COUNCIL PACKET

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA July 12, 2010 - 7:30 P.M. - Council Chambers - City Hall - City of Dover OPEN FORUM - 15 MINUTES PRIOR TO OFFICIAL MEETING (7:15 P.M.) INVOCATION BY CHAPLAIN JAKE McCREADY PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS * CONSENT AGENDA Those items on the Council Agenda which are considered routine and non-controversial shall be marked with an asterisk (*) and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of Council so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered a separate item. * 1. Adoption of Minutes - Regular Council Meeting of June 28, 2010 2. Proclamation - Employee Appreciation Day 3. Rescheduling of Public Hearing/Final Reading - Rezoning Properties located at 217 and 223 McKee Road, owned by Mor-Kath-Ric, LLC, consisting of 1.12+/- acres. The property is currently zoned R-7 (One Family Residence) and subject to COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The proposed zoning is RM-1 (Medium Density Residence) and subject to COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). (Ordinance #2010-16; Tax Parcels: ED05-067.15-02-02.00-000 and ED-05-067.15-02-01.00-000; Planning Reference: Z-10-06; Council District: Fourth) (The First Reading of Proposed Ordinance #2010-16 Was Accomplished During the Council Meeting of May 24, 2010. This Item Was Postponed by the Planning Commission During Their Meeting of June 21, 2010. It is Recommended that a Public Hearing Be Rescheduled for September 13, 2010.) 4. Public Hearings/Final Readings - Rezonings A. Property located on Saulsbury Road south of Forrest Avenue, owned by Route 8 & Saulsbury Road, LLC, consisting of 1.01+/- acres. The property is currently zoned CPO (Commercial/Professional Office) and subject to COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The proposed zoning is C-2A (Limited Central Commercial) and subject to COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). (Ordinance #2010-15; Tax Parcel: ED05-076.11-01-24.00-000; Planning Reference: Z-10-05; Council District: Fourth) B. Property located at 40-60 Ridgely Street, owned by Robert A. and Nancy H. Kauffman, consisting of 2.0047+/- acres. The property is currently zoned M (Manufacturing) and subject to COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The proposed zoning is C-3 (Service Commercial) and subject to COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). (Ordinance #2010-17; Tax Parcel: ED05-076.08-01-26.01-000; Planning Reference: Z-10-07; Council District: Fourth)

Council Agenda July 12, 2010 Page 2 5. Mayor Carleton E. Carey, Sr. Veto - Motion Adopted by City Council on June 28, 2010 - Adoption of Fiscal Year 2010/2011 General Fund - Cash Receipts and Budget Ordinance 6. Mayor Carleton E. Carey, Sr. Veto - Motion Adopted by City Council on June 28, 2010 - Adoption of Fiscal Year 2010/2011 Water/Wastewater Fund - Revenue and Budget Ordinance 7. Mayor Carleton E. Carey, Sr. Veto - Motion Adopted by City Council on June 28, 2010 - Adoption of Fiscal Year 2010/2011 Electric Revenue Fund - Revenue and Budget Ordinance 8. Utility Committee Report - June 28, 2010 A. Request for Alley and Street Abandonments - 100 Block of North Governors Avenue Alley West, the Southern Portion of the 200 Block of North Governors Avenue Alley East, a Portion of the Unit Block of North Bradford Street, the Unit Block of Fulton Street, a Portion of the Unit Block of Cecil Street, a Portion of the 200 Block of North Bradford Street, and the Northern Portion of the Unit Block of North State Street Alley West - Wesley College (Committee Recommended Approval of the Request for Alley and Street Abandonments, on the Condition that the Wesley College Plan Include the Replacement of Existing Parking and an Increase in Total Parking, that the Utility Easements Remain in Effect, that Public Access Easements for Fulton and Cecil Streets Be Part of the Plan, that the Timing of the Street and Alley Closures be Coordinated with the Site Plan Approval, and that the Aforementioned DAC Comments Generated by this Process and Those Included in the DAC Application Review Commentary are Included as Part of the Plan, and that Public Access Easements Be Provided Through the Campus along Fulton and Cecil Streets) (City Clerk's Note: In Accordance with the City's Procedure for Alley Abandonments, Resolution No. 2010-05 Setting the Public Hearing for Monday, August 9, 2010 at 7:30 P.M. will be Presented to Council for Consideration for Adoption.) * B. Annual Engineering Consultant's Report on the Operation and Maintenance of the Electric System - Fiscal Year 2009 (Committee Recommended Acceptance of the Annual Engineering Consultant's Report on the Operation and Maintenance of the Electric System for Fiscal Year 2009) * C. Briefing on SB119 Renewable Portfolio Standard (Deferred by Committee Due to Time Constraints) * D. Review of Utility Related CIP’s (Electric and Water/Wastewater) (Deferred by Committee Due to Time Constraints) * E. PACE/NAES Monthly Report (April) (Deferred by Committee Due to Time Constraints)

Council Agenda July 12, 2010 Page 3 9. Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report - June 28, 2010 * A. Review and Recommendation - Filling Critical Positions (Committee Action Not Required) * B. Purchase of Ladder Truck - Dover Fire Department (Committee Recommended Approval of the Amendment to the Robbins Hose Company CIP Sheet of the City 2012/2013 Budget and Ordering of the Replacement Ladder Truck) C. Discussion - Requirement to Step Down - All Committees (Committee Recommended Denial of the Request that All Council, Committee, Commission, and Board Members Be Required to Resign Prior to Running for Other Offices, and that the Requirement to Step Down be Removed from All Memberships) (City Clerk’s Note: Upon Approval by Council, Staff Will Prepare Appropriate Proposed Ordinances to Eliminate the Resigning Requirement of Members of the Dover Human Relations Commission and Ethics Committee for Review by the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee.) * 10. Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Report - June 30, 2010 A. Request for Amendment to Chapter 18 - Animals, Section 18-16 - Keeping Bees (See Item #13-A) (Committee Recommended Adoption of Proposed Ordinance #2010-22, as presented) B. Timing of Traffic Lights - Hazlettville Road and North Street; North Street at Queen Street, New Street, Governor's Avenue, and State Street (Committee Action Not Required) C. Briefing on Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) Projects (Committee Action Not Required) D. Briefing on Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Projects (Committee Action Not Required) * 11. Monthly Reports - May 2010 A. Budget Report B. Chief of Police Report C. City Assessor Report D. City Manager’s Report E. City Planner’s Report F. Dover Fire Department Report (April and May) * 12. Appointments - Recommended by Mayor Carey A. Downtown Dover Partnership - Erin Tinsley - Three (3) Year Term to Expire May 2013 (To Fill the Expired Term of Thomas Smith) B. Historic District Commission (Re-appointments) - Three (3) Year Terms to Expire July 26, 2013 b-1. Charles A. Salkin, Resident b-2. Richard Scrafford, Professional

Council Agenda July 12, 2010 Page 4 13. First Reading - Proposed Ordinance #2010-22 The First Reading is offered on Proposed Ordinance #2010-22. Final action by Council will take place during the Second Reading of the ordinance on July 26, 2010. Copies of all proposed ordinances are available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or can be obtained from the City Clerk's Office. A. Proposed Ordinance #2010-22 - Amending Chapter 18 - Animals, Section 18-16 - Keeping Bees (Safety, Advisory and Transportation Committee) 14. Council Members Announcements /tm S:\AGENDAS & MINUTES\Council-Agendas\2010\07-12-2010.wpd THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING The Regular Council Meeting was held on June 28, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Hogan presiding. Council members present were Mr. Bonar, Mrs. Russell, Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Leary, Mr. McGiffin, Mrs. Williams, 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 Hogan declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council is not in official session and cannot take formal action. Mr. Bruce Pringle, of the Delaware State News (Dewey Beach), advised members that he will be retiring, thanked everyone for their cooperation throughout the years, and relayed special thanks to the City Clerk’s Office for their diligence and timeliness in providing information. He stated that he had covered several local governments since 1972 and that no other local government has provided as much detailed information as the City of Dover, which made his job as reporter easier and benefits citizens as well. Mr. Robert Tudor, 706 E. Division Street, requested clarification on the last property assessment conducted by Tyler Technologies. He felt that the assessment was mismanaged. He advised members that after appealing an assessment, his property assessment was reduced from $13M to $6.5M. Mr. Tudor noted that a private assessment conducted by McGinnis Real Estate for the purpose of determining estate taxes reflected the value of his property at $4.4M, and he felt that this was an indication that Tyler Technologies’ property evaluation was not conducted by professional representatives with knowledge of the Dover area. He objected to the requirement to provide the City of Dover with detailed rental property income. He explained the difficulty of raising rental fees for his tenants during these economic times and stated that rental rates for some tenants are locked in by five (5) year leases. Mr. Tudor felt that the square footage rental rates used in the assessment were elevated and noted that 25% of his building space is empty. He stated that his assessment rate increased 50% from the previous year. Mr. Karlton Schmidt, 102 Lotus Street, sang a song reminding members that they work for the citizens of Dover and not the City Manager or the employees. The invocation was given by Chaplain Dixon, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. McGiffin moved for approval of the agenda as presented, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried. Mr. Salters moved for approval of the consent agenda, seconded by McGiffin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 2 ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 14, 2010 The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of June 14, 2010 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Salters, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and bore the written approval of Mayor Carey. PUBLIC HEARING - BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS EXEMPTION REPORTS - MAY 5, MAY 26, AND JUNE 9, 2010 The following Board of Assessment Appeals Exemption Reports were presented to members for their review and consideration: BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS EXEMPTION REPORT - MAY 5, 2010 The Board of Assessment Appeals met on May 5, 2010. Exemption - A & I Housing Inc. Location: 80 N Halsey Road - ED05-68.18-02-74.00 Background and Analysis: Original: $135,000 Request: Exemption Status Reason for Exemption Request: This parcel falls under State Statute §8105 Property owned by Governmental religious educational or charitable agency. A & I Housing Inc. Does not meet the required date of July 14, 1988 for the creation of their corporation and therefore may be ineligible. Recommended Actions: Staff recommended consideration of approval. No one from A & I Housing Inc. was present at the hearing. Ms. Russell went over the code and made it clear that, even though the organization does not meet the required date of July 14, 1988, staff recommends that the property be exempt. Mr. Garfinkel was wondering about the relation of the owner and the subcontract they have, because it appears that they manage the houses. In the state law it states that if the property is sold for investment, they are not entitled for an exemption, he went on to say that if the owner was present at the meeting, that would have been a question that would have been asked. Mr. Garfinkel did want it to go on record, that the board was not able to ask the appellant any question, as no one was present. Mr. Stonesifer explained that in his understanding A & I Housing Inc. purchases homes, in his case older homes, fixes them up and rents the homes to mentally challenged individuals at a very low rent. The committee recommended that the organization receive exemption status, as they are non-profit. By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 3 Exemption - A & I Housing Inc. Location: 235 N New St - ED05-076.08-02-63.03 Background and Analysis: Original: $128,700 Request: Exemption Status Reason for Exemption Request: This parcel falls under State Statute §8105 Property owned by Governmental religious educational or charitable agency. A & I Housing Inc. Does not meet the required date of July 14, 1988 for the creation of their corporation and therefore may be ineligible. Recommended Actions: Staff recommended consideration of approval. Mr. Garfinkel was wondering about the relation of the owner and the subcontract they have, because it appears that they manage the houses. In the state law it states that if the property is sold for investment, they are not entitled for an exemption, he went on to say that if the owner was present at the meeting, that would have been a question that would have been asked. Mr. Garfinkel did want it to go on record, that the board was not able to ask the appellant any question, as no one was present. Mr. Stonesifer explained that in his understanding A & I Housing Inc. purchases homes, in his case older homes, fixes them up and rents the homes to mentally challenged individuals at a very low rent. The committee recommended that the organization receive exemption status, as they are non-profit. By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Exemption - A & I Housing Inc. Location: 728 Maple Parkway - ED05-068.18-05-01.00 Background and Analysis: Original: $133,300 Request: Exemption Status Reason for Exemption Request: This parcel falls under State Statute §8105 Property owned by Governmental religious educational or charitable agency. A & I Housing Inc. Does not meet the required date of July 14, 1988 for the creation of their corporation and therefore may be ineligible. Recommended Actions: Staff recommended consideration of approval.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 4 Mr. Garfinkel was wondering about the relation of the owner and the subcontract they have, because it appears that they manage the houses. In the state law it states that if the property is sold for investment, they are not entitled for an exemption, he went on to say that if the owner was present at the meeting, that would have been a question that would have been asked. Mr. Garfinkel did want it to go on record, that the board was not able to ask the appellant any question, as no one was present. Mr. Stonesifer explained that in his understanding A & I Housing Inc. purchases homes, in his case older homes, fixes them up and rents the homes to mentally challenged individuals at a very low rent. The committee recommended the organization to receive exemption status, as they are non-profit. By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Exemption - B. 1. DIMA IX Inc. Location: 456 E Loockerman St.- ED05-077.06-01-67.00 Background and Analysis: Original: $206,300 Request: Exemption Status Reason for Exemption Request: This parcel falls under State Statute §8105 Property owned by Governmental religious educational or charitable agency. DIMA IX Inc. does not meet the required date of July 14, 1988 for the creation of their corporation and therefore may be ineligible. Recommended Actions: Staff recommends consideration of approval. Ms. Russell explained to the board that this company is the same affiliation as A & I Housing Inc. It is the same situation as A & I Housing Inc. The committee recommended the organization to receive exemption status, as they are non-profit. By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Exemption - DIMA IX Inc. Location: 223 Mifflin Road - ED05-076.10-02-03.01 Background and Analysis: Original: $212,400 Request: Exemption Status

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 5 Reason for Exemption Request: This parcel falls under State Statute §8105 Property owned by Governmental religious educational or charitable agency. DIMA IX Inc. does not meet the required date of July 14, 1988 for the creation of their corporation and therefore may be ineligible. Recommended Actions: Staff recommended consideration of approval. Ms. Russell explained to the board that this company is the same affiliation as A & I Housing Inc. It is the same situation as A & I Housing Inc. The committee recommended the organization to receive exemption status, as they are non-profit. By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Exemption - DIMA I X Inc. Location: 15 Pin Oak Dr. - ED05-067.14-04-23.00 Background and Analysis: Original: $197,300 Request: Exemption Status Reason for Exemption Request: This parcel falls under State Statute §8105 Property owned by Governmental religious educational or charitable agency. DIMA IX Inc. does not meet the required date of July 14, 1988 for the creation of their corporation and therefore may be ineligible. Recommended Actions: Staff recommended consideration of approval. Ms. Russell explained to the board that this company is the same affiliation as A & I Housing Inc. It is the same situation as A & I Housing Inc. The committee recommended the organization to receive exemption status, as they are non-profit. By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Exemption - Pennsylvania Lines LLC Location: Land/Tracks - S West St. - ED05-076.08-01-43.00 Background and Analysis: Original: $150,000 Request: Exemption Status

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 6 Reason for Exemption Request: This parcel falls under State Statute 9 Del. C. §8108 Railroad property. Ms. Russell told the board that no one was present to represent this organization. She went on to explain, that she recommends this property be approved from exemption as it falls under State Statute 9 Del. C. §80108 Railroad property. The committee recommended approval of the request for exemption. By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Exemption - Pennsylvania Lines LLC Location: Land/Tracks - New Burton Road Background and Analysis: Original $729,000 Request Exemption Status Reason for Exemption: This parcel falls under State Statute 9 Del. C. §8108 Railroad property. Ms. Russell told the board that no one was present to represent this organization. She went on to explain, that she recommends this property be approved from exemption as it falls under State Statute 9 Del. C. §80108 Railroad property. The committee recommended approval of the request for exemption. By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Exemption - Village of Westover Homeowners Assoc. Location: Open Spaces - Village of Westover Parcel Original Request ED05-076.09-02-01 $113,300 Exemption Status ED05-076.13-01-57.00 $ 71,900 Exemption Status ED05-076.13-01-58.00 $143,000 Exemption Status ED05-076.13-02-57.00 $ 7,100 Exemption Status ED05-076.13-02-58.00 $ 94,100 Exemption Status ED05-076.13-02-59.00 $ 39,200 Exemption Status ED05-076.13-02-60.00 $ 98,000 Exemption Status ED05-076.13-02-61.00 $ 39,200 Exemption Status ED05-076.13-03-18.00 $121,500 Exemption Status ED05-076.13-03-31.00 $ 27,400 Exemption Status ED05-076.13-04-64.00 $ 23,100 Exemption Status

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 7 ED05-076.13-04-65.00 $ 19,200 Exemption Status ED05-076.13-04-66.00 $ 12,600 Exemption Status ED05-076.13-04-87.00 $ 37,400 Exemption Status ED05-076.13-05-48.00 $ 28,600 Exemption Status Reason for Exemption Request: This parcel falls under State Statute C.§8110 Civic organizations owning parkland. Mrs. Grden represented the homeowners Association via phone. Ms Russell pointed out to the board and Mrs. Grden that under Delaware State Law if the land is owned by a homeowner association they would be able to be exempt . The committee recommended approval of the exemption status. By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Exemption - Westover LLC Location: Open Spaces - Village of Westover Parcel Original Request ED05-0746.09-02-39.00 $ 29,000 Exemption Status ED05-076.10-02-87.00 $666,000 Exemption Status ED05-076.10-02-89.00 $ 70,600 Exemption Status ED05-076.13-03-33.00 $165,800 Exemption Status Reason for Exemption Request: This parcel does not fall under State Statute 9 Del. C. §8110 Civic organizations owning parkland. Ms. Russell recommended that tax exempt status be denied for these four properties because they are not owned by the homeowner association but by the developer. Mr. Stonesifer asked if this land is to be turned over into the name of the homeowners association at which time Mrs. Grden explained that the land is still in the name of Westover LLC and that this was an oversight. She went on to explain that the homeowner association is maintaining the open spaces. The committee recommended to deny the request for exemption. Council President Hogan declared the public hearing open. There being no one present, Council President Hogan declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation to deny the request for exemption, seconded by Mr. Bonar and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Exemption - Robino-Sea Chase LLC Location: Open Spaces - Village of Westover

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 8 Parcel Original Request ED05-076.09-02-86.00 $ 9,800 Exemption Status ED05-076.09-02-87.00 $ 23,500 Exemption Status ED05-076.09-02-88.00 $ 54,900 Exemption Status ED05-076.09-02-89.00 $ 5,900 Exemption Status Reason for Exemption Request: These parcels do not fall under State Statute 9 Del. C. §8110 Civic organizations owning parkland. Ms. Russell also recommended to deny these properties, as they do not fall under the Homeowner Association. Mr. Stoneseifer asked why the homeowner association is filing for exemption, when these parcels are not owned by them. The committee recommended to deny the request for exemption. Council President Hogan declared the public hearing open. There being no one present wishing to speak, Council President Hogan declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation to deny the request for exemption, seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS EXEMPTION REPORT - MAY 26, 2010 The Board of Assessment Appeals met on May 26, 2010. Exemption - Persimmon Park Place Condominium Council Inc. Location: 110 Persimmon Cir. - LC05-058.17-03-2.00 Background and Analysis: Original: $318,500 Requested: Exemption Status Reason for Exemption Request: This parcel falls under State Statute 9 Del. C. §8110 Civic Organizations owning parkland. Mr. Tolbert was there to speak for the Corporation. He brought with him a letter in which he explains that Persimmon Park Place Condominium Council Inc. is a not organized for profit organization and that the general purpose for the organization is to maintain, operate and administer the common element areas and community facilities in Persimmon Park Place Condominium Mobile Park Development. Mr. Garfinkel asked for which areas the exemption is being sought. Mr. Tolbert explained that they are Parking Lots, Pool, Park Areas, Club House, etc. Ms. Russell explained that it is all on one parcel. Mr. Burns ask if the public is allowed on these areas at which time Mr. Tolbert said that only residents are allowed and only those who are invited by residents. Mr. Tolbert made it clear to the board understands that these areas are only for those who live there.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 9 Mr. Burns asked if anyone who is on the Association would be able to rent the pool area to outsiders in order to earn extra money, Mr. Tolbert told him that this is not the case. After Mr. Tolbert left the room the board went into deliberation. Ms. Russell pointed out that in the Delaware State Code the word “or”, is used, not the word “and” as earlier discussed, she believes that as long as the members are allowed to use the areas without being charged it is the Assessor’s recommendation to grant the exemption. Mr. Burns asked if “or” is the correct wording and what the City’s Legal Opinion is? Ms. Russell pointed out the Village of Westover is also exempt. After some deliberation Mr. Burns asked if Ms. Russell could get a legal opinion of the definition of the land. Ms. Russell suggested the Exemption request to be tabled until a legal opinion has been obtained. The committee tabled the Exemption to get a legal opinion of the definition of the land. See Report of June 9, 2010. Exemption - First Pilgrim Baptist Church Location: 350 Frear Drive - ED05-068.14-01-14.00 Background and Analysis: Original: $142,100 Requested: Exemption Status Reason for Exemption Request: This parcel falls under State Statute 9 De. C.§8105 Property owned by governmental, religious, educational of charitable agency. The board introduced themselves to Mrs. Miles, who is also the pastor of First Pilgrim Baptist church. Mrs. Miles asked the board, that the day-care center located at 350 Frear Drive, be exempted and that the church is a non-profit organization. She told the board that the upstairs of the building, is not rented out. Mrs. Miles explained that the church is not gaining any funding from the daycare center and that in fact 75% of the daycare center is funded by the church. The church has not pursued the idea of renting out the upstairs of the building as there are too many rules and regulations with running a daycare center. She went on to say, that only church members are helping out with the daycare as means of some income for them. Mrs. Miles told the board that the First Pilgrim Baptist church does have an exemption with the Levy Court. Mr. Garfinkel asked if the daycare is properly zoned with the City, at which time Mrs. Miles assured that all of the proper steps have been taken. Mr. Garfinkel also asked who the property was purchased from and was told that the property was purchased from a family in that area. Mrs. Miles was asked if anybody is living in the property, she replied that no one lives there it is only used as a daycare. Mr. Garfinkel asked if the property is paid for by church funds and was told that the church does pay for the property. Mr. Burns asked if any part of the house is donated to the church and if the person that sold the house to church was a member of the church, which they were not. Mr. Burns asked how many children are allowed to be in the daycare center. Mrs. Miles told him that they are allowed 28 children, 14 during the day and 14 at night, which she explained that they have never had that many children at the daycare

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 10 center. She explained that the State does not fund as much to daycare facilities anymore as they did in the past and that some families pay $25-$50 per week. After Mr. Garfinkel asked the question if any of the Board Members of the church work at the daycare, Mrs. Miles replied, that one of the board members does help out whenever one of the child care providers is absent. Mr. Burns went on to summarize that the daycare has 12 students, whose families are paying a portion, the State pays a portion and the church subsidizes the rest of the cost. Mrs. Miles explained that the original intent for the daycare was to help out church members who cannot afford daycare and that perhaps the money generated by the daycare would pay the mortgage, which has not happened yet. Mr. Burns asked how much the mortgage was, which according to Mrs. Miles is $1,500 per month. Mrs. Miles was asked if any of the members help with cutting the grass, at which time she explained that her husband takes care of the grass cutting. Mr. Burns asked if the church, which is located in the town of Camden has a daycare facility. Mrs. Miles replied that would be nice, but would also create problems, especially with funerals and church services, when the fellowship hall needs to be used. Mr. Burns asked why a church, that is based in Camden, would create a daycare in the City of Dover, when they are not even renting out the second floor. Mrs. Miles explained that she lives in Dover and most of her parishioners live in Dover as well. She said that they did look for a property in Camden but when this house came available they decided to buy it as she lives close to the property and is able to look over things much easier. After Mrs. Miles left, the board deliberated. Mr. Burns explained that there are lot of rules and regulations related to daycare. Mr. Burns was wondering why the property was exempt from the Transfer Tax at the time of purchase, when the church is clearly paying a mortgage, which means that there was in fact a purchase price. Mr. Russell explained that because they are church they did not have to disclose the amount of the sale, which is part of a Delaware law. Mr. Burns asked how other daycares in the city are assessed. Ms. Russell said that usually daycares are within the residence, where they are assessed as residential homes. One daycare in the city which is exempt, is “Mom’s House” which is for single moms. Mr. Burns explained that the daycare in question does employ people. Ms. Russell suggested to table the matter and get a legal opinion, to find out what information the county used to exempt this property. The committee tabled the matter. See Report of June 9, 2010. Exemption - Young Men’s Christian Association of Delaware Inc. Location: 1145 S. State St. - ED05-077.17-05-57.00 Background and Analysis: Original: 245,000 Requested: Exemption Status Reason for Exemption Request: This parcel fall under State Statute 9 Del. C. §8106 Specific organizations and purposes.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 11 Mr. Kelly and Mr. Pool were present to represent the YMCA. The gentleman explained that the YMCA purchased the property to expand the facility to add a gym. After the gentleman left the room the board deliberated. The committee recommended to exempt the property. By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Exemption - Young Men’s Christian Association of Delaware Inc. Location: 1169 S State Street - ED05-077.17-05-58.00 Background and Analysis: Original: $322,000 Request: Exemptions Status Reason for Exemption Request: This parcel fall under State Statute 9 Del. C. §8106 Specific organizations and purposes. Mr. Kelly and Mr. Pool were present to represent the YMCA. The gentleman explained that the YMCA purchased the property to expand the facility to add a gym. After the gentleman left the room the board deliberated. The committee recommended to exempt the property. By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Exemption - Correctional Officers Association of Delaware Location: 1243 College Park Drive - ED05-067.00-02-12.09 Background and Analysis: Original: $ 691,600 Request: Exemption Status Reason for Exemption Request: This parcel has a 501 ( c ) 5 status with the Federal Government. At this time, they do not have an exemption with Kent County. An opinion was requested from the Assessor’s Office (attached to the Board minutes). Before the meeting Mr. Russell explained to the board that the representative for this property had called into the office to let the board know that he would not be able to make the meeting, due to

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 12 health reasons. Ms. Russell suggested to go over the documents supplied to the board and make a decision based on this information. Ms. Russell recommended denial as the organization does not have an exemption with the county. After Ms. Russell found out that the organization does not have an exemption from the county, she asked for a legal opinion, which also suggested the organization does not qualify. Mr. Garfinkel said that based on the legal opinion provided by Ms. Russell, there would be no reason to exempt this property. The committee recommended to deny the exemption. Council President Hogan declared the public hearing open. There being no one present wishing to speak, Council President Hogan declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation to deny the exemption, seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS EXEMPTION REPORT - JUNE 9, 2010 The Board of Assessment Appeals met on June 9, 2010. Exemptions - Persimmon Park Place Condominium Council Inc. Location: 110 Persimmon Cir. - LC05-058.17-03-2.00 Background and Analysis: Original: $318,500 Requested: Exemption Status Reason for Exemption Request: This parcel falls under State Statute 9 Del. C. §8110 Civic Organizations owning parkland. During their meeting of May 26, 2010, members tabled the exemption request in order to obtain a legal opinion regarding the definition of the land. This request for exemption was brought back to the Board on June 9, 2010 after the requested legal opinion had been obtained. Mr. Garfinkel expressed that these spaces are not public open space but private open space. Ms. Russell explained that each development is required to have a certain amount of open space. Mr. Burns asked if all open spaces in the City of Dover are exempt at which time Ms. Russell explained that the exemptions have to be requested the same as the Village of Westover, which was just granted an exemption a couple of weeks prior. The parcels do have to be in the name of the Homeowners Association, they cannot be in the builder’s name. Mr. Burns asked the question if once the open space has been exempt, if anybody can come and use those areas. Mr. Garfinkel expressed the same concern, as he had asked the question at the first hearing and was told by Mr. Tolbert, that only people that own property in the neighborhood would be allowed to use those areas. In Mr. Burns’s opinion, the open spaces should be taxed ever so slightly, so the open spaces

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 13 stay private, because he believes that if the open spaces are public other people will use it. Mr. Miller pointed out to the board, that if for some reason anybody starts using the open spaces, that then the homeowner association could request the exemption to be lifted, he also pointed out to the board that the homeowners association asked for the exemption. The committee recommended to grant the exemption. By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Exemption - First Pilgrim Baptist Church Location: 350 Frear Drive - ED05-068.14-01-14.00 Background and Analysis: Original: $142,100 Requested: Exemption Status Reason for Exemption Request: This parcel falls under State Statute 9 De. C.§8105 Property owned by governmental, religious, educational of charitable agency. During their meeting of May 26, 2010, members tabled the exemption request in order for a legal opinion to be obtained regarding what information the County used to exempt this property. This request for exemption was brought back to the Board on June 9, 2010 after the requested legal opinion had been obtained. After the Board read over the legal opinion Mr. Garfinkel raised the question, about the daycare being a business. Mr. Burns remembered that Mrs. Miles had said that the church is paying for the mortgage, which in Mr. Burns’ opinion, is what the daycare is used for. Mr. Miller (Tyler Technologies) pointed out that the use of the daycare is for charity purposes. In Mr. Miller’s opinion the question is the organization for profit or for charity? Mr. Burns expressed his concern about the location of the property. He was wondering if a church which is located in the town of Camden, would buy a home in the city of Dover to use as a daycare. In his opinion the organization was making money, as they have a mortgage to pay. Mr. Burns said that most residential daycares have the owner living in the home and are taxed. Ms. Russell pointed out that those daycares are making money. He also pointed out that Mrs. Miles did say that one of the board members does work at the daycare. Ms. Russell pointed out that it had been said that the board member helping out was only helping out if the daycare was short one person. In Mr. Miller’s opinion the church is not making any money, when Mr. Garfinkel pointed out that the daycare is making money. In Mr. Burns’ opinion the daycare is hiding behind the church and used to pay for the mortgage. Ms. Russell pointed to the YMCA which the board just granted exemption for, they also have a daycare in the facility. In Mr. Garfinkel’s opinion, the YMCA cannot be compared to this daycare, this was a property bought for a specific purpose. Ms. Russell explained that if Mrs. Miles would start renting out the upstairs, then the building would only be 50% exempt. In Mr. Burns’ and Mr. Garfinkel’s opinion, the lawyer was not very clear in

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 14 explaining the law. Ms. Russell explained that if the organization would bring in people and charge for daycare that would be for profit, but in this case the church is trying to help out its less fortunate church goers. Mr. Garfinkel stated that if the daycare was in the church he would not have a problem, but since a house was bought for purpose of daycare, it does not seem clear to him. The committee recommended to deny the request for exemption. Ms. Russell noted that the legal opinion of June 3, 2010 recommended approval of the exemption for 350 Frear Drive for First Pilgrim Baptist Church; however, the committee has recommended denial of the request for exemption. Mr. Ruane noted that the Delaware Code, 9 Del. C. §8105, requires that the property is “not held by way of investment”. He questioned if any documentation is required to help clarify whether or not a property is held by way of investment. Responding, Ms. Russell stated that such documentation is not currently required; however, she indicated that Ms. Schrader, Attorney for City of Dover Tax Assessor’s Office, had contacted her requesting the opportunity to review the City’s ordinance for possible amendments to address these concerns. She stated that this requirement would then be applicable next year. In response to Mr. Ruane, Ms. Russell assured members that property owners were made aware of the public hearings to be held by City Council regarding the request for exemption and that reminder letters were also sent. Responding to Mr. McGlumphy, Ms. Russell explained that it is the opinion of the Assessor’s Office and the Attorney that the property is not being held by way of investment and was confident that the Church is not making a profit. She noted that the Board was more concerned with the fact that the Church is located in Camden and the property is located in the Towne Point Development. Ms. Russell stated that the Church Pastor resides in the Towne Point Development and was made aware of the property becoming available. The property was purchased by the Church with the intent of providing a daycare facility. Since the Church was located elsewhere, she stated the Board was concerned that the property is being used for investment purposes. Ms. Russell stated that the Church provided information verifying that any funds acquired by providing daycare are used for paying the mortgage. She also noted that the second floor of the property is not currently used and, should the area be utilized for residential purposes (which would require variances from the City), the Tax Office would then tax a portion of the property. However, at this time, only the first floor of the property is being used and solely as a daycare facility. Noting that there is much ambiguity regarding this request, Mr. Salters felt that there was not enough information provided to allow for members of Council to make a decision. He suggested that the matter be tabled to allow staff the opportunity to obtain additional information. Council President Hogan declared the public hearing open. There being no one present wishing to speak, Council President Hogan declared the public hearing closed.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 15 Mr. Salters moved to postpone action on this matter to allow the City Assessor to evaluate actual facts, to be presented back to the members within 45 days, seconded by Mrs. Williams. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Ms. Russell indicated that she would contact Bishop Miles and request that she provide audited financial statements for the property for review by City Council. The motion to postpone action on this matter to allow the City Assessor to evaluate actual facts, to be presented back to the members within 45 days, carried by a roll call vote of five (5) yes, and four (4) no (Mrs. Russell, Mr. Leary, Mr. McGiffin, and Mr. Ruane). Mr. Salters moved for acceptance of the Board of Assessment Appeals Exemption Report for May 5, May 26, and June 9, 2010, seconded by Mr. Leary. Mr. Ruane relayed concern with the total number of properties that are tax exempt and questioned the status for the City. Responding, Ms. Russell indicated that there are 554 parcels (4.7% of total parcel count), which would equate to $1,222,368,900 (27.9% of the total) in property value. If these properties were non-exempt, the taxes collected would be $4,129,162. She stated that she was aware of entities that provide payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT), such as the State of Delaware and Luther Towers; however, she was not aware of the exact amounts provided. The motion for acceptance of the Board of Assessment Appeals Exemption Reports for May 5, May 26, and June 9, 2010 was unanimously carried. UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT - JUNE 14, 2010 The Utility Committee met on June 14, 2010 with Chairman Ruane presiding. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Permit In response to inquiries and a request of Mr. Ruane, Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, and Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, provided members with information regarding the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Permit. The information explained what the Dover NPDES permit is, how it has been administered in the past, and how it will be administered it in the future. Mrs. Townshend advised members that the City of Dover operates what the Federal government recognizes as a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System. Under the National Clean Water Act, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates these systems through state environmental agencies. In Delaware, the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) is the delegated regulatory agency under the EPA. The purpose of regulation is to minimize pollution that flows into local rivers and streams from municipal storm systems. Typically this includes any pollutant that falls on roadways, including litter, car oil, household chemicals dumped down drains, and fertilizers or pesticides applied to lawns.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 16 In August 2003, DNREC issued a five (5)-year permit to the City of Dover that required the City to take measures to encourage the removal of pollutants from stormwater run-off that ultimately ends up in the City’s water bodies, including Silver Lake and the St. Jones River. Mrs. Townshend stated that the permit includes six (6) measures and a series of actions to be completed each year, as follows: 1) public education and outreach; 2) public involvement and participation; 3) illicit discharge detection and elimination; 4) construction site stormwater runoff control; 5) post-construction stormwater management in newly developed areas and redeveloped areas; and 6) pollution prevention and good housekeeping She indicated that originally, the Public Works Department was responsible for the permit, and it was assigned to the engineering staff within that department. In 2006, with the reorganization of Public Works, Planning, and Public Utilities, the engineering staff moved to the Public Utilities Department; however, management of the permit remained under what became the Public Services Department. With no specific staff assigned to manage this responsibility, completing the requirements became an increased challenge. Staff from various divisions and departments (including Geographic Information System (GIS), Public Affairs, Engineering, and Planning) were contributing to the effort. Mr. DePrima explained that it became increasingly evident that the skills of the Planning Department were much better suited to coordinating the permitting documents and reporting them to DNREC. Over the last year, the Planning Office has worked with the Public Services Manager/Director of Public Works to bring the permit up to date. City staff has met with DNREC staff on numerous occasions to resolve issues associated with the permit, and a number of permit requirements are being implemented. Mr. DePrima advised members that the City will strengthen implementation of a committee approach to future permit management. Utilizing this approach, the Planning Department will be responsible for making NPDES permit applications, monitoring progress, and filing reports with DNREC. Various departments will be assigned action items related to the permit, and those action items will be included in department goals and performance evaluation goals of staff members. Responding to Mr. Bonar regarding improvements to the runoff into Silver Lake since 2003, Mr. Scott Koenig, Public Services Manager/Director of Public Works, advised members that the City is not currently required to conduct chemical or quantitative analysis on the waters entering Silver Lake or the St. Jones and explained the difficulties in measuring such pollutants. He stated that, currently, the permit requires assurance that the City is educating the public on practices that will improve water quality, and is less concerned with empirical analysis of hard data. He stated that these education efforts include improving construction techniques, mapping and maintaining the system, etc., and measurements would be based on improvements, such as the construction of a stormwater pond, rather than measurement of contaminants.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 17 Also in response to Mr. Bonar, Mr. Koenig stated that control measures have been instituted by Delaware State University. During the past 5-10 years, there have been quantitative construction improvements at Delaware State University that would, from an engineering standpoint, result in a scientific response that there has been an improvement to the water quality; however, it would be difficult to measure this improvement. Mr. Bonar recollected the use of Silver Lake, several years ago, as a prime recreational resource area that was used for swimming, water skiing, etc. He expressed his hope that the quality of the lake could be restored so that it could once again be utilized in this fashion. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that a study was conducted that indicated that significant financial investments would be required to restore Silver Lake as a recreational area. In addition, he explained that management of Silver Lake requires a cooperative effort from the County and several other entities outside the City’s jurisdiction. Mr. Koenig noted that, although City resources spent on the Lake would assist in its improvement, this would not resolve the issue, since the City would be treating the problem at the end rather than resolving the factors that initially create the pollutants. Mr. Koenig added that, although Silver Lake is a major water asset in the City, it is only a small aspect of the MS4 permit. Referring to Measurement #5, post-construction stormwater management in newly developed areas and redeveloped areas, Mr. Ruane questioned if the current permit refers to any objectives related to the maintenance of stormwater ponds. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated that the requirements regarding stormwater ponds are under the jurisdiction of the Kent Conservation District. The permit does require the adoption of ordinances relating to the area of stormwater, and she anticipated this would be addressed through the committee process. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend stated that a letter was received in May 2010 from DNREC that included requirements of the City to be completed by November 1, 2010 in order to renew the permit. Mr. Ruane requested that the Committee be provided periodic updates on this issue. Mr. DePrima reminded members that there is a City Council session scheduled for Wednesday, June 16, 2010, to review the City Manager’s performance goals and that one of his goals is to produce a report to Council describing Wilmington’s stormwater management system utility, the systems that other municipalities have implemented in this regard, and the availability of funding for this type of project. Mr. DePrima introduced Ms. Laura Allison, DNREC - Silver Lake/St. Jones Watershed Coordinator, whose responsibility is to focus on the improvement and management of the St. Jones Watershed and Silver Lake. Ms. Allison stated that she was recently assigned to this position and looks forward to working with the City. Mr. Bonar encouraged staff to research the possibility of securing grants for this project. Mr. DePrima assured members that staff is poised to pursue grants since Silver Lake is “the most studied lake in Delaware”; however, he cautioned that estimated costs to eradicate the problems at the Lake are significant.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 18 The Committee recommended acceptance of the report. By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Bonar requested that staff contact Ms. Katherine Hamilton, President of GridWise Alliance, to request that a presentation be made to the Committee on the subject of “Smart Meters”. By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for acceptance of the Utility Committee Report, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT - JUNE 14, 2010 The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met on June 14, 2010 with Chairman Leary presiding. 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. Permanent Full time and Temporary Full-Time Administrative Assistant - City Clerk’s Office Members considered a request for permission to recruit for a permanent, full-time Administrative Assistant position in the City Clerk’s Office. In addition, members were provided a request to waive Article V – Recruitment and Selection, Section 1 – Recruitment Sources of the Employee Handbook and temporarily hire the previous Records Management Coordinator, Ms. Denise Devine, until a permanent employee can be hired. Mrs. Traci McDowell, City Clerk, reviewed the permission to recruit and reminded members that Mrs. Rebecca Rollison was recently promoted to Fire Chief’s Assistant with the Fire Department. She also reminded members that Ms. Devine is fully trained in records management, conduct of municipal elections, and Clerk’s Office administrative responsibilities, including preparation of Council packets (paper and paperless), and would be available for immediate employment. Responding to Mr. Leary, Mrs. McDowell stated that the process for hiring to fill a vacant position is lengthy and, referring to the recent filling of the Fire Chief’s Assistant position, she noted that the request for permission to recruit was considered by the Committee on January 25, 2010 and that Mrs. Rollison began serving in that capacity on May 17, 2010. In response to Dr. Jones’ concerns, Mrs. McDowell assured members that the permanent, full-time position will be opened to anyone wishing to apply.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 19 The Committee recommended that staff be granted permission to recruit for the permanent, full-time Administrative Assistant position in the City Clerk’s Office and temporarily hire the previous Records Management Coordinator, Ms. Denise Devine, until a permanent employee can be hired. By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Temporary Full-Time Payroll Specialist - Finance Department Members considered a request for permission to recruit for a temporary, full-time Payroll Specialist position in the Finance Department. Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, reviewed the permission to recruit and reminded members that the City’s current Payroll Specialist, Mr. Turhan Jordan, has recently been given orders for military deployment for one (1) year. Since staff is currently working on the Request for Proposals (RFP) for outsourcing payroll services, she explained that it is not desired to make any permanent decisions regarding the position at this time. Responding to Mr. McGlumphy, Mrs. Mitchell indicated that for previous positions, it was determined that it was less expensive to utilize an employee from a temporary employment agency than to hire an employee directly. Mr. McGlumphy requested that staff provide all costs associated with filling vacant positions in the future. The Committee recommended that staff be granted permission to recruit for the temporary, full-time Payroll Specialist position in the Finance Department. By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Medicare Part B Reimbursement Exception During their meeting of May 24, 2010, members considered a request of the International Union of the Electronic, Electric, Salaried Machine and Furniture Workers - Communication Workers of America (IUE-CWA) for a Medicare Part B reimbursement exception for a retired Field Service Representative with 33 years of service. After much discussion, the matter was tabled until receipt of a legal opinion. The Commmittee removed the matter from the table. Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, noted the receipt of a legal opinion from Deputy City Solicitor William Pepper, Sr., which was provided to members for their review and consideration. Mr. DePrima noted that the legal opinion provided by Mr. Pepper stated that he knew of no rule that would prevent the City from taking the requested action. Although Mr. Pepper stated he generally discouraged clients from making exceptions to a “bright line” rule, particularly one that has been in place for 2½ years, Mr. Pepper felt that this case was “sui-generis” (of its own class, unique, or particular.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 20 Mr. DePrima stated that he did not feel that this action would set a precedent. He stated that the employee in question learned immediately after the union agreement became operable that his position would be terminated. He also stated that there was a reduction in force involved, which is something that does not occur frequently in the City. In response to Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. DePrima stated that, although the legal opinion contained “defensive language”, he felt that Mr. Pepper’s first opinion was that this was a unique situation. The Committee recommended approval of this non-precedent setting request for a Medicare Part B reimbursement exception. Mr. Leary moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. McGiffin. Although the Committee’s recommendation indicates that this is a “non-precedent” setting request, Mr. Ruane felt that the legal opinion provided regarding this issue does not totally agree with the request being “non-precedent” setting; therefore, he stated that he would not support the recommendation. Mr. McGlumphy stated that Medicare Part B reimbursement is a practice of the City, explaining that it is not a benefit of the City. The motion to approve the Committee’s recommendation for approval of this non-precedent setting request for a Medicare Part B reimbursement exception was carried by a roll call vote of six (6) yes and three (3) no (Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Leary, and Mr. Ruane). Concerns Regarding Bidding by Minority Businesses (Deferred by Committee on May 24, 2010 Due to Time Constraints) Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, advised members that the City has a provision within the purchasing guidelines which allows for a 3% preference if a business is a Certified Minority or Women’s Business (certified by the State of Delaware). This preference is included as a part of a bid packet, which also contains instructions on how a business can claim this preference. He stated that, to his knowledge, although the City has awarded contracts or business to minority businesses, it has not been due to the preference allowed, but rather because they had submitted the lowest bid. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima clarified that, although some businesses have included a minority certification with their bid, they were either the lowest bidder or did not fall within the 3% range permitted for consideration. In response to Mr. Salters, Mr. DePrima stated that the City of Dover does not “set aside” a certain number of contracts to be made available only for minority bids. He was not aware of any communities that provide for a “set aside” clause and suggested that if it was the desire of members, staff would conduct further research into this matter. Mr. McGlumphy suggested that a more conscious effort be made to attract minority businesses and felt that the City often utilizes the same vendors. In addition to researching the possibility of

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 21 providing “set aside” contracts, he suggested that staff develop an ordinance that provides for greater diversity in the City’s vendor preferences. Mr. Bonar suggested that staff research the minority and women’s business program provided by the State of Delaware. Mr. Clay Hammond, 505 Troon Road, advised members that he serves as the Chairman of the Delmarva Black Chamber of Commerce and member of the Governor’s Supply and Diversity Council. Rather than the development of an ordinance, he felt the City would be better served by providing a program that would encompass both above and below-bid threshold purchases. Noting the importance of small businesses to the local economy, Mr. Hammond advised members that the use of a program that promotes diversified use of small businesses would reduce unemployment, increase licensing, etc. He suggested that members review the program developed by the City of Wilmington for further consideration. The Committee recommended that staff be directed to study the bidding process as it relates to minorities and women and bring a program back to the Committee that would address the issues discussed by members. Responding to Mr. Leary, Mr. DePrima indicated that a report could be brought back to the Committee within 90 days. By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Proposed Ordinance #2010-18 - Appendix B - Zoning, Article 9 - Board of Adjustment Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, advised members that the State statute (Del. Code, Title 22, Chapter 3 - Municipal Zoning Regulations, Subchapter II - Board of Adjustment) establishes the legal authority for municipal boards of adjustment. Over time, case law has clarified the State law regarding the role of boards of adjustment and the standards for granting use and area variances. The standards for a variance set forth in the City of Dover Zoning Ordinance are currently more stringent than the standards supported by Delaware case law. This has created challenges for the Board of Adjustment, the Planning Staff, and applicants to the Board of Adjustment in evaluating applications to the Board. Staff provided members with a Proposed Ordinance that would bring the City’s Zoning Ordinance into compliance with the State statute and case law and help to avoid confusion in evaluating applications to the Board of Adjustment. Members were assured that the Proposed Ordinance was reviewed by City Solicitor Nicholas Rodriguez to ensure that it complies with State statute and case law. Staff recommended that Proposed Ordinance #2010-18 be forwarded to City Council for a First Reading on June 28, 2010; referred to the Planning Commission for consideration on July 19, 2010; and that a Final Reading and public hearing be set before City Council on August 9, 2010.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 22 Responding to Mr. Bonar, Mrs. Townshend stated that staff will be presenting additional amendments for consideration and that, in some instances, it will align the City more with the State. She felt that this could be a goal to be further discussed during her annual review of goals with Council. Mr. Ruane suggested that the notification process be expanded for matters being considered by the Board of Adjustment. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated that Section 3.1 requires notification to be provided to all property owners abutting the immediate area being considered, as well as those property owners within 200 feet. Mr. Ruane noted that, according to Line 155, notification could be provided for property owners “within 200 feet or such additional distance as the board of adjustment may deem advisable...”. He felt that there were instances when the notification should be broadened. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated that City staff would not be making this decision, since it specifies that the Board of Adjustment would be making such determination, and that if 200 feet is felt to be too narrow and should be broadened, she suggested that members consider an amendment. In response to Mr. McGiffin, Mrs. Townshend confirmed that the Board of Adjustment has a very narrow role and that the legal case for a variance is either there or not; however, during the site plan, conditional use, and subdivision process, public testimony is given consideration in making a decision. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend indicated that the Proposed Ordinance does not include any provisions regarding matters that have been in violation for a period of time; however, she stated that case law indicates that receiving forgiveness for being in violation rather than obtaining permission is not a reason to deny a variance. In reviewing case law, she stated that each case must be considered individually and based on the facts of the case and not based on a single issue. The Committee recommended that Proposed Ordinance #2010-18 (attached to Committee minutes) be forwarded to City Council for a First Reading on June 28, 2010; referred to the Planning Commission for consideration on July 19, 2010; and that a Final Reading and public hearing be set before City Council on August 9, 2010. By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. (The First Reading of the Ordinance will take place during the latter part of the meeting.) Refunding of 2004 Electric Revenue Bonds Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, advised members that current interest rates on tax-exempt municipal bonds would provide the City of Dover with approximately $1.2 million in savings if the City refunded the 2004 Electric Revenue Bonds. She indicated that the City’s Debt Policy provides guidance for refinancing debt if the present value savings over the life of the respective issue is three percent (3%) or greater. She advised members that the savings calculated on the current 2004 Series was at 3.09% as of April 16, 2010 and that since that time, rates have lowered.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 23 Mrs. Mitchell reminded members that these bonds were issued as taxable bonds due to the previous power supply contract with Duke Energy. She explained that the City would refund the bonds with tax-exempt bonds, as permitted under IRS regulations with the structure of current power supply contracts. Once staff has completed the bond prospectus and all the necessary financing documents, Mrs. Mitchell indicated that staff would submit the final Bond Resolution to City Council for approval. She assured members that the City’s Bond Counsel has reviewed the refunding and confirmed the ability to refinance as a tax-exempt issue. Staff recommended approval to refund the 2004 Taxable Electric Revenue Bonds with Series 2010 Tax Exempt Electric Revenue Bonds. The Committee recommended approval to refund the 2004 Taxable Electric Revenue Bonds with Series 2010 Tax Exempt Electric Revenue Bonds. By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Reaffirmation of Authority to Purchase Utility Commodities and Execute Contracts During the Council Meeting of May 3, 2006, Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, advised members that the City of Dover has in place an approved risk management policy associated with the purchase of energy commodity and related investment contracts. The purpose of the energy commodity and investment contracts resulting from the application of the risk management policy is: 1) to secure economic and reliable energy supply to meet the ongoing energy requirements of the City and its citizens; and 2) to provide price certainty for those end users purchasing electricity supply from the City. Mrs. Mitchell indicated that, to facilitate the City’s continuing ability to utilize a wide array of tools to control future energy costs and secure energy supplies, the City works with multiple counterparties to establish enabling agreements that allow for a diversification of counterparty credit risk and a competitive procurement model for the purchase of energy commodity and related investments. Mrs. Mitchell reminded members that the City Manager and Mayor were authorized to sign purchase power supply agreements. PACE has since been acquiring counterparties, so that there is a diverse group of vendors for the City to make power supply purchases. She advised members that some of these vendors have requested reaffirmation from Council of authority for the City Manager and Mayor to sign the agreements. Mrs. Mitchell explained that the purpose of the request is to reaffirm that, as noted in the City Council minutes dated May 3, 2006, the City of Dover: 1) May enter into Edison Electric Institute (EEI) Master Power Purchase & Sale Agreements, International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) Master Agreements, North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) Master Agreements, or other similar enabling agreements, along with any related schedules, credit support documents and confirmations, or other documents pertaining to any energy commodity or investment transactions;

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 24 2) May enter into energy commodity or investment transactions for a duration not to exceed six (6) years from the date of transaction execution; 3) Has authorized Pace Global Asset Management, LLC (“Pace Global”) to act as its agent for all energy commodity and related investment transactions; and 4) Has granted the City Manager and Mayor the authority to execute energy commodity and investment transactions on behalf of the City. City Clerk’s Office Note: During their Special Meeting of May 3, 2006, City Council authorized the Mayor and City Manager, individually, to enter into master agreements between suppliers of electricity and the City of Dover to establish contractual relationships for transactions to implement the electricity and fuels purchasing strategy, plan and transactions contemplated under the Energy Management Agreement with Pace Global Asset Management, LLC. Staff recommended that Council confirm the City’s ability and authority to enter into energy commodity transactions. The Committee recommended reaffirmation that the City: 1) may enter into Edison Electric Institute (EEI) Master Power Purchase & Sale Agreements, International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) Master Agreements, North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) Master Agreements, or other similar enabling agreements, along with any related schedules, credit support documents and confirmations, or other documents pertaining to any energy commodity or investment transactions; 2) may enter into energy commodity or investment transactions for a duration not to exceed six (6) years from the date of transaction execution; 3) has authorized Pace Global Asset Management, LLC ("Pace Global") to act as its agent for all energy commodity and related investment transactions; and 4) has granted the City Manager and Mayor the authority to execute energy commodity and investment transactions on behalf of the City. By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Leary moved for acceptance of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and unanimously carried. SPECIAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - JUNE 28, 2010 (Held Earlier in the Afternoon) The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee met on June 28, 2010 with Chairwoman Russell presiding. APPROVAL OF 2010 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FIVE (5) YEAR CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND PROPOSED RESOLUTION #2010-04 During the Regular Council Meeting of June 14, 2010, members were provided the 2010 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Five (5) Year Consolidated Plan and Proposed Resolution #2010-04. City Council referred this item back to the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee to be considered at this time for a final review and recommendation to Council.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 25 Members were reminded that the Consolidated Plan (2010-2014) is a five (5) year plan mandated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This plan identifies the specific needs concerning affordable housing, homeownership, housing rehabilitation, and community development. Mrs. Tracy Harvey, Community Development Manager, noted that the Consolidated Plan is due in 2010, which is a census year, and that the census data used is from 2000. She stated that 2000 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data was used throughout the plan and that this data is used by local governments for housing planning and is a part of the Consolidated Plan process. She explained that complete and current CHAS information will not be available until later in the year and that, although some 2009 CHAS data was available, it was inconsistent with the 2000 data and did not provide the information necessary to update tables required by HUD. She stated that HUD has indicated that 2009 CHAS data is not a requirement for the Plan and that grantees can use 2000 census data. Mrs. Harvey stated that most of the data for the City of Dover has been updated from the 2008 and 2009 Delaware Population Consortium Report and information received from the Homeless Planning Council, the Delaware State Housing Authority, and the Dover Housing Authority. Mrs. Harvey assured members that the Consolidated Plan meets the requirements of HUD and includes all required information. Responding to Mrs. Horsey, Mrs. Harvey stated that, although HUD authorized the use of 2000 census data, some of the tables were updated utilizing local data for the City of Dover. She confirmed that these updates were included following initial submission of the report to members of City Council during their meeting of June 14, 2010. Mr. Ruane requested, without objection, that the Economic Development Office provide detailed, current information regarding their accomplishments for inclusion the next time the Plan is updated. Concurring, Mr. McGlumphy suggested that information regarding goals achieved be included in future reports. Responding, Mrs. Harvey advised members that the Community Development Office is required to submit a Consolidated Annual Performance Report, which specifies goals that have been met and what has been accomplished for the program year. She explained that HUD assesses this information and provides a report on the City’s performance in September of each fiscal year. Referring to the paragraph, “Homeless Needs”, as mentioned on Page 35 of the Plan, Mr. Ruane questioned the completeness of the second sentence, which reads: “The Target Area is defined”. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, suggested that a detailed description, including street boundaries and a map of the Target Area, be included in the Plan. She assured members that these additions could be accomplished by the time the Plan is presented to Council later this evening and prior to submission to HUD. Mr. Ruane suggested that the Plan provide better clarification of the programs offered City-wide and those offered to a concentrated area (Target Area). Referring to Page 28, Special Needs Facilities and Services, Mr. Ruane suggested that the Plan be revised to provide some acknowledgment of the services provided by the National Alliance for the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 26 Mentally Ill in the section “Special Needs Facilities and Services”. Responding, Mrs. Harvey indicated that those services were listed on Page 63 of the Plan as being funded by HUD. After much discussion, Mrs. Townshend assured members that staff would include a paragraph regarding the services provided by the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill on Pages 28-29 of the Plan prior to its final submission to HUD. Mrs. Horsey suggested that, for clarification, staff include maps and/or provide references to other pages within the Plan when a topic is mentioned throughout. Mr. McGlumphy also suggested that staff consider the possibility of including exhibits that could be mentioned throughout the Plan rather than including repetitive paragraphs. The committee recommended approval of the 2010 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Five (5) Year Consolidated Plan and adoption of Proposed Resolution #2010-04 (attached to Committee minutes). Mrs. Russell moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and, by a unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted Resolution #2010-04, as follows: WHEREAS, the City of Dover is entitled to $296,526 through the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant program; and WHEREAS, the City of Dover has prepared the 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan, in accordance with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development guidelines, that serve as the primary planning document for identifying and meeting the housing and community development needs for the low and moderate-income residents of Dover; and WHEREAS, the City of Dover is in favor of utilizing the Community Development Block Grant funds for the community development purposes in accordance with the National Community Development objectives of benefitting low and moderate income families, eliminating slums and blight, and meeting other community development objectives; and WHEREAS, the United State Department of Housing and Urban Development requires the City of Dover to submit a Consolidated Plan and an Action Plan for Application for Federal Assistance including the proposed use of funds and including certain certifications and policies to obtain its $296,526 entitlement; and use of $10,292 in program income for eligible activities; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER APPROVE THE 2010-2014 Community Development Block Grant Consolidated Plan and application for Federal Assistance included in the Consolidated Plan, along with certifications and policies attached and authorize its forwarding to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for consideration. ADOPTED: JUNE 28, 2010

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 27 Mrs. Russell moved for acceptance of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried. ANNUAL REPORT - DOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for acceptance of the Annual Report for the Fire Department, as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. McGiffin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. MONTHLY CIP REPORT - APRIL 2010 By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for acceptance of the Monthly CIP Report for April 2010, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. EXPENDITURE AUTHORIZATION - 2010 OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS (OJP) JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT Police Chief Hosfelt advised members that the Dover Police Department recently received its annual allocation from the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) for the 2010 Justice Assistance Grant (JAG). Similar to previous years, Dover Police Department was identified as a disparate funding agency along with the Smyrna Police Department and Kent County. He advised members that there is no disparate funding situation between the three (3) entities because there is no law enforcement function at the County level. This is because law enforcement is provided by municipal police departments or the State Police for areas lying outside of incorporated limits within the County. In addition, the County also does not bear the cost for prosecution or incarceration that arises for Part 1 violent crimes, since these costs are budgeted and paid for by the State of Delaware. Police Chief Hosfelt explained that, due to the disparate condition, the submission of a joint grant application for the three (3) agencies is required. Since the Dover Police Department will be receiving the lion’s share of the amount, they will serve as the fiscal and administrative agent for the grant. This means that all funds for the grant will be disbursed through City of Dover accounts; however, Smyrna Police Department expenses will still be controlled and approved by the City of Smyrna. Police Chief Hosfelt assured members that there are no additional costs associated with the grant that would be required of the City. He indicated that the Dover Police Department plans to use the funds, as follows: Police Department website design $50,000 Supplemental computer upgrades and enhancements (not previously budgeted) 22,800 Subtotal $72,800 Smyrna Police Department $13,775 Grand Total $86,575

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 28 Staff recommended approval of the expenditure authorization for the 2010 Office of Justice Programs (OJP) Justice Assistance Grant. Mrs. Williams moved for approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Bonar and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. EXPENDITURE AUTHORIZATION - CIP PROJECT PD1001 - CORE LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVER REPLACEMENTS Police Chief Hosfelt reminded members that the Core Law Enforcement Server Replacements were already approved in the FY10 CIP budget. The project involves the replacement of several servers that host the services platform for providing key law enforcement systems in dispatch, patrol, records and evidence. He indicated that the systems are also accessed by all sworn personnel in processing complaints and calls for service. The vendors for this project will be New World for the main server software and Dell (state contract vendor) for the hardware. This action form was provided as information regarding the expenditures which is required because the dollar amount for the total project exceeds $25,000. Police Chief Hosfelt advised members that the Police Department is currently waiting for the final specifications for the computer servers from the vendor and will place the order immediately upon receipt to meet the end of fiscal year deadline for these funds. Staff recommended approval of the expenditure authorization for the Core Law Enforcement Server Replacements. Mr. Bonar moved for approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mrs. Russell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. EVALUATION OF BIDS - FY 2011 STREET PROGRAM In conjunction with the City of Dover’s Capital Investments Plan, Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, advised members that it is proposed to rehabilitate various pavement sections throughout the City of Dover during Fiscal Year 2011. He stated that the following locations were included in the proposed scope of work to be completed under the FY 2011 Street Program: Washington Street Susan Place Delaware Avenue Alley S. Turnberry Lane Mitscher Road Hiawatha Lane Reed Street (State Street to Kings Highway) Three (3) contractors submitted unit price bids for the proposed work to be performed. Based on the proposed quantities, the estimated contract values are as follows: 1) Daisy Construction Co. New Castle, Delaware - $638,232.95; 2) George & Lynch, Inc. Dover, Delaware - $721,001.31; and 3) David A. Bramble, Inc. Chestertown, MD - $732,447.20. Mr. DePrima stated that the FY 2011 Street Program contract documents allow staff to alter quantities up to 35% without changes to unit prices; therefore, the contract final value may be adjusted to reflect all available funding. He reminded members that Daisy Construction Co. was the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 29 City’s contractor for the last Street Program and their quality of work was more than satisfactory. In addition, their billing and certified payroll was submitted in a timely manner and well coordinated with the Public Works Inspector. Staff recommended awarding a unit price contract for the FY 2011 Street Program to Daisy Construction Co. based on the unit prices for each work item as provided. The scope of work for the program will be altered to reflect the funding that has been secured to complete each location. The Public Services Manager may add or delete from the contract based on available funding throughout the contract period and inform the City Manager of such additions or deletions. All work will be paid for at the unit prices bid for work completed and accepted by the City of Dover. The total work authorized under this contract will not exceed the available funding. It was noted that the amount of funding available for this project is $743,001.14. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima stated that the City’s Street Program is much less complicated than a project such as the Governors Avenue Project currently being conducted by the State of Delaware, which may be why Daisy Construction has been able to complete the City’s projects in a timely manner. Mr. McGiffin moved for approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes and one (1) no (Mr. Bonar). EVALUATION OF BIDS - MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE REPAIR PROGRAM In conjunction with the City of Dover’s Capital Investments Plan, Mr. DePrima, City Manager, advised members that it is proposed to use a contractor to remove and replace approximately 6,148 square feet of miscellaneous concrete work at various tentative locations throughout the City of Dover during Fiscal Year 2011. He assured members that staff has visited each of the tentative work locations and has prepared a work plan and bid specification package for these repairs. He stated that bids were solicited, ten (10) contractors submitted unit price bids for the work to be performed, and the low bid was received from Melvin Ray’s Masonry, Marydel, in the amount of $30,175.50. Mr. DePrima indicated that if the contractor performs well on the scope of work identified in the bid package, it would be staff’s intention to expand the scope of work to expend $40,000 - $45,000 on the contracted work. Staff recommended awarding a unit price contract for the FY 2011 Miscellaneous Concrete Repair Program based on the unit prices for each work item to Melvin Ray’s Masonry in the estimated amount of $30,175.50, based on the tentative scope of work. All work will be paid for at the unit prices bid for work completed and accepted by the City of Dover. Staff intends to increase the value of the contract to $40,000 - $45,000, based on the unit prices received. Mr. Bonar relayed concerns with the quality of work performed by Melvin Ray’s Masonry. Mr. Salters moved for approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes and one (1) no (Mr. Bonar).

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 30 ELECTION TO FILL VACANCIES - ROBBINS HOSE COMPANY - TERMS TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2010 (ALL POSITIONS UNOPPOSED) Fire Chief Christiansen advised members that he received resignations from Deputy Fire Chief Enright, First Assistant Fire Chief Carey, Fourth Assistant Fire Chief Mullaney, and Second Fire Line Captain Troubetaris. In accordance with the City Code and the By-Laws of the Robbins Hose Company, during the June 7, 2010 Regular Monthly Meeting, members of the Robbins Hose Company No. 1 nominated members to serve as Fire Line Officers with terms to expire December 31, 2010, as follows: Deputy Fire Chief - David Carey First Assistant Fire Chief - Timothy Mullaney, Jr. Fourth Assistant Fire Chief - Carl Troubetaris Second Fire Line Captain - Donald Stock By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for acceptance of the Fire Line Officers for Robbins Hose Company No. 1 as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. McGiffin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. APPOINTMENT RECOMMENDED BY MAYOR CAREY - DOVER MPO PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE - TWO (2) YEAR TERM TO EXPIRE JULY 2012 - DR. CARLTON L. CANNON, JR. (REAPPOINTMENT) Mayor Carey recommended the appointment of Dr. Carlton L. Cannon, Jr. to serve on the Dover MPO Public Advisory Committee for a two (2) year term to expire July 2012. By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the appointment as recommended by Mayor Carey, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. APPOINTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY MAYOR CAREY - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - THREE (3) YEAR TERMS TO EXPIRE JULY 2013 (REAPPOINTMENTS) Mayor Carey requested the following reappointments to the Board of Adjustment for three (3) year terms to expire July 2013: K.C. Sheth, Chairperson (Reappointment) William Hufnal (Reappointment) By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the reappointments to the Board of Adjustment, as recommended by Mayor Carey, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. FIRST READING - PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Council President Hogan reminded the public that copies of the proposed ordinances are available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or can be obtained from the City Clerk's Office. Since the ordinances are amendments to the Zoning Code, a public hearing is required. Staff recommended referral of the amendments to the Planning Commission on July 19, 2010; and that a public hearing

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 31 be set for the Regular Council Meeting of August 9, 2010, at 7:30 p.m., at which time final action by Council will take place. Mr. Salters moved to refer the amendments and set a public hearing before City Council for August 9, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. as suggested by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bonar and unanimously carried. In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of the Zoning Ordinance Amendments as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows: > PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2010-18 - APPENDIX B - ZONING , ARTICLE 9 - BOARD OF ADJUSTM ENT > PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2010-21 - RECREATIONAL AND OPEN SPACE (ROS) ZONE MAP AM ENDM ENTS FINAL READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCES The First Reading of the following proposed ordinances was accomplished during the Council Meeting of June 14, 2010. Mr. McGlumphy moved to suspend the rules to allow public testimony regarding the City’s Budget, seconded by Mrs. Williams. Mr. Leary moved to amend the motion to provide 20 minutes of total time for public testimony (three (3) minutes for each person), seconded by Mr. Salters. Mr. McGlumphy relayed concern with applying a time limit since this is the final presentation before City Council before final action is taken. The motion to amend the motion to provide 20 minutes of total time for public testimony was carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes and two (2) no (Mr. McGlumphy and Mrs. Williams). The motion to suspend the rules to allow a 20 minute time period for public testimony regarding the City's Budget was carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mrs. Russell absent for this portion of the meeting). Council President Hogan declared the public hearing open. Mrs. Barbara Palmer, 917 Sunset Terrace, relayed opposition to the pay raises proposed for the three (3) administrative positions, noting that the salaries for each are currently in excess of $100,000. With the current economic situation, she noted that many employed individuals are not receiving any pay increase and many are losing their jobs. Ms. Andrea Pierce, 39 Par Haven Drive, indicated her opposition to the budget, feeling that the pay raises are excessive and that this is not the time for providing more money to those already highly compensated. She stated that the City of Dover does not need to have the highest paid City Manager

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 32 in the State of Delaware. She noted that the State is also reinstating the monies taken from employees last year; however, they are not providing any salary increases. She questioned the need for a new vehicle for the Mayor and did not feel her taxes should pay for the new car. She also questioned the need for the additional position, Assistant Librarian, since this would allow the Library Director to concentrate efforts for fundraising for the new library. It was her opinion that fundraising should be accomplished on personal time and that tax payers should not pay for employees to conduct fund raising. (Former City of Dover Mayor) James Hutchison, 15 Gleneagles Court, stated his opposition to providing pay increases at this time and requested that members reconsider this action. He noted that, during these economic times, the majority in the business community are being laid off, losing jobs, etc., and felt that it is wrong for the City to consider providing pay increases. Ms. Beth Miller, Attorney at Morris James, LLC, advised members that she practices tax law and represents several business owners, landlords, and tenants. She stated that the proposed tax increase is causing concerns, noting that if taxes are increased, jobs will be cut, unemployment will increase, and costs will increase. She felt that a tax increase will not serve anyone or do any good except for those that would be receiving a salary increase. Mr. Robert Tudor, 706 E. Division Street, suggested that members are not taking into consideration what is happening throughout the United States. He also suggested that members should get a copy of Time magazine, which includes an article regarding municipalities that are going bankrupt. He requested that the salary increases be denied and that the budget be reviewed for other savings. Mr. John Stant, 60 North Fairfield Drive, stated that he owns commercial properties and a business (Uno Chicago Grill) and that he is faced with high utilities and an increase in property assessment. He noted that his business currently has 70 employees, none of these employees will receive a salary increase, and if the economy continues to spiral, there will be less than 70 employees. He requested that members give consideration as to the effect that their actions will have on the community, explaining that if the small businesses in the City begin to fold, which has already been occurring, there will not be sufficient taxes collected to keep the City in business. He suggested that members consider what they can do to help small businesses in order for them to keep giving to the City. Ms. Nicole Colbert, 303A West Loockerman Street, stated that she is an unemployed, single mom and is very concerned about the proposed salary increases. She explained the difficulties of being unemployed, noting that she and her children are now facing eviction and that she is not the only individual facing this type of situation. Although she had attempted to contact each member of Council by either phone call, letter, or email, she thanked the only member who responded, Mr. McGlumphy, and relayed appreciation for his assistance. Ms. Sherry Henley, 6353 Carpenter Bridge Drive in Felton, stated that she is speaking on behalf of the Legislative Affairs Committee for the Chamber of Commerce. She noted the many concerns that have been relayed regarding the proposed increases in property taxes, business license fees, cost of services, etc., and requested that members reconsider their vote.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 33 Mr. Ronald Short, Roosevelt Avenue, relayed his opposition to any proposed salary increases, noting that he retired 2½ years ago and has not received an increase in his pension. He advised members that his vehicle is a 1993 Chevrolet Van with 154,000 miles and collects social security. He requested that members reconsider their action regarding the budget. Mr. Karlton Schmidt, 102 Lotus Street, suggested that it is time to do more with less and that the City Manager should be challenged each spring to find more and more money in the preparation of the budget. He requested that members make the City Manager work for the people of the City of Dover. There being no one else wishing to speak, Council President Hogan declared the public hearing closed. It was noted that members of Council were provided a packet of correspondence received by the City Clerk’s Office related to the budget (as on file in the Office of the Clerk). Ordinance #2010-20 - Notification of Tax Rate Increase Over the Rolled Back Tax Rate [Required in accordance with 22 Delaware Code Section 1105(b)] Mr. McGiffin moved that the Final Reading of the Proposed Ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried. Council President Hogan reminded members that the Proposed Ordinance will roll back the current tax rate of 33¢ to 31.08¢ and provides for a tax rate increase in the amount of 2.7¢, for a new tax rate of 33.78¢. Mr. McGiffin moved for adoption of Ordinance #2010-20, Notification of Tax Rate Increase Over the Rolled Back Tax Rate [Required in accordance with 22 Delaware Code Section 1105(b)], seconded by Mr. Ruane. By a roll call vote of five (5) yes and four (4) no (Mr. Bonar, Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Leary, and Mrs. Williams), Council adopted Ordinance #2010-20, as follows: WHEREAS, the 2010/2011 fiscal year property tax rate for the City of Dover is $.33(thirty-three cents) per hundred of assessed value and the Tax Assessor reported that the total assessed value of property as of December 31, 2009 was $2,911,319,620 and that the Supplement Billings for April 2010 were $2,219,200 making the FY 2011 (2005 Assessed Value) base $2,913,538,820; and WHEREAS, upon completion of the re-evaluation completed in 2010, the Tax Assessor is reporting that the total assessed value in 2009/2010 to be $3,093,511,459; and WHEREAS, Delaware State Law: 22 Delaware Code Section 1105 (b) requires municipalities to calculate a "rolled-back" tax rate so as to provide the same tax revenue as was levied during the prior fiscal year and to state that the percent, if any, by which the property tax rate to be levied exceeds the "rolled-back" property tax rate.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 34 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: That the City of Dover "rolled-back" tax rate is $.3108 per hundred of assessed value, and 2010/2011 tax rate is to be set at $.3378 per hundred of assessed value, the increase over the rolled-back tax rate being 8.68%. ADOPTED: JUNE 28, 2010 Ordinance #2010-19 - Budget Ordinances - 2010/2011 City of Dover Budget Mr. McGiffin moved that the Final Reading of the Proposed Ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried. Mr. McGiffin moved for adoption of Ordinance #2010-19 - 2010/11 City of Dover Budget (Exhibit #1). The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a roll call vote of five (5) yes and four (4) no (Mr. Bonar, Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Leary, and Mrs. Williams). Downtown Dover Business Improvement District - Cash Receipts/Budget FY 2010-2011 Mr. McGiffin moved that the Final Reading of the proposed ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried. Mr. McGiffin moved for adoption of the Downtown Dover Business Improvement District - Cash Receipts/Budget FY 2010-2011 Ordinance (Exhibit #2). The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a roll call vote of five (5) yes and four (4) no (Mr. Bonar, Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Leary, and Mrs. Williams). Proposed Ordinance #2010-13 - Furloughs and Pension Plan Closing Mr. McGiffin moved that the Final Reading of the Proposed Ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried. Mr. McGiffin moved for adoption of Ordinance #2010-13, seconded by Mr. Salters and by a unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted the following ordinance: BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: That Chapter 2 – Administration, Article IV – Officers and Employees, Division 7 – General Employee Pension Plan, Subdivision I - In General, Section 2-321 - Definitions, be amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-321. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this division, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 35 Accumulated contributions means the aggregate contributions made by a member under the plan, with interest thereon at the rate of five percent per annum, compounded annually from the last day of the plan year in which such contribution was made to the earlier of the date of commencement of retirement income or the date on which contributions are payable pursuant to the provisions of the plan. Continuous service means regularly employed without interruption, except for allowable interruptions aggregating not over five years. Allowable interruptions shall include: (1) Leaves of absence granted to employees for illness, research, travel, training or study; (2) Employment in an office to which the employee had been elected by popular vote at a regular city election; (3) Involuntary severance which shall include a required leave of absence on account of maternity, and the employee returns to active employment at the end of that leave of absence. To the extent required by federal law, if an employee leaves the employ of the city to enter the military service of the United States and, upon his discharge from service, is reemployed by the city at a time when his reemployment rights are protected by federal law, the employee shall be considered to have been employed by the city during his period of military service and shall be credited with continuous service which he would have been credited with as an employee of the city but for his military service. The period for which disability pension benefits shall have been paid shall be considered as an allowable interruption which is permitted in addition to the allowable interruptions aggregating not over five years in determining subsequent eligibility for retirement benefits under the terms of this division. Defined Benefit Pension plan and plan mean the city's general employee pension plan. Eligible employee means any person regularly employed in rendering service to the city on a full-time, permanent basis, who is not participating in any other retirement plan to which the city contributes for them, and whose compensation is paid directly by the city. An employee will be considered a full-time employee if he regularly works 40 hours each week. Group annuity contract means the group annuity contract entered into between an insurance company and the pension board of trustees. Participant means any eligible employee of the city who has met all of the requirements for participation in the pension plan as defined in this section and who has satisfied all of the conditions and requirements set forth in this division. Pension board means the pension board of trustees.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 36 Plan year means the period of one year, commencing on any July 1 and ending immediately prior to the following July 1. Retired participant means a participant of the plan who has terminated service and is eligible to receive retirement income under this division. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT Chapter 2 – Administration, Article IV – Officers and Employees, Division 7 – General Employee Pension Plan, Subdivision I - In General, Section 2-323 - Eligibility of participant, be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue, italics and deleting the text indicated in bold, red strikeout as follows: Sec. 2-323. Eligibility of participant. Each eligible employee not drawing any retirement benefits from the mayor and city council as of January 1, 1967, shall, upon compliance with the provisions of this division, become a pension plan participant under this division, commencing on July 1, 1967, or at any subsequent time immediately upon his employment. Effective September 28, 2009 the defined benefit plan is closed to new participants. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT Chapter 2 – Administration, Article IV – Officers and Employees, Division 7 – General Employee Pension Plan, Subdivision I - In General, Section 2-324 - Participation mandatory; exceptions, be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue, italics and deleting the text indicated in bold, red strikeout as follows: Sec. 2-324. Participation mandatory; exceptions. The pension plan shall not be construed to give any employee the right to be retained in the employ of the city. All new employees hired after July 1, 1991, shall be required, as a condition of employment, to join the defined benefit plan or the defined contribution plan. All new employees hired after September 29, 2009 are required to join the defined contribution pension plan. All participants of the defined benefit pension plan as of September 28, 2009 will remain members of either plan thereafter unless they shall leave the employment of the city, retire, pass away, or elect to terminate their participation in the defined benefit plan and become a member of the defined contribution pension plan as defined in Section 2-341(f). COUNCIL MEMBERS ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. McGlumphy thanked the citizens for attending the meeting. Mr. Bonar also thanked the citizens for their participation and felt that there could have been more cuts to the budget. He thanked staff for the work conducted on the City’s budget. Mr. McGiffin stated that the African American Festival was held this past weekend and that it was a successful event. He announced that every one should mark their calendar for the next African American Festival, which will be held on June 25, 2011.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 37 Mayor Carey congratulated Mr. Salters, noting that this was the 20th year for the African American Festival. He also congratulated Mr. Bruce Pringle, relayed appreciation for the service he has provided the City and its citizens, and wished him well in his retirement. Mrs. Williams relayed appreciation for the citizens attending the meeting and reminded all that the budget can be vetoed by the Mayor. Mr. Salters moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and unanimously carried. Meeting Adjourned at 8:35 P.M. TRACI A. McDOWELL CITY CLERK All orders, ordinances, and resolutions adopted by City Council during their Regular Meeting of June 28, 2010, are hereby approved (with the exception of the following motion: adoption of the following 2010/2011 City of Dover Budget Ordinances - General Fund - Cash Receipts and Budget; Water/Wastewater Fund - Revenue and Budget; and Electric Revenue Fund - Revenue and Budget). CARLETON E. CAREY, SR. MAYOR /TM/jg S:\AGENDAS & MINUTES\Council-Minutes\2010\06-28-2010 Council.wpd Exhibits Attached to Original Minutes and File Copy Exhibit #1 - Ordinance #2010-19 - 2010/11 City of Dover Budget Exhibit #2 - Downtown Dover Business Improvement District - Cash Receipts/Budget FY 2010-2011 Ordinance

MEMORANDUM Department of Public Services – Planning Office P.O. Box 475 Dover, Delaware 19903 Phone: 302.736.7196 Fax: 302.736.4217 Date: July 2, 2010 To: City Council From: Ann Marie Townshend, AICP RE: Proposed Rezoning –Lands of Mor Kath Ric LLC On June 21, 2010, following a public hearing where numerous members of the public spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning of property located at 217 & 223 McKee Road, owned by Mor Kath Ric LLC from R-7 (One Family Residence Zone) subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) to RM-1 (Medium Density Residence Zone) subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone), Planning Commission voted to postpone the application for 60 days so that the developer may meet with the concerned residents. For this reason, the Planning Office requests that the public hearing before City Council on this matter be rescheduled for September 13, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. If you have any questions, please let me know.

PETITION TO AMEND ZONING DISTRICT Before the Dover City Council July 12, 2010 Applicants/Owners: Rt.8 & Saulsbury Road, LLC Address: Saulsbury Road, Dover Location: East side of Saulsbury Road, south of the intersection with Forrest Avenue Tax Parcel ID #: ED05-076.11-01-24.00-000 Size: 1.0+/- acres (43,560 S.F.) Present Use: Vacant Proposed Use: Commercial Retail Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial Present Zoning: CPO (Commercial/Professional Office Zone) COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) Proposed Zoning: C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) Planning Commission Recommendation: Following a public hearing before the Planning Commission on June 21, 2010, where no members of the public spoke in favor of or in opposition to the proposed rezoning the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request to change the zoning of the subject property from CPO (Commercial/Professional Office Zone) with COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial) with COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone), with 8 members voting in favor and one recused from voting. File Number: Z-10-05

This rezoning application consists of one parcel of land owned by Route 8 & Saulsbury Road, LLC. The parcel is a total of 1.01 acres ± (43,995.6 S.F.). The property is currently zoned CPO (Commercial/Professional Office Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The proposed zoning is C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The subject area is located on the east side of Saulsbury Road, south of the intersection with Forrest Avenue/Forest Street. Tax Parcel: ED05-076.11-01-24.00-000 Existing Property: The subject parcel is currently vacant. A previous application (S-08-30) for a CVS Pharmacy moved a property line for this parcel and has a required shared access through this property. Surrounding Land Uses: The land directly adjacent to the subject site on the north is the existing location of the CVS pharmacy building (currently under construction). The CVS property is zoned C-2A and subject to the COZ-1. The adjacent properties to the east and to the south are zoned RG-1(General Residence Zone). The properties located to the west of the subject site is the Gateway West Shopping Center, zoned SC-2 (Shopping Center Development). Comprehensive Plan: In the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, the Land Development Plan (Map 12-1 as amended, dated 11/23/2009) recommends that this property be used for Commercial Use. The requested C-2A zoning is consistent with this category of uses. Request for C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) The types of permitted uses in the C-2A zone are given Article 3 §14 of the Zoning Ordinance. The permitted uses include convenience retail stores such as drug stores, grocery stores, luncheonettes, variety stores or combination thereof; personal service stores such as, but not limited to, barbershops, beauty parlors, and tailors, service establishments furnishing services other than of a personal nature, but excluding gasoline filling stations and motor vehicle storage, repair, or service; residences conforming to the regulations set forth in Article 3 Section 2; banks or businesses, professional or governmental offices; other retail and services establishments with exclusions; theatres, and restaurants; apartments, provided that no dwelling units shall be permitted in the first floor and at least one off-street parking space shall be provided in the area for each apartment; hotels, clubs and places of worship; and civic institutions. Article 4, Section 4.15 of the Zoning Ordinance address bulk standards for the C-2A Zone. The bulk standards are as follows: C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) Minimum required: Lot area Lot width (ft.) 50 Lot depth (ft.) 100 Front yard (ft.) 15 Side yard (ft.) None required, but 10 ft. min. if provided

Z-10-05 Lands of Rt. 8 and Saulsbury Road, LLC Report to City Council – July 12, 2010 Page 3 Rear yard (ft.) 20 ft above ground floor, at ground floor 5 ft. Side or rear yards which adjoin a 25 residence zone (ft.) Off-street parking Per 300 sq. ft. floor area or 1 Per employee (whichever is greater) 1 Maximum permitted: Building height Stories 6 Feet 60 Floor area ratio 4.0 Recommendation of the Planning Staff: This request is to rezone land from CPO (Commercial/Professional Office Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The zoning requested is consistent with the 2008 Comprehensive Plan as amended 2009 and it is compatible with the surrounding land uses and zoning classifications. For this reason, staff supports the rezoning request. The proposed use of the property, as commercial retail would be permitted under the C-2A zone. The rezoning would also place the two properties held in the ownership of Rt.8 and Saulsbury Road, LLC into the same zoning classification. Following a public hearing before the Planning Commission on June 21, 2010, where no members of the public spoke in favor of or in opposition to the proposed rezoning the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request to change the zoning of the subject property from CPO (Commercial/Professional Office Zone) with COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) to C- 2A (Limited Central Commercial) with COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone), with 8 members voting in favor and one member recused from voting. The following is an excerpt from the minutes of the Planning Commission hearing on this matter: Z-10-05 Lands of Route 8 & Saulsbury Road LLC at Sauslbury Road - Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council regarding a rezoning application consisting of one parcel of land consisting of a total of 1.01 acre ±. The property is currently zoned CPO (Commercial/Professional Office Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The proposed zoning is C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The subject property is located on the east side of Saulsbury Road, south of the intersection with Forrest Avenue/Forest Street. The owner of record is Route 8 & Saulsbury Road, LLC. Property Address: Saulsbury Road. Tax Parcel: ED05-076.11-01-24.00-000. Council District 4. Representatives: Mr. Conny Malmberg, principal of the Project; and Mr. Phil McGinnis.

Z-10-05 Lands of Rt. 8 and Saulsbury Road, LLC Report to City Council – July 12, 2010 Page 4 Mr. Baldwin recused himself from this application as he is a property owner located within 200 feet of the subject application which would be deemed a conflict of interest. Mr. Albert provided an overview of the application. Mr. Malmberg stated that the only DAC comment of substance would be the requirement of a cross access easement to the two parcels as they function as one center. This was done back in January and a copy has been provided to Mrs. Melson-Williams. Mr. Hemmig questioned with regards to the access road that was provided on the plan that was plotted in January for the CVS Pharmacy, is the exact location for this road fixed based on the previously approved Site Plan? Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mr. Albert stated that DelDOT approved of this compromise and it is a fixed location. Mr. Hemmig further stated that this takes out a lot of the 1.01 acre available for an actual building. Did you consider the actual available building space left when considering zoning and is it enough to meet zoning requirements? Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mr. Malmberg stated that when this portion of the integrated center gets developed, the cross access road that you see curving through the site will be incorporated into the travel lanes of the area around the building so it does impact on the value and the square footage that can be built on the property; however, it is not significant enough to impair it for C-2A purposes. Mr. Friedman opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak closed the public hearing. Colonel Welsh moved to forward a recommendation of approval to City Council for Z-10-05 Lands of Route 8 & Saulsbury Road, LLC located at Saulsbury Road from CPO to C-2A and to also include the COZ-1 zone, seconded by Mr. Hemmig and the motion was unanimously carried 8-0 with Mr. Baldwin recused.

City of Dover Application No.: Z-10-05 Department of Planning & Inspections FOREST STREET HARTLY ROAD C-2A BERTRAND DRIVE BEDFORD DRIVE Site CPO ET LINCOLN STRE SC-2 BU SAULS RG-1 JAWD DRIVE AD RY RO Plan Title: Lands of Route 8 & Saulsbury Road, LLC Location: Saulsbury Road Legend Plan Type: Rezoning Tax Parcel: ED05-076.11-01-24.00-000 Zoning Current Zoning: CPO and COZ-1 Dover Parcels Proposed Zoning: C-2A and COZ-1 Owner: Route 8 & Saulsbury Road, LLC Corridor Overlay Zone Date: 05-12-10 0 90 180 360 Feet «

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: JUNE 3, 2010 APPLICATION: Lands of Rt 8 & Saulsbury Road, LLC FILE #: Z-10-05 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Public Utilities Department CONTACT PERSON: Steve Enss - Electric Sharon Duca, P.E. - Water, Wastewater, Stormwater CONTACT PHONE #: 302-736-7070 T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ’ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER 1. Our office has no objection to the rezoning of tax parcel ED05-076.11-01-24.00-000. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER 1. None. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC 1. None. WATER / WASTEWATER 1. Should this site be redeveloped, the applicant / developer is responsible for all costs associated with providing the appropriate service to this site based upon the use including any necessary system upgrades or extensions. Please be advised that sanitary sewer service is being provided via the parcel to the north and water service must be obtained off of Saulsbury Road. I F Y OU H AVE A NY Q UESTIONS OR N EED TO D ISCUSS ANY OF THE A BOVE C OMMENTS , P LEASE C ALL THE A BOVE C ONTACT P ERSON AND THE P LANNING D EPARTMENT AS S OON AS P OSSIBLE .

CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O D.A.C. MEETING DATE: June 3, 2010 T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Lands of Route 8 & Saulsbury Road, LLC at Saulsbury Road FILE#: Z-10-05 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Julio F. Seneus PHONE#: 760-2145 =============================================================== THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY & STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. DelDOT has no comments to the proposed rezoning. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: Access for the site must be from the internal access easement. A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) may be required, if the proposed development exceeds 50 VPH or 400 VPD. The department will require the applicant to provide proper forms, fees, and plans in order to be issued an entrance permit. If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the planning department as soon as possible.

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY APPLICANT MEETING DATE: June 3, 2010 APPLICATION: Lands of Route 8 & Saulsbury Road FILE #: Z-10-05 REVIEWING AGENCY: Kent Conservation District CONTACT PERSON: David C. Cahill PHONE #: 741-2600 ext.3 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Kent Conservation District has no objection to rezoning of the above referenced site. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: The Following comments are advisory and apply to the development of a detailed site plan for this project. • A detailed Sediment and Stormwater Management Plan must be approved by our office prior to any land disturbing activity (i.e. clearing, grading, filling, etc.) over 5000 square feet.

CITY OF DOVER Dover/Kent County Metropolitan DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Planning APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY Organization D.A.C. MEETING DATE: June 3, 2010 APPLICATION: Lands of Rt. 8 and Saulsbury Rd., LLC ___________________ FILE #: Z-10-05 REVIEWING AGENCY: Dover/Kent County MPO CONTACT PERSON: Jim Galvin, AICP PHONE #: (302) 387-6030 The Dover/Kent County MPO has participated in the State’s Preliminary Land Use Services (PLUS) process for several months. The MPO requested the opportunity to bring the recommendations on issues of our concern to the City as well. The MPO will limit comments to projects to development proposals and applications that may lead to new development. Issues of concern to the MPO are effective transit, reducing the amount of vehicle emissions by shortening or eliminating trips, and facilities for alternative modes of transportation, including bicycle and pedestrian access. The MPO considers the bicycle facilities required by the City of Dover to be the standard for all applications, not to be waived. The following are advisory comments regarding the application: • This site is on the transit route of DART bus 113, on both legs of the trip. On the way out to Dover Mall, the bus passes the site on the east side of Saulsbury Road. The nearest stop is in Gateway West Plaza. As this and the adjacent CVS Drug Store develop, the demand for transit access to the site, for most any commercial/C-2A use, will become apparent. The MPO will inform DART of the upcoming development to allow consideration of a transit stop. Any development application should include a transit stop of a design DART specifies. Consideration of connections between parking lots of the subject parcel and the CVS site to the north should be mandated in any future site plan application. Pedestrian and bicycle access to the site is sufficient. If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the Planning Department as soon as possible.

FINAL READING CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2010-15 1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE 2 CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED 3 ON SAULSBURY ROAD SOUTH OF FORREST AVENUE 4 WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within 5 the limits of the City of Dover; and 6 WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of 7 property described below from C-PO (Commercial/Professional Office Zone) and subject to COZ-1 8 (Corridor Overlay Zone) to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) and subject to COZ-1 9 (Corridor Overlay Zone). 10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 11 DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 12 1. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning 13 Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation from 14 C-PO (Commercial/Professional Office Zone) and subject to COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) 15 to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) and subject to COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) 16 on that property located on the east side of Saulsbury Road south of the intersection of 17 Forrest Avenue/Forest Street, consisting of 1.01+/- acres, owned by Route 8 and 18 Saulsbury Road, L.L.C. 19 (Tax Parcel: ED-05-076.11-01-24.00-000; Planning Reference: Z-10-05) . 20 ADOPTED: * 21 S:\ORDINANCES\2010\Draft Ordinances\Ordinance 2010-15 - Rezoning -Saulsbury Rd. South of Forrest Avenue-Final Rdg.wpd 22 Actions History 23 July 12, 2010 - Proposed Public Hearing/Final Reading - Council 24 June 21, 2010 - Planning Commission 25 May 24, 2010 - First Reading - Council 26

PETITION TO AMEND ZONING DISTRICT Before the Dover City Council July 12, 2010 Applicants/Owners: Robert and Nancy Kauffman Address: 40-60 Ridgely Street, Dover Location: West side of Ridgely Street, north of Division Street Tax Parcel ID #: ED-05-076.08-01-26.01-000 Size: 2.0004+/- acres (87,294 S.F.) Present Use: Vacant Warehousing and Assembly buildings Proposed Use: Service and Warehousing Comprehensive Plan Designation: Industrial and Public Utilities Present Zoning: M (Manufacturing Zone) COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) Proposed Zoning: C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) COZ-1 (corridor Overlay Zone) Planning Commission Recommendation: Following a public hearing before the Planning Commission on June 21, 2010, where no members of the public spoke in favor of or in opposition to the proposed rezoning the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the request to change the zoning of the subject property from M (Manufacturing) with COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) to C-3 (Service Commercial) with COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). Reason for Request: To allow for service commercial uses. File Number: Z-10-07

This rezoning application consists of one parcel of land owned by Robert and Nancy Kauffman. This property at 40-60 Ridgely Street consists of a total of 2.0004 acres ± (87,294 S.F.). The property is currently zoned M (Manufacturing Zone) and is subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The proposed zoning is C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) and is subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The subject area is located on the west side of Ridgely Street, north of Division Street. Tax Parcel: ED05-076.08-01-26.01-000. Existing Property: The subject parcel currently has two vacant buildings. The existing buildings have been registered as vacant under the provision of the Vacant Buildings Ordinance. There are active code enforcement violations on the site. Surrounding Land Uses: The land directly adjacent to the subject site on the north is a vacant parcel of land zoned IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone). The property directly to the south is the Bennie Smith Funeral Home and is zoned C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) and is subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). To the west there is a residence with apartments and an additional building are zoned M (Manufacturing Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). Across Ridgely Street to the east there is a mix of warehousing and service commercial uses. The properties across Ridgely Street are zoned M (Manufacturing Zone) and C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) and are subject to the COZ-1(Corridor Overlay Zone). Comprehensive Plan: In the 2008 Comprehensive Plan as amended, the Land Development Plan (Map 12-1 as amended, dated 11/23/2009) recommends that this property be used for Industrial and Public Utilities. In Table 12-1: Land Use and Zoning Matrix for the Land Use Category of Industrial and Public Utilities there are a range of possible zoning districts ranging from certain manufacturing zones to a commercial zone. The requested C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) is consistent with this category of uses. Request for C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) The types of permitted uses in the C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) are given Article 3 §15 of the Zoning Ordinance. The permitted uses include service establishments including dry cleaning and laundry plants; wholesale, storage, and warehousing establishments; bowling alleys, and animal hospitals; motor vehicle, oat or farm equipment sales or service; motor vehicle service stations with restrictions; manufacturing, assembling, converting, altering, finishing, cleaning or any other processing of products for sale on or off the premises, provided that not more than 25 persons shall be engaged in such activity; and provided further, that any such use shall be subject to the performance standards procedures as set forth in Article 5 §8; newspaper and job printing; and ministorage facilities with restrictions. Article 4, Section 4.15 of the Zoning Ordinance addresses the bulk standards for the C-3 Zone. The bulk standards are as follows: C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) Minimum required:

Z-10-07 Land of Robert and Nancy Kauffman Report to City Council – July 12, 2010 Page 3 Lot area Lot width (ft.) 100 Lot depth (ft.) 100 Front yard (ft.) 25 Side yard (ft.) 20 Rear yard (ft.) 10 Side or rear yards which adjoin a 30 residence zone (ft.) Off-street parking Per 300 sq. ft. floor area or 1 Per employee (whichever is greater) 1 Maximum permitted: Building height Stories 2 Feet 30 Floor area ratio 0.5 Lot coverage 0.5 Recommendation of the Planning Staff and Planning Commission: This request is to rezone land from M (Manufacturing Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) to C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The zoning requested is consistent with the 2008 Comprehensive Plan as amended 2009 and it is compatible with the surrounding land uses and zoning classifications. For this reason, staff supports the rezoning request. The proposed use of the property, as service commercial uses (motor vehicle service) would be permitted under the C-3 (Service Commercial Zone). Following a public hearing before the Planning Commission on June 21, 2010, where no members of the public spoke in favor of or in opposition to the proposed rezoning the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the request to change the zoning of the subject property from M (Manufacturing) with COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) to C-3 (Service Commercial) with COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The following is an excerpt from the minutes of the Planning Commission hearing on this matter: Z-10-07 Lands of Robert & Nancy Kauffman at 40-60 Ridgely Street - Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council regarding a rezoning application consisting of one parcel of land consisting of a total of 2.0047 acres ±. The property is currently zoned M (Manufacturing Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The proposed zoning is C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The subject property is located on the west side of Ridgely Street, at the intersection with Fulton Street. The owner of

Z-10-07 Land of Robert and Nancy Kauffman Report to City Council – July 12, 2010 Page 4 record is Robert & Nancy Kauffman. Property Address: 40-60 Ridgely Street. Tax Parcel: ED05- 076.08-01-26.01-000. Council District 4. Representatives: Mr. Phil McGinnis, McGinnis Commercial Real Estate Company, representing the Owner. Mr. Albert presented an overview of the application. Mr. Holt stated that Staff had stated that there were some violations of the Vacant Building Ordinance. Do you have any idea of what those violations were? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. McGinnis stated that the buildings have been historically used for warehousing and lighter manufacturing that fit in the C-3 district. The property has been vacant for about two (2) years partly because of the economy. Mr. Kauffman recognizes that there is some work that needs to be done there such as some broken fencing that needs to be repaired. Mr. Kauffman is trying to hold off until he gets a tenant before he does this. There is a perspective tenant for the smaller building and once this action gets finished, he will go ahead and finish fixing the fencing and some of the other violations. Mr. Nichols questioned if they were going to tear the buildings down as they were in bad shape twenty-five (25) years ago? Responding to Mr. Nichols, Mr. McGinnis stated that no, they were not. These buildings are good for their use which is warehousing. The tenant that will go in the little building will fix it up as these are steel frame buildings. Mr. Friedman opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak closed the public hearing. Mr. Ambruso moved to forward a recommendation of approval to City Council for Z-10-07 Lands of Robert & Nancy Kauffman located at 40-60 Ridgely Street from M & COZ-1 to C-3 & COZ-1, seconded by Mr. Hemmig and motion was unanimously carried 9-0.

City of Dover Application No.: Z-10-07 Department of Planning & Inspections W KIRK OOD EET IL STR CEC STR EET IPM T REE TON ST FUL T REE TON ST FU L Site RIDG C-1A IO M EE STR ELY EE T STR T C-2A ION D IVIS T NUE REE AVE WES T ST AD T ON WES RAILRO DR C-3 IVE FORES T STREET CPO C-1 E GIBBS DRIV RG-1 ET LINCOLN STRE R-8 Plan Title: Lands of Robert & Nancy Kauffman Location: 40-60 Ridgely Street Legend Plan Type: Rezoning Tax Parcel: ED05-076.08-01-26.01 Zoning Current Zoning: M and COZ-1 Dover Parcels Proposed Zoning: C-3 and COZ-1 Owner: Robert & Nancy Kauffman Corridor Overlay Zone Date: 05-12-10 0 175 350 700 Feet «

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: JUNE 3, 2010 APPLICATION: Lands of Robert and Nancy Kauffman 40-60 Ridgely Street FILE #: Z-10-07 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Public Utilities Department CONTACT PERSON: Steve Enss - Electric Sharon Duca, P.E. - Water, Wastewater, Stormwater CONTACT PHONE #: 302-736-7070 T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ’ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER 1. Our office has no objection to the rezoning of tax parcel ED05-076.08-01-26.01-000. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER 1. None. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC 1. None. WATER / WASTEWATER 1. Should this site be redeveloped, which includes modifications to the use, the applicant / developer will be responsible for all costs associated with providing the appropriate service to this site based upon the use including any necessary system upgrades or extensions. The appropriateness and adequacy of water and sewer services and meters will be assessed at that time. Should the existing services no longer be required based upon the proposed use, they must be properly abandoned at the mains in accordance with all City of Dover Public Utilities Department standards and specifications. I F Y OU H AVE A NY Q UESTIONS OR N EED TO D ISCUSS ANY OF THE A BOVE C OMMENTS , P LEASE C ALL THE A BOVE C ONTACT P ERSON AND THE P LANNING D EPARTMENT AS S OON AS P OSSIBLE .

CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O D.A.C. MEETING DATE: June 3, 2010 T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Lands of Robert & Nancy Kauffman at 40-60 Ridgely Street FILE#: Z-10-07 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Julio F. Seneus PHONE#: 760-2145 =============================================================== THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY & STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. DelDOT has no comments to the proposed rezoning. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the planning department as soon as possible.

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY APPLICANT MEETING DATE: June 3, 2010 APPLICATION: Lands of Robert & Nancy Kauffman FILE #: Z-10-07 REVIEWING AGENCY: Kent Conservation District CONTACT PERSON: David C. Cahill PHONE #: 741-2600 ext.3 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Kent Conservation District has no objection to rezoning of the above referenced site. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: The Following comments are advisory and apply to the development of a detailed site plan for this project. • A detailed Sediment and Stormwater Management Plan must be approved by our office prior to any land disturbing activity (i.e. clearing, grading, filling, etc.) over 5000 square feet.

CITY OF DOVER Dover/Kent County Metropolitan DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Planning APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY Organization D.A.C. MEETING DATE: June 3, 2010 APPLICATION: Lands of Kauffman at 40-60 Ridgely Street FILE #: Z-10-07 REVIEWING AGENCY: Dover/Kent County MPO CONTACT PERSON: Jim Galvin, AICP PHONE #: (302) 387-6030 The Dover/Kent County MPO has participated in the State’s Preliminary Land Use Services (PLUS) process for several months. The MPO requested the opportunity to bring the recommendations on issues of our concern to the City as well. The MPO will limit comments to projects to development proposals and applications that may lead to new development. Issues of concern to the MPO are effective transit, reducing the amount of vehicle emissions by shortening or eliminating trips, and facilities for alternative modes of transportation, including bicycle and pedestrian access. The MPO considers the bicycle facilities required by the City of Dover to be the standard for all applications, not to be waived. The following are advisory comments regarding the application: • Service Commercial uses require greater consideration for access than property used for Manufacturing purposes. There are currently no sidewalks on Ridgely or Fulton and should be required for a change in use. (Neighborhood improvements are evolutionary. If the sidewalk ends at a property line, it will continue on when the adjacent property redevelops. It is not an excuse to not install sidewalks, especially for a Service Commercial use.) The facilities should consider bicycle access as well. The site is part of the City street grid and has adequate accessibility and accessible to transit provided on W. Division Street. If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the Planning Department as soon as possible.

FINAL READING CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2010-17 1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE 2 CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED 3 AT 40-60 RIDGELY STREET 4 WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within 5 the limits of the City of Dover; and 6 WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of 7 property described below from M (Manufacturing Zone) and subject to COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay 8 Zone) to C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) and subject to COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). 9 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 10 DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 11 1. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning 12 Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation from 13 M (Manufacturing Zone) and subject to COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) to C-3 (Service 14 Commercial Zone) and subject to COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) on that property located 15 at 40-60 Ridgely Street (on the west side of Ridgely Street at the intersection with 16 Fulton Street), consisting of 2.0047+/- acres, owned by Robert A. and Nancy H. Kauffman. 17 (Tax Parcel: ED-05-076.08-01-26.01-000; Planning Reference Z-10-07) 18 ADOPTED: * 19 S:\ORDINANCES\2010\Draft Ordinances\Ordinance 2010-17 - Rezoning 40-60 Ridgely Street-Final Reading.wpd 20 Actions History 21 July 12, 2010 - Proposed Public Hearing/Final Reading - Council 22 June 21, 2010 - Planning Commission 23 May 24, 2010 - First Reading - Council

UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee Meeting was held on June 28, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. with Chairman Ruane presiding. Members present were Mr. Bonar, Mr. McGiffin, Major Kosior, and Mr. Snaman. Council members present included Council President Hogan (arrived at 5:22 p.m.) and Mr. Leary (arrived at 5:19 p.m.) . Mayor Carey was also present. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS The agenda was approved by unanimous consent. Request for Alley and Street Abandonments - 100 Block of North Governors Avenue Alley West, the Southern Portion of the 200 Block of North Governors Avenue Alley East, a Portion of the Unit Block of North Bradford Street, the Unit Block of Fulton Street, a Portion of the Unit Block of Cecil Street, a Portion of the 200 Block of North Bradford Street, and the Northern Portion of the Unit Block of North State Street Alley West - Wesley College During their meeting of May 24, 2010, the Committee considered a request from Wesley College that the City abandon portions of streets and alleys in the vicinity of Wesley College, as follows: Area #1 - Alley between North Governors Avenue and North New Street from Cecil Street to Fulton Street; Area #2 - Portion of alley between North Bradford Street and North Governors Avenue, north of Cecil Street; Area #3 - North Bradford Street between W. Division and Fulton Streets (portions only); Area #4 - Fulton Street between North Governors Avenue and North State Street; Area #5 - Cecil Street between North Governors Avenue and North State (portion only); Area #6 - North Bradford Street between Cecil and Mary Streets (portions only); Area #7 - Portion of alley between North State Street and North Bradford Street, south of Fulton Street and north of W. Division Street. At that time, the Committee recommended that the request be postponed to allow Planning staff to notify all property owners within 200’ and that the item be reconsidered by the Committee during this meeting. Mr. Ruane noted that there were several individuals who requested the opportunity to address members regarding this matter and, due to time constraints, requested that speakers be brief in their presentations and that one (1) speaker represent groups to avoid repetition when possible. Mr. Ruane also acknowledged receipt of correspondence submitted in regards to this issue (Attachment #1). Clerk’s Office Note: Following this meeting, staff provided members with correspondence from Mr. Paul Janiga (Attachment # 2). Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, reiterated that the request was being made in anticipation of implementation of the Wesley College Master Plan for creating a more pedestrian-oriented campus. She stated that the subject property consists of public streets owned and maintained by the City of Dover and that portions of rights-of-way requested for abandonment are adjacent on both sides to other properties owned by Wesley College. Mrs. Townshend explained that Fulton and Cecil Streets (Areas #4 and #5) connect North State

UTILITY COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 2 Street with North Governors Avenue and are conduits for through traffic between the two (2) roads and that the two (2) segments of North Bradford Street (Areas #3 and #6) end at the college. She noted that several alley segments are also proposed to be vacated. Members were provided a diagram depicting the location of each of the areas. Mrs. Townshend indicated that the Planning staff supports Wesley College’s vision of a pedestrian-oriented campus and, should the long-term abandonment of the subject streets help accomplish this objective, staff supports the conceptual request. However, she stated that staff recommends that such approval be conditioned on abandonment coinciding with future site plan approval. Because these are public streets which are part of the downtown grid system, Mrs. Townshend stated that staff believes that Wesley and the City should implement a phased abandonment and consider the testimony presented by the public on this matter. Mrs. Townshend noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the street and alley abandonment, as requested by Wesley College; however, she advised members that the Planning Commission’s motion did not reference the conditions recommended by Planning staff and requested that these conditions be addressed by the Utility Committee. Referring to the first condition, Mrs. Townshend indicated that the City Manager has recommended that the abandonment be linked to the completion of the implementation of the Wesley College site plan. She stated that the intent was to ensure that the City maintains ownership of the subject streets and alleys until they are altered in accordance with the site plan. Mrs. Townshend explained that the recommended conditions are as follows: 1) Abandonment should be timed so that the City maintains ownership and maintenance of the subject streets and alleys until site improvements involving those areas are made, in accordance with a site plan approved by the Planning Commission. 2) All public electric, water, wastewater, and storm sewer infrastructure must be located within permanent utility easements, in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the Public Utilities comments from the Development Advisory Committee (DAC) report dated April 1, 2010 (previously provided to members). Based on conversations she had late this afternoon with Mr. Gregg Moore, Becker Morgan Group, and after reviewing correspondence from Capital School District, Mrs. Townshend stated that staff would also recommend that, if approved, there be a requirement that public access easements be maintained, essentially in the areas of Fulton and Cecil Streets, in order to ensure (long-term) that the area would remain open for pedestrians traversing from one side of the campus to the other. Mrs. Townshend advised members that the applicant conducted community outreach following the May 24, 2010 Committee meeting. She indicated that she, Councilmen Bonar and McGiffin, and Dr. William Johnston, President of Wesley College, attended a community meeting of the Neighborhood Link Group (North State Street Neighborhood Association). She indicated that Wesley College also held a meeting on June 16, 2010 with neighbors. She assured members that staff mailed notices to all property owners within 200’ of the proposed abandonments, as instructed.

UTILITY COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 3 Mr. Bonar advised members that, in addition to attending the community meeting, he met with Dr. Johnston and Mr. Gregg Moore, Becker Morgan Group, to learn about the project, since he was just recently elected and wanted to be well informed regarding the issue in order to be prepared to make a decision. Mr. McGiffin acknowledged that he attended a meeting held at the home of Sara and Bob Herbert, 223 North Bradford Street, during which Dr. Johnston presented the plan proposed by Wesley College and entertained comments from attendees, as well as a similar meeting held at the State Street Assisted Living Facility. Mr. Gregg Moore, representing Wesley College, advised members that there have been no changes to the plan previously presented to the Committee. He stated that the proposal would allow Wesley College to initiate the work needed to effect the Master Plan. He again briefed members on the request and the plan to create a walking campus for Wesley College (details, including maps, were provided to members). With regards to the meeting held by Wesley College on June 16th, Mr. Moore stated that approximately 40 people attended and that a very clear presentation of the plan was presented. He indicated that there were a few individuals who indicated opposition to the proposal; however, the majority of the attendees were supportive of the proposal and many concerns were resolved. He mentioned a few key points that pleased the attendees, as follows: 1) neighborhood children will be able to ride or walk in the pedestrian ways where Fulton and Cecil Streets are currently located; Wesley invites the public to walk through the area; and the Capital School District was assured that transit of students (as well as the public) from the east and west through the campus will be allowed; 2) Wesley will not change any roadways until a plan is presented to the City and approved by the Planning Commission that documents an increase in the number of parking spaces available to compensate for lost on-street parking, (although he noted that several on-street parking areas will remain); 3) through traffic will be eliminated, which will improve safety for students and pedestrians, including children who walk to/from Central Middle School; and 4) Wesley is committed to provide public access easements through the walkways. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Moore indicated that the applicant agreed with all comments made by the DAC and acknowledged previous testimony confirming that there would be no changes to area parking until the proposed plan is approved. In addition, he stated that Wesley College is committed to making the changes in phases to minimize the impact on neighbors, which was included in the DAC comments. He assured members that Wesley College has fully accepted the DAC comments, will abide by them, and understands the record. Mrs. Sara Herbert, 223 North Bradford Street, read the letter she and Mr. Bob Herbert submitted into the record (See Attachment #1). Mr. Michael Maciarello, 11 Cecil Street, advised members that, based on the record, there have been no pedestrian accidents involving a vehicle for seven (7) years and felt that the safety issue was created by Wesley College turning portions of Bradford Street into a one-way street. It was his feeling that if there were stop signs on Cecil or Fulton Streets between State Street and Governors Avenue, all of the safety (or perceived safety) issues would be corrected. Mr. Maciarello relayed his opposition to the proposed plan on five (5) points. He noted that there has been no active

UTILITY COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 4 engagement with the community at-large, explaining that all contact has been only with those immediately adjacent to the streets proposed for abandonment. He noted that this is a large project and that introducing it in small phases presents a misconception of the scale of the project. With regards to the request for the streets to be closed to provide for a more “walkable” campus, Mr. Maciarello indicated that walkable and walkability are relative terms of distance. He stated that there are safety concerns for college students crossing Fulton and Cecil Streets, yet no type of action is being taken regarding middle school children crossing Governors Avenue and State Street. He also relayed objections to the phased implementation of this project, explaining that, as a resident of the community, he does not wish to have constant construction occurring for several years. Referring to the comparisons made with Delaware State University, University of Delaware, Yale, Old Dominion University, etc., he stated that Wesley College is much smaller and that the College is not being compared to an effective model. Lastly, he stated that during all the meetings he has attended, there have been calls for compromise from members of the community with Wesley College. He indicated that he would support a compromise; however, he stated that, according to the architects, there is no compromise available with regards to the street closures. It was his feeling that Cecil Street should remain open and he relayed his opposition to the street closure aspect of the project. Mr. John Grady, 424 North Bradford Street (has an office at 6 North Bradford Street), advised members that traffic in the area is horrendous in the mornings and evenings due to the location of Campus Community School and that moving the school would resolve this traffic problem. Since this section of Bradford Street has been changed to only one-way traffic, he questioned how people will be able to leave his office. It was his feeling that parking is a concern (particularly for the residents of South Bradford Street) due to most college students having vehicles, and stated a need for additional parking. In response to Mr. Bonar, Mr. Grady indicated his support of the request made by Wesley College. Mr. Bill Goodrich, owner of 227 and 229 North Bradford Street, indicated no objections to the request as long as the cul-de-sac can accommodate tractor-trailers entering and exiting. He read the letter he submitted by W.D. Goodrich (See Attachment #1). Mr. Ruane reminded those in attendance that the Committee is not considering a Site Plan, that ingress and egress issues will be considered by the Planning Commission, and that there will be a public hearing to allow public testimony at that time. Mrs. Cheryl Jones, 230 North Bradford Street, relayed support of the proposal submitted by Wesley College. It was her feeling that the proposal would address safety issues for Wesley College students, Central Middle School students, and the surrounding community. She felt that Wesley College was beginning to create a campus that would encourage a sense of identity for its students, which will benefit the surrounding community. She stated that, during the past couple of years, Wesley College has shown real consideration for the surrounding residents and felt assured that any concerns would be considered and respectfully resolved. Mr. Kirk Johnson, 39 North American Avenue, stated concern that the proposal was presented first as a safety issue, then as a perceived safety issue, explaining that these are two (2) different issues. He noted that there are real safety issues off campus, explaining that once Central Middle School

UTILITY COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 5 students pass through the campus, it is not private property, and he questioned who would assume liability for injury to a student. He also relayed concern with Central Middle School students utilizing the campus in the midst of much older college students as they pass through going to and from school during early morning and late afternoon hours, which may be dark during the winter months. He stated another concern regarding traffic, noting that, based on a study previously conducted by the City, the surrounding streets were at 70%-80% capacity (noting that the study was conducted when Wesley College was not in session). By adding students, he felt that these streets would be utilized above capacity. He advised members of the difficulty he currently has in finding available parking and that, on many occasions, he is made to park three (3) blocks away from his residence. Mr. Johnson stated that it is difficult to understand how Wesley College will improve the parking situation by keeping it exactly the same, except they will be moving the traffic that passes through Cecil and Fulton Streets off campus. He advised members that there is a concern with school buses having to make left turns across traffic or onto Governors Avenue, State Street, and Division Street. He stated that school buses and transport vans will be required to make those maneuvers, as opposed to the pass through that they currently make, which creates a real safety concern. Mr. Martin Anderson, 200 North State Street, relayed safety concerns with closing off Cecil Street, explaining that there could be a delay in response to his residence from paramedics and the fire company. He expressed another objection related to parking, explaining the difficulty in obtaining parking near his residence, and stated that it has been necessary to park two (2) to three (3) blocks from his house. He advised members that, due to this difficulty, he began parking in his back yard; however, subsequently, he received a notice from the City stating that this was not permitted. He felt that if Cecil Street were closed, as proposed, the alleyway between North Bradford and State Streets will be used by the college students as a “raceway”. Mr. Wayne Holden, 333 Pennsylvania Avenue, referred to the concerns relayed regarding Central Middle School students utilizing Wesley College to pass through and reminded members that this is already occurring. He felt that closing off the streets would improve their safety. Referring to the increase in crime that has occurred in the area surrounding Wesley College, he felt assured that the abandonment of the streets surrounding the campus to automobiles would make it a safer campus. Mr. Holden indicated that the City should have considered these abandonments several years ago and expressed his support for the alley and street abandonments. Mrs. Nancy Gardner, 213 North State Street, thanked everyone, including Dr. Johnston, for the immediate response to her invitation to speak to the neighborhood group. She stated that unless the project is done in a very phased and careful manner, the immediate neighborhood beyond Wesley College stands to lose in a dramatic way. It was her feeling that there is a need to close Bradford Street, either in whole or in part, and that major changes are necessary to Cecil Street. She indicated that there is no parking lot proposed that would accommodate the 100 parking spaces that would be lost resulting from the proposed project. Mrs. Gardner felt that the proposed closures would result in additional traffic utilizing the nearby alleyways, which would result in the making of a street. It was her hope that consideration would be given to making the streets one-way rather than closing them. Mrs. Gardner advised members that she resides between two (2) apartment houses, one (1) of which consists of six (6) units with no requirement for parking. She urged members to separate

UTILITY COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 6 parts of the project and keep in mind that, well beyond the immediate Wesley College neighborhood, there are many kinds of people who are very desirous of remaining “good” neighbors of Wesley College. Mr. James Overton, Chief of Police for Delaware State University, advised members that anytime there is a reduction in the mixture of pedestrians and vehicles, the results are positive. In addition, he stated that the elimination and reduction of vehicles has been proven to increase safety, since a person with criminal intent is less likely to commit a crime if their vehicle is not readily available for “getaway”. Mr. Gary Patterson, representing the Downtown Dover Partnership, relayed support of the proposed request of Wesley College and their efforts to immigrate into the downtown community. Mr. Dick Cathcart, Associate Vice-President for University Operations at Delaware State University, indicated his support for the project and gave a brief overview of the actions taken at Delaware State University over the last 10-12 years. As previously mentioned, he reiterated that vehicles and students do not mix well and assured members that, although there may not have been an incident, there is a public safety issue to consider with this request. He advised members that the trend across the nation in higher education is to convert campuses that are mixed with streets to walking campuses for the purpose of addressing safety concerns. Ms. Mary-Alice Ozechoski, Dean of Students at Wesley College, advised members there were 1,000 students on both the north and south sides of the campus this past fall, which was the largest freshman class for Wesley College. This equated to 500 students walking to and from the center of the campus; therefore, from her perspective, safety is an issue and will continue to be an issue. She expressed the College’s interest in retaining and keeping students on campus once they are enrolled. It was her feeling that a vibrant, green, recreational space where students can walk, feel safe, and see other students that they know creates the kind of community that Wesley College endeavors to provide as a small college. She stated that she supports the request both from a safety standpoint and also from a recruitment and retention standpoint. It was her belief that the healthier Wesley College is, the more help it can be to the Dover community. Mr. Tanner Polce, Student Government President at Wesley College, concurred with the comments made by Ms. Ozechoski and stated that Wesley College is on the breaking edge of a rebirth. He encouraged members to consider the safety issues involved, explaining that he represents 1,500 students, 1,000 of whom live on campus. He advised members that none of the students relayed opposition to the plan proposed by Wesley College and reminded members that these 1,500 students are the City’s citizens for 8-9 months of the year. Mr. Charles Salkin, 15 Maple Lane, stated that he has observed the Wesley College Campus becoming busier and more dynamic over the years. Unfortunately, he stated that, as the student population has grown, it has become dominated by cars. Mr. Salkin stated that the campus has become more of a parking lot and passage way for vehicles than for pedestrians and that the proposal would provide huge improvements, such as aesthetics, safety, efficiencies, cost savings to taxpayers (since the maintenance of the streets will be eliminated), public health benefits (with more people

UTILITY COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 7 walking and being outside), compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, environmental benefits, etc. He felt that the proposed plan is essential to the long-term growth and success of Wesley College and that the College is essential to the long-term growth and success of the community. He indicated assurance that the property value of those properties in the surrounding area will increase, which will provide a financial benefit to both the property owners and the City of Dover. He commended Dr. Johnston and others of Wesley College and the community for submitting the proposal. Mr. Salkin stated his support and encouraged members to approve the request. Senator Brian Bushweller, 17th District, advised members that he represents the entire area affected by the project and relayed support for the proposal. It was his feeling that this project would be very good for the college and, as a result, would be beneficial for the City and Kent County. He reminded members that there are 400 employees who work at the Wesley College campus, $40M per year is provided to the local economy by Wesley College, and there are 50-60 artistic and cultural opportunities provided by the College. He stated that Wesley College is a very prominent institution of higher learning, a cultural center for the area, and an economic engine for the City. He noted that the proposal will help Wesley College and Dover to prosper into the future. Senator Bushweller referred to the previous concerns expressed by neighboring property owners and was impressed with the responses provided by the representatives of Wesley College in addressing these concerns and assuring that the parking and other inconveniences are minimized to the extent possible. He felt that the proposal would be good for Wesley College, as well as the City, and urged members to approve the request. Mr. Paul Olsen, 301 North State Street, indicated his support of the project and stated that, as an employee of Wesley College, he has walked the alley between State Street and Bradford Street for the past 29 years and has never seen cars racing up and down this alley. He advised members that his house is located one block from Wesley College and that he has rarely had parking issues, noting that parking is plentiful along North State Street. He suggested that members consider what is best for Dover and its future. Mrs. Yvonne Hall, 228 North State Street, stated concurrence with previous comments in support of the proposed request. Although there have been concerns with parking issues, it was her feeling that most could be resolved by providing handicapped parking or requiring the installation of parking pads on the properties that have alleyway access. She noted that there are apartments that have been “grandfathered” and suggested that the City require the owners to provide adequate off-street parking. It was her feeling that resolving the parking issue should not totally be the responsibility of Wesley College. Mr. Mike Drass, Football Coach and Athletic Director at Wesley College, relayed support of the project proposed by Wesley College. Not only would the proposed enhancements provide more “green” space, but it would also provide a true college campus “feel” for the campus and the community. He stated that this would help the overall recruitment of student athletes by providing an atmosphere that students and parents are seeking when visiting college campuses.

UTILITY COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 8 Mr. Chad Robinson, student/adjunct faculty member of Wesley College, indicated support for the project proposed by Wesley College. Echoing comments made by Chief Overton of Delaware State University, he stated that the safety issue is not students’ ability to cross streets, but rather the vehicle safety concerns and the ability of safety and security personnel to recognize who should or should not be on campus. It was his feeling that when vehicles are further away from potential criminals, it would be more difficult to commit certain crimes. He felt that the proposed project would give the college a “friendly” feel. He noted that the college is a driving force in the City, bringing economic development, and stated that approving the alley and street abandonments would be the first step in beginning the process of making the college a more vibrant part of the City. Fire Chief Sean Christiansen, Dover Fire Department - 103 South Governors Avenue, stated that the Fire Department is neither in favor nor opposed to the request. The Fire Department would like for the closures to create uniform access on streets and alleys and not include cul-de-sacs, which would hamper responding units. Chief Christiansen noted that the Fire Department would like fire lanes to be maintained, similar to those at Delaware State University or the University of Delaware, and with appropriate access to fire department connections on all buildings and hydrants throughout the campus. Mr. Gerri Street, 39 Hazel Road, indicated his support for the request of Wesley College and concurrence with the previous positive comments made. He stated that as a member of the Downtown Dover Partnership (previously the Downtown Dover Development Corporation) for over 20 years, during the past 1½ years, he has observed an outstanding addition as Wesley College “comes to the table” to be constructive and to be a part of the City, not just its own campus. In working with Dr. Johnston on many issues, he has been impressed with his genuine desire to find a “win-win” solution and to solve problems, and he stated that Dr. Johnston is reflective and reasonable. He felt confident that whatever issues there may be, Dr. Johnston has a sincere desire to resolve them reasonably and amicably. Dr. William Johnston, President of Wesley College, expressed his passion for the project, since it is the foundation for the future of the institution. He stated that the College has engaged a consultant who has worked with hundreds of colleges and has developed a master plan that he felt is viable and will help Wesley College grow. He advised members that Wesley College was established 137 years ago and assured members that they want to be a very good neighbor and, at the same time, he explained the importance of continuing to develop the campus, infrastructure, and future for the institution. He urged members to approve the request for alley and street abandonments so that Wesley College can begin the process for the campus master plan and improve the future of the College, which he felt would be beneficial for the entire area. Dr. Johnston advised members that there were many in attendance who support the project that did not speak and requested that those in favor of the request stand (several attendees stood). Mrs. Susan Yost, 11 Cecil Street, expressed her opposition to the request and concern that only those within 200’ were invited to attend the meeting; however, she stated it appears that Wesley College had invited individuals from other areas. Noting that State Street and Governors Avenue are main streets in Dover, she stated that the closing of Fulton and Cecil Streets will eliminate two (2) important cross streets and will require traffic to travel quite a distance to get across town.

UTILITY COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 9 She stated that the closures will affect Central Middle School students. She has observed speeders utilizing the Cecil Street alley and stated that the closures will create more traffic utilizing the alleyway, which is a one (1) lane roadway that allows for two (2) way traffic and is not designed to be utilized as a street. Mrs. Yost felt that the project proposed by Wesley College would be a huge change for the City. She suggested that Delaware State University not be compared to the request of Wesley College since they are located within the City of Dover and the request involves the closure of public streets. Mr. McGiffin requested responses to the concerns of Mr. Grady (regarding egress from his office) and Fire Chief Christiansen (regarding access for emergency response). Responding, Mr. Moore stated that the proposed plan would change that portion of Bradford Street to become two (2) way traffic, allowing Mr. Grady access to and from his property. He advised members that Dr. Johnston has met with three (3) of the neighbors on State Street and offered access from their properties onto Wesley College parking lots to allow access to State Street from the rear. He felt confident that Dr. Johnston would allow Mr. Grady to utilize Wesley College parking lots in order to access other streets. With regards to Chief Christiansen, Mr. Moore stated that fire lane access is provided for projects such as this, explaining that walkways are wide enough to meet fire lane requirements. He noted that access to the fire hydrants and building connections are provided. He assured members that every concern of the Fire Department would be addressed in the design for Wesley College. Mr. McGiffin moved to recommend approval of the request for alley and street abandonments, on the condition that the Wesley College Plan include the replacement of existing parking and an increase in total parking, that the utility easements remain in effect, that public access easements for Fulton and Cecil Streets be part of the plan, that the timing of the street and alley closures be coordinated with site plan approval, and that the DAC comments generated by this process are included as part of the plan, as follows: 1) Timing of the abandonment - Staff recommends that abandonment be timed such that the City maintain ownership and maintenance of the subject streets and alleys until such time that they are physically altered by construction in accordance with a site plan approved by the Planning Commission. 2) Utility Easements - All public electric, water, wastewater, and storm sewer infrastructure must be located within permanent utility easements in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the Public Utilities comments from the DAC report dated April 1, 2010. 3) Parking – All on-street parking displaced by the abandonment must be replaced in kind (in addition to any additional off-street parking required in accordance with site plan application submissions) prior to removal of on- street parking in the areas proposed for abandonment.

UTILITY COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 10 4) DAC Comments - Planning Office Advisory Comments 1-4 from Page 6 of the Report (prepared for May 24th meeting) and the attached agency comments from Department of Public Utilities, the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT), the Kent Conservation District, and the Fire Marshal’s Office. (Planning Commission usually phrases their motions so that they adopt by reference the recommendations and findings of the DAC report.) 5) All specific conditions developed by the Utility Committee as a request of public testimony and/or their deliberations must be added. The motion was seconded by Major Kosior. Mr. Bonar moved to amend the motion to state that public access easements would be provided through the campus along Fulton and Cecil Streets, seconded by Mr. Snaman and unanimously carried. The motion recommending approval of the request for alley and street abandonments, on the condition that the Wesley College Plan include the replacement of existing parking and an increase in total parking, that the utility easements remain in effect, that public access easements for Fulton and Cecil Streets be part of the plan, that the timing of the street and alley closures be coordinated with the site plan approval, and that the aforementioned DAC comments generated by this process and those included in the DAC Application Review Commentary (Attachment #3) are included as part of the plan, and that public access easements be provided through the campus along Fulton and Cecil Streets was unanimously carried. City Clerk’s Office Note: In accordance with the City’s procedure for alley abandonments, Resolution #2010-05 setting the Public Hearing (Attachment #4) will be presented to Council for consideration for adoption. Annual Engineering Consultant’s Report on the Operation and Maintenance of the Electric System - Fiscal Year 2009 Members were provided the Annual Engineering Consultant’s Report on the Operation and Maintenance of the Electric System for Fiscal Year 2009, as prepared by Burns and McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, advised members that the report is required to fulfill the City’s bond covenants. She noted that the conclusion of the report indicates that the City’s power generation facilities are being operated and maintained consistently with accepted electric utility practices in the United States. Mr. McGiffin moved to recommend acceptance of the Annual Engineering Consultant's Report on the Operation and Maintenance of the Electric System for Fiscal Year 2009, seconded by Mr. Bonar and unanimously carried.

UTILITY COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 11 By unanimous consent, Items #3-#5 were deferred until the next Committee meeting. By unanimous consent, the meeting was adjourned. Meeting Adjourned at 6:29 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Eugene B. Ruane Chairman EBR/AC/jg/js/tm S:\AGENDAS & MINUTES\Committee-Minutes\2010\06-28-2010 UTILITY.wpd Attachments Attachment #1 - Correspondence Regarding Request for Alley and Street Abandonments - Wesley College (Attached to Original and File Copy) Attachment #2 - Email from Paul Janiga regarding Wesley College Alley and Street Abandonments (Attached to Original and File Copy) Attachment #3 - DAC Application Review Commentary - Request for Alley and Street Abandonments (Attached to Original and File Copy) Attachment #4 - Resolution #2010-05 - Wesley College Alley and Street Abandonments

ATTACHMENT #4 Utility Committee Meeting of 06/28/10 City of Dover MAYOR AND COUNCIL DRAFT PROPOSED COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2010-05 1 A RESOLUTION PROPOSING THE VACATING AND ABANDONMENT OF CERTAIN ALLEYS AND 2 STREETS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF DOVER. 3 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 4 Section 1. The Council of the City of Dover favors the vacating and abandoning of the following streets and alleys: 5 Area #1 The 100 block of North Governors Avenue Alley West, being all that certain piece or parcel of land 6 situated in the City of Dover, Kent County, State of Delaware, being an improved public alley 7 running north to south between Cecil Street and Fulton Street, lying on the westerly side of and 8 9 10 11 Area #2 12 13 14 15 16 FT running parallel to North Governors Avenue, said alley being 10 feet wide and approximately 341 feet in length and comprised of 3,410 square feet, more or less. The southern portion of the 200 block of North Governors Avenue Alley East, being all that certain piece or parcel of land situated in the City of Dover, Kent County, State of Delaware, being an unimproved public alley running north to south, said portion of alley located between Mary Street and Cecil Street but not adjacent to and lying on the easterly side of and running parallel to North Governors Avenue, unimproved alley being a varying width (10-15 feet) and approximately 100 feet in length, comprised of 3,410 square feet, more or less. The portion of the alley is located 17 18 19 20 Area #3 21 22 23 24 25 26 RA approximately 173 feet east of the center of Governors Avenue and 302.6 feet south of the southerly right of way line of Mary Street to the point of beginning, thence extending approximately 100 feet in a southerly direction and terminating at lands of Wesley College. A portion of the unit block of North Bradford Street, being all that certain piece or parcel of land situated in the City of Dover, Kent County, State of Delaware, said portion of street commencing at the southerly side of Fulton Street and running south toward Division Street but not adjacent to, being 60 feet wide and approximately 363 feet in length, comprised of approximately 21,600 square feet (0.496 acres). The portion of said street starting at the southern right of way of Fulton Street and extending approximately 363 feet in a southerly direction to the northerly right of way line of an unnamed alley. D 27 Area #4 28 29 30 31 Area #5 32 33 34 The unit block of Fulton Street, being all that certain piece or parcel of land situated in the City of Dover, Kent County, State of Delaware, a public street running east to west between South Governors Avenue and North State Street and being 60 feet wide and approximately 680 feet in length, comprised of 40, 800 square feet (0.936 acres) more or less. A portion of the unit block of Cecil Street, being all that certain piece or parcel of land situated in the City of Dover, Kent County, State of Delaware, said portion of street commencing at the easterly side of South Governors Avenue and running east towards North State Street but stopping short of, being 60 feet wide and approximately 443 feet in length comprised of 26,580 square feet (0.61 acres) 35 more or less. The portion of said street, starting at the easterly right of way line of North Governors 36 Avenue extending 443 feet east to a point approximately 90' east of the easterly right of way line of 37 North Bradford Street. P.O. Box 475 ˜ Dover, Delaware ˜19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2010-05 PAGE 2 38 Area #6 A portion of the 200 block of North Bradford Street, being all that certain piece or parcel of land 39 situated in the City of Dover, Kent County, State of Delaware, said portion of street commencing 40 at the northerly side of Cecil Street and running north toward Mary Street but stopping short of and 41 being 60 feet wide and approximately 194 feet in length comprised of 11,650 square feet (0.267 42 acres) more or less. 43 Area #7 The northern portion of the unit block of North State Street Alley West, being all that certain piece 44 or parcel of land situated in the City of Dover, Kent County, State of Delaware, an improved public 45 alley running north to south, said portion of alley being between Fulton Street and West Division 46 Street but not adjacent to and lying on the westerly side of and running parallel to North State Street, 47 being 17 feet wide improved alley and approximately 275 feet in length, comprised of 4,675 square 48 feet, more or less. The portion of said alley being located approximately 221 feet west of the 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 FT centerline of North State Street, starting at the southern right of way line of Fulton Street extending approximately 275 feet in a southerly direction to the northerly property line of lands now or formerly of Francis A. Stratford. Section 2. The Council of the City of Dover will sit on Monday, August 9, 2010, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers at City Hall, Dover, Delaware, to hear the objections of such residents of the City or owners of the property affected as shall attend, in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of the Charter of the City of Dover (Chapter 158, Volume 36, Laws of Delaware). RA 56 Section 3. The Clerk of Council is hereby directed to post copies of this Resolution in five or more public places in 57 the City of Dover. 58 ADOPTED: * 59 S:\RESOLUTIONS & PROCLAMATIONS\2010\DRAFT\Res. No. 2010-05 - Setting Public Hearing - Draft Abandonment Resolution - Wesley College.wpd 60 61 CARLETON E. CAREY, SR. KENNETH L. HOGAN D 62 63 64 Actions History: MAYOR July 12, 2010 - Introduced at Council COUNCIL PRESIDENT

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting was held on June 28, 2010 at 6:33 p.m. with Chairman Leary presiding. Members present were Mr. McGiffin, Mr. Salters, Dr. Jones, and Mr. Shevock. Mr. Ruane and Mayor Carey were also present. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Salters moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. 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. Leary noted that there were no critical positions to be considered; therefore, no further action was required. Purchase of Ladder Truck - Dover Fire Department Fire Chief Sean Christiansen explained that, in accordance with the current Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), the Dover Fire Department sent out a specification for a piece of fire apparatus to replace the current Ladder 1. He stated that, after carefully reviewing the apparatus scheduled for replacement, due to the current economic downturn and their ability to rotate Engine 7 with other engines, the Dover Fire Department has requested deferral of the purchase of Engine 7 to Fiscal Year 2013. Fire Chief Christiansen reviewed a Presentation of the Replacement of Ladder 1 (Attachment #1) and advised members that the apparatus must be ordered by July 15, 2010 to secure current prices, since any orders after that date would be subject to a price increase of $30K-60K due to new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. Chief Christiansen stated that the estimated delivery date is July 2011 and an annual expenditure of $195,300 will be required for this purchase for seven (7) years beginning in 2012. He noted that the bidding process was accomplished through the Houston/Galveston Area Council (H-GAC), which is the same process used by the State of Delaware. Staff recommended approval of the amendment to the Robbins Hose Company CIP Sheet of the City 2012/2013 Budget and ordering the replacement ladder truck. Responding to Mr. Salters, Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, advised members that, as a non-profit organization, the Dover Fire Department is eligible for tax-exempt financing. She stated that the interest rate used in the analysis presented was 6.94% and was based on the last truck that was purchased. She advised members that current interest rates are 2-3%; however, the actual interest rate will be determined when the truck is financed upon delivery. Mrs. Mitchell explained that the estimated $195,300 expenditure for the purchase is based on a 6.94% interest rate and, in discussing this matter with the bank, it was determined that, at current rates, the estimated

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2010 PAGE 2 expenditure will be $150,000 for seven (7) years. Although the actual expenditure is not known at this time, she assured members that seven (7) year financing is normal practice when financing fire apparatus. Mr. McGiffin moved to recommend approval of the amendment to the Robbins Hose Company CIP Sheet of the City 2012/2013 Budget and ordering of the replacement ladder truck, seconded by Dr. Jones and unanimously carried. Discussion - Requirement to Step Down When Running for Other Office - All Committees During their meeting of January 25, 2010, Committee members considered a proposal by the Dover Human Relations Commission to require that all Council, Committee, Commission, and Board members resign prior to running for other office. The matter was tabled to allow further discussion. Mr. Salters moved to lift the matter from the table, seconded by Dr. Jones and unanimously carried. Mr. Salters noted the lack of interest from individuals in running for public office and felt it would be unfair to prohibit members of committees from running for office. Mr. Salters moved to recommend denying the request that all Council, Committee, Commission, and Board members be required to resign prior to running for other offices. The motion was seconded by Mr. McGiffin. Responding to Mr. Leary, Mr. Salters clarified that the requirement to step down should be removed from all memberships. The motion recommending denial of the request that all Council, Committee, Commission, and Board members be required to resign prior to running for other offices, as amended to include removing the requirement from all memberships, was carried with Mr. Leary voting no. City Clerk’s Office Note: Upon approval of Council, staff will prepare appropriate proposed ordinances to eliminate the resigning requirement of members of the Dover Human Relations Commission and Ethics Committee for review by the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee. By unanimous consent, the meeting adjourned at 6:49 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Thomas J. Leary Chairman TJL/AC/jg/js/tm S:\AGENDAS & MINUTES\Committee-Minutes\2010\06-28-2010 LF&A.wpd Attachments Attachment #1 - Presentation of the Replacement of Ladder 1

ATTACHMENT #1 LF&A Committee Meeting of 06/28/2010 DOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT REPLACEMENT OF LADDER 1 LF&A Committee Meeting of 06/28/2010 ATTACHMENT #1

WHY DOES THE FIRE DEPARTMENT NEED TO REPLACE LADDER 1? Ladder 1 requires 18 feet of street width to setup and is 57 feet long. The replacement ladder would require only 12 feet of street width. The extra two feet of clearance would allow us to better serve communities where street widths are issues, such as Lexington Glen, Cannon Mills, Four Seasons, where cars occupying both sides of the street limit proper placement of apparatus.

Ladder 1 currently carries a seven (7) person crew including a second driver. The replacement ladder carries a crew of six but requires only one (1) driver. This ladder will be equipped with a pump, and will have the capabilities of an engine to supply its own master stream operation, as used at the Woodcrest Apartment fire. The dual operation of this unit will allow the incident commander to utilize additional engines on scene without committing one to ladder operations.

Ladder 1 was constructed by three (3) separate vendors, Spartan, LTI and American LaFrance. For this reason, replacement parts for Ladder 1 have become expensive and not readily available, for example, Ladder 1 was out of service for four (4) months waiting on a replacement radiator. To replace the radiator today, the cost would be $5,194.54, the control tip box is $4,283.50 and the fly section would be $25,000.00. These costs are for parts only and the prices are approximate. The lead time for each part is approximately six (6) weeks.

Modified CIP - 10 Year Apparatus Replacement Schedule Fiscal Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Ladder 2 92,910 92,910 92,910 92,910 371,640 Engine 2 (555,000) 195,300 195,300 195,300 585,900 Engine 7 (585,000) 83,571 83,571 83,571 83,571 83,571 83,571 83,571 584,997 Ladder 1 (920,000) 195,300 195,300 195,300 195,300 195,300 195,300 195,300 1,367,100 Engine 3 (600,000) 85,714 85,714 85,714 85,714 85,714 428,571 Engine 6 (615,000) 87,857 87,857 87,857 87,857 351,428 Engine 4 (630,000) 90,000 90,000 Totals: 288,210 288,210 288,210 288,210 278,871 278871 452442 368,871 452442 452442 1,097,142

Ladder Trucks in use during the fire at Woodcrest Apartments in June of 2010.

SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Meeting was held on June 30, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. with Chairwoman Williams presiding. Members present were Mrs. Russell, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Harmon. Mr. Bonar was absent. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mrs. Russell moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Davis and unanimously carried. Request for Amendment to Chapter 18 - Animals, Section 18-16 - Keeping Bees (Deferred by Committee on April 28, 2010) During their meeting of January 27, 2010, they considered a letter received from Mr. Bill Benton requesting an amendment to Chapter 18 - Animals, Section 18-16 - Keeping Bees. After much discussion, the Committee indicated a willingness to consider a draft proposed amendment provided by the beekeeping community. Members were reminded that, during their meeting of April 28, 2010, they were provided a draft proposed ordinance amendment submitted by Mr. Bill Benton; Mr. Robert Volkomer, Vice President of the Kent County Beekeepers Association; and Mr. Robert Mitchell, State Apiarist, Delaware Department of Agriculture. The draft proposed amendment was mimicked from a document adopted in Louisiana. It was understood that additional revisions would be required. As recommended by the Committee, Mr. Benton and Mrs. McDowell, City Clerk, rewrote the draft proposed ordinance amendment in a format that meets City requirements, addresses the comments made by the Committee, and incorporates suggestions provided in the legal opinion from the City Solicitor's Office. Mr. Davis moved to recommend approval of Proposed Ordinance #2010-22, as presented (Attachment #1), seconded by Mr. Harmon and unanimously carried. Mrs. Williams stated that those interested in this matter may wish to attend the Council Meeting scheduled for July 12, 2010. Timing of Traffic Lights - Hazlettville Road/North Street; North Street at Queen Street, New Street, Governors Avenue, and State Street Members were provided an email submitted by Mr. Jon Schmidt relaying concerns about the timing of the traffic lights on Hazlettville Road and North Street. He noted that prior to the installation of the traffic light at the Eden Hill Medical Center, the timing of the traffic lights on North Street at Queen Street, New Street, Governor's Avenue, and State Street was a source of frustration. He suggested that an alternative solution to the problem of regulating traffic through the North Street corridor would be to convert the lights at Queen Street, New Street, and Governor's Avenue to blinking operation. It was his opinion that the volume of traffic along North Street is sufficient to warrant blinking yellow lights, with blinking red along the north-south streets. In addition, he suggested that these lights be converted to blink after midnight, noting that he has returned from a variety of events late in the evening and has had to sit at a red light at each intersection while no traffic passes north-south.

SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 30, 2010 PAGE 2 Mr. Gary Laing, Community Relations Officer for DelDOT and Public Relations Liaison, advised members that traffic signal synchronization can only be accomplished through instituting one-way traffic. He explained that if signal synchronization is accomplished for traffic traveling east, it will have the opposite effect on traffic traveling west. Mr. Laing stated that lights on North Streets are timed to “favor” eastbound traffic in the morning and, conversely, green lights are “favored” for westbound traffic in the late afternoon. He stated that this strategy is based on usage, explaining that most traffic travels east in the morning and west in the afternoon. However, he stated that the goal is to accomplish this in such a way that north/south traffic is not negatively affected. It was his feeling that some of the discontent with North Street signals is due to the installation of a new traffic light. Mr. Laing assured members that traffic signalization is constantly being monitored and adjustments are made accordingly. Briefing on Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) Projects - Gary Laing Mr. Gary Laing, Community Relations Officer for DelDOT and Public Relations Liaison, provided members a briefing on DelDOT Projects, as follows: West Dover Connector Mr. Laing stated that, although there has been some progress involving the West Dover Connector, the project is currently at a standstill due to budgetary constraints. He advised members that all stakeholders have been informed of DelDOT’s preferred alternative and explained the processes involved with this project. He stated that this alternative has not been made public; however, there will be a public workshop in November, at which time the preferred alternative will be announced and public comments allowed. South Governors Avenue Improvements Mr. Laing reported that, according to contract, the improvements to South Governors Avenue must be completed by the end of 2010; however, it is hoped that the project will be completed by the fall. Responding to Mrs. Williams, Mr. Laing indicated that all work on Governors Avenue will be completed by 2012. Water Street Railroad Crossover Mr. Laing advised members that any at-grade railroad crossing requires approval from the railroad; therefore, if Norfolk Southern Railroad does not authorize the Water Street Railroad Crossover, this project will not come to fruition. He stated that there have been no recent discussions with Norfolk Southern Railroad; however, it is planned to bring this project back to the table. He reminded members that this is a negotiated process that will involve the elimination of another at-grade crossing within the State and legislative approval would be necessary for any closure of a railroad crossing. After much discussion, Mrs. Williams suggested that all public and private parties collaborate on this issue.

SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 30, 2010 PAGE 3 Wyoming Mill Road Project Mr. Laing advised members that, although the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) has developed a proposed route for the Wyoming Mill Road Project, a final design has not been completed. DelDOT recently realized that a few of the earliest residents were not advised by the developer of the roadway being installed. He stated that these residents are extremely unhappy with the roadway being within 50 feet of their homes. Route 13 Paving Project Although specific details are not known, Mr. Laing advised members that he was just recently made aware of a major Route 13 paving project. He assured members that further details will be provided to members at the next meeting. Briefing on Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Projects Mr. James Galvin, Principal Planner with Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), briefed members on Dover/Kent County MPO Projects. He advised members that the MPO has submitted a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) amendment for the Wyoming Mill Road Project, due to an increase in cost and schedule changes. There has also been a TIP amendment request for a new rail study to provide rail service from Newark, through Dover, to Ocean City, Maryland. He stated that over the next few months, members will be made aware of the TIP amendments and advised members that the amendment process will include the consideration of the prioritization of projects and compliance with regional growth management. Mr. Galvin reminded members that the Dover/Kent County MPO had begun the process of developing a Neighborhood Plan surrounding the Transit Center (from North Street to South Street and from State Street to West Street). He stated that bids were solicited, received, and reviewed. Soon after, it was discovered that the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP) was considering a similar project. As a result, he met with Mr. Bill Neaton, City of Dover Economic Development Director, and Mr. Gregg Moore, Becker Morgan Group, and it was ultimately decided to collaborate in the charrette process for the project which would then encompass not only the North State to South Street area, but also from South Street to Division Street. At this time, the MPO is planning to meet with the DDP to develop an agreement on this concept. If the DDP declines the suggestion, Mr. Galvin advised members that the MPO will move forward with the project independently. Mrs. Williams announced that future meetings of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee will be scheduled for 5:00 p.m. Mr. Davis moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Harmon and unanimously carried.

SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 30, 2010 PAGE 4 Meeting Adjourned at 6:57 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Beverly C. Williams Chairwoman BCW/JS/jg/ac/tm S:\AGENDAS & MINUTES\Committee-Minutes\2010\06-30-2010 SA&T.wpd Attachments Attachment #1 - Proposed Ordinance #2010-22 - Chapter 18 - Animals, Section 18-16 - Keeping Bees

ATTACHMENT #1 SA&T Committee Meeting of 06/30/2010 CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2010-22 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN 2 COUNCIL MET: 3 That Chapter 18 - Animals - Section 18-1 - Definitions, be amended by inserting the text indicated 4 in bold, blue, italics and deleting the text indicated in red strikeout as follows: 5 Sec. 18-1. Definitions. 6 The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed 7 to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: 8 Animal includes every living dumb creature, and birds and fowl. 9 Animal abandonment includes completely forsaking or deserting an animal originally under 10 one's custody, without making reasonable arrangements for custody of that animal to be assumed 11 by another person. 12 Animal control officer means a person employed by the city as an enforcement officer, 13 including sworn police officers. 14 Animal shelter and veterinary facility mean any premises so designated by the city for the 15 purpose of impounding and caring for strays, animals found running at-large, or animals in violation 16 of this chapter. 17 Apiary means the assembly of one or more colonies of bees at a single location. 18 At-large means an animal off the premises of the owner and not under the control of a 19 human being either by leash, cord, chain or otherwise. 20 Beekeeper means a person who owns or has charge of one or more colonies of bees. 21 Beekeeping equipment means anything used in the operation of an apiary, such as 22 hive bodies, supers, frames, top and bottom boards and extractors. 23 Colony or hive means an aggregate of bees consisting principally of workers, but having, 24 when perfect, one queen and at times many drones, including brood, combs, honey and the 25 receptacle inhabited of bees. 26 Cruel includes every act or omission to act whereby unnecessary or unjustifiable physical 27 pain or suffering is caused or permitted. 28 Custody includes the responsibility for the welfare of an animal subject to one's care and 29 control, whether he owns it or not. 30 Domesticated animal means any animal that is accustomed to living in or about the 31 habitation of man, including, but not limited to, cats, dogs, cows, horses, swine and fowl.

Proposed Ordinance #2010-22 - Chapter 18 - Animals Page 2 32 Food and drink includes providing each animal with daily food and water of sufficient 33 quality and quantity to prevent unnecessary or unjustifiable physical pain or suffering by the animal. 34 Habitable structure means any building or structure used, or intended for use, on a day-to- 35 day basis by people for residential properties, or for purposes of conducting a commercial or 36 industrial business, or for purposes of a similar nature. 37 Honey bee means all life stages of the common domestic honey bee, Apis mellifera 38 species. 39 Nucleus colony means a small colony created from larger colonies 40 Owner means any person, partnership, association, or corporation owning, keeping or 41 harboring a dog or other animal. Any animal shall be deemed to be harbored if it is fed or sheltered 42 for three or more consecutive days. 43 Public nuisance animal means any domestic animal or group of domestic animals which: 44 (1) At-large. Is repeatedly found at-large; 45 (2) Property damage. Damages the property of anyone other than its owner; 46 (3) Interference with persons, vehicles. Molests passersby or chases passing vehicles or 47 bicycles; 48 (4) Noise. Barks, whines or howls in an excessive, continuous or untimely fashion; 49 (5) Odor. Creates an odor which is noxious or offensive, and/or which constitutes a 50 substantial annoyance, convenience or injury to the public; or 51 (6) General welfare. Interferes with the health, comfort, safety or enjoyment of property; 52 offends the sense of decency of the public as a result of unsanitary conditions in the area 53 where such animals are kept; and/or creates a danger to the public health as determined by 54 the state division of public health. 55 Restraint means when a dog or other animal is controlled by a leash, cord, chain, or under 56 the control of an owner or other responsible person and obedient to that person's commands, or 57 within a vehicle being driven or parked on the street, or within the property limits of its owner or 58 keeper. 59 Shelter includes providing each animal with adequate shelter from the weather elements as 60 required to prevent unnecessary or unjustifiable physical pain or suffering by the animal. 61 Stray means a domesticated animal for which ownership is not established or for which the 62 owner disclaims future responsibility.

Proposed Ordinance #2010-22 - Chapter 18 - Animals Page 3 63 Super means an additional story on top of a hive. 64 Undeveloped parcel means any land that is not improved or in the process of being 65 improved with habitable structures. 66 Vicious dog or animal means any dog or animal which constitutes a physical threat to a 67 human being or other animal by virtue of attacks of such number and/or severity as to be likely to 68 cause property damage or physical injury. Evidence of a prior instance of an animal biting a human 69 being, without provocation, shall be prima facie evidence that the dog or animal is vicious. This term 70 is further defined in section 18-9(a). 71 Wild animal means any live monkey (nonhuman primate), raccoon, skunk, fox, poisonous 72 snake, boa, python, leopard, panther, tiger, lion, lynx or any other warm-blooded animal which can 73 normally be found in the wild state. 74 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED That Chapter 18 - Animals - Section 18-16 - Keeping Bees, be 75 amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue, italics and deleting the text indicated in red 76 strikeout as follows: 77 Sec. 18-16. Keeping bees. 78 (a) Notwithstanding compliance with the various requirements of this article, it shall be 79 unlawful for any beekeeper to keep any colony or colonies in such a manner or of such 80 disposition as to cause any unhealthy condition, interfere with the normal use and 81 enjoyment of human or animal life of others or interfere with the normal use and 82 enjoyment of any public property or property of others. 83 (a b) Location of beehives from structures and businesses. Beehives for the housing of bee 84 colonies shall not be located closer than 150 feet from residential structures, hospitals, public 85 eateries, churches, offices or schools. 86 (b c) Maintenance permitted at educational and farm facilities; exemption. Universities, 87 colleges, museums and farms of two acres or more may maintain hives on their properties 88 in a safe manner, provided that the hives meet a 40-foot setback requirement from buildings 89 on adjacent properties. Universities, colleges, museum facilities and farms of two acres or 90 more are exempt from the 150-foot setback requirement for buildings that are located on 91 their properties. 92 (c d) Declared nuisance; removal. Any beehive that is declared a nuisance by a majority 93 vote of the city council may be required to be removed or relocated. 94 (e) Hive Registration. All honey bee colonies shall be registered with the State of 95 Delaware Department of Agriculture. 96 (f) Hive Type. All honey bee colonies shall be kept in removable frames, which shall 97 be kept in sound and usable condition.

Proposed Ordinance #2010-22 - Chapter 18 - Animals Page 4 98 (g) Fencing of flyways. In each instance in which any colony is situated within 25 feet 99 of a public or private property line of the parcel upon which the apiary is situated, as 100 measured from the nearest point on the hive to the property line, the beekeeper shall 101 establish and maintain a flyway barrier at least six (6) feet in height consisting of an 102 opaque wall, fence, dense vegetation or combination thereof that is parallel to the property 103 line and extends 10 feet beyond the colony in each direction so that all bees are forced to 104 fly at an elevation of at least 6 feet above ground level over the property lines in the 105 vicinity of the apiary. It is a defense against prosecution under this section that the 106 property adjoining the apiary tract in the vicinity of the apiary is undeveloped property for 107 a distance of at least 25 feet from the property line of the apiary tract, unless prohibited 108 by the zoning ordinance. 109 (h) Water. Each beekeeper shall ensure that a convenient source of water is available 110 to the bees at all times during the year so that the bees will not congregate at swimming 111 pools, bibcocks, pet watering bowls, bird baths or other water sources where they may 112 cause human, bird or domestic pet contact. 113 (i) General Maintenance. Each beekeeper shall ensure that no bee comb or other 114 materials that might encourage robbing are left upon the grounds of the apiary site. Upon 115 their removal from the hive, all such materials shall promptly be disposed of in a sealed 116 container or placed within a building or other bee-proof enclosure. 117 (j) Queens. In any instances in which a colony exhibits unusual aggressive 118 characteristics by stinging or attempting to sting without due provocation or exhibits an 119 unusual disposition toward swarming, it shall be the duty of the beekeeper to promptly 120 re-queen the colony with another queen. Queens shall be selected from stock bred for 121 gentleness and non-swarming characteristics. 122 (k) Colony Densities. For every two (2) colonies authorized under this section, there 123 may be maintained upon the same tract one nucleus colony in a hive structure with no 124 supers attached, as required from time to tome for management of swarms. Each such 125 nucleus colony shall be disposed of or combined with an authorized colony within 30 days 126 after the date acquired. It shall be unlawful to keep more than the following number of 127 colonies on any parcel within the city, based upon size or configuration of the parcel on 128 which the apiary is situated: 129 (1) One-quarter acre or less - two (2) colonies 130 (2) More than one-quarter acre but less than one-half acre - 4 colonies 131 (3) More than one-half acre but less than one acre - 6 colonies 132 (4) One acre or larger - 8 colonies 133 (5) Regardless of parcel size, where all hives are situated at least 200 feet in 134 any direction from all property lines of the tract on which the apiary is situated, 135 there shall be a limit of ten (10) colonies.

Proposed Ordinance #2010-22 - Chapter 18 - Animals Page 5 136 (6) Regardless of parcel size, so long as all property other than the tract upon 137 which the hives are situated, that is within a radius of at least 200 feet from any 138 hive, remains undeveloped parcels there shall be a limit of ten (10) colonies. 139 (l) Inspection. The Department of Inspections shall have the right to inspect any 140 apiary. 141 (m) Violations; penalties. Any person convicted of violating the provisions of this section 142 shall be punished as provided for in Appendix F - Fees and Fines. 143 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED That Appendix F - Fees and Fines, Chapter 18 - Animals - Section 144 18-16 - Keeping Bees, be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue, italics, as follows: 145 Sec. 18-16 Keeping bees Subsec. (m) Violations; penalties, for each violation Not less than $25.00 or more than $100.00 146 ADOPTED: * 147 Actions History 148 June 30, 2010 - Scheduled for Consideration by Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee 149 April 28, 2010 - Considered by Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee 150 January 27, 2010 - Considered by Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee 151 S:\ORDINANCES\2010\Draft Ordinances\Ordinance 2010-22 - Chpt 18 - Animals (Related to Beekeeping).wpd

CITY OF DOVER FINANCE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY BUDGET REPORT MAY 2010 PREPARED BY: FINANCE DEPARTMENT PLEASE NOTE – THIS REPORT PROVIDES TOP LINE INFORMATION ON THE THREE MAJOR OPERATING FUNDS. IF YOU WOULD LIKE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

Page 2 of 7 City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Budget Report May 2010 SSS Strategic Objectives for Fiscal Year 2009 – 2010 1. Coordinate audit program with the Legislative, Finance & Administrative Committee. Meet all deadlines as established in the audit program. 2. Fortis training and implementation for Payroll and Accounts Payable. 3. Each staff member will take three (3) in house Sungard training sessions. ACTIVITY LEVELS FY09 YTD FY10 YTD BANK TRENDS Number of Deposits Made 1,264 1,016 Total Amount of All Deposits $ 122,976,787 $ 119,961,166 PAYROLL Hours % Amount Hours % Amount Gross wages per registers 867,225 100.0% $ 19,210,993 883,846 100.0% $ 19,267,149 Wages and Hours Worked Regular 747,687 86.2% $ 15,764,269 718,033 81.2% $ 15,139,040 All over time 28,741 3.3% $ 1,110,347 35,552 4.0% $ 1,392,149 Other Paid or Unpaid Wages and Hours Vacation 48,107 5.5% $ 1,211,837 45,969 5.2% $ 1,179,044 Sick 19,974 2.3% $ 442,635 17,657 2.0% $ 397,565 Furlough - 0.0% $ - 20,466 2.3% $ - Terminal Leave - Retiree Vacation/Sick Payout 7,147 0.8% $ 223,456 21,819 2.5% $ 670,581 Comp Time (Police) 4,207 0.5% $ 123,285 5,296 0.6% $ 163,218 Personal 2,082 0.2% $ 55,424 1,873 0.2% $ 50,928 Leave Without Pay 1,350 0.2% $ - 4,095 0.5% $ - Other (description below) 7,933 0.9% $ 279,739 13,087 1.5% $ 274,624 Other includes: pay adjustments, military differential pay, committee meetings, worker compensation tracking/adjustments, etc. Other Activity Number of Pay Periods 24 24 Number of Payroll Checks Issued 10,523 10,273 Number of Pension Checks Issued 2,461 2,535 Total Pension Benefits Paid - Defined Benefit Plan $ 3,815,518 $ 4,019,152 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Number of Check Vouchers 6,079 6,717 Number of EFT Vouchers 1,751 1,736 Vouchers Dollar Amount Disbursed $ 114,628,153 $ 103,532,872

Page 3 of 7 City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – May 2010 General Fund Summary 92% of Revised Revised Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Receipts Beginning Balance $ 2,816,763 $ 3,628,890 $ 3,628,890 $ - 100.0% Court of Chancery Fees 745,000 645,000 495,670 149,330 76.8% Fines & Police Revenues 965,000 865,000 806,315 58,685 93.2% Franchise Fees 486,000 486,000 381,723 104,277 78.5% Grants 734,000 774,000 263,627 510,373 34.1% Intrafund Services 4,475,714 4,348,974 3,663,256 685,718 84.2% Library & Recreation Revenues 668,008 668,008 595,142 72,866 89.1% Licenses & Permits 2,334,000 2,369,000 2,376,557 (7,557) 100.3% Property Taxes (Includes BID Revenue) 10,237,938 10,207,938 10,023,833 184,105 98.2% Sanitation Revenues 1,420,000 1,420,000 1,242,196 177,804 87.5% Other Miscellaneous Revenues 348,785 348,785 255,115 93,670 73.1% Transfers-In from Other Accounts & Utilities Civil Traffic Penalties 700,000 700,000 665,439 34,561 95.1% Municipal Street Aid Fund 775,200 - - - 0.0% Transfer Taxes 1,400,000 900,000 694,457 205,543 77.2% Contingency Reserve - 350,000 - 350,000 0.0% Water/Wastewater Fund 548,020 548,020 548,020 - 100.0% Electric Fund 6,758,100 6,758,100 6,758,100 - 100.0% Total $ 35,412,528 $ 35,017,715 $ 32,398,340 $ 2,619,375 92.5% Expenditures City Clerk & Council $ 403,264 $ 392,163 $ 311,767 $ 80,396 79.5% Mayor, City Manager & Human Resources 1,074,989 1,067,210 883,539 183,671 82.8% Police & Police Extra Duty 12,188,986 12,630,199 11,218,605 1,411,594 88.8% Public Services 4,532,477 4,782,951 4,090,233 692,718 85.5% Central Services 2,520,269 2,423,325 2,128,423 294,902 87.8% Planning & Inspections 1,970,626 2,008,018 1,706,683 301,335 85.0% Finance, Info Tech & Customer Services 2,557,920 2,468,781 2,146,867 321,914 87.0% Library & Recreation 1,906,183 1,882,621 1,591,915 290,706 84.6% Fire Department 750,445 718,058 619,947 98,111 86.3% Assessor 572,526 565,924 446,169 119,755 78.8% Debt Service 328,410 328,410 328,410 - 100.0% Insurance 600,000 600,000 550,446 49,554 91.7% Retirees' Health Care 1,014,820 1,014,820 916,735 98,085 90.3% Street Lights 985,000 985,000 879,686 105,314 89.3% Loss on sale of asset - 42,993 42,993 - 100.0% Transfer to CDBG 11,000 11,000 - 11,000 0.0% Provision for Uncollectible 10,000 10,000 10,000 - 100.0% Transfers Out Capital Projects Fund 344,802 44,802 44,802 - 100.0% Police Pension Fund 620,000 620,000 101,733 518,267 16.4% Budget Bal-Working Capital 3,020,811 2,421,440 - 2,421,440 0.0% Total $ 35,412,528 $ 35,017,715 $ 28,018,953 $ 6,998,762 80.0% Reserve Balances Contingency $ 645,254 $ 394,871 $ 765,029

Page 4 of 7 City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – May 2010 Water/Wastewater Fund Summary 92% of Revised Revised Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Revenue Beginning Bal-Water $ 662,079 $ 659,584 $ 659,584 $ - 100.0% Beginning Bal-Wastewater 307,112 327,614 327,614 - 100.0% Beginning Bal-Kent Co Sewer Adj. 100,194 (397,473) (397,473) - 100.0% Water Fees 4,499,000 4,449,000 3,883,389 565,611 87.3% Wastewater Fees 3,045,560 3,045,560 2,756,312 289,248 90.5% Kent County Treatment Fees 3,435,390 3,152,000 2,833,637 318,363 89.9% Water Tank Leases 293,669 293,669 290,518 3,151 98.9% Miscellaneous 149,600 73,000 57,811 15,189 79.2% Impact Fees - Water 280,000 250,000 245,733 4,267 98.3% Impact Fees - Wastewater 475,000 320,000 308,117 11,883 96.3% Total $ 13,247,604 $ 12,172,954 $ 10,965,242 $ 1,207,712 90.1% Expenses Engineering & Inspection $ 697,783 $ 685,943 $ 633,955 $ 51,988 92.4% Water 458,333 411,268 350,691 60,577 85.3% Water Treatment Plant 1,517,663 1,519,732 1,306,150 213,582 85.9% Wastewater 988,455 879,992 791,439 88,553 89.9% Water Meter Reading 72,533 71,350 56,738 14,612 79.5% Construction & Inspection 410,338 431,040 388,792 42,248 90.2% Kent County Treatment Fees 3,435,430 4,235,403 4,217,492 17,911 99.6% Retiree’s Health Care 134,680 134,680 123,897 10,783 92.0% Debt Service 832,951 460,000 429,070 30,930 93.3% Intrafund Services 1,262,456 1,250,827 970,638 280,189 77.6% Transfers Out General Fund 548,020 548,020 548,020 - 100.0% Water/Wastewater I & E Fund 700,000 700,000 700,000 - 100.0% Impact Fee Reserve 110,062 104,000 - 104,000 0.0% Budget Bal-Working Capital - Water 1,136,086 1,279,754 - 1,279,754 0.0% Budget Bal-Working Capital - WW 842,660 941,821 - 941,821 0.0% Budget Bal-Working Capital - KSA 100,154 (1,480,876) - (1,480,876) 0.0% Total $ 13,247,604 $ 12,172,954 $ 10,516,882 $ 1,656,072 86.4% Reserve Balances Contingency-Water $ 122,431 $ 122,919 $ 121,973 Contingency-Wastewater $ 136,910 $ 137,452 $ 136,437 Impact Fee Reserve - Sewer NO BUDGET NO BUDGET $ 3,594,412 Impact Fee Reserve - Water NO BUDGET NO BUDGET $ 126,000 Bond Coverage Ratio (Covenant 1.20) 3.22 1.72 1.57

Page 5 of 7 City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – May 2010 Electric Revenue Fund Summary 92% of Revised Revised Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Revenue Beginning Balance $ 8,219,350 $ 11,415,737 $ 11,415,737 $ - 100.0% Sales to Customers 99,533,042 95,830,100 87,668,957 8,161,143 91.5% Utility Tax 1,781,500 1,850,000 1,749,154 100,846 94.5% Weyandt Hall Rents 186,816 186,816 205,873 (19,057) 110.2% Miscellaneous Revenues 1,621,284 1,519,784 1,290,772 229,012 84.9% Intrafund Service Receipts Water/Wasterwater 270,626 281,828 158,078 123,750 56.1% Total $ 111,612,618 $ 111,084,265 $ 102,488,571 $ 8,595,694 92.3% Expenses Power Supply & Generation Power Supply $ 55,619,481 $ 55,619,481 $ 50,560,341 $ 5,059,140 90.9% Power Supply Management/Incentive 3,000,000 3,000,000 2,741,312 258,688 91.4% Capacity Charges 13,469,528 13,456,389 12,474,564 981,825 92.7% Rate Stabilization Credit (3,000,000) - - - 0.0% PJM Charges - Load 13,943,413 7,356,438 5,969,705 1,386,733 81.1% Total Power Supply 83,032,422 79,432,308 71,745,922 7,686,386 90.3% Plant Operations 5,798,710 6,068,663 4,388,672 1,679,991 72.3% Generation Fuels 1,275,251 779,676 137,337 642,339 17.6% Capacity Credits (12,133,285) (12,135,127) (11,163,104) (972,023) 92.0% PJM Credits (1,701,066) (718,732) (444,729) (274,003) 61.9% Total Generation (6,760,390) (6,005,520) (7,081,824) 1,076,304 117.9% Total Power Supply & Plant 76,272,032 73,426,788 64,664,098 8,762,690 88.1% Electric Operating Divisions Transmission/Distribution 3,318,622 3,215,601 2,712,403 503,198 84.4% Electrical Engineering 1,500,012 1,359,569 1,156,938 202,631 85.1% Administration 640,535 679,558 630,993 48,565 92.9% Meter Reading 289,103 281,614 277,846 3,768 98.7% Systems Operations 624,520 488,131 435,607 52,524 89.2% Utility Tax 1,781,500 1,850,000 1,749,154 100,846 94.5% Interest on Deposits 54,500 54,500 32,616 21,884 59.8% Retirees Health Care 567,430 567,430 488,749 78,681 86.1% Green Energy Payment to DEMEC 137,600 137,600 119,600 18,000 86.9% Intrafund Services 3,483,884 3,379,975 2,850,696 529,279 84.3% Accounts Receivable Write-Offs 135,000 135,000 135,000 - 100.0% Inventory Write-Offs 175,000 175,000 175,000 - 100.0% Contractual Services 2030 Committee 497,250 457,250 52,427 404,823 11.5% Debt Service 3,956,600 3,956,600 3,728,726 227,874 94.2% Transfers Out Electric Improvement & Extension Fund 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 - 100.0% General Fund 6,758,100 6,758,100 6,758,100 - 100.0% Contingency Reserve 83,500 83,500 83,500 - 100.0% Budget Bal. - Work. Capital 8,837,430 11,578,049 - 11,578,049 0.0% Total $ 111,612,618 $ 111,084,265 $ 88,551,453 $ 22,532,812 79.7% Reserve Balances Contingency Reserve $ 1,036,069 $ 1,039,854 $ 1,037,320 Insurance Reserve $ 395,002 $ 396,603 $ 395,524 Rate Stabilization Reserve $ 1,718,613 $ 4,729,127 $ 4,764,753 Bond Coverage Ratio (Covenant 1.25) 1.60 1.71 2.60 Megawatt Hours Sold & Purchased Sales to Customers MWh (excluding Street Lights) 747,193 747,193 649,229 Sales per MWh $ 135.594 $ 130.729 $ 137.730 Purchased/Generated MWh 788,808 788,808 675,948 All In MWh Supply & Generation $ 96.693 $ 93.086 $ 95.664

Page 6 of 7 City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – May 2010 General Capital Project Fund Summary 92% of Revised Revised Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Revenue Beginning Balance - Projects $ 375,408 $ 462,693 $ 462,693 $ - 100.0% Transfer from General Fund for Projects 344,802 44,802 44,802 - 100.0% State Grant - Library 4,000,000 4,180,234 220,332 3,959,902 5.3% Miscelleanous Receipts - - 25,000 (25,000) 0.0% Library Bond Issue/Contributions 1,912,433 1,912,433 - 1,912,433 0.0% Transfer from Library Reserve 3,000,000 3,180,235 157,693 3,022,542 5.0% Interest Earnings 2,700 2,700 9,394 (6,694) 347.9% Income from Sale of Assets - 29,200 36,428 (7,228) 124.8% Total $ 9,635,343 $ 9,812,297 $ 956,342 $ 8,855,955 9.7% Expenditures Fire $ 292,210 $ 292,210 $ 228,976 $ 63,234 78.4% Library 8,912,433 9,272,902 363,236 8,909,666 3.9% Recreation - 70,000 28,734 41,266 41.0% Police 73,700 94,706 37,101 57,605 39.2% Streets 350,000 50,000 44,411 5,589 88.8% Information Technology 7,000 7,000 - 7,000 0.0% Budget Balance - Projects - 25,479 - 25,479 0.0% Total $ 9,635,343 $ 9,812,297 $ 702,458 $ 9,109,839 7.2% Reserve Balances Capital Asset Replacement Reserve $ 242,074 $ 248,965 $ 248,513 Library Reserve $ 3,426,400 $ 3,655,211 $ 3,462,603 Parkland/Recreation $ 192,735 $ 218,245 $ 224,151

Page 7 of 7 City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – May 2010 Water/Wastewater Improvement & Extension Fund Summary 92% of Revised Revised Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Revenue Beginning Balance-Water $ 431,400 $ 1,631,844 $ 1,631,844 $ - 100.0% Beginning Balance-Wastewater 219,375 625,152 625,152 - 100.0% Department of Energy Grant - 45,248 - 45,248 0.0% Income from Sale of Assets - - 4,821 (4,821) 0.0% Interest Earned - - 41,508 (41,508) 0.0% State Loan-Water 2,404,017 2,404,017 - 2,404,017 0.0% State Loan-Wastewater 5,942,481 5,942,481 - 5,942,481 0.0% Transfer from Water Operating Fund for Water 500,000 500,000 500,000 - 100.0% Transfer from Wastewater Operating Fund for Wastewater 200,000 200,000 200,000 - 100.0% Transfer from Impact Fee Reserve 518,230 518,230 - 518,230 0.0% Total $ 10,215,503 $ 11,866,972 $ 3,003,325 $ 8,863,647 25.3% Expenses Water $ 2,987,317 $ 3,753,430 $ 449,339 $ 3,304,091 12.0% Wastewater 6,539,110 6,912,942 524,160 6,388,782 7.6% Water Construction 39,000 39,000 38,793 207 99.5% Budget Bal-Working Capital - Water 309,100 753,431 - 753,431 0.0% Budget Bal-Working Capital - Wastewater 340,976 408,169 - 408,169 0.0% Total $ 10,215,503 $ 11,866,972 $ 1,012,292 $ 10,854,680 8.5% Reserve Balances Capital Asset Replacement - Water $ 184,698 $ 211,857 $ 211,176 Capital Asset Replacement - Wastewater $ 87,357 $ 67,514 $ 66,307 City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – May 2010 Electric Improvement & Extension Fund Summary 92% of Revised Revised Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Revenue Beginning Balance $ 1,461,547 $ 2,625,760 $ 2,625,760 $ - 100.0% Beginning Balance Bond Proceeds 1,378,257 4,240,034 4,240,034 - 100.0% Bond Proceeds 1,958,107 - - - 0.0% Interest Earnings 33,700 25,000 14,498 10,502 58.0% Transfer from Electric Revenue Fund 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 - 100.0% Interest Trustee - 2,599 - 2,599 0.0% State Reimbursement for Projects - 710,319 257,707 452,612 36.3% DEMA Grant for Security System - 105,723 33,724 71,999 31.9% Green Energy Grant for Photovoltaic System - 135,152 - 135,152 0.0% Total $ 7,331,611 $ 10,344,587 $ 9,671,723 $ 672,864 93.5% Expenses Power Plant $ 1,254,000 $ 1,576,645 $ 492,513 $ 1,084,132 31.2% Transmission/Distribution 1,127,147 1,108,147 703,477 404,670 63.5% Electrical Engineering 3,525,536 5,865,211 3,110,697 2,754,514 53.0% Administration - 105,723 105,776 (53) 100.1% Budget Bal. - Work. Capital 1,424,928 1,688,861 - 1,688,861 0.0% Total $ 7,331,611 $ 10,344,587 $ 4,412,463 $ 5,932,124 42.7% Reserve Balances Depreciation Reserve $ 7,991,763 $ 8,079,990 $ 8,000,802 Future Capacity Reserve $ 8,900,651 $ 9,023,863 $ 9,001,030

Dover Police Department Monthly Report To Mayor & City Council “To Protect and Serve” May 2010

June 14, 2010 Honorable Carleton E. Carey, Sr., Mayor Members of Dover City Council City Hall Dover, DE 19901 Mayor Carey and Council Members: The following is the report on Police Department activities for the month of May 2010: COMPLAINTS Total complaints received through May 31st, 16,000 numbered 13,234. This is an increase of 2,123* 12,589 13,234 complaints over the same time period for last year. 12,078 12,315 11,111 12,000 *Such a large increase is due in part to all calls for 8,000 service are now included in total. 4,000 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS 20 15 16 Cases Reported in May 12 9 7 Cases Cleared in May 8 5 Cases Cleared from 3 3 4 Previous Months 0 0 0 0 Burglary Robbery Rape

Report to Mayor and Council May 2010 Page 2 QUALITY OF LIFE TASK SECTION ENFORCEMENT ACTION ARRESTS ABANDONED VEHICLES 4 ALCOHOL VIOLATIONS/DUI’S 13 ASSIST OTHER 0 WARRANTS ON FILE 0 BIKE ON SIDEWALK 2 CITY PARK VIOLATIONS 2 CRIMINAL ARRESTS 12 DRUG RELATED ARRESTS 3 LOUD MUSIC 10 MISCELLANEOUS VIOLATIONS 3 PARKING VIOLATIONS 9 PEDDLER 0 MEETINGS 36 PROSTITUTION 0 COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT DCO’S 0 WANTED CHECKS/CPC’S 21 TRAFFIC ARRESTS 55 WARNINGS 31 FUGITIVE 9 TOTAL ARRESTS 210 TRAFFIC ARRESTS The department issued 7,167 traffic citations through this 12,000 reporting period. This is a decrease of 1,889 citations over 9,056 the number issued during the same period last year. 7,914 7,337 7,536 7,167 8,000 4,000 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TRAFFIC CRASHES 1,200 909 Through May 31st, Dover Police investigated 780 traffic 842 787 806 780 crashes. This is a decrease of 26 accidents investigated 800 during the same period last year. 400 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Report to Mayor and Council May 2010 Page 3 911 CENTER 11% During the month of May, our 911 Center handled a total of 11,157 calls averaging 360 calls per day. 911 Landline Dispatchers handled 2,259 calls on the 911 wireless 20% 911 Wireless lines, an average of 73 calls per day and 1,235 calls on the 911 landlines, an average of 40 calls per day. Administrative 69% 6,000 CITY ORDINANCE SUMMONS 4,212 3,958 3,903 3,475 Through May 31st, we issued 3,189 city ordinance 4,000 3,095 3,152 3,189 summons, a decrease of 286 summons over May of last 2,784 2,391 2,235 year. *Note: of those summonses issued in May, 17 were issued for handicapped parking violations, 7 for fire lane 2,000 parking violations, 45 for false alarms (35 for 3-5 alarms, 6 for 6-9 alarms, 1 for 10-15 alarms, and 3 for 16 or more 0 alarms) and 31 for noise violations (24 for vehicle 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 violations and 7 for residence violations). ISSUED PAID Listed below are the major crimes and activities that occurred during the month of May: • On May 3, 2010, Dover Officers responded to a report of a home invasion in progress in the 100 block of Orchard Avenue. Two subjects entered victims residence armed with handguns and struck two victims about their heads causing injury. The subjects fled out of the residence after obtaining an undetermined amount of money and were apprehended immediately by responding Patrol and Motorcycle Units. Both handguns were recovered and Detectives were able to link the subjects to 3 additional recent home invasions which occurred at Ann Avenue on April 12, 2010, Wilson Drive on April 18, 2010, and Woodmill Apartments on May 3, 2010. The subjects were arrested for a total of 32 robbery related charges and committed to James T. Vaughn in default of bond. • On May 4, 2010, officers from the Drugs, Vice, & Organized Crime Section conducted a search warrant at a residence on Woodcrest Drive. Officers located 13.1 grams of crack cocaine along with various forms of drug paraphernalia. As a result of the search warrant two subjects were charged for a variety of drug related offenses. • On Monday May 17, 2010, Dover officers responded to a report of a robbery on South Kirkwood Street. A group of approximately 10 black males began punching and kicking the victim causing minor injury. During the incident, one of the suspects removed property from the victim’s pants pocket which consisted of a wallet, money and a cell phone. Investigation is pending at this time. • On May 24 2010, Dover Officers responded to report of a domestic dispute in front of Mr. B's on Route 8. Upon arrival officers contacted the 19 year old female victim who advised that her boyfriend used a key to damage a vehicle in the parking lot. He then grabbed her by the neck and forcibly removed her purse which contained money and her cell phone. Warrants are on file for suspect.

Report to Mayor and Council May 2010 Page 4 Major crimes and activities that occurred during the month of May continued: • On May 25, 2010, two black male suspects walked from behind a residence on North Governors Avenue and entered the rear of a cab. Once inside they placed what the driver believed to be a handgun to the back of his head and demanded money. They fled with an undetermined amount of money and the victim’s cell phone. Both suspects then fled on foot from the vehicle. They are described as black males between 18-22 years old, one had small amount of facial hair on his chin, and the other was wearing a black hooded sweatshirt. • The Dover officers arrested a subject for Stalking and other related charges after he sent 88 text messages to his wife, with whom he is separated, over a 12 hour period. He then opened an unsecured window at her place of employment and removed a cordless phone and tried to contact her on that phone. • The Dover officers responded to a report of a robbery in the parking lot of Dover Downs. A suspect approached the victim displaying what appeared to be a handgun and demanded money. The suspect then fled with the victim’s purse and was spotted by Dover Mall Security. The suspect was apprehended by arriving Dover officers. Respectfully Submitted, James E. Hosfelt, Jr. Chief of Police

Monthly Report May 2010 Office of City Assessor

Assessor’s Report Major Updates Mar‐10 Apr‐10 May‐10 Assessment Change $2,330,200 $11,438,900 $0 Residential Sales Ratio Report Sales in Study Total Assessed Value Total Sale Price Ratio PRD 19 $3,036,700 $3,490,399 0.87 1.03 Ratio – Assessed Value divided by Sale Price. PRD – Mean – A PRD above 1.03 tends to indicate assessment regressivity – high valued properties are under appraised relative to low valued properties. A PRD below .98 tends to indicate assessment progressivity – high valued properties are relatively over appraised.

Assessor’s Report Points of Interest Scanning & Filing ‐ All new deeds are being scanned and attached to the CAMA software for easy retrieval. ‐ All appeal documents and correspondence are being scanned and attached to the CAMA software for easy retrieval. ‐ All deeds from 2006 through current day are scanned and attached to our software. ‐ Hard Copies of original property record cards are being scanned and attached to the CAMA software for easy retrieval. of previous years history. Assessor’s Office ‐Scheduling and conducting residential appeals (see attached minutes of the meetings) ‐ Scheduling and conduction Exemption Requests

City Council’s Board of Assessment Appeals Monday May 03, 2010 The Board of Assessment Appeals was brought to order at 9:00 A.M. by City Assessor Cheryl Russell. Board Members present were: Jim Welsh, Tom Burns, William T. Garfinkel and James J. Galvin (morning only). Staff present was : City Assessor Cheryl Russell and Administrative Assistant Annette Hart. Agenda Additions/Deletions Ms. Russell made the motion to approve the agenda, which was seconded by Mr. Burns. Motion carried 4-0 1. Appeals A. Voshell, Emil Location: 1125 E Division St. - ED05-068.18-04-50.00 Appealed Value: $199,00 Requested Value: $162,800 Background and Analysis An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested assessment of $162,800. This number was the value that was generated by the 2005 City-Wide Revaluation. Back-up information to support the requested assessment was not provided. Assessor’s Recommended Action: Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same. Mr. Voshell was present for the meeting. He explained to the board that the house was over 50 years old and is assessed 20% over its value. He also mentioned that there is a School bus parking right behind his property, which he believes, depreciates the value of the property. After Mr. Voshell left the room the board discussed the location of the property as well as the 2 garages on the property. They came to an agreement, that is would be fair to reduce the land value by 20%, which would bring the assessed value down to around $192,000. Ms. Russell made the motion to change the 7% reduction on the land, made by Tyler Technologies

after the informal hearing, to a 20% land reduction. Motion carried 3-0 (Mr. Galvin abstained from voting) The appealed value of $199,000 was reduced to $191,900 after Ms. Russell made the requested. changes. B. Simpson, Adam Location: 105 Mourning Dover Lane - LC05-068.08-01-09.00 Appealed Value: $287,900 Requested Value: $254,000 Background and Analysis: An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested assessment of $254,000. There is no back-up provided by the property owner to substantiate the requested value. Assessor’s Recommended Action: Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same. Mr. Simpson was present for the meeting and brought blue prints of his property. He believes that his square footage the city has for his property is wrong. He informed the board, that other houses in the neighborhood have not been selling. Mr. Galvin asked about the discrepancy in the square footage, Mr. Simpson explained that it seems his house is assessed as a 3 bedroom house, when in fact it is a 2 bedroom house. Ms. Russell asked if Mr. Simpson did bring up the square footage difference when he had the informal appeal with Tyler Technologies, which he did not. Ms. Russell asked Mr. Simpson, if it would be alright if the Residential Technician would come out to the property to re-measure the property, which was fine with Mr. Simpson. Mr. Galvin made the motion to re-measure the property , if the square footage is correct the value stays the same, if there are discrepancies the necessary changes will be made and the Board will me notified, Mr. Garfinkel seconded the motion . Motion carried 3-0 ( Mr. Burns abstained from voting) The property value changed to $264,300 after the necessary changes were made.

C. Crenshaw, Teresa Location: 306 N Bradford St. - ED05-067.20-03-85.00 Appealed Value: $195,200 Requested Value: $150,000 Background and Analysis: An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested assessment of $150,000. There is not back-up provided by the property owner to substantiate the requested value. Assessor’s Recommended Action: Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same. Ms. Crenshaw and Mr. Jack Foley were present for the meeting. Mr. Foley explained that he and Ms. Crenshaw did meet with Tyler Technologies for the informal appeal and that after informing Tyler that the house was not a new house, but had been renovated after a fire, the assessment was changed from $203,800 to $195,200. Ms. Crenshaw also pointed out that her basement was changed from a partial basement to a full basement during the Revaluation and brought pictures to proof it. The property owners also brought pictures of properties in their neighborhood, which have been assessed much lower. Ms. Crenshaw feels that the property is assessed to high for the neighborhood she lives in. The Board came to the agreement that the neighborhood the property is located in, contains a variety of houses and one is not like the other. Mr. Garfinkel made the motion to keep the assessment as is, except for the adjustment of the basement, which should be changed from a full to a partial basement. Mr. Burns seconded the motion. Motion carried 3-0 (Mr. Welsh abstained) After Ms. Russell made the requested adjustment of the basement the assessed value changed from $195,200 to $191,500. D. Shepperson, Timothy

Location: 21 Stewart Ct. - ED05-085.08-01-43.00 Appealed Value: $190,700 Requested Value: $150,700 Background and Analysis: An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested assessment of $150,700. Assessor’s Recommended Action: Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same. Mr. Shepperson was present for the meeting, he explained to the board that his property lays in a flood-zone and should be reduced. He also told the board that he just had an appraisal done which came in at $195,000 which, he said was higher than what the city assessed him for, but in his opinion the city should be much lower. Ms. Russell explained that the city assesses at 100% of the market value. Mr. Sheppersn showed pictures of his neighbor, who is pumping water behind his property. After Mr. Shepperson left, Ms. Russell explained that the flood problem has been accounted for during the Revaluation. In Mr. Garfinkels opinion the new Assessment is right on. Mr. Galvin made the motion to keep the assessment as is, which was seconded by Mr. Garfinkel. Motion carried 3-0. (Mr. Burns abstained from voting) E. Miller, Anthony & Patricia Location: 223 Persimmon Circle West - LC05-058.14-01-01.223 Appealed Value: $112,900 Requested Value: $70,000 Background and Analysis: An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested assessment of $70,000. Assessor’s Recommended Action: Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same.

Mr. and Mrs. Miller were present at the hearing. After Mr. and Mrs. Miller were brought into the room at 10:02 A.M., the board introduced themselves. Mr. Miller went on to say that he is interested in how the City came up with these numbers. He stated that there is no consistency in the valuation at all. Mr. Miller explained that the houses are manufactured homes and are like cars which are registered with the DMV. He stated that no houses have been selling and if they do sell, they sell for half of the asking price. Mr. Burns asked how long he has lived in the community, which was 7 years. Ms. Russell explained that Mr. and Mrs. Miller purchased the house in 2003 for $123,000. Mr. Galvin made the observation that the comparable’s used by Tyler Technologies where all in the same neighborhood. Ms. Russell explained that at the time of the informal appeals, a lot of neighbors appealed their values at which time Tyler Technologies realized that the comparable’ s pulled were ranch homes; therefore the value method was changed to cost method. Originally Mr. and Mrs. Miller’s house was valued at $122,400 and after Tyler Technologies made the change in the value method, the home’s value dropped to $112,900. Ms Russell explained that there have been 4 sales in the last 3 years, one of which was for $162,000 with a square footage of 1700 feet. She also went on to tell about 2 others sales one in 2008 for $164,000 with 1680 square feet, which is a little smaller than the Miller’s house and one in 2007 for $187,000 which has 1800 square feet. Ms. Russell explained that during a Revaluation trends are being used as part of the value process. Mr. Miller said that these sales are not realistic given the current environment, when the values are decreasing. Mrs. Miller advised the board of a sale she heard of in the neighborhood, where a house was sold for $70,000. Ms. Russell explained that this sale might not have been a valid sale. Mr. Burns asked how the houses are transferred at which time Ms. Russell explained that Wild Meadows mails out new owner information to the county and to the city. Mr. Burns asked if the homes vary in age. Mr. Miller explained that his is one of the oldest homes in the development. Mr. Burns asked if the homes are manufactured by the same builder, which they are. Mr. Burns went on to specify that they are not completely random homes, but have some consistency. Mr. Miller explained that the home he bought is one of the largest homes in the neighborhood and that once the builder ran out of lots for these large homes, they manufactured smaller homes that still looked the same but were smaller in square footage. Mr. Miller asked why their home is taxed as it is a trailer. Ms. Russell explained that when Wild Meadows was created the builder wanted the homes to be treated as regular homes and not like mobile homes, which do not get taxed in the city. Mrs. Miller asked if the reason for doing this was so that the builder would not have to pay taxes, at which time Ms. Russell explained that she is not entirely sure, as she was not the Assessor at this time and was not involved in any talks. Mr. Miller added that if people would do their homework before they buy a home in the Wild Meadow community, they would know that this is a very bad investment. Mr. Miller explained that when they first bought their home that they were paying for a club-house that does not even exist and that Wild Meadows was basically committing fraud. At 10:12 A.M. the board excused Mr. and Mrs. Miller and went into deliberation. Ms. Russell pointed out to the board that in this neighborhood of 223 homes only 4 homeowners filed appeals with the city. Mr. Burns pointed out that the comparable’s pulled for these homes were all build in the 1950’s at which time Ms. Russell pointed to a sheet of comparable’s she pulled, as

Tyler Technologies made the value change to cost method because the comparable’s pulled where ranch style home and are not to be used. Mr. Burns pointed out that only 2% of the homeowners have appealed their value at which time Ms. Russell explained that only if there is a clerical error no changes should be made, to keep the consistency in the neighborhood. Mr. Burns made the motion to keep the value as is, which was seconded by Mr. Galvin. Motion carried 3-0, Mr. Garfinkel abstained from voting. F. Parker, Innus Location: 239 Grinding Wheel Dr. - ED05-057.17-02-20.00 Appealed Value: $175,200 Requested Value: $168,000 Background and Analysis: An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested assessment of $168,800. Assessor’s Recommended Action: Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same. Ms. Parker was present at the hearing, she started off with a question, she asked why her taxes are higher than her neighbors. She was told in the informal appeal with Tyler Technologies, that her assessment is higher as she has a family room off the back of her home. Mr. Burns asked Ms. Parker if she is appealing the values of the neighborhood or her assessment. Ms. Russell asked if she had gone over the data mailer Tyler Technologies had mailed out, which she said she had not. Ms. Russell gave that paper to her. Mr. Burns asked if Ms. Parker would sell her house for 175,200, she said that she would hope to get more than that. Her main concern was that she was treated fair, compared to her neighbors. Ms. Russell assured that the comparables which were used, where homes in her neighborhood and that the only reason her house would be valued differently, would be if there had been a discrepancy in the square footage of the home. After Ms. Parker reviewed the data mailer, she found no discrepancy, thanked the board for their time and left. Mr. Garfinkel asked about the difference in spare footage between the homes, and was explained that there are several different models in the neighborhood. Mr. Welsh made the motion to keep the assessment, which was seconded by Mr. Burns. Motion carried 3-0. (Mr. Galvin abstained from voting.) G. Penntex LLC (Stipulation)

Location: Land-Wyoming Ave. - ED05-077.17-06-02.01 Appealed Value: $266,500 Requested Value: $ 105,000 Stipulated Value: $114,000 Background and Analysis: An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested assessment of$105,000. After review of the appeal and ths site, it is the recommendation of the Assessor to amend the Appealed value of $266,500 to $114,000. Assessor’s Recommended Action: Recommend the amendment of the value to $114,000. Ms Russell explained that she came to agreement with the property owner, due to the fact that this piece of property is land locked. Ms. Russell made the necessary changes to the parcel, at which time the system came up with an assessment of $114,000 which the owner agreed to. Mr. Galvin made the motion to accept the stipulated value, which was seconded by Mr. Garfinkel. Motion carried 3-0. (Mr. Burns abstained from voting.) H. Brockton, James W. Location: 701 McGinnis Dr. Appealed Value: $122,100 Requested Value: $90,000 Background and Analysis: An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested value of $90,000. Assessor’s Recommended Action: Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same. Mr. & Mrs. Brockton were present at the hearing. Mr. Brockton explained to the board, that the house he appealed is in fact a manufactured home which is located on leased land. He compared his home to a car, which depreciates over time. In his opinion the assessment on the home increased by 48%. Mr. Brockton complained that there is no consistency in the valuation of the neighborhood. The appellant said that if he was to try to sell his home right now, he would be lucky to sell it for $100,000. Mr. Brockton also told the board that

after he met with Tyler Technologies the value of his house was lowered at which time Ms. Russell explained that after the informal appeal Mr. and Mrs. Brockton had with Tyler Technologies, a change was made to the enclosed porch which reduced his value. Mrs. Brockton explained to the board, that she had never heard of a garage adding value to a home. In Mr. Brockton’s opinion there is no market to base these home values on. Ms. Russell explained to the board that Tyler Technologies went back out to that neighborhood to re-measure the properties and that unless there is a discrepance in the measurement, the value of the house is consistent with the other homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Galvin made the motion to maintain the value as is , which was seconded by Mr. Burns. Motion carried 3-0. (Mr. Welsh abstained from voting.) I. Racz, Elsie Location: 310 Persimmon Cir. West Appealed Value: $119,900 Requested Value: $110,990 Background and Analysis: An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested assessment of $110,990. Assessor’s Recommended Action: Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same! Ms. Racz was present at the hearing to explain to the board that she cannot understand why her assessment has gone up. Homes which are bigger than hers are valued less than her home. Ms. Russell explained that Tyler Technologies changed the value method to cost approach, which brought the values down and also made the values more consistent. Mr. Burns explained that wood decks and garages add value to a home. In Ms. Racz opinion some of the properties in the neighborhood have more square footage but still are valued less. Ms. Russell explained that unless there is a discrepancy with the measurement of her property, the values of the home should be valued consistent with the neighborhood. After Ms. Racz left, Ms. Russell explained that the appellant before had a slightly larger home and was assessed at a slightly higher value. She also pointed out to the board that only 4 out of 223 owners actually appealed their value, which also is another indicator, that the values are consistent after Tyler Technologies changed the value method from market to cost, which brought down the value of the homes in that neighborhood. Mr. Garfinkel made the motion to accept the stated value of $119,900, which was seconded by Mr.

Burns. Motion carried 3-0. (Mr. Welsh abstained from voting.) McDowell, John W. Location: 331 N Bradford St. Appealed Value: $145,900 Requested Value: $100,000 Background and Analysis: An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested assessment of $100,000. Assessor’s Recommended Action: Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same. Mr. McDowell was present for the hearing. He explained to the board that he just purchased the property for $81,000 and that the property is in horrible shape, he lives next door to college kids, who are very nosy, the police get called everyday and he cannot get any sleep. Mr. McDowell told the board that if somebody would offer him $145,900 he would sell the home with the furniture in it. Mr. Burns looked over the settlement sheet which was submitted and had questions about the date on this sheet. Mr. McDowell explained that the date is incorrect as he had been in court trying to finalize the sale, which finally settled last year. Mr. Burns asked if the price of $82,000 was agreed on in 2005 and was told that the house was purchase with a lease-purchase agreement and was told by the owner once Mr. McDowell came up with the money, he would be able to purchase the home. Once Mr. McDowell did have the money, the owner told him that he no longer wants to sell the property. That is when Mr. McDowell went to a lawyer. Mr. Garfinkel asked what the original purchase price was, which was approximately $91,000 according to Mr. McDowell. Mr. Garfinkel asked if the $82,000 was used in the study, which Ms. Russell assured him it was not, because it does not seem to have been a valid sale. Mr. Burns went over the comparable used for this property and thinks that are way to high for this property. Ms. Russell check the value of the next door neighbor, which is at $137,800. In Mr. Burns’s opinion Mr. McDowell’s home should not be valued more than the next door neighbor’s home. Ms. Russell explained that the extra value comes because of the garage and patio the property has. In Mr. Burn’s opinion, it is the value of the land that brings the value down. Mr. Burns made the motion to reduce the value of the property to $137,800 on the basis that the comparable’s are all free standing, Mr. Welsh seconded the motion. Motion carried 3-0.

K. Shahin, Nina & Mazen Location: 103 Shinnecock Rd. Appealed Value: $286,700 Requested Value: $150,000 Background and Analysis: An appeal was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested assessment of $150,000. Assessor’s Recommended Action: Recommend the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same. Mrs. Shahin was brought into the City Hall Conference Room at approximately 1:42 P.M. at which time the Assessor Cheryl Russell as well as the Board introduced themselves, Ms Shahin asked each member to spell their name for her records. Mrs. Shahin submitted documents she brought to the board; one of which was the certificate of occupancy. She went on to explain that her house faces Kenton Road, which in her opinion is not a desirable location. She explained to the board that her address is 103 Shinnecock Road and the next neighbor is 101 Shinnecock Road and the neighbor after that is 107 Shinnecock Road. She explained that these properties are located at the entrance of Fox Hall West; on the other side of the road is 55 Shinnecock Road. She stated that these houses have been for sale in the last 2 years and have not been able to sell at any price. Mrs. Shahin handed the Sales Information to the board, which she picked up at the open houses for 55 Shinnecock Road. The owner of 55 Shinnecock Road asked for $299,900, the property was continuously on and off the market. She went on to tell the board that this house never sold and is now being rented. Neighbors to the left, 101 Shinnecock Road, had been trying to sell the house for 3 years. The house did not sell and is now rented. The other neighbors at 107 Shinnecock Road whose assessment is $251,500 which is $35,200 difference and which Mrs. Shahin went on to say that the reason for the difference between those two houses has never been explained to her. She explained that she did meet with Tyler Technologies on March 12 when she was told that her assessment was based on the Sale of 7 Shinnecock Rd. Mrs. Shahin explained that this house was double the size of her house and was sold for $375,000 on 9/28/2007 which was before the Real Estate Market tanked. She also explained that this house does not face Kenton Road. In her opinion location is the prime reason for the price determination is the location of the property. She went on to tell the board that her assessment is “Chicken-Ree”, and has no value what so ever. She went on to say, that she cannot put a price on a house which right now cannot be sold for anything. She explained that there is a similar house down the road from her which is on sale for approximately $ 315,000, which would be the closest sale to her development, if it sells. Mr. Burns asked Mrs. Shahin how long she has lived in this house; she told him that she had lived there for 7 years. Mr. Garfinkel asked if the house she is comparing her property to is the same house, which she explained are not exactly the same. She also provided the

board with the assessment numbers for her neighbors. She again made it clear to the board that she believes that her assessment is not at fair market value. She also corrected herself; she had mentioned she lived in the house for 7 year which was actually 8 years. After Mrs. Shahin was finished with her presentation and left the room, the board went over the information which was provided. Mr. Burns asked what the justification for the requested $150,000 is. Ms. Russell had documentation where Mrs. Shahin had requested an assessment of $223,000, when she met with Tyler Technologies, which was her 2002 purchase price. Mr. Burns wanted to know the square footage of the 107 Shinnecock Rd, which was the house Mrs. Shahin compared her house to, which is 2327 square feet, which is 253 square feet less than Mrs. Shahin’s house. Mr. Burns explained that he is very familiar with the development and explained that the property Mrs. Shahin bought was one of the last houses build in the neighborhood, which makes it one of the newest houses and also one of the largest. Mr. Burns made the observation that Mrs. Shahin bought the house for $223,000, the house has gone up $63,700 in value, which in Mr. Burn’s opinion the way it should be. Mr. Burns also explained to the board, that the houses on the other end of her street are 27 years older. In Mr. Burns’ opinion: “If somebody tries to sell their house and then decides not to sell the house, does not establish value”. Mr. Garfinkel summarized what was said, which was that her house is one of the newest and one of the largest houses in the neighborhood and that he heard no compelling evidence which support her case. Mr. Burns told the board that he knows of two properties up for sale in her neighborhood, one is listed at $324,000 and the other at $349,000. Mr. Garfinkel made the motion to retain the stated evaluation, which was seconded by Mr. Welsh. The motion carried 3-0

City Council’s Board of Assessment Appeals Monday May 04, 2010 The Board of Assessment Appeals was brought to order at 9:00 A.M. by City Assessor Cheryl Russell. Board Members present were: Jim Welsh, William T. Garfinkel and James J. Galvin. Staff present was : City Assessor Cheryl Russell and Administrative Assistant Annette Hart. Appeals 1. Simpson, William M Location: 110 Lafferty Lane - ED05-077.16-02-12.01 Original: $125,100 Requested: $95,000 2.Simpson, William M. Location 110 Lafferty Lane - ED05-077.16-02-08.00 Original: $93,800 Requested: $67,000 Mr. Simpson was present at the hearing. Ms. Russell explained to Mr. Simpson, that at the time his daughter turned in the appeal forms for these two properties, she must have used old values, as Parcel # ED05-077.16-02-08.00 no longer exist. Ms. Russell explained to Mr. Simpson that parcel #Ed05-077.16-02-12.01 does exist and is valued at $93,800 which is lower that the $95,000 he requested on the appeal form. She went on to explain, that when Mr. Simpson originally met with Tyler Technologies to discuss parcel# ED05-077.16-02-12.01, the value was dropped from $125,000 to $93,800. Mr. Simpson went on to tell the board that a couple of years the property was considered to be in the flood plane. He explained that the building on the property is old and would have to be torn down should the property sell. Mr. Simpson explained that he has build a retention pond on the property to get rid of the flood plane, which should take a couple more years, at which time it should be able to be sold. Mr. Galvin asked what the properties could be used for, Mr. Simpson said that they are industrial properties that he is trying to use for a school for his daughter. Mr. Galvin asked how much money Mr. Simpson would try to sell the property at which time Mr. Simpson explained that he would not try to sell it at all right now the way the market is right now. Ms Russell asked Mr. Simpson to sign a withdrawal form for parcel # ED05-077.16-02-08.00 as it no longer exists, which he did. Ms. Russell asked the board if they have any more questions about these parcels and requested to move on to the appealed parcels in Oak-Shadows.

B. Simpson William M Location Undeveloped Lots - Oak Shadows (see below) Recommended Action: Staff recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same; except for 2 parcels with recommended changes. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with requested assessments of: 0 Parcel # Appealed Requested Recommended Changes LC05-068.08-01-15.00 $41,700 $0 LC05-068.08-01-16.00 $56,600 $0 LC05-068.08-01-17.00 $35,100 $0 LC05-068.08-01-18.00 $39,100 $0 LC05-068.08-01-19.00 $55,400 $0 LC05-068.08-01-14.00 $55,200 $0 LC05-068.08-01-28.00 $42,900 $0 LC05-068.08-01-21.00 $89,400 $0 $82,800 (Land size discrepancy) LC05-068.08-01-20.00 $44,600 $0 LC05-068.08-01-26.00 $43,200 $0 LC05-068.08-01-25.00 $55,000 $0 LC05-068.08-01-24.00 $94,100 $0 $47,400 (Land size discrepancy) LC05-068.08-01-27.00 $39,000 $0 LC05-068.08-01-22.00 $71,100 $0 LC05-068.08-01-23.00 $47,400 $0 LC05-068.08-01-13.00 $55,300 $0 LC05-068.08-01-29.00 $41,800 $0 When reviewing the parcels under appeal, the Assessor noticed a notable discrepancy in land size for two parcels. The land size was corrected and the new value under appeal is noted above. The new numbers for the two parcels were not given to the owner before the hearing; due to the fact that the other parcels have similar values and adjustments and are also undergoing an appeal. Owner is requesting a value of zero. In the past, in error, the undeveloped lots in the Oak Shadows development were not being assessed or taxed. During this revaluation, the parcels were split out and are now correctly being valued and will be taxed during the next fiscal year. All other incomplete subdivisions are valued on undeveloped area. Ms. Russell explained to the board that these lots had not been taxed in the past, they were added to the tax roll as the lots were sold. Now these lots are going to be taxed, just the same as all other

lots in the city. Ms. Russell explained that a percentage has been take off these lots because they are undeveloped. She pointed out the appealed value is in fact the new value Tyler Technologies assessed these lots at. Ms. Russell also pointed out two lots she made changes to, because there had been an acreage discrepancy. Mr. Simpson agreed that he will be able to sell these parcels for these values. He explained to the board, that in order form him to be able to sell the lots he is allowing for other houses, other than log homes, to be build in the development. Mr. Galvin asked Mr. Simpson, where his values should be? Mr. Simpson agreed with the assessment, he said that he would not sell any of the lots for less. Mr. Galvin asked why there are different influenced factors for the parcels. Ms. Russell explained that Tyler Technologies visited the properties and valued the parcels depending on the location of the properties within the development. Mr. Garfinkel expressed concern about parcel # LC05-068.0-01-21.00 which is valued higher than the other parcels, at which time Ms.Russell explained that this lot is 1.8 acres and is almost double the size of the other lots. The board preceded to make a motion on the first parcel, which was 110 Lafferty Lane, which is valued at $93,800. Ms. Russell recommended to keep values generated by Tyler Technologies. Mr. Garfinkel made the motion to accept the value, which was seconded by Mr. Galvin. Motion carried 3-0. Ms. Russell asked the board to acknowledge the withdrawal by Mr. Simpson for parcel #ED05-077.16-02-08.00, which does not exist. Mr. Garfinkel made the motion to accept the withdral, which was seconded by Mr. Galvin seconded the motion. Motion carried 3-0. Ms. Russell moved on to the undeveloped land in Oak Shadows, her recommendations were to accept Tyler Technologies values with the recommended changes by the Assessor for the two properties. Mr. Galvin made the motion accept Tyler Technologies with the Assessor’s recommended changes for the tow parcels. Mr. Garfinkel seconde the motion. Motion carried 3-0. Meeting was adjourned at 9:48 A.M.

City Council’s Board of Assessment Appeals Monday May 24, 2010 The Board of Assessment Appeals was brought to order at 9:00 A.M. by City Assessor Cheryl Russell. Board Members present were: Jim Welsh, William T. Garfinkel and Todd Stoneseifer. Staff present was : City Assessor Cheryl Russell and Administrative Assistant Annette Hart. Appeals 1. A. Tuttle, Joseph and Mary Location: 17 Sutton Dr. - LC05-058.14-01-01.017 Background and Analysis An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with no requested assessment. Appealed Requested $94,700 N/A There is a comment on the Property Tax Bill; asking for an explanation for the changes in value. During the 2005 Revaluation, the value was determined to be $84,800. (Value reflected on the 2009 property tax bill provided by the property owner). In January 2010 (2010 Revaluation), the value was changed to $91,900, based on market sales of comparable properties. Tyler Technologies determined that the Market Approach to value was not the best methodology for these properties. In changing the methodology, the value went up to $94,700. Recommended Action: Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same. Mr. and Mrs. Tuttle where present at the meeting. Mr. Tuttle asked why his appraisal changed from $91,900 to $94,700. Ms. Russell explained that originally the market approach was used in valuing the properties in Wild Meadows. After a number of people expressed their concern about this approach during the informal appeals, because there had not been a lot of sales in that neighborhood, Tyler changed the method to the cost method, which brought Mr. Tuttle’s home from $91,900 to $94,700. Mr. Welsh made the motion the value remain the same, Mr. Garfinkel seconded that motion. Motion carried 3-0.

1. B. Kesselring, Larry Location: 1436 New Burton Road - ED05-85.00-01-07.02 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested assessment of $30,000. Appealed Requested $69,300 $30,000 Recommended Action: Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same. Mr. and Mrs. Kesselring were present at the hearing. Mrs. Kesselring submitted paper work to the board. Mrs. Kesselring explained that the home was purchased in 1977 and no improvements had been made since then. The Kesselring’s did meet with Tyler Technologies informally at which time they told Tyler Technologies that the property consisted of the modular ranch only with no land. Tyler made the change and took that land out of the assessed value which brought the value from $140,300 down to $69,300. Mr. Garfinkel pointed out the fact, that the City’s number is close to the County’s number. Mr. Welsh made the motion to keep the value as is, which was seconded by Mr. Garfinkel. Motion carried 3-0. 1. C. Scarborough, Jon & Sallie Location: 290 Troon Road - ED05-067.09-02-03.00 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested assessment of $297,500. Appealed Requested $350,300 $297,500

Recommended Action: Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same. Mr. and Mrs. Scarborough were present at the hearing. Mr. Scarborough explained that in his opinion the assessment for his property is not accurate in the current market. Mr. Scarborough went over the information he had provided with his appeal. He mentioned that at his informal appeal he was told that properties which back up to a golf course are generally valued higher, he made it clear that in his opinion that should not be the case. Mr. Scarborough believes that his property should be valued at the requested value of $297,500. After Mr. And Mrs Scarborough left Ms. Russell explained that there is a 15% increase on the land for properties that back up to the golf course. Mr. Stoneseifer agrees that these properties should be valued higher. After some discussion the board agrees that the appealed property is valued too high compared to other properties in the neighborhood and proposed a value of $337,800 based on comparable’s used by Tyler Technologies. Mr.Garfinkel made the motion to change the assessment to $337,800, Mr. Stonesifer seconded. Motion carried 3-0 1. D. Bieker, Richard F. & Kathleen A. Location: 1189 Jefferson Court - ED05-076.07-01-02.00 Appealed Value: $112,500 Requested Value: $93,294 Background and Analysis: An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested assessment of $93,294. This property falls in line with the other properties on this street. Recommended Action: Staff Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same. Mr. and Mrs. Bieker were both present for the hearing. After Mr. & Mrs Bieker were brought into the room, the Assessor and the board introduced themselves.

Mr. Bieker asked what methodology was used to establish market value. Ms. Russell explained that if the Reval-Company could not find enough sales in the immediate neighborhood they would go into comparable neighborhoods to get sales which are used to establish market value. She went on to explain that the comparable sales Tyler Technologies used were from Jefferson Court, Forest Creek Drive and Old Forge Drive and were picked by the computer program. Mr. Bieker asked what kind of sales those were. Ms. Russell explained that the 4 best sales were used which were in May of 2009, August 2009, June 2008, June 2008 and February 2008. These sales range from $96,000 - $147,900. She went on to explain that the closest comparable used was 1172 Jefferson Court, which was sold in May 2009 for approximately $130,000. Mr. Bieker asked if the market value was to be established as of January 2010. The appellant did not agree that one good sale in the neighborhood should be the basis for establishing values. He explained that he had been looking at other neighborhoods, and in his mind it seems as if there has been discrimination in assessing the values. He said that in other neighborhoods values have gone down. He was raising the question if the higher values in his neighborhood have been done intentionally. He made the observation that basically his value has gone up 20% since 2005 and no objective observer would agree to that. In his opinion, looking at the numbers, low income properties have become the victims. Mr. Bieker pointed to the first 3 comparable’s, one of which was located on 67 Forest Creek Dr., which was assessed at $117,200 it is actually listed for 80,000. The second one, 11 Lamplighter Lane, is assessed for $117,400 and is listed for $105,900. In his opinion his assessment should be reduced by 10-20% to get the actual market value. Mr. Bieker explained that the unit adjacent to him, 1175 Jefferson Court which is an end unit and also bigger is assessed at $110,400. He pointed to 1173 Adams Court and explained that this property in his opinion would be the closest comparable to his property. Mr. Bieker explained to the board that he has had the same tenant since 1982 and that no upgrades have been made since they purchased the property. Mr. Bieker told the board that he believes his house has been over assessed by an average of 26 %. In his opinion the market value for his house should be at $83,250. He than points to a newspaper print out by Cynthia Witt, which shows that Kent County Trends, which includes all of the sales between January-March 2005 and January - March 2010. Using the calculations Cynthia Witt uses, his property should be assessed at $94,031. He sees no reason why the city would increase his value by 20%, he believes that his property was already overvalued in the 2005 Revaluation. In closing he explains that based on all the information given, his property should be assessed at $93,294. He also explained that the Haas property, which was in the national news, where a mother had passed away and her daughters put her in a bag and kept her in the house to be able to collect her pension, was located in his neighborhood. This and two houses owned by the Dover Housing Authority, which have a lot of complaints against them, are part of the neighborhood as well. In closing Mr. Bieker asked again that based on all of the information provided, the board reduce his assessment to $93,294. Before Mr. Bieker left the room, he asked the Assessor what the next step for him would be, in case this would not go in his favor. The Assessor explained to him that the board has the final decision as far as the city is concerned and that he would have to go to Superior Court. After Mr. and Mrs. Bieker left the room the board went into deliberation. Mr. Stonesifer does not agree with the newspaper print out by Mrs. Witt . Ms. Russell explained that the information she submitted, the comparable’s from Jefferson Court all range from $110,000 to

$130,000. Ms. Russell also reminded the board, that if they make a change to Mr. Bieker’s home, there will not be any uniformity on this street. Mr. Stoneseifer explained that based on the information from Mr. Bieker, where the sale he used which was assessed at $117,000 was in fact a short-sale and short sales sell for 15-20% less, he would like to recommend no change be made to his appealed value. Mr. Stoneseifer made the motion to keep the value the same, which was seconded by Mr. Welsh. Motion carried: 3-0 1. E . Mays, Earl Location: 970 Shank Road - ED05-076.20-04-06.00 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with no requested assessment. Appealed Requested $217,100 N/A Looking at the price per square foot based on the building value, this property is at the lower end of a range of $68 - $75. Recommended Action: Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same. Mr. Mays asked how Tyler Technologies came up with the assessments. He explained that his home has gone up 20%. He believes that a 10% increase would have been more acceptable. Mr. Russell explained that the value is based on sales in his area. She pointed out a sale in his area in 2009 for $209,500, which is sitting on a smaller lot and has less square footage. Mr. Stonesifer made the motion to make no change to the 2010 value, which was seconded by Mr. Garfinkel. Motion carried 3-0.

1. F. 1. Dillard, Richard & Darlene Location: 33 S Bradford St. - ED05-077.05-04-08.00 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested assessment of $159,401. Appealed Requested $197,600 $159,401 The appellant met with Tyler Technologies informally on February 26, 2010. An appraisal was presented to the appraiser at the informal hearing. The original value appealed was $178,500. The appraisal showed a different width for the property. The appraiser verified that our width was correct (18’). The residential technician for the assessor’s office was also asked to re-measure the width for accuracy. He also verified the 18’ was correct. The appellant notified the appraiser that we had incorrectly described the entire home as 3 stories; and that only the front portion was 3 stories high. These changes were made and the market value of the property increased. Once these changes were made, the Appraisal Software chose different comparable properties for the valuation Recommended Action: Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same. Mr. Dillard attended the hearing. He explained to the board that there had been a discrepancey in square footage by Tyler Technologies, which was addressed after he met with Tyler Technologies during the informal appeal. After Tyler re-measured the property to verify that the square footage did need to be decreased, after doing this, the property value increased, which is why Mr. Dillard appealed the value with the Assessor’s Office. He had submitted an appraisal dated March 18, 2008, which the board went over with Mr. Dillard. Ms. Russell explained that after the square footage was changed the system pulled different comparable’s which were higher in value. Mr. Stonesifer agreed that the board has to come up with another way to value the property as the comparable’s used are not the same kind of buildings as the subject property. He also agrees with the appraisal Mr. Dillard provided more so than the numbers and comparable’s Tyler Technologies used. After much discussion the board came to an agreement Mr. Stoneseifer made the motion to change the value to the requested value of $159,400, which was seconded by Mr. Welsh. Motion carried 3-0.

1.F.2. Dillard, Richard & Darlene Location: 35 S. Bradford Street - ED05-077.08-04-08.01 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested assessment of $153,701 Appealed Requested $189,900 $153,701 The appellant met with Tyler Technologies informally on February 26, 2010. An appraisal was presented to the appraiser at the informal hearing. The original value appealed was $171,800. The appraisal showed a different width for the property. The appraiser verified that our width was correct (18’). The residential technician for the assessor’s office was also asked to re-measure the width for accuracy. He also verified the 18’ was correct. The appellant notified the appraiser that we had incorrectly described the entire home as 3 stories; and that only the front portion was 3 stories high. These changes were made and the market value of the property increased. Once these changes were made, the Appraisal Software chose different comparable properties for the valuation. Recommended Action: Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same. Mr. Dillard attended the hearing. He explained to the board that there had been a discrepancey in square footage by Tyler Technologies, which was addressed after he met with Tyler Technologies during the informal appeal. After Tyler re-measured the property to verify that the square footage did need to be decreased, after doing this, the property value increased, which is why Mr. Dillard appealed the value with the Assessor’s Office. He had submitted an appraisal dated March 18, 2008, which the board went over with Mr. Dillard. Ms. Russell explained that after the square footage was changed the system pulled different comparable’s which were higher in value. Mr. Stonesifer agreed that the board has to come up with another way to value the property as the comparable’s used are not the same kind of buildings as the subject property. He also agrees with the appraisal Mr. Dillard provided more so than the numbers and comparable’s Tyler Technologies used. After much discussion the board came to an agreement Mr. Stoneseifer made the motion to change the value to the requested value of $153,700, which was seconded by Mr. Welsh. Motion carried 3-0.

1. H. Carey, Deborah Location: 3 Dogwood Court - ED05-085.08-03-19.00 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested assessment of $155,000. Appealed Requested $179,400 $155,000 The cost per square foot divided into the building value ranges from $65 to $77 per square foot. Ms. Carey’s property is $69/square foot. Recommended Action: Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same. Ms. Carey was present for the hearing. She told the board that she had been talking to the neighbors regarding the assessment and presented pictures of her property and homes in the neighborhood to the board. In her opinion the homes in her neighborhood have decreased and are being sold for much less money than they have been assessed for. She also explained to the board, due to the fact that she does not get child support for her daughters, she has not been able to make repairs to the home. Ms. Russell explained that the condition of the property was taken into consideration by Tyler Technologies. Mr. Stonesifer made the recommendation no change be made. Mr. Welsh seconded the motion. Motion carried 3-0. 1. I. Truit, Betty B. Location: 225 Pebble Valley Drive - ED05-076.05-07-32.00 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested assessment of $247,200. Appealed Requested $263,200 $247,200 Recommended Action: Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same. Mr. Truitt was present at the hearing to express concern about the increase in her property value.

She explained that no upgrades have been made to the property since it was purchased in 1995. After reviewing the information, Mr. Garfinkel noted that he sees no evidence to suggest that the assessment should be changed. Mr. Stoneseifer made the motion to keep the value as is, which was seconded by Mr. Garfinkel. Motion carried 3-0. 1. J. Tipsword, Dorothy M. Location: 1 Willis Road - ED05-068.19-0-36.00 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested assessment of $109,100. Appealed Requested $180,200 $109,100 Recommended Action: Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same. Ms. Tipsword was present at the hearing and told the board that she did meet with Tyler Technologies for the informal hearing at which time her assessment was lowered from $192,600 to 180,200, which in her opinion is still to high. She explained to the board that the home is an upgraded double wide trailer. She explained to the board that the neighborhood has deteriorated and that someone broke into her house in April. Mr. Garfinkel asked what was the driving force behind this assessment , Ms. Russell explained that the lot size is a big influence. Mr. Garfinkel asked about the garages, which are listed on the property record card, Ms. Russell explained that the conditions of the garages were changed to fair condition. Mr. Stonesifer said that the property would probably not be able sell for $180,200, he also expressed concern about the comparable properties used to value the property. Mr. Stonesifer recommended to change the land value. The board decided to lower the land value to $60,000 the building to $60,000 and the garage to $15,000 for a total of $135,000. Mr. Stonesifer made the motion to change the land value to $60,000 the building value to $60,000 and the value of the out buildings to $15,000 for a total of $135,000. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garfinkel. Motion carried 3-0.

1.K. Kelly, Pamelia H Location: 380 Post Blvd. - ED05-085.12-03-42.00 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with no requested assessment. Appealed Requested $187,200 Ms. Kelly’s Insurance Company, per Ms. Kelly, states that the current replacement value is $183,500.An analysis was done of the Ranch Homes on Post Blvd. The cost per square foot divided into the building value ranges from $62 to $72 per square foot. Ms. Kelly’s property is $64/square feet. Recommended Action: Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same. Ms. Kelly was present at the hearing to ask why her property is the highest assessed property on her street. Ms. Russell explained that her property is the largest on Post Blvd. Ms. Kelly explained that she was told by her insurance company that the replacement value for the home would be $183,500 at which time the board pointed out that the number would only be for the replacement of the building. Ms. Kelly explained to the board that her biggest concern is not so much the assessment but what the taxes are going to be. Mr. Welsh made the motion the value stay the same which was seconded by Mr. Garfinkel. Motion carried 3-0. 1. L. Bedwell, Virginia Location: 519 E Loockerman St. - ED05-077.06-01-53.00 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested assessment of $170,000. Appealed Requested $199,400 $170,000 Recommended Action: Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same. Ms. Bedwell was present for the hearing to express concern about the value of her home.

Ms. Russell explained that Tyler Technologies used comparable sales which range from $235,000 to $180,000. Ms Russell went over the property record card with Ms. Bedwell, to make sure everything is correct, which it was. Mr Stoneseifer made the recommendation to leave the assessment, which was seconded my Mr. Garfinkel. Motion carried 3-0. 1. M. Tam Doan Location: 154 Lotus Street - ED05-077.17-04-58.00 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested assessment of $117,900. Appealed Requested Assessor Recommendation $123,100 $117,900 $120,900 The appellant stated that the garage was already on the property when it was purchased. Unable to determine the date of the garage, an estimate based on the survey, the year 1976 was used. In doing so, the value of the property was reduced to $120,900. Recommended Action: Recommend that Assessor’s Recommendation be approved. The appellant was present for the hearing, he explained that he did go to the informal hearing with Tyler Technologies to find out how his house was assessed. Ms. Russell explained that she did look over the information given with the appeal with regards to the garage and made the necessary changes. Ms. Russell explained that the appellant was called with a new value of $120,900 but did not commit to this new value. According to the Assessor, the new value is $1,500 away from the 2005 assessment of $119,400. Mr. Garfinkel made the recommendation to accept the Assessor’s Recommendation of $120,900, which was seconded by Mr. Stoneseifer. Motion carried 3-0.

2. Stipulation A. Lucas, Luther Location: 226 Pine St. - ED05-077.18-01-20.00 Appealed Requested $79,800 $59,900 Ms. Russell explained to the board, that during the informal appeal, Tyler Technologies recommend to change the value to $59,900, this value change was not made in the system. After Mr. Lucas filed an appeal to the city, Ms. Russell noticed the discrepancy and made the change, which brought the value to $59,900. Mr. Lucas came into the office to sign a stipulation form. Mr. Garfinkel made the motion to accept the stipulated value, which was seconded by Mr. Stonesifer. Motion carried 3-0.

City Council’s Board of Assessment Appeals Wednesday May 26, 2010 The Board of Assessment Appeals was brought to order at 9:00 A.M. by City Assessor Cheryl Russell. Board Members present were: Jim Welsh, William T. Garfinkel and Tom Burns. Staff present was : City Assessor Cheryl Russell and Administrative Assistant Annette Hart. 1.Appeals A. Harman Brothers LLC Location: 30 Greenhill Ave- ED05-068.18-05-47.00 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested assessment of $25,000. Appealed Requested $43,300 $25,000 Recommended Action: Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same. Mr. Harman was present for the hearing and went over the location of the lot and told the board that in his opinion nobody would pay $43,300 for the property. Mr. Harman went on to explain that to the south of the property is a church, which in his opinion lowers the value of a property. Ms. Russell pointed out that the land value of the properties across the street is approximately the same. Ms. Russell also told the board that Mr. Harman did meet with Tyler Technologies informally at which time the land value was lowered from $45,600 to $43,300 due to the fact that the property was located right next to a church. Mr. Burns made the motion to keep the value as is, which was seconded by Mr. Welsh. Motion carried 3-0.

B. Probst Ruth The following properties owned by Ms..Probst where all discussed together. Ms. Probst was present for the hearing. She explained to the board that the two trailers which are located on this property and are very old. Ms. Russell explained that the city does not value trailers that the value is for the land only. Ms. Probst told the board that somebody is living in the back trailer and that no rent is being collected. Mr. Burns asked if the houses located on Parcel # LC05-068.00-01-11.00 are rented and was told one of the houses is rented for $525. The back house is in rentable condition and is looking to be rented out as soon as possible. Mr. Burns asked about parcel LC05-068.00-01-22.01, he was wondering if this property is rented as well, which Ms. Probst told the board, is rented for approximately $550. Mr. Burns asked if the house on parcel LC05-068.00-01-22.00 is rented as well and was told that this property is rented for $685. Mr. Burns added up all of the acres and came up with 5.2 acres of land with houses on some of the land. Ms. Probst explained to the board that the properties were all on piece of land and the city divided the lots. Ms. Russell explained that parcels LC05-068.00-01-22.00 and LC05-068.00-01-22.01 had been split by the city. 1. Location: 2012-2024 White Oak Road - LC05-068.00-01-10.00 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested assessment of $25,000. Appealed Requested $69,900 $25,000 Recommended Action: Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same. Mr. Burns made the motion to reduce the value to $50,000, which was seconded by Mr. Garfinkel. Motion carried 3-0 2. Location: 2.6 AC White Oak Road - LC05-068.00-01-09.00 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested assessment of $50,000. Appealed Requested $116,900 $50,000 Recommended Action: Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same.

Mr. Burns made the motion to reduce the value to $50,000 which was seconded by Mr.Garfinkel. Motion carried 3-0. Mr. Burns also wanted to make it clear that the board is looking at these parcels LC05-068.00-01-09.00, LC05-068.00-01-10.00 and LC05-068.00-01-11.0, as one, as they had been in the past , there-fore the net-value of the three pieces is being considered as well. 3. Location 2038-2040 White Oak Rd. - LC05-068.00-01-11.00 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested assessment of $50,000. Appealed Requested $155,200 $50,000 Our records indicate 2 residential homes situated on 1 acre of land. Recommended Action: Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same. Ms. Russell pointed out that Tyler Technologies took in account that part of the lot is wetland. Mr. Burns made the motion to keep the value of this property, which was seconded by Mr. Garfinkel. Motion carried 3-0. 4. 2408 White Oak Rd. - LC05-068.00-01-22.01 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested assessment of $25,000. Appealed Requested $84,000 $25,000 Recommended Action: Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same. Ms. Russell explained to the board, that based on the information provided these parcels will have to be combined ( LC05-068.00-01-22.01 and LC05-068.00-01-22.00). The total land for these two parcels would be .807 acres. Mr. Welsh made the motion to combine lots LC05-068.00-01-22.01 and LC05-068.00-01-22.00 to match Kent County records and the value which derives from the combination will be the new value, which was seconded by Mr. Garfinkel. Motion carried 3-0. The new value for the combined lots came to $149,700

5. Location: 2400 White Oak Rd. - LC05-068.00-01-22.00 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested assessment of $25,000-$30,000. Appealed Requested $97,400 $25,000-$30,000 Recommended Action: Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same. Ms. Russell explained to the board, that based on the information provided these parcels will have to be combined ( LC05-068.00-01-22.01 and LC05-068.00-01-22.00). The total land for these two parcels would be .807 acres. Mr. Welsh made the motion to combine lots LC05-068.00-01-22.01 and LC05-068.00-01-22.00 to match Kent County records and the value which derives from the combination will be the new value, which was seconded by Mr. Garfinkel. Motion carried 3-0. The new value for the combined lots came to $149,700 C. Schultz, James & Dorothy 1. Location: 128 Old Forge Dr - ED05-067.14-03-33.00 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested assessment of $84,100. Appealed Requested $114,100 $84,100 Recommended Action: Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same. Mr. Schultz was present at the hearing. Mr. Schultz feels that the new values were to high. Mr. Burns asked if one of the reasons Mr. Schultz requested a lesser value was that the properties are in need of repair, which he assured was not the reason. Mr. Schultz explained to the board that he has been lowering the rent to be able to rent these properties out. He agrees that values should have gone up since the last revaluation but not as much as they did. After some discussion, Mr. Burns made the motion to change the condition of the property from “average” to “good” to keep the value fair with the neighborhood. In doing so the value will increase from $114,100 to $117,300. Mr. Welsh seconded this motion.

Motion carried 3-0. 2. Location: 44 Forest Creek Dr. - ED05-067.14-02-19.00 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested assessment of 92,300. Appealed Requested $118,400 $92,300 Recommended Action: Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same. Mr. Schultz was present at the hearing. Mr. Schultz feels that the new values were to high. Mr. Burns asked if one of the reasons Mr. Schultz requested a lesser value was that the properties are in need of repair, which he assured was not the reason. Mr. Schultz explained to the board that he has been lowering the rent to be able to rent these properties out. He agrees that values should have gone up since the last revaluation but not as much as they did. Mr. Burns made the motion to raise the value to $118,500 based on building value, which was seconded by Mr. Welsh. Motion carried 3-0. 3. Location: 208 Green Blade Dr - ED058-076.06-03-44.00 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested assessment of 127,300. Appealed Requested $143,100 $127,300 Recommended Action: Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same. Mr. Schultz was present at the hearing. Mr. Schultz feels that the new values were to high. Mr. Burns asked if one of the reasons Mr. Schultz requested a lesser value was that the properties are in need of repair, which he assured was not the reason. Mr. Schultz explained to the board that he has been lowering the rent to be able to rent these properties out. He agrees that values should have gone up since the last revaluation but not as much as they did. Mr. Garfinkel made the motion to maintain this assessment, which was seconded by Mr. Burns. Motion carried 3-0. D. Girgis, George

Location: 12 Forest Creek Dr. - ED05-067.14-02-13.00 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested assessment of $95,000. Appealed Requested $111,800 $95,000 Recommended Action: Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same. Mr. Girgis was present for the hearing and brought with him a copy of the deed to show to the board, that he bought the property on Mach 05, 2010 for $95,000. Mr. Burns explained to the board, that the sale of the property was an estate sale, which is why the purchase price was so low. Mr. Garfinkel made the motion to keep the value as is, which was seconded by Mr. Welsh. Motion carried 3-0. E. Tolbert, Frederick Location: 35 Karen Place - LC05-058.18-01-23.00 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office with a requested assessment of $86,500. Appealed Requested $114,300 $86,500 Recommended Action: Recommend that the number generated by the 2010 Revaluation remain the same. Mr. Tolbert was present for the hearing. He brought with him a summary he had prepared and read to the board. In it he explained to the board that he purchased the unit in 1993 and that the community consist of 179 occupied units and 10 empty units. In his summary he also mentioned that the property next door sold last year for $48,000. He expressed his concern about the difficulty to sell homes in the community. He also mentioned that Persimmon Park Place is a mobile home park, with small lots and should not go up in price, and should in his opinion, decline in value as mobile homes do. Mr. Garfinkel made the motion to retain the assessment. Mr. Burns seconded the motion. Motion carried 3-0.

City of Dover Council’s Board of Assessment Appeals May 26, 2010 Board Members present were Jim Welsh, William Garfinkel and Tom Burns. Staff present was Cheryl Russell, City Assessor and Annette Hart, Administrative Assistant. Clerical Error A. Tholstrup, Ralph and Alice Location: 15 Liberty Dr. - ED05-067.18-03-46.00 Original Assessed Value: $190,600 Corrected Assessed Value: $187,300 Ms. Russell explained to the board that the homeowner added an extension to the back of the home which is not finished. Our Residential Technician thought it was and added the addition to the value of the home. The value for the addition was taken off and the value was taken back to $187,300, which is the original value Tyler Technologies had assessed the home for. B. Reid, Debra Location: 230 Trafalgar Dr. - Ed05-076.10-02-72.00 Assessed Value: $141,900 Ms. Reid, turned in her date mailer , which was mailed to her in May 08, 2009. On it she marked that instead of 1 full bath, the home has 2 full bath. The Assessor corrected the information which value did not change the assessed value of the home. C. Westover LLC Location: Phase VI Village of Westover - Ed05-076.00-02-03.00 Assessed Value: $717,700 This parcel had been kept as one parcel and individual lots were pulled out as they were sold. When Tyler Technologies did the Revaluation, the parcels were split into separate parcel, but the original parcel was never deactivated. The Assessor has made the change and the parcel was taken off the tax roll.

D. Gross, Philip & Tracey Location: 820 Walker Road - ED05-067.19-02-02.43 Assessed Value:$186,100 This is a 3 unit building on Walker Road. One of the units is valued and taxed twice, this unit will be deactivated and not be taxed. E. Del Homes Group Location: 1 Commerce Way - ED05-076.15-01-03.00 Assessed Value:$10,710,800 During the Revaluation this property had been split into individual suites but the building as a whole had not been deactivated from the tax rolls. The building is taxed as individual suites. F. Teal Construction Location: Cecil St. - ED05-076.08-01-05.00 Original Assessed Value: $60,300 New Assessed Value: $3,10 Tyler Technologies failed to correct the clerical error they had made on this property, the Assessor made the necessary change, which brought the value down to $3,100. Mr. Welsh made the motion to accept these clerical error’s (mentioned above), which was seconded by Mr. Garfinkel. Motion carried 3-0. Abatement A. Ingerman Group Location: Capitol Green Apartments - Multiple Parcels Combined Value: $11,288,600 Ms. Russell explained to the board that all of these properties had been exempt in the past, as they were Section 8 homes, but were bought by a private firm and rehabilitated. These properties were put back on the tax roll as they were completed. Mayor Speed had written an

ordinance specifically for these properties, which stated that these properties would fall under a 5 year abatement and would get an increase in taxes of 25% every year. An application was submitted and will be approved. Mr. Garfinkel made the motion to accept the abatement, which was seconded by Mr. Welsh. Motion carried 3-0. Stipulations Ms. Russell explained to the board that the following properties had clerical errors, which had been recognized and where stipulated to the following values with the owners. A. Creekstone Development, LLC Location: 1198 S Governors Ave. - ED05-086.05-01-12.00 Appealed Value: 3,381,700 Stipulated Value: $2,924,400 Mr Welsh made the motion to accept the stipulated value, which was seconded by Mr. Garfinkel. Motion carried 3-0. B. Woodbrook Development LLC Location: 1052 S Governors Ave. - ED05-086.05-01-01.00 Appealed Value: $4,027,400 Stipulated Value: $3,914,200 Mr Welsh made the motion to accept the stipulated value, which was seconded by Mr. Garfinkel. Motion carried 3-0.

C. Secure Storage LLC Location: 640 Lafferty Lane _ ED05-077.00-01-25.00 Appealed Value: $2,815,800 Stipulated Value: $2,086,700 Mr. Garfinkel made the motion to accept stipulated value, which was seconded by Mr. Welsh. Motion carried 3-0. D. One Greentree Office Center L.P. Location: 160 Greentree Lane - ED05-077.06-06-64.00 Appealed Value: $3,590,700 Stipulated Value: 2,005,600 Mr. Burns made the motion to accept the stipulated value which was seconded by Mr. Welsh. Motion carried 3-0. E. Greentree Village Center LP. Location: 25 Greentree Lane ED5-076.06-06-67.00 Assessed Value: 6,367,400 Stipulated Value: $5,772,600 Mr. Garfinkel made the motion to accept the stipulated value, which was seconded by Mr. Welsh. Motion carried 3-0.

F. Stevens/Anstine 1987-1 LP Location: 83 Greentree Ln - ED05-076.06-06-66.00 Appealed Value: $4,004,900 Stipulated Value: $3,826,400 Mr. Garginkel made the motion to accept the stipulated value, which was seconded by Mr. Welsh. Motion carried 3-0.

CITY MANAGER’S MONTHLY REPORT May 2010 City Manager’s Monthly Report, May 2010

City Manager The Public Utilities section has been condensed and more goal orientated information as been added. Customer Services 1,115 payments were processed online or by telephone in May 2010. City of Dover property taxes were due August 31, 2009. As of May 31, 2010 the delinquent property taxes total $45,809.74. Our collection efforts include sending a delinquent statements, making phone calls, and enforcing the Clean Hands Act. The Planning and Inspections Departments have been providing assis‐ tance in collecting these outstanding debts. Budget and Program Development Participated in the IUE‐CWA contract negotiations. Continued work on the Fiscal 2011 Draft Budget and began working on presentations to Council. Human Resources Continued contract negotiations with labor unions (IUE‐CWA and IBEW). Open Enrollment for health, dental and vision held for all employees and retirees was highlighted by Benefits Fair held at the Pitts Center. Information Technology RFP for Web Services was issued with 21 responses received. Parks, Recreation, & Library The Library recorded 683 people attending 20 children’s programs. “In Harmony” concerts recorded 219 attendees. Parks and Recreation staff assisted with logistics for a very successful Dover Days event. Annual Concerts on the Green concert series began on May 6 at Dover Park with outdoor performance beginning on May 13. Schutte Park hosted the Delaware Riptide Softball Tournament with 10 teams from around Delaware. Public Services Completed evaluation of Trash Fees for the Fiscal 2010‐2011 budget. Bid documents completed for the Fiscal 2010‐2011 Concrete Program. Public Utilities Mid‐City Substation was completed and energized. 2 City Manager’s Monthly Report, May 2010

CITIZEN ACTION CENTER Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 Number of Frequently Asked Questions 495 521 304 253 314 249 222 309 263 252 Citizens view answers to some of the most asked questions. Having this information available online it allows citizens to access the infor‐ mation regardless of the time; day or night. Total Number of Complaints Registered 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 Aug 09 Sep 09 Oct 09 Nov 09 Dec 09 Jan10 Feb 10 Mar 10 Apr 10 May 10 Site Admin/Other 1 2 1 1 3 0 11 4 1 1 Public Utilities 3 3 1 1 1 4 0 7 6 3 Public Services/Public Works 2 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 Police 1 1 3 2 3 0 2 2 6 4 Planning/Inspections 84 61 38 17 14 24 14 37 102 99 Average Time to Close Planning and Inspections*: Property Code Violations—12.2 days * Average Time to close property code violations due to decrease in staff. Police: Community Policing— 7.4 days Public Services: 43.8 days Public Utilities: 10.9 days Site Admin/Other: General Inquires — 0.67 days City Manager’s Monthly Report, May 2010 3

CENTRAL SERVICES Fleet Operations & Maintenance Items on Hand with no Usage over 36 Months 80000 120 $1,000,000 70000 100 Total Work Orders 60000 $800,000 Total Dollars 80 50000 40000 60 $600,000 30000 40 20000 $400,000 20 10000 0 0 $200,000 M ay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb M ar Apr M ay M ay- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct - Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- M ar- Apr- M ay- 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 Total Dollars Tot al Work Orders Elect ric Wat er General Work Orders: 71 Electric: $425,199.98 Fleet Maintenance: $10,792.66 (excludes Melvin’s Sunoco) Water: $ 25,725.40 Fuel: $40,769.38 (17,866 gallons) General: $ 39,640.51 Stock Purchases by Fund Contingency & Warehouse Stock $500,000 $4,500,000.00 2,700 2,600 $400,000 $4,000,000.00 2,500 Total Line Items 2,400 $300,000 $3,500,000.00 2,300 Total Dollars 2,200 $200,000 $3,000,000.00 2,100 2,000 $100,000 $2,500,000.00 1,900 1,800 $0 $2,000,000.00 1,700 M ay- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- M ar- Apr- M ay- M ay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb M ar Apr M ay 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 Electric Water General Total Dollar Value Total Line It ems Electric: $49,507.68 Total Dollar Value: $2,942,373.19 Water: $ 5,794.55 Total Line Items: 1,822 General: $17,456.80 Major Program Updates MEASURE MAY 2010 MAY 2009 DIFFERENCE Issue Effectiveness (>90%) How often the warehouse has what cus‐ 97.7% 95.32% ‐2.38% tomers need when it’s needed. [issues / (issues + back orders)] * 100 Turn Over Rate (4‐5 per yr.) Indicates that the material stocked is the 1 every 14.28 years 1 every 14.69 years ‐0.41 years material being used. Bids for non‐inventory items converted to 7 of 7 Bids 31 of 36 Bids purchase orders within timeframe ‐4% 100% FYTD 86% (FY09 Total) (Quantity and Percentage) Sealed bids prepared, received & distrib‐ 35 of 37 Bids 41 of 43 Bids uted within 7 working days of receipt ‐0.7% 94.6% FYTD 95.3% (FY09 Total) (Quantity and Percentage) Scheduled Preventative Maintenance 31 of 34 appointments kept 31 of 39 appointments kept appointments being kept. 11.69% 91.1% 79.4% (Quantity and Percentage) Mail receiving lowest discounted rate 327,864 pieces 391,099 pieces ‐0.73% (Quantity and Percentage) 96.44% as of April 2010 97.1% (FY09 Total) Routine work orders completed within 5 28 work orders completed 27 work orders completed 2.03% days (Quantity and Percentage) 93.3% 96.4% Emergency work orders completed within 2 work orders completed 1 work order completed ‐ 2 days (Quantity and Percentage) 100% 100% 4 City Manager’s Monthly Report, May 2010

CUSTOMER SERVICES WORK ORDERS PROCESSED EXTENSIONS OF CREDIT 3,500 800 738 714 698 3,000 700 621 613 628 557 556 568 547 600 542 1,984 2,500 468 1,803 1,875 1,848 1,841 1,833 1,737 1,709 500 1,516 1,526 356 2,000 1,382 1,355 1,399 400 1,500 300 1,000 200 100 500 May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 CUTS FOR NON PAYMENT CUSTOMER PAYMENT USAGE 148,874 151,677 $1,800,000 $1,657,844 $1,662,953 160,000 $1,600,000 140,000 $1,400,000 120,000 $1,200,000 100,000 80,000 58,459 63,807 $1,000,000 30,893 29,256 60,000 $800,000 21,759 22,315 11,186 40,000 $600,000 20,000 122 $400,000 0 $134,492 $131,082 $200,000 Drive‐Thru Over the Mail, Drop Credit Cards Bank Drafts Window Counter Box $‐ 2010 YTD 2009 YTD May 2010 May 2009 FYTD10 FYTD09 FY 2010 FY 2009 Major Program Updates May 2010 May 2009 Difference Year‐to‐Date Year‐to‐Date Number of Customers Served 21,190 24,418 (3,228) 261,584 280,781 Final Bills 594 586 8 6,803 7,667 Estimated Bills 145 131 14 1,568 1,695 Penalties Posted $ 17,192 $ 15,907 $ 1,285 $ 200,646 $ 194,338 Extensions of Credit ‐ Amount Extended $ 144,444 $ 157,422 $ (12,979) $ 1,712,195 $ 1,880,120 Balance Transfers $ 72,297 $ 3,558 $ 68,740 $ 113,001 $ 133,193 Utility Collections $ 25,974 $ 22,613 $ 3,360 $ 296,042 $ 487,914 Special Assessments $ 360 $ 1,505 $ (1,145) $ 34,206 $ 4,306 Miscellaneous Billings $ 106,289 $ 36,248 $ 70,041 $ 1,337,798 $ 729,804 CNP through Disconnect Collars 9 25 (16) 119 286 Court Cases ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ Tamperings 3 13 (10) 35 51 Taxes Levied $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ Billing Adjustments $ 28,731 $ ‐ $ 28,731 $ 28,353 $ ‐ Total Taxes Collected $ 77,674 $ 25,587 $ 52,087 $ 9,548,852 $ 9,147,026 Taxes Outstanding $ 245,810 $ 280,430 $ (34,620) $ 245,810 $ 280,430 Payments in Lieu $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ ‐ $ 16,500 $ 59,802 Billing Accuracy (on schedule billings) 99.9% 99.9% ‐ 99.9% 99.8% Bills Published on Schedule 99.9% 99.9% ‐ 99.9% 99.9% Meters Read on Schedule 99.9% 99.8% ‐ 99.8% 99.9% Customer Satisfaction Rating 99.7% 99.8% ‐ 99.8% 99.8% Deliquent Accounts Collected 99.7% 99.7% ‐ 99.7% 99.7% City Manager’s Monthly Report, May 2010 5

HUMAN RESOURCES Customer Service Contacts Payroll Hours 800 9,000 700 8,000 600 7,000 500 6,000 400 5,000 300 4,000 200 3,000 100 2,000 0 1,000 May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 0 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 M ay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb M ar Apr M ay Citizens Assisted 97 130 117 79 173 112 43 30 25 20 25 68 55 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 Employees Assisted 201 60 56 43 39 52 79 65 75 37 70 97 172 Overt ime 1,283 1,680 1,656 1,906 1,785 1,463 1,808 1,564 3,293 1,556 1,415 1,602 1,316 Applications Processed 408 269 364 122 373 174 1 0 0 35 0 2 0 Sick 1,354 1,019 1,343 2,631 1,482 1,508 1,903 2,018 4,832 2,173 3,320 1,969 961 May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Category Total 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 * Caucasian 342 332 331 327 324 325 323 322 320 320 318 315 315 N/A * Minorities 61 63 62 62 60 60 61 61 61 61 61 61 62 N/A Hired 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 2 1 1 1 ‐ 1 ‐ 2 11 Terminated/Resigned/ ‐ 1 2 4 6 1 2 2 4 ‐ 3 4 1 30 Retired ** Promoted ‐ 1 1 ‐ 1 ‐ 1 ‐ 1 2 1 6 3 17 Jobs Posted ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1 1 ‐ 3 1 3 3 ‐ 3 16 Workers Comp. Injuries 2 6 4 3 3 1 1 ‐ 4 2 2 3 4 35 Workers Comp. Hours 350 194 323 417 283 103 25 26 23 50 186 358 299 2,637 Insurance Claims 7 4 5 9 1 2 5 2 1 10 9 6 7 68 *A review has been completed to ensure the accuracy of the Caucasian and Minority employees. The figures for June 2009 reflect the revised and updated numbers. Workers’ Comp. hours may not be the result of injuries that occurred during the current month. ** Employee was promoted in July, however not indicated on report. Full‐time Employees: 361 Part‐time Employees: 16 (4 Pitts Center, 1 Recreation, 11 Library) Numbers do not reflect, temporary, seasonal, relief fire dispatchers, committee or council members. Hired: Police Officer and Utility Maintenance Mechanic I Terminated: Motor Equipment Operator I (Grounds) Promoted: Utility Maintenance Mechanic I, Fire Chief’s Assistant, Electric Meter Technician Crew Leader Jobs Posted: Community Development Coordinator, Librarian I and Utility Maintenance Mechanic II Unfilled/Open Positions Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May By Department 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 Public Utilities 5 5 9 8 8 8 9 10 13 12 12 Public Services ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1 2 43 3 3 3 4 Police 1 1 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 56 5 All Other Departments 6 8 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 Totals 12 14 20 20 21 22 27 26 27 30 30 31 31 January 2010 Public Services was overstated by 1. April 2010 ‐ Police understated by 1. Six vacancies existed in April. Individuals on terminal leave (not included in Chart) : Library‐1; Public Utilities‐1 Vacant position filled with temp (included in Chart for Central Services) Public Utilities: One vacant position filled with transfer from Meter Reading Public Services: One vacant position created in Grounds. Police: Once vacant position has been filled. 6 City Manager’s Monthly Report, May 2010

HUMAN RESOURCES continued Bonus Program May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Total Category 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 Stop Program‐Sensibly 13 8 17 4 20 57 ‐ 13 20 ‐ 20 24 41 237 Taking Off Caught Doing it Right‐ Promotes employees ‐ ‐ 7 ‐ 1 2 2 2 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 21 productivity & creativity (submissions) Breathe Program‐ Rewards for ending ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ 2 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 5 tobacco use (submissions) Ducs in a Row‐Doing Useful Community ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Service (submissions) Workers Comp Injuries 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Ma y‐ Jun‐ Jul ‐ Aug‐ Sep‐ Oct‐ Nov‐ Dec‐ Ja n‐ Feb‐ Ma r‐ Apr‐ Ma y‐ 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 Public Utilities Public Services Police Others Public Utilities: 0 Public Services: 0 Police: 4 All Other Depts.: 0 Workers Comp Hours 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 May‐ Jun‐ Jul‐ Aug‐ Sep‐ Oct‐ Nov‐ Dec‐ Jan‐ Feb‐ Mar‐ Apr‐ May‐ 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 Public Utilit ies Public Services Police Others Public Utilities: 0 Public Services: 183 Police: 116 All Other Depts.: 0 City Manager’s Monthly Report, May 2010 7

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Service Requests Resolved Citizen Action Center 150 118 127 118 127 250 226 123 216 211 125 108 123 102 108 102 200 178 182 100 81 170 163 81 162 161 73 153 151 73 75 59 59 53 150 132 53 123 50 40 41 36 36 34 34 32 32 100 25 0 50 M ay- Jun- Jul- A ug- Sep- Oct- No v- Dec- Jan- Feb- M ar- A pr- M ay- May‐ Jun‐ Jul‐ Aug‐ Sep‐ Oct‐ Nov‐ Dec‐ Jan‐ Feb‐ Mar‐ Apr‐ May‐ 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 New Issues Customers w/ New Issues Supported PCs CityofDover.com Visitors 500 100,000 77,138 450 69,485 400 65,415 66,744 65,764 66,869 350 345 348 352 342 342 341 340 339 340 333 75,000 61,049 Pages Viewed 60,065 350 318 295 53,304 52,462 50,109 300 250 50,000 30,819 200 150 100 * 25,000 May‐ Jun‐ Jul‐ Aug‐ Sep‐ Oct‐ Nov‐ Dec‐ Jan‐ Feb‐ Mar‐ Apr‐ May‐ ‐May ‐Jun ‐Jul ‐Aug ‐Sep ‐Oct ‐Nov ‐Dec ‐Jan ‐Feb ‐Mar ‐Apr ‐May 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 *Moved the site from Linux to larger Windows resource. Unable to obtain stat for July 2009. Same Current Performance Indicators Last Month Month Month Last Year iSeries Availability 100% 100% 100% Server Availability 100% 100% 100% Programming Requests 15 23 11 Completed AS/400 Connections 41% 42% 35% (concurrent/authorized users) PCs Supported 340 339 295 Scheduled PCs Replaced ‐ ‐ ‐ Servers Supported 16 16 16 People Trained 21 2 27 Availability Statistics based on 7:00 AM until 5:00 PM Monday—Friday 8 City Manager’s Monthly Report, May 2010

PARKS, RECREATION & LIBRARY Library Adult Services Children Services 3500 1200 3000 1000 2500 800 2000 600 1500 400 1000 500 200 0 0 M ay- Jun- Jul- A ug- Sep- Oct- No v- Dec- Jan- Feb- M ar- A pr- M ay- M ay- Jun- Jul- A ug- Sep- Oct- No v- Dec- Jan- Feb- M ar- A pr- M ay- 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 Reference Reader's A dviso ry Outreach Electro nic A ssistance Reference Reader's A dviso ry Outreach Electro nic A ssistance Reference: 110 Reader’s Advisory: 18 Reference: 137 Reader’s Advisory: 54 Outreach: 139 Electronic Assistance: 75 Outreach: 148 Electronic Assistance: 41 CIRCULATION MAY 10 FYTD 10 MAY 09 FYTD 09 Dover Residents N/A 151,813 15,786 189,080 Kent County Residents* N/A 148,757 16,801 187,655 Non‐County Residents N/A 12,263 1,176 12,429 REGISTRATIONS Dover Residents N/A 2,285 160 2,829 Kent County Residents* N/A 1,385 99 1,524 Non‐County Residents N/A 159 13 158 OTHER Visiting Patrons 30,676 322,527 29,330 357,383 Meeting Room Usage 300 3,040 160 1,840 Photocopier Usage 1,240 16,275 1,342 13,805 Dial‐A‐Story 1,346 14,464 1,322 15,971 Computer Usage N/A 42,435 5,221 54,211 Holds (Total) N/A 47,430 5,291 57,700 N/A ‐ System at the Library that provides these numbers was not available. *Breakout of Kent County Residential Statistics Circulation Registrations Harrington: N/A Harrington: N/A Smyrna: N/A Smyrna: N/A Milford: N/A Milford: N/A Outside City Limits: N/A Outside City Limits: N/A N/A ‐ System at the Library that provides these numbers was not available. Total Registered Users: (Card Holders) City: 18,920 County: 17,798 New Castle & Sussex Counties: 1,661 Other Points of Interest: Interlibrary: 2,602 items loaned out Technical services: 1,822 items added 2,853 items borrowed 251 items deleted Volunteers: 288 hours of service completed City Manager’s Monthly Report, May 2010 9

Parks and Recreation Recreation Revenue Recreation Revenue Breakdown $30,000 $ 35,000 $25,000 $ 30,000 $20,000 $ 25,000 $15,000 $ 20,000 $10,000 $ 15,000 $5,000 $ 10,000 $ 5,000 $0 M ay- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- M ar- Apr- M ay- $0 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 M ay- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct - Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- M ar- Apr- M ay- 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 General Rental Payments Sport s Leagues Trips General: $4,503 Rental Payments: $854 Sports: $3,409 Leagues: $9,450 Trips: $597 RENTALS MAY 10 FYTD 10 MAY 09 FYTD 09 Baseball/Softball Field Rentals* 30 194 48 281 Dover Park Pavilions (2) ‐ 18 ‐ 24 Multipurpose/Field Hockey Field Rentals* ‐ 45 ‐ 28 Recreation Center – Dover Park 9 128 13 138 Silver Lake Pavilions (2) / Schutte (1) 15 51 3 41 Soccer Field Rentals* 3 19 4 27 Stage – Mobile Platform 5 23 3 20 *These numbers reflect groups that utilized our facilities during May. PROGRAM ATTENDANCE* MAY 10 FYTD 10 MAY 09 FYTD 09 Nothing to Report for May 2010 N/A *This number reflect activities that took place in May. (Not included on the JWP report.) Pitts Center ‐ Total Program Attendence FREE Open Gym Registration Cards* ‐ through 5/31/2010 Total Cards Issued: 3,440 12,043 15,000 City Residents: 1,574 ‐ (46%) Non‐City Residents: 1,866 ‐ (54%) ‐ Kent County: 1,476 ‐ (43%) 10,000 7,374 ‐ Sussex County: 130 ‐ (4%) # of people 6,082 5,753 ‐ New Castle County: 86 ‐ (2%) 3,975 ‐ Out of State: 174 ‐ (5%) 2,966 2,761 2,492 2,431 5,000 2,018 2,307 1,175 1,315 *The cards permit entrance to the facility during sched‐ uled Public Gym Periods at no charge. 0 M ay- Jun- Jul- A ug- Sep- Oct- No v- Dec- Jan- Feb- M ar- A pr- M ay- 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 10 City Manager’s Monthly Report, May 2010

PUBLIC SERVICES Administration Administrative review and inspection services continued on all residential and commercial developments. The following residential subdivisions are in various phases of construction: Oak Shadows Emerald Pointe Lexington Glenn Village of Westover (Phase VI) Farthing Woods Nottingham Meadows Stoney Creek (Phase II) Clearview Meadows Village of Cannon Mill Somerset Park Patriot Village Eden Hill (Residential) SANITATION Monthly Total Refuse (Tons) Sanitation Hours 1,118 1,078 1,032 1,041 1,029 1,008 1200 1,200 1,012 987 1,002 928 919 1000 869 1,000 833 815 764 800 669 800 636 622 531 569 564 522 600 442 470 600 410 426 419 376 319 318 400 233 400 167 200 200 34 45 12 2 ‐ 0 May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Bulk Collection Mechanized Hand Trash Container Electronic Goods Collection Collection Repair/Delivery Pickup 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 Bulk Automated May 10 May 09 MAY 10 FYTD10 MAY 09 FYTD 09 Tons Dry Waste Collected 194.95 1,667.61 222.64 1,636.58 Tipping Fee Savings Realized $3,801.53 $32,518.40 $4,341.46 $31,913.29 Trips to DSWA Sandtown Landfill 242 2,654 269 2,890 Total Tonnage to DSWA 1,388.65 14,494.70 1,527.56 14,938.87 90‐Gallon Containers Delivered 20 299 25 385 300‐Gallon Containers Delivered 7 41 2 76 Total Man Hours‐containers Delivered 34 403 45 660 CURBSIDE RECYCLING STATS TOTAL # OF HOUSEHOLDS WEIGHT/LBS. % PICKED UP HOUSEHOLDS PICKED UP APRIL 2010* 10,147 7,252 168,920 71% *Numbers are reported one month behind City Manager’s Monthly Report, May 2010 11

STREETS MAY 10 FYTD10 MAY 09 FYTD 09 Signed Installed 32 232 8 285 Signs Repaired 2 145 20 195 Curbs Painted Yellow (Feet) 2,303 25,278 4,387 31,239 New Post Installed 4 139 5 51 Storm Catch Basins Cleaned ‐ 1,296 ‐ 1,596 Storm Catch Basin Cleaning (Hrs.) ‐ 473 ‐ 278 Hot Mix Patching (Tons) 2 655 ‐ 283 Cold Mix Patching Hrs.) 54 430 88 439 Concrete Work (Hrs) 234 621 48 446 Concrete Patching (Cubic Yards) 21 33 2 33 Street and Alley Maintenance (Hrs.) 130 1,528 151 1,622 Street Sweeping (Miles) 1,478 10,136 1,089 11,839 Street Sweeping (Cubic Yards) 374 2,405 180 2,064 GROUNDS Arborist Crew MAY 10 MAY 09 Trees Trimmed 36 35 Trees Removed 22 11 Helped the mowing crews cutting right‐of‐ways and tree and underbrush removal around spillway at Silver Lake. Beautification Crew – Dug up tulips, cleaned up beds and planted annuals. – Continued work in the greenhouse, including care of seedlings, pinching, watering and fertilizing Grounds Maintenance/Mowing Crews – Mowed all 280 acres including parks, around City buildings, ditches and right‐of‐ways. – Transported the Dover Days booth and buildings to the Warehouse after the event. Special Projects Crew – Worked with the beautification crew, digging up tulips, tilling beds and planting annuals. – Assisted with tree work at the Silver Lake spillway. 12 City Manager’s Monthly Report, May 2010

ECONOMIC DEVELOPEMENT UNEMPLOYMENT RATES DEC 09 JAN 10 FEB 10 MAR APR MAY City of Dover 8.8% 9.0% 10.2% 9.6% 9.6% PENDING National & State averages (US‐9.9% & State‐9.0%) Source: State of Delaware Department of Labor Number of contacts made with small businesses and with out‐of‐town companies interested in locating to Dover. TYPE YTD Contacts Made Small Businesses 10 Out‐of‐town Companies 7 Hosted a meeting for city officials and Wesley College, with representatives from GSA, who provided an update on the status of the Frear Building and the status of the process for having it declared excess inventory. Economic Development Director presented at the regional American Planning Association meeting on Economic Development in Dover and the Downtown Dover Partnership. Staff attended the meeting of the Greater Dover Committee’s Economic Development Committee in support of the Library’s application for funding . DOWNTOWN DOVER PARTNERSHIP The Downtown Dover Partnership sponsored the May Basket promotion as part of the Dover Days Weekend. Participat‐ ing merchants gave flowers to their customers who could then take them to the Friends of Old Dover and make a tradi‐ tional May Basket. Merchants also held a sidewalk sale and the evening featured the 1st Annual Chili Cook‐off Contest and a Pub Crawl sponsored by the bars and restaurants. The 2nd Annual Spring Splendor Fashion Show was held on May 16 at the Duncan Center and was attended by more than 100 guests. More than 30 downtown businesses participated by providing fashions, hair and make‐up services, refreshments, door prizes and other giveaways. A group of students from Lake Forest High School conducted a survey of downtown businesses as a class project. The merchants received high marks from the students for their willingness to answer questions and discuss their reasons for locating within the downtown district . DDP staff participated in the kick‐off for the August Community Clean‐up Day held at Wesley College. Staff attended the Main Street Training held at Wesley College on May 18 ‐ 19, 2010. Staff met with Dover/Kent MPO to discuss holding a joint meeting in the fall of 2010 for development activities around the proposed Transit Center. City Manager’s Monthly Report, May 2010 13

LIFE SAFETY Inspections MAY 10 FYTD10 Fire and Safety Inspections 41 415 Fire Code Inspections 27 729 Certificate of Occupancy 2 75 Non‐Inspection Hours Office 81 1,087 Meetings 24 403 Plan Review 20 572 Training 19 502 Fire Education ‐ 42 Fire Investigations 38 337 Accidental $‐ $385,300 Incendiary $‐ $142,800 Undetermined $‐ $53,000 PERMITTING AND LICENSING Permits Issued MAY 10 FYTD10 MAY 09 FYTD 09 Building Addition/Renovation Permits 42 436 98 536 Building Permits 8 105 11 99 Demolition Permits 2 38 0 34 Fence Permits 11 87 13 107 Fire Prevention Permits 7 82 11 101 Mechanical Permits 23 354 68 488 Plumbing Permits 41 719 55 616 Sign Permits 27 252 29 220 Swimming Pool Permits 2 5 3 15 Business Licenses 189 1,462 185 1,891 Merchant Licenses 9 299 6 353 Contractor Licenses 29 822 27 954 Lodging House Licenses 0 45 1 49 Mobile Homes 15 745 14 397 Public Occupancy 8 348 6 313 Rental Dwelling 155 2,829 38 2,665 BUILDING INSPECTIONS Permits Issued MAY 10 FYTD10 MAY 09 FYTD 09 Building 311 4,055 488 3,858 Plumbing/Mechanical 632 3,221 533 2,853 Certificate of Occupancy 24 222 9 266 14 City Manager’s Monthly Report, May 2010

PUBLIC UTILITIES ELECTRIC System Peak Total System Load 200.0 100,000 78,500 90,000 161.1 71,603 147.2 66,117 80,000 63,350 63,373 133.8 59,833 60,764 127.6 128.1 58,013 56,420 56,857 57,103 150.0 70,000 54,029 52,792 110.2 60,000 103.7 107.0 104.0 107.7 99.1 98.2 98.1 50,000 100.0 40,000 30,000 20,000 50.0 10,000 May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 Outages Customers of Gained/Lost 20 25,000 60 52 20,000 48 15 50 Customers 15,000 40 Outages 10 32 10,000 30 23 5 17 17 5,000 20 15 15 11 13 0 0 10 7 5 3 May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 0 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Outages Customers 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 Outages: 7 Customers: 610 ELECTRIC MONTHLY OUTAGE REPORT The annual outage goal will be less than 295 minutes per customer, which is a Delaware Standard. This will be measured by calculating the System Average Interruption Duration Index. FY 10 YTD FY 09 FY 08 145.09 172.67 84.75 Controllable Outage – Annual goal is Average Response Time – Goal is less than less than 40 30 minutes Month Year‐to‐date Month Year‐to‐date 3 24 46 Minutes 36.19 Minutes City Manager’s Monthly Report, May 2010 15

ELECTRIC ENGINEERING DESIGN Major Program Updates MAY 10 MAY 09 DIFF FY10 YTD FY09 Extensions Design Completed Within 30 days of ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 4 complete Submission New Underground New Underground Installation % Completed % Completed Installation  Kent General Hospital Ongoing  Farthing Woods Ongoing  Crossgates Development Ongoing  Buchanan Acres Ongoing  Mid City Substation Circuits Ongoing PROGRAM UPDATES MAY 10 MAY 09 FY10 YTD Tree Trimming 140 229 1843 Number of Oil Releases ‐ 3 3 Lost Time Accidents – All Electric Utility Divisions ‐ ‐ ‐ New Services 54 16 N/A Major Goals Completed in the Past Two Months  Mid City Substation Was Completed and Energized. 16 City Manager’s Monthly Report, May 2010

Water Production/Billed Consumption/Flow to Kent County 300,000,000 250,000,000 200,000,000 150,000,000 100,000,000 50,000,000 0 May 09 Jun 09 Jul 09 Aug 09 Sep 09 Oct 09 Nov 09 Dec 09 Jan 10 Feb 10 Mar 10 Apr 10 May 10 Total Water Prod. Billed Consumpt. Total Flow to County City Readings ENGINEERING SUMMARY Major Program Updates MAY 10 MAY 09 DIFF FY10 TD FY09 TD State and Federal Violations 0 violations 0 violations ‐ ‐ ‐ Water Quality Complaints 1 14 13 351 396 Plan Review Completed Within 30 days of 3 plans 12 plans 9 96% 95% Submission 67% 100% plans Field Inspection Response within 48 hours of 100% 100% ‐ 100% 100% Request Major Goals Completed in the Past Two Months  Completed spring water flushing project. OPERATIONS SUMMARY TASK MAY 10 MAY 09 CURRENT FY Water Production – Daily Average 4,619,613 4,380,903 4,076,997 Average Field Response Time (goal is < 30 minutes) 23 17 18.5 Water Mains Repaired ‐ 4 7 Water Service Lines Repaired 1 3 22 Wastewater Mains Repaired ‐ ‐ 16 Wastewater Service Lines Repaired 1 1 21 Sewer Lines Flushed – Linear Feet 81,014 108,182 679,592 Percentage of Flow Sent to Kent County vs. Gallons Billed 144% 111% 139% (inflow/Infiltration monitoring) Total Water Meters in City Distribution System 13,816 13,651 139 Lost Time Accidents – All Water/Wastewater Divisions 1 1 1 City Manager’s Monthly Report, May 2010 17

CITY PLANNER’S MONTHLY REPORT Public Services Group P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Phone: (302) 736-7010 Fax (302) 736-4217 May 2010 PERSONNEL The DE/MD Chapters American Planning Association Regional Planning Conference held at the Dover Downs Rollins Conference Center from May 5th through May 7th. City Planning Staff served on the Conference Planning Committee and all office staff (5) participated in the set-up and daily logistics (registration, IT, etc.) of running the conference. In addition to attending sessions for continuing education credits for the Certification Maintenance program of AICP (American Institute of Certified Planners), staff also served as presenters at the conference. Ann Marie Townshend (Planning Director) and Janelle Cornwell (Planner II) lead the “Dover Walking Tour,” highlighting development activities in the Historic District and Downtown Dover including a presentation on the new library project by Zach Carter and Margie Cyr. Dawn Melson-Williams (Principal Planner) and Gregg Moore of the Becker Morgan Group presented “Dover Downs Master Plan Workshop” highlighting the coordinated efforts of the City, Dover Downs Hotel & Casino, Dover International Speedway, and design professionals on the development and Master Planning of the facility. Ann Marie Townshend and Michael Albert (Planner II) with staff from the City of Wilmington presented a session on “Comprehensive Rezoning.” In addition other City staff from the GIS Section, Office of the Fire Marshal, and Electric Department joined Planning Staff to present a session on the Dover GIS system. Speakers in other conference sessions included Bill Neaton (Economic Development Director) and Tony DePrima (City Manager). City Hall also served as a tour stop on the Dover Bike Tour workshop. During the May 2010 NASCAR Race, staff activities involved manning the Command Post, data gathering with GIS technology, intake of business licenses, license and code compliance checks, and incident response by Fire Marshals in addition to the regular daily operations of the Department of Planning. The Staff activities specifically related to the NASCAR event covered the period of Wednesday, May 12th through Sunday, May 16th and involved 17 City Staff, 1 State Fire Marshal and 5 Kent County Dispatchers. EDEN HILL FARM TND For the Residential District of Eden Hill Farm Traditional Neighborhood Design, permits were issued for another set of six townhouse units (Livingston style) bringing the total unit count to thirty-five (35) residential units for the development. Certificate of Occupancy re-inspections were completed for a series of six townhouses on South Greenberry Lane with Final Certificates expected to be issued. In May, there was no specific activity associated with the Professional Office, Medical & Financial District. The Revised Implementation Plan (March 2009) for Neighborhood Commercial District remains in the Check Print review process working towards Final Plan approval; no plan resubmissions for review were received in May. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION In May, Planning Staff continued to focus efforts on other short term implementation items identified in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan as amended. Staff continues to research and develop a draft ordinance as part of the process to update the Environmental Protections within the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance text amendment to create the Recreational and Open Space Zone (ROS) was reviewed by the Planning Commission and forwarded to City Council with a recommendation of approval. Planning Staff is reviewing the areas on the Land Development Plan Map designated as Open Space to develop a list of properties to be rezoned to ROS;

this is the 2010 Comprehensive Rezoning project. Other tasks include focusing on the development of other Zoning Ordinance text amendments including the update on the Board of Adjustment provisions, continued work on the Historic District Design Guidelines, and assisting with the NPDES Permit. PERMITTING AND LICENSING REVIEW The Planning Staff is part of the Building Permit review process. Our activities involving reviewing specific types of permit applications for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and for compliance with any conditions of approval from the Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment, or Historic District Commission. Permits Reviewed January- February- March- Apr-10 May-10 # (Issued) 10 10 10 Reviewed (Issued) YTD Building 16 15 25 30 22 108 Additions/Renovations/ Shed Permits Building Permits 12 10 9 5 8 44 Demolition Permits 3 5 2 2 2 14 Fence Permits 4 0 8 16 11 39 Sign Permits 12 10 12 5 11 50 Temporary Sign Permits 7 3 9 4 8 31 Swimming Pool Permits 0 0 0 2 2 4 Certificate of Occupancy 6 6 9 11 24 56 Total # Permits 60 49 74 75 88 346 Reviewed (Issued) Planning Staff also reviews new applications for Business Licenses, Rental Dwelling Permits, and Construction Trailer Placement Permits. CODE ENFORCEMENT Case Type # cases # cases % staff % staff current month YTD initiated initiated YTD current month No valid rental permit 20 65 100% 97% No valid building permit 3 7 100% 100% Tall grass and weeds 93 197 43% 49% Unregistered vehicle 1 29 100% 55% Abandoned vehicle 10 51 20% 41% Annual Housing 12 234 83% 96% Inspection CO Inspection – 1 1 100% 100% Planning Property Maintenance – 24 187 17% 60% Exterior Electric Termination 16 81 6% 9% Dover Code of 18 334 39% 55% Ordinances

Zoning 6 60 33% 75% Basketball goal 2 11 50% 45% Total Cases 206 1257 Total # of Inspections 344 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FISCAL YEAR 2008 Dover Interfaith Ministry to the Homeless Renovations are 100% complete for the Homeless Shelter. All funding has been expended. FISCAL YEAR 2009 Homeowner Rehabilitation Program Three (3) homes have been completed (49 S. Kirkwood Street, 420 Court Street, 720 Carol Street) Bids will go out early July for four (4) owner occupied homes to be rehabilitated. Homeownership Assistance Program (Down Payment Assistance) Three (3) families have purchased homes and all funding for this project has been expended. Elizabeth W. Murphey School The installation of the underground steam pipes is a 100% complete in restoring the buildings’ heating source and all funding has been expended. RC & D Emergency Home Repairs Emergency home repairs have been completed on eleven (11) homes eliminating health and safety hazards. All funding for this project has been expended. Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) The City was awarded $1,426,740 for the acquisition and rehab of foreclosed properties. A total of $1,168,196 has been expended on the acquisition of 8 properties and renovations for 2 properties. The remaining balance of $258,544 will be utilized for renovations. One property has been sold, 1 is under contract, and 4 are being renovated. MEETING REPORTS Board of Adjustment: The Board of Adjustment met on May 19, 2010 and took the following actions. The next Board of Adjustment meeting is scheduled for June 16, 2010. 1. Applicant #V-10-05 - 1137, 1145, and 1169 S. State Street: YMCA of Dover, Inc. – Moved to approve according to Staff recommendations with the approval including variance request #1 to bring that area up to Code with the addition of ninety-seven (97) parking spaces and finding that the applicant has demonstrated “exceptional practical difficulty” and that the existing building and the proposed location of the building additions do not allow for parking to be located behind the building. Moving the proposed building additions to a different location would not solve the issue of having the required parking located between the building and the street. Historic District Commission: The Historic District Commission met on May 20, 2010 and took the actions listed below. The next regularly scheduled meeting for the Historic District Commission is June 10, 2010. Discussion is ongoing regarding updating the Historic District Guidelines.

1. HI-10-04 Wesley United Methodist Church: Elevator and Canopy Addition: Architectural Review Certification - Recommended approval of the Architectural Review Certification and adopt the Staff recommendations and to include a four (4) foot fence as referenced in the Staff comments. Planning Commission The Planning Commission met on May 17, 2010 and took the actions summarized listed below. The next scheduled Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for June 21, 2010. 1. S-08-36 Dover VW Audi Subaru: Auto Detailing and Car Wash Services Building - Moved to grant the sidewalk waiver to allow for a continuous striped pedestrian pathway across the frontage of Dover Volkswagon that would include striping, a pedestrian path sign at each end of the property, and parking bumpers. This is a revision from the originally approved Site Plan. 2. S-10-10 Mitten Industrial Park at Lafferty Lane – Moved to conditionally approve the Site Development Master Plan and to approve a waiver to eliminate curbing for stormwater management as designated on the plan and to allow for the phasing of sidewalk construction with the condition that the sidewalk will be completed with Phase 2 of construction. Also approval of elimination of the fence component of the opaque barrier recognizing that the existing trees are sufficient and to disallow the waiver for bicycle parking in consideration that they will be eliminating parking spaces and can provide bicycle parking for small vehicle parking. 3. S-10-11 Modern Maturity Center at 1121 Forrest Avenue: Building Addition – Moved to conditionally approve the new building (Site Plan) and to address the following items specifically: 1) Bicycle Parking: Approved a reduction in bicycle parking with Planning Staff to determine the number of bicycle parking spaces to be provided. 2) Designated Pathway through the Parking Lot: Approval to allow elimination of the designated pedestrian path citing parking needs and typical walking patterns. 3) Cross Access Easement (Interconnectivity): Upheld the requirement for site interconnectivity with the adjacent property to the east for pedestrian and vehicular access and designated the specific location for this connecting drive with two way vehicular traffic and a pedestrian sidewalk. 4) Tree Planting Requirement: Finding that the site was originally developed under other requirements, allowed a count of the woodland area trees to count towards satisfying tree planting requirements in accordance with a conservation agreement for the woodland. 5) Parking: set the maximum parking at 505 parking spaces for the site. 4. MI-10-10 Proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance: Recreational and Open Space Zone – Moved to recommend approval and forward to City Council for action the ordinance to create the ROS zone. Submitted by: Ann Marie Townshend, AICP Planning & Community Development Director

FIRST READING CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2010-22 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN 2 COUNCIL MET: 3 That Chapter 18 - Animals - Section 18-1 - Definitions, be amended by inserting the text indicated 4 in bold, blue, italics and deleting the text indicated in red strikeout as follows: 5 Sec. 18-1. Definitions. 6 The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed 7 to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: 8 Animal includes every living dumb creature, and birds and fowl. 9 Animal abandonment includes completely forsaking or deserting an animal originally under 10 one's custody, without making reasonable arrangements for custody of that animal to be assumed by 11 another person. 12 Animal control officer means a person employed by the city as an enforcement officer, 13 including sworn police officers. 14 Animal shelter and veterinary facility mean any premises so designated by the city for the 15 purpose of impounding and caring for strays, animals found running at-large, or animals in violation 16 of this chapter. 17 Apiary means the assembly of one or more colonies of bees at a single location. 18 At-large means an animal off the premises of the owner and not under the control of a 19 human being either by leash, cord, chain or otherwise. 20 Beekeeper means a person who owns or has charge of one or more colonies of bees. 21 Beekeeping equipment means anything used in the operation of an apiary, such as 22 hive bodies, supers, frames, top and bottom boards and extractors. 23 Colony or hive means an aggregate of bees consisting principally of workers, but having, 24 when perfect, one queen and at times many drones, including brood, combs, honey and the 25 receptacle inhabited of bees. 26 Cruel includes every act or omission to act whereby unnecessary or unjustifiable physical 27 pain or suffering is caused or permitted. 28 Custody includes the responsibility for the welfare of an animal subject to one's care and 29 control, whether he owns it or not.

Proposed Ordinance #2010-22 - Chapter 18 - Animals Page 2 30 Domesticated animal means any animal that is accustomed to living in or about the 31 habitation of man, including, but not limited to, cats, dogs, cows, horses, swine and fowl. 32 Food and drink includes providing each animal with daily food and water of sufficient 33 quality and quantity to prevent unnecessary or unjustifiable physical pain or suffering by the animal. 34 Habitable structure means any building or structure used, or intended for use, on a day-to- 35 day basis by people for residential properties, or for purposes of conducting a commercial or 36 industrial business, or for purposes of a similar nature. 37 Honey bee means all life stages of the common domestic honey bee, Apis mellifera 38 species. 39 Nucleus colony means a small colony created from larger colonies 40 Owner means any person, partnership, association, or corporation owning, keeping or 41 harboring a dog or other animal. Any animal shall be deemed to be harbored if it is fed or sheltered 42 for three or more consecutive days. 43 Public nuisance animal means any domestic animal or group of domestic animals which: 44 (1) At-large. Is repeatedly found at-large; 45 (2) Property damage. Damages the property of anyone other than its owner; 46 (3) Interference with persons, vehicles. Molests passersby or chases passing vehicles or 47 bicycles; 48 (4) Noise. Barks, whines or howls in an excessive, continuous or untimely fashion; 49 (5) Odor. Creates an odor which is noxious or offensive, and/or which constitutes a 50 substantial annoyance, convenience or injury to the public; or 51 (6) General welfare. Interferes with the health, comfort, safety or enjoyment of property; 52 offends the sense of decency of the public as a result of unsanitary conditions in the area 53 where such animals are kept; and/or creates a danger to the public health as determined by 54 the state division of public health. 55 Restraint means when a dog or other animal is controlled by a leash, cord, chain, or under 56 the control of an owner or other responsible person and obedient to that person's commands, or 57 within a vehicle being driven or parked on the street, or within the property limits of its owner or 58 keeper. 59 Shelter includes providing each animal with adequate shelter from the weather elements as 60 required to prevent unnecessary or unjustifiable physical pain or suffering by the animal.

Proposed Ordinance #2010-22 - Chapter 18 - Animals Page 3 61 Stray means a domesticated animal for which ownership is not established or for which the 62 owner disclaims future responsibility. 63 Super means an additional story on top of a hive. 64 Undeveloped parcel means any land that is not improved or in the process of being 65 improved with habitable structures. 66 Vicious dog or animal means any dog or animal which constitutes a physical threat to a 67 human being or other animal by virtue of attacks of such number and/or severity as to be likely to 68 cause property damage or physical injury. Evidence of a prior instance of an animal biting a human 69 being, without provocation, shall be prima facie evidence that the dog or animal is vicious. This term 70 is further defined in section 18-9(a). 71 Wild animal means any live monkey (nonhuman primate), raccoon, skunk, fox, poisonous 72 snake, boa, python, leopard, panther, tiger, lion, lynx or any other warm-blooded animal which can 73 normally be found in the wild state. 74 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED That Chapter 18 - Animals - Section 18-16 - Keeping Bees, be 75 amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue, italics and deleting the text indicated in red 76 strikeout as follows: 77 Sec. 18-16. Keeping bees. 78 (a) Notwithstanding compliance with the various requirements of this article, it shall be 79 unlawful for any beekeeper to keep any colony or colonies in such a manner or of such 80 disposition as to cause any unhealthy condition, interfere with the normal use and 81 enjoyment of human or animal life of others or interfere with the normal use and 82 enjoyment of any public property or property of others. 83 (a b) Location of beehives from structures and businesses. Beehives for the housing of bee 84 colonies shall not be located closer than 150 feet from residential structures, hospitals, public 85 eateries, churches, offices or schools. 86 (b c) Maintenance permitted at educational and farm facilities; exemption. Universities, 87 colleges, museums and farms of two acres or more may maintain hives on their properties 88 in a safe manner, provided that the hives meet a 40-foot setback requirement from buildings 89 on adjacent properties. Universities, colleges, museum facilities and farms of two acres or 90 more are exempt from the 150-foot setback requirement for buildings that are located on 91 their properties. 92 (c d) Declared nuisance; removal. Any beehive that is declared a nuisance by a majority vote 93 of the city council may be required to be removed or relocated. 94 (e) Hive Registration. All honey bee colonies shall be registered with the State of 95 Delaware Department of Agriculture.

Proposed Ordinance #2010-22 - Chapter 18 - Animals Page 4 96 (f) Hive Type. All honey bee colonies shall be kept in removable frames, which shall 97 be kept in sound and usable condition. 98 (g) Fencing of flyways. In each instance in which any colony is situated within 25 feet 99 of a public or private property line of the parcel upon which the apiary is situated, as 100 measured from the nearest point on the hive to the property line, the beekeeper shall 101 establish and maintain a flyway barrier at least six (6) feet in height consisting of an 102 opaque wall, fence, dense vegetation or combination thereof that is parallel to the property 103 line and extends 10 feet beyond the colony in each direction so that all bees are forced to 104 fly at an elevation of at least 6 feet above ground level over the property lines in the 105 vicinity of the apiary. It is a defense against prosecution under this section that the 106 property adjoining the apiary tract in the vicinity of the apiary is undeveloped property for 107 a distance of at least 25 feet from the property line of the apiary tract, unless prohibited 108 by the zoning ordinance. 109 (h) Water. Each beekeeper shall ensure that a convenient source of water is available 110 to the bees at all times during the year so that the bees will not congregate at swimming 111 pools, bibcocks, pet watering bowls, bird baths or other water sources where they may 112 cause human, bird or domestic pet contact. 113 (i) General Maintenance. Each beekeeper shall ensure that no bee comb or other 114 materials that might encourage robbing are left upon the grounds of the apiary site. Upon 115 their removal from the hive, all such materials shall promptly be disposed of in a sealed 116 container or placed within a building or other bee-proof enclosure. 117 (j) Queens. In any instances in which a colony exhibits unusual aggressive 118 characteristics by stinging or attempting to sting without due provocation or exhibits an 119 unusual disposition toward swarming, it shall be the duty of the beekeeper to promptly 120 re-queen the colony with another queen. Queens shall be selected from stock bred for 121 gentleness and non-swarming characteristics. 122 (k) Colony Densities. For every two (2) colonies authorized under this section, there 123 may be maintained upon the same tract one nucleus colony in a hive structure with no 124 supers attached, as required from time to tome for management of swarms. Each such 125 nucleus colony shall be disposed of or combined with an authorized colony within 30 days 126 after the date acquired. It shall be unlawful to keep more than the following number of 127 colonies on any parcel within the city, based upon size or configuration of the parcel on 128 which the apiary is situated: 129 (1) One-quarter acre or less - two (2) colonies 130 (2) More than one-quarter acre but less than one-half acre - 4 colonies 131 (3) More than one-half acre but less than one acre - 6 colonies 132 (4) One acre or larger - 8 colonies

Proposed Ordinance #2010-22 - Chapter 18 - Animals Page 5 133 (5) Regardless of parcel size, where all hives are situated at least 200 feet in 134 any direction from all property lines of the tract on which the apiary is situated, 135 there shall be a limit of ten (10) colonies. 136 (6) Regardless of parcel size, so long as all property other than the tract upon 137 which the hives are situated, that is within a radius of at least 200 feet from any 138 hive, remains undeveloped parcels there shall be a limit of ten (10) colonies. 139 (l) Inspection. The Department of Inspections shall have the right to inspect any 140 apiary. 141 (m) Violations; penalties. Any person convicted of violating the provisions of this section 142 shall be punished as provided for in Appendix F - Fees and Fines. 143 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED That Appendix F - Fees and Fines, Chapter 18 - Animals - Section 144 18-16 - Keeping Bees, be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue, italics, as follows: 145 Sec. 18-16 Keeping bees Subsec. (m) Violations; penalties, for each violation Not less than $25.00 or more than $100.00 146 ADOPTED: * 147 Actions History 148 July 12, 2010 - Introduction/First Reading at Council 149 June 30, 2010 - Considered by Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee 150 April 28, 2010 - Considered by Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee 151 January 27, 2010 - Considered by Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee 152 S:\ORDINANCES\2010\Draft Ordinances\Ordinance 2010-22 - Chpt 18 - Animals (Related to Beekeeping) 1ST RDG.wpd