Anexo

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE AGENDA February 11, 2008 - 6:00 P.M. - Council Chambers - City Hall - City of Dover Public comments are welcomed on any item and will be permitted at appropriate times. When possible, please notify the City Clerk (736-7008 or e-mail at Tmcdowell@dover.de.us) should you wish to be recognized. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS 1. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report - Final Presentation 2. Amendment to Robbins Hose Company Annual Contribution in the CIP to Reflect New Cost of Engine 5 Replacement 3. Request of Capital School District - New Construction Surcharge 4. Status of Incentives for Downtown 5. Adjournment by 7:00 P.M. /tm S:\ClerksOffice\Agendas&Minutes\Committee-Agendas\2008\02-11-2008 LF&A.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.

City of Dover Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2007

Introductory Section Letter of Transmittal Elected & Appointed Officials Commissions Organizational Chart Financial Section Auditor’s Report Management’s Discussion & Analysis Basic Financial Statements Required Supplementary Information Supplementary Information Statistical Section Detailed Information of Financial Trends, Revenue Capacity, Debt Capacity, Demographic and Economic Information, and Operating Information 2

City of Dover Net Assets As of June 30, 2006 and 2007 Governmental Business-Type Activities Activities Total 2006 2007 2006 2007 2006 2007 Assets Non-capital assets $ 17.8 $ 19.8 $ 64.6 $ 63.3 $ 82.4 $ 83.1 Capital assets 30.1 32.4 109.0 108.7 139.1 141.1 Total assets $ 47.9 $ 52.2 $ 173.6 $ 172.0 $ 221.5 $ 224.2 Liabilities Current liabilities $ 4.2 $ 3.0 $ 11.6 $ 14.5 $ 15.8 $ 17.5 Non-current liabilities 4.2 4.1 27.2 24.0 31.4 28.1 Total liabilities $ 8.4 $ 7.1 $ 38.8 $ 38.5 $ 47.2 $ 45.6 Net Assets Invested in capital assets, net of related debt $ 27.0 $ 29.7 $ 89.1 $ 89.3 $ 116.1 $ 119.0 Restricted net assets 0.9 1.6 33.8 29.8 34.7 31.4 Unrestricted net assets 11.6 13.8 11.9 14.4 23.5 28.2 Total net assets $ 39.5 $ 45.1 $ 134.8 $ 133.5 $ 174.3 $ 178.6 M D & A – CAFR Page 25 3

City of Dover Change in Net Assets As of June 30, 2006 and 2007 Governmental Business-Type Activities Activities Total 2006 2007 2006 2007 2006 2007 Revenues: Program revenues Charges for services $ 7.7 $ 8.6 $ - $ - $ 7.7 $ 8.6 Water/wastewater charges for services - - 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 Electric charges for services - - 68.0 87.0 68.0 87.0 Operating grants and contributions 3.1 3.1 - - 3.1 3.1 Capital grants and contributions 0.5 0.8 - - 0.5 0.8 General revenues Property taxes 8.8 9.0 - - 8.8 9.0 Transfer taxes 3.1 3.0 - - 3.1 3.0 Earnings on investments-other 0.6 1.2 1.5 2.6 2.1 3.8 Total revenues $ 23.8 $ 25.7 $ 82.0 $102.1 $105.8 $127.8 Expenses General government $ 1.8 $ 2.3 $ - $ - $ 1.8 $ 2.3 Public safety 13.9 14.6 - - 13.9 14.6 Public works 5.2 5.6 - - 5.2 5.6 Library and recreation 1.3 1.9 - - 1.3 1.9 Community and economic development 0.6 0.6 - - 0.6 0.6 Central services 1.4 1.5 - - 1.4 1.5 Financial administration 3.8 3.6 - - 3.8 3.6 Interest charges 0.1 0.1 - - 0.1 0.1 Plus (less) indirect expense allocation (4.7) (4.7) 4.7 4.7 - - Water/wastewater - - 8.2 8.7 8.2 8.7 Electric - - 55.1 84.6 55.1 84.6 Total expenses $ 23.4 $ 25.5 $ 68.0 $ 98.0 $ 91.4 $123.5 Increase in net assets before transfers 0.4 0.2 14.0 4.1 14.4 4.3 Transfers 6.3 5.4 (6.3) (5.4) - - Change in net assets $ 6.7 $ 5.6 $ 7.7 $ (1.3) $ 14.4 $ 4.3 Net assets, beginning of year 32.8 39.5 127.1 134.8 159.9 174.3 Net assets $ 39.5 $ 45.1 $134.8 $133.5 $174.3 $178.6 M D & A – CAFR Page 26 4

City of Dover Governmental Activities For the Year Ended June 30, 2007 Expenses and Program Revenues 16 Governmental Activities 14 12 10 Expenses Millions 8 Revenue 6 4 2 0 General Public Safety Public Works Library & Community & Central Services Financial Interest Charges Government Recreation Economic Administration Development M D & A – CAFR Page 27 5

City of Dover Governmental Activities For the Year Ended June 30, 2007 Revenues by Source - Governmental Activities Other 3% Transfers from Utilities Charges for 17% service 28% Transfer Taxes 10% Operating grants & contributions 10% Capital grants & Property Taxes contributions 29% 3% M D & A – CAFR Page 27 6

City of Dover Business Type Activities For the Year Ended June 30, 2007 Revenues and Expenses Business Type Activities Electric Revenue Total Operating Expenses & Transfers Water/Wastwater Operating Revenue 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Millions M D & A – CAFR Page 29 7

The City of Dover Statement of Activities For the Year Ended June 30, 2007 Net (Expenses) Revenue and Program Revenue Changes in Net Assets Indirect Operating Capital Grants Expenses Charges for Grants and and Governmental Business Type Expenses Allocation Services Contributions Contributions Activities Activities Total Functions/Programs Governmental activities General government $ 2,442,446 $ (970,342) $ 1,683,817 $ 16,000 $ - $ 227,713 $ - $ 227,713 Public safety 14,509,849 - 4,499,315 1,207,784 - (8,802,750) - (8,802,750) Public works 5,554,060 (762,825) 1,312,328 656,322 790,612 (2,031,973) - (2,031,973) Library and recreation 1,875,872 - 1,100,412 581,248 - (194,212) - (194,212) Community and economic development 639,545 - - 647,191 - 7,646 - 7,646 Central services 1,536,392 (984,350) - - - (552,042) - (552,042) Financial administration 3,642,278 (2,053,853) - - - (1,588,425) - (1,588,425) Interest charges 106,815 - - - - (106,815) - (106,815) Total governmental activities $ 30,307,257 $ (4,771,370) $ 8,595,872 $ 3,108,545 $ 790,612 $ (13,040,858) $ (13,040,858) Business type activities - Water/wastewater 8,754,443 1,092,328 12,525,215 - - - 2,678,444 2,678,444 Electric 84,618,945 3,679,042 87,014,071 - - - (1,283,916) (1,283,916) Total business type activities $ 93,373,388 $ 4,771,370 $ 99,539,286 $ - $ - Total City (13,040,858) 1,394,528 (11,646,330) General revenues Taxes Property taxes 9,032,995 - 9,032,995 Transfer taxes 3,008,371 - 3,008,371 Earnings on investments 1,230,540 2,664,831 3,895,371 Total general revenues 13,271,906 2,664,831 15,936,737 Transfers 5,385,000 (5,385,000) - Total general revenues and transfers 18,656,906 (2,720,169) 15,936,737 Changes in net assets 5,616,048 (1,325,641) 4,290,407 Net assets beginning 39,533,737 134,749,356 174,283,093 Net assets ending $ 45,149,785 $ 133,423,715 $ 178,573,500 See accompanying notes to financial statements Basic Financial Statements – CAFR Page 36 8

General Fund Change in Revenues & Expenditures FY07 vs. FY06 (Budgetary Basis – CAFR Page 90 & 91) 9

Water & Wastewater Funds Change in Revenues & Expenditures FY07 vs. FY06 (Budgetary Basis – CAFR Page 108) 10

Electric Revenue Fund Change in Revenues & Expenditures FY07 vs. FY06 (Budgetary Basis – CAFR Page 110) 11

Pension Trust Funds Pension Plan Activity July 1, 2007 & July 1, 2006 Basic Financial Statements – CAFR Page 45 (total of two plans) 12

City of Dover Worker’s Compensation Fund For the Year Ended June 30, 2007 (Budgetary Basis – CAFR Page 114) Since the completion of the first actuarial analysis and transferring a total of $360,476 in 2003, the Worker’s Compensation Fund has remained stable. 13

Final Comments Good News • City-Wide – positive results • Continue to surpass debt service ratios • Self-Insured Workers’ Compensation Fund – Healthy Improvement • Pension Unfunded Liabilities • Wastewater Inflow/Infiltration Proceed with Caution • Other Post Employment Benefits Effective 7/1/09 14

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Legislative, Finance & Administration AGENDA ITEM NO.: 02/11/2008 DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: FIRE DATE SUBMITTED: 01/11/2008 PREPARED BY: Chief David Carey, City Manager SUBJECT: Amend Robbins Hose Company Annual Contribution in the CIP to Reflect New Cost of Engine 5 Replacement REFERENCE: RELATED PROJECT: APPROVALS: Finance Director, City Manager EXHIBITS: Modified CIP sheet EXPENDITURE REQUIRED FY08/09 – FY11/12: $180,300 or $195,300 annually as explained below AMOUNT BUDGETED IN CIP: $450,000 ($150,000 annually in FY 08/09, FY09/10 FY10/11). FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): Fire CIP Page: Page 171 TIMETABLE: Upon modification of the CIP, equipment will be ordered; order and down payment of $5,000 must be in by February 27, 2008 to secure current prices. Estimated delivery would be the late 2008. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approval of amendment to Robbins Hose Company CIP sheet of the City 07/08 Budget, down payment of $5,000 and ordering of replacement Engine #5. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS In accordance with the CIP for next fiscal year the Dover Fire Department sent out a specification for a replacement piece of fire apparatus to replace the current Engine 5 which is a 1989 Mack/Pierce. There is a long delivery time for fire engines which require the order to be placed well in advance of the fiscal year. Engine 5 is 19 years old and we currently have a 15 year replacement program. The current engine lacks dependability which could jeopardize firefighter safety. The specification was sent out to four vendors, American LaFrance, KME, Seagrave, and Pierce. Pierce was the only vendor to submit a proposal. The proposal for the specification came in at a cost of $588,614. They also bid an optional cab which would lower the cost to $539,299. The engine committee chose to go with the optional cab and also deleted several safety items to bring the truck close to the City’s projected budget (CIP). That price is $512,764, inflating for a 3% maximum change order limit the price is $528,146. To finance this option over three years (using current market rates) would translate into a loan payment of $180,300 for a total financed cost of $540,900. The Fire Chief wants Council to be aware of the following crash safety options : Advanced ABS System, Tire Pressure Management System, Seat Belt Alarms, Side Roll Protection, Additional LED Warning Lights on Cab Doors (exit), Insta Chains, and Frontal Impact. These would bring the cost to $555,478 including the 3% maximum change order limit. To finance this option over three years (using current market rates) would translate into a loan payment of $195,300 for a total financed cost of $585,900. Research was completed to determine if the City paid for the truck being replaced. The files are not complete; however we were able to determine $120,000 of City monies were used to pay for the 1989 Mack. * The payments are subject to change based on prevailing interest rates at time of financing.

City of Dover Annual Contribution to Robbins Hose Company FISCAL YEAR: 2008 - 2012 PROJECT NO: n/a CATEGORY: General DEPARTMENT: Fire DEPT. RANKING: 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This contribution covers payments to the Robbins Hose Company to cover the Major Fire Apparatus Replacement Plan and the annual mortgage payment for Station #2. NEED, JUSTIFICATION, BENEFIT: The annual mortgage payment is based on an earlier agreement that the City has with the Robbins Hose Company. The Major Fire Apparatus Replacement Plan ensures loan payments for replacement according to a schedule which guarantees equipment will not be outdated and unserviceable. This plan is based on replacing one of the Company's five engines and one rescue vehicle every three years which would put the average replacement age at 18 years. The two ladder trucks would be replaced every 15 years depending on condition and current needs. This schedule would reduce overall maintenance costs because fire apparatus would be replaced before major problems occur. By providing the Robbins Hose Company with the needed payments for the Major Fire Apparatus Replacement Plan, the Robbins Hose Company will be enabled to pay for a $5.5 million door rehabilitation of the Company Headquarters on Governors Avenue. This renovation is designed to handle 25 years of growth of the company and would preclude any need for an additional fire station in Dover. The Robbins Hose Company will also cover costs associated with miscellaneous apparatus and equipment such as command units, utility vehicles, and large hose replacement. CONSEQUENCES OF DELAYING OR ELIMINATING THIS PROJECT: increased maintenance costs; possibility of not meeting ISO requirements and NFPA standards THIS PROJECT IS RELATED TO THE FOLLOWING: n/a EXPLANATION OF IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET: n/a TIME-LINE/CURRENT STATUS: Fiscal Year 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 TOTALS Mtge Stat. #2 35,000 $ 35,000 Ladder 1 (2001) 70,000 $ 70,000 Ladder 2 (1993) 92,910 92,910 92,910 92,910 92,910 92,910 $ 557,460 Engine 4 (1989) $ - Engine 5 (1989) 180,300 180,300 180,300 $ 540,900 Engine 7 (1997) 160,000 160,000 $ 320,000 Totals $ 197,910 $ 273,210 $ 273,210 $ 273,210 $ 252,910 $ 252,910 $ 1,523,360 COMMENTS: None FIVE-YEAR COST BREAKDOWN SCHEDULE: Prior to 2008 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 TOTAL Planning and Design Land Construction Miscellaneous Equipment 197,910 273,210 273,210 273,210 252,910 252,910 1,523,360 Other TOTAL 197,910 273,210 273,210 273,210 252,910 252,910 1,523,360 FINANCING: Prior to 2008 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 TOTAL General Fund 197,910 273,210 273,210 273,210 252,910 252,910 1,523,360 TOTAL 197,910 273,210 273,210 273,210 252,910 252,910 1,523,360 IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET: Description Prior to 2008 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 TOTAL

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting was held on February 26, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. with Chairman Salters presiding. Members present were Mr. Hogan, Mr. Shevock, and Mrs. Jones. Mr. Slavin was absent. Members of Council present were Mr. Carey, Mrs. Russell (arrived at 6:39 p.m.), Mr. McGiffin (arrive at 6:35 p.m.), and Mr. Ruane (arrived at 6:35 p.m.). Mayor Speed was also present. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Hogan moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. Request of Capital School District - New Construction Surcharge Members reviewed a letter received from Dr. Michael Thomas, Superintendent of Schools for the Capital School District, requesting members to consider the adoption of a surcharge on new home construction, similar to the ordinance enacted last year by Kent County Levy Court. The ordinance would provide financial support for the school district in funding future capital projects. Dr. Thomas indicated that at least one municipality in Kent County (Town of Smyrna) has enacted such a surcharge and that other municipalities are in the process. Mrs. Mitchell, Treasurer/Finance Director, provided members with copies of the ordinances adopted by Kent County and the Town of Smyrna, and a compilation of sample charges. She also provided and reviewed a recap of each ordinance. Responding to Mr. Salters, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the monies would be dispersed between either Capital or Caesar Rodney School District, based on which district the property is located. She stated that it was her understanding that the County is only collecting a surcharge for those properties that are located in the unincorporated areas of Kent County. For further clarification, Mr. DePrima advised members that Kent County does not issue building permits for properties located in a municipality. Mr. Shevock questioned if the schools would be permitted to use the money collected by the City for major capital improvements that are outside of the city limits. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the City could include stipulations in the ordinance that would provide certain requirements for use of the money. Mr. Shevock also questioned if the monies collected could be used to pay on the debt service of the district in order to lower the tax for the taxpayers if there was no major capital program for the school district. Again, Mrs. Mitchell confirmed that the ordinance could be written to allow for the monies to be applied towards capital projects or debt service. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the City Solicitor has not been requested to review the request to determine if there is any restriction in the City Charter that would prohibit the City from adopting such an ordinance.

Mayor Speed suggested that staff also determine if there is legislation that would require the State to grant the City authorization to institute such a surcharge, noting that the County had to obtain such permission. Dr. Thomas introduced the Board Members of the Capital School District, Mr. Keitel, Mr. Scott, Mr. Martino (President), Mr. VanSant, and Mr. Sockoloski, Business Manager. Mr. Martino advised members that during the last 1½ years, the Capital School District has compiled a facilities master plan for all buildings. There are 12 buildings, one of which is not located in the city limits. Through this process, it was discovered that all buildings need to be replaced over the next ten (10) to 15 years. He indicated that all the buildings are old. The District will be going to referendum for the first phase on March 7, 2007 and are exploring all avenues to help pay for this process. Concurring with Mr. Hogan, Mr. Martino stated that although there will not be a substantial amount of money collected, there is a perception issue to the taxpayer regarding fairness. He explained that although the County has instituted the impact fee for new construction outside of City limits, there are no monies collected for new construction within the City limits. Therefore, the Capital School District is requesting consideration for instituting an impact fee for new construction within the City limits, which is where most of the buildings for the Capital School District are located. In addition, there is the perception from those residents that have lived in Dover for several years that they are being required to pay for building and updating schools that are necessary because of the many new residences which have impacted the School District. These long-time residents feel that new residents should be required to pay their share for these additional costs. Mr. Keitel stated that based on the projected growth, it is his opinion that there will be substantial monies collected, noting that 1¼% to 1½ % collected for each $300,000 to $400,000 home will add up. He explained that the key is that the money is being collected as a surcharge because these homes will most probably have children that will ultimately result in the need for more facilities. Once the schools are built, the school district will continue to collect property tax from all taxpayers in order to maintain the new buildings and renovate them when necessary. Mr. Keitel stressed that the importance of the surcharge is due to the need for more buildings because there are more people moving into the district. He stated that there currently are enough schools for the people that live here now; however, if the population is increased by 20%, it will be necessary to have one (1) or two (2) more schools. In response to Mr. Hogan, Dr. Thomas stated that the ordinance could be written to provide some type of exclusion for housing constructed for senior citizens. In terms of population growth, Mrs. Townshend, City Planner, estimated that there has been growth of approximately 1½% per year, which may begin to decline. However, she stated that the City has been receiving a large number of commercial development projects and there is no indication that this will be changing.

Noting that population forecasts for school aged children is expected to decline by the year 2015-2016, Council President Williams requested that Dr. Thomas provide information to confirm or deny the forecast. In addition, regardless of the income projections, she stated that when the Levy Court passed their ordinance, everyone knew it was pennies on the dollar compared with the actual amount needed to build new schools. She questioned if the school district or the State could provide information on other strategies to meet this need, such as the consolidation of school districts, resources, administration, etc. to meet the demand. Mrs. Mitchell provided members with the following estimates: for the months of January - May, and October 2006, 11.5% of the permits issued were in excess of $30,000; the total permit value averaged $5.2M; and the average monthly surcharge would be $50,000 equating to $660,000 - $720,000 annually. Mr. Hogan moved to recommend continued study of this concept and requested staff’s review for a report at a later date, seconded by Mrs. Jones and unanimously carried. Mr. Hogan moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. Meeting Adjourned at 7:11 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Reuben Salters Chairman RS/TM/jg S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCommittee-Minutes2007

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Legislative, Finance & Administration Committee AGENDA ITEM NO.: DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Planning & Inspections DATE SUBMITTED: February 6, 2008 PREPARED BY: Ann Marie Townshend, AICP SUBJECT: Status of Proposed Downtown Incentives REFERENCE: N/A RELATED PROJECT: N/A APPROVALS: N/A EXHIBITS: Status Sheet of Proposed Downtown Incentives EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: N/A AMOUNT BUDGETED: N/A FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): N/A TIMETABLE: Dates Identified in attachment RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide feedback on progress of proposed incentives BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The attachment details the status of a number of proposed (and existing) incentives to encourage redevelopment of downtown Dover.

The following proposed incentives have been discussed by the Downtown Dover Development Corporation and presented to City Council during their special focus meeting on economic development on November 5, 2007. Some of these incentives can be handled administratively, while others require action by City Council or the State General Assembly. This is intended to serve as an update to the Legislative, Finance and Administration Committee on the status of the various proposed incentives as well as to gain guidance from Council, through the Committee on prioritization of the proposed incentives going forward. Items in red are items that staff is actively working on in some fashion. These items include milestone dates when they will be complete or additional information will be brought forward. Planning Office Needs Guidance from City Council Needs Action from State or Other Outside Entity Create a fast-track approval process for all Case manager for new business issues. A Historic preservation tax credits. The state development issues in the downtown target new economic development position should be should ear-mark a set amount of historic area. established in the city, with responsibilities for preservation tax credits for use in the coordinating the myriad approvals necessary downtown BID. Staff Update: One of the challenges with this for a new business start-up. is balancing fast-tracking approvals with the Staff Update: This would require action by added requirements of Historic District Staff Update: This is an issue that should be the General Assembly. The City Council may review. Whenever possible, staff conducts addressed through the merging of numerous want to approach the local delegation to bring administrative review of architectural review organizations into the Downtown Dover this idea forward. certificates to eliminate burden on the Partnership. Significant progress has been applicants; however some applications, made at the staff level in this regard and will particularly those which include demolition, be presented to City Council in March 2008. significant exterior renovation or new It is anticipated that the current Executive construction, must be reviewed by the Historic Director of Main Street Dover will fill the role District Commission. In some cases, we have as a case manager, and additional staffing allowed overlap with the applications between needs are being evaluated that would allow Historic District Commission and Planning this person to function more in this capacity. Commission. Staff will review whether or not a one-step application process could be utilized for projects that must go to the Historic District Commission and Planning Commission. Status of Proposed Downtown Incentives Legislative, Finance & Administration Committee – February 11, 2008 Page 1 of 4

Add surface parking immediately. The Eliminate the BID tax in downtown Dover. Renter’s deduction on personal income tax proposed surface parking lot on Governor’s The Business Improvement District (BID) should be explored for the downtown target Avenue should be constructed immediately should be retooled in order to attract new area. and made available. businesses, and retain existing businesses. Currently, property owners in the BID district Staff Update: This is an incentive that would Staff Update: This site plan has been pay an additional BID tax in addition to require State legislation. The Planning Office approved by the Planning Commission and the property taxes, in some cases as much as 25% is not in a position to move this forward. consultant is working to finalize the site plan additional tax on property. This is viewed by and secure all agency approvals. As soon as many as a disincentive to business. final plans are approved by all regulatory agencies, the project will be put out to bid and Staff Update: Currently, there has not been constructed. action on this proposed incentive. The following issues need to be discussed in reference to this proposal: How would the City make up the funds lost through elimination of the BID tax? Would the tax be phased out or eliminated all at once? This Committee should consider making a recommendation on this specific incentive, at which time staff would work on drafting an ordinance to bring forward. Create a downtown target area, align all Reduce property taxes in the target area. Façade grants. Main Street Dover should downtown jurisdictions, and create Property owners with mixed use (i.e., continue its Façade Improvement Grants, and incentives in the downtown target area. residential and commercial) in the target area should request additional funding from the Currently, there are numerous “districts” in the should receive a reduction in property taxes. General Assembly for the program. downtown area, including three parts of the Business Improvement District, the downtown Staff Update: This is an issue that would need Staff Update: This funding would need to be historic district, and the downtown incentives clear direction from City Council. It is beyond sought through the General Assembly, as the district. These jurisdictions are not aligned the expertise of the Planning Office to develop current pot of funds is very small. and cause confusion for existing property such an incentive and would need support owners and potential developers. from the Assessment Office to move forward. Staff Update: Staff will bring forward an ordinance to amend the description of the BID Status of Proposed Downtown Incentives Legislative, Finance & Administration Committee – February 11, 2008 Page 2 of 4

to align with the Target Area identified in Appendix C of Dover Code. It is not practical to align the Historic Overlay Zone boundary with this area, as it has a different function and a regulatory component to it. Completion date: September 2008. Real estate tax abatement in downtown. Provide incentives for existing employers to invest in the downtown. Large employers in City historic preservation tax the area may have a need for housing for their abatement/credit. work force. If the development of mixed-use mid-rises in the downtown proceeds, these Staff Update: This issue is a matter of better larger employers may want to provide a promotion of these and other incentives. The limited investment in securing housing. In 10-year tax abatement is currently available return for an investment in such a mid-rise in throughout the “Target Area” identified in the downtown, the City may want to consider Appendix C of Dover Code. The City’s tax a reduction in property taxes on other credit program is open to historic properties holdings. within the City’s historic district or listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Staff Update: This is another issue that could Planning staff is working with the City’s be better addressed under the Downtown Public Affairs Coordinator to develop a Dover Partnership if the City hires an strategy to better market the incentives economic development professional to assist currently offered in the downtown area. with this effort and city-wide economic Completion date: September 2008. development. Impact Fee waiver in the downtown. The Create “ambassadors” in the downtown impact fee waiver should be expanded to the target area, similar to the Seattle entire downtown BID. Metropolitan Improvement District ambassadors. Staff Update: This is complete. Council adopted this ordinance on January 28, 2008. Status of Proposed Downtown Incentives Legislative, Finance & Administration Committee – February 11, 2008 Page 3 of 4

Tax Increment Financing should be explored for the downtown Business Improvement District. Staff Update: The Planning Office has gathered information on Tax Increment Financing and is continuing to look for application of the concept on a scale comparable to downtown Dover. This will also need to be reviewed light of the tax abatement offered in downtown Dover. Staff is concerned that the effectiveness of such a program may be negated by the size of the Dover downtown as well as the tax abatement incentive offered in the downtown area. Staff would like to give a presentation or workshop on the concept of tax increment financing to City Council and the Downtown Dover Development Corporation during fall 2008 to better explain the concept. Status of Proposed Downtown Incentives Legislative, Finance & Administration Committee – February 11, 2008 Page 4 of 4