Council Minutes and Exhibit 1

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING The Regular Council Meeting was held on September 10, 2018 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Slavin presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson (arrived at 7:41 p.m.), Mr. Sudler, Mr. Neil, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Cole, Mr. Polce, Mr. Hare, and Mr. Lindell. Staff members present were Deputy Police Chief Stump, Ms. Peddicord, Mrs. Mitchell, Mr. Hugg, Third Assistant Fire Chief O’Connor, City Solicitor Rodriguez, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Christiansen was also present (departed at 7:31 p.m.). OPEN FORUM The Open Forum was held at 7:00 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Slavin declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council was not in official session and could not take formal action. Ms. Sue Harris, 241 Pine Street, requested information regarding weather contingency plans for the homeless. She explained that she feeds between 30 to 40 homeless individuals every Tuesday and Saturday and, noting that a hurricane may impact the area at the end of the week, was hoping to share information with them regarding where they will be able to go for safety. Ms. Harris stated that she understood that shelters would be opened during a state of emergency for individuals who are evacuated from their homes, however, she asked where the homeless are supposed to go when people are told to stay inside and off the streets. She suggested that an emergency fund would be a good use for Council members’ discretionary funds, explaining that the funds could be used to put an established plan into action when needed. Ms. Harris stated that she thought that the City needed to take the lead regarding this matter. The invocation was given by Bishop Thomas L. Holsey, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Neil moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried. Mr. Sudler requested that item #3-A-2 - Council Committee of the Whole Report - August 28, 2018, Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee, Presentation - Dover Park Master Plan (Whitman, Requardt and Associates LLP), be removed from the consent agenda. Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the consent agenda, as amended, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Anderson absent). ADOPTION OF MINUTES - SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2018 The Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of August 20, 2018 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Sudler, seconded by Mr. Neil and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 The Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of August 27, 2018 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Sudler, seconded by Mr. Neil and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 2 ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of August 27, 2018 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Sudler, seconded by Mr. Neil and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. STAFF SUBSTITUTE #1 (SS#1) TO PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2018-01 AMENDING CHAPTER 66 - MANUFACTURED HOMES, MOBILE HOMES, AND LAND LEASE COMMUNITIES; APPENDIX B - ZONING, ARTICLE 3 - DISTRICT REGULATIONS, SECTION 8 - MANUFACTURED HOUSING (MH) ZONE; APPENDIX B - ZONING, ARTICLE 12 - DEFINITIONS; AND APPENDIX F - FEES AND FINES During the Regular Council Meeting of April 9, 2018, this item was tabled. Staff recommended removing this item from the table and scheduling a public hearing before City Council for Monday, September 24, 2018 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Sudler moved to lift the item from the table, seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried. Mr. David Hugg III, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed a Planning Office memorandum dated August 31, 2018 regarding the status of revisions to Proposed Ordinance #2018-01 and recommendations from the Planning Commission. Mr. Hugg noted that the Planning Commission recommended Staff Substitute #1 (SS#1) and also requested a series of additional changes which staff were preparing. Mr. Neil noted that he thought that this was an extremely difficult ordinance and commended staff for working out all the details. Mr. Neil moved to schedule a public hearing before City Council for Monday, September 24, 2018 at 7:30 p.m., as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT - AUGUST 28, 2018 The Council Committee of the Whole met on August 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m., with Council President Slavin presiding (departed at 6:33 p.m. and returned at 6:34 p.m.). Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson (arrived at 6:22 p.m., departed at 8:15 p.m., and returned at 8:15 p.m.), Mr. Sudler (arrived at 6:05 p.m.), Mr. Neil, Mr. Lewis (arrived at 6:02 p.m.), Mr. Cole (departed at 6:42 p.m., returned at 6:43 p.m., and departed at 8:15 p.m.), Mr. Polce (departed at 6:33 p.m., returned at 6:35 p.m., departed at 7:23 p.m., and returned at 7:24 p.m.), and Mr. Lindell (departed at 6:33 p.m., returned at 6:35 p.m., departed at 7:45 p.m., and returned at 7:46 p.m.). Mr. Hare was absent. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Mr. Caldwell (Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement), Mrs. Doyle and Ms. Scarborough (Utility), and Mr. Garfinkel and Mr. Shelton (Safety Advisory and Transportation). Dr. Warfield (Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement) was absent.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 3 PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee met with Council President Slavin presiding in the absence of Chairman Sudler, who assumed the Chair upon his arrival at 6:05 p.m. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Semi-Annual Report Mrs. Tracey Harvey, Planner/CDBG Administrator, reviewed the CDBG Semi- Annual Report, February - July 2018. The Committee recommended acceptance of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Semi-Annual Report. By consent agenda, Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Anderson absent). Presentation - Dover Park Master Plan (Whitman, Requardt and Associates LLP) Mr. Mike Campbell, Landscape Architect, Whitman, Requardt and Associates LLP (WRA), reviewed the Draft Dover Park Master Plan, dated August 2018. He noted that, earlier in the year, WRA was selected through a competitive bid process to develop the plan for the City. Mr. Campbell reminded members that the development of the plan was paid for through a grant from the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) and matching funding from the City. Mr. Polce noted the importance of statistical sample size and the validity of statistical sizes and asked if Mr. Campbell could explain what the low participation on the survey could be attributed to. Responding, Mr. Campbell stated that he was not sure, explaining that WRA worked closely with the City. He advised that they did media blasts, used social media, and had website announcements. Mr. Campbell stated that the wikimap was made available and they tried to get as much public participation as possible. He noted that the participation that they received was very valuable, and the working group consisted of local residents and it was a very valuable process. Mr. Campbell stated that he thought that the key to getting people to attend these types of events is to provide food. Mr. Polce asked Mr. Campbell his experience outside the City of Dover and what other municipalities are doing really well to incorporate things like pop-up parks or proactive kinds of wellness lifestyle regiments to increase attendance in parks. He noted that the City has a good framework and asked how this could be enhanced with things like splash pads and new fixtures, etc. Mr. Polce asked whether, based on his experience, Mr. Campbell thought the City should focus on its core mission first, before extending into implementing some of the master plan. Responding, Mr. Campbell stated that during this project they struggled with the idea of what

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 4 comes first and whether the City should spend the money and make the improvements in the park just by adding splash pads and see what happens or base it on programming and really take a look at the overall network of the park system for the City of Dover. He explained that this was not part of the scope of their work; however, they tried to stress the programming aspect throughout the process and how it fits in with other amenities and whether activities are being held at other parks. Mr. Campbell stated that linking health initiatives with programming has been very successful in other municipalities, and while his focus is more on the design elements, he could provide additional information for members. Mr. Neil asked whether the recommendation was to repair the breaches in the fences and have visitors use the front and back entrances or whether they should make the breached locations into entrances. In response, Mr. Campbell advised that they heard that the fence served two (2) purposes: to keep people in the park and to keep people out of the park. He indicated that, in their opinion, this was not what you want with a park, explaining that you want as many users in the park as possible. Mr. Campbell stated that, through public involvement, they identified that making those locations formal entrances would invite users into the park and reduce the criminal element from thinking that they are sneaking into a park because there is a hole in the fence. He stated that formalizing those entrances, with communication with the adjacent residents, is proposed as part of the funding in this plan. Mr. Neil expressed appreciation that they had a number of alternate types of things, and a good evaluation of the current park. He asked why they chose to place the community garden over center field of the softball field. Responding, Mr. Campbell stated that Mr. Neil made a good point. He explained that for the concept development, they were looking at an overall Master Plan and basically looking at spaces and the exact location for the community garden would need to be determined during final design. Mr. Campbell noted that currently that is a space that is not utilized at all and they would like to activate and program that space, and a community garden was one opportunity to do so. Mr. Neil stated that one thing Mr. Campbell struck upon immediately were perceptions. He stated that the City deals with a lot of perceptions that are factually wrong, like the perception that the City doesn’t have any parking. Mr. Neil explained that the City does have parking; however, he indicated that having a parking garage may help the perception that the City doesn’t have parking. He noted that he thought that this was also true for policing and crime. Mr. Neil stated that he knew that there were certain areas where criminals can sneak in the park after dark and like to be active, and while the fact is that it is not a major problem, the City has the perception that it has to overcome. He stated that he strongly supports the idea of having cameras and letting people know that the City is watching and going to do the best it can to keep people that are using that park safe. Mr. Lewis asked how much community outreach was done with regard to getting feedback on the proposed Master Plan. Responding, Mr. Campbell stated that the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 5 bulk of the five (5) months was spent reaching out to the community as much as possible. He advised that they held four (4) public events, one (1) that was held at the Library, where they had the most success and the most people that provided comments, and three (3) at Maranatha Church, which is adjacent to the park and a decent number of people showed up. Mr. Campbell stated that they also had the online wikimap. Mr. Lewis asked if it was a majority of people. In response, Mr. Campbell stated that the quantity of people that showed up was included in the Master Plan. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Campbell stated that he was not aware of the Mt. Zion Social Action Commission survey. Mr. Sudler urged Mr. Campbell to review the survey, noting that City Council had approved for it to be incorporated into the comprehensive plan as input from the community. He stated that it contained valuable information, explaining that more 300 participants provided input on the survey when he and others knocked door to door in Manchester Square, Towne Point, and other areas. In response to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Campbell stated that they did not do any field surveys for this particular process; however, they had done those types of surveys on other projects. He advised members that there was a fairly limited scope for the Master Plan for this park and they worked closely with the City to develop their best effort. Mr. Campbell stated that they did do a direct mailing. Mrs. Margery Cyr, Library Director, stated that a direct mailing was sent to individual homeowners. She advised that the 2014 Mt. Zion Social Action Commission survey for Dover Park, previously conducted by Mr. Sudler, was provided as part of this process. Mr. Sudler stated that he did not want the community to be overlooked and asked that they go back and review the Mt. Zion Social Action Commission survey because he did not see any of the concerns or input from the surrounding community provided from that survey represented in the Master Plan. Mr. Anderson asked how the City would deal with the security aspect of the park if they were to open more routes into the park. In response, Mr. Campbell stated that the proposed budget included the installation of three (3) cameras in the park, which would be linked to the Police Department’s monitoring system. He advised that they would not have a camera at each entrance; however, their thought was to formalize the entrances that are currently being utilized and coordinate with the surrounding residents in those particular neighborhoods who are asking for the entrances to be formalized. Mr. Campbell explained that, from a security standpoint, activating the park will be the primary aspect that reduces the amount of criminal activity that occurs there. He stated that since the park is not currently being used during the day, that is when criminal activities are happening.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 6 Mr. Anderson asked how the park would be activated. Responding, Mr. Campbell explained that he thought that programming was needed to activate the park. He stated that the City was currently hosting traveling park events, which included Dover Park. Mr. Campbell advised that programming as well as cleaning up the park so people feel safe and will use it are the primary goals of the Master Plan. He noted that clearing vegetation, limbing up trees, and removing dead trees provides the perception that the park is maintained and is a safe place for people to go. Mr. Anderson suggested that, when it comes to programming, the Police Athletic League (PAL) and other nonprofits could utilize some of the facilities. In response, Mr. Campbell stated that he believed this was recommended in the implementation section of the Master Plan. He advised that, as part of this process, they did not formalize those communications, however, he noted that it is an important component that they found to be successful in other communities. Mr. Lindell expressed concern regarding security as well as maintenance. He noted that something needed to be done on the east side of Dover; however, he stated that he was concerned about investing in something that would deteriorate if the City did not have the staff to maintain it. Mr. Lindell asked if the City was currently understaffed in this area. Responding, Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, advised members that the City was currently understaffed, however, the current budget included three (3) new headcounts for the recreation maintenance staff. She stated that staff was currently focused on getting a building constructed at Schutte Park in which to house the grounds maintenance staff for the parks, explaining that there is no current location to house them. Mrs. Mitchell explained that the current grounds crew is trying to do as much of the maintenance as they can, but they have the whole City and there are staffing challenges with turnover in that division. She noted that one (1) person is currently injured and out of work and another just resigned earlier in the day. Mr. Lindell stated that he was not criticizing the grounds staff, and that he thinks they do an excellent job with the resources they have. Mr. Lindell noted that he experienced a similar situation when he served on the Capital School District Board of Education and they were constructing the new high school. He cautioned members that it is easy to get the funding to build something but it is much more difficult to maintain it. Mr. Lindell stated that he loved the plan, however, he thought that the maintenance investment also needed to be considered. In response, Mrs. Mitchell advised that the maintenance cost was included in the proposed budget for the Master Plan. Mr. Sudler expressed concern that the Dover Park Master Plan presentation did not mention the programs, activities, or center indicated by the participants of the 2014 Mt. Zion A.M.E. Church Social Action Commission survey, noting that 300 participants provided input. He stated that he was not confident the proposal for a new facility will accommodate the constituents in the Third District and surrounding area. He stated that he knew the survey was incorporated into the Master Plan, but asked how the information was utilized to develop new programs and activities in a facility that will accommodate the input from the survey participants. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell explained that the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 7 survey was taken into consideration and mentioned in the Master Plan. She stated that she thought that since the survey was approximately five (5) years old, most of the Master Plan was developed utilizing the most recent data; however, she would request a formal response. Mr. Sudler noted that although the survey was five (5) years old, he thought that it still had some validity and should not be disregarded. He asked, if possible, that the City determine the credibility of the survey in regard to the constituents who completed it, who were in the direct parameters of the area, such as Manchester Square and Towne Point. (City Clerk’s Office Note: Subsequent to the Regular Council Meeting of September 10, 2018, members were provided a memorandum dated September 12, 2018, from Mrs. Margie Cyr, Library Director, regarding the Proposed Dover Park Master Plan and How It Responds to SAC 2014 East-Side Assessment (Exhibit #1).) UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee met with Chairman Cole presiding. Annexation Request - 179 Mifflin Road, Owned by Steven E. Andrew Mr. David Hugg III, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed the Petition to Annex and Rezone Property located at 179 Mifflin Road, owned by Steven E. Andrew. He noted that this property is identified as a Category 1: High Priority Annexation Area in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and annexation would continue the desire to eliminate enclaves and create complete neighborhoods and boundaries for the City. Mr. Hugg advised that this property was primarily being annexed for the continuation of City trash service. He stated that the annexation request had gone through the State’s annexation review process and had also been reviewed by the appropriate City departments. Staff recommended proceeding with annexation of the subject property. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Hugg advised that the costs of any future connections of any utilities would fall to the homeowner, and the homeowner would be billed for the trash service that they receive from the City. The Committee recommended proceeding with annexation of the subject property, as recommended by staff. By consent agenda, Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Anderson absent). Evaluation of Bids - FY 2018 Street and Alley Program Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, advised members that the Department of Public Works had been busy, noting that, since June, the following projects had been approved: the DelTech Pump Station for $350,000; the North State Street water main at $163,000; the Silver Lake Pump Station for $422,000; the Walker Woods Pump Station at $525,000, and the water treatment plant improvements at $6M. She stated that members would also be considering the relining project for the wastewater

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 8 project very soon. Mrs. Mitchell stated that she was happy that they were busy and hoped that members appreciated everything they were doing. Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Evaluation of Bids for the FY 2018 Street and Alley Program. She advised that since she had not heard of Grassbusters Landscaping, Inc. before, she asked the staff to check their references, and all of their references were good. Mrs. Mitchell noted that the State had utilized this company before and did not have any problems with them. Staff recommended awarding a unit price contract, based upon Bid #18-0039PW, for the FY 2018 Street and Alley Program to Grassbusters Landscaping, Inc. based on the Prevailing Wage unit prices for each work item submitted. The estimated value of the contract is $1,032,968.00. Work will be performed in strict accordance to the Bid Specifications. The Committee recommended approval of staff’s recommendation. By consent agenda, Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Anderson absent). Mr. Cole expressed his appreciation of Mrs. Sharon Duca, Public Works Director, and the entire Public Works Department staff for the tremendous amount of work that they had done, noting that they always respond quickly to his inquiries. SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee met with Chairman Lewis presiding. 2018 Firefly Music Festival Debriefing Lieutenant Kevin Kober, Special Enforcement Unit Commander, Dover Police Department, reviewed the Executive Summary of the “2018 Dover Police Department Firefly Music Festival After Action Report.” Mr. Neil noted that he lives directly across from the Woodlands and he thought that the pedestrian traffic on Persimmon Tree was much better this year; however, he suggested that the number of people going back and forth on Persimmon Tree Lane could be eliminated by not allowing people to get back into Lot 18 via Persimmon Tree Lane. Mr. Neil stated that there were two (2) activities that caused problems for the individuals who live on Persimmon Tree Lane, the After Fly event and a party held at Persimmon Park Place, which are not part of the Firefly event. He noted that, although he did not think it was bad this year, he was not sure how many complaints the Police Department received.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 9 Responding to Lieutenant Kober, Mr. Neil explained that there is a lot of vehicle traffic on Persimmon Tree Lane and asked if it would be possible to cut down the traffic by limiting Lot 18 to be an exit only and allowing people to go north or west to get to the activities at Miles the Monster. In response, Lieutenant Kober indicated that Persimmon Tree Lane is already limited and the people who camp in Lot 18 have to have a way to get back into the lot, noting that sometimes people walk out of the front exit of Firefly and have to walk back to their campground. Lieutenant Kober advised that he did not think there was a way to reduce traffic anymore than it had already been reduced, explaining that the After Fly and Permission Park Place events Mr. Neil mentioned are along this roadway, parent drop-off is directly across from Lot 18, and there are also people who live on Persimmon Tree Lane who are provided passes to drive on the road during Firefly. Mr. Neil noted that it had been better the past two (2) years. Mr. Sudler asked what the contributing factors were to the fatality and if there was a plan to address those determinants in the near future. Responding, Lieutenant Kober stated that the results were pending toxicology from the medical examiner's office, so the Department was not commenting on that. In response to Mr. Lewis, Lieutenant Kober advised that the Department did not intend to do anything differently for Firefly next year. He stated that it was their seventh year and they had it down pretty well; however, they are open to suggestions and ideas. Lieutenant Kober explained that their initial plan would remain relatively the same unless there is a change by the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) or the promoters, or some type of change to the event or campgrounds. He stated that the status quo had proven reliable for the number of people. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Lieutenant Kober confirmed that there had only been one (1) fatality in seven (7) years of the event. Mr. David Hugg III, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed his memo dated August 17, 2018 regarding “Debriefing/Post-Mortem Report on 2018 Firefly Music Festival.” Mr. Jason Osika, Fire Marshal, reviewed a presentation entitled “Firefly 2018, Fire Marshal’s Office After Action Report.” Mr. Lewis commended the Dover Police Department and Fire Marshal’s Office for the work they do at the festival. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Osika explained that Red Frog is the organization that runs the Firefly Music Festival. He advised that a few years ago AEG became involved with Red Frog and now AEG is basically taking over the festival, so they will hear AEG in relation to the festival, in the future. In response to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Osika advised that any cooking has to be under flame retardant tents, so that the tent does not catch on fire if there is some type of flash fire. He explained that some vendors inside are part of AEG; however, some are

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 10 outsiders renting space, and they do not understand the rules and are putting up additional tents in the back and cooking under them. Mr. Osika stated that staff dealt with this issue this year as best they could and they had a meeting last week and decided that for 2019, if it’s not flame retardant, it will have to go. Mr. Sudler asked if the participants also cook underneath their tents and, if so, how it is regulated. Responding, Mr. Osika advised that it is not a concern in the camping areas, explaining that within the festival they are dealing with commercial cooking with fryers and full grills. Mr. Osika stated that while some people bring full grills into the camping areas, it is mainly smaller camping-style grills. Mr. Neil noted that the City was fortunate to have former Police Chief and City Councilman James Hosfelt as the head of the speedway security force, explaining that it is a benefit because he knows what’s going on and understands what his colleagues and the Police Department have to do. Mr. Neil indicated that each year Firefly does a property map and suggested that they could include a route to the west side, to encourage people not to use Persimmon Tree Lane. He stated that he thought that this would help reduce the pedestrian traffic on Persimmon Tree Lane, since there are vehicles that travel back and forth. Mr. Hosfelt indicated that the speedway is very fortunate to have the relationship that they do with the City. He advised that there is a year-round planning process to make Firefly happen, noting that he met with the Fire Marshal’s Office last week, and has a monthly meeting with Lieutenant Kober, DelDOT, and all of their partners. Mr. Hosfelt stated that the meetings start in earnest in September with AEG. He informed members that they could expect to see bigger and better things for the City and Kent County with AEG. Mr. Hosfelt stated that they are looking forward to a long and lasting relationship, noting that AEG made the comment that, of all of their 41 festivals worldwide, they consider Firefly to be in the top five of their portfolio. Evaluation of Proposals - Ambulance Services Contract Mr. Slavin read Chapter 30 - Standards of Ethical Conduct and Ethics Commission, Article II - Standards of Conduct, Section 30-20 - Established, Subsection (n) - Ex Parte Communication, of the Dover Code, as follows: (n) Ex parte communications. No official or employee shall encourage, make or accept any ex parte or other unilateral application or communication that excludes the interests of other parties in a matter under consideration when such application or communication is designed to influence official decision or conduct of the official or other officials, employees or agencies in order to obtain a more favored treatment or special consideration to advance the personal or private interests of himself or herself or others. The purpose of this provision is to guarantee that all interested parties to any matter shall have equal opportunity to express and represent their interests.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 11 Any written ex parte communication received by an official or employee in matters where all interested parties should have equal opportunity for a hearing shall be made part of the record by the recipient. Any oral ex parte communication received under such conditions should be written down in substance by the recipient and also made a part of the record. A communication concerning only the status of a pending matter is not regarded as an ex parte communication. Mr. Slavin reminded everyone that the Code is applicable to all City Council and Committee members. Mr. Slavin stated that he and Mr. Neil had provided the written communications that they had received regarding this matter (as on file in the Office of the City Clerk). He advised that he received two (2) phone calls, one (1) of which he did not return because he was aware of this provision. Mr. Slavin reminded everyone that the Council Committee of the Whole would make a recommendation to City Council, and Council would take final action during their Regular Meeting on September 10, 2018. He explained that evaluations of bids and proposals that are brought before the Committee and Council do not typically include presentations by the bidders or proposers because the bids and proposals have already been submitted. Mr. Slavin noted that several individuals had signed the speaker sign-in sheet, who he believed are representatives of the companies who submitted proposals, and advised that it would be unconventional and out of the City’s normal practice to all them to speak. He stated that the Committee’s options would be to ask those individuals to withdraw their interest in speaking or to formally vote to suspend the rules and allow the individuals to speak, with the understanding that doing so may jeopardize the process. Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, provided a brief overview of each of the companies that submitted a proposal. She stated that GEM Ambulance was incorporated in 1997, expanded into Delaware in 2013 and, in January of 2018, SeniorCare EMS of New York City took over the management of GEM Ambulance. SeniorCare has extensive experience running 911 contracts with the Fire Department in New York, EMS system. Currently, GEM Ambulance has operations in Cheswold, which is a transport operation in Newark. Mrs. Mitchell advised that Mid Atlantic Care had been in business for 11 years, was licensed in Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, and primarily focused in Delaware. She stated that they did not provide sufficient information in their response to the RFP and, coupled with the cost of their service, the committee chose not to consider their proposal. Mrs. Mitchell informed members that PrimeCare was established in 1997 and was a local family owned company with offices in Milford and Dover. She stated that St. Francis Healthcare had been in business over 90 years and was a member of Trinity Health, the second largest faith-based healthcare ministry in the U.S., with over 97,000 employees in several hospitals, continuing care facilities, home care, and hospice locations nationwide. Mrs. Mitchell advised that St. Francis

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 12 was established in 2008 when contracted by the City of Wilmington under the Wilmington Fire Department. Mrs. Mitchell reviewed a presentation entitled “911 EMS Transports, 2018 Ambulance RFP.” She advised members that after the original Request for Proposals (RFP) was submitted for solicitation, staff did more research and felt that it did not contain all of the requirements it should have, so the RFP was rewritten and expanded from one and a half pages to 17 pages to include more details. Mrs. Mitchell explained that the RFP was expanded to require a higher level of report and metrics, a financial audit, employee certifications and training information, hire and employment procedures, discrimination, diversity, EOC and sexual harassment policies, ambulance and equipment certifications, ambulance and equipment maintenance, and reporting requirements with state agencies for operations, vehicles, and patient care matters. Mrs. Mitchell advised that GEM Ambulance was asked to come in for further questioning and clarification because the review committee wanted to determine whether their pricing would change if they were asked to have a location in Dover. She stated that the committee also wanted to ensure that GEM Ambulance understood the market rates for Dover with that pricing. Mrs. Mitchell informed members that they answered the question satisfactorily, it did not change their pricing, and they were amenable to finding a location in central Dover. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the committee did not find the termination clause in the proposal submitted by GEM Ambulance, so they were emailed to determine whether they omitted that information or missed the question, which is permissible with an RFP. She informed members that GEM Ambulance responded that they would need 120 days if they terminated the contract. Mrs. Mitchell noted that they had included in their proposal that if they lost 20% of the transport volume, that might be subject to the termination clause. She stated that the RFP called for a 90-day termination clause and GEM Ambulance’s proposal was 30 days beyond that. Mrs. Mitchell advised that, after meeting with GEM Ambulance and discussing the current demographics of Dover, the committee did not see that as an issue and proceeded with GEM Ambulance through the process. Mrs. Mitchell advised that each proposal submitted had three (3) references and the committee received responses from two (2) of the references for each submission. She noted that several of the references were transport scheduled companies, not patient care companies; however, all three (3) references provided by GEM Ambulance were from senior care nursing home types of places. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the committee believed that all of the vendors, except PrimeCare would require a transition period in order to advertise positions, conducting interviews, check backgrounds and credentials, provide training on corporate policies and on-boarding, etc. She informed members that she thought that

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 13 all of the companies felt that there was a highly qualified population of fire and EMS people in the Dover area, so they would have a good pool for employees. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the presentation noted that PrimeCare’s costs had exceeded budget the last two years; however, she clarified that she thought that this may have been because the budget was not sufficient. She explained that she did not think this was because of PrimeCare’s cost, which was based on the contract. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the cost for FY 17 was $236,994 and the cost for FY 18 was $244,296. Mrs. Mitchell noted that the Ambulance BLS Emergency charge for St. Francis EMS was $1,882, while the other proposals were in the $500 range. She explained that this concerned the committee because this drives up the healthcare cost for the City’s residents and employees that have the City’s health insurance in Dover. Mrs. Mitchell advised that the committee was looking at what this will cost the City, as well as what it will cost the City’s residents and whether they can afford to pay these kinds of rates if their insurance doesn’t cover it. Mrs. Mitchell informed members that all of the vendors that the committee finalized with, except Mid Atlantic, had comparable scores because they all met the minimum requirements of the RFP. She stated that the committee recommended GEM Ambulance. Mrs. Mitchell advised that the City would have to negotiate a successful contract for GEM Ambulance, as well as an extension of the contract for PrimeCare, if Council agrees with the committee’s recommendation. Mr. Lewis stated that he believed this is an important matter because it deals with the safety and medical treatment of the citizens of the City. He noted that when he reviewed the information, he was looking at response times, the number of EMT’s on duty, and the housing location for emergency vehicles. In response to Mr. Lewis, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she did not have information on the amount of calls for medical care in the City of Dover versus other municipalities. Mr. Sudler asked if there was a process in place to monitor or assess whether constituents are able to bear the financial burden. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell advised that the ambulance company takes care of it; however, the City gets involved and will work with the vendor if a call or complaint is received. She stated that all of the ambulance companies have hardship policies and procedures that would be used to address the hardship. In response to Mr. Neil, Mrs. Mitchell confirmed that the City followed its procedure for the RFP and put together a committee that she was confident could do the evaluation. She informed members that one of the deciding factors for GEM Ambulance was that they received the highest marks from one of the senior care facility references, who talked about how their billing and collection capabilities and how they manage to help the people in need.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 14 Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Mitchell stated that GEM Ambulance currently does transports for the City; however, BLS calls are transferred to PrimeCare because they have a current contract with the City for BLS. She explained her understanding that the transport coverage is for people who need transport to a doctor’s office from a senior care facility or similar situations but is not for medical emergencies. Mr. Anderson asked why PrimeCare’s cost was so much higher than the other proposals, noting that they have had the contract for years and should have the infrastructure in place. In response, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she could not answer that question but suggested that the proposals were based on the cost of operations. Responding to Mr. Shelton, Mrs. Mitchell explained that PrimeCare was currently the only company fully staffed to begin because they have the current contract with the City. She advised that St. Francis stated that they would need to hire 25 people and GEM Ambulance stated that they would need a transition period of 90 days to get staff in and everything up and running. Mr. Shelton asked if Mrs. Mitchell knew where St. Francis would be hiring their people from and what the market looked like for those people. In response, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she could not answer that questions, however, it was her understanding that the Dover market has people experienced in this field that could take those jobs. Responding to Mr. Shelton, Mrs. Mitchell confirmed that there could be an opportunity for more people in our area to get jobs. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the second choice would have been PrimeCare. She stated that one of the determining factors for GEM Ambulance was that their proposal was very well organized, well written, and included all of their standard operating procedures (SOP’s). Mrs. Mitchell advised that the other factor was budgetary. Mr. Lindell asked if any of the four (4) organizations submitted data regarding some of the suggestions that were made in the report that was provided a couple years ago that the committee used to evaluate them, for example, a summary of mutual aide requests and reliability. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell explained that mutual aide and reliability were included in the RFP and was reviewed by the committee. In regard to reliability, she informed members that the committee had Kent County 911 double check some of the data. She explained that what they found is that the data does not take multiple responses or hospital delays into consideration. Mr. Colin Faulkner, RFP review committee member and Director of Kent County Emergency Services, explained that when you deliver a patient to a hospital you cannot leave them until you transfer care or you will risk a patient abandonment issue, which is a challenge for ambulances because they cannot leave and the paramedics cannot leave either. He stated that previously they would divert nonpriority patients to hospitals other than Bayhealth; however, Bayhealth recently decided that they will not do diverts anymore, so the delays have increased.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 15 Mr. Faulkner advised members that the entire system in Delaware is built around mutual aide. Mr. Anderson asked if this would be an argument for two (2) ambulances 24/7, as opposed to one (1) ambulance 16/7 and one (1) 24/7. Responding, Mr. Faulkner stated that the RFP did not ask for that. He advised that Kent County runs two (2) paramedics 24/7 and, because of staffing issues and other constraints, currently has a power unit up for 12 hours, from 7:00 to 7:00, when it should really be up from 7:00 to 11:00 or 12:00, because those are their peak response times. Mr. Faulkner stated that he would have to have a good look at the data to support Mr. Anderson’s conclusion. He explained that most ambulances in municipal governments are more busy during the daytime hours and the volume drops off in the middle of the night when most people go to sleep. Mr. Faulkner stated that Kent County is setup similarly to PrimeCare, except PrimeCare extends their hours to 11:00 for their second unit. Mr. Garfinkel noted that in 2017 there were over 1,700 calls handled by other departments, which is approximately 18% of the total. He stated that one in five calls were dropped by the City’s contractor and asked what the City pays for mutual aide. Responding, Mr. Faulkner stated that the City had indicated to him that they pay a stipend to the Cheswold and Camden fire companies for mutual aide. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the City pays approximately $13,000 to $14,000. She advised that the information Mr. Garfinkel was quoting sounded like the correspondence referred to by Mr. Slavin and that she would like time to review those numbers. Mr. Polce, noting that Bayhealth is not currently in a diversion pattern, asked if any of the proposals indicated a functionality or willingness to expand to telehealth in order to alleviate some of the burden. In response, Mr. Faulkner stated that this was not part of the RFP that the City sent out. He advised that for those who are knowledgeable and have their sight on the horizon, that is a reality but it is not something that can happen overnight. Mr. Faulkner stated that he did not expect to see telehealth within the next few years. Mayor Christiansen indicated that he is always worried about the training levels of the people that are going to be performing EMS in the City. He asked if the RFP required two (2) EMT’s per ambulance. Responding, Mr. Faulkner stated that the RFP followed State law which requires one (1) EMT and one (1) driver or rescue tech, explaining that the driver does not have to be a full EMT. He advised that State law states that you have to have one (1) nationally registered EMT on an ambulance and that is how the RFP was put out and how the committee evaluated them. Mayor Christiansen stated that this was not the level of service he would like to see, explaining that he would feel more comfortable if there were two (2) EMT’s on board and the maximum number of ambulances available on site. He stated that he runs with the Fire Department and indicated that sometimes they have to wait until they can get another ambulance. Mayor Christiansen stated that he hoped that the City might look at the qualifications of the people who are manning the ambulances.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 16 Mr. Slavin stated that he needed to resolve whether or not the three (3) individuals who signed up to speak were going to waive their opportunity to speak, or if members were going to vote to suspend the rules. In response, a member of the audience indicated that he wished to speak. Mr. Sudler moved to suspend the rules to provide an opportunity for comments from the three (3) individuals who signed up to speak. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson asked if the three (3) individuals were representatives from different companies. Responding, Mr. Slavin stated that two (2) representatives were from St. Francis Healthcare, and the third individual, Dave Scott, did not list an affiliation. In response to Mr. Slavin, Mr. Scott indicated that he did not wish to speak. The motion to suspend the rules to provide an opportunity for comments from the three (3) individuals who signed up to speak failed by a roll call vote of five (5) yes (Anderson, Sudler, Lewis, Garfinkel, and Shelton), five (5) no (Neil, Cole, Polce, Lindell, and Slavin), and one (1) absent (Hare). Mrs. Mitchell stated that she respected what Mayor Christiansen said, however, she noted that everyone knew that staff was working on the ambulance contract and no one indicated that they wanted a greater level of service. She stated that staff mirrored the setup for the EMT’s off the last contract. Mr. Sudler stated that he agreed with Mayor Christiansen in regard to the level of service and would like to hear more in regard to what the City can or cannot do to address that. Mr. Sudler moved to defer this matter until the next Council Committee of the Whole/Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Garfinkel. Mr. Slavin asked how long the proposals are valid. He also asked if the same result could be achieved by moving the matter forward to Council with no recommendation. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the proposals are valid for 90 days. Mr. Slavin asked Mr. Sudler for clarification regarding the additional information he would like and how to obtain it since this was a bid process and the bids had been submitted. In response, Mr. Sudler stated that he wanted a little bit of information in regard to what Mayor Christiansen said regarding having more than one (1) EMT on board. Mr. Lindell cautioned that, based on his previous experience on the Capital School District Board of Education, it is a slippery slope to start going beyond the processes in regard to bids. He stated that he would support Mr. Slavin’s recommendation to

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 17 forward this matter to Council with no recommendation, since there was still sufficient time within the bounds of the RFP to get the answers prior to the next Regular Council Meeting. Mr. Neil stated that he agreed with Mr. Lindell. He indicated that he was also concerned about the budget and what it would cost to delay the process. Mr. Anderson stated that he could understand the reasoning behind the motion; however, his concern was that the City was currently in an extension of a contract that he did not like. He explained that the City had an opportunity to select a vendor that has very high references and recommendations, a base in the local area, and at a cost that is less than what the City is currently paying. Mr. Anderson stated that he thought that this was an opportunity to benefit the citizens in many different ways, including providing superior service, noting that members had heard complaints for years. He stated that he was personally ready to move on and would be voting no. Mr. Sudler stated that as he has gotten older, he has realized that sometimes it is not all about money. He noted that you cannot purchase healthcare at Walmart, so sometimes it is more beneficial to take your time and make sure you make the right decision, especially when it comes to health, because health does not have a cost. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Sudler stated that, as the maker of the motion, he would not consider moving this forward to City Council on September 10, 2018, rather than bringing it back to the Council Committee of the Whole. The motion to defer this matter until the next Council Committee of the Whole/Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting failed by a roll call vote of six (6) no (Anderson, Neil, Cole, Polce, Lindell, and Slavin), four (4) yes (Sudler, Lewis, Garfinkel, and Shelton), and one (1) absent (Hare). Mr. Anderson moved to forward the matter to Council with no recommendation and that there be an attempt to find information about more than one (1) EMT in the contract between now and September 10, 2018. The motion failed for lack of a second. Mrs. Mitchell noted that the RFP was posted with one (1) EMT and asked if members wanted the review committee to go back to each vendor and ask for pricing for two (2) EMT’s. Responding, Mr. Sudler stated that he just wanted more information and was not ready to vote at this time. In response to Mr. Neil, Mrs. Mitchell stated that this would change the RFP because the City originally advertised it for one (1) EMT. She advised that she was not sure whether the City would need to re-advertise or send out the RFP again and she would need to check with the City’s purchaser. Mrs. Mitchell stated that she thought that the City would at least have to allow all of them to provide new pricing for two (2) EMT’s to avoid a legal challenge. Mr. Slavin stated that he partially agreed with

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 18 Mrs. Mitchell with one huge caveat, explaining that the whole idea behind bidding is that people don’t get a chance to see what the pricing is for other vendors and then rig their pricing against the others. He noted that he was not saying that would happen, but noted that there clearly would not be a level playing field anymore if the City were to allow this. Mr. Slavin stated that the bid went out with certain requirements and people were asked to bid against those requirements, if they did more than those requirements, he did not think the people who follow the rules should be penalized and given an advantage based on the information that was contained. Mr. Lindell stated that he thought it was a slippery slope and he was only in favor of questions within the bounds of the RFP. He noted that when you start getting out of the bounds of the RFP, it will cost the City more money in the end. Mayor Christiansen stated that, in an effort to make sure that the City has the Cadillac of service, it seemed that he had unintentionally thrown a wrench into this matter. He recalled having previously said that he was looking for the highest level of service with this RFP based on the information that he thought was included in the study that the City previously had done, although he did not remember whether he said it officially or unofficially. Mayor Christiansen indicated that he thought that it was Council’s prerogative to follow through on the maintenance of standards that the RFP had been put out as it was. He expressed his hope that the next time the City puts out the RFP, members make sure it includes what they want. The Committee forwarded this matter to City Council with no recommendation. Mrs. Mitchell reminded members that the review committee had recommended GEM Ambulance. She stated that there were some concerns regarding missed calls by GEM Ambulance, which she wanted to address, since these were a concern for the review committee as well. She explained that you cannot tell what the details are for the missed calls, unless you dive into them, noting that they could be from standby or, as Mr. Faulkner indicated during the Committee meeting, they could be the result of the wait time issue at Bayhealth. Mrs. Mitchell informed members that staff had required additional reporting requirements with the new RFP, so the review committee would be able to drill down into the details. She indicated that staff was trying to address previous issues, explaining that the entire approach for this RFP was different than in the past. Mrs. Mitchell advised that, in the past, the City had taken a passive approach to managing the ambulance contract; however, the approach that was included in this RFP is an active process to manage the contract, and will include regularly scheduled meetings with the committee to review performance and analyze the data to ensure the City is receiving good quality service. Mrs. Mitchell explained that she did not have additional information to provide since it was her understanding that the questions asked by Mr. Sudler during the Committee meeting were not approved by the Committee. Mr. Slavin stated that he thought that the RFP process was sound and fair, the responses the City received were all adequate to the task, and the City’s decision needs to be sound and fair; however,

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 19 he was having difficulty looking at the responses when some have one (1) EMT per crew and others have two (2) EMT’s per crew. He suggested referring this matter back to the Council Committee of the Whole/Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee with instructions to staff to go back to the respondents and have them each revise their proposals for a one (1) EMT crew and a two (2) EMT crew. Mr. Anderson moved to refer this matter back to the Council Committee of the Whole/Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee with instructions to staff to determine how best to request revised responses which address both the one (1) and two (2) EMT crew options and come back with revised responses from each of the respondents. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lewis commended Mr. Slavin for his proposal, noting that he wholeheartedly supported the suggestion, since he also had concerns. Mr. Sudler stated that he agreed with Mr. Lewis. He indicated that his main concern was having a cost analysis to determine the monetary variation between one (1) and two (2) EMT’s. Mr. Anderson stated that he thought Mr. Slavin’s recommendation was wise. He informed members that, since the Committee meeting, he had learned that several of the ambulance services in Delaware, including Newark’s, exceed the State mandate and have two (2) EMT’s. Mr. Anderson noted that the City is behind the curve in quality compared to some other municipalities and he thought that the City could not pass on the opportunity to increase the quality, at a lower cost than the current vendor, since it can benefit the lives of residents. Mr. Neil stated that he thought that there had been a lot of misinformation. He commended Mrs. Mitchell for bringing in a team of medical professionals in this area to evaluate and change this process. Mr. Neil indicated that he thought that referring this matter back to the committee would provide members with better information regarding the costs. Mr. Hare noted that he was absent during the Council Committee of the Whole meeting of August 28, 2018 and thought it was good that members were discussing this matter. He indicated that he thought two (2) EMT’s and two (2) ambulances for 24 hours would be better than one (1) EMT for 8, 12 or 16 hours and one (1) for 24, based on the number of runs that the current ambulance provider was averaging. Mr. Hare stated that in 2017 there was an average of 26 runs per day and each run takes an hour or more, depending on the wait time. He stated that he would encourage bidders to bid on what the City is asking for and not what they think the City needs. The motion to refer this matter back to the Council Committee of the Whole/Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee with instructions to staff to determine how best to request revised responses which address both the one (1) and two (2) EMT crew options and come back with revised responses from each of the respondents was unanimously carried. Prioritization of City of Dover State Capital Transportation Program (CTP) Projects Mr. David Hugg III, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed his memo dated August 21, 2018 regarding 2018 Transportation Priorities. He noted

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 20 that in developing the City’s 2018 Transportation Priorities, staff reviewed the Dover/Kent Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO’s) draft priority list, the Delaware Department of Transportation’s (DelDOT’s) ranking of capital projects in their Capital Transportation Program (CTP), as well as information regarding the level of development that is occurring in some of the areas, and the costs of some of the projects. Mr. Hugg advised that the biggest change is the recommendation to move the Garrison Oak Connector Road to the first priority, noting that it was the last priority last year. He indicated that in reviewing the list, staff asked themselves “What are the projects that have the greatest economic development potential, or could have the greatest impact on the City?” Mr. Hugg noted that the City is in a catch-22, explaining that there was a study a year ago that said this road isn’t needed now because there isn’t any traffic out there; however, there isn’t any traffic because there aren’t any users, and there aren’t any users because you can’t get there. He stated that the City needs to ask DelDOT and the MPO to go back and look at some alternatives and the economic development opportunity, and come up with a plan and start developing an alignment. Mr. Hugg informed members that a few other priorities changed based on the status of the projects. He stated that DelDOT had been doing more alignment work on the Crawford Carroll Avenue Extension, so staff recommended moving it up to priority 4. Mr. Hugg advised that the Loockerman Street/Forest Street Intersection had been studied since at least 1999 and keeps progressing and then stopping. He stated that staff believes that from the City and downtown development perspectives this really needs to get resolved, so it has been moved to priority 2. Mr. Hugg explained that the project for sidewalks within the walk zone of the new Dover High School was a high priority last year and remained a high priority this year; however, its ranking changed slightly. Referring to the projects prioritized 5-11, Mr. Hugg indicated that the staff prioritized these projects based on the State ranking. He stated that the Kenton Road Corridor Upgrades/ Route 8 East/West Corridor Plan Improvements, in particular, is a high priority but based on information from DelDOT, it is an extremely expensive project that probably will not get funded, so staff thought it made sense to move it down the priority list. Mr. Hugg reminded members that the City provides their input to the Secretary of Transportation and the MPO for their consideration as they develop the CTP. He noted that the City’s draft 2018 Transportation Priorities list was developed through collaboration and cooperation between departments. Staff recommended approval of the recommended priority ranking for the coming year. Mr. Anderson asked if there were any alternatives to the expensive project that could address some of the safety concerns on Kenton Road. Responding, Mr. Hugg asked Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, if this was discussed at the MPO meeting. Mrs. Mitchell advised that this matter was not discussed at the MPO meeting;

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 21 however, she stated that this had increased to a multimillion dollar project and they were concerned about that. She stated that it may still be considered but the likelihood is that it will not be. Mrs. Mitchell indicated that the MPO also thought that the College Road Corridor Upgrades (Kenton Road to McKee Road) would not make the list. She stated that one (1) of them might bump the other because of the price for each of them. Mr. Anderson stated that he thought that Mr. Lindell and Mr. Polce should be asked which project is more important. Mr. Lindell expressed concern. He indicated that even though he knows the price and that the State might not make the project a priority, he thought that the City should continue to remind the State that the City is going to grow toward the west and it is important to start looking toward the west as well. Mr. Lindell stated that, looking at the project as a whole, it’s not only a safety issue, but there is economic benefit as well, noting that it is a high priority for the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce (CDCC). He recalled that Mr. Hugg informed members last year that the letter to the Secretary of Transportation is subjective and they can completely ignore the City’s priorities if they want to. Responding, Mr. Hugg stated that Mr. Lindell was correct and noted that members would not hurt staff’s feelings if they wanted to change any of the priorities. In response to Mr. Lindell’s comments regarding the CDCC, Mr. Hugg advised that the CDCC’s concern was the creation of an east/west roadway connecting Route 8 through Dover to 301. He explained that, based on his discussions with the CDCC, they are not as concerned about the specifics of Route 8 in Dover, as they are about the fact that there is not a good connection and DelDOT is not planning for a future east/west highway. Mr. Lindell stated that he thought that, although the CDCC might have a different motive, it is still an economic motive. Mr. Lindell indicated that he thought that the City needed to tell its own story, even if the State is going to set its own priorities in the end. He stated that he thought that the west side of the City is a major priority as it continues to grow. Mr. Hugg stated that he did not disagree with Mr. Lindell; however, he noted that the investment in new roadways, particularly in urban areas, had fallen way behind the need. Mr. Polce expressed concern in seeing that the City’s priorities had shifted. He stated that he thought that College and McKee Roads should be at the top of the City’s priority list. Mr. Polce indicated that he remembered members discussing public safety in this area eight months ago and, more recent conversations regarding creating a more bicycle and pedestrian friendly environment. He stated that he thought that this was a really important priority and that when members of Council hear issues that are related to public safety, they need to start calling the next State Senator and Representative to ensure they know it is a real priority for the constituents in the City. Mr. Polce indicated that he would recommend moving the Kenton Road Corridor Upgrades/ Route 8 East/West Corridor Plan Improvements to priority 3 and combining College Road with it, noting that it would be more efficient and cost

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 22 effective to do both of the projects, since one tenth of a mile is already overlapping in the bids. Mr. Shelton concurred with Mr. Polce’s comments that the work on Kenton Road and College Road needed to be done. He noted that he was a resident of the Hidden Oaks community, located off College Road and he thought that the entire road needed to be addressed, from Kenton Road to Delaware State University. Mr. Shelton advised that the intersection of McKee and College Roads also needed work, noting that westbound traffic cannot make a right turn without waiting for the traffic to go through. Mayor Christiansen stated that he respected the work that staff had done on the City’s prioritization list and he thought the City should solidify the list and send it to the MPO. He advised that he is the Chairman of the MPO and would rather have a letter of support moving the Garrison Oak Connector Road, for economic development reasons, as well as the Kenton and College Road projects, to the top of the list, explaining that with the recommendation of the MPO, the City will get the Secretary of Transportation and DelDOT’s attention. Mayor Christiansen indicated that extra traffic is being pushed onto both Kenton and College Roads and there is a new project going on the west side of College Road that will generate more traffic, and stated that he thought that the City had the responsibility to make sure these become top priority. Mr. Sudler stated that College Road had been in need of special attention for a long time. He urged members to do exactly what Mayor Christiansen recommended and get some attention for College and McKee Roads by moving them up the prioritization list. Mr. Lindell moved to recommend that the Kenton Road Corridor Upgrades/ Route 8 East/West Corridor Plan Improvements and the College Road Corridor Upgrades (Kenton Road to McKee Road) be moved up to priorities 2 and 3, and approval of the priority list. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sudler and Mr. Lindell indicated their willingness to amend the motion to include that the other items would be renumbered accordingly. The Committee recommended that the Kenton Road Corridor Upgrades/ Route 8 East/West Corridor Plan Improvements and the College Road Corridor Upgrades (Kenton Road to McKee Road) be moved up to priorities 2 and 3, with the other items renumbered accordingly, and approval of the priority list. Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the revised priority ranking for the coming year, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 23 Mr. Sudler moved for acceptance of the Council Committee of the Whole Report, seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried. MONTHLY REPORTS - JULY 2018 By motion of Mr. Sudler, seconded by Mr. Neil, the following monthly reports were accepted by consent agenda: City Assessor’s Report City Council’s Community Enhancement Fund Report City Manager’s Report City Planner’s Report Controller/Treasurer’s Budget Report Fire Chief’s Report Police Chief’s Report RESOLUTION NO. 2018-09 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF UP TO $4,000,000 WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS OF THE CITY OF DOVER FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS AND AUTHORIZING ALL NECESSARY ACTION IN CONNECTION THEREWITH Ms. Lori Peddicord, Controller/Treasurer, advised members that Resolution No. 2018-09 authorizes the issuance and sale of up to $4,000,000 water and sewer revenue bonds, explaining that these funds will be used to pay a portion of the cost of improvements and upgrades to the City’s water treatment plant. She noted that there would be a 2% interest rate on this bond issuance. By motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Hare, Resolution No. 2018-09 was unanimously adopted, as follows: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF UP TO $4,000,000 WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS OF THE CITY OF DOVER FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS AND AUTHORIZING ALL NECESSARY ACTION IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, the City of Dover (the “City”) is authorized pursuant to Volume 52, Delaware Laws, Chapter 111, as amended by Volume 57, Delaware Laws Chapter 340, Volume 36 Delaware Laws, Chapter 158, as amended, and the City Charter (collectively the “Enabling Acts”) to issue revenue bonds for the purpose of financing the extension, reconstruction or improvements to the City’s water, sewer and electric systems; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Enabling Acts, the City adopted a Bond Resolution on February 27, 1989 (the “Bond Resolution”) providing for the issuance of water and sewer revenue bonds and pursuant to the Bond Resolution the City has issued and there remains outstanding its (a) $750,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2000, (b) $5,581,059 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2009, © $2,404,017 Water and Sewer Bonds, Series 2010, (d) $765,060 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2011, and (e) $6,125,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2013 (the “Outstanding Bonds”); and

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 24 WHEREAS, the City desires to issue additional revenue bonds pursuant to the Bond Resolution on a parity with the Outstanding Bonds; and WHEREAS, the City has approved certain capital improvements to its Water System and desires to issue its additional parity revenue bonds (the “Bonds”) pursuant to the Bond Resolution and to pay the costs of said improvements and upgrades to its water treatment plant (the “Project”). NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF DOVER HEREBY ORDAINS (AT LEAST THREE FOURTHS OF THE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL CONCURRING HEREIN): Section 1. Amount and Purpose of the Bonds. Acting pursuant to the Enabling Acts and the Bond Resolution, the City shall issue its negotiable obligations in the maximum aggregate principal amount not to exceed $4,000,000 to finance, refinance or reimburse itself for a portion of the cost of the construction and equipping of the Project, an estimate of which is appended hereto as Exhibit A. The monies raised from the sale of the Bonds (including the investment earnings thereon) after the payment of the costs of issuance, shall be expended only for the purposes authorized herein or as may otherwise be authorized by subsequent action by City Council. Authorized purposes include the costs of planning, constructing, acquiring and equipping the Project or any portion thereof; interest on the Bonds and any interim financing during the construction period and for a period of up to one year following the estimated date of completion; the costs of issuance of the Bonds and any interim financing; the repayment of temporary loans incurred with respect to the Project; and the reimbursement of authorized costs previously expended by the City from other funds. Section 2. Terms of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be sold to the Delaware Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (the “SRF Fund”) administered by the State of Delaware Department of Health and Social Services pursuant to the terms of its commitment letter dated August 6, 2018 (the “Commitment Letter”), a copy of which is appended hereto as Exhibit B, and the other terms and conditions to be contained in a Financing Agreement between the City and the SRF Fund (the “Financing Agreement”). It is anticipated that the interest rate on the Bonds will be 2.0%. Section 3. Security for the Bonds. The principal, interest and premium, if any, on the Bonds shall be payable solely from the City’s Net Operating Revenue which is hereby pledged to secure the Bonds on a parity with the Outstanding Bonds. The full faith and credit of the City shall not be pledged to pay principal and interest on the Bonds. Section 4. Rate Covenant. The City covenants that it will fix and collect rates, fees and other charges for the use of and for services furnished or to be furnished by the Water System, and will from time to time revise such rates, fees and other charges so that in each Fiscal Year the Net Operating Revenue available to pay debt service on the Bonds will equal at least the principal and interest requirements for the Bonds. If, for any reason, the revenues are insufficient to satisfy the foregoing covenant, the City shall within ninety (90) days adjust and increase its rates, fees and other charges or reduce its Operating Expenses so as to provide sufficient Net Operating Revenue to satisfy such requirement.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 25 Section 5. Details of the Bonds. The Mayor and City Treasurer are authorized to determine the details of the Bonds including the following: the date or dates of the Bonds; provisions for either serial or term bonds; sinking fund or other reserve fund requirements of the Bonds; due dates of the interest thereon; the form of the Bonds; the denominations and designations of the Bonds; registration, conversion and transfer provisions of the Bonds; provisions for the receipt, deposit and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds; provisions for the replacement of lost, stolen, mutilated or destroyed Bonds; and provisions for issuing uncertificated obligations and all procedures appropriate for the establishment of a system of issuing uncertificated debt. The Bonds shall be executed by the manual or facsimile signature of the Mayor and City Treasurer, shall contain an impression of the City Seal or a facsimile thereof and shall be attested by the manual signature of the City Clerk. Section 6. Further Action. The Mayor, the President of the City Council, the City Treasurer, the City Manager and the City Clerk are authorized and directed to take such other action on behalf of the City, as may be necessary or desirable to effect the adoption of this Resolution and the issuance and sale of the Bonds and to provide for their security and to carry out the intent of this Resolution, including the publication of notices and advertisements and the execution and delivery of customary closing certificates. Section 7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage. The City Clerk is hereby directed to publish once in a newspaper published in the City a notice in substantially the following form: “NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of The City of Dover, Delaware on September 10, 2018 pursuant to Chapter 111, Volume 52, Delaware Laws, as amended, adopted a resolution entitled as follows: “RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF UP TO $4,000,000 WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS OF THE CITY OF DOVER FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS AND AUTHORIZING ALL NECESSARY ACTION IN CONNECTION THEREWITH” The purpose of the issuance and sale of said bonds is to provide funds (approximately $4,000,000) to pay a portion of the costs of improvements and upgrades to the City’s water treatment plant. Any action or proceeding to contest the validity of said resolution or any of its provisions must be commenced within thirty (30) days after publication of this notice. After expiration of such period of limitation, no right of action or defense founded upon the invalidity of said resolution or any of its provisions shall be asserted, nor shall the validity of said resolution or any of its provisions be open to question in any court upon any ground whatsoever, except in an action or proceeding commenced within such period.” ADOPTED: SEPTEMBER 10, 2018

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 26 CITY MANAGER’S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, advised that, with Hurricane Florence headed up the coast, City crews were preparing for flooding conditions by cleaning out the storm drains and asked that residents provide assistance by ensuring the storm drains in their areas are cleaned out. Mrs. Mitchell thanked everyone who assisted with the medical emergency of one of the City’s employees on Friday, September 7, 2018. She stated that there was a tremendous effort to take care of the patient and he is doing well. COUNCIL MEMBERS’ ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Neil wished a L’Shana Tova, Happy New Year, and an easy fast on the day of atonement to the members of the Jewish faith. He noted that the year is 5778. Mr. Polce expressed concern regarding the City’s Procurement Policy. He indicated that he was interested in revising the policy to ensure that, in the future, Council, staff and potential bidders have very clear guidelines to ensure the process is streamlined and efficient. Mr. Polce stated that he thought that much of the City’s current process had been held up by some of the lack of clarification in the Procurement Policy. He advised that he had asked Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, to work with him regarding the revisions, and encouraged other interested members to review the Policy for necessary corrections, to ensure that in the future every entity involved in a potential procurement is on a level playing field. Mr. Sudler asked staff to be mindful of posting when Catholic Charities and other agencies provide financial services or assistance to City residents for their utilities, explaining that he received information in regard to a senior who had credit with Catholic Charities, however, her electric was disconnected. Mr. Anderson joined Mr. Neil in his greetings to the Jewish community. He also invited everyone to attend a rally for Project Purple and Kent County Goes Purple on Legislative Mall, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on Saturday, September 15, 2018. Mr. Anderson explained that the event would provide information, awareness and education regarding addiction, one of the biggest problems facing the community. He noted that there would be an indoor alternative in case of bad weather and updates would be available on the Vines Community Project Facebook page. Mr. Lewis moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. TRACI A. McDOWELL CITY CLERK

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 27 All ordinances, resolutions, motions, and orders adopted by City Council during their Regular Meeting of September 10, 2018, are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /TM S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Council-Minutes\2018\09-10-2018 Council Minutes .wpd Exhibits Exhibit #1 - Memorandum dated September 12, 2018, from Mrs. Margie Cyr, Library Director, regarding the Proposed Dover Park Master Plan and How It Responds to SAC 2014 East-Side Assessment

EXHIBIT #1 Regular Council Meeting of 09/10/2018 September 12, 2018 To: Donna Mitchell, Dover City Manager Fr: Margie Cyr, Director, Library and Parks & Recreation Re: Proposed Dover Park Master Plan and How It Responds to SAC 2014 East-Side Assessment At Monday night’s City Council Meeting, Councilman Sudler asked how the proposed Dover Park Master Plan responds to the needs of residents as expressed in the 2014 East Side Assessment. The purpose of the proposed Dover Park Master Plan is “to improve park and recreational resources for Dover’s East side, provide users with a safe and enjoyable park experience, and ensure that the park is an asset that contributes to the … vitality of the City of Dover.” The Master Plan provides the City with tools to “incrementally and sustainably develop Dover Park and its facilities in consideration of the priorities identified through the community-driven process.” The process of developing the draft Master Plan was very much a “community driven” process. The information gathered during the active plan development included opportunities for the public to participate in four (4) public meetings, to respond electronically to a survey, and to respond in person via one-on-one telephone interviews. Notice of these opportunities were sent to all residents in the neighboring areas via direct postcard mailings; electronic email posts; social media posts; newspaper articles; personally delivered fliers to housing centers, schools, churches and other entities at which the public gathers; and banners posted at the Park. Data collected during the 2015 Recreational Needs Assessment and the 2014 SAC East-Side Assessment were used to supplement data gathered during the active Master Plan process. Each of the three processes identified the need for a physical building in Dover Park to be used for programs and activities in the Park as well as accessible rest rooms as highly desirable. The 2015 Recreational Needs Assessment and the Dover Park Master Plan surveys revealed primarily the desire for physical and fitness-related activities such as trail system for walking/biking, tennis, football, disc golf, camps, sports leagues, indoor recreation for basketball, volleyball (for example). The 2014 East Side Assessment primarily identified programs desired by participants. Roughly, these can be divided into three categories: Recreation, Physical and fitness-related: Fitness/Zumba Gymnasium Learn to swim

Martial Arts Summer Camp Day Trips Social services: Mentors for At-Risk Youth Alcohol & Drug prevention Teen Homelessness Gang Prevention Family Counseling Restorative Support Pregnant Teen Awareness Information/Education Race Relations Study Circle Job Seeking Tips Go to School Go to College Accomplishing these programs may serve the community well. Clearly the Recreation, Physical and Fitness- related programs fall within the mission of the Parks and Recreation Department. For those that do, it should be noted that some of the programs are already being offered by the Parks and Recreation Department. Others are being offered by other community agencies. An issue that will need to be discussed is whether or not redundancy of programs is beneficial. Consideration needs to be given to whether or not the Social Services program are within the mission of the Parks and Recreation Department. Several of these programs may already be in place in other community agencies. Information/Education programs are offered by the City’s library. Some of the programs suggested are already being offered by that entity. Essentially the purpose of any master plan is to provide a frame work for the development of physical spaces which allow for the implementation of programs and activities desired by a community. And to provide a variety of options for development of spaces to support such activities. Critical to the development of such spaces is the ability to maintain them and to support them financially (operationally and with staffing). The draft Master Plan developed by Whitman, Requardt and Associates does just that. It lays out options, costs, and maintenance. It is now up to the City leadership and its staff to make decisions and to prioritize the options put forth in the Master Plan once it has been approved.