COUNCIL Minutes

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING The Regular Council Meeting was held on April 12, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Williams presiding. Council members present were Mr. Leary, Mrs. Russell, Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Slavin, Mr. McGiffin, Mr. Hogan, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Ruane. Council staff members present were Police Chief Hosfelt, Ms. Russell, Mrs. Mitchell, Mrs. Townshend, Fire Chief Christiansen, Mr. DePrima, City Solicitor Rodriguez, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Carey was also present. 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. There was no one present wishing to speak during the Open Forum. The invocation was given by Chaplain Dixon, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. McGlumphy moved for approval of the agenda as presented, seconded by Mr. Hogan and unanimously carried. Mr. McGlumphy 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 MARCH 22, 2010 The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of March 22, 2010 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. McGlumphy, seconded by Mr. Salters and bore the written approval of Mayor Carey. CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION - FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY The City Clerk read the following Certificate of Appreciation into the record: Certificate of Appreciation Presented to FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY In appreciation of your ongoing years of volunteer service at the Dover Library and the Carriage House. The money saved by selling used books at the Carriage House helps with the funding of library services. We thank each of you for dedicating your time to making the Dover Community a place where people want to live. Congratulations and thank you!

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 2 Mayor Carey presented the Certificate to Ms. Margery Cyr, Director of the Dover Public Library. Ms. Cyr recognized the service provided by the Friends of the Library and introduced the following Board members: Mr. John Olenik, President; Ms. Beverly Bresnahan, Secretary; Ms. Barbara Qaissaunee; Ms. Sharon Creamer; and Mrs. Ann Stewart. She relayed appreciation to the Board Members for their financial support and advocacy on behalf of the community. CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION AND CONGRATULATIONS - RICHARD HUDSON - SEPTEMBER 1989 THROUGH MARCH 2010 The City Clerk read the following Certificate of Recognition and Congratulations into the record: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Be It Hereby Known To All That The Mayor and Council Commend RICHARD HUDSON for Dedicated Service to the City of Dover September 1989 - March 2010 20 Years of Service The Mayor and Council Extend Sincere Appreciation and Congratulations Mayor Carey presented the Certificate to Mr. Hudson and relayed appreciation for the service provided to the City of Dover. Mr. Hudson thanked current and former City Councils and the City Manager for allowing him to serve the residents of the City of Dover for the past 20 years. PROCLAMATION - DUKE ELLINGTON MONTH The City Clerk read the following Proclamation into the record: WHEREAS, Duke Ellington was born on April 29, 1899, in Washington DC; and WHEREAS, he began studying piano at age seven, performed professionally at age seventeen and ultimately became the greatest jazz composer and bandleader; and WHEREAS, he produced over 2000 compositions which include instrumental, popular, large scale, sacred music, film scores and opera concerts; and WHEREAS, in his lifetime he played over 20,000 concerts nationally and internationally; and WHEREAS, he received many awards, but the following are the most prestigious; the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award in 1966, the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1969 and the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 3 Legion of Honor by France in 1973, which are the highest civilian honors in each country; and WHEREAS, in 2009 he was the first African American to appear by himself on a circulated U.S. coin, the Washington DC quarter; and WHEREAS, April 29, 2010 will be the 110th anniversary of Duke Ellington's birth. NOW, THEREFORE, I, CARLETON E. CAREY, SR., MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE do hereby proclaim April 2010 as DUKE ELLINGTON MONTH in the City of Dover; and encourage all citizens to honor and recognize the countless accomplishments of a great American pianist. Mayor Carey presented the Proclamation to Ms. Sandra Conner, Executive Director for the Schwartz Center of the Arts, and Ms. Sylvia Cowell, Arts Council Board Member. The Mayor expressed his appreciation for the contribution made by Mr. Ellington to our nation=s musical heritage and commended the Board Members of the Schwartz Center for the Arts for their contributions to the local community. Ms. Conner expressed her appreciation to the Mayor, Council, and citizens of Dover for their help in commemorating this great American artist and invited all who were attendance to participate in "A Duke Ellington Celebration", scheduled for April 29, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. at the Schwartz Center. PROCLAMATION - NATIONAL LIBRARY WEEK The City Clerk read the following Proclamation into the record: WHEREAS, libraries everywhere play a vital role in supporting the quality of life in their communities; and WHEREAS, our nation's school, academic, public and special libraries make a difference in the lives of millions of Americans, today, more than ever; and WHEREAS, librarians are trained professionals, helping people of all ages and backgrounds find and interpret the information they need to live, learn and work in a challenging economy; and WHEREAS, libraries serve as crucial technology hubs for people in need of free Web access, computer training, and assistance finding job resources; and WHEREAS, libraries are part of the American Dream – places for opportunity, education, self- help and lifelong learning; and WHEREAS, library use is up nationwide among all types of library users, continuing a decade- long trend.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 4 NOW, THEREFORE, I, CARLETON E. CAREY, SR., MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE, do hereby proclaim April 11–17, 2010 as NATIONAL LIBRARY WEEK and encourage all residents to visit the library this week to take advantage of the wonderful library resources available at your library. Mayor Carey presented the Proclamation to Ms. Margery Cyr, Director of the Dover Public Library, and the following Board Members of the Friends of the Library: Mr. John Olenik, President, Ms. Barbara Qaissaunee, Ms. Sharon Creamer, Mrs. Ann Stewart, and Ms. Beverly Bresnahan, Secretary. Ms. Cyr stated expressed her pride in serving the community and presented the Mayor and Council with Dover Public Library tote bags as a token of appreciation for their support and in commemoration of National Library Week. PROCLAMATION - SCOTS-IRISH MONTH The City Clerk read the following Proclamation into the record: WHEREAS, from our great nation=s earliest beginnings, America has inspired the hopes and dreams of many from around the world, who join in wanting to experience and share the gifts of freedom and opportunity; and WHEREAS, the majority of the Scots-Irish who came to America in the colonial period settled in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the Carolinas. Nonetheless, there was significant Scots-Irish settlement in each of the thirteen American colonies, including Delaware; and WHEREAS, traces of a more lasting legacy with the Scots-Irish may perhaps be found in the non- material culture - in the language and music of Appalachia, in their belief in the importance of the family farm, individualism, and public education - all features that one can detect in the typical American; and WHEREAS, Scots-Irish month provides us the opportunity to recognize the contributions made by the Scots-Irish and the aid they provided in the formation of our nation and in our country's rich heritage. NOW, THEREFORE, I, CARLETON E. CAREY SR., MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE, do hereby proclaim the month of April 2010 as SCOTS-IRISH MONTH and urge all citizens to take an active role in celebrating the accomplishments of the Scots-Irish in our society today. Mayor Carey presented the Proclamation to Mr. Peter Gregg, Chieftain of the Delaware Clan Gregor Society. Mr. Gregg noted that, when he is given the opportunity to meet people, he realizes that represents not only the Clan Gregor, but also the people of the City of Dover, and he promised to continue to do so to the best of his ability. Mr. Gregg indicated his acceptance of the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 5 Proclamation on behalf of the Scots-Irish citizens of the City of Dover. PUBLIC HEARING - VIOLATION OF THE DANGEROUS BUILDING ORDINANCE - 225 NORTH BRADFORD STREET (D & S INVESTMENTS CO., LLP) In accordance with Article XI - Dangerous Buildings, Sec. 22-388 - Emergency cases, of the Dover Code, in cases where it reasonably appears that there is an immediate danger to the life or safety of any person, unless a dangerous building is immediately repaired, vacated and closed, or demolished, the building inspector shall report such facts to the council, which may cause the immediate repair, vacation, or demolition of such dangerous building. Mr. Scott Koenig, Public Services Manager/Director of Public Works, provided and reviewed a Presentation on the condition of the property located at 225 North Bradford Street, owned by D & S Investments Co., LLP (Exhibit #1). Members were advised that this is considered an "emergency case" due to the testimony presented by neighbors regarding the property during the Open Forum of the Regular Council Meeting of March 22, 2010. Mr. Koenig reminded members that, according to the testimony, parts of the accessory barn structure on the property are considerably tilted, the building is packed with junk and trash, and it presents a potential public safety and fire hazard to the neighboring properties. Additionally, neighbors indicated that the structure is occupied by a resident who occasionally utilizes electricity from neighboring garages to power electric heaters and lights. The neighbors= testimony also included concerns about the stockpiling of garbage in the yard. Mr. Koenig stated that staff has visited the property and verified all of the above concerns except the use of electricity, since this appears to be intermittent. He noted that the garbage has been removed, but additional junk and debris continues to be stored in the yard, and this has attracted rats to the property. Mr. Koenig relayed appreciation to the neighbors for bringing this matter to the City=s attention. He advised members that the property owner has been responsive to the requests of the City and is moving forward expeditiously at this time. Due to the evidence of a fire hazard, public health and safety violations, and suspected illegal habitation of the structure, staff recommended the immediate demolition of the structure to remedy the situation. Staff recommended that City Council: 1) declare this accessory building dangerous; 2) order the structure repaired or demolished by May 12, 2010 by the owner or equity owner at their own risk; 3) order the Building Inspector to cause the repair or demolition of the building, if not completed by the owner within ten (10) days of the date set by Council; and 4) order the City Manager, with the assistance of the City Solicitor, to cause the cost of repairs or demolition to be charged against the land on which the building exists as a municipal lien or cause such cost to be added to the tax duplicate as an assessment, or to be levied as a special tax, or to be recovered in a suit of law against the owner.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 6 Responding to Mr. McGiffin, Mr. Koenig stated that the City does not have to provide a property owner 30 days to demolish the structure; however, he explained that 30 days has traditionally been the standard timeframe provided. He advised members that the presentation regarding this matter was prepared prior to the issuance of the demolition permit and that there has been activity on the property subsequently. Council President Williams declared the public hearing open. Mrs. Sara Herbert, 223 N. Bradford Street, advised members that, since demolition began, there have been five (5) dead rats and two (2) dead opossums found, as well as several live animals roaming the area. She noted that, although there has been some recent action taken by the property owners, it has been the neighbors= experience, that the owners do not always follow through on promises to improve the property. She relayed appreciation to the City for making sure this matter is completely resolved. On behalf of the neighbors, she conveyed thanks for the City=s quick response to the concerns presented at the Council Meeting of March 22, 2010. There being no one else wishing to speak, Council President Williams declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Hogan moved that the accessory structure located at 225 North Bradford Street be declared a dangerous building and subject to demolition, as recommended by staff, with the stipulation that the date of May 12, 2010, included in Item #2, be replaced with "within 10 days of date set by Council (April 12, 2010)". The motion was seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. RESCHEDULING OF PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - REZONING A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of property located on the south side of White Oak Road, 1,340+/- feet west of Long Point Road, owned by TLFD Management, LLC, consisting of 12.73+/- acres. The property is currently zoned R-20 (One-Family Residence) subject to SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) and the proposed zoning is R-8 (One Family Residence) subject to SWPOZ. Council President Williams advised members that this item was tabled by the Planning Commission until April 19, 2010. As a result, staff recommended that a Public Hearing/Final Reading before City Council be rescheduled for May 24, 2010 at 7:30 p.m.. The First Reading of Proposed Ordinance #2010-04 was accomplished during the Council Meeting of February 22, 2010. Mr. McGlumphy moved to reschedule the Public Hearing/Final Reading before City Council for May 24, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. for the rezoning of property located on the south side of White Oak Road, 1,340+/- feet west of Long Point Road, owned by TLFD Management, LLC, consisting of 12.73+/- acres. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 7 and unanimously carried. PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1051 COLLEGE ROAD, OWNED BY LANDS OF JNK, LLC A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of property located at 1051 College Road, owned by Lands of JNK, LLC, consisting of 4.32+/- acres, less a street right-of-way area consisting of 0.55+/- acres that divides the original tract into two (2) pieces. These properties are currently zoned R-8 (One Family Residence) and the proposed zoning is RG-2 (General Residence).

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 8 Council President Williams reminded members that the First Reading of Proposed Ordinance #2009-29 was accomplished during the Council Meeting of November 23, 2009. Due to inclement weather, the Planning Commission was unable to consider this item on December 21, 2009. On January 19, 2010, this item was tabled by the Planning Commission until March 15, 2010, and on February 22, 2010, the Public Hearing/Final Reading before City Council was rescheduled for April 12, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Salters moved that the Final Reading of Proposed Ordinance #2009-29 be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of Proposed Ordinance #2009-29 was accomplished during the Council Meeting of November 23, 2009). Planner's Review Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed the petition to amend the zoning district and the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission (Exhibit #2). The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request to RG-2. At the request of Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend explained that the RM-2 zoning classification allows for garden apartments but not for a large apartment building. The RG-2 zoning classification allows for garden apartments and, as a conditional use, allows for multiple dwellings, not necessarily garden apartments. She noted that the primary difference between the RM-2 and RG-2 classifications are the density and housing styles, explaining that the RG-2 allows for fewer varieties of housing and does not allow duplexes, townhouses, etc., and the RM-2 allows for these types of structures with density capped at eight (8) units per acre. She indicated that, while RG-2 allows for a higher density, it is limited to single-family detached dwellings or apartments. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend indicated that approval of the Arbors Senior Condominiums project included, as a condition, a road from College Road that connects to Emerald Pointe via Topaz Circle. When the matter came before the Planning Commission in January, there was public testimony and discussion among members that indicated concern regarding the through road and the effect it would have on traffic. The Planning Commission requested staff to reconsider the road. Mrs. Townshend stated that, since this is a rezoning application, there is no decision to be made regarding the roadway. She noted that the road is recorded, and future action by Council would be required to vacate the right-of-way if the recordation is to be changed. Public Hearing Council President Williams declared the hearing open. Mr. Douglas Berry, Professional Engineer for Pennoni Associates, provided members with the site plan, acknowledging that it was not to be considered in conjunction with the rezoning

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 9 request and was presented only to assist in a better understanding of the streets, etc. He noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request to RG-2, contingent upon having sole access to the site from Topaz Circle in the adjacent Emerald Pointe subdivision, so that there would be no means or ingress or egress via College Road due to safety concerns relayed during the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission. Mr. Berry advised members that the developers have indicated a cap on development density in the amount of 11.11 units per acre, which is essentially the same as proposed for the Arbors Senior Condominiums project. The developer also understands that their desire to construct a multiple- dwelling facility will be subject to submission and approval of a conditional use site plan application. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Berry confirmed that the original intent of the rezoning application was to provide for senior housing; however, due to current market conditions, the developer is not able to market to seniors only. He stated that this is the reason for the new rezoning request, as well as the fact that, in accordance with the City of Dover=s Comprehensive Plan, the RG-2 is an acceptable zoning designation for this property. Since the developer had not started any work on the Arbors seniors project, it became their desire to rezone the property and propose the exact same building, however, to remove the age-restricted designation from the record plan. There being no one else present wishing to speak, Council President Williams declared the hearing closed. Mr. McGlumphy moved for approval of the rezoning request, as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Leary. Responding to Mr. McGiffin, Mrs. Townshend explained that the road issue was not a part of the Planning Commission=s motion; however, prior to making his motion, the motion maker had indicated that if there was no access to College Road, it would be acceptable. As a result, she stated that, although the road issue cannot be a condition for the rezoning, it will be a matter that the Planning Commission will consider during the site plan review. The motion to approve the rezoning request, as recommended by the Planning Commission, was carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes and two (2) no (Mrs. Russell and Mr. Ruane) and Council adopted Ordinance #2009-29, 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 1051 COLLEGE ROAD. WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 10 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 R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) to RG-2 (General Residence Zone).

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 11 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 have been amended by changing the zoning designation from R-8 (Single Family Residence Zone) to RG-2 (General Residence Zone) on that property located at 1051 College Road, consisting of 4.32+/- acres, less a street right-of-way area consisting of 0.55+/- acres that divides the original tract into two (2) pieces, owned by JNK, LLC. ADOPTED: APRIL 12, 2010 UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT - MARCH 22, 2010 The Utility Committee met on March 22, 2010 with Chairman Ruane presiding. Extension of Recycling Contract and Option for the Future Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, advised members that the City of Dover=s contract agreement for curbside recycling with Delaware Solid Waste Authority (DSWA) expired on February 15, 2010. He stated that bids were solicited for recycling services in the Fall of 2009 and that DSWA was not the lowest bidder. He stated that $1.74 per pick up, which is based on 26 pick ups per year, per account, was the lowest proposal the City received. He noted that, based on the fee of $1.74 and the estimated number of average customers (7,740) per month, the cost to provide curbside recycling services using a contractor is $350,158 for FY 2011. Mr. DePrima also noted that DSWA recently informed the City of their intention to discontinue operating the trucks that pick up recyclables; however, they have agreed to extend their contract from March 1, 2010 until June 30, 2010. He stated that the existing price of $1 per pick up ($2.00 per month) per account will remain in effect during this time and that the estimated cost to extend the program is $61,324.00. It was Mr. DePrima=s feeling that recycling services could be provided by the City at a substantially lower cost if the work force in this area were expanded by a maximum of four (4) new employees; therefore, staff does not recommend awarding a contract to the lowest bidder. He advocated continuing recycling service in the future, as it is supported by many residents and conserves landfill space. Mr. DePrima also noted that Governor Jack Markell recently announced his intention to propose legislation that would mandate recycling in Delaware and require municipalities to operate under the new legislation by September 2011. He advised members that he is working with Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, on preparing a detailed cost analysis for the City of Dover to run its own recycling program. A side-by-side comparison will be provided to members during their next meeting. Staff recommended authorizing the City Manager to execute the contract extension with DSWA. Mr. Ruane requested that, in addition to the cost analysis, staff also provide members with an

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 12 outline of the proposed recycling legislation during their next meeting.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 13 Responding to Mr. Hogan, Mr. DePrima stated that some of the recycling fees collected by the State will be used to establish grants and loans for municipalities. He also noted that the State of Delaware will be required to give the existing recycling containers to municipalities and that the City has been discussing the option of purchasing equipment from DSWA. In response to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Scott Koenig, Public Services Manager/Director of Public Works, stated that 85% percent of residents currently participate in the recycling program; however, the program has not been extended to apartment complexes and parts of the downtown area did not receive containers in the initial roll out. Referring to the Report on Recycle Tracking for FY 2010, Mr. Koenig stated that the City has avoided $58,000 in landfill charges by operating the curbside recycling program and that 945 tons were pure recycling. The Committee recommended authorizing the City Manager to execute the addendum for Curbside Recycling with the Delaware Solid Waste Authority, with the terms outlined in the agreement. By consent agenda, Mr. McGlumphy moved for approval of the Committee=s recommendation (Exhibit #3), seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Review of Utility Related CIP=s (Electric and Water/Wastewater) Members were provided the Water/Wastewater Capital Investment Plan Project Tracking Report (as of January 31, 2010) and Major CIP Project Reports for the General Fund, Community Transportation and General Fund Street Funds, Water/Wastewater Improvement and Extension Fund, and Electric Improvement and Extension Fund. Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, advised members that the City has recently resolved the water loans. He also noted that a number of electric and water/wastewater projects have been started and that great progress is being made. With regards to the Inflow and Infiltration (I & I) Removal Project, Mr. Ronald Lunt, Public Utilities Director, stated that the project is funded through the revolving loan fund and bids were previously solicited; however, because the Davis-Bacon Federal Wage provision was not included in the original contract, the City will have to re-bid the project. He explained that the bidding process will be a minimum of three (3) months. In response to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Lunt explained that the cost of the project is unknown until the City receives the bid proposals, and it is anticipated that the cost of labor will increase; however, the increase will be offset by savings and interest. The Committee recommended acceptance of the report.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 14 By consent agenda, Mr. McGlumphy moved for approval of the Committee=s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 15 FY 2011 Five-Year Capital Investment Plan (CIP) Members were provided the Five (5) Year Capital Investment Plan for FY 2011 (included as an attachment to the Committee minutes). Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, noted that new projects were highlighted in yellow. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Ronald Lunt, Public Utilities Director, stated that most of the projects listed in Wastewater Management were for pump stations and work on a force main that is 30-40 years old and has exceeded its life cycle. He stated that the City currently uses a program to evaluate the lift stations. Mr. Lunt explained that the Master Plan did not discuss lift stations unless related to capacity issues; therefore, the City is following the recommendations of staff. In regards to the Electric Engineering Transmission Relay and Coordination Project, Mr. Lunt advised members that, with the recent 69Kv system expansion, the City has experienced mis- operations within the system. He stated that the system is extremely complex; therefore, the City has neither the equipment nor resources to review the settings to rectify the problems in-house. Mr. Lunt explained that staff proposes hiring an outside firm to review each relay so that the problem may be resolved. Responding to Mr. Snaman, Mr. Lunt stated that there are two (2) facets associated with the cost of the project, including purchasing an internal program to review impedances (less than half of the expense), and hiring a contractor to examine each wire and relay setting. He stated that it is anticipated that the project will take at least one (1) year to complete. In response to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, stated that Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) assumptions and rate structures have been operated through financial models that have been used in the past. She noted that the model is lacking the departmental budget for Fiscal Year 2011. Mrs. Mitchell explained that these improvements were originally modeled at $3M and are now being modeled at $4M, due to the addition of projects. As a result, Operating Funds have been transferred to Capital Funds. Mrs. Mitchell also noted that funds were transferred from the Operating Fund to the Improvement and Extension fund for Plant Engineering and Transmission and Distribution (T&D) projects. Mrs. Mitchell advised members that there are sufficient funds in the Operating Fund; therefore, the City is able to transfer $4M without financing. Mr. DePrima advised members that a life study analysis was conducted on units 1, 2, and 3 of the power plant and that the results of the study would be brought to the Committee at a later date. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Lunt stated that the analysis examined the cost and the anticipated revenue of the units. He explained that the revenue from the Capacity Market exceeds the expense outlined. Mr. Lunt noted that the analysis included a 20-year projection and that the anticipated revenues were favorable, especially on Unit 3. He stated that the term of the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 16 Capacity Market is three (3) years; therefore, the City's revenue is known during the three (3) year period, and the revenue for years four (4) and five (5) could be reasonably projected. However, he cautioned that, due to the instability in the market, further projections are very difficult, and after five (5) years the Capacity Market is based on assumption. Mr. Lunt stated that he was confident that the City would receive compensation for generation far beyond three (3) years. In response to Mr. Hogan, Mr. Lunt stated that, although Indian River has recently closed some of their plants, it is unlikely that the City will increase operations due to the units= inefficiency; however, if the load were to expand, then operations would increase. He noted that the primary purpose is to maintain capacity. Mr. Lunt advised members that the City is currently at 100% of the available capacity payment. He stated that capacity payments are as follows: FY 2010-2011 - $11.3M ($2.3M for units 1 and 2) FY 2011-2012 - $6.9M ($1.3M for units 1 and 2) FY 2010-2013 - $14M ($2.7M for units 1 and 2) Mr. DePrima advised members that the new power plant was classified as a gas plant; therefore, the City is exempt from performing a test that would have cost $500,000 in fuel. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the City has stressed to PACE the importance of ensuring that investments provide a return. She noted that some projects were re-evaluated and scaled down for this reason. Responding to Mr. Snaman, Mr. Lunt stated that the new gas power plant will be nearly twice as efficient as the existing units. He noted that the heat rate on the existing units is 13,500 to 14,000 BTU/kWh and would be 7,200 BTU/kWh on the new plant. Mr. Lunt explained that the current plant operates 2 percent of the time, and that the new plant would operate 40-50 percent of the time. He noted that the operation of the plant would increase to 60 percent in the out years. Mr. Lunt stated that it is anticipated that units 1 and 2 will eventually be retired. The Committee recommended acceptance of the FY 2011 Five-Year Capital Investment Plan (CIP) report. By consent agenda, Mr. McGlumphy moved for approval of the Committee=s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. By consent agenda, Mr. McGlumphy moved for acceptance of the Utility Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT - MARCH 22, 2010 The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met on March 22, 2010 with Chairman McGlumphy presiding.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 17 Review and Recommendation - Filling of Critical Positions During their meeting of February 23, 2009, members recommended approval of the Hiring Freeze for Fiscal Year 2008-2009, but to allow the hiring of critical positions through the review and approval of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee and City Council. It was suggested that there be a "standing" agenda item to consider the filling of critical positions and, if there are no positions to consider, the item could be removed. Mr. McGlumphy noted that there were no critical positions to be considered; therefore, no further action was required. Presentation - Summary of Pay for Performance (PFP) Employee Meetings Council President Williams reminded members that when the MAG overview of recommendations was presented to the Committee during their meeting of November 23, 2009, staff was requested to schedule dates for members of Council to meet with employees to assure their understanding and provide them with an opportunity to comment before the plan is presented to Council. Further discussion of the MAG Study was tabled until these employee meetings were held. She noted that all members of Council were invited to attend the meetings. After meeting with the employees, Council President Williams indicated that employee comments were returned to the department to verify accuracy, submitted to the City Clerk, and then forwarded to City Council. Council President Williams reviewed a Presentation of the Summary of Pay for Performance (PFP) Employee Meetings (included as an attachment to the Committee minutes). Referring to the statement in the Presentation that "employees are told that Council is responsible for current methodology", Mr. McGiffin inquired what that methodology was. Responding, Council President Williams explained that this refers to the fact that Council implemented "across the board" pay increases, even though the pay for performance evaluation system was being used. She indicated that the same methodology for pay increases was provided for all employees regardless of whether or not employee goals were achieved. Council President Williams stated that increases were considered during the budget hearings, and a fixed rate increase for all employees was implemented to "correct" budgetary issues. She felt that Council was not given information regarding the effect this would have on employees. She indicated that, as a member of Council, she was not aware that employees who had completed a majority of their goals, or in some cases all of them, would be treated the same as those employees who did not complete their goals. Mr. McGlumphy explained that some employees stated that they understood that the methodology originally established was to provide pay increases based on performance, and they felt that the methodology was changed by Council when across the board increases were

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 18 provided. As a result, he advised members that a majority of the employees relayed opposition. It was Mr. McGiffin=s understanding that Council took the action to provide across the board pay increases as a compromise measure due to the City=s economic situation at the time and that he was aware of the effect of Council=s action in this regard; therefore, the results were clearly Council=s responsibility. In response, Council President Williams stated that when she voted in favor of the increase, it was her understanding that the total 3.5% increase would be doled out according to pay for performance procedures. When employees questioned the across the board raise, staff indicated that this was the result of Council=s action and that they would need to talk to Council regarding this matter.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 19 Mr. Hogan stated that his interpretation of Council=s action was the same as that of Mr. McGiffin. He requested further explanation regarding the statement that "many executive decisions are conducted without awareness or knowledge of Council". Responding, Council President Williams stated that employees provided information and data regarding executive decisions that were made without the knowledge of herself, Mr. McGlumphy, or other members of Council who were present at the meetings; however, the employees were advised that these decisions were vetted through Council. She reiterated that she is serving as a messenger of information provided by employees and assured members that she could review her notes to provide more specifics regarding this matter. Dr. Jones questioned the supervisory authority/responsibility of the Human Resources Director based on the correspondence and information regarding Mr. Peter Gregg (see Attachment #1 included in the Committee minutes) and on the presentation under goal setting, bullet number two (2). Responding, Mr. DePrima, City Manager, indicated that there is some confusion regarding the term "pay for performance", which refers to the evaluation system, but is being used in discussions which go beyond the evaluation. With regards to Mr. Gregg, he explained that the concern is with the overall compensation system and not pay for performance. Unfortunately, he stated, the term "pay for performance" has been used to discuss both systems. Mr. DePrima advised members that there is an appeal process for the pay for performance evaluation process. He stated that there is no appeal process for the compensation system, which is relevant to the concerns relayed by Mr. Gregg. The compensation system is conducted by consultants and is outlined in a report to the Committee; therefore, there is no employee appeal process. The compensation system addresses compensation points and has nothing to do with Mr. Gregg=s evaluation. With regards to the role of the Human Resources Department, Mr. DePrima stated that this department is responsible for determining whether the grade indicated on an evaluation is justified by the language provided. This justification is required for both high and low grades. In addition, Mr. DePrima stated that the Human Resources Department is also responsible for assuring that the goals are detailed (strategic, measured, attainable, realistically high, and time bound). The only role the Human Resources Department has with the compensation system is to assure that the data provided to the consultant is accurate. Mr. McGlumphy suggested that Mr. DePrima review the presentation provided and respond to the Committee within the next month. Responding, Mr. DePrima stated that there is an expectation among employees that Council will be taking action regarding this matter. He reminded members that staff presented the MAG overview of recommendations to the Committee in November 2009 and that there were 21 recommendations for improvements to the pay for performance system, there was a policy presented, and that employees have waited for four (4) months for action. It was his feeling that to delay action for another month would be unfair and requested that the MAG overview of recommendations be discussed at the next Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 20 meeting. The Committee recommended that this matter be tabled until the next Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting and that the Chair do his best to assure this is an agenda item to allow for discussion at that time. By consent agenda, Mr. McGlumphy moved for approval of the Committee=s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Latest Estimate (LE) for Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Mrs. Teresa Tieman, Senior City Administrator, reviewed the Latest Estimate (LE) for the Fiscal Year 2010 Budget. She advised members that the purpose of the report is to provide City Council with a recent estimate of the City=s Budget for FY 2010. Mrs. Tieman explained that the report contains a series of revisions that were made to the City=s Budget, which include the Prior Year Balance, Loss of Municipal Street Aid, impact of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) Settlement, and revised expenses for power supply and generation that positively impact the Electric Fund. She also noted that during the City Council meeting of January 25, 2010, members were provided with the Quarterly Revenue Report as of December 2009, which included deductions in revenue as well as any changes to the Utility Forecast models and have been reflected in the latest estimate. Mrs. Tieman also indicated that the impact of the reduced number of furlough days for non- bargaining, FOP, IUE, and IBEW employees from 11 to 9 days is detailed in the report. Hiring freeze reductions, which include reductions in benefits, are also reflected in this update. A second shift of ambulance coverage and the estimate for the winter snowstorms of 2010 are also included in this latest estimate. Mrs. Tieman advised members that the General Fund balance projection will not meet the financial policy criteria. She explained that the fund balance is equal to approximately 7.87% of revenues and, while not compliant, it is close to the policy of 8% of revenues. Mrs. Tieman stated that the Water and Wastewater Fund balance exceeds policy guidelines of 12%: Water is 25% ($676,265 in excess) of revenues and Wastewater is 27.6% ($533,562 in excess) of revenues. She indicated that the Electric Fund balance is in compliance with policy, noting that the current fund level is 11.6% of the fund balance. Responding to concerns of Mr. Ruane, Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, stated that most of the Water/Wastewater projects are being financed this year through loans and bonds. He noted that the biggest expense in the Wastewater fund is the Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) expenses. Mr. DePrima stated that the City would have to take action to address the shortfall in revenues and reminded members that this was mentioned during the Council Retreat on January 25, 2010. He assured members that departments are taking every action available to reduce expenses; however, he noted that although the large decrease in expenses is necessary, it is difficult when all capital projects have been eliminated.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 21 Presentation - Comprehensive Annual Financial Report - Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2009 Due to time constraints, Mr. McGlumphy stated that the Presentation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2009 would be deferred until the next meeting.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 22 FY 2011 Five-Year Capital Investment Plan (CIP) Due to time constraints, Mr. McGlumphy stated that the FY2011 Five-Year Capital Investment Plan (CIP) would be deferred until the next meeting. By consent agenda, Mr. McGlumphy moved for acceptance of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. SPECIAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - MARCH 24, 2010 The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee met on March 24, 2010 with Chairwoman Russell presiding. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application Review Mrs. Harvey, Community Development Manager, noted that members would be serving as the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Review Panel for the CDBG Applications for Fiscal Year 2010. As such, members were provided a list of applicants and staff reports summarizing each application, a CDBG interview schedule, a breakdown of Federal resources available for use and the total amount of grant funds requested, CDBG scoring criteria, and a CDBG Grant Application Review Sheet for each applicant. She requested that members summarize their evaluation of each application on the CDBG Grant Application Review Sheet and provide a score based on information presented. Mrs. Harvey explained that the numbers in parenthesis next to each measure indicate the maximum score for a given category and that the maximum total points is 100. Mrs. Harvey advised members that the total grant available for activities is $227,434 and explained the allocation requirements of the grant, as follows: CDBG Funds Allocation $274,000 Anticipated Program Income $ 10,292 Total CDBG Funds $284,292 20% of the grant must be allocated for $284,292 Program Administration x.20 $56,858 Grant Funds Available for Activities $227,434 Total Grant Funds Requested $433,938.37 Mrs. Harvey cautioned that, according to CDBG requirements, public service activities cannot exceed 15% of the total grant amount ($42,643).

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 23

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 24 Oral Presentations Each applicant was provided an opportunity to make oral presentations before the Committee, as follows: GEM Properties - 217-219 West Reed Street - $14,350 Mr. David Pierson and Mr. Matthew Davis, Principals for GEM Properties, reviewed the grant application, in the amount of $14,350. Mr. Pierson explained that the request is to introduce Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) upgrades to two (2), first-floor, one (1) bedroom apartment units. Mr. Pierson stated that plans for the project include: 1) creation of two (2) ADA compliant ramps on either side of the apartment house; 2) installation of new wooden gates at the front of the apartment dwelling on both the left and right sides to facilitate ease of access to the dwelling units; 3) construction of a fence to divide the common backyard into two (2) distinct backyard areas; 4) installation of two (2) new ADA compliant back doors; and 5) creation of a "garbage can keeper" on the front, left side of the building. He noted that the dwelling currently houses four (4) low to moderate income residents. In response to Mrs. Russell, Mr. Pierson noted that on-street parking is available for the dwelling and there is no curb cut-out at the present time; however, the proposed ramps will provide gradual access from the existing sidewalk. He noted that the purpose of the proposed gate would be to provide security and that a gradual slope will be provided to grant access to the building entrance. Mrs. Harvey indicated that, because the property is located in the Historic District, the project would require review by the State Office of Historic Preservation. First State Resource Conservation & Development Council, Inc. (RC&D) - $40,000 Ms. Christine L. Stillson, Project Director for the First State Resource Conservation & Development Council, Inc. (RC & D) Emergency Home Repair Project, reviewed the grant application, in the amount of $40,000, to make repairs to homes in Dover which are owned by very low income homeowners. Members were provided a memo dated March 24, 2010, summarizing Ms. Stillson=s remarks (included as an attachment to the Committee minutes). She stated that projects undertaken by her organization typically include repairs of an emergency nature which involve heating systems, electrical work, plumbing, and roof repairs, as well as smaller requests such as window replacement and construction of ramps for handicapped individuals. Ms. Stillson noted that, to date, eight (8) homes within the corporate limits of Dover have been repaired with the CDBG funds received last year. Over the past five (5) years, RC & D has repaired 38 homes as a grant sub-recipient at an average cost of $2,500 per home. She noted that the homeowners served represent a diverse population. Ms. Stillson stated that the funds requested would provide repairs to an estimated ten (10) to fifteen (15) homes and the average repair would be approximately $3,200. She noted that the organization strives to preserve the existing stock of homes in Dover by supporting rehabilitation of owner-occupied, low income homes. She emphasized that the need in this area continues to be great.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 25

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 26 Connections Community Support Program - $15,000 Ms. Sarah Weimer, Grant Manager, and Ms. Leslie Catts, Director of Homeless Services, reviewed the grant application, in the amount of $15,000, stating that funds are being requested to finance motel stays for homeless people in Delaware. Ms. Weimer explained that there is frequently a transitional period before homeless individuals can be accommodated in local shelters or permanent supportive housing, and the provision of hotel vouchers helps to bridge that gap. She noted that two (2) years ago, Connections received a $15,000 CDBG grant and, over a five (5) month period, was able to assist 69 homeless people. In response to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Weimer indicated that most clients are accommodated for a one (1) week period at an average rate of $250-275 per week. In response to Mr. Hogan, Ms. Weimer indicated that very few clients are repeat users, estimating that out of the 69 clients served during the previous year, one (1) or two (2) returned for additional services. People=s Place II, Inc. - $9,338.37 Mr. Del Failing, Associate Director, People=s Place II, reviewed the grant application, in the amount of $9,338.37, and advised members that the funding request is to upgrade the heating/ventilation/air conditioning system at the Ruth Dorsey Emergency Homeless Shelter. He noted that this upgrade will improve the energy efficiency of the HVAC system and will result in lower propane and electric bills. Responding to Mr. Hogan, Mr. Failing explained that People=s Place II, which is based in Milford, was established in the 1970's and provides services as far north as Townsend and as far south as Millsboro. He noted that the organization combats domestic violence by providing a variety of services such as counseling, a 24-hour hotline, psycho-educational groups for batterers, treatment for victims of violence, including youth and adults, and programs for veterans. Mr. Failing also noted that the organization operates residential shelters and foster care homes. He stated that People=s Place II assumed ownership and operation of the Whatcoat Shelter in Dover in October of 2009 and is performing a number of renovations to this site. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Failing stated that the organization has not explored State or Federal funding sources for grants related to projects that promote energy efficiency; however, he concurred that this would be a good option to explore for other planned projects. Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity (CDHFH) - $40,000 Ms. Jocelyn McBride, Executive Director, Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity (CDHFH), reviewed the grant application, in the amount of $40,000, and explained that the request is to rehabilitate the property located at 101 Jefferson Court in Dover. She explained that, in 2006, the City of Dover declared this dwelling to be a dangerous property and began an environmental clean- up. At the completion of the clean-up, the property was boarded up and, due to the economy, the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 27 City was unable to sell the property until October 2009, when CDHFH purchased the property. The property was completely gutted by the City, and the integrity of the structure remains solid. Ms. McBride noted that it is the goal of CDHFH to renovate the dwelling to be a simple, decent, affordable home for a moderate-income family. She stated that this project will benefit the surrounding property owners, as well as the family who will occupy the home. Ms. McBride read into the record a statement submitted by Mrs. Renai Comstock, one of the prospective property owners, as follows: "Hello, my name is Renai Comstock, and my family was selected as a partner family with Habitat for Humanity. We chose a home to be rehabbed in the City of Dover, 101 Jefferson Court, to be exact. We chose this location because my husband works in Cheswold and I work in Dover, so it is kind of in the middle for us. Also, my children go to school in the Caesar Rodney School District, and it is important for us to reside in Dover because Dover has been very welcoming to our family since we moved here in March of 2008. We will not only have the opportunity to purchase our own house, we will now finally have a home - a place for our children to feel safe and have no more worries for our future. Habitat has been a Godsend to our family. So, in closing, I would like to just say thank you to Habitat for this generosity, and to the City of Dover for having such a beautiful city to call home." Ms. McBride stressed that CDHFH has operated very successfully in the area, having built 12 homes within Dover City limits, none of which have been foreclosed on and two (2) of which have been paid off. She indicated that this project would be the first renovation project for the organization, noting that typically their dwellings are constructed from the ground up. Diamond State Community Land Trust (DSCLT) - $40,000 Mr. Van Temple, Executive Director of the Diamond State Community Land Trust (DSCLT), reviewed the grant application, in the amount of $40,000, and advised members that the request would allow for the purchase and thorough renovation of one (1) single-family home in Northwest Dover Heights, Lincoln Park, or surrounding areas for a low-income family. He noted that one of the criteria for selecting the home will be the roof orientation and size, so that solar panels can be installed to provide energy for solar hot water and possibly electricity generation to achieve maximum benefit from these renewable energy investments. Mr. Temple provided members with a cost breakdown for the Dover Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Request (included as an attachment to the Committee minutes) for review. In response to Mr. Hogan, Mr. Temple indicated that, under this program, the homeowner will purchase the home; however, DSCLT will retain ownership of the land. The homeowner will sign a 99-year renewable lease for exclusive rent of the land for a set, below-market fee of $40 per month. Mr. Temple explained that the rental fees collected by DSCLT help to fund the organization. In addition, he stated that, under this model, DSCLT homes are affordable not only for the first time buyer but for future buyers of the property as well.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 28 In response to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Temple explained that CDBG funds would be used for the purchase of the land rather than for renovations. Mrs. Harvey confirmed that this is an eligible use of CDBG funds. Mr. Hogan suggested that pictures of properties and a map with a description of the location would be useful in evaluating applications in the future. Tolano and Cathy Anderson - 301-305 West Loockerman Street - $62,500 Due to the failure of the applicant to appear, there was no action taken on this application. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, stated that Mr. Hogan would not be present for the afternoon portion of the meeting and noted that he had provided a score for all applications reviewed during the morning session. City of Dover Streets Project - $100,000 Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, and Mr. Scott Koenig, Public Services Manager/Director of Public Works, reviewed the grant application, in the amount of $100,000. Mr. DePrima reminded members that the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program was created by the Federal government to assist local governments in providing for the needs of low and moderate income residents. He explained that municipalities are often shouldered with providing infrastructure repairs such as street, sewer, and sidewalk work, in neighborhoods where property values are not high and there is not a great amount of tax income. For this reason, he stated, the Federal government incorporated a category for public infrastructure improvements within the CDBG program. Mr. DePrima explained that the City of Dover is facing reduced revenues and increased costs and needs funds for street improvements in low and moderate income neighborhoods. In addition, he reminded members that three (3) to five (5) years ago, the Committee made a commitment to fund street improvements over a series of years and, as a result, new sidewalks were constructed and repaving was done in the area north of Loockerman Street on New, Queen, Kirkwood, and West Streets. He noted that, if funds were approved, target areas would likely include Mitscher Road or other streets where a majority of residents are low or moderate income, or streets located in a low or moderate income census track. He added that the downtown area south of Loockerman Street should also be addressed at some point. Mr. Koenig explained that the City of Dover manages just over 100 miles of streets and alleys and this network is growing. He noted that there are a number of streets throughout the City which are aging and the past winter has been very hard on pavement. He explained that street funding is typically drawn from the City=s General Fund as part of an annual appropriation request received from area legislators under the Community Transportation Program (discretionary funds that legislators can use for transportation-related projects), or has been funded through CDBG grants. Mr. Koenig noted that receiving CDBG funds would allow staff to leverage additional funds for an overall City street program. He advised members that a large

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 29 number of individuals would benefit from the program. In response to Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima noted that South Queen and South New Streets are both in very bad condition, but neither are in a low to moderate income census track; therefore, residents on these streets would have to be surveyed to prove a majority of low and moderate income. Mr. Koenig stated that South New Street from Loockerman Street down to Water Street is the third worst pavement section on the project list and was last paved in 1982. He estimated the cost of the project at between $225,000 and $250,000.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 30 He requested the opportunity to return to the Committee with a proposal for an allocation for the streets program from future CDBG allocations. Mr. DePrima noted that receiving a multi-year commitment from the Committee to address a particular area, possibly the South New and South Queen Street area, would enable staff to develop an area-wide strategy to present to legislators and City Council in order to leverage funds from the General Fund and discretionary funds. Mr. Ruane stated that if funds were allocated to the Streets Project, his preference would be to know specifically which area would be targeted. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, indicated that some City streets are located in an approved low to moderate income census track and, therefore, automatically meet CDBG requirements, whereas other areas would potentially require a survey. She noted that the 2010 census data should be available next year and could alter the requirement for a survey. City of Dover - Housing Rehabilitation Program - $60,000 Mrs. Tracey Harvey, Community Development Manager, reviewed the grant application, in the amount of $60,000, and explained that the request is for funds to be used in the City of Dover=s Housing Rehabilitation Program to rehabilitate up to five (5) houses. She noted that the program=s 2008 waiting list has been depleted and all applicants have been served. In January, the waiting list was reopened and 20 applicants have been placed on that list. Mrs. Harvey stated that remaining funds from last year=s program will be used to repair four (4) to five (5) homes, and another four (4) to five (5) homes are planned for renovation in the fall, so a total of eight (8) to ten (10) homes will be rehabilitated during the year. She noted that the program has been very successful and there is a great demand for it. Mrs. Horsey stated her support for this program as it assists in bringing houses up to code and allows residents to continue to occupy their dwellings. Home Ownership Assistance Program (City of Dover Community Development Project) - $50,000 Mrs. Tracey Harvey, Community Development Manager, reviewed the grant application, in the amount of $50,000, and explained that the request is for funds to provide five (5) first time home buyers with down payment assistance or closing costs to purchase affordable housing in the City of Dover. She noted that there is a great need for this program, that all FY 2009 project funding has been expended, and that she has received numerous calls of interest from potential homeowners and housing providers in Dover. Review/Scoring of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Applications Members reviewed and discussed the various CDBG grant applications to develop a score for each applicant. The Committee recommended that the application for grant funds for 301-305 West Loockerman

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 31 Street not be reviewed any further by the Committee, due to the failure of the applicant to appear for the interview, although staff provided him with a letter notifying him of the date and time of the scheduled CDBG review and discussed this further with him by telephone. By consent agenda, Mr. McGlumphy moved for approval of the Committee=s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Ruane suggested that future application packages contain a statement indicating that a time and date will be set for application review by the Committee and that failure to attend will result in withdrawal from consideration. Mr. Lewis suggested that the package include a request to the applicant to return a written acknowledgment of receipt. Mr. Ruane expressed his support for the City of Dover Streets Project; however, felt that targeted areas should be identified so that funds are not blended into the General Fund. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, explained that funds could not go into the general program and must be spent on an eligible street. She noted that the Committee could request by motion that staff provide a list of recommendations of targeted areas; however, she noted the challenges of the timeframe involved since there is no way to anticipate what legislators will allocate for streets during the next fiscal year. After a period of discussion, members conducted a review of each grant application and provided individual scores on the CDBG Grant Application Scoring Sheet for all applicants (as on file in the Office of the City Clerk), and staff tallied the scoring sheets. Members agreed to fund the First State Resource Conservation District (RC&D), Connections Community Support Program, Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity, and the City of Dover Housing Rehabilitation Program at 80% of the requested level, and to allocate the remaining funds to the City of Dover Streets Program. Based on the scoring of the grant applications, it was noted that the Committee supports the distribution of the CDBG grant monies, as follows: Amount Amount Applicant Requested Recommended First State Resource Conservation and Development Council (RC & D) $ 40,000 $ 32,000 Connections Community Support Program $ 15,000 $ 12,000 Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity $ 40,000 $ 32,000 City of Dover Streets Program $ 100,000 $ 63,434 City of Dover Community Development Projects: Housing Rehabilitation Program $ 50,000 $ 48,000

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 32 Homeownership Assistance Program $ 50,000 $ 40,000 The Committee recommended approval of the distribution of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) monies based on the scoring of the grant applications conducted by the Committee. By consent agenda, Mr. McGlumphy moved for approval of the Committee=s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. By consent agenda, Mr. McGlumphy 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 - MARCH 24, 2010 The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee met on March 24, 2010 with Chairman Slavin presiding. Truck Route Traffic: West of Dover through Bicentennial Village Mr. Scott Koenig, Public Services Manager/Director of Public Works, advised members that a complaint was received from a resident regarding noise and danger to pedestrians due to commercial trucks traveling on residential roads, including Walker Road and Independence Boulevard extending to Superfresh/Ace Hardware. The complainant requested that signs prohibiting trucks over 5,000 lbs., except for local deliveries, be placed in these areas. Mr. Koenig stated that this request was approved and that signs would be installed on Walker Road and just past the northbound entrance of Superfresh by March 26, 2010. Mr. Koenig stated that the same resident requested the installation of similar signs on Walker Road from Saulsbury Road to Kenton Road, on College Road from Saulsbury Road to Kenton Road, and on Fire School Road. He indicated that a letter to the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) has been drafted and, if approved, City-maintained signs will be installed at those locations as well. Mr. Koenig further mentioned that there might be a need for signs to warn drivers that truck traffic is prohibited on certain streets to help police with enforcement. Mr. Koenig stated that another component of the complaint was noise from motorcycles and loud mufflers; however, he noted that these issues cannot be addressed by the Public Services Department. Police Chief Jeffrey Horvath stated that after the signs have been installed, soft enforcement, with the issuance of warnings, will be in effect for up to two (2) weeks. He further mentioned

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 33 that the noise complaints are city-wide and will be enforced with tickets; no warnings will be issued. Responding to Mr. Gary Laing, DelDOT Community Relations Officer and Public Relations Liaison, Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, stated that the sign verbage "Local Deliveries Only" is acceptable to eliminate the need for custom signs. In response to Mr. Harmon, Chief Horvath stated that information regarding "local deliveries only" could be placed on the bottom of electric bills and on the City=s website. Mr. DePrima noted that notifications would be sent out to the tenants at Greentree Shopping Center. The Committee recommended approval of the actions presented by staff and requested staff to provide an update during the April 12, 2010 City Council Meeting. As requested by Mr. Slavin, Mr. Koenig advised that the signs on Independence Boulevard have been erected north of the Superfresh entrances and signage has also been installed on Independence Boulevard near the intersection of Walker Road. He stated he received an email from Lt. Alan Rachko, Dover Police Department, stating that the Department would prefer to have advance warning signs posted, in fairness to motorists, and Mr. Koenig anticipated that these would be installed by the end of the week. Mr. Koenig noted that the second component of the request was for the same type of restrictions on both Walker Road and College Road from Kenton Road to McKee Road. He advised members that these are both State maintained right-of-ways and that a request letter has been drafted and will be forwarded on April 13, 2010. Mr. Koenig indicated that, if the State is agreeable, the City will erect truck posting signage on behalf of the State. He stated that there may be a need to provide advance warning signs; therefore, the issue may not be totally resolved for an additional 30 days. Police Chief Hosfelt advised members that the Community Policing Unit will visit businesses in the area to make them aware of the change and request that delivery drivers be briefed on the restrictions. The Police Department will begin enforcement once the correct signage has been erected. Mr. Slavin moved for approval of the Committee=s recommendation for approval of the action presented by staff, seconded by Mrs. Russell and unanimously carried. FY 2011 Five-Year Capital Investment Plan (CIP) Members reviewed the FY 2011 Five-Year Capital Investment Plan (CIP). Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, offered to respond to any questions that members might have regarding the submitted report. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mr. DePrima stated that the road life of a police vehicle is

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 34 approximately four (4) to five (5) years. In response to Mr. Hogan, Mr. DePrima stated that the engine and rescue trucks for the Fire Department are on a three (3) year cycle and the ladder trucks are on a fifteen year cycle. Mr. DePrima advised members that he will hold a meeting with Fire Chief Sean Christiansen, Mrs. Teresa Tieman, Senior City Administrator; and Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, to discuss longer finance terms on fire vehicles and fire vehicle replacement cycles. The Committee recommended acceptance of the report. By consent agenda, Mr. McGlumphy moved for approval of the Committee=s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Update on Wyoming Mill Road Project (Gary Laing) Mr. Gary Laing, DelDOT Community Relations Officer and Public Relations Liaison, advised members that a public workshop to discuss the Wyoming Mill Project would be held at the Pitts Center on April 21, 2010 from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mr. Koenig advised members that all phases of the construction project are fully funded and that no additional matching funds would be required. He noted that utility construction will begin in the Fall of 2010. Mr. Laing noted the following: • DelDOT has approved a request from the Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to prohibit left turns from westbound North Street unto southbound West Street. • Construction for the four (4) way traffic signal at the entrance/exit to Eden Hill on North Street will begin as early as April. • Construction on the transit hub will begin shortly and is funded through Recovery Act monies in the amount of $4.4 M; buses from that location should begin running as early as December 2010. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mr. Laing stated that the North State Street repaving project should begin sometime in April. In response to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Laing advised members that paving on south Governors Avenue should begin in mid-to-late April; however, this has not been confirmed. Discussion - Concerns Related to New Traffic Light on Rt. 13 (at Gena=s Steaks and Kirby

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 35 & Holloway Crossover) Members were provided a letter from Mr. Clive Sadler regarding the traffic light installed at the intersection of Route 13 and Lepore Road, between Kirby & Holloway and Gena=s Steaks (included as an attachment to the Committee minutes). Mr. Slavin advised members that since this item was added to the agenda, no action would be taken; however, the topic would be open to discussion. Mr. Laing advised members that prior to the installation of the light, motorists were making poor decisions, resulting in severe accidents, including side collisions and fatalities. The light was installed to give motorists a safe amount of time to make a left turn. Mr. Slavin requested that copies of any correspondence regarding this matter be forwarded to the City of Dover. Mr. Slavin moved for acceptance of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Report, seconded by Mrs. Russell and unanimously carried.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 36 MONTHLY REPORTS - FEBRUARY 2010 By motion of Mr. McGlumphy, seconded by Mr. Salters, the following monthly reports were accepted by consent agenda: Budget Report Chief of Police Report City Assessor Report City Manager's Report City Planner=s Report APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES - ROBBINS HOSE COMPANY SPECIAL ELECTION - APRIL 19, 2010 A Special Election for the Robbins Hose Company is scheduled for April 19, 2010. The following persons have been recommended to serve as judges for the election: 1. John Hurd 2. Jack Mitchell 3. Nancy Auten (alternate) By consent agenda, Mr. McGlumphy moved for approval of the appointment of judges for the Robbins Hose Company election, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. FINAL READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2010-05 The First Reading of the following Proposed Ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of March 22, 2010. Proposed Ordinance #2010-05 Amending Chapter 2 - Administration, Article VI - Other Post- Employment Benefits Fund, Section 2-505 - Medicare Part B Premium Reimbursements Mr. Ruane moved that the Final Reading of the Proposed Ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried. Mr. Ruane moved for adoption of Ordinance #2010-05, seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes and one (1) no (Mr. Hogan): BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: That Chapter 2 - Administration, Article VI - Other Post-Employment Benefits Fund, be amended by inserting a new Section 2-505 - Medicare Part B Premium Reimbursements, as follows: Sec. 2-505. Medicare Part B Premium Reimbursements

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 37 On July 27, 2009, Counci1 approved the recommendation of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee's recommendation not to provide for Medicare Part B premium reimbursement for all non-bargaining employees which applied only to new hires after July 27, 2009. The City currently provides Medicare Part B premium reimbursement for all other non- bargaining employees and the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee recommends that this practice be continued provided that it is clearly stated and understood that the decision of Council, if approved by Council, is not vested and can be changed or eliminated at any time. The City of Dover shall continue to provide Medicare Part B premium reimbursements for all non-bargaining employees other than those new hires after July 27, 2009, as it has done in the past, provided that this is not to be considered a vested right and can be changed or eliminated by Council at any time by ordinance or resolution enacted to that effect and, further, that as required by the Charter, Section 3, the fund for payment of the costs of such premium reimbursement shall be continued as in the past. ADOPTED: APRIL 12, 2010 COUNCIL MEMBERS ANNOUNCEMENTS Council President Williams announced that Comcast has moved the television coverage from Channel 21 to Channel 14. Mr. McGiffin reminded members to mark their calendars for June 26, 2010, for the next African American Festival, which will feature music of the Drifters. Mr. McGiffin also announced that the City of Dover 2010 Municipal Election will be held on Tuesday, April 20th, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. The polling places are as follows: 1st and 4th Districts - Elks Lodge #1903 entrance at the rear of the building 200 Saulsbury Road 2nd District - Seventh Day Adventist Church 647 Wyoming Avenue 3rd District - Dover Park and Recreation Center 1210 White Oak Road Mr. Salters advised members that Africa Our Friend, a production by Don Blakey, will be held at the Kirkwood Community Center during the weekends of April 29 and May 6, 2010, beginning at 7:00 p.m.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 38 Mr. Ruane reminded the public to complete and mail their Census forms. Mr. Leary moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2010 PAGE 39 Meeting Adjourned at 8:23 P.M. TRACI A. McDOWELL CITY CLERK All orders, ordinances, and resolutions adopted by City Council during their Regular Meeting of April 12, 2010, are hereby approved. CARLETON E. CAREY, SR. MAYOR /TM/jg mag9DB7.wpd Exhibits Attached to Original Minutes and File Copy Exhibit #1 - Presentation - Violation of Dangerous Building Ordinance - 225 North Bradford Street, owned by D&S Investments Co., LLP Exhibit #2 - Rezoning Petition - Property Located at 1051 College Road, owned by Lands of JNK, LLC Exhibit #3 - Addendum to Curbside Recycling Agreement with the Delaware Solid Waste Authority

EXHIBIT #1 Regular Council Meeting of 04/12/2010 Violation of Dangerous Building Ordinance 225 North Bradford Street Public Services Department EXHIBIT #1 Dover, Delaware Regular Council Meeting of 04/12/2010

225 North Bradford Street Case History
The subject property currently has four (4) open Code Enforcement cases, three (3) relating to the rear of the property: – Condemnation of barn in rear yard (3/23/2010) – Junk and debris in yard (opened 9/2009) – Disrepair of barn in rear yard (opened 3/2008)
Neighbors attended open forum prior to the City Council meeting on March 22, 2010 regarding the condition of the property.
Staff followed up with an inspection and contacted the property owners.

Code Citation Chapter 22, Article XI Sec. 22-388. Emergency cases. In cases where it reasonably appears that there is an immediate danger to the life or safety of any person, unless a dangerous building is immediately repaired, vacated and closed, or demolished, the building inspector shall report such facts to the council, which may cause the immediate repair, vacation, or demolition of such dangerous building. The costs of such emergency repair, vacation or demolition of such dangerous building shall be collected in the same manner as provided in section 22-385(5).

225 North Bradford Street Status of Violations
Garbage removed from yard (complete 3/25/10)
Barn partially demolished (photos 4/12/10)

Recommended Council Action
Declare this accessory building dangerous.
Order the property repaired or demolished by May 12, 2010.
Order the Building Inspector to cause the repair or demolition of the structure if not completed by the owner within (10) days of the date set by Council.
Order the City Manager with the assistance of the City Solicitor to cause the cost of repairs or demolition to be charged against the land on which the building exists as a municipal lien or cause such cost to be added to the tax duplicate as an assessment, or to be levied as a special tax, or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owner.

EXHIBIT #2 Regular Council Meeting of 04/12/2010 PETITION TO AMEND AND ZONING DISTRICT Public Hearing before the Dover City Council April 12, 2010 Applicants/Owners: JNK, LLC Location: 1051 College Road North Side of College Road, West of McKee Road Tax Parcel ID #: ED-05-067.00-01-35.03-000 Size: 4.32+/- acres Present Use: Vacant – Previously approved for Senior Citizen PND Proposed Use: Residential – Garden Apartments Comprehensive Plan Designation: Residential Medium Density Present Zoning: R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) Proposed Zoning: RG-2 (General Residence Zone) Reason for Request: To construct medium density residential dwellings without age restriction Recommendation of Following a public hearing before the Planning Commission on Planning Commission March 15, 2010, Planning Commission moved 6-0 to recommend approval of the rezoning request. File Number: Z-09-05

Z-09-05 Lands of JNK, LLC Report to City Council – April 12, 2010 Page 2 Existing Property The property is currently zoned R-8 (One Family Residence Zone). It was previously approved by the Planning Commission as The Arbors: Planned Neighborhood Design - Senior Citizen Housing Option (C-07-05). As a part of this approval, a road right-of-way was recorded through the site, connecting College Road with Topaz Circle in Emerald Pointe. Surrounding Land Uses: The property is surrounded to the north, west and east by residential uses. To the southeast, across College Road, there is a church. Emerald Pointe, to the north is zoned R-8 (One Family Residence Zone), and Hidden Oaks, to the west, is zoned R-10 (One Family Residence Zone). The adjacent parcel to the east is zoned R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) has an existing residential use. Comprehensive Plan: The 2008 Comprehensive Plan depicts the subject area as Residential Medium Density land use on the Land Development Plan Map. The requested zoning classification of RG-2 is consistent with the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Request for RG-2 (General Residence Zone) The following description of the RG-2 zoning district is provided from Article 3 §2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 2. General residence zones (RG-1 and RG-2). 2.1Uses permitted. In a general residence zone, no building or premises shall be used, and no building or part of a building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any purpose, except the following: 2.11 Any use permitted in one-family residence zones, except that: Not more than one professional office or studio, other than accessory to a use otherwise permitted, shall be permitted for each 25 dwelling units or major fraction thereof on the lot. Such office or studio shall be only on the street floor of any building and on the floor immediately above the street floor only if there [shall] be direct access to such office or studio from outside the building. 2.12 Garden apartments limited to placement within the RG-2 district only. 2.13 Off-street parking accessory to uses located within the central commercial C-2 zone, provided that: (a) Such parking is situated not more than 150 feet from the C-2 zone. (b) Parking areas are screened by landscaping from adjoining properties used for residence. (c) Illumination of parking areas is shielded from the view of adjoining properties used for residence. 2.14 Reserved. 2.2Performance standards. All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in article 5, section 8.1.

Z-09-05 Lands of JNK, LLC Report to City Council – April 12, 2010 Page 3 2.3Site development plan approval. Site development plan approval in accordance with article 10, section 2 hereof shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for the erection or enlargement of all structures and related accessory structures. Such approval shall also be required prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for a change of use. 2.4[Conditional uses.] Conditional uses permitted upon the approval of the planning commission in accordance with the procedures and general conditions set forth in article 10, section 1 of this ordinance: (a) [Omitted, as it only applies to RG-1] (b) Student homes subject to the following siting and bulk criteria: i. No student home shall be located closer than 500 feet from any other student home. ii. The maximum allowable occupancy shall be four persons or the occupancy limit as determined by the building and fire codes adopted by the City of Dover, whichever is less. iii. Two off-street parking spaces shall be provided per dwelling unit. iv. A student home shall not be permitted to be established within any semi- detached dwelling, duplex dwelling, group dwelling, or townhouse dwelling unit. v. Buildings or groups of buildings on the same lot with 15 or more units on the lot shall not be subject to the student home regulations. vi. Student homes shall be licensed under chapter 10, Housing Code [chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations], article V [X], Rental Dwellings, of the Code of Ordinances. vii. Student homes shall be subject to the provisions of chapter 10, Housing Code [chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations], article III [VIII], Leases, of the Code of Ordinances. (c) Multiple dwellings subject to the following restrictions: i. Conversions of single-family dwellings to multi-family residential dwellings shall be limited to the RG-2 district. The RG-2 district permits a higher density and a wider range of housing styles than the R-8 district. Recommendation of the Planning Staff and Planning Commission: In recommendation to the Planning Commission, the Planning Staff expressed concerns about the proposal for RG-2 (General Residence) zoning. Staff recommended that RM-2 (Medium Density Residence) zoning might be more appropriate, as it permits a wider variety of housing styles (such as one-family detached dwellings, duplex dwellings, apartments, townhouses, and garden apartments) and a density cap of eight (8) dwelling units per acre. RG-2 zoning does not include a density cap, and would permit more than eight (8) dwelling units per acre of RM-2. The surrounding residential subdivisions, Hidden Oaks and Emerald Pointe, are one-family residential developments.

Z-09-05 Lands of JNK, LLC Report to City Council – April 12, 2010 Page 4 Planning Staff recommendations are made prior to public testimony on the application. Following public testimony where members of the public expressed concern about the requested RG-2 zoning classification, as well as the RM-2 recommended by Staff, the Planning Commission voted on March 15, 2010 to recommend to City Council that the property be rezoned to RG-2 in accordance with the applicant’s request. Excerpt from Minutes of January 19, 2010 and March 15, 2010 Planning Commission Meetings: A transcription of the testimony presented at the Planning Commission meeting on January 19, 2010 is below: Representatives: Mr. Doug Berry, Pennoni Associates; Mr. John Paradee, Prickett, Jones, & Elliott; and Mr. Jordan Ashburn, Ashburn Homes. Mrs. Townshend presented and overview of the application. Mr. Berry stated that this property was subject to an age restricted condominium application that was approved by the City of Dover in 2009 and known as the Arbors Senior Condominium project. Due to market constraints, the developer wishes to remove the age restricted designation. In order to do that the property must be rezoned to RG-2, which would be consistent with the most recent Comprehensive Plan. There are no changes to the building foot print, site considerations, or the development density of 11.11 that is proposed. At this time, a rendering was passed out of the previous application. We recognize that in the Staff report they had some concerns with regards to the RG-2 zoning due to a theoretical maximum density of twenty-five (25) dwelling units per acre for the site. We did a density analysis and presented it to Staff and at this time, that analysis was handed out to Commission members for overview. Mr. Berry further stated that how Staff came up with twenty-five (25) units per acre was to take the minimum required lot area of 1,700 square feet per dwelling unit and divided it by the total square footage of the property to come out to 110 dwelling units. If you look at the rendering of the previous application, a lot of this site acreage would come out of that developable acreage. A public thoroughfare was required to connect the Emerald Point subdivision to College Road. The right-of-way on that road was approximately 6/10th’s of an acre which would render this undevelopable. The west side of the road which is called Senior Way is not developable either because of the building setbacks required which would render 9/10th’s of an acre undevelopable. Of the remaining acreage, .4 acres were reserved for stormwater management; therefore, there was only 2.5 acres rendered feasible for development. Of that 2.5 acres, the site was laid out in a fashion where the buildings, the parking areas, landscaping, required active recreation space, and if you take these areas that were set aside for development, the net developable acreage is approximately 2.5 acres. Mr. Berry further stated that if you look at the building footprint expansion in any direction it is not feasible. If you go to the west you are in the stormwater management

Z-09-05 Lands of JNK, LLC Report to City Council – April 12, 2010 Page 5 area and if you go to the south you are in an arterial buffer that is required by Code. If you expand to the east you would be in someone’s yard. If you expand to the north you are in the active space that is required for the application. Expansion vertically is not feasible because the height limitation is forty (40) feet. According to the developer it is not practical to reduce the size of the individual dwelling units within the building; therefore, the maximum number of units that could be constructed would be forty-eight (48) units. A greater density would not be feasible for the property. Mr. Hemmig stated that he noticed that on one of the bullets on the handout there is a statement regarding height variance being permissible without a height variance for height restriction, does that go to the Board of Adjustment? Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mrs. Townshend stated that it would go to the Board of Adjustment and it would be a very difficult argument to achieve a height variance. Mr. Nichols questioned with regards to the right-of-way, originally the right-of-ways were sixty (60) feet then some of them dropped down to fifty (50) feet and now we are down to forty-six (46) feet. Where do we stand on this issue? Responding to Mr. Nichols, Mr. Berry stated that this was previously recorded as part of the Arbors Senior Condominiums and is a recorded right-of-way. Also responding to Mr. Nichols, Mr. Koenig stated that the right-of-way was reduced to forty-six (46) feet for this project and was approved by City Council because waiver requirements go to City Council for final approval. Mrs. Townshend stated that Mr. Berry has done an analysis for density and has showed you the site plan. Anything you recommend to City Council for approval, and is approved, does not get tied to a Site Plan; however, in the RG-2 zoning district apartments are a Conditional Use so you would have more flexibility to review the plan. The RM-2 zoning district is capped at 8 dwelling units per acre and RG-2 does not. What the applicant is demonstrating is they probably could not get much more than 11 units per acre and this is what they would like to do with the property. Mr. Friedman opened a public hearing. Mrs. Lisa Whiteman – 11 Pin Oak Drive – Stated that her concerns are basically that this is her backyard. The easement that is the passage way for a road is her backyard that they are talking about. When she bought this house, just like others, she bought it with the intention that it would stay at the value she bought it or increase in value. She is very afraid that with the implementation of these buildings, this in fact would not happen. She knows that it is labeled Senior Way and you want to put up homes for seniors or the intent is to put up homes for seniors; however, she has three major concerns. First, is there guaranteed funding that this would be completed? She can see by the description the mention that it is for senior housing and that there is a need for it and that is apparent because she also teaches within the district and there is senior housing that has started to be built between the corner of Route 8 and Saulsbury Road that is now stopped. (Mr. Friedman interrupted to state that this is not for

Z-09-05 Lands of JNK, LLC Report to City Council – April 12, 2010 Page 6 approval of senior housing; however, with the rezoning request it would not be required to be senior housing). Mrs. Whiteman further stated that if it was not going to be senior housing than she would like to know if the rezoning was going to risk the dwellings being turned into section 8 housing. Because if this happens she knows that the value of her home would go down and she would have to share her back yard with whatever is going on. Her other concern is if this does go up, is there a plan in force to fence it in or structurally separate it from the neighborhoods that we paid a lot of money to move into and we want to keep that value up. There would be extra traffic and noise and it is already pretty loud on College Road. Mr. Bruce Shamir – 23 Pin Oak Drive – Stated that he also has the same concerns as his neighbor who just spoke. As he recalls, from the last public hearing that was held on this application, that the right-of-way for the roadway in-between Emerald Point and the Arbors was a restricted use right-of-way for fire vehicles and not for open traffic. Responding to Mr. Shamir, Mrs. Townshend stated that this was to be dedicated as a public street at the 2007 hearing. Mr. Shamir further stated that this is his third time addressing this issue and each time it has gotten smaller. If we keep delaying it maybe we will get it to single family housing where he would like to keep it. He does not want to see this big structure in his backyard. The argument he had the last time is that none of you live there. He has to look at it all the time and you do not. As far as the traffic analysis adding forty-eight (48) more units and trying to get out onto College Road during rush hour, it is not the easiest task in the world. There was also mention with regards to garden apartments and if your definition of garden apartments is the same as his, where he grew up it was two stories is that still in fact? Responding to Mr. Shamir, Mrs. Townshend stated that with regards to garden apartments, the primary issue relates to direct access to open space so that it would not be surrounded by a parking lot and would allow for three stories with a maximum height of forty (40) feet. The definition in the Code book for garden apartments does not state the number of stories that is driven by bulk standards. Mr. Richard McKee – 1021 W. State College Road – Stated that he is the owner of the property to the east where this project is planned. He shares the sentiment of the previous two speakers. If this is not going to be for senior housing that it was originally planned to be then he would prefer it to be single family detached dwellings. His second concern is the access road because of traffic. If you have ever tried to get out onto College Road during rush hour traffic you cannot do it. He understands the desires for a connecting road between the southern portion of Emerald Point and College Road; however, he firmly believes that this must be an emergency use connector only and should not be general public access 24/7. If it is kept that way, there is going to be multiple accidents just waiting to happen and we already have enough of them. Mr. Friedman read into record a letter received on January 19, 2010 from Mrs. Betsy Duncan, 19 Pin Oak Drive who was unable to be at the meeting this evening. “Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the hearing scheduled tonight, however, ask you

Z-09-05 Lands of JNK, LLC Report to City Council – April 12, 2010 Page 7 take my concerns into consideration. As a resident of Hidden Oak Subdivision, I have an interest in the rezoning of the above property. Per discussion with your office, I understand the rezoning request would include single family homes as well as garden apartments. This property is surrounded by single family homes, and we believe the property should be consistent with the area. We are concerned with the adverse effects an apartment building will have on our property values as well as to our neighborhood. We knew when we bought our property there eventually would be construction; however, we were confident our City would protect our neighborhood and would not allow a building that would degrade, or be invasive, and overbearing. I understand the rezoning is on the table tonight; however, I am asking that you take our concerns into consideration and understand the surrounding properties are single family homes and wish to preserve the integrity of our area that includes our property and personal values. Thank you for your time and consideration.” Mr. Friedman closed the public hearing after seeing no one else wishing to speak. Mr. Paradee stated that he would like to allay what seems to be some concerns in the room that this is going to somehow change dramatically what has already been approved for this property. It is important for you to understand that this project is already approved for 48 condominium units. The only reason that the developer is here tonight is because he wants to change it from condominiums to apartments due to changing market conditions. Condominium units are simply not marketable. The developer is committed to keeping the building exactly the same with the same footprint and number of units. Staff expressed some concern with the change in zoning that theoretically there could be an increase in density. The developer is willing to go on record and does hereby go on the record as committing that he will not change anything about the building as it will not be section 8, any taller, and will be the same footprint and same number of units. Mr. Ashburn stated that he would like to reiterate that there are a lot of faces that have seen this go from two buildings to one building because of market constraints. Prior to us coming back this would not have been possible due to the fact of the different Comprehensive Plan and now that the Comprehensive Plan has changed, it does permit this change. He has spent a lot of money with architectural design on this building and he has engineered this site for the second time. He would really like not to have to spend any more additional money funds on a new architectural design. The intent is to just be able to bring this back to you for Site Plan approval less the age restriction. With the economic constraints with the aged qualified residents, they have a higher rate of vacancy in this building and seniors are having less of an ability to be able to pay a higher rent rate. Mrs. Townshend stated that she would like to clarify a few things. When a number of people who spoke asked some questions that are design oriented, those issues would be taken up at a later date if the rezoning is approved and they come back with a development application. In terms of the RG-2 (General Residence Zone), the permitted uses are essentially one family residence uses and the things that are allowed in that zone as well as garden apartments. Multiple dwellings which would be

Z-09-05 Lands of JNK, LLC Report to City Council – April 12, 2010 Page 8 apartments that are not considered garden apartments would be a Conditional Use. In some ways the RG-2 zoning classification has more restrictions such as not being able to do townhouses and duplexes. The RM-2 zoning classification would allow for a wider range of housing styles included townhouses and does cap the density. Mr. Hemmig stated that Senior Way has been recorded as a dedicated street; however, can this be changed with an application that comes back before this Commission? Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mrs. Townshend stated that the recordation can change in the future as part of a future application. Colonel Welsh stated that originally this was going to be the Ashburn Construction Company, then it was going to be single family homes, and then senior apartments and now it is a building. He has heard some of the neighbor’s concerns with what will ultimately end up here and he can understand why they would have these concerns. One of the things that bothers him is that you received approval for senior housing with a three story building that was Conditional Use with R-8 zoning for single family homes. Now you are asking to remove the only thing that allowed you to do that and that is the fact that it was senior housing. If you had come to us and asked to build a three story apartment building with R-8 zoning we would have never approved it. One side of this building is bordered by a major artery known as State College Road and two of the other sides of the building are single family homes. On the other side of the building there is a small single story shopping center to the east. What you are talking about is building a three story building so he can understand how the people who have invested money in those homes are going to be upset. Colonel Welsh further questioned if this were to be used for some other purpose, the recordation of Senior Way from the development out to State College Road, does it have to be designed the way it is or does it just have to be an access point? Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mrs. Townshend stated that it would have to be an access point because the site constraints made it what it is. Code requires that they have two access points to a public street. Mr. Hemmig questioned what the applicant would do if this was approved as an RM-2 zoning classification? Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mr. Ashburn stated that honestly he was not sure because of the fact that there are two stub streets there already, which really limits him to how he can develop the property. Mr. Tolbert questioned if it would be feasible to recommend tabling this application to give the applicant time to get their thoughts together on this project? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Friedman stated that this application will move forward to City Council who will make the final decision regarding zoning for the property. Mr. Ashburn stated that the building, as it is, if we had kept it as a parking lot we could have made it work as garden apartments. The public road as a public thoroughfare sinks this project as it currently is.

Z-09-05 Lands of JNK, LLC Report to City Council – April 12, 2010 Page 9 Colonel Welsh questioned what it is that drives the requirement for the roadway? Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mr. Koenig stated that back in the planning of Emerald Point of 150 units there was a requirement for access to two public streets. They have a stub street that goes over to the back of Hidden Oakes and would connect into Hidden Oakes if there ever was an extension of that development. There are environmental constraints in this area and that connection will likely not happen. For the public hearings for Emerald Point it was made very clear that this stub street would extend across this property and he thought that the owner of this property who was not Ashburn at that time was represented at those hearings. The alignment of this stub street was not objected to by the property owner at that time. The developer of Emerald Point picked the location of this stub street which from this developer’s standpoint has constrained his property. The stub street was recorded prior to the purchase of this property so the constraint has been there the entire time. Mr. Hemmig questioned if Senior Way did not exist and you did not have to put a street through there, how would that change what you could do with this property in its current form or with an RM-2 zoning classification? Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mr. Ashburn stated that what that would allow them to do is be able to utilize more of the property. It is a higher standard when you have to build to a street standard rather than just a parking lot standard as you have different pavement widths and additional requirements. Mr. Hemmig stated that he feels that they do need to table this application because we need to look at this street requirement and if it has to be built because he does not feel that it is necessary. He feels that it was planned as a second entrance for Emerald Point; however, Emerald Point has been there several years now. He also feels that the developer needs to look at that if this street was not developed, how could they utilize the land without going to a density higher than eight (8) units per acre and make it feasible before we go forward with this application. It would seem that there are too many problems with this that need to be addressed with this application and if we approve it with this rezoning request then we are opening ourselves up to basically anything because we have approved other things that then do not get built and gets changed several times. Mr. Hemmig moved to table Z-09-05 Lands of JNK, LLC located at 1051 College Road until the next Planning Commission meeting and in the mean time he would like the Planning Commission and Staff to discuss the requirement for the Senior Way Road access and would make it incumbent upon the developer to come back and make a good faith effort to figure out what they could do with this property within eight (8) dwellings per acre restriction without the access road that would be more in keeping with the neighboring properties of single family homes that surround this property, seconded by Mr. Nichols and the motion was unanimously carried 8-0. Mr. Ashburn questioned if this was something they could look at the economic feasibility of keeping this property at its current zoning with the PND or senior option and decrease the standards for the road and turn it more into a private driveway so that he

Z-09-05 Lands of JNK, LLC Report to City Council – April 12, 2010 Page 10 does not have to scrap the architectural drawings and the money that he has spent on them? Responding to Mr. Ashburn, Mr. Hemmig stated that their problem is that it was planned for a senior community, we thought that this was an appropriate development and would be something that would fit within the neighborhood that would not be a possible problematic situation. As an open apartment complex, it presents a more problematic situation than a senior complex would. Additionally, when you open it up to any age restriction then the density also becomes something that we look at a little more closely than we would with a senior complex. We are looking at either keeping it as a senior complex or reducing the density and at the same time making it something more compatible with the neighborhood. Mrs. Townshend stated that if Mr. Ashburn wishes to keep the rezoning at what it currently is, he would need to request to withdraw the rezoning application if he feels this is the most feasible solution and then submit a subsequent application. A transcription of the testimony presented at the Planning Commission meeting on March 15, 2010 is below: Colonel Welsh moved to lift from the table Z-09-05 Lands of JNK, LLC at 1051 College Road, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was unanimously carried 6-0 with Mr. Shomo, Mr. Hemmig and Mr. Ambruso absent. Representatives: Mr. Jordan Ashburn, Ashburn Homes; and Mr. Douglas Berry, Pennoni Associates. Mrs. Townshend provided an update of the application. Mr. Berry stated that this application was tabled on January 19, 2010 in order to allow the developer some additional time to determine if the project would be feasible under and RM-2 designation rather than the RG-2 requested designation with the understanding that the College Road entrance and the public improvements between that and the building would be removed. Since that meeting we have met with City Staff and DelDOT to determine if the entrance could be removed at all and while we have been directed that it can be moved, there is secondary EMS access that would have to be addressed. In addition, there may be some improvements to the Emerald Point entrance adjacent to McKee Road. While it will help to remove the entrance in the public right-of-way, this project is economically feasible to the developer only under the RG-2 Zoning designation. We ask that you consider the development density of 11.11 that was approved for the Arbors Senior Condominiums will not be jeopardized. They would be proposing a new development with an equal or less development density than that proposed under that application. Colonel Welsh questioned what has been gained by the two months delay other than your coordination with the City of Dover Planning Commission? Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mr. Berry stated that they had the opportunity to meet with the City after the

Z-09-05 Lands of JNK, LLC Report to City Council – April 12, 2010 Page 11 business meeting and DelDOT we did not meet with until three weeks after that and then the snowstorm occurred so they had to wait an additional two weeks to have the meeting so it was necessary that we table the application to tonight. DelDOT has stated that the entrance can be removed and if that is the case, they have no jurisdiction over entrance improvements to this subdivision because access would be entirely via a City street and we would have to coordinate with the City to determine if any improvements would be required. Mrs. Townshend stated that one of the things that was discussed was eliminating access off of College Road entirely and coming through Emerald Point. Their discussion with DelDOT was to find out how they would feel about that. DelDOT indicated because their access would be from a City street that they would not have any requirements or objections to that. Colonel Welsh questioned that access would be through Emerald Point only and eliminating access off of College Road. Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mrs. Townshend stated that yes it would be eliminating; however, having some type of emergency access in the event of emergency apparatus. Colonel Welsh questioned what Staff’s position would be on this issue? Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mr. Koenig stated that Staff’s position at this point would be that they would have to come back through the process because there is a recorded right-of-way at this time that is undedicated; however, it would solve the transportation problem that would possibly be created by additional development on College Road by eliminating the access on College Road. The only problem is that it will place some additional burdens on the entrance off of McKee Road and those improvements have not been discussed publicly at a public hearing so we do not have any type of public comment at this point. Colonel Welsh further questioned what the status was for the application? Responding to Colonel Welsh, Mrs. Townshend stated that what you are looking at now is whether or not currently the zoning is R-8 and the request is to change it to RG-2. At one point staff had suggested that RM-2 maybe more appropriate. You heard public testimony about the rezoning at the January meeting and essentially, at this point, the applicant is stating that they want to proceed forward with the RG-2 request and are not interested in RM-2 zoning which would cap the density at eight (8) dwelling units per acre. They have approximately eleven (11) dwelling units per acre under the Senior PND that they have now. Senior Housing did not require rezoning what they want to be able to do is lift the senior age restriction and build the same product; however, cannot do that in the R-8 zoning district. Mr. Ashburn stated that as a reminder with the RG-2 zoning it has some fairly restrictive design criteria that you can place on this to make sure that we are doing what we say we are going to do. Responding to Mr. Ashburn, Mrs. Townshend stated that you cannot necessary hold him to anything that is promised this evening; however, because in RG-2 apartments are a Conditional Use and not a permitted use you are able to place conditions on that.

Z-09-05 Lands of JNK, LLC Report to City Council – April 12, 2010 Page 12 Colonel Welsh stated that he still had reservations on this because the original application was for increased density as senior housing which was approved and no action was ever taken on it. He realizes that there were some circumstances that drove this; however, if we can eliminate one access point and keep the traffic level down on Baltustrol Road then we can proceed forward. Colonel Welsh moved to forward approval to City Council Z-09-05 Lands of JNK, LLC at 1051 College Road to RG-2 (General Residence Zone), seconded by Mr. Nichols and the motion was unanimously carried 6-0 with Mr. Shomo, Mr. Hemmig and Mr. Ambruso absent.

City of Dover Application No.: Z-09-05 Department of Planning & Inspections CPO RG-5 AD O R-8 R OLL EG E IO R-20 C E AR C-2A U SQ OLL EG M PIN E CK EE O C AK Site D RO AD R IVE RE D OA K DR IV E ME R IO R-10 RG-3 N RO OAKMONT D RI VE AD D OA EKR E CR S T FO RE Plan Title: Lands of JNK, LLC Legend Location: 1151 College Road Plan Type: Rezoning Dover Parcels Tax Parcel: ED-05-076.12-04-02.00-000 Zoning Zoning: R-8 current, RG-2 proposed Owner: JNK, LLC Date: 12-13-09 0 190 380 760 Feet «

ATTACHMENT #1 EXHIBIT #3 Utility Committee Meeting of 03/22/10 Regular Council Meeting of 04/12/2010