packet

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA NOVEMBER 9, 2015 - 7:30 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 15 LOOCKERMAN PLAZA DOVER, DELAWARE REVISED 11/09/15 TO INCLUDE NEW ITEM #2 - PRESENTATION BY MAYOR CHRISTIANSEN - NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES (NLC) MILESTONE AWARD OPEN FORUM - 15 MINUTES PRIOR TO OFFICIAL MEETING (7:15 P.M.) THE “OPEN FORUM” SEGMENT IS PROVIDED TO EXTEND THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO SHARE THEIR QUESTIONS, THOUGHTS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS, AND COMPLAINTS. DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM APPEARING ON THE AGENDA AS A PUBLIC HEARING IS PROHIBITED DURING THE OPEN FORUM AS AN OPPORTUNITY WILL BE PROVIDED DURING CONSIDERATION OF THAT ITEM. CITIZEN COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES. COUNCIL IS PROHIBITED FROM TAKING ACTION SINCE THEY ARE NOT IN OFFICIAL SESSION; HOWEVER, THEY MAY SCHEDULE SUCH ITEMS AS REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS AND ACT UPON THEM IN THE FUTURE. INVOCATION BY REVEREND THEODORE HENDERSON PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN HUTCHISON 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 OCTOBER 26, 2015 2. PRESENTATION BY MAYOR CHRISTIANSEN - NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES (NLC) MILESTONE AWARD 3. PROCLAMATION - GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS) DAY AND GEOGRAPHY AWARENESS WEEK

COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 9, 2015 PAGE 2 4. PUBLIC HEARING - VIOLATION OF THE DANGEROUS BUILDING ORDINANCE - PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1032-1058 SOUTH DUPONT HIGHWAY, OWNED BY BMDR LLC (STAFF RECOMMENDS: 1) DECLARING THIS BUILDING DANGEROUS; 2) ORDERING THE PROPERTY DEMOLISHED BY DECEMBER 9, 2015 BY THE OWNER OR EQUITY OWNER AT THEIR OWN RISK; 3) ORDERING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TO CAUSE THE DEMOLITION OF THE STRUCTURE IF NOT COMPLETED BY THE OWNER WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THE DATE ESTABLISHED BY CITY COUNCIL; 4) ORDERING THE CITY MANAGER, WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE CITY SOLICITOR, TO CAUSE THE COST OF 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.) * 5. SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE REPORT - OCTOBER 26, 2015 A. DISCUSSION - PROHIBITED SPEED REDUCTION DEVICES (COMMITTEE ACTION NOT REQUIRED) B. REQUEST FOR WAIVER - APPENDIX B - ZONING, ARTICLE 5 - SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS, SECTION 17 - EMERGENCY ACCESS REQUIREMENTS - WAIVER OF EMERGENCY REAR ACCESS REQUIREMENT FOR BLUE HEN APARTMENTS PHASE 2 (APPLICATION S-15-12) (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE EMERGENCY REAR ACCESS REQUIREMENT, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION) C. BRIEFING ON DOVER/KENT COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) PROJECTS - CAPITAL GATEWAY STUDY PRESENTATION (RICH VETTER) (COMMITTEE ACTION NOT REQUIRED) D. BRIEFING ON DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DELDOT) PROJECTS (COMMITTEE ACTION NOT REQUIRED) 6. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT - OCTOBER 26, 2015 * A. BENCHMARKS ESTABLISHED FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICE (COMMITTEE ACTION NOT REQUIRED) B. STATUS OF DISCUSSION ITEMS PROPOSED DURING THE FY 2015/16 BUDGET REVIEW B-1. PROPOSED NEW REVENUE SOURCES (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED ADOPTION OF THE REFERENCED FEES, TO BE IMPLEMENTED ON JANUARY 1, 2016, AND TO ADD A CREDIT CHECK FEE AT THE COST OF SERVICE PLUS $10.00) B-2. REVIEW AND MAINTENANCE OF FEES - PLANNING AND CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPARTMENTS (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED ADOPTION OF THE REFERENCED FEE CHANGES, TO BE IMPLEMENTED ON JANUARY 1, 2016) * C. STATUS OF PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF CIVILIAN SIDE OF CITY GOVERNMENT (COMMITTEE DEFERRED CONSIDERATION OF THIS ITEM UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS) * D. PROPOSED CHANGE TO COMMITTEE MEETING FORMAT (HUTCHISON) (COMMITTEE DEFERRED THIS ITEM UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING)

COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 9, 2015 PAGE 3 * 7. MONTHLY REPORTS - SEPTEMBER 2015 A. CITY ASSESSOR’S REPORT B. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT C. CITY PLANNER’S REPORT D. CONTROLLER/TREASURER’S BUDGET REPORT E. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICE REPORT F. POLICE CHIEF’S REPORT * 8. QUARTERLY REVIEW OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN (CIP) (JULY, AUGUST, AND SEPTEMBER) * 9. APPOINTMENTS - COMPENSATION COMMISSION - TWO (2) YEAR TERMS TO EXPIRE MAY 2017 (DEFERRED DURING THE MEETING OF MAY 26, 2015) A. JAMES BROCKTON (COUNCILMAN NEIL) B. CLARENCE (BUD) WAGNER II (COUNCILMAN LEWIS) C. KIM HAWKINS, HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR (EX-OFFICIO) D. DONNA MITCHELL, CONTROLLER/TREASURER (EX-OFFICIO) 10. REVIEW OF CHAPTER 66 - MANUFACTURED HOMES AND TRAILERS AND APPENDIX B - ZONING, ARTICLE 3 - DISTRICT REGULATIONS, SECTION 1 - ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONES AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2015-20 AMENDING APPENDIX B - ZONING, ARTICLE 12 - DEFINITIONS (STAFF RECOMMENDS INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF “DWELLING, ONE-FAMILY” AND TO ADD A DEFINITION FOR “MANUFACTURED HOME,” WITH REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 21, 2015 AND PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION BY CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 11, 2016) (SEE ITEM #11) (STAFF RECOMMENDS, WITHIN THE NEXT 6 -12 MONTHS, THE FOLLOWING: 1) FULL REVIEW OF DOVER CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 66 TO DETERMINE WHAT COMPONENTS OF THE CHAPTER ARE RELEVANT AND SHOULD BE RETAINED, AND WHAT COMPONENTS SHOULD BE ELIMINATED. ANY PROVISIONS THAT APPEAR TO REGULATE PLACEMENT SHOULD BE ELIMINATED, AS THESE REQUIREMENTS NEED TO BE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE; 2) FULL REVIEW OF MHP (MOBILE HOME PARK) ZONE TO ENSURE THAT THE ZONE IS CURRENT WITH BEST PRACTICES; AND 3) FULL REVIEW OF THE RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND ASSOCIATED DEFINITIONS. THERE ARE OTHER AREAS THAT NEED TO BE TIGHTENED UP TO PROVIDE CLARITY ON A NUMBER OF MATTERS THAT COULD AFFECT THE CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORHOODS THROUGHOUT THE CITY) 11. FIRST READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2015-20 THE FIRST READING IS OFFERED ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. AMENDMENTS TO APPENDIX B - ZONING REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. IT IS RECOMMENDED FOR REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 21, 2015, AND THAT A PUBLIC HEARING BE SET FOR JANUARY 11, 2016 AT 7:30 P.M., AT WHICH TIME THE FINAL READING AND COUNCIL ACTION WILL TAKE PLACE. 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 #2015-20 AMENDING APPENDIX B - ZONING, ARTICLE 12 - DEFINITIONS

COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 9, 2015 PAGE 4 12. FINAL READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2015-19 THE FIRST READING OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WAS ACCOMPLISHED DURING THE COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015. COPIES ARE AVAILABLE AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS. A. PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2015-19 AMENDING APPENDIX C - DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT, ARTICLE II - DEFINITIONS, SECTION 4 - TARGET AREA 13. COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS - HOLIDAY SCHEDULE (CANCELLATION OF DECEMBER 28, 2015 SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION; UTILITY; AND LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING) 14. COUNCIL MEMBERS’ ANNOUNCEMENTS /TM S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\COUNCIL-AGENDAS\2015\11-09-2015 REVISED.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 October 26, 2015 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Slavin presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sudler, Mr. Neil, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Cole, Mr. Hosfelt, Mr. Hare, and Mr. Hutchison. Council staff members present were Police Captain Spicer, Mrs. Mitchell, Mrs. Townshend, Assistant Fire Chief Whitt, Mr. Hudson, City Solicitor Rodriguez, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Christiansen was also present (departed at 7:43 p.m.). OPEN FORUM The Open Forum was held at 7:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Slavin declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council was not in official session and could not take formal action. Mr. Jason Osika, President, Dover Organization of Employees (DOE), 160 Fawn Path Drive, Camden Wyoming, provided members with a letter regarding discussion of the City Manager’s monthly report and filling of vacant employment positions during the Regular City Council Meeting of October 12, 2015 (Exhibit #1). The invocation was given by Chaplain Wallace Dixon, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Hutchison moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Hosfelt and unanimously carried. Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Consent Agenda, seconded by Mr. Lewis and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 12, 2015 The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of October 12, 2015 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Lewis and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION - DAVE CHAMBERS The Clerk read the following Certificate into the record: CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION This Certificate of Recognition is presented to Dave Chambers Thank you for sharing your incredible talent with our community. You are successful at drawing our minds into the scene, while capturing the details in a single photograph that otherwise most people would not even see. October 26, 2015

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 2 On behalf of the Mayor and Council, as well as the citizens of Dover, Mayor Christiansen presented the certificate to Mr. Chambers, noting that Mr. Chambers had recorded the history and the people of the City, and the surroundings that make Dover and Kent County the great place that it is to live. He stated that these photographs will live on and Mr. Chambers’ name at the bottom will also give him the recognition that he deserves. CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION - GARY EMEIGH The Clerk read the following Certificate into the record: CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION This Certificate of Recognition is presented to Gary Emeigh for 50 years of professional excellence. Thank you for sharing your passion of photojournalism in our community for so many years. We wish you the best with your future endeavors. October 26, 2015 On behalf of the Mayor and Council, Mayor Christiansen presented the certificate to Mr. Emeigh, noting that Mr. Emeigh had recorded the history of life in Kent County and central Delaware for the past 50 years. Mr. Hutchison noted that when he began his career with the City of Dover Police Department, Mr. Emeigh photographed crime scenes and he was a trusted friend of the Department and other law enforcement agencies throughout the State. Mr. Hutchison stated that no one told the story better than Mr. Emeigh’s pictures. He thanked Mr. Emeigh for everything he had done for the Dover community and the State of Delaware. PROCLAMATION - DIABETES AWARENESS MONTH The City Clerk read the following Proclamation into the record: WHEREAS, diabetes is a serious disease which has no cure and is a major cause of heart disease and stroke; it is the seventh leading cause of death in the Unites States; and WHEREAS, nearly twenty-six million American children and adults have diabetes, with someone diagnosed with type 1 diabetes every 35 seconds; and WHEREAS, type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease that strikes children and adults suddenly and lasts a lifetime, requiring them to take multiple injections of insulin daily or continually infuse insulin through a pump; and

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 3 WHEREAS, one of the most significant risk factors for type 2 diabetes is obesity, those at risk of developing type 2 diabetes can reduce their chances of developing the disease by engaging in regular physical activity, maintaining a healthy weight and making nutritious food choices; and WHEREAS, an increase in community awareness of risk factors and symptoms related to diabetes can improve the likelihood that people with diabetes will get the attention they need before developing the disease with its devastating complications, and with more than 1.5 billion dollars allocated to research since 1970, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation is the worldwide leader in funding research to cure type 1 diabetes today and in the future. NOW, THEREFORE, I, ROBIN R CHRISTIANSEN, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE, do hereby proclaim the month of November 2015 as Diabetes Awareness Month in the City of Dover and urge all residents to give full support to efforts enabling people with diabetes to live full and productive lives. Mayor Christiansen presented the Proclamation to Lieutenant Chris Hermance and his son Blake Hermance. Blake Hermance stated that, if you have diabetes, it is really important to take care of your body and follow all the rules so that you do not become more sick and to ensure you become the best person you can. He noted that his aspiration in life is to become a police officer. Mr. Hermance explained that his main career goal was to be in the air force; however, since he is a diabetic he cannot be in the military. Mr. Neil stated that he was also a diabetic and would soon be 82 years old. He noted that being a diabetic would not stop Mr. Hermance from having a career in politics. Mr. Neil stated that he looked forward to seeing Mr. Hermance at the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF) One Walk on November 7, 2015. PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - OCTOBER 12, 2015 The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee met on October 12, 2015 with Chairman Anderson presiding. Discussion - Police Athletic League (PAL) Police Chief Paul Bernat expressed his belief that the City needed to bring back the Police Athletic League (PAL) program. He advised members that juvenile arrests in the City had decreased overall; however, the seriousness of arrests had increased. Chief Bernat stated that drug offenses had increased from 31 last year to 40 this year, there were no burglaries last year and 12 this year, and weapons violations had increased by one (1) compared to last year. Chief Bernat stated that the Dover Police Department partnered with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) on October 7, 2015 for a very successful community outreach event and felt that PAL events would be similar in nature to this type of event. He indicated that he had lunch with Mr. Robert Jameson, Executive Director, Police Athletic League of Delaware, Inc., noting that Mr. Jamison oversees the PAL at Hockessin and Wilmington.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 4 Chief Bernat indicated that he received some tips from Mr. Jameson, who stated that one (1) of the first things would be to organize an executive board. Chief Bernat advised members that he would be involved, along with other community leaders, including attorneys and possibly accountants, since it would be necessary to obtain a 501(c)(3) status. He felt it important to start this program, noting that a facility would also be needed. Chief Bernat stated that he had discussed this with Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, and Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, but indicated that he was not comfortable discussing the particulars at this time since Mrs. Townshend was not present. Chief Bernat stated that different locations were discussed, including Dover Park. He explained that staff from Aid in Dover, including Mrs. Beverly Williams, Executive Director, and Mr. Mark Harmon, Program Director, were also present during the discussion. Chief Bernat indicated that all present had agreed that there was a need for a facility to address children, particularly on the east side of Route 13, and he felt that PAL would help to do this. Chief Bernat informed members that there were manpower issues, noting that the Dover Police Department was authorized for 101 police officers; however, seven (7) officers entered the Delaware State Police Academy on September 15, 2015 and would complete training in March, and two (2) additional officers would be going into the Academy on March 16, 2016. He explained that six (6) officers who were hired in March 2015 would be coming out of Field Training Officer (FTO) training on October 18, 2015, two (2) officers were on administrative leave, and four (4) were on light duty. Chief Bernat stated that out of 101 authorized officers, the strength of the force was currently 80; however, he felt it was not too early to start planting the seeds of PAL, perhaps starting with the executive board and then moving on to facilities. He expressed his feeling that the program was badly needed and the sooner it was implemented the better. Reiterating that there were manpower issues, Chief Bernat advised members that the six (6) additional officers that would be available in a couple of weeks would help tremendously. Mr. Hosfelt asked how officers would be involved and if this would be a job assignment for one (1) officer. Responding, Chief Bernat indicated that New Castle County and Wilmington each have one (1) or two (2) officers in the program. He explained that his vision was that the Department would dedicate one (1) police officer, and maybe PAL would pay for any others that would be needed. Chief Bernat indicated that, in talking to Mr. Jameson, funding comes from different places and the City could help. Chief Bernat stated that there is also federal grant money available through the Criminal Justice Council; however, PAL relies largely on businesses within the community and it was planned to ask several large community businesses for help. He noted that volunteers are very important in PAL, including police officers who coach or are involved by helping kids with homework after school and other things of that nature.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 5 Responding to Mr. Hosfelt in regard to whether Dover would fall under the umbrella of Mr. Jameson as the Executive Director, Chief Bernat expressed his belief that Mr. Jameson handled only New Castle County and that Dover would have its own executive board that the Chief would report to or be involved with. In response to Mr. Hutchison regarding the days and hours of operation, Chief Bernat stated that he would like PAL to operate five (5) days per week, most likely during the hours after school in the afternoon or evening, from approximately 3:30 p.m. to 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. Responding to Mr. Hutchison regarding the cost of the program, Chief Bernat stated that he was unsure; however, he was aware of the budget for Hockessin, which is a huge facility. He indicated that a large part of the program would be financed through donations and grants. In response to Mr. Hutchison, Chief Bernat stated that participants would be children aged five (5) through 18, noting that his reading had indicated that it is somewhat too late for older kids and younger ones should be targeted. He expressed the desire to target and build relationships with those aged five (5) through 12 or 14 who are not quite set in their ways. Mr. Koenig stated that, from his standpoint, this was a very preliminary discussion, noting that this program was not ear-marked in the budget. He expressed reservations, stating that creating a 501(c)(3) with an executive board and the potential commitment of a facility was a major undertaking. Mr. Koenig stated that he would love to talk about doing this as a partnership with other interested parties and requested the Committee to advise on whether this was an avenue that they would like to go down. He stated that, while this would be a PAL program, he felt that recreation staff and others would carry a lot of the weight if it went forward. Mr. Koenig requested that a detailed financial analysis be done before committing to have things in place by a certain date. Mr. Anderson agreed that these were preliminary discussions; however, he felt there was a need to start so that members would not still be talking about this five (5) years from now. He stated that he would like to see it rolling in the next few years. In response to Mr. Hosfelt regarding how to start moving forward, Mr. Koenig stated that if the Committee and Council wanted to move forward, the City Manager, Police Chief, and Director of Planning and Community Development should be given a directive to put together a comprehensive proposal that would indicate the steps to be taken to create a PAL. He indicated that he was unsure what PAL would encompass, noting that it may include activities in addition to basketball. Mr. Koenig stated that there were hundreds of questions, including who would coordinate volunteers and what the role of the executive board would have in relation to the City, noting that the best interest of the City must be kept in mind.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 6 Mrs. Beverly Williams, 20 Gleneagles Court, former City Council member and current Executive Director, Aid in Dover, advised members that she began discussions about this matter with Mr. Chris Kervick, Executive Director, Delaware Criminal Justice Council, while she was serving on City Council and he explained that there is an abundance of federal grants available for PAL programs, as long as the community comes together and finds a place for the program. Mrs. Williams advised members that this would not be a City project and an executive board and private non-profit structure would be formed as the governing body for the PAL program. She indicated that PAL programs are associated with cities through memorandums of understanding and probably contractual agreements in some cases. Mrs. Williams stated that she understood Mr. Koenig’s reluctance, especially since he must balance so many demands on the budget; however, she felt that this could be worked on independently from the City’s budget and the only part that the City might play would be to help access land and a building or something of that nature. Youth Advisory Committee Recommendations Ms. Rebecca Anderson, Vice Chair, Youth Advisory Committee (YAC), 217 Cecil Street, advised members that the YAC had several items to recommend for evaluation, one (1) of which was a mixed martial arts program. She explained that Mr. Hopeton Stewart advised the YAC that he was willing to provide instruction at a reduced cost in exchange for ensuring that some spaces in the program would be provided for participants from low-income households. Mr. Stewart had indicated that mats were the only thing needed to start the program; therefore the cost would be low. Ms. Anderson stated that the Committee would also like digital recording devices for minutes. Ms. Anderson advised members that the YAC was organizing a New Year’s Eve event and would like security, public announcement stages, and facilities. She indicated that the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP) could participate, as well as other organizations that help with downtown Dover events. She stated that the community could be brought together by a sense of unity through starting the year together at a family-friendly event. Ms. Anderson noted that the YAC had involved a number of businesses, as well as others who were willing to participate. In total, over 200 people had said they would be willing to help out. In response to Mr. Hosfelt’s request for more information regarding plans for the New Year’s Eve event, Ms. Anderson stated that there was a thorough event checklist. Some tasks had been assigned to members of the YAC and additional volunteers were being sought. Responding to Mr. Anderson regarding the type of event envisioned, Ms. Anderson stated that it would be similar to First Night Dover. Bands would come from different schools and establishments on Loockerman Street would be open for

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 7 activities such as poetry, movies in the library, etc. The YAC was looking at a variety of other groups, had contacted radio stations to provide disc jockeys and to advertise the event, and there were a number of local musicians who wanted to perform. In response to Mr. Hosfelt, Ms. Anderson confirmed that the YAC had raised $7,000 for fireworks and an additional $3,000 was needed, for a total of $10,000. Responding to Mr. Caldwell, Ms. Anderson stated that other members of the Committee had contacted local high school bands regarding their participation and she planned to get in contact with them very soon. In response to Mr. Hosfelt, Mr. Anderson stated that the YAC consisted of seven (7) members, plus an adult advisor and volunteers from the community. Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, stated that Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, could not be present; therefore, she was unable to ask questions for the record. Mr. Koenig questioned what the Committee saw as the role of staff in the event. He noted that when First Night Dover was held, it was a full-time planning exercise for a number of people and involved volunteer coordination. The Parks and Recreation Department indicated that approximately 16 City staff had worked on that event with approximately 50 to 80 volunteers. Mr. Koenig stated that First Night Dover was not nearly as big an event during its first year as it later became. He expressed the desire to understand the role of the City to either help deliver the event or not to be involved. Mr. Koenig explained that a venue like this would involve security and insurance issues and, noting that the event was 8½ to 10 weeks out, he stated the need to get these things squared away quickly. Mr. Anderson stated that one (1) of the YAC’s requests specifically had to do with insurance and security. The actual organization and coordination of the event, except for things like setting up and tearing down stages, would be done through the YAC. Mr. Anderson advised members that funding would be private. Except for sanctioning this as a City event, the needs would be for insurance, staff for things like staging, and making library meeting rooms available. In response to Mr. Koenig, Mr. Anderson confirmed that the recommendation was for this to be a City-sponsored event with the full faith and credit of the City backing it. Mr. Anderson stated that the event would be planned and staffed by volunteers. Mr. Koenig indicated that if the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee recommends that the City to sponsor this event, there would be a need to ensure that the City would be involved early and often with planning since these are young kids and if the kids do not show up or if they need assistance, they would need it very quickly.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 8 Responding to Mr. Lewis regarding the cost of the First Night Dover event before being discontinued by the City a year or two (2) ago, Mr. Koenig stated that he was unsure since a specific 501(c)(3) corporation separate from the City was set up for this. He confirmed that police officers and other tools from the City were provided and estimated that approximately $5,000 to $10,000 of staff support went into it because the event was held at night, which involved overtime work. Mr. Koenig did not recall how much involvement the Police Department had, noting that it would depend on the level of activity, since 300 people would require fewer officers assisting than 3,000. Mr. Koenig stated that he would have to review the record to see how much was spent on that previously. He noted that the event grew for about a five (5) to seven (7) year period and then started to diminish. He estimated that the cost for man hours easily exceeded $10,000. Mr. Lewis asked if there was funding available in the budget for the City to go forward with the event. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that funding was not specifically identified in the budget. He explained that there were line items for events such as the African American Festival, the Dover Days Festival, and the 4th of July Celebration; however, there was no expense indicated in the budget to support this event. Ms. Teresa Morris, 1360 Old White Oak Road, adult advisor for the YAC, stated that she wished to alleviate some worries. She explained that the youth group had taken it upon themselves to raise funds. The group was currently working on a fundraiser, had spoken with Jake’s Hamburgers and a lot of local businesses, and were not asking the City for money. Ms. Morris stated that the cost of the New Year’s event in the past was $100,000, and these funds were sent to an organization out of Boston and did not benefit the Dover community. She indicated that the goal was to lift up the community, bring everyone back together, and put on the New Year’s that the City used to have that everyone looked forward to, noting that this was one (1) of the things that had made the City great. Ms. Morris expressed her belief that this was needed now more than ever and her hope that members would support it. She indicated that help was needed with police coverage and liability insurance. Ms. Morris stated that the YAC was talking with RPJ Waste Services, Inc. about port-a-potties. She advised members that they had looked at everything involved in putting on an event this large. They knew that it could have from 100 people to 10,000 people, and this was unknown because the event had not been done in a long time. Ms. Morris expressed her hope that Council could help the YAC with the few things that they had on their agenda. She felt that there would not be a lot since the community was willing to contribute and businesses were willing to open their doors. Ms. Morris explained that fireworks would be done by the same company who did the Dover 4th of July Celebration, noting that the company had donated $7,000 and indicated that they may be able to help more. She reiterated that the funding needed from the City was very minimal. She expressed the desire to have a good police presence, but stated that they had also talked about the possibility of the police cadets and different organizations coming to help, noting that they were speaking with Dover Downs in this regard. Ms. Morris stated the goal not to hit the City pocket any

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 9 more than need be, but help was needed with the police and liability insurance. She stated her belief that members would be surprised at the work, time, and energy the youth had put into this, indicating that this had not been taken on lightly and they understood the magnitude of the event. Mr. Lewis expressed his belief that this was a good initiative; however, he would leave it up to the City Manager to see if he could come up with funding, noting that the well was dry. Ms. Morris expressed confidence that the community would pitch in, like they did in 2011 when the last New Year’s Eve event was held in the City, noting that she and a group of citizens had put on that event rather than the City. She indicated that she did not put out a penny at that time since the community pulled together. Someone paid for port-a-potties and another gentleman paid for the police, which cost $32.00 per hour at that time. Ms. Morris stated that this cost was based on the number of people they thought would attend, which was projected at 10,000 and ended up being 200, although she was happy with 200 because they had 10 days to pull together the event. She felt that members would be surprised with how many people in the community wanted to do this, noting that they had created a group on Facebook asking for help and 700 people had responded on one (1) of the pages and 111 on another. She stated her confidence that this could be pulled together if the City would sponsor and back the event and agree that the kids could do this. Ms. Morris stated that they were not asking for a lot compared to what the City used to pay for New Year’s, indicating that she had a letter from the individual who was previously making $100,000 off the City which did not go to the citizens. Mr. Anderson noted that the previous provider made a lot of money by selling buttons and paid for a lot of entertainment, as opposed to getting local people together. Ms. Morris advised members that there were very talented, positive, and uplifting people in the City that do not get any recognition and whose music includes genres such as country, hip-hop, blues, jazz, etc. and whose talents include face painting, fire spinning, etc., noting that these performers were on the Facebook page that includes 111 people. She reiterated that there is a great deal of citizen support which had given her a little more hope in humanity and a belief that we have a good City. Ms. Morris indicated that people had wanted to bring back the event since it was cancelled in 2011. She stated that in 2011 a gentleman had paid approximately $500 for $1M in insurance coverage and he got back half of that after the event because no one was hurt. Ms. Morris acknowledged that prices had probably changed since that time. Mr. Anderson stated that the City already had liability insurance, so it would not be a different expense.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 10 In regard to security, Ms. Morris stated that they could reach out to security agencies in the community; however, in principle, it would be better if City police were out there having fun with the community and letting them know that they are regular people. She felt this would also deter criminal activity, because a police officer holds a lot more weight than a security guard. Ms. Morris advised members that the YAC had created an outline and members were handling different positions, noting that one (1) of the young ladies was handling public relations and contacting radio stations. In response to Mr. Hosfelt, Ms. Morris stated that the YAC had not yet reached out to any insurance carriers, noting that appearing before the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee was the first step. Mr. Anderson stated that, according to Resolution No. 2010-03, since the YAC is specifically authorized to make contracts for family friendly events the insurance should go through the City, unless there is a reason not to. He indicated that this would not be a big expense for a one (1) day event. Ms. Morris stated that the biggest matter was security. She stated that a small business that does residential trash removal indicated that they would put out trash cans and empty them. Responding to Mr. Hosfelt regarding the action that was needed from the Committee, Mr. Anderson stated that the request was to approve the YAC recommendation. In response to Mr. Lewis as to whether they were looking for permission to hold the event or financial assistance, Mr. Anderson stated that endorsement was needed. Mr. Lewis stated that he could not commit on any cost at this juncture. Mr. Anderson stated that the request was for the City to be behind the event, the City stage, and access to facilities and pocket parks. He stated that an appropriation was not being asked for because the money was being raised privately. Mr. Lewis noted the need for police protection and insurance, stating that this would come at a cost and questioned if there was funding for this. Responding, Mr. Anderson stated that this would be up to the Mayor and Council, noting that there were a number of ways this could be done. He indicated that as the event approaches, the YAC would have a better idea of how big the event would be. Mr. Anderson stated that it could be run cheaply. He indicated that the cost would differ depending on whether cadets were hired at approximately $12.00 per hour to walk through and run patrols through, or off-duty police officers were hired at $65.00 per hour to be there for the whole event. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Anderson stated that there was funding for this.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 11 In response to Mr. Lewis as to whether funding was available, Mr. Koenig stated that the YAC minutes reflected that a lot of work had been done regarding this event; however, he stated the need for additional documentation, including the previously mentioned checklist, and a specific request. He stated that he would need a specific request in order to commit staff to things, and the sooner he can receive those specific requests, the easier it would be to incorporate them. In regard to insurance, Mr. Koenig stated that he did not want to minimize the potential cost of insurance, noting that he had received an education on insurance in the last four (4) years on a number of different events. He advised members that to protect the City’s umbrella policy for events such as Old Dover Days and its involvement with the Amish Bike Tour, the City had bought special riders so that the full faith and credit of the City’s insurance would not potentially be negatively impacted by something, such as an injury or some activity that happens at an events. He estimated the cost as ranging from $1,500 to $4,000 or $5,000, depending on the rider. Mr. Koenig indicated that staff had been very specific when talking to the City’s insurance company, explaining that the City did not want to get the City’s broad umbrella policy tied up in what was a very minor event compared to all the other activities in the City and have somebody go after those upper limits. He advised members that insurance policies were being purchased to minimize risks; therefore, sometimes the City pays a premium for those specific events and for this reason it is important to know what activities are associated with the events. Mr. Koenig explained that if there are food vendors, a petting zoo, etc., the City pays a higher premium; therefore, these things must be known when talking to the insurance carrier about creating a rider for the policy to address this event. He reiterated the need to get a better understanding of what was being asked so that he could obtain a price. Mr. Hosfelt stated that he was still not certain what the City and staff were being asked to do. It was his recollection that at least 12-15 police officers had been committed to the event in the past, noting that there would be street closures, patrols, etc. In response to Mr. Hosfelt, Police Chief Paul Bernat recalled that this was the case when the First Night Dover event first began; however, he indicated that the demand became less as the attendance decreased. Mr. Anderson stated that current comparable events would be First Friday or the OktDoverFest. Mr. Lewis requested that a list be provided to the City Manager of what the event would include so that he could do the math, and Ms. Anderson stated that this could be done. Ms. Morris expressed her belief that there was enough support from the community to cover any expenses, if there was any financial shortfall. Mr. Hosfelt asked that the YAC communicate with the City Manager as soon as possible, noting there was a lot to be done in a short amount of time. He stated that a major event for the area which had been planned for a year had just been cancelled

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 12 due to an insurance problem, explaining that these things do not happen overnight but take time and resources. Agreeing with Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hosfelt expressed uncertainty that a lot of resources could be afforded at this point. He commended Ms. Anderson for a great presentation, stating that he wanted to find a way to endorse the event, but expressed concern about the timing, feeling that the event was behind the eight ball. Mr. Anderson stated that the youth group had been working on this project since May. Ms. Morris stated that the YAC wanted to make sure that a majority of the groundwork had been laid prior to coming to the Committee, so that they could provide the details regarding musicians, vendors, and fireworks instead of simply asking for a specific amount of money. She indicated that she would work with the group to provide a very detailed outline of their vision and what had been done so far. Mr. Caldwell suggested that the outline, and particularly the numbers, be provided to the City Manager so that he could have a better idea of what was going on. Mr. Anderson expressed his opinion that it was not understood how little commitment was needed from the City since so much of the groundwork had been laid. He indicated that he would entertain a motion to recommend that staff coordinate with the YAC on the details of this event and return with a joint recommendation during the next meeting. Responding to Mr. Hosfelt, Mr. Anderson stated that the motion was not for preliminary inquiries, which had all been done, but for staff to work out the details and final numbers with the youth and bring back a final proposal to the Committee next month. Mr. Hosfelt questioned whether Mr. Anderson was asking for a recommendation as to whether or not the City would support this event. Mr. Hosfelt reiterated his concern that City staff was being put behind the eight ball and was unsure if it would be fair to ask staff to advise on what would be required and state that they are ready to move forward with this without knowing the costs to the City. He stated that there would be costs and, since they were not budgeted, he did not know where the money would come from. He reminded members that Mrs. Townshend was not present to speak about the Parks and Recreation Department and expressed uncertainty about the motion. Responding to Mr. Anderson regarding the motion he would like to make, Mr. Hosfelt stated that would be willing to endorse a recommendation from the Committee to ask Mr. Koenig to work with the YAC to see if in fact this is a project that is doable this year, or if it is something that must be planned for next year.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 13 Mr. Hosfelt moved to recommend that the City Manager evaluate the Youth Advisory Committee’s proposal for a New Year’s Eve event, including numbers, to see if the proposal was doable this year or if it was something that must be planned for next year. Mr. Lewis stated that he would concur with motion; however, he was unsure how quickly Mr. Koenig could provide the Committee with an estimate of how much it would cost the City, noting that his main concern was that the event was not budgeted. He questioned whether the City would be able to somehow find the money. Mr. Anderson stated that numbers were essential either way. He noted that particular numbers were needed and that it had always been the plan to raise the funds privately. The Committee recommended that the City Manager evaluate the Youth Advisory Committee’s proposal for a New Year’s Eve event, including numbers, to see if the proposal was doable this year or if it was something that must be planned for next year. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Lewis and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Strategic Planning and Goal Setting During the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee meeting of September 14, 2015, members considered Strategic Planning and Goal Setting in relation to the Restoring Central Dover Strategic Plan. Mr. Anderson suggested that members review the capital budget and Recreation Needs Assessment, talk with constituents, and come back with their top five (5) ideas and set priorities, in order for the Committee’s strategic planning and goal setting to be completed in October. Mr. Anderson stated that some items related to strategic planning and goal setting would be deferred until next month, noting that Mayor Christiansen had a proposal regarding a park facility on the east side of the City which would relate to the Police Athletic League (PAL) as well as privately funded grants. Mr. Anderson indicated that Mayor Christiansen had requested this delay because final preparations were being made on some of the grants. Mr. Anderson reminded members that money was reserved in the budget in the Parkland Reserve Fund for such a facility, and the Mayor was looking at whether there should be a re-prioritization of the splash pad into matching the grant, so the City could have a new facility. He indicated that this would part of an ongoing discussion. Members were provided the City of Dover FY 2016 Capital Investment Plan, FY 16 thru FY 20, related to Parks and Recreation projects. Mr. Anderson stated that part of the reason for the strategic planning was to look at the current priorities in the Capital Investment Plan and consider what members think the funding priorities

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 14 should be in the future. He expressed his opinion that there was agreement on some of the “low-hanging fruit,” such as enhancing some of the existing exercise and bike trails at Schutte Park, Silver Lake, and Dover Park, particularly with some of the healthy communities grant. He reminded members that inside restroom facilities for Silver Lake Park and Dover Park were mentioned in the Recreation Needs Assessment. Mr. Anderson questioned what the first priorities should be. Mr. Caldwell thanked Mrs. Townshend and her staff for the work that they had put in, which provided an understanding of what the young people in the community need. He stated that over the past weekend he had the opportunity to talk to young people regarding what they would like to see in the community, particularly in the Fourth District, and they indicated that they want open space for football, basketball, soccer, etc., as well as bathroom facilities. Mr. Caldwell noted that splash pads are more seasonal and would be used for three (3) or four (4) months before the weather becomes chilly in September and October. He advised members that kids want to be outside and were not looking for indoor facilities. He noted that inside facilities may be needed for the older, senior group which has transportation, but young people in certain communities do not have transportation. Mr. Caldwell suggested that schools could be opened up at certain times, or just have the open space where children can play and do the things that they like to do. He felt that adults were also looking for swings and a place to take kids aged six (6) and under to let them get fresh air. Mr. Caldwell felt, in terms of outside activities, that the splash park was not a major item and could be implemented somewhere in the future, maybe at Dover Park or the Pitts Center. Mr. Lewis stated that he conducted a survey in the Second District and spoke with the elderly and the young in that area. He advised members that the survey indicated that a lot of the elderly wanted a dog park, noting that 45% requested a dog park, 30% a community center, 15% a skate park, and 10% a boat dock at Silver Lake or one (1) of the City lakes with paddle boats. Mr. Lewis stated that responses from younger constituents in his district were tied between a community center and a skate park. He indicated that this input came from Schoolview, Mayfair, and the majority of the communities. Mr. Anderson noted that the dog park was not part of the City’s Recreation Needs Assessment, yet it was an item mentioned by almost 20% of the respondents; therefore, there was definitely a demand for this. Mr. Hosfelt noted that Schutte Park borders the First District and that the district also contained the former Kent Swim Club, which is now a YMCA property, as well as a golf club, so residents have options. He stated that residents questioned whether the former Dover High School, which is a great facility, would eventually be available for use, noting that the property has ball fields and one (1) of the better tracks in the State. Mr. Hosfelt stated that he liked the concept of a dog park, which a lot of other communities have.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 15 Mr. Anderson stated that the dog park idea had potential, especially since new areas of Schutte Park were being expanded and this could possibly be incorporated. He felt that the City should reach out regarding the former Dover High School property before something happens to those facilities. Mr. Anderson indicated that there had been related discussion with Mrs. Townshend and he felt that this item should be put on a future agenda. Mr. Lewis stated that when he was serving as a Capital School District Board member the stadium and track at the former Dover High School were being utilized by Central Middle School, and expressed his belief that this was still the case. He felt that they were the only ones currently utilizing it and that it would be a good opportunity to engage in conversation with the District with respect to utilizing it on the City level. The Committee recommended reaching out to the Capital School District to have a conversation with respect to their intent for the old Dover High School field and track and a dialogue regarding a partnership with the City. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Lewis and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Hosfelt moved to recommend deferring further discussion on strategic goal setting and planning until after the Mayor’s presentation and that when Mrs. Townshend can be present for members to hear from her as well, seconded by Mr. Caldwell. Mr. Lewis concurred as far as hearing the presentation but, speaking for the constituents of the Second District, he felt that the City should look at a proposed dog park for the future to see if there was any way to integrate it. Mr. Anderson stated that the dog park was also mentioned in the Recreation Needs Assessment and that was not an outlier, expressing his belief that it was a legitimate need as it was the second most written-in item after restroom facilities and ranked higher than some of the items listed. The Committee recommended deferring further discussion on strategic goal setting and planning until after the Mayor’s presentation when Mrs. Townshend can be present for members to hear from her as well. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Lewis and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for acceptance of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Lewis and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 16 LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT - OCTOBER 12, 2015 The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met on October 12, 2015 with Chairman Hare presiding. Update - Transfer of Real Property from Delaware Civic Center Corporation to Delaware State University During their meeting of August 24, 2015, the Committee reviewed a request from Delaware State University (DSU) regarding the transfer of property from the Delaware Civic Center Corporation. The Committee recommended continued conversation and information gathering from Delaware State University (DSU), as well as the City Manager, and for DSU to come back at the first meeting in October and give another presentation in regard to how they could economically benefit both the City and DSU. Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, informed members that he did not invite representatives from Delaware State University (DSU) to attend this evening’s meeting because staff was still working on a few issues that were discussed during the Committee meeting of August 24, 2015. He stated that when the request was received earlier this year staff thought that it would probably be good to transfer the property; however, since that time, concerns have come up regarding the potential drop in State revenues, the need for the City to look at locations for renewable energy, and some of the other things that are going on in local and State governments. Mr. Koenig stated that since the meeting of August 24, 2015, Mr. Harry Maloney, Electric Director, had been working with Scott Engineering, who did some layout of the Civic Center property, to determine whether there is enough room to lay out a solar field that would be large enough to give the City a good return on investment. Mr. Koenig advised members that there was currently utility work happening on the property related to the expansion of easements in this area, which were previously approved by City Council, to afford for the new Kent County bypass line that will relieve the large diameter force main in the center of U.S. 13. Mr. Koenig stated that the intent is to finalize all of the easements after the line is actually in to ensure the line is correctly located within the easements across the property. Mr. Koenig explained that, in the intervening time, Councilman Hare, Mr. Kirby Hudson, Assistant City Manager, and he met with DSU representatives regarding opportunities to partner and discussed branding, marketing, and the issue of payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT). Mr. Koenig expressed his belief that there is potential for the City and DSU to bring a proposal back to Council that is mutually beneficial from a number of different standpoints. He stated that, in the long run, he does not believe that the City has a good use for a majority of this property because it was a former landfill and is going

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 17 to be subject to differential settlement for many years. Mr. Koenig noted that, with this type of property, it would be best to either leave it as fields or convert it to parking which can be adjusted in the future if settlement occurs. Mr. Koenig stated that he would be back with a more concrete plan in the future. He explained that, given the consideration of tightening budgets, he did not think it prudent for the City to give this land away, noting his belief that a deal could be made that would be mutually beneficial to the City and DSU. Mr. Cole asked whether the concrete proposal would be brought forward after the State and the Joint Finance Committee get into their budget. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that a concrete plan would be more DSU’s responsibility than the City. He explained that the City was currently in the process of having the annual property inspection completed and reminded members that the City only owned the back-end of the property. Mr. Koenig stated that the four (4) or five (5) acres along the access road is owned by the Civic Center Corporation. He explained that once the City decides how much of the property it may want, it would be incumbent on DSU to come forward with a proposal to City Council. Mr. Hare asked if a solar field was something that the City wanted to get into again and questioned the possibility of the City partnering with the Delaware Municipal Electric Corporation (DEMEC) like other municipalities have. In response, Mr. Koenig stated that the City would probably not enter into an agreement with LS Power again but may pursue a potential partnership with DEMEC. He explained that the City may also consider doing the project without a partner, if the numbers work out, noting that there are 2% interest loans available. Mr. Koenig stated that DEMEC has been working with various communities to install the equipment and if that was the best or least cost option for the City, staff would propose that coming forward to City Council. Mr. Hare asked if DSU was also considering the possibility of using the property the City let them have years ago adjacent to the Delaware Agricultural Museum for a convocation center or whether it would forever be a tax-free race parking lot. Responding, Mr. Koenig advised that, to his knowledge, the City of Dover never owned that property and DSU purchased it from a third party. He explained that, at one point, DSU had proposed a strip mall which would include the university bookstore; however, there have not been any specific discussions regarding this development in at least four (4) or five (5) years. Mr. Koenig stated that, at this point, the property is tax exempt because it is owned by the university and the City did not regulate the use of the land. He noted that if DSU was to develop the property commercially, they would most likely lose their tax exempt status on it because they would be receiving business generated revenue. Mr. Koenig stated that it was his understanding that DSU was interested in going north to tie-in the potential of working with the former Sheraton hotel, which is now a dormitory and school, and if DSU can get that land for a low cost from the City, then it leaves them another development option to the south.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 18 Mr. Sudler asked whether, if DSU used 100% of their nonprofit status, they could use approximately 25% of it for the commercial usage with their civic center if they are going to be renting it out to other organizations and agencies for income. He also asked where the money goes when DSU parks cars during races and whether that is a form of generating income on a nonprofit land parcel. In response, Mr. Koenig stated his belief that it would be in the category of other business related income; however, he was uncertain how it works in terms of accounting. Mr. Koenig informed members that some things had come up recently that had never been considered before in regard to the tax exempt status for parcels. He noted that the City never contemplated Wesley College renting dormitories to the National Guard for training or individuals during Firefly or other events when the development applications were considered. Mr. Koenig explained that in considering future development applications or modifications, these types of things would need to be questioned. He stated that the City, through the Planning Commission, needs to figure out if additional licensing may need to occur, or if there will need to be any additional oversight when there is a different use than the intended building use. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mr. Koenig stated that he was uncertain whether the City would be able to revoke a tax-free status, and that it would be a question for City Solicitor Rodriguez. Mr. Koenig noted that the City would have some leverage if there was a different use than what was originally authorized by the City, and advised that when things change, sometimes the City has the ability to create new guidance. Mr. Hare noted his understanding that DSU could make upwards of $40,000 per race for parking cars and campers and this money goes into their scholarship fund. Mayor Christiansen asked whether it would be smart for Council to have tax exempt entities that use their properties during certain periods of time be required to have a specific license for that type of operation. He suggested that a one-time use permit could be applied that would be substantial enough to generate some revenue for the City. In response, Mrs. Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, stated that staff could review the licensing. She explained, for instance, that dormitories get a lodging permit and staff has never looked at having to license them separately; however, she thought that something could be developed for special events that are not education-related. Mayor Christiansen noted that, for all intent and purposes, Wesley College and DSU would be in competition with hotels, motels and other parking facilities that are not tax exempt. He also suggested extending the license requirement to individuals parking 85 cars on a one (1) acre lot. In response to Mr. Hosfelt, Mrs. Townshend stated that the City did currently permit DSU to park cars in the area where they camp. She stated that DSU gets a camping permit which she believed cost $125 per event. Mr. Hare stated that $125 was a

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 19 maximum, noting that if an individual parks six (6) to 12 campers, it costs $25 which is not proportionately the same. Mayor Christiansen expressed his opinion that it was an issue of maintenance of standards, noting that if the other hotels and motels, including Dover Downs, have to pay licensing fees for lodging, so should anybody else that chooses to do the same, whether they are a profit or non-profit entity. Mr. Hare reiterated that City Solicitor Rodriguez should be consulted, noting that a tax exempt status was granted to these entities based on a specific use; however, the entities are now using their properties to generate income. Mr. Hosfelt noted that members were advised that DSU had previously discussed developing a strip mall on their property located next to the Delaware Agricultural Museum and the possibility of that property losing its tax exempt status. Referring to DSU’s proposal for a civic or convocation center which would generate a profit, Mr. Hosfelt expressed his opinion that, no matter what else may be worked out, it would be appropriate for the City to take measures to ensure that the property would be taxable. Proposed Amendment to Downtown Development District Boundary Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, reminded members that on January 11, 2015, Governor Jack Markell designated the City of Dover’s downtown as one (1) of three (3) Downtown Development Districts (DDD) in the State of Delaware. Since that time, the City has been actively promoting redevelopment of properties within the City’s DDD. The State’s DDD program allows for up to 225 acres to be included within the DDD boundary. Dover’s District is approximately 220 acres. In selecting the original DDD boundary, the City utilized public streets as boundaries to the extent possible. As the program has been implemented, staff has determined that some of the properties that front the streets utilized as boundaries are also in need of investment. Expanding the boundary as proposed would make the DDD 224.9 acres, fully utilizing the allowable area under the State’s program. Staff recommended the following changes to Dover’s DDD boundary, with the following justification for each area: 1. The area immediately east of South State Street between Loockerman Street and The Green is mostly privately owned. A number of property owners have inquired about incentives to renovate their historic properties. This modest expansion would make these renovations more feasible. 2. Similarly, the area south of Water Street between South State Street and South Governors Avenue includes properties in need of investment. State Street Commons has sat vacant since the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 20 completion of the building shell for many years. The addition of this small area on the south side of Water Street would allow for these improvements to qualify for the incentives and would also make improvements to other properties on this block more feasible. This request for expansion was submitted to the Office of State Planning Coordination and reviewed by the Cabinet Committee on State Planning Issues on September 30, 2015. The Cabinet Committee on State Planning Issues approved the proposed expansion. Mr. Shevock noted that the 1.6 acres on State Street was part of the historic district and if the buildings are historic, the owners could apply for federal money to have them rehabilitated. Responding, Mrs. Townshend confirmed that these owners would be eligible for the State and Federal Historic Preservation Tax Credits, in addition to the DDD incentives. She stated that there would still be out-of-pocket costs but the tax credits and cash rebates would make it more feasible. Mayor Christiansen asked whether the housing authority has come down with the new regulations for residential properties starting at $15,000. In response, Mrs. Townshend stated that for the small projects, yes, so it would be commercial and residential, but if it is below $250,000 of capital costs, then the threshold is $15,000 now. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Mrs. Townshend stated that for the small projects, individuals can apply for a reservation at any time because there is not a deadline like there is for the larger projects. She explained that someone could apply for the state housing authority to reserve funds and from the time of their reservation they have six (6) months to complete the improvements and then 45 days after that to submit for reimbursements. Mayor Christiansen asked whether it stresses the fact that these projects should be in owner-occupied houses, noting that when he and the Governor discussed them lowering the project threshold for individuals, small commercial and small housing, he requested that they go with the owner-occupied or owner-occupied to be projects. In response, Mrs. Townshend stated that they did not include that. The Committee recommended approval of the expansion of the Downtown Development District Boundary, as recommended by staff. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Lewis and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. (The First Reading of the ordinance will take place during the latter part of the meeting).

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 21 Proposed Ordinance #2015-17 Amending Chapter 14 - Amusements and Entertainments; Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 18 - Recreational and Commercial Zone (RC); and Appendix F - Fees and Fines Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed proposed Ordinance #2015-17, explaining that it would remove Chapter 14 of the Dover Code - Amusements and Entertainment, which addresses Outdoor Music Festivals, amend the RC (Recreation and Commercial) Zone to allow temporary special events and temporary camping areas within the zone and set minimum requirements for these events and camping areas. Mrs. Townshend stated that the principle amendments would be to the zoning ordinance as it relates to the permitted uses in the recreational and commercial zones, and staff also included some necessary cleanup. She stated that this ordinance would move auto, horse, and motorcycle race tracks from the conditional use section to the permitted use section. It would also allow for temporary outdoor activities and temporary camping areas and create the permitting process and the standards for that. Mrs. Townshend explained that this ordinance would allow events such as Firefly, Big Barrel, and other large events planned to be held at the Woodlands area at Dover International Speedway. She noted that staff had been working on this ordinance for several months with Dover International Speedway. Referring to Line 99, Mrs. Townshend explained that this ordinance included specific noise hours, so that the use of loud speakers and other amplification systems outdoors would be prohibited after midnight on weeknights, and after 2:00 a.m. on weekends. Mrs. Townshend stated that the City’s zoning ordinance had previously been set up to deal with the issue of recreational vehicle (RV) camping, and the proposed ordinance includes similar language for tent camping. She explained that this specific ordinance only affects the RC zone, so some of the language, specifically regarding camping, would need to be added to other sections of the zoning ordinance as well. She stated that those changes could certainly follow but staff wanted to make sure that the Code was set up for the RC zone in order to begin working with the speedway on the process of annexing the land where the festivals are taking place, noting that the land was currently split between the City and Kent County. Mr. Sudler, referring to the noise restrictions, requested clarification regarding when the weekend hours would start and end. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated that the proposed ordinance was written so that the use of loud speakers and other amplification systems outdoors shall be prohibited between 12:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, and 2:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday. She explained that this would allow the use of loud speakers and other amplification systems outdoors on Friday and Saturday nights until 2:00 a.m., and no later than midnight Sunday through Thursday. Mrs. Townshend stated that staff thought it was important to make sure that there was a standard that could be articulated to the people running the events as well as the public, since there were some issues regarding noise during these large events in previous years.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 22 Mrs. Townshend noted that the proposed ordinance would go through the hearing process which would include public hearings held by the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Anderson asked if staff would be agreeable to changing the time to 12:05 a.m. in case there is a New Years’ Eve event. Responding, Mrs. Townshend explained that this ordinance only applied to the RC zone. In response to Mr. Hare, Mr. Jerry Dunning, Sr. Vice President and General Manager of Dover Motorsports, Inc., indicated that this ordinance would work for Dover International Speedway. The Committee recommended adoption of proposed ordinance #2015-17, as recommended by staff. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Lewis and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. (The First Reading of the ordinance will take place during the latter part of the meeting). By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for acceptance of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Lewis and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. QUARTERLY REVENUE REPORT Members were provided the Quarterly Revenue Report as of September 2015. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for acceptance of the Quarterly Revenue Report as of September 2015, seconded by Mr. Lewis and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. SEMI-ANNUAL INSPECTION BY CITY MANAGER - ROBBINS HOSE COMPANY In accordance with Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection, Article II - Fire Department, Division 1 - Generally, Section 46-43 - Semiannual Inspections, of the City Code, the City Manager, Mr. Scott Koenig, and the Assistant City Manager, Mr. Kirby, Hudson, met with the Fire Chief and the Fire Chief’s Assistant at Robbins Hose Station No. 2. Mr. Koenig submitted a memorandum outlining the items discussed and noting that the Robbins Hose Company continued to provide an outstanding level of service to the City of Dover and the unincorporated areas of the fire district. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for acceptance of the report of the Semi-Annual Robbins Hose Company Inspection, as submitted by the City Manager, seconded by Mr. Lewis and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES - ROBBINS HOSE COMPANY ELECTION - NOVEMBER 16, 2015 The Robbins Hose Company election is scheduled for November 16, 2015. The following persons have been recommended to serve as judges for the election: 1. James Hurley 2. William Hurley 3. Jack Mitchell (alternate)

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 23 By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the appointment of judges for the Robbins Hose Company election as recommended, seconded by Mr. Lewis and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. APPOINTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT SLAVIN - DOVER HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION - THREE (3) YEAR TERMS TO EXPIRE FEBRUARY 2017 Council President Slavin requested approval of the following appointments to the Dover Human Relations Commission for three (3) year terms to expire February 2017: Jackie Griffith - First District Representative (to fill the unexpired term of Cecil Wilson) Dianne P. Bogle - Second District Representative (to fill the unexpired term of Eugene B. Ruane) By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the appointments to the Dover Human Relations Commission, as recommended by Council President Slavin, seconded by Mr. Lewis and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. REVIEW OF CHAPTER 66 - MANUFACTURED HOMES AND TRAILERS AND R-8 (ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE) ZONING Mr. Nicholas Rodriguez, City Solicitor, advised members that this matter could entail potential litigation and requested that it be considered during an executive session, which would be an exception under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Mr. Sudler moved to defer this matter until the end of the meeting, seconded by Mr. Hosfelt and unanimously carried. FIRST READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2015-19 Council President Slavin reminded the public that copies of the proposed ordinances are available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or can be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office. Final action by Council on the proposed ordinance will take place during the Council Meeting of November 9, 2015. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, stated that the proposed ordinance was recommended for approval by the Legislative, Finance and Administration Committee. She explained that this ordinance would expand the boundary of the downtown development district in two areas: 1) it would add the area between Loockerman Street and the Green, just east of State Street; and 2) it would also add the area between Governor’s Avenue and State Street on the south side of Water Street. Mrs. Townshend stated that this amendment would bring the City’s downtown development district to the maximum allowable acreage of 225 acres. She explained that when the City initially drew the boundary, streets were used as the boundary lines, partially because it is an easier way to do it. She noted that the proposed amendment included many measurements since street boundary lines could not be used. Mrs. Townshend informed members that there was a desire for investment in these other two (2) areas, which would be a benefit to the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 24 district. She stated that the proposal had been reviewed by the cabinet committee on state planning issues and, if City Council agrees to expand the boundary, it was already approved by the state. In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of the Ordinance Amendment as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows: < PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2015-19 AMENDING APPENDIX C - DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT, ARTICLE II - DEFINITIONS, SECTION 4 - TARGET AREA FIRST READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2015-17 Council President Slavin reminded the public that copies of the proposed ordinances are available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or can be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office. Since the ordinance amends the Zoning Code, a public hearing is required. Staff recommended referral of the amendments to the Planning Commission on November 16, 2015 and that a public hearing take place during the Council Meeting of December 14, 2015, at 7:30 p.m., at which time, final action by Council will take place. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, stated that the proposed ordinance would eliminate Chapter 14 of the Dover Code - Amusements and Entertainment, which addresses Outdoor Music Festivals. It would also amend the RC (Recreation and Commercial) Zone to include some staff cleanup and allow temporary special events and temporary camping areas within the zone and set minimum requirements for these events and camping areas. Mrs. Townshend explained that the proposed ordinance would allow for the festivals that are happening at the Dover International Speedway woodlands area. She informed members that she had been working with the Speedway regarding annexation of the property and in developing the draft ordinance. Mrs. Townshend stated that these amendments would allow the property to be annexed into the City, zoned appropriately, and afford for those uses, as well as put some standards on how those uses would happen. She noted that the amendments address issues such as the prohibition of amplification systems outdoors past certain hours, and includes standards for the camping areas as well as proposed fees for the temporary activity permit and for the temporary camping permit. Mrs. Townshend stated that with the adoption of the proposed ordinance, the Speedway would be able to annex the remainder of the property and put the entire festival under one (1) jurisdiction rather than being split between the City and Kent County. Mr. Hosfelt stated that he appreciated all the work that Mrs. Townshend had done. He advised members that he was a current employee of Dover International Speedway and expressed concern regarding the permitting fee, noting that Dover International Speedway is one (1) of the highest taxpayers in the City and is in the business of putting on NASCAR races and music festivals, which is why the Speedway pays those taxes. Mr. Hosfelt stated that he did not see the sense in having the fee and that it seemed like double jeopardy. He noted that everybody else in the City, or most of the places that surround the Dover International Speedway property, make money on the events that they host. Mr. Hosfelt reiterated that this is Dover International Speedway’s profession and they do it very well. He stated that they work with local law enforcement and EMS, the Delaware Department

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 25 of Transportation (DelDOT), etc., submit site plans, and comply with all the prerequisites of the proposed ordinance. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mrs. Townshend explained that the racetrack would not be subject to a special permit because that is the principle use of that property. She stated that there are currently fees for the camping permit in another section of the zoning ordinance and the proposed ordinance would eventually supersede that section. It was her belief that the current maximum fee was $125 and the proposed amount would be more. Mrs. Townshend explained that there is a lot of staff time on the City’s part to help support these events and ensure they are done safely, and the fee is to help capture some of that cost. In response to Mr. Sudler, Mrs. Townshend stated that, under the current ordinance, Dover International Speedway’s usage and business permit does cover the campground aspect and the proposed ordinance would update it. Mr. Sudler stated that he could understand Councilman Hosfelt’s concern. Mr. Cole stated that, in looking at Dover Downs from the state and local levels, $500 seems like a small amount compared to what they already pay in taxes. Mr. Neil stated that there were two (2) issues. He explained that the larger issue is that the City has to maintain Dover Downs as an entity. Mr. Neil noted that Dover Downs shows a profit but the profit is being taken away by the State. He stated that he was very concerned and very protective of making sure that Dover Downs stays in business. Mr. Neil stated that the second issue deals with the amusement aspect that affects the community as a whole, noting that there are concerns about music that impact the neighbors in the Third Council District. He explained that he does not want to lose the Firefly or Big Barrel festivals or see Dover Motor Sports or the woodlands affected. Mr. Neil informed members that the City was working with Dover Motor Sports on dealing with music, which goes late at night; however, there were other entities that are not connected with Dover Motor Sports that are causing some problems with the music after hours. He stated that although the problems are in Kent County, it has become a City issue because people in the City are affected. Mr. Hare asked if he, as a City of Dover property owner who pays taxes, could park 1,500 campers or hold an event on his property without a permit. In response, Mrs. Townshend stated that this ordinance was not proposing that. Mr. Sudler asked if members could consider omitting the permit part of the noise ordinance component of staff’s recommendation. Responding, Mr. Slavin reminded members that staff’s recommendation was for referral of the amendments to the Planning Commission on November 16, 2015 and that a public hearing take place during the Council Meeting of December 14, 2015, at 7:30 p.m., at which time final action by Council will take place. He stated that, at this time, it might be appropriate for staff to gather Council’s concerns for the Planning Commission. Mr. Slavin stated that if amendments need to take place, they can take place at the Planning Commission meeting and/or the Council Meeting of December 14, 2015. Mrs. Townshend requested clarification as to whether Mr. Sudler was concerned with the fee or the permit, noting that the permit gives the City some control over the activity to make sure that it

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 26 complies with the Code. Responding, Mr. Sudler indicated that he was more concerned with the fee than the permit. Mrs. Townshend stated that the fee could be revisited during the proposed ordinance process. Mr. Sudler requested that staff discuss this matter with representatives of Dover International Speedway. In response, Mrs. Townshend stated that staff had been working with representatives from Dover International Speedway and would continue to work with them as the proposed ordinance moves through the process. Mr. Hutchison expressed his support of the comments made by Mr. Hosfelt. Mr. Hutchison indicated that Dover Downs does a lot for the community and gives to the less fortunate throughout the year. He suggested that any attempts to enhance or create new fees be carefully reviewed by members. Mr. Hutchison stated that he favored fairness and wanted to make sure that the City does everything in the best interest of, not only Dover Downs, but the City, Kent County, and the State of Delaware. Mr. Neil informed members that residents in the area of the woodlands rent out their property for parking and camping and have after-hours parties. He stated that this issue causes pedestrians to walk through the streets and block fire and emergency vehicles along Persimmon Park Lane. Mr. Neil stated his belief that these concerns would be addressed by the proposed ordinance without negatively impacting the woodlands. Mr. Anderson noted that there were two (2) separate issues, the temporary activity fee which he had some concerns about, and the temporary camping permit fee. He asked if these fees only apply in the RC zone. Responding, Mrs. Townshend explained that the way the proposed ordinance was written, the fees would apply in the RC zone. She stated that there was a companion piece that would need to be added to Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance that was not ready to bring forward yet. Mrs. Townshend noted that staff wanted to move forward with the proposed ordinance because the amendments to the RC Zone would be necessary for the Speedway to annex the woodlands area. Mrs. Townshend informed members that there was already a camping permit fee which was charged for each event that involves camping. She stated that the proposed ordinance included a once per year fee; therefore, the camping permit fee would probably decrease. Mrs. Townshend reiterated that staff would continue to work with Dover International Speedway and stated that the fees could be changed, noting that the fees were less important than the entirety of the proposed ordinance. In response to Mr. Hosfelt, Mrs. Townshend stated that, with the annexation, she believed that the property taxes for Dover International Speedway would increase by approximately $30,000 per year. Mr. Sudler moved to refer the amendments and set a public hearing before City Council for December 14, 2015 at 7:30 p.m. as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of the Zoning Ordinance Amendments as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows:

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 27 < PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2015-17 AMENDING CHAPTER 14 - AMUSEMENTS AND ENTERTAINMENTS; APPENDIX B - ZONING, ARTICLE 3 - DISTRICT REGULATIONS, SECTION 18 - RECREATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL ZONE (RC); AND APPENDIX F - FEES AND FINES FINAL READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCES The First Reading of the following proposed ordinances was accomplished during the Council Meeting of October 12, 2015. Mr. Hare moved that the Final Reading of the proposed ordinances be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Proposed Ordinance #2015-15 Amending Chapter 70 - Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions, Section 70-2 - Weapons Generally and Appendix F - Fees and Fines The proposed amendment harmonizes the Dover Code with the provisions of Article I, Section 20 of the Delaware Constitution. Mr. Hosfelt stated that, during the Council Meeting of October 12, 2015, there were some concerns regarding the definition of a stimulant. Mr. Hosfelt moved to amend Line 37 by inserting the word “illegal” before the word “narcotic”. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Mr. Anderson stated that Paragraph (g) - No repeal of existing firearms related ordinances, Lines 86- 91indicate that although the City is adopting a new ordinance, the old ordinance is not repealed, both must be reviewed and the more stringent of the two (2) shall govern. He noted that this was a very unusual provision and expressed his opinion that the most recently adopted rules should govern. Mr. Anderson moved to strike Paragraph (g) - No repeal of existing firearms related ordinances, Lines 86-91, seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. Mr. Anderson stated that, with the amendments that have been made, some very serious concerns that he had were addressed; however, he was still concerned about the forfeiture position in the current law. It was his belief that the proposed ordinance, as amended, substantially improved the state of the law; therefore, he stated that he would vote in favor of it, not as an end but as a means to an end. By motion of Mr. Hosfelt, seconded by Mr. Hare, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote, Ordinance #2015-15, as amended, was adopted, as follows: BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: That Chapter 70 - Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions, Section 70-2 - Weapons Generally, be amended by deleting it in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 28 Sec. 70-2. - Weapons generally. (a) Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Municipal Building shall mean any building where the city meets in its official capacity, including non-city owned or leased buildings during the time in which the city is meeting in or occupying the building, or any building containing the offices of city elected officials and of city employees actively engaged in performing governmental business. Parking facilities are excluded. Weapon shall mean any firearm from which a shot, projectile or other object may be discharged, or any air gun, BB gun, or any instrument, toy or weapon commonly known as a "peashooter," "slingshot" or "beany," or any bow made for the purpose of throwing or projecting missiles of any kind, or any knife, brass or metal knuckles, or any club loaded with lead or other weight, or any blackjack or billyclub. (b) Unlawful discharge. It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge any firearm within the city, except lawfully in self-defense, in defense of property, in defense of others or as permitted in paragraph (c). (c) Lawful discharge. (1) Law enforcement officers. The discharge of weapons by any law enforcement officer while on duty, or as necessary in the lawful discharge of his or her duties, is permitted. (2) Galleries and ranges. The discharge of weapons at licensed shooting galleries or ranges when the instrument can be fired, discharged or operated in a manner that shall not endanger persons or property, and also in a manner that shall prevent the projectile from traversing any grounds or space outside the limits of the gallery or range is permitted. (d) Prohibited. (1) Business display. It shall be unlawful for any pawnbroker, secondhand dealer or other person who engages in business in the city to display, or to place on exhibition in any show window or other window facing upon any street, any pistol, revolver or other firearm with a barrel of less than 12 inches in length, or any switchblade knife, or any brass or metal knuckles, or any club loaded with lead or other weight, or any blackjack or billyclub. (2) Furnishing to certain persons. It shall be unlawful for any person to purchase from, or sell, loan or furnish any weapon to any person under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or any illegal narcotic drug, stimulant or depressant, any person in a condition of agitation and excitability or a minor under the age of 18 years.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 29 (3) Possession of firearms, ammunition, components of firearms, or explosives in municipal buildings. Except as set forth in section (c) below, possession of firearms, ammunition, components of firearms, or explosives is prohibited in all municipal buildings. a. Required Signs. In all municipal buildings, a conspicuous sign shall be posted at each entrance stating that the possession of firearms, ammunition, components of firearms, or explosives are prohibited. Such sign may also state that persons in violation may be denied entrance to the building or be ordered to leave the building. b. Immediate Departure. Any person who immediately foregoes entry or immediately exits any municipal building or police station due to the possession of a firearm, ammunition, components of firearms, or explosives shall not be guilty of violating this section. c. Exceptions. The following shall constitute valid exceptions to this section: 1. Possession of firearms, components of firearms, and ammunition or explosives by law enforcement officers; 2. Law enforcement agencies receiving shipments or delivery of firearms, components of firearms, ammunition, or explosives; 3. Law enforcement agencies conducting firearm or ammunition safety and training programs, donation, amnesty, or any other similar programs in police stations or municipal buildings; 4. Compliance by persons subject to protection from abuse court orders; 5. Carrying firearms and ammunition by persons who hold a valid license pursuant to either §1441 or §1441A of Title 11 of the Delaware Code so long as the firearm remains concealed except for inadvertent display or for self defense or defense of others; 6. Carrying firearms and ammunition by officers or employees of the United States duly authorized to carry a concealed firearm; or 7. Carrying firearms and ammunition by agents, messengers and other employees of common carriers, banks, or business firms, whose duties require them to protect moneys, valuables and other property and are engaged in the lawful execution of such duties.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 30 (e) Penalties. (1) Fines. Except as otherwise provided, any violation of this section shall be subject to a fine as provided for in Appendix F - Fees and Fines. (2) Forfeiture. Every person convicted of a violation of this section, section 70-3, or any state law relating to weapons shall forfeit the weapon to the city. Upon a finding of guilt, it shall then be the duty of the court, after the expiration of a reasonable time, to declare by written order that the chief of police shall either dispose of the weapon or retain the weapon for official police department use. (f) Severability. The provisions of this ordinance shall be severable. If any provisions of this ordinance are found by any court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or void, the remaining provisions of this ordinance shall remain valid, unless the court finds that the valid provisions of this ordinance are so essentially and inseparably connected with, and so dependent upon, the unconstitutional or void provision that it cannot be presumed that City Council would have enacted the remaining valid provisions without the unconstitutional or void provision; or unless the court finds that the remaining valid provisions, standing alone, are incomplete and incapable of being executed in accordance with City Council's intent. (Code 1968, §§ 20-29, 20-33—20-36; Code 1981, § 14-5) BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix F, Fees and Fines, (Chapter 70 - Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions) be amended to read as follows: Chapter 70—Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions Sec. 70-1 Combative fighting Not to exceed $1,000.00. Separate fines may be issued to the promoter of such an Violations; penalties, Subsec. (d)(1) event, participants in such an event, and Fines ..... the owner of the premises of such an event Sec. 70-2 Weapons generally Subsec. (e)(1) Penalties; Fines Not less than $500, nor more than $1,000 Sec. 70-7 Registered Sexual Offenders $500.00 for any offense; each day shall Subsec. (f) Penalties ..... constitute a separate offense ADOPTED: OCTOBER 26, 2015

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 31 Proposed Ordinance #2015-16 Amending Chapter 106 - Traffic and Vehicles, Article III - Stopping, Standing and Parking, Division 2 - Metered Parking, Section 106-164 - Violations; Penalties The proposed amendment reduces the time from immobilization to towing and impounding of vehicles from 120 hours to 24 hours. Mr. Anderson stated his opposition of the proposed ordinance due to his concern that the number of tickets is not distinguished and a handicap parking ticket, which is a $100 fine, could fall under this provision. By motion of Mr. Hosfelt, seconded by Mr. Neil, and carried by a roll call vote of six (6) yes (Neil, Cole, Hosfelt, Hare, Hutchison, and Slavin) and three (3) no (Anderson, Sudler, and Lewis), Ordinance #2015-16 was adopted, as follows: BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: That Chapter 106 - Traffic and Vehicles, Article III - Stopping, Standing, and Parking, Division 2 - Metered Parking, Section 106-164 - Violations; Penalties of the Dover Code be amended to read as follows: Sec. 106-164. - Violations; penalties. (a) Generally. Any person convicted of violating the provisions of this article or of aiding, abetting or assisting in the violation of said provisions shall be sentenced to pay a fine as provided for in Appendix F-Fees and Fines. (b) Enhanced civil enforcement authority. If five or more violations of this article have been issued to a vehicle and those violations are more than 30 days past due, or if accumulated unpaid violations of this article exceed more than $100.00, the vehicle shall be subject to enhanced civil enforcement, as follows: (1) Such vehicle found parked on any street in the city shall be immobilized by any police officer or parking enforcement employee of this city in such manner as to prevent its operation. Any vehicle so immobilized or impounded shall not be released to its lawful owner until all unpaid violations and applicable administrative fees issued to such owner have been discharged by payment in full, together with payment for the costs of immobilizing, releasing, and storing such vehicle. The owner shall sign a receipt for such vehicle. Payment for any such towing shall be in accordance with the towing costs outlined in the current agreement between the police department and the towing operator. If the vehicle is a tractor-trailer combination, the trailer may be released to an authorized agent if the tractor-trailer is immobilized pursuant to this section. (2) In any case involving immobilization of a vehicle pursuant to this section, the police officer or parking enforcement employee shall place on such vehicle, in a conspicuous manner, notice sufficient to warn any individual that such vehicle has been

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 32 immobilized and that any attempt to move such vehicle might result in damage to such vehicle. (3) Any vehicle remaining immobilized and not released for 24 hours may be towed and impounded at the direction of a police officer or parking enforcement employee. (4) Any person who unlawfully removes a device for immobilization of a vehicle shall be fined as provided for in Appendix F-Fees and Fines. (5) Any person who tows or otherwise moves an immobilized vehicle without authorization by the chief of police or his designee shall be fined as provided for in Appendix F-Fees and Fines. (c) Cost. No cost will be assessed if payment of the penalty as hereinbefore imposed is voluntarily paid without the necessity of a hearing before the proper official. ADOPTED: OCTOBER 26, 2015 Proposed Ordinance #2015-18 - First Budget Amendment for Fiscal Year 2015/16 - Project Carry-Forward Budget Balances Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, informed members that the proposed budget amendments were for the projects that were still ongoing as of the end of last fiscal year. She stated that the budget balances were being brought forward to enable staff to continue to complete those projects, as well as the carry-forward balances for those individual funds. Mr. Anderson moved for adoption of Ordinance #2015-18, as presented, (Exhibit #2). The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. COUNCIL MEMBERS’ ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Sudler provided members with a flyer (Exhibit #3) announcing that the Fourth District Councilmen would be calling for the vote on the future of the Elks Lodge in the Kirkwood community. He stated that the purpose is to empower the residents of the Kirkwood community with a voters voice that will not only help navigate or eradicate the activity in their community, but encourage them to be comfortable with the voting process for future elections. Eligible voters must show ID and the streets that will be eligible to vote will consist of: Kirkwood Street, Cecil Street, West Street, Fulton Street and Queen Street. The voting will be held at the Solid Rock Baptist Church Community Center located at 109 North West Street, Dover, Delaware, (302) 736-1763, from 6:30 - 8:00 p.m. Mr. Sudler stated that they would have Delaware voter registration available, as well as booths from the Delaware Board of Elections. He stated that the ballot would allow individuals to vote “yes”, meaning they want the Elks Lodge to remain in the community, or “no”, meaning they want the Elks Lodge to relocate. Enough talk, time for action! Mr. Hosfelt congratulated Captain Dave Spicer for becoming the newest captain with the City of Dover Police Department and the Department’s most recent graduate of the prestigious Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) National Academy.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 33 Mr. Anderson thanked the veterans’ organizations across the state for recognizing those who served in the Middle East conflicts on November 7, 2015. He stated that it is very important that the community does not forget the contributions made and why we were there. Mr. Anderson encouraged the community to show support, noting that these efforts are not over and people are still serving. It was his hope that everyone remembers those who have served, are preparing to go over, preparing to serve, and those who are still losing their lives. Mr. Anderson stated that the Delaware Veterans Parade would begin at 10:00 a.m. on Saturday, November 7, 2015 at The Duncan Center. He encouraged those who have served and are wishing to participate in the parade to email him at councilmananderson@live.com. REVIEW OF CHAPTER 66 - MANUFACTURED HOMES AND TRAILERS AND R-8 (ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE) ZONING Mr. Hare moved to adjourn into executive session, seconded by Mr. Hutchison and unanimously carried. Meeting Adjourned at 8:19 p.m. TRACI A. McDOWELL CITY CLERK All ordinances, resolutions, motions, and orders adopted by City Council during their Regular Meeting of October 26, 2015, are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /TM S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Council-Minutes\2015\10-26-2015.wpd Exhibits Exhibit #1 - Letter from Jason Osika, DOE President Exhibit #2 - Ordinance #2015-18 - First Budget Amendment for Fiscal Year 2015/16 - Project Carry-Forward Budget Balances Exhibit #3 - Flyer Entitled “Enough Talk, Time for Action!”, distributed by Mr. Sudler

EXHIBIT #1 Regular Council Meeting of 10/26/2015 Dover Organization of Employees D.O.E. P.O. Box 1011 Dover DE, 19903 October 26, 2015 To: Mayor and City Council From: Jason Osika, Dover Organization of Employees President Reference: October 12, 2015 City Council Meeting At the October 12, 2015 City Council Meeting, Councilman Hosfelt noted information in the City Managers mon thly report, which generated a discussion in reference to th e filling of vacant employment positions. Most, if not all of the employment positions discussed were positions covered by the Dover Organization of Employees Union. I believe that City Council only heard th e City Managers view of the issue. I am here tonight to express the Union's view. The DOE feels that the City's employment recruitment and retention are affected by low employee job satisfaction and morale, which began approximately 3 years ago. We believe the main reason for t his is the cost sharing of health insurance. The secondary reason for this is the starting hourly rate. Starting rates for DOE positions have not changed for at least 14 years that I know of. I disagree with t he idea that younger candidates for hire only look at the hourly rate and not the benefit package. I believe can didates look at the total compensat ion package. Th e current package lowers th e compensation rate once the cost sharing is factored in, which we believe is causing a problem. A t hird issue t hat wi ll come to light as employees seek to ret ire is the deferred pension. The large amount of vacant positions cau ses increased job duties and changes of schedules. These issues have created the worst morale problem I've seen si nce I've been a City of Dover employee. Grievances and arbitration cases are at an all-time high because employees are unhappy and feel mistreated. We have discussed this at length wit h the City and I am wi lling to discuss t he same with any/a ll of you so you receive all of th e available information on th ese issues; however, I cannot go into detail on the starting wage issue at this tim e because con tract negotiations are sti ll t aking place and our ground rules do not permit me to discuss this further. The bottom line i~ we want a fa ir process for employee selection, in initial hire,_job assignment and advancem.ent. I hope this information helps you understand our position on some of th e issues we currently have withi n the City of Dover. I want to thank you for.the opportunity to speak tonight and I am available at just about any 1 time fo r any questions or concerns.' Th ank yo u. ' \0\ Jason Osika CC: City Manager Assistant City Manager Human Resource Director City Clerk

EXHIBIT #2 Regular Council Meeting of 10/26/2015 CITY OF DOVER ORDINANCE # 2015-18 2015-2016 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 2 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Five Million Three Hundred Eighty Three Thousand dollars 3 ($5,383,000) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues and other 4 funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2015 5 and ending June 30, 2016: 6 GOVERNMENTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 7 REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2015-2016 8 REVENUES 9 2015/16 2015/16 10 BUDGET REVISED 11 BEGINNING BALANCE - PROJECTS $ 154,800 $ 2,732,300 12 REVENUES 13 INCOME FROM SALE OF ASSETS 20,300 20,300 14 INTEREST EARNINGS 5,000 5,000 15 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND 2,625,400 2,625,400 16 SUBTOTAL PROJECT RECEIPTS 2,650,700 2,650,700 17 TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES 2,650,700 2,650,700 18 TOTAL BEGINNING BALANCE AND REVENUES $ 2,805,500 $ 5,383,000 19 EXPENSE SUMMARY 20 2015/16 2015/16 21 EXPENDITURES BUDGET REVISED 22 FIRE $ 145,600 $ 445,800 23 GROUNDS MAINTENANCE 201,100 201,100 24 LIBRARY - - 25 LIFE SAFETY 55,700 55,700 26 CODE ENFORCEMENT - - 27 POLICE 262,100 284,100 28 RECREATION - 66,000 29 STREETS 1,428,500 3,617,800 30 SANITATION 449,000 449,000 31 CITY MANAGER 24,700 24,700 32 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT - - 33 FLEET MAINTENANCE 84,000 84,000 34 DEPARTMENT SUBTOTAL 2,650,700 5,228,200 35 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2,650,700 5,228,200 36 BUDGET BALANCE 154,800 154,800 37 TOTAL BUDGET BALANCE & EXPENDITURES $ 2,805,500 $ 5,383,000 38 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 39 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 40 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 41 ADOPTED: October 26, 2015 1

42 2015-2016 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT (CONTINUED) 43 WATER/WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENT & EXTENSION FUND 44 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2015-2016 45 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 46 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Twelve Million Seven Hundred Sixty Two Thousand Three Hundred 47 dollars ($12,762,300) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues 48 and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year beginning 49 July 1, 2015 and ending June 30, 2016: 50 CASH RECEIPTS 51 2015/16 2015/16 52 BUDGET REVISED 53 BEGINNING BALANCE - WATER $ 833,500 $ 4,747,500 54 BEGINNING BALANCE - WASTEWATER 1,027,600 4,504,600 55 TOTAL BEGINNING BALANCES 1,861,100 9,252,100 56 REVENUES 57 BOND PROCEEDS - WATER - - 58 BOND PROCEEDS - WASTEWATER - - 59 STATE LOAN FUND - WATER - - 60 TRANS FR OPERATING FUND - WATER 1,800,000 1,800,000 61 TRANS FR OPERATING FUND - WASTEWATER 1,500,000 1,500,000 62 TRANSFER FR WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE 165,000 165,000 63 PROCEEDS FROM SALE OF ASSETS - - 64 INTEREST INCOME 25,000 25,000 65 MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS - 20,200 66 TOTAL REVENUES 3,490,000 3,510,200 67 TOTAL BEGINNING BALANCES & REVENUES $ 5,351,100 $ 12,762,300 68 EXPENSE SUMMARY 69 2015/16 2015/16 70 EXPENSES BUDGET REVISED 71 WATER $ 2,028,600 $ 5,442,600 72 WASTEWATER 1,822,100 5,299,100 73 WATER TREATMENT PLANT - 284,400 74 TOTAL EXPENSES 3,850,700 11,026,100 75 BUDGET BALANCE - WATER 617,400 773,400 76 BUDGET BALANCE - WASTEWATER 883,000 962,800 77 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE SUBTOTALS 1,500,400 1,736,200 78 TOTAL BUDGET BALANCES & EXPENSES $ 5,351,100 $ 12,762,300 79 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 80 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 81 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 82 ADOPTED: October 26, 2015 2

83 2015-2016 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT (CONTINUED) 84 ELECTRIC UTILITY IMPROVEMENT AND EXTENSION FUND 85 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2015-2016 86 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 87 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Twelve Million One Hundred Ten Thousand Eight Hundred 88 dollars ($12,110,800) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current 89 revenues and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the 90 fiscal year beginning July 1, 2015 and ending June 30, 2016: 91 REVENUES 92 2015/16 2015/16 93 BUDGET REVISED 94 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 3,623,600 $ 6,684,100 95 REVENUES 96 TRANSFER FROM ELECTRIC 3,500,000 3,500,000 97 GENERAL SERVICE BILLING 1,900,000 1,900,000 98 INTEREST EARNINGS 26,700 26,700 99 TOTAL REVENUES 5,426,700 5,426,700 100 TOTALS $ 9,050,300 $ 12,110,800 101 EXPENSE SUMMARY 102 2015/16 2015/16 103 EXPENSES BUDGET REVISED 104 ELECTRIC GENERATION $ 1,655,000 $ 2,299,800 105 TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION 2,887,600 3,625,900 106 ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING 1,724,300 3,401,700 107 TOTAL EXPENSES 6,266,900 9,327,400 108 BUDGET BALANCE 2,783,400 2,783,400 109 TOTAL BUDGET BALANCE & EXPENSES $ 9,050,300 $ 12,110,800 110 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 111 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 112 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 113 ADOPTED: October 26, 2015 3

114 2015-2016 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT (CONTINUED) 115 COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT FUND 116 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2015-2016 117 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 118 The amount hereinafter named aggregating One Million Thirteen Thousand Four Hundred 119 dollars ($1,013,400) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues 120 and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year 121 beginning July 1, 2015 and ending June 30, 2016: 122 OPERATING REVENUES 123 2015/16 2015/16 124 BUDGET REVISED 125 PRIOR YEAR BALANCE $ 144,000 $ 512,900 126 GRANTS REVENUE 500,000 500,000 127 INTEREST INCOME 500 500 128 TOTALS $ 644,500 $ 1,013,400 129 OPERATING EXPENSES 130 2015/16 2015/16 131 BUDGET REVISED 132 PROGRAM EXP. GRANT RELATED $ 644,000 $ 1,012,900 133 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE 500 500 134 TOTALS $ 644,500 $ 1,013,400 135 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 136 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 137 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 138 ADOPTED: October 26, 2015 4

Exhibit A City of Dover Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Budget First Amendment Capital Investment Plan Amendments Fiscal Year 2015 Original Revised Prior Carry FY 2016 Revised CIP CIP Fiscal Year(s) Forward Year FY 16 CIP Project # Title Budget Budget Expenses Balance Budget Budget FR1501 Fire - SCBA Equipment $ 300,200 $ 300,200 $ - $ 300,200 $ - $ 300,200 PR1501 Park & Playground Improvement Equipment $ 66,000 $ 66,000 $ - $ 66,000 $ - $ 66,000 N/A Police Department Vehicle $ 169,600 $ 171,100 $ 148,978 $ 22,000 $ 242,200 $ 264,200 ST1304 Garrison Farm Streets & Stormwater $ 2,600,000 $ 4,226,700 $ 2,480,657 $ 1,496,500 $ - $ 1,496,500 ST1501 Salt Storage Barn 50,000 75,000 - 75,000 - 75,000 ST1502 Streets, Alleys & Concrete Program 900,000 624,400 182,988 441,500 1,000,000 1,441,500 ST1503 Misc Emerg. Street/Storm Repairs 75,000 75,000 40,090 35,000 - 35,000 ST1504 Old PW2 Site Improvements 150,000 150,000 106,195 43,900 385,000 428,900 ST1506 Stormwater Ditch Maintenance 15,000 15,000 - 15,000 - 15,000 ST1508 Stormwater Utility Planning 90,000 90,000 7,650 82,400 - 82,400 Street Division $ 3,880,000 $ 5,256,100 $ 2,817,580 $ 2,189,300 $ 1,385,000 $ 3,574,300 Total General Capital Project Fund $ 4,415,800 $ 5,793,400 $ 2,966,558 $ 2,577,500 $ 1,627,200 $ 4,204,700 Total Increase in General Cap Proj Fund $ 2,577,500 CT1405 Lakeview Drainage Study $ - $ 24,400 $ 18,187 $ 6,300 $ - $ 6,300 CT1562 Village of Cannon Mill Repavement 315,000 386,900 25,997 361,000 - 361,000 CT1599 Signage for the Hamlet & Bicentennial Village 2,700 2,700 1,170 1,600 - 1,600 Total Community Transportation Fund $ 317,700 $ 414,000 $ 45,354 $ 368,900 $ - $ 368,900 Total Increase in Comm Transportation Fund $ 368,900 N/A Sterling Dump Truck $ 66,900 $ 66,900 $ - $ 59,900 $ - $ 59,900 WD0804 1.0 MG Storage Tank - Denney's Road - 2,470,700 2,500 2,468,200 - 2,468,200 WD1302 Garrison Farm Storage Tank 400,000 4,221,600 2,100,291 1,297,300 - 1,297,300 WD1506 Shallow Well #7 Abandonment 15,000 15,000 - 15,000 - 15,000 WQ1503 West Dover Connector Project - 336,000 184,561 73,600 - 73,600 Water Division $ 481,900 $ 7,110,200 $ 2,287,352 $ 3,914,000 $ - $ 3,914,000 Total Increase in Water Division $ 3,914,000 N/A Sterling Dump Truck $ 66,900 $ 66,900 $ - $ 59,900 $ - $ 59,900 N/A Sterling Jet Truck 210,400 173,900 - 186,000 - 186,000 WW1206 Brandywine Pump Station Replcmnt - 339,100 237,906 101,200 - 101,200 WW1303 Westover Pump Station 718,000 1,299,600 7,254 1,292,400 - 1,292,400 WW1304 Garrison Farm Wastewater Projects - 3,199,700 2,571,260 628,500 - 628,500 WW1503 Hazzlettville Rd Interceptor 755,000 201,700 - 462,100 - 462,100 WW1504 Lakeview Drive Pump Station Replacement 450,000 408,400 48,817 359,600 - 359,600 WW1509 West Dover Connector Road Utility Relocation - 922,300 10,859 387,300 - 387,300 Wastewater Division $ 2,200,300 $ 6,611,600 $ 2,876,096 $ 3,477,000 $ - $ 3,477,000 Total Increase in Wastewater Division $ 3,477,000 Total Water/Wastewater I & E Fund $ 2,682,200 $ 13,721,800 $ 5,163,448 $ 7,391,000 $ - $ 7,391,000 Total Increase in Water/Wastewater I & E Fund $ 7,391,000 5 OF 2

Exhibit A City of Dover Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Budget First Amendment Capital Investment Plan Amendments Fiscal Year 2015 Original Revised Prior Carry FY 2016 Revised CIP CIP Fiscal Year(s) Forward Year FY 16 CIP Project # Title Budget Budget Expenses Balance Budget Budget EG1212 MR Unit 3 Turbine Inspection $ - $ 151,800 $ 98,392 $ 53,500 $ - $ 53,500 EG1416 VanSant Capacity Increase 750,000 901,900 409,784 492,200 - 492,200 EG1504 McKee Unit 3 Boiler System 295,000 138,000 57,287 80,800 42,000 122,800 EG1506 McKee & VanSant Safety Improvement 52,000 52,000 33,776 18,300 - 18,300 Electric Generation $ 1,097,000 $ 1,243,700 $ 599,239 $ 644,800 $ 42,000 $ 686,800 Total Increase in Electric Generation $ 644,800 N/A Metering Infrastructure $ - $ 150,000 $ - $ 150,000 $ - $ 150,000 N/A Vehicle/Truck - 33,000 - 33,000 387,600 420,600 EE1509 West Dover Connector 250,000 250,000 94,209 155,800 - 155,800 EE1516 Chestnut Grove (new developments) 299,000 255,000 118,999 136,000 - 136,000 EE1522 Garrison Oak Park (new developments) 184,000 184,000 166,523 17,500 - 17,500 EE1525 Leander Lakes Apt Phase I (new developments) 73,000 73,000 3,608 69,400 - 69,400 EE1526 Playtex Addition (new developments) 200,000 354,100 204,136 150,000 - 150,000 EE1544 Nottingham Meadows (new developments) 28,600 28,600 2,011 26,600 - 26,600 Transmission & Distribution $ 1,034,600 $ 1,327,700 $ 589,486 $ 738,300 $ 387,600 $ 1,125,900 Total Increase in Transmission & Distribution $ 738,300 N/A Battery Bank Replacement $ 24,500 $ 24,500 $ 10,875 $ 13,700 $ - $ 13,700 EE1312 General Scott Switchgear 1,100,000 1,137,600 30,421 1,107,200 - 1,107,200 EE1443 GOTP Transmission Line Relocation - 550,000 141,526 408,500 - 408,500 EE1500 69 KV Rebuild 75,000 75,000 12,029 63,000 - 63,000 EE1520 69 kV Cable Replacement North Street 85,000 85,000 - 85,000 50,000 135,000 Engineering Division $ 1,284,500 $ 1,872,100 $ 194,851 $ 1,677,400 $ 50,000 $ 1,727,400 Total Increase in Engineering $ 1,677,400 Total Electric I & E Fund $ 3,416,100 $ 4,443,500 $ 1,383,576 $ 3,060,500 $ 479,600 $ 3,540,100 Total Increase in Electric I & E Fund $ 3,060,500 Total Carryforward balances from FY 2015 $ 13,397,900 6 OF 2

EXHIBIT #3 Regular Council Meeting of 10/26/2015 ENOUGH TALK, TIME FOR ACTION! COUNCILMAN SUDLER OF THE 4TH DISTRICT ~ CALLS FOR THE VOTE ON THE FUTURE OF THE E LKS LODGE IN THE KIRKWOOD COMMUNITY YES - I want them to rem ain in our community NO - I want them to relocate NOVEMBE R 3, 2015 Time: 6:30 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Purpose: To Empower the Residents of the Kirkwood Community with a Voters Voice that will not only help navigate or eradicate the activity in their community, but encourage them to be comfortable with the voting process for future elections. Eligible Voters: l.D. -Kirkwood St., Cecil St., West St., Fulton St. and Queen St. Location: Solid Rock Baptist Church [Community Center] 109 North West St. Dover, DE 19904 [302) 736.1763

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: City Council DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Planning & Inspections DATE SUBMITTED: 10-29-2015 PREPARED BY: Ann Marie Townshend, AICP, Director of Planning and Community Development SUBJECT: 1032-1058 S Dupont Hwy, Dover, Delaware – Violation of Dangerous Building Ordinance REFERENCE: Chapter 22, Article XI – Dangerous Buildings, Sec. 22-385 - Hearing before Council and Chapter 22, Article XI - Dangerous Buildings Case # 14-670, 14-3385 & 15-804 RELATED PROJECT: N/A APPROVALS: N/A EXHIBITS: PowerPoint Presentation and File Photos to be presented at the Council meeting. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Preliminary estimate is $60,000 AMOUNT BUDGETED: $150.000.00 Budgeted for all demolitions Citywide in the FY-2015 Budget; As of October 29, 2015, there is $68,379.89 remaining in the line item. FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): 110-1600-534-30-33. TIMETABLE: As soon as possible. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Declare this building on this property dangerous. 2. Order the property demolished by December 9, 2015 by the owner or equity owner at their own risk. 3. Order the Building Inspector to cause the demolition of the structure if not completed by the owner within 10 days of the date established by City Council. 4. Order the City Manager with the assistance of the City Solicitor to cause the cost of 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. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The property is owned by BMDR LLC. The property is a two-story wood-framed/blocked commercial building. The structure was condemned by City Staff on September 3, 2014, due to possible asbestos contamination with businesses located on the first floor of the structure. Renovations and asbestos abatement had begun on the second floor without any permits. The abatement area was not properly contained, causing asbestos fibers to enter the business tenant spaces on the first floor. Walls were removed without approved building plans or a building permit. Ultimately, the asbestos abatement was completed in accordance with DNREC requirements. Due to the removal of walls on the second floor, the City required a structural engineering report prior to allowing the building to be occupied. Building plans prepared by a licensed architect are required in order for the City to issue a building permit for renovations. To date, building plans and a permit application have not been submitted. The electric & water services were terminated on March 12, 2015. Currently the structure is registered as a vacant building, with no utilities, and numerous outstanding code violations.

SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Meeting was held on October 26, 2015, at 4:00 p.m. with Chairman Hosfelt presiding. Members present were Mr. Hutchison, Mr. Sudler (arrived at 4:12 p.m.), Mr. Keller, and Mr. Shelton. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson (arrived at 4:27 p.m.) and Mr. Cole. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Hutchison moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Keller and unanimously carried. Discussion - Prohibited Speed Reduction Devices Chairman Hosfelt explained that this item was the result of a discussion that took place at a neighborhood meeting at the Greentree Shopping Center involving the owner of the property as well as business owners. Crime issues and speed reduction devices were discussed. Mr. Hosfelt indicated the desire to hear from the public regarding the problems that they were incurring. Mr. John Anstine, JBA Properties, 1460 Russell Road, Paoli, Pennsylvania, advised members that JBA is the property manager for the Greentree Shopping Center. He indicated that there is a service road in back of the shopping center that extends from Redner’s Warehouse Markets to PNC bank between Independence Boulevard and Kenton Road that has become a major cut-through road. Mr. Anstine explained that the space is very tight in that area and tenants must cross over the road to access their dumpsters. He noted that there is a lot of traffic on the road and people drive very quickly. Mr. Anstine expressed his opinion that speed bumps would help to slow people down or deter them from going through there in the first place. Responding to Mr. Hosfelt, Mr. Anstine stated that, as property manager, he favored speed bumps and noted that although traffic is supposed to be one-way traffic heading west from Independence Boulevard, people disregard the “Do Not Enter” sign and travel in both directions. Mr. Hutchison stated that there had been previous discussion about changing the dumpsters around to reduce drivers’ ability to get through the service road easily and questioned if that had been done. Responding, Mr. Anstine stated the need for 18-wheeled trucks to get through since trucks back in to the loading dock at Redner’s and then head out to the west. He noted that some trucks do an illegal U-turn and then go back out. In response to Mr. Hutchison regarding which businesses have large tractor trailers coming in, Mr. Anstine indicated that Giacomo’s Pizza Delight and the UPS store receive deliveries from these large vehicles. Mr. Hutchison stated that speed bumps had been discussed for many years; however, they do not work well with fire and paramedic apparatuses. He indicated that he very strongly supported measures other than speed bumps. Mr. Anstine stated that his township in Pennsylvania uses speed bumps on municipal roads, noting that they do slow the traffic in neighborhoods. He indicated that they were open to other ideas to slow people down as well.

SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 2 Mr. Keller stated that his only objection was that emergency vehicles would run into a problem. He questioned how visible the one-way sign was and whether enforcing it or putting another sign up would help. Responding, Mr. Anstine stated that there was only one (1) sign, and it was clearly visible and met specifications, estimating that it was approximately 18 inches wide by two (2) feet tall. He noted that the ground is also stenciled; however, he expressed his opinion that people do what they want to do. Mr. Anstine explained that the service road previously allowed two-way traffic until Redner’s opened and he felt that people have this ingrained in their minds. Responding to Mr. Keller regarding the traffic in front of the stores, Mr. Anstine stated that pedestrian crossing signs were put out, which helped; however, sometimes people speed through and there is only so much that can be done. He noted that people sometimes run over these signs and do not even know that they have done so. Mr. Shelton stated that he goes by the area all the time; however, he had not seen the signs. He asked if there was a sign that says “For Deliveries Only.” Responding, Mr. Anstine stated that they used to have a “Do Not Enter, Authorized Vehicles Only” sign that was up for years. A truck ran over it and he had it removed and it was never replaced. Mr. Ed Trumble, Owner, Integrity.PC.Computers, 59 Greentree Shopping Center, advised members that he had concerns not only with the back of the store but also the front. He indicated that he is usually there six (6) or seven (7) days per week, over 12 hours per day, and had been at that location for over one (1) year. He expressed his opinion that it is very dangerous to park in the front lot or to try to cross in the back to take trash out. Mr. Trumble stated that there are three (3) or four (4) one-way arrows and a “Do Not Enter” sign. There is no speed limit sign out back, but he questioned if this would matter since it is private property and the police would not issue a ticket anyway. Mr. Trumble stated that there is a 15-mph speed limit sign in front of his store; however, he indicated that speeders are not ticketed. Mr. Trumble advised members that there were speed bumps in Rodney Village, less than five (5) miles away, and in Milford and Christiana and that these speed bumps work. He noted that the police, fire services, and paramedics can function in those municipalities and questioned why they could not do so in Dover. He felt that an ounce of prevention was worth a pound of cure and questioned what would be done when someone gets hurt. Mr. Trumble indicated that he has senior citizen customers that come from as far at Milford to use his services, and he sometimes has to help them carry their equipment in and out and the drivers don’t seem to care. He stated that there had been several instances of crime in the shopping center lately and felt that speed bumps would make it less easy for those involved to get in and out, noting that they might not even come if there are speed bumps. Mr. Trumble felt that this was something that needed to be looked at and addressed since the problem was getting worse. In response to Mr. Hosfelt, Mr. Trumble stated that the problem increases in the fall when football teams practice on a nearby field, although more football participants had been parking on the main road rather than in the back lately. He suggested that more yellow striping, like that around fire hydrants, could be added so that motorists do not park so close to the drive. Mr. Trumble noted that

SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 3 he currently has to go beyond the parked vehicles to look left and right to see what is coming before he can cross to dump his trash. He advised members that people are using the service road as a thoroughfare to go from one (1) road to the next, noting that he had observed three (3) or four (4) cars in a 10 to 15 minute period passing through to avoid an intersection or going through the front of the shopping center. Ms. Susan Whitney, Something Unique, 61 Greentree Drive, stated that customers come from as far as Salisbury, Maryland, and Wilmington to her establishment and have problems crossing the street without somebody hitting them. The stylists who work there also complain about almost being hit by cars. Ms. Whitney felt that this was definitely a problem that was getting worse. In addition, she stated that she recently saw a man beating a woman in front of the store and had to call the police. Responding to Mr. Hosfelt as to whether her problems were only related to traffic in the front of her store, Ms. Whitney stated that when big tractor trailers come to the back area, she cannot get into her parking space. When backing out to leave, she notices that the football families sometimes leave a lot of trash and park in such a way that it is hard for her to back out. Ms. Whitney confirmed that the service road is used as a thoroughfare to go from one (1) side to the other by those who do not work or live there. She noted that people come and dump their trash in the store’s trash cans as well. Responding to Mr. Keller regarding whether the nature of the problem in the front was disregard for the people crossing or speed, Ms. Whitney stated that it was a combination. She noted that one (1) lady hollered out, “I don’t stop for pedestrians.” Ms. Whitney indicated that there were elderly clients, 80 or 90 years old, that try to cross. She stated that kids also ride their skateboards and bikes on the sidewalks, which could become an issue if an elderly client is hit. Referring to the photo of a device that was similar in nature to a portable speed bump, Mr. Hosfelt advised members that this type of speed bump would allow heavy apparatus to cross. He stated that this example was provided by Council President Slavin and forwarded to the City of Dover Police Chief and Fire Chief. Responding to Mr. Hutchison as to whether these devices were being used in Delaware, Mr. Hosfelt stated that he was unsure and that this would be a better question for Councilman Slavin. Mr. Hutchison stated that he liked the idea. In response to Mr. Keller, Mr. Hosfelt indicated that he was unsure about the installation of these bumps or if they were just laid down. Mr. Cole advised members that these devices had been looked at with respect to State Street and the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) had indicated that these types of devices were being used in upstate Delaware. Fire Chief Mark Hall expressed his belief that South Governors Avenue had these speed cushions and indicated that the Fire Department was not, at this time, opposed to them. He stated that speed bumps are permanent and that national response time is reduced seven (7) to 11 minutes with the

SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 4 installation of speed bumps, and noted that two (2) firefighters in Dover had been injured by them. Chief Hall indicated that they liked the idea of speed cushions since the wheel base of an apparatus can get through. He stated that he had done some research and it looked like the cushions are bolted to the ground with an eyebolt and, although he was not completely sure, he felt that the City would be able to remove them for snow removal. Chief Hall noted that different types of devices are offered by different companies, stating that the cushions are a speed calming device, whereas a speed bump is more of a speed reduction device. He reiterated that Capitol Park on South Governors Boulevard had them and advised members that the Fire Department had been there for fires in the past and had one (1) issue involving a loose eyebolt that got caught in the wheel well and ended up in someone’s yard. In response to Mr. Hosfelt regarding the devices on South Governors Boulevard, Chief Hall stated that they were similar to those pictured but smaller and for use in developments. He was unsure if they were yellow striped, but indicated that they are accessible to the fire apparatus and wheels can be put between them when traveling through them. Chief Hall indicated that the firefighters’ injuries referenced previously were both leg injuries but was unsure of the location of the speed bumps involved. He stated that Kentwood Mobile Home Park has permanent speed bumps and there is a great reduction in the Fire Department’s rate of response once they enter that development. The fire apparatus must come almost to a full stop, and it takes some time to get it back up to speed. Chief Hall stated his belief that the national average response time mentioned previously was based on speed bumps on more open, residential streets as opposed to developments, noting that the current discussion was about private property. He reiterated that he did not have an issue with speed calming devices. In response to Mr. Hosfelt, Chief Hall clarified that the areas he had mentioned were outside the City of Dover limits and its police jurisdiction, but within the Dover Fire Department’s jurisdiction. Captain David Spicer, Dover Police Department, stated that he had spoken to Police Chief Paul Bernat, who indicated that he was against speed bumps and speed cushions. Captain Spicer stated that they would reduce response time, maybe by seconds, which in their line of work could mean the difference between life and death. He indicated that Chief Bernat had mentioned to him that the City of Harrington was using similar devices and it was his belief that they had worked there; however, it was his understanding that a snow plow had damaged one (1). Captain Spicer noted that if they are fastened to the ground with eyebolts that work their way loose, there could be potential injuries to pedestrians, motorists, and vehicles. Captain Spicer stated that, at this time, they were against this approach. Responding to Mr. Hosfelt, Captain Spicer confirmed that the Police Department was against these devices on both private property and public roadways. Mr. Sudler inquired if there were any other mechanisms that residents may be able to utilize to decrease the speeds that the Police Department would favor. Responding, Captain Spicer stated that approximately one (1) month ago, he attended a meeting where different ideas were discussed for Independence Boulevard, Bicentennial Village, and North State Street. The pros and cons of speed

SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 5 cushions, traffic redesign to divert traffic around objects or slow it down, and traffic islands were discussed. Captain Spicer felt that Chief Bernat would be in favor of a traffic circle similar to that on Mifflin Road, which seemed to slow a lot of traffic in that area. Captain Spicer noted, in regard to signage at the Greentree Shopping Center, that the Police Department is limited in the number of traffic laws that they can enforce on private property, and that inattentive driving, driving under the influence (DUI), and reckless driving on private property could be enforced. Mr. Hosfelt stated that he would like the Committee to continue this discussion after a couple of months, which would allow him time to do further research, especially in regard to speed cushions. He stated that this subject would not be put aside and was worth investigation. He expressed his thanks to Captain Spicer, Chief Hall, the business owners who participated, and the property manager from Greentree Shopping Center. Although the discussion had concentrated on speed bumps, Mr. Hosfelt expressed his understanding that some who were present had other concerns regarding crime and stated that he was sure Captain Spicer would make himself available to them regarding any concerns. Request for Waiver - Appendix B - Zoning, Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Section 17 - Emergency Access Requirements - Waiver of Emergency Rear Access Requirement for Blue Hen Apartments Phase 2 (Application S-15-12) Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner, reviewed a request from Blue Hen Apartments, LLC, located behind the Blue Hen Corporate Center, for a waiver of the requirement for a 16-foot alley or a 18-foot secondary fire lane and a 18-foot subgrade emergency access lane as emergency access to the rear building areas for two (2) and three (3) story apartment buildings. Mrs. Melson-Williams explained that a site plan had been filed to expand this community of apartment complexes to include 12 additional apartment buildings, two (2) at the intersection of Blue Hen Boulevard and Haslet Street and the remaining buildings in a straight line, running parallel to the Blue Hen Corporate Center building. Mrs. Melson-Williams reviewed a site plan depicting the proposed layout, noting that all of the buildings had a 24-foot fire lane crossing in front of the main entrances to the buildings. In some cases, given the position of the building, the building would either back up to another street or there would be a secondary driveway in close proximity. Mrs. Melson-Williams advised members that the Planning Commission, in reviewing the application, looked at the overall layout as well as the comments provided by the City Fire Marshal’s Office. She noted that, due to their size, the buildings were required to be sprinklered. Mrs. Melson-Williams noted that there is a fire lane coverage percentage requirement for the front of the building. Fire lanes must be marked on the ground surface, and the buildings are required to have a fire alarm system and a Knox box safe; therefore, they have a high level of fire protection required by other regulations beyond the requirements of the zoning ordinance. She reiterated that the applicant was seeking relief from the secondary rear fire access requirement for either an alley or another fire lane and advised members that the waiver request had been presented to the Planning Commission and members recommended approval.

SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 6 Responding to Mr. Hutchison, Mrs. Melson-Williams confirmed that the waiver was supported by the Fire Marshal’s Office, noting that they were fairly comfortable that the other fire prevention regulations specific to the building construction, including a sprinkler and fire alarm as well as the primary fire lane across the front, would be adequate for response to that type of building. In response to Mr. Hutchison as to whether a legal opinion had been obtained from the City Solicitor’s Office approving the waiver and in regard to any liabilities, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the zoning ordinance established that this was a waiver that could be asked for. She explained that the review process is that the Planning Commission makes a determination which goes through the Committee, with final action by City Council. Mrs. Melson-Williams indicated that she was unsure if the liability question had ever been posed in this regard. Noting that waivers had been granted previously, Councilman Anderson questioned what the history had been and if there had been any problems. Responding, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she was not aware of any problems. She stated that the most recent waiver approved was probably in the Leander Lakes apartment complex, which was now under construction on the west side of Dover High Drive. Mrs. Melson-Williams indicated that the Leander Lakes building project was very similar, sought the same waiver, and was successful. The Leander Lakes project was a three (3) story apartment building with a sprinkler, fire alarm and a front primary fire lane but no ability to provide the rear access via an alley or secondary fire lane due to the layout of the complex. She stated her belief that the existing Blue Hen Apartments project, which was a little older in its construction, also received this waiver previously. Mr. Anderson inquired if this regulation was outdated due to the current technology in designs, or if this was a unique situation. Responding, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that staff had come across this situation in multiple instances and had seen a lot of requests for waivers of the rear emergency access provision for apartments, which also applied to townhouse developments. Staff had identified this as one (1) of the sections of the zoning ordinance that needed review. Mrs. Melson-Williams indicated that technology had improved and there were other fire protection requirements and regulations that would greatly supersede and probably be more beneficial than additional pavement to the rear of these units. Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, expressed her hope that the safety of the public is looked at when approving these waivers, noting that the requirements were included in the code for public safety. She stated that she was speaking as a member of the public and that this was not a professional comment. Responding to Mr. Sudler’s request for elaboration on her comment, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the purpose of the requirement was for safety equipment to get in and out, rather than public access and egress, or to allow two (2) entrances or exits in case there was something that caused an unsafe environment. She also expressed concern that if some of the streets were narrowed, fire apparatus could not get around and maneuver as well, and this was why she felt the provisions were in place.

SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 7 In response to Mr. Sudler as to whether Mrs. Mitchell was saying that if the waiver were granted some apparatus would not be able to have access, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she was not sure but, as a citizen, she felt that there was a need to make sure that these issues could be handled when making these decisions. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, stated that the waiver ability is in the zoning ordinance, so that if it is determined it would not compromise public safety to waive the alley requirement, members had the ability to do this. In addition, she noted that the section of the zoning ordinance that requires rear access behind apartments predates a lot of the current fire protection regulations and was much more relevant at a time when buildings were not required to be sprinklered. Mrs. Townshend stated that there were a number of cases where waivers had been granted, including townhouse developments such as Senator’s Lake, off Silver Lake Boulevard, which subsequently sprinklered the townhouses voluntarily. She indicated that this was not an uncommon waiver. Fire Chief Mark Hall stated that he had discussed this with the Fire Marshal, and he advised members that without a rear access, the Fire Department could not access the rear of the building, unless they physically walk a 24-foot or 35-foot ground ladder to that side of the building. With respect to the 16-foot to 18-foot alley, Chief Hall stated that it takes anywhere from 20 to 24 feet to set up a ladder truck. In his opinion, eliminating the rear access would be a life safety issue, noting that if someone’s apartment was on fire and they were on their balcony or hanging out their window, this would thwart the Department’s response to them. Chief Hall indicated that, although the Fire Department would get to them as fast as they could on foot, it would be a lot better with a ladder truck, especially when someone is panicking. In regard to sprinklers for fire protection, he noted that recently there was a fire at Luther Towers and another at Legislative Hall where sprinklers did not activate. He indicated that the sprinklers in place do not always work and he asked members to take that into consideration. In response to Mr. Sudler regarding how far it would be necessary to walk and carry a ladder to the rear area, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that new fire prevention regulations require that plans provide perimeter access around the buildings. She estimated that, in most cases, 40 to 50 feet would get firefighters around the short end of the building to the rear. Mrs. Melson-Williams explained that in some situations, there is either another street or another circulation path that covers another side of the building or the rear of the building, depending on the specific building. In response to Mr. Hutchison regarding the cost of an emergency rear access, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she was unsure of the cost. She stated that, in the case of this project, it would be a paved, hard surface and she was unsure that there was space to physically construct it, which would mean a total redesign of the project, depending on which building was being looked at. Mrs. Melson-Williams reiterated that some of the buildings had two (2) means of coverage, including a 24-foot fire lane across the front of all of the buildings, which is the main entry into these buildings and where the Fire Department connection is located.

SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 8 Mr. Anderson questioned how far the front of one (1) building is to the rear of another and if there was complementary access. Responding, Mrs. Melson-Williams advised members that there were two (2) different situations in this apartment complex. She stated that in one (1) area, the buildings are in a line, the spacing distance between individual buildings was specified in the code, and a second roadway goes between two (2) of the buildings. In the other area of the apartment development, the two (2) proposed buildings were flanked in the rear by either a street or another existing drive aisle. Mrs. Melson-Williams indicated that there would be some measure to get to the full back and full front of the building. There was capability to get to the full front on the long strip of buildings, but there would not necessarily be access to the rear on the main line of apartment buildings as proposed. In response to Mr. Hosfelt as to what is at the rear of the development, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there is a green, open space area at this location and a pedestrian path a little further away. She expressed her belief that there was a graded swale between the path and the building within that 40-foot area. Responding to Mr. Hosfelt, Chief Hall stated that access was not something that the brush truck could handle but, if needed, the Fire Department could get the ladder truck behind the area. He noted that the ladder truck would jump the curb and tear up some of the property, but they would do this in order to get to someone needing assistance. Responding to Mr. Sudler regarding what kind of damage this would do to the apparatus, Chief Hall estimated possible damage from $10,000 to $50,000. In response to Mr. Sudler regarding the width of the roads in the plans, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the drive aisle in the upper left corner, where parking is located in front of the buildings, was a 24-foot-wide, two-way path of travel. These would be the primary fire lanes, which were required to be 24 feet, and there were additional paved areas with parking spaces which could be utilized if there were no cars parked there. She noted that one (1) of the buildings backed up to Blue Hen Boulevard, which was a public street and closer to 30 feet in width. Fire Chief Hall stated that the diagram appeared very similar to Bay Tree Apartments, where the front apartment building did not have front access and the rear apartment building did not have rear access. He indicated that the Fire Department would have to take pre-planning measures and would figure it out. He noted that the Fire Marshal had provided him information regarding a turn-around at this location, which was a big help. Responding to Mr. Hutchison as to whether there were after-hours staff or security people at the location, Mrs. Melson-Williams indicated that the Blue Hen Apartment complex had on-site property management, but she was unsure of their work hours or overnight staffing. She indicated that an on-site property office and leasing facility currently manages Phase 1 and would also manage Phase 2.

SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 9 Mr. Hutchison stated, for the record, that he had the opportunity to personally go out and look at the Blue Hen Apartments, both at day and night, and felt that the operation was very impressive and absolutely first class. Based upon what he had seen personally, he stated that he supported the request. Mr. Hutchison moved to recommend approval of the request for a waiver of the emergency rear access requirement for Blue Hen Apartments Phase 2, seconded by Mr. Keller. Mr. Keller indicated that his seconding of the motion was based on Mr. Hutchison’s statement. The motion to recommend approval of the request for a waiver of the emergency rear access requirement for Blue Hen Apartments Phase 2 was carried by a vote of three (3) yes (Mr. Hosfelt, Mr. Hutchison, and Mr. Keller) and two (2) no (Mr. Shelton and Mr. Sudler). Briefing on Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Projects - Capital Gateway Study Presentation (Rich Vetter) Mr. Rich Vetter, Executive Director, Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) reviewed a presentation, entitled “Capital Gateway Study.” He advised members that the MPO had been involved in a planning study, along with the City’s Planning Department, for the past month with regard to the area including Division Street from Salisbury Road to State Street and Forest Street from its split from Division Street down to the Duncan Center. The purpose of the study was to develop a land use and transportation master plan for this area. Mr. Vetter explained that the most important part of the study would be to provide a gateway to downtown from the west, which was lacking. He indicated that there was currently no identity or theme in terms of land use and transportation for this area and the goal was beautification, enhancements in streetscapes, and a land use vision. Mr. Vetter explained that the existing land use in this area was mixed and included vacant parcels and areas that were not aesthetically pleasing, and it was desired to develop the gateway theme to present to future developers and property owners in the area. He indicated that landscaping and beautification could be considered, potentially extending what currently exists on Loockerman Street westward. Mr. Vetter stated that community input was being sought, noting that so far, based on local information, they had heard that bicyclists and pedestrians were an important aspect of the plan, and there could be maintenance and parking improvements as well. He informed members that a charrette process would be used to solicit community involvement, explaining that a charrette is a condensed, hands-on, multi-day planning process which is something of a magic marker session for the community. In a three (3) or four (4) day period, the goal would be to progress from a blank piece of paper to something that could be presented as a community vision. Mr. Vetter stated that public participation was planned for Monday, November 16th; Tuesday, November 17th; and Thursday, November 19th, probably from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m., at the Inner City Cultural League at 54 South Kirkwood Street. He informed members that, during the past couple of weeks, there had been meetings with stakeholders such as Councilman Anderson, the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT), the Delaware Transit Corporation, the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP), residents, and business owners to get input in preparation for the charrette.

SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 10 Mr. Vetter indicated that flyers would also be going out in the next couple of weeks and it was hoped that there would be a lot of media coverage. Mr. Anderson encouraged members to provide input, noting that the questions asked would be valuable and the opportunity to provide constituent input was important. In response to Mr. Hosfelt, Mr. Vetter stated that business owners and residents in the area would be notified. He stated his belief that Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, would direct mail to every business and property owner. Briefing on Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) Projects Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, stated that she had received an update on transportation projects from the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) and there was not much to report since the previous update provided during the Committee’s meeting of July 27, 2015. She stated that it was a pleasant surprise that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Program at DelDOT was getting some unexpected funding, which would help with some of the projects on the City’s priority list, including planning for the Senator Bikeway, which would help with the construction of sidewalks within the walk zone of the new Dover High School. Mrs. Townshend noted that U.S. 13 sidewalk construction would also be addressed through this funding. In regard to matters for future discussion, Mr. Anderson advised members that concerns were heard at a recent neighborhood watch meeting about shots being fired and confusion about how to identify where they are coming from. He stated his understanding that there was a State program called Shotspotter that involved grants and wondered if it had any use or viability. Mr. Anderson stated that the program seemed to have pluses and minuses to it. Mr. Hosfelt stated his belief that the City of Wilmington had looked into the Shotspotter program at one point. Mr. Hutchison moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Keller and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 4:58 p.m. James E. Hosfelt, Jr. Chairman JEH/TM/js/dd S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Committee-Minutes\2015\10-26-2015 SA&T.wpd

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting was held on October 26, 2015, at 6:00 p.m. with Chairman Hare presiding. Members present were Mr. Cole, Mr. Sudler, Mr. Shevock, and Ms. Maucher. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson (arrived at 6:04 p.m.), Mr. Hosfelt, Mr. Hutchison, and Mr. Slavin (departed at 6:40 p.m.). Mayor Christiansen was also present (departed at 6:40 p.m. and returned at 6:50 p.m.). AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Cole and unanimously carried. Benchmarks Established for the Economic Development Office Mr. Bill Neaton, Economic Development Manager, advised members that the Economic Development Office provides a semi-annual review of the benchmarks established for the Economic Development Office. With respect to the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP), Mr. Neaton indicated that the History, Heritage and Hops event, which was held in conjunction with the Dover Days Festival, and the Merchants Committee’s recent OktDoverfest brought thousands of people to the downtown area. He noted a survey of downtown merchants was finished earlier in the day and results would be reported at the next meeting. With respect to downtown Dover business growth, Mr. Neaton stated that there were currently two (2) new large Downtown Dover Development District (DDD) projects. He explained that a health care provider would become a tenant of the second floor of the Priscilla Building at 152 South State Street in late November and there was a potential tenant for a portion of the downstairs area of this building that was formerly occupied by a restaurant. Another large project was the Grey Fox Grille and Public House. He stated that a number of DDD initiatives had helped the downtown area and several businesses were utilizing them. In reference to City-wide economic development, Mr. Neaton stated that four (4) out-of-town businesses were considering moving to Dover, including a boiler-making company and several developers out of New York City. In regard to strategic objectives for Fiscal Year 2015- 2016, Mr. Neaton stated that he had met with Mr. Brian DiSabatino, President and Chief Executive Officer of EDiS Company, regarding assistance with marketing the Garrison Oak Technology Park (GOTP) and was also scheduled to take a trip there with Ms. Bernice Whaley, Director, Delaware Economic Development Office (DEDO), to determine how the GOTP could best be marketed. Mr. Neaton indicated that the GOTP would be featured on DEDO’s website as the primary location for business growth in Delaware. Mr. Neaton stated that Calpine had been in commercial operation since the first part of June at the GOTP and was in the PJM grid for a 500 MW plant, noting that a second plant could be built on a 37-acre parcel of land at the location. He noted that a ribbon cutting was held for the Uzin Utz facility in early October and they had been so successful that they were getting ready to add a second shift of workers. Mr. Neaton stated that Advantech, Inc. hoped to move forward with building construction at the GOTP after the first of the year.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 2 Status of Discussion Items Proposed During the FY 2015/16 Budget Review Proposed New Revenue Sources Members were advised that during the FY-2016 budget hearings City Council directed staff to review various City operations and submit requests for potential revenue sources. Staff requested suggestions internally regarding revenue sources and/or cost recovery sources. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, informed members that Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, was unable to be present and that she and Mr. Kirby Hudson, Assistant City Manager, would be reviewing the proposed suggestions. Mrs. Townshend stated that four (4) fees were being proposed as new revenue sources, three (3) from the Planning and Inspections Department and one (1) from the Customer Services Department. She advised members that two (2) of the Planning Department fees were for Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO), noting that the current fee for a residential TCO was $40 dollars. Mrs. Townshend explained that a TCO creates a lot more work for City staff in terms of tracking, noting that there can be loose ends when projects sit on a TCO for much longer than they should. She advised members that other jurisdictions charge more for a TCO and limit the amount of time that it can be applied, which discourages people from keeping projects on a TCO indefinitely. Staff recommended a $75 fee for a residential TCO and a $100 fee for a non-residential TCO. Under this proposal, a TCO would be valid for a maximum of 45 days and the fee would be paid for each renewal. The Planning and Inspections Department also suggested that the City implement a fee for Zoning Verification/Administration Interpretations. Mrs. Townshend advised members that zoning verification letters are often requested by property owners who need an entrance permit from the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT), and these letters may also be needed for settlement or refinancing of property. She stated that the letters take a lot of staff time and there is currently no charge for this service; however, nearly all other jurisdictions charge a fee. As an example, Mrs. Townshend explained that she recently completed a request that involved doing research on 15 properties and preparing 15 letters, and this service was performed at no charge. Staff recommended implementing a $50 fee to capture the cost of the service. In regard to the Customer Services Department, Mrs. Townshend informed members that staff suggested that the City implement a $1.00 charge for a copy of a utility bill. She indicated that customers often come to Customer Services to pay a bill and request a copy of the bill to take to the cashier to pay. Mrs. Townshend stated that private utilities charge for this and suggested that implementing a charge may reduce the workload because customers may not continue to request copies. This charge would at least allow for the City to recover the cost when this service is provided. Mrs. Townshend explained that Mr. Koenig’s conservative revenue estimate for the utility bill copies was $10,000 dollars, since approximately 118 extra utility bills are printed each day, which would annualize to $26,000 dollars. Since it was believed that fewer people would request copies if the fee were implemented, this number was projected to decrease.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 3 Staff recommended adoption of the referenced fees, to be implemented on January 1, 2016. Responding to Mr. Sudler regarding the proposed fee for zoning verification letters, Mrs. Townshend stated that there was currently no charge for this service and a $50 fee was recommended. Mr. Anderson expressed his opinion that the proposed adjustments were reasonable and a good balance, noting his desire for there not to be too big of a jump or burden on individuals and businesses in these times, and indicated that he liked the proposal. Mr. Hudson advised members that Customer Services would be looking at other fees to bring forward to the Committee at a later date. He noted that in many instances staff has to run credit reports, and this need is often attributed to those who habitually pay late or have been cut off. Credit reports may also be used to determine the reliability of new customers. Mr. Hudson stated that those costs were currently being borne by the City. He also indicated that late fees were a little low and that municipalities smaller than Dover were charging a lot more for late fees, noting that the desire was not to make income but to cover costs. In response to Mr. Cole regarding the number of credit reports done per year or month, Mr. Hudson stated that he did not have this information but offered to provide it the next time this was considered. He indicated that the last figure he saw was in the thousands. Mayor Christiansen asked why the two (2) fees that Mr. Hudson mentioned were not being considered at this time, noting that they reflected the cost of doing business. Responding, Mr. Hudson stated that he was recently assigned oversight of the Customer Services Department and was shocked to find that these things were not being done. Noting that the City was losing revenue, Mayor Christiansen asked why these additional fees were not included for consideration. He expressed his opinion that the City should not take half steps but should either be a business that serves the community or not charge anything, and Mr. Hudson agreed. Responding to Mayor Christiansen regarding the percentage of customers that would be adversely affected by the suggested fees, Mr. Hudson stated that all customers would be affected and estimated that 25% or 30% were “frequent flyers.” In response to Mayor Christiansen as to whether this was due to inability to pay or because these individuals do not accept adult responsibility, Mr. Hudson stated his opinion that the City had been very lenient. Mrs. Townshend stated her belief that most of the issues currently being discussed were related to item #2B - Review and Maintenance of Fees - Planning and Customer Services Departments, which was the next item on the agenda, and the current item under discussion was the $1.00 charge for a copy of a utility bill. She stated that the effect on a typical customer would be that they would be charged $1.00 if they do not have their bill.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 4 In response to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Hudson confirmed that credit checks were performed to determine whether a deposit is required. He explained that there are certain parameters and a certain scale, and if a score comes in very low because the customer habitually does not pay their bills, then their deposit will be higher than someone with stellar credit. Ms. Maucher stated that there was an obligation to serve, so regulated utilities generally look at the customer’s payment history. If they have been late, the deposit is the equivalent of two (2) months of their annual usage. If there is no history, they can charge their deposits. She thought it was curious that the City found it necessary to run credit checks. Mrs. Townshend advised members that Customer Services requires a standard deposit; however, the amount of that deposit may be reduced for a customer who has not had an account with the City and has good credit. If the customer has a poor payment history with the City, running the credit report will not help. Mrs. Townshend stated that the customer benefits from the City running the credit report, and the idea was that this cost should be borne by the customer. In response to Mayor Christiansen, Mrs. Townshend confirmed that running the credit report would be a new source of revenue and Mayor Christiansen expressed his opinion that it could, therefore, be discussed under item #2A - Proposed New Sources of Revenue and Mr. Hudson’s recommendation should be considered. Mr. Sudler noted, in regard to deposits, that in the past if a previous occupant had a bill of $300 or $400, the deposit for the next occupant was almost doubled or tripled. Responding, Mrs. Townshend advised members that the deposit was based on the customer’s history, not the history of the customer’s unit. Mr. Sudler requested that staff double check this to make sure, noting that he is a landlord and had heard within the last two (2) to three (3) years that the previous occupant’s history had been considered, which he felt was unfair. Mr. Hudson explained that a large deposit is required for those with poor credit to carry the cost and provide something to fall back on if the customer decides to leave without paying. Mr. Sudler asked what score would determine whether someone has good or bad credit. He expressed his opinion that most people do not have good credit for different reasons, noting the many recent foreclosures. Mr. Sudler stated his desire to make sure that the City is fair and, at the same time, that costs are covered. He thought that a reasonable credit score of at least a C rating should be required, but not an A1. Mr. Hudson stated that the scores used by the City are within the same limits and to the regular standards that the banks or others would use. The idea was to be fair and follow the same policies that other lending institutions might use but to cover costs. Mr. Hudson stated that the amounts outstanding for people who had skipped out were in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend adoption of the referenced fees, to be implemented on January 1, 2016, as recommended by staff.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 5 In response to Mr. Cole, Mr. Sudler confirmed that the recommendation included the fees for credit checks and the additional items discussed. Mr. Anderson asked if there was an amount for the credit check fee. Mrs. Townshend recommended, since Mr. Koenig had done the research on this and was not present, that this item be removed from the November 9, 2015 City Council Consent Agenda so that the fee could be included and this item could get the proper airing at the Council meeting. Mr. Anderson stated that the concept of a credit check fee was good but that the amount would matter. Mr. Sudler withdrew his motion to recommend adoption of the referenced fees, to be implemented on January 1, 2016, as recommended by staff, and including the fees for credit checks and the additional items discussed. Mr. Hudson stated his belief that the cost for a credit check was $10. Mr. Anderson felt that $10 or $15 was not an unreasonable fee. Mr. Hare asked if the hundreds of thousands of dollars that were owed by customers had been given over to a collection agency. Mr. Hudson confirmed that this had been done and that he and Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, may be looking for a new collection agency, preferably one (1) that might be able to go outside the boundaries of the State to pursue those who might have fled to other places. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend adoption of the referenced fees, to be implemented on January 1, 2016, as recommended by staff, and to add a credit check fee of $20, seconded by Mr. Cole. Mr. Slavin encouraged incorporating built-in escalators to the fee increases so that it would not be necessary to come back and make amendments as the costs driving the fees increase. For instance, rather than putting a specific amount on the credit check fee, he suggested passing the cost of the credit report along to the customer, so that as the cost goes up, the customer’s fee would increase. In response to Mr. Slavin, Mr. Sudler stated that the motion was only proposing to pass through the amount the City is charged for a customer. Mr. Slavin suggested an amendment to the motion to say that the fee would be whatever the cost of the credit report would be. Mr. Sudler inquired if 60 days’ notice would be given to residents when these changes are made. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated that the changes would require adoption of an ordinance that would have a first and second reading. The fees would become effective January 1, 2016, which would give staff an opportunity to communicate information about the fees and put notices up at Customer Services stating that copies of utility bills would cost $1.00.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 6 Responding to Mr. Hare as to whether Customer Services can provide an account balance without printing it, Mrs. Townshend explained that a Customer Services representative can do this; however, a printed copy of the bill must be presented to the cashier with payment. Mr. Hudson advised members that individuals can look up information for themselves at the kiosk at any time. Mrs. Townshend stated that customers can print their own bills from the City’s website as well. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mrs. Townshend stated that Customer Services representatives cannot take cash. Mr. Hudson encouraged members to go by and take a look at the Customer Services area, noting that new walls had been put in and the design was different. He indicated that security improvements were being made and Advantech, Inc. was currently putting in new security doors, etc. Mr. Hudson explained that only those who work with cash will have access to the back area where cash goes in and out. Mr. Cole stated that an amendment to the motion was needed for the credit check fee to read “will covers costs as is.” Mr. Hare indicated that staff time was involved in addition to the credit check cost, noting that $20 would include a little bit extra over a $10 or $15 credit check cost. Responding, Mr. Hudson stated that one of the supervisors advised him that once the credit report is in hand, it could typically take 15 to 20 minutes to process the customer. He believed that $20 would adequately cover not only time spent with that customer, but also the paper and other things that are associated. Mrs. Townshend suggested setting the fee at cost of service plus 10% or 15%. Mr. Hare suggested that the fee be set at the cost of service plus $10. Mr. Anderson felt that this fee was not unreasonable. Mr. Sudler moved to amend the motion to specify that the fee for credit checks be set at the cost of service plus $10, seconded by Mr. Cole and unanimously carried. The motion to recommend adoption of the referenced fees (Attachment #1), to be implemented on January 1, 2016, as recommended by staff, and to add a credit check fee at the cost of service plus $10 was unanimously carried. Review and Maintenance of Fees - Planning and Customer Service Departments Members were advised that during the FY-2016 budget hearings, City Council directed staff to review various City fees and submit recommendations for consideration by City Council. Several fees in the Planning and Inspections and Customer Service Departments were recommended for increases.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 7 Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed the recommended proposed fee increases and the estimated annual revenue from the increases. She explained that the recommendations relating to the Customer Services Department were to increase the returned check fee from $25 dollars to $40 dollars and to increase the after-hours utility reconnection fee between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. from $50 to $100, because staff was being paid overtime, on-call pay, or callback pay to reestablish that service. Staff recommended adoption of the referenced fee changes, to be implemented on January 1, 2016. Ms. Maucher questioned if a cost-of-service study was done to determine rates, noting that $100 for an after-hours utility reconnection seemed low. Responding, Mr. Hudson stated that the desire was not to become so high as to make money. He stated that the $100 fee had been discussed with the Customer Services Department and this was believed to be a fair amount. Mr. Hudson advised members that this amount would cover the cost. Mr. Hare asked if $100 would cover all of the expenses to call someone in to turn on service. Mrs. Townshend stated that typically when someone is called in they are not just reestablishing one (1) service. Concurring, Mr. Hudson stated that there would be a list of locations, perhaps a hundred for each employee. Mr. Hare questioned what would happen if this service was needed for only one (1) person. Responding to Mr. Cole as to whether staff tried to schedule multiple reconnections at the same time, Mrs. Townshend stated that with the number of cuts that the City does, the need would be for more than one (1) reconnection. Ms. Maucher questioned why there were so many after-hours reconnects and how many of them were typically done. Responding, Mr. Hudson stated that he could provide this information, noting that the number varies. He stated that most reconnections are done during the day; however, there are times when staff has to go out after 5:00 p.m. Responding to Ms. Maucher as to why reconnections cannot be deferred to the next day, Mr. Hudson stated that these needs occur either because staff may have not been able to get to them or the reconnection was scheduled after the daily schedule was prepared. Mrs. Townshend explained that this sometimes has to do with the time that the customer brings their account current, noting that if this is done in the afternoon, the reconnection cannot be scheduled for that afternoon. Responding to Mr. Hosfelt, Mr. Hudson and Mrs. Townshend expressed their belief that after-hours utility connections would be done between 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. and no later than 9:00 p.m. Mr. Hosfelt asked if there were crews that work 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and if this would be overtime or on-call. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated her belief that this would be overtime but indicated that this could be verified before the Council meeting.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 8 Mr. Hosfelt stated his belief that $100 would not come close to covering the cost of on-call pay and call-out pay on top of that, if he was recalling the union provisions correctly. He felt this amount seemed low. Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, stated that $100 would probably just cover a meter reader’s cost with benefits. She expressed doubt that it would cover an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) union member, such as a line crewman, etc., noting that gas and equipment would have to be covered. In order to ensure fairness, Mr. Sudler felt that there should be a time frame specified for when the $100 fee would be charged after the customer brings their account current, such as after 3:00 p.m. Mrs. Townshend explained that staff goes out around 7:00 a.m. to do disconnects. Customers begin calling when Customer Services opens at 8:30 a.m. People who bring their accounts current in the morning can be scheduled for reconnection in the afternoon. If they do not come in until the afternoon, staff’s afternoon reconnection schedule is already full and additional reconnections are done in the evening. When they come in to pay, customers are told what the connection fee will be. Mr. Sudler asked if there was a fixed time frame indicating, for example, that if the customer comes in after 12:00 p.m. they are subject to the additional charge. Responding, Ms. Townshend stated that this information could be provided at the City Council meeting. Mr. Hudson stated his belief that it was around 11:00 a.m. or 11:30 a.m. Mr. Sudler noted that 11:00 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. were still in the morning. Responding, Mr. Hudson stated this was getting into the afternoon and people would be taking lunch. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mrs. Townshend stated that the reconnection rate was $50 during normal working hours. Mr. Sudler felt that charging the higher fee after 12:00 p.m. would be fair because this would be considered the afternoon. Mr. Hudson stated his belief that 11:30 a.m. was the cutoff for adding new people to the list before staff goes out for the afternoon. Mr. Sudler felt that the 11:30 a.m. deadline should be posted so that the constituents of Dover are aware. Mr. Sudler stated that his desire was to ensure that all bases are covered because he could see his constituents complaining about this. Mr. Hare questioned whether it would be those that do not pay their electric bill that would be complaining about reconnecting. Ms. Maucher asked if reconnection could be deferred to the next day if customers pay after 1:00 p.m. unless there was an emergency circumstance, feeling that it was odd to send people out after-hours.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 9 Mr. Hudson stated that it was getting cold and staff would prefer to get people reconnected as soon as possible, noting that some have electric heat. Mrs. Townshend stated that usually if utilities were cut, this would mean water was being cut as well, which would mean these customers would not have plumbing. Ms. Maucher asked if the additional $50 was just for electric or for any utilities. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated her belief that the fee was for full reconnection. Mr. Anderson stated that he was all for adjusting the fees because they made sense, noting that the costs are different for those who come in or go online before 11:30 a.m. and those who do not. Mr. Anderson advised members that the people he has the pleasure to deal with are not those making $100,000 per year, but are paycheck-to-paycheck people, and if they get the flu and have to miss a week of work, it is a crisis. He expressed the desire to make sure that there are proper extensions for extraordinary circumstances, such as for a person that has been laid up for two (2) weeks with the flu or has been in the hospital and has not been able to pay their bill. He stated that he had dealt with these situations and brought people to City Hall who were unable to pay their bills because they had been in the hospital. Mr. Hare questioned if these individuals in the hospital that were unable to pay their bills did not have someone to pay their bills for them. Responding, Mr. Anderson said they did not, noting that not everyone has someone who can do this and a lot of people live alone. Mr. Hudson stated that the average person has 21 days to pay their bill. If they are unable to pay, the amount carries over to the next month. The customer then has a current bill and an unpaid back bill. Mr. Hudson indicated that the customer often pays the back bill, makes a payment arrangement for the bill going forward, and then has another 21 days to pay the current bill that they should have paid. They may continue to not pay the current bill but pay the arrears. If this is a first time situation or not a continued situation, they are given 45 days to pay the bill. [City Clerk’s Office Note: Subsequent to the meeting, the City Clerk’s Office was informed that a three (3) day extension is provided to those who are unable to pay their bills at the end of the 45 days.] Mr. Hudson felt that this was way too long if the City was to be run like a business. He felt that ideally when a bill has a current and previous balance, there should be a note saying that the customer must pay their full bill, noting that back bills were causing a problem for Customer Services and resulting in a lot of receivables. Mr. Hudson felt that the City should put its foot down. Mr. Anderson stated that instead of using extensions for hardship situations, the City basically went to almost an open-ended system where people could give themselves extensions. He believed that the City had given up its discretion and this could be regained to be used for the people who have a hard time. Mr. Hudson stated that there are people who know how to play the game and know that if they only pay their back bill they have 21 more days to pay on the front end and can keep carrying this over and over again.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 10 Mr. Sudler stated that it would be great if this could be handled on a case-by-case basis to address outstanding circumstances, but he felt that the new policy should be that the City wants all monies owed when there is a current and a back bill. Mr. Cole moved to recommend adoption of the referenced fee changes (Attachment #2), to be implemented on January 1, 2016, as recommended by staff, seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. Status of Performance Audit of Civilian Side of City Government By unanimous consent, this item was deferred until the next meeting. Proposed Change to Committee Meeting Format Mr. Hutchison stated that he wished to propose a change to the way in which committee meetings were being held. He noted that committee meetings are held on the same day as City Council meetings, with meeting times beginning at 3:30 p.m. and extending until approximately 7:00 p.m. Mr. Hutchison reminded members that three (3) members of Council serve on each committee, with one (1) serving as chair, along with two (2) civilian members. He noted that there are four (4) standing committees: Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee; Utility Committee; Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee; and Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee. Mr. Hutchison advised members that he and Mrs. Traci McDowell, City Clerk, attended a Kent County Levy Court committee meeting to observe their process and they are run very differently. He explained that the Kent County Levy Court committee meetings are held on a different night than the Levy Court meeting, the president presides over the committee meeting, each committee has a chairperson, and every elected member of Levy Court is automatically a member of each committee; therefore, there is a committee of the whole. Mr. Hutchison felt that committee meetings were some of the most important things done in the City, outside of Council meetings. He noted that the City’s elected officials have full-time jobs, which makes it difficult to attend these meetings. Mr. Hutchison stated that the City was different from Kent County in that it has civilian committee members, which he thought was fine. He indicated that he was only talking about changing to a format that would allow Council to operate as a committee of the whole, where every Council member is a member of each of committee, there would be one (1) chair of each committee, and the Council President would preside. Mr. Hutchison stated that all nine (9) members of Council would be present at the committee meeting, noting that this had not occurred in his experience. Mr. Hutchison strongly encouraged considering this change, which he felt would be more efficient and effective and would allow greater opportunity for interaction and networking among elected officials and civilians. Mr. Sudler inquired if Mr. Hutchison had a blueprint of what he was suggesting for members to review. Responding, Mr. Hutchison stated that his purpose was to discuss this suggestion and see what the thoughts were. He promised, if there were a consensus, that he would have a blueprint at the next Committee meeting.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2015 PAGE 11 Mr. Sudler indicated that he liked what he heard. At the request of Mr. Hare, Mr. Hutchison stated that he would bring a blueprint with times for the next meeting, when there would be more time for discussion. Mr. Hare indicated that this matter would be placed on the next agenda. Mr. Hare moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. William F. Hare Chairman WFH/TM/js/dd S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Committee-Minutes\2015\10-26-2015 LF&A.wpd Attachments Attachment #1 - Proposed New Revenue Sources - Planning and Inspections Department and Customer Services Department Attachment #2 - Proposed Fee Increases - Planning and Inspections Department and Customer Services Department

ATTACHMENT #1 LF&A Committee Meeting of 10/26/2015 ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Legislative, Finance, & Administration Committee DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: City Manager’s Office DATE SUBMITTED: 10/20/2015 PREPARED BY: Scott D. Koenig, P.E., City Manager; Ann Marie Townshend, AICP, City Planner SUBJECT: Proposed New Revenue Sources RELATED PROJECT: N/A REVIEWED BY: City Manager, Controller/Treasurer EXHIBITS: N/A EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: N/A AMOUNT BUDGETED: N/A FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): N/A TIMETABLE: Implement new fees on January 1, 2016. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommend to City Council the adoption of the referenced fees. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS During the FY-2016 budget hearings, City Council directed staff to review various city operations and submit requests for potential revenue sources. Staff conducted internal requests for suggestions regarding revenue sources and/or cost recovery sources. Below is a listing of the items staff is recommending action on and the annual revenue associated with the item: Proposed New Revenues Proposed Projected Fee Type Explanation Amount Revenue Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $75.00 $200.00 (TCO) - Residential Currently regular CO fee is charged. Other locations charge a separate fee for TCO due to the work involved in tracking them and following up. Under this proposal, a TCO would be valid for a maximum of 45 days and the fee would be paid for each renewal. Temporary Certificates of Occupancy - $100.00 $2,000.00 Non-Residential Zoning Verification/Administrative $50.00 $5,000.00 Interpretations Zoning verification letters and administrative interpretations involve staff time to complete, and currently there is no fee. Other jurisdictions charge a fee. The proposed fee is to reflect capturing the cost of the service provided. Utility Bill Copies - Customer Service A random sample day yielded 118 copies printed in a day. This equates to $26,550.00 annualized. Staff believes the actual revenue will substantially decline once a $1.00 $10,000.00 charge is adopted. Total Projected Revenue $17,200.00

ATTACHMENT #2 LF&A Committee Meeting of 10/26/2015 ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Legislative, Finance, & Administration Committee DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: City Manager’s Office DATE SUBMITTED: 10/20/2015 PREPARED BY: Scott D. Koenig, P.E., City Manager; Ann Marie Townshend, AICP, City Planner SUBJECT: Review & Maintenance of Fees – Planning & Customer Service Departments RELATED PROJECT: N/A REVIEWED BY: City Manager, Controller/Treasurer EXHIBITS: Exhibit A – Planning & Inspections Fees EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: N/A AMOUNT BUDGETED: N/A FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): N/A TIMETABLE: Implement revised fees on January 1, 2016. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommend to City Council the adoption of the referenced fee changes. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS During the FY-2016 budget hearings, City Council directed staff to review various city fees and submit recommendations for consideration by City Council. Exhibit A is a listing the various Planning & Inspections Department fees being recommended for increases. In addition, there are several fees in Customer Services being recommended for increases. These include the Returned Check Fee being increased from $25.00 to $40.00 and the Service Fee for After Hours Utility Reconnection from $50.00 to $100.00 between 5:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. The anticipated additional annual revenue is summarized below. Estimated Annual Revenue from Proposed Increases Planning Application Fees $ 7,000 Zoning Verification Letter $ 5,000 Public Occupancy Increase $ 10,000 Certificates of Occupancy $ 4,000 Mechanical $ 23,400 Plumbing $ 13,000 Rental Permits $ 80,000 Itinerant Merchant License $ 7,300 Vacant Buildings $ 40,000 Sign Permits $ 9,000 Returned Check Fees $ 10,605 Service Fee for After Hours Utility Reconnection $ 20,000 Total $ 229,305

Exhibit A: Planning Inspections Fees Sub Type Last Updated Current Fee Proposed Fee Type Sign Permits (22-65) 2004 $.50 per SF/minimum fee $15 $.75 per SF/minimum fee $50 Temporary Sign Permits 2004 $ 15 $ 50 (Appendix B, Article 5) Business License Itinerant Merchant 2010 $ 41.50 $ 100 $30.00 first 10,000 BTUs and $40.00 first 10,000 BTUs and Heating permit ..... 2004 $5.00 each additional 10,000 $7.00 each additional 10,000 Mechanical BTUs or multiple thereof BTUs or multiple thereof $30.00 per ton for the first five $40.00 per ton for the first five Air conditioning permit ..... 2004 tons and $5.00 per ton over five tons and $7.00 per ton over Mechanical tons or multiple thereof five tons or multiple thereof $15.00 first 10,000 BTUsand $5.00 each additional 10,000 $40.00 first 10,000 BTUs and BTUs or multiple thereof and $7.00 each additional 10,000 $2.50 for each additional 10,000 BTUs or multiple thereof or Heat pump permit ..... 2004 BTUs or multiple thereof and an $40.00 per ton for the first five additional $15.00 for the first five tons and $7.00 per ton over tons and $2.50 per ton for over five tons or multiple thereof Mechanical five tons or multiple thereof $25.00 first five fixtures and $35.00 first five fixtures and $3.00 Fixtures 2004 Plumbing $2.00 for each additional fixture for each additional fixture Garbage Disposal & Hot Water 2004 Minimum of $25 Minimum of $35 Plumbing Heaters $20.00 for first 150 feet and $0.50 $30.00 for first 150 feet and Gas, water and sewer inspection 2004 for each additional ten feet or $0.75 for each additional ten feet Plumbing underground multiple thereof or multiple thereof Single-family detached dwelling, Rental Permits 2000 $ 90 $ 100 each dwelling ..... Single-family attached dwelling, Rental Permits 2000 $ 70 $ 80 each dwelling ..... For the first three dwelling units Rental Permits 2000 $ 90 $ 100 ..... For each additional dwelling unit Rental Permits 2000 $ 30 $ 35 in excess of three ..... 1 of 3

Exhibit A: Planning Inspections Fees Condominium units and accessory apartments located 2000 $ 35 within structures principally used for owner occupancy, each ..... Rental Permits $ 30 Vacant Building < 1 year 2006 $ 250 $ 375 Vacant Building 1-2 years 2006 $ 500 $ 750 Vacant Building 2-5 years 2006 $ 1,000 Vacant Building 2-3 years $ 1,000 $ 1,500 Vacant Building 4-5 years $ 1,000 $ 3,000 Vacant Building 5+ years 2006 $ 2,000 $ 5,000 Public Occupancy Permits Churches ..... 1993 $ 25 $ 50 Public Occupancy Permits Civic auditoriums ..... 1993 $ 25 $ 50 Public Occupancy Permits Clubhouses ..... 1993 $ 50 $ 100 $50.00 first 200 seats and $25.00 first 200 seats and $2.50 Commercial auditoriums ..... $5.00 for each additional 50 Public Occupancy Permits 1993 for each additional 50 seats seats Public Occupancy Permits Day care facilities ..... 1993 $ 25 $ 50 Hospitals, nursing homes or rest $5.00 first ten rooms and $1.25 $15.00 first ten rooms and homes ..... for each additional room $2.00 for each additional room Public Occupancy Permits 1993 Mercantile (10,000 square feet of Public Occupancy Permits area or greater) ..... 1993 $ 25 $ 50 Outdoor public events, including but not limited to firework displays, carnivals, and outdoor $ 25 $ 250 music concerts ..... (would be amended to just include fire Public Occupancy Permits works displays) 1993 Public Occupancy Permits Public office buildings ..... 1993 $ 25 $ 50 Public Occupancy Permits School ..... 1993 $ 25 $ 50 $25.00 for the first 200 seats $50.00 for the first 200 seats Theaters ..... and $2.00 for each additional and $5.00 for each additional Public Occupancy Permits 1993 seat seat Restaurants (10,000 square feet N/A $ 50 Public Occupancy Permits of area or greater)….. N/A Restaurants of any size that Public Occupancy Permits serve alcoholic beverages N/A N/A $ 75 Subdivision Preapplication; filing fee ..... 2004 $ 200 2 of 3

Exhibit A: Planning Inspections Fees Preliminary layout; filing fee ..... Subdivision 2004 $ 325 $150.00, plus $65.00 per acre $200.00, plus $85.00 per acre for the first ten acres, $40.00 per for the first ten acres, $60.00 Plat; review fee ..... acre for the next ten acres and per acre for the next ten acres $25.00 per acre for each acre and $45.00 per acre for each Subdivision 2004 thereafter acre thereafter Plats for minor lot line Minor Lot Line Adjustment adjustments shall require a Subdivision 2004 review fee of $100.00 $ 150 Plats for minor subdivisions shall Minor Subdivision require a review fee of $100.00 Subdivision 2004 $150 plus $15 per lot Certificates of occupancy All properties zoned single-family 2004 $ 40 $ 60 residential ..... Certificates of occupancy All other property in other zoning 2004 $40.00 for the first 20,000 square $75.00 for the first 20,000 classifications, other than single- feet of building area plus the sum square feet of building area family residential ..... of $10.00 for each additional plus the sum of $15.00 for 10,000 square feet of building each additional 10,000 square area in excess of the first 20,000 feet of building area in excess square feet or multiple thereof of the first 20,000 square feet or multiple thereof Board of Adjustment Variance for Residential 2004 $ 200 $ 300 Board of Adjustment Variance for Non-Residential 2004 $ 300 $ 600 Board of Adjustment Appeal 2004 $ 200 $ 300 Conditional Use 2004 $325 plus $15 per acre $425 plus $25 per acre Site Plan Administrative Site Plans 2004 $ 125 $ 300 Site Plan Site Plan 2004 $ 325 $425 plus $25 per acre Historic District Comm. 2004 $ 250 $ 250 Rezoning 2004 $325 plus per acre fee $425 plus per acre fee Rezoning R-7, R-8, R-10, R-15, and R-20 2004 $10 per acre $25 per acre RG-0, RG-1, RG-2, RG-3, RG-4, Rezoning RG-5, RM-1, and RM-2 2004 $30 per acre $50 per acre C-1, C-1A, C-2, C-2A, C-3, CPO, Rezoning RC and IO 2004 $50 per acre $70 per acre Rezoning SC-1, SC-2 and SC-3 2004 $60 per acre $75 per acre Rezoning M and IPM 2004 $60 per acre $75 per acre 3 of 3

Monthly Report September 2015 Office of City Assessor

Assessor’s Report Number of Deeds Stamped for Transfer Tax Dollar Amount for the Month of Sep. 2014/2015 the Month of March 2014/2015 34 $100 35 Thousands 22 23 $66 30 22 $54 $38 25 $41 20 11 13 $50 $13 $15 $15 15 $1 10 2 3 2 1 2014 2014 5 $0 0 2015 2015 First Time Buyer for the Month Sep. 2014/2015 Realty Property of Sep. 2014/2015 Sales in Dollars Received Prior to Recording 22 23 25 20 $6 $4 $4 Res. Non‐First $3 $2 $3 Millions 11 13 $4 $2 15 Time Buyers $1 $2 $0 2014 10 Res. First Time $0 5 Buyers 2015 0 2014 2015 Major Updates July ‐ 15 August ‐ 15 September‐ 15 Assessment Change ‐$1,042,600 $2,774,500 $84,800 Residential Sales Ratio Report Sales in Study Total Assessed Total Sale Price Ratio PRD Value 30 $4,584,500 $5,114,725 0.90 1.02 1

Assessor’s Report Ratio – Assessed Value divided by Sale Price. PRD – Mean – A PRD above 1.03 tends to indicate assessment regressivity – high valued properties are under appraised relative to low valued properties. A PRD below .98 tends to indicate assessment progressivity – high valued properties are relatively over appraised. Points of Interest Scanning & Filing ‐ All new deeds are being scanned and attached to the CAMA software for easy retrieval. ‐ All appeal documents and correspondence are being scanned and attached to the CAMA software for easy retrieval. ‐ All old property record cards are being scanned and indexed into Fortis. Assessor’s Office ‐ Mailed out delinquent tax bills. 2

OCT 13, 2015 CITY OF DOVER PAGE: 1 03:13 PM SALES RATIO REPORT CA324 PARID NBHD LUC ADDRESS UNITS STYLE YRBLT STORIES SFLA GRADE CDU TOTAL APPR SALE DT PRICE ASR ED05-067.01-02-06.00 18 R10 102 TOPAZ CIR 1 5 2006 2 2365 B AV 225,200 23-SEP-15 235,000 .96 ED05-067.12-04-22.00 8 R10 38 REPRESENTATIVE LN 13 2015 2 2143 B- AV 180,800 09-SEP-15 205,490 .88 ED05-067.12-04-23.00 8 R10 36 REPRESENTATIVE LN 13 2015 2 2533 B- AV 212,500 16-SEP-15 212,265 1.00 ED05-067.12-04-24.00 8 R10 34 REPRESENTATIVE LN 13 2015 2 2143 B- AV 180,800 18-SEP-15 189,000 .96 ED05-067.12-04-25.00 8 R10 32 REPRESENTATIVE LN 13 2015 2 2153 B- AV 184,000 29-SEP-15 197,295 .93 ED05-067.12-04-27.00 8 R10 28 REPRESENTATIVE LN 13 2015 2 2143 B- AV 180,800 29-SEP-15 188,515 .96 ED05-067.15-01-30.00 2 R10 79 VILLAGE DR 1 13 1974 2 1298 C- AV 92,600 15-SEP-15 98,000 .94 ED05-067.15-04-03.00 10 R10 855 WOODCREST TRN 1 8 1987 2 1471 C AV 142,500 29-SEP-15 105,000 1.36 ED05-067.19-04-42.00 17 R10 31 ARLBERG CIR 1 1 2013 2 1969 B+ AV 208,000 03-SEP-15 240,000 .87 ED05-068.10-03-66.00 13 R10 931 MCDOWELL DR 1 14 1964 1 960 C AV 113,900 30-SEP-15 134,900 .84 ED05-068.10-04-15.00 13 R10 317 WEST WIND DR 1 5 2001 2 2088 C+ AV 164,500 22-SEP-15 234,000 .70 ED05-068.13-01-04.32 100 R50 63 CHATHAM CT 1 13 1987 2 2204 B- AV 135,100 30-SEP-15 185,000 .73 ED05-068.13-01-36.00 10 R10 489 N EAST AVE 1 14 1972 1 1099 C AV 133,400 28-SEP-15 139,050 .96 ED05-068.15-01-06.00 6 R10 365 ACORN LN 1 16 1993 1 2137 C AV 183,400 10-SEP-15 180,000 1.02 ED05-068.18-03-03.00 7 R10 35 N HALSEY RD 1 14 1950 1 1008 C GD 125,900 30-SEP-15 146,000 .86 ED05-068.18-05-68.00 7 R10 52 UPLAND AVE 1 3 1950 1.5 1881 C AV 144,500 14-SEP-15 145,000 1 ED05-076.03-01-61.00 14 R10 187 E SHELDRAKE CIR 1 13 2006 2 1855 C+ AV 122,100 04-SEP-15 153,000 .80 ED05-076.03-04-37.00 11 R10 325 GILLIBROOK LN 1 2015 2 2952 B+ AV 261,600 08-SEP-15 309,000 .85 ED05-076.04-01-76.00 2 R10 500 ANN MOORE ST 1 13 2009 3 1994 C+ AV 175,200 18-SEP-15 199,910 .88 ED05-076.05-04-01.056 102 R50 39 PAR HAVEN DR 1 20 1978 1 1008 C- AV 44,100 18-SEP-15 48,000 .92 ED05-076.06-01-01.00 103 R50 2 ATRAM HALL 1 20 1973 1 794 B GD 56,800 11-SEP-15 53,000 1.07 ED05-076.06-03-06.00 17 R10 287 GREEN BLADE DR 1 13 1983 2 1120 C AV 100,900 11-SEP-15 120,000 .84 ED05-077.07-08-29.00 6 R10 306 BLUECOAT ST 1 2015 2 1612 B- AV 171,300 23-SEP-15 199,900 .86 ED05-077.09-05-51.00 4 R10 21 ELM TER 1 1 1940 2 1632 C+ AV 131,000 25-SEP-15 175,000 .75 ED05-077.11-03-35.00 6 R10 104 HOLMES ST 1 5 1991 2 1695 C AV 150,500 28-SEP-15 167,500 .90 ED05-077.14-01-30.00 8 R10 66 LAUREL DR 1 6 1989 1.5 2667 B+ GD 206,500 11-SEP-15 260,000 .79 ED05-077.17-02-40.00 5 R10 930 MONROE TER 1 5 1961 2 1536 C+ AV 165,400 15-SEP-15 165,500 1 ED05-077.17-03-19.00 4 R10 1068 S BRADFORD ST 1 14 1946 1 945 C- AV 102,100 04-SEP-15 132,000 .77 ED05-077.17-04-30.00 4 R20 36 PINE ST 2 3 1925 1.5 1905 C AV 114,200 21-SEP-15 127,500 .90 ED05-085.08-01-57.00 12 R10 542 WESTWOOD PL 1 5 1964 2 1922 B- AV 174,900 28-SEP-15 169,900 1.03

CITY MANAGER’S MONTHLY REPORT SEPTEMBER 2015 City Manager’s Monthly Report, September 2015

Customer Services  In the month of September, we processed 5,341 credit card payments for the month totaling $1,307,424.10. Human Resources  Continued contract negotiations. Library  1,054 attended 40 programs for adults.  407 attended 32 programs for teens.  533 attended 35 programs for children.  13 volunteers completed 109 hours of service.  605 attended 37 programs/classes coordinated through the Job Center. Public Works  Working on CIP and additional funding for future street program and other projects. 2 City Manager’s Monthly Report, September 2015

CUSTOMER SERVICES WORK ORDERS PROCESSED Extensions of 398 Credit 3,000 382 400 358 2,500 308 292 300 2,144 300 268 2,053 1,998 2,075 1,861 1,904 2,000 1,855 1,749 1,570 1,599 1,630 1,437 200 1,500 1,298 1,000 100 500 Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- 0 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 CUSTOMER PAYMENT USAGE CUTS FOR NON PAYMENT 80,000 $2,000,000 60,000 50,554 $1,600,000 47,668 40,000 $1,200,000 17,024 700,497.75 $763,133 17,042 $800,000 20,000 6,766 5,906 7,135 5,481 $260,413 $322,408 550 497 $400,000 0 Drive-Thru Over the Mail, Drop Credit Cards Bank Drafts $- Window Counter Box September 2015 September 2014 FYTD16 FYTD15 2016 YTD 2015YTD FY 2016 FY 2015 Major Program Updates Sep 2015 Sep 2014 Difference Year-to-Date Year-to-Date Number of Customers Served 19,425 19,789 (364) 67,862 68,439 Final Bills 646 715 (69) 2,198 2,282 Estimated Bills 238 184 54 694 605 Penalties Posted $ 18,571 $ 20,759 (2,188) $ 46,916 $ 50,834 Extensions of Credit - Amount Extended $ 142,289 $ 98,288 44,001 $ 351,256 $ 210,933 Balance Transfers $ 86,166 $ 3,784 82,382 $ 91,431 $ 8,071 Utility Collections $ 62,118 $ 32,872 29,246 $ 129,392 $ 66,691 Special Assessments $ - $ - - $ - $ - Miscellaneous Billings $ 70,157 $ 107,249 (37,092) $ 480,522 $ 214,498 CNP through Disconnect Collars $ - $ - - $ - $ - Court Cases $ - $ - - $ - $ - Tampering's $ - $ - - $ - $ - Taxes Levied (includes carry forward) $ 1,115,077 $ 1,169,797 (54,721) $ - $ - Billing Adjustments $ - $ (650) 650 $ - $ - Total Taxes Collected $ - $ 322,039 (322,039) $ - $ - Taxes Outstanding $ 825,303 $ 847,108 (21,806) $ - $ - Payments in Lieu $ - $ 10,898 (10,898) $ - $ - City Manager’s Monthly Report, September 2015 3

HUMAN RESOURCES Category Sept Oct Nov Jan Feb Mar April May June July August Sept Total 14 14 14 Dec 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 14 Caucasian* 290 291 288 290 287 286 289 289 291 290 291 290 296 N/A * Minorities 61 61 61 62 63 62 63 61 63 63 64 64 67 N/A Hired 5 5 0 5 1 0 9 5 9 3 8 2 12 64 Terminated/Resigned/ 2 4 3 2 3 2 5 7 4 4 4 1 4 45 Retired/Other Transferred/Promoted 0 3 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 14 Jobs Posted 2 3 3 3 3 2 7 2 2 2 1 7 9 46 Workers Comp. Inju- 1 2 5 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 0 4 6 33 ries Workers Comp. Hours 51 22 32 2 17 29 312 97 231 115 260 42 24 1234 Insurance Claims 4 1 1 5 4 1 3 0 2 2 0 3 1 27 Full-time Employees: 337 Part-time Employees: 26 (*4 Pitts Center, 1 Recreation, 12 Library, 2 Customer Service, 1 Central Services, (6) Police Department) -Numbers do not reflect, temporary, seasonal, relief fire dispatchers, committee or council members. ** August 2015 Pitts Center Number reduced to 4 to reflect error in July 2015 Positions Hired: Utility Maintenance Mechanic I, (Water/wastewater); Water Treatment Plant Operator I; (2) Customer Service Clerk II, (part-time); Police Officer’s (5) Position Resigned/Retired/Terminated: Customer Service Clerk II, (part-time); Water Treatment Plant Operator; Sex Offender Registration Officer, Custodian Positions Posted: Mechanic I, Motor Equipment Operator I (Water/Wastewater), Motor Equipment Operator I (Sanitation), Motor Equipment Operator I/II (Streets), Utility Maintenance Mechanic (Water/Wastewater), Public Works Inspector, Planner I (Planning/Inspections), Relief Fire Dispatcher, Accountant I (part-time) Recruitment Information (Positions closed in September) Position Total Female Male Unknown Black White Hispan- Asian/Pacific American Unknown In Out ic Islander Indian/Alaskan Dover Dover Native Motor Equipment Opera- 14 1 13 - 2 8 - - 3 1 7 7 tor I/II (Streets) Water Treatment Plant 9 - 9 - 1 8 - - - - 2 7 Operator Motor Equipment Opera- 5 - 5 - 1 2 - - 1 1 2 3 tor I, (Water/wastewater) Motor Equipment Opera- 10 - 8 2 2 4 - - 2 2 6 4 tor I, (Sanitation) Planner I (repost, Plan- 7 1 6 - 2 - - 1 - 4 2 5 ning/Inspections) Public Works Inspector 4 - 4 - 1 3 - - - - 2 2 Relief Fire Dispatcher 5 - 5 - 1 4 - - - - 2 3 Unfilled/Open Positions by Department* Unfilled/Open Positions Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept By Department 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 Electric 25 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 3 2 1 2 2 Public Works 12 11 12 12 12 13 15 13 17 16 18 17 16 Police 2 0 1 1 10 10 4 4 2 3 5 5 1 All Other Departments 4.5 5 5 3 3 4.5 4.5 5 4 6 11 9.5 7.5 Totals 23.5 21 20 18 28 29.5 26.5 24 26 27 35 33.5 26.5 *Not used for Budgeting Purposes ² The following has been updated to reflected the Fiscal 2015-16 Budget Electric: Generation Manager, Substation Technician Crew Leader Public Works: (2) Utility Maintenance Mechanic I/Wastewater; Civil Engineer l; Public Works Inspector (Public Works); Motor Equipment Operator I (Streets); Motor Equipment Operator II (Streets); (3) Motor Equipment Operator I (Sanitation); Gardner II (Grounds); Gardner I (Grounds); Mechanic I; (2) Motor Equipment I Water/wastewater; (1) Water Treatment Plant Operator I; Public Works Operations Manager Police: Sex Offender Registration Officer All Other Departments: (1) Customer Service Clerk (part-time), Librarian II; (2) Librarian I (part-time); Library Clerk I (part-time), Administrative Assistant (Information Technology-part-time); Library Page (part-time); AS400/System Operator (Information Technology); Planner I (Planning & Inspections); Accountant I, Finance (part-time); Key Accounts Representative (Customer Service) 4 City Manager’s Monthly Report, September 2015

HUMAN RESOURCES continued Turnover Statistics 2010 2011 2012* 2013 * 2014 2015 Total Turnover % 5.57 6.75 11.00 10.91 6.02 8.78 Termination Turnover % 0.27 1.08 0.29 1.47 .57 .28 Resignation Turnover % 2.12 4.05 5.21 5.01 2.29 5.10 Retirement Turnover % 3.18 1.62 5.50 4.42 3.15 3.40 * Healthcare cost sharing implemented ** Healthcare cost sharing implemented for DOE Average Employees 2010 2011 2012* 2013* 2014 2015 Total Number of Employees Separating from 21 25 38 37 21 31 Service Average Number of Full-time Employees 362 356 333 325 331 331 Average Number of Part-time Employees 16 15 12 14 18 22 * Healthcare cost sharing implemented City Manager’s Monthly Report, September 2015 5

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Service Requests Resolved Programming Requests Completed 140 128 125 30 28 120 121 116 120 25 102 22 100 91 90 91 18 18 19 77 20 17 16 80 15 52 15 13 60 11 31 9 40 10 7 20 13 4 5 0 Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- 0 Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 Page Views - City of Dover Web Page 40,000 35,000 30,000 Pages Viewed 25,000 20,000 31,423 31,600 31,423 32,737 33,605 33,344 28,026 25,426 26,428 27,275 28,370 23,955 15,000 10,000 23,845 5,000 0 Aug - Sep - Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr - May- Jun- Jul- Aug - 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 Current Performance Indicators Last Month Same Month Month Last Year iSeries Availability 100% 100% 100% Server Availability 100.00% 100% 100% AS/400 Connections (concurrent/authorized users) N/A N/A N/A PCs Supported 372 380 365 Scheduled PCs Replaced - - - Servers Supported 30 30 19 People Trained 1 11 11 Availability Statistics based on 7:00 AM until 5:00 PM Monday—Friday 6 City Manager’s Monthly Report, September 2015

LIBRARY Reference Transactions 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Adult Teen Children Sep 15 Adults – 1,344 Teens – 268 Children – 418 Circulation Sept 15 FYTD 16 Sept 14 FYTD 15 Dover residents 19,749 62,623 21,928 68,972 Ebooks 2,220 7,058 1,919 5,715 Kent residents* 11,933 37,883 13,675 44,964 Non-county residents 2,111 6,573 2,086 6,342 Registrations Dover residents 387 1,197 401 1,283 Kent residents* 31 98 51 150 Non-county residents 6 14 5 23 Other Visiting Patrons 26,516 89,540 26,801 82,199 Meeting Room Usage 1,592 4,111 2,016 4,618 Photocopier Usage 1,582 3,908 611 3,174 Computer Printing Usage 3,164 9.179 2,901 8,727 Computer Users 4,734 14,198 4,604 14,881 Wireless Computer Users 2,147 6,261 1,660 5,162 Holds (Total) 7,355 22,034 7,144 21,479 *Breakout of Kent County Residential Statistics Circulation Registrations Harrington: 190 Harrington: 0 Milford: 136 Milford: 0 Smyrna: 831 Smyrna: 5 Outside City Limits: 10,776 Outside City Limits: 26 Total Registered Users: (Card Holders) City: 27, Kent County: 12,100 Outside Kent County: 1,041 Other Points of Interest: Inter/Interlibrary: 70 items loaned out Technical services: 1,403 items added 61 items borrowed 1,103 items deleted Volunteers: 109 hours of service completed City Manager’s Monthly Report, September 2015 7

PUBLIC WORKS Administration Administrative review and inspection services continued on all residential and commercial developments. The following residential subdivisions are in various phases of construction: Oak Shadows Emerald Pointe Eden Hill (Residential) Patriot Village Clearview Meadows Village of Cannon Mill Sanitation Monthly Total Refuse (Tons) Sanitation Hours 1,500 925 1000 1,000 834 848 875 869 869 827 853 726 717 733 648 562 556 541 487 486 500 500 362 292 239 190 211 217 177 177 169 151 166 110 173 135 166 20 44 - 0 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Bulk Collection Mechanized Hand Trash Container 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 Collection Collection Repair/Delivery Bulk Automated Sep 15 Sep 14 SEPTEMBER 15 FYTD 16 SEPTEMBER 14 FYTD 15 Trips to DSWA Sandtown Landfill 181 549 186 564 Total Tonnage to DSWA 1,022.41 3,141.79 985.32 3,078.65 90-Gallon Containers Delivered 92 237 77 144 300-Gallon Containers Delivered 0 0 5 23 Total Man Hours-containers Delivered 20 59 44 117 CURBSIDE RECYCLING TOTAL # OF TOTAL # OF STATS HOUSEHOLDS ACCOUNTS WEIGHT/LBS. AVE. LBS. COLLECTED September 2015 20,042 9208 265,140 13.23 8 City Manager’s Monthly Report, September 2015

PUBLIC WORKS continued Streets SEPTEMBER 15 FYTD 16 SEPTEMBER 14 FYTD 15 Signed Installed 19 28 9 95 Signs Repaired 5 14 9 32 Curbs Painted Yellow (feet) 0 1,116 27 626 New Post Installed 20 35 3 14 Storm Catch Basins Repaired 0 8 1 4 Storm Catch Basin Repairing (Hrs.) 0 38 2 46 Storm Catch Basins Cleaned 0 355 3 10 Storm Catch Basins Cleaning (Hrs.) 1 41 8 16 Hot Mix Patching (Tons) 0 0 0 6.00 Hot Mix Patching (Hrs.) 0 0 0 73 Cold Mix Patching Hrs.) 4 19 15 97 Concrete Work (Hrs) 0 32 41 76 Concrete Patching (Cubic Yards) 0.0 0 0 0 Ditch Work (Hrs). 0 28 0 0 Street and Alley Maintenance (Hrs) 0 4 2 170 Street Sweeping (Miles) 2,018 4,367 1,848 5,040 Street Sweeping (Cubic Yards) 124 308 472 1,162 Grounds Total Work Orders = 13 General = 1 Arborist = 12 Arborist Crew September 2015 SEPTEMBER 2014 Trees Trimmed 314 23 Trees Removed 8 18 Stumps Removed 0 5  One member of the arborist crew had been mowing full time.  The other arborist has been working on various projects, watering baskets, and weeding flowerbeds, as well as completing tree work as needed.  On 9/19/15, two crews worked in the Downtown Development District pruning street trees Beautification Crew  No beautification crew.  On 9/15/15 We had an “Everyone Weeds” day. All staff was involved in weeding flower beds.  On 9/19/15 a crew worked with a contractor to clean up the streets in the Dover Downtown Development District. Mowing Crew  Mowing of all areas including parks, around City facilities, ditches, and right-of-ways.  Working vigorously to edge curb and sidewalk and remove growth from sidewalks and gutters. Athletic Field Maintenance  Sprayed Round Up on the softball infields, warning tracks and under fence lines.  Set up and taken down of the stage on The Green for each Thursday for the Spring/Summer Performing Arts Program.  Prepared athletic fields for games Litter Removal  Litter crew has been doing an outstanding job with emptying trash cans and picking up litter.  Helped with collection of limbs and debris on small tree pruning projects. Miscellaneous  A crew worked at PWII completing specific actions to help bring the site into compliance for an upcoming DNREC inspection. City Manager’s Monthly Report, September 2015 9

PUBLIC WORKS continued Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Electric Created a new Electric App to fit the Electric Departments needs Morris & Ritchie Associates Created a set of Miss Utility Prints for the stormwater, Inc. wastewater & water along W Denneys Rd and Kenton Road. Provided in PDF format. Planning Created a feature classed based off Dover Parcels. Queried parcel that are believed to be owner occupied Planning Created a map of the Restoring Central Dover area showing the locations of owner-occupied parcels. Provided a PDF copy of the map to AMT along with a spreadsheet of the properties with owner info. Planning Created an 8.5"x11" map of the 100 block of S New Street to show four properties the City would be interested in purchasing Public Works Create a Web Mapping Application for Litter Pick Up locations Public Works Created Collector App for Tree Inventory Public Works Configured new Samsung Tab 4 tablet and performed system updates Water/Wastewater Public Works Configure new Samsung Tab 4 and preformed system updates for Streets Public Works Moved feature class, created a service and updated a web map Public Works Configured new Samsung Tab 4 tablet and performed system up- grades Public Works Troubleshoot service issues Public Works Copied clean up routes from highlighted areas on printed map. Created 24"x36" copies and 8.5"x11" copies of the routes. Both of all routes and individual group routes. Printed two copies of large map. Public Works Covered the Public Works Admin phones from GIS Office while Carol & Carolee were out. Public Works GIS Updated the parcels, active AHIs and rentals layer. Public Works/Planning Printed out three large maps for display at rally points and 8.5"x11" copies for distribution. Typed up the list of instructions, attached to back of small maps. Printed total of 150 small maps. Whitman, Requart & Provided data for the Capital Gateway Project Associates 10 City Manager’s Monthly Report, September 2015

PUBLIC WORKS continued Fleet and Facilities Management Fleet Maintenance PM Work Orders Completed: 21 Number of Tire Repairs: 12 Number of Road Repairs: 6 Other Work Orders: 74 Repair Hours: 172 Road Repair Hours: 6 Total Work Orders: 95 Fabrication Hours: 8 Misc. Hours: 4 PM Hours: 60 # Of Scheduled PM’s: 31 # Of Scheduled PM’s: Completed: 7 Major Program Updates MEASURE September 2015 September 2014 DIFFERENCE 7 out of 31 22.58 % Fleet Maintenance - Scheduled Winter is upon us and vehicles are destined to Preventative Maintenance appoint- 13 out of 25 have problems as the temperatures drop. If you - 29.42% ments being kept (Quantity and 52.0% have noticed problems with your vehicle and Percentage) haven't made time to schedule for repairs, now is the time. Facilities Maintenance Facilities - Routine work orders 31 out of 31 26 out of 27 completed within 5 days (Quantity 100 % 96.30% +3.70 % and Percentage) Facilities - Emergency work orders 2 out of 2 4 out of 4 completed within 2 days (Quantity 0% 100% 100% and Percentage) City Manager’s Monthly Report, September 2015 11

PUBLIC WORKS continued Water/Wastewater Water Production/Billed Consumption/Flow to Kent County 255000000 205000000 155000000 105000000 55000000 5000000 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 Total Water Prod. Billed Consumpt. Total Flow to County City Readings ENGINEERING SUMMARY Major Program Updates SEPTEMBER 15 SEPTEMBER 14 DIFF FY16 YTD FY15 YTD State and Federal Violations 0 violations 0 violations - - - Water Quality Complaints 12 15 3 20 38 Plan Review Completed With- 3 plans 7 plans 4 18 29 in 30 days of Submission 100% 100% OPERATIONAL SUMMARY Task SEPTEMBER 15 SEPTEMBER 14 CURRENT FY Water Production - Daily Average 5,632,333 4,704,267 532,274,000 Average Field Response Time (goal is <30 minutes) 17.11 16.61 17.00 Water Mains Repaired 0 2 0 Water Service Lines Repaired 2 0 7 Wastewater Mains Repaired 0 0 1 Wastewater Service Lines Repaired 2 3 2 Sewer Lines Flushed - linear feet 65,155 146,297 213,768 Sewer Mains Videoed -linear feet 5,915 0 7,120 Total Fire Hydrants in Service 1,820 1,819 1,820 Total Water Meters in City Distribution System 14,352 14,145 14,352 12 City Manager’s Monthly Report, September 2015

ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT System Peak Total System Load 200 100,000 152.4 155.6 158.5 76,060 74,133 148 148 68,704 66,383 135.8 65,517 80,000 63,151 62,574 61,012 60,195 60,236 120.6 150 114.8 55,747 54,958 51,470 104.9 101.1 104.7 103.8 60,000 90.95 100 40,000 50 20,000 Sep 14 Oct 14 Nov 14 Dec 14 Jan 15 Feb 15 Mar 15 Apr 15 May 15 Jun 15 Jul 15 Aug 15 Sep 15 Sep 14 Oct 14 Nov 14 Dec 14 Jan 15 Feb 15 Mar 15 Apr 15 May 15 Jun 15 Jul 15 Aug 15 Sep 15 Outages Customers of Gained/Lost 35 8,000 20 25 6,000 15 14 Customers 15 11 11 12 Outages 9 15 4,000 10 7 6 6 5 4 4 5 2,000 5 2 0 -5 Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep 0 Sep 14 Oct 14 Nov 14 Dec 14 Jan 15 Feb 15 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 Mar 15 Apr 15 May 15 Jun 15 Jul 15 Outages Customers Aug 15 Sep 15 Outages: 9 Customers: 334 Electric Monthly Outage Report The annual outage goal will be less than 295 Controllable Outages Average Response Time minutes per customer, which is a Delaware Annual goal is less than 40 Goal is less than 30 minutes Standard. This will be measured by calculating the System Average Interruption Duration Index. Month Year-to-date Month Year-to-date FY 16 YTD FY 15 FY 14 3 7 29.78 Minutes 34.65 Minutes 22.7 58.34 50.74 SEPT 16 SEPT 15 FY16 YTD PROGRAM UPDATES Tree Trimming 424 462 1084 Number of Oil Releases 1 0 2 Lost Time Accidents – All Electric Utility Divisions 0 0 0 New Services 5 4 28 City Manager’s Monthly Report, September 2015 13

ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT continued September 2015 Electric (EE Capitol Improvement Projects (CIP) Project Number Description Update EE1312 General Scott Progress: Foundation bids secured, estimated construction to begin 15 Switchgear Sep dependent on weather/load. Substation will be off line through ap- Replacement proximately. Jan 16. Material has been allocated. Will be designing Fiber Optic in July. Schedule: FY16 construction tentatively scheduled for September. EE1314 Capitol Park Progress: Work is Complete Upgrade EE1443 GOTP Transmission Progress: Work is Complete (except Fiber Optic move) & sidewalk re- Line Relocation pairs EE1500 69kV Rebuild Progress: New owner of farm south of Morgan Branch. In discussion (Horsepond to about possible relocation of some poles for irrigation. Long Point) Schedule: FY15 is for Design |FY16 budget is for construction. EE1505 DNREC R&R Progress: State of Delaware requested project to be delayed to FY16. Schedule: Project on Hold | funds moved for other FY15 projects EE1509 West Dover Progress: Work to begin on Saulsbury Road in September/October. Connector - State of DE Schedule: Planning on starting on Saulsbury Road after Playtex & Garrison Oak. EE1513 Town Point Progress: City crews continuing the installation underground wire. Distribution Feeders Schedule: Project boring has begun. EE1516 Chestnut Grove Progress: Developer contact Electric Engineering about being conduit in- Subdivision stallation soon. Schedule: Not Scheduled | Contractor responsible for conduit installation in development EE1520 69kV Cable Progress: Currently investigating the cables placement & engineering de- Replacement – sign. Design continues in FY16 & construction in FY17. North St. Substation Schedule: FY16 construction to begin. EE1522 Garrison Oak Progress: Work is Complete Technical Park Infrastructure Phase 2 14 City Manager’s Monthly Report, September 2015

ELECTRIC DEPARMENT continued EE1524 Lenders Lake Progress: Material has been issued to contractor for installation. Equip- Apartments ment set. Schedule: Line Crew planning installation of conductors/transformers. EE1526 Playtex Addition Progress: Awaiting on Playtex/Edgewell to install load side conductors so (Edgewell) Line Crew can set & terminate both Metering Cabinets. Schedule: Awaiting word from Diamond Electric. EE1536 Troutman *** CANCELLED *** Machines EE1537 Kirby & Holloway Progress: Preliminary Design complete. Restaurant Schedule: No work scheduled EE1538 North Street Progress: Currently in Design Sidewalk Improvements Schedule: No Work Scheduled EE1539 Keystone Progress: Preliminary design is complete. Waiting on owner to agree to Automotive project prior to any continuation of work. Schedule: No Work Scheduled EE1540 College Road Progress: Currently design is complete Substation PT Replacement Schedule: Waiting on Material EE1541 Blue Hen Progress: Work is Complete Corporate Ctr. EE1544 Nottingham Progress: Currently design is complete. Contractor has received material Meadows - for installation. Homes are under construction. Wellington Ave Schedule: No Work Scheduled | Contractor responsible for conduit instal- lation in development EE1546 Deltech Signs Progress: Work is Complete EE1547 NBR Properties Progress: Work is Complete New Burton Rd EE1607 Horsepond URD Progress: Permit received. Environment concerns addressed. Directional Distribution Feeder Bores Complete. Schedule: Contracted work has begun. EE1618 Lakeland Progress: Drawings completed. Owner has been contacted. Distribution Feeder Schedule: Work to begin after EE1607. City Manager’s Monthly Report, September 2015 15

ELECTRIC DEPARMENT continued EE1632 (EE1541) Blue Hen Progress: Work is Complete Corporate Center Phase 1 EE1633 State Street Progress: Work is Complete Commons Fiber Optic EE1635 McKee Road Progress: Service Locate & W.O. are complete and in file awaiting pay- Warehouse ment from Edgewell. (Edgewell) Schedule: Work to begin once payment is received. EE1636 Clearview Progress: Primary conductors and equipment installed. Need contractor Meadows Phase 4 to work on conduit to start lights. Schedule: Awaiting Contractor to install conduit & finish work for pump station. EE1637 Barrett Residence Progress: Drawing complete and awaiting contractor conduit installation. Schedule: Awaiting Contractor to install conduit. EE1638 Dover Town Center Progress: Drawing complete and City Crews to install transformers and (Old Walmart) replace poles. Schedule: Line Crew to work on in October. EE1639 Outback Progress: Drawing complete and City Crews to install primary after con- Steakhouse duit is installed. Schedule: Awaiting Contractor to install conduit. EE1640 Round Barn Farm Progress: Installing 480 volt service for new grain elevator. Schedule: Preliminary Stages of design EE1641 Reed Street Interior Bldg./Security Improvements EE1642 Del-Homes Progress: New service to warehouse. Dividing space into 6 customers. Warehouse Schedule: Preliminary Stages of design EE1643 Winner Progress: New service to new show room. Volkswagen Schedule: Preliminary Stages of design EE1644 Retreat Pump Progress: Station upgrade from 120/240 Volt to 208Y/120 volt Station Renovation Schedule: Preliminary Stages of design 16 City Manager’s Monthly Report, September 2015

City Planner’s Monthly Report Planning, Inspections & Recreation SEPTEMBER 2015 Planning, Inspections & Recreation Highlights  Community Clean Up— On Saturday, September 19, 2015, approximately 150 volunteers and City staff worked together to clean up li er and remove weeds and overgrowth within the Downtown area. This effort was led by the City but included the partnership of the CenDel Founda on, NCALL, Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity, Downtown Dover Partnership, and Wesley Col‐ lege.  Youth Soccer League - Proudly, our new Youth Soccer League geared for 4 ‐ 14 year olds has taken off excep onally well. In our first season, we have 192 youth enrolled to make up 33 teams with a wai ng list for each age division. This was a partner‐ ship program with the Dover YMCA and Holy Cross enhancing youth soccer in our area. Our recrea onal soccer program priced at $40, gave families an affordable op on for ge ng their youngster into a fun soccer program. With mandatory playing me requirements and a team t‐shirt, these kids are having a real‐ ly good me. Come on out to Schu e Park on a Saturday morning to see a game!  Downtown Development District Event— On Friday, September 25, 2015, Governor Markell presented checks to Dover’s first two completed Downtown Development District projects at a celebra on at 530 Mary Street, the site of a new home con‐ structed due to the new financial incen‐ ves. A check was presented to John and Karen Marble for the construc on of a new home and to Carmen Hardcastle for the renova on of her family home.  Volleyball League (Adult, Co-Ed) - We brought back our in‐ door Fall Volleyball League and pleased with our eight teams that make up this season. These co‐eds volley on Thursday nights at the John W Pi s Recrea on Center. This is fun night of recrea on for the players and we invite you to come on over and check it out. Who knows, maybe you’ll get a team together, too!  Documentation of the G. Parris Homestead - Dawn Melson ‐Williams with the assistance of Ron Coburn and David McGinnis completed fieldwork to document the G. Parris Homestead (Delaware Cultural Resource Survey #K‐6739). Located within the Garrison Oak Technical Park, this circa 1845 dwelling was docu‐ mented by annotated measured drawings and photographs prior to its proposed demoli on.

Planning, Inspections & Recreation Revenue FY '16 Budget FY '16 Actual (YTD) Revenue Stream Looking Forward…... Business License $1,425,000 $ 1,433,424 101% Trailer License $21,000 $ 16,396 78%  Landlord Safe Building Permits $600,000 $ 154,261 26% Community Training Cert. of Occupancy $6,500 $ 1,800 28%  Silver Lake Clean‐Up Public Occupancy $9,700 $ 675 7% Lodging House $14,100 $ 148 1% Plumbing/Heating/Air $75,000 $ 18,875 25% Rental Inspection Fee $350,000 $ 8,237 2% Miscellaneous $15,000 $ 2,428 16% Fire Protection Fees $62,000 $ 15,718 25% Code Enf. Fines $25,000 $ 17,100 Vacant Building Reg. $100,000 $ 28,102 28% Total P&I Revenue $2,703,300 $ 1,697,163 63% Recreation $149,800 $ 40,131 27% TRAINING  On September 14-15, 2015 Ronald Coburn attended PA Association of Building Code Officials Munici- pal Code Enforcement Conference training in New Cumberland, PA.  On September 15, 2015 Velvet Bowen and Jared Bosenburg attend DELJIS Training.  On September 18-19 Tracey Harvey and Ann Marie Townshend attend the annual NAHRO conference in Dewey Beach, DE. PLANNING OFFICE The Planning Office is part of the review process for certain types of construction activity permits (Building Permits, Sign Permits, etc.) and Certificate of Occupancy permits. For September 2015, Planning Staff was involved with review of 77 Permits and 18 Certificates of Occupancy permits. (2015 calendar year total of 720 Permits and CO’s compared to 730 for 2014). Planning Staff also reviews new applications for Business Licenses and Rental Dwelling Permits. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Planning Staff continues to focus on the various implementation items identified in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan as amended.

 On-going efforts of the Planning Office include research for future ordinance amendments related to the Recreational and Commercial (RC) zone and temporary activities.  The Planning Office is also involved in the following studies and projects: City Recrea- tional Needs Assessment, Restoring Central Dover Community Plan, and Transportation Improvement Districts. Construction Activity  Project work continues related to the site improvements at the new Dover High School for site drainage and the eastern areas of the site including the baseball/softball field areas and associated buildings. Temporary Certificates of Occupancy are in place for the high school building and stadium/athletic field areas with conditions. (C-10-05/S-11-18)  For the Leander Lakes Apartments project, the foundation and building construction con- tinues on the community center building and three apartment buildings. In September, re- view began on the Building Permit for the pool to be located at the community center building. The apartment complex is located south of Forrest Avenue/Route 8 and west of Dover High Drive. (S-12-18)  The Planning Staff continues to participate in coordination conference calls with Calpine regarding the Garrison Energy Center project at 450 Garrison Oak Drive (Lot 7 of the Gar- rison Oak Technical Park). The project construction is in the final stages for the Garrison Energy Center Phase 1 (S-12-17) with the opening celebration event scheduled for Octo- ber 1, 2015. The Planning Office continues to wait for receipt of State DNREC permits for the Above Ground Storage Tank before approving the Administrative Site Plan (S-14- 20) for the addition of a Fuel Oil Tank.  Staff attended the ribbon cutting/grand opening event celebrating the Uzin Utz Manufac- turing facility at 200 Garrison Oak Drive (Lot 12 of the Garrison Oak Technical Park). (S- 13-20)  The construction activities continued for the renovation of the commercial building at 1574 North DuPont Highway (old Walmart location). The main building is under renova- tion to divide it into multiple tenant spaces along with a series of site improvements for parking, pedestrian circulation and landscaping under the Dover Town Center Site Plan. (S -15-04) On September 19th, the Planning Commission granted conditional approval of a Revised Plan for revisions to two proposed pad site buildings on the property. (S-15-13).  Construction commenced on a new dental office building to be location at 1088 South State Street for the Dover Family Cosmetic Dental Office. This is development of a vacant commercial property. (S-14-16)

BOARD AND COMMISSION ACTIVITY Planning Commission The Planning Commission met on September 21, 2015. The next Planning Commission meet- ing is scheduled for October 19, 2015. The following applications were considered:  S-13-18 Redevelopment of Walker Woods: The Village of (Sherwood) McKee Branch – After hear- ing information on revisions to project architecture, the Commission recommended that there be no fur- ther Building Permits issued on the project until the developers meet with the Planning Commission to discuss their buildings and design.  AX-15-01 Lands of Paul C. Phillips and Theresa HoShue at 121 Acorn Lane and a property on Nix- on Lane – Commission recommended approval to City Council of an Annexation and Rezoning Request for two parcels of land located at 121 Acorn Lane and 55 Nixon Lane with the proposed zoning of R-8 (One Family Residence zone).  S-15-13 Dover Town Center: Revised Phase 2 –Commission moved to approve a Site Plan for the Do- ver Town Center Revised Phase 2 inclusive of the DAC Report. Project revisions in Phase 2 are increas- ing the multi-tenant retail building from 7,665 SF to 11,600 SF and the revision of the restaurant building from 5,740 SF to 5,793 SF. Total building area for the Dover Town Center project site will be 115,491 SF.  US-15-02 Dover Town Center -Unified Comprehensive Sign – Commission recommended approval of a Comprehensive Sign Plan as submitted for establishment of freestanding (pylon) signs and wall signage on the main multi-tenant commercial building at the Dover Town Center project (redevelopment of the old Walmart site).  MI-15-11 Text Amendment: RG-1 and RG-2 Uses and Bulk Standards and Establish Infill Stand- ards for Residence Zones—Commission recommended approval of the proposed text amendment to City Council and including an amendment to change off-street parking from a permitted use to a conditional use. The Planning Commission met on September 30, 2015 with a Special Meeting to consider the following application.  S-13-18 Redevelopment of Walker Woods: The Village of (Sherwood) McKee Branch – Commission moved to recommended approval of the architectural changes made to S-13-18 Redevelopment of Walker Woods and releasing the hold on the issuance of Building Permits for this project following a presentation by the project developer. Board of Adjustment The Board of Adjustment met on September 16, 2015. The next regular scheduled meeting of the Board of Adjustment is scheduled for October 21, 2015. The following application was considered:  V-15-13 Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless at 118 Galaxy Drive—The Board granted approval of the height Variance to allow construction of a 150 foot telecommunications monopole and associated facilities. Historic District Commission The Historic District Commission did not meet on September 17,2015. The next Historic Dis- trict Commission meeting is scheduled for October 15, 2015.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM CDBG FY15 Projects Homeownership Assistance Program CDBG funds will be used to provide homeownership assistance to first-time homebuyers who purchase affordable housing in the Downtown Development District (DDD) Target Area. An exception was ap- proved by City Council on August 24th to designate funding outside of the DDD Target Area for a fami- ly experiencing a hardship to purchase affordable housing within the City of Dover Limits. The family experiencing the hardship was able to purchase affordable housing through the City’s Homeownership Assistance Program. Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing CDBG funds will be used for operations cost for the shelter. This project is underway. Connections Community Support Program CDBG funds will be used to provide rapid re-housing/rental assistance services for homeless house- holds within the City. This project is underway. Milford Housing Homeowner Rehabilitation Program CDBG funds will be used to rehabilitate existing owner occupied housing in the City that is in violation of the City’s Housing Code and complete emergency home repairs to eliminate housing conditions that threaten the health and safety of low income homeowners. Habitat for Humanity CDBG funds will be used to rehabilitate an existing home to provide affordable housing to a family in the Downtown Development District Target Area. Habitat is currently under contract to purchase 19 N. New Street on November 2, 2015. Peoples Place Whatcoat Homeless Shelter CDBG funds will be utilized for minor renovations to a facility that shelters the homeless. This Project is underway. Mayors Challenge to End Veterans Homelessness The Mayor’s Task Force for Ending Veterans Homelessness has met its goal by housing 36 homeless veterans within 200 days. The task force is now planning to meet its next goal by housing 14 veterans within the next 100 days that will fulfill the Mayor’s Challenge to End Veterans Homelessness by housing 50 homeless veterans by December 28, 2015.

Dangerous Buildings, Vacant Buildings & Demolitions  312 W. Loockerman Street—Notice was sent to the lien holders to make repairs to the va- cant structure by January 6, 2015, or City Staff would schedule a date with Council to de- clare the building dangerous and request to have the building demolished. On February 19th the City Historic District Commission ruled that Demolition by Neglect was occur- ring and recommended the owner have 6 months to make repairs or to have the building demolished. The asbestos abatement has been completed and the demolition bid was awarded to Gateway Construction.  311 N Governors Avenue—Owner was giving until August 13th to make repairs or the City would have the structure demolished. The asbestos abatement has been completed and the demolition bid was awarded to Gateway Construction with a possible start date of mid-October.  363 Rita-Wilma Way—The two abandoned mobile homes on this lot have been con- demned as unfit for human occupancy and boarded. Both mobile homes have been de- molished by the property owner.  110 Rustic Lane—This building was condemned by City Staff and the dangerous building process has begun. The home was boarded and a lien search has been requested. The property will be presented to City Council on July 27th. The owner of the property was giving until September 10th to demolish the property. The asbestos survey has been com- pleted with the demolition awarded to Sunnyfield Contractors.  222 W. Reed Street—City Staff brought forward this property to City Council on May 26, 2015, and requested that the structure be demolished. The owner requested additional time to make repairs and City Council gave the owner until August 26, 2015, to make the repairs. The asbestos survey has been scheduled for September 17th. The demolition bid has been awarded to Sunnyfield Contractors with a possible demo date of mid-October.  35 N. Queen Street—Property is condemned and a lien search has been requested.  113 Davis Circle—Property is condemned and a lien search has been requested.  Vacant Buildings—During the month of September, twenty-two (22) additional buildings were registered as vacant, and $750.00 in vacant building registration fees were collected.

Code Enforcement Activity—SEPTEMBER Case Type # cases current # cases % staff ini ated % staff ini ated month YTD current month YTD No valid Rental Permit 1 136 100% 96% No valid Building Permit 6 46 75% 70% Tall grass and weeds 59 546 88% 77% Unregistered vehicle 2 23 50% 78% Abandoned vehicle 4 74 75% 77% Annual Housing Inspec on 10 212 40% 86% Property Maintenance – 36 477 64% 73% Exterior Electric Termina on 29 179 10% 20% Dover Code of Ordinances 38 465 71% 75% Zoning 12 75 83% 64% Total Cases 197 2234 Total # of Inspec ons For 288 Month Dangerous Buildings 139 Mitscher Road and 325 N. New Street

Fire Marshal’s Office, Building Inspections & Licensing Summary LIFE SAFETY Current July 15‐June16 Sept 2014 Sept 14‐June15 Inspec ons SEPT 15 FYTD 16 SEPT 14 FYTD 15 Annual Fire/Life Safety Inspec ons 15 96 9 185 Fire/Code/DCO Complaints 32 122 33 239 Inspec on Deficiencies from AFI 173 335 32 386 C/O & Acceptance Tests 27 51 4 27 Administra ve Walk Thru 18 43 12 23 Plan Review 8 33 ‐ ‐ Accidental $2,000 $173,900 $8,000 $49,500.00 Incendiary $25,000 $25,000 $ 0.00 $100.00 Undetermined $2,000 $168,000 $0.00 $0.00 PERMITTING AND LICENSING Permits Issued SEPT 15 FYTD 16 SEPT 14 FYTD 15 Administra ve Permit 4 8 2 9 Building Addi on/Renova on Permits 32 104 47 127 Building Permits 34 77 19 57 Demoli on Permits 8 14 1 11 Fence Permits 5 20 14 38 Fire Preven on Permits 8 32 8 22 Mechanical Permits 36 86 13 54 Plumbing Permits 44 92 13 57 Sign Permits 24 42 16 63 Swimming Pool Permits 0 1 0 5 Business Licenses 86 1035 151 735 Merchant Licenses 6 237 22 189 Contractor Licenses 52 683 64 440 Lodging House Licenses 1 6 1 1 Mobile Homes 39 203 26 189 Public Occupancy 8 29 6 27 Rental Dwelling 23 95 26 71 BUILDING INSPECTIONS Inspec ons SEPT 15 FYTD 16 SEPT 14 FYTD 15 Building 393 1137 327 1007 Plumbing/Mechanical 427 1077 201 750 Cer ficate of Occupancy 19 44 9 40

Fire Marshal’s Office—At a Glance Deputy Fire Marshal Jason Osika investigated a structure fire that damaged two single family homes, a vehicle and completely destroyed a large shed. The incident was located in the unit block of S. Kirkwood Street. Total loss was estimated at $25,000. Deputy Fire Marshal Osika spent several days investigating the cause of the fire which re- sulted in the Fire Marshal’s Office arresting two juveniles for the crime of Arson 3rd. Great job Deputy Osika! Recreation Division Enrollment Summary SEPTEMBER FY 16 verses SEPTEMBER FY 15 400 300 200 FY15 100 FY16 0 General Trips Camps Recreation Category FY15 FY16 General Recrea on 154 172 Sports 19 42 Trips 0 26 Leagues 255 378 Camps N/A N/A

Revenue Breakdown: September 2015 verses September 2014 General Recreation General Recreation Sports Sports Trips Trips Leagues Leagues Building & Field Rentals Building & Field Rentals Camps Camps Youth Connections/CSW Youth Connections/CSW General Recreation $1,715.00 General Recreation $1,925.50 Sports $225.00 Sports $885.00 Trips $958.00 Trips $333.00 Leagues $3,685.00 Leagues $3,315.00 Building & Field Rentals $1,120.00 Building & Field Rentals $2,200.00 Camps $0.00 Camps $0.00 Youth Connections/CSW $1,097.00 Youth Connec ons/CSW $1,731.00

John W. Pitts Recreation Center – SEPTEMBER 2015 Total Program Attendance Facility Usage By The Hour 20,000 1,000 15,000 800 600 10,000 400 5,000 200 0 Sept 14 0 Sept 14 Oct 14 Nov 14 Oct 14 Nov 14 Dec 14 Dec 14 Jan 15 Feb 15 Jan 15 Feb 15 Mar 15 Apr 15 Mar 15 Apr 15 May 15 May 15 June 15 July 15 June 15 July 15 Aug 15 Sept 15 Aug 15 Sept 15 Facility Usage By The Hour SEPT 15 FYTD 16 SEPT 14 FYTD 15 Open Gym 493.5 879.75 520.5 1,068.5 Fitness Classes 30 105.5 49.75 134.75 Leagues 29 250 17 116 Camps 0 860 0 731.5 Sports Classes 13.5 13.5 12 61 Meetings & Rentals 19.5 71.5 9 97.5 Enrichment Classes 2 2 0 0 Total Facility Usage Hours 587.5 2,182.25 608.25 2,209.25 Daily Program Attendance** SEPT 15 FYTD 16 SEPT 14 FYTD 15 Total 1,208 12,966 1,080 8,303 Open Gym 334 716 298 833 Fitness Classes 216 671 288 845 Leagues 485 9,649 60 3,610 Camps 0 1,086 0 1,141 Sports Classes 27 27 147 457 Meetings & Rentals 138 809 287 1,417 Enrichment Classes 9 9 0 0 Since our opening in late April 2008, we have had 399,293 guests at the John W. Pitts Recreation Center. SEPTEMBER Open Gym Registrations and Packages Sold Packages Sold: SEPT MTD YTD FYTD Daily: 11 $33 16 $48 Individual Quarterly: 2 $30 2 $45 Individual Annual: 0 $0 0 $0 Family Quarterly: 0 $0 0 $0 Family Annual: 0 $0_ 0 __ $0_ Revenue: $63 $93

CITY OF DOVER FINANCE AND PROCUREMENT & INVENTORY DEPARTMENTS SEPTEMBER 2015 - MONTHLY BUDGET REPORTS PLEASE NOTE – THIS REPORT PROVIDES TOP LINE INFORMATION ON THE OPERATING FUNDS. IF YOU WOULD LIKE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

CITY OF DOVER ACTIVITY REPORTS SEPTEMBER 2015 FINANCE DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY LEVELS FY15 YTD FY16 YTD BANK TRENDS Number of Deposits Made (Hand, ACH & Wire, Lockbox) 1,211 1,236 Total Amount of All Deposits $ 20,221,872 $ 23,546,916 PAYROLL Hours % Amount Hours % Amount Gross wages per registers 199,160 100.0% $ 4,635,197 206,856 100.0% $ 4,901,089 Wages and Hours Worked Regular 162,559 81.6% $ 3,523,856 168,345 81.4% $ 3,663,437 All over time 7,464 3.7% $ 305,690 8,821 4.3% $ 382,908 Other Paid or Unpaid Wages and Hours Vacation 14,432 7.2% $ 388,341 13,150 6.4% $ 367,716 Sick 5,196 2.6% $ 132,703 3,601 1.7% $ 86,195 Terminal Leave - Retiree Vacation/Sick Payout 3,199 1.6% $ 105,085 4,382 2.1% $ 154,570 Comp Time 2,274 1.1% $ 63,636 1,862 0.9% $ 54,874 Personal 342 0.2% $ 10,070 302 0.1% $ 9,520 Leave Without Pay 907 0.5% $ - 1,391 0.7% $ - Other (description below) 2,789 1.4% $ 105,816 5,003 2.4% $ 186,870 Other includes: pay adjustments, military differential pay, training, committee meetings, worker compensation tracking/adjustments, etc. Other Activity Number of Pay Periods 6 6 Number of Payroll Checks & Direct Deposits Issued 2,243 2,309 Number of Pension Checks Issued 761 760 Total Pension Benefits Paid - Defined Benefit Plan $ 1,297,931 $ 1,308,065 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Number of Check Vouchers 1,296 1,208 Number of EFT Vouchers 513 802 Vouchers Dollar Amount Disbursed $ 16,816,639 $ 20,134,084 PROCUREMENT & INVENTORY ACTIVITY LEVELS Contingency & Warehouse Stock $2,800,000 $2,700,000 $2,600,000 Total Dollar Value $2,500,000 $2,400,000 $2,300,000 $2,200,000 $2,100,000 $2,000,000 Series2 Series3 Value: $2,531,524.86 Line Items: 1,420 Fuel Use Unleaded 10,356.1 gallons Diesel 6,845.5 gallons Total Cost $ 29,025.81

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – September 2015 General Fund Summary Revised 25% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 3,977,500 $ 3,977,500 $ - $ - 0.0% Revenues Court of Chancery Fees 1,065,100 1,065,100 190,620 874,480 17.9% Police Extra Duty, Fines & Revenue 1,235,300 1,235,300 275,999 959,301 22.3% Franchise Fees 672,300 672,300 - 672,300 0.0% Grants 623,500 623,500 - 623,500 0.0% Intrafund Services 5,231,200 5,231,200 1,161,852 4,069,348 22.2% Library & Recreation Revenues 671,000 671,000 58,157 612,843 8.7% Licenses & Permits 2,861,300 2,861,300 1,736,219 1,125,081 60.7% Property Taxes (Includes BID Revenue) (1) 12,894,200 12,894,200 12,441,073 453,127 96.5% Miscellaneous Revenues 57,700 57,700 17,638 40,062 30.6% Sanitation Revenues 2,580,000 2,580,000 641,684 1,938,316 24.9% Garrison Farm Rent Revenue 93,700 93,700 15,177 78,523 16.2% Transfers-In from Special Funds & Utilities Municipal Street Aid Fund 564,200 564,200 168,317 395,883 29.8% Civil Traffic Penalties 450,000 450,000 84,153 365,847 18.7% Transfer Taxes 1,340,000 1,340,000 962,121 377,879 71.8% Verizon & Other Reserves 63,200 63,200 - 63,200 0.0% Police Grants/Extra Duty 74,400 74,400 - 74,400 0.0% Water/Wastewater Fund 850,000 850,000 212,500 637,500 25.0% Electric Fund 10,000,000 10,000,000 2,500,000 7,500,000 25.0% Total Revenues 41,327,100 41,327,100 20,465,510 20,861,590 49.5% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 45,304,600 $ 45,304,600 $ 20,465,510 $ 20,861,590 45.2% Expenditures City Clerk & Council $ 501,500 $ 501,500 $ 104,511 $ 396,989 20.8% Mayor, City Manager & Human Resources 1,210,300 1,210,300 290,897 919,403 24.0% Police & Police Extra Duty 15,761,400 15,765,100 3,195,174 12,569,926 20.3% Public Services 4,669,500 4,669,500 1,014,258 3,655,242 21.7% Engineering 181,400 181,400 17,089 164,311 9.4% Procurement & Inventory, Facilities Mgmt., Fleet Maint. 2,036,200 2,044,400 412,643 1,631,757 20.2% Planning, Inspections, Life Safety, Code Enf., & Economic Dev. 2,338,300 2,339,500 479,315 1,860,185 20.5% Finance, Info Tech & Customer Services 2,807,800 2,809,300 700,297 2,109,003 24.9% Library & Recreation 2,239,500 2,239,500 494,098 1,745,402 22.1% Fire Department 745,400 745,400 194,926 550,474 26.2% Assessor 234,800 234,800 58,240 176,560 24.8% Contribution to DDP 70,000 70,000 17,500 52,500 25.0% Miscellaneous Grant Expense 25,000 25,000 - 25,000 0.0% Other Employment Expenses 520,100 505,500 - 505,500 0.0% Bank & CC Fees 10,600 10,600 5,694 4,906 53.7% Insurance 690,000 690,000 166,775 523,225 24.2% OPEB - Retiree’s Health Care Contribution 1,895,600 1,895,600 473,901 1,421,699 25.0% Police Pension Trust Contribution - State Grant 500,000 500,000 - 500,000 0.0% Appropriation to Police Pension Fund 570,000 570,000 142,500 427,500 25.0% Street Lights 797,700 797,700 202,809 594,891 25.4% Debt Service 660,800 660,800 341,301 319,499 51.6% Transfers Out Inventory Write-offs 10,000 10,000 10,000 - 100.0% Capital Projects Fund 2,625,400 2,625,400 656,350 1,969,050 25.0% Verizon Reserve 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 0.0% Uncollectibles: Trash & Other 50,000 50,000 50,000 - 100.0% Total Expenditures 41,201,300 41,201,300 9,028,278 32,173,022 21.9% Budget Balance - Working Capital 4,103,300 4,103,300 - 4,103,300 0.0% Total Budget Balance & Expenditures $ 45,304,600 $ 45,304,600 $ 9,028,278 $ 36,276,322 19.9% Reserve Balances Contingency $ 720,300 $ 720,300 $ 721,947 (1) Property Taxes are the taxes billed and not cash received. The outstanding receivable balance as of 8/31/15 is $561,956 as compared to $623,393 in September 2014.

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – September 2015 Water/Wastewater Fund Summary Revised 25% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance - Water $ 861,600 $ 861,600 $ - $ 861,600 0.0% Beginning Balance - Wastewater 293,400 293,400 - 293,400 0.0% 1,155,000 1,155,000 - 1,155,000 0.0% Revenues Water Fees 6,200,000 6,200,000 1,580,161 4,619,839 25.5% Wastewater Fees 3,728,000 3,728,000 1,051,524 2,676,476 28.2% Wastewater Treatment Services 3,026,500 3,026,500 833,635 2,192,865 27.5% Groundwater Inflow Adjustment 1,864,300 1,864,300 533,609 1,330,691 28.6% Water Tank Space Leases 341,900 341,900 28,717 313,183 8.4% Miscellaneous Service Fee 67,000 67,000 17,727 49,273 26.5% Impact Fees - Water 250,000 250,000 56,713 193,287 22.7% Impact Fees - Wastewater 250,000 250,000 49,413 200,587 19.8% Total Revenues 15,727,700 15,727,700 4,151,499 11,576,201 26.4% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 16,882,700 $ 16,882,700 $ 4,151,499 $ 12,731,201 24.6% Expenses Water/Wastewater Operating Divisions Engineering & Inspection $ 517,500 $ 517,500 $ 99,865 $ 417,635 19.3% Water Department 673,300 673,300 139,338 533,962 20.7% Water Treatment Plant 1,910,000 1,910,000 360,621 1,549,379 18.9% Wastewater Department 968,600 968,600 152,587 816,013 15.8% Kent County Treatment Charge 4,130,000 4,130,000 984,697 3,145,303 23.8% Intrafund Service Fees 1,492,700 1,492,700 319,699 1,173,001 21.4% Retiree's Health Care 178,600 178,600 44,649 133,951 25.0% Debt Service 1,132,100 1,132,100 235,238 896,862 20.8% Other Employment Expenses 20,000 20,000 - 20,000 0.0% Bank & CC Fees 46,200 46,200 5,810 40,390 12.6% Transfers Out General Fund 850,000 850,000 212,500 637,500 25.0% Contingency Reserve 32,000 32,000 - 32,000 0.0% Water I & E Fund 1,800,000 1,800,000 450,000 1,350,000 25.0% Wastewater I & E Fund 1,500,000 1,500,000 375,000 1,125,000 25.0% Total Expenses 15,251,000 15,251,000 3,380,004 11,870,996 22.2% Budget Balances Budget Balance - Working Capital - Water 1,048,600 1,048,600 - 1,048,600 0.0% Budget Balance - Working Capital - WW 583,100 583,100 - 583,100 0.0% Total Budget Balances 1,631,700 1,631,700 - 1,631,700 0.0% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 16,882,700 $ 16,882,700 $ 3,380,004 $ 13,502,696 20.0% Reserve Balances Contingency-Water $ 137,700 $ 137,700 $ 105,424 Contingency-Wastewater $ 191,100 $ 191,100 $ 190,635 Impact Fee Reserve - Sewer $ 1,309,500 $ 1,309,500 $ 1,746,556 Impact Fee Reserve - Water $ 202,000 $ 202,000 $ 428,481 Bond Coverage Ratio (Covenant 1.20) 4.30 4.30 6.53

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – September 2015 Electric Revenue Fund Summary Revised 25% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 6,177,600 $ 6,177,600 $ - $ 6,177,600 0.0% Revenues Direct Sales to Customers 78,279,200 78,279,200 23,252,172 55,027,028 29.7% Utility Tax 1,281,100 1,281,100 377,021 904,079 29.4% Weyandt Hall Rents 202,600 202,600 24,427 178,173 12.1% Miscellaneous Revenues 725,200 725,200 307,731 417,469 42.4% Interest Earnings 47,900 47,900 4,631 43,269 9.7% Transfer from Rate Stabilization 3,000,000 3,000,000 750,000 2,250,000 25.0% Total Revenues 83,536,000 83,536,000 24,715,982 58,820,018 29.6% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 89,713,600 $ 89,713,600 $ 24,715,982 $ 64,997,618 27.5% Expenses Power Supply & Generation Hedged Energy $ 23,402,600 $ 23,402,600 $ 7,478,791 $ 15,923,809 32.0% Power Supply Management 996,000 996,000 249,000 747,000 25.0% Capacity Charges 10,225,100 10,225,100 2,642,580 7,582,520 25.8% Dover Sun Park Energy 2,313,900 2,313,900 506,454 1,807,446 21.9% Renewal Energy Credits (Incl. Solar) 1,036,800 1,036,800 83,467 953,333 8.1% RGGI 175,000 175,000 - 175,000 0.0% PJM Charges - Energy 7,966,100 7,966,100 906,559 7,059,541 11.4% PJM Charges - Transmission & Fees 7,932,500 7,932,500 1,489,643 6,442,857 18.8% Total Power Supply 54,048,000 54,048,000 13,356,494 40,691,506 24.7% Plant Operations 6,434,600 6,382,900 1,586,086 4,796,814 24.8% Generation Fuels 1,167,300 1,167,300 490,450 676,850 42.0% Capacity Credits (10,472,100) (10,472,100) (2,114,341) (8,357,759) 20.2% PJM Spot Market Energy (1,708,300) (1,708,300) (573,083) (1,135,217) 33.5% PJM Credits (360,000) (360,000) (218,450) (141,550) 60.7% Total Generation (4,938,500) (4,990,200) (829,338) (4,160,862) 16.6% Total Power Supply & Generation 49,109,500 49,057,800 12,527,156 36,530,644 25.5% Electric Operating Divisions: Transmission/Distribution 4,068,600 4,068,600 783,301 3,285,299 19.3% Electrical Engineering 1,335,800 1,335,800 245,838 1,089,962 18.4% Administration 839,300 891,000 141,929 749,071 15.9% Meter Reading 360,500 360,500 88,677 271,823 24.6% Systems Operations 679,800 679,800 146,247 533,553 21.5% Intrafund Services 3,738,500 3,738,500 842,153 2,896,347 22.5% Utility Tax 1,281,100 1,281,100 377,021 904,079 29.4% OPEB Trust Contribution - Unfunded Liability 1,030,000 1,030,000 - 1,030,000 0.0% Retirees Health Care 537,800 537,800 134,451 403,349 25.0% Interest on Deposits 20,500 20,500 5,189 15,311 25.3% Green Energy Payment to DEMEC 128,000 128,000 38,051 89,949 29.7% Accounts Receivable Write-Offs 200,000 200,000 200,000 - 100.0% Other Employee Expenses 72,000 72,000 - 72,000 0.0% Bank & CC Fees 242,300 242,300 68,384 173,916 28.2% Debt Service 3,402,000 3,402,000 2,413,740 988,260 71.0% Transfers Out: General Fund 10,000,000 10,000,000 2,500,000 7,500,000 25.0% Electric Improvement & Extension Fund 3,500,000 3,500,000 875,000 2,625,000 25.0% Transfer to Insurance Reserve 10,000 10,000 - 10,000 0.0% Transfer to Contingency Reserve 13,000 13,000 - 13,000 0.0% Total Expenses 80,568,700 80,568,700 21,387,137 59,181,563 26.5% Budget Balance - Working Capital 9,144,900 9,144,900 - 9,144,900 0.0% Total Budget Balance & Expenses $ 89,713,600 $ 89,713,600 $ 21,387,137 $ 68,326,463 23.8% Reserve Balances Contingency Reserve $ 844,600 $ 844,600 $ 824,520 Insurance Reserve $ 758,700 $ 758,700 $ 742,301 Rate Stabilization Reserve $ 4,602,600 $ 4,602,600 $ 6,771,430 Bond Coverage Ratio (Covenant 1.25) 2.62 2.62 6.98 Megawatt Hours Sold & Purchased Sales to Customers MWh (excluding Street Light MWh) 712,390 712,390 212,057 29.8% Sales per MWh $ 109.88 $ 109.88 $ 109.65 99.8% Purchased/Generated MWh 741,522 741,522 218,573 29.5% All In MWh Supply & Generation $ 66.23 $ 66.23 $ 57.31 86.5%

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – September 2015 General Capital Project Fund Summary Revised 25% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance - Projects $ 154,800 $ 2,732,300 $ - $ 2,732,300 0.0% Revenues Interest Earnings 5,000 5,000 772 4,228 15.4% Income from Sale of Assets 20,300 16,900 4,987 11,913 29.5% Transfer from General Fund for Projects 2,625,400 2,625,400 656,350 1,969,050 25.0% Total Revenues 2,650,700 2,647,300 662,109 1,985,191 25.0% Total Beginning Balance & Revenue $ 2,805,500 $ 5,379,600 $ 662,109 $ 4,717,491 12.3% Expenditures Fire $ 145,600 $ 445,800 $ 445,594 $ 206 100.0% Grounds Maintenance 201,100 267,100 - 267,100 0.0% Life Safety 55,700 55,700 - 55,700 0.0% Police 262,100 280,700 - 280,700 0.0% Streets 1,428,500 3,617,800 111,091 3,506,709 3.1% Sanitation 449,000 449,000 - 449,000 0.0% City Manager 24,700 24,700 - 24,700 0.0% Fleet Maintenance 84,000 84,000 - 84,000 0.0% Bank Fees - - 217 (217) 0.0% Total Expenditures 2,650,700 5,224,800 556,902 4,667,898 10.7% Budget Balance - Projects 154,800 154,800 - 154,800 0.0% Total Budget Balance & Expenditures $ 2,805,500 $ 5,379,600 $ 556,902 $ 4,822,698 10.4% Reserve Balances Capital Asset Replacement Reserve $ 916,500 $ 916,500 $ 917,156 Parkland/Recreation $ 296,700 $ 296,700 $ 321,515

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – September 2015 Water/Wastewater Improvement & Extension Fund Summary Revised 25% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance - Water $ 833,500 $ 4,747,500 $ - $ 4,747,500 0.0% Beginning Balance - Wastewater $ 1,027,600 $ 4,504,600 $ - $ 4,504,600 0.0% Revenues Miscellaneous Revenues - 20,200 - - 0.0% Interest Earnings 25,000 25,000 17,031 7,969 68.1% Transfer from Operating Fund for Water 1,800,000 1,800,000 450,000 1,350,000 25.0% Transfer from Operating Fund for Wastewater 1,500,000 1,500,000 375,000 1,125,000 25.0% Transfer from Impact Fee Reserve - Wastewater 165,000 165,000 - 165,000 0.0% Total Revenues 3,490,000 3,510,200 842,031 2,647,969 24.0% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 5,351,100 $ 12,762,300 $ 842,031 $ 11,900,069 6.6% Expenses Water $ 2,028,600 $ 5,442,600 $ 1,135,043 $ 4,307,557 20.9% Wastewater 1,822,100 5,299,100 796,054 4,503,046 15.0% Bank Fees - - 1,170 (1,170) 0.0% Total Expenses 3,850,700 11,026,100 1,932,267 9,093,833 17.5% Budget Balance - Working Capital - Water 617,400 773,400 - 773,400 0.0% Budget Balance - Working Capital - Wastewater 883,000 962,800 - 962,800 0.0% Total Budget Balances 1,500,400 1,736,200 - 1,736,200 0.0% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 5,351,100 $ 12,762,300 $ 1,932,267 $ 10,830,033 15.1% Reserve Balances Capital Asset Replacement - Water $ 518,500 $ 518,300 $ 511,825 Capital Asset Replacement - Wastewater $ 515,200 $ 512,700 $ 510,654

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – September 2015 Electric Improvement & Extension Fund Summary Revised 25% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 3,623,600 $ 6,684,100 $ - $ 6,684,100 0.0% Revenues Interest Earnings 26,700 26,700 11,134 15,566 41.7% Transfer from Electric Revenue Fund 3,500,000 3,500,000 875,000 2,625,000 25.0% General Service Billing 1,900,000 1,900,000 60,676 1,839,324 3.2% Total Revenues 5,426,700 5,426,700 946,810 4,479,890 17.4% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 9,050,300 $ 12,110,800 $ 946,810 $ 11,163,990 7.8% Expenses Electric Generation $ 1,655,000 $ 2,299,800 $ 279,493 $ 2,020,307 12.2% Transmission/Distribution 2,887,600 3,625,900 322,264 3,303,636 8.9% Electrical Engineering 1,724,300 3,401,700 308,876 3,092,824 9.1% Bank & CC Fees - 3,598 (3,598) Total Expenses 6,266,900 9,327,400 914,231 8,413,169 9.8% Budget Balance - Working Capital (Unaudited) 2,783,400 2,783,400 - 2,783,400 0.0% Total Budget Balance & Expenses $ 9,050,300 $ 12,110,800 $ 914,231 $ 11,196,569 7.5% Reserve Balances Depreciation Reserve $ 10,066,400 $ 10,066,400 $ 9,980,181 Future Capacity Reserve $ 10,218,000 $ 10,218,000 $ 10,130,543 City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – September 2015 Community Transportation Improvement Fund Revised 25% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 144,000 $ 512,900 $ - $ 512,900 0.0% Revenues Grants Revenue 500,000 500,000 17,350 482,650 3.5% Interest Earned 500 500 22 478 4.4% Total Revenues 500,500 500,500 17,372 483,128 3.5% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 644,500 $ 1,013,400 $ 17,372 $ 996,028 1.7% Expenses Program Expenses - Del Dot $ 644,000 $ 1,012,900 $ 1,350 $ 1,011,550 0.1% Total Expenses 644,000 1,012,900 1,350 1,011,550 0.1% Budget Balance - Working Capital 500 500 - 500 0.0% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 644,500 $ 1,013,400 $ 1,350 $ 1,012,050 0.1%

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – September 2015 Police Grant Funds Revised 25% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ - $ 125,000 0.0% Revenues State & Federal Grants Received 527,300 527,300 125,254 402,046 23.8% Interest Earnings - 156 (156) 0.0% Total Revenues 527,300 527,300 125,410 401,890 23.8% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 652,300 $ 652,300 $ 125,410 $ 526,890 19.2% Expenses Cadet Program $ 80,300 $ 80,300 $ 16,733 $ 63,567 20.8% Equipment & Program Supplies 410,600 396,600 9,459 387,141 2.4% Technology Equipment 20,000 20,000 2,825 17,175 14.1% Telephone/Fax 15,000 15,000 4,158 10,842 27.7% Training/Conference/Food/Travel 17,000 31,000 15,915 15,085 51.3% Consulting/Audit Fees 1,000 1,000 - 1,000 0.0% Operating Transfers - Out 74,400 74,400 - 74,400 0.0% Total Expenses 618,300 618,300 49,090 569,210 7.9% Budget Balance - Working Capital (Unaudited) 34,000 34,000 - 34,000 0.0% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 652,300 $ 652,300 $ 49,090 $ 603,210 7.5%

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – September 2015 Library Grant Fund Revised 25% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 17,300 $ 17,300 $ - $ 17,300 0.0% Revenues Grants Received 278,900 278,900 - 278,900 0.0% Federal Grants 2,500 2,500 2,130 370 85.2% Total Revenues 281,400 281,400 2,130 279,270 0.8% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 298,700 $ 298,700 $ 2,130 $ 296,570 0.7% Expenses Program Expenses/Supplies-State Grants $ 26,600 $ 24,100 $ 5,961 $ 18,139 24.7% Program Expenses/Supplies-Federal Grants - 2,500 - 2,500 0.0% Office Supplies 24,000 24,000 5,860 18,140 24.4% Printing/Duplicating 13,200 13,200 3,842 9,358 29.1% Postage 100 100 - 100 0.0% Books 129,200 129,200 - 129,200 0.0% Furniture 3,100 3,100 2,850 250 91.9% Audio Visual Supplies 75,100 75,100 6,502 68,598 8.7% Training/Conference/Food/Travel 2,000 2,000 240 1,760 12.0% Contractual Services 900 900 - 900 0.0% Office Equipment/Repairs & Maintenance 6,000 6,000 4,521 1,479 75.4% Other Equipment - Lease 1,200 1,200 460 740 38.3% Total Expenses 281,400 281,400 30,236 251,164 10.7% Budget Balance - Working Capital 17,300 17,300 - 17,300 0.0% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 298,700 $ 298,700 $ 30,236 $ 268,464 10.1% City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – September 2015 After School Program/Substance Abuse Prevention Fund Revised 25% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 41,000 $ 41,000 $ - $ 41,000 0.0% Revenues Grants Received 55,700 55,700 7,008 48,692 12.6% Recreation Revenue 33,000 33,000 14,746 18,254 44.7% Total Revenues 88,700 88,700 21,754 66,946 24.5% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 129,700 $ 129,700 $ 21,754 $ 107,946 16.8% Expenses Temporary Help/Benefits $ 60,200 $ 60,200 $ 21,391 $ 38,809 35.5% Program Expenses/Supplies 55,700 55,700 9,770 45,930 17.5% Total Expenses 115,900 115,900 31,161 84,739 26.9% Budget Balance - Working Capital 13,800 13,800 - 13,800 0.0% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 129,700 $ 129,700 $ 31,161 $ 98,539 24.0%

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – September 2015 CDBG Fund Revised 25% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 2,100 $ 2,100 $ - $ 2,100 0.0% Revenues Grants Received 265,400 272,800 2,139 270,661 0.8% Interest Earnings - - 40 (40) 0.0% Total Revenues 265,400 272,800 2,179 270,621 0.8% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 267,500 $ 274,900 $ 2,179 $ 272,721 0.8% Expenses Closing Cost/Down Payment Program $ 60,000 $ 60,900 $ 20,000 $ 40,900 32.8% Connection Community Supply Program 7,400 7,400 - 7,400 0.0% Dover Interfaith Ministry 27,000 27,000 858 26,142 3.2% MHDC Emergency Home Repair 88,200 88,200 - 88,200 0.0% Habitat For Humanity 40,000 40,000 - 40,000 0.0% NCALL Research Inc. - 6,500 - 6,500 0.0% Peoples Place 6,800 6,800 - 6,800 0.0% Salaries 36,000 36,000 - 36,000 0.0% Total Expenses 265,400 272,800 20,858 251,942 7.6% Budget Balance - Working Capital 2,100 2,100 - 2,100 0.0% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 267,500 $ 274,900 $ 20,858 $ 254,042 7.6%

Monthly Report September 2015 Economic Development Office

2015_09  Calpine Bi-weekly Conference Calls  Attended Parking Committee Meeting  Met with Mayor Christiansen to discuss Farmer’s Market  Discussed draft contract with Dave Sweeney, COO Advantech  Met with representative from ShopRite and toured Dover for possible location  Attended Kent County is Open for Business  Conference call with Tom Ross regarding potential use at Garrison Oak Technology Park  Discussed lift station status with Meg Shivone, Hirsh Industries  Attended Chamber Board Meeting  Provided contact information to City Assessor’s Office for Uzin Utz and Calpine  Hosted LEADS Group Meeting  Met with Chesapeake Utilities to discuss easement on South West Street  Meeting with Bill Winters to review adjustments to financials  Provided incentive application to the Onix Group and reviewed their application with Dean Pletz  Attended Promotions Committee Meeting  Reviewed Capital Scrapyard Brownfield invoice  Attended HSCA Meeting  Met with representatives from Post-Acute Medical LLC regarding proposed LTAC  Attended DSU President’s Prayer Breakfast  Attended GOTP progress meeting  Attended Greater Kent Committee Meeting  Met with Bobbie Schmittinger and Tammy Parris re DDD incentives for nail salon  Met with Joshua George at E-ZPass Building for water leak problem  Conference call with Brad White of Lexden Capital to discuss financing initiative for potential project at GOTP  Attended Bayhealth Business & Investment Committee Meeting  Attended initial Capital Gateway meeting  Provided Rose Urban financial information regarding old Airbase Carpet location  Forwarded GOTP information to Lexden Capital  Participated in Dover Air Force Base Civic Leader Tour  Met with Sydney Artz and Mayor Christiansen to discuss future Schwartz Center initiatives  Attended DEED Meeting  Attended and presented at Kent County Economic Summit

 Attended meeting with possible users of Value City location  Attended grand opening of Delmarva Repair  Attended DDD Incentive Check presentations for John Marble and Carmen Hardcastle  Attended Uzin Utz ribbon-cutting and luncheon  Attended Boy Scout recognition dinner for Brooks Banta  Attended DDD progress meeting  Presented economic overview to Kent County Hoteliers meeting  Chaired Restoring Central Dover Economic Development Working Group meeting  Attended ribbon-cutting Habitat for Humanity house on Kirkwood Street  Meeting with Diane Laird regarding pop-up location  Meeting with Kevin Cullen of Wesley College to discuss international students and potential downtown program Measures: 1 Maintain an unemployment rate for the City of Dover that is lower than national and state averages 2013-2014 Actual 2014-2015 Actual 2015 - 2015 Actual Results <10% unemployment rate in < 10% unemployment rate in <10% unemployment rate in June 2014 June 2015 June 2016 6.1 % - US Rate 5.3 % - US Rate 5.1% - US Rate 6.9 % - DE Rate 4.7 % - DE Rate 4.9 % - DE Rate 8.3% - City of Dover Rate 7.4% - City of Dover Rate 6.6% - City of Dover Rate June 2014 Actual June 2015 Actual September 2015 Actual 2 Monitor number of contacts with small businesses and with out-of-town companies interested in locating in Dover 2013-2014 Actual 2014-2015 Actual 2015 - 2016 Actual Results ≥20 contacts with potential >20 contacts with potential >20 contacts with potential small businesses; small businesses; small businesses; 23 contacts YTD 20 Contacts YTD 10 Contacts YTD ≥11 contacts with out-of-town >11 contacts with out-of-town >11 contacts with out-of-town companies interested in companies interested in companies interested in locating in Dover locating in Dover locating in Dover 13 Contacts YTD 16 Contacts YTD 9 Contacts YTD

2015_9 Downtown Dover Partnership  Provided technical assistance to six (6) prospective small business individuals on overall business development within the Downtown Dover Business District  On-going technical assistance to four (4) prospective small business individuals on locating available space within the downtown district to lease  Provided twenty-two (22) hours of Technical Assistance to merchants located in the Downtown Business Corridor  Telephone conference with Diane Laird and Ken Anderson from DEDO to discuss Pop Up Project selected location in Dover  Updated the DDP Parking Lot Vacancy Count for September 2015  Submitted a second series of work orders (Electrical, Stage, Trash services and tree lighting) to City for the OktDoverfest Event  Assisted the Delaware Hispanic Commission – Economic Development Sub-Committee with the creation of Program Brochure  Submitted work orders (Electrical and Trash services) for First Friday in September Event  Assisted with the dissemination of Strong Neighborhood Clean Up information/flyer  Coordinated the logistics (work orders, permit, etc.) for the “Stop the Violence” Event  Met with Pastor Amy Yarnall from Wesley Church to discuss parking issues within the downtown  Continued working with the Veteran’s Day Parade Committee on logistics of parade  Coordinated the logistics (work orders, permit, etc.) for the “Dinoversary” Event  Attended the Restoring Central Dover Committee Meeting  Attended Veteran’s Parade Planning Meeting III  Coordinated Grand Opening logistics for Delmarva Repair  Met with Renee McGlothin from Wesley College Homecoming event  Completed Parking Lot Survey  Met with Kevin Cullen from Wesley College to discuss “Intensive Language” Center  Coordinated the logistics (work orders, permit, etc.) for the “Foundation for a Better Tomorrow” Event  Met with Tamika Graham from NCALL to review the Restoring Central Dover Report  Attended the Design Committee Meeting  Attended the Uzin Utz Grand Opening  Met with Javier Torrijos from Delaware Hispanic Commission to discuss logistics for the scheduled Hispanic Economic Summit  Met with Domonique Williams to review submitted Façade Application  Telephone conference with Jim Provo from SBA Office regarding the Community Loan Workshops in Dover  Telephone conference with Kelly Kolakowski from McGinnis Realty regarding DDD Vacancy listing  Telephone conference with Katrina Sullivan from Delaware State News regarding First Friday and Holiday Ads

 Discussed the development of area parking map with Sydney Artz from the Schwartz Theater phase II  Met with Brandon Cohen from Cloud Geeks to discuss SBA RFP Social Media Workshops  Attended the Capital Holiday Celebration Committee meeting

Dover Police Department Monthly Report To Mayor and City Council “To Protect and Serve” September 2015

DEPARTMENT OF POLICE Paul M. Bernat 400 South Queen Street Chief of Police Dover, Delaware 19904 F.B.I.N.A. 302-736-7111 Fax: 302-672-1842 November 9, 2015 Honorable Robin Christiansen, Mayor Members of Dover City Council City Hall Dover, DE 19901 Mayor Christiansen and Council Members: The following is the monthly report for Dover Police Department activities for the month of September 2015: COMPLAINTS Total complaints received through September 30, 2015, numbered 29,006 this is an increase of 2,525 complaints over the same time period last year. 31,000 27,672 27,227 26,481 29,006 25,632 26,000 21,000 16,000 11,000 6,000 1,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS 50 40 Cases Reported in September 30 Cases Cleared in September 20 13 5 Cases Cleared from Previous 7 3 1 10 3 3 5 5 Months 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burglary Robbery Rape Homicide Sudden Death

Report to Mayor and Council September 2015 Page 3 COMMUNITY POLICING - SAFE STREETS, QUALITY OF LIFE (QOL) & CADETS SAFE STREETS ENFORCEMENT & Contacts QOL ABANDONED VEHICLES 1 ALCOHOL VIOLATIONS/DUI’S 0 ASSIST OTHER 9 CADETS Contacts WARRANTS ON FILE 0 PARKING 35 BIKE ON SIDEWALK 0 DCO’S 99 CITY PARK VIOLATIONS 0 OPEN CONTAINER 32 CRIMINAL ARRESTS 0 LOUD NOISE 0 DRUG RELATED ARRESTS 24 LEWDNESS 0 LOUD MUSIC 2 OTHER 32 MISCELLANEOUS VIOLATIONS 7 BUSINESSES CONTACTED 134 PARKING VIOLATIONS 3 LIBRARY CHECKS 59 PEDDLER 0 COMPLAINTS ASSIGNED 113 MEETINGS 131 SPECIAL EVENT 4 GUNS 1 TOTAL CONTACTS 508 CURFEW CHECKS 36 CRIME PREVENTION CHECK 1 TRAFFIC ARRESTS 24 WARNINGS 8 FUGITIVE 7 TOTAL CONTACTS 254 TRAFFIC ARRESTS The department issued 9,782 traffic citations through this reporting period. This is a decrease of 2,470 citations over the number issued during the same period last year. 14,797 15,000 13,301 12,535 12,252 9,782 10,000 5,000 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Report to Mayor and Council September 2015 Page 4 TRAFFIC CRASHES Through September 30th, Dover Police investigated 1,429 1,457 1,315 traffic crashes. This is a decrease of 90 1,500 1,405 1,315 1,400 1,292 crashes investigated during the same period last 1,300 year. 1,200 1,100 1,000 900 800 700 600 500 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 911 CENTER During the month of September, the Dover Police Department handled a total of 9,779 calls 26% averaging 316 calls per day. Dispatchers handled 2,525 calls on the 911 wireless lines, 640 calls on the 911 landlines, and 252 calls on the 911 Wireless Voice Over Internet Protocol lines, the remaining 911 Landline 6,362 were administrative calls. 6% VolP 65% 3% Administrative CITY ORDINANCE SUMMONS 7,000 Through September 30th, we issued 4,742 6,000 city ordinance summons, a decrease of 1,005 summonses over the same period last 5,000 year. *Note: Of those summonses issued in 4,000 August, 18 DCO’s were issued for 3,000 handicapped parking violations, 5 for fire 2,000 lane parking violations, 63 for false alarms 1,000 (0, for 1-2, 44, for 3-5 alarms, 13, for 6-9 0 alarms, 2, for 10-15 alarms, and 4, for 16 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 or more alarms) and 8 for noise violations ISSUED 6,618 5,529 5,620 5,747 4,742 (3, for vehicle violations and 5, for PAID 4,158 4,500 3,174 4,137 2,755 residence violations).

Report to Mayor and Council September 2015 Page 5 SEX OFFENDER STATISTICS/AUGUST MONTHLY NON COMPLIANT VERIFICATIONS NOTIFICATIONS REVERIFICATIONS WARRANTS TIER 1 0 0 0 1 TIER 2 20 1862 44 2 TIER 3 10 1400 22 0 ACTIVE SEX OFFENDERS THAT RESIDE IN THE CITY OF DOVER (please note, Tier 1 offenders are not contacted by Dover Police Sex Offender Agents). 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 AUGUST SEPTEMBER TIER 2 180 178 TIER 3 67 71 Please visit our website at www.doverpolice.org for up to date information on crimes and activities in the City of Dover. Respectfully Submitted, Paul M. Bernat Chief of Police

City of Dover Capital Investment Plan Project Tracking Report Quarterly Report as of Sept 30, 2015 Points to Remember - * Original Project Budget = Original Total Project Budget initially included in approved annual budget. * Latest Project Budget = Revised Total Project Budget included in most recent approved annual budget or one of the following: bond resolution, revolving fund loan agreement, Council approved budget amendment, or City Manager approved amendment as per the Budget Amendment Procedure. * Current Fiscal Year - Revised Fiscal Year Budget = Current Year approved project budgets plus carry forward balances of unspent budgets in the prior fiscal year. Project Carry Forward balances will be submitted to City Council for amendment in January 2010. Can also be amended with City Manager approval per the Budget Amendment Procedure. * Water Quality, Inflow/Infiltration, Distribution Upgrades and New Development projects are budgeted as a blanket project and once individual projects are identified and estimated they are created using an allocation of the overall budgeted amount. * Status and Comments provided by City Manager. Community Water & Total Current Year Budget Funding Sources General Transportation Wastewater Electric CIP Budget Balance $ 2,577,500 $ 512,900 $ 7,515,900 $ 3,900,700 $ 14,507,000 General Billings for Reimbursement of Expense - - 20,200 1,900,000 1,920,200 Debt Financing - - - - - Income from Sale of Assets 16,900 - - - 16,900 State Community Transportation Funds - 500,000 - - 500,000 Transfer from WW Impact Fee Reserve - - 165,000 - 165,000 Transfer from General Fund 2,625,400 - - - 2,625,400 Transfer from Operating Funds - - 3,300,000 3,500,000 6,800,000 Transfer from Parkland Reserve - - - - - Interest Income 5,000 - 25,000 26,700 56,700 Total Funding Sources (Unaudited) $ 5,224,800 $ 1,012,900 $ 11,026,100 $ 9,327,400 $ 26,591,200

City of Dover General Fund - Major CIP Projects Quarterly Report as of Sept 30, 2015 TOTAL PROJECT - PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Project % Original Revised Fiscal % Project Project Project To Date Budget Budget Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget Budget Code Type Description Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Status Comments 1 FY 2013 2 ST1304 M B/L Garrison Farm Improvements $ 1,924,000 $ 4,600,000 $ 3,136,959 $ 1,463,041 68.2% $ 1,496,500 $ 1,496,500 $ 33,378 $ 1,463,122 2.2% In Process Project approximately 90% complete 3 Totals - FY 2013 $ 1,924,000 $ 4,600,000 $ 3,136,959 $ 1,463,041 68.2% $ 1,496,500 $ 1,496,500 $ 33,378 $ 1,463,122 2.2% 4 5 FY 2015 6 FR1501 SCBA Equipment/Radios 588,800 588,800 588,632 168 100.0% 300,200 300,200 299,981 219 99.9% Complete 7 PR1501 Park & Playground Impr Equipment 66,000 66,000 - 66,000 0.0% 66,000 66,000 - 66,000 0.0% 8 ST1502 Streets, Alleys and Concrete Prog. 900,000 624,400 186,391 438,009 29.9% 441,500 441,500 3,403 438,097 0.8% In Process 9 ST1503 Misc Emergency Street/Storm Repairs 75,000 75,000 71,881 3,120 95.8% 35,000 35,000 31,791 3,209 90.8% Complete 10 ST1504 G Old PW2 Site Improvements 480,000 480,000 106,195 373,805 22.1% 330,000 373,900 - 373,900 0.0% In Process Design work ongoing Invoices received in Oct, project 11 ST1506 Stormwater Ditch Maintenance 15,000 15,000 - 15,000 0.0% 15,000 15,000 - 15,000 0.0% Complete complete. Project continuing, approximately 80% 12 ST1508 G Stormwater Utility Planning 90,000 90,000 38,250 51,750 42.5% 82,400 82,400 30,600 51,800 37.1% In Process complete with study. 13 Totals - FY 2015 $ 2,214,800 $ 1,939,200 $ 991,348 $ 947,852 51.1% $ 1,270,100 $ 1,314,000 $ 365,774 $ 948,226 27.8% 14 15 FY 2016 16 --- Vehicles & Equipment $ 1,095,200 $ 1,113,800 $ - $ 1,113,800 0.0% $ 1,095,200 $ 1,113,800 $ - $ 1,113,800 0.0% In Process 17 FR1500 Annual Contribution to Robbins Hose 145,600 145,600 145,614 (14) 100.0% 145,600 145,600 145,614 (14) 100.0% Complete 18 GO1501 GOTP Farmhouse Demo/Project - - 9,485 (9,485) 0.0% - - 9,485 (9,485) 0.0% 19 PD1601 Camera Monitoring Station 19,900 19,900 - 19,900 0.0% 19,900 19,900 - 19,900 0.0% 20 ST1601 FY16 Street and Alley Program 1,000,000 925,000 - 925,000 0.0% 1,000,000 925,000 - 925,000 0.0% In Process Bids due October 30th. 21 ST1603 Valve Replacement - Silver Lake Dam 60,000 60,000 - 60,000 0.0% 60,000 60,000 - 60,000 0.0% In Process Project to be bid by mid Nov. 22 ST1604 Salt Storage Barn 75,000 75,000 2,435 72,565 3.2% 75,000 75,000 2,435 72,565 3.2% In Process Project to be bid by early Nov. Project ongoing, work provided as 23 ST1605 Misc Emergency Street/Storm Repairs 75,000 75,000 - 75,000 0.0% - 75,000 - 75,000 0.0% In Process emergencies arise. 24 Totals - FY 2016 $ 2,470,700 $ 2,414,300 $ 157,533 $ 2,256,767 6.5% $ 2,395,700 $ 2,414,300 $ 157,533 $ 2,256,767 6.5% 25 26 Grand Totals $ 6,609,500 $ 8,953,500 $ 4,285,840 $ 4,667,660 47.9% $ 5,162,300 $ 5,224,800 $ 556,686 $ 4,668,114 10.7% Legend M = Multi-year project - a project with a specific schedule to occur over multiple years. R = Recurring project - a project that begins and ends each fiscal year and is re-budgeted to start over each fiscal year. G = Grant funded project B/L = To be financed through bonds or commercial loan.

City of Dover Community Transportation - Major CIP Projects Quarterly Report as of Sept 30, 2015 TOTAL PROJECT - PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Project % Original Revised Fiscal % Project Project Project To Date Budget Budget Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget Budget Code Type Description Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Status Comments 1 FY 2014 2 CT1405 Lakeview Drainage Study $ 24,400 $ 24,400 $ 18,187 $ 6,213 74.5% $ 6,300 $ 6,300 $ - $ 6,300 0.0% In Process Design work approximately 80% complete 3 Totals - FY 2014 $ 24,400 $ 24,400 $ 18,187 $ 6,213 74.5% $ 6,300 $ 6,300 $ - $ 6,300 0.0% 4 5 FY 2015 Phase I, II & III complete. Phase IV completion to 6 CT1562 Village of Cannon Mill Repavement 315,000 386,900 25,997 360,903 6.7% 361,000 361,000 - 361,000 0.0% In Process occur in November. 7 CT1599 Signage Agreement 2,700 2,700 2,520 180 93.3% 1,600 1,600 1,350 250 84.4% Complete 8 Totals - FY 2015 $ 317,700 $ 389,600 $ 28,517 $ 361,083 7.3% $ 362,600 $ 362,600 $ 1,350 $ 361,250 0.4% 9 10 FY 2016 11 CTxxxx Unapplied CT Projects (placeholder) 644,000 644,000 - 644,000 0.0% 144,000 644,000 - 644,000 0.0% 12 Totals - FY 2016 644,000 644,000 - 644,000 0.0% 144,000 644,000 - 644,000 0.0% 13 Grand Totals $ 986,100 $ 1,058,000 $ 46,705 $ 1,011,295 4.4% $ 512,900 $ 1,012,900 $ 1,350 $ 1,011,550 0.1% Legend M = Multi-year project - a project with a specific schedule to occur over multiple years. R = Recurring project - a project that begins and ends each fiscal year and is re-budgeted to start over each fiscal year. C = Project funded by combination of CT Funds and General Fund

City of Dover Water/Wastewater Improvement & Extension Fund - Major CIP Projects Quarterly Report as of Sept 30, 2015 TOTAL PROJECT - PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Project % Original Revised Fiscal % Project Project Project To Date Budget Budget Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget Budget Code Type Description Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Status Comments 1 FY 2008 - FY 2013 Staff working on a memorandum of understanding with 2 WD0804 M 1.0 MG Elevated Water Storage $ 4,196,600 $ 2,556,000 $ 87,827 $ 2,468,173 3.4% $ 2,468,200 $ 2,468,200 $ - $ 2,468,200 0.0% In Process owner of property Project underway, approximately 90% complete. 3 WD1302 M Garrison Farm Water Storage Tank 1,828,000 4,677,000 4,361,785 315,215 93.3% 1,297,300 1,297,300 982,046 315,254 75.7% In Process Anticipated completion in mid January. 4 WW1304 M Garrison Farm WW Improvements 1,828,000 3,738,400 3,278,128 460,272 87.7% 628,500 628,500 168,152 460,348 26.8% In Process Project underway, approximately 95% complete. 5 Totals - FY 2008 - FY 2013 $ 7,852,600 $ 10,971,400 $ 7,727,740 $ 3,243,660 70.4% $ 4,394,000 $ 4,394,000 $ 1,150,197 $ 3,243,803 26.2% 6 7 FY 2014 Project underway, general contractor and 8 WW1206 Brandywine Pump Station $ 402,000 $ 375,600 $ 274,381 $ 101,219 73.1% $ 101,200 $ 101,200 $ - $ 101,200 0.0% In Process manufacturer have stalled project. Contractor has mobilized, beginning site 9 WW1303 Westover PS 768,800 1,350,400 77,167 1,273,233 5.7% 1,292,400 1,292,400 19,165 1,273,235 1.5% In Process reconstruction. 10 Totals - FY 2014 $ 1,170,800 $ 1,726,000 $ 351,548 $ 1,374,452 20.4% $ 1,393,600 $ 1,393,600 $ 19,165 $ 1,374,435 1.4% 11 12 FY 2015 13 WQ1503 West Dover Connector Project $ 336,000 $ 336,000 $ 304,008 $ 31,992 90.5% $ 73,600 $ 73,600 $ 41,540 $ 32,060 56.4% Complete Project complete, awaiting final retainage invoice. 14 WW1504 Lakeview Dr Pump Stn Replacement 450,000 408,400 131,324 277,077 32.2% 359,600 359,600 82,506 277,094 22.9% In Process Project approximately 75% complete. 15 WW1507 Retreat Pump Station Replacement 412,500 396,700 36,331 360,369 9.2% 360,500 360,500 157 360,343 0.0% In Process Staff to re-bid project in November. 16 WW1509 West Dover Connector Road Utility Relo 922,000 922,000 815,296 106,704 88.4% 387,300 387,300 280,255 107,045 72.4% Complete Project complete, awaiting final retainage invoice. 17 Totals - FY 2015 $ 2,120,500 $ 2,063,100 $ 1,286,959 $ 776,141 62.4% $ 1,181,000 $ 1,181,000 $ 404,459 $ 776,541 34.2% 18 19 FY 2016 20 --- R Vehicles & Equipment $ 409,500 $ 409,500 $ 305,651 $ 103,849 74.6% $ 103,700 $ 409,500 $ 305,651 $ 103,849 74.6% In Process 21 WD1600 Meter Replacement Project 300,000 300,000 - 300,000 0.0% 300,000 300,000 - 300,000 0.0% In Process Meter replacement items identified. 22 WD1601 R Wellhead Redevelopment 82,500 82,500 51,625 30,875 62.6% 82,500 82,500 51,625 30,875 62.6% In Process Staff to meet with contractor on specific work soon. Staff has identified possible location of future well, 23 WD1605 Future Well Installation 80,000 80,000 - 80,000 0.0% 80,000 80,000 - 80,000 0.0% In Process await schedule to test. 24 WD1606 New Fence-Bayard Ave Water Tower 89,000 89,000 - 89,000 0.0% 89,000 89,000 - 89,000 0.0% In Process New fence to be complete by mid November. 25 WD1607 R SCADA Equipment Tech Upgrade 83,000 83,000 - 83,000 0.0% 83,000 83,000 - 83,000 0.0% In Process Materials to be ordered by end of November. 26 WD1608 Shallow Well #7 Abandonment 15,000 15,000 - 15,000 0.0% 15,000 15,000 15,000 0.0% In Process Abandonment to be accomplished in early November. 27 WD1609 R WTP Process Improvements 284,400 284,400 - 284,400 0.0% 284,400 284,400 - 284,400 0.0% In Process Design work continuing. 28 WQ1601 R Water Quality Improvements 1,000,000 895,000 - 895,000 0.0% 1,000,000 895,000 - 895,000 0.0% In Process New street to be bid out in November. Project ongoing, work provided as emergencies arise. 29 WQ1602 R Misc Emerg Water Quality Repairs 75,000 75,000 - 75,000 0.0% - 75,000 - 75,000 0.0% In Process Staff awaiting invoice from Kent County to reimburse. 30 WQ1603 Reimb KC for Water Main Increase 30,000 30,000 - 30,000 0.0% - 30,000 - 30,000 0.0% In Process Two projects have been awarded, construction to 31 occur in November. Two other projects to be bid out in WW1601 Inflow/Infiltration Removal 875,000 875,000 - 875,000 0.0% 875,000 875,000 - 875,000 0.0% In Process November. 32 WW1602 Miscellaneous Pump Station Repairs 300,000 300,000 - 300,000 0.0% 300,000 300,000 - 300,000 0.0% 33 WW1603 Rolling Acres PS Replacement 52,000 52,000 - 52,000 0.0% 52,000 52,000 - 52,000 0.0% In Process Design work underway, approx 25% complete. 34 WW1605 DE Ave Sanitary Sewer Extension 25,000 25,000 - 25,000 0.0% 25,000 25,000 - 25,000 0.0% In Process Design work 90% complete, to be bid out in Nov. Design work 95% complete, awaiting DelDot approval 35 WW1606 Hazzletteville Road Interceptor 462,100 462,100 - 462,100 0.0% - 462,100 - 462,100 0.0% In Process prior to bid. 36 Totals - FY 2016 $ 4,162,500 $ 4,057,500 $ 357,276 $ 3,700,224 8.8% $ 3,289,600 $ 4,057,500 $ 357,276 $ 3,700,224 8.8% 37 38 39 Grand Totals $ 15,306,400 $ 18,818,000 $ 9,723,523 $ 9,094,477 51.7% $ 10,258,200 $ 11,026,100 $ 1,931,097 $ 9,095,003 17.5% Legend M = Multi-year project - a project with a specific schedule to occur over multiple years. R = Recurring project - a project that begins and ends each fiscal year and is budgeted to start over each fiscal year. No carry forward. SL = State Loan Project - construction phase is financed I = Impact Fee (partially) financed project O = Operating revenues

City of Dover Electric Improvement & Extension Fund - Major CIP Projects Quarterly Report as of Sept 30, 2015 TOTAL PROJECT - PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Project % Current Revised Fiscal % Project Project Project To Date Budget Budget Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget Budget Code Type Description Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Status Comments 1 FY 2012 - FY 2013 Work is completed. TSI and vibration testing 2 EG1212 M Unit 3 Turbine Inspection/Repair $ 1,494,000 $ 1,713,600 $ 1,699,848 $ 13,752 99.2% $ 53,500 $ 53,500 $ 39,700 $ 13,800 74.2% Complete completed. 3 EE1312 M General Scott Switchgear 1,155,000 1,155,000 117,650 1,037,350 10.2% 1,107,200 1,107,200 69,856 1,037,344 6.3% In Process Construction to start Sept 2015 4 Totals - FY 2012 - FY 2013 $ 2,649,000 $ 2,868,600 $ 1,817,498 $ 1,051,102 63.4% $ 1,160,700 $ 1,160,700 $ 109,556 $ 1,051,144 9.4% 5 6 FY 2014 7 EE1443 GOTP Transmission Line Relocation $ 550,000 $ 550,000 $ 304,853 $ 245,147 55.4% $ 408,500 $ 408,500 $ 163,326 $ 245,174 40.0% In Process Mechanical and electrical work completed. Testing has been completed. Need to install protective 8 EG1416 M VanSant Capacity Increase 1,500,000 1,000,000 679,596 320,404 68.0% 492,200 492,200 171,756 320,444 34.9% In Process closure around pump skid. 9 Totals - FY 2014 $ 2,050,000 $ 1,550,000 $ 984,449 $ 565,551 63.5% $ 900,700 $ 900,700 $ 335,082 $ 565,618 37.2% 10 11 FY 2015 Boiler tube repairs, metallurgical analysis on failed 12 EG1504 McKee Unit 3 Boiler System $ 295,000 $ 180,000 $ 88,915 $ 91,085 49.4% $ 80,800 $ 122,800 $ 31,628 $ 91,172 25.8% In Process tubes. 13 EG1506 McKee & VanSant Safety Improvement 52,000 52,000 33,776 18,224 65.0% 18,300 18,300 - 18,300 0.0% In Process 14 EE1500 69 kV Rebuild 393,500 330,500 18,182 312,319 5.5% 318,500 318,500 6,153 312,348 1.9% In Process Underground relocation to begin depending on 15 EE1509 West Dover Connector 250,000 250,000 94,209 155,791 37.7% 155,800 155,800 - 155,800 0.0% In Process weather 16 EE1513 M Town Point Distribution Feeders 600,000 590,800 310,379 280,421 52.5% 350,000 350,000 69,542 280,458 19.9% In Process Directional boring has begun Contractor to install conduit to proceed, PS 17 EE1516 Chestnut Grove 299,000 255,000 118,999 136,001 46.7% 136,000 136,000 - 136,000 0.0% In Process completed 18 EE1522 Garrison Oak Park 184,000 184,000 166,523 17,477 90.5% 17,500 17,500 - 17,500 0.0% In Process 19 EE1525 Leander Lakes Apt Phase 1 73,000 73,000 42,442 30,558 58.1% 69,400 69,400 38,833 30,567 56.0% In Process 20 EE1526 Playtex Addition 354,100 354,100 272,781 81,319 77.0% 150,000 150,000 68,645 81,355 45.8% In Process NSC permits being submitted. Line work in process. 21 EE1544 Nottingham Meadows 28,600 28,600 2,011 26,589 7.0% 26,600 26,600 - 26,600 0.0% In Process 22 EE1546 DelTech Signs 13,600 13,600 8,113 5,487 59.7% - - - 0.0% In Process 23 EE1547 NBR Properties 16,600 16,600 14,012 2,588 84.4% - 11,325 (11,325) 0.0% In Process Primary fee paid 24 Totals - FY 2015 $ 2,559,400 $ 2,328,200 $ 1,170,340 $ 1,157,860 50.3% $ 1,322,900 $ 1,364,900 $ 226,126 $ 1,138,774 16.6% 25 26 FY 2016 27 --- R Metering Infrastructure $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ - $ 150,000 0.0% $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ - $ 150,000 0.0% In Process 28 --- R Vehicles & Equipment 464,300 464,300 48,211 416,089 10.4% 464,300 464,300 48,211 416,089 10.4% In Process 29 EG1601 McKee Building Equipment Replacement 42,000 42,000 - 42,000 0.0% 42,000 42,000 - 42,000 0.0% In Process Building heating modifications. 30 EG1607 Unit 3 Auxilary Equipment 135,000 135,000 33,100 101,900 24.5% 135,000 135,000 33,100 101,900 24.5% In Process Unit 3 boiler burner tube nest repairs. 31 EG1608 McKee & VanSant CEMS Upgrade 89,000 89,000 - 89,000 0.0% 89,000 89,000 - 89,000 0.0% 32 EG1609 VanSant Unit 11 Component Replacem 21,000 21,000 - 21,000 0.0% 21,000 21,000 - 21,000 0.0% In Process Hydraulic system sequencing valve repairs 33 EG1610 R McKee/VanSant Safety & Compliance 157,000 157,000 - 157,000 0.0% 157,000 157,000 - 157,000 0.0% In Process Expenditures have been in support of T&D 34 EG1611 McKee/VanSant Preserve Structure 215,000 215,000 3,309 211,691 1.5% 215,000 215,000 3,309 211,691 1.5% In Process transformer repairs. Work to be completed in spring 2016 outage. Note the project was changed from Unit #3 Circ Water Pipe Inspection to Van Sant Exhaust Plenum 35 EG1612 Van Sant Exhaust Plenum Replacement 469,000 469,000 - 469,000 0.0% 469,000 469,000 - 469,000 0.0% In Process Replacement. Inspection was completed in 2012. Scope of work 36 EG1613 McKee Unit 3 Stack Repairs 485,000 485,000 - 485,000 0.0% 485,000 485,000 - 485,000 0.0% to be determined. 37 EE1603 Transmission Line Maintenance Program 75,000 75,000 - 75,000 0.0% 75,000 75,000 - 75,000 0.0% In Process 38 EE1604 R Lighting Proj & Rehab 67,000 67,000 - 67,000 0.0% 67,000 67,000 - 67,000 0.0% In Process 39 EE1605 69 kV Cable Replacement North Street 135,000 135,000 - 135,000 0.0% 135,000 135,000 - 135,000 0.0% In Process 40 EE1606 Distribution Capacitors and Controls 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 0.0% 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 0.0% In Process 41 EE1607 Horsepond URD - Distribution Feeders 67,000 67,000 - 67,000 0.0% 67,000 67,000 - 67,000 0.0% In Process 42 EE1610 Frazier 900 Circuits 10,000 10,000 - 10,000 0.0% 10,000 10,000 - 10,000 0.0% In Process 43 EE1612 Dover AFB Substation Rebuild 30,000 30,000 - 30,000 0.0% 30,000 30,000 - 30,000 0.0% In Process 44 EE1616 R New Developments 2,500,000 2,002,800 - 2,002,800 0.0% 2,500,000 2,002,800 - 2,002,800 0.0% In Process 45 EE1617 Oak Grove Trailer Park - Dist Upgrade 78,500 78,500 - 78,500 0.0% 78,500 78,500 - 78,500 0.0% In Process 46 EE1618 Lakeland - Distribution Upgrades 63,000 63,000 - 63,000 0.0% 63,000 63,000 - 63,000 0.0% In Process 47 EE1619 Route 8/Mifflin Road - Dist Upgrade 51,500 51,500 - 51,500 0.0% 51,500 51,500 - 51,500 0.0% In Process 48 EE1620 Route 8 Taps - Distribution Upgrade 38,500 38,500 - 38,500 0.0% 38,500 38,500 - 38,500 0.0% In Process 49 EE1621 Townsend Brothers - Dist Upgrade 14,500 14,500 - 14,500 0.0% 14,500 14,500 - 14,500 0.0% In Process Awaiting developer go ahead 50 EE1622 Persimmon Tree Apts - Dist Upgrade 62,000 62,000 - 62,000 0.0% 62,000 62,000 - 62,000 0.0% In Process Awaiting developer go ahead 51 EE1623 DNREC R&R Metering - 41,000 - 41,000 0.0% - 41,000 - 41,000 0.0% In Process 52 EE1625 Public Works Wetland Project - 78,000 - 78,000 0.0% - 78,000 - 78,000 0.0% In Process 53 EE1626 Washington Street Lights - 40,000 - 40,000 0.0% - 40,000 - 40,000 0.0% In Process 54 EE1627 Dover East Estates - Dist Upgrade 130,000 130,000 - 130,000 0.0% 130,000 130,000 - 130,000 0.0% In Process 55 EE1629 Tall Pine Condos - 43,000 - 43,000 0.0% - 43,000 - 43,000 0.0% In Process Awaiting developer go ahead In discussion with architects and environmental 56 EE1630 Reed Street Roof Repair/Replacement 201,800 201,800 - 201,800 0.0% 201,800 201,800 - 201,800 0.0% In Process personnel 57 EE1631 North Street OH to UG - Dist Upgrade 100,000 100,000 - 100,000 0.0% 100,000 100,000 - 100,000 0.0% In Process 58 EE1632 Blue Hen Corp - Phase I 25,600 25,600 23,150 2,450 90.4% 25,600 25,600 23,150 2,450 90.4% In Process 59 EE1635 McKee Road - Edgewell 7,000 7,000 - 7,000 0.0% 7,000 7,000 - 7,000 0.0% In Process 60 EE1633 State Street Commons Fiber Optic Proj 64,000 64,000 19,198 44,802 30.0% 64,000 64,000 19,198 44,802 30.0% Complete Waiting on final invoices 61 EE1636 Clearview - Phase 4 125,500 125,500 112,223 13,277 89.4% 125,500 125,500 112,223 13,277 89.4% In Process 62 EE1638 Dover Town Center 35,200 35,200 677 34,523 1.9% 35,200 35,200 677 34,523 1.9% In Process Install 90% complete 63 EE1639 Outback Steakhouse 30,600 30,600 - 30,600 0.0% 30,600 30,600 - 30,600 0.0% In Process Awaiting developer go ahead 64 EE1644 Retreat Pump Station 7,300 7,300 - 7,300 0.0% 7,300 7,300 - 7,300 0.0% In Process 65 Totals - FY 2016 $ 6,196,300 $ 5,901,100 $ 239,869 $ 5,661,231 4.1% $ 6,196,300 $ 5,901,100 $ 239,869 $ 5,661,231 4.1% 66 67 Grand Totals $ 13,454,700 $ 12,647,900 $ 4,212,156 $ 8,435,744 33.3% $ 9,580,600 $ 9,327,400 $ 910,633 $ 8,416,767 9.8% Legend M = Multi-year project - a project with a specific schedule to occur over multiple years. B = Bonded Project R = Recurring project - a project that begins and ends each fiscal year and is re-budgeted to start over each fiscal year. S = State fully or partially reimbursed project

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Planning and Inspections DATE SUBMITTED: October 30, 2015 PREPARED BY: Ann Marie Townshend, AICP, Director of Planning & Community Development SUBJECT: Review of Chapter 66 - Manufactured Homes and Trailers and Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 1 - One Family Residence Zones and Article 12 - Definitions REFERENCE: N/A RELATED PROJECT: N/A REVIEWED BY: N/A EXHIBITS: FAQ from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD ) regarding manufactured housing; Manufactured Housing in Delaware (publication by Delaware State Housing Authority); Appendix B – Zoning, Article 3 – District Regulations, Section 1 – (One Family Residence Zones); Article 12 – Definitions for “Dwelling, one-family,” “dwelling unit,” and “dwelling, detached” EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: N/A AMOUNT BUDGETED: N/A FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): N/A TIMETABLE: See recommendation. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Immediate term: Introduction of the ordinance to amend the definition of “dwelling, one-family” and to add definition for “manufactured home,” with referral to the public hearing before the Planning Commission for December 21, 2015 and public hearing and action by City Council on January 11, 2016. 2. Next 6 -12 months: o Full review of Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 66 to determine what components of the chapter are relevant and should be retained, and what components should be eliminated. Any provisions that appear to regulate placement should be eliminated, as these requirements need to be in the Zoning Ordinance. o Full review of MHP (Mobile Home Park) Zone to ensure that the zone is current with best practices. o Full review of the Residential Zones and associated definitions. There are other areas that need to be tightened up to provide clarity on a number of matters that could affect the character of neighborhoods throughout the City. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS Following the issuance of a building permit for the construction of a manufactured home on a property within the R-8 (One Family Residence Zone), several residents and members of City Council expressed concerns about the appropriateness of this housing type within the One Family Residence Zones. Staff subsequently reviewed literature available about manufactured housing and has developed recommendations for amending the code to prohibit manufactured housing in the One Family Residence Zones and to update code requirements in the Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 66 – Manufactured Homes and Trailers, and Appendix B – Zoning. The recommendation is for an immediate amendment to the definition of “dwelling, one family” and a review and update of other code sections over the next year. Staff recommends the following changes to the “dwelling, one family” definition in Appendix B, Article 12 -

Definitions (proposed changes identified in blue bold): Dwelling, one-family: A permanent dwelling unit placed on a permanent foundation and designed and intended for use by only one family. One-family dwellings shall not include manufactured homes or mobile homes but shall include modular homes constructed to the standards of the Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 22 – Buildings and Building Regulations. Staff also recommends that the following definition be added to Appendix B, Article 12 – Definitions: Manufactured Home: A factory-built housing unit designed and constructed to meet the Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Code. A manufactured home is built on a chassis that supports the structural integrity of the home and to allow transport to the site. Factory-built units built to meet the HUD Code and constructed after the code took effect on June 15, 1976 are classified as "manufactured homes."

Manufactured Housing in Delaware A Summary of Information and Issues DELAWARE STATE HOUSING AUTHORITY December 2008

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................4 CHARACTERISTICS OF MANUFACTURED HOUSING IN THE U.S. AND DELAWARE ............................................7 FROM TRAILERS TO MANUFACTURED HOMES ...............................................................................................................7 ROLE IN THE DELAWARE MARKET .............................................................................................................................10 DEMOGRAPHICS ....................................................................................................................................................12 UNIT CHARACTERISTICS...........................................................................................................................................15 The HUD Code...............................................................................................................................................15 Installation....................................................................................................................................................15 Today’s Manufactured Housing ...................................................................................................................16 Affordability..................................................................................................................................................17 LEGAL AND FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK OF MANUFACTURED HOUSING ..........................................................19 CHALLENGES FOR HOMEOWNERS IN LAND‐LEASE COMMUNITIES....................................................................................20 FINANCING ...........................................................................................................................................................20 Conventional Financing ................................................................................................................................21 Government Programs .................................................................................................................................22 Personal Property Lending............................................................................................................................23 APPRECIATION ......................................................................................................................................................24 RESIDENT OWNED COMMUNITIES (ROCS) ...................................................................................................26 KEY ELEMENTS FOR ROC SUCCESS ............................................................................................................................26 INITIATIVES TO ADVANCE ROCS ............................................................................................................................... 27 MANUFACTURED HOUSING TENURE ISSUES IN DELAWARE..........................................................................29 LANDLORD/TENANT CODE .......................................................................................................................................29 EFFORTS TO ADVANCE ROCS ...................................................................................................................................30 DISPUTE RESOLUTION ............................................................................................................................................31 LOT RENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................31 DELAWARE MANUFACTURED HOME RELOCATION AUTHORITY .......................................................................................32 CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................................................34 MAPS...........................................................................................................................................................35 RESOURCES..................................................................................................................................................39 SOURCES .....................................................................................................................................................41 2

Index of Tables, Charts and Maps TABLES TABLE 1: MANUFACTURED HOMES, TENURE AND POPULATION, UNITED STATES, DELAWARE AND COUNTIES, 2005‐2007 .....9 TABLE 2: VACANCY STATUS BY TYPE OF UNIT, DELAWARE AND SUSSEX COUNTY, 2005....................................................10 TABLE 3: ESTIMATED MANUFACTURED HOMES ON LEASED LAND, DELAWARE AND COUNTIES, 2007 .................................12 TABLE 4: PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS BY RACE AND MANUFACTURED HOUSING, UNITED STATES AND DELAWARE, 2005 ‐ 2007 13 TABLE 5: AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES, UNITED STATES, 2007...................................................14 TABLE 6: AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES, DELAWARE, 2000.........................................................14 TABLE 7: HOUSEHOLD SIZE FOR HOUSEHOLDS IN MANUFACTURED HOMES, UNITED STATES, 2007 ...................................15 TABLE 8: COST AND SIZE COMPARISON: NEW MANUFACTURED HOMES AND NEW SINGLE‐FAMILY SITE‐BUILT HOMES .........18 TABLE 9: CURRENT MORTGAGE INTEREST RATE, UNITED STATES, 2007 ........................................................................21 CHARTS CHART 1: MANUFACTURED HOMES AS A PERCENTAGE OF NEW SINGLE‐FAMILY HOUSING STARTS, UNITED STATES, 1994 – 2007 ...8 CHART 2: MANUFACTURED HOMES AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL HOUSING STOCK, 1990 – 2007 .....................................10 CHART 3: MANUFACTURED HOMES, SUSSEX COUNTY, 2005 .......................................................................................11 CHART 4: AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY TENURE AND MANUFACTURED HOMES, UNITED STATES, DELAWARE AND COUNTIES, 2000 ..................................................................................................................................................13 CHART 5: NEW MANUFACTURED HOMES PLACED BY SIZE, UNITED STATES, 1980‐2007 .................................................15 CHART 6: AVERAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF NEW MANUFACTURED HOMES BY SIZE, UNITED STATES, 1990 – 2007 ..............16 CHART 7: AVERAGE SALES PRICE OF NEW MANUFACTURED HOMES, UNITED STATES, SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION, AND DELAWARE, 2000 – 2007 .....................................................................................................................................17 CHART 8: TITLING OF NEW MANUFACTURED HOMES, UNITED STATES, 1990 – 2007 .....................................................20 MAPS MAP 1: PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MANUFACTURED HOUSING, DELAWARE, 2000................................................35 MAP 2: MANUFACTURED HOMES AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL HOUSING STOCK, DELAWARE 2000...................................36 MAP 3: PERCENTAGE OF MANUFACTURED HOMES VACANT, SUSSEX COUNTY, 2000 ......................................................37 MAP 4: PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MANUFACTURED HOUSING OVER AGE 55, DELAWARE 2000 .............................38 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose As the State of Delaware’s housing finance agency, community development agency and public housing authority for Kent and Sussex Counties, the Delaware State Housing Authority (DSHA) helps Delaware families achieve and maintain homeownership; creates and preserves affordable rental housing; administers federal programs; and provides a wide variety of other affordable housing products and services. DSHA also serves as a source for information and research on affordable housing issues in the state. The purpose of this paper is to provide a broad and inclusive report on manufactured housing in Delaware, with an overview of statistics, activity and issues at the national level as well as a review of the landscape and challenges in Delaware. DSHA hopes this paper will be a valuable resource for a variety of audiences, including state and local elected officials and policymakers, other state and local government agencies, advocates, manufactured homeowners, community owners, and the general public as manufactured housing and the administrative and legal structures around it continue to evolve. Summary With almost 9 million manufactured homes in the United States today, manufactured housing is undeniably a major part of the nation’s housing stock and market. As it evolved from the trailers of the past to the large, well‐designed, high‐quality new homes of today, manufactured housing has become a vital source of affordable housing, both nationally and in Delaware, particularly as a homeownership opportunity for low‐income households who otherwise would likely not be able to move into homeownership. The community development and policy advocacy fields are increasingly recognizing the importance of manufactured housing as part of broader strategies to help low‐income families achieve and sustain homeownership and build wealth. Attitudes toward manufactured housing have long been influenced by negative stereotypes of the quality of the housing, its benefit to the consumer, and unfortunately often about consumers themselves. Most do not want it in their backyard, or think that manufactured home owners would simply be better off in other types of housing, or have wished that it would just go away. However, continuing advances in construction, quality, amenities and design, and significant cost savings over site built housing have made manufactured housing a popular and affordable permanent housing choice for millions of Americans and thousands of Delawareans. In recognition of manufactured housing’s enduring role in the housing market, in recent years national and state initiatives have been launched to rethink this negative approach, replacing it with initiatives to look at the sector as a whole and work to improve conditions for manufactured homeowners, both current and future. Model programs are demonstrating that the challenges with tenure and financing that have long limited manufactured homeowners’ ability to build wealth through their home and, at worst, left them vulnerable to losing their asset altogether, are not insurmountable. This paper reviews national and state statistics on manufactured housing, the various issues facing manufactured homeowners, and strategies both national and local to maximize manufactured housing’s potential and preserve it as a source of affordable housing. Key points include: • Manufactured housing is a critical source of affordable housing, especially as homeownership for low‐ income households. With an estimated almost 41,000 units in Delaware, manufactured housing is 10% of the state’s housing stock and home to approximately 70,000 Delawareans. 4

• Manufactured housing is particularly predominant in Sussex County, where it is popular both as a source of housing for the general local population as well as for retirement homes and vacation homes. Over 60% of the state’s manufactured housing is located in Sussex County, and almost a quarter of the County’s housing stock is manufactured homes, many of which (32% according to 2005 American Community Survey estimates) are held for seasonal, recreational or occasional use. • Over half (an estimated 23,122 of 40,673; 57%) of the manufactured homes in Delaware are located on leased land. This is high compared to national estimates of 30 to 35% of homes located on leased land. While land lease communities remain a popular option, the majority of new manufactured homes (74% in 2007, nationally) are placed outside manufactured housing communities. Still, millions of homes nationally, new and existing, are classified as personal property and located on leased land. • For the vast majority of manufactured homeowners, a manufactured home is a permanent housing product and, once placed, most homes are never moved. Nationally, about 17% of existing homes in 2005 were located on a permanent masonry foundation, but 26% of new homes in 2007 were placed on permanent foundations. For homes not on permanent foundations, relocation is still rare. Moving a home is expensive, exposes the home to damage, reduces the value of the home, and may even be impossible due to post‐placement additions or modifications. • Even in the best circumstances of manufactured housing communities that are operated well and with consideration for homeowners’ interests, the fact remains that owning a home on rented land over which the homeowner has no control, possibly a fairly short‐term lease, no predictability of future rent costs and the constant possibility of community sale or closure creates a fundamentally vulnerable situation for the homeowner. • The unique placement, titling, land‐ownership structure and resale market in the manufactured housing industry make them difficult candidates for long‐term conventional mortgages. Conventional financing for manufactured homes placed on the owner’s personally owned real estate and permanent foundations has expanded significantly in recent years, but there is little progress for homes titled as personal property and on leased land. For these homes, a personal property loan is generally the only option. As a result, homeowners have fewer protections, face higher costs, and ultimately negative effects on their ability to build wealth through their home. • Despite widely held views that manufactured housing only depreciates, research indicates that depreciation is not necessarily inherent to manufactured housing itself, but a reflection of issues in the market. Studies show that ownership or control over the land on which the home is placed affects appreciation more than any other factor. • The 2003 Delaware Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act was a major update of the existing Mobile Home Lots and Leases Act of 1986. Subsequent additions have made several positive steps forward, including: o Creation of the Manufactured Home Relocation Trust Fund, with an associated dedicated revenue source, to provide relocation assistance to homeowners in communities closing due to change of land use; o A lot rent assistance program for homeowners who are eligible for Social Security Disability or Supplemental Security Income or who are over 62 years old and meet other eligibility requirements; o Creation of a process for resolution of disputes between homeowners and community owners via the Governor’s Advisory Council on Manufactured Housing and outside mediators; and o Establishment of a right for manufactured homeowners, as an association or cooperative, to make and match offers for the purchase of their community. 5

• The 2003 legislative update and other initiatives in recent years have improved conditions and protections for homeowners. However, as homeowners on leased land over which they have no control, homeowners remain essentially vulnerable, particularly to community closure, but also to sale of the community and lot rent increases. • Resident ownership of manufactured housing communities is a promising means to improve security of tenure for manufactured homeowners. Homeowners can achieve greater 1) security against sale or closure of the community; 2) predictability of future lot rent costs; and 3) control over the governance of their community. The opportunity to purchase the community, comprehensive pre‐ and post‐ purchase technical assistance, and financing are key factors for the success of conversions to resident ownership. • Efforts to advance resident ownership of manufactured housing communities in Delaware have not been highly successful to date. However, the combination of the following has created a much more favorable environment for conversions: o The passage of an amendment to the Delaware Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act giving manufactured homeowners the opportunity to purchase their community when the owner is interested in selling and match other offers; o The availability of comprehensive technical assistance and financing through a ROC USATM Certified Technical Assistance Provider, Real Estate Advisory and Development Services, Inc. (READS); and o The real estate slowdown and subsequent drop in inflated real estate values and development pressures, especially in Sussex County. With continuing advances at the national and state levels, conditions and opportunities for manufactured homeowners are slowly improving. However, as explored in this paper, major challenges remain, many relating directly or indirectly back to issues of titling, land ownership, and financing. Factory‐Built Housing Definitions There is often misunderstanding about various types of factory‐built housing. The two included in this summary are: Manufactured Home: A factory‐built housing unit designed and constructed to meet the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Code. A manufactured home is built on a chassis that supports the structural integrity of the home and to allow transport to the site. Factory‐built units built to meet the HUD Code and constructed after the code took effect on June 15, 1976 are classified as “manufactured homes”. Mobile Home: A factory‐built unit constructed on a chassis and completed before June 15, 1976. Prior to the HUD code, mobile homes were not subject to uniform construction or safety standards. Other types of factory‐built housing not addressed here include: Trailer: Trailers are technically recreational vehicles that do not conform to either local building codes or the HUD code. While still used by many to refer to mobile or manufactured homes, these are not technically trailers. Modular Home: While often built in the same factories, modular homes are built to the same state or local building codes as site‐built homes and are always placed on permanent foundations. Homes are assembled in pieces at a factory and towed to the building site where they are assembled to construct the unit. This may be as simple as two rectangular pieces, similar to a multi‐section manufactured home, or very complex. Source: Housing Assistance Council, Manufactured Housing in Rural America (2005) and Manufactured Housing Institute (http://www.manufacturedhousing.org) 6

CHARACTERISTICS OF MANUFACTURED HOUSING IN THE U.S. AND DELAWARE From Trailers to Manufactured Homes Manufactured homes have become a largely permanent housing choice for millions of households, but the roots of this housing type, and the legal and financial structures around it, are in the much more mobile “travel trailers” of the past. What were first primarily recreational vehicles in the 1920s and 1930s were soon being used by some households as a form of permanent mobile residence, leading to the development of bigger trailers. In the Great Depression, the use of trailers as residence for transient populations widened, but also contributed to negative perceptions of trailers, those who lived in them, and the parks and camps where they would temporarily locate. In the 1940s, trailers were used both by the government to house construction workers in defense production areas as well as by thousands – some estimates of over 120,000 – of migrants working for the war effort. In the coming decades, mobile homes became increasingly larger, less mobile, and designed for permanent living (HAC, 2005). Annual shipments in the 1970s ranged from 200,000 to 300,000 per year, peaking at an incredible 570,000 in 1973. In 1976, the implementation of the HUD Code Data Sources on Manufactured Housing regulating construction quality, standards and safety further bolstered the industry by granting national While some national sources such as the American Housing Survey (AHS) provide a wealth of legitimacy to mobile homes as a form of housing. In information on manufactured homes, most of these the 1980s and 1990s, manufactured homes sources are not available at the state or local level. contributed significantly to new housing starts. Multi‐ The decennial Census offers good information on section or “double‐wide” homes became increasingly manufactured homes at the local (census tract) level, popular, and more and more homes were now but the 2000 data is dated at this point. The Census located on land owned by the homeowner, and Bureau’s annual Manufactured Housing Survey placed on permanent foundations. In this time, provides information on new home placements, sizes, locations, and prices. quality, industry self‐regulation, and financing options have improved greatly, and manufactured homes The American Community Survey (ACS) (the new have increasingly broad appeal as the industry has survey that is currently being phased in to replace the housing and economic portions of the Census) has improved marketing, design, and options. However, information at the state and County level on these advances are still limited in many ways by manufactured housing. However, as multi‐year manufactured housing’s roots in the travel trailer. estimates are still being developed for lower‐ These origins have far‐reaching consequences today, population areas, much of this is not yet available at affecting how homes are sold, titled, financed, the local or even county level for Delaware. Where owned, and ultimately, their potential for possible, the most recent information available is appreciation and viability as wealth‐building assets used. In most cases, this is the 2005 ‐ 2007 ACS. for their owners. Both the Census and ACS record manufactured homes as “mobile homes”. In most cases in this The 8.67million manufactured homes in the United report, this has been changed to “manufactured States constitute 6.91% of the nation’s housing stock. home” for consistency. Manufactured housing is much more common in the South, Southwest, and rural areas – while the 7

national percentage is less than 10%, in many areas it may approach or even exceed 20% of the housing stock, as in Sussex County. Statewide, 10.7% of Delaware’s housing stock is manufactured housing. New placements have tapered off in recent years, both as the industry continues to recover from CHART 1 several tumultuous years in the late 1990s – early 2000s and as part of the broader slump in the national housing market. Ninety‐five thousand (95,000) new manufactured homes were placed in 2007, 8% of new single family housing starts nationwide, down from a recent high of 373,000 manufactured homes at 23% of new single‐family housing starts in 1998 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, Manufactured Housing Survey). Still, manufactured housing is a very popular housing choice for millions of Americans – over 18 million people call it home. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Most manufactured homes are owner‐occupied. Nationally, 75.1% of manufactured homes are owner‐occupied, compared to the nation’s overall homeownership rate of 67.3% in the period from 2005 ‐ 2007. Indeed, manufactured housing is an important door to homeownership for many low‐income households and contributes to the nation’s and Delaware’s high homeownership rate (73.5% in 2005‐2007). In all three Delaware counties, the homeownership rate for manufactured homes was over 75% in 2005‐2007. In Kent and Sussex Counties, manufactured housing is a sizable portion of the owner‐occupied housing stock, at 15.4% in Kent and 22.4% in Sussex. 8

TABLE 1 Manufactured Homes, Homeownership and Population, United States, Delaware and Counties, 2005‐2007 Estimates United States Delaware Kent New Castle Sussex Margin Margin Margin Margin of Margin Estimate of Error Estimate of Error Estimate of Error Estimate Error Estimate of Error Housing Stock Manufactured Homes 8,729,075 30,752 40,763 1,362 8,908 649 6,033 592 25,822 1,059 Total 126,237,884 7,902 382,149 130 60,010 90 211,073 146 111,066 143 Manufactured Homes as a % of Housing Stock 6.91% 0.02% 10.67% 0.36% 14.84% 1.08% 2.86% 0.28% 23.25% 0.95% Homeownership Owner‐occupied housing units 75,072,666 172,605 236,646 2,326 40,556 916 138,742 1,818 57,348 1,222 Manufactured Homes 5,313,140 17,883 23,907 1,287 6,252 673 4,814 518 12,841 910 Manufactured Homes as % of Owner‐ Occupied Stock 7.08% 0.02% 10.10% 0.53% 15.42% 1.62% 3.47% 0.37% 22.39% 1.51% Renter‐Occupied Units 36,536,963 85,411 85,102 2,506 15,129 945 54,692 1,983 15,281 1,007 Manufactured Homes 1,761,388 15,983 5,323 776 1,912 377 718 294 2,693 516 Manufactured Homes as % of Renter ‐Occupied Stock 4.82% 0.04% 6.25% 0.89% 12.64% 2.36% 1.31% 0.54% 17.62% 3.17% Homeownership Rate – All Units 67.26% 0.14% 73.55% 0.58% 72.83% 1.41% 71.73% 0.80% 78.96% 1.14% Homeownership Rate – Manufactured Homes 75.10% 0.36% 81.79% 1.31% 76.58% 3.95% 87.02% 13.25%*** 82.66% 1.82% Population Total Population 290,655,225 531,432 827,788 8,932 144,160 3,674 506,504 7,116 177,124 4,032 Population in Manufactured Homes 17,859,281 76,923 69,619 4,208 21,320 2,298 12,451 1,809 35,848 2,763 % of Population in Manufactured Homes 6.14% 0.02% 8.41% 0.50% 14.79% 1.55% 2.46% 0.36% 20.24% 1.49% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2005‐2007 American Community Survey Estimates * Margins of error are published with and should be considered when evaluating American Community Survey data. As the samples used in the annual ACS surveys are much smaller than in the decennial Census, three‐year estimates give the smallest margin of error, particularly for smaller geographies and subpopulations. ** The estimate is the 90‐percent confidence interval. The margin of error means that the estimate is 90% confident that the true value of an estimate lies within the upper and lower bounds of the margin of error. For example, the 2005 ‐ 2007 ACS estimates that there are 40,763 manufactured homes in Delaware, with a margin of error of +/‐1,362. This means that the ACS has a 90 percent level of confidence that the actual number of manufactured homes in Delaware lies within the range of 39,401 and 42,125. Margins of error have been calculated for aggregates and percentages derived from the ACS data. *** In some cases the formula to calculate a margin of error for derived percentages will not work, and an alternate formula which produces a more conservative margin of error can be used. This was the case for this estimate of margin of error for the homeownership rate among manufactured homes in New Castle County, leading to a particularly high derived margin of error. 9

Role in the Delaware Market Manufactured housing plays an undeniably large role in the CHART 2 Delaware housing market. It is a vital source of affordable and moderately‐priced housing for thousands of households, both in manufactured housing communities and when placed on privately owned land. Strong population growth and overall new housing construction in Kent and Sussex Counties led manufactured housing to decline somewhat as a percentage of the total housing stock since 1990, still exceeding 10% in Kent County and 20% in Sussex, well above the national rate of 7%. As new construction of single‐family homes in Delaware has largely targeted higher income markets in recent years, manufactured homes have been an important Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census, 2000 source for new affordable homeownership housing in the Census, 2007 American Community Survey state. The 2005‐2007 three‐year ACS estimates indicate that 63.3% (25,822) of Delaware’s 40,763 manufactured homes are located in Sussex County. While many are on personal property, manufactured housing communities abound in Sussex County, from small, older communities tucked away in rural areas to sprawling communities with numerous amenities near the beach resorts. TABLE 2 Vacancy Status by Type of Unit, Delaware and Sussex County, 2005 Delaware Sussex County Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error Single‐Family Units Total Units 263,326 4,876 67,697 2,253 Total Vacant 30,975 2,393 19,413 1,704 Vacancy Rate 11.76% 0.88% 28.68% 2.33% Vacant for Seasonal, Recreational or Occasional Use 16,404 1,911 15,532 1,697 % of All SF Units Held Vacant for Seasonal, Recreational or Occasional Use 6.23% 0.72% 22.94% 2.39% Multi‐Family Units Total Units 50,342 3,595 13,173 1,643 Total Vacant 15,243 2,030 6,991 1,300 Vacancy Rate 30.28% 3.40% 53.07% 7.32% Vacant for Seasonal, Recreational or Occasional Use 5,673 1,196 5,424 1,110 % of All MF Units Held Vacant for Seasonal, Recreational or Occasional Use 11.27% 2.24% 41.18% 6.68% Manufactured Homes and all other types of units Total Units 42,488 2,207 26,249 1,827 Total Vacant 11,014 1,516 10,061 1,304 Vacancy Rate 25.92% 3.30% 38.33% 4.19% Vacant for Seasonal, Recreational or Occasional Use 8,563 1,315 8,386 1,225 % of All MH Units Held Vacant for Seasonal, Recreational or Occasional Use 20.15% 2.91% 31.95% 4.10% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2005 American Community Survey Notes: Data not available for Kent and New Castle Counties. ACS vacancy data group manufactured homes together with "all other types of units", meaning the category "Boat, RV, Van, Etc." However, this additional category is quite small and comprises only 366 total units statewide and 39 units in Sussex County. 10

As is also the national trend, manufactured homes are popular as vacation homes. As of 2005, over 8,000 of Sussex County’s over 26,000 manufactured homes are estimated by the American Community Survey to be held vacant for “seasonal, recreational or occasional use.” Still, communities with many vacation homes are also permanent homes for local residents who work in the area and for many retirees who have made it their permanent home. CHART 3 In eastern Sussex County, high housing prices are a major barrier for low‐ and moderate‐income households; the only option for the vast majority of workers is to commute from other areas. Manufactured housing communities are one source of affordable homes in this area for year‐round residents and local workers. As in the rest of the nation, manufactured homes in Delaware are frequently being placed on the owner’s land instead of on leased land, in a manufactured housing community. However, the most Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2005 American Community comprehensive sources of information about the Survey housing stock that are available at the local level – the decennial Census and the American Community Survey (ACS) – do not differentiate between manufactured homes on leased land or on land owned by the homeowner. Both are counted as owner‐ occupied in the Census and ACS. Information about manufactured housing communities has traditionally been held by a web of different local government offices and not compiled or collected at the state level. Tracking down the number of communities, their location, and the number of homes/lots in them has been a time‐consuming and challenging task in Delaware, one that has largely fallen to the Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Authority (DMHRA) in its efforts to collect the monthly lot assessment that funds the Manufactured Home Relocation Trust Fund. Looking at materials from the Relocation Authority, approximately 190 communities consisting of over 23,000 leased lots have paid into the Trust Fund. A 2005 study by Dr. Michael Arnold of the University of Delaware estimated a relatively high compliance rate of 85 to 92 percent for communities and lots paying into the Relocation Trust Fund. As the Authority has continued to develop and the Trust Manufactured Housing = Affordable Housing Fund is more established, it is likely that compliance has only increased in recent years. “Between 1993 and 1999, manufactured housing accounted for more than one‐sixth of the growth National data indicate that between 30 and 35% of in the owner‐occupied housing stock. For manufactured homes are located on leased land. particular submarkets the share is considerably While this is a rough measure, it is the only one higher. For example, among households with very‐ available to estimate the number of manufactured low incomes (that is, less than 50 percent of area homes in Delaware on leased land, short of an actual median), 23 percent of homeownership growth list including each community. As the DMHRA between 1993 and 1999 came through assembles such information, an estimate using ACS manufactured housing. For southern households data is useful for comparison purposes. the figure was 30 percent, and for rural households, 35 percent. Indeed, in the rural South Applying the national figure of a 35% probability that manufactured home purchases accounted for a a home is located on a leased lot to the American stunning 63 percent of the increase in very‐low Community Survey estimates indicate about 13,500 income homeownership.” (Apgar, et al, 2002, p. 3) manufactured homes on leased lots in Delaware. Clearly, Delaware exceeds the national average of 11

35% of homes on leased land, as the number of leased lots paying into the Relocation Trust Fund far exceeds 13,500. Simply applying the 23,000 leased lots that have paid into the Relocation Trust Fund to the 2005 – 2007 ACS estimate of 40,763 indicates that at least 56% of manufactured homes in Delaware are located on leased land. TABLE 3 Estimated Manufactured Homes on Leased Land, Delaware and Counties, 2007 Manufactured Homes on Manufactured Homes on Leased Land – Estimated at Manufactured Manufactured Homes Leased Land – Estimated at 65% (Foremost Insurance Homes on 35% (national average) 2002 Delaware survey) Leased Land – (2005 ‐ DMHRA Margin Range within Range within Range within Records 2007 ACS Estimate Estimate of Error Margin of Error Margin of Error Margin of Error Estimate) Kent County 8,908 649 8,259 – 9,557 3,118 2,891 – 3,345 5,790 5,368 – 6,212 4,521 New Castle 3,921 3,537 – 4,306 County 6,033 592 5,441 – 6,625 2,112 1,904 – 2,319 4,939 Sussex County 25,822 1,059 24,763 – 26,881 9,038 8,667 – 9,408 16,784 16,096 – 17,473 13,501 Delaware 40,763 1,362 39,401 – 42,125 14,267 13,790 – 14,744 26,496 25,611 – 27,381 23,122* Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2005 ‐ 2007 American Community Survey Estimates, Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Authority information compiled by DSHA, September 2008 *Location information not available for 5 communities comprising 66 units. Foremost Insurance Group has long conducted a national survey of manufactured homeowners with a variety of questions on income, ownership, demographic and other information. In addition to a national report, state‐level reports are also available. There are, however, major drawbacks, particularly non‐ scientific sampling (the survey is sent to their customers) and, in some states, small sample sizes. For Delaware, the number of respondents is only a few hundred. Without sampling or weighting, it is difficult to apply statistics from these surveys to the entire population of manufactured homeowners in Delaware. However, the above analysis using 2005 ‐ 2007 ACS estimates and national averages for percentage of homes on leased land does support Foremost’s statistics on whether homes are on the homeowner’s personal real estate or leased land. In 2002, Foremost’s report for Delaware indicated that only 33% of manufactured homes in Delaware are placed on land owned by the homeowner, compared to 65% nationally. The real number of manufactured homes on leased land in Delaware is likely somewhere in the middle of these estimates, especially considering that 1) while some established communities continue to expand, few new land‐lease manufactured housing communities have opened in Delaware in recent years, and 2) the number of new homes placed on leased land continues to decrease, with only 26% of new homes being placed in manufactured housing communities nationally in 2007 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, Manufactured Housing Survey). Demographics Owners of manufactured homes generally have lower incomes, are either older or younger households, are more likely to be headed by a white householder, and tend to be in slightly smaller households (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census and 2005 ‐ 2007 ACS; HUD, 2007 American Housing Survey). Average income for owners of manufactured homes is well below income for all owner‐occupied housing units ‐ $39,110 compared to $68,167 in the 2000 Census. The average income of households renting manufactured homes also lags behind incomes of all renter households, at $30,269 compared to $38,246 12

in 2000. The 2005 American Housing Survey reported median income of $27,452 for households in manufactured housing, compared to $44,503 for all households and $55,211 for households in single‐ family detached homes. CHART 4 National statistics on the race of manufactured home occupants are also reflected in Delaware. Owners and renters of manufactured homes are more likely to be white compared to the general population of all households (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2005 ‐ 2007 ACS). In the period 2005 – 2007, 83.4 percent of households in manufactured housing in Delaware were white, close to the national estimate of 84.6 percent. Manufactured housing and manufactured housing communities are popular as retirement homes for older Americans. In addition to their appeal and popularity, manufactured housing is a major source of Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census affordable housing for this population as it is for the general population (Kochera, 2003). Percentages of households aged 55 to 74 are higher in manufactured housing than in the overall stock. Typically fixed incomes make older manufactured homeowners in land‐lease communities particularly vulnerable to rent increases and other unexpected costs. HUD’s 2007 American Housing Survey reports that, nationally, the median income for an elderly householder in a manufactured or mobile home was $21,067, compared to $29,576 for all households in manufactured homes and $47,632 for all households. Kochera (2003) cites that nationally, about 36% of manufactured homeowners age 65 and older reside in manufactured housing communities. TABLE 4 Percentage of Households by Race and Manufactured Housing, United States and Delaware, 2005 ‐ 2007 Estimates United States Delaware Households in Households in All Households Manufactured All Households Manufactured Housing Housing Margin Margin Margin Margin Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate of Error of Error of Error of Error White Alone Householder 78.12% 0.10% 84.58% 0.02% 76.26% 0.29% 83.41% 6.00% Black or African‐American 11.68% 0.02% 7.92% 0.10% 18.69% 0.35% 11.96% 1.85% Alone Householder Hispanic or Latino 10.71% 0.02% 10.21% 0.03% 4.09% 0.21% 4.70% 0.24% Householder Non‐Hispanic or Latino 72.25% 0.09% 78.75% 0.04% 73.84% 0.23% 81.30% 5.85% Householder Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2005 ‐ 2007 American Community Survey Estimates 13

TABLE 5 Age of Householder for Manufactured Homes, United States, 2007 Percentage of Households in Percentage of All Households Total Manufactured Homes Total Under 25 6,273,000 5.67% 349,000 5.04% 25 to 29 8,809,000 7.96% 485,000 7.01% 30 to 34 9,571,000 8.65% 607,000 8.77% 35 to 44 21,756,000 19.65% 1,262,000 18.24% 45 to 54 23,208,000 20.97% 1,467,000 21.20% 55 to 64 18,211,000 16.45% 1,222,000 17.66% 65 to 74 11,700,000 10.57% 881,000 12.73% 75 and older 11,165,000 10.09% 647,000 9.35% Total 110,693,000 6,920,000 Source: HUD, 2007 American Housing Survey 2007 data indicate that nationally, 40% of households in manufactured homes are over the age of 55, compared to 37% of all households. The 2000 Census, the most recent source of data breaking out age of householder by type of unit at the state or local level, indicate a slightly larger gap for Delaware. 41.5% of all households in manufactured homes in Delaware in 2000 were over age 55, compared to 36.6% for all households. TABLE 6 Age of Householder for Manufactured Homes, Delaware, 2000 All Households in % of all Households In Age Group as a % Age Group as a Households in Manufactured Age Group that are in of All Households % of All Age Group Homes Manufactured Homes in MH Households Under 25 13,885 1,378 9.92% 4.83% 4.65% 25 ‐ 34 49,476 4,948 10.00% 17.35% 16.56% 35 ‐ 44 67,524 5,710 8.46% 20.02% 22.60% 45 ‐ 54 58,524 4,649 7.94% 16.30% 19.59% 55 ‐ 64 41,972 4,525 10.78% 15.87% 14.05% 65 ‐ 74 37,250 4,426 11.88% 15.52% 12.47% 75 + 30,105 2,884 9.58% 10.11% 10.08% 298,736 28,520 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census Households in manufactured housing tend to be smaller than households in other homes. Nationally, 63% of households in manufactured homes had only 1 or 2 persons in 2007. Households of this size are only 60% of all households. 1 to 2 person households comprised only 55% of all households in other single‐ family detached or attached homes. 14

TABLE 7 Household Size for Households in Manufactured Homes, United States, 2007 Manufactured Percentage of Percentage of All Homes Homes Households in MH All Households 1 person 2,031,000 29.35% 29,996,000 27.10% 2 persons 2,322,000 33.55% 36,724,000 33.18% 3 persons 928,000 13.41% 17,522,000 15.83% 4 persons 963,000 13.92% 15,712,000 14.19% 5 or more persons 676,000 9.77% 10,737,000 9.69% Total 6,920,000 110,691,000 Source: HUD, 2007 American Housing Survey Unit Characteristics The HUD Code All new manufactured homes are built to Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards set by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). These standards, often called the “HUD Code”, define a manufactured home as CHART 5 dwelling units of at least 320 square feet in size with a permanent chassis to assure initial and continued transportability. The Code covers Body and Frame Requirements, Thermal Protection, Plumbing, Electrical, Fire Safety, and other aspects of the home. Homes are built to different standards for different Wind Zones and Snow Loads for different areas of the country. Each manufactured home built in the U.S. after June 1976 must contain a red HUD label, certifying that it has been constructed in accordance with the HUD code. Homes also include a Data Plate, a paper label Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Manufactured Housing Survey inside the home (often in a cabinet or closet) containing information about the manufacturing plant, serial numbers and model designation, date of manufacture, a list of factory‐ installed equipment such as appliances, and a reference to the Roof Load Zone and Wind Zone to which the home was designed. HUD has agreements with 38 state governments to conduct checks of plant records and respond to consumer complaints related to manufacturing, performance, quality and construction issues. The state government designates a State Administrative Agency (SAA). HUD staff carry out these functions in the other 12 states without SAAs, including Delaware. Installation There are two basic types of foundations for manufactured homes, simple and permanent. In a simple foundation, the home is set on steel or concrete piers on top of square footers or pads of concrete. The home is then fastened or anchored to the ground. Types of permanent foundations vary widely, but use permanent full and load‐bearing perimeter walls for support. Typically the floor joists are attached to the foundation wall. Multi‐section homes, which are the majority of new homes placed, must be joined 15

together and sealed. The wheels and hitch are removed, and the unit is connected to site utilities. Installers often also add skirting if the unit is not placed on a full foundation, stairs, porches, or other on‐ site additions (HAC, 2007 and Apgar, et. al, 2002). Proper installation can have considerable impacts on the future stability, security, and even the condition and wear of the home. While homes are built to the federal HUD code, installation standards have typically been set at the state or local level, often haphazardly. In 2000, the federal Manufactured Housing Improvement Act was passed. This law required each state to institute a manufactured home installation program and dispute resolution program within five years. Specifically, adoption of standards for manufactured home installation, implementation of an installation program addressing training, licensing, certification and inspections, and implementation of a dispute resolution program were required. Over the same time period, HUD developed national standards for manufactured home installation which state standards must meet or exceed. In state legislation signed in July 2005, authority for these programs was assigned to the Delaware Division of Professional Regulation. A Board of Manufactured Home Installation to set standards and fees for licensing of manufactured home installers and installation inspectors was also created by this legislation. Beginning one year from its enactment into law, all manufactured homes in Delaware must be installed by a licensed manufactured home installer and inspected by a Board certified inspector. (24 Del. C., Chapter 44) Today’s Manufactured Housing Advances in quality and design have made manufactured housing a popular, high‐quality product comparable to site‐built housing in durability. Construction and transportation advances mean that there is more variation than ever possible in manufactured homes: pitched roofs, bay windows, multi‐sections, as well as numerous options for on‐site additions like awnings, patio covers, porches, decks, and garages. Larger, multi‐section homes are more and more CHART 6 popular, and among new homes, are much more common than single‐section homes. Nationally, 61.6% of manufactured homes are single‐section units, 36.7% are double‐section, and 1.2% are triple‐section or larger (HUD, 2007 American Housing Survey). Affordable prices, a quick sales process and impressive array of available options all make manufactured housing an attractive option for buyers. Genz (2001, 396‐398) identifies three core factors: prices, quality of construction, and marketing. Compared particularly to rental housing, new manufactured homes have strong Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Manufactured Housing Survey appeal and value for the money. While interest rates are high, longer loan terms and the low cost of the home itself can make purchase of a new or late model used home comparable to rental costs. Despite long‐held stereotypes about low quality and rapid deterioration, several studies indicate that manufactured homes have a fairly long life span, up to 55 years, and the vast majority of new homes feature high‐quality construction and attractive designs. Finally, Genz identifies the fundamentally different marketing system for manufactured housing as a factor. Comparison shopping for a site‐built home, new or existing, is time‐consuming, and rests heavily on location. When shopping for a new manufactured home, the consumer sees the home first on the 16

dealer’s lot, and can shop for the same options a buyer of a new site‐built home would shop for. While delivery time may vary depending upon whether the home is built to order or purchased off the dealer’s lot and on the amount of site work CHART 7 necessary to prepare the lot, it is still typically very fast compared to new site‐built homes. In many cases the dealer helps to coordinate every aspect of the sale, placement and financing. For buyers using a personal‐property loan instead of a conventional home loan, the application and approval process for their loan is also significantly easier: “In‐house dealer financing programs can accommodate buyers of widely varying qualifications, with approvals coming back in as little as an hour.” (Genz, 398) Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Manufactured Housing Survey As manufactured homes have grown in popularity as permanent residences, are increasingly placed on private property, and appeal to a broader market, the average size of units has steadily increased, approaching 1,800 square feet for double‐section units in 2007, up from about 1,400 square feet for double‐section units in 1990. As double or multi‐ section units become more popular, and as single‐section units are more limited by design, the average size of single‐section units has not changed as much, only increasing by about 100 square feet since 1990. Of the existing stock of manufactured housing nationally, 61% are single‐section units. However, in recent years double‐section units have pulled far ahead as a percentage of new units placed. In 1985, 17% of new units placed in Delaware were double‐section, compared to 31% nationally. By 1995, that had increased to 47% in Delaware and 48% nationally. In the mid‐2000s, percentages of new units that are double‐section hover between 70 and 80% both in Delaware and nationally. Affordability Huge variation and options in features, floor plans, and sizes mean that prices for a new manufactured home, without land, can range from $20,000 for a new single‐section home with basic features to well over $100,000 for a multi‐section home with numerous options. Still, manufactured homes are consistently shown to have dramatically lower construction costs per square foot than site‐built homes, even when the value of land is removed. The Manufactured Housing Institute estimates that “Depending on the region of the country, construction cost per square foot for a new manufactured home averages anywhere from 10 to 35% less than a comparable site‐built home, excluding the cost of land.” (http://www.manufacturedhousing.org) What makes manufactured housing so much more affordable? A centralized building code (the HUD Code) and the ability to control and streamline the construction process are major advantages. Apgar, Calder, Collins and Duda (2002) note five factors creating cost savings in the production process: • Economies of scale in high‐volume materials purchase • Ability to better coordinate production using assembly‐line techniques • A controlled environment devoid of weather or other delays • Standardized design and materials • Reduced costs (primarily in time) of securing approval from local code officials 17

Average sales prices of new homes have risen steadily, although at a higher rate in Delaware in the past few years, likely because the majority of new homes now being placed in the state are double‐section homes. In 2007, the average sales price for a new manufactured home in Delaware was $82,900, compared to $65,100 nationally. For a double‐section unit, the average sales price in Delaware in 2007 was $88,400, compared to $74,100 nationally. For single‐section homes, the average sales price in Delaware was $30,200 and $37,200 nationally. However, it is important to keep in mind that these averages are often based on a fairly small number of units at the state level – about 500 units placed in Delaware in 2007. The nature of averages (being more sensitive to the effects of outliers, or prices at the highest and lowest ends of the range) and the small number of units may explain what look like large year‐to‐year price fluctuations, as between 2005 and 2007. Comparing sales prices, average costs per square foot, and values between manufactured homes and site‐ built homes is challenging. It is difficult to fully correct for the cost and value of land and site work. The Census Bureau does report on this annually and provides a comparison of costs per square foot for new manufactured and new site‐built homes. With the average cost per square foot for a new single family site‐built home in 2007, excluding the cost of land, more than doubling the average cost per square foot for a new manufactured home, it is apparent that even with added costs for transportation and site work, manufactured housing provides clear cost benefits. TABLE 8 Cost and Size Comparison: New Manufactured Homes and New Single Family Site‐Built Homes New Manufactured Homes New Single Family Site‐Built Homes Avg Sales Avg Sq Avg Cost per Avg Sales Derived Avg Avg Sq Avg Price Per Sq Price Foot Sq Ft Price Land Price Foot Ft (Excl. Land) 1997 $39,800 1,420 $28.03 $176,200 $33,227 2,140 $66.81 2007 $65,100 1,595 $40.82 $313,600 $84,268 2,479 $92.51 Increase, 1997 ‐ 2007 63.57% 12.32% 45.63% 77.98% 153.61% 15.84% 38.47% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census SUMMARY: Characteristics of Manufactured Housing in the U.S. and Delaware • Manufactured housing is a critical source of affordable housing, especially as homeownership for low‐income households, in both the U.S. and Delaware. With almost 41,000 units in Delaware, it is 10% of the state’s housing stock and home to approximately 70,000 Delawareans. • Manufactured housing is especially predominant in Sussex County, home to over 60% of the manufactured homes in the state. Almost a quarter of the County’s housing stock is manufactured homes, many of which are held for seasonal, recreational or occasional use. • While it is difficult to quantify the exact number of manufactured homes on leased land in Delaware, records from the Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Authority indicate at least 23,000, or 56% of the manufactured homes in the state are on leased land. This is well above cited national figures of 30 to 35%. • Households in manufactured housing are predominantly white (85% in Delaware as of 2005 ‐ 2007), more likely to be in smaller households, and slightly more likely to be older households. As of the 2000 Census, 41% of householders in manufactured homes in Delaware were over 55. • Advances in construction, quality, amenities and design, and significant cost savings over site‐built housing have made manufactured housing a popular and affordable permanent housing choice for millions of Americans and thousands of Delawareans. The majority of manufactured homes, once placed, are not moved, and most new homes (close to 80%) are multi‐section homes. 18

LEGAL AND FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK OF MANUFACTURED HOUSING New manufactured homes today, once placed, are rarely moved. Costs to move a home vary based on the distance of the move, size of the home, and post‐placement additions that must be removed, and the amount of utility and other work to prepare the land. For the vast majority of homeowners, a manufactured home is a permanent housing choice, despite legal, financial and tenure structures that continue to treat it as an impermanent and mobile one. As a result, today’s manufactured housing exists in a “parallel legal universe” of titling, land ownership, and financing from the rest of the housing stock and market (Genz, 2001). Titling of Manufactured Homes All manufactured homes in Delaware All new manufactured homes are titled through the Delaware are initially titled as personal Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), for a fee of $25 ($35 for a property. In Delaware, as in most home with a lien) plus a 3.75% document fee based on the sale states, new manufactured homes are price or current trade‐in value of the home, whichever is higher. titled and registered through the For new homes, this application process is typically handled by Department of Motor Vehicles. If a the dealer. Each section of a multi‐section home will have its home is to be placed on the buyer’s own title. In order to be declared real property – a main property, typically on a permanent requirement in order to access conventional mortgage financing foundation, title can be surrendered ‐ this Certificate of Title must be surrendered. The process for and the home can be classified as real surrendering the Certificate of Title and classifying a estate in a process through the manufactured home as real property is slightly different in each County where it is located. As more county, but the main steps are: and more new homes are placed on 1) Notifying the County to request a surrender of title. the buyer’s privately owned land, 2) A form/application/fee is required. instead of in land‐lease manufactured 3) The home is inspected by a County official to ensure that it housing communities, titling as real is affixed to the land, its wheels and axles removed and it estate is becoming increasingly is anchored to the land. common. In 1990, 89% of new 4) The County issues a letter or other certification to the manufactured homes nationally were DMV that the home meets its requirements to be titled as personal property. By 2007, considered real property. this has decreased to 64%. This has 5) The DMV issues a C‐grade classification certificate and a corresponded with an increase in the notice to the County that the Certificate of Title has been number of homes placed on “outside surrendered. manufactured housing communities” Sources: Fannie Mae Guidance on Manufactured Home Titling in – the designation used by the Census Delaware, Delaware Department of Motor Vehicles Manufactured Housing Survey, which collects and reports this information. From 1990 to 2007, the percentage of homes placed outside manufactured housing communities increased from 59% to 74%, with a correlated decrease in the percentage of homes placed in manufactured housing communities, down from 41% to 28%. Still, millions of homes, new and existing, are classified as personal property, and are located on rented land, generally in investor‐owned communities. The designation of manufactured homes as personal property and land‐lease form of tenure combine to form a constellation of legal and financial differences from site‐built housing that have a broad impact on asset‐building potential for manufactured home owners, with the greatest impact on owners of homes on leased land. 19

Challenges for Homeowners in Land‐Lease Communities Analysis of HUD American Housing Survey data by the AARP (formerly the American Association of Retired Persons) indicate that 32% of manufactured homes are located in land‐lease communities (2004). Foremost Insurance Group, which conducts an annual national survey of manufactured home owners, similarly reports that in 2005, 35% of respondents owned homes in manufactured housing communities CHART 8 where they rented the lot. Land‐lease communities for manufactured housing have their benefits, particularly for lower‐income homebuyers/homeowners in areas where land costs are high and would otherwise make homeownership impossible. For older and retired households, there is often appeal in many services being taken care of in a community. Many communities offer a variety of amenities as well. However, owning a large, fairly immobile asset on land over which the owner has no control, possibly only a fairly short‐term (year or a few years) lease, and no guaranteed predictability of future rent costs is Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Manufactured Housing Survey fundamentally insecure. Considering that asset is also often a household’s largest asset, and that asset is also a household’s home, creates even more insecurity. While the majority of manufactured housing communities are certainly operated well, reasonably, and with consideration for homeowners, the vulnerability is inherent in the form of tenure itself. Leases can be ended, rents can be increased far beyond homeowners’ abilities to pay, communities can be sold and closed. Community closure is perhaps the greatest risk to homeowners on leased land, and it is a looming threat for many in Delaware. High land values provide strong incentives for community owners to consider selling or converting the use of their land. When a community is closed, the homeowner has no choice but to move or abandon their home. Relocating a home is costly, and homes are subject to damage during transportation. Moving a home has also been shown to affect future appreciation (Jewell, 2003). Many older homes, or homes with various on‐site additions or modifications, cannot be moved. There are relatively few open lots in manufactured housing communities, and very few, if any, new communities are opening in Delaware. Many communities have strict design and age standards that exclude homes more than a few years old. In many older communities, homeowners may have no choice but to abandon their homes, which, while of little market value, have immense value to them as a source of affordable housing. Financing Issues with how manufactured homes are sited, titled and appraised make them difficult candidates for long‐term, conventional mortgages. Results of this include fewer protections for buyers and owners, higher costs, and effects on asset‐building for owners. Financing for manufactured housing takes two very different forms: 1) conventional mortgage lending, generally restricted to units on land owned by the homeowner; and 2) chattel lending, or personal property loans, typically for units on leased land or not titled as real estate. Within both of these markets, it is often difficult to secure financing for purchase of an existing manufactured home. 20

A variety of features of the manufactured housing market combine to create in some cases validly unacceptably high risk for lenders; in others cases, “Even though a unfamiliarity, stereotypes and negative perceptions of “trailers” have undue manufactured home impact. The product’s (theoretical, at least) mobility, unclear appreciation today bears no patterns, typically high loan to value ratios, unstable resale market, and, for resemblance to a “trailer,” it is still all too homes in communities, insecure land tenancy, unpredictable land lease frequently sold and costs, and classification as personal property pose major challenges to financed like one.” lending. Loosened standards in manufactured home lending in the mid‐ (West, 2006, p. 36) 1990s led to a dramatic rise in defaults and repossessions in the late 1990s through 2002. The lack of an effective resale market further hindered lenders’ ability to recoup losses. Overall, the result is that buyers of manufactured homes simply pay more. The 2007 American Housing Survey indicates that while only 10.3% of all homes have a current mortgage interest rate over 8%, a third (33.1%) of manufactured homes have rates over 8%. The comparison with recently constructed homes is even more stark: only 6.8% of new homes built in the four years before the survey (2002‐2006) had interest rates over 8%. The median mortgage interest rate on manufactured homes is almost a percentage point higher: 7.2%, compared to 6.4% for all homes. TABLE 9 Current Mortgage Interest Rate, United States, 2007 % of All New Construction % of All New Manufactured % of all Manufactured All Units Units 4 Years Construction Homes Homes Less than 6% 17,937,000 38.61% 1,450,000 37.85% 547,000 26.37% 6 to 7.9% 23,744,000 51.11% 2,121,000 55.36% 840,000 40.50% 8 to 9.9% 3,613,000 7.78% 200,000 5.22% 399,000 19.24% 10 to 11.9% 814,000 1.75% 35,000 0.91% 192,000 9.26% 12 to 13.9% 214,000 0.46% 18,000 0.47% 60,000 2.89% 14 to 15.9% 73,000 0.16% 5,000 0.13% 18,000 0.87% 16 to 17.9% 15,000 0.03% ‐ ‐ 6,000 0.29% 18 to 19.9% 30,000 0.06% ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 20% or more 21,000 0.05% 2000 0.05% 12,000 0.58% Median 6.4 6.4 7.2 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2007 American Housing Survey Conventional Financing To access conventional financing, manufactured homes generally must be on a permanent foundation, located on the owner’s land, and be titled as real property. For some lenders and programs, only new homes will qualify. Appraisal requirements for manufactured homes are also often stringent. Analysis of 2006 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data, which include only conventional mortgage loans, indicate that even when manufactured home buyers are able to access conventional financing, their loans are generally more expensive than site‐built home loans. Banks are required to report pricing information when a loan is more than 3% above the Treasury rate. Almost half (47%) of all conventional loans for manufactured homes fell in this category, compared to only 25% of conventional 1‐ to 4‐family home purchase loans. The haphazard resale market for manufactured homes also affects their viability for financing. Many standards for accessing conventional mortgage financing for a manufactured home do not allow the purchase of anything but new homes, which limits the availability and increases the cost of loans – 21

reducing what buyers can afford to pay for an existing home – further affecting appreciation potential for new homes. As West (2006) notes: “Inasmuch as the lack of a resale market limits the collateral value of manufactured homes, a vicious cycle is created. The lack of credit available for purchase of existing manufactured homes severely restricts the pool of potential buyers. Fewer buyers who are willing and able to buy an existing home means lower collateral value: as demand shrinks, lenders’ perception of risk – for both new and existing manufactured housing ‐ grows. After all, what would happen if the home owner needs to sell before the loan is paid off?” (40) West (2006) and others (Jewell, 2003, Apgar et al, 2002) have also identified the lack of a robust secondary market for conventional manufactured home loans as an issue, which reduces the volume of loans available and increases costs. This situation is improving, and both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have standard guidelines for manufactured home loans and will purchase mortgages on manufactured homes titled as real estate via approved lender partners using their standard MH underwriting and appraisal guidelines. Fannie Mae has also developed a “MH SelectTM Intiatitve,” a collaborative effort between Fannie Mae and the industry Manufactured Housing Institute. The program offers more financing flexibility for high quality manufactured homes when manufacturers and dealers/retailers commit to specific design and service standards. Government Programs Financing for manufactured homes is increasingly available through traditional government homeownership programs, although this is largely limited to homes titled as real estate and placed on the owner’s privately owned property. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development (RD) 502 Direct Loan purchase program allows the financing of HUD‐certified manufactured homes, when purchased through RD‐approved dealers and placed on a permanent foundation. The extremely low interest rates available through the 502 Direct Loan program make it an important resource for low‐ income buyers in rural areas. Loans can include the home itself as well as related site development work. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) provides mortgage insurance on loans made by FHA‐approved lenders nationally. The FHA Title I program may be used for the purchase or refinancing of a manufactured home, including those designated as personal property and on leased land. The Title II program may be used for the purchase of a home when placed on a permanent foundation and classified as real estate. Low loan limits have long limited the scope of this program, although they can be increased up to 85% in designated high‐cost areas. The program allows for a maximum loan term of 25 years for a multi‐section home and lot combination, requires a 5% down payment and owner‐occupancy. While challenged by a history of high default rates and low usage (only slightly more than 1,400 loans in 2006), FHA Title I is the only active federal program offering insurance for loans on a manufactured home only, without associated land. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA) of 2008 included several provisions to modernize FHA’s manufactured housing programs, including increases to loan limits; codification of a previous regulation applying a section of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) prohibiting the referral of fees by a lender to dealers, manufacturers, or other parties for the Title I program; requiring a three year lease term for home‐only loans on leased land in Title I; and allowing long‐term leasehold arrangements under Title II. These changes are expected to increase volume and provide leadership in the industry. The Act also includes a directive for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to provide leadership in the manufactured housing market and facilitate a secondary market for manufactured housing loans for low‐ and moderate‐ income homeowners. 22

State housing finance agency programs also are increasingly inclusive of manufactured housing. In Delaware, the Delaware State Housing Authority’s (DSHA) main homeownership programs, the Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bond (SFMRB), which provides low‐interest mortgages through participating lenders, and downpayment and settlement assistance programs allow for manufactured homes. Homes must be on a permanent foundation, classified as real estate, and meet any other requirements of the lender and insurer, which may vary. While great advances have been made in access to conventional financing for buyers of manufactured homes that will be titled as real estate and placed on personal property, there are few government programs providing financing for either existing homes in, or new homes to be placed in, manufactured housing communities. The challenges that make financing for these homes difficult in the private market are equally difficult to housing finance agencies. In New Hampshire, where nonprofit and public agencies have made major strides in advancing resident ownership of manufactured housing communities, the New Hampshire Community Loan Fund (NHCLF) recognized that “while resident ownership secures the land for the benefit of the homeowners in a community, the lack of conventional financing still undermines homeownership on that land.” (Bradley, 2003) In 2003, the NHCLF originated retail mortgage lending services, for new home purchase, existing home purchase, refinancing and repair loans to residents of the almost 80 manufactured housing communities it has helped convert to resident ownership. It also provides first‐time buyers access to state HFA loans. Advances in financing for manufactured housing in New Hampshire have also benefited greatly from state law that allows titling of manufactured homes placed on leased land as real estate (George and Barr, 2005). As discussed in the next section, resident ownership of MHCs can positively impact many of the barriers that have long made lending for homes on leased land challenging. Personal Property Lending To purchase a new home that will not be titled as real estate, buyers must use personal property, or “chattel” loans. Even some buyers who will place the home on their own land may still use personal property loans and finance the land separately. Personal property loans for manufactured homes are largely dominated by consumer finance companies and a few that specialize in manufactured home finance. These loans have much higher costs – the price of fast decisions, easy approval processes, and looser credit requirements. Analysis of Affordable Housing Survey data in Apgar, et. al (2002) indicated that manufactured homes on rented land had median terms of 9 percent interest for 15 years (or 8.7% interest for 18 years if on owned land) compared to median terms of 7.5% interest over 25 years for single‐family site‐built homes. A less formal survey conducted by the Consumers Union in Austin, Texas, found that a borrower with good credit and a five percent down payment would likely have been charged anywhere from 2 to 4 percentage points more by manufactured housing lenders than by a conventional mortgage (Consumers Union, 2000). While the industry has made great strides to reverse the negative stereotypes of high‐pressure sales, inflating prices, steering to loans with kickbacks for the retailer, and predatory lending, studies of consumer complaints indicate that some of these concerns are indeed still grounded in practice in some areas of the industry (Consumers Union, 2003). Further, chattel loans are not subject to many consumer protection laws that apply to conventional mortgages, such as the Truth in Lending Act, Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA), and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), nor are they subject to Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) reporting requirements. RESPA requires disclosure of settlement costs and prohibits kickbacks or referral fees, meaning that retailers “can and frequently do earn commissions, rebates or other payments on loan originations, credit life insurance, property insurance, and other services arranged for at the time the loan is closed.” (HUD and NAHB, 2000, 41) Consumer protections for foreclosure on conventional mortgage loans are also far broader than for personal property loans. 23

Appreciation A core challenge to improving financing for buyers and wealth‐building opportunities for owners is understanding the value of manufactured homes, how it changes, and why. That manufactured homes only depreciate is a widely‐held belief, but numerous studies indicate that this is not necessarily the truth, nor is depreciation inherent to the home itself. Further, imperfections in the manufactured housing finance market and the overall legal structure of “Contrary to popular belief, depreciation manufactured home ownership and placement have serious is not inherent to the housing unit; it is a effects on appreciation. As noted earlier, the turmoil in the matter of market function. By focusing manufactured housing market in the early part of this decade on land ownership and access to decent only worsened perceptions of risk and appreciation in financing, communities and affordable manufactured housing. housing can be successfully preserved and individuals can build a housing asset The Consumers Union completed one of the most in manufactured home communities.” comprehensive studies on manufactured housing appreciation in 2003, using data from the 1985‐1999 AHS (Ward, French and Giraud, 2006, p. 3) Panel as well as county appraisal data from several counties in Texas and extensive literature review. The study sought to investigate the question of, if depreciation is not inherent to the product itself, what is the source of the depreciation (or lack of appreciation) in manufactured homes? And, why do some manufactured homes appreciate more than others. The Consumers Union study found that, overall, average appreciation rates of manufactured homes packaged with owned land are statistically in line with the site‐built market. Just like site‐built homes, the value of manufactured homes are affected strongly by their location, condition and maintenance. Land ownership, location, purchase price and maintenance expenditures are among the factors that predict appreciation in manufactured homes. Key findings of the report are that: The Consumers Union (2003) report identified the following as factors influencing appreciation in manufactured housing: • In total, manufactured homes - As in site‐built housing, manufactured homes are affected by appreciated 6% less per year than the appreciation of homes in their neighborhood. site‐built homes, but those - Owning the lot leads to higher appreciation of the home packaged with land appreciated itself. similarly to site‐built homes. On - Larger homes appreciate more. - Intensive use and overcrowding lower appreciation. average, manufactured homes on - Investing one percent of the value of the home in leased land depreciated. maintenance yields a half percent improvement in the value. • Manufactured homes, both on - Moving a home has a negative effect on its future owned and rented land, had appreciation: homes still on their first site tended to have significantly less predictability and greater appreciation than other homes. higher variation in the appreciation - Homes in “urban” census areas did better than rural homes. - The fact that a home was built since 1980 (a proxy for 1976, of the units. the implementation of the HUD Code) does not ensure • Factors driving appreciation of higher appreciation. While positive, this was not a significant manufactured homes are factor. structurally different than the - For homes placed on the owner’s personal property, lot size factors driving site‐built was significant, with homes on larger lots performing better. appreciation (p 9). - For those homes located in communities, higher starting lot rent translated to higher appreciation. A clear message from the research on value and appreciation in manufactured housing is that ownership of land is, by far, the most important factor driving appreciation in manufactured homes. While numerous other factors affect appreciation of manufactured homes, just as in site‐built homes, insecure land tenure is of paramount concern and is 24

“the single most important attribute for equity growth for this type of housing” (HAC, 2005, 29). Two results of this form of tenure – titling as personal property and subsequent lack of conventional financing – further challenge equity growth for owners of manufactured homes. SUMMARY – Legal and Financial Framework of Manufactured Housing • For the vast majority of manufactured homeowners, a manufactured home is a permanent housing product, despite legal, financial and tenure structures that continue to treat it as an impermanent and highly mobile one. • All new manufactured homes are titled as personal property. Homes placed on a permanent foundation, typically on the owners property, can have the title surrendered to become classified as real estate. • While land lease communities remain a popular option, the majority of new manufactured homes (74% in 2007, nationally) are placed outside manufactured housing communities. Subsequently, a steadily increasing percentage is titled as real estate. Still, millions of homes, new and existing, are classified as personal property and located on leased land. • While the majority of manufactured housing communities are operated well and with consideration for homeowners’ interests, the fact remains that owning a home on rented land over which the homeowner has no control, possibly a fairly short‐term lease, and no predictability of future rent costs and the constant possibility of community sale or closure creates a fundamentally vulnerable situation for the homeowner. As an extension of that vulnerability, the unique legal situation of manufactured housing creates issues with how homes are titled and financed. • Legally, manufactured homes are often still treated as mobile and impermanent housing, even though this is accurate for an increasingly small portion of the industry and homeowners. This creates issues with how homes are titled, valued, and resold that, combined, make them difficult candidates for long‐term conventional mortgages. Conventional financing for manufactured homes placed on personal property and permanent foundations has expanded significantly in recent years, but there is little progress for homes titled as personal property and on leased land. For these homes, a personal property loan is generally the only option. As a result, homeowners have fewer protections, face higher costs, and ultimately negative effects on their ability to build wealth through their home. • Despite widely held views that manufactured housing only depreciates, research indicates that depreciation is not necessarily inherent to manufactured housing itself, but a reflection of issues I the market. Just like site‐built homes, the value of manufactured homes are affected strongly by their location, condition and maintenance. Studies show that ownership or control over the land on which the home is placed affects appreciation more than any other factor. Less directly, appreciation in manufactured housing is also affected by the availability of financing, which is also tied to how homes are titled and sited. 25

RESIDENT OWNED COMMUNITIES (ROCS) The steady expansion of conventional lending for manufactured homes placed on private property indicates that many of the issues with lending for manufactured homes placed in manufactured housing communities are not the result of deficiencies in the product itself, as many have long believed. Rather, in many ways these challenges are in fact artifacts, direct and indirect, of this ultimately insecure form of tenure. The two main recommendations to improve appreciation (and subsequently asset‐building opportunities for owners) in manufactured housing are to 1) gain control of the land on which the home is sited; and 2) gain access to favorable home loans as close to conventional mortgages as possible (Jewell, 2003). The most common form of resident ownership for manufactured housing communities is a cooperative corporation. In this model, homeowners join together to form a corporation operating on one‐ member/one‐vote rule. Every household in a community can become a member and participate in the governance and operation of the community. Each household owns a share in the cooperative, which is governed by a member Board elected by the membership. In smaller communities, the Board and Committees may do the work of managing and operating the community directly; in larger ones, the Board may arrange for the contracting of a management agent. Stable rents, more secure tenure, having a voice in community management, and capital improvements are all clear benefits of resident ownership. While rents may be lower for homeowners in ROCs over time, there is not always an immediate drop in rents as new ROCs must often make major investments in the community’s infrastructure, such as water and septic systems and roads. In New Hampshire, where almost 90 communities have converted to resident ownership over the last 25 years, a recent evaluation study showed that homeowners in resident owned communities have “significant economic advantages over counterparts in investor‐owned communities, as evidenced by higher average home sales prices, faster home sales, and access to fixed rate home financing. Additionally, residents who own their communities consistently perceive greater control over and stability in their lot rents and governance, and worry less about being displaced because of park closure for redevelopment.” (Ward, French & Giraud, 2006, p. 4) While there are strong initiatives to convert MHCs to resident ownership in several states, notably Minnesota, California and Vermont, the work of the New Hampshire Community Loan Fund (NHCLF) stands out as a national model. Since the mid‐1980s, the NHCLF has provided financing and technical assistance resulting in the creation of almost 90 resident‐owned communities, 20% of the MHCs in the state. None of these communities has failed, defaulted or been sold. Key Elements for ROC Success The NHCLF’s strategy to convert MHCs to resident ownership recognized the short and long‐term elements for success. NHCLF’s comprehensive technical assistance addresses everything from community organizing to the provision of financing tools and long‐term technical assistance, particularly in organizing, management, and planning for and financing major community improvements. Conversion to resident ownership is a complicated process, especially as it is often under time constraints. Pre‐purchase, the community must organize, develop the cooperative structure and leadership, educate members, assemble the deal, legal documents, engineering, engage in negotiations for purchase, and financing. Post‐purchase, the cooperative is faced with developing and implementing a management plan, training 26

the Board, membership and committees, I’M HOME in Delaware: New Horizons engaging contractors and third parties, The Delaware Housing Coalition (DHC) and Diamond State CLT and developing leadership. (DSCLT) are I’M HOME local partners in Delaware. During the Unfortunately, comprehensive short and grant period, the coalition and its partners developed an long‐term technical assistance and access implementation plan for the Diamond State CLT’s first manufactured housing community, New Horizons Cooperative. to financing are of little use if The New Horizons Cooperative is an organization of poultry homeowners simply do not have the workers and other low income workers who are creating a opportunity to purchase the community. manufactured housing community with an agricultural In New Hampshire, a strong right of first enterprise in Sussex County. The homes will be affordable to refusal law has been critical to the households at 50% of area median income. The parcel will be success of NHCLF’s efforts. New located on Diamond State CLT land. Hampshire’s right of first refusal law Formed initially as a group of displaced manufactured housing gives homeowners time to form a park residents, New Horizons formed in 2003 in response to an cooperative, get financing, and make an unfair eviction notice, issued because residents had complained offer on their community. Community to the state about the use of illegal cesspools and lack of owners are required to give homeowners drinkable water. With DHC’s help, New Horizons fought the 18 months notice of park closure, and 60‐ eviction as a violation of residents’ fair housing rights and also day window of notice before sale to an offered to buy the land from the owner. While neither of these outside investor, during which the ultimately worked, New Horizons were able to win a one‐year, court‐mandated extension to their collective lease. “Eventually homeowners can organize the we had to leave,” says Rene. “Though we have been separated cooperative and match the outside offer. for the last year, we have continued to develop our cooperative This law has played a critical role in most and to work on coming back together as a stronger community of New Hampshire’s ROC conversions. than before.” With DHC and other local partners – agricultural extension agents, members of the nearby Presbyterian church, a Several other states have similar laws, local law firm and the DSCLT – cooperative members worked with various features. For example, steadily toward buying land for their new community in an Vermont’s law gives tax benefits to park agricultural area where they would be able to farm part of the owners who sell to residents in addition land together. In September 2007, the group parlayed their to a right of first refusal. California, home savings into a contract for the property on which they will build to over 5,400 manufactured housing their new home. communities, has also made great strides (http://www.diamondstateclt.org/docs/imhome_delaware.pdf) in resident ownership, although an exact number of how many have converted is unclear. The state Department of Housing and Community Development operates a Mobilehome Park Resident Ownership Program, enacted in 1984, to provide loans to homeowner groups to purchase their communities. Funds are also available to nonprofit sponsors. Funded by an annual $5 assessment on leased lots, the program has provided funds for 74 conversions, over 12,000 lots, as of December 2006. Initiatives to Advance ROCs As news of the success of the New Hampshire Community Loan Fund (NHCLF)’s activities to convert manufactured housing communities to resident ownership spread, many other states hoped to develop similar technical assistance and financing resources. Some have been successful, but national funders and groups recognized the need for a national‐level initiative to advance resident ownership in more areas without having to recreate a technical assistance and financing network in each state. In May 2008, the New Hampshire Community Loan Fund and Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED) launched ROC USATM, which will take the model developed in New Hampshire to scale nationally. A network of Certified Technical Assistance Providers (CTAPs) will provide pre‐purchase and post‐purchase 27

training and technical assistance to residents of manufactured housing communities in 29 states. In addition to technical assistance through CTAPs, ROC USATM will also provide financing for conversions as well. The initiative launched with investments exceeding $8 million from the Ford Foundation, Fannie Mae, CFED, NCB Capital Impact, and the Loan Fund. Recognizing the importance – and potential ‐ of manufactured housing as a source of affordable housing for millions of households, in 2005 the Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED) launched Innovations in Manufactured Homes (I’M HOME), a comprehensive initiative to improve conditions for existing manufactured home owners, expand the supply of good quality, affordable housing, and to make sure that families who choose a manufactured home receive the same treatment and benefits as owners of any other type of home. With national and local partners and support from the Ford Foundation, I’M HOME invests resources to build capacity and carry out demonstration projects to: • build high‐quality manufactured homes; • develop and provide access to fair and responsibly‐priced mortgage financing; • address the challenges facing residents in manufactured housing park communities; and • advocate for public policies that help owners of manufactured homes. SUMMARY – Resident Owned Communities • Resident ownership of manufactured housing communities is a promising means to improve security of tenure for manufactured homeowners. In the most common form, a cooperative corporation, homeowners form and become members of a cooperative that purchases and operates the community. By owning a share of the corporation and having a say in the community’s ownership, homeowners can have greater 1) security against sale or closure of the community; 2) predictability of future lot rent costs; and 3) control over the governance of their community. • The opportunity to purchase the community, comprehensive pre‐ and post‐purchase technical assistance, and financing are key factors for the success of conversions to resident ownership. • Initiatives to advance resident ownership of manufactured housing communities have been very successful in some areas, and those successes are having real results for homeowners. A study done in New Hampshire, where the New Hampshire Community Loan Fund (NHCLF) has helped homeowners in 90 communities purchase their communities, indicates that homeowners in resident‐owned communities have “significant economic advantages over counterparts in investor‐owned communities, as evidenced by higher average home sales prices, faster home sales, and access to fixed rate home financing.” (Ward, French & Giraud, 2006, p. 4) 28

MANUFACTURED HOUSING TENURE ISSUES IN DELAWARE Landlord/Tenant Code The Delaware Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act (25 Del.C. §7001 to 7027) took effect on August 23, 2003. A major rewrite of the Mobile Home Lots and Leases Act, the new Act regulates and determines the rights, remedies and obligations of all parties to a rental agreement for a lot for a manufactured home in a manufactured housing community in Delaware. The new Act set out new and detailed standards for rental agreements, landlord and tenant obligations, fees, rules, home standards, sale of homes, termination of lease, and provisions intended to protect and assist homeowners in the event of a change of land use. It also created the Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Trust Fund and Authority, which has proved an important resource to assist homeowners to relocate or be compensated for the abandonment of their homes as a result of community closure. A detailed summary of the law is available online at http://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/media/pdf/manuhoussumm.pdf. While the new Act was a major step forward in improving protections for manufactured home owners in land‐lease communities, issues remained. In the midst of the real estate boom, demand for land and prices developers were willing to pay, especially in Sussex County, skyrocketed. Several communities closed following sales and change of land use, and many others felt the pressure. Several large communities in Delaware were also sold to national investment companies, leaving homeowners feeling even more at risk. In Eastern Sussex County’s resort areas, many homeowners were faced with large and unexpected rent increases that many felt were essentially a form of “financial eviction” in order to reinvent communities as resort and retirement locations. Growing concerns about park closures and the lack of recourse for homeowners facing such rent increases led advocates to work to advance a variety of measures, notably a resident notification/right of first refusal and rent justification bills. Over the course of several years, numerous versions of these bills have been developed, introduced and debated. The various rent justification bills – which would require that lot rent increases be justified by increased operating costs or market conditions ‐ have been most contentious. Rent justification remains a priority for the Delaware Manufactured Home Owners Association (DMHOA) in the future. In 2008, advocates focused on achieving a right of first refusal to guarantee homeowners the opportunity to purchase their communities cooperatively, if the community is otherwise to be sold. After a lengthy negotiation process, representatives of manufactured home owners and community owners reached an agreement on House Bill 504 late in the 2008 session of the 144th General Assembly. The bill, which amends the Delaware Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act, institutes strong provisions for manufactured home owners who wish to purchase their community. HB 504 guarantees homeowners, through a homeowners association or cooperative, a right of first offer. Community owners are required to give residents advance notice of their decision to sell, transfer or convey the land, regardless of whether it will result in a change of land use or not. It also requires that the Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Authority, the homeowners association if one exists, and the Delaware Manufactured Home Owners Association be notified. The notice is accompanied by the price, any special conditions affecting the sale, and information on operating expenses and capital expenditure costs. A homeowners association then has 30 days to respond to the notice with its intent to accept or reject the offer or make a counteroffer. 29

An offer from the homeowners association is valid for 12 months, unless withdrawn, and in that time period, the community owner may not sell the community at or less than the price offered in the offer from the homeowners association. The community owner may accept a higher offer without any obligation to the homeowners association, unless the higher offer is within a certain percentage of the homeowners association offer. In this case, the homeowners association must be given seven business days to match the higher offer. The Act also includes model bylaws for homeowners associations, to serve as guidelines for what qualifies as a homeowners association. Efforts to Advance ROCs in Delaware Efforts to advance resident owned communities in Delaware have faced several challenges, the two broadest being 1) the lack of a guaranteed opportunity to be aware of the sale of a community before it happens and thus no opportunity for residents to purchase it directly; and 2) the lack of specialized and coordinated technical assistance for communities pursuing conversion. While these challenges are faced by many states, communities seeking conversion in Delaware have faced particular roadblocks. Many of the communities where homeowners feel the most risk and vulnerability to community closure or sale are in Sussex County’s beach resort areas. However, in these areas the exact conditions that put homeowners at higher risk may make conversion efforts particularly difficult. As ROC USATM notes on their website, homeowners can afford to compete with other potential buyers because “communities are ultimately bought and sold based upon cash flow – the monthly site rents that homeowners pay, plus any other income generated by that parcel of real estate and business operation. The cash flow can be the same for homeowner groups as for any competing buyer.” (http://www.rocusa.org) In some areas in the recent real estate boom, land prices were so high that the homeowners cannot compete with either the community owners’ desired price or the price developers planning a change of land use are willing to pay. In other cases, a community may be organized and wish to convert to resident ownership, but with an owner who is not interested in selling, or at least not to the homeowners. The passage of HB 504 granting residents a right of first offer to purchase their communities is a major leap forward in the effort to advance conversion to resident ownership in Delaware. Successes around the country demonstrate that statutes providing homeowners with the opportunity to purchase their homes – either through a first offer, matching offer, or right of first refusal – are critical to large‐scale successes. Without them, conversions can only be piecemeal at best and rely on a series of unlikely and unpredictable coincidences to succeed. Following close on the passage of HB 504, Delaware was also added by ROC USATM as a state where manufactured homeowners associations/cooperatives will be eligible to receive technical assistance to pursue conversion to cooperative ownership. Real Estate Advisory and Development Services, Inc. (READS), a technical assistance provider through ROC USATM, was approved in July 2008 to expand its service area to include Delaware. As of October 2008, DMHOA and READS were working with three communities up for sale, two in Kent County and one in New Castle County. Since the creation of the Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Trust Fund, there has been some interest in expanding the uses of the trust fund to include not only assistance to homeowners in communities where closure is imminent, but possibly also proactive assistance in the form of startup, feasibility or capital funding to homeowner associations seeking to convert to cooperative ownership. While this has not moved forward yet, it could be a useful tool in addressing the need for financing for conversions. 30

Dispute Resolution Authorized by Title 29, Section 2519(b) of the Delaware Code, the Delaware Council on Manufactured Housing is intended to advise the Division of Consumer Protection in the Attorney General's office on matters relating to manufactured home owners and tenants, manufactured housing and manufactured home communities. The Council is composed of 14 members including representatives of the manufactured housing industry and both renters and owners of manufactured homes from all three Counties, and is supported by staff from the Division of Consumer Protection. The Council also reviews grievances between manufactured home community owners and tenants or groups of tenants in accordance with the Delaware Manufactured Housing Alternative Dispute Resolution Act (25 Del.C. § 7001). The Act provides a means to resolve disputes about rules and regulations, leases, or alleged violation of manufactured housing laws without litigation by using alternative dispute resolution techniques. The Council, by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members, determines that an existing dispute or grievance between a community owner and tenant or group of tenants should be referred to alternative dispute resolution. These efforts have been very successful and all cases referred to mediators to date have been resolved successfully. Lot Rent Assistance Program In 2005, community owners and the First State Manufactured Housing Association developed a voluntary lot rent assistance program to help very low‐income homeowners facing high lot rent costs. In 2006, this program was made mandatory for owners of communities of more than 25 lots through an amendment to the Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act. Homeowners are eligible for lot rent assistance when they meet the following criteria: 1) eligible for Social Security Disability or Supplemental Security Income benefits, or are 62 years of age or older; 2) have owned their home and/or resided in the home in the manufactured housing community prior to July 1, 2006; 3) reside full time and exclusively in the manufactured home in the manufactured home community, and it must be the homeowner’s only residence; 4) have liquid assets of less than $50,000; and 5) not be recipients of any other rental assistance funding. In addition, the homeowner/household’s income must be less than 40% of the Area Median Income for the county where the community is located, adjusted for household size. In 2008, for a family of four, this would mean an annual income of $23,480 in Kent County, $22,080 in Sussex County, and $28,840 in New Castle County. In addition, the lot rent, excluding utility charges and other charges, fees and assessments must exceed 30% of the income, adjusted for household size, based on 40% of the county’s median income. For a family of four in 2008, this would mean that lot rent must equal or exceed $587/month in Kent County, $552/month in Sussex County, and $721/month in New Castle County. The lot rent assistance provided is in the form of a credit for the amount that the lot rent exceeds 30% of the income for a household with income of 40% of the county median income, adjusted for household size. Eligibility must be recertified annually. To date, no state‐level summary statistics are being kept on the number of applicants and number of households participating in the lot rent program. However, it is expected that the number is fairly low, due to the strict eligibility requirements. On July 1, 2008, a bill was introduced in the General Assembly to expand the eligibility requirements for the program to households with incomes of less than 50% of Area 31

Median Income and increasing the liquid assets limit to $65,000. It was assigned to the House Subcommittee on Manufactured Housing. Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Authority The Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Authority (DMHRA) was established by the Delaware Legislature as part of the Delaware Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act. The primary purposes of the Authority are to provide financial assistance to manufactured home owners who are tenants in a manufactured home community where the community owner changes the use of the land; and to provide financial assistance to manufactured home community owners for the removal and/or disposal of unrelocatable or abandoned manufactured homes when there is a change in use or a conversion. This is accomplished through the Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Trust Fund, which is funded by a special assessment of $3.00 per month per leased lot. Through the Trust Fund, homeowners can apply for reimbursement of costs to relocate a home (maximum reimbursement of $4,000 for a single‐section home or $8,000 for a multi‐section home), or abandonment, or for fair market value up to a cap set by DMHRA if the home is judged to be unmovable. Landlords can also be eligible for up to $4,000 for a single wide and $8,000 for a multi‐section home, to remove and dispose of homes abandoned by their owners or deemed to be unrelocatable. In just its first few years of existence, the trust fund has proved a valuable and necessary resource for many homeowners, assisting approximately 137 homeowners with $497,057 in relocation assistance since its creation in April 2004 through September 2008. The enabling legislation for the Fund and Authority limits reimbursement to homeowners whose homes cannot be moved to a cap to be set by the Board of DMHRA. The Board has worked to establish these caps for non‐relocatable homes but has not been successful in approving any proposed caps with a ¾ majority. A continuing concern is that without a cap and at the current monthly assessment rate of only $3 per leased lot, the Fund has very high exposure to be liable for large reimbursements to homeowners of non‐relocatable homes. Community closures resulting in a large number of claims for high‐value non‐ relocatable homes could conceivably threaten the Fund’s solvency. Enforcement also remains a challenge for the DMHRA. At its inception, there was little compiled information about manufactured housing communities in Delaware. Information was fragmented among various county and state offices. Simply assembling a comprehensive and current list of all active communities in Delaware, their owners, location and size in order to make sure all are paying into the Trust Fund as required has been a difficult task. Other aspects of enforcement exist on the opposite end, as claims are made and reimbursements issued: ensuring that homes are moved or disposed of as planned and communities filing change of land use actually are closed. In 2006, SB 388 created civil penalties, including repayment of all assistance provided from the Trust Fund, for owners of communities who claim a change of land use and either 1) fail to pursue changing the subdivision plan or zoning designation or 2) reuse the land for manufactured home or other dwelling lot rentals, as has been the case in at least one community where a change of land use was claimed. In 2008, DMHRA is expanding its staff to include a Code Enforcement Officer. SUMMARY – MANUFACTURED HOUSING TENURE ISSUES IN DELAWARE • The 2003 Delaware Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act, a major update of the existing Mobile Home Lots and Leases Act, and subsequent additions have made several positive steps forward, including: 32

o Creation of the Manufactured Home Relocation Trust Fund, with an associated dedicated revenue source, to provide relocation assistance to homeowners in communities closing due to change of land use; o A lot rent assistance program for homeowners who are eligible for Social Security Disability or Supplemental Security Income or who are over 62 years old and meet other eligibility requirements; o Creation of a process for resolution of disputes between homeowners and community owners via the Governor’s Advisory Council on Manufactured Housing and outside mediators; and o Establishment of a right for manufactured homeowners, as an association or cooperative, to make and match offers for the purchase of their community. • While the 2003 legislative update and other initiatives in recent years have improved conditions for homeowners, as homeowners on leased land over which they have no control, they remain essentially vulnerable, particularly to community closure, but also to sale of the community and lot rent increases. • Efforts to advance resident ownership of manufactured housing communities in Delaware have not been highly successful to date. However, the combination of the following has created a much more favorable environment for conversions: o The passage of an amendment to the Delaware Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act (HB 504) giving manufactured homeowners the right to make a first offer on their community when the owner is interested in selling; o The availability of technical assistance and financing through a ROC USATM Certified Technical Assistance Provider, READS NJ; and o The real estate slowdown and subsequent drop in real estate values and development pressures, especially in Sussex County. 33

CONCLUSION The importance and permanence of manufactured homes as a source of affordable housing in the United States has long been underestimated and plagued by unfamiliarity, negative stereotypes, and often outright dismissal. But for decades, manufactured housing has played a major role in housing millions of Americans. In many areas it has been a driving force in the expansion of homeownership among low‐ income families. Examples and groundbreaking work at the national and local level demonstrate that there are sector‐wide solutions to some of the sector‐wide challenges that ultimately have great impact on manufactured homeowners’ housing security and ability to build wealth through their home. Delaware has a large stock of manufactured homes, a high percentage of homes in land‐lease communities, and many homes near resort areas. Measures to protect manufactured homeowners in Delaware are critical. Fortunately, there have been many positive steps, including comprehensive revision of the landlord/tenant code for manufactured housing; the development of the Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Trust Fund; and recent passage of amendments to the Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act requiring that homeowners be notified of planned sale of their community and have the opportunity to pursue purchase and conversion to resident ownership. Another area for continued effort in Delaware is the coordination of governmental responsibility and resources related to manufactured housing. Responsibility for manufactured housing issues in Delaware is fractured among many different entities and levels of government. Current and future manufactured homeowners would benefit from efforts to improve coordination between the various levels of government, agencies and entities responsible for different aspects of manufactured housing. 34

35

36

37

38

Government Resources for Homeowners U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/mhs/mhshome.cfm HUD has agreements with 38 state governments to conduct checks of plant records and respond to consumer complaints related to manufacturing, performance, quality and construction issues. The state government designates a State Administrative Agency. HUD staff carry out these functions in the other 12 states without SAAs, including Delaware. Contact for complaints: Office of Manufactured Housing Programs Phone: 1‐800‐927‐2891 Office of Regulatory Affairs & Manufactured Housing Fax: (202) 708‐4213 Department of Housing and Urban Development mhs@hud.gov 451 7th St. SW, Room 9164 Washington, DC 20410‐8000 Delaware Office of the Attorney General ‐ Consumer Protection Unit http://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/consumers/protection/manuhousing.shtml The Consumer Protection Unit is responsible for the enforcement of the Delaware Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act, as well as Delaware’s general landlord/tenant code. Homeowners with questions about their rights can contact the Consumer Protection Unit. Summaries of the law and information about Alternative Dispute Resolution are available on the Unit’s website. Carvel State Office Building New Castle County: 302‐577‐8600 820 N. French St Kent and Sussex Counties: 1‐800‐220‐5424 Wilmington, DE 19801 consumerprotection@state.de.us Delaware Manufactured Housing Relocation Authority http://www.demhra.delaware.gov/index.shtml The Delaware Manufactured Housing Relocation Authority provides relocation assistance to manufactured homeowners in communities that are closing. This can take the form of assistance with costs to move a home, or compensation if the home cannot be moved and must be abandoned. Assistance is also available to community owners to help with costs to dispose of abandoned homes. Application forms are available on the Authority’s website. PO Box 370 Phone: (302) 674‐7768 Camden, DE 19934 demhra@verizon.net Delaware Board of Manufactured Home Installation http://www.dpr.delaware.gov/boards/manufactoredhomes/index.shtml The Board of Manufactured Home Installation licenses manufactured home installers and certifies inspectors. The Board has the authority to discipline licensees. Detailed instructions to file a complaint about a licensed installer or to report unlicensed activity are on the Board’s website. Cannon Building, Suite 203 Phone: (302) 744‐4500 861 Silver Lake Blvd. Fax: (302) 739‐2711 Dover, DE 19904 customerservice.dpr@state.de.us 39

Resources Delaware Manufactured Home Owners Association (DMHOA) http://www.dmhoa.org The Delaware Manufactured Home Owners Association is Delaware’s statewide membership and advocacy organization for owners of manufactured homes on leased land. DMHOA members, including homeowner associations in about 60 communities, are active in many groups and initiatives around manufactured housing in Delaware and are active advocates for homeowners’ interests in the state legislature. 4590 Highway One PMB 112 Phone: (302) 945‐2122 Rehoboth Beach, DE 19971 First State Manufactured Housing Association (FSMHA) http://www.firststatemha.org First State Manufactured Housing Association is an association of businesses in the manufactured housing industry in Delaware, including community owners, retailers, manufacturers, lenders, insurers, and others. FSMHA staff and members are active in many various groups and initiatives around manufactured housing in Delaware. 2 N. State St. Phone: (302) 674‐5868 PO Box 1829 Fax: (302) 674‐5960 Dover, DE 19903‐1829 info@firststatemha.org ROC USATM http://www.rocusa.org ROC USATM is a national organization working with local technical assistance providers to provide pre‐ and post‐purchase training and technical assistance to manufactured homeowner groups to buy and sustain their communities. In Delaware, these services are available through New Jersey‐based Real Estate Advisory and Development Services (READS). 7 Wall Street Phone: (603) 856‐0246 Concord, NH 03301 Fax: (603) 225‐7425 info@rocusa.org Real Estate Advisory and Development Services (READS) http://www.readsnj.com READS is a nonprofit real estate development and consulting firm with a focus on community and economic development. A Certified Technical Assistance Provider (CTAP) through ROC USATM, READS can deliver pre‐ and post‐purchase technical assistance, including help in securing financing, to manufactured homeowner groups seeking to purchase their communities in Delaware and New Jersey. 280 Amboy Ave., 3rd Floor Phone: (732) 635‐1000 Metuchen, NJ 08840 Fax: (732) 635‐2000 40

SOURCES Apgar, W., Calder, A., Collins, M. & Duda, M. (2002). An Examination of Manufactured Housing as a Community‐ and Asset‐Building Strategy. Report to the Ford Foundation by the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation in collaboration with the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/communitydevelopment/W02‐ 11_apgar_et_al.pdf Bradley, P. (2003). “No Longer A Secret: The Manufactured Housing Sector Can Create Long‐term Value for Homeowners.” Rural Voices 8:2. Washington, DC: Housing Assistance Council. Carter, C., Williamson, O., DeArmond, E., & Sheldon, J. (2004). Manufactured Housing Community Tenants: Shifting the Balance of Power. Washington, DC: National Consumer Law Center and Public Policy Institute. Consumers Union Southwest Regional Office and the Austin Tenants’ Council (2000). Access to the Dream: Subprime and Prime Mortgage Lending in Texas. http://www.consumersunion.org/finance/access/access7.htm Consumers Union Southwest Regional Office. 2003. In Over Our Heads: Consumers Report Predatory Lending and Fraud in Manufactured Housing. http://www.consumersunion.org/other/mh/overinfo.htm Delaware Division of Motor Vehicles. http://www.dmv.de.gov/services/vehicle_services/vehicle_svcs.shtml Delaware Office of the Attorney General: Consumer Protection Unit (2005). Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act: Summary. http://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/media/pdf/manuhoussumm.pdf Fannie Mae, MH SelectTM Initiative. https://www.efanniemae.com/sf/guides/ssg/relatedsellinginfo/manufachousing/ Federal Housing Administration. Manufactured Housing Programs. http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page?_pageid=33,716858&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL Foremost Insurance Group (2005). Manufactured Homes: The Market Facts 2005. Caledonia, MI: The Foremost Group. http://cp.foremost.com/marketfacts2005/index.htm Genz, R. (2001). “Why Advocates Need to Rethink Manufactured Housing.” Housing Policy Debate. 12:2. George, L. and Barr, M. (2005). Moving Home: Manufactured Housing in Rural America. Washington, DC: Housing Assistance Council. http://www.ruralhome.org/pressreleasesview.php?id=174 Jewell, K. (2003). Manufactured Housing Appreciation: Stereotypes and Data. Austin, TX: Consumers Union Southwest Regional Office. Kochera, A. (2003). “Manufactured Housing Can Serve Older Persons.” Rural Voices 8:2. Washington, DC: Housing Assistance Council. 41

Manufactured Housing Institute (2008). QuickFacts: Trends and Information about the Manufactured Housing Industry. Washington, DC: Manufactured Housing Institute. Manufactured Housing Institute (2008). Summary of Key Provisions in H.R. 3221, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. http://www.manufacturedhousing.org/lib/showtemp_detail.asp?id=672&cat=whats_hot U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Manufactured Housing Programs. http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/mhs/mhshome.cfm U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and National Association of Homebuilders (2000). Home Builders’ Guide to Manufactured Housing. http://www.huduser.org:80/publications/destech/homeguide.html U.S. Government Accountability Office (2007). Federal Housing Administration: Agency Should Assess the Proposed Changes to the Manufactured Home Loan Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07879.pdf Ward, S., French, C., & Giraud, K. (2006). Building Value and Security for Homeowners in “Mobile Home Parks:” A Report on Economic Outcomes. Concord, NH: Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire. http://www.rocusa.org/3B1_carsey_report_3C7A.pdf West, S. (2006). “Manufactured Housing Finance and the Secondary Market.” Community Development Investment Review. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. June 2006, pp 35‐47. 42

DELAWARE STATE HOUSING AUTHORITY 18 The Green Dover, DE 19901 http://www.destatehousing.com (302) 739‐4263 Document Control Number 10‐08‐01‐08‐11‐01

Chapter 66 - MANUFACTURED HOMES AND TRAILERS Sec. 66-1. - Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Mobile home means a single-family dwelling designed for transportation, after fabrication, on streets and highways on its own wheels or on flatbeds or other trailers, and arriving at the site where it is to be occupied as a dwelling, complete and ready for occupancy, except for minor and incidental unpacking and assembly operations, location of jacks or foundations, connections to utilities and the like. The term "mobile home" shall not include a single-family dwelling which is designed to be placed on a permanent foundation, is not designed to be readily movable after the original occupancy as a single-family dwelling, and conforms to the city's building, plumbing, electrical and housing codes. Permanently placed mobile home means a single-family dwelling designed for transportation, after fabrication, on streets and highways on its own wheels or on flatbeds or other trailers, and arriving at the site where it is to be occupied as a dwelling, complete and ready for occupancy, except for placement upon a permanent, unmovable foundation, removal of all wheels and axles, and other minor incidental operations, such as unpacking, connections or utilities and the like. The term "permanently placed mobile home" shall be construed as being synonymous with that of the term "single-family dwelling," a dwelling which is designed to be placed on a permanent foundation, is not designed to be readily movable after the original occupancy as a single-family dwelling, and conforms to the city's building, plumbing, electrical and housing codes, except for the purpose of zoning in which it shall be considered a mobile home. Owner of a mobile home means the person designated in the title of the mobile home, whether the title is issued by this state or by some other state. Owner of a permanently placed mobile home means the person designated in the title of the mobile home, whether the title is issued by this state or by some other state, and such person must also be the owner of the lot upon which the mobile home is permanently affixed. The term "lot" shall mean a parcel of land that conforms to the multiple ownership provisions of the laws of the state dealing with unit properties and condominiums, and must be located within a mobile home park. (Ord. of 2-23-1970, § 2; Code 1981, § 12-1; Ord. of 11-10-1986, § 1) Sec. 66-2. - License. (a) Required fee. The owner of a mobile home shall obtain an annual license for it and shall pay a fee for such license as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines. (b) Payment; penalties. Such license shall be obtained and the license fee paid by July 1 of each year and if such fee is not paid before August 1 of such year, then, in addition to any penalty incurred pursuant to Appendix F—Fees and Fines, a penalty fee of ten percent per month shall accrue on the unpaid balance of the license fee. (c) Moving into city. Upon the moving of a mobile home into the city, such license shall be obtained and the license fee paid within seven days. Payment of such license fee shall be prorated on a quarterly basis for each fractional part of a year during which the mobile home is in the city. (d) Sticker; where placed. Once the annual license fee has been paid by the owner of a mobile home, he shall be issued a sticker or other evidence of payment by the city manager or his authorized agent. This sticker or other evidence of payment must be placed upon the mobile home on the front of the mobile home facing the street on the righthand side when facing said mobile home one foot up from the bottom of the skirting and one foot over from the side of the mobile home. Page 1

(Ord. of 2-23-1970, § 2; Ord. of 5-24-1976; Ord. of 3-27-1980; Code 1981, § 12-2; Ord. of 8-8- 1988; Ord. of 3-22-1993; Ord. No. 2009-09, 6-22-2009) Sec. 66-3. - Real property taxes. A permanently placed mobile home as defined in section 66-1, and the lot upon which it is located shall be considered as being real property for purposes of valuation, assessment and taxation in accordance with section 47 of the Charter, but shall be considered a mobile home as defined in section 66-1 for purposes of zoning and shall only be permitted to be located in the mobile home park zone (MPH), as spelled out in appendix B to this Code (article 3, section 8). This section shall not apply to permanently placed mobile homes that were in place on January 1, 1985, which shall continue to be licensed in accordance with section 66-2. (Code 1981, § 12-2.1; Ord. of 11-10-1986, § 2) Sec. 66-4. - Placement permit. Every owner of a mobile home, before moving the same into the city, shall apply for and obtain from the city manager or his authorized agent a placement permit for such mobile home. The city manager or his authorized agent shall issue no placement permit until the license fee required in this chapter is paid in full. (Ord. of 2-23-1970, §§ 3, 6; Ord. of 5-24-1976; Code 1981, § 12-3) Sec. 66-5. - Duties of mobile home park operators. (a) Documents to mobile home owners. Copies of this chapter and placement permit application forms shall be furnished to each mobile home park operator, who shall give a copy of the same to every mobile home owner who moves a mobile home into his park, before the 15th day of the next succeeding month after placement of the mobile home. (b) Lease record; report. Mobile home park operators who lease land to two or more persons for parking mobile homes shall maintain a lease record, which shall be open for inspection at all reasonable times by the city manager. Before June 1 of each year, the mobile home park operator shall report to the city manager the names and addresses of all persons having mobile homes on his land. (Ord. of 2-23-1970, §§ 4, 5, 7; Code 1981, § 12-4) Sec. 66-6. - Anchoring and skirting. Within 30 days after occupancy of all mobile homes, the mobile homes shall be firmly anchored to the ground and the open space beneath the unit shall be skirted with approved material in accordance with the requirements of the building inspector. (Ord. of 9-13-1976; Code 1981, § 12-5) Sec. 66-7. - Use of city utilities. The owner or occupant of any mobile home shall not be entitled to receive city utilities until the license fee required in this chapter is paid in full, and city personnel shall refuse to provide sewage, water and electricity to the mobile home until satisfactory proof is furnished that such license fee has been paid. Page 2

(Ord. of 7-28-1975; Code 1981, § 12-6) Sec. 66-8. - Exemptions. This chapter shall not apply to: (1) Dealers. Unoccupied mobile homes located on a dealer's display lot; or (2) State license tag. Mobile homes bearing a current license tag of this state. (Ord. of 2-23-1970, § 8; Code 1981, § 12-7) Page 3

Section 1. - One-family residence zones [(R-20, R-15, R-10, R-8 and R-7)]. (R-20, R-15, R-10, R-8, R-7.) (See also article 5, Supplementary Regulations; and article 6, Off-Street Parking, Driveways and Loading Facilities.) 1.1 Uses permitted. In a one-family residence R-20, R-15, R-10, R-8 and R-7 zones, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any uses except the following: 1.11 The raising of field and garden crops, vineyards and orchard farming, the maintenance of nurseries, and the seasonal sale of the products thereof, provided no building is erected and signs conform with article 5, section 4. 1.12 One-family detached dwellings, not to exceed one such dwelling per lot. 1.13 Public buildings, structures and uses, including parks and playgrounds, subject to approval of site plans by the planning commission in accordance with article 10, section 2. 1.14 The following uses are permitted, conditional upon the approval of the planning commission in accordance with the procedures and subject to the general conditions set forth in section 10.1 and to any specified requirements set forth below: (a) Places of worship, including parish houses; [and] schools, including nursery schools, kindergartens and day care centers in accordance with article 5, Supplementary Regulations, section 14. Day care facilities; philanthropic and eleemosynary institutions; hospitals and sanitariums for general medical care; and funeral homes subject to the following requirements: i. Any school permitted under this paragraph [subsection 1.14(a)] shall be a nonprofit organization within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Act and shall be registered effectively as such thereunder. ii. Any school permitted under this paragraph [subsection 1.14(a)], other than a kindergarten, nursery school, or day care center, shall occupy a lot with an area of not less than two acres, plus one acre for each 100 pupils for which the building is designed. iii. Any kindergarten or nursery school permitted under this paragraph [subsection 1.14(a)] shall be limited to a maximum of 50 children in zones R-8 thru R-20 and a maximum of 100 children in all other zones. At least 100 square feet of outdoor play space per child shall be provided. Outdoor play space shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed on all sides and shall not include driveways, parking areas, or land unsuited by other usage or natural features for children's active play space. Fencing or other enclosures shall be a minimum height of four feet. The minimum lot area for each ten, or remainder over the multiple of ten, children shall be the same as the minimum lot area requirement for each dwelling unit in the districts in which such uses are to be located. iv. No such building or part thereof shall be erected with less than a 50-foot front yard or nearer than 25 feet from any other street or property line. v. The sum of all areas covered by all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed 20 percent of the area of the lot. vi. Courts shall conform to the requirements of article 5, section 3 hereof. (b) Railroad and public utility rights-of-way and structures necessary to serve areas within the city, subject to such conditions as the planning commission may impose in order to protect and promote the health and safety and general welfare of the community Page 1

and the character of the neighborhood in which the proposed structure is to be constructed. (c) Country clubs or other annual membership clubs, catering exclusively to members and their guests, and accessory private playgrounds, golf courses, swimming pools, tennis courts and recreation buildings not conducted as business enterprises, provided that the following operations shall be prohibited: i. Outdoor entertainment, live or mechanical; ii. The use of outdoor public address systems for any purpose; and iii. Exterior lighting producing glare at the lot line other than that essential for the safety of the users of the premises. No building erected under the provisions of this paragraph [subsection 1.14(c)] shall be so erected nearer than 50 feet to any street or property line. 1.15 Accessory uses, limited to the following: (a) Professional office or studio of an artist, dentist, musician, teacher, or physician, but not including veterinarians, provided that: i. Such office or studio is incidental to the residential use of the premises and is carried on by a resident thereon with not more than one nonresident assistant; and ii. Such office or studio shall occupy not more than 30 percent of the area of one floor of the main building. iii. Studios where dancing or music instruction is offered to groups in excess of four pupils at one time or where concerts or recitals are held are prohibited. iv. Medical centers, barbershops, beauty parlors, real estate offices, funeral homes or similar uses shall not be considered permitted accessory uses. (b) Garden house, tool house, playhouse, greenhouse or pool incidental to the residential use of the premises and not operated for gain. (c) Private garage, provided that, in the case of a one-family dwelling, such garage shall have a capacity of not more than three passenger automobiles. One such space may be leased to a person not [a] resident on the premises. (d) Keeping domestic animals (except pigs) for individual domestic purposes or as pets, provided not more than three dogs over six months old and not more than 25 fowl shall be permitted, and no animals (except dogs) or fowl shall be penned or housed within 20 feet of any lot line. (e) (Reserved.) (f) Dormitories accessory to schools, provided that such dormitories conform to the bulk regulations of the RG-1 zone. For purposes of computing bulk requirements, each four rooms shall be considered one dwelling unit. Parking shall be calculated as identified in Article 6—Off-Street Parking, Section 3—Required off-street parking spaces, Paragraph 3.1—Schedule of requirements. (g) Customary home occupations, provided that: i. No display of products, goods and/or signs shall be visible from the street. ii. Such home occupation shall be incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises and shall be conducted in the principal building by the resident or residents that reside therein. iii. Nonresident assistants or co-workers shall be prohibited. Page 2

iv. Such home occupation shall not occupy more than 30 percent of the area of one floor in the principal building. v. There shall be no exterior effect such as noise, traffic, odor, dust, smoke, gas, fumes, radiation, or electromagnetic interference. 1.16 [1.2] Site development plan approval. Site development plan approval in accordance with article 10, section 2 hereof shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for the erection or enlargement of all structures and related accessory structures. Such approval shall also be required prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for a change of use. 1.17 [1.3] Performance standards. All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in article 5, section 8.1. 1.18 [1.4] [Closed zone.] Zone R-7 is a closed zone in accordance with article 10, section 5.19. 1.19 [1.5] [Signs.] Signs shall meet the regulations found in article 5, section 4, supplementary sign regulations. (Ord. of 1-8-1979; Ord. of 5-14-1990; Ord. of 12-14-1992(2); Ord. of 7-10-2000; Ord. of 2-12- 2001; Ord. No. 2009-12, 9-14-2009; Ord. No. 2011-21, 10-10-2011) Page 3

ARTICLE 12. - DEFINITIONS [Note: only definitions relevant to one-family dwellings and mobile homes are included] Unless otherwise expressly stated, the following terms shall, for the purpose of this ordinance, have the following meanings. Words used in the present tense include the future. The singular includes the plural and the plural includes the singular. The word "person" includes a corporation, association or partnership, as well as an individual. The word "lot" includes the word "plot." The term "occupied" or "used," as applied to any building, shall be construed as though followed by the words "or intended, arranged or designed to be occupied or used": Dwelling, detached: A dwelling having no walls in common with other dwellings or with nonresidential uses. Dwelling, one-family: A dwelling unit designed and intended for use by only one family. Dwelling unit: A building or entirely self-contained portion thereof containing complete housekeeping facilities for only one family, including any domestic servants employed on the premises, and having no enclosed space (other than vestibules, entrance or other hallways or porches) or cooking or sanitary facilities in common with any other dwelling unit. A boarding[house] or roominghouse, convalescent home, dormitory, fraternity or sorority house, hotel, inn, lodging, nursing, or other similar home, house trailer, or other similar structures or vehicles shall not be deemed to constitute a dwelling unit. Mobile home: A single-family dwelling designed for transportation, after fabrication, on streets, and highways on its own wheels or on flatbed or other trailers, and arriving at a site in a mobile home park where it is to be occupied as a dwelling, complete and ready for occupancy, except for minor and incidental unpacking and assembly operations, location on jacks or permanent foundations, connections to utilities, and the like; excluding, however, the single-family dwelling which is designed to be readily moveable after the original occupancy as a single-family dwelling, and conforms to the building code, plumbing code, electrical code and housing code of the City of Dover. Single-wide mobile homes are those units built as a complete home measuring up to 14 feet in width and finished on all exterior sides prior to transportation to a site for installation. Double-wide mobile homes are those units built in two halves intended to be assembled together on the site at the time of installation, each half measuring up to 14 feet in width and each finished on three exterior sides. (Ord. of 7-23-1979; Ord. of 3-24-1986; Ord. of 6-12-1989; Ord. of 5-14-1990; Ord. of 12-14- 1992(2); Ord. of 7-12-1993, §§ 5, 12—14; Ord. of 7-26-1993; Ord. of 4-25-1994; Ord. of 9-13- 1999; Ord. of 5-22-2000; Ord. of 7-10-2000; Ord. of 2-12-2001; Ord. of 1-13-2003; Ord. of 4- 23-2007(5); Ord. No. 2010-25, 11-8-2010; Ord. No. 2011-01, 4-11-2011; Ord. No. 2014-08, 7-14- 2014) Page 1

FIRST READING CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2015-20 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN 2 COUNCIL MET: 3 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 12 - Definitions of the Dover Code be amended by inserting the 4 text indicated in bold, blue, as follows: 5 Dwelling, one-family: A permanent dwelling unit placed on a permanent foundation and 6 designed and intended for use by only one family. One-family dwellings shall not include 7 manufactured homes or mobile homes but shall include modular homes constructed to the 8 standards of the Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations. 9 Manufactured Home: A factory-built housing unit designed and constructed to meet the 10 Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards of the U.S. Department of Housing 11 and Urban Development (HUD) Code. A manufactured home is built on a chassis that 12 supports the structural integrity of the home and to allow transport to the site. Factory-built 13 units built to meet the HUD Code and constructed after the code took effect on June 15, 1976 14 are classified as "manufactured homes." 15 ADOPTED: * 16 SYNOPSIS 17 The proposed amendment revises and adds definitions 18 (SPONSORS: ) 19 Actions History 20 11/09-2015 - Introduce at City Council meeting 21 S:\ORDINANCES\2015\DRAFT\ORDINANCE #2015-20 APPENDIX B - ZONING, ART 12 - DEFINITIONS\ORDINANCE #2015-20 APPENDIX B - ZONING, ART 12 - DEFINITIONS-FIRST 22 READING.wpd

FINAL READING CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2015-19 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN 2 COUNCIL MET: 3 That Appendix C - Downtown Redevelopment, Article II - Definitions, Section 4 - Target Area of 4 the Dover Code be amended by inserting the bold, blue text and deleting the text indicated in red 5 strikeout as follows: 6 High Priority Target Area shall mean that part of the city more particularly described as bounded 7 by the street center lines as follows: 8 From the intersection of the centerlines of North Governors Avenue and Mary Street south 9 go to the intersection of the centerlines of North Governors Avenue and Fulton Street, east 10 to the intersections of the center lines of Fulton Street and North State Street, south to the 11 northern intersection of the center lines of South State Street and The Green, Loockerman 12 Street, east 202 feet and then south 172 feet and then west 36 feet and south 73 feet, and 13 west along the right-of-way of North Street for 136 feet, and then south 45 feet along 14 the center line of State Street and then east 73 feet along the south right-of-way of 15 North Street and then south 71 feet, and then west 11 feet and south six feet and west 16 20 feet and south 135 feet and west 8 feet and then south 22 feet, and along then west 17 following the centerline of The Green east of South State Street to the south intersection 18 of the center lines of South State Street and The Green, south to the intersection of the 19 center lines of South State Street and West Water Street and south 218 feet and west 205 20 feet and southwest 41 feet and west 246 feet and north 102 feet and west 103 feet and 21 northwest 3 feet and west 40 feet and southwest 9 feet and west 44 feet and north to the 22 intersection of South Governors Avenue and the centerline of West Water Street and 23 west to the intersection of the center lines of West Water Street and South Queen Street, 24 south along the center line of South Queen Street 541.11 feet and then west to the center line 25 of South West Street, and north to the intersection of the center lines of West North Street 26 and South West Street, and west to the intersection of the center lines of West North Street 27 and Clarence Street and north to the intersection of the center lines of Clarence Street and 28 Slaughter Street, and west along the center line of Slaughter Street to Cherry Street and north 29 along the center line of Cherry Street to the intersection with the center line of Lincoln Street, 30 and east along the center line of Lincoln Street to the intersection of the center lines of Forest 31 Street and South West Street, and north along the center line of South West Street to the 32 intersection of the center lines of West Street and West Division Street, and west to the east 33 property line of the Norfolk Southern railroad track, and north along this property line to the 34 intersection with the center line of Mary Street, and west to the intersection of the center 35 lines of Mary Street and North Governors Avenue. 36 ADOPTED: *

Proposed Ordinance #2015-19 - Appendix C, Article II, Section 4 - Target Area Page 2 37 SYNOPSIS 38 The amendment expands the boundaries of the high priority target area. 39 (Sponsor: Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee) 40 Actions History 41 11/09/2015 - Scheduled for Final Reading at City Council Meeting 42 10/26/2015 - First Reading at City Council meeting 43 S:\ORDINANCES\2015\DRAFT\ORDINANCE #2015-19 APPENDIX C-DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT, ART II-DEFINITIONS, SEC 4-TARGET AREA\Ordinance #2015-19 Appendix 44 C - Downtown Redevelopment, Article II - Definitions, Section 4 - Target Area - Final Reading.wpd

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: City Council DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: City Council PREPARED BY: Traci A. McDowell, City Clerk, on behalf of Council President Slavin SUBJECT: Council and Committee Meetings - Holiday Schedule DATE SUBMITTED: 11-05-2015 RELATED PROJECT: N/A APPROVALS: N/A EXHIBITS: N/A EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A AMOUNT BUDGETED: $ N/A FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): N/A TIMETABLE: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION: Cancellation of December 28, 2015 Safety Advisory and Transportation; Utility; and Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Meetings and City Council Meeting. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS As we have done in the past, due to the holiday season, it is recommended that the Safety Advisory and Transportation; Utility; and Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Meetings and City Council Meeting scheduled for December 28th be cancelled. Please keep in mind that if the need arises, Special Meetings will be called. TAS/tm S:\CAFS\11-09-2015 Holiday Schedule.wpd