Anexo

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA January 8, 2007 - 7:30 P.M. - Council Chambers - City Hall - City of Dover OPEN FORUM - 15 MINUTES PRIOR TO OFFICIAL MEETING (7:15 P.M.) INVOCATION BY CHAPLAIN WALLACE DIXON PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS * CONSENT AGENDA Those items on the Council Agenda which are considered routine and non-controversial shall be marked with an asterisk (*) and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of Council so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered a separate item. * 1. Adoption of Minutes - Regular Council Meeting of December 11, 2006 2. Annexation/Rezoning Public Hearing/Final Reading - Property located at 1166 South Bay Road, consisting of 2.2+/- acres, owned by William M. and Delois Shirey, Trustees A. Annexation Referendum Results (12/14/2006): 1 FOR 0 AGAINST B. Annexation Resolution C. Rezoning Public Hearing and Final Reading of Proposed Ordinance to amend the zoning designation from BG - General Business (Kent County) to C-4 - Highway Commercial (City of Dover) The First Reading of the proposed ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of October 9, 2006 3. Annexation/Rezoning Public Hearing/Final Reading - Property located on the South Side of Route 8, between Artis Drive and Dover, consisting of 75.65+/- acres, owned by Calvary Baptist Church; and property located on the South Side of Route 8 Between Mifflin Road and Artis Drive, consisting of 42+/- acres, owned by Destiny Christian Church (Jireh Christian Center, Inc.); and property located on the South East Side of Route 8, consisting of 1.60+/- acres, owned by Donato Poliseno A. Annexation Referendum Results (12/14/2006): 3 FOR 0 AGAINST B. Annexation Resolutions C. Rezoning Public Hearing and Final Reading of Proposed Ordinance to amend the zoning designation from AC - Agricultural Conservation and RS-1 - Single Family Residence (Kent County) to R-10 - One-family Residence (City of Dover) The First Reading of the proposed ordinances was accomplished during the Council Meeting of October 9, 2006

Council Agenda January 8, 2007 Page 2 4. Public Hearing/Final Reading - Proposed Zoning Text Amendments The First Reading of the following proposed ordinances was accomplished during the Council Meeting of November 13, 2006. Copies of the proposed ordinances are available at the entrance of the Council Chambers. A. Appendix B - Zoning Ordinance, Article 6 – Off-Street Parking, Driveways and Loading Facilities, Section 1- Permitted Accessory Parking B. Chapter 106, Article I, Section 106-123 – Vehicle Parking Time Limited Where Carrying Capacity Is In Excess Of One Ton, And Trailer And Motor Home Parking C. Article 12 - Definitions (Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee) * 5. Utility Committee Report - December 11, 2006 A. Green Energy Presentation (Scott Lynch and Kimberly Schlichting) B. Green Energy Grant Limits and Regulations (Deferred by Committee) * 6. Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report - December 11, 2006 A. Evaluation of Bids a-1. Police Station Heating & Air Conditioning (HVAC) Controls a-2. Digital In-Car Video Cameras and Associated Equipment a-3. Utility Meter Test Van - City Vehicle #763 * 7. Monthly Reports - November 2006 A. Budget Report B. Chief of Police Report C. City Assessor Report D. City Manager’s Report E. Planning and Inspections Report F. CIP Report * 8. Appointment Recommended by Mayor Speed - Dover/Kent County MPO Public Advisory Committee - James P. Webster (To Fill Unexpired Term of Lloyd W heatley - Term to Expire July 2007) * 9. Robbins Hose Company Special Election - Year 2007 Deputy Fire Chief - David Carey 10. First Reading - Proposed Ordinances The First Reading is offered on the following proposed ordinances. Final action by Council will take place during the Second Reading of the ordinances on January 22, 2007. 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. Revised Budgets for Fiscal Year 2006/2007 (As a result of the Special Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Meeting of December 11, 2006) 11. Council Members Announcements /tm S:\ClerksOffice\Agendas&Minutes\Council-Agendas\2007\01-08-2007.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 December 11, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Williams presiding. Council members present were Mr. Carey, Mrs. Russell, Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Slavin, Mr. McGiffin, Mr. Hogan, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Ruane. Council staff members present were Captain Taraila, Mr. Capuano, Mrs. Mitchell, Mrs. Townshend, Fire Chief Bashista, Mr. DePrima, City Solicitor Rodriguez, Mrs. McDowell, and Mayor Speed. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum was held at 7:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Williams declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council is not in official session and cannot take formal action. Mr. Robert Neylan, resident of the 500 block of North Bradford Street, stated that he surveyed the residents of the 400, 500, and 600 blocks of North Bradford Street regarding the recently instituted two (2) hour parking restrictions. He noted that they were asked if they had a problem with parking in front of their homes and 94% said they did not. Residents were also asked if they were notified of the parking restriction and 100% said they were not. When asked if they were in favor of the two hour parking restriction, all but one (1) said no. Mr. Neylan noted that two (2) residents did have problems with other residents parking in front of their driveway. He suggested that the area of real concern is in the 200 and 300 blocks near Wesley College. Mr. Allen Muller of Green Delaware noted that the City of Dover is appealing Delaware Regulation 1146: Electric Generating Unit (EGU) Multi-Pollutant Regulation based on an improper, arbitrary, and capricious decision by the State to adopt the regulation. He noted that he has visited the McKee Run power plant and met with City staff to obtain more information on the effect the regulation would have on the City. Mr. Muller stated that the return on the investment to clean up the power plant would be realized through better health for the residents of Delaware. He advised members that the McKee Run power plant produces more pollution in proportion to the amount of energy produced than any other plant that falls under the regulation. Mr. Muller requested members to change course because it is unwise, unethical, and harmful to the citizens they represent. Mr. Eric O’Brien, 30 N. New Street, reiterated his concerns of noise, prostitution, and suspicious behavior on New Street. He noted that last New Year's Eve was particularly loud because of people setting off fireworks and he requested that the police try to keep the chaos to a minimum this year. Mr. O’Brien also noted that the circulation department of the Dover Post has advised him that early morning loitering is preventing them from delivering the paper to his neighborhood. The invocation was given by Chaplain Dixon, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 2006 PAGE 2 AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Hogan moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried. Mr. Carey moved for approval of the Consent Agenda, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 27, 2006 The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of November 27, 2006 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Carey, seconded by Mr. Salters and bore the written approval of Mayor Speed. PRESENTATION - DISK GOLF COURSE (NICHOLAS ABRAMS) Mr. Nicholas Abrams provided a presentation on the disk golf course he recently installed in Dover Park as one of his Eagle Scout projects. He noted that disk golf is very similar to regular golf; however, frisbee type disks are used. Members thanked Mr. Abrams for his contribution. PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE REVIEW Mrs. Traci McDowell, City Clerk, provided a presentation on Parliamentary Procedures, including Reading Prepared Statements, Negative Motions, and Amending Motions (as on file in the Office of the City Clerk). Mr. Hogan stated that, as a courtesy to members, he would like to have any statements or documents that will be read by another member during the Council meeting provided to all members in advance of the meeting. UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT - NOVEMBER 27, 2006 The Utility Committee met on November 27, 2006, with Chairman Carey presiding. Annexation Request - Property Located at 1889 Kenton Road Members were provided the Petition to Annex and Zone Property and a Cost/Revenue Analysis Summary for property located at 1889 Kenton Road, containing 0.50+/- acres, owned by Brian L. and William A. Bright. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, City Planner, advised members that, in July of 2005, the City installed a low pressure sanitary sewer force main across Kenton Road to serve the property. Additionally, the City has installed a 1" water service to this property. This property is within the Delaware Electric Co-op’s district and Mrs. Townshend stated that she will provide additional information regarding the possible use of City electric. The Cost-Revenue analysis showed a positive cash flow to the City of approximately $6,279 over ten years. Mrs. Townshend informed members that neighboring land owners were contacted, with no one showing interest in annexation at this time. The committee recommended adoption of a Resolution setting the date for an annexation referendum to be held on January 11, 2007, for property located at 1889 Kenton Road .

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 2006 PAGE 3 By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and, by a unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted the following Resolution: A RESOLUTION PROPOSING THE INCLUSION OF AN AREA WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF DOVER AND CALLING FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE SAID AREA. WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Dover authorizes Council to extend the boundaries of the said City after a special election of the qualified voters and real estate owners of the territory proposed to be annexed, and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the City of Dover deem it in the best interest of the City of Dover to include an area located at 1889 Kenton Road, which is contiguous to the present City limits, into the limits of the City of Dover and within a zoning classification as recommended by the City of Dover Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 1. That a special election be held for an area located at 1889 Kenton Road situated in East Dover Hundred, Kent County, State of Delaware. 2. That the election be held on the 11th day of January, 2007 commencing at the hours of 11:00 a.m. in the City Hall Annex, 15 E. Loockerman Street, Dover, Delaware, for the purpose of submitting the question of annexation of the above area to those persons entitled to vote thereon. 3. That the election be held and conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Charter of the City of Dover as amended. 4. That this resolution be published in accordance with the City of Dover Charter. ADOPTED: DECEMBER 11, 2006 Dedication of Rights-of-Way and Public Infrastructure - Hidden Creek The developer of the Hidden Creek Subdivision, Hidden Creek, L.L.C. (Dilsheimer Homes), has requested that all rights-of-way and public infrastructure improvements related to this subdivision be dedicated to the City of Dover for permanent ownership and maintenance. Hidden Creek, L.L.C. has constructed all of the improvements in accordance with City standards and specifications. After construction was completed, City staff inspected the public improvements and provided the developer with a list of repairs to be made to meet the City of Dover Standards and Specifications for Public Works Construction. All work has been completed and a one-year Maintenance Agreement, Maintenance Bond, and a Release of Liabilities have been submitted by the developer. In addition, as-built drawings have been submitted to the Department of Public Services for its permanent records.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 2006 PAGE 4 Staff recommended acceptance of the rights-of-way and public infrastructure for the Hidden Creek Subdivision, with dedication to include all of the referenced public improvements, as follows: Sewer Utility Infrastructure (construction value = $ 523,391.00): 10” PVC Sanitary Sewer Main - 4,107 l.f. 8" PVC Sanitary Sewer Main - 3,975 l.f. 4” PVC Sanitary Sewer Laterals - 2,284 l.f. (70 laterals) 4' Diameter Sanitary Sewer Manholes - 35 ea. (318 v.f.) Water Utility Infrastructure (construction value = $ 161,916.00): 6” Ductile Iron Water Main - 95 l.f. 8” Ductile Iron Water Main - 4,270 l.f. 12” Ductile Iron Water Main - 805 l.f. 1” Type “K” Copper Water Service Line - 2,140 l.f. (68 services) 8” Gate Valves - 11 ea. 12” Gate Valves - 1 ea. 6” Hydrant Valves - 5 ea. Fire Hydrants - 5 ea. 2” Blow Off Assembly - 2 ea. Storm Water Infrastructure (construction value = $ 192,958.00): Yard Basins - 6 ea. Single Catch Basins - 33 ea. Double Catch Basins - 3 ea. 4’ Storm Water Manholes - 2 ea. 15” Type IV Reinforced Concrete Pipe - 1,583 l.f. 18” Type IV Reinforced Concrete Pipe - 617 l.f. 24” Type IV Reinforced Concrete Pipe - 1,491 l.f. Street Infrastructure: (0.78 miles) (construction value = $ 520,306.00) Riverside Road Station 0+00 to Station 12+52.24 1,252.24 l.f. Creek Bend Road Station 0+00 to Station 9+45.70 945.70 l.f. Canal Street Station 0+00 to Station 6+95.68 695.68 l.f. Crickle Creek Lane Station 0+00 to Station 12+28.83 1,228.83 l.f. 4,122.45 l.f. During the committee meeting, Mr. Carey requested that additional maps be provided that include landmarks to make the surrounding area easier to identify. The committee recommended approval of staff’s recommendation for the acceptance of the dedication of rights-of-way and public infrastructure in the Hidden Creek Subdivision, to include all of the referenced public improvements. By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the committee's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 2006 PAGE 5 Potential Electric Rates for January 1, 2007 The current electric rates were adopted in June 2006 and implemented on July 1, 2006. At that time, it was conveyed that there would be a need to adjust the rates again in the next six (6) to twelve (12) months. Members were provided proposed rates designed to provide the $3.144M additional revenue which was discussed during the Burns & McDonnell presentation of October 23, 2006 and in the November 13, 2006 presentation by Mrs. Mitchell, Finance Director. Some adjustments have also been made to the demand rates. These adjustments were made so as not to overcharge these customer classes and are based on a cost of service analysis by Burns & McDonnell. Only Tilcon and the Dover Air Force Base currently have a power cost adjustment. Both of these customers are contractual. The combined rates for power cost adjustment and energy equal the standard Dover energy rates of Primary and Transmission respectively. These two customers also have seasonal demand charges (charges that are different in the summer and winter billing months). Tilcon’s contract will expire in February. Beginning in March 2007, Tilcon will be moved to the standard Primary rate. Staff is currently working with the Dover Air Force Base to move them to the standard Transmission class. Staff recommended adoption of the potential rates, if City Council determines that the additional revenue is needed. Mr. Carey expressed concern regarding the current financial situation, especially the buy back of inventory from Duke Energy. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the $4.5M short-fall with the power plant includes materials and the buy back of inventory will be a balance sheet item, and will not be considered revenue. Mr. Ruane stated that the proposed 8% rate increase does not satisfy the cost of the power plants, and an additional 6% increase would be needed to reflect a true cost of service. Responding to Mr. Snaman, Mrs. Tieman, Senior City Administrator, stated that the City’s rates are the second lowest in the State of Delaware, behind Delaware Electric Co-op. Mr. McGlumphy requested additional information regarding the proposed rate increase per 1000 megawatt hour for a typical residential bill. It was the consensus of members that no action would be taken at this time. The committee recommended that a joint meeting of the Legislative, Finance and Administration and Utility Committees be held on December 11, 2006 to further discuss the potential electric rates. Mr. Carey moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Hogan and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for acceptance of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 2006 PAGE 6 SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT - NOVEMBER 27, 2006 A Special Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting was held on November 27, 2006 with Chairman Salters presiding. Financial Reporting and Information Flow Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Finance Director, continued the Financial Reporting and Information Flow presentation from the November 13, 2006, Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting. Mr. Hogan expressed concerns regarding the proposed rate increases and the $1.2M being placed in the Rate Stabilization Fund. Mrs. Mitchell stated that approximately $5M has already been used to off-set rate increases and the additional $1.2M will replenish the fund. Prior Council action placed the Duke Energy rebates into the Rate Stabilization Fund, which was established in 2002 when the City began receiving the rebates. Mrs. Mitchell informed members that the Fund should be used as a component when calculating electric rates during the budget process. Responding to Mr. Salters, Mrs. Mitchell stated the City’s carry forward balance is currently 8.9% or $7.6M. Mr. Ruane stated that the shortfall in revenue and the lower than expected rate of growth are significant components in establishing any proposed rate increases. Mrs. Mitchell informed members that if growth is less than projected, fixed costs will be not covered. She stated that the growth rate has been reduced to 1% based on historical data from the five previous fiscal years. Mr. McGlumphy, noting that the total shortfall of $7.6M is for fiscal year 2007, questioned the setting of the growth rate at 3% based on the historical information available. He also expressed concern regarding the $20 million bond issue scheduled for 2008. Based on the assumption that the power plant will be revenue neutral or break even, Mrs. Mitchell stated that if the substation short fall is not factored into the proposed electric rate increases, the budget balance going forward will be zero. She also stated that the current cash flow issues are due to large energy bills that are in excess of the available budget balance. Mr. Slavin noted that eliminating the transfers to the general fund would reduce the stress on the Electric Fund and help to protect the bond rating. He also stated that, to reduce the gap in the current year and in future years, expenditures and transfers to other reserve accounts must be reviewed in addition to the proposed electric rate increase. Mr. Hogan stated that efforts should be made to cut expenses and eliminate the transfer of funds to the Rate Stabilization Fund this year. He also suggested evaluating next year’s budget in effort to reduce expenses. Staff was requested to provide information on the efforts to preserve the bond rating, a reduction in the transfer to the General Fund from the Electric Fund, and the details on the impact to the General Fund. Staff was also requested to provide the following scenarios: 1) A rate increase only; 2) A reduction in expenses only; and 3) If rates were adjusted to cover the true cost of providing the service, what adjustments would need to be made to expenses and the transfer to the General Fund. The committee took no action. Mr. Salters moved for acceptance of the Special Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 2006 PAGE 7 PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - NOVEMBER 28, 2006 The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee met on November 28, 2006, with Chairman Ruane presiding. Presentation - URS Stormwater Report Mr. Jared Adkins, Stormwater Engineer with the Kent Conservation District, provided an update on the URS Stormwater Report regarding the Puncheon Run Watershed. Mr. Adkins stated that he would present the first half of the study and provide a detailed look at the water flowing into the Puncheon Run and how much water is in the stream at certain points. Mr. Adkins stated that the Kent Conservation District has information regarding the flooding issues with the Puncheon Run dating back to the 1970's. He noted that most of the properties along the Puncheon Run have property lines that run to the center of the stream. Most residents have an expectation that the flood plain area can be utilized, which causes a conflict when there is a major event, such as a hurricane, which will cause the stream to rise beyond its bank into the flood plain area and into residents backyards. Mr. Adkins noted that an initial watershed model was built approximately six (6) years ago for the Puncheon Run watershed, from the railroad tracks to Route 8, which indicated under-management of the area downstream and over-management of the area upstream. He stated that numerous developments such as Hidden Creek, Nottingham Meadows, Kesselring, and Eden Hill have agreed to over-manage their stormwater management ponds to help alleviate the downstream flooding. The water flowing upstream will be held back to allow for the initial peak downstream to clear out. Mr. Adkins provided a summary sheet that compared the Puncheon Run water flows between existing conditions vs post-development (over-detention) and a summary sheet that compared water flows between post-development (current detention practices) vs post-development (with over- detention). Mr. Adkins indicated that the State requirement to manage stormwater for Sussex and Kent Counties is 3.5 inches of rain for a two-year storm and 5.3 inches of rain for a ten-year storm. He noted that the developers were asked to over-manage their stormwater management ponds, according to the 100-year storm requirement. Mr. Akins stated that, in order to try to alleviate the flooding problems, a survey crew would need to take cross sections of the 90 degree bends located in the Puncheon Run, upriver from the South Governors Avenue bridge, to see how this affects the water flow. He noted that channel straightening may be involved, which would require the approval of property owners affected, as well as obtaining a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Adkins felt that it would be best to complete the study prior to requesting permits from the Army Corps of Engineers. He indicated that a funding request in the amount of $30,000 - $45,000 will be made to the Clean Water Council to begin the second half of the study, which will consider options for alleviating the flooding issue. Mr. DePrima stated that he would like to receive the estimated cost of funding so that a share of that cost can be brought before City Council for consideration.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 2006 PAGE 8 During the committee meeting, Mr. Robert Sadusky, 88 Lynnhaven Drive, stated that he has lived along the Puncheon Run since 1977 and that the last two (2) rains, which were 1.9 inches and 1.8 inches, caused the stream to raise above its banks and flood his backyard. He noted that normally that much rainfall did not change the water level of the Puncheon Run. Mr. Sadusky felt that an improvement in water flow would be seen if the riprap, located in the center of the stream, and the two 90 degree bends were removed, as well as the debris from the lower part of the Puncheon Run. Mr. Rex Bell, 72 Lynnhaven Drive, stated that if buying out the properties would take care of the flooding problem, and be the cheapest solution, then maybe it should be considered. He suggested that a call to the local Legislators should be made asking for assistance with the permitting process from the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Ruane stated that he understood that this was a preliminary view of the URS Stormwater Report and suggested that Mr. Adkins present a more refined update, including specific recommendations to reduce flooding and an update on the funding necessary to complete the second part of the study. Mr. DePrima noted that a subaqueous permit for the removal of the sandbar at the Governors Avenue bridge has been submitted to DNREC. The committee recommended that Staff be directed to contact DNREC regarding the removal of debris from Puncheon Run downstream from State Street. By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the committee's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Presentation - Survey Results - Spring and Summer Performing Arts Presentation Mr. Zachery Carter, Director of Parks and Recreation, reviewed the Spring and Summer Performing Arts Survey Results. He advised members that for the past four (4) years, the Delaware State News has donated funds to help support the program. Mr. Carter noted that a drop in attendance is expected once an event is moved inside due to inclement weather. He advised members that shuttle buses are utilized as an outreach to citizens in residential facilities. Mr. Ruane suggested that Mr. Carter present Council with an abbreviated version of the Spring and Summer Performing Arts Survey Results presentation. The committee took no action Presentation - Survey Results - Softball Leagues Mr. Carter reviewed the Softball League Survey Results and distributed the final page of the Softball League presentation that indicated constituent responses. He stated the ballfields currently being utilized are located at Schutte Park, Dover Park, and New Street. Mr. Carter noted that only one organization supplies umpires and the league fees help pay for that cost.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 2006 PAGE 9 Ms. Carolyn Courtney, Administrative Assistant with the Parks and Recreation Department, stated the Summer Men’s Softball League fee was $835 and that the Co-Ed League fee was $485. Mr. Ruane suggested that Mr. Carter present Council with an abbreviated version of the Softball Leagues Survey Results presentation. The committee took no action Presentation - Silver Lake Swimming Statistics Mr. Carter reviewed the Silver Lake Swimming Statistics. He noted that out of the sixty-eight (68) days that the Silver Lake Beach was closed, twenty-nine (29) of those days were due to water advisories and thirty-nine (39) days were due to lifeguards not being available. Mr. Carter indicated that one of the goals for the Parks and Recreation Sports Coordinator is to develop a program to train and recruit lifeguards to help address this issue. Mr. DePrima stated that an outdoor Splash Park, which is included in the Capital Investments Plan, would be a cheaper alternative when compared to the beach at Silver Lake due to less operating costs, liability, and the number of lifeguards that would need to be on duty. The committee took no action Evaluation of Bids - John W. Pitts Recreation Center During the meeting of October 10, 2006, Mr. Carter informed members that due, to the receipt of only one (1) bid, in the amount of $2.9 million, the construction of the project was re-bid with a new due date of November 6, 2006. Six (6) bids were subsequently received for the construction of the John W. Pitts Recreation Center, with the two (2) lowest bids being received from Kent Construction, with a base amount of $2,745,000, and Bob Smith Contracting, with a base amount of $2,749,000. The bid documents required a single general price and four alternatives that would deduct material from the Center, and one alternative that would add a mezzanine. A unit price for concrete was also requested because each manufacturer’s design of the building is slightly different. The precise location of the columns, especially the corner columns, almost always varies among manufacturers. The concrete price helps gauge possible costs of design changes. The project architect has determined that the differences in concrete unit prices will not impact the low bidder status of each option. After analyzing the bids, staff determined that it was not to the City’s advantage to remove the interior or exterior masonry, as suggested in Alternates #1 and #2, or the Kalwal, as suggested in Alternate #3, which lets natural light into the gym. It was also decided not to add a mezzanine to save on expenses. Staff was willing to evaluate dropping the air conditioning for the gym with the idea that it could be added later, perhaps using geothermal cooling, a green technology which may qualify for grant funding. An analysis was done for the gym using scenarios of “with” and “without” air conditioning and the project with air conditioning leaves $61,605 for contingency costs, while the project without air conditioning leaves $100,605 for contingency. Constructing the project without air conditioning will result in the gym not being able to be used on some days. While there has been no analysis, it would be more costly to retrofit the gym, unless a grant or funding for green energy can be found.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 2006 PAGE 10 Operating expenses without air conditioning would be less. Retrofitting with geothermal will have a long term cost savings on related energy costs and show leadership in this area by the City. Staff was comfortable with either alternate and believes a solid discussion of the pros and cons at the Committee level will render the appropriate decision. Staff noted that fundraising continues and other legislators are expected to contribute Community Transportation Funds. Private sector fundraising will be easier once construction has been approved. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima stated that the offices, multi-purpose room, and classroom will be air conditioned. If air conditioning is not installed in the gym at this time, the immediate cost saved will increase the contingency cost to $100,605. Mr. Peter Vyverberg, Architect with Becker Morgan Group, Inc., stated that the cost of a geothermal system would be approximately 35-40% (percent) more than a traditional air conditioning system. A geo-technical study will have to be done to test the soil for conductivity in order to even consider a geothermal system. Mr. Lewis and Mrs. Russell suggested that the low bid, including the cost for air conditioning the gym, be accepted. Mr. McGlumphy stated that he could not make a firm decision due to the uncertainties with a geothermal system. Mrs. Horsey stated that her preference is for a geothermal system; however, the study regarding soil conductivity must be completed first to see if the site can actually support a geothermal system. Mr. Ruane stated that he favored a geothermal system and suggested that members accept the bid without air conditioning to allow time for staff to present a more detailed cost for a geothermal system. The committee recommended awarding the bid to the low bidder, Bob Smith Contracting, in the amount of $2,706,000, excluding Alternate #5 (No HVAC in the gym), as recommended by staff. By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the committee's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. The committee recommended that staff present a report examining the cost differential between a geothermal system and a traditional air-conditioning system. By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the committee's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Proposed Amendment to 2005 Consolidated Plan - CDBG Citizen Participation Plan Mrs. Tracey Harvey, Director of Community Development, reviewed the proposed amendment to the 2005 Consolidated Plan - CDBG Citizen Participation Plan, that would assign the functions of the Consolidated Plan Advisory Group (CPAG) to the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 2006 PAGE 11 The committee recommended approval of the proposed amendment to the 2005 Consolidated Plan assigning the functions of the CPAG to the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee, as recommended by staff. By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the committee's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Proposed Amendment to Plus Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) On February 9, 2004, City Council approved a Preliminary Land Use Services (PLUS) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the State of Delaware Office of State Planning Coordination and the City of Dover. The PLUS MOU established a coordinated review of certain development activities in order to achieve a more efficient, effective and timely use of resources and consistency and coordination between the various levels of government and other interested parties. Paragraph 4 of Section C of the PLUS agreement acknowledges that “Any project of any size proposed to the east of Delaware Route 1 and north of South Little Creek Road” would be subject to the State PLUS review in recognition of the Garrison Tract MOU, which acknowledges in Section 2 that the City shall “Strongly adhere to existing Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations for the remaining areas east of SR1, which support agricultural uses and low-density development.” A recent application to the City for rezoning of a property east of SR1 provided evidence that Paragraph 4 of Section C of the PLUS MOU should be amended to include such rezoning applications east of SR1 in the PLUS review process, as well as “any project of any size”. Mr. Ruane reviewed the proposed amendment to the Preliminary Land Use Services (PLUS) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which would make any rezoning proposed to the east of Delaware Route 1 and north of South Little Creek Road subject to State review under Title 29, Chapter 92, Delaware Code. The committee recommended approval of the proposed amendment to the PLUS Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), as recommended by staff, and that the amendment be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to Council. By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the committee's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Discussion - Revisions to Animal Control Ordinance Due to insufficient time, discussion on Revisions to the Animal Control Ordinance was deferred until the next committee meeting. Update - Planning and Funding for New Library Due to insufficient time, the update on Planning and Funding for New Library was deferred until the next committee meeting. Update - CDBG Program Due to insufficient time, the update on the CDBG Program was deferred until the next committee meeting.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 2006 PAGE 12 By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for acceptance of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE REPORT - NOVEMBER 28, 2006 The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee met on November 28, 2006, with Chairman Hogan presiding. Briefing on DelDOT Projects (Juanita Wieczoreck) Ms. Juanita Wieczoreck, Director of the Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), provided the following updates: DelDOT Mega Traffic Study (SR1/Route 8 and East Dover Housing Development Projects) No update available at this time. West Dover Connector A decision on the preferred alternative for the West Dover Connector will be made during the 2007 calendar year. The alternatives are currently being reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office. Traffic Signal at Greenway Lane and Kenton Road Consideration of a traffic signal at Greenway Lane and Kenton Road will be included in the Kenton Road Study, which will also address the lack of shoulders, sidewalks, and bike paths. The study group held its first meeting on November 15, 2006. South Governors Avenue Improvements The South Governors Avenue Improvements project includes South Governors Avenue from Water Street to Webbs Lane. Funding has been authorized for right-of-way acquisition and construction. The final design stage has begun, with construction scheduled to begin in the Spring of 2008. Signalization Project The Signalization project has been fully funded and is moving forward. A more detailed update will be provided at the next meeting. Wyoming Mill Road Project The Wyoming Mill project has been earmarked to receive funding that requires a 20% (twenty percent) match. Staff is currently investigating the possibility of using the land donated for the right- of-way as the required 20% (twenty percent) match. Ms. Wieczoreck indicated that a Public Advisory Committee was formed and is currently conducting a study of Route 8, from the railroad tracks to Artis Drive, which will review operational and aesthetic aspects. The next committee meeting for this study is scheduled for January 2007. Mr Hogan suggested that Mr. Carey serve on the committee, since he lives in that area of Route 8.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 2006 PAGE 13 This past Summer and Fall the MPO conducted an elderly mobility survey of approximately 687 senior citizens, 55 years and older with most being between the ages of 63 and 85 years old. According to the survey, 42% (forty-two percent) were located within the City of Dover limits and 73% (seventy-three percent) still drive. The top three (3) main issues that seniors felt needed to be corrected were that there is too much traffic, too many aggressive drivers/speeders, and a lack of bicycle paths and sidewalks. Ms. Wieczoreck advised members that Seniors can request trips on DART’s ParaTransit service; however, they need to call a day in advance and need to be ready two hours prior to each scheduled pickup, therefore, it’s not very convenient. She noted that seniors can call SCAT (Senior Citizen Affordable Taxi) for discount DART tickets, which reduces the fare price by half. She also stated that the MPO is currently working with DART to put together a coordinated human services transportation plan for the whole State of Delaware. Responding to Mr. Hogan, Ms. Wieczoreck stated that the Walker Road Improvement Project is currently awaiting funding. The committee took no action. Proposed Ordinance Amendment - Maintaining a Known Hazzard Mr. David Truax, City Fire Marshal, reviewed a proposed ordinance amendment that would provide the Fire Marshal a means to take corrective action when property owners and/or tenants have been made aware of fire code violations and continue to maintain the hazard or violation. It will also help to insure that violations do not go uncorrected for long periods of time, and make it more costly to pay the fine than to fix the violations. Responding to Mr. Carey, Mr. Truax indicated that if a fine goes unpaid, a summons for arrest could be issued and, depending on the violations the establishment could be closed down. Mr. Hogan suggested that the proposed ordinance amendment be revised to include a statement indicating that fines will be levied according to Chapter 1 - General Provisions, Section 1-17, of the City of Dover Code, and that the establishment could be closed down due to a violation that goes uncorrected. He requested that the amendment then be brought back to members for their review. The committee took no further action. By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for acceptance of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. JOINT LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION AND UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT - DECEMBER 11, 2006 A Joint Legislative, Finance, and Administration and Utility Committee Meeting was held earlier in the evening, with Council President Williams presiding.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 2006 PAGE 14 Budget and Electric Rate Review and Recommendations During their Regular Meetings of November 27, 2006, both the Utility Committee and the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee considered items related to electric rates (Potential Electric Rates for January 1, 2007 and Financial Reporting and Information Flow). The Utility Committee recommended that a joint meeting of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration and Utility Committees be held to further discuss the potential electric rates. Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Finance Director, provided a presentation regarding the Budget and Electric Rate Review and Recommendations. Mrs. Mitchell informed members that a one percent (1%) rate increase would equal approximately $393,000. Referring to slide number #7, she advised members that the average increase in the annual kilowatt hour sales was 1.2% per year. Mr. Carey suggested lowering the 2007 projection based on the previous three (3) years. Mr. Hogan suggested that trend lines be added to graphs and that ten years be the standard measurement used when reviewing and analyzing information. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the Finance Department developed the allocated expense ratios by fund, based on head count, benefits, and salaries. These ratios are then averaged together. Ratios for the City Manager, City Clerk, Finance Director, and the Mayor are done based on fixed assets and budgets. She noted that this process has been in place for the last three (3) years; however, it has not been compared to other municipalities. Mrs. Mitchell also stated that she will provide additional information regarding a comparison. Responding to Mrs. Williams, Mrs. Mitchell stated that even if the electric rates are not increased until July, Moody’s will look for evidence that the City has taken the necessary steps to correct the budget short fall before the end of the fiscal year. At the request of Mayor Speed, Mrs. Mitchell provided information on the downgrading of the City’s water bonds and the three (3) years it took to restore the water bonds to a favorable rating. Responding to Mr. Salters, Mrs. Mitchell stated that if the power supply and PACE Management fee of $84 a megawatt hour increases, then the electric rates would need to be adjusted to cover any increase. She stated that a decrease is also possible. Mr. Tony DePrima, City Manager, suggested that members focus on the remaining fiscal year and the next fiscal year, noting that the recommended rate increases will cover those periods. Mr. Slavin reminded members that any disciplines adopted this year will be carried over into later fiscal years and it would be prudent for Council to address the out years, in addition to the remaining and the next fiscal years. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the electric improvement projects funded through reserves were neither decreased or removed from the CIP during the formulation of the alternatives being presented. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mr. DePrima stated that the sales of emission credits, as listed in Alternative 1, is an excess and there will be no risk associated with the sale of the credits. Mrs. Mitchell explained that the interest earned from reinvesting the reserve funds has been moved from cash flow and is now reflected as income for covenant purposes.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 2006 PAGE 15 With reference to Alternative 3, Mr. Ruane reminded members that Council voted unanimously to place the carry forward balance into the library reserve. Mrs. Mitchell stated that Alternative 3 does not account for the carry forward balance to be place in the library reserve. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Mitchell listed several of the budget reductions that are part of Alternative 4 - CIP Not Purchased Year-to-Date. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the implementation of Alternative 4 will cover the bond covenant and will not result in a downgrade in the City’s bond rating. Mrs. Theresa Tieman, Senior City Administrator, provided samples by customer class for the proposed rate increases, per 1000 kilowatt hour, as listed in Alternatives 2 and 3. A sample by customer class for Alternative 4 was not received from the Consultant in time to be included. Mrs. Tieman explained the process of testing rates and the comparisons that are made. The average deviation from the tested rates and the consultant’s rates will be communicated to Council. Mr. Hogan commended staff on the amount of work done and the information presented. He also stated that a decision must be made regarding the percentage increase for the electric rates and the amount of the transfer from the General Fund. Mr. McGlumphy also complimented staff and stressed the importance of selecting an alternative that provides the net margins necessary to retain the City’s favorable bond rating. He also stated that fixed costs and the CIP should be examined more closely to determine additional reductions. Mr. DePrima noted that the electric rates for the City of Dover remain competitive with other municipalities. The City of Dover will be the second lowest utility in the state, even after the proposed rates are approved. Mr. DePrima stated that being on the watch list for Moody’s does not mean a fiscal crisis. It means that the City has been proactive and in open communication with the rating agencies. Mr. DePrima also stated that all five alternatives presented meet the requirements of the rating agencies and do not draw from any of the reserves. He advised members that staff is committed to cutting the budgets and will work closely with PACE to examine plant functionality and deficit reductions. Staff recommended approval of Alternatives 3 and 4, due to the positive net incomes and covenant coverages. Mr. Hogan suggested that members consider the $5.4M positive net income margin, as listed in Alternatives 3 and 4, a reduction in the transfer to the General Fund by $1M, a transfer to the Library Reserve of $800,000, and a 6% electric rate increase. Responding to Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. DePrima stated that, of every $100 paid on a residential electric bill, approximately $71 goes toward the purchase of power, $4 is allocated for inter-fund transfers, $6.50 for electric transmission and distribution, $7 for capital projects, $6 for transfer to the General Fund, and $2.30 for debt service coverage. The Meeting Recessed at 7:12 P.M.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 2006 PAGE 16 During the Council meeting, Mrs. Mitchell provided a brief summary of the discussion that took place during the Joint Legislative, Finance, and Administration and Utility Committees meeting regarding the Budget and Electric Rate Review and Recommendations. Mr. Salters moved that the Joint Legislative, Finance, and Administration and Utility Committees meeting reconvene at the conclusion of the City Council meeting to resume consideration of the Budget and Electric Rate Review and Recommendations. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried. ELECTION OF OFFICERS - ROBBINS HOSE COMPANY - YEAR 2007 - ACCEPTANCE OF RESULTS - SECOND FIRE LINE CAPTAIN - JOSEPH SIMMONS The Fire Line Officers of the Robbins Hose Company are elected annually on the third Monday of November. During the Regular Council Meeting of November 27, 2006, members were advised that there was an unresolved issue regarding a ballot received from a member who is currently overseas. Noting that there were two (2) contested seats, Deputy Fire Chief and Second Fire Line Captain, approval of the uncontested seats was deferred until the next meeting. It was the opinion of Mr. Rodriguez, City Solicitor, that the ballot in question had no effect on the result for the Second Fire Line Captain. Mr. Hogan moved for acceptance of Joseph Simmons as Second Fire Line Captain for Robbins Hose Company No. 1 for the Year 2007, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried. SETTING OF SPECIAL ROBBINS HOSE COMPANY ELECTION - DECEMBER 27, 2006 The Robbins Hose Company election was held on November 20, 2006 and the contested seat for Deputy Fire Chief resulted in a tie vote. In accordance with Section 46-79, a special election shall be held at the time fixed by the City Council and in the same manner as the regular nominee elections are held. Mr. Hogan moved to set the Robbins Hose Company Special Election for December 27, 2006, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried. APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES - ROBBINS HOSE COMPANY SPECIAL ELECTION - DECEMBER 27, 2006 The Robbins Hose Company Special Election is scheduled for December 27, 2006. The following persons have been recommended to serve as judges for the election: 1. Harry Hayes 2. Carlton Dill 3. William Jacobs (alternate) Mr. Salters moved for approval of the appointment of Judges for the Robbins Hose Company Special Election, seconded by Mr. Hogan and unanimously carried. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CDBG 2005 ACTION PLAN The Community Development Office is requesting to reprogram CDBG funds that were allocated to make ADA improvements to City owned buildings in order for concrete to be poured to connect the existing sidewalks to the grill areas at the Silver Lake Park so they are handicap accessible.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 2006 PAGE 17 Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Inspections, advised members that the work to the City owned buildings was completed under budget. The work has also been completed at Silver Lake Park and Public Services is awaiting authorization for payment in the amount of $3,016 to the concrete supplier. This project has been approved by HUD as an eligible activity and information regarding the eligibility of this project has been forwarded to the Finance Department. Mr. Salters moved to amend the CDBG Action Plan to reallocate funds in the amount of $3,016 to pay for ADA improvements at Silver Lake Park., seconded by Mr. Hogan and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. APPOINTMENT RECOMMENDED BY COUNCILMAN MCGLUMPHY - SERVICES TO SENIORS COMMITTEE - WILLIAM HARE Councilman McGlumphy requested the appointment of Mr. William Hare to the Services to Seniors Committee. By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the appointment of Mr. William Hare to the Services to Seniors Committee, as recommended by Councilman McGlumphy, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. ANNEXATION/REZONING REQUEST/FIRST READING - 1044 AND 1050 SOUTH STATE STREET, OWNED BY 1050 SOUTH STATE STREET, LLC A request was received for annexation and rezoning of property located at 1044 and 1050 South State Street, owned by 1050 South State Street, LLC. The property is currently zoned BG - General Business (Kent County) and the requested zoning is C-1A - Limited Commercial (City of Dover). Staff recommended that the request be referred to the Utility Committee on January 8, 2007, the Planning Commission on January 16, 2007, and that a Public Hearing be set for February 26, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Salters moved for approval of staff's recommendation and to acknowledge the First Reading of the rezoning ordinance by title only. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carey 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: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1542 AND 1554 NORTH LITTLE CREEK ROAD. Mr. Hogan moved to recess in order for the Joint Legislative, Finance, and Administration and Utility Committees meeting to reconvene, with the understanding that the Regular Council Meeting would reconvene at the conclusion of the Committee meeting in order to consider the committee’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried. Meeting Recessed at 8:10 P.M.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 2006 PAGE 18 Mr. Carey moved to reconvene the recessed Regular Council Meeting of December 11, 2006, seconded by Mr. Slavin and unanimously carried. Meeting Reconvened at 8:56 P.M. RECONVENED JOINT LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION AND UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT - DECEMBER 11, 2006 The Joint Legislative, Finance, and Administration and Utility Committee Meeting was reconvened at 8:22 P.M. with Council President Williams presiding. Budget and Electric Rate Review and Recommendations (Continued) Mr. Hogan moved to recommend that there be a 6% rate increase in January 2007, that the transfer from the Electric Fund to the General Fund be reduced by $1M, and that a minimum margin of $5.4M be maintained. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carey. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Mitchell noted that setting the three (3) variables would probably result in a net margin of greater than $5.4M. Mr. Slavin requested staff to communicate to Council the results of the proposed set variables, noting that if they do not meet the set goals, another formula will be necessary. Mr. McGiffin asked if a higher net margin would indicate that a lower rate increase would be possible. Mrs. Mitchell stated that, in order to maintain the margin, a downward rate adjustment would have to be less than ½%. She suggested moving forward with the recommended action. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the proposed actions would meet the recommendations of the rating agencies to have the rates represent a truer cost of providing services, to cover the debt service on the bonds, and to provide relief to the General Fund by reducing the amount of transfers to the Electric Fund. Mr. McGlumphy asked if it would still be necessary to increase rates another 15% in July. Mrs. Mitchell stated that, although staff will be working on reducing the amount, it is likely that a 15% increase will be necessary in July 2007. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the consultant has assured her that a three percent (3%) increase would result in $1.79M, which would maintain the $5.4M margin and restore the carry forward balance for the library. The committee recommended that there be a 6% rate increase in January 2007, that the transfer from the Electric Fund to the General Fund be reduced by $1M, and that a minimum margin of $5.4M be maintained. Mr. Hogan moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Carey and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Carey moved to institute a hiring freeze until the end of Fiscal Year 2007, with the exception of the Electric and Water/Wastewater Departments engineer positions, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy. Mr. Slavin suggested that staff develop a review process or that a hiring council be instituted in order to consider hiring in cases of emergency. Mr. Salters felt that enough action had been taken to

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 2006 PAGE 19 address the electric rates and a hiring freeze could be counter-productive. Mr. Ruane requested staff to address the vacant positions referenced in Scenario 5. Mr. DePrima stated he has instituted a process that requires justification of new positions prior to approval. He noted that the two (2) vacant engineer positions could be frozen because consulting engineers have been filling the gap at a more cost effective rate than full-time engineers. Mr. DePrima advised members that the following positions are currently vacant: Librarian II, Administrative Assistant in the Budgeting Office, Programmer/Analyst in the Information Technology Department, Engineers in the Electric and Water Departments, Storekeeper, reductions in hours for the Library Pages, Clerks I and II, and Lifeguards. The committee tabled action on a hiring freeze pending further information on the current vacancies and the establishment of a hiring plan for the remainder of the fiscal year. The committee recommended that the Budget Team be directed to prepare a list of positions that are currently vacant and a hiring plan for the remainder of the fiscal year for presentation to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee for consideration. Mr. Hogan moved for approval of the committee’s recommendations, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried. Mr. Hogan moved for acceptance of the Joint Legislative, Finance, and Administration and Utility Committee Meeting Report, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried. COUNCIL MEMBERS ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilwoman Russell invited all members with children or grandchildren to attend the Community Christmas Party at the Prudence Lodge on December 23, 2006 from 1:00 - 4:00 p.m. Mr. Hogan moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried. Meeting Adjourned at 9:01 P.M. TRACI A. McDOWELL CITY CLERK All orders, ordinances, and resolutions adopted by City Council during their Regular Meeting of December 11, 2006, are hereby approved. STEPHEN R. SPEED MAYOR /TM S:\ClerksOffice\Agendas&Minutes\Council-Minutes\2005\08-22-2005 Council.wpd

PREPARED BY: TAX MAP PARCEL NO. City of Dover ED-00-086.00-01-16.02 PO Box 475 ED-00-086.00-01-27.00 Dover, DE 19903-0475 MAYOR AND COUNCIL A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INCLUSION OF AN AREA WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF DOVER. WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Dover authorizes Council to extend the boundaries of the said City after a special election of the qualified voters and real estate owners of the territory proposed to be annexed, and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the City of Dover deem it in the best interest of the City of Dover to include an area contiguous to the present City limits, and hereinafter more particularly described within the limits of the City of Dover, and WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Dover provides that if a majority of the Votes cast in an election held in a territory proposed to be annexed shall be in favor of inclusion of that territory within the limits of the City of Dover, the Council may thereupon adopt a resolution annexing said territory and including same within the limits of the City of Dover. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 1. That the following described area, situated in East Dover Hundred, Kent County, State of Delaware, shall be annexed to and included within the limits of the City of Dover: Lying on the westerly right-of-way line of Bay Road (U.S. 113) with variable widths, adjoining lands now or formerly of Berlin H. & Ruth D. Semans, State Route ], and lands now or formerly of Assets Management Group, LLC, being more part iculariy described as follows, to wit: Beginning at a corner for lands now or formerly of Assets Management Group, LLC and on the westerly right-of-way line of Bay Road (County Road 113), said point being 200 feet, more or less from the right-of -way intersection with State Route 1; thence following Bay Road (US Route 113) South 10 degrees 45 minutes 00 seconds East 193.45 feet to a corner for lands now or formerly of Berlin H. & Ruth D. Semans; thence following said Semans lands the following two (2) courses and distances; 1) South 79 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds West passing over a found concrete post at 1.34 feet a total distance of 281.29 feet to a found capped rebar and 2) South 65 degrees 44 minutes 51 seconds West 176.53 feet to a found capped rebar at a point on line of State Route 1; thence running with State Route 1 the following three (3) courses and distances;

ANNEXATION RESOLUTION - 1166 SOUTH BAY ROAD PAGE 2 1) North 12 degrees 29 minutes 22 seconds West 21.00 feet to Del DOT concrete right-of-way monument 2) North 13 degrees 27 minutes 04 seconds East 200.69 feet to a point 3) North 25 degrees 51 minutes 20 seconds East 287.29 feet to a found capped rebar at a corner for lands now or formerly of Assets Management Group, LLC; thence following said Assets Management Group, LLC lands the following two (2) courses and distances; 1) South 10 degrees 45 minutes 00 seconds East 200.00 feet to a found capped rebar and 2) North 79 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds East 200.00 feet to the pi ace of beginning, containing 2.20 acres of land, more or less. 2. The above described property shall be annexed into the City of Dover with a zoning classification as set by City Council and in accordance with the zoning map and environs, then in force, effective upon such lands being included within the limits of the City of Dover. 3. That the certified copy of the resolution of annexation, together with a plot of the area annexed, shall be filed for record with the Recorder of Deeds of Kent County. 4. That the effective date of this resolution shall be the 9th day of January 2007 at 12:01 a.m. o'clock. ADOPTED: STEPHEN R. SPEED MAYOR BEVERLY C. WILLIAMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT S:\ClerksOffice\Annexations\Annex-2006\1166 South Bay Road\Approval Resolution Block for Packets.wpd

PETITION TO ANNEX AND ZONE PROPERTY Before the Dover City Council January 8, 2007 Applicant/Owner William M. Shirey, Jr. – Trustee Delois M. Shirey – Trustee 119 Lakefront Drive Dover, DE 19904 Location: 1166 South Bay Road Size: +/-2.2 acres Tax Parcel #: ED-00-086.00-01-16.02; ED-00-086.00-01-27.00 Application Date: September 29, 2006 County Zoning: BG (General Business) Proposed Zoning: C-4 (Highway Commercial) Present Use: Bus Station/Auto-body Repair Proposed Use: Hotel Comprehensive Plan Designation: Category 2 – Lands Desirable for Annexation; Designated as Commercial. Cost-Rev Analysis: The Cost-Revenue analysis showed a positive cash flow to the City of approximately $42,574 over ten years. (Cost-Revenue detail and synopsis are attached.) File Number: AX-06-08

On November 20, 2006, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the application as requested by the applicant. Surrounding Land Uses: The parcel being considered is bounded to the west by Delaware Route 1 and to the east by U.S. Highway 113. The contiguous lands on the west side of the highway are in unincorporated Kent County. The proximate parcels in Kent County are zoned RS-1 (Single Family Residential), BG (General Business), and BN (Neighborhood Business). To the east, across Route 113, lands within the City of Dover are zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial) and MHP (Mobile Home Park Residential). Comprehensive Plan: The Annexation and Growth Map contained within the current certified Comprehensive Plan designates this land as Category #2 – Lands Desirable for Annexation, and designates the land for Commercial Use. Cost-Revenue Analysis: The Cost-Revenue analysis showed a positive cash flow to the City of approximately $42,574 over ten years. Recommendation of the Planning Staff and Planning Commission: Because this is a Category 2 designated area in the Comprehensive Plan, and because the zoning requested is in accordance with the uses prescribed in the Comprehensive Plan staff recommends approval. The staff recommendation was made prior to hearing public comment. A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on November 20, 2006, during which no member of the public was present to speak regarding the application. After the public hearing, the Planning Commission made the following motion, accepting the staff recommendation: Mr. Tolbert moved to forward approval to City Council AX-06-08 Lands of William M. and Delois M. Shirey: 1166 South Bay Road, seconded by Colonel Welsh and the motion was unanimously carried.

City of Dover Application No.: AX-06-08 Department of Planning & Inspections IPM M C-3 C-4 M IPM IPM C-4 C-3 MHP C-4 Site R-20 Legend Title: Lands of William and Delois Shirey Plan Type: Annexation Zoning Address: 1166 Bay Road Dover Parcels Tax Parcels: ED-00-086.00-01-16.02-000 Dover Boundary and ED-00-086.00-01-27.00-000 Current Zoning: BG in Kent County County Parcels Proposed Zoning: C-4 Noise Zone A Acreage: 2.2ac Noise Zone B Date: 11-9-06 Noise Zone C 0 400 800 1,600 Feet « Noise Zone D

FINAL READING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1166 SOUTH BAY ROAD. WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within the limits of the City of Dover; and WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of property described below from BG - General Business District (Kent County zoning classification) to C-4 Highway Commercial (City of Dover zoning classification). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 1. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance of the City of Dover has been amended by changing the zoning designation from BG - General Business District (Kent County zoning classification) to C-4, Highway Commercial (City of Dover zoning classification) on that property located at 1166 South Bay Road, containing 2.2+/- acres, owned by William M. and Delois M. Shirey, Trustees. ADOPTED: * S:\ClerksOffice\Annexations\Annex-2006\1166 South Bay Road\1166 South Bay Road Rezoning Ordinance-Final Reading.wpd

PREPARED BY: TAX MAP PARCEL NO. City of Dover ED-00-075.00-01-29.00.000 PO Box 475 ED-00-075.00-01-29.01.000 Dover, DE 19903-0475 ED-00-075.00-01-30.00.000 MAYOR AND COUNCIL A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INCLUSION OF AN AREA WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF DOVER. WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Dover authorizes Council to extend the boundaries of the said City after a special election of the qualified voters and real estate owners of the territory proposed to be annexed, and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the City of Dover deem it in the best interest of the City of Dover to include an area contiguous to the present City limits, and hereinafter more particularly described within the limits of the City of Dover, and WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Dover provides that if a majority of the Votes cast in an election held in a territory proposed to be annexed shall be in favor of inclusion of that territory within the limits of the City of Dover, the Council may thereupon adopt a resolution annexing said territory and including same within the limits of the City of Dover. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 1. That the following described areas, situated in East Dover Hundred, Kent County, State of Delaware, shall be annexed to and included within the limits of the City of Dover: ED00-075.00-01-29.00 - PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH EAST SIDE OF ROUTE 8 (DONATO POLISENO) Lying on the southernly side of State Highway leading from Dover to Marydel, via Pearsons Corner, the metes and bounds, courses and distances whereof in accordance with J. Paul Hayes survey of May 1943, being as follows: Beginning at a point on the southerly right of way line of said Highway, corner for adjoining lands formerly of Daniel O. Hastings but now of Donald B. Carey (said beginning point being twenty (20) feet measured in right angles, from the southerly line of the twenty (20) foot wide concrete pavement of said State Highway), from the beginning point thus established with the Carey land and by division line wire fence South thirty-one (31) degrees, forty (40) minutes East, a distance of two hundred fifty-two (252) feet to a point in said division line wire fence for Carey, corner for the property hereby conveyed and other adjoining lands of Charles A. Moor, thence leaving the Carey lands and binding with lands of said Moor by a right angle to the right, South fifty eight (58) degrees twenty (20) minutes West, a distance of two hundred fifty-two (252) feet to a point which is a corner for the property hereby conveyed and for said lands of said Moor, thereto continuing to bind with the adjoining Moor lands and by a line parallel to the first

ANNEXATION RESOLUTION - PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH EAST SIDE OF ROUTE 8 AND PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RO UTE 8, BETW EEN MIFFLIN ROAD AND ARTIS DRIVE, AND PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROUTE 8, BETW EEN ARTIS DRIVE AND DOVER PAGE 2 course of this description North thirty-one (31) degrees forty (40) minutes West a distance of three hundred two and ten hundredths (302.10) feet to another corner for adjoining Moor lands in the aforesaid southerly right-of-way line of the said State Highway; thence binding with the right-of-way line of said State Highway and running North sixty-eight (68) degrees ten (10) minutes East, a distance of one hundred twenty-two and thirty-two hundredths (112.33) feet to another point in said right-of-way line beginning a slight curve in said right-of-way line, and thence continuing with the said right-of-way line on the arc of a circle with radius of fourteen hundred thirty-two and seventy hundredths (1,432.70) feet, a further distance with said right-of- way line of one hundred thirty-five (135) feet to the aforesaid place of beginning, corner for said adjoining Carey lands and making total highway frontage of two hundred fifty-seven and thirty-two hundredths (257.32) feet, containing one and sixty hundredths (1.60) acres of land, be the same more or less together with the improvements thereon erected. And being the same lands and premises as conveyed unto Elwood V. Scotten and Edna B. Scotten, by Deed of Gerald W. Copeland and Julia V. Copeland, by deed dated January 18, 1965 and recorded in the office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Kent County, State of Delaware, in Book V, Volume 23, Page 142. The said Elwood V. Scotten having departed this life on January 1, 1980, leaving Edna V. Scotten as his surviving joint tenant. The said Edna B. Scotten having departed this life on May 30, 1998 and pursuant to her Last Will and Testament recorded in Will Book C, Vol., 8, Page 227 in the Kent County Register of Wills Office, Article III devised said property unto her sons, the grantors herein. ED00-075.00-01-29.01 - PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROUTE 8 BETWEEN MIFFLIN ROAD AND ARTIS DRIVE (DESTINY CHRISTIAN CHURCH) Lying on the south side of Delaware Route 8, between Mifflin Road and Artis Drive, being bounded on the north in part by Delaware Route 8 and in part by land now or late of Edna E. Scotten, on the east by lands now or late of Donald C. and Pauline Carey, on the south by lands now or lane of Edith D. Raughley and on the west by other lands now or lace of Lois N. Lamborn, and being more particularly described in accordance with a recent survey by Earl D. Smith. Professional Land Surveyor, dated Jun. 28, 1985, as follows, to-wit: BEGINNING at a pipe in the south line of Delaware Route #8 at a comer for this parcel and for other lands of Lois N. Lamborn, said point of beginning being the following two (2) courses from the intersection of the centerline of Artis Drive with the centerline of Delaware Route 8: (1) running with the centerline of Delaware Route 8 in a northeasterly direction a distance of 619.70 feet; thence (2) South 27 degrees 50 minutes 29 second, East 30.16 feet to the place of beginning; thence running from said point of beginning with the south line of Delaware Route 8 North 68 degrees 09 minutes East 700.0 feet to a pipe at a corner for this parcel and for lands now or late of Edna B. Scotten; thence running with said lands now or late of Edna Scotten on the following two (2) courses: (1) South 31 degrees 38 minutes 26 seconds East 302.10 feet to a fence post; thence (2) North 58 degrees 21 minutes 34 seconds East 252.0 feet to a point in line of lands now or late of Donald G. and Pauline Carey; thence running with said lands now or late of Donald G. and Pauline Carey South 31 degrees 38 minutes 26 seconds East 1536.84 feet to a corner in a tree at a corner for this parcel and for lands now or late of Edith D. Raughley; thence running with said lands now or late of Edith D. Raughley South 57 degrees 49 minutes 09 seconds West 1072.54 feet to a pipe at a corner for this parcel and for other lands of Lois N. Lamborn; thence running with said other lands now or late of

ANNEXATION RESOLUTION - PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH EAST SIDE OF ROUTE 8 AND PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROUTE 8, BETW EEN MIFFLIN ROAD AND ARTIS DRIVE, AND PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROUTE 8, BETW EEN ARTIS DRIVE AND DOVER PAGE 3 Lois N. Lamborn North 27 degrees 50 minutes 29 seconds West 1972.42 feet to the point and place of beginning, and containing 42.0006 acres of land, be the same more or less. AND BEING a part of the seem lands and premises which were conveyed unto Lois N. Lamborn by dead of Raymond C. Lamborn, dated October 15, 1981 and on record in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds, in and for Kent County, at Dover, Delaware, in Deed Record Bock N. Volume 36, Page 318. ED00-075.00-01-30.00 - PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROUTE 8 BETWEEN ARTIS DRIVE AND DOVER (CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH) Lying at the east intersection of Hartly Road and Artis Drive; being bounded on the north by Hartly Road; on the northeast by lands now or late of Jireh Christian Center, Inc.; on the southeast by lands now or late of Farm Lands, L.P.; on the southwest by lands now or late of Ben D. A. Miller & Fannie Miller and lands now or late of J. Richard Jones & Joan Mead Jones; on the west by lands now or late of Harry E. Brown & Treasa L. Brown, lands now or late of Ann W. Moffett and lands now or late of William E. Moffett & Ann W. Moffett; on the northwest by Artis Drive and being more particularly described in accordance with a survey by Earl D. Smith, Inc. Professional Land Surveyors dated January 30, 2002 as follows to wit: Beginning and commencing from a set P.K. nail at the intersection joining the centerline of Artis Drive with the south right-of-way of Hartly Road; thence running from said point of beginning with the south line of Hartly Road on the following two courses: (1) running in a northeasterly direction with a 2,321.83 foot radius curve to the left an arc distance of 49E.84 feet having a chord bearing North 77 deg. 16 min. 47 sec. East 495.90 feet to a found pipe; thence (2) North 68 deg. 09 min. 00 sec. East 200.76 feet to a found pipe in the south line of Hartly Road at a corner for this lot and lands now or late of Jireh Christian Center, Inc.; thence running with lands now or late of Jireh Christian Center, Inc., South 27 deg. 49 min. 52 sec. East 1,972.34 feet to a found pipe at a corner for this lot and lands now or late of Jireh Christian Center, Inc. in line of lands now or late of Farm Lands L.P.; thence running with lands now or late of Farm Lands L.P., South 57 deg. 49 min. 09 sec. West 1,818.92 feet to a set pipe at a corner for this lot and lands now or late of Farm Lands L.P. in line of lands now or late of Ben D. A. Miller & Fannie Miller; thence running with lands now or late of Miller, North 33 deg. 58 min. 58 sec. West 180.88 feet to a found ipe at a corner for this lot and lands now or late of J. Richard Jones & Joan Mead Jones; thence running with lands now or late of Jones, North 30 deg. 58 min. 16 sec. West 547.96 feet to a set pipe in line of lands now or late of Jones in the centerline of prong of Cahoon Branch (6 feet wide) at a corner for this lot and lands now or late of Harry E. Brown & Theresa L. Brown; thence running with the centerline of prong of Cahoon Branch (6 feet wide) with lands now or late of Brown on the following eighteen courses: (1) North 27 deg. 27 min. 46 sec. East 15.82 feet to a point; thence (2) North 20 deg. 20 min. 57 sec. East 27.51 feet to a point; thence (3) North 56 deg. 35 min. 53 sec. East 33.06 feet to a point; thence (4) North 29 deg. 16 min. 12 sec. East 45.43 feet to a point; thence (5) North 14 deg. 45 min. 56 sec. East 34.21 feet to a point; thence (6) North 47 deg. 47 min. 42 sec. East 29.11 feet to a point; thence (7) North 17 deg. 28 min. 02 sec. East 35.10 feet to a point; thence (8) North 06 deg. 56 min. 36 sec. West 27.14 feet to a point; thence (9) North 29 deg. 10 min. 51 sec. West 57.28 feet to a point; thence (10) North 16 deg. 14 min. 02 sec. East 23.96 feet to a point; thence (11) North 52 deg. 03 min. 29 sec. West 23.60 feet to a point; thence (12) North 01 deg. 38 min. 14 sec. East 22.58 feet to a point; thence (13) North 11 deg. 06 min. 09 sec. West 37.19 feet to a point; thence (14) North

ANNEXATION RESOLUTION - PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH EAST SIDE OF ROUTE 8 AND PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROUTE 8, BETW EEN MIFFLIN ROAD AND ARTIS DRIVE, AND PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROUTE 8, BETW EEN ARTIS DRIVE AND DOVER PAGE 4 16 dea. 45 min. 24 sec. West 48.29 feet to a point; thence (15) North 12 deg. 11 min. 13 sec. West 50.83 feet to a point; thence (16) North 18 deg. 29 min. 55 sec. West 230.92 feet to a point; thence (17) North 17 deg. 43 min. 37 sec. East 106.77 feet to a point; thence (18) North 25 deg. 53 min. 38 sec. East 139.24 feet to a point; thence continuing with the centerline of prong of Cahoon Branch (6 feet wide) with lands now or late of Brown and running with lands now or late of Ann W. Moffett, North 23 deg. 03 min. 00 sec. East 74.49 feet to a point; thence continuing with the centerline of prong of Cahoon Branch with lands now or late of Moffett on the following two courses: (1) North 39 deg. 57 min. 57 sec. East 13.35 feet to a point; thence (2) North 18 deg. 36 min. 53 sec. East 28.07 feet to a point; thence continuing with the centerline of prong of Cahoon Branch with lands now or late of Ann W. Moffett and running with lands now or late of William E. & Ann W. Moffett, North 04 deg. 06 min. 22 sec. West 258.29 feet to a point; thence continuing with the centerline of prong of Cahoon Branch with lands now or late of Moffett on the following three courses: (1) North 04 deg. 31 min. 55 sec. West 212.99 feet to a point; thence (2) North 42 deg. 39 min. 18 sec. west 30.13 feet to a point; thence (3) North 33 deg. 30 min. 31 sec. west 126.97 feet to a found railroad spike at a corner for this lot and lands now or late of Moffett in the centerline of Artis Drive; thence running with the centerline of Artis Drive, North 55 deg. 24 min. 41 sec. East 473.93 feet to the point and place of beginning and containing 75.6811 acres of land be the same more or less. AND BEING the same lands and premises which were conveyed unto Calvary Baptist Church by Deed of P. Lloyd Sheets and Sharyn M. Sheets, his wife, and David E. Sheets and Carol K. Sheets, his wife, dated October 23, 2000 and recorded on October 24, 2000 in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds, in and for Kent County, Dover, Delaware, in Deed Record Book 386, Page 35. 2. The above described properties shall be annexed into the City of Dover with a zoning classification as set by City Council and in accordance with the zoning map and environs, then in force, effective upon such lands being included within the limits of the City of Dover. 3. That the certified copy of the resolution of annexation, together with a plot of the area annexed, shall be filed for record with the Recorder of Deeds of Kent County. 4. That the effective date of this resolution shall be the 9th day of January 2007 at 12:01 a.m. o'clock. ADOPTED: STEPHEN R. SPEED MAYOR BEVERLY C. WILLIAMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT S:\ClerksOffice\Annexations\Annex-2006\Forrest Ave adjacent to Carey Farm\Approval Resolution for Packets.wpd

PETITION TO ANNEX AND ZONE PROPERTY Before the Dover City Council January 8, 2007 Applicant/Owner Multiple (See Attachment ‘A’) Location: Addresses on Forrest Avenue (See Attachment ‘A’) Size: +/-120.68 acres Tax Parcel #: ED00-075.00-01-30.00.000 ED00-075.00-01-29.01.000 ED00-075.00-01-29.00.000 ED00-076.09-01-02.00.000 ED00-076.09-01-05.00.000 Application Date: September 29, 2006 County Zoning: AC (Agricultural) and RS1 (Single Family Residential) Proposed Zoning: R-10 (One Family Residence) Present Use: Agricultural, Church, and Single Family Home Proposed Use: No Changes to Present Use Comprehensive Plan Designation: Category 2 – Lands Desirable for Annexation; Designated as Residential. Cost-Rev Analysis: The Cost-Revenue analysis showed a positive cash flow to the City of approximately $1,124 over ten years. (Cost-Revenue detail and synopsis are attached.) File Number: AX-06-09

ANNEXATION REQUEST APPLICATION Attachment A Owner/Address of Name and Address of Owner of Parcel ID Property Record Calvary Baptist Church ED00-075.00-01- CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH 30.00.000 OF DOVER, S. SD. RT. 8, BET. DELAWARE, INC. ARTIS DR. & DOVER, 410 FULTON STREET 75.6567 A. DOVER DE 19904 Destiny Christian Church JIREH CHRISTIAN CENTER, ED00-075.00-01- INC. 29.01.000 S. SD. RT. 8, BET. BLUE HEN MALL MIFFLIN RD. & ARTIS DOVER DE 19901 DR., 42.0006 A. Donato Poliseno ED00-075.00-01- POLISENO, DONATO 29.00.000 S.E. SD. HWY. FR. 142 BRYANTS CORNER ROAD DOVER VIA HARTLY DE 19953 PEARSON'S COR.-MARYDEL, 1.60 A.

On November 20, 2006, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the application as recommended by Planning Staff. Surrounding Land Uses: The parcels being considered are adjacent to the Carey Farm which was recently annexed by the City of Dover with R-10 (One Family Residence) zoning. The Carey Farm remains agricultural in use. Two small residential parcels (ED00-076.09-01-02.00.000 and ED00-076.09-01-05.00.000) are currently enclaves of the City, surrounded primarily by lands inside the City boundary. To the north of these parcels, across Route 8 are parcels that are zoned R-20 (One Family Residence) and the community of Heatherfield East, zoned R-8 (One Family Residence). The remaining parcels in Kent County are zoned RS-1 (Single Family Residential). The two larger parcels (ED00-075.00-01-29.01.000 and ED00-075.00-01-30.00.000) are owned by churches. One is currently developed as a church, and the other is undeveloped. There is a small residential parcel (ED00-075.00-01-29.00.000) adjacent to these larger parcels that is also proposed for annexation. Surrounding lands in Kent County are zoned primarily AR (Agricultural Residential), AC (Agricultural Conservation). To the north, across Forrest Avenue (Route 8), there is a parcel zoned BG (General Business), which is used as a barber shop. To the south is land that is in the 10-year Agricultural Preservation Program. Comprehensive Plan: The Annexation and Growth Map contained within the current certified Comprehensive Plan designates this land as Category #2 – Lands Desirable for Annexation, and designates the land for Residential Use. Cost-Revenue Analysis: The Cost-Revenue analysis showed a positive cash flow to the City of approximately $1,124 over ten years. Other Considerations: The City of Dover approached the property owners in this area to proactively annex the land. The parcels being considered are those whose landowners expressed interest in annexation. The Planning Office has recommended the R-10 (One Family Residence) zoning to the landowners. Recommendation of the Planning Staff: Because this is a Category 2 designated area in the Comprehensive Plan, and because the proposed zoning is in accordance with the uses prescribed in the Comprehensive Plan staff recommends approval. The staff recommendation was made prior to hearing public comment. A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on November 20, 2006, during which no member of the public was present to speak regarding the application. After the public hearing, the Planning Commission made the following motion, accepting the staff recommendation:

Mr. Nichols moved to forward to City Council approval of AX-06-09 Properties Adjacent to Carey Farm: South Side of Forrest Avenue, and that the two properties that were previously submitted be taken off of this request (Lands of Taraila and Lands of Harvey) seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion was unanimously carried.

AX-06-08 Lands Adjacent to the Carey Farm M AY B E R RY L AY LD W AN THE RFI E E HEA C R SH MAR MA RE EK LA SH C NE EA REE S T AL K LA LEY NE E T AV E N U FO R R ES MI FF L IN RO AD CH AR G RI CR N OS S DR IV E E IV R S D E AM TH E IV R R D W A LG Legend ES A FA TO TR OAD VE R L LE R I T TV DR Dover Boundary ZL E IV HA E OR TH N D O W N D R IV E Dover Parcels Kent County Parcels Parcels for Annexation Calvery Baptist Church Donato Poliseno Jireh Christian Center - Map Created By: Department of Planning and Inpsections Date Map Created: 11-17-06 Date Map Printed: 11-17-06 Feet 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000

FINAL READING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH EAST SIDE OF ROUTE 8, CONSISTING OF 1.60+/- ACRES, OWNED BY DONATO POLISENO; AND PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROUTE 8 BETWEEN MIFFLIN ROAD AND ARTIS DRIVE, CONSISTING OF 42+/- ACRES, OWNED BY DESTINY CHRISTIAN CHURCH; AND ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROUTE 8, BETWEEN ARTIS DRIVE AND DOVER, CONSISTING OF 75.65+/- ACRES, OWNED BY CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH. WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within the limits of the City of Dover; and WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of property described below from AC - Agricultural Conservation and RS-1 - Single Family Residence (Kent County zoning classification) to R-10 - One-Family Residence (City of Dover zoning classification). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 1. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance of the City of Dover has been amended by changing the zoning designation from AC and RS-1 (Kent County zoning classification) to R-10 (City of Dover zoning classification) of property located on the south east side of Route 8, consisting of 1.60+/- acres, owned by Donato Poliseno; and property located on the south side of Route 8 between Mifflin Road and Artis Drive, consisting of 42+/- acres, owned by Destiny Christian Church; and on the south side of Route 8, between Artis Drive and Dover, consisting of 75.65+/- acres, owned by Calvary Baptist Church. ADOPTED: * S:\ClerksOffice\Annexations\Annex-2006\Forrest Ave adjacent to Carey Farm\Rezoning Ordinance-Final Reading.wpd

PETITION TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT Before the Dover City Council January 8, 2007 Applicants/Owners: Amendment initiated by the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee of Dover City Council Location: All Residential Zones Proposed Zoning Change: The proposed zoning text change would clarify the requirements for parking recreational vehicles, boats or personal watercrafts with trailers, and trailers on properties within residential zones. File Number: MI-06-18

MI-06-18 Recreational Vehicle, Boat and Trailer Parking Report to City Council Page 2 Summary of Ordinance Amendments: The City of Dover has had some sort of regulation regarding the parking of recreational vehicles, trailers and boats in residential zoning districts dating back to 1962. The regulations currently in place date from 1983. In the past, the City’s enforcement was generally focused on gross violations and response to specific complaints. Some properties have been in violation of the existing ordinance and never received violation notices. In 2005, due to an increasing number of complaints, the City shifted to a more proactive enforcement of the ordinance. In doing this, several aspects of the ordinance created challenges for the enforcement staff and for landowners who wanted to come into compliance with the ordinance. The ordinance in its current format requires that such vehicles be screened from adjacent lots. This raised questions regarding what constitutes screening. The maximum fence height permitted in the City is 6 ½ feet. Many recreational vehicles and boats are significantly taller than this. The concern also emerged regarding whether property owners would begin to use screening techniques that are more objectionable to their neighbors than the view of the recreational vehicle, trailer or boat being screened. Several citizens voiced their concerns about the enforcement policy at an open forum prior to the April 10, 2006, City Council meeting. In response, the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee held a public hearing on the issue on April 25, 2006, and ultimately formed a subcommittee to consider proposed ordinance revisions. The subcommittee consisted of boat and recreational vehicle owners, citizens concerned about the prevalence of such vehicles, a member of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee, a member of the Planning Commission, the City Planner, and Councilman Kenneth Hogan, who chaired the subcommittee. After several meetings, the subcommittee agreed on a draft, which they forwarded to the full Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee. The full committee added language to address waivers and fencing requirements and forwarded it to Council. Council forwarded the draft ordinance to the Planning Commission for public hearing on December 18, 2006, with a public hearing scheduled before City Council on January 8, 2007. The following is the motion made and accepted by the Planning Commission to recommend that the City Council refer the ordinance back to the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee to address several points in the ordinance: Mr. von Reider moved in the matter of file MI-06-18 Proposed Text Amendments: Parking of Trailers, Boats, and Recreational Vehicles that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council to send the Ordinance back to the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee with our specific concerns on five points; the first being the fencing requirement in that we find it difficult to enforce such a requirement in light of both economic and conflicts with other deed restriction regulations in the City; for the time limit that is proposed that the testimony given here would indicated that frequently within a twenty-four hour period is not sufficient to make use of a

MI-06-18 Recreational Vehicle, Boat and Trailer Parking Report to City Council Page 3 camper either in preparing it for departure or unloading; the number of units that can be stored on a property could be looked at again possibly considering an aggregate size for weight and the number of vehicles; the size of the units in that we have had testimony and proposal for increase and for staying with the current thirty- one foot size; and finally, the waiver for the sixty day window after the ordinance is adopted and to have the subcommittee take another look at the waiver particularly in the instances where you have property that is annexed in with an existing violation it could go beyond the sixty day waiver period seconded by Mr. Nichols and the motion was unanimously carried. Below is an evaluation made by staff of the five points raised in the Planning Commission’s motion: 1. Fencing Requirement – Much of the public testimony related to the requirement that recreational vehicles, boats and trailers be parked behind an opaque fence. This requirement presents a number of challenges for both residents and City staff. The maximum allowable height of a fence in the City is 6 ½ feet tall. This will do little to screen vehicles that can be 10 feet or more in height. Additionally, several subdivisions in the City have private deed restrictions which prohibit fences. Other concerns about fence requirements were raised in the public hearing as well. The subcommittee that created the draft ordinance considered the issue of fencing and/or screening on several occasions and came to the conclusion that the 5-foot setback from side and rear property lines reduced the intrusiveness of such vehicles on neighboring properties enough to forgo fencing. The current “screening” requirement has created a great deal of ambiguity in enforcing what is currently on the books. If Council adopts a screening requirement, the following points should be considered: a. Must such vehicles be behind a fence, or would all season vegetative screening be allowable? b. How do we prevent a situation where the screening is more offensive than what is being screened? c. Do all vehicles need to be screened, or just those over a certain size? d. Must vehicles be screened from only neighboring lots, or from public streets and/or alleys as well? e. Must the vehicles be screened to their full height? 2. Length of Time – One member of the public who spoke stores his recreational vehicle off-site, but stated that when he is preparing for a trip, 24 hours is not enough time to prepare the vehicle for a trip or to perform routine maintenance on the vehicles. This time limit could be extended to 48 or 72 hours. This would create more work for the inspectors, as they would have to check back 48 or 72 hours after first observing a vehicle, but it is fair to residents who store their vehicles elsewhere and need to prepare for their use. 3. Number of Vehicles – The Planning Commission recommended that this be revisited to allow multiple vehicles while considering the aggregate size or weight of the vehicles.

MI-06-18 Recreational Vehicle, Boat and Trailer Parking Report to City Council Page 4 While this could be considered, many residents with both boats and recreational vehicles would likely exceed any requirements set. Additionally, considering aggregate weight is not practical from the enforcement standpoint. 4. Size of Vehicles – The Planning Commission recommended revisiting whether the ordinance should be less restrictive on the maximum length of the vehicle or keep the 31 feet maximum length currently required. While staff has no hard and fast professional opinion on what is an appropriate maximum size might be, here are several observations. The setbacks from the side and rear property lines specified in the current draft (5 feet) should address the scale issue in terms of length. Larger lots where longer vehicles could be accommodated while still meeting the setbacks would accommodate longer vehicles than smaller lots. The scale issue, in many cases, seems to relate to the height of vehicles. The vehicles that are most intrusive on neighboring properties tend to be large vehicles that are long and very tall. In deriving the 5-foot setback from side and rear property lines in the subcommittee recommendation, the subcommittee looked at the current zoning requirement that accessory structures (such as garages and sheds) be located at least five feet from side and rear property lines. Accessory structures are also required to not exceed 15 feet in height. Perhaps a height requirement would better address the issue of the scale of such vehicles in municipal style neighborhoods than a maximum length requirement. 5. Length of Waiver – The Planning Commission was concerned about the 60-day cap on the waiver option and recommended that it be revisited, particularly as it relates to newly annexed properties. The waiver option, in its current format or in an expanded format, is an administrative burden for the licensing and enforcement staff. The 60 days proposed by the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee is manageable, but still burdensome. Any expansion of this waiver increases the administrative burden, however if there is an expansion, staff would recommend a finite timeframe. Even with a finite timeframe, the long term impacts of tracking the waivers over a period of perhaps decades will create a long term burden on the inspections staff. The waiver will detract from other code enforcement priorities and create significant costs to the City in the way of staff time. Staff would prefer that a date certain be set by which all residential properties in the City of Dover be in compliance with the new requirements. For annexation of properties into the City, six months could be given for residences to come into compliance. In summary, there is currently an ordinance on the books which creates challenges for the inspections staff because certain provisions of the ordinance are ambiguous. The subcommittee worked hard to develop a clear, fair and enforceable ordinance. The ordinance in its current format is close to achieving this goal. However, several key issues need to be decided by Council in finalizing the ordinance. This report gives the staff perspective on these issues.

The following document reflects options presented by various members of Council to address concerns about the draft ordinance in its current form. Red text indicates text that was part of the draft ordinance recommended by the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee and reviewed by the Planning Commission. Blue text indicates changes recommended by Mr. Hogan (with the assistance of the City Planner) to address comments raised during the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission on December 18, 2006. The green text indicates changes recommended by Mr. Ruane and Mr. McGlumphy (with the assistance of the City Planner). Solid lines provide grouping of sections within which the language provides several options for Council to consider. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: That Appendix B - Zoning Ordinance, Article 6 – Off-Street Parking, Driveways and Loading Facilities, Section 1- Permitted Accessory Parking be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, red and deleting the text indicated in red strikeout, as follows: 1.1 [Off-street parking spaces] Off-street parking spaces, open or enclosed, are permitted accessory to any use. One commercial vehicle may be parked on a lot in any residence zone only if less than one ton in carrying capacity. 1.12 [1.2] Trailers and boats. The storage or parking and use of a house trailer by any person or persons is prohibited in all residential zones, except the mobile home park (MHP) zone. A boat with its trailer, a utility trailer, and an unoccupied travel trailer under 31 feet body length or an unoccupied motor home may be parked within a garage or anywhere behind the setback line if screened from adjacent lots. However, none of the vehicles shall be parked in a required side yard if alley parking adjacent to the lot is available. 1.12 Trailers, boats and recreational vehicles. The storage or parking and use of a mobile home or manufactured home is prohibited in all residential zones, except the mobile home park (MHP) zone. A boat or personal water craft with its trailer, a utility trailer, or an unoccupied recreational vehicle shall not be parked on lots in residential zones [for more than 24 48 hours], [except for loading and unloading activities completed within a three-day period within any given two-week period] unless it meets the following restrictions a) No such vehicle shall exceed 35 feet in length. b) Such vehicles must be parked either in the garage concealed from view or behind the point on the front of the house that is furthest from the front property line. c) Such vehicles must be parked a minimum of five feet from the side and rear property lines.

c) Such vehicles must be parked a minimum of five feet from the side and rear property lines unless one of the following conditions is met: 1. the vehicle is less than 6 feet in height and entirely screened to the full height of the vehicle by an opaque fence meeting the requirements of Article 5, Section 1.55. Such vehicles shall also be exempt from subsection 1.12 (d) of this section. 2. the vehicle is taller than 6 feet in height, screened by an opaque fence meeting the requirements of Article 5, Section 1.55, and parked a minimum of 3 feet from the side and rear property lines. d) Such vehicles must be parked behind an opaque fence meeting the requirements of Article 5, Section 1.55. For vehicles less than 6 1/2 feet in height, the fence must screen the entire height of the vehicle, and such vehicles shall be exempt from Subsections c) and e) of this section. For vehicles taller than 6 1/2 feet in height, the fence must be 6 1/2 feet tall. Mr. Hogan’s amendment combined letters c and d. d) Such vehicles must be parked behind an opaque fence meeting the requirements of Article 5, Section 1.55 or behind site-obscuring, all-season landscaping. If a fence is used for vehicles less than 6 feet in height, the fence must screen the entire height of the vehicle. For vehicles taller than 6 feet in height, the fence must be 6 feet tall. If vegetative screening is used, the vegetation must screen the entire height of the vehicle at the time of planting, unless the vehicle exceeds 6 feet in height, in which case the vegetation must be 6 feet in height at the time of planting. d) No more than two such vehicles with a combined length of 35 feet may be stored outside of the garage on a residential lot. e) No more than one such vehicle may be stored outside of the garage on a residential lot. f) Such vehicles must be parked on an improved surface, consisting of asphalt, concrete, pavers, or a gravel or stone surface. g) Such vehicles must be operational and must maintain current registration with the State of Delaware, Division of Motor Vehicles or State of legal residence.

h) A resident in possession of a trailer, boat, personal watercraft or recreational vehicle may apply with the Office of the City Planner for a waiver allowing the trailer, boat, personal watercraft or recreational vehicle to be placed in a manner that does not conform to 1.12 (c), 1.12 (e), or 1.12 (f) provided that the resident submits with the application proof that 1) The trailer, boat or recreational vehicle is parked no closer than 3 feet from the side and rear property lines; 2) The resident applies for this waiver within 60 days of the first day of the public notice of this waiver option. g) A resident in possession of a trailer, boat, personal watercraft or recreational vehicle may apply with the Office of the City Planner for a waiver allowing the trailer, boat, personal watercraft or recreational vehicle to be placed in a manner that does not conform to 1.12 (c), 1.12 (d), or 1.12 (e)* provided that the resident submits with the application proof that 1. The trailer, boat or recreational vehicle is parked no closer than 3 feet from the side and rear property lines; 2. The resident applies for this waiver within 120 days of the first day of the public notice of this waiver option. h) By May 31, 2007, all residential properties in the City of Dover must be in compliance with the requirements of this section.† 1.13 [1.3] Driveways. No driveway shall provide access to a lot located in another zone, which lot is used for any use prohibited in the zone in which such driveway is located. (Ord. of 9-12-1983; Ord. of 1-10-1996) * This reflects relettering based on Mr. Hogan’s proposed amendment. This would allow waivers from the side and rear yard setback, number of vehicles, and the requirement of an improved surface. † This would eliminate the waiver language above in the red h) and blue g); however, it provides a reasonable period of time for residents to comply with the ordinance.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT: That Chapter 106, Article I, Section 106-123 – Vehicle Parking Time Limited Where Carrying Capacity Is In Excess Of One Ton, And Trailer And Motor Home Parking be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, red and deleting the text indicated in red strikeout, as follows as follows: a) It shall be unlawful for any person to park any vehicle with a carrying capacity of more than one ton, any trailer, which includes, but is not limited to, boat, utility, construction or one that is used to carry goods regardless of weight capacity and is designed to be towed or pulled by another vehicle, or any vehicle or trailer on the city streets for a period longer than two consecutive hours. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to park any commercial vehicle with a carrying capacity of more than one ton, any trailer, which includes, but is not limited to, utility, construction or one that is used to carry goods regardless of weight capacity and is designed to be towed or pulled by another vehicle, or any vehicle or trailer combination thereof, or any travel trailer in any residential zone in the city except for temporary parking for immediate deliveries, pickups, and/or service calls to residences or for construction work on residential properties. A commercial vehicle shall be one which is used or maintained for the transportation of persons or property for hire, compensation or profit, except taxicabs. (c) It shall be unlawful for any person to park a trailered boat under 25 feet on the streets of Dover for a period longer than 12 consecutive hours. For any trailered boat 25 or greater, refer to subsection (a). (d) It shall be unlawful for any motor home recreational vehicle to park on any residential street for a period longer than 12 24 48 consecutive hours without a permit. A resident owner of a motor home recreational vehicle may request a parking permit from the city to park on a residential street in the vicinity of their residence for a period not to exceed 72 hours. The permit would be made available at no cost to the resident. The parking permit shall be displayed in the front window of the vehicle visible from the street. A resident may only request such permit three times in any 12-month period. (e) Nonresidents are exempt from subsection (d) for a period of up to seven days as long as their motor home or travel trailer does not create a safety hazard or interfere with traffic in the residential area that they are parked in. (f) All parking allowed in this section only applies to streets that can accommodate parking in compliance with appendix A, article VI, section A. (Code 1981, § 13-30.2; Ord. of 2-22-1982; Ord. of 9-10-1990; Ord. of 12-11-1995; Ord. of 7-25-2005)

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT: The following definition be added to Dover Code, Zoning Ordinance, Article 12 - Definitions Recreational Vehicle: A motorized or towable vehicle that combines transportation and temporary living quarters for travel or recreation or camping. (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) Adopted: *

MI-06-18 Proposed Text Amendment: Parking of Trailers, Boats and Recreational Vehicles: Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council on a proposed text amendment to Zoning Ordinance, Article 6 Off Street parking, Driveways and Loading Facilities, Section 1 Permitted Accessory Parking applying to the parking of trailers, boats, and recreational vehicles. The amendment would also add a definition of “recreational vehicle” to Zoning Ordinance, Article 12 - Definitions. Representative: Councilman Kenneth Hogan. Councilman Hogan stated that he is the Chairman of the Sub-Committee for the Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee that was formed earlier this year after a public hearing and numerous other situations that occurred in interpretation of enforcing the current ordinance. Please understand that the Ordinance is currently in existence and has been in existence since the early 70’s, it was modified in 1983 and what we are looking at is another modification. The sub-committee was formed consisting of public members on both sides of the issue, a member of the Planning Commission; (Colonel Welsh), members of Staff, and others to review this ordinance. We spent four to five meetings over a couple of months hashing all of this out in great detail and they presented what he felt was an excellent ordinance. Councilman Hogan further stated that it was passed by the sub-committee and went to the Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee who requested two changes. One of the changes was creating a waiver process and the second change was to make a major change to the Ordinance. The Ordinance, as developed by the committee, basically says that a vehicle needed to be parked five feet from rear and side property lines and behind the furthermost point of the house. The Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee added a section D which mandates a fence with a couple of options. Since those incidents, there have been a lot of discussions and comments about this and in talking to other people, he has come up with another proposal to that and if you care to hear about that, he can provide it. Mr. von Reider stated that on the matter of a screened fence, you specify that vegetation is not considered screening. Can you explain why you did not include this in the ordinance? Responding to Mr. von Reider, Mrs. Townshend stated that this is something that was added when it got to the Safety Committee. At the sub-committee level, we had gotten away from the fence idea because there was a sense that the set-back would deal with that issue. The other concern was that some places have deed restrictions that do not allow fences. You can only have a six and a half foot fence in the City and if the vehicle is ten feet tall, what are you really screening. There was a lot of discussion with regards to this issue and this is when the sub-committee backed off of the issue. Mrs. Townshend further stated regarding the issue with the vegetation, where we are now with the Ordinance that we have on the books currently requires that it be screened from adjacent lots. Everyone’s definition of what “screening” is could be different and could be seen through shrubbery. It became an enforcement issue that if we are to require screening, it would have to be very clearly defined. The current ordinance as it exists,

makes it very difficult for an Inspector out in the field to say that it is or it is not in compliance as there is a great deal of subjectivity in it. The idea behind the opaque fence is that you cannot see beyond it. Mr. von Reider further questioned, with regards to finding out whether vehicles are currently registered, he knows that Inspectors are not allowed to go onto properties to find out if a vehicle is registered. Why could we not include with this Ordinance something that would allow them to enter onto properties where there are violations? Responding to Mr. von Reider, Mrs. Townshend stated that essentially, this goes back to the ability of the Government to trespass onto your property without probable cause. If we see for instance a vehicle in a driveway with flat tires, we can then go onto the property and check the registration. If there is no reason for us to suspect that there is any violation it gets us into a tricky situation. Colonel Welsh stated that as he recalls their work on the committee, one of the issues that we had with requiring screening was that sometimes the cure could be worse than the illness. What is attractive in one person’s eyes may not necessarily be attractive in another person’s eyes. While they require screening to comply with the City Ordinance, they may have in fact created something that is even more offensive to the neighbor which we are trying to protect. Without some type of standardized screening or color of screening, we are looking for problems. Where space allows, I feel that it would be much more attractive with a screening of vegetation such as evergreens that provides screening year round and the height would actually exceed the screening requirement. Colonel Welsh further stated that it appears that there has been an ordinance on the books that concerns recreational vehicles since 1962 and the length of the vehicle has gone from twenty-seven (27) feet in the original ordinance to thirty-two (32) feet and now to the sub-committee’s recommendation of thirty-five (35) feet. While if you go back and look, the lots sizes, if anything, have decreased. So we have increased the size of the vehicles and decreased the size of the lot’s. He feels that they may have gone too far in that respect. Mr. Friedman stated that his understanding of the origin of the re-write of the ordinance was that the target was to eliminate some ambiguity and making it enforceable. How did you come about the discovery that the ordinance was not working? Responding to Mr. Friedman, Councilman Hogan stated that they had some incidents where they had some complaints regarding vehicles and through enforcement, we discovered that there were problems in trying to enforce a document that is not very clear and in turn, creating some unique and difficult situations. Mr. Zaback stated that with regards to letters received from the public, a Ms. Monica Lang has questioned a deed restriction for fences in their subdivision and he would like to know how that would affect this Ordinance. The second question was from a resident, Mr. Anthony Hummel who states that six and a half foot fences in height is not

commercially available and he does not know if that is true or false. Lastly, the thirty- five (35) feet in length, how is this number arrived at? Is it based on the safety of the way the subdivisions are set-up for turning or is it a length that is reasonable corresponding to lot sizes as suggested that were getting smaller? Mr. Friedman questioned if deed restrictions regarding fences override these rules and would they be in conflict? Responding to Mr. Friedman, Mrs. Townshend stated that they would be in conflict. The City does not enforce deed restrictions. The deed restriction is an agreement between two parties which would be in most cases, the Homeowners Association and the land owner. The City is not in the position to enforce deed restrictions which means that if someone were to come in to apply for a fence permit, we would have to grant it if it complied with our Ordinances. It does put the two at odds. Mrs. Townshend further stated that with regards to Mr. Hummel’s statement, she believes that this is a legitimate issue; however, she has not gone out and measured what the local stores carry. We may want to consider six feet instead of six and a half feet because that is a standard size and height allowed by Ordinance. Mrs. Townshend further stated that with regards to the thirty-five feet length, this has a lot to do with what the size of the vehicles have been. Mrs. Townshend further stated that she would like to summarize the correspondence that was received: • An email that was received by Mr. James M. Stahley at 409 Alder Road. His suggestion was that where we required a fence that we say “or behind an un- evasive evergreen shrubbery, hedgerow, or foliage which would grow to at least six and a half feet at maturity.” His concern would be that there would be no options other than an opaque fence. • Mr. Robert Sheets at 25 Scioto Court who owns a thirty-seven (37) foot motor home that he does not store at his house; however, if he is leaving for a trip or comes back from a trip for the maintenance and packing, he is stating that it cannot be done in twenty-four (24) hours. For a short time the size of a vehicle should not matter and he was concerned primarily about the length of time that it would be limited to. • A letter from Ms. Janice Sibbald who served on the sub-committee and is President of the Mayfair, Crossgates, Wedgewood, and Mayfair II Civic Association and who lives at 144 Blue Beach Drive. She is writing in support of the Ordinance and believes that it is a good compromise to protect the interests of property owners in the City of Dover. She has also attached a photograph of an opaque fence that screens an RV in her neighborhood.

• A letter from Mr. Anthony Hummel who lives at 476 Fiddlers Green. He suggested that the height for the fence should be six feet. He also pointed out a typo in an earlier version that has since been corrected and also stated that the RV sub-committee did not recommend a screening requirement and opted instead to use setbacks to deal with that issue. He asked that you make the screening requirement an option for those who are unable to meet the setback or to eliminate it all together. • An email from Paul and Sharon Lang who live at 157 Baltusrol Road who have a travel trailer that is twenty-eight feet in length. They have a deed restriction in their neighborhood that does not allow fences and if the six and a half opaque fence is built on their property to screen the travel trailer, they do not believe it would be aesthetically pleasing and that it would devalue their property. They are requesting that we consider alternative screening such as tall shrubbery. This is a summary of the correspondence that has been received on this issue. Mr. Friedman opened a public hearing. Mr. Robert Sheets – 25 Scioto Court – Stated that his letter was mentioned earlier and his main concerns are the size and the time frame. He does not store his RV at his house; however, he needs to park it occasionally in order to do maintenance or to load or unload it and twenty-four hours is not sufficient enough time to do that. Secondly, the size frame whether it is thirty-five or thirty-seven, if it fits in his driveway and does not hang over into the street or his neighbors why does size matter? Right now there are two derelict cars rusting on his street that are unregistered and even though they are small, they are much more of an eyesore than his RV which is not there right now anyhow. He never has his RV there longer than one week, he normally only has it there for three to four days. He feels these numbers need to be modified or eliminated all together. Mr. Friedman questioned if the rusty cars in question are in a driveway or on the street, Mr. Sheets stated that there is one in a driveway and one on the street. Mr. Friedman advised that Mr. Sheets should call the Police with regards to the one on the street and they will have it removed and the other one has been brought to the attention of an Inspector to be tagged. Mr. Ron Horton – 866 Wilson Drive - Stated that he has a concern regarding the off- set. He has an L-shaped ranch which is not your standard home and if you are saying that it has to be at the far most offset to the property line, he loses that twenty feet. Right now, he has a boat on his property next to his garage and the driveway for about thirty (30) years. This offset would cause him to have to move his boat to the other side of the house, put a new driveway in, and this is not feasible. This would be very expensive for him. He does not know if everyone has addressed the fence and foliage around the side, what happens to the front? Putting a gate or something in front of a vehicle when you have to keep bringing it in and out is a pain. It would stick out and flop in the wind all

the time so he thinks that a gate could work, or down the sides put in trees or some opaque material, he could go along with that. Mr. John Willson – 150 Turner Drive – Stated that he met with Mrs. Townshend and he asked her if it had to be a six and a half foot fence because he does not think that you can buy a commercially made six and a half foot fence; however, the type of vehicles that we are talking about if you raise the fence up off the ground by six inches, you would have a six and a half foot high fence. The only thing that you would see with a trailer, motor home, or a boat would be the wheels; this would be one alternative. He would prefer to only have to do a six foot fence as they are available commercially. The other question that he would like to address was the waiver form. He has a travel trailer now that is less than twenty-five feet and in less than a year ago, he bought a ¼ ton pick-up truck with duel wheels with the intent of buying a fifth wheel for retirement that is only a few years away. He was told by Mrs. Townshend that with regards to the waiver, the way that it is written, it will give you sixty days prior to the Ordinance going into affect to request a waiver on three foot as opposed to the five feet. He is wondering why this is written this way rather than letting someone apply for a waiver a year down the road after the Ordinance has been passed. The Ordinance would be applied to his twenty-five (25) foot as opposed to the thirty-two (32) foot fifth wheel that he would like to buy. He would not be able to afford to buy that trailer if this Ordinance goes into affect. The last thing he would like to address is he thought he heard someone say that the setback from your house has to be five feet away from your house; he thought it only had to be behind the house, is this correct? Councilman Hogan replied and Mr. Wilson understood it as five, five and five. His trailer goes down the side of his house now and he can get into his back yard to get it five feet from the property line. He would have to move a shed in order to do it; however, it is a portable type of shed. He did have a problem with the fence; however, you cannot change it although he would like to see the possibility to have the waiver because if he puts his fence up, it is going to have to be all the way around. Mr. James Fogel – 360 Nimitz Road – Stated that he moved to Dover in 1968 at his present residence. When he moved in there, he asked if he could keep his camper and boat on his property and it was okay. He put in for a permit to have a concrete slab put in and the Inspector came out to look at the slab and he was advised that a permit was not needed. This slab runs from the street all the way to his back fence and he has ten feet between the garage and the property line. He has a twenty-nine and half foot camper and a seventeen foot boat. The problem is when he put it in, he put a four foot fence up and he cannot wiggle that camper five feet away from the fence. He can get two feet, but not five feet. He parks the boat between the garage and the fence and is up against the fence with the boat. He has been there longer than any of the other neighbors and has had no problems with anyone complaining. Why does he have to give five feet of his property to his neighbor; this is the first thing he does not understand. Why is everyone so against boats and campers? He is proud of his boat and camper. There are guys over in Iraq and Afghanistan and when those guys return, are you going to tell them that they cannot put a boat in their yard? This is the United States of America and we are free people; this ordinance is ridiculous. His camper looks better than a lot of sheds in the neighborhood.

He invested to put up a six foot gate so that you cannot see the camper and boat anymore. Mr. E.A Biddle – Non-Resident of Dover - Stated that while he does not live in Dover, he is a resident of the State of Delaware and owns 1.3 acres. His question is that one, he is a Vietnam Veteran and with regards to a fence, he has a gate in the back yard which is a galvanized metal that meets in the middle and that gate alone cost $4,000, how much is a fence going to cost? It is going to be an astronomical cost just to have to put in a fence. The other thing is that with regards to one commercial vehicle up to 1 ton, I am sorry but cars alone weigh over a ton. I own a pick-up truck that has an eight foot bed extended cab and to limit it to one commercial vehicle, is segregating because how many vehicles have you seen leaking oil or with broken windows with plastic over them where people do not have respect for other people’s property. I bought my land to use it and when you keep adding ordinance after ordinance it strips everything away from the residents. Abe Lincoln set this county up and he would be appalled at some of things that we are doing to it. You are going to make people spend thousands upon thousands of dollars to put up fences to hide nice campers of which we are proud of. Mr. Bill Mizell – 93 Orchard Avenue – Stated that he lives on a dead-end street and moved to Dover thirty-five (35) years ago and bought his property in anticipation of retiring and has restored the home. He has both a camper and a boat and has finally made it to retirement. He finds it very disturbing that someone is going to tell him that he either has to go camping or he has to go boating; you cannot do both. I cannot park both of them in my yard. He has them both parked behind his setback and five feet from the sideline and five feet from the back line and if he had to put a fence across the front of it he could. As long as he can meet all of the criteria of the City, how do you have the audacity? Are you going to put signs up to say that we can’t do both? He feels that it is a micro-management and you already have problems with derelict vehicles, but you are micro managing and painting this with the same brush. You need to find some other language for this Ordinance as long as we are neat and presentable, you need to leave us be on our property. Mrs. Sandra Kinkus -365 Fiddlers Green – Vice President of Mayfair, Crossgates, Wedgewood and Mayfair II Association – Stated that she is here to speak as a citizen. This whole thing came about because the regulations were not being enforced to begin with. This is America and this is why we are all here today to speak out. I am not opposed to boats and campers, but we have to learn to co-exist. (She passed out pictures of what the City could look like if no Ordinance is passed). She objects to the thirty-five (35) feet because to begin with it was twenty-eight, then thirty-one and just with human nature alone someone would then try to take it to thirty-five. She would bet you a bottom dollar that the next you will see is forty or forty-five feet parked in a driveway somewhere; this is just human nature. She feels that we have to stand up and do what is right as we have to co-exist here. The lots are not that large and we have people moving into the neighborhoods and she also opposes the waiver. If we are going to have a waiver on one ordinance are you going to place waivers on every ordinance? She understands that there are changes to section D and she would like to know what those changes are.

Mr. Doug Miller – 313 Post Boulevard – Stated that he was a member of the sub- committee that drafted this proposal and his objection is that the proposal that they drafted which was a compromise and he knew would not make everyone happy; however, he felt they had a final draft when they last met. He later found out that part D was added regarding the opaque fence. At the time that they had been discussing this at the subcommittee meetings, he had expressed his disapproval of this particular part of the Ordinance and also the fact that we had discussed that it was impractical to put up fencing or any kind of screening and thought that we had dropped it and left it by the wayside. Mr. John Bartsch – 721 S. Halsey Road – Stated that with regards to a comment that was made earlier, our house was put on that lot in 1953 and the lot is the same size today as it was in 1953. His lot has not gotten smaller; he has a double lot that will accommodate a big trailer. My truck weighs more than the trailer and he has a problem with that part of the Ordinance. We have a large lot that is fenced in with a gate and I just removed a huge tree so he could put the trailer in the back yard; however, he cannot get it in the backyard with regards to the five foot waiver. He can live with some of the Ordinance that is being re-written without a problem; however, he has a problem with the size of the vehicle. If it fits, I want to wear it and if it fits on his lot, he wants to use it. Mr. Tim Lewis – 923 Monroe Terrace – Stated that he is a Vietnam Veteran and in the Delaware Army National Guard. He has a big lot behind his house and a 24x24 garage. On the other side is a six foot fence and a thirty (30) foot trailer and the only way you can see it is if you go behind in the alleyway behind his house. If we to have to put up a six foot fence in the back of his yard, he probably would not be able to get his trailer out onto that alleyway to use it. I feel that this whole thing should be dismissed. Mr. Bill Schellhardt – 87 Morris Drive – Stated that he has been a resident of Dover for about fifty (50) years in the same house and same parking lot. His biggest complaint of this whole thing is that with this day and age with the click of a mouse, you people can get the amount of motor vehicles and RV’s registered in the City as well as how many complaints have been registered. These complaints today remind of the case before the Supreme Court where the blind people want us to change our currency so that they can read and we should do away with all of the current currency that we have today; this is asinine. The cost for all of us people in the City of Dover is going to be astronomical and I think you are asking a lot of us. Mr. Daniel Biddle – Out of City Resident – Stated that he lives at the same address as his father, A.E. Biddle, who spoke earlier, he would like to expand on what he said. He did not address the pick-up that is located in the back that he has to go to school with at Polytech. For them to have to put in a gate is going to be a lot of hassle because the gate will flop around and is a hassle to keep it open so that they could get in the driveway; however, with the vehicle in the back, he feels that this is asking a lot especially for someone like himself, who takes his vehicle to Polytech which covers both Kent and Sussex County, that does projects in auto body and auto tech and sometimes the kids do these projects at home. Especially, if you live in a small housing development, he feels

this is asking a lot to have to put up a fence or to keep it a certain distance away from the property line. Mr. John Fabryka – 311 Bradley Road – Stated that he has been a resident at this address for forty-two (42) years and in all those years, he has owned a boat. He parks it in the rear of his property and would like to make a suggestion to eliminate the deed portion of this Ordinance because he just recently put a picket fence up which accommodates his boat and trailer that he has. He has it so that he can open it up and move his equipment in and out of it very easily. This Ordinance does not seem like it is going to work in New Castle County and I don’t see how it is going to work here either. You are asking too much of the residents and are only going to make them mad and revolt. Mrs. Mary Randell – 7 Crossley Court – Carlisle Village – Stated that she does live outside of the City. Three years ago when she purchased her home, one of the things that the realtor said right up front was that more than likely this subdivision would get annexed into the City at some point in time. When I moved to Delaware eleven (11) years ago I previously lived in the City so this is one of the things that I was really excited about. A couple of things that she is concerned about of this particular Ordinance change is the length of time being to short as several people have stated to her that twenty-four hours is just not enough time. She has a small travel trailer and is retiring in a few years and plans on going to a larger class C motor home that will be stored on site. She also plans on buying a Bass Tracker boat and this is one of the things in retirement that she has earned. She understands that this will limit, at some point in time, to have both her Bass Tracker and RV on site. She understands that a waiver can be applied for but only three times a year. So if she plans on going out of town for a week or two, she is going to need more time to load, unload, and to do basic maintenance in order to keep her vehicle proper. The motor home she is looking at buying is almost $200,000 dollars it is not a piece of junk and would be more than what her house is worth right now. One of the reasons she bought outside of the City is because she did not like all of the fences and the different colors of plastic that are not being maintained. Her question would be that if she were to be annexed in, could she apply for a waiver with it being over a time length since the adoption of the Ordinance? Mrs. Joanne Dorman – 906 McDowell Drive – Stated that the only thing that she would agree with on this Ordinance is Section G; that it would have to be licensed. The biggest issue for her is the fence. If you are made to put up a fence you are going to have more crime because it is going to be blocked. She has a lot of children in her development, a lot of sex offenders, as well as drugs in her development and it is going to make it little bit easier for those people and also, for anyone who would possibly want to paint her fence when it is not her permission to do so for those who like to paint graffiti. Also, her biggest concern is the children and plus if you delete a fence and put up shrubbery, you are still going to have to put up a fence because you need a fence to put in a gate. It would make it very difficult to bring her vehicle out and she does plan on buying a bigger vehicle in the future; however, the point is that when she drives it from the side yard she has to come into her driveway. The other item that she has not heard anyone touch on is

with regards to improved surfaces, concrete, and slabs and that sort of thing for regular driveways. She has a problem with that in that they have their RV sitting on blocks and it would be expensive to have to put in a driveway. Mr. Bill Miller – 373 Nimitz Road – Stated that he had a few questions. It is his understanding that you would need to put a fence all the way around the vehicle where you would have a front, side and back. If you put up a fence on the property on the side, as he has testified before, sixty-nine (69) percent of the residents in the City of Dover are zoned R-8 which says they can be as close as ten (10) feet and if you put up a fence and put an RV in there which is eight (8) feet that is not going to give you five (5) feet. If you put a boat in that is six (6) feet wide, you would not get five (5) feet there either. You originally started out with the five (5) feet setback then added the fence to it and he does not understand that because once you put in the fence it is on your neighbors property line then what does it matter if you are five feet or three feet? The proposition for the waiver is that if you have a vehicle that was completely covered by the fence you could ask for a waiver and be within three (3) feet. If it is completely covered how will you know how far it is from the property line because it would be covered by the fence. With regards to the twelve hour parking of boats, if he comes back from a fishing trip he has a hard time sometimes getting it cleaned up within twelve hours. He also does maintenance on the boat and often will not get done in twelve hours, I wonder if you could not reconsider that. Mr. Bruce Ennis – 522 Smyrna Clayton Boulevard, Smyrna, DE – Delaware State Representative of the 28th District – Stated that he represents a number of subdivision east of Route 13 from the Kent County line of New Castle County to Smyrna and down to White Oak Road in Dover. He has heard from a number of owners of recreational vehicles, trailer owners, and boat owners in the Dover area concerning not only the current Ordinance but the proposed compromise that we have heard about here tonight as well as an amended proposal. A number of resident’s were advised in the past years that if they had provided a paved surface for their recreational vehicle this would suffice. They went to the effort of paving, stone, or concrete and for a time, heard nothing and thought everything was fine. As a result of some of the enforcement that has been going on fairly recently locating rent space for RV’s, trailers, and boats has really become quite difficult and costly particularly at a time where we have rising fuel costs, heating costs, and more recently, electrical increases in Dover. Most of the trailers, boats, and RV’s are not deteriorated and are not unsightly, but are well kept and well maintained. Some other municipalities including Smyrna have attempted to solve this problem and have not been able to and have therefore ended in the same result that maybe you will. New Castle County recently had a proposal and it did not pass in fact, in Smyrna’s Ordinance all of the RV’s were considered solid waste and that ordinance did not get anywhere. While I appreciate the homeowners complaining, I trust at the end of the day that some fair compromise can be reached by the Commission to draft a reasonable Ordinance that considers the investment to the economy in the purchase of these RV’s, boats, and trailers, the utilization, and of course the fact that people are insured. They do maintain them as they have to be measured, pay for licenses, and tagged. The boat, trailer and RV dealerships would be impacted by this Ordinance being proposed. Your Commission

deliberations in helping them to avoid additional rental, insurance cost, and possible damage to their RV’s in reaching a closer compromise would be appreciated. Mr. Arthur Carney – 362 Kesselring Avenue – Stated that he recently bought a boat about four (4) months ago and anticipated on using it after he retires. This is only a nineteen (19) foot boat, has a cover, and is licensed and tagged. He parks it on the side of the house; however, right now it is not on a stone pavement which would be no problem; however, to have to put it in the back yard he would have to cut a tree down or take over a half hour to try and wiggle it back in between the house which is not worth it. To try and store it somewhere is a great expense with the risk of having stuff taken off of it and to have to go get it to load would be time consuming. He is able to park the boat in his driveway with twenty seven (27) feet and feels that he should be able to park the boat beside his house because it would not go beyond the front of the house. This is putting a lot of worry on people. Mrs. Judy Leaming – 518 Pennsylvania Avenue – Stated that they have a twenty-six and a half foot (26 ½) foot motor home and probably most people would never know that we have it parked in the back of our driveway because we are screened on one side by a six foot fence, on the back by foliage and a chain link fence, and on another side by tall pine trees. My neighbors are not going to be happy if she has to put up an opaque fence where the pine trees are, I can guarantee that. She has another question regarding enforcement, when so many things already in the City go un-enforced, where are you going to get the manpower or are you going to rely on whistle blowers turning neighbor against neighbor? How long do you have to either fall in line with the ordinance or move it? Another question that she has is that there is a comment in section 12 that states “an unoccupied recreational vehicle”, if she goes out and sleeps in this vehicle every other night is it considered unoccupied? Does she have to get a permit every time if she is more than twenty-four hours to load? Mr. Greg Barnes – 532 Lakewood Place – Stated that he is concerned with the multiple recreational vehicles. If he takes and puts one of his trailers that he has which is an eighteen (18) foot open trailer in which he puts his six four-wheelers on and then a twenty-eight (28) foot trailer that he puts his six snowmobiles on and are registered as per what the state requires, so now he is going to have clutter up his yard by having to clean out the garage to back one trailer in, now you have created more clutter. This is his concern and he knows that there are more people in his neighborhood that have multiple RV’s, trailers, and boats as well as packed garages with other toys and such. Mr. Emilio Loera – 155 Haman Drive – Stated that he is also a boat owner and he keeps his boat inside of a heated hanger down in Salisbury; however, he brought it home with the intention of going fishing and taking his grandkids. His job interferes with his fun time and sometimes he gets called out on the spur of the moment to go out of State and this was the case when he got a nasty letter threatened with a fine saying that he had stored his boat in front of his house. There are a lot of violations out here that are worse than the sight of my boat.

Mr. A.E. Biddle – Spoke previously – Further stated that one point he forget to mention was in putting up a fence with a gate it will obstruct the view from the road and his son almost was hit by a vehicle over two years ago and in doing so, he tried to get a bus law where vehicles would have to stay 100 hundred feet away and the proposal has been drafted for the safety of the children in Delaware. If fences and gates go up, you are going to be blocking the visibility of the road and no one will see the children. Mr. John Bartsh – Spoke previously – Further stated that with regards to enforcement, he owns two properties in town and pays $70.00 for a license for each rental unit that is not enforced in coming around and inspecting the units because you are short of manpower. If you are going to enforce fences that are going up you need enforcement to go around because there is already eyesore fences that are up in the City. Mr. Friedman closed the public hearing after seeing no one else wishing to speak. Councilman Hogan stated that he would like to commend the people who spoke here tonight. They said many things that we have previously heard. He would like to make a couple of comments to help clarify some issues. We currently do have an Ordinance. Currently, that Ordinance is a little confusing because it says screening and does not define. There are several people who have spoken here tonight that are directly in violation of the current Ordinance. The fact is that if we do not do this we are still going to enforce the other Ordinance which is more confusing because it is not clear. Councilman Hogan further stated that there are other issues that he would like to clarify. We are not trying to eliminate vehicles. All we were really attempting to do was write an Ordinance that would be fair and equal to everyone and that it would be enforceable that made sense. We had talked about the number of vehicles, one in the garage and one in the yard and it is certainly a negotiable point and something we can talk about. We actually added more surfaces than are currently in the ordinance. Currently, there are only two surfaces in the ordinance. Responding to Councilman Hogan, Mrs. Townshend stated that the current Ordinance for RV’s does not state anything regarding parking surfaces; however, for motor vehicles it has to be a hard, dust free paved surface. Councilman Hogan further stated that the hours that it can be left while working on it is currently twelve (12) hours and we increased it to twenty-four (24) hours which sounds like we did not do enough there. There is a seventy-two (72) hour permit that does not cost and again, maybe that needs to be looked at in terms of doing that. With regards to the setback in the front, we actually talked about the L-shaped house and discussed that this maybe an issue that we need to re-visit. His general opinion is that he is opposed to option D in the Ordinance. This section was added at the Safety Committee. He has proposed an alternative to this section because his concept is that he does not want a fence to be mandatory because there are too many neighborhoods that do not want fences and he is not a proponent of lovely fences because he is not real fond of them.

(Councilman Hogan’s proposal was handed out to the audience at this time). His alternative is that you take the current section C and D of the current Ordinance which is a current version and you replace it with a section C. That C section basically would say that we would be going back to what the original committee did; “such vehicles must be parked a minimum of five feet from the side and rear property lines unless one of the following conditions is met.” So basically meet the setback. If you cannot meet the setback, your option is that if your vehicle is less than six feet in height and is to be entirely screened to the full height of the vehicle by an opaque fence meeting the requirements of Article 5 Section 1.55 such vehicles shall also be exempt from subsection 1.12 D and then D would be renumbered and would actually now be the number of vehicles. The point is that if you have a boat or pop-up camper and a six foot fence if you are hidden, you could put them back there, this was option one. Option two would be that if the vehicle is taller than six feet in height if you screen it by an opaque fence and are meeting the requirements of Article 5 and park a minimum of three feet from the side and rear property line, it would leave enough room for you to move in the vehicle as well as around the vehicle by cutting it down to three feet. Basically what he would like to do is move away from a mandatory fence to an optional fence. Mr. Friedman stated this is a work in progress by the City of Dover and this is the way that they conduct business. It would seem to him that with so many changes that need to be addressed that he is unsure how a motion could be worded at this point. Colonel Welsh stated that he feels that this would be a fair assessment and please be reminded that this is a hearing on recommendations back to City Council based on their first reading. It is in fact a work in progress and all of the public testimony tonight will be a part of that; however, based on that part of testimony, we need to remind people that there already is an Ordinance in effect in the City of Dover and has been since 1962, amended in the early 70’s, and then again per this draft. This is nothing new; it is simply a clarification of an existing Ordinance to get rid of the ambiguity so that the Inspectors can do their job and so the residents know what they need to comply with. Mrs. Townshend stated that when City Council referred it to the Planning Commission they also scheduled the public hearing before City Council on January 8th so they are expecting a recommendation. Mr. Friedman stated that the issues that he heard that have been repeated several times this evening have to do with a timeframe, the waiver setback, general comments regarding financial hardship, and the more than one vehicle concept. He is unsure how to make a recommendation other than to let the committee study the testimony this evening and make appropriate changes. Mr. von Reider stated that overall he could not possibly give any recommendations to City Council on this Ordinance when looking at it now. He feels that there are too many problems, questions, and factors yet to be permanently worked out. He would like to touch on a couple of them. One is fencing, it does seem like the fencing requirement would conflict with deed restrictions in their neighborhoods. Staff did mention that the

City does not enforce deed restrictions; the courts do, so it is just as valid a law as our Zoning regulations. Second, the issue regarding time restrictions, there is an exemption for non-resident motor homes that can be parked in the City for up to a week. Obviously, this is bias due to race week to cover that possibility because you get campers everywhere. This is unfair to give this to non-residents and not to residents. The twenty- four hours is doubling what the current ordinance is; however, the testimony shown here tonight does show that twenty-four hours is not an appropriate amount of time to load and unload and to take care of the camper after use. Third, the limit of one, I realize what we are trying to do is not have yards filled with many, many vehicles. If we limit it to one it is possible that you could have one thirty-five foot camper in someone’s backyard versus two smaller ten foot boats, which is the worst eyesore to a neighbor. There are a lot of things that need to be looked at again and his standpoint is that he would not vote for a recommendation to City Council or to anyone. He would vote that it go back to the sub- committee again to be discussed further and get these issues worked out. Responding to Mr. von Reider, Colonel Welsh stated that in serving on the sub- committee he can say that the race weekend did not enter into the discussion regarding non-residencts. The way that came about was when someone said what if we have someone visiting from out of town that owns a motor home, where do they park. Mrs. Townshend stated that she would make a suggestion that it seems like we can narrow things down to essentially three, possibly four areas where there may be departure from what you have in front of you. One is the fence, one is the length of time that it can be parked on the street or on the lot which is in two sections, and one is the number of vehicles. In public testimony, there was also some discussion about the length of the vehicle so that maybe something that needs to be looked at as well. Her suggestions is that maybe you make a motion on each of those four points and if you get a sense of where Planning Commission is on those four points that could be put into a motion on recommending something to City Council specifying certain things. Mr. Baldwin stated that he agreed with Mr. von Reider in that there are so many items that are not resolved. Mr. Tolbert stated that the testimony that we heard tonight was valid and we needed to hear it; however, we did not hear testimony from people who have another view. He did not hear anything about how the Ordinance would impact subdivisions in Dover that have lots that are not large enough to accommodate motor homes and boats and we do have such subdivisions, what do you do with them? Mr. Zaback stated that his comments would be geared towards the additional hardships that would be inflicted upon law abiding citizens who have not had any problems. Our responsibility as Commissioners is to make recommendations on behalf of the citizens of Dover and clearly he could not in good faith, approve this Ordinance as written with just a few amendments as it clearly needs some work done to it.

Mr. Nichols stated that he feels that in all sincerity with what we have here, it is not compatible with what has been on the books since 1962. The people have spoken as well as Representative Bruce Ennis where he said that Wilmington and New Castle County, Smyrna and Sussex County have not been able to pass this type of proposal. He knows that there are a lot of junk vehicles around town as well has haphazard sheds and everything else and none of this has been taken into context of what we have been doing here and he feels that this needs to go back somewhere and make it compatible with the people as there is a lot of physical hardship and money that has to be spent for fences and other various things. Mr. von Reider stated that he does agree with some provisions of the regulations for instance, there should be a size limit as a thirty-five (35) foot motor home is longer than his house. There has to be some size restriction with motor homes parked on a residential lot. He does agree that they should not extend beyond the front corner of the house. They should be located along the side or rear yard. He does not agree with the fencing as Mr. Bartsh is a neighbor of his and he put up a brand new fence that replaced a fence that was falling down and then what was the first thing that happened, someone has sprayed graffiti on it. Fences at times can look good and be good; however, certainly if you put up to many fences it becomes a billboard for graffiti. If a fence goes to the corner of the alley it becomes a hazard trying to get around the alley for visibility. This is why he cannot move forward with a recommendation because he does not know what to recommend solving that problem. It may come down to a case by case basis where if you have a neighbor that objects and there is a real problem it may have to be reviewed. Mr. Tolbert questioned if the committee could consider looking at finding out if there is any ground available that could be set aside in close proximity to Dover for the storage of boats at a nominal fee. This would be a lot cheaper than having to put up a fence. Mrs. Townshend stated that she would like to read from the Zoning Ordinance with regards to amendments to the Zoning Ordinance so that we are clear what the role is here and what your limitations are. “Every such proposed amendment may be referred by the City Council to the Planning Commission for a report before the public hearing. The City Council shall not take action on any such amendment without a report from the Planning Commission unless the Planning Commission fails to render such a report within seventy-five (75) days after its regularly scheduled meeting following such referral.” We do have a time limitation and beyond that limitation City Council can act regardless of whether or not the Planning Commission has taken action. Mr. von Reider moved in the matter of file MI-06-18 Proposed Text Amendments: Parking of Trailers, Boats, and Recreational Vehicles that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council to send the Ordinance back to the Safety Transportation Committee with our specific concerns on five points: the first being the fencing requirement in that we find it difficult to enforce such a requirement in light of both economic and conflicts with other deed restriction regulations in the City; for the time limit that is proposed that the testimony given here would indicate that frequently within a twenty-four hour period is not sufficient to make use of a camper either in preparing it

for departure or unloading; the number of units that can be stored on a property could be looked at again possibly considering an aggregate size for weight and the number of vehicles; the size of the units in that we have had testimony and proposal for increase and for staying with the current thirty-one foot size; and finally, the waiver for the sixty day window after the Ordinance is adopted and to have the subcommittee take another look at the waiver particularly in the instances where you have property that is annexed in with an existing violation it could go beyond the sixty day waiver period, seconded by Mr. Nichols and the motion was unanimously carried.

FINAL READING BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: That Appendix B - Zoning Ordinance, Article 6 – Off-Street Parking, Driveways and Loading Facilities, Section 1- Permitted Accessory Parking be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, red and deleting the text indicated in red strikeout, as follows: 1.1 [Off-street parking spaces] Off-street parking spaces, open or enclosed, are permitted accessory to any use. One commercial vehicle may be parked on a lot in any residence zone only if less than one ton in carrying capacity. 1.12 [1.2] Trailers and boats. The storage or parking and use of a house trailer by any person or persons is prohibited in all residential zones, except the mobile home park (MHP) zone. A boat with its trailer, a utility trailer, and an unoccupied travel trailer under 31 feet body length or an unoccupied motor home may be parked within a garage or anywhere behind the setback line if screened from adjacent lots. However, none of the vehicles shall be parked in a required side yard if alley parking adjacent to the lot is available. 1.12 Trailers, boats and recreational vehicles. The storage or parking and use of a mobile home or manufactured home is prohibited in all residential zones, except the mobile home park (MHP) zone. A boat or personal water craft with its trailer, a utility trailer, or an unoccupied recreational vehicle shall not be parked on lots in residential zones for more than 24 hours, unless it meets the following restrictions a) No such vehicle shall exceed 35 feet in length. b) Such vehicles must be parked either in the garage concealed from view or behind the point on the front of the house that is furthest from the front property line. c) Such vehicles must be parked a minimum of five feet from the side and rear property lines. d) Such vehicles must be parked behind an opaque fence meeting the requirements of Article 5, Section 1.55. For vehicles less than 6 1/2 feet in height, the fence must screen the entire height of the vehicle, and such vehicles shall be exempt from Subsections c) and e) of this section. For vehicles taller than 6 1/2 feet in height, the fence must be 6 1/2 feet tall. e) No more than one such vehicle may be stored outside of the garage on a residential lot.

f) Such vehicles must be parked on an improved surface, consisting of asphalt, concrete, pavers, or a gravel or stone surface. g) Such vehicles must be operational and must maintain current registration with the State of Delaware, Division of Motor Vehicles or State of legal residence. h) A resident in possession of a trailer, boat, personal watercraft or recreational vehicle may apply with the Office of the City Planner for a waiver allowing the trailer, boat, personal watercraft or recreational vehicle to be placed in a manner that does not conform to 1.12 (c), 1.12 (e), or 1.12 (f) provided that the resident submits with the application proof that 1) The trailer, boat or recreational vehicle is parked no closer than 3 feet from the side and rear property lines; 2) The resident applies for this waiver within 60 days of the first day of the public notice of this waiver option. 1.13 [1.3] Driveways. No driveway shall provide access to a lot located in another zone, which lot is used for any use prohibited in the zone in which such driveway is located. (Ord. of 9-12-1983; Ord. of 1-10-1996)

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT: That Chapter 106, Article I, Section 106-123 – Vehicle Parking Time Limited Where Carrying Capacity Is In Excess Of One Ton, And Trailer And Motor Home Parking be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, red and deleting the text indicated in red strikeout, as follows as follows: a) It shall be unlawful for any person to park any vehicle with a carrying capacity of more than one ton, any trailer, which includes, but is not limited to, boat, utility, construction or one that is used to carry goods regardless of weight capacity and is designed to be towed or pulled by another vehicle, or any vehicle or trailer on the city streets for a period longer than two consecutive hours. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to park any commercial vehicle with a carrying capacity of more than one ton, any trailer, which includes, but is not limited to, utility, construction or one that is used to carry goods regardless of weight capacity and is designed to be towed or pulled by another vehicle, or any vehicle or trailer combination thereof, or any travel trailer in any residential zone in the city except for temporary parking for immediate deliveries, pickups, and/or service calls to residences or for construction work on residential properties. A commercial vehicle shall be one which is used or maintained for the transportation of persons or property for hire, compensation or profit, except taxicabs. (c) It shall be unlawful for any person to park a trailered boat under 25 feet on the streets of Dover for a period longer than 12 consecutive hours. For any trailered boat 25 or greater, refer to subsection (a). (d) It shall be unlawful for any motor home recreational vehicle to park on any residential street for a period longer than 12 24 consecutive hours without a permit. A resident owner of a motor home recreational vehicle may request a parking permit from the city to park on a residential street in the vicinity of their residence for a period not to exceed 72 hours. The permit would be made available at no cost to the resident. The parking permit shall be displayed in the front window of the vehicle visible from the street. A resident may only request such permit three times in any 12-month period. (e) Nonresidents are exempt from subsection (d) for a period of up to seven days as long as their motor home or travel trailer does not create a safety hazard or interfere with traffic in the residential area that they are parked in. (f) All parking allowed in this section only applies to streets that can accommodate parking in compliance with appendix A, article VI, section A. (Code 1981, § 13-30.2; Ord. of 2-22-1982; Ord. of 9-10-1990; Ord. of 12-11-1995; Ord. of 7-25-2005)

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT: The following definition be added to Dover Code, Zoning Ordinance, Article 12 - Definitions Recreational Vehicle: A motorized or towable vehicle that combines transportation and temporary living quarters for travel or recreation or camping. (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) Adopted: * S:\ClerksOffice\Ordinances\2006\DRAFT Ordinances\DRAFT RV Ordinance with changeFINALREADING.wpd

UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee Meeting was held on December 11, 2006 at 4:30 p.m. with Chairman Carey presiding. Members present were Mr. Ruane, Mr. Slavin, Mr. Cregar, and Mr. Snaman. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Snaman moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Slavin and unanimously carried. Green Energy Presentation Ms. Kimberly Schlichting, Delaware Municipal Electric Corporation (DEMEC), provided a presentation regarding the State of Delaware’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards (Attachment #1). Ms. Schlichting stated that the City has control over their Green Energy Fund and $0.178 of every megawatt hour sold, transmitted, or distributed in the State is placed in the fund. Beginning June 1 thru October 31, 2006, the City has contributed approximately $60,000 to the fund. Ms. Schlichting also provided members with a copy of the Municipal Utilities’ Green Energy Fund Program policy (Attachment #2). She outlined the limits that other municipalities have designated for grant funding. Responding to Mr. Carey, Ms. Schlichting stated that the City can contribute additional funds, if so directed by Council. Ms. Schlichting informed members that when applications for residential and non-residential green energy projects are received, they will be reviewed by the State’s Energy Office for compliance and processing. Once the processing is complete, the State will contact DEMEC, who will then coordinate with the appropriate City departments. Ms. Schlichting noted that the State’s Energy Office is the main contact for all green energy project applications. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Ms. Schlichting stated that developers and contractors will be permitted to submit applications to receive funding for green energy projects. Responding to Mr. Snaman, Ms. Schlichting informed members that grant funds will be distributed on a first come first served basis, beginning January 1, 2007. Mayor Speed asked if the interconnection agreements and net metering tariff mentioned in the policy will be required for residents who will not be producing enough green energy to contribute to the City’s system. Ms. Schlichting stated that net metering is not a requirement of the program and each municipality has the authority to institute the tariffs based on their capacity and infrastructure. Mr. Scott Lynch of the State’s Energy Office, stated that net metering is based upon dependent energy usage and it is possible that, during the daytime hours when no one is home, a residential system can generate and contribute energy to the City’s system. Mayor Speed expressed concern with a net metering tariff being charged to residents with small green energy systems that do not contribute to the City. Green Energy Grant Limits and Regulations Mr. Ruane moved to defer Green Energy Grant Limits and Regulations to the next scheduled meeting to allow more time for discussion and questions. The motion was seconded by Mr. Snaman and unanimously carried.

UTILITY COMMITTEE MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 2006 PAGE 2 Mr. Ruane moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Snaman and unanimously carried. Meeting Adjourned at 5:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Carleton E. Carey, Sr. Chairman CEC/hf S:\ClerksOffice\Agendas&Minutes\Committee-Minutes\2006\12-11-2006 UTILITY.wpd Attachments to Original Minutes and File Copy Attachment #1 - DEMEC Presentation, Cap Consideration for Qualifying Renewable Projects Attachment #2 - Municipal Utilities’ - Green Energy Fund Program

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting was held on December 11, 2006, at 5:00 p.m. with Chairman Salters presiding. Members present were Mr. Hogan, Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Jones, and Mr. Shevock. Members of Council present were Mr. Carey, Mrs. Russell, Mr. Ruane, and Council President Williams. Mayor Speed was also present. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Hogan moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mrs. Jones and unanimously carried. Police Station Heating and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Controls The Police Station’s current heating and air-conditioning (HVAC) system system was installed during the renovations of the building in August 1997. Captain Ray Sammons, Administrative Division Commander, Dover Police Department, advised members that the current system is an older generation computer designed by Trane to run and control the building HVAC system which uses a DOS-based program (Tracer 100), that accesses data from a cassette drive. Unfortunately, Trane equipment is proprietary in nature; and the local distributor, Seiberlich Trane Inc., projected the system to be non-supportable after 2004. The program held on until last year when the computer program crashed. The HVAC system ran uncontrolled for days until Trane was able to reboot the computer. Fortunately, the hardware and software was available; however, they indicated that if anything happened to the computer again, they would not be able to fix it due to the unavailability of the parts. Captain Sammons noted that the vendors for the HVAC system maintenance contract were changed three years ago. During that process, three vendors looked at the system; however, only one, Services Unlimited, LLC of New Castle, provided a contract proposal. Neither of the other two vendors had Trane-qualified repairmen, and neither wanted to deal with the proprietary equipment and computer controls. Anticipating problems in maintaining the Tracer 100 computer program that regulates and controls our HVAC system due to its antiquated technology, it was budgeted for replacement using Services Unlimited’s proposal in the CIP several years ago; however, the funding process was delayed at least twice. Their proposal replaces proprietary Trane components of the system with universally available Honeywell components that are less expensive and extremely user friendly. In order to maintain continuity of service, staff recommended awarding the contract for the Police Station heating and air conditioning (HVAC) controls to Services Unlimited, LLC, in the amount of $70,985. Captain Sammons advised members that they have worked with the Police Department diligently and have provided outstanding service since they assumed the contract three (3) years ago. Services Unlimited, LLC also assisted in working with Trane on all major issues to date. Trane does not provide any service priority to customers who do not have maintenance agreements with them. Mr. Hogan moved to recommend awarding the contract for the Police Station heating and air conditioning (HVAC) controls to Services Unlimited, LLC, in the amount of $70,985, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 2006 PAGE 2 Digital In-Car Video Camera and Associated Equipment The Police Department has applied for and received grant funding from two (2) separate funding sources in order to purchase digital in-car video cameras and the equipment associated with the cameras. Captain Sammons informed members that the Police Department is currently utilizing VHS in-car video cameras and the technology industry is moving toward digital technology, due to its superior quality. Currently, the Police Department does not have enough VHS in-car video cameras to equip all of the patrol vehicles. The purchase of ten (10) new digital in-car cameras will ensure that all vehicles assigned to the Patrol Division will be equipped with the digital video cameras. Three (3) vendors were contacted, as follows: ICOP Digital Inc., Kustom Signals, and Mobile Eye. Of the three (3) vendors, only ICOP Digital Inc. and Kustom Signals offered a level of security regarding their storage devices; therefore, Mobile Eye was not considered. The remaining vendors offer software which creates tamperproof evidence, unlike many other vendors who use regular digital memory cards which allow the video to be edited by most computer video software programs. Captain Sammons advised members that of the six (6) companies that provided bids, Digital Alley Inc. was the lowest bidder; however, they did not meet the specifications regarding security of their storage devices and their bid was not considered. The lowest bidder was Kustom Signals, with a bid of $68,874.00, and the next lowest bidder was ICOP Digital Inc., with a bid of $73,590.22. Staff recommended awarding the bid to ICOP Digital Inc., in the amount of $73,590.22, based on the fact that this vendor’s equipment is actually installed in the dashboard, replacing the AM/FM radio space. The only equipment which occupies the passenger compartment space is the camera itself. The recording device is inside the unit which is inside the vehicle’s dashboard. The other vendor’s equipment (Kustom Signals) has an overhead console which could be injurious to an officer and occupants of the vehicle during an accident. Additionally, the recording device is located in the trunk of the vehicle, occupying space which could be used for other equipment. Captain Sammons advised members that, although both bids included installation of the cameras, the City’s current contract with the State of Delaware Department of Communications allows the units to be installed for an amount considerably less than that offered by the companies. Mr. Hogan moved to recommend awarding the bid for the purchase of digital in-car video cameras and associated equipment to ICOP Digital Inc., with the understanding that the expenditure required would be less than the stated amount due to the adjustment for the installation process. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Jones and unanimously carried. Utility Meter Test Van - City Vehicle #763 Due to extensive and costly repairs, the Metering Department’s 1998 Ford Van (87,000 miles and extensive engine hours) was targeted by Fleet Maintenance to be replaced in the 2006/07 budget year. Mr. DePrima, City Manager, informed members that this vehicle is essential when complying with the City of Dover’s Meter Testing Tariff, assuring a field test of all electric meters. It will be equipped with the Mobile Test Bench Unit (which was purchased with funds from the current fiscal

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 2006 PAGE 3 year) that allows the Metering Department to test meters on site, avoiding travel back and forth to the shop, while assuring the accuracy of electric meters. The following two (2) bids were received: Brian Hoskin Ford Ford E350 $32,370 I.G. Burton Dodge Sprinter $33,565 In early preparation for the 2006/07 budget year, internet quotes were under $30,000 on a high roof cargo van. The Dodge Sprinter is equipped with a 2.7L turbo diesel engine and receives 23 to 27 miles per gallon (MPG), as opposed to the Ford E350 which is equipped with a 6.0L diesel engine and receives 14 to 16 MPG. Additionally, the Sprinter has a turning radius of 22 feet which will help while maneuvering in the downtown area, as opposed to the Ford’s turning radius of 24 feet. Moreover, the Sprinter’s interior walls are at a 90-degree angle in conjunction with the floor, allowing the mobile test unit to be stationed closer to the wall with less wasted place. Although the Dodge Sprinter is slightly more expensive ($1,195) than the Ford, the difference is covered by funds in the amount of $2,255 that were saved when City Vehicle #772 was purchased. Additionally, the cost savings in diesel fuel alone will, in time, help to defray the difference in cost. Funds are available in the 2006/2007 Budget, Staff recommended purchasing the Dodge Sprinter from I.G. Burton in the amount of $33,565. Mr. Hogan moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. Mr. Hogan requested that, in addition to the account numbers, the account names be included in the committee action forms when referencing funding sources. Mr. Shevock moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Hogan and unanimously carried. Meeting Adjourned at 5:16 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Reuben Salters Chairman RS/hf/tm S:\ClerksOffice\Agendas&Minutes\Committee-Minutes\2006\12-11-2006 LF&A.wpd

CITY OF DOVER FINANCE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY BUDGET REPORT NOVEMBER 2006 PREPARED BY: FINANCE DEPARTMENT PLEASE NOTE – THIS REPORT PROVIDES TOP LINE INFORMATION ON THE THREE MAJOR OPERATING FUNDS. IF YOU WOULD LIKE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

2 of 6 City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Budget Report November 2006 Strategic Objectives for Fiscal Year 2006 – 2007 1. Coordinate the preparation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) within the budget timetable. 2. Conduct a comprehensive review of the Finance Department’s procedure manual. 3. Conduct an internal control risk assessment. ACTIVITY LEVELS FY06 – YTD FY07 – YTD Bank Trends Number of Deposits Made 580 596 Total Amount of All Deposits (A) $ 51,247,512 $ 46,164,034 Number of Bank Accounts 28 27 Payroll: Number of Pay Periods 11 11 Number of Payroll Checks 4,247 5,482 Number of Pension Checks 1,083 1,097 Total Gross Payroll $ 7,354,147 $ 9,316,873 Total Pension Payments $ 1,590,097 $ 1,647,984 Total Overtime $ 252,279 $ 341,598 Accounts Payable: Number of Vouchers 3,616 3,509 Dollar Amount Disbursed (B) $ 9,576,119 $ 11,935,516 Wire Transfers (B) $ 25,095,728 $ 44,273,718 (A) Higher receipts in FY06 attributed to late property tax billing. (B) Wire transfers and disbursements increase reflective of higher electric power supply costs, vendors requiring wires and large equipment purchases.

3 of 6 City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – November 2006 General Fund Summary 42% of Budget YTD Balance Budget Receipts Beginning Balance (Un-audited) $ 4,232,792 $ 5,411,787 $ (1,178,995) 127.9% Court of Chancery Fees 710,000 247,640 462,360 34.9% Fines & Police Revenues 1,174,000 399,951 774,049 34.1% Franchise Fees 410,000 211,794 198,206 51.7% Grants 524,435 34,945 489,490 6.7% Intrafund Services 5,045,735 2,103,066 2,942,669 41.7% Library & Recreation Revenues 495,000 212,452 282,548 42.9% Licenses & Permits 2,310,000 1,653,903 656,097 71.6% Property Taxes 9,148,680 8,765,866 382,814 95.8% Sanitation Revenues 1,282,540 641,868 640,672 50.0% Transfer Taxes 2,900,000 1,336,699 1,563,301 46.1% Transfers-In from Grants & Utilities Civil Traffic Penalties Fund 950,000 187,329 762,671 19.7% Electric Fund 5,700,000 - 5,700,000 0.0% Municipal Street Aid Fund 660,000 93,815 566,185 14.2% Parkland Reserve 964,800 - 964,800 0.0% Water/Wastewater Fund 535,000 - 535,000 0.0% Other Miscellaneous Revenues 421,267 284,247 137,020 67.5% Total $ 37,464,249 $ 21,585,362 $ 15,878,887 57.6% Expenditures City Clerk & Council $ 427,580 $ 139,185 $ 288,395 32.6% Mayor, City Manager & Human Resources 1,156,375 470,805 685,570 40.7% Police & Police Extra Duty 12,064,643 4,520,751 7,543,892 37.5% Public Works 5,610,189 1,903,372 3,706,817 33.9% Central Services 2,839,137 1,374,855 1,464,282 48.4% Planning & Inspections 1,529,567 666,542 863,025 43.6% Finance, Info Tech & Customer Services 2,693,845 1,090,798 1,603,047 40.5% Library & Recreation 2,815,806 773,890 2,041,916 27.5% Fire 1,299,787 519,382 780,405 40.0% Assessor 273,777 84,823 188,954 31.0% Debt Service 441,232 395,123 46,109 89.5% Insurance 465,980 200,602 265,378 43.0% Retirees' Health Care 763,982 301,109 462,873 39.4% Street Lights 746,200 232,184 514,016 31.1% DSWA Recycling Program 24,000 9,622 14,378 40.1% Appropriation to Post-Retirement Benefits Fund 250,000 250,000 - 100.0% Appropriation to Pension Fund 402,204 402,204 - 100.0% Transfers Out - Contingency Reserve 8,007 8,007 - 100.0% Transfer to Parkland Reserve 350,000 350,000 - 100.0% Transfer to Library Escrow 583,500 583,500 - 100.0% Provision for Uncollectibles 10,000 - 10,000 0.0% Budget Bal-Working Capital 2,708,438 - 2,708,438 0.0% Total $ 37,464,249 $ 14,276,754 $ 23,187,495 38.1% Reserve Balances-Unaudited Contingency $ 665,125 $ 635,764 Capital Asset Replacement $ 340,908 $ 330,425 Parkland/Recreation $ 2,002,232 $ 2,608,570

4 of 6 City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – November 2006 Water/Wastewater Fund Summary 42% of Budget YTD Balance Budget Revenue Beginning Bal-Water (Un-audited) $ 2,065,305 $ 2,050,322 $ 14,983 99.3% Beginning Bal-Wastewater (Un-audited) 968,218 812,406 155,812 83.9% Beginning Bal-Kent Co Sewer Adj. (Un-audited) (1,642,113) (1,349,486) (292,627) 82.2% Water Fees 4,222,500 1,902,457 2,320,043 45.1% Water Tank Leases 303,000 170,391 132,609 56.2% Wastewater Fees 2,618,250 1,192,160 1,426,090 45.5% Impact Fees 750,000 192,458 557,542 25.7% Kent County Treatment Fees 3,761,010 1,615,954 2,145,056 43.0% Miscellaneous 176,750 72,045 104,705 40.8% Total $ 13,222,920 $ 6,658,707 $ 6,564,213 50.4% Expenses Water $ 962,106 $ 310,920 $ 651,186 32.3% Water Treatment Plant 796,627 317,308 479,319 39.8% Wastewater 835,162 285,853 549,309 34.2% Water Meter Reading 67,077 23,422 43,655 34.9% Construction & Inspection 569,216 199,602 369,614 35.1% Kent County Treatment Fees 3,853,000 1,550,354 2,302,646 40.2% Retiree’s Health Care 151,220 52,639 98,581 34.8% Debt Service 1,583,076 350,492 1,232,584 22.1% Intrafund Services 1,176,357 468,650 707,707 39.8% Transfers Out General Fund 535,000 - 535,000 0.0% Capital Asset Reserve 300,000 - 300,000 0.0% Water/Wastewater I & E Fund 666,973 666,973 - 100.0% Impact Fee Reserve 89,756 - 89,756 0.0% Pension COLA 39,850 39,850 - 100.0% Pension Unfunded Liability 50,225 50,225 - 100.0% Post-Retirement Benefit Fund 50,000 50,000 - 100.0% Working Capital - Ending Budget Balance - Water 1,976,441 - 1,976,441 0.0% Working Capital - Ending Budget Balance - WW 1,254,937 - 1,254,937 0.0% Working Capital - Ending Budget Balance - KSA (1,734,103) - (1,734,103) 0.0% Total $ 13,222,920 $ 4,366,288 $ 8,856,632 33.0% Reserve Balances - Unaudited Contingency-Water $ 118,945 $ 105,361 Contingency-Wastewater $ 124,090 $ 117,928 Impact Fee Reserve NO BUDGET $ 2,439,695 Bond Coverage Ratio (Covenant 1.20) 1.68 2.74 * * High ratio attributed to timing of expenses and transfers.

5 of 6 City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – November 2006 Electric Revenue Fund Summary 42% of Budget YTD Balance Budget Revenue Beginning Balance (Un-audited) $ 4,974,107 $ 4,718,413 $ 255,694 94.9% Sales to Customers 81,578,240 34,474,071 47,104,169 42.3% Purchase Power Adjustment - 1,630,923 (1,630,923) 0.0% Utility Tax 1,937,446 647,127 1,290,319 33.4% Weyandt Hall Rents 145,505 76,887 68,618 52.8% Miscellaneous Revenues 1,004,900 594,071 410,829 59.1% Transfer from Rate Stabilization Reserve 5,000,000 2,083,334 2,916,666 41.7% Total $ 94,640,198 $ 44,224,826 $ 50,415,372 46.7% Expenses Power Supply & Generation Power Supply $ 65,154,000 $ 26,383,308 $ 38,770,692 40.5% Power Supply Management 2,175,000 906,250 1,268,750 41.7% PJM Charges - Load - 1,640,991 (1,640,991) 0.0% Total Power Supply 67,329,000 28,930,549 38,398,451 43.0% Plant Operations 6,126,384 1,756,358 4,370,026 28.7% Generation Fuels - 2,320,164 (2,320,164) 0.0% PJM Credits (6,126,384) (2,447,873) (3,678,511) 40.0% Total Generation - 1,628,649 (1,628,649) 0.0% Total Power Supply & Plant 67,329,000 30,559,198 36,769,802 45.4% Electric Operating Divisions 6,169,365 2,253,425 3,915,940 36.5% Utility Tax 1,937,446 647,127 1,290,319 33.4% Transition Costs - 72,845 (72,845) 0.0% Interest on Deposits 25,000 17,494 7,506 70.0% Retirees Health Care 526,400 205,213 321,187 39.0% Accounts Receivable Write-Offs 125,000 - 125,000 0.0% Green Energy Payment to DEMEC - 59,909 (59,909) 0.0% Debt Service & Arbitrage 2,149,048 895,435 1,253,613 41.7% Intrafund Services 3,869,378 1,634,416 2,234,962 42.2% Transfers Out General Fund 5,700,000 - 5,700,000 0.0% Pension COLA 101,692 101,692 - 100.0% Pension Unfunded Liability 89,271 89,271 - 100.0% Rate Stabilization Reserve 500,000 500,000 - 100.0% Post-Retirement Benefit Fund 100,000 100,000 - 100.0% Budget Bal. - Work. Capital 6,018,598 - 6,018,598 0.0% Total $ 94,640,198 $ 37,136,025 $ 57,504,173 39.2% Reserve Balances - Unaudited Contingency Reserve $ 866,602 $ 824,155 Insurance Reserve $ 234,286 $ 228,005 Rate Stabilization Reserve $ 885,687 $ 865,152 Bond Coverage Ratio (Covenant 1.25) (0.37) 1.59 Purchased/Generated MWh 784,862 354,537 All In MWh Supply & Generation $ 85.785 $ 86.195

6 of 6 City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – November 2006 Water/Wastewater Improvement & Extension Fund Summary 42% of Budget YTD Balance Budget Revenue Beginning Balance-Water (Un-audited) $ 44,148 $94,346 $ (50,198) 213.7% Beginning Balance-Wastewater (Un-audited) 258,767 785,946 (527,179) 303.7% Interest Earned 20,000 9,166 10,834 45.8% Transfer from Water WW for Water 551,701 551,701 - 100.0% Transfer from Water WW for WasteWater 115,272 115,272 - 100.0% Transfer from Impact Fee Reserve 850,000 - 850,000 0.0% Total $ 1,839,888 $ 1,556,431 $ 283,457 84.6% Expenses Water $ 562,025 $ 169,158 $ 392,867 30.1% Wastewater 1,221,215 469,039 752,176 38.4% Water Treatment Plant 31,000 - 31,000 0.0% Water Meter Reading 5,648 - 5,648 0.0% Budget Bal. Water - Working Capital 10,000 - 10,000 0.0% Budget Bal. Wastewater - Working Capital 10,000 - 10,000 0.0% Total $ 1,839,888 $ 638,197 $ 1,201,691 34.7% Reserve Balances - Unaudited Capital Asset Replacement $ 1,016,168 $ 699,016 City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – November 2006 Electric Improvement & Extension Fund Summary 42% of Budget YTD Balance Budget Revenue Beginning Balance (Un-audited) $ 2,471,378 $ 2,709,730 $ (238,352) 109.6% Interest Earnings 214,000 65,828 148,172 30.8% Transfer from Depreciation Fund 3,374,792 3,374,792 - 100.0% General Service Billing 645,749 - 645,749 0.0% Total $ 6,705,919 $ 6,150,350 $ 555,569 91.7% Expenses Transmission/Distribution $ 1,656,654 $ 1,321,366 $ 335,288 79.8% Electrical Engineering 4,972,724 420,100 4,552,624 8.4% Administration 16,300 - 16,300 0.0% Meter Reading 60,241 - 60,241 0.0% Total $ 6,705,919 $ 1,741,466 $ 4,964,453 26.0% Reserve Balances - Unaudited Depreciation Reserve $ 13,053,078 $ 12,528,031 Future Capacity Reserve $ 8,950,350 $ 8,716,831

Dover Police Department Monthly Report To Mayor & City Council “To Protect and Serve” November 2006

January 2, 2007 The Honorable Stephen R. Speed, Mayor Members of Dover City Council City Hall Dover, DE 19901 Mayor Speed and Council Members: The following is the report on Police Department activities for the month of November 2006: COMPLAINTS 36,000 26,753 28,087 28,361 27,753 28,150 Total complaints received through November 30, 30,000 2006, numbered 28,150. This is an increase of 397 complaints over the same time period for last year. 24,000 18,000 12,000 6,000 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 20 CRIMINAL 16 14 Cases Reported in INVESTIGATIONS 12 November 12 10 9 Cases Cleared in 8 November Cases Cleared from 4 2 2 2 Previous Months 1 0 0 Burglary Robbery Rape

Report to Mayor and Council November 2006 Page 2 Enforcement Action Abandoned Vehicles 2 QUALITY OF LIFE TASK FORCE Alcohol Violations 3 Assist Other 29 Bike on Sidewalk 0 City Park Violations 0 The Task Force was deployed in the following areas throughout the City: Criminal Arrests 51 Capitol Green, Dover Village, North New Street, South New Street, Lincoln Drug Related Arrests 21 Park, Fulton Street, University Courtyard Apartments, Clearfield Apartments, Loud Music 6 Village of Westover, Liberty Court, Country Club Apartments, Wal-Mart, Miscellaneous Violations 16 Greenway Lane, Courtney Square, Forrest Avenue, North Governors Avenue, Parking Violations 13 Loockerman Street, McKee Road, Dover Budget Inn, Hazel Road, Silver Lake, Peddler/Soliciting 0 Cecil Street, Kent Avenue, Walker Road, South Queen Street, Manchester Prostitution 0 Square, Mishoe Towers, Fairview Avenue, Hamlet, Boston Market, Wanted Checks/CPC’s 12 Applebee’s, Wesley College, Spence’s Bazaar, AC Moore, Persimmon Tree, Warnings/Traffic Arrests 47 Whatcoat Apartments, Kings Highway, Bubbas, Barrister Place, Oak Lane Fugitive 12 Meetings 0 Collections of D.C.O.’s 0 Total Contacts 212 24,000 18,871 17,397 16,901 20,000 15,752 14,535 16,000 12,000 TRAFFIC ARRESTS 8,000 The department issued 16,901 traffic citations through 4,000 this reporting period. This is a decrease of 496 0 citations over the number issued during the same 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 period last year. 3,000 2,224 2,111 2,400 2,060 2,052 2,008 TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS 1,800 Through November 30th, Dover Police investigated 1,200 2,008 traffic accidents. This is a decrease of 44 600 accidents investigated during the same period last year. 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 19% 911 Calls 911 CENTER Administrative During the month of November, our 911 Center Calls handled a total of 10,532 calls averaging 352 calls per day. Dispatchers handled 2,030 calls on the 911 81% lines, an average of 68 calls per day.

Report to Mayor and Council November 2006 Page 3 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS & BASIC LIFE SUPPORT DIVISION: Prime Care Medical Transport, Inc. responded to 394 emergency calls in November, resulting in 299 patient 19% transports. The average response time from dispatch by 911 to arrival on scene was 7 minutes and 48 Transports seconds. Additional units responded to 74 of the 394 Additional Units calls. 19% 62% No Transport 12,000 10,245 CITY ORDINANCE SUMMONS 10,048 9,760 9,318 8,708 6,929 7,193 Through November, we issued 9,318 city ordinance 8,000 6,150 6,868 6,453 summons a decrease of 442 summons over November of last year. *Note: of those summonses issued in November, 14 were issued for handicapped parking 4,000 violations, 16 for fire lane parking violations, 57 for false alarms (28 for 3-5 alarms, 25 for 6-9 alarms, 4 for 10-15 alarms, and 0 for 16 or more alarms) and 12 0 for noise violations (5 for vehicle violations, 0 for 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 person violations and 7 for residence violations). ISSUED PAID Listed below are the major crimes and activities that occurred during the month of November: • On November 6, 2006, Detectives investigated a robbery in the parking lot of Red Lobster. A subject had approached an elderly couple and grabbed the female’s purse and fled. A subject was identified and arrested on November 15, 2006. He was charged with Robbery 1st. • On November 8, 2006, the Department conducted a training exercise with the Capitol School District. The exercise was held at Central Middle School and consisted of an armed subject inside the school during school hours. Members of the S.O.R.T and Crisis Negotiation Teams were involved with school officials. • On November 12, 2006, officers responded to Bay Court Plaza after employees heard sounds coming from the roof of the building. Officers made access to the roof top with the assistance of Robbins Hose Company and found three subjects on the roof removing copper wire from the air conditioning units. All three were charged with felony theft. • On November 18, 2006, officers responded to an armed robbery at the Howard Johnson Motel. Upon obtaining information concerning the robbery a suspect was identified. Officers responded to the subject’s residence and when the subject observed the officers he fled from his residence. He was arrested after a brief foot chase. A second subject was also arrested in the incident. • On November 21, 2006, the 18th Session of the Citizens Police Academy graduated. A total of 17 people graduated from the session.

Report to Mayor and Council November 2006 Page 4 Major crimes and activities that occurred during the month of November continued: • On November 27, 2006, members of the TAC Section stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation. Upon searching the vehicle officers found 1.2 grams of marijuana and 69.8 grams of cocaine. The operator of the vehicle was arrested. • On November 27, 2006, members of the Drugs, Vice, & Organized Crime Section executed a search warrant on Spruance Road. As a result of the search warrant officers seized 1.5 grams of cocaine, approx. 25 grams of marijuana and a 38 cal handgun. Two subjects were arrested. • On November 28, 2006, members of the Quality of Life Task Force stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation. Upon searching the vehicle officers found 8 grams of cocaine and 3 ecstasy pills. The operator of the vehicle was arrested. • On November 29, 2006, Detectives arrested two subjects for four burglaries which occurred between August 2006 and November 2006 in the Towne Point area of Dover. • On November 30, 2006, Detectives arrested a subject for two robberies which occurred in the City of Dover. The first robbery was at the Valero Station on Forrest Avenue. The second was at the Coin Laundry on Walker Road. Both robberies occurred during the month of November. • On November 30, 2006, officers investigated a double fatal motor vehicle accident at North DuPont Highway and the entrance to Kentwood Mobile Home Park. The operator of a Chevy pulled into the path of another vehicle causing a side impact collision. The operator of the Chevy and her 16 yr old son died as a result of the accident. No charges were filed. • During the month of November, members of the Community Policing Section conducted address verifications for sex offenders living in the City of Dover. As a result of this check they found four subjects who had failed to reregister a change of address with the State Bureau of Identification. Warrants have been obtained for all four subjects. Respectfully Submitted, Jeffrey Horvath Chief of Police

Monthly Report November 2006 Office of City Assessor

City of Dover Assessor's Monthly Report Fiscal Year 2007 Property Tax Assessments and Collections Assessed Value Senior State Assessment Taxable Taxes Billing Adjusted Total Tax Taxes Month Before Exemptions Exemptions Exemptions Adjustments Value Levied Adjustments Billing Collections Outstanding July $ 3,145,743,800 $ (19,147,500) $ (598,387,800) $ 1,686,000 $ 2,529,894,500 $ 8,340,118 $ (45,990) $ 8,294,128 $ 6,071,304 $ 2,430,111 August 3,147,429,800 (19,197,500) (598,387,800) (55,800) $ 2,529,788,700 - (540) $ 8,293,588 1,631,316 798,256 September 3,147,374,000 (19,297,500) (598,387,800) 5,145,800 2,534,834,500 - 12,725 $ 8,306,313 205,407 605,573 October 3,152,519,800 (19,297,500) (598,387,800) 45,700 2,534,880,200 6,458 (1,704) $ 8,311,067 (93,426) 516,901 November 3,152,565,500 (19,347,500) (599,135,900) (1,382,700) 2,532,584,800 - (91) $ 8,310,976 (96,028) 420,781 December January February March April May June Tax Adjustments $ 51,879 Year to Date (excludes BID tax) $ 5,439,000 8,362,855 $ 7,718,573 Other Tax Related Cash Receipts Current Month YTD Penalties (recorded when received; not billed) $ 8,056 $ 33,233 Pay In Lieu Of Luther Towers $ - 13,165 Dover Housing $ - $ 3,000 State of Delaware $ - $ 353,614 $ 369,779 Farmland Rollback $ - $ - Total Property Tax Receipts $ 8,765,867 Transfer Taxes $ 430,680 $ 1,336,699

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT November 2006 “ROAD TO RESULTS”

MONTHLY HIGHLIGHTS Customer Services Met with Water and Electric Metering to discuss implementation of Itron Mobile Collection System. Visited Smyrna for demonstration of Itron Mobile Collection System. Budget, Program Development Continued implementation of VoIP. Continued working on rate study. Met with Judy Diogo of Chamber of Commerce regarding rates and setting up a meeting with members; also met with Kraft regarding rates. Conducted Budget kick-off meeting. Human Resources United Way Campaign Kickoff. Flu shots were administered to employees. City employees received National Incident Management System (NIMS) training. Information Technology Completed all user training and implemented much of the new VoIP phone system on time and without major incident. User acceptance of the new technology is high. Due to the difficulty with hiring and retaining experienced Web programming personnel, we used consultants to complete repairs and enhancements to the CIP and PFP Intranet applications. Parks, Recreation, Library 410 people attended 15 children’s programs. 310 people attended an “In Harmony” event. Annual Festival of Lights was a successful event with staff estimating about 2,500 in attendance—the largest crowd ever. Mr. Gary Stover of Stover Homes was given a special “thank you” for a land donation that will lead into additional athletic fields for Schutte Park. Public Services Staff continued with the implementation of the new organizational structure as well as the management audit. Public Utilities Water system distribution was completed with minimal complaints. 1

CENTRAL SERVICES Fleet Operations & Maintenance Costs Item s on Hand With No Usage Over 36 Months $1,000,000 80,000.00 200 Total Work Orders 70,000.00 $800,000 Total Dollars 60,000.00 150 50,000.00 $600,000 40,000.00 30,000.00 100 20,000.00 $400,000 10,000.00 0.00 50 $200,000 Nov Dec Jan Feb M ar Apr M ay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Nov Dec Jan Feb M ar Apr M ay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 To tal Do llars To tal Wo rk Orders Electric Water General Work Orders: 111 Electric: $614,581.27 Fleet Maintenance: $1,374.98 (excludes Melvin’s Sunoco) Water: $ 31,833.31 Fuel: $33,376.09 General: $ 33,686.59 Stock Purchases by Fund Warehouse Stock $ 2,450,000.00 2,750 $950,000 $850,000 $ 2,400,000.00 2,700 $750,000 $ 2,350,000.00 2,650 $650,000 2,600 $ 2,300,000.00 $550,000 2,550 $450,000 $ 2,250,000.00 2,500 $350,000 $ 2,200,000.00 $250,000 2,450 $150,000 $ 2,150,000.00 2,400 $50,000 $ 2,100,000.00 2,350 Nov Dec Jan Feb M ar Apr M ay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Nov Dec Jan Feb M ar Apr M ay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 Electric Water General To tal Do llar Value To tal Line Items Electric $879,377.70 Water $450.22 General $9,382.01 Total Dollar Value $2,442,105.79 Total Line Items 2,500 SOP / CIP Updates (percentages below represent percent completed) Renovation of Pear Street Warehouse – Project #SP001. Ongoing – three-year project. (45%) Fuel Management System – Bid opening held May 15, 2006. Bid awarded to Trak Engineering July 25, 2006. Parts received for system; vendor installed system and provided training. Fuel Management System in operation. (100%) Examine possible alternatives to using an outside mail sorting service. Nothing reported this month. Obtain space and training from the I/T Department to post bid tabulations on the City Web site by December 2006 – Per P. Gregg – Suggestion submitted to I/T Department last year. (0%) Meet with Fleet Maintenance customers to examine ways to better schedule preventative maintenance so that more preventative maintenance can be completed on time. Nothing reported this month. Space Needs Study Implementation – Project #FM0701 (20%) 2

CUSTOMER SERVICES Work Orders Processed 1,983 Extensions of Credit 1,895 1,940 2,000 617 586 1,727 700 1,713 1,714 571 1,698 1,662 504 545 1,599 481 600 442 458 1,510 421 1,750 500 375 407 404 358 1,373 1,408 1,324 1,500 400 300 1,250 200 100 1,000 0 No v Dec Jan Feb M ar A pr M ay Jun Jul A ug Sep Oct No v No v Dec Jan Feb M ar A pr M ay Jun Jul A ug Sep Oct No v 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 CUSTOMER PAYMENT USAGE CUSTOMER PAYMENT USAGE Fiscal Year 2007 Fiscal Year 2006 Bank Drafts, Drive-Thru Credit Cards, Window , Bank Drafts, Drive-Thru 8,946, 7% 11,559, 9% 14,416, 11% Credit Cards, 6,566, 7% Window , 8,347, 8% 27,356, 28% Over the Mail, Drop Box, Counter, 9,279, 9% 29,358, 22% Mail, Drop Box, 70,655, 51% Over the Counter, 46,869, 48% REPORT OF OPERATIONS FY 2007 FY 2006 Nov 2006 Nov 2005 Difference Year-to-Date Year-to-Date Final Bills 517 557 -40 3,126 3,230 Estimated Bills 184 192 -8 1,283 921 Penalties Posted $13,952.78 $13,537.14 $415.64 $70,209.69 $63,722.36 Extensions of Credit - Amount Extended $82,166.42 $88,301.04 -$6,134.62 $1,215,279.73 $508,832.51 Balance Transfers $2,466.93 $10,235.01 -$7,768.08 $24,433.28 $31,018.34 Utility Collections $12,650.05 $45,826.85 -$33,176.80 $133,455.34 $156,917.19 Special Assessments $194.89 $339.89 -$145.00 $1,610.56 $1,217.00 Miscellaneous Billings $100,021.38 $83,989.46 $16,031.92 $354,691.63 $263,058.66 Returns - Checks $20,382.76 $43,018.57 -$22,635.81 $96,817.02 $74,178.40 Return Check Charges $1,400.00 $925.00 $475.00 $6,187.75 $4,485.84 Cuts for Non-Payment (CNP) 641 686 -45 3,114 3,275 CNP through Disconnect Collars 5 0 N/A 12 721,057 Cuts for Non-Payment - Amount $130,280.29 $145,202.91 -$14,922.62 $628,495.13 $81,270.00 Reconnects - Service Charges $16,825.00 $17,270.00 -$445.00 $85,725.00 $0.00 Court Cases 0 0 0 0 11 Tamperings 1 1 0 1 98 SOP / CIP Updates Re-sequence and re-route meter routes. Approximately 14,729 electric and 3,414 water meters have been changed out. Hire an Account Clerk III to supervise the billing and collections efforts. Applications were received. Interviews were conducted. No suitable candidates were found. The position was reposted. Second interviews were conducted. Candidate found and accepted position. Start date, November 20, 2006. Hire an Account Clerk I. Position has been filled. Install an Itron Mobile Collection System with GPS mapping in Meter Reading to maximize efficiency, reduce costs, and improve performance. Visited Smyrna, Delaware, on November 1 to view demonstration of its system. Our current water/wastewater radio read installations are not sufficient enough to warrant the purchase of this system. The system will be deferred for one year. 3

HUMAN RESOURCES Custom er Service Contacts Payroll Hours 800 6000 700 5000 600 500 4000 400 3000 300 200 2000 100 1000 0 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 0 05 05 06 06 06 06 05 06 06 05 06 06 06 Nov Dec Jan Feb M ar Apr M ay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 66 0 29 51 95 343 199 57 89 184 71 53 96 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 05 06 06 06 Applicat ions Processed Employees Assist ed 63 59 62 84 98 52 68 53 42 63 41 57 46 Overtime 1932 1977 1608 1547 2478 1426 1110 1427 1598 1897 1727 1343 1765 Cit izens Assist ed 45 68 55 42 75 343 107 57 48 102 42 76 57 Sick 1667 1372 1694 1402 2335 1477 1663 2674 2904 3466 3139 1572 1410 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Category Total 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 Caucasian 304 305 305 307 309 308 308 307 307 308 308 311 312 N/A Minorities 66 67 67 67 66 67 67 66 66 65 66 67 68 N/A Hired 1 2 1 2 3 2 2 1 1 6 4 4 3 32 Terminated/Resigned/Retired 1 0 1 0 2 2 2 3 1 6 3 0 1 22 Promoted 2 0 0 3 3 1 2 5 5 3 1 2 0 27 Jobs Posted 3 0 4 5 5 6 7 7 6 8 2 6 2 61 Workers Comp. Injuries 5 2 1 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 11 6 53 Workers Comp. Hours 104 43 0 45 21 0 3 72 160 344 198 329 322 1641 Workers’ Comp. hours may not be the result of injuries that occurred during the current month. Jobs Posted – Administrative Assistant (CM and Mayor’s Office) and Account Clerk III – Cashier Supervisor Employee(s) Hired – Police Officer, Account Clerk III (Customer Service) and Field Service Representative I Workers' Comp Injuries Workers' Comp. Hours 20 500 Electric and Public Works were combined in May and became Electric and Public Works were combined in May and became 450 the Public Utilities Dept. Figures from May 2005 to April 2006 the Public Utilities Dept. Figures from May 2005 to April 2006 400 have been omitted for the Electric and Public Works depts. 15 have been omitted for the Electric and Public Works depts. 350 300 10 250 200 150 5 100 50 0 0 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov No v Dec Jan Feb M ar A pr M ay Jun Jul A ug Sep Oct No v 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 Public Utilities Public Services Police Others Public Utilities Public Services Police Others Public Utilities – 1 Public Services – 1 Police – 2 Others – 2 Public Utilities – 109 Public Services – 46 Police – 156 Others – 11 SOP / CIP Updates Effectively negotiate a labor agreement with the FOP. Agreement reached in September 2006. Work with Finance, Customer Services, and the local Union leadership to investigate medical benefit alternatives for employees and retirees. The HR, Finance, I/T and Public Utilities directors, and the Senior City Admin. and H/R Coordinator began meeting weekly in February 2006 as discussions with local unions were unsuccessful. Preliminary report was given to the City Manager on October 4, 2006. City Manager has requested committee to continue meeting to discuss feedback received from the City Manager. Develop Supervisory Training modules and programs utilizing both internal and external resources. H/R Director has received the names of employees who are interested in receiving Dale Carnegie training. Budget concerns are being addressed. Additional training opportunities are being researched. Effectively negotiate a labor agreement with the IUE and IBEW by June 2007. Negotiation will begin in early 2007. Work with the City Clerk’s Office to transfer insurance claims processing from the City Clerk to the Human Resources Department by June of 2007. Currently working on job posting for full-time position. 4

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY www.DoverDE.net Service Requests Received 400 350 100 $800 300 80 $600 250 60 200 388 368 356 $400 334 349 351 40 305 317 304 304 276 150 262 245 $200 100 20 50 0 $0 0 No v Dec Jan Feb M ar A pr M ay Jun Jul A ug Sep Oct No v No v Dec Jan Feb M ar A pr M ay Jun Jul A ug Sep Oct No v 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 Active Customers Net Income Active Customers – 39 Net Income - $130 Supported PCs www.Dover.DE.US 250 200 800,000 700,000 Pages Viewed 150 600,000 500,000 768,639 100 669,324 691,378 645,792 400,000 601,095 50 421,410 300,000 343,064 351,325 411,402 408,339 322,780 305,358 334,094 200,000 0 No v Dec Jan Feb M ar A pr M ay Jun Jul A ug Sep Oct No v 100,000 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 0 PCs Supported Windows 2000 or XP No v Dec Jan Feb M ar A pr M ay Jun Jul A ug Sep Oct No v 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 PCs Supported – 235 As of August 2006, only “PCs Supported” will be given. The goal for Windows 2000 or XP has been reached. Performance Indicators Current Month Last Month Same Month Last Year iSeries Availability 100% 99.8% 100% Server Availability 100% 99.9% 100% Programming Requests Completed 10 9 0 AS/400 Connections (concurrent/authorized users) 35% 38% 38% PCs Supported 235 234 218 Servers Supported 8 8 7 (Availability statistics based on 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. M-F) SOP / CIP Updates Implement an Information Technology Emergency Preparedness Plan that will provide a platform for business restoration within 48 hours of a major disaster – Project #IT0504. An equipment list was submitted to DEMA for approval. We are awaiting a response. Implement E-Government Strategy Plan. We are still attempting to recruit an employee. Develop a printer life cycle methodology. A plan was implemented, and a replacement schedule was provided for budget planning. Support Citywide Phone VoIP Project Implementation – Project #CS0601. Implementation at several buildings was completed. City Hall will be completed in early December. Implementation at fire stations will be dependent upon a second equipment delivery schedule. 5

PARKS, RECREATION & LIBRARY Library Adult Services Children Services 4800 4000 4400 3500 4000 3600 3000 3200 2500 2800 2000 2400 2000 1500 1600 1000 1200 800 500 400 0 0 No v Dec Jan Feb M ar Apr M ay Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Nov Dec Jan Feb M ar Apr M ay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 Reference Reader's Advisory Outreach Electronic Assistance Reference Reader's A dviso ry Outreach Electro nic A ssistance Reference – 705 Reader’s Advisory – 222 Reference – 79 Reader’s Advisory – 115 Outreach – 300 Electronic Assistance – 387 Outreach – 250 Electronic Assistance – 59 Circulation NOV 06 FYTD 07 NOV 05 FYTD 06 Dover residents 15,452 79,786 14,923 77,628 Kent residents 15,523 82,930 16,842 88,207 Non-county residents 2,591 7,460 1,039 4,907 Registrations Dover residents 326 1,952 164 1,031 Kent residents 274 1,619 179 1,119 Non-county residents 15 73 17 80 Other Visiting patrons 31,809 176,693 31,796 141,207 Meeting room usage 220 940 200 820 Photocopier usage 2,877 12,259 2,560 11,362 Holds placed 5,664 24,258 1,193 6,209 Dial-a-Story 2,110 9,272 285 7,077 Internet usage 5,967 30,360 4,443 25,422 Other Points of Interest Interlibrary: 3,016 items loaned out Technical services: Added 1,172 items 2,023 items borrowed Deleted 448 items Volunteers completed 121 hours of service. SOP / CIP Updates Develop potential locations, funding sources, and preliminary operating concepts for regional library in Dover. Nothing new to report. Purchase site for anchor library and develop an architectural plan. Held a charette with State and City staff. Update signage throughout the building to better assist patrons with locating materials and meeting areas. Created signage for renovation and computer upgrade project. 6

Parks and Recreation Recreation Revenue Recreation Revenue Breakdown $ 30,000.00 $ 35,000 $ 25,000.00 $ 30,000 $ 20,000.00 $ 25,000 $ 15,000.00 $ 20,000 $ 10,000.00 $ 15,000 $ 10,000 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000 $ 0.00 Nov Dec Jan Feb M ar Apr M ay Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov $0 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 Nov Dec Jan Feb M ar Apr M ay Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov General Rental Payments Sports Leagues PAL & Spec. Events Trips 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 General – $ 21 Rental Payments – $190 Sports – $0 Leagues – $1,880 Trips – $124 Rentals NOV 06 FYTD 07 NOV 05 FYTD 06 Baseball/Softball Field Rentals* 0 186 6 175 Dover Park Pavilions (2) 0 23 0 29 Multipurpose/Field Hockey Field Rentals* 1 39 1 31 Recreation Center 19 89 19 126 Silver Lake Pavilions (2) 0 26 1 22 Soccer Field Rentals* 3 14 2 15 Stage 1 17 1 18 *These numbers reflect groups that utilized our facilities during November. Program Attendance** NOV 06 FYTD 07 NOV 05 FYTD 06 All Sports (Soccer Skills) 11 51 8 55 Cub Scouts (Sportsman) 16 16 17 35 Girl Scouts (Sports Sampler) 14 14 13 31 Hip Hop Dance (Session 2) 12 26 Not Offered in Nov 05 22 New York City Bus Trip 19 84 43 88 **The program attendance report reflects programs that ended in November. Delaware Prevention Network Creating Lasting Family Connections continued with its collaboration of program efforts with local agencies. SOP / CIP Updates Initiate Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance in City parks and recreational facilities. Nothing new to report. Implement Construction Plan for indoor recreation facility. Continued to meet with architect regarding the building. Begin construction on the John W. Pitts Recreation Center – Project #PR0501. Received bids and made recommendation to the Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee. Dover Park Enhancement – Project # PR0504 (State Match) – Sent appropriate forms to Delaware Land and Water Conservation Trust Fund to receive the awarded grant funds. Mirror Lake Dredging – Project # PR0402 – Nothing new to report. Replace Stagemobile – Director has been reviewing various options and vendors. Park and Playground Improvement Program – Project # PR0704 (old project #: PR0301) – Installation of new equipment has been completed for both parks. Schutte Park Land – Donation – Land donated adjacent to Schutte Park. Nothing new to report. 7

PUBLIC SERVICES Administration Administrative review and inspection services continued on all residential and commercial developments. The following residential subdivisions are in various phases of construction: Oak Shadows Emerald Pointe Lexington Glenn Village of Westover (Phases III, IV, V & VI) Four Seasons Nottingham Meadows Fox Hall West Addition (Phases II & III) Stoney Creek (Phase II) Clearview Meadows Fox Hall West (Phase IV) Wild Meadows Maple Glen Village of Cannon Mill Acorn Farms (Phases II & III) Hidden Creek Sanitation Monthly Total Refuse Collection (Tons) Sanitation Hours 862.63 541.68 1136.46 1044.24 640.46 1050.91 1400 1051.58 819.06 12 50 1,028 977.21 1233.54 1200 640.81 1187.58 988 654.03 1158.34 10 00 1000 570.01 620 1193.62 568 750 634 565.02 870.71 800 689.37 1135.37 581 395.55 420.26 386.89 556.39 1097.48 500 600 1148.02 250 35.5 Electronic 23.5 400 34 0 200 Bulk Collection Hand Trash 0 Mechanized Container Goods Pickup 9 No v Dec Jan Feb M ar A pr M ay Jun Jul A ug Sep Oct No v Nov 06 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 Collection Collection Repair/Delivery Nov 05 B ulk A uto mated NOVEMBER 06 FYTD 07 NOVEMBER 05 FYTD 06 Tons Dry Waste Collected 199.52 1,478.77 217.93 1,803.31 Tipping Fee Savings Realized $3,890.64 $30,786.02 $4,249.64 $35,164.36 Trips to DSWA Sandtown Landfill 322 1,893.00 329 1,780.00 Total Tonnage to DSWA 1,704.41 9,073.34 1,701.48 9,188.63 90-Gallon Containers Delivered 44 231 36 268 300-Gallon Containers Delivered 1 13 4 18 8

Streets NOVEMBER 06 FYTD 07 NOVEMBER 05 FYTD 06 Signs Installed 0 97 4 173 Signs Repaired 1 34 4 71 Curbs Painted Yellow (feet) 251 281 623 918 New Posts Installed 4 47 2 43 Storm Catch Basins Cleaned 75 575 0 150 Storm Catch Basin Cleaning (Hrs.) 8 100 0 38 Hot Mix Patching (Tons) 0 147 3 137 Cold Mix Patching Hrs.) 8 112 48 243 Concrete Work (Hrs.) 0 988 0 446 Concrete Patching (Cubic Yards) 0 791 0 53 Street and Alley Maintenance (Hrs.) 100 734 161 796 Street Sweeping (Miles) 0 4,480 0 5,130 Street Sweeping (Cubic Yards) 0 935 0 780 Leaves Collected (Cubic Yards) 5,955 6,980 5,737 6,112 Leaf Collection (Miles) 2,281 3,608 2,522 3,397 Grounds Arborist Crew NOVEMBER 06 NOVEMBER 05 Trees Trimmed 32 42 Trees Removed 2 3 Stumps Removed 2 0 The majority of the man hours were devoted to installation of holiday lighting displays. Beautification Crew Planted the majority of the 71,000 tulips, daffodils and hyacinth bulbs in the 53 annual beds. Delivered 8 poinsettias to City Hall, Weyandt Hall and the Library. Compiled the plug and seed order for the 2007 growing season. Landscape Repair/Special Projects Crew Assisted Beautification Crew with adding leaf compost, tilling into beds and planting spring flowering bulbs in the 53 annual beds. Pulled shrubs at Public Utilities Administration building for renovation of front landscape. Put out Christmas trees at Silver Lake and Mirror Lake. Hung Christmas wreaths at City Hall, Weyandt Hall and the Library. Put candles in windows at City Hall. Grounds Maintenance/Mowing Crews Continued to collect leaves in parks and around City buildings. Assisted Beautification Crew by hauling leaf compost to the annual beds. Assisted with putting the Christmas trees on Silver Lake and Mirror Lake. Assisted with installation of Christmas lighting displays throughout the City. SOP/CIP Updates (percentages below represent percent completed) FY-2006 Street Program (ST0601) – 99% FY-2006 Concrete Program (ST0602) – 100% Generic Subdivision Signs (ST0505) – 25% Silver Lake Dam Improvements – 10% FY-2007 Street Program (ST0701) – 80% FY-2007 Concrete Program (ST0702) – 77% 9

PUBLIC UTILITIES Electric System Peak Total System Load 170.9 173.0 146.0 150.2 83,588 83,208 200.0 100,000 126.0 111.7 118.5 69,529 104.0 106.7 104.0 100.5 102.0 63,388 61,732 59,576 62,737 59,198 59,195 150.0 57,072 57,349 56,697 80,000 94.0 MW 100.0 MWH 60,000 53,253 50.0 40,000 0.0 No v Dec Jan Feb M ar A pr M ay Jun Jul A ug Sep Oct No v 20,000 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 Nov Dec Jan Feb M ar Apr M ay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 Outages Number of Customers Gained/Lost 50 20000 238 40 250 15000 Customers Outages 30 200 10000 20 150 10 5000 100 73 53 0 0 20 10 35 31 27 25 50 18 13 13 21 No v Dec Jan Feb M ar A pr M ay Jun Jul A ug Sep Oct No v 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 0 Nov Dec Jan Feb M ar Apr M ay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Outages Customers 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 Outages – 9 Customers – 55 ELECTRIC OUTAGE REPORT # OF URD OUTAGE # DATE TIME OUT TIME IN CIRCUIT LOCATION DEVICE CAUSE ACTION CUST OVH 06-0159 11-01 13:29 15:00 1260 Buck Dr. Transf 8 A Replaced transf OVH 06-0160 11-02 15:01 17:36 12402 Old Base Housing Fuse 1 E Remv. squirrel/repl. OVH arrestor & re-fused OVH 06-0161 11-03 07:35 08:18 12403 Springview Dr. Fuse 29 Q Replaced fuse OVH 06-0162 11-05 10:55 11:27 12402 Center Dr. DAFB Housing Fuse 1 Q Replaced fuse OVH 06-0163 11-07 09:20 11:37 12402 7250 Bayside Dr. Cable 1 P Repaired wire URD 06-0164 11-08 13:35 13:55 12206 15 Terry Circle Fuse 12 Q Replaced fuse OVH 06-0165 11-13 04:48 07:37 12602 Postles Corner Service 1 C Repaired OVH 06-0166 11-16 15:37 16:59 12402 Second Ave. DAFB Connector 1 I Repaired OVH Housing 06-0167 11-25 12:54 14:39 12403 Donas Landing/Duck Hut. Cable 1 M Repaired cable URD CAUSE A – Equipment Failure D – Auto Accident G – Overload (Trans) J – Dig In M – Bad URD Q – Unknown B – Lighting E - Animal H – Weather Factor K – Substation Equip. N – Contractor/Line Crew X – Transformer C – Tree Condition F – Overload I – Primary Tap L – Switching Error P – Homeowner 10

Engineering Services Completed Projects Active Projects / % Completed Projects in Design / % Completed White Oak Grandview Mobile Home Park – 80% Kent Acres Rehab. – 100% Kent County AeroPark Lexington Farms – 70% Governors Ave. Rehab. – State Contract – 100% First Tenth – Lebanon Rd. 69 KV to Mayfair Substation – 90% Fiber Map – 0% Dover Air Force Base – Phase I – 70% SR1/SR9 Rebuild – 100% Clearview – 30% Wawa – Bay Court Plaza – 10% Clearview – Phases II & III – 30% Feeders 3 & 4 – Phase II – 0% Lakeland Office Building – 90% Emerald Pointe - Phase II – 100% Feeders 3 & 4 – Phase I – 70% Governors Lighting Wesley – Redesign – 90% Dover Downs 69 KV Relocation – 20% Cahne Medical Building – 0% 4 KV to 12 KV Conversion – 90% Seskinore Townhouses – 100% Vera’s Haven – College Rd. – 5% North Street Improvements – 50% Tall Pines – Dover Kenton Rd. – 30% Cannon Mill Phase II – 100% Leipsic Rd. – Country Inn – 5% Cannon Mill Phase III – 100% Mayfair Bus Work – 0% Dover Air Force Base – Phase II – 100% Nottingham Meadows – 30% Dover Air Force Base – Phases III, IV & V – Hertrich Mazda – 0% 100% Country Inn – Leipsic Rd. – 10% Walgreens – 100% Dover Saturn – 100% Cedar Chase Hotel – 100% Commerce Bank – 0% Jefferic Blvd.. - Marriott – 100% Eden Hill Medical Center – 90% Transmission and Distribution Underground Work % Completed Overhead Work % Completed Emerald Pointe Ongoing Overhead maintenance Ongoing Cannon Mill Ongoing Maintenance of City lighting Ongoing First Tenth 100% Infrared testing and repairs 94% 72 repairs to system with 68 Capitol Park – replacing meter pedestals 50% completed Kentwood 750 MCM upgrade 90% Distribution Pole Testing 50% Total 4-12 KV conversion 98% (2006-07) 900 poles tested; 19 bad poles with 10 Clearview Ongoing replaced Lexington Glenn Ongoing Assisted Fry Electric relocating 100% Dover Air Force Base – installing new Ongoing 69 line at Dover Downs underground service Nottingham Meadows Ongoing 11

FY 06 Meter Stats Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 Radio Read Meter Installations 357 272 367 485 585 558 386 244 252 464 459 287 483 Meters Tested 602 618 600 1,029 1,300 878 525 450 475 161 507 491 738 Meters Junked 271 273 295 439 509 416 345 201 181 367 349 242 245 Meters Removed 8 11 28 10 25 0 13 28 7 14 24 30 5 Meter Changes 293 234 327 436 525 519 354 200 210 424 193 224 402 New Services 48 25 27 23 40 28 18 25 24 21 246 37 68 Services Retired 2 3 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 2 1 5 1 System Operations Center Switching schedules 8 10 7 11 6 4 5 1 15 8 2 11 12 Work orders 1143 639 520 861 396 1,157 1,687 1,861 2,091 828 1,121 1681 798 Miss Utility tickets called back 2,484 1,341 1,332 1,597 1,821 1,869 2,016 2,257 2,564 1,478 1,989 2,394 1,923 Tickets located 1,629 1,326 1,296 1,056 1,890 1,869 1,746 2,073 1,923 2,112 1,875 1,988 Substation Relay Substation Status Van Sant Repaired RTU St. Jones Repaired fusing and bus support SOP / CIP Updates (percentages below represent percent completed) Develop an Electric Department mapping system to assist crews with power restoration. Mapping system is up and running. Hire two junior engineers to replace senior system engineer and senior SCADA technician. Pending hiring of new Public Utilities Manager who is scheduled to begin in December. Continue the Blue Light Security program in the City of Dover – Project #EE0709. Two blue lights have been installed in a pilot program. Communicating with various departments for recommendations of future placements of units. Leverage and maximize the use of existing fiber optic outside plant and conduit by enhancing the existing fiber optic network and sharing these facilities with key community stakeholders – Project #PR0710. Council approved award of the contract to Columbia Telecommunications Corporation. CIP Project % Completed CIP Project % Completed Mayfair 69/12 KV Transformer and Breaker – 5% College Road Capacitor – Project #EE0604 0% Project #ES0105 69 KV Feeders 3 and 4 – Project #EE0601 70% Meter Testing Bench 50% Mayfair to Mid-City – Project #ET0502 90% Lighting Project and Rehabilitation – Project 10% #EE0605 Lebanon Transformer – Project #EE0701 10% Governors Avenue Rebuild – Project 0% #EE0603 Dover Downs 69 KV Line Relocation – Project 30% Radio Read Meter Changeout – Project 44% #EE0702 #ET0501 Distribution Upgrades – Project #EU0601 30% Denneys Road Upgrade – Project #EE0705 10% Replacement of 69 KV Breakers – Project 10% Fiber Optics Replacement – Project 20% #EE0408 #EE0710 System Operations Automation – Project 100% New Developments/Upgrades – Project 45% #EE0708 #EE0606 Kesselring Feeder – Project #EE0602 50% 12

13

14

Water/Wastewater W a t e r P r o d u c t io n /B ille d C o n s u m p t io n /F lo w t o K e n t C o u n t y 250 200 150 M illio n G a llo n s 100 50 0 Nov 05 Dec 05 Ja n 0 6 Feb 06 Mar 06 A p r il 0 6 May 06 Ju n e 0 6 J u ly 0 6 A ug 06 Sep 06 Oct 06 Nov 06 109226250 B ille d C o n s u m p t io n T o t a l F lo w t o K e n t C o u n t y Total Water Production – 143,950,000 Billed Consumption – 135,622,000 Total Flow to Kent County – 109,226,250 NOV 06 NOV 05 Water Production – Daily Average 4,798,333 5,295,355 Fire Hydrants – Flushed 0 0 Fire Hydrants – Tested 14 4 Final Readings 174 235 Cutoffs 20 12 Turn-ons 18 13 New Inspections 20 34 Curb Boxes Located 60 73 Curb Boxes Adjusted 6 8 Water Service Lines Repaired 1 13 Water Meters Repaired 16 14 Radio Technology Installations 66 79 New Meters Added 35 15 Total Water Meters in City Distribution System 13,046 12,750 NOV 06 NOV 06 L.F. Sewer Lines Flushed 54,601 46,195 Sewer Lines Inspected 68,550 36,532 Feet Sewer Mains Videotaped 0 0 Manholes Inspected 266 194 Manholes Cleaned 240 172 15

SOP / CIP Updates Reduce number of brown water complaints through the implementation of the Water Quality Improvements Program – Project #WS0502. Staff completed water distribution system flushing operation on November 17, 2006. 45 complaints were logged for November 2006 with 39 of them associated with flushing operations. Reduce cost to the City arising from inflow/infiltration – Project #WS0501. Smoke testing locations have been determined, and implementation of the work is being coordinated with the contractor. Smoke testing will begin December 11, 2006 and is anticipated to run through December 22, 2006. Increase the metering accuracy of the water/sewer utility through the expansion of the Meter Reading Technology Upgrade Project – Project #WS0702. The budget for this program increased for FY 2007 to $175,000. Work on this project began more aggressively in August 2006 following the July flushing operation. Currently, 27 percent of the budget has been spent. Increase the mapping accuracy of the water/sewer utility through the expansion of GIS. The request for a GIS Technician for FY 2007 necessary to meet this goal was denied. It is anticipated that very little progress on this goal will be made in FY 2007. CIP Project (Water) Percent Completed 2006 - Southeast Water Loop (Design Phase) – Project #WD0701 85% 2006 - Scarborough Road Interconnection (Tidewater) – Project #WD0601 95% Water Quality Improvements – Project #WS0502 15% Meter Reading Technology Upgrade – Project #WS0603 27% Miscellaneous Distribution System Improvements – Project #WS0602 50% Elevated Storage Tank Painting and Maintenance – Project #WS0604 5% Cheswold Well (#8) Replacement) 5% CIP Project (Wastewater) Percent Completed 2006 – Puncheon Run Motor Control & Pump Replacement (Construction) – Project #WW0505 95% 2006 – U.S. 13 East Sanitary Sewer Interceptor – Project #WW0101 3% Inflow/Infiltration Removal – Project #WS0501)\ 55% Meter Reading Technology Upgrade – Project #WS0603 27% Miscellaneous Sewer System Improvements 10% Construction Utility crew: 1. Blue Beach Drive– Repaired 8” Transite sewer main. 2. Water Division – One employee worked system distribution flushing. One employee worked water/wastewater during the day. 3. Dover Downs – Installed electric, cable TV and phone conduits, set pedestals & new steel poles. 4. Construction Shop – Cleaned shop and equipment. Cleaned up yard area. 16

MONTHLY REPORT Department of Planning & Inspections P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Phone: (302) 736-7010 Fax (302) 736-4217 Department of Planning and Inspections NOVEMBER 2006 PERSONNEL: During the month of November all department employees were scheduled to participate in NIMS (National Incident Management System) training at the Police Department training room. On November 6, 2006 Ann Marie Townshend, Dawn Melson, Janelle Cornwell, Michael Albert and Diane Metsch attended a teleconference Web training class regarding Planning and Engineering Overview for the HTE system in the I/T training room. The training included an overview of the Planning and Zoning HTE Module, its use, and how other cities are implementing the system. November 13th to 15th, Janelle Cornwell attended the Brownfields 2006 Conference presented by the USEPA in Boston, Massachusetts. On November 15, 2006 the Planning Department participated in National GIS Day by hosting a day of activities which included a GIS golf game in which various GIS maps were posted throughout City Hall and participants were to guess the location depicted on each map. Some locations were within the City of Dover, some were of the East Coast and others were outside of the United States. Prizes were awarded to those who participated and guessed the correct answers. The Planning & Inspections Staff also provided informational displays and hands- on demonstrations on the use of GIS in typical work activities. On November 29th & 30th JC Huff, Tim Taraila, Randy Speicher, Mike McGregor, Greg Akers and Chris Scott met with an HTE trainer in the I/T training room regarding Code Enforcement. Inspectors learned how to better function and move around in the system and also made changes to the system to better utilize this module. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS Following the City Council approval in September of the four Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Staff is currently working to complete the necessary document revisions for the State certification process. The next application deadline for consideration of Comprehensive Plan Amendments is December 8, 2006. EDEN HILL TND The Eden Hill Farm Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) consists of five (5) large tracts: a preservation area (historic house area), an office district area, a commercial district area, a residential area, and an open space area. The Planning Commission approved the application for the Residential District Implementation Plan on June 19, 2006 and approved the Professional Office, Medical & Financial District Implementation Plan on August 22, 2006. The Administrative Site Plan for the Professional Office, Medical & Financial district has been filed for review by Planning Office, other City Departments and state agencies to finalize its site plans and construction documents. The Administrative Site Plan for the Residential District is anticipated to be filed in early 2007. The Implementation Plan for the Commercial District has not yet been submitted for review by the Planning Commission. DEMOLITIONS

Currently, there are four properties on the dangerous building list as follows: 139-143 S. Governors Avenue, 299 College Road, 309-311 W. Loockerman Street, and the in-ground pool located at 123 Blue Beach Drive. The asbestos abatement of 139-143 S. Governors Avenue has been completed with demolition scheduled for late November. The asbestos abatement for 299 College Road has been completed and demolition of that property will go out for bid. 309-311 W. Loockerman Street appeared before the Historic District Commission on November 16, 2006 and was granted approval for demolition of the building. With regards to the in-ground pool at 123 Blue Beach Drive, notification has been received by the property owner’s attorney stating that the property is in bankruptcy proceedings and therefore, no action can be taken regarding the property. The Assistant City Solicitor, Bill Pepper, is in the process of filing paperwork to the court system to proceed with this action which could take 60-90 days to complete. A public hearing was held before City Council on September 25, 2006 and the structure was ordered to either be repaired or demolished by October 5, 2006. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Micro Enterprise Program During the month of November, intakes were conducted for three (3) new clients to set up a business in the Downtown area of which two (2) reported low to moderate income status and two (2) were minorities. In addition, three (3) referrals were made to the Small Business Development Center for technical assistance. Homeownership Assistance Program Two (2) families are mortgage ready and shopping for homes. Dover Community Partnership Dover Community Partnership will begin rehabbing 219 Cecil Street during the first of the year. Community Development Staff was selected to sit on the review board to select a consultant to conduct a Statewide Housing Needs Assessment for the State of Delaware by Delaware State Housing Authority. MEETING REPORTS Board of Adjustment: The Board of Adjustment met on November 15, 2006 and took the following actions: The next scheduled meeting for the Board of Adjustment will be held on December 20, 2006. 1. Applicant #V-06-21 - 153 College Road, Lands of Terry & Laura Swiney: Moved to approve. Dover Parking Authority: At its meeting of November 2, 2006 reports were given on the budget, permit sales, Police Department activities, Main Street, DDDC Report and Water Street Collections. Historic District Commission: The Historic District Commission met on November 16, 2006 and the following actions were taken: The next scheduled meeting of the Historic District Commission is December 21, 2006. 1. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Activities – Update on CDBG program activities for the property located at 219 Cecil Street: moved that the information provided is satisfactory for the needs of the Historic District Commission. 2. Dangerous Building located at 139/143 South Governors Avenue: moved that the Historic District Commission has recognized that City Council has approved demolition of 139/143 South Governors Avenue and that this information has been presented to the Historic District Commission for informational purposes.

3. HI-06-07 Demolition of Buildings at 133-135 South Governors Avenue: Moved to approve with conditions. 4. HI-06-08 Dangerous Building located at 309-311 W. Loockerman Street: Moved to approve. Planning Commission At its meetings of November 20, 2006, the Planning Commission took the following actions: 1. C-05-07 Whatcoat DayCare Building: Granted a one year extension. 2. SB-05-05P Stover Homes Professional Campus: Preliminary Subdivision Plan: Granted a one year extension. 3. S-05-32 Stover Homes Corporate Office: Granted a one year extension. 4. S-05-37 Office Building at 1169 & 1145 South State Street: Granted a one year extension. 5. C-06-05 Favored Day Care Center at 500 West Loockerman Street: Moved to table for 30 days. 6. S-06-34 Heathers Holistic Health at 1169 and 1175 Walker Road: Moved to approve with conditions. 7. AX-06-08 Lands of William M. & Delois M. Shirey: 1166 South Bay Road: Moved to forward approval to City Council. 8. AX-06-09 Properties Adjacent to Carey Farm: South side of Forrest Avenue: Moved to forward approval to City Council with the withdrawal of two properties from the original request. 9. S-06-36 Wawa Food Market located at Bay Court Plaza: Moved to approve with conditions. 10. S-06-37 Mainstay Suites Hotel located at Stover Professional Campus Lot 2: Moved to approve with conditions. 11. S-06-38 Delaware State University Wellness Center located at 1200 N. DuPont Highway: Phase 1: Strength & Conditioning Addition: Moved to approve with conditions. INSPECTIONS ACTIVITY Permits and Licenses Rental Dwelling, Public Occupancy & Lodging House Permits: Year to Date _____2,040____ Number of New Occupancies – November 2006 ______ 10____ Permit Fees Collected for Rental, Public Occupancy & Lodging Permits, November 2006 __$__ 585.00__ Number of Business Licenses & Mobile Homes Issued – November 2006 ___ 55______ Total Number of Business Licenses & Mobile Homes for Year 7/1/06 to 6/30/07 ____ 2,027_____ Total Fee Collected for Business Licenses & Mobile Homes for November 2006 __$ 5,246.48___ Total for all Construction Permits* and Certificate of Occupancies Issued for Nov 2006 _____265______ Value of Construction & Fire Prevention projects permitted in November 2006 _$ 3,405,285 __ Fees Collected for Construction Permits and CO’s for November 2006 _$ 44,231___ *Construction permits include Building, Fire Prevention, Plumbing, and HVAC Permits

Property Inspections: November 2006: Fire Marshal, Inspections - Property Maintenance Office of the Fire Marshal Building and Property Fire and Safety Inspections 84 Maintenance Inspections Fire Code Inspections 35 Building 179 Sprinkler and Fire Alarm 4 Plumbing/Mechanical 318 Certificate of Occupancy 80 Certificate of Occupancy 32 Alarm Activation Follow-ups 3 Total New Construction 529 Fire Investigations 0 Complaints 79 Total Inspections 206 Observed by Inspectors 153 Non-Inspection Hours Fire/Life Safety 205 Office 91 Total Inspections 966 Training 26 Non-Inspection Hours Office 266 Plan Review 15 Training 66 Plan Review 79 The Fire Marshal’s Office received training on the adoption of NFPA-1 (National Fire Protection Association 1) and is now a part of the State of Delaware Fire Prevention Regulations. During the month of November, Planning & Inspections staff logged in 450 walk-in traffic citizens. (Please note there were 3 scheduled holidays during the month of November) As always, please contact me regarding any questions you may have. Ann Marie Townshend Director of Planning and Inspections Department

CIP MONTHLY REPORT November 2006 Highlights General Fund • Reconstruction of Police Station has been given a “Delayed” status as a result of budget cuts done that were related to the electric rate increases. • Citywide Fiber Optic Phone System - Complete except for the Fire Department which is being coordinated with the Fire Department Communication Systems Project. • Facility Space Plan Implementation - The renovation of I/T space on the third floor of Weyandt Hall is complete; feel free to visit their new location. • Park-Playground Improvement – Project is now complete. Kids are really enjoying the new equipment at Dover Park and Mary Street, too. • Overall Project Status – 1 complete, 9 projects started, 1 not started, 1 delayed. Electric Fund • Overall Project Status - 15 projects started, 1 completed, 2 delayed. Water/Wastewater Fund • Overall Project Status - 10 projects started, 2 projects complete, 1 delayed. • Smoke testing for the Inflow/Infiltration Project – Majority of testing is complete; will be finished in January.

City of Dover General Fund - Major CIP Projects November 2006 PROJECT HISTORY CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Revised Project Project Current Revised Fiscal Project Project To Date Budget % Budget Fiscal Yr. Fiscal Yr. YTD Budget % Budget Type Descripton Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Status Comments FY 2004 Council approved, contract signed, pre- M Pitts Recreation Center $ 20,000 $ 1,114,892 $ 201,930 $ 912,962 18.1% $ 964,800 $ 964,800 $ 57,428 $ 907,372 6.0% Started construction meeting scheduled HVAC Controls Upgrade- Police 69,324 69,324 - 69,324 0.0% 69,324 69,324 - 69,324 0.0% Started Council approved in December Totals $ 89,324 $ 1,184,216 $ 201,930 $ 982,286 17.1% $ 1,034,124 $ 1,034,124 $ 57,428 $ 976,696 5.6% FY 2005 Fencing completed;, bidding basket ball court Dover Park Enhancements $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 13,330 $ 46,670 22.2% $ - $ 60,000 $ 13,330 $ 46,670 22.2% Started paving Waiting purchase of equipment so consultant IT Emergency Prep Plan 50,000 50,000 13,350 36,650 26.7% - 36,650 - 36,650 0.0% Started can do final operating document Totals $ 110,000 $ 110,000 $ 26,680 $ 83,320 24.3% $ - $ 96,650 $ 13,330 $ 83,320 13.8% FY 2006 Council approval in January, changed scope I/T Emergency Plan (Grant Funded) $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ - $ 100,000 0.0% $ - $ 100,000 $ - $ 100,000 0.0% Started due to DEMA requirement City-Wide Fiber Optic Telephone System 130,000 470,000 460,365 9,635 98.0% 470,000 470,000 460,365 9,635 98.0% Started Complete accept for Fire Department portion Totals $ 230,000 $ 570,000 $ 460,365 $ 109,635 80.8% $ 470,000 $ 570,000 $ 460,365 $ 109,635 80.8% FY 2007 Park Playground Improvements $ 57,000 $ 57,000 $ 10,307 $ 46,693 18.1% $ 57,000 $ 57,000 $ 10,307 $ 46,693 18.1% Completed Mary Street & Dover Park completed Front Steps Police Station 30,000 30,000 - 30,000 0.0% 30,000 30,000 - 30,000 0.0% Delayed Cut from budget M GIS System City-Wide 52,000 102,000 61,124 40,876 59.9% 50,000 50,000 7,682 42,318 15.4% Started Equipment ordered Fire Dept Communications System 400,000 400,000 - 400,000 0.0% 400,000 400,000 - 400,000 0.0% Started Contract signed Shutte Park- Donated Land Improvements 100,000 100,000 - 100,000 0.0% 100,000 100,000 - 100,000 0.0% Not Started Space Needs Study Implementation 40,900 40,900 9,663 31,237 23.6% 40,900 40,900 9,663 31,237 23.6% Started I/T space completed Totals $ 679,900 $ 729,900 $ 81,094 $ 648,806 11.1% $ 677,900 $ 677,900 $ 27,652 $ 650,248 4.1% Grand Totals $ 1,109,224 $ 2,594,116 $ 770,069 $ 1,824,047 29.7% $ 2,182,024 $ 2,378,674 $ 558,775 $ 1,819,899 23.5% 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 rebudgeted to start over each fiscal year.

City of Dover Electric Improvement & Extension Fund - Major CIP Projects November 2006 PROJECT HISTORY CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Revised Project Project Current Revised Fiscal Project Project To Date Budget % Budget Fiscal Yr. Fiscal Yr. YTD % Budget Type Description Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Expenses Spent Status Comments FY 2003 M Mayfair 69kv/12kv SS Upgrade $ 555,000 $ 532,988 $ 365,523 $ 167,465 68.6% $ 167,465 $ 167,465 $ - 0.0% Started Evaluating Bid Totals $ 555,000 $ 532,988 $ 365,523 $ 167,465 68.6% $ 167,465 $ 167,465 $ - 0.0% FY 2005 All material purchased, ongoing M Radio Read Meter replacement Prog. $ 1,830,000 $ 1,835,000 $ 1,268,806 $ 566,194 69.1% $ 545,000 $ 545,000 $ 530,025 97.3% Started installation 75% complete, scheduled for spring Mayfair to Mid-City 69 kv 650,000 723,200 387,660 335,540 53.6% 375,496 375,496 16,763 4.5% Started construction Totals $ 2,480,000 $ 2,558,200 $ 1,656,466 $ 901,734 64.8% $ 920,496 $ 920,496 $ 546,788 59.4% FY 2006 Design completed, negotiating M 69 KV feeders 3 and 4 $ 11,060,000 $ 14,607,500 $ 13,827 $ 14,593,673 0.1% $ 236,173 $ 236,173 $ - 0.0% Started easements Design completed, delayed waiting for M Kesselring Feeder 284,379 349,719 109,834 239,885 31.4% 213,840 213,840 - 0.0% Started Stover Homes to progress. Delayed due to DelDOT schedule, Governor's Avenue Rebuild 1,268,450 1,826,568 - 1,826,568 0.0% 1,826,568 1,826,568 - 0.0% Delayed Construct in spring 2008 In re-design, determining locations for College Road Capacitor 155,000 119,995 5 119,990 0.0% 119,995 119,995 - 0.0% Delayed multiple capacitors. M Replacement of 69 KV line breakers 1,200,000 1,050,000 131,200 918,800 12.5% 150,000 150,000 - 0.0% Started FY07 breakers ordered Totals $ 13,967,829 $ 17,953,782 $ 254,866 $ 17,698,916 1.4% $ 2,546,576 $ 2,546,576 $ - 0.0% FY 2007 Lebanon Transformer $ 620,000 $ 535,000 $ - $ 535,000 0.0% $ 535,000 $ 535,000 $ - 0.0% Started Seeking Council approval in January Dover Downs 69 KV Relocation 700,628 700,628 220,004 480,624 31.4% 700,628 700,628 220,004 31.4% Started January completion Getting quotes for lighting or Wesley R Lighting Project & Rehab 550,000 500,000 522 499,479 0.1% 50,000 50,000 522 1.0% Started College area Design done, scheduled to start M Denny's Road Upgrade 391,278 581,720 (2,745) 584,465 -0.5% 150,000 150,000 (2,745) -1.8% Started construction in January R UG Transformers - New Construction 178,500 178,500 79,986 98,514 44.8% 178,500 178,500 79,986 44.8% Started On going R UG Conductors Devices - New Constr. 695,000 695,000 636,452 58,548 91.6% 695,000 695,000 636,452 91.6% Started Ongoing System Ops Automation 38,000 38,000 - 38,000 0.0% 38,000 38,000 - 0.0% Complete Project complete Blue Light Security System Call box 25,000 25,000 8,387 16,613 33.5% 25,000 25,000 8,387 33.5% Started Possible locations being studied Fiber Optics Replacement 75,000 75,000 6,750 68,250 9.0% 50,000 50,000 6,750 13.5% Started Under construction R Distribution Upgrades 300,000 200,000 64,642 135,358 32.3% 200,000 200,000 64,642 32.3% Started Ongoing Totals $ 3,573,406 $ 3,528,848 $ 1,013,998 $ 2,514,850 28.7% $ 2,622,128 $ 2,622,128 $ 1,013,998 38.7% Grand Totals $ 20,576,235 $ 24,573,818 $ 3,290,853 $ 21,282,965 13.4% $ 6,256,665 $ 6,256,665 $ 1,560,786 24.9% 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 rebudgeted to start over each fiscal year.

City of Dover Water/Wastewater Improvement & Extension Fund - Major CIP Projects November 2006 PROJECT HISTORY CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Revised Project Project Current Revised Fiscal Project Project To Date Budget % Budget Fiscal Yr. Fiscal Yr. YTD % Budget Type Descripton Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Expenses Spent Status Comments FY 2001 M US Rt. 13 East Sanitary Sewer Interceptor $ 1,025,000 $ 878,914 $ 34,961 $ 843,953 4.0% $ 850,000 $ 850,000 $ - 0.0% Started Construction started Totals $ 1,025,000 $ 878,914 $ 34,961 $ 843,953 4.0% $ 850,000 $ 850,000 $ - 0.0% FY 2003 M Puncheon Run Pump Station Upgrade $ 215,000 $ 1,202,286 $ 1,065,469 $ 136,817 88.6% $ 147,790 $ 495,156 $ 358,339 72.4% Started Functionally complete and in service M Garrison Oak Interim Pumping Station 1,280,000 1,670,000 189,976 11.4% - - - 0.0% Started Design Complete, waiting for user Totals $ 1,495,000 $ 2,872,286 $ 1,255,445 $ 6,519,838 43.7% $ 147,790 $ 495,156 $ 358,339 72.4% FY 2005 Design work started, survey started, material M Water Quality Improvement $ 450,000 $ 1,226,000 $ 35,420 $ 1,190,580 2.9% $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 35,420 17.7% Started being ordered. M Whiteoak Farms Pump Station Force Main 325,000 185,000 128,886 56,114 69.7% - 102,942 66,621 64.7% Complete Design complete, project cost beyond budget, M Puncheon Run Interceptor Sewer Ext 1,500,000 4,350,000 128,281 4,221,719 2.9% - 21,999 280 1.3% Delayed being considered for deletion. Videoing of pipes complete, smoke testing M Inflow/Infiltration Removal 375,000 650,000 85,357 564,643 13.1% 100,000 165,014 371 0.2% Started started will finish in January Totals $ 2,650,000 $ 6,411,000 $ 377,943 $ 6,033,057 5.9% $ 300,000 $ 489,955 $ 102,692 21.0% FY 2006 Design done, estimated over budget being M Southeast Water Loop $ 300,000 $ 930,000 $ 60,885 $ 869,115 6.5% $ - $ 23,095 $ 11,980 51.9% Started considered for deletion. Scarborough Road Interconnection 120,000 120,000 51,159 68,841 42.6% - 50,000 51,159 102.3% Complete Done Totals $ 420,000 $ 1,050,000 $ 112,044 $ 937,956 10.7% $ - $ 73,095 $ 63,139 86.4% FY 2007 R Meter Reading Technology Upgrade $ 565,000 $ 725,000 $ 244,363 $ 480,637 33.7% $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 48,137 27.5% Started Ongoing installatiion Cheswold Well (#8) Replacement 175,000 175,000 2,703 172,297 1.5% 175,000 175,000 2,703 1.5% Started Survey complete, design ongoing R Misc. Distribution System Improvements 125,000 528,948 25,392 503,556 4.8% 50,000 50,000 25,392 50.8% Started Ongoing installatiion R Misc. Sewer System Improvements 140,000 230,000 75,322 154,678 32.7% 20,000 20,000 10,321 51.6% Started Ongoing installatiion Totals $ 1,005,000 $ 1,658,948 $ 347,780 $ 1,311,168 21.0% $ 420,000 $ 420,000 $ 86,554 20.6% Grand Totals $ 6,595,000 $ 12,871,148 $ 2,128,174 $ 15,645,972 16.5% $ 1,717,790 $ 2,328,206 $ 610,723 26.2% 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 rebudgeted to start over each fiscal year.

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council AGENDA ITEM NO.: 01/08/07 – 10 A DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Finance DATE SUBMITTED: 01/08/07 PREPARED BY: Donna Mitchell, Treasurer/Finance Director SUBJECT: 1st Reading Budget Ordinance REFERENCE: Electric Rate Presentation 12/11/06 RELATED PROJECT: N/A APPROVALS: City Council EXHIBITS: Budget Ordinance EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: As attached AMOUNT BUDGETED: As attached & below FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): TIMETABLE: Approved during Special Joint Legislative, Finance, & Administration and Utility Committee Meeting on December 11, 2006 and later by City Council on December 11, 2006. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adoption of the Budget Ordinance BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS Per the presentation and discussions held on December 11, 2006 the attached budget ordinance is being submitted for adoption. The Fund Summary is as follows: Fund Summary Current Net Additions Revised Fund Budgets (Reductions) Budgets General Fund $37,464,249 $185,111 $37,649,360 Water/Wastewater Fund 13,222,920 - 13,222,920 Electric Revenue Fund 94,640,198 4,405,554 99,045,752 Genernal Fund Contingency Reserve 865,125 (8,007) 857,118 Library Reserve 683,500 941,533 1,625,033 Total All Funds $146,875,992 $5,524,191 $152,400,183 Please note the addition of the interest revenue for the Electric Fund Reserve Accounts is not included as these revenues were already budgeted for in the reserve accounts. The inclusion in the presentation was to give credit to the Electric Fund for those revenues under accrual based accounting and not budget based accounting. To include them would create double counting of revenue. The addition of the $440,000 from the Bond Reserve was already budgeted as a reduction to our debt service payments. Therefore, it is not included in this revision for the same reasons as stated above for the interest on the reserves.

2 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: The amounts hereinafter named in various City funds are changed from the currently approved revenues/receipts and appropriations to the revised revenues/receipts and revised appropriations for use by the various departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2006 and ending June 30, 2007: A. GENERAL FUND Current Additions Revised RECEIPTS Budgets (Reductions) Budgets Beginning Balance $ 4,232,792 $ 941,533 $ 5,174,325 Transfer from Capital Asset Reserve - 330,129 330,129 Transfer from Electric Fund 5,700,000 (1,000,000) 4,700,000 Intrafund Service Receipts Water/Wastewater 1,176,357 (22,653) 1,153,704 Intrafund Service Receipts Electric 3,869,378 (63,898) 3,805,480 Net Adjustments $ 185,111 Current Additions Revised EXPENDITURES Budgets (Reductions) Budgets City Clerk $ 308,362 $ (2,032) $ 306,330 Fire 1,299,787 (150,000) 1,149,787 Grounds 1,168,150 (40,788) 1,127,362 Library 1,087,627 (7,000) 1,080,627 Recreation 1,728,179 (10,933) 1,717,246 Planning 338,564 (1,425) 337,139 Inspections 1,191,003 (5,936) 1,185,067 Police 12,064,643 (42,988) 12,021,655 Sanitation 2,453,231 (177,000) 2,276,231 Finance 715,733 (38,900) 676,833 Public Works - Admin. 317,485 (9,000) 308,485 Central Services 759,832 (7,740) 752,092 Facilities Management 1,402,610 (1,300) 1,401,310 Customer Service 1,036,712 (30,000) 1,006,712 Human Resources 399,475 (15,000) 384,475 Mayor 114,661 (15,000) 99,661 Street Lights 746,200 (84,000) 662,200 Contingency Reserve 8,007 (8,007) - Transfer to Library Reserve 583,500 941,533 1,525,033 Budget Balance 2,708,438 (109,373) 2,599,065 Net Adjustments $ 185,111 B. WATER/WASTEWATER FUND Current Additions Revised EXPENSES Budgets (Reductions) Budgets Intrafund Service Fees $ 1,176,357 $ (22,653) $ 1,153,704 Budget Balance - Water 1,976,441 11,326 1,987,767 Budget Balance- Wastewater 1,254,937 11,327 1,266,264 Budget Balance- Kent County Fees (1,734,103) - (1,734,103) Net Adjustments $ -

3 C. ELECTRIC FUND Current Additions Revised REVENUES Budgets (Reductions) Budgets Direct Sales to Customers $ 81,578,240 $ 2,358,200 $ 83,936,440 Duke Contract Revenue - 800,000 800,000 Utility Tax 1,937,446 (510,646) 1,426,800 Tranfer from Rate Stabilization Reserve 5,000,000 758,000 5,758,000 Miscellaneous Revenue (Emission Credits) 584,900 1,000,000 1,584,900 Net Adjustments $ 4,405,554 Current Additions Revised EXPENSES Budgets (Reductions) Budgets Power Supply $ 61,202,616 $ 5,698,984 $ 66,901,600 Electric Power Plant & Capacity 6,126,384 (2,163,384) 3,963,000 Electric T & D 3,282,637 (55,252) 3,227,385 Electric Engineering 2,001,295 (21,953) 1,979,342 Electric Admin. 562,322 (9,442) 552,880 Utility Tax 1,937,446 (510,646) 1,426,800 Transfer to Uncollectibles 125,000 (125,000) - Intrafund Service Fees 3,869,378 (63,898) 3,805,480 Transfer to General Fund 5,700,000 (1,000,000) 4,700,000 Transfer to Rate Stabilization Reserve 500,000 (500,000) - Budget Balance 6,018,598 3,156,145 9,174,743 Net Adjustments $ 4,405,554 D. GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY RESERVE Current Additions Revised REVENUES Budgets (Reductions) Budgets Transfer from General Fund $ 8,007 $ (8,007) $ - Net Adjustments $ (8,007) Current Additions Revised EXPENSES Budgets (Reductions) Budgets Current Year Balance - Unaudited $ 665,125 $ (8,007) $ 657,118 Net Adjustments $ (8,007) E. GENERAL FUND LIBRARY RESERVE Current Additions Revised REVENUES Budgets (Reductions) Budgets General Fund Appropriation $ 583,500 $ 941,533 $ 1,525,033 Net Adjustments $ 941,533 Current Additions Revised EXPENSES Budgets (Reductions) Budgets Current Year Balance - Unaudited $ 683,500 $ 941,533 $ 1,625,033 Net Adjustments $ 941,533