate stormwater utility would help the City from having to increase taxes again next year. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she had not done any projections on a lodging tax because legislation had not yet been passed by the General Assembly. Mr. Anderson noted that Council could amend the City’s Charter to allow it. In response to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the proposed stormwater utility would apply to all property owners, including non-profit entities, because stormwater comes from every property. She explained that there are state and federal regulations that are creating stormwater infrastructure improvements; however, it is also something the City should be doing. Mrs. Mitchell advised that it was just a coincidence that the amount for the stormwater was approximately the same as the amount of the tax increase. OPERATING DEPARTMENT AND DIVISION SUMMARIES, AND FUND SUMMARIES AND RESERVE ACCOUNTS Council President Hare stated that he did not think it was necessary for Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, to review the Operating Department and Division Summaries, and Fund Summaries and Reserve Accounts, noting that he thought members had reviewed the budget prior to the meeting. Mr. Hare stated that he would like to see the 2016 Center for Public Safety Management (CSPM), Operations Report in regard to the recommended SEU administrative assistant position for the Police Department. He explained that the Department had not requested the position in the three (3) years since the study was completed but was now justifying the request based on the recommendation of the Report, and he would like to review the report to determine if there are other recommendations that should be implemented. Mr. Hare stated that he would like to hold the SEU administrative assistant position in abeyance until he sees that report, and asked that the position not be posted until it goes through Council. Mr. Slavin noted that approximately 10 years ago, the transfer from the Electric Fund to the General Fund was changed from 8% to $8M and then $10M, and asked what the current percentage was. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell stated that it is 11.8% of Electric Fund revenues and 22.1% of General Fund revenues. In response to Mr. Neil regarding the affect of the LED lighting conversion on the street light budget in the General Fund, Mrs. Mitchell explained that the LED lighting was budgeted this year; however, the project had not been completed because the lighting audit was being done first, and most of the funds would be leftover. She stated that some of the funds are being spent to replace the LED lights on Route 13; however, since that is a state project, those funds are being reimbursed. Mrs. Mitchell advised that LED lights use less energy, so the energy costs will decrease, which will reduce that expense to the City. She explained that although the City has its own electric utility, the bond covenants prohibit the City from providing free electricity to even itself, so the City pays for the expenses related to the streetlights. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the capital cost for the lights should

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - BUDGET REVIEW MAY 29, 2019 PAGE 6 decrease as well, and when the rate study is updated and the expenses for the LED lights are included, the City should see the cost changes. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Cheryl Bundek, Tax Assessor, explained that Section 47 of the City’s Charter requires a revaluation every five (5) years by an outside company. She stated that this revaluation does not need to be to the extent of the one which was completed in 2010, which cost approximately $750,000. Mrs. Bundek advised that two (2) bids were received which will be brought forward for consideration in June, if the budget is approved. She stated that the process for the revaluation will be the same as 2015, explaining that the company will analyze the sales, make sure the City neighborhoods are still in line with the market, and collect data from income and expense sheets which will be mailed out prior to the revaluation. Mr. Anderson stated that he thought the revaluation was vital to ensuring an equitable tax burden; however, he noted that no one else in the state performed one every five (5) years. He asked Mrs. Bundek if she thought the five-year cycle was important due to the speed of market changes or if the City should look at changing to a seven-year cycle. In response, Mrs. Bundek advised that she thought doing the revaluation every five (5) years was a good plan because of the speed of changes in the market. Mr. Hare noted that the citizens of Dover pay Kent County taxes and asked what benefits they get in return. He stated that Mrs. Mitchell had previously explained that the citizens of Dover pay approximately three (3) cents less than other cities because they are not charged a library fee since the City has its own library; however, he wanted to know what other benefits they receive. Responding, Mayor Christiansen stated that he asked the same question when he was elected to Council in 1983 and indicated that the County would say they provide things like paramedic service and access to the courts. He also noted that someone had pointed out to him that the County tax bill appears higher than it actually is because they include school taxes on it as well. Mayor Christiansen stated that the City asked the County about a separate service function budget in 1983 and they were not receptive, and he thought they would probably not be receptive now either. In response to Mr. Hare, Mayor Christiansen stated that the Kent County paramedic system provides advanced life support. He indicated that the City took federal revenue sharing money and started a paramedic system in 1976; however, when Senator Ennis brought forth the paramedic program in 1990, the City had to capitulate and turnover over the 12 paramedics that it was paying for into the Kent County system. Mr. Lindell asked if there is a way to quantify the cost to taxpayers for City positions not being filled. He explained that he was hoping to determine if the personnel shortages create a higher cost to the citizens than if the City were to increase costs by increasing personnel in some of the departments that are in need or increasing the salaries and benefits for those positions that the City is having difficulty filling. In response, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she could try to provide some of these calculations. Mr. Polce asked if there had been any formal actuarial studies on the cost of the City leaving the state benefit package, noting that the state projected a $200M deficit over the next three (3) years because of healthcare benefits. He stated that he did not think it would be advantageous for the City to leave the state’s plan; however, he thought it was important information to have since the City would see

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - BUDGET REVIEW MAY 29, 2019 PAGE 7 an inherent increase in healthcare costs. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the City’s health insurance coverage was bid out a few years ago at the request of Mr. Hare, and she recalled that it would have been a savings of $600,000 to the City at that time. She explained that if the City were to leave the state plan it would be a risk because the premiums could change and once the City leaves the state plan, there is a waiting period to get back in; however, retirees would never be able to get back in. Mrs. Mitchell stated that she thought that the retirees were pretty vocal about remaining on the state plan. Mrs. Mitchell advised members that she was looking at the possibility of bonding some of the projects and had asked Mrs. Sharon Duca, Director of Public Works, to provide her with the total cost to do all the lines and get the Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) fixed. She explained that it might pay for itself with the savings. Mrs. Mitchell stated that she thought the cost was between $6M and $8M; however, since the entire system had not been photographed, staff did not have the whole picture. She stated that staff is reviewing options to determine if it would be more cost effective to bundle several of the projects together into one (1) major project. In response to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Dave Hugg, Director of Planning and Community Development, advised that the daily duties of building inspectors and code enforcement officers are substantially different. He explained that building inspectors are primarily involved in reviewing plans and approving permits on a regular basis. Mr. Hugg noted that the building permit and fire marshal divisions of his office are the most under-staffed. He informed members that they have experienced greater complexity with the types of projects being built; however, they still strive to get permits out within seven (7) to 14 days. Mr. Hugg stated that staff has also been doing preliminary walkthroughs with property owners to assist with predetermining any issues that may come up with renovations. In regard to code enforcement, Mr. Hugg stated that it should be close to a 24/7 operation, because a lot of code violations occur after business hours; however, it is not. He noted that members asked for the code enforcement officers to attend homeowners’ association meetings in the evenings, which is all overtime. Mr. Hugg stated that this area gets stretched and has experienced high turnover, but is currently fully staffed. He explained that the two (2) requested positions are critical because his Department is required to complete annual fire inspections, and he also wants to be able to get back to doing code enforcement and rental inspections in a very timely manner. Mr. Anderson asked what percentage of the outlays are covered by the building inspections and related fees, and whether there was a comparison of the City’s fees and other places in the County. Responding, Mr. Hugg advised that he did not know what percentage of the outlays were covered by fees because he does not run his Department based on a revenue goal. He stated that there is a schedule for fees, fines, and penalties; however, he does not track the revenue as an important issue. Mr. Hugg noted that he did not believe a fee comparison had been completed recently, so he thought it was probably something that should be done to ensure the City is comparable and consistent. He stated that he had not heard any complaints that the City’s fees are out of line, but he had not analyzed them. In response to Mr. Hare’s comment regarding the Police Department having approximately $200,000 in outstanding fines, Mrs. Mitchell explained that the collection rate is low on the Code. She reminded members that Council approved Simms as the City’s new collection agency last year but they have not worked out well for the police or utility collections, so Mrs. Patricia Marney, Customer

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - BUDGET REVIEW MAY 29, 2019 PAGE 8 Service Director, has advised them that the City will be cancelling the contract which will expire in August, and redrafted the request for proposals (RFP). Mr. Hare noted that he would like to see the RFP once staff gets it done. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the budget meets all of the City’s financial policies. She noted that she was recommending to use the carry-forward balance for capital, which will need to be changed in the financial policy and the amendment is scheduled for consideration by the Committee in June, so it will be considered by Council prior to the scheduled final reading of the budget ordinance. Mrs. Mitchell stated that she will review all of the financial policies for other suggested amendments as well. In response to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she thought that adoption of the proposed budget would protect the City’s bond ratings. She advised members that the City’s bond ratings were currently the highest the City would ever see, noting that the City has an AA+ for electric, an A+ for water/wastewater, and an A+ for the General Fund. Mrs. Mitchell informed members that based on the last rating agency review, she found out that a city of Dover’s size and demographics will never see a AAA rating no matter how hard she tries. She stated that because of the bond rating, the City gets lower interest rates and it helps with credit quality when the City does purchase power agreements or any type of contract in regard to electric or water/wastewater. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Mitchell confirmed that she has a very high degree of confidence that this budget is the appropriate budget for the City for the next year. She also confirmed that she was not able to fund all the requests that came forward; however, some of those requests could possibly be considered at the midyear budget review. In response to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Mitchell advised that she thought it would be risky to increase the transfer from the Electric Fund because the percentage of revenue to support the General Fund is currently 22%, and is on shaky ground because it is close to the 25% mark. She reminded members that when the transfer was previously increased from 8% to $8M and then to $10M, part of the reason was because the electric rates and power supply went down, and by taking 8%, the City was no longer able to achieve $8M, so it would not have been revenue neutral. Mrs. Mitchell stated that when the state became involved in what the City was charging electric customers and wanted to possibly put the City under the Public Service Commission (PSC), the City agreed to fix the transfer at $8M and the legislature was satisfied. She explained that there had not been any official Council action that the transfer would never be increased and there was not any backlash when the City increased it to $10M. Mrs. Mitchell advised that, unless the City experiences a significant increase in revenues, she did not think the transfer would be able to be decreased in the future because the City has become dependent on it. She noted that she was not forecasting a significant increase in revenues. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Mitchell confirmed that the budget for capital projects, including parks, water/wastewater, and electric, for fiscal years 2020-2024 is approximately $50M. She stated that many of the projects had been deferred; however, some is growth related, such as the substation work. Mrs. Mitchell advised that the parks projects are the result of the master plans, noting that a master plan for Silver Lake has not been done yet; however, she thought the City should complete the other two (2) before beginning another. In response to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Mitchell confirmed that

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - BUDGET REVIEW MAY 29, 2019 PAGE 9 when the City defers capital projects, the life of the existing asset is extended, which typically pushes the asset beyond its useful life, like Weyandt Hall. She confirmed that deferring maintenance creates higher operating costs and a demand on other funds that the City has to repair rather than replace. Mr. Slavin stated that he thought that members’ questions had been exhausted because Mrs. Mitchell had predicted them and had packaged the budget in a way that brought confidence to him and, hopefully, to others and to the taxpayers. He noted that the budget meets all the financial policies, addresses deferred maintenance, and planning and capacity for the future, identifies approximately $50M in capital projects, and continues to make considerable progress and keep the City ahead of schedule regarding the unfunded liabilities. Mr. Slavin stated that although the budget doesn’t allow us to do everything we want to do, it keeps us moving forward, which he thinks is very important. He reminded members that a motion to approve the budget tonight is not final because it would still go forward for first and second readings, where members’ would have two (2) more opportunities to discuss and raise questions. Mr. Slavin moved for approval of the Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Budget, as presented, seconded by Mr. Lindell. Mr. Anderson stated that he was not prepared to proceed, noting that members received good information and he believed they needed time to reflect and submit proposed amendments. He explained that he still had questions regarding the revaluation, positions, and studies, and thought that members needed time to discuss those questions with their constituents and come back tomorrow for further discussion. Mr. Anderson moved to recess until 6:00 p.m. on May 30, 2019. The motion failed for lack of a second. Mr. Neil stated that he looked at the budget as a living document that still has to go through the public process, and changes can be made. He noted that he had not heard anything about an RFP regarding a garage. Mr. Slavin noted that the budget discussions were a little behind the typical schedule and there was some time sensitivity because Council has to pass a budget by June 30, 2019. He stated that, if the motion passes, two (2) readings of the budget ordinance would take place, one on June 10, 2019 and one on June 24, 2019, where members can raise their concerns. The motion for approval of the Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Budget, as presented, was carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes (Neil, Slavin, Cole, Polce, Taylor, Lindell, and Hare), one (1) no (Anderson), and one (1) absent (Sudler). Mr. Neil moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Lindell and unanimously carried.

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - BUDGET REVIEW MAY 29, 2019 PAGE 10 Meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m. TRACI A. McDOWELL CITY CLERK All ordinances, resolutions, motions, and orders adopted by City Council during their Special Meeting of May 29, 2019, are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /TM S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Council-Minutes\2019\05-29-2019 Special Council Meeting - Budget Review Minutes.wpd Exhibits Exhibit #1 - A handout depicting Commercial Growth, Residential Growth, and Full Time Head Count by Department from 2000 to 2019, provided by Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager

EXHIBIT #1 Special Council Meeting - Budget Review of 05/29/2019 COMMERCIAL GROWTH - 2000 to 2019* * Dates represent impact fee calculation Eden Hill Med. Cen . dates. Only constructed projects, or 94 EDUs projects under construction, with a net 15 Hilton Garden Inn Arbors Senior Apts EDU increase or more on the property are 43 EDUs 48 EDUs presented. Sleep Inn The Grande #2 Leande r Lakes #8 DSU Residence Hall 25 EDUs 48 EDUs 24 EDUs 15 EDU s Total EDUs = 1,569 000 2001 002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 I 2008 200 2010 2011 201 2013 2014 I 2015 2016 2017 2018 :!019 Country Inn & Suites 26 EDUs Bayard Plaza 32 EDU s I, Dover High School 68 EDUs t IChesapeake Utilit ies 26 EDUs Mainstay Suites Bayhealth Med. Cen . Garrison Energy Eden Hill Skill. Nurs. 32 EDUs 15 EDU s 882 EDUs Lil EDU s Kent Co. Courthouse The Grande #3 The Grande #4 29 EDUs 48 EDUs 48 EDU s Leande r Lakes #5 L 1 24EDU s

RESIDENTIAL GROWTH -2000 to 2019* Clearview Meadow 303 EDUs Four Seasons Hidden Creek 43 EDUs 68 EDUs Wild Meadows Seskinore Farthing Woods 224 ED Us 18 EDUs 17 ED Us -----,~- I 2000 2001 JOO? 2003 2 00~ I 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2015 2017 2018 2019 Maple Glen Cannon Mill jEden Hill Blue Hen Apts [ 45 EDUs 347 ED Us I_ 651 ED Us 162 EDUs Lexi ngton Glen Pat riot Village * Dates represent approval dates. 144 EDU s - 136 EDUs Only constructed projects, or projects Nottingham Meadows under construction, are presented. 111 EDU s Senators Lake Total EDUs =2,323 54 ED Us

FULL TIME HEAD COUNT BY DEPARTMENT TOTAL FULL TIME HEAD COUNT BY DEPARTMENT VS. POPULATION 140 40,000 -~~--r36,047 - 35,000 120 '32,043 30,000 100 27,630 25,000 ~ c: :> 0 80 .,c: .0 u ~ "O 20,000 :> a. "' Q) I 0 0. 60 15,000 40 10,000 20 5,000 0 0 FY 2000 FY 2010 FY 2019 Population - Census Data Administrative Services Central Services - - Community Services - customer Services - Electric - - Fire Department - Planning & Inspections - Police Public Works - General Fund - Public Works - Water/Wastewater Fund