Dokiman ki tache

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA AUGUST 9, 2016 - 6:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 15 LOOCKERMAN PLAZA DOVER, DELAWARE PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE WELCOMED ON ANY ITEM AND WILL BE PERMITTED AT APPROPRIATE TIMES. WHEN POSSIBLE, PLEASE NOTIFY THE CITY CLERK (736-7008 OR E-MAIL AT CITYCLERK@DOVER.DE.US) SHOULD YOU WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED. PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS 1. REVIEW OF ACTIVE RECREATION AREA PLAN - PLANNED NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN: SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING OPTION - THE GRANDE - 90 SAULSBURY ROAD (CLUBHOUSE AND POOL) (PLANNING REFERENCES C-15-04 AND C-16-04) (STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ACTIVE RECREATION AREA PLAN WITH THE COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS PROVIDED) 2. PROPOSED LAND SWAP - CAPITOL BAPTIST CHURCH/MAYFAIR PARK (STAFF RECOMMENDS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND OTHER CITY STAFF TO NEGOTIATE A PROPOSED LAND SWAP WHICH IS MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE CITY OF DOVER. THIS AUTHORIZATION WILL INCLUDE ANY NECESSARY RESEARCH AND LEGAL EXPENSES NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A POTENTIAL LAND SWAP THAT INVOLVES THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE KNOWN AS MAYFAIR PARK.) 3. PROPOSED MURAL - KIRKWOOD/DIVISION STREET PARK (STAFF RECOMMENDS ACCEPTING THE PROPOSAL TO ALLOW THE RESTORING CENTRAL DOVER RESIDENT ENGAGEMENT WORK GROUP TO INSTALL A WOOD PANEL FENCE AS PROPOSED AND PAINT A MURAL) 4. UPDATE - RESIDENTIAL APPEAL PROCESS AND NON-COMPLIANT/NON-CONFORMING USES/REVIEW OF PHYSICAL DATA (53% COMPLETED) (STAFF RECOMMENDS ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROPOSED PHASING OF DISCONTINUING NONCONFORMING USES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES) 5. REVIEW OF NEW CASTLE COUNTY DISORDERLY PREMISES ORDINANCE 6. DISCUSSION OF SURVEY RESULTS REGARDING PROGRAMS, ACTIVITIES, AND NEW BUILDING AT DOVER PARK

AUGUST 9, 2016 COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Page 2 PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE (CONTINUED) 7. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM QUARTERLY UPDATE (APRIL, MAY, AND JUNE) (COMMITTEE ACTION NOT REQUIRED) 8. ADJOURNMENT OF PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING UTILITY COMMITTEE (MEETING WILL CONVENE UPON ADJOURNMENT OF THE PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING) AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS 1. REQUEST FOR STREET ABANDONMENT (IMPROVED) - TOPAZ CIRCLE STUB STREET - COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION OF APRIL 26, 2016 (THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE REQUEST FOR ABANDONMENT DUE TO EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS TO THE EMERALD POINTE SUBDIVISION. IF THE UTILITY COMMITTEE AND/OR CITY COUNCIL IS IN FAVOR OF PROCEEDING WITH THE PROPOSED ABANDONMENT, THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS ARE RECOMMENDED: 1) THE ABANDONMENT BE CONDITIONAL UPON UTILITY EASEMENTS THAT WOULD BE RECORDED WITH THE DEED MODIFICATIONS; AND 2) THAT CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PROPOSED ABANDONMENT FOR SEPTEMBER 12, 2016.) 2. ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT FEDERAL REGULATORY AUDIT REPORT (INFORMATIONAL ONLY) (COMMITTEE ACTION NOT REQUIRED) 3. QUARTERLY REVIEW OF UTILITY RELATED CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN (CIP) (ELECTRIC AND WATER/WASTEWATER) (APRIL, MAY, AND JUNE) (PRE-AUDIT) (COMMITTEE ACTION NOT REQUIRED) 4. ADJOURNMENT OF UTILITY COMMITTEE MEETING LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE (MEETING WILL CONVENE UPON ADJOURNMENT OF THE UTILITY COMMITTEE MEETING) AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS 1. CONSULTING SERVICES FOR ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING (ERP) TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES (STAFF RECOMMENDS AUTHORIZING THE CONTROLLER/TREASURER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH BARRY DUNN MCNEIL & PARKER, LLC (BARRY DUNN) FOR PHASE I OF AN ERP NEEDS ASSESSMENT, SOFTWARE RFP DEVELOPMENT, VENDOR SELECTION AND CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS)

AUGUST 9, 2016 COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Page 3 LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE (CONTINUED) 2. DISPOSAL OF EXCESS PROPERTY A. SILVER LAKE DRIVE (EAST LAKE GARDENS) (STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING: 1) DETERMINE THAT THE PROPERTY IS EXCESS PROPERTY; AND 2) AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO CONVEY THE EXCESS PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXCEPTION C OF THE PROCEDURE FOR SALE AND DISPOSITION OF REAL PROPERTY) B. 106 AND 110 SOUTH NEW STREET - OFFER FROM NCALL RESEARCH, INC. (STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING: 1) DETERMINE THAT THE PROPERTY IS EXCESS PROPERTY; AND 2) AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO COMPLETE A FINAL AGREEMENT OF SALE TO NCALL RESEARCH, INC. FOR $10,000 PER PROPERTY) 3. ADJOURNMENT OF LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING ADJOURNMENT OF COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING /TM S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\COMMITTEE-AGENDAS\2016\08-09-2016 CCW.WPD THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. PURSUANT TO 29 DEL. C. §10004(E )(2), THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, WHICH ARISE AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING.

City of Dover DATA SHEET FOR RECREATION PLAN REVIEW PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF August 9, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting of August 15, 2016 Plan Title: 90 Saulsbury Road Clubhouse and Pool associated with The Grande: Planned Neighborhood Design – Senior Citizen Housing Option Plan Type: Conditional Use Site Plan for Planned Neighborhood Design Active Recreation Area Plan Associated Plan Title: The Grande, Building 4 (C-15-04) Planned Neighborhood Design – Senior Citizen Housing Option Property Location: West side of Saulsbury Road near Carver Road Property Address: 90 Saulsbury Road Tax Parcel Number: ED-05-076.07-01-28.00-000 Owner: 90 Saulsbury Associates, LLC Site Area: 1.48 Acres +/- Proposed Use: Clubhouse and Pool to be associated with a Planned Neighborhood Design Senior Citizen Housing Option project of 4 Apartment Buildings (Total 192 units) Zoning: C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) Project Summary and Background: The project for development of 90 Saulsbury Road to construct a Clubhouse and Pool is associated with the project for The Grande Planned Neighborhood Design – Senior Citizen Housing Option (PND-SCHO). It also will be reviewed as a Conditional Use Site Plan in order to establish additional Active Recreation Area amenities to serve The Grande. The site of The Grande is located northwest of the intersection of Saulsbury Road and Forrest Avenue and adjacent to the west of the subject site at 90 Saulsbury Road. Currently, there are three 4-story buildings existing on The Grande, each with 48 apartment units, managed as a 55+ community. In December 2015, a Conditional Use Site Plan Application C-15-04 was approved by the Planning Commission to add The Grande Building 4 at the site and to establish the apartment complex as a Planned Neighborhood Design development of Senior Citizen Housing. With the pending addition of a four story 62,240 SF apartment building of 48 units (Building 4), The Grande complex will consist of a total of 192 apartment units of Senior Housing. The P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

90 Saulsbury Road Clubhouse and Pool associated with The Grande: Planned Neighborhood Design - Senior Citizen Housing Option Summary Report of Additional Active Recreation Plan Component Parks, Recreation & Community Enhancement Committee Meeting on August 9, 2016 Page 2 of 5 project for Building 4 has achieved Final Plan approval subject to satisfying the Active Recreation requirement which is currently being pursued as a cash-in-lieu of recreation area construction.1 The use of the property at 90 Saulsbury Road for a Clubhouse & Pool is not an allowable use in the C-2A zone; however, the uses may be considered through a Conditional Use process as specifically associated with a Planned Neighborhood Design – Senior Citizen Housing Option. As this Clubhouse & Pool proposal was not part of the original proposal for The Grande PND- SCHO, it is required to complete the application and review process for a PND-SCHO. This review began on June 13, 2016 when City Council found that the General Sketch Plan for 90 Saulsbury Road warranted further review by the Planning Commission (MI-16-09). This Review of an Active Recreation Area Plan is part of the next review step involving the project review by the Planning Commission. Active Recreation Area Plan Summary: The applicant has prepared a plan for the development of 90 Saulsbury Road with a Clubhouse & Pool and other site improvements to serve as additional recreation amenities for The Grande: PND-SCHO. PND- SCHO developments are to provide recreation amenities in accordance with the design specifications described in Article 3 § 24.61 Common Open Space and Article 5, Section 10 Open space, recreation, and other public facilities of the Zoning Ordinance. The following excerpt from Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §24.61(b) describes the common open space design requirements for this type of PND project: Article 3 §24.61 (b) Senior citizen housing option. Useable open space shall be provided in accordance with the area requirements set forth in article 5, section 10.16 of this ordinance. The location, dimensions and orientation shall be designed to afford maximum accessibility and convenience for the residents of the development. Open space areas shall include landscaped walkways with park benches, patios, and garden areas, and may include other active recreation amenities suited to the needs, abilities and preferences of the anticipated service population. The open space area requirement may be reduced or waived by the planning commission if it is determined that the property on which a senior citizen housing option is proposed is within one-quarter mile walking distance of a public park which offers pedestrian amenities and appropriate recreation opportunities for senior citizens. The original Active Recreation Area proposal for The Grande PND-SCHO project (C-15-04) provided 22,569 S.F. of land to be reserved on The Grande property as Active Recreation Area. 1 The Grande PND-SCHO project qualified for Active Recreation Area exemption for small developments under Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §10.514. The Active Recreation Area is required at a rate of 150 square feet per dwelling unit; therefore, based on a total of 192 dwelling units, 28,800 SF of active recreation area is required. The Plan indicated that 22,569 S.F. of land would be reserved on The Grande property as Active Recreation Area including the amenities of walking paths, horseshoe pits, shuffleboard, swing set, benches, and picnic tables. The deficiency of 6,231 SF of active recreation area for the project was proposed to be satisfied by a cash-in-lieu donation. Approval of the donation amount of $22,914 for the cash-in-lieu of recreation area was accepted by the Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee on July 12th and by City Council on July 27, 2016; approval of this amount is pending review by the Planning Commission on August 15, 2016. (C-15-04)

90 Saulsbury Road Clubhouse and Pool associated with The Grande: Planned Neighborhood Design - Senior Citizen Housing Option Summary Report of Additional Active Recreation Plan Component Parks, Recreation & Community Enhancement Committee Meeting on August 9, 2016 Page 3 of 5 There are three areas of activity on The Grande property: Shuffleboard and Swing Set area (Area #1); Walking Path area (Area #2); and Horseshoe Pit area (Area #3). These existing amenities already constructed on the site include an area with a shuffleboard court, gazebo, swing set, and picnic table; a walking path with benches and picnic tables around the stormwater management pond; and area with horseshoe pits with picnic tables. The deficiency of 6,231 S.F. of active recreation area for the project was proposed to be satisfied by a cash-in-lieu donation. Active Recreation Area at 90 Saulsbury Road The main area of activity on the subject property is the Clubhouse and Pool. These two amenities together total 4,300 square feet. The pool patio should also be able to be counted toward Active Recreation Area, but its area has not been calculated. It is unclear whether the entrance walk leading from the Pool and Clubhouse to the apartment complex is intended to act as active recreation area, and it is unlikely the undeveloped areas of lawn on the property can be counted toward active recreation area. Unlike for the main property of The Grande, the areas intended to be counted toward Active Recreation Area have not been expressly delineated. The Active Recreation Area Plan must be reviewed by the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee for a recommendation prior to consideration of the Conditional Use Site Plan for the Planned Neighborhood Design – Senior Citizen Housing Option by Planning Commission. The following table provides information from the submitted Plan (dated June 17, 2016) for the Active Recreation Area as proposed for 90 Saulsbury Road: Required Provided on Plan Common Open Space in Useable open space following Pool PND – Senior Option the area requirement of Active Pool patio (Article 3 §24.61b) Recreation Area Active Recreation Area 150 S.F. per dwelling unit or Existing Amenities on The (Article 5 §10.514) 10,000 SF whichever is Grande property. greater to be provided on site. Consideration of donation 192 DU = 28,800 SF amount for cash-in-lieu Provided on The Grande: payment pending. 22,569 SF Deficient: 6,231 SF Clubhouse – 2,500 SF Pool – 1,800 SF Pool Patio Design Guidelines Accessible and Pedestrian Accessible via connecting (Article 5 §10.151, §10.152) Oriented concrete path Design Guidelines Age Oriented to development Clubhouse and Pool would (Article 5 §10.153) serve all ages.

90 Saulsbury Road Clubhouse and Pool associated with The Grande: Planned Neighborhood Design - Senior Citizen Housing Option Summary Report of Additional Active Recreation Plan Component Parks, Recreation & Community Enhancement Committee Meeting on August 9, 2016 Page 4 of 5 Design Guidelines Parking The C-2A zone requires (Article 5 §10.154) parking based on square footage; six parking spaces are shown where nine spaces are required for the Clubhouse. There are on-site parking areas for the apartment complex and the Clubhouse. Design Guidelines Setbacks: 30 feet from All of the active recreation (Article 5 §10.156) residential lots and 25 feet areas are in compliance as from right-of-way for street required. Design Guidelines Landscaping The project shows tree (Article 5 §10.157) planting around the perimeter site. Staff Recommendations: The following are comments and recommendations from Staff of the Planning Office following review of the Active Recreation Area Plan for 90 Saulsbury Road. 1. The proposed plan presents additional amenities for The Grande PND-SCHO. These amenities could be utilized to satisfy the Active Recreation Area deficit. However, timing of construction at 90 Saulsbury Road would need to coincide and achieve completion prior to the completion of The Grande Building 4. 2. Staff recommends approval of the Clubhouse, Pool, and other site amenities subject to the condition that the area of each amenity intended to count toward Active Recreation Area requirements be expressly delineated on the plan. If this is done the amenities can be accepted towards meeting a portion of the Active Recreation Area requirement for The Grande subject to the conditions outlined below and subject to the approval of Conditional Use Site Plan Application C-16-04. 3. The following conditions of approval are recommended: a. If the Clubhouse and Pool are accepted as part of the Active Recreation Area, there must be an accessible route for pedestrians from the apartment complex to the facility. The accessible route should include barrier free access, designated cross walks, directional signage, or other site improvements, etc. b. To accept the entrance walk as part of the Active Recreation Area, it should be provided with landscaping and benches to strengthen its use as an amenity. 4. The following items should be included on the Plan to clarify the Recreation Area improvements: a. Provide a summary list of the proposed features of the facility (i.e. interior floor plan of the Clubhouse, site amenities of bicycle parking and golf cart parking, benches, picnic tables, etc.) along with the area of each.

90 Saulsbury Road Clubhouse and Pool associated with The Grande: Planned Neighborhood Design - Senior Citizen Housing Option Summary Report of Additional Active Recreation Plan Component Parks, Recreation & Community Enhancement Committee Meeting on August 9, 2016 Page 5 of 5 b. Provide a total figure for the amount of Active Recreation Area to be provided. c. On the plan, outline the areas to be used as Active Recreation Areas. 5. The applicant is reminded of the requirements for construction phasing of the recreation area as associated with the development of the residential units. Article 5 §10.6 Construction Phasing. The recreation and open space areas shall be completed in a proportion equal to or greater than the proportion of residential dwelling units completed, except that one hundred (100) percent of the recreation and open space areas shall be completed prior to issuing building permits for the final twenty (20) percent of the dwelling units proposed. Building permits shall not be issued for dwelling units unless the requirements of this section are met. 6. There shall be provisions which ensure that this shall Clubhouse and Pool continue as Active Recreation Area specifically associated with The Grande and to be properly managed and maintained. The developer shall submit plans to combine this property with The Grande parcel or specific deed restrictions/agreements establishing such association. The organization shall be responsible for maintenance, insurance and taxes on the common open space. 7. In the event, that major changes and revisions to the Conditional Use Site Plan occur in the finalization of the Plan contact the Planning Office. Examples include reorientation of buildings, relocation of site components, changes in floor area or unit count, or design revisions. These changes may require resubmission for review by the Development Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, or other agencies and commissions making recommendations in regards to the plan. The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee shall submit to the Planning Commission a report detailing the recommendations as to the Recreation Area Plan. Attachments:  Plan Sheets F-100 Cover Sheet, F-102 Site Plan, and L-100 Landscape Plan dated June 17, 2016

PLANT LIST NOTE: In the event that there is a discrepancy between the quantity of plant material on the Plan Drawing and the quantity in the Plant List, the quantity of plant material on the plan drawing shall govern. KEY BOTANIC NAME COMMON NAME QUANTITY SIZE REMARKS AS Acer Saccharum Green Mountain Green Mountain Sugar Maple 2 2" Cal. B&B Heavy Full Vigorous HH Hypericum X Hidcote St. Johns Wort 12 18"/24" #3 Container Heavy Full Vigorous IM Ilex Meserveae Dragon Lady Dragon Lady Holly 10 5/6' B&B Heavy Full Vigorous LN Lagerstroemia Indica Natchez Natchez White Crape Myrtle 4 6/8' /Clump B&B Heavy Full Vigorous PL Prunus Laurocerasus 'Otto Luyken' Otto Luyken Cherry Laurel 6 #5 Container Heavy Full Vigorous QB Quercus Bicolor Swamp White Oak 3 2" Cal. B&B Heavy Full Vigorous ZS Zelkova Serrata 'Village Green' Village Green Zelkova 5 2" Cal. B&B Heavy Full Vigorous TREE DENSITY NOTES GENERAL PLANTING NOTES Tree Density Required = 1 Tree / 3,000 sf. of Non-Woodland Area 1. All trees shall be gauranteed to survive for one full year after installation (full cost). Site Area 64,374 / 3,000 Sf. = 2. All stakes and guys shall be removed from trees and from the site at the end of the gaurantee period. PLAN NORTH: 22 Tree Density Trees Required - 24 Trees Provided 3. No tree shall be planted closer than 10' from any fire hydrant. 4. Only trees that reach a height and size at maturity of small to medium shall be planted under power COZ Tree Requirements lines. No tree shall be planted within 10' of underground utilities. Saulsbury Road Frontage = 208.33 Ln. Ft. 5. The purpose of this plan is to meet the requirements of the City of Dover Landscape Ordinance. The Tree Replacement = 1 Tree Per 50 Ln. Ft. plan does not include specifications for drainage, soil preparation and plant quality which are necessary to 208.33 / 50 = 4.166 Required - 5 Provided ensure sucessful installation. Without these specifications, the landscape architect shall not be responsible LAWN for the results of implementing this plan. The developer or owner is advised to contact the landscape Rear & Side Property Requirements architect concerning these components. Tree Replacement = 1 Tree Per 75 Ln. Ft. 6. The applicant is expected to maintain plantings including watering all plants anytime from April 1st to Rear Property Line = 363.25 Ln. Ft. December 1st, when natural rainfall is less than 1" per week. LANDSCAPE 363.25 / 75 = 4.84 Trees Required - 5 Provided ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES, L.L.C. LAND, SITE & PARK PLANNING WETLANDS SCIENCES Side Property Line Lengths Matthew T. Spong, R.L.A., A.S.L.A. Trisha Sawicki, A.S.L.A. P.O. Box 293 Dover, Delaware 19903 Phone: 302-284-4578 Fax: 302-284-0301 Email: lasmail@las-llc.net Web: las-llc.net North Side Property Length 225.28 / 75 = 3.0037 Required - 3 Provided South Side Property Length 274.38 / 75 = 3.65 Required - 4 Provided PROJECT #: 2016-12 COMM #: 1526 DATE: 06-28-16 Drawn By: ZC Designed By: MTS Checked By: MTS REVISION: LAWN Owner: 90 Saulsbury Associates, LLC 102 Larch Circle Suite 203 Wilmington Delaware, 19804 Tax Map No. ED-05-076.07-01-28.00-00 Zoning: C2A (Unlimited Central Commercial Zone) COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) LAWN NOTE: Apply approved pre-emergent weed control on all shrub beds prior to mulching. PLANT SHALL BE TRANSPLANTED PREPARE SOIL IN THE ENTIRE FOR CONTAINER-GROWN SHRUBS, USE FINGER PROJECT: AT THE SAME GRADE AS IT BORE BED USING PROCEDURES OR SMALL HAND TOOLS TO PULL THE ROOTS IN THE NURSERY PLOT PRIOR OUTLINED IN SOIL CHART OUT OF THE OUTER LAYER OF POTTING SOIL; TO BALLING AND BURLAPPING. THEN CUT OR PULL APART ANY ROOTS THAT CUT AND REMOVE BURLAP FROM CIRCLE THE PERIMETER OF THE CONTAINER. TOP ONE-THIRD OF ROOT BALL AS SHOWN. 3" DOUBLE-SHREDDED HARDWOOD BARK MULCH (DO NOT PUT MULCH AGAINST THE BASE CUT AND REMOVE BROKEN BRANCHES OF THE PLANT). HAND-FORMED SAUCER. PLANTING MIX: FINISHED GRADE 1 PART HUMUS 3 PARTS TOPSOIL PLACE SHRUB ON FIRM SOIL IN PLANTING MIXTURE WILL BOTTOM OF HOLE. CHANGE WITH SOIL CONDITIONS. UNDISTURBED BEFORE PLANTING, ADD 3 TO 4" SUBGRADE OF WELL-COMPOSTED LEAVES AND RECYCLED YARD WASTE TO BED AND TILL INTO TOP 6" OF PREPARED SOIL. 24" MINIMUM SOIL SURFACE ROUGHENED TO BIND WITH NEW SOIL. REFERENCE: ARCHITECTURAL GRAPHIC STANDARDS 1998 CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT. SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE LANDSCAPE LEGEND NOTES: 1. NO SOIL OR MULCH SHALL BE PLACED AGAINST ROOT COLLAR OF PLANT. SHEET: 2. REMOVE ALL ROPE FROM TRUNK & TOP OF ROOT BALL. FOLD BURLAP BACK 1/3 FROM ROOT BALL 3. PLANTING DEPTH SHALL BE THE SAME AS GROWN IN NURSERY. EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN LANDSCAPE AND TREE 4. THOUROUGHLY SOAK THE TREE ROOT BALL AND ADJACENT PREPARED SOIL SEVERAL TIMES DURING THE DENSITY PLAN FIRST MONTH AFTER PLANTING AND REGULARLY THROUGHOUT THE FOLLOWING TWO SUMMERS. 5. THE BOTTOM OF PLANTING PIT EXCAVATIONS SHOULD BE ROUGH TO AVOID MATTING OF SOIL LAYERS NO. DATE REVISION AS NEW SOIL IS ADDED. IT IS PREFERABLE TO TILL THE FIRST LIFT (2 TO 3 IN.) OF PLANTING SOIL INTO THE SUBSOIL. AVOID PURCHASING TREES WITH TWO LEADERS DO NOT CUT CENTRAL LEADER 'TREE STRAP' or 'ARBOR TIE' CUT & REMOVE DAMAGED BRANCHES WEATHER RESISTANT WEBBING 900 LB TENSILE STRENGTH WHITE IN COLOR FOR TREE PROPOSED TREE GUYING EQUALLY SPACED FOLD BURLAP AWAY FROM TOP AROUND TREE 1/3 OF ROOT BALL SET ROOT BALL FLUSH TO GRADE OR PREPARED SOIL FOR TREES SEVERAL INCHES HIGHER IN POORLY 1 PART HUMUS DRAINING SOILS. PROPOSED SHRUBS 3 PARTS TOPSOIL 4" BUILT-UP EARTH SAUCER 3" DOUBLE-SHREDDED HARDWOOD 2"x2" WOODEN STAKE BARK MULCH (DO NOT PLACE MULCH DRIVEN SECURELY INTO IN CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK) SOIL (3) PER TREE OVER 3" CAL. (2) PER BEFORE PLANTING ADD 3 TO 4" TREE UNDER 3" CAL. OF WELL-COMPOSTED LEAVES STATEMENT OF ACCURACY SCALE: 1" = 20' OR RECYCLED YARD WASTE TO I, MATTHEW SPONG, HEREBY STATE THAT I AM A REGISTERED BED AND TILL INTO TOP 6" LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IN THE STATE OF DELAWARE, THAT THE OF PREPARED SOIL. INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON HAS BEEN PREPARED UNDER MY UNDISTURBED SUPERVISION AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF SUBGRADE 6" DEEPER THAN ROOT BALL REPRESENTS GOOD LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICES AS 0 10 20 40 REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DIG WIDE, SHALLOW HOLE CUT BANDS OF WIRE BASKET AND DELAWARE. DATE: WITH TAMPED SIDES ( 2 times the ball diameter) FOLD AWAY FROM TOP OF ROOT BALL TAMP SOIL SOLIDLY AROUND SET ROOT BALL ON FIRM PAD IN BOTTOM OF HOLE JUNE 30, 2016 BASE OF ROOT BALL PROJECT: REFERENCE: ARCHITECTURAL GRAPHIC STANDARDS 1998 CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT. 16-002 TREE PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE SHEET: __________________________________________________________ DATE MATTHEW T. SPONG #126-E L-100 SHEET 1 OF 1

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: City Manager’s Office DATE SUBMITTED: August 1, 2016 PREPARED BY: Scott D. Koenig, P.E., City Manager & Ann Marie Townshend, AICP, Director of Planning & Community Development SUBJECT: Proposed Land Swap – Capitol Baptist Church/Mayfair Park REFERENCE: N/A RELATED PROJECT: N/A APPROVALS: Scott D. Koenig, P.E., City Manager and Donna Mitchell, CPA, City Controller EXHIBITS: Letters dated June 22 & June 23, 2016 from from Pastor Terri H. Moore, Capitol Baptist Church EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: N/A AMOUNT BUDGETED: N/A FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): N/A TIMETABLE: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the City Manager and other city staff to negotiate a proposed land swap which is mutually beneficial to the property owners and the City of Dover. This authorization will include any necessary research and legal expenses necessary to determine the terms and conditions of a potential land swap that involves the public open space known as Mayfair Park. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The City of Dover is in receipt of correspondence from Pastor Terri H. Moore of the Capitol Baptist Church regarding a proposed land swap to facilitate improvements to both the church’s property as well as the City’s Mayfair park. This park has been a focal point of several community discussions in recent months. The park received funding for park improvements in 1988 through the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund and in 2005 through the Delaware Land and Water Conservation Trust Fund. Due to this funding, any change to the park boundary would require approval by the Delaware Division of Parks and Recreation and possibly the National Park Service. Staff is requesting direction from City Council on whether or not a proposed land swap would be entertained. If this option is attractive to members of City Council, staff can direct time and resources to negotiating a formal proposal for City Council’s consideration.

Outdoor Recreation, Parks and Trails Program Formerly known as Delaware Land and Water Conservation Trust Fund Blue Beach n Bu rto New LWCF 10-00142 Park improvements (1988) Dogw ood an Ha Alder m Ke ss el ri ng 0 140 280 Feet Digital Aerial Solutions, LLC

Outdoor Recreation, Parks and Trails Program Formerly known as Delaware Land and Water Conservation Trust Fund Blue Beach n Bu rto New DTF 05-004 Playground installation (2005) Dogw ood an Ha Alder m Ke ss el ri ng 0 140 280 Feet Digital Aerial Solutions, LLC

EXCERPT - COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1971 CAPITAL BAPTIST CHURCH A request was received from the Capital Baptist Church asking the help of the City in getting the extended portion of their parking lot resurfaced. This parking lot is used by participants in recreational activities at the Mayfair playground which adjoins the Church property, the entrance to this playground being at the rear of the parking area owned by this Church. The Church has agreed to allow parking for the playground area and activities, whenever the Church is not in session. The Engineering Department of the City has estimated that the cost to blacktop this area would be approximately $2500, and to resurface it with crushed stone approximately $700 to $800. The Church is willing to contribute $300 to this project. On motion of Mr. Legates, seconded by Mr. Coyle, Council directed the City Manager to proceed with this project at the least amount of cost, with the best desired results. S:\EXCERPTS and CERTIFICATION OF COUNCIL ACTION\09-13-1971 Council Minutes Excerpt - Capitol Baptist Church.wpd

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Parks, Recreation & Community Enhancement Committee DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Parks & Recreation DATE SUBMITTED: 7/29/16 PREPARED BY: Ann Marie Townshend, AICP, Director of Planning & Community Development SUBJECT: Proposed Mural – Kirkwood/Division Street Park REFERENCE: N/A RELATED PROJECT: Restoring Central Dover APPROVALS: City Manager EXHIBITS: Proposed Mural Concept EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A AMOUNT BUDGETED: $ N/A FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): N/A TIME TIMETABLE: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Accept the proposal to allow the Restoring Central Dover Resident Engagement Work Group to install a wood panel fence as proposed and paint a mural BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The Restoring Central Dover Resident Engagement Work Group has requested that a wooden fence be installed along the east boundary of Kirkwood Street Park (at the corner of Division and Kirkwood Streets) and painted with a mural. A concept of the proposed mural is attached. The specific request from NCALL on behalf of the Resident Engagement Mural Committee is cited below. On July 13, 2016, the Resident Engagement Mural Committee met with Joshua Nobiling, a professor at Wesley College to discuss placing a mural somewhere in the central Dover area. We all agreed that the park located on Kirkwood and Division Streets would be an excellent place to erect a mural in the central Dover area. So I suggested that we start with you for permission and if you are not the individual then you could possibly direct us to the person(s) that we need to seek permission from. We are envisioning install a fence for the mural approximately 85 feet long which would cover the entire rear (facing Kirkwood Street) of the park and the fence would be approximately six feet high to keep people from climbing over it. We would erect our fence very close to the existing fence at the park so to prevent incidents/criminal activities from occurring behind the fence because of limited space for standing etc. We will create the mural in the art studio at Wesley and install the panels once it is complete, I am attaching a photo-shop of where we envision the mural will be located, it also has a design but it is not what the finished product will look like because we intend to get the community input. Be well and thanks for any information that you can provide.

Before: Existing chainlink fence, measuring approx. 85’ x 5’. To be replaced with wooden privacy fencing measuring approx. 85’ x 6’. After: Hypothetical rendering of a completed mural. Final design will be determined and executed through community collaboration.

V OU~ Vl~ON 10~ VITMIT:1 Restoring Central Dover NCALL Research, Inc. 363 Saulsbury Road Dover, DE 19904 July 25, 2016 To: Councilman Sudler and the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee Restoring Central Dover "Our Vision for Vitality," a neighborhood revitalization effort led by NCALL Research consists of a Steering Committee and 6 work groups (Resident Engagement, Safety, Youth and Adult Services, Economic Development, Housing, and Transportation Green Space and Infrastructure). Resident Engagement, comprised of local residents, is interested in erecting a mural at the Kirkwood and Division Streets Park in Dover, DE. With the assistance of Joshua Nobiling, a professional Fine Artist and the Assistant Professor of Art at Wesley College, the Resident Engagement work group would like to submit a proposal for a community driven mural in the downtown Dover area. The Resident Engagement "Mural Committee" canvassed the downtown Dover area to identify potential locations for the mural and agreed upon the Kirkwood/Division Streets Park as one of the locations. The idea of a mural surfaced after attending the Community Leadership Institute in 2015. The idea was presented to the rest of the group who immediately were excited about the project. Community driven murals is one way to bring residents together to beautify their neighborhood and promote unity and ownership within the area. In this packet you will find details regarding the mural such as size, how it will be decided as to what goes on the mmal, and the different steps and phases. We will also reach out to the property owner of 420 W. Division Street. If you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to reach out to us. In the meantime, we look forward to your response. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best regards,

July 22, 2016 To Councilman Sudler and the Parks, Recreation, and Community E nhancement Committee: Josh Nobiling, M.F.A. My name is Josh Nobiling, I am a professio nal F ine Artist and the Assistant Professor Assistant Professor of Art, of Art at Wesley College in Dover, DE. It is my honor to be working with Maggie Wesley College (309)· 721-446 1 Joshua.Noblllng@Wesley.edu Pleasant and Chanda Jackson of NCALL Research, Inc. to pursue the development and execution of a community mural for the Division and Kirkwood park in Dover, DE. T his document is to provide you with information regarding the process involved in the creation of a public mural of this scale. Murals help to build a stro ng sense of community. Philadelphia Mural Ar ts Founder and Director Jane Golden speaks beautifully of t he value of mural pa inting in a community with the following quote "While the end products- the works ofpublic art - are always beautiful, their deeper value lies in tlze conversations we create, the connections we build, and the legacy of relationships we foster along the way, often with transfonnative results, " I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me to answer any and all questions you may have regarding the information in this d ocument. T hank you for your time. Respectfully, Josh Nobiling, M.F.A.

Phase I Site Preparation In this photo (taken 7/13/2016) can be seen the existing chain link fence as it currently stands in the Division & Kirkwood Park. The fence measures approximately 85' x 5'. Some sections of the existing fence were found to be in disrepair. Step I: Replace this existing fence with a wooden 'privacy' fence measuring approximately 85' x 6'. The new fence will be painted and primed properly to ensure a long life. In addition to providing a solution to the repair needs of the existing fence, the new fence will serve as a support structure for the completed mural panels which will be mounted onto the new fence. Notes: It goes without saying that every proper measure wi ll be taken in the construction of the new fence including any necessary city permits as well as contacting of utility companies before post holes are dug, i.e. 'Call Before You Dig'. Installation of the new fence also provides a community involvement opportunity for any individu als willing to help construct the fence, and in turn learn a potentially valuable life skill.

Phase II Mural Design Process Because this is a community mural, any and all interested members of the community will be welcomed and encouraged to be a part of the design process. The design process will determine specific imagery and themes of the mural as well as color schemes and composition. Participants will work directly with Professor Nobiling to learn all necessary techniques and skills related to the design process. Here is how a final mural design will be determined: Step I: 'Brainstorming' Using the Studio Art facilities at Wesley College as our 'home base', we wi ll conduct a se ries of commun ity 'brainstorming' meetings to discover exactly what people would like to see on the completed mural. Participants will get the opportunity to draw, paint, write and verbalize any and all ideas they have during these sessions. Sessions wi ll occur at a to be determined date, 2 - 4 sessions wi ll be sufficient at this stage. Al l ideas will be recorded. Step II: 'Refining the design' At this stage we wi ll begin to synthesize all of the ideas chosen from Step I sessions into a cohesive design. Refining will include many edits, and stylistic adjustments. Refining will continu e until the participating community members reach a consensus on the final design. Step Ill: 'Final Draft' After Step II is compl ete, we will create one final draft of the mural design. This draft will be in the form a proportionally accu rate small scale rendering of the mural design. This will be submitted to Councilman Sudler and the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee for approval before the execution of the mural takes place. Notes: While imagery will be determined 100% by participating members of the commun ity, great care will be taken to ensure the imagery is community and family friendly, and presents no offensive or insulting imagery of any kind. As a representative of Wesley College, it brings me great joy to have the opportunity to work with the surround ing community in this capacity. Participants will be receiving the same hands on expe rience and expert Fine Art instruction that I provide for my students each se mester.

Phase Ill Executing the Mural Above is a digital rendering of what a completed mural would look like after completion. As noted in Step Ill of Phase II, the final design will be determined through community collaboration. The above image is for reference only. After the final design has been approved, participants will learn how to transfer the design onto specially prepared mural panels. These panels will be prepared and painted at Wesley College under the supervision of Professor Nobiling. Step I: 'Priming/Sealing' To ensure proper paint adhesion, as well as a long life, mural panels will be triple pri med and stored at Wesley College. Step II: 'Transferring the Design' Participants will be shown how to enlarge, and properly transfer the final design to the prepared panels. Step Ill: 'Executing the Final Design! ' Participants will complete the painted design onto the prepared panels. After the pai nting is complete, two layers of u.v. protective varnish will be applied to ensure long lasting bright . colors. Step IV: 'Installation' Completed mural panels will be secured to the newly installed fence. Final Notes: Rather than painting directly onto the fence, painting on separate panels will provide the project with add ition al flexibility in terms of completion time. Not only will the weather not dictate our work sched ule, but panels will be able to be removed for any necessary repairs down the road.

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Parks, Recreation & Community Enhancement Committee DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Planning & Inspections DATE SUBMITTED: 7/29/16 PREPARED BY: Ann Marie Townshend, AICP, Director of Planning & Community Development SUBJECT: Update – Residential Appeal Process and Non-Compliant/Non-Conforming Uses/Review of Physical Data REFERENCE: N/A RELATED PROJECT: N/A APPROVALS: N/A EXHIBITS: N/A EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A AMOUNT BUDGETED: $ N/A FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): N/A TIME TIMETABLE: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Accept the proposed phasing of discontinuing nonconforming uses in residential zones. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS As has been discussed at prior meetings of the Parks, Recreation & Community Enhancement Committee, the Planning Office is creating an inventory of all nonconforming uses in residential zones within the City. The staff has been going out using a mobile GIS application to collect data on the locations of nonconforming uses. Below is a summary of the data collection to date: Total parcels within residential zones to check: 4333 Checked: 2287 = 53% Not checked: 2046 = 47% Nonconforming uses (not permitted as either permitted or conditional uses) found so far: 113 - 100 two family/multifamily - 6 retail/office - 4 manufactured homes/mobile homes - 2 off-street parking lots - 1 stand-alone shed - 1 membership club not in compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 3, Section 1.14 (c). Conditional uses (permitted as conditional uses, but may not have gone through the conditional use process if they predated current zoning) found so far: 124 - 79 two family/multifamily - 25 place of worship properties (note: many places of worship had multiple properties, so this is not representative of how many distinct congregations there are) - 10 off-street parking lots - 4 funeral homes - 2 public utility uses - 2 offices (conditionally permitted in RG-1 along Route 8) - 1 daycare/preschool (this one was associated with a church; staff was unable to identify the many home daycares that exist in residential properties)

The Planning Office will continue to collect data until the remaining 2,046 parcels have been checked and we have a full inventory of nonconforming uses and conditional uses within residential zones. For those nonconforming uses identified to date, the Planning Staff proposes the following:  Send notice to the property owners of nonresidential informing them that they have a nonconforming use and that this use must be brought into conformance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance by December 31, 2016.  Send notice to property owners of registered vacant residential nonconforming uses informing them that the use must be brought into conformance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance before the structure can be reoccupied.  For occupied residential uses, staff recommends that these be phased out over a longer horizon, as they become vacant, so that residents are not displaced.  For those uses that are allowed as conditional uses, but which may predate the requirement for conditional use approval, staff recommends no action at this time.

15 5 Nonconforming and Conditional Uses Tracking Map ci at e Bo He le W oo h y Tech so ll ec Hw re na dl Bi 86 i od ty wa s Ed an e A se Legend un Bi it h o a w in Co ar d tw s yH gs d m B Del en Tech wy n s ar y 15 olog pu ddler C k od s rm K d 7 Fa Sm nt m To s or y Ca 33 r y se t ti c r Co ate df Hw W r ie De Ch W Dove y e u Hw Ru e a oo ils ew Ha at s ven r g r Hi Beec h Ha on Ed Dover Boundary St ty ll d ar Stre un et a le Ce G M arley Co d Un eo na m ed rg Pau ls e VERIFIED Sta Co t eH un wy 10 0 ty 9 d y Ro a t unt No Hw Co Lo iv y h r ewa e w ay g D Scarborou in y 88 66 iv o nathan G rk g r in Pa yH Yes Dr he wy lis ek el Pr i di 1 55 C ar re ng W t op M wy verly Pit S J le m ro nt K Co af yH le Mil Kur t Co nt ng lc Tur rell n u u se are F ar Co ni h Line n ni s hb y Finis cGi ey ell on Ve r n As is t P e rsi mm dr Au eaver G mi n r oly C ar ll Co Moo W ple ur e y B ay Old Ma e s r an Ar en bu Sus ds Bet h l um Le Go le y mi Pl ay C am e ip s o ew a za rd o n s ity y ey Ap ic e wa rs T n Dr ve D ri v n r ni De il iv ns uh Dela U Do w w Un r te C ta ar er S ou D e ov Ro nt r ee c M ky y ll T e ge l Gl ap n Ta le na m wi l Un M e Co ea ne dy d y 99 d do an Ol Hw St wl Hard wo e Canary Br p Ra ar k m M Mi re Bi ch et o ae A rd l W so US hi te e ng ve ow n g Ca od Oa ur Rid H Do Drivewa y k nt ad w in g y M Pu idessa we rp 13 Wi Me le g M d in cK sin g M os ar ll Cr ti n n ee y wa sa t F a ir re es e d a Mi Ja et ilm St W ry mp re G re ta so go Ri St r am ed Ra Ca Lon s on L az y n nn ta ed U C ri m am U S Hwy 13 Alt sh C nz W h ite m w gP on n ar Un a k o in el e 0 C oa on l 10 ol O st ge Hi a watha le liv te t oa d em ge le County R e G Whi ol on on Pa en d Towns Tro ffe Ba rk c on re ric ho ey C a Sc ll Terry em Je Mi er Va lle l L Dr a r r pa nn m pe n e Medi n way U ed Pi S c iv e Bu im in Ove rlook O N nc p k Dr To W Bu ho Me stm Silv A s l ah e ks c it z et W e l u d gg el az Ro r io ay tre ste r rv on n er L Bo Ca ow r k Oa te i n 104 Baltr cD O ld W h ite M e o ak Au g Sch u sta ick h ur Pi n y en Ch a Ba am t es rd th tw O Ar Re o lh o Ga on wa Ho od ak y ve o ee Wils yl Tr dO Wo ac le ak St ed y Pr e Ei s For res at ad er D ri s ak ew M bl vid u se Ea e Br st Cree vi w Brax rfi W e ld Hw n eve ho e n cres t im k St n Da ak r le Cou s For en y ea e en on ui tH Gle 1 Al L ton Ma ne M Ow Qu P a tr o F r e ay ag Tre ont Do n Oa k m r t ai l ill e s e y lo n ale g os iv w s or so Ro zo oa d Ta ve ed 5 Dr rri ick Ly nn t pl F H rs r L Ha ak ty R rn e wn Ol Bu t fo d H ollow B ro Vi O ck d wa ela re Go te hi o ck tn r ve rn r c 340 Aco Han er itch i V Ann W D C Be gin ia ak in s llr t State s L ake ive en Ros pk Lin Sp O da Ho le ng ge Tho er t D P o st illa s Fire F a ir b ia o ru illi m W a Colu Ke ustie r w oo nt an e l Turnbe Bal t u s Walk l 1 ro n Ame Caro rnto wy Mi eritage v ie w ver r all er ce a rs h ry Cly te H m M rican t sc U d is o n Sta xit 98 rn o H ewater M ad nn am nue he n Ave Wi E Nixo Scout f S to n ng Brad s r ci h o la Ca County Hwy 158 ed tr ne y Aca Hill ed S Rod N ic Gr S hi ac h y Be o n Har m ony Fo Alle y Gir l As co at am nne n l se ot Bice n Wha t Willi ord ngto Ha Lind c oc hi et a Was b eet d Ar r Mon Pea r la n t r e Teak xin k Freedom M a tt Bu Le en v Rock ille L Up ed S gton or Ha na m State Hwy 8 t en n e n in z Sw e lt io is Un ill Patr r t B la el ew in e erho Haz Mill nh Liberty p le re ee Co ncord US H w gT et la n d Ma r ia l R a mp Edgehill M ar y Bunk e gu e t n nc m M y 13 Parkwa Sprin en Ma g fi e l y n M ar y eetin gh a Pen ard y r Clar il d an lle gG E ig e al Pe tal r ta l o w ta r in rican ter Sp m A en tin re er bb H a rr o w gh ouse s y lv Ame l a wa ll pli Gettysb Ha w ic k x De k lu u rg alle Fo lony oc B il on Cold Cec Sw llo e al Lam C le V Car Lo we ec a a n ia ty T n T C ald Coun Sto oa G re e w Co ine b Sprin t ol Stone e Pa u ll n Drive B l ad Pe w y Fox on ey Co e g F u lt De Rid Ge o l R eve P a rk o ok unt g a Hwy 10 Pe n r k re te r rac y Ch e e ly n rT lsea rge o hn H y w Kirk J Hwy 67 Tuc et Greenway k a lm h i l Was Nob Hill Ind ependence ot n 4 unn P ou t h to t d Qu e Carver Greentree Wes F Wes Andre w Cranberry R i y Babb therf Fairw a y el H amp ood Ba to n Kings Lady B ug u A fton New Br in g t mp wn o wn t en 3 Al 8 ar d Hea Reed wy Ra o a te H U n e wy 1 Stat Rege n t h n St Mars State Hwy 8 on D Lak es mp Br d ma US H Street Ra L eg me Kr nna k Cree a ew Bennington B Gibbs r iv Bedford Minor is la Un JH M er Ingram S tr et Runw Lincoln Court Co u a rch ay e ited arrister ay U es w y 16 1 F ed o n Signal t iv e nt Bertrand ra Driveway Ho l m County H Pa Ra M County Road 67 S Davis Hw A ry er al Cherr y ilro 3 n y d is st Paul en 11 Ea h mP Nort ad ia Will Ma El e Farmview v er Fawn Do ghter Th e I r m a ee se r ti t ar Slau le r en Wo o dmill Kent l Dupont Clare n Mi un em Tr Co w R Co Maggie s Ha ye a nce 3 k fa wy 7 Ban s Si m y n ty H tgun l on ty g il ga Sho 7 e s er C ou Sc Sussex b Ot 19 t r Hw er Ro er Wat l ol wl D MC a is ho Cr Fo y h a s t le R ive y1 ta w W o rc Elm er in wf Kerb 95 mmer ce H Co or Cross New r er e d st is Driv ra d Cou rne C ib Be Un Tr Pa na nty Fai g rin me n th r flin Sou dS bi to ee Ch a Mif wa y ll tre ng S cu tt Lo ni Enterpr is et n ue ftl a Pe W es es Bl Hen t am nd ov e No er Th rth Governors e Sh do w n Hope in en r a ck og Bulld ld ill a Sack ra u ke Pu Q l bl y Laure Dover W c er t i ic ff k La on Sa r nn d Leste oo Ca fe w er ill ty Gooden Pine Dove r Air Fo h M S on Tran Waples p o rtati Sunset t Monroe Roa d Elec rce Base Bradford Alley Park s s Lotu gre St re it et Si g ns d cting 95 me Janeka te r ic a Driveway Sta Tr E ve en na n Un Conne r it o Woodfo rd Ex Morris Sh p er Hw Shank m p y Unnamed Street Ra wa Qua i l ck y1 i ve Co C hu Re d Orch a r d Dr ty Wyoming 5 un Fli W estview s Ta i oodse d Hw Roosevelt l ge Cha Starlifter st er t ck en y Ne W Jefferson US rl e id 34 River Chase es in g 13 Wo od ro ss s Pr b 8 r urn 3 C y 11 y o G alaxy r Ho rn ve Yearsley Do County H Hw e Hw y wy 2 0 3 lly Westwood ov ve d M allar Un Co eer US G Bell Miner n ld Se n am Kil nector Stat Crescent n Run Con ed Oak cheo at o e St n n e St t ew Riverside ar tre Pu fta e Ho m re r t e Ly nnha ven S Buff Mobil et Crickle Creek te 0 Sta 19 li er Co u ha sC is wl ed Street dow Ot Fo CD Hw ng Ki Blue Beach y S Ba y H w y 347 nty Ca M iv e rl al entlan y che n nt P u n on d Dr H wy Co u Wi nt Ru Case K d F id n Unnam p Saint Jone ol Dogwood m Ar Ra 19 8 er b d le n Ridge s r William Chandle er r rs unt Herb tl y Hun y da Alder ies Peyton o ¯ C McBry rn e Gl Co en Kesselring Porcher r Unnam ed Street Houston Mockingbird ic k Co udn e ek op R Cr Old Wolf er r ic Es Mimosa Rod Turner Post tat e Haman Pa ie w rk v i High ng Mayberry Wes Garton Lo t y 192 x ton Nile od County Hw Sa wo anie d in e McD 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 2n tt t P se r i vew a Richard Bas e te Wingate l Clayton Stee Ga D y US r ook io ll ntar ort h o db Miles John Clark Ha O d Hw y N l Wo ood od 3r d hw o w At Pa vi Bedford E dge w Bee c on Pine 0 la rlet p en yne Wa Hur y1 nt Jo sh u a g ood w Ev ic Sca Da p er d Alt a nd eH re Coo Woo 113 y Upl at u Cath nt Pay er Gun x St r ni Tay Lakeland M a nor h n lo el s h Cab 4t Samu Plac ne 6t id Pi in

New Castle County, Delaware, Code of Ordinances, Chapter 22 - Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions, Article 2. - Offenses Generally, Sec. 22.02.006. - Disorderly Premises Sec. 22.02.006. - Disorderly premises. A. It shall be unlawful for any owner, owner's agent, manager, caretaker or person occupying a premises to allow, suffer or permit in any residence or upon any premises occupied by himself or herself any conduct which causes public inconvenience, annoyance, alarm to a reasonable person, or disrupts the quiet and good order of adjoining and surrounding properties including, but not limited to, engaging in fighting or in violent, tumultuous, or threatening behavior, making unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display or addressing abusive language to any person present, obstructing vehicular traffic or pedestrian traffic, or creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition which serves no legitimate purpose. Any person who fails to obey the order of a Police Officer to dispel and disperse or otherwise discontinue the disturbing activity may be cited for an additional violation of this Section. B. In the event that the owner, owner's agent, manager or caretaker of a house, dwelling, or premises where the violation of Subsection A hereof has occurred does not occupy or reside at the property, such individual shall be presumed to allow, suffer or permit such conduct after receiving notice that such conduct has occurred and shall be in violation of this Section if a further violation of Subsection A occurs within one hundred eighty (180) days of receiving said notice. C. It shall be deemed that notice is properly served upon an owner, owner's agent, manager or caretaker if a copy of such notice is delivered to the owner, owner's agent, manager or caretaker personally or to the registered office of the owner, owner's agent, manager or caretaker or by leaving such notice at the usual place of abode, in the presence of a family member of suitable age and discretion who shall be informed of the contents of such notice or by certified mail addressed to the owner, owner's agent, manager or caretaker at the last known address of such owner, owner's agent, manager or caretaker or the mailing address of the owner of the subject premises as recorded on the County Assessment Records or the Residential Rental Property Registration System. After service of notice such owner, owner's agent, or manager or caretaker shall make a good faith effort to develop a plan of action with the County Law Department and the New Castle County Police Department to prevent further violation of Subsection A. D. Any person convicted of a violation of this Section shall be fined no more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for any offense but no less than one hundred dollars ($100.00) for the first offense, no less than three hundred dollars ($300.00) for the second offense, and no less than five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each subsequent like offense. In any prosecution for an offense under this Section, it shall be an affirmative defense, which must be proved by the preponderance of the evidence, that the occupant has been evicted and is no longer on the premises, or if there is pending at the time of trial an eviction action against the occupant of the premises which action is being pursued in good faith. Otherwise the fines imposed under this Subsection shall not be suspended. E. This Section shall be enforced by the Police Department. (Ord. No. 98-050, § 1(22-31), 5-26-1998; Ord. No. 07-101, § 1, 11-27-2007; Ord. No. 10-113, § 1(Exh. A), 1-18-2011; Ord. No. 13-021, § 1, 4-9-2013) Page 1

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Q1 How often do you/household members participate in a City of Dover activity, league, trip, or program? Answered: 478 Skipped: 28 Frequency Please select 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Once a year Daily 2 - 3 times weekly 2 - 3 times monthly 2 - 3 times yearly Do not use Frequency Once a year Daily 2 - 3 times weekly 2 - 3 times monthly 2 - 3 times yearly Do not use Total Please select 19.04% 1.88% 10.67% 14.02% 33.05% 21.34% 91 9 51 67 158 102 478 1 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Q2 What programs are you interested in seeing added to the programming schedule? Answered: 446 Skipped: 60 Additional Leagues Adult Sports Healthy Eating Seminars More Fitness More Trips Persons with Disabilities... Senior Recreational... Senior Sports Programs Toddler Development... Winter Break Camp for Youth Youth Fitness Youth Sports 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Additional Leagues 17.26% 77 Adult Sports 34.53% 154 Healthy Eating Seminars 20.40% 91 More Fitness 32.06% 143 More Trips 25.78% 115 Persons with Disabilities Programs 10.09% 45 Senior Recreational Programs 19.73% 88 Senior Sports Programs 17.49% 78 Toddler Development Programs 13.90% 62 Winter Break Camp for Youth 19.06% 85 Youth Fitness 24.44% 109 Youth Sports 30.94% 138 Total Respondents: 446 2 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Q3 How do you feel recreational programs should be funded? Answered: 477 Skipped: 29 General Fund (Tax Dollars) Grants Program Fees 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses General Fund (Tax Dollars) 53.04% 253 Grants 56.81% 271 Program Fees 74.42% 355 Total Respondents: 477 3 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Q4 Should City Residents (within the tax district) pay a reduced fee verses non-city residents? Answered: 488 Skipped: 18 Yes No 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Yes 67.21% 328 No 33.20% 162 Total Respondents: 488 4 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Q5 How do you typically hear about our programs? Answered: 452 Skipped: 54 Delaware State News Dover Post Emails from Parks &... Flyer or Program Guide Radio Announcements Website Wilmington News Journal 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Delaware State News 23.01% 104 Dover Post 40.93% 185 Emails from Parks & Recreation 30.53% 138 Flyer or Program Guide 48.01% 217 Radio Announcements 5.31% 24 Website 25.66% 116 Wilmington News Journal 4.87% 22 Total Respondents: 452 5 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Q6 How often do you/household members visit Dover Park? Answered: 448 Skipped: 58 Frequency Please select: 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Once a year Daily 2 - 3 times weekly 2 - 3 times monthly 2 - 3 times yearly Do not use Frequency Once a year Daily 2 - 3 times weekly 2 - 3 times monthly 2 - 3 times yearly Do not use Total Please select: 6.70% 1.79% 7.37% 12.28% 19.87% 52.01% 30 8 33 55 89 233 448 6 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Q7 What is the nature of your Dover Park visit? Answered: 239 Skipped: 267 Basketball Courts Disc (Frisbee) Golf League Activity (ie... Playground Equipment Picnicking Softball or Multipurpose... Tennis Courts Walking / Jogging 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Basketball Courts 12.97% 31 Disc (Frisbee) Golf 7.95% 19 League Activity (ie: Softball, Field Hockey, etc.) 24.69% 59 Playground Equipment 33.05% 79 Picnicking 20.08% 48 Softball or Multipurpose field 13.39% 32 Tennis Courts 8.37% 20 Walking / Jogging 56.49% 135 Total Respondents: 239 7 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Q8 What would you like to see at Dover Park? Answered: 323 Skipped: 183 Bike Racks Bocce Ball Area Fitness Stations Alo... Indoor Recreation... Indoor Restrooms Paved Trail System (looped) Pickle Ball Court Sand Volleyball Skate Park Splash Pad 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Bike Racks 24.15% 78 Bocce Ball Area 9.91% 32 Fitness Stations Along Trail 32.82% 106 Indoor Recreation Center 40.25% 130 Indoor Restrooms 50.15% 162 Paved Trail System (looped) 41.49% 134 12.38% 40 Pickle Ball Court Sand Volleyball 15.79% 51 Skate Park 23.53% 76 Splash Pad 24.15% 78 Total Respondents: 323 8 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Q9 How often do you/household members visit New Street park? Answered: 443 Skipped: 63 Frequency Please select: 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Once a year Daily 2 - 3 times weekly 2 - 3 times monthly 2 - 3 times yearly Do not use Frequency Once a year Daily 2 - 3 times weekly 2 - 3 times monthly 2 - 3 times yearly Do not use Total Please select: 1.58% 0.68% 1.35% 2.48% 8.13% 85.78% 7 3 6 11 36 380 443 9 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Q10 What is the nature of your New Street Park visit? Answered: 86 Skipped: 420 Basketball Picnicking Playground Open Space Play Softball Field Use 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Basketball 18.60% 16 Picnicking 17.44% 15 Playground 50.00% 43 Open Space Play 31.40% 27 Softball Field Use 37.21% 32 Total Respondents: 86 10 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Q11 What would you like to see at New Street Park? Answered: 172 Skipped: 334 Benches Bike Racks Bocce Ball Area Horseshoe Pits Indoor Restroom Paved Trail System... Pickle Ball Reading Garden Area Sand Volleyball Shuffleboard Court Skate Park Splash Pad Tennis Court 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Benches 41.28% 71 Bike Racks 22.09% 38 Bocce Ball Area 6.98% 12 Horseshoe Pits 19.77% 34 Indoor Restroom 37.79% 65 Paved Trail System w/Fitness Stations 24.42% 42 Pickle Ball 16.86% 29 Reading Garden Area 25.00% 43 Sand Volleyball 14.53% 25 Shuffleboard Court 9.88% 17 Skate Park 16.28% 28 Splash Pad 19.77% 34 Tennis Court 23.84% 41 Total Respondents: 172 11 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Q12 How often do you/household members visit Schutte Park? Answered: 434 Skipped: 72 Frequency Please select: 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Once a year Daily 2 - 3 times weekly 2 - 3 times monthly 2 - 3 times yearly Do not use Frequency Once a year Daily 2 - 3 times weekly 2 - 3 times monthly 2 - 3 times yearly Do not use Total Please select: 9.22% 1.84% 15.90% 22.12% 30.18% 20.74% 40 8 69 96 131 90 434 12 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Q13 What is the nature of your Schutte Park visit? Answered: 329 Skipped: 177 Lacrosse League Activity (ie... Playground Picnicking Soccer Trail Use 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Lacrosse 11.85% 39 League Activity (ie: Softball, Field Hockey, etc) 47.72% 157 Playground 28.27% 93 Picnicking 11.85% 39 Soccer 20.36% 67 Trail Use 41.95% 138 Total Respondents: 329 13 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Q14 What would you like to see at Schutte Park? Answered: 364 Skipped: 142 Basketball Court Benches Bike Racks Bocce Ball Area Disc (Frisbee) Golf Expansion of Trail System Fitness Stations Alo... Horseshoe Pits Pickle Ball Court Sand Volleyball Shuffleboard Court Skate Park Splash Pad Tennis Court 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses 18.13% 66 Basketball Court Benches 41.21% 150 Bike Racks 23.63% 86 Bocce Ball Area 9.34% 34 Disc (Frisbee) Golf 15.38% 56 Expansion of Trail System 53.30% 194 Fitness Stations Along Trail 36.26% 132 Horseshoe Pits 15.38% 56 Pickle Ball Court 10.44% 38 Sand Volleyball 18.96% 69 Shuffleboard Court 8.79% 32 Skate Park 21.98% 80 Splash Pad 20.33% 74 Tennis Court 27.75% 101 Total Respondents: 364 14 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Q15 Do you visit the John W. Pitts Recreation Center (JWP)? Answered: 422 Skipped: 84 Yes No 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Yes 52.37% 221 No 48.34% 204 Total Respondents: 422 15 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Q16 If Yes, to visiting the JWP, what is the nature of your visit? Answered: 222 Skipped: 284 Adult Sports Leagues Birthday Party Package Camps Card Making for Adults Challenger Sports Event Fitness Class High School Sports League Instructional Clinics Open Gym Senior Sports Walking track Youth Card/Craft... Youth Sports Leagues 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Adult Sports Leagues 23.87% 53 Birthday Party Package 7.66% 17 Camps 12.16% 27 Card Making for Adults 4.05% 9 Challenger Sports Event 2.70% 6 Fitness Class 28.83% 64 High School Sports League 9.01% 20 Instructional Clinics 7.66% 17 Open Gym 21.17% 47 Senior Sports 5.41% 12 Walking track 22.07% 49 Youth Card/Craft Making 3.15% 7 Youth Sports Leagues 28.38% 63 Total Respondents: 222 16 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Q17 What would you like to see added to JWP? Answered: 196 Skipped: 310 Larger Multipurpose... Shower Area(s) Weight Room 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Larger Multipurpose Room(s) 56.63% 111 Shower Area(s) 40.31% 79 Weight Room 67.86% 133 Total Respondents: 196 17 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Q18 How often do you/members of your household visit Silver Lake Park? Answered: 432 Skipped: 74 Frequency Please select: 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Once a year Daily 2 - 3 times weekly 2 - 3 times monthly 2 - 3 times yearly Do not use Frequency Once a year Daily 2 - 3 times weekly 2 - 3 times monthly 2 - 3 times yearly Do not use Total Please select: 11.11% 3.70% 6.02% 17.13% 38.66% 23.38% 48 16 26 74 167 101 432 18 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Q19 What is the nature of your Silver Lake visit? Answered: 337 Skipped: 169 Bird Watching Boating Fishing Picnicking Playground Walking / Jogging 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Bird Watching 24.04% 81 Boating 8.61% 29 Fishing 23.74% 80 Picnicking 31.75% 107 Playground 39.47% 133 Walking / Jogging 74.78% 252 Total Respondents: 337 19 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Q20 What would you like to see at Silver Lake? Answered: 298 Skipped: 208 Benches Bike Racks Bocce Ball Area Disc (Frisbee) Golf Horesehoe Pits Indoor Restrooms Sand Volleyball Shuffleboard Court Skate Park Splash Pad 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Benches 44.63% 133 Bike Racks 28.19% 84 Bocce Ball Area 9.06% 27 Disc (Frisbee) Golf 16.11% 48 Horesehoe Pits 18.46% 55 Indoor Restrooms 67.79% 202 17.79% 53 Sand Volleyball Shuffleboard Court 8.72% 26 Skate Park 16.44% 49 Splash Pad 21.81% 65 Total Respondents: 298 20 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Q21 How often do you/household members visit Williams Park? Answered: 428 Skipped: 78 Frequency Please select: 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Once a year Daily 2 - 3 times weekly 2 - 3 times monthly 2 - 3 times yearly Do not use Frequency Once a year Daily 2 - 3 times weekly 2 - 3 times monthly 2 - 3 times yearly Do not use Total Please select: 1.40% 0.70% 0.00% 0.93% 3.04% 93.93% 6 3 0 4 13 402 428 21 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Q22 What is the nature of your Williams Park visit? Answered: 42 Skipped: 464 Basketball Picnicking Playground Multipurpose Field Use Open Space Play 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Basketball 26.19% 11 Picnicking 21.43% 9 Playground 30.95% 13 Multipurpose Field Use 33.33% 14 Open Space Play 40.48% 17 Total Respondents: 42 22 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Q23 What would you like to see at Williams Park? Answered: 87 Skipped: 419 Benches Bike Racks Bocce Ball Area Horseshoe Pits Indoor Restroom Paved Trail System... Reading Garden Sandlot Volleyball Shuffleboard Court Skate Park Splash Pad Tennis Court 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Benches 49.43% 43 Bike Racks 33.33% 29 Bocce Ball Area 13.79% 12 24.14% 21 Horseshoe Pits Indoor Restroom 41.38% 36 Paved Trail System w/Fitness Stations 37.93% 33 Reading Garden 25.29% 22 Sandlot Volleyball 20.69% 18 Shuffleboard Court 11.49% 10 Skate Park 32.18% 28 Splash Pad 19.54% 17 Tennis Court 27.59% 24 Total Respondents: 87 23 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Q24 Where is your neighborhood park located that you are providing feedback? Answered: 147 Skipped: 359 Dover Parks Lisitngs Park Area 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Constitution Park Continental Park Crossgates Park Division/Kirkwood Streets Park Hamlet Park Heatherfield East Kirkwood/Mary Streets Park Mallard Pond Park Mayfair Park Memorial (Mirror Lake) Park Millcreek Park Orville Myers Park Pauls Property Richardson Park Saulsbury Park The Green Turner Drive Park Westfield Park Westwind Meadows Woodbrook Dover Parks Lisitngs 24 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Constitution Continental Crossgates Division/Kirkwood Hamlet Heatherfield Kirkwood/Mary Mallard Mayfair Memorial Millcreek Orville Pauls Richardson Saulsbury Park Park Park Streets Park Park East Streets Park Pond Park (Mirror Park Myers Property Park Park Park Lake) Park Park Park 6.12% 6.12% 3.40% 5.44% 6.12% 4.08% 0.68% 6.80% 3.40% 6.12% 4.08% 0.00% 0.00% 4.08% Area 9 9 5 8 9 6 1 10 5 9 6 0 0 6 25 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Q25 What feedback would like to offer on the park you selected? Answered: 89 Skipped: 417 26 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Q26 Where do you live? Answered: 403 Skipped: 103 Dover Residents 27 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment 28 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment 29 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Please use a drop down bo... 30 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment 31 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment 32 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment 0% Farms Acorn 10% 20%Baltray30% 40% Barrister 50% Place 60% 70% Bay Tree 80% 90% 100% Bicentennial Village Blue Hen Apartments Brandywine Apartments Cannon Mill Capital Green Cedar Chase Apartments Chatham Court Apartments Clearfield Apartments Clearview Meadow Country Club Apartments Country Village Apartments Cranberry Run Crossgates Downtown Dover Dover East Mobile Home Park East Lake Gardens Eden Hill Farm Edgehill Emerald Pointe English Village Fairview Farthing Woods Four Seasons Fox Hall 33 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment English Village Fairview Farthing Woods Four Seasons Fox Hall Fox Hall West Fox Hall West Addition Fox Meadows Governors Square Apartments Greens of Dover Hampton Square Heatherfield Heatherfield East Hidden Creek Hidden Oaks Independence Village Kings Cliff Mobile Home Park Lake Club Apartments Lexington Glen Liberty Court Lincoln Park Lynnhaven Mallard Pond Manchester Square Maple Glen Mapleton Square Marsh Creek Mayfair Meadows at Dover Millcreek Morris Estate Morris Estates 2 Northwest Dover Heights Nottingham Meadows Oak Shadows Oakmont park Oakridge Patriot Village Persimmon Park Place Pine Grove Apartments Pine Grove Farms South Presidential Courts Retreat River Chase Apartments Riverside Mobile Home Park Schoolview Seskinore Sherwood Sherwood 2 Silver Lake Overlook Silver Lake Townhouses Silver Mill Apartments Simon Circle Somerset Park Stonebrook East Stonebrook West Stoney Creek Stover The Beeches The Hamlet Towne Point Towne Point Apartments Turnberry University Courtyard Village of Westover Vondaway Walker Woods Wedgewood Westfield Westminster White Oak Farms White Oak Farms Apartments Wild Meadows Woodbrook Woodcrest Woodmill Apartments Other not listed 34 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Non-City Residents Please use a drop down bo... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Camden-Wyoming Carlisle Village Cheswold Felton-Harrington Hartly-Marydel Little Creek-Leipsic Magnolia Rodney Village Royal Grant Other not listed Dover Residents Acorn Baltray Barrister Bay Bicentennial Blue Hen Brandywine Cannon Capital Cedar Chatham Clearfield Clearview Country Country Farms Place Tree Village Apartments Apartments Mill Green Chase Court Apartments Meadow Club Village Apartments Apartments Apartments Apartments Please 2.42% 0.00% 0.00% 2.82% 4.84% 0.00% 1.21% 0.81% 0.00% 0.00% 0.40% 0.00% 0.40% 0.40% 0.00% use a 6 0 0 7 12 0 3 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 drop down box to select where you live. 35 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Non-City Residents Camden- Carlisle Cheswold Felton- Hartly- Little Magnolia Rodney Royal Other Total Wyoming Village Harrington Marydel Creek- Village Grant not Leipsic listed Please use a 25.84% 1.12% 3.93% 4.49% 5.62% 0.56% 8.99% 1.69% 1.12% 46.63% drop down box 46 2 7 8 10 1 16 3 2 83 178 to select where you live. 36 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Q27 How many are in your household? Answered: 413 Skipped: 93 1-3 4-7 8 - 12 13 or more 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses 1-3 61.74% 255 4-7 38.98% 161 8 - 12 0.73% 3 13 or more 1.21% 5 Total Respondents: 413 37 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Q28 What is your HOUSEHOLD income? Answered: 362 Skipped: 144 Less than $10,000 $10,000 - $14,999 $15,000 - $24,999 $25,000 - $34,999 $35,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $149,999 $150,000 - $199,999 $200,000 or more 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Less than $10,000 2.21% 8 $10,000 - $14,999 1.10% 4 $15,000 - $24,999 3.59% 13 $25,000 - $34,999 4.97% 18 $35,000 - $49,999 13.54% 49 $50,000 - $74,999 22.93% 83 $75,000 - $149,999 43.65% 158 $150,000 - $199,999 6.63% 24 $200,000 or more 6.08% 22 Total Respondents: 362 38 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Q29 What is your age? Answered: 403 Skipped: 103 18 - 34 35 - 54 55 - 74 75 - older 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses 18 - 34 18.11% 73 35 - 54 50.12% 202 55 - 74 28.78% 116 75 - older 3.97% 16 Total Respondents: 403 39 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Q30 What is your gender? Answered: 412 Skipped: 94 Gender Male or Female 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Male Female Gender Male Female Total Male or Female 38.83% 61.17% 160 252 412 40 / 41

City of Dover Recreational Needs Assessment Q31 What is your race? Answered: 419 Skipped: 87 41 / 41

CDBG Quarterly Report April, May and June 2016 CDBG FY15 Projects Homeownership Assistance Program CDBG funds will be used to provide homeownership assistance to first-time homebuyers who purchase affordable housing in the Downtown Development District (DDD) Target Area. Two (2) families have purchased properties in the DDD Target Area. This project is completed. Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing CDBG funds will be used to provide operations cost for the shelter. This project is completed. A total of 250 men were sheltered during the program year. Connections Community Support Program CDBG funds will be used to provide rapid re-housing/rental assistance services for homeless households within the City. Rental assistance was provided for two (2) low income persons. Milford Housing Homeowner Rehabilitation Program CDBG funds will be used to rehabilitate existing owner occupied housing in the City that is in violation of the City’s Housing Code and complete emergency home repairs to eliminate housing conditions that threaten the health and safety of low income homeowners. Emergency home repairs were completed for five (5) low income households and homeowner rehabs were completed for three (3) low income families. Habitat for Humanity CDBG funds will be used to rehabilitate an existing home to provide affordable housing to a family in the Downtown Development District Target Area. Habitat purchased 111 S. Queen on November 2, 2015, renovated the property, and sold the property on December 18th to a first time homebuyer. Remainder of funding was utilized for asbestos removal for properties in the DDD Target Area that will be renovated and sold to low income families. Peoples Place Whatcoat Homeless Shelter CDBG funds will be utilized for minor renovations to a facility that shelters the homeless. This project is completed. Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) Settlement assistance was provided for five (5) families who purchased affordable housing in the City of Dover and were able to assist in stabilizing our neighborhoods by purchasing properties that have been vacant for at least 90 days or foreclosed. The following properties were purchased providing NSP settlement assistance: 40 Spruance Road 155 Periwinkle Drive 1231 Harrison Drive 310 Crickle Creek Lane 12 Bacon Court

Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement 8/9/2016 Status of FY-15 Program Funds Spent - Fiscal Year 7/1/15- 6/30/16 2015 Grant Projects Project Details Total Grant Funds Expended Unencumbered Balance Funds will be utilized for settlement assistance for Homeownership Assistance Program $60,000 $60,000 $0 properties purchased in the DDD Target Area Funds will be utilized for rapid re-housing/rental Connections $7,391 $4,952 $2,447 assistance for low income persons Funds will be used for Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing operation cost. This $27,000 $27,000 $0 project is complete. Funds will be utilized for Milford Housing Development Corp emergency home repairs. $35,262 $12,989 $22,273 Project underway Funds will be utilized for Milford Housing Development Corp rehabbing owner occupied $52,892 $39,506 $13,393 homes. Project underway Funds will be utilized to rehab a single family Habitat for Humanity $40,000 $37,046 $2,953 home for a low income family Funds will be used for Peoples Place minor renovations. This $6,726 $6,726 $0 project is complete. Total $229,271 $188,219 $41,066

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Utility Committee AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Public Works DATE SUBMITTED: 7/29/16 PREPARED BY: Sharon J. Duca, P.E., Public Works Director / City Engineer SUBJECT: Request for Stub Street Abandonment – Topaz Circle REFERENCE: N/A RELATED PROJECT: N/A APPROVALS: City Manager EXHIBITS: Attachment A – Map EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A AMOUNT BUDGETED: $ N/A FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): N/A TIME TIMETABLE: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: The Department of Public Works recommends that the Committee recommend to City Council that they deny the request for abandonment due to emergency vehicle access to the Emerald Pointe Subdivision. If the Utility Committee and/ or City Council is in favor of proceeding with the proposed abandonment, the following actions are recommended: 1. The abandonment be conditional upon utility easements that would be recorded with the deed modifications. 2. That City Council adopt a resolution setting a public hearing regarding the proposed abandonment for September 12, 2016. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS City Council initiated the process to abandon the stub street of Topaz Circle which connects to a parcel of land south of the Emerald Pointe subdivision known as the Arbors. The City Clerk’s office notified the adjacent property owners of the proposed abandonment and one property owner, Ms. Marie Ann Florendo of 402 Topaz Circle, responded that she is interested in participating in the abandonment. The Department of Public Works does not recommend abandonment of this stub street. Per the City of Dover Code of Ordinances, specifically, Appendix A, Article VI.8, “At least two connections onto a state-maintained road or a city- maintained street are required unless the Delaware Department of Transportation or the city engineer determines that the second connection will not be permitted or is determined to be not feasible. This requirement shall pertain to: Subdivisions containing 20 or more lots, plots, sites, or parcels.” As the Emerald Pointe Subdivision has more than 20 lots, this requirement is applicable. This development was approved with two (2) stub streets for future connection. The first stub street is Topaz Circle to the south. The second stub street is Opal Place. The feasibility of connecting Opal Place to another public road is extremely low, due to the wetland property it would have to cross to the west. Therefore, the only feasible connection is through Topaz Circle, which would have to be extended to College Road. Two (2) entrances to this subdivision would increase the ability for emergency and operational vehicles to access residents; therefore, staff does not support the abandonment of Topaz Circle. Public Works staff has confirmed that the stub street is improved but undedicated. Electric utility infrastructure, water infrastructure, wastewater infrastructure and storm drainage infrastructure are located within the stub street. If it is determined by Council to abandon this street, utility easements will be required for all infrastructure.

Exhibit A Topaz Circle Proposed Stub Street Abandonment 331 419 322 422 335 g w z 415 ! . 326 To pa 418 339 w g × 330 Cir ! . g w g w 411 343 407 ! . 1216 Ct ! . 7 n i te .nza ! . w g Ta ! 403 410 338 ! . 11 ! g w . 2 ! pa ! 342 To 406 1021 z g w 6 Ci 14 r w g 346 402 × ! . 10 Ct w g 7 g w e a rin w g a m 11 g w ug Aq w g w 2 ! ! 2 w! g . 35 ! . 6 18 w g 31 1051 w g w g 14 10 27 ! . Ò§ ! 1022 23 w g ! Ò§ ! Ò§ ! 28 × . g w 19 Pin O !Ò§ R d 24 ak ge D 15 r w g ol le w g !Ò§ C 20 ! . 117 ! . w g §Ò ! 113 10 11 g w Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, 109 !Ò§ CNES/Airbus× DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, 1150 7 swisstopo, and the GIS User Community 105 ! . !Ò§ 0 75 150 300 Feet Legend ¯ Dover Parcels Ò§ ! Overhead Electric Pole Date Printed: July 26, 2016 w Storm Sewer Inlet g Underground Electric Lines Storm Sewer Manhole File: m:\gis_data\projects\tech_mxds 2 ! ! Overhead Electric Lines Hydrants \jason_lyon_maps\caf_maps × Storm Sewer Pipe . Sanitary Sewer Manholes ! \caf_topaz_cir_abandonment Sanitary Sewer Line Water Main Department: Public Works GIS Topaz_Cir_Stub Hydrant Line City of Dover, Delaware

PETITION TO ABANDON AN IMPROVED CITY STREET Public Hearing before the Dover City Council August 8, 2016 Location: Topaz Circle stub street, northeast of Aquamarine Court Present Use: Public Street (stub) Proposed Use: Not Determined Reason for Request: Request Initiated by City Council File Number: MI-16-06 Summary of the Request: Following the Planning Commission’s approval of The Arbors on March 21, 2016, members of City Council heard numerous concerns from constituents in Emerald Pointe about the Topaz Circle stub street connection to the proposed Senior Way (Map Exhibit A). The topic of interconnection between The Arbors and Emerald Pointe was placed on the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee agenda for April 26, 2016. At this meeting, staff presented a history of The Arbors and the interconnection between The Arbors and Emerald Pointe (Exhibit B). Minutes of this meeting where residents expressed concern are also attached (Exhibit C). Ultimately, the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee approved a motion to look into the abandonment of the Topaz Circle stub street. This recommendation was approved by City Council on consent agenda on May 9, 2016. At the June 27, 2016 meeting of City Council, action was taken to waive portions of the process for street abandonment and to refer the proposal for abandonment of the Topaz Circle stub street to the Planning Commission for Public Hearing on July 18, 2016. A more detailed chronology of development activity was presented by Planning Staff to City Council and is included as Exhibit D. The matter was referred to the Development Advisory Committee for a recommendation, and scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission. A recommendation from Planning Commission will be considered by the following:  Council Committee of the Whole/Utility Committee on August 9, 2016  City Council will consider the Utility Committee report and consider a resolution setting a Public Hearing on August 22, 2016  Public Hearing and consideration of action may be scheduled for September 12, 2016.

MI-16-06 – Street Abandonment Request: Topaz Circle stub Report to City Council – August 8, 2016 Page 2 Recommendation of Planning Staff and Planning Commission: The Planning Staff does not recommend the proposed abandonment. This recommendation is concurrent with the recommendations of the Department of Public Works, the City Fire Marshal, DelDOT, and the Dover/Kent Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). A summary of the reasons includes: Interconnection of Streets Appendix A: Land Subdivision Regulations, Article 6 §A.8 related to streets states: “The creation of interconnected streets will be encouraged wherever the commission finds that such layout will not interfere with traffic convenience and safety. The commission shall determine the number of connections of streets in the proposed subdivision with existing streets. At least two connections onto a state-maintained road or a city-maintained street are required unless the Delaware Department of Transportation or the city engineer determines that the second connection will not be permitted or is determined to be nonfeasible. This requirement shall pertain to: (a) Subdivisions containing 20 or more lots, plots, sites, or parcels. (b) Site developments containing 150 or more dwelling units.”  The Emerald Pointe subdivision plan as approved by the Planning Commission in 2002 included the provision of stub streets (including at Topaz Circle connecting with the adjacent property to the south now known as The Arbors) extending to vacant adjacent properties for the purpose of future connection.  A cross access easement on the adjacent property now known as The Arbors was established to line up with the Topaz Circle stub street and provide access to College Road. The right-of- way establishing Senior Way was recorded June 26, 2009.  Such interconnectivity, recommended by the Planning Commission, was consistently proposed in various plans through the years between the two properties as outlined in Exhibits B and D. Emergency and Public Service Access  Eliminating the interconnection could reduce emergency response times to Emerald Pointe.  Interconnected access provides access redundancy if there are emergencies at the entrances to either of the adjacent properties (Emerald Pointe, The Arbors).  Elimination of the proposed interconnection may create an obligation upon the property owner of The Arbors to make modifications to a recently approved Site Development Plan which has already received Conditional Approval by the Planning Commission.  Elimination of interconnection and access to adjacent public rights-of-way reduces operational efficiency of other City services such as utility provision, trash collection, school bus routing, and others. Transportation & Traffic  Single points of subdivision entry and exit can create traffic bottlenecks at those points. The proposed interconnection allows for an additional point of access to and from the Emerald Pointe subdivision from another arterial road.

MI-16-06 – Street Abandonment Request: Topaz Circle stub Report to City Council – August 8, 2016 Page 3  The proposed access to College Road may reduce the number of trips taken by residents through the intersection of McKee Road and College Road, which may divert some traffic from the intersection and improve the efficiency of the intersection for the general public.  The proposed interconnectivity may reduce travel times and distances to certain destinations and services.  The proposed interconnectivity may increase the viability of non-vehicle trips by increasing the access and reducing the distance to local services. Following a public hearing on July 18, 2016 where no members of the public spoke with regards to the abandonment proposal, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (8-0) to recommend that City Council deny the request to abandon the Topaz Circle stub street. An excerpt of the draft Planning Commission minutes are attached for reference. Advisory Comments: 1. Planning Staff advises that if City Council decides in favor of abandonment of the Topaz Circle stub street, additional details following such abandonment have not yet to be determined. These include: a. The establishment of utility easements and associated access easements. b. The process for transferring property or adjusting adjacent property lot lines. c. Planning Staff recommends provisions for pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between Emerald Pointe and The Arbors to allow access to and from College Road. d. Physical modifications to the Topaz Circle stub street which may include resurfacing, installing/removing curbing, landscaping, signage, etc. e. Identification of responsible party for implementation of physical changes in the subject area. f. Appropriate Record Plan documents to reflect the status and ownership of the subject area. 2. Abandonment of public streets and alleys does not constitute approval for physical alteration of such streets and alleys. Any modification or ground-disturbing activity must be reviewed through the appropriate site plan process and receive all requisite approvals by regulatory agencies.

MI-16-06 – Street Abandonment Request: Topaz Circle stub Report to City Council – August 8, 2016 Page 4 GUIDE TO ATTACHMENTS Exhibit Description/Author A Zoning Map Exhibit, with aerial photo (Staff) B DAC Agency comments C Presentation: “The Arbors: Review of Interconnection with Emerald Pointe” Presented before Council Committee of the Whole meeting of April 26, 2016 (Staff) D Excerpt of Minutes of Council Committee of the Whole, related to proposed interconnection between The Arbors Senior Garden Apartments and Emerald Pointe, April 26, 2016 (City Clerk) E Summary Chronology of Development Activity for 1051 College Road, City Council packet for meeting of June 27, 2016 (Staff) F Excerpt from draft minutes of the July 18, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting

City of Dover Attachment A: Zoning Exhibit Application No.: MI-16-06 Department of Planning & Inspections RG-5 M CPO vd Bl e C on ol st M IO le in em er G To p al Ct ge az Pa Cir rk D r Sc ar bo ro ug R-8 hR d l Pl pa CPO O CPO RG-5 Site es tm ins W R-20 te r C t M Dr ite cK an ee nz Ta C-2A Rd IO Ct e in ar m ua Aq CPO t an te r C Ta m O Sh Pin RG-2 Rd O R-10 e R-10 ak le g IO D ol r C Re ROS Me dO R-10 rio ak R-10 n Rd Dr R-10 RG-3 eek Dr ROS Cr st For Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus e R-10 DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Title: Abandonment of Topaz Circle stub street Address: Emerald Pointe subdivision Zoning: R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) Legend Date: 5-19-16 Project Area Dover Parcels Zoning « 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Dover Boundary

Exhibit B: DAC Agency Comments CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: JUNE 29, 2016 APPLICATION: ABANDONMENT OF TOPAZ CIRCLE STUB STREET AT EMERALD POINTE FILE #: MI-16-06 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Electric and Public Works Departments CONTACT PERSON: Paul Waddell - Electric Jason A. Lyon, P.E. – Public Works CONTACT PHONE #: ELECTRIC - 302-736-7070 PUBLIC WORKS – 302-736-7025 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 / STORMWATER / SANITATION / STREETS / GROUNDS 1. Per the City Code of Ordinances, each subdivision requires two (2) connections to existing streets. Topaz Circle stub street would provide the second connection to a street. Emerald Pointe does have another stub street (Opal Place) but the likelihood of connection is minimal, due to the nature of the land it would enter. Two (2) entrances to this subdivision would increase the ability for emergency and operational vehicles to access residents; therefore, staff does not support the abandonment of Topaz Circle. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES 1. ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / SANITATION / STREETS / GROUNDS 1. None ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / SANITATION / STREETS / GROUNDS 1. None. 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 .

C F MI-16-06 I I T R CITY OF DOVER Y E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE O M F A APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY R D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 07/06/16 D S O H V A E L R APPLICATION: Abandonment of Topaz Circle Stub Street at Emerald Pointe Revised FILE #: MI-16-06 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Jason Osika, Deputy Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 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 ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT: ADDITIONAL / SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN APPROVAL: - The Arbors roadway may need a cul-de-sac to provide a proper turn around for emergency apparatus if approved - Eliminating the interconnection could reduce the emergency apparatus response time to Emerald Point - Eliminating the interconnection could cause an access issues at the Arbors and/or Emerald Point if there is an emergency at the entrance to either development APPLICABLE CODES LISTED BELOW (NOT LIMITED TO): 2012 NFPA Life Safety Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2009 IBC (International Building Code) Latest editions of all other NFPA Codes as defined by the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 2012 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations City of Dover Code of Ordinances *If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person listed.

CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O D.A.C. MEETING DATE: June 29, 2016 T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Abandonment of Topaz Circle Stub Street at Emerald Pointe FILE#: MI-16-06 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Jonathan T. Moore 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: DelDOT has no comments regarding city & state code at this time. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: DelDOT has no recommendations at this time. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: Though Topaz Circle and Senior Way are not State owned/ maintained roads, DelDOT strongly supports the interconnection of the two streets and is opposed to the abandonment of the stub street connection of Topaz Circle. If you refer to DelDOT’s Development Coordination Manual section 3.5.1 Connectivity – Purpose and Scope, you will see that this site is an ideal candidate for interconnection and it will greatly benefit the existing and proposed communities. The benefits that will be recognized by the interconnection will include but are not limited to:  Alternative routes to local destinations to provide redundancy during road closures.  Opportunities for community interaction by eliminating barriers between developments.  Alternative modes choices (driving, transit, bicycling or walking)  Improved access to community facilities and shopping centers  A reduction in travel times and vehicle miles traveled for trips to local and regional destinations

 Reduced emergency response times because of more direct access or fire, police and EMS vehicles  More effective use of municipal resources for municipal service delivery (utility routing, sanitation vehicles, school bus routing, etc.) 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 Dover/Kent DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE County Metropolitan APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY Planning D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 6/1/2016 Organization APPLICATION: Abandonment of Topaz Circle Stub Street at Emerald Point FILE #: M-16-06 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. City of Dover Planning Commission 6/20/2016 Project Review M-16-06 Abandonment of Topaz Circle Stub Street at Emerald Point The MPO certainly supports the City of Dover’s requirement for a second means of egress from a significant subdivision. In this instance at Emerald Point, the second egress was delayed until the development of an intermediate property that had frontage on an alternative street. The current and main entrance is on McKee Road, a two lane road with a bypass lane to avoid turning vehicles with Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) of 19,236. The second, alternative access will be to College Road near the intersection with McKee Road that has an AADT of 8,852 and would allow west bound users to avoid the road with more than twice the traffic and the intersection that becomes congested during certain periods of the day. It offers eastbound users a less congested alternative as well. It is the MPO’s recommendation that the second means of egress for Emerald Point be retained. 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 June 2016 APPLICATION: Abandonment of Topaz Circle Stub Street at Emerald Point FILE #: MI-16-06 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: Source: 2014 Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Regulations CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Kent Conservation District has no objection to the stub abandonment for the above mentioned application. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1. If at any time expansion or earth disturbing activity (clearing, grubbing tree clearing etc.) takes place and exceeds 5000 square feet; a detailed Sediment and Stormwater Management Plan must be submitted and approved to the Kent Conversation District.

Exhibit C: Presentation THE ARBORS Review of Interconnection with Emerald Point

Chronology of The Arbors and Emerald Point ■ 2002 Emerald Point Subdivision approved – 107 Single Family Detached Dwellings – Stub street from Topaz Circle to property to the south (The Arbors) ■ 2004 Minor Subdivision of McKee Property – DelDOT requests 60 ft. cross access easement from subject property to Emerald Point – Public Works also requested a cross access easement – Cross access approved by Planning Commission and on the final recorded plan ■ 2005 College Road Garden Apartments – Reviewed as Planned Neighborhood Design – Senior Citizen Housing Option – Site Plan approved by Planning Commission but expired in 2007

Chronology of The Arbors and Emerald Point ■ 2007 The Arbors – Planned Neighborhood Design Senior Citizen Housing Option – Approved by Planning Commission – Received Final Site Plan Approval – Expired due to no commencement of construction (August 2009) ■ 2009 Record Plan Established Right-of-Way for Senior Way, which connects with Topaz Circle Stub Street – This connection provides the second access to a public street as required by the Land Subdivision Regulations ■ 2009-10 Rezoning of Lands of JNK, LLC from R-8 to RG-2 ■ 2010 Conditional Use Site Plan for The Arbors Condominiums (48 units) – Original proposal to have access only through Emerald Point – Staff recommendation and Planning Commission requirement to construct Senior Way, connecting Topaz Circle and College Road – Plan expired prior to finalization

The Arbors – Current Plan ■ The Arbors land plan consistent with prior submissions ■ Approved by Planning Commission on March 21, 2016 ■ Includes interconnection with Topaz Circle stub street

""'--"" trf;!i~~ __ -.(ar(w . . t. ~ I ~:;~~ , '- t(JIHVM ~ - ' l ' l ) ( M ,.=...ern.. ~-l;ll;l- t.l=......~•IA-) _ _ ..... i.--a ....-, '.~;::~~~- / : I I CR.~H.!C SC,.U.C

) j ~~ f!lliY-....:J61ofomn1D~ (IDIKIIDl'"-,rlr:E: ~ ~~- ~~-~ ~ -""'~ ~ ;:J:'Lllf1ll _ Cift _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ • Q f f [ I ' -, ~ C ' MI . .·r~ ~ ZONING BfOUIREUFNIS _a?r-~ __ _ · --- --- -~ . --- ---f;r"u.:I I----- IMPfRl!IOIJS CAI CUI ATIONS ----...:ii; ---!ia'ia: PARKING RATIONAL£ "'-.... -"u . I.OI .C.{"..t!O .... - --~ - --- lPMZll.l"IIIIIIIBI.N.- &-.l'fl'l ~ 1 lldl'Cfl...,. flW;I. a:"la..C9MCll!m.Rlt. I IUl!ll-SIMD I _J ' - --~ ~ -- - -- __/ -~ J I GENERAi NOJFS (CONTINIJED) IACDYf RfCRfATION AREA C/\1 CUI ATIONS I a!l-=ic » ! U. -tlllll.lll. LIIT IX Q..!1 1 1 1 : a t , . _ _ I I ~ SHREE CANESH LLC TI,E ARBORS SENIOR GARDEN APARTMENTS Cl TY OF DOVER APPUCA Tl ON #X- XX- XX CITY U OOVEfil. O(Ll,WAR[ SITIE PLAN

Exhibit D: Council Committee of the Whole Minutes COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 26, 2016 PAGE 6 Ms. Susan Hessler, 120 Cobblestone Lane, stated that she had attended two (2) of the community meetings and there was not an overwhelming majority that wanted anything done, except for some sort of speed control, whether it was a lighted fixture such as that now on Bicentennial. She expressed concern, if a roundabout were installed, that instead of going through the circle, people would come out onto Colony Drive, go through the light at Meetinghouse Lane and Colony Drive, and then divert onto Bicentennial Boulevard to cut over to Walker Road, and traffic would just be redirected. Ms. Hessler felt that this would create more of an excessive traffic pattern through the neighborhood. Mr. Hosfelt stated his view that, historically, people had not circumvented the current roundabout on Mifflin Road to go through Woodmill to Route 8. Based on the size and dimensions of the roundabouts, Ms. Hessler did not think they could be compared. She indicated that people cut through Colony Drive now, and she felt the mindset would be that if people want to get to Walker Road, they would go down to Bicentennial Boulevard and go right or left on Walker Road. Mr. Sudler questioned how concerns regarding parking at Continental Park would be addressed if the park was used for recreation. He questioned if there would be parking allowed for a time frame or if those who park there would be ticketed. Mr. Hosfelt stated his belief that there were no signs on the roadway that restrict parking at this time and parking would remain open. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend acceptance of the recommendation of DelDOT and the working group for the roundabout, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Traffic Concerns - Proposed Interconnection Between The Arbors Senior Garden Apartments and Emerald Pointe Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed a presentation entitled “The Arbors - Review of Interconnection with Emerald Pointe” (Attachment #2). She explained that, in 2002, the Planning Commission approved the subdivision now known as Emerald Pointe with 107 single-family detached homes. That plan included two (2) stub streets; one (1) extending west to a vacant property between Emerald Pointe and Hidden Oaks, and another extending from Topaz Circle to the south, to the subject property of The Arbors. Mrs. Townshend advised that, in 2004, there was a minor subdivision of the McKee Property, which resulted in the parcel that was again the subject of The Arbors. At that time, the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) and the Public Works Department requested a 60-foot cross access easement from the McKee property to Emerald Pointe to line up with the stub street. This easement was approved by the Planning Commission and was on the final recorded plan for that minor subdivision.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 26, 2016 PAGE 7 Mrs. Townshend indicated that a project called “College Road Garden Apartments” came forward in 2005 and was reviewed as a Planned Neighborhood Design - Senior Citizen Housing option. The site plan was approved by the Planning Commission, but it expired in 2007, before it went to final plan, or construction was begun. She stated that in 2007, The Arbors came forward again as a Planned Neighborhood Design - Senior Citizen Housing, which was essentially the same plan that had expired previously with a few small changes. Mrs. Townshend explained that this project was approved by the Planning Commission and received final site plan approvals from all agencies; however, construction never commenced and the plan expired in 2009. Prior to the expiration of the site plan, the right of way that establishes Senior Way was recorded. She noted that, in 2009 and early 2010, the property was rezoned from R-8 (One-Family Residence Zone), to RG-2 (General Residence Zone), and the previous plans were brought forward as senior apartments, since apartments became a permitted use. Mrs. Townshend informed members that, in 2010, there was another conditional use site plan application for the Arbors, with essentially the same building layout, which had minor tweaks to the parking and other layout on the site. She noted that this was for a 48-unit apartment building, and that every iteration for the property had been for 48 units. Mrs. Townshend stated that the original proposal would have had all traffic coming through Emerald Pointe, and there would be no access to College Road; however, Planning Department and DelDOT staff expressed concern about this. She noted that the Planning Commission ultimately required the construction of Senior Way, which would include access to College Road, and the connection to the Topaz Circle stub street. Mrs. Townshend indicated that this plan expired again, prior to getting all of the approvals and being finalized. Mrs. Townshend advised members that the current land plan submission for The Arbors was consistent with the prior submission, but had some changes to the parking layout. It was approved by the Planning Commission on March 21, 2016, and included the interconnection with the Topaz Circle stub street. Mrs. Townshend reviewed the 2007 site plan for The Arbors Planned Neighborhood Design - Senior Citizen Option on Page 5 of the presentation, and reminded members that this project went to final plan approval, but was not constructed. She explained that the active recreation area on the west side of Senior Way showed a multi-use path for the residents of the development, and the connection to Topaz Circle was part of the plan. Mrs. Townshend then reviewed the land plan for the Arbors that was approved by the Planning Commission on Page 6. She indicated that, for the most part, this plan remained unchanged from the 2007 plan, noting that parking would be tweaked and the connections to Topaz Circle and College Road would be retained. Mrs. Townshend advised members that there were concerns regarding how the connections would affect traffic through Emerald Pointe, in particular at the location where Emerald Pointe connects with McKee Road. Mrs. Townshend stated that, in terms of the history and prior approvals of Emerald Pointe, and the prior iterations of The Arbors property interconnection had always been part of the plan approval. Mr. Hosfelt commented that he travels this road back and forth to work each day, and it was not uncommon to sit through the light at College and McKee Roads for three (3) or four (4) cycles before getting through. He questioned if DelDOT could help with this.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 26, 2016 PAGE 8 Mr. Marc Cote, Assistant Director, Planning Development Coordination, DelDOT stated that the intersection of McKee and College Roads was eventually planned to be part of the Dover Transportation Improvement District that DelDOT was working with the City on; however, this was in the infancy stages and there were no planned improvements at the intersection at this time. Mr. Cote advised that the interconnection was there to provide the residents of the community another access point to College Road so they do not have to travel through the intersection. He stated that the senior housing generates only a little over 160 trips per day, so not much traffic would be using it, and the interconnection is there mainly for the community to use. Mr. Hosfelt invited those present who wished to speak to come forward. Mr. Thomas Disabatino, 346 Topaz Circle, Emerald Pointe, informed members that when he found out about the plan he was immediately concerned, due to the traffic at McKee and College Road. He stated that traffic stacks up from College Road all the way to the entrance and beyond of Emerald Pointe when heading in the direction of Kraft Foods. Mr. DiSabatino feared that Emerald Pointe will just become a pass-through to College Road at those times when the traffic is heavy. In addition, he indicated that when trying to make a left turn from College Road to McKee Road headed toward Delaware Technical and Community College, the left turn cycle allows only five (5) to six (6) cars through; therefore, he felt that people would use Senior Way, go through Emerald Pointe, and take their chances on trying to make a left turn at the Emerald Pointe entrance, which he indicated was already a dangerous proposition. Mr. Disabatino reiterated the major concern that this would become a pass-through for those trying to avoid the intersection, noting that he did not know the date when the improvements would be made. Mr. Hosfelt indicated that the improvements would take years. Mr. Dan Maher, 16 Inverness Court, Woodlands of Fox Hall, expressed his desire to raise the same issues that he raised before the Planning Commission. He stated that the distance from the entrance of Fox Hall on College Road to the intersection is roughly 0.3 miles and this area contains two (2) churches, a private residence, and a building development that empty onto College Road. Mr. Maher advised that the Arbors development would be the fourth development between the Woodlands of Fox Hall, Hidden Acres, the Arbors, and a little shopping center. He stated that those who are four (4) or five (5) cars back in the intersection during the day are stuck and cannot get to the left or right turn lane. Mr. Maher felt that having additional cars there would make that matter considerably worse. He did not understand where the projection of 160 trips came from, noting that there would be 48 units, each one with a car going in and out, and he felt the intersection would be a disaster. Mr. Maher expressed concern that the Arbors would be built before improvements are made and that it would make a bad situation worse. Referring to the discussion earlier in the meeting regarding Independence Boulevard, he questioned how many cars were traversing College Road if there were 6,000 per day on Independence Boulevard. Mr. David Pokrajac, 6 Tanzanite Court, agreed with other members of the public. He stated that two (2) years ago in March he was living at the Courtyards when there was an accident at night. The police were chasing someone in an all-terrain vehicle who entered the neighborhood, causing havoc

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 26, 2016 PAGE 9 and waking up Mr. Pokrajac and his neighbor. He noted this happened before this became a through traffic road and questioned what would happen if the interconnection came to fruition. Mr. Pokrajac noted that earlier in the meeting members discussed measures to improve the traffic situation on Independence Boulevard, which had become a through-traffic road, and now they were proposing to open a through-traffic road. He questioned if they would propose to build a roundabout in one (1) to ten (10) years to prevent traffic accidents, noting that there was no space in the neighborhood for a roundabout. Mr. Pokrajac stated that kids play basketball and baseball on the streets in the neighborhood and run and ride bicycles there. He questioned if there was a desire for kids to be healthy and able to defend our country if needed or to be on Facebook all the time and have spinal injuries. Ms. LaKeesha Christian, 207 Topaz Circle, advised members that her family had been living in the neighborhood for approximately seven (7) to eight (8) years. She referenced the concerns stated earlier in the meeting of residents living in and around Bicentennial Village, who felt they had lost the peacefulness of their neighborhood with all the traffic constantly going through. Ms. Christian noted that 6,000 cars was a lot of traffic going through and she did not want her neighborhood to experience this. She stated that they have a small community, know each other, and know the cars that travel in and out of the neighborhood. Ms. Christian feels very safe and secure there, her children play there, and she feels comfortable letting them go outside, run around the house, and go down to the park, knowing that they will be safe, and her neighbors will be looking out for them. She stated that she would lose all of that comfort if members agree to let a street cut through from one end to another. She stated her understanding that the purpose of the proposal was to help people to get in and out of the new residential area better, but expressed concern for those who are already living there and dealing with traffic when coming out. Ms. Christian noted that there is no light in front of Emerald Pointe and no approval for a light, so it would take longer to get out of the neighborhood. In addition to the safety concerns, she noted that there would be 48 additional units, which would mean 100 extra cars if people have two (2) cars. Ms. Christian reiterated that she would like her children to be safe and did not think it fair to lose that just to add a new development to the community. Mr. Mark Reaves, 10 Tanzanite Court, President, Emerald Pointe Homeowners Association, stated his concern that this development had come up numerous times under multiple names, and each time it had expired. He stated that they had no idea of ownership of this project, the owner had not come forward to the residents of the community, and there had been no discussion with the community regarding what was going on with the project. Mr. Reaves noted that Mr. Cote had casually stated that this was a through put to McKee Road on the other side. Mr. Reaves reiterated others’ comments that this was a neighborhood, and the road comes directly through a residential area. He indicated that, currently, one (1) vehicle can pass through the street, and drivers must pull over to the side to pass. Mr. Reaves felt it infeasible for cars to pass each other coming through. Mr. Reaves stated that if the Arbors development moves forward, there should be a “Do Not Enter” indication so others would not be entering his neighborhood, if there is some type of pass-through street. This would facilitate emergency vehicles reaching Emerald Pointe as they would not have to go all the way around and come down McKee Road to get into his community, which would be

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 26, 2016 PAGE 10 a benefit. However, Mr. Reaves felt that normal traffic should come in and out on College Road. He expressed his opinion that there should be discussion with DelDOT, noting that they had sent letters to DelDOT since late 2013 and early 2014 about getting some type of traffic light, such as a flashing yellow or flashing red light, but had been ignored for two (2) years. Mr. Reaves explained that residents must sometimes wait 15 minutes to get out of their neighborhood to go to work. He stated that there had been two (2) or three (3) fatalities. They had lost their neighborhood entrance signs which had not been replaced, although they had asked DelDOT for them numerous times for over two-and-a-half years, but had gotten the run-around. Mr. Reaves felt that if anything were to come before the City in regard to the interconnection, there had to be discussion with the neighborhood. He also commented that there were safety concerns due to numerous young children, expressing the desire to avoid an Amber Alert situation. Mayor Christiansen stated that Mr. Reaves was correct, noting that he and Council President Slavin had made two (2) requests for traffic studies to be initiated at the entrance to Emerald Pointe, at the request of the residents, and also at the request of the residents of The Meadows. He informed members that he had observed in the morning that it was “Death Wish 2000" coming out of Emerald Pointe and The Meadows. Mayor Christiansen said he did not know if this had any bearing on whether or not there would be a through street. He questioned if staff had received information from DelDOT in regard to traffic counts. Mayor Christiansen stated his belief that, with the completion of the West Dover Connector that runs through the south of the City, the traffic situation on McKee Road and Scarborough Road, and at the entrance and exit to Emerald Pointe, would be exacerbated. Mayor Christiansen indicated that he would like to see those traffic studies in hand for the City to make an intelligent decision on which direction the City would go. Mrs. Townshend advised that she was not aware of any studies. She indicated that she could follow up with the DelDOT traffic section, especially if there had been fatalities. If a study had not been done, Mrs. Townshend indicated that staff could work with DelDOT on this. [Sent to AMT] Mr. Cote stated that he would follow up with DelDOT’s traffic study section to see what the results were of the requests; however, based on his experience, there was not enough traffic out of Emerald Pointe to warrant a signal. Mr. Reaves suggested a signal at the intersection of McKee and Scarborough Roads, noting that this would break up the traffic pattern. Responding, Mr. Cote advised that warrants must be satisfied in order to place traffic signals, and even if a warrant is met, this does not necessarily mean that DelDOT would install a signal, just that the location is eligible for one. He reiterated his doubt that a warrant would be met. Mr. Cote noted that the residents were concerned about getting out onto McKee Road; however, he stated that an interconnection would allow them the opportunity to exit onto College Road. He explained that McKee Road has about 15,800 vehicles per day, whereas College Road has almost half that volume with 8,300 vehicles. Mr. Cote indicated that it would be much easier to get out onto College Road, which would provide the opportunity to bypass the intersection completely, when traveling westbound on College Road.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 26, 2016 PAGE 11 As a resident who lives and works off State College Road, and who grew up on State College Road, Mr. Sudler concurred with the majority of the residents who had voiced their opinion tonight. He stated that he would not vote in favor of the interconnection. Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, stated that he recalled receiving an email from Mr. Mark Luszcz, Assistant Chief Traffic Engineer, regarding the intersection of McKee Road modified to Scarborough Road. It was Mr. Koenig’s belief that DelDOT had done a traffic study and recommended that a signal be constructed at that location when the budget allows. In regard to community planning, Mr. Koenig stated that interconnectivity is a component of the City’s Subdivision Code and staff had been working on this with design engineers, developers, and existing developments for more than 25 years. He explained that communities such as Bicentennial Village, Presidential Courts, The Green, Deerfield, Woodmill, and Woodmill Apartments are interconnected by roads. Mr. Koenig explained that roads were constructed all the way to the boundaries of these subdivisions. He noted that Emerald Pointe, Hidden Oaks, the Village of Cannon Mill, and the Village of Westover all have stub roads constructed to the boundaries to attain interconnectivity for school buses, emergency vehicles, vehicular traffic, and general day-to-day activities of a community. Mr. Koenig indicated that staff had fought for many years for cross-access agreements and cross-access construction to facilitate interconnections between various types of developments to alleviate additional traffic on main roads and main intersections. He advised that State growth patterns are pushing development to the communities. Mr. Koenig noted that traffic volumes in the City would continue to go up as Dover grows and becomes more urbanized and this was a reality for which staff had been planning for more than two (2) decades. He stated that transportation systems, transportation planning, utilities, etc., are part of the community fabric. Acknowledging that he understood that there are negatives to interconnectivity, Mr. Koenig noted that there are also positives that the City assumed would happen when developments and construction were planned and authorized. He explained that if Council decides not to approve the interconnection, there would be a subdivision with 150 units that has one (1) connection to the road for emergency vehicles to get in or out. Mr. Koenig advised that votes by Council and the Planning Commission regarding interconnectivity had not always been unanimous because it is difficult when portions of the community say they do not want it. Some residents who bought lots in a subdivision become upset because roads may actually be connected to other developments. Mr. Koenig expressed his opinion that staff had done a good job of laying the foundation for interconnections because they are important to the community. Mr. Reaves stated that the community was planned in 2005 or 2006, and he felt the interconnectivity should have happened when they started building the neighborhood. He indicated that a road could have been put through to College Road at that time, noting that it was now coming as a surprise to residents. He expressed his belief that residents did not disagree with interconnectivity; however, they had a problem with traffic flow coming through the neighborhood. Mr. Reaves felt that this should be considered strongly, noting that emergency vehicles coming in from College Road would be welcome; however, studies were incomplete regarding traffic coming in through the other

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 26, 2016 PAGE 12 neighborhood. He indicated that currently there were 107 houses, and children in the neighborhood had grown, and were now driving. Mr. Reaves stated that households that used to have one (1) or two (2) vehicles now had four (4), and all of this traffic was trying to exit at the same time. He stated that DelDOT had denied their request for any type of alleviation for traffic exiting out onto Scarborough/McKee Road. Mr. Reaves indicated that they had asked for the center lane to be extended to allow drivers to pass and get to the center lane and then merge in to the traffic, noting that this lane ends before their development. Mr. Reaves informed members that they had asked for a flashing red or yellow light. All of these things were requested over the past two (2) years and were denied. He stated, if the project goes forward and more cars are added to the flow, nothing had been suggested to alleviate problems getting out of the development, and he reiterated that there have been three (3) fatalities. Mrs. Townshend pointed out that the subdivision site plan had been approved with the interconnection. The Planning Commission had acted, and this matter was not being brought to the Committee or Council for approval. She indicated that if Council determines that they want to look at how this could be eliminated, there would be ways to consider this; however, approval was not on the current agenda. Mr. Hosfelt questioned the process if there was a desire to take action. Responding, Mrs. Townshend explained that she provided information to Mr. William Pepper, Deputy City Solicitor, who evaluated the various codes and stated that Council would have the purview to abandon the right of way of the stub street in Emerald Pointe. Mrs. Townshend advised that if this was something that Council wants to do, it would be initiated. This matter would have to go through the Development Advisory Committee process and through the Planning Commission, with a recommendation, so this would not be a simple motion, but a process that would have to go forward to effect a change. Mr. Sudler moved to look into the process of abandoning the stub street that was recommended by the Planning Commission in Emerald Pointe, seconded by Mr. Hare. Mr. Hare stated his belief that there was plenty of time on this issue, noting that the project had not yet been developed or built. He suggested reviewing it for access for emergency vehicles or school buses. Mr. Hare pointed out that there are other developments, such as Hidden Acres, that have only one (1) way in and out. He felt that if the development is built and there are issues and problems, they could be addressed in two (2) or three (3) years, as problems were being addressed in Bicentennial Village. Ms. Rose Shields, 339 Topaz Circle, stated that when she purchased her property, she asked about this section and was told not to worry about it. She expressed concern about the two (2) houses on either side with traffic going through. Mr. Sudler stated that he did not oppose interconnection; however, he opposed it at the location discussed at the present moment. He felt that with further input from the community and further

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 26, 2016 PAGE 13 planning, a happy medium would be found. He noted that the Village of Westover had one (1) way in and out and they had been fine. Mr. Hutchison felt, based on the comments made by neighbors this evening, that members had an opportunity and responsibility to review this matter further to make sure that everyone is on the same page, and understands the issue. He also felt that there was a responsibility to address the concerns, due to public safety. Mr. Hosfelt advised that he lives in Fox Hall West, where residents suffer every day with interconnection from Westfield cutting through the neighborhood to get to Kenton Road more quickly. He stated that he receives complaints from his neighbors, understood the concerns it causes, and could only imagine what this would cause for the development of Emerald Pointe. Mr. Hosfelt noted that representatives from DelDOT had indicated there would be 8,500 vehicles going back and forth each day. He believed that growth and speeds would become greater. Based on Captain Mark Spicer’s comments earlier in the evening, Mr. Hosfelt felt that accidents would increase and expressed the desire to learn from the discussions earlier in the evening in regard to Bicentennial Village. Mr. Keller stated that he lives in Fox Hall and that any more traffic on College Road would be a mess. He stated that he travels two (2) to three (3) times per day from Oakmont Road to College Road. The motion to recommend looking into the process of abandoning the stub street that was recommended by the Planning Commission in Emerald Pointe unanimously carried. Mr. Marion Wright, 118 Topaz Circle, expressed concern about the traffic problems they had experienced, noting that there had been two (2) or three (3) fatalities at the intersection where residents exit. He indicated that when he is exiting to the left or right and he sees a car turning the corner, he thinks he has adequate time to exit; however, the next thing he knows, the car is on top of him, going about 60 or 65 miles per hour. Mr. Wright advised that he and his wife see people flying on their way to work and home at night. He felt this was a dangerous problem that might be reduced if there were stop or speed limit signs. Mr. Wright stated that when making a left-hand turn, he must pull up because he is afraid that someone will hit him from behind instead of going around. Mr. Wright advised members that cars in back cannot see the curve in the road. He felt that bringing a policeman to this location from time to time to warn people about high speeds would probably help, and hopefully there would be no more fatalities. Review of Position Description/Requirements - City Fire Marshal (Inspector III) Due to time constraints, this item was deferred. Mr. Hutchison moved for adjournment of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Cole and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:14 p.m.

Exhibit E: Chronology of The Arbors Chronology of Development Activity for Property at 1051 College Road, Dover, DE Tax Parcel: ED-05-067.00-01-35.03-000 2002 Emerald Point Subdivision (SB-02-01F)  Development review for property to the north of property at 1051 College Road.  Residential Subdivision of 107 single family detached dwelling units. o Subdivision entrance from McKee Road leading to internal street network of two major streets with several other cul-de-sac streets and two streets showing interconnectivity to adjacent parcels. o During the land planning process for the residential subdivision of Emerald Pointe a ‘stub street’ from Topaz Circle was planned to provide for access to a then vacant tract of land on College Road and to provide the continuation of the traffic circulation network in the general area. Opal Place is also a ‘stub street’ to another adjacent vacant lot north of Hidden Oaks. o Utility network (water and sewer services) located within the right- of-way are stubbed to the property line.  July 3, 2002 Development Advisory Committee Review  August 19, 2002 Planning Commission Review of Conceptual Subdivision Plan and granted approval to concept plan and recommended approval of waiver to reduce paved street width from 38 feet to 32 feet in the subdivision.  September 9, 2002 Utility Committee Recommends approval of waiver to reduce the paved width of the streets from 38 feet to 32 feet with the right- of-way remaining at 60 feet. Accepted by City Council on September 23, 2002.  October 10, 2002 Development Advisory Committee Review  October 25, 2002 Planning Commission Review of Preliminary Subdivision Plan and grants conditional plan approval including waiver to reduce paved street width from 38 feet to 32 feet and noting that future interconnection from the subdivision to adjacent properties will be subject to review processes. o The subdivision streets of Topaz Avenue (Circle) and Opal Place are designed to provide the opportunity for interconnection to adjacent parcels should they be developed in the future. o DelDOT recommends relocation of the future connection that extends Topaz Avenue (Circle) to College Road since its it too close to the intersection of Saulsbury/McKee Road; the recommendation is to move the connection further west.  March 19, 2004 Final Plan Approval granted to Subdivision Final Record Plat by Planning Office. o Includes Entrance Plan approval by DelDOT on March 6, 2003. Commercial Entrance Permit issued October 6, 2003 for subdivision entrance to McKee Road  Construction of Emerald Point Phase 1 begins June 2004 and construction of Emerald Point Phase II begins February 2006. Chronology of Development Activity for Property at 1051 College Road Page 1 of 5

2004 Lands of Mary E. McKee: Minor Subdivision Plan (SB-04-06)  Application filed August 4, 2004: Property at 1021 W. State College Road (6.1163 acres) is proposed for subdivision into two parcels as Parcel A of 4.0345 acres and the residual of 2.0818 acres. Initial parcel identified as Tax Parcel Ed-05-067.00-01-35.00-000. (Parcel A becomes The Arbors site.) Property is zoned R-8. o The Property had filed applications in June 2004 for amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and seeking rezoning of the property to CPO. The requests were denied by the Planning Commission and then withdrawn by the applicant. (MI-04-07 and Z-04-07).  September 9, 2004 Development Advisory Committee Review. o City Public Works Office requested cross access easement language to allow access from College Road to the proposed stub of Topaz Circle in Emerald Point subdivision. o DelDOT requests 60 ft. cross access easement across property from property to the north (for continuation of street network from Emerald Point project). Specific location to be determined in the future.  September 20, 2004 Planning Commission Public Hearing and Review: Action to approve subdivision with condition. o Planning Commission required that the location and width of the perpetual cross access from the adjacent property on the north (Emerald Pointe Subdivision) across the subject property to College Road will be determined in conjunction with the Site Plan approval process for development of the subject property. o The adjacent property on the north (Emerald Point) includes a right-of-way for a public street which currently terminates at the adjoining property line.  October 29, 2004 Final Record Plan Approval granted to Subdivision Plan. Record Plan includes Note: “This plan hereby provides a 24 feet wide perpetual cross access easement from College Road to the proposed stub street of Topaz Circle to be construction in Emerald Point Subdivision. The exact location of the easement to be determined at the time of development of Parcel A.” 2005 College Road Garden Apartments: Planned Neighborhood Design - Senior Housing Option (C-05-01)  The project was reviewed under the provisions of the Planned Neighborhood Design – Senior Citizen Housing Option in order to construct 52 units in two apartment style buildings and with a garage building. Project included entrance to College Road and a connection of a drive aisle to Topaz Circle.  April 7, 2005 Development Advisory Committee Review  April 18, 2005 Planning Commission Public Hearing and Review: took action to table application seeking additional information on building details, project density, traffic circulation, and the recreation area. Chronology of Development Activity for Property at 1051 College Road Page 2 of 5

 April 21, 2005 Active Recreation Area Plan reviewed by PRCE.  May 6, 2005 Revised Plan submitted that revised unit count to 48 dwelling units, revised traffic circulation, etc.  May 16, 2005 Planning Commission Review: Action to grant approval with conditions  2005-2006 Review of several Check Prints as project moved toward Final Plan  May 15, 2006 Planning Commission grants a one-year extension of plan approval.  May 30, 2007 Plan expires; plan not finalized. 2007 The Arbors: Planned Neighborhood Design – Senior Housing Option (C-07-05)  The Conditional Use Site Plan project was reviewed under the provisions of the Planned Neighborhood Design – Senior Citizen Housing Option in order to construction an apartment style building of 48 units.  June 7, 2007 Development Advisory Committee Review  June 18, 2017 Planning Commission Public Hearing and Review: took action to table application seeking further discussions of the traffic distribution and circulation for the site and the potential extension of Topaz Circle to College Road as a public street.  August 9, 2007 Development Advisory Committee Review of Revised Plan  August 20, 2007 Planning Commission Public Hearing & Review: Action to grant approval with conditions and including recommendations of approval for street waivers on horizontal curve radius and reduction of street right-of- way from 60 feet to 46 feet for creation of public street.  September 9, 2007 Utility Committee Review of street waivers recommending approval to City Council.  August 18, 2008 Planning Commission grants a one-year extension of plan approval.  February 17, 2009 Planning Commission informational review of plan design revisions.  June 22, 2009 Record Plan approval granted.  June 26, 2009 Record Plan recorded to establish right-of-way of Senior Way as a public street that divided the parcel into two areas.  July 13, 2009 Final Plan Approval granted to Conditional Use Site Plan.  August 31, 2009 C-07-05 Plan approval expires as construction was not commenced. 2009 Record Plan for Senior Way  June 26, 2009 Record Plan recorded establishing the right-of-way for Senior Way as associated with C-07-05. Record Plan was completed and recorded to establish the street right-of-way (width of 46 feet) for Senior Way as a public street and divided the property into two areas. o The street known as Senior Way (the continuation of the Topaz Circle “Stub Street”) as a public street to interconnect with College Road. o In addition, the street interconnection provides a distinct second Chronology of Development Activity for Property at 1051 College Road Page 3 of 5

entrance to both The Arbors and to Emerald Pointe Subdivision as now required with the revised Land Subdivision Regulations pertaining to streets. o Record Plan establishing public street right-of-way remains in place; no requirement for plan expungement in Land Subdivision Regulations. 2009-2010 Rezoning of Lands of JNK, LLC at 1051 College Road: Rezoning to RG-2 (Z-09- 05)  Rezoning request (Z-09-05) for the property at 1051 College Road (Lands of JNK, LLC) from R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) to RG-2 (General Residence Zone). RG-2 allows multiple dwellings.  March 15, 2010 Planning Commission Public Hearing and Review: Recommends approval of rezoning to RG-2.  April 12, 2010 City Council approved the rezoning to RG-2. 2010 The Arbors Condominiums (C-10-02)  April 22, 2010 Application Filed: Conditional Use Site Development Plan C- 10-02 proposed The Arbors Condominiums as an apartment building with forty-eight (48) units. The proposed use is considered a multiple dwelling. o The Application proposed access to The Arbors from McKee Road only by traveling through Emerald Point via the Topaz Circle stub street to two entrance/exit points (no public street construction proposed). An emergency access only connection to College Road was proposed.  July 8, 2010 Development Advisory Committee Review o Planning Staff recommends redesign of the site layout to implement construction of Senior Way (the continuation of the Topaz Circle stub street) to interconnect with College Road and to also provide access from the street to The Arbors. Similar comments also provided by Public Works Office, Fire Marshal’s Office, and Dover/Kent County MPO.  July 12, 2010 Review of Active Recreation Area Plan by PRCE Committee  July 19, 2010 Planning Commission Public Hearing but postponed action on Application C-10-02 seeking additional information on unit types and streets/interconnectivity.  August 16, 2010 Planning Commission Review continued: granted approval of C-10-02 with conditions. o Condition of approval includes the requirement to construct a public street from College Road and connecting to Emerald Point at Topaz Circle. This public street is to be constructed in the existing right-of- way for Senior Way. Access to The Arbors would be from this new public street.  July 18, 2011 Planning Commission grants a one-year extension of plan approval.  August 20, 2012 Planning Commission grants a second one-year extension of plan approval.  August 31, 2013 Plan expired. Plan not finalized; no construction authorized. Chronology of Development Activity for Property at 1051 College Road Page 4 of 5

2016 The Arbors Senior Garden Apartments (S-16-07)  February 5, 2016 Application filed: Site Plan (S-16-07) to permit construction of a 48-unit senior garden apartment complex consists of a proposed three- story 55,350 S.F. residential building and associated site improvements. o Includes construction of an improved public street (Senior Way) on existing right-of-way connecting College Road and Topaz Circle. The parcel exists as two discontinuous areas on either side of the right-of- way. The entrance to The Arbors is from Senior Way. o The owner of record is Shree Ganesh LLC  March 2 and 6, 2016 Development Advisory Committee Meetings & Review  March 15, 2016 Review of Active Recreation Plan by PRCE-COW  March 21, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing and Review: Action to grant conditional approval of Site Plan S-16-07 Chronology of Development Activity for Property at 1051 College Road Page 5 of 5

Exhibit F: Draft Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION July 18, 2016 Excerpt from Meeting Minutes - Draft MI-16-06 Abandonment of Topaz Circle Stub Street at Emerald Pointe – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council of a proposal to abandon the stub street connecting Topaz Circle and planned street Senior Way. The abandonment would result in the Emerald Pointe subdivision having only one connection onto a major road, McKee Road and would eliminate the interconnection to The Arbors via the planned street of Senior Way and to College Road. This matter was referred by the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee of City Council to the Development Advisory Committee and Planning Commission for a recommendation. Council District 1. Emerald Pointe Subdivision (SB-02-01) was approved by the Planning Commission in 2002 with Final Plan approvals in 2003-2004 and has since been developed. Application S-16-07 The Arbors Senior Garden Apartments was conditionally approved by the Planning Commission on March 21, 2016. This Abandonment proposal is as a result of its referral for review from the City Council on June 27, 2016. Representatives: None Mrs. Townshend stated that following the Commission’s approval of The Arbors on March 21, 2016, members of City Council heard from a number of constituents particularly in Emerald Pointe about concerns with the interconnection of Topaz Circle and Senior Way. The topic of interconnection was brought to the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee for discussion on April 26, 2016. At this meeting, Staff provided a history of The Arbors and the interconnection between Emerald Pointe and The Arbors. Ultimately, following that discussion and the Minutes are in the packet the Committee approved a motion that asked that the process for abandonment of the stub street at Topaz Circle be considered. On June 27, 2016 at the City Council meeting, Council took action to waive portions of the process for street abandonment and refer the proposal for abandonment of the Topaz Circle stub street to the Planning Commission for public hearing this evening. The display on the screen is showing where the interconnection is between Senior Way in The Arbors and Topaz Circle stub street. This was referred to the Development Advisory Committee in preparation for the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission’s role is to make a recommendation to the Council Committee of the Whole Utility Committee who will then consider the matter on August 9, 2016. They will then report out to City Council. The recommendation of the Planning Staff as well the other departments on the Development Advisory Committee, in particular the Department of Public Works, the Fire Marshal’s Office, DelDOT and the Dover/Kent County MPO was not to recommend in favor of the abandonment of the stub street. The Land Subdivision Regulations provide language on the requirement for interconnection for subdivisions that contain twenty (20) or more lots or site developments that contain one hundred fifty (150) or more dwelling units. The Emerald Pointe Subdivision Plan was approved in 2002 by the Planning Commission and included two points on interconnection. One connecting to what is now The Arbors and then one connecting to another piece of property to the west that is not very easily developable. This is the major way that they can connect to

another roadway. The cross access between The Arbors has been in place during all previous iterations of review of The Arbors and Senior Way was actually recorded in June 2009. We have seen throughout the City many cases where we have not in the past done interconnection and it creates challenges for both daily travel; there is one way in and one way out. It also is not ideal for emergency access. The idea is that once this interconnection is built there will be multiple accesses to public roads. Not having those accesses could increase response times in cases of emergency and it also is less than ideal for traffic flow. There are a number of developments on the west side of town for example the neighborhood across from Dover High, where you have one way in and one way out. If your children are friends with someone in the neighboring development you have to go out onto Route 8 to turn back into the development. It’s inefficient and puts more traffic out on the roads and provides fewer alternatives for travel. The comments from the Planning Office as well as the other departments are located in the packet. A public hearing is required this evening. The minutes of when this was discussed at the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee are also included in the packet. At that point, there were a number of members of the public who shared concerns. Ms. Maucher stated that as a member of the Legislative Finance Committee, previously she was present during that public hearing at the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting. Mr. Tolbert opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Mr. Holden questioned if this request initiated by Council needs to be a recommendation, approval or denial by the Planning Commission? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Townshend stated that the Commission would make a recommendation. Mr. Holden stated that he thinks Mr. Koenig stated that the City has been moving in the path of having interconnected neighborhoods for decades and that they bring pros and cons but that they have decided as a City that the pros outweigh the cons. When you have over one hundred (100) homes and only one way a traffic accident or something else could block access. The main driver to go cut through this neighborhood to him doesn’t seem to be there. He doesn’t think it makes an easier path if traffic is busy on either one of the roads. That cut through traffic can be addressed. He thinks that there is great reason to have interconnection. It’s tough when it happens after the fact because people are used to the reality of what they see today expecting that it’s always going to look like that. He thinks there is a really strong basis to keep the interconnection and he is supportive of it. Ms. Maucher questioned if the connection to the other property would be a straight cut through from Emerald Pointe to the next road or are there going to be turns that you have to make to get to the other entrance? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mrs. Townshend stated that the Exhibit shows that Senior Way curves so it’s not a straight road but there are not intersections. Ms. Maucher stated that having been present for the larger public comment, she does appreciate that there are concerns about people cutting through the development to get from one main roadway to another to avoid traffic. Is there anything else that can be done? She knows that for

Independence Boulevard she was present for a discussion regarding bump outs and things like that to slow down the traffic. Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mrs. Townshend stated that there could be traffic calming measures that could be put in place but typically the traffic calming comes into effect when you have more of a straightaway. With Independence Boulevard, part of the challenge is that you have a straight road that goes right through that neighborhood. Here this is somewhat of a circuitous route if you were going to try to cut through it. It’s not really going to save you much. It certainly could be something that if problems were to arise that there could be traffic calming measures but she thinks that just by virtue of design they wouldn’t anticipate those types of problems. Mr. Holden moved to recommend denial to City Council for MI-16-06 Abandonment of Topaz Circle Stub Street at Emerald Pointe and following the recommendations of the Department of Public Works, the Fire Marshal’s Office, DelDOT, Dover/Kent County MPO and Planning Staff, seconded by Dr. Jones and the motion was unanimously carried 8-0 by roll call vote. Mr. Holden voting yes, for the reasons stated. Mr. Roach voting yes, for the reasons stated and due to the fact that emergency vehicles need different ways to enter and exit. Having one way in and out is a lot more dangerous than having people who just want to kill time and pass through the neighborhood. But to have access for someone in need is more important than trying to make it to work on time. Mr. Holt voting yes, for the reasons previously stated. Mr. Baldwin voting yes, for the reasons previously stated. Dr. Jones voting yes; based upon the recommendations of Staff and others who have involvement. Mrs. Welsh voting yes, for the reasons previously stated in regard to the safety issues. Ms. Maucher voting yes, for public safety reasons. Mr. Tolbert voting yes, for all of the reasons stated and it seems to be in the best interest for the City of Dover.

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Utility Committee AGENDA ITEM NO.: DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Electric DATE SUBMITTED: 7/18/2016 PREPARED BY: Harry A. Maloney, III, Electric Director; Paul Waddell, Engineering Services & System Ops Superintendent SUBJECT: Electric Department Federal Regulatory Audit Report (Information Only) REFERENCE: N/A RELATED PROJECT: N/A APPROVALS: City Manager; Controller EXHIBITS: Summarization Letter with nine (9) attachments EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: None AMOUNT BUDGETED: N/A FUNDING SOURCE (Dept/Page in CIP & Budget): None TIMETABLE: Present on August 9, 2016 meeting as information only RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action is required, information only. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The City of Dover Electric Department underwent a mandated compliance audit between April 18 - 29, 2016. This audit was performed by Reliability First (RF) and was evaluated using applicable North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Standards for the City of Dover’s current registration as a Distribution Provider (DP). A random selection of standards, unknown to the City of Dover prior to the audit, was presented and City of Dover personnel were required to provide documentation for the last calendar year to prove compliance with the possibility to encompass the time period from the last audit completed in 2010. As mentioned in the City’s summarization letter dated July 15, 2016, there were no Possible Violations noted by Reliability First (RF) and only one (1) Open Enforcement Action. The Open Enforcement Action was directly related to a mitigation plan that at the time of the Audit Report was still active. The mitigation plan was completed and approved on May 31, 2016. The completion and approval of the mitigation plan removed the Open Enforcement Action which was mentioned in the Notice of Compliance Exception Treatment RFC2016015488 and RFC2016015489. Based on the outcome of this audit, the City of Dover is in compliance and no fines will be imposed on the City of Dover. Additionally, no fines were imposed for the previously Open Enforcement Action.

July 15, 2016 SUBJECT: Summarization of the 2016 City of Dover Reliability First Electrical Standards Audit TO: Scott Koenig On April 18, 2016 the City of Dover Electric Utility was audited by Reliability First (RF) for compliance with applicable North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). At this time the Electric Utility was actively registered as a Distribution Provider only and fell under the guidance of approximately 25 NERC standards. During the previous audit in 2010, the utility was under the guidance of additional standards due to active registrations of Distribution Provider (DP) and Load Serving Entity (LSE). We received notification on December 7, 2015 that the LSE registration was being deactivated by NERC and therefore all applicable standards were no longer being monitored (letter attached). In December 2015 it was identified that possible discrepancies existed for two standards applicable to the DP registration and the staff started the self-reporting actions with RF. The two standards in question were EOP-004-2 and PRC-005-2 and the self-reporting process was completed on January 15, 2016 (self-reports attached). This process triggered the requirement for mitigation plans to outline correction of the possible discrepancies and submission to RF for approval of the mitigation plans (mitigation plans attached). Once complete, we submitted the required documentation to close out our mitigation plans and received certificates validation we are now in compliance (certificate of completions attached). Shortly after the audit completion in April, the utility was notified that RF was satisfied with the audit and the information we provided them and we were sent the final report (report attached). Page 1 of the report provides a Summary of Findings which show the utility has 0 Possible Violations and 1 Open Enforcement Action which concerned the then open mitigation plan for PRC-005-2. This mitigation plan was complete and approved by RF on May 31, 2016. On June 8, 2016 the utility received official notification from RF that the Compliance Exception Treatment for the self-reports were officially closed (letter attached). Paragraph one of the letter states: " ... that it will not pursue an enforcement action in connection with the instances of non- compliance described in the attached spreadsheet." The spreadsheet lists the self-report ID numbers we were assigned upon initial reporting. This decision by RF resulted in no fines or adverse comments officially documented against the utility and the City of Dover.

In summary, the utility hired an outside contractor to aide in the preparation for this audit. North American Energy Services (NAES) received all of our current documentation and performed a GAP analysis to identify shortfalls in our compliance culture. In addition to advising the submission of the two self-reports, NAES has also assisted the utility in developing the mitigation plan, instituting the plan, and offered various other documentation and consultation on other standards. We have continued to utilize their services and we establish long term procedures and documentation tools inherent to a culture of compliance to all guidance governing the operation of the utility. ELECTRIC DIRECTOR, CITY OF DOVER ATIACHEMENTS: l. Notice of Deactivation on the NERC Compliance Registry (NCR) of the Load-Serving Entity, December 7, 2015 2. Self-Report City of Dover EOP-004-2 3. Mitigation Plan City of Dover EOP-004-2 Rl 4. Certificate of Mitigation Plan Completion City of Dover EOP-004-2 5. Self-Report City of Dover PRC-005-2 6. Mitigation Plan City of Dover PRC-005-2 Rl 7. Certificate of Mitigation Plan Completion City of Dover PRC-005-2 8. Compliance Operations (FERC Order 693) Audit Report 9. Notice of Compliance Exception Treatment RFC2016015488 and RFC2016015489

December 7, 2015 Harry Maloney Ill City of Dover (NCR00713) 860 Buttner Place Dover, DE 19904 hmaloney@dover.de.us Dear Harry Maloney Ill, Notice of Deactivation on the NERC Compliance Registry (NCR) of the load-Serving Entity (LSE) Function. In accordance with Section 501.1.3.1 of the NERC Rules of Procedure (ROP) 13 , The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) provides notice that the LSE function of City of Dover, NERC Compliance Registry ID Number NCR00713, has been deactivated on the NCR in accordance with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) order, Docket No. RR15-4-001 as of October 15, 2015. This deactivation only applies to the LSE function and does not apply to any other functions City of Dover (NCR00713) is currently registered for. The Entity will remain responsible for funding in accordance with Section 1106.1-2 of the ROP regardless of registration. In addition LSEs are expected to provide necessary data to other reliability functions. A deactivation from the NCR indicates that an entity is no longer subject to mandatory compliance with the applicable NERC Reliability Standards that have been approved by FERC as of the effective deactivation date. Continued voluntary compliance with NERC Reliability Standards by City of Dover, is considered good operating practice by the industry and is recommended by NERC. NERC retains the right to register City of Dover for any function at any time, in accordance with NERC's Statement of Compliance Registry Criteria, as the criteria may be amended from time to time, if the facts and circumstances so warrant. 13 NERC's Rules of Procedure are posted on the NERC Web site at http:Uwww.nerc.com/AboutNERC/Pages/Ru les- of-Procedure.aspx under "Rules of Procedure in Effect" . RELIABILITY I ACCOUNTABILITY www.nerc.com I 3353 Peachtree Road NE I Suite 600, North Tower I Atlanta, GA 30326 I 404-446-2560

NERC City of Dover (NCR00713) December 7, 2015 If you have further questions, please contact the undersigned: Terry Brinker, Manager of Registration Services North American Electric Reliability Corporation 3353 Peachtree Road NE Suite 600, North Tower Atlanta, GA 30326 Terry.Brinker@nerc.net Respectfully, Terry Brinker, Manager of Registration Services 2 www.nerc.com I 3353 Peachtree Road NE I Suite 600, North Tower I Atlanta, GA 30326 I 404-446-2560

ReliabilityFirst Confidential Non-Public Information January 15, 2016 Self Report Entity Name: City of Dover (COD) NERC ID: NCR00713 Standard: EOP-004-2 Requirement: EOP-004-2 R1. Date Submitted: January 15, 2016 Has this violation previously No been reported or discovered?: Entity Information: Joint Registration Organization (JRO) ID: Coordinated Functional Registration (CFR) ID: Contact Name: Harry Maloney III Contact Phone: 3027367088 Contact Email: Hmaloney@dover.de.us Violation: Violation Start Date: January 01, 2014 End/Expected End Date: January 15, 2016 Region Initially Determined a December 23, 2015 Violation On: Reliability Functions: Distribution Provider (DP) Is Possible Violation still No occurring?: Number of Instances: 1 Has this Possible Violation No been reported to other Regions?: Which Regions: Date Reported to Regions: Detailed Description and The City of Dover is officially self-reporting a possible violation of North Cause of Possible Violation: American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Standard EOP-004-2 (Event Reporting) Requirement 1. Prior to our audit scheduled for April of 2016, we contracted with NAES Corporation to perform a Gap analysis of our NERC Compliance Program. During the Gap analysis, NAES noted that the City of Dover did not have an Event Operating plan dated for calendar year 2014. For the time period starting with the effective date of this standard, January 1, 2014 until the date of this report, the City of Dover did not experience any of the reportable events listed in Attachment 1 of the standard that are applicable to the Distribution Provider. Mitigating Activities: Description of Mitigating The City of Dover contracted with NAES Corporation to provide the necessary Activities and Preventative Event Operating plan documentation as required by EOP-004-2 R1, which has Measure: been implemented and all necessary contact information has been verified as of January 15, 2016. A reoccurring calendar event has been added to our MS Outlook Calendar to ensure the annual review requirements of EOP-004-2 are met. Confidential Non-Public Information Page 1 of 2 01/15/2016

ReliabilityFirst Confidential Non-Public Information January 15, 2016 Self Report Date Mitigating Activities January 15, 2016 Completed: Impact and Risk Assessment: Potential Impact to BPS: Minimal Actual Impact to BPS: Minimal Description of Potential and The City of Dover experienced no events that were reportable for this Actual Impact to BPS: standard. The impact to the Bulk Electric System due to this potential violation was therefore minimal. Risk Assessment of Impact to The City of Dover experienced no events that were reportable for this BPS: standard. The impact to the Bulk Electric System due to this potential violation was therefore minimal. Additional Entity Comments: Additional Comments From Comment User Name No Comments Additional Documents From Document Name Description Size in Bytes No Documents Confidential Non-Public Information Page 2 of 2 01/15/2016

ReliabilityFirst Confidential Non-Public Information January 29, 2016 Mitigation Plan Mitigation Plan Summary Registered Entity: City of Dover Mit Plan Code NERC Violation ID Requirement Violation Validated On Mit Plan Version RFC2016015488 EOP-004-2 R1. 1 Mitigation Plan Submitted On: Mitigation Plan Accepted On: Mitigation Plan Proposed Completion Date: Actual Completion Date of Mitigation Plan: Mitigation Plan Certified Complete by COD On: Mitigation Plan Completion Verified by RF On: Mitigation Plan Completed? (Yes/No): No Confidential Non-Public Information Page 1 of 7 01/29/2016

ReliabilityFirst Confidential Non-Public Information January 29, 2016 Compliance Notices Section 6.2 of the NERC CMEP sets forth the information that must be included in a Mitigation Plan. The Mitigation Plan must include: (1) The Registered Entity's point of contact for the Mitigation Plan, who shall be a person (i) responsible for filing the Mitigation Plan, (ii) technically knowledgeable regarding the Mitigation Plan, and (iii) authorized and competent to respond to questions regarding the status of the Mitigation Plan. This person may be the Registered Entity's point of contact described in Section B. (2) The Alleged or Confirmed Violation(s) of Reliability Standard(s) the Mitigation Plan will correct. (3) The cause of the Alleged or Confirmed Violation(s). (4) The Registered Entity's action plan to correct the Alleged or Confirmed Violation(s). (5) The Registered Entity's action plan to prevent recurrence of the Alleged or Confirmed violation(s). (6) The anticipated impact of the Mitigation Plan on the bulk power system reliability and an action plan to mitigate any increased risk to the reliability of the bulk power-system while the Mitigation Plan is being implemented. (7) A timetable for completion of the Mitigation Plan including the completion date by which the Mitigation Plan will be fully implemented and the Alleged or Confirmed Violation(s) corrected. (8) Implementation milestones no more than three (3) months apart for Mitigation Plans with expected completion dates more than three (3) months from the date of submission. Additional violations could be determined or recommended to the applicable governmental authorities for not completing work associated with accepted milestones. (9) Any other information deemed necessary or appropriate. (10) The Mitigation Plan shall be signed by an officer, employee, attorney or other authorized representative of the Registered Entity, which if applicable, shall be the person that signed the Self Certification or Self Reporting submittals. (11) This submittal form may be used to provide a required Mitigation Plan for review and approval by regional entity(ies) and NERC. • The Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to the regional entity(ies) and NERC as confidential information in accordance with Section 1500 of the NERC Rules of Procedure. • This Mitigation Plan form may be used to address one or more related alleged or confirmed violations of one Reliability Standard. A separate mitigation plan is required to address alleged or confirmed violations with respect to each additional Reliability Standard, as applicable. • If the Mitigation Plan is accepted by regional entity(ies) and approved by NERC, a copy of this Mitigation Plan will be provided to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or filed with the applicable governmental authorities for approval in Canada. • Regional Entity(ies) or NERC may reject Mitigation Plans that they determine to be incomplete or inadequate. • Remedial action directives also may be issued as necessary to ensure reliability of the bulk power system. • The user has read and accepts the conditions set forth in these Compliance Notices. Confidential Non-Public Information Page 2 of 7 01/29/2016

ReliabilityFirst Confidential Non-Public Information January 29, 2016 Entity Information Identify your organization: Entity Name: City of Dover NERC Compliance Registry ID: NCR00713 Address: 860 Buttner Place Dover DE 19904 Identify the individual in your organization who will serve as the Contact to the Regional Entity regarding this Mitigation Plan. This person shall be technically knowledgeable regarding this Mitigation Plan and authorized to respond to Regional Entity regarding this Mitigation Plan: Name: Title: Email: Phone: Confidential Non-Public Information Page 3 of 7 01/29/2016

ReliabilityFirst Confidential Non-Public Information January 29, 2016 Violation(s) This Mitigation Plan is associated with the following violation(s) of the reliability standard listed below: Violation ID Date of Violation Requirement Requirement Description RFC2016015488 01/01/2014 EOP-004-2 R1. Each Responsible Entity shall have an event reporting Operating Plan in accordance with EOP-004-2 Attachment 1 that includes the protocol(s) for reporting to the Electric Reliability Organization and other organizations (e.g., the Regional Entity, company personnel, the Responsible Entity’s Reliability Coordinator, law enforcement, or governmental authority). Brief summary including the cause of the violation(s) and mechanism in which it was identified: Relevant information regarding the identification of the violation(s): Confidential Non-Public Information Page 4 of 7 01/29/2016

ReliabilityFirst Confidential Non-Public Information January 29, 2016 Plan Details Identify and describe the action plan, including specific tasks and actions that your organization is proposing to undertake, or which it undertook if this Mitigation Plan has been completed, to correct the violation(s) identified above in Section C.1 of this form: Provide the timetable for completion of the Mitigation Plan, including the completion date by which the Mitigation Plan will be fully implemented and the violations associated with this Mitigation Plan are corrected: Proposed Completion date of Mitigation Plan: Milestone Activities, with completion dates, that your organization is proposing for this Mitigation Plan: Additional Relevant Information Confidential Non-Public Information Page 5 of 7 01/29/2016

ReliabilityFirst Confidential Non-Public Information January 29, 2016 Reliability Risk Reliability Risk While the Mitigation Plan is being implemented, the reliability of the bulk Power System may remain at higher Risk or be otherwise negatively impacted until the plan is successfully completed. To the extent they are known or anticipated : (i) Identify any such risks or impacts, and; (ii) discuss any actions planned or proposed to address these risks or impacts. Prevention Describe how successful completion of this plan will prevent or minimize the probability further violations of the same or similar reliability standards requirements will occur Describe any action that may be taken or planned beyond that listed in the mitigation plan, to prevent or minimize the probability of incurring further violations of the same or similar standards requirements Confidential Non-Public Information Page 6 of 7 01/29/2016

ReliabilityFirst Confidential Non-Public Information January 29, 2016 Authorization An authorized individual must sign and date the signature page. By doing so, this individual, on behalf of your organization: * Submits the Mitigation Plan, as presented, to the regional entity for acceptance and approval by NERC, and * if applicable, certifies that the Mitigation Plan, as presented, was completed as specified. Acknowledges: 1. I am qualified to sign this mitigation plan on behalf of my organization. 2. I have read and understand the obligations to comply with the mitigation plan requirements and ERO remedial action directives as well as ERO documents, including but not limited to, the NERC rules of procedure and the application NERC CMEP. 3. I have read and am familiar with the contents of the foregoing Mitigation Plan. City of Dover Agrees to be bound by, and comply with, this Mitigation Plan, including the timetable completion date, as accepted by the Regional Entity, NERC, and if required, the applicable governmental authority. Authorized Individual Signature: (Electronic signature was received by the Regional Office via CDMS. For Electronic Signature Policy see CMEP.) Authorized Individual Name: Title: Authorized On: Confidential Non-Public Information Page 7 of 7 01/29/2016

ReliabilityFirst Confidential Non-Public Information May 10, 2016 Certification of Mitigation Plan Completion Submittal of a Certification of Mitigation Plan Completion shall include data or information sufficient for the Regional Entity to verify completion of the Mitigation Plan. The Regional Entity may request additional data or information and conduct follow-up assessments, on-site or other Spot Checking, or Compliance Audits as it deems necessary to verify that all required actions in the Mitigation Plan have been completed and the Registered Entity is in compliance with the subject Reliability Standard. (CMEP Section 6.6) Registered Entity Name: City of Dover NERC Registry ID: NCR00713 NERC Violation ID(s): RFC2016015488 Mitigated Standard Requirement(s): EOP-004-2 R1. Scheduled Completion as per Accepted Mitigation Plan: January 15, 2016 Date Mitigation Plan completed: January 15, 2016 RF Notified of Completion on Date: May 10, 2016 Entity Comment: Additional Documents From Document Name Description Size in Bytes Entity DOE Verification 4 Jan DOE Verification Email 58,880 2016.msg Entity DPnL Verification 4 Jan DPnL Verification Email 57,856 2016.msg Entity E-ISAC Verification 5 Jan E-ISAC Verification Email 76,800 2016.msg Entity FBI Verificiation 5 Jan FBI Verification mail 60,928 2016.msg Entity PJM Verification 4 Jan PJM Verification Email 25,600 2016.msg Entity RF Verification 4 Jan RF Verification Email 84,480 2016.msg I certify that the Mitigation Plan for the above named violation(s) has been completed on the date shown above and that all submitted information is complete and correct to the best of my knowledge. Name: Harry Maloney Title: Electric Director City of Dover Email: hmaloney@dover.de.us Phone: 1 (302) 736-7088 Authorized Signature Date (Electronic signature was received by the Regional Office via CDMS. For Electronic Signature Policy see CMEP.) Confidential Non-Public Information Page 1 of 1 05/10/2016

ReliabilityFirst Confidential Non-Public Information January 15, 2016 Self Report Entity Name: City of Dover (COD) NERC ID: NCR00713 Standard: PRC-005-2 Requirement: PRC-005-2 R1. Date Submitted: January 15, 2016 Has this violation previously No been reported or discovered?: Entity Information: Joint Registration Organization (JRO) ID: Coordinated Functional Registration (CFR) ID: Contact Name: Harry Maloney III Contact Phone: 3027367088 Contact Email: Hmaloney@dover.de.us Violation: Violation Start Date: April 01, 2015 End/Expected End Date: March 31, 2016 Region Initially Determined a December 23, 2015 Violation On: Reliability Functions: Distribution Provider (DP) Is Possible Violation still Yes occurring?: Number of Instances: 1 Has this Possible Violation No been reported to other Regions?: Which Regions: Date Reported to Regions: Detailed Description and The City of Dover is officially self-reporting a possible violation of North Cause of Possible Violation: American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Standard PRC-005-2(i) (Protection System Maintenance), Requirement 1 as of January 15, 2016. Prior to our audit scheduled for April of 2016, we contracted with NAES Corporation to perform a Gap analysis of our NERC Compliance Program. During the Gap analysis, NAES noted that the City of Dover did not have a Protection System Maintenance and Testing program for the Underfrequency Load Shedding Systems (UFLS) as stated in Requirement 1 of NERC Standard PRC-005-2(i). We completed the required testing of the UFLS equipment in accordance with our procedure for NERC standard PRC-008-0 in June of 2010 Due to the UFLS system not requiring maintenance and testing again until 2020, we were negligent in following changing standards and establishing a PSMP program in accordance with the new NERC Standard. Mitigating Activities: Description of Mitigating The City of Dover contracted with NAES Corporation to provide the necessary Activities and Preventative Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program (PSMP) documentation Measure: as required PRC-005-2 R1. This documentation is currently being tailored to the City of Dover's Protection Systems with an expected implementation date of March 31st, 2016. Upon the implementation of the PSMP, appropriate Confidential Non-Public Information Page 1 of 2 01/15/2016

ReliabilityFirst Confidential Non-Public Information January 15, 2016 Self Report testing will be scheduled for the City's Under-frequency Loading Shedding equipment as outlined in Table 3 of PRC-005-2. Date Mitigating Activities Completed: Impact and Risk Assessment: Potential Impact to BPS: Minimal Actual Impact to BPS: Minimal Description of Potential and The City of Dover had performed testing on the UFLS system in June of 2010, Actual Impact to BPS: and under our Maintenance and Testing Program for NERC standard PRC- 008-0, testing was due to be completed again in 2020. As the UFLS system had been tested within the requirements of our PRC-008-0 program, and the test dates are within the maximum maintenance intervals stated in NERC Standard PRC-005-2, the risk to the Bulk Electric System was minimal. Risk Assessment of Impact to The City of Dover had performed testing on the UFLS system in June of 2010, BPS: and under our Maintenance and Testing Program for NERC standard PRC- 008-0, testing was due to be completed again in 2020. As the UFLS system had been tested within the requirements of our PRC-008-0 program, and the test dates are within the maximum maintenance intervals stated in NERC Standard PRC-005-2, the risk to the Bulk Electric System was minimal. Additional Entity Comments: Additional Comments From Comment User Name No Comments Additional Documents From Document Name Description Size in Bytes No Documents Confidential Non-Public Information Page 2 of 2 01/15/2016

ReliabilityFirst Confidential Non-Public Information January 29, 2016 Mitigation Plan Mitigation Plan Summary Registered Entity: City of Dover Mit Plan Code NERC Violation ID Requirement Violation Validated On Mit Plan Version RFC2016015489 PRC-005-2 R1. 1 Mitigation Plan Submitted On: Mitigation Plan Accepted On: Mitigation Plan Proposed Completion Date: Actual Completion Date of Mitigation Plan: Mitigation Plan Certified Complete by COD On: Mitigation Plan Completion Verified by RF On: Mitigation Plan Completed? (Yes/No): No Confidential Non-Public Information Page 1 of 7 01/29/2016

ReliabilityFirst Confidential Non-Public Information January 29, 2016 Compliance Notices Section 6.2 of the NERC CMEP sets forth the information that must be included in a Mitigation Plan. The Mitigation Plan must include: (1) The Registered Entity's point of contact for the Mitigation Plan, who shall be a person (i) responsible for filing the Mitigation Plan, (ii) technically knowledgeable regarding the Mitigation Plan, and (iii) authorized and competent to respond to questions regarding the status of the Mitigation Plan. This person may be the Registered Entity's point of contact described in Section B. (2) The Alleged or Confirmed Violation(s) of Reliability Standard(s) the Mitigation Plan will correct. (3) The cause of the Alleged or Confirmed Violation(s). (4) The Registered Entity's action plan to correct the Alleged or Confirmed Violation(s). (5) The Registered Entity's action plan to prevent recurrence of the Alleged or Confirmed violation(s). (6) The anticipated impact of the Mitigation Plan on the bulk power system reliability and an action plan to mitigate any increased risk to the reliability of the bulk power-system while the Mitigation Plan is being implemented. (7) A timetable for completion of the Mitigation Plan including the completion date by which the Mitigation Plan will be fully implemented and the Alleged or Confirmed Violation(s) corrected. (8) Implementation milestones no more than three (3) months apart for Mitigation Plans with expected completion dates more than three (3) months from the date of submission. Additional violations could be determined or recommended to the applicable governmental authorities for not completing work associated with accepted milestones. (9) Any other information deemed necessary or appropriate. (10) The Mitigation Plan shall be signed by an officer, employee, attorney or other authorized representative of the Registered Entity, which if applicable, shall be the person that signed the Self Certification or Self Reporting submittals. (11) This submittal form may be used to provide a required Mitigation Plan for review and approval by regional entity(ies) and NERC. • The Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to the regional entity(ies) and NERC as confidential information in accordance with Section 1500 of the NERC Rules of Procedure. • This Mitigation Plan form may be used to address one or more related alleged or confirmed violations of one Reliability Standard. A separate mitigation plan is required to address alleged or confirmed violations with respect to each additional Reliability Standard, as applicable. • If the Mitigation Plan is accepted by regional entity(ies) and approved by NERC, a copy of this Mitigation Plan will be provided to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or filed with the applicable governmental authorities for approval in Canada. • Regional Entity(ies) or NERC may reject Mitigation Plans that they determine to be incomplete or inadequate. • Remedial action directives also may be issued as necessary to ensure reliability of the bulk power system. • The user has read and accepts the conditions set forth in these Compliance Notices. Confidential Non-Public Information Page 2 of 7 01/29/2016

ReliabilityFirst Confidential Non-Public Information January 29, 2016 Entity Information Identify your organization: Entity Name: City of Dover NERC Compliance Registry ID: NCR00713 Address: 860 Buttner Place Dover DE 19904 Identify the individual in your organization who will serve as the Contact to the Regional Entity regarding this Mitigation Plan. This person shall be technically knowledgeable regarding this Mitigation Plan and authorized to respond to Regional Entity regarding this Mitigation Plan: Name: Title: Email: Phone: Confidential Non-Public Information Page 3 of 7 01/29/2016

ReliabilityFirst Confidential Non-Public Information January 29, 2016 Violation(s) This Mitigation Plan is associated with the following violation(s) of the reliability standard listed below: Violation ID Date of Violation Requirement Requirement Description RFC2016015489 04/01/2015 PRC-005-2 R1. Each Transmission Owner, Generator Owner, and Distribution Provider shall establish a Protection System Maintenance Program (PSMP) for its Protection Systems identified in Section 4.2. Brief summary including the cause of the violation(s) and mechanism in which it was identified: Relevant information regarding the identification of the violation(s): Confidential Non-Public Information Page 4 of 7 01/29/2016

ReliabilityFirst Confidential Non-Public Information January 29, 2016 Plan Details Identify and describe the action plan, including specific tasks and actions that your organization is proposing to undertake, or which it undertook if this Mitigation Plan has been completed, to correct the violation(s) identified above in Section C.1 of this form: Provide the timetable for completion of the Mitigation Plan, including the completion date by which the Mitigation Plan will be fully implemented and the violations associated with this Mitigation Plan are corrected: Proposed Completion date of Mitigation Plan: Milestone Activities, with completion dates, that your organization is proposing for this Mitigation Plan: Additional Relevant Information Confidential Non-Public Information Page 5 of 7 01/29/2016

ReliabilityFirst Confidential Non-Public Information January 29, 2016 Reliability Risk Reliability Risk While the Mitigation Plan is being implemented, the reliability of the bulk Power System may remain at higher Risk or be otherwise negatively impacted until the plan is successfully completed. To the extent they are known or anticipated : (i) Identify any such risks or impacts, and; (ii) discuss any actions planned or proposed to address these risks or impacts. Prevention Describe how successful completion of this plan will prevent or minimize the probability further violations of the same or similar reliability standards requirements will occur Describe any action that may be taken or planned beyond that listed in the mitigation plan, to prevent or minimize the probability of incurring further violations of the same or similar standards requirements Confidential Non-Public Information Page 6 of 7 01/29/2016

ReliabilityFirst Confidential Non-Public Information January 29, 2016 Authorization An authorized individual must sign and date the signature page. By doing so, this individual, on behalf of your organization: * Submits the Mitigation Plan, as presented, to the regional entity for acceptance and approval by NERC, and * if applicable, certifies that the Mitigation Plan, as presented, was completed as specified. Acknowledges: 1. I am qualified to sign this mitigation plan on behalf of my organization. 2. I have read and understand the obligations to comply with the mitigation plan requirements and ERO remedial action directives as well as ERO documents, including but not limited to, the NERC rules of procedure and the application NERC CMEP. 3. I have read and am familiar with the contents of the foregoing Mitigation Plan. City of Dover Agrees to be bound by, and comply with, this Mitigation Plan, including the timetable completion date, as accepted by the Regional Entity, NERC, and if required, the applicable governmental authority. Authorized Individual Signature: (Electronic signature was received by the Regional Office via CDMS. For Electronic Signature Policy see CMEP.) Authorized Individual Name: Title: Authorized On: Confidential Non-Public Information Page 7 of 7 01/29/2016

ReliabilityFirst Confidential Non-Public Information May 10, 2016 Certification of Mitigation Plan Completion Submittal of a Certification of Mitigation Plan Completion shall include data or information sufficient for the Regional Entity to verify completion of the Mitigation Plan. The Regional Entity may request additional data or information and conduct follow-up assessments, on-site or other Spot Checking, or Compliance Audits as it deems necessary to verify that all required actions in the Mitigation Plan have been completed and the Registered Entity is in compliance with the subject Reliability Standard. (CMEP Section 6.6) Registered Entity Name: City of Dover NERC Registry ID: NCR00713 NERC Violation ID(s): RFC2016015489 Mitigated Standard Requirement(s): PRC-005-2 R1. Scheduled Completion as per Accepted Mitigation Plan: May 31, 2016 Date Mitigation Plan completed: May 06, 2016 RF Notified of Completion on Date: May 10, 2016 Entity Comment: City of Dover has completed this Mitigation Plan on 5/6/2016 I certify that the Mitigation Plan for the above named violation(s) has been completed on the date shown above and that all submitted information is complete and correct to the best of my knowledge. Name: Harry Maloney III Title: Electric Director City of Dover Email: hmaloney@dover.de.us Phone: 1 (302) 736-7088 Authorized Signature Date (Electronic signature was received by the Regional Office via CDMS. For Electronic Signature Policy see CMEP.) Confidential Non-Public Information Page 1 of 1 05/10/2016

NERC ID: NCR00713 Registered Entity Name: City of Dover Registered Entity COD Acronym: Reliability Compliance Operations (FERC Order 693) Audit Standards Scope: Report Compliance Monitoring Compliance Audit Process: Distribution: Public Version. Confidential Information Has Been Removed, Including Privileged and Critical Energy Infrastructure Information. Lead ReliabilityFirst (RF) Region: Date of Date of Opening April 18, 2016 Closing April 22, 2016 Presentation: Presentation: Date of May 2, 2016 IP Date: 2016 Report: Possible Violations 0 Identified: Jurisdiction: United States

Confidential Information Has Been Removed, Including Privileged and Critical Energy Infrastructure Information. Table of Contents I. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 II. Compliance Process ........................................................................................................................ 2 Objectives................................................................................................................................................... 2 Scope .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest ...................................................................................................... 3 Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 3 Company Profile ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Participants ................................................................................................................................................ 4 III. Compliance Findings ....................................................................................................................... 5 IV. Compliance Culture ......................................................................................................................... 5

Confidential Information Has Been Removed, Including Privileged and Critical Energy Infrastructure Information. I. Executive Summary ReliabilityFirst (RF) conducted an Operations & Planning compliance engagement of City of Dover (COD), NCR00713, from April 18, 2016 to April 22, 2016. At the time of the compliance engagement, COD was registered for the function of DP. PJM Interconnection, LLC (NCR00879) is the RC, TOP, BA, and PC. The compliance team evaluated COD for compliance with 7 requirements in the 2016 NERC Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Program (CMEP) and the ReliabilityFirst CMEP Implementation Plan. The compliance team assessed compliance with the NERC Reliability Standards applicable for the period of June 29, 2010 to April 22, 2016. The compliance team reviewed and evaluated all evidence provided by COD and assessed compliance with the Reliability Standards applicable to COD, at this time. Based on the evidence provided, the compliance team’s findings are summarized below: Summary of Findings Open Possible Enforcement Total Violation (PV) Action (OEA)* Reliability Standard 0 1 1 Requirements *OEAs with newly identified PVs are counted in the PV column only; not in the OEA column. *OEAs without newly identified PVs are counted in the OEA column. The findings included in this report are the same as the findings presented to COD during the exit briefing. There were no open mitigation plans; therefore, none was reviewed by the compliance team. The team lead certifies that the compliance team adhered to all applicable requirements of the NERC Rules of Procedure (ROP) and the CMEP. Date of City of Dover Compliance Audit: From April 18, 2016 to April 22, 2016 Date of Report: May 02, 2016 1

Confidential Information Has Been Removed, Including Privileged and Critical Energy Infrastructure Information. II. Compliance Process The compliance process steps are detailed in the NERC Rules of Procedure, the NERC CMEP, and the ReliabilityFirst CMEP Implementation Plan. The CMEP generally conforms to the United States Government Auditing Standards and other generally accepted audit practices. Objectives All registered entities are subject to compliance assessments with all reliability standards applicable to the functions for which the registered entity is registered in the Region performing the assessment. The objectives are to: • Review compliance with the requirements of the Reliability Standards applicable to COD based on the functions that COD is registered to perform; • Validate compliance for the appropriate NERC Reliability Standards identified through the entity's Inherent Risk Assessment; • Validate compliance for additional NERC and Regional Reliability Standards identified in the 2016 ReliabilityFirst CMEP IP; • Validate evidence of self‐reported violations and previous self‐certifications; • Observe and document COD‘s compliance program and culture; Scope The scope of this compliance engagement included the NERC Reliability Standards from the ERO CMEP Implementation Plan, ReliabilityFirst CMEP Implementation Plan, and Inherent Risk Assessment (IRA) of the Registered Entity. The standards and requirements in the scope for this compliance engagement are illustrated in the Table below: Date of City of Dover Compliance Audit: From April 18, 2016 to April 22, 2016 Date of Report: May 02, 2016 2

Confidential Information Has Been Removed, Including Privileged and Critical Energy Infrastructure Information. Scope Reliability Standard Requirements PRC-005-2(i) R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 PRC-008-0 R1, R2 The compliance team did not expand the scope of the compliance engagement beyond what was stated in the notification letter. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest Confidentiality and conflict of interest of the compliance team are governed under the ReliabilityFirst Delegation Agreement with NERC, and Section 1500 of the NERC Rules of Procedure. COD was informed of ReliabilityFirst’s obligations and responsibilities under the agreement and procedures. The work history for each compliance team member was provided to COD, which was given an opportunity to object to a compliance team member’s participation on the basis of a possible conflict of interest or the existence of other circumstances that could interfere with a compliance team member’s impartial performance of duties. COD did not submit any objections by the stated 15‐day objection due date and accepted the compliance team member participants without objection. There were no denials or access limitations placed upon this compliance team by COD. Methodology The compliance team reviewed the evidence submitted by COD and assessed compliance with requirements of the applicable Reliability Standards. ReliabilityFirst provided COD with a Request for Information (RFI) prior to commencement of the compliance engagement. Additional evidence could be submitted until the agreed‐upon deadline prior to the exit briefing. After that date, only data or information that was relevant to the content of the report or its finding could be submitted with the agreement of the team lead. The compliance team reviewed documentation provided by COD, requested additional evidence and sought clarification from subject matter experts during the compliance engagement. Evidence submitted in the form of policies, procedures, emails, logs, studies, data sheets, etc., were validated, substantiated, and cross‐checked for accuracy, as appropriate. Where sampling was applicable to a Date of City of Dover Compliance Audit: From April 18, 2016 to April 22, 2016 Date of Report: May 02, 2016 3

Confidential Information Has Been Removed, Including Privileged and Critical Energy Infrastructure Information. requirement, the sample set was determined by a statistical methodology, along with the compliance team’s professional judgment. Findings were based on the compliance team's professional judgment, knowledge of the bulk electric system (BES), the NERC Reliability Standards, the facts, and documentation that were reviewed. All findings were developed based upon the consensus of the compliance team. Company Profile The compliance team obtained COD‘s company profile via the Internal Compliance Survey questionnaire. This information was utilized during the Inherent Risk Assessment process. Details of COD‘s profile are not shown due to Critical Energy Infrastructure considerations. Participants Following is a list of all personnel from the ReliabilityFirst compliance team and COD directly involved during the meetings and interviews: ReliabilityFirst Team Role Entity Team - Lead ReliabilityFirst Team - Member ReliabilityFirst Registered Entity Participants Role Entity Electric Director City of Dover Engineering Services & System City of Dover Operations Superintendent Electric Engineer City of Dover Date of City of Dover Compliance Audit: From April 18, 2016 to April 22, 2016 Date of Report: May 02, 2016 4

Confidential Information Has Been Removed, Including Privileged and Critical Energy Infrastructure Information. III. Compliance Findings The following information details the compliance findings for the Reliability Standards and requirements identified in the scope of this compliance engagement, which have Possible Violations or Open Enforcement Actions. All other reliability standards and requirements in the scope for this compliance engagement were tested without exception. PRC-005-2(i) R1. Each Transmission Owner, Generator Owner, and Distribution Provider shall establish a Protection System Maintenance Program (PSMP) for its Protection Systems identified in Section 4.2. The PSMP Shall: 1.1 Identify which maintenance method (time-based, performance-based per PRC-005 Attachment A, or a combination) is used to address each Protection System Component Type. All batteries associated with the station dc supply Protection System Supply Component Type of a Protection System shall be included in a time-based program as described in Table 1-4 and Table 3. 1.2 Include the applicable monitored Component attributes applied to each Protection System Component Type consistent with the maintenance intervals specified in Tables 1-1 through 1-5, Table 2, and Table 3 where monitoring is used to extend the maintenance intervals beyond those specified for unmonitored Protection System Components. Open Enforcement Action IV. Compliance Culture The compliance team performed an assessment of COD‘s compliance culture in conjunction with the review process. The assessment was accomplished through a review of responses to the Internal Compliance Survey questionnaire and additional information that was gathered during interviews and observations. Date of City of Dover Compliance Audit: From April 18, 2016 to April 22, 2016 Date of Report: May 02, 2016 5

Patrick O’Connor Associate Counsel 3 Summit Park Drive, Suite 600 Cleveland, OH 44131 Direct Dial: (216) 503-0668 patrick.oconnor@rfirst.org CONFIDENTIAL AND NON-PUBLIC June 8, 2016 Via Electronic Mail Harry Maloney III Electric Director CITY OF DOVER 860 Buttner Place Dover, DE 19904 hmaloney@dover.de.us Re: Notice of Compliance Exception Treatment RFC2016015488 and RFC2016015489 Dear Mr. Maloney, ReliabilityFirst Corporation (“ReliabilityFirst”) hereby provides notice to City of Dover (NERC ID: NCR00713) that it will not pursue an enforcement action in connection with the instances of noncompliance described in the attached spreadsheet. ReliabilityFirst determined that the referenced instances of noncompliance posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the Bulk Power System, and have been appropriately mitigated. ReliabilityFirst hereby notifies City of Dover that Regional Entity review is closed. A copy of the attachment to this notice will be provided to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (“NERC”) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), and NERC will post a public version on its enforcement website. The record will remain available for review by NERC and FERC. City of Dover understands and acknowledges that FERC may require additional information or processing with respect to this matter. ReliabilityFirst will consider this compliance exception in City of Dover’s compliance history if failure to remediate the underlying compliance matter contributes to a subsequent serious or substantial noncompliance matter, and, when relevant, in determining whether a future minimal risk noncompliance by City of Dover should qualify for compliance exception treatment. FERC will consider a compliance exception to be closed sixty (60) days after the compliance exception is reported to FERC, unless FERC initiates a review within the 60-day period. Since ReliabilityFirst verified completion of City of Dover’s mitigating activities on May 13, 2016, the data hold for RFC2016015488 and RFC2016015489 will be released upon the expiration of the 60-day period if FERC does not initiate a review. However, although the ReliabilityFirst-issued data hold will be released, pursuant to 153 FERC ¶ 61,131 (2015), Registered Entities must maintain evidence related to compliance exceptions for no less than Forward Together • ReliabilityFirst

18 months. NERC and FERC retain the discretion to review a compliance exception at any time ifNERC or FERC find that compliance exception treatment was obtained based on a material misrepresentation of the facts underlying the compliance exception. City of Dover may object to resolution of this issue as a Compliance Exception by providing written notification to ReliabilityFirst within seven (7) days of the issuance date of this notice. If City of Dover objects, the instance of noncompliance will be resolved through the enforcement process described in Section 5.0 of the NERC Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Program. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 216-503-0668 or patrick.oconnor@rfirst.org. Respectfully submitted, RELIABILfTYly1RST CORPORATION / // / . / P~~~O'Connor Associate Counsel PO/so Attachment cc: Bhadresh Patel, Engineer (bpatel@dover.de.us) 2

Region Name of Entity NCR Issue Tracking # Standard Req. Description of Noncompliance Description of the Risk Assessment Description and Status of Mitigation Activity ReliabilityFirst City of Dover NCR00713 RFC2016015488 EOP-004-2 R1 On January 15, 2016, City of Dover submitted a Self-Report This issue posed a minimal risk and did not pose a serious or To mitigate this issue, City of Dover: Corporation stating that, as a Distribution Provider, it had an issue of EOP- substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system based (ReliabilityFirst) 004-2 R1. During an internal gap analysis, City of Dover on the following factors. First, the Standard/Requirement 1) began to monitor the NERC Reliability discovered that it did not have an event reporting Operating requires the reporting of events after they occur and does not Standards more closely for any changes to current Plan dated for calendar year 2014. City of Dover does have a relate to actions taken to control the system on a real-time basis. Standards or approval of new Standards that are current event reporting Operating Plan dating back to 2015. Second, City of Dover identified this noncompliance during an developed by NERC; and internal gap analysis, which demonstrates City of Dover’s 2) performed NERC reliability program gap The root cause of this noncompliance was recent turnover in commitment to developing effective internal detective controls. analyses on a periodic basis to review and improve the prior management staff at City of Dover. The prior ReliabilityFirst also notes that City of Dover did not experience its compliance program. management staff was employed at City of Dover when EOP- any reportable system events during the period of 004-2 R1 took effect in January 2014, but failed to implement noncompliance. No harm is known to have occurred. ReliabilityFirst has verified the completion of all an event reporting Operating Plan due to their failure to mitigation activity. monitor the implementation of new and modified NERC ReliabilityFirst considered City of Dover’s EOP-004 R1 Reliability Standards. compliance history and determined there were no relevant instances of noncompliance. This issue started on January 1, 2014, when City of Dover was required to comply with EOP-004-2 R1 and ended on January 15, 2016, when City of Dover completed its Mitigation Plan. ReliabilityFirst City of Dover NCR00713 RFC2016015489 PRC-005-2 R1 On January 15, 2016, City of Dover submitted a Self-Report This issue posed a minimal risk and did not pose a serious or To mitigate this issue, City of Dover: Corporation stating that, as a Distribution Provider, it had an issue of PRC- substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system based (ReliabilityFirst) 005-2 R1. During an internal gap analysis, City of Dover on the following factors. First, City of Dover performed the 1) identified all UFLS equipment to be included in discovered that it did not have a Protection System requisite maintenance and testing within the prescribed intervals. the Protection System Maintenance Program Maintenance and Testing program for the Underfrequency Second, City of Dover identified this noncompliance during an (PSMP) and established the maintenance intervals Load Shedding Systems (UFLS). However, City of Dover internal gap analysis, which demonstrates City of Dover’s and activities; did complete the required testing of the UFLS equipment in commitment to developing effective internal detective controls. 2) completed all maintenance activities on all accordance with its procedure for PRC-008 in June 2010, and Third, the total amount of UFLS is only 55 MW, which indicates UFLS equipment listed in the PSMP as listed in was not required to perform this maintenance and testing that any potential harm would be minimal. Finally, Table 3 of NERC Standard PRC-005-2(i); again until 2020. ReliabilityFirst also notes that City of Dover did not experience a 3) entered maintenance tasks in facility condition which required operation of the UFLS during the computerized maintenance management system The root cause of this noncompliance was the fact that City period of noncompliance. No harm is known to have occurred. with the intervals and maintenance tasks from of Dover was not aware of the revision to PRC-005 including Table 3 of NERC Standard PRC-005-2(i); changes to the Protection System Maintenance and Testing ReliabilityFirst considered City of Dover’s PRC-005-2 R1 4) began to monitor the NERC Reliability program for its UFLS equipment. compliance history and although City of Dover had one prior Standards more closely for any changes to current issue with PRC-005 R1 (RFC201000426), City of Dover’s Standards or approval of new Standards that are This issue started on April 1, 2015, when City of Dover was mitigation plan for that prior issue was completed more than developed by NERC; and required to comply with PRC-005-2 R1 and ended on May three years prior to the date on which the instant noncompliance 5) performed NERC reliability program gap 31, 2016, when City of Dover completed its Mitigation Plan. began. (Per NERC Guidance from April 2015, ReliabilityFirst analyses on a periodic basis to review and improve generally does not aggravate a penalty based on the existence of its compliance program. prior violations for which mitigation was completed more than three years prior to the date on which the instant noncompliances ReliabilityFirst has verified the completion of all began. There is nothing present in the instant circumstance that mitigation activity. would warrant deviating from that policy.)

City of Dover Capital Investment Plan Project Tracking Report Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2016 Points to Remember - * Original Project Budget = Original Total Project Budget initially included in approved annual budget. * Latest Project Budget = Revised Total Project Budget included in most recent approved annual budget or one of the following: bond resolution, revolving fund loan agreement, Council approved budget amendment, or City Manager approved amendment as per the Budget Amendment Procedure. * Current Fiscal Year - Revised Fiscal Year Budget = Current Year approved project budgets plus carry forward balances of unspent budgets in the prior fiscal year. Project Carry Forward balances will be submitted to City Council for amendment in January 2010. Can also be amended with City Manager approval per the Budget Amendment Procedure. * Water Quality, Inflow/Infiltration, Distribution Upgrades and New Development projects are budgeted as a blanket project and once individual projects are identified and estimated they are created using an allocation of the overall budgeted amount. * Status and Comments provided by City Manager. Community Water & Total Current Year Budget Funding Sources General Transportation Wastewater Electric CIP Budget Balance $ 2,524,800 $ - $ 7,470,900 $ 3,662,800 $ 13,658,500 General Billings for Reimbursement of Expense 80,500 - 20,300 1,900,000 2,000,800 Income from Sale of Assets 120,800 - - - 120,800 State Community Transportation Funds - 890,100 - - 890,100 Transfer from WW Impact Fee Reserve - - 165,000 - 165,000 Transfer from General Fund 2,625,400 - - - 2,625,400 Transfer from Operating Funds - - 3,300,000 3,500,000 6,800,000 Transfer from Parkland Reserve - - - - - Development Grant - - - 15,000 15,000 Interest Income 5,000 - 69,900 57,900 132,800 Total Funding Sources (Unaudited) $ 5,356,500 $ 890,100 $ 11,026,100 $ 9,135,700 $ 26,408,400 1

City of Dover General Fund - Major CIP Projects Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2016 PRELIMINARY TOTAL PROJECT - PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Project % Original Revised Fiscal % Project Project Project To Date Budget Budget Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget Budget Code Type Description Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Status Comments 1 FY 2013 2 ST1304 M B/L Garrison Farm Improvements $ 2,000,000 $ 4,641,000 $ 4,218,860 $ 422,140 90.9% $ 1,496,500 $ 1,537,500 $ 1,115,279 $ 422,221 72.5% In Process Project approximately 98% complete 3 Totals - FY 2013 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,641,000 $ 4,218,860 $ 422,140 90.9% $ 1,496,500 $ 1,537,500 $ 1,115,279 $ 422,221 72.5% 4 5 FY 2015 6 FR1501 SCBA Equipment/Radios $ 588,800 $ 588,800 $ 588,632 $ 168 100.0% $ 300,200 $ 300,200 $ 299,981 $ 219 99.9% Complete 18 GO1501 GOTP Farmhouse Demo/Project 35,000 35,000 28,104 6,896 0.0% 35,000 35,000 28,104 6,896 80.3% Complete 7 PR1501 Park & Playground Impr Equipment 66,000 66,000 - 66,000 0.0% 66,000 66,000 - 66,000 0.0% 8 ST1502 R Streets, Alleys and Concrete Prog. 900,000 505,100 504,731 369 99.9% 441,500 322,200 321,744 456 99.9% Complete 9 ST1503 R Misc Emergency Street/Storm Repairs - 71,800 71,881 (81) 100.1% 35,000 31,800 31,791 9 100.0% Complete 10 ST1504 Old PW2 Site Improvements 535,000 603,500 493,276 110,224 81.7% 330,000 497,400 387,081 110,319 77.8% In Process Design work ongoing 95% level 11 ST1506 Stormwater Ditch Maintenance 15,000 15,000 13,284 1,716 88.6% 15,000 15,000 13,284 1,716 88.6% Complete 12 ST1508 G Stormwater Utility Planning 90,000 90,000 85,000 5,000 94.4% 82,400 82,400 77,350 5,050 93.9% Complete 13 Totals - FY 2015 $ 2,229,800 $ 1,975,200 $ 1,784,907 $ 190,293 90.4% $ 1,305,100 $ 1,350,000 $ 1,159,334 $ 190,666 85.9% 14 15 FY 2016 16 --- Vehicles & Equipment $ 1,095,200 $ 1,135,800 $ 851,032 $ 284,768 74.9% $ 1,095,200 $ 1,135,800 $ 851,032 $ 284,768 74.9% In Process 17 --- Annual Contribution to Robbins Hose 145,600 145,600 145,614 (14) 100.0% 145,600 145,600 145,614 (14) 100.0% Complete 19 PD1601 Camera Monitoring Station 19,900 19,900 19,900 0 100.0% 19,900 19,900 19,900 0 100.0% Complete 20 ST1601 R FY16 Street and Alley Program 1,000,000 933,100 400,932 532,168 43.0% 1,000,000 933,100 400,932 532,168 43.0% In Process 75% complete with project 21 ST1603 Valve Replacement - Silver Lake Dam 60,000 84,600 3,651 80,949 0.0% 60,000 84,600 3,651 80,949 4.3% In Process Awaiting materials to be delivered Proposals received, under review by 22 ST1604 Salt Storage Barn (originally proj ST1303) 50,000 75,000 12,562 62,438 16.7% 75,000 75,000 12,562 62,438 16.7% In Process CM/Controller 23 ST1605 R Misc Emergency Street/Storm Repairs - 75,000 17,339 57,661 23.1% - 75,000 17,339 57,661 23.1% Complete 24 Totals - FY 2016 $ 2,370,700 $ 2,469,000 $ 1,451,030 $ 1,017,970 58.8% $ 2,395,700 $ 2,469,000 $ 1,451,030 $ 1,017,970 58.8% 25 26 Grand Totals $ 6,600,500 $ 9,085,200 $ 7,454,797 $ 1,630,403 82.1% $ 5,197,300 $ 5,356,500 $ 3,725,643 $ 1,630,857 69.6% Legend M = Multi-year project - a project with a specific schedule to occur over multiple years. R = Recurring project - a project that begins and ends each fiscal year and is re-budgeted to start over each fiscal year. G = Grant funded project B/L = To be financed through bonds or commercial loan. 2

City of Dover Community Transportation - Major CIP Projects Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2016 PRELIMINARY TOTAL PROJECT - PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Project % Original Revised Fiscal % Project Project Project To Date Budget Budget Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget Budget Code Type Description Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Status Comments Prior to FY 2014 1 ST0232 Pat Lynn Drive/D.H.S. Storm Drain Pipe $ 155,200 $ 190,300 $ 184,778 $ 5,522 97.1% $ - $ 5,500 $ - $ 5,500 0.0% Started 2 TE0601 TCSP Lincoln Park 900,000 602,425 523,277 79,148 86.9% - 79,100 - 79,100 0.0% Started 3 CT0708 E Water Street Brick 65,000 65,000 1,000 64,000 1.5% 65,000 65,000 1,000 64,000 1.5% In Process Bids to be received in August 4 Totals - Prior to FY 2014 $ 1,120,200 $ 857,725 $ 709,055 $ 148,670 82.7% $ 65,000 $ 149,600 $ 1,000 $ 148,600 0.7% 5 6 FY 2014 7 CT1405 Lakeview Drainage Study $ 24,400 $ 24,400 $ 24,371 $ 29 99.9% $ 6,300 $ 6,300 $ 6,184 $ 116 98.2% Complete 8 Totals - FY 2014 $ 24,400 $ 24,400 $ 24,371 $ 29 99.9% $ 6,300 $ 6,300 $ 6,184 $ 116 98.2% 9 10 FY 2015 11 CT1562 Village of Cannon Mill Repavement $ 315,000 $ 386,900 $ 375,680 $ 11,220 97.1% $ 361,000 $ 361,000 $ 349,683 $ 11,317 96.9% Complete 12 CT1599 Signage Agreement 2,700 2,700 2,520 180 93.3% 1,600 1,600 1,350 250 84.4% Complete 13 Totals - FY 2015 $ 317,700 $ 389,600 $ 378,200 $ 11,400 97.1% $ 362,600 $ 362,600 $ 351,033 $ 11,567 96.8% 14 15 FY 2016 16 CT1616 The Meadows $ 22,200 $ 22,200 $ 22,200 $ - 100.0% $ 22,200 $ 22,200 $ 22,200 $ - 100.0% Complete 17 CT1627 FY16 Paving Projects 247,400 247,400 139,762 107,638 56.5% 247,400 247,400 139,762 107,638 56.5% In Process Buck Drive to be completed in FY17 18 CT1632 FY16 Signs Projects 14,600 14,600 11,415 3,185 78.2% 14,600 14,600 11,415 3,185 78.2% Complete 19 CT1669 Persimmon Park Place Drainage Project 2,800 2,800 - 2,800 0.0% 2,800 2,800 - 2,800 0.0% In Process 90% complete with design 20 CT1681 Pedestrian Enhancement-Mallard Pond Pathway 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 0.0% 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 0.0% In Process Bids to be received in August 21 CT1687 Parking Lot Improvements-Schutte Park 8,100 8,100 8,015 85 99.0% 8,100 8,100 8,015 85 99.0% Complete 22 CTxxxx Unapplied CT Projects (placeholder) 644,000 26,500 - 26,500 0.0% 144,000 26,500 - 26,500 0.0% 23 Totals - FY 2016 $ 989,100 $ 371,600 $ 181,392 $ 190,208 48.8% $ 489,100 $ 371,600 $ 181,392 $ 190,208 48.8% 24 25 Grand Totals $ 2,451,400 $ 1,643,325 $ 1,293,018 $ 350,308 78.7% $ 923,000 $ 890,100 $ 539,608 $ 350,492 60.6% Legend M = Multi-year project - a project with a specific schedule to occur over multiple years. R = Recurring project - a project that begins and ends each fiscal year and is re-budgeted to start over each fiscal year. C = Project funded by combination of CT Funds and General Fund 3

City of Dover Water/Wastewater Improvement & Extension Fund - Major CIP Projects Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2016 PRELIMINARY TOTAL PROJECT - PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Project % Original Revised Fiscal % Project Project Project To Date Budget Budget Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget Budget Code Type Description Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Status Comments 1 FY 2008 - FY 2013 2 WD0804 M 1.0 MG Elevated Water Storage $ 4,196,600 $ 2,556,000 $ 87,827 $ 2,468,173 3.4% $ 2,468,200 $ 2,468,200 $ - $ 2,468,200 0.0% In Process Staff to meet with property owner in August 3 WD1302 M Garrison Farm Water Storage Tank 2,695,000 4,677,000 4,546,261 130,739 97.2% 1,297,300 1,297,300 1,166,521 130,779 89.9% In Process Awaiting final invoice from contractor 4 WW1304 M Garrison Farm WW Improvements 2,000,000 3,738,400 3,654,281 84,119 97.7% 628,500 628,500 544,305 84,195 86.6% In Process Awaiting final invoice from contractor 5 Totals - FY 2008 - FY 2013 $ 8,891,600 $ 10,971,400 $ 8,288,369 $ 2,683,031 75.5% $ 4,394,000 $ 4,394,000 $ 1,710,827 $ 2,683,173 38.9% 6 7 FY 2014 Awaiting final deliverables and paperwork from 8 WW1206 Brandywine Pump Station $ 402,000 $ 375,600 $ 274,381 $ 101,219 73.1% $ 101,200 $ 101,200 $ - $ 101,200 0.0% In Process contractor 9 WW1303 Westover PS & Force Main Upgrade 768,800 1,403,900 290,518 1,113,382 20.7% 1,292,400 1,345,900 232,516 1,113,384 17.3% In Process Contractor is on site, approximately 25% complete 10 Totals - FY 2014 $ 1,170,800 $ 1,779,500 $ 564,899 $ 1,214,601 31.7% $ 1,393,600 $ 1,447,100 $ 232,516 $ 1,214,584 16.1% 11 12 FY 2015 13 WQ1503 West Dover Connector Project $ 336,000 $ 338,800 $ 337,787 $ 1,013 99.7% $ 73,600 $ 76,400 $ 75,319 $ 1,081 98.6% Complete 14 WW1504 Lakeview Dr Pump Stn Replacement 450,000 425,000 360,867 64,133 84.9% 359,600 376,200 312,050 64,150 82.9% Complete Awaiting final invoices 15 WW1507 Retreat Pump Station Replacement 412,500 483,900 36,331 447,569 7.5% 360,500 447,700 157 447,543 0.0% In Process Awaiting delivery of materials, August 16 WW1509 West Dover Connector Road Utility Relo 922,000 922,300 922,221 79 100.0% 387,300 387,300 387,180 120 100.0% Complete 17 Totals - FY 2015 $ 2,120,500 $ 2,170,000 $ 1,657,206 $ 512,794 76.4% $ 1,181,000 $ 1,287,600 $ 774,706 $ 512,894 60.2% 18 19 FY 2016 20 --- R Vehicles & Equipment $ 409,500 $ 416,900 $ 369,874 $ 47,026 88.7% $ 103,700 $ 416,900 $ 369,874 $ 47,026 88.7% In Process WD1600/ 21 WW1600 R Meter Replacement Project 300,000 300,000 94,511 205,489 31.5% 300,000 300,000 94,511 205,489 31.5% Complete 22 WD1601 R Wellhead Redevelopment 82,500 82,500 51,625 30,875 62.6% 82,500 82,500 51,625 30,875 62.6% Complete 23 WD1605 R Future Well Installation 80,000 80,000 20,772 59,228 26.0% 80,000 80,000 20,772 59,228 26.0% Complete 24 WD1606 New Fence-Bayard Ave Water Tower 89,000 84,200 81,213 2,987 96.5% 89,000 84,200 81,213 2,987 96.5% Complete 25 WD1607 R SCADA Equipment Tech Upgrade 83,000 83,000 80,339 2,661 96.8% 83,000 83,000 80,339 2,661 96.8% Complete 26 WD1608 Shallow Well #7 Abandonment 15,000 15,000 8,815 6,185 58.8% 15,000 15,000 8,815 6,185 58.8% Complete 27 WD1609 R WTP Process Improvements 284,400 330,900 233,278 97,622 70.5% 284,400 330,900 233,278 97,622 70.5% In Process Design work continuing, approcimately 80% 28 WQ1601 R Water Quality Improvements 1,000,000 839,800 10,330 829,470 1.2% 1,000,000 839,800 10,330 829,470 1.2% In Process Bids for New Street in July 29 WQ1602 R/T Misc Emerg Water Quality Repairs - 83,700 83,604 96 99.9% - 83,700 83,604 96 99.9% Complete 30 WQ1603 T Reimb KC for Water Main Increase - 30,000 30,000 - 100.0% - 30,000 30,000 - 100.0% Complete 31 WW1503 Hazzletteville Road Interceptor 755,000 774,100 20,250 753,850 2.6% 462,100 774,100 20,250 753,850 2.6% In Process Project ongoing, approximately 20% complete 32 WW1601 R Inflow/Infiltration Removal 875,000 118,300 - 118,300 0.0% 875,000 118,300 - 118,300 0.0% Complete 33 WW1602 Puncheon Run 160,000 160,000 - 160,000 0.0% 160,000 160,000 - 160,000 0.0% In Process Bids to be received in August/September 34 WW1602 US 13 East PS #7 Repairs 140,000 140,000 - 140,000 0.0% 140,000 140,000 - 140,000 0.0% In Process Bids to be received in August/September 35 WW1603 Rolling Acres PS Replacement 52,000 52,000 27,894 24,106 53.6% 52,000 52,000 27,894 24,106 53.6% In Process Design work underway, approx 95% complete. Bids received too high, construction scheduled for late 36 WW1605 DE Ave Sanitary Sewer Extension 25,000 25,000 - 25,000 0.0% 25,000 25,000 - 25,000 0.0% In Process fall 37 WW1607 T US 13 East PS #7 Repairs - 105,700 105,514 186 99.8% - 105,700 105,514 186 99.8% Complete 38 WW1608 T St Jones River Sewer Repair - 47,300 45,494 1,806 96.2% - 47,300 45,494 1,806 96.2% Complete 39 WW1609 T McKee Tax Ditch Sewer Repair - 27,300 26,662 638 97.7% - 27,300 26,662 638 97.7% Complete 40 II1603 R/T Misc Emergency I&I Repairs - 101,700 101,628 72 99.9% - 101,700 101,628 72 99.9% Complete 41 Totals - FY 2016 $ 4,350,400 $ 3,897,400 $ 1,391,802 $ 2,505,598 35.7% $ 3,751,700 $ 3,897,400 $ 1,391,802 $ 2,505,598 35.7% 42 43 44 Grand Totals $ 16,533,300 $ 18,818,300 $ 11,902,276 $ 6,916,024 63.2% $ 10,720,300 $ 11,026,100 $ 4,109,851 $ 6,916,249 37.3% Legend M = Multi-year project - a project with a specific schedule to occur over multiple years. R = Recurring project - a project that begins and ends each fiscal year and is budgeted to start over each fiscal year. No carry forward. SL = State Loan Project - construction phase is financed I = Impact Fee (partially) financed project T = Transfer from blanket WQ or I&I original budget 4

City of Dover Electric Improvement & Extension Fund - Major CIP Projects Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2016 PRELIMINARY TOTAL PROJECT - PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Project % Current Revised Fiscal % Project Project Project To Date Budget Budget Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget Budget Code Type Description Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Status Comments 1 FY 2012 - FY 2013 2 EG1212 M Unit 3 Turbine Inspection/Repair $ 1,760,000 $ 1,713,600 $ 1,699,848 $ 13,752 99.2% $ 53,500 $ 53,500 $ 39,700 $ 13,800 74.2% Complete 3 EE1312 M General Scott Switchgear 1,150,000 1,145,000 840,047 304,953 73.4% 1,107,200 1,097,200 792,252 304,948 72.2% Complete 4 Totals - FY 2012 - FY 2013 $ 2,910,000 $ 2,858,600 $ 2,539,895 $ 318,705 88.9% $ 1,160,700 $ 1,150,700 $ 831,952 $ 318,748 72.3% 5 6 FY 2014 7 EE1443 GOTP Transmission Line Relocation $ 550,000 $ 550,000 $ 310,603 $ 239,397 56.5% $ 408,500 $ 408,500 $ 169,076 $ 239,424 41.4% Complete 8 EG1407 Metering System Upgrades - Plant 150,000 80,000 $ - $ 80,000 0.0% 80,000 80,000 - 80,000 0.0% In Process Meters on order 9 EE1415 R Metering Infrastructure $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ - $ 150,000 0.0% $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ - $ 150,000 0.0% In Process 10 EG1416 M VanSant Capacity Increase 1,500,000 1,000,000 729,148 270,852 72.9% 492,200 492,200 221,308 270,892 45.0% In Process Install air compressor and equipment shed. 11 Totals - FY 2014 $ 2,350,000 $ 1,780,000 $ 1,039,751 $ 740,249 58.4% $ 1,130,700 $ 1,130,700 $ 390,384 $ 740,316 34.5% 12 13 FY 2015 14 EG1504 McKee Unit 3 Boiler System $ 890,000 $ 180,000 $ 126,638 $ 53,362 70.4% $ 80,800 $ 122,800 $ 69,351 $ 53,449 56.5% In Process Multi-year project 15 EG1506 McKee & VanSant Safety Improvement 52,000 52,000 34,623 17,377 66.6% 18,300 18,300 847 17,453 4.6% In Process 16 EE1500 69 kV Rebuild 393,500 330,500 79,910 250,590 24.2% 318,500 318,500 67,881 250,619 21.3% In Process On hold until fall & farmer coordination. 17 EE1509 West Dover Connector 250,000 250,000 108,563 141,437 43.4% 155,800 155,800 14,355 141,445 9.2% In Process Awaiting State for go ahead to move forward. 18 EE1513 M Town Point Distribution Feeders 600,000 590,800 511,478 79,322 86.6% 350,000 350,000 270,641 79,359 77.3% In Process Phase 1 about 80% complete 19 EE1516 Chestnut Grove 299,000 255,000 164,799 90,201 64.6% 136,000 136,000 45,801 90,199 33.7% Complete Phase 1 complete except meters. 20 EE1522 Garrison Oak Park 184,000 184,000 166,523 17,477 90.5% 17,500 17,500 - 17,500 0.0% Complete 21 EE1525 Leander Lakes Apt Phase 1 73,000 73,000 64,866 8,134 88.9% 69,400 69,400 61,257 8,143 88.3% Complete Phase 1 complete except meters. 22 EE1526 Playtex Addition 354,100 344,100 285,503 58,597 83.0% 150,000 140,000 81,367 58,633 58.1% Complete 23 EE1544 Nottingham Meadows 28,600 28,600 27,299 1,301 95.5% 26,600 26,600 25,288 1,312 95.1% Complete 24 EE1547 NBR Properties 16,600 14,200 14,012 188 98.7% 11,500 11,325 175 98.5% Complete 25 Totals - FY 2015 $ 3,140,800 $ 2,302,200 $ 1,584,214 $ 717,986 68.8% $ 1,322,900 $ 1,366,400 $ 648,113 $ 718,287 47.4% 26 27 FY 2016 28 --- R Vehicles & Equipment 464,300 460,600 401,141 59,459 87.1% 464,300 460,600 401,141 59,459 87.1% In Process 29 EG1601 R McKee Building Equipment Replacement 42,000 42,000 40,018 1,982 95.3% 42,000 42,000 40,018 1,982 95.3% In Process Building heating modifications. 30 EG1607 Unit 3 Auxilary Equipment 135,000 135,000 98,331 36,669 72.8% 135,000 135,000 98,331 36,669 72.8% In Process Nitrogen generator installation in process. 31 EG1608 McKee & VanSant CEMS Upgrade 89,000 9,000 7,299 1,701 81.1% 89,000 9,000 7,299 1,701 81.1% Complete Work completed. 32 EG1609 R VanSant Unit 11 Component Replacem 21,000 21,000 13,051 7,949 62.1% 21,000 21,000 13,051 7,949 62.1% In Process Work completed on gas skid regulators. Front lobby access improvements, replace obsolete 2- 33 EG1610 R McKee/VanSant Safety & Compliance 157,000 157,000 20,860 136,140 13.3% 157,000 157,000 20,860 136,140 13.3% In Process way radios Expenditures have been in support of T&D 34 EG1611 R McKee/VanSant Preserve Structure 215,000 215,000 28,832 186,168 13.4% 215,000 215,000 28,832 186,168 13.4% In Process transformer repairs. 35 EG1612 Van Sant Exhaust Plenum Replacement 469,000 469,000 422,659 46,341 90.1% 469,000 469,000 422,659 46,341 90.1% In Process Work to be completed in fall 2016. 36 EG1613 McKee Unit 3 Stack Repairs 485,000 485,000 2,624 482,376 0.5% 485,000 485,000 2,624 482,376 0.5% In Process Bids received and in evaluation process. 37 EE1603 R Transmission Line Maintenance Program 75,000 75,000 31,881 43,119 42.5% 75,000 75,000 31,881 43,119 42.5% In Process 38 EE1604 R Lighting Proj & Rehab 67,000 67,000 68,101 (1,101) 101.6% 67,000 67,000 68,101 (1,101) 101.6% In Process 69 kV Cable Replacement North Street 39 EE1605 (originally proj EE1520) 565,700 135,000 - 135,000 0.0% 135,000 135,000 - 135,000 0.0% In Process Awaiting survey 40 EE1606 R Distribution Capacitors and Controls 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 0.0% 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 0.0% In Process 41 EE1607 Horsepond URD - Distribution Feeders 67,000 112,000 49,450 62,550 44.2% 67,000 112,000 49,450 62,550 44.2% In Process 42 EE1610 R Fault Indicators 10,000 10,000 8,828 1,172 88.3% 10,000 10,000 8,828 1,172 88.3% In Process 43 EE1612 Dover AFB Substation Rebuild 30,000 30,000 - 30,000 0.0% 30,000 30,000 - 30,000 0.0% In Process 44 EE1616 R New Developments 2,500,000 1,684,000 - 1,684,000 0.0% 2,500,000 1,684,000 - 1,684,000 0.0% In Process 45 EE1617 Oak Grove Trailer Park - Dist Upgrade 78,500 78,500 1,137 77,363 1.4% 78,500 78,500 1,137 77,363 1.4% In Process 46 EE1618 Lakeland - Distribution Upgrades 63,000 63,000 33,626 29,374 53.4% 63,000 63,000 33,626 29,374 53.4% Complete 47 EE1619 Route 8/Mifflin Road - Dist Upgrade 51,500 51,500 - 51,500 0.0% 51,500 51,500 - 51,500 0.0% Deferred Possible cancel (TBD) 48 EE1620 Route 8 Taps - Distribution Upgrade 38,500 38,500 34,778 3,722 90.3% 38,500 38,500 34,778 3,722 90.3% Complete 49 EE1621 Townsend Brothers - Dist Upgrade 14,500 14,500 6,944 7,556 47.9% 14,500 14,500 6,944 7,556 47.9% Complete 50 EE1622 Persimmon Tree Apts - Dist Upgrade 62,000 17,000 16,980 20 99.9% 62,000 17,000 16,980 20 99.9% Complete 51 EE1623 T DNREC R&R Metering - 41,000 - 41,000 0.0% - 41,000 - 41,000 0.0% Deferred Possible cancel (TBD). Awaiting DNREC. 52 EE1625 T Public Works Wetland Project - - - - 0.0% - - - - 0.0% Deferred Deferred until FY17 53 EE1626 T Washington Street Lights - - - - 0.0% - - - - 0.0% Cancel Rolled funds into New Street lights project 54 EE1627 Dover East Estates - Dist Upgrade 130,000 130,000 4,530 125,470 3.5% 130,000 130,000 4,530 125,470 3.5% In Process 55 EE1629 T Tall Pine Condos - 43,000 - 43,000 0.0% - 43,000 - 43,000 0.0% In Process 56 EE1630 Reed Street Roof Repair/Replacement 201,800 151,800 132,083 19,718 87.0% 201,800 151,800 132,083 19,718 87.0% In Process INW 57 EE1631 North Street OH to UG - Dist Upgrade 100,000 - - - 0.0% 100,000 - - - 0.0% Deferred Deferred until FY18 58 EE1632 T Blue Hen Corp - Phase I - 25,600 23,150 2,450 90.4% - 25,600 23,150 2,450 90.4% Complete 59 EE1633 T State Street Commons Fiber Optic Proj - 64,000 40,233 23,767 62.9% - 64,000 40,233 23,767 62.9% Complete 60 EE1635 T McKee Road - Edgewell - 7,000 6,952 48 99.3% - 7,000 6,952 48 99.3% Complete 61 EE1636 T Clearview - Phase 4 - 160,000 148,779 11,221 93.0% - 160,000 148,779 11,221 93.0% Complete Complete except for meters 62 EE1637 T Dover Town Center Flex Site - 13,900 13,526 374 97.3% - 13,900 13,526 374 97.3% Complete 5

City of Dover Electric Improvement & Extension Fund - Major CIP Projects Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2016 PRELIMINARY TOTAL PROJECT - PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Project % Current Revised Fiscal % Project Project Project To Date Budget Budget Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget Budget Code Type Description Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Status Comments 63 EE1638 T Dover Town Center - 35,200 25,332 9,868 72.0% - 35,200 25,332 9,868 72.0% Complete 64 EE1639 T Outback Steakhouse - 30,600 27,647 2,953 90.3% - 30,600 27,647 2,953 90.3% Complete Complete except for meters 65 EE1641 Reed St - Building/Safety Improvements - 50,000 46,181 3,819 92.4% - 50,000 46,181 3,819 92.4% In Process 66 EE1642 T Del Homes Warehouse - 18,000 15,374 2,626 85.4% - 18,000 15,374 2,626 85.4% Complete 67 EE1643 T Winner Volkswagen - 13,300 12,772 528 96.0% - 13,300 12,772 528 96.0% Complete Complete except for meters 68 EE1644 T Retreat Pump Station - 7,300 - 7,300 0.0% - 7,300 - 7,300 0.0% In Process Awaiting Public Works go-ahead 69 EE1645 T Dover Family Cosmetic - 10,300 10,197 103 99.0% - 10,300 10,197 103 99.0% Complete 70 EE1646 T Loockerman Retail - 26,500 23,753 2,747 89.6% - 26,500 23,753 2,747 89.6% Complete 71 EE1647 T Ollies Transformer Replacement - 22,600 11,198 11,402 49.5% - 22,600 11,198 11,402 49.5% Complete 72 EE1648 T New Service - Blue Hen Apartments - 23,900 - 23,900 0.0% - 23,900 - 23,900 0.0% In Process 73 EE1649 T New Service - K-Mart Store - 20,300 19,567 733 96.4% - 20,300 19,567 733 96.4% Complete Complete except for meters 74 EE1651 T Papen Farms Irrigation - 28,000 25,735 2,265 91.9% - 28,000 25,735 2,265 91.9% Complete 75 EE1652 T/G S New Street Lighting - 70,000 9,851 60,149 14.1% - 70,000 9,851 60,149 14.1% In Process Install inwork 76 EE1653 Switchgear - Westover Entrance - 18,800 18,752 48 99.7% - 18,800 18,752 48 99.7% Complete 77 EE1654 Switchgear - Woodmill Apartments - 18,700 18,648 52 99.7% - 18,700 18,648 52 99.7% Complete 78 EE1655 Switchgear - Lewis Drive - 18,700 18,648 52 99.7% - 18,700 18,648 52 99.7% Complete 79 EE1656 T Royal Farms Car Chargers - 9,600 - 9,600 0.0% - 9,600 - 9,600 0.0% On hold Waiting on customer go-ahead 80 EE1657 T Creek Stone Office 2 - 10,200 - 10,200 0.0% - 10,200 - 10,200 0.0% On hold Waiting on customer go-ahead 81 Totals - FY 2016 $ 16,463,400 $ 13,022,300 $ 6,876,778 $ 6,145,522 52.8% $ 5,751,100 $ 5,487,900 $ 1,939,452 $ 3,548,448 35.3% 82 83 Grand Totals $ 24,864,200 $ 19,963,100 $ 12,040,637 $ 7,922,463 60.3% $ 9,365,400 $ 9,135,700 $ 3,809,901 $ 5,325,799 41.7% Legend M = Multi-year project - a project with a specific schedule to occur over multiple years. B = Bonded Project R = Recurring project - a project that begins and ends each fiscal year and is re-budgeted to start over each fiscal year. S = State fully or partially reimbursed project T = Transfer from blanket New Development original budget G = Grant funded project 6

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Legislative, Finance & Administration Committee AGENDA: 08/09/16 DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Finance DATE SUBMITTED: 07/26/16 PREPARED BY: Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer SUBJECT: Consulting Services for Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Technology Upgrades APPROVALS: City Council ATTACHMENTS : Capital Plan, Vendor List, Vendor Scores & Pricing, Vendor Project Timeline EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $70,400 Total: $70,400 AMOUNT BUDGETED: $300,000 estimate, includes Phases I & II TOTAL PROJECT: Estimate $2.3 million FUNDING SOURCE: Allocated among General Fund & Utilities (See Project Sheet) TIMETABLE: Estimated 29 -32 weeks RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the Controller/Treasurer to enter into a contract with Bany Dunn McNeil & Parker, LLC (Bany Dunn) for Phase I of an ERP needs assessment, software RFP development, vendor selection and contract negotiations. The Finance Department solicited proposals (RFP #16-0039FN) for consulting services to assist the City with an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) project. We received eight proposals as listed on the list of bidders. The benefits of this project are outlined in the attached Capital Plan document. The following due diligence was completed by City staff to develop to the RFP and subsequent selection of Bany Dunn. • Software demonstrations with companies that serve entities with similar size and services were conducted in September-November 2015 to provide staff with knowledge of new technology and enhancements to our current processes with the various software packages. • After conducting research, telephone conversations with other local governments about their projects, and reviewing their RFP's for ERP software solutions, a draft RFP was developed by the Controller/Treasurer in Febrnary 2016. The draft document was reviewed and modified with the input of our I/T staff and the Assistant City Manager. • The RFP was released by public advertisement and the City website on March 3, 2016. • The City received eight sealed proposals on April 11, 2016. • Electronic copies of all proposals were made available to all City Departments for review along with a scoring sheet for each department's use and a summary of key aspects notated by Finance. • A meeting was held on April 27 with Department Heads to discuss each proposal. Scoring sheets were completed in May 2016. • Based on the results of the scores received, the top three films were selected. The Controller/Treasurer conducted telephone interviews of all references, summarized the results, and sent them to the Department Heads dming the month of June. • The week of June 27, Department Heads met to conduct interview meetings with the finalists. • A meeting was held on July 20 with the Departments to discuss the final vendor selection and the consensus was to select Bany Dunn McNeil & Parker, LLC for the ERP consulting services. Once Phase I of this project is completed, staff will provide for Committee and Council's approval the recommendations and a cost/benefit analysis of any changes prior to moving onto Phase II - Implementation of ERP Technology.

FY 2017 Capital Investment Plan FY 17 thru FY 21 Department Finance City of Dover, Delaware Contact Controller/Treasurer Type Technology Project# FNl 701 Useful Life 10 years Project Name Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Solution Category Electric New Project: Yes Account Number: 480-9900-582.90-23 Priority Time-Line: FY l 7-FY2 l Status Active Description I Total Project Cost: $2,300,000 This project involves consulting services and purchase of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Solution to support the business processes of the City of Dover. Justification I The City's current ERP software is Sungard Public Sector's Select/Naviline version 8.0.2.0. It is an IBM System powered environment (iSeries). This system is a legacy system that came out of the Y2K era, when previous systems were not programmed for the year 2000. The Sungard Public Sector system was purchased in April l 997. The technology for ERP systems have evolved from mainframe based systems (AS400) to Personal Computer (PC) based systems either hosted by the software provider through the internet or hosted by the customer on file servers. The industry trend is to drive access to customers with web and app based delivery models. Project Strategy & Objectives: - The City requires an integrated environment where any user can access the data they need. - The City will emphasize a self-service environment with technology enabling and not hindering the users to easily access data with the proper controls at the point of data entry. - The City desires to utili ze rational data base technology plus easy report and query writing tools to accomplish this . . / The City realizes that this goal will not be accomplished through new technology alone but also requires extensive process changes and organizational support. - Management requires better access to data, information and reporting that is currently unavailable or significantly restricted. - As a result of current limitations to functionallity and access to data, City personnel have developed work-around processes that are impacting City business. - Third-party software integrations with the current system are extremely difficult, limited or unvailable. Expenditures FY 17 FY18 FY 19 FY20 FY21 Total Consulting 300,000 300,000 ERP System 700,000 1,000,000 300,000 2,000,000 Total 1,000,000 1,000,000 300,000 2,300,000 Funding Sources FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY20 FY21 Total Electric I & E Fund 1,000,000 437,500 1,437,500 General Fund 400,200 400,200 Water/Wastewater Fund 462,300 462,300 Total 1,000,000 1,300,000 2,300,000 Budget Impact/Other I Annual Operating impact is being evaluated to determine the net difference with the current ERP/ancillary systems and support versus the recommended solution . The current estimate for the new fully integrated ERP solution is approximately $300,000 annuallly. Current cost is being evaluated as above. Thursday. 1\1/ay I 2 , 2016 168

City of Dover RFP # 16-0039FN Consulting Services for Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Project Planning & RFP Development RFP Evaluation - Scoring Summary Proposer Contemporary Baker Tilly Bar,rv Dunn Software Coeur Plante& Schafer Zco Virchow McNeil& Concepts of Tandem Business Evaluator M oran Consulting Consulting Krause Pal\ker New Jersey Conglomerate Group #1 1 4 5 3 2 n/a n/a n/a #2 1 2 3 1 1 5 4 2 #3 2 1 4 3 3 6 7 5 #4 1 2 6 4 1 7 5 3 #5 2 3 4 2 1 7 6 5 #6 1 2 5 4 3 7 6 6 #7 3 1 4 3 2 6 5 7 #8 1 1 4 1 2 5 6 4 Ranking 1 4 3 0 2 3 0 0 0 2 3 3 0 1 3 0 0 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 1 4 0 1 4 2 0 0 1 1 5 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 7 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # Scorers 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7

City of Dover RFP # 16-0039FN Consulti ng Services for Enterprise Resource Pla nning (ERP) Project Planning & RFP Development RFP Evaluation Eval uato r: Contemporary Barry Dunn Software Maximum Schafer Baker Tilly M cNeil & Concepts of New Tandem Coeur Bu siness Points Plante & Moran Consulting Zea Consulting Virchow Krause Parker Jersey Conglomerate Group Proposal Format Requi r ements and Submittal Instructions (per Sections 5.0 and 6.0) 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Experience and qualifications of fi rm and proposed staff/su b-contr actors (p er Sections 5.3 - 5.5) 30% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Understanding of t he Project - Pro posed Project Plan & T echnica l Approach (per Sections 5.6 - 5. 7) 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Pr o posed Cost (per Section 5.8) 30% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total Score 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Pro posed Cost($) $ 73,320 $ 57,590 $ 49,678 $ 80,125 $ 70,400 $ 197,750 $ 196,500 $ 209,980 Esimtated Hours by Consultant Fi rm 312 307 437 506 408 1,580 1,400 1,280 Avg. Hourly Ra te $ 235 $ 188 $ 114 $ 158 $ 173 $ 125 $ 140 $ 164 Timeframe from start of engagement up to selection 4 months - est. 5 months - est 9 months - est. of vendor and co ntract nego ti ations 30 weeks 16 weeks 20 weeks 27 weeks 32 weeks 9 weeks 36 weeks 18 - 20 weeks Implement at io n of ve ndorl softwa re No Yes Yes No No No Yes No and da t a conve rsion support included $ 195,460 $ 5,250 $ 181,780 in p ro posal 1,074 hours Per Week 1,262 hours Project Team Size 6 8 4 4 3+ 8+ 6 6 Project Charter Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Cer tificatio ns· PMI, CAPM, CMC, Lean Yes No No No Yes 1 IBM Cert. Yes Yes Pro fessional St an dar ds - CMM I, PM I, &PM BofK Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes Demo Scripts Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Oth er Notes - Simi lar Company made Close to oth er Change Not enough Expert in No company Good staff approach t o up of con t ractor competitors in Management detail in Change Mgmn t hist ory qualifica t ions Ba rry Dunn co nsulta nts price range Ass ist proposal Very detailed COA Ass ist Very detail ed Not much det ail Good proposa l Uses SWOT Appea rs t o be Co nce rn s about Narrow down 40 question method t o Lea n Green belts Subcontr actor for high end number of st aff lis t of ve ndors check list for evaluate & Very deta iled A5400/Naviline com pany that and depth of for negotiat ions references current propos al systems works o n large projec t environment projects Sever al staff Assist with mem bers - reference subject matter checks and sit e experts at an visits analyst level

I I I Berry Dunn I E.5 City of Dover Resources I Our team recognizes that the replacement of the City's ERP system is a significant undertaking, involving multiple City stakeholders who must continue meeting their day-to-day responsibilities I while the project is ongoing. We will use a structured methodology, frequent stakeholder communications, and proactive project management to lead the City through this important I process, minimizing impact on daily operations and promoting success. I As indicated in our work plan on the preceding pages, BerryDunn expects that the City Project I Team and other key stakeholders, as identified by the City during initial project planning , will attend work sessions, reviews of project deliverables, teleconferences, and presentations . The I input and participation of these key stakeholders is invaluable to our collaborative project methodology. I I Additional stakeholders identified by the City Project Team, including City staff with responsibility for permitting functions and the system's end users, will be invited to participate in I our on-site fact-finding meetings. BerryDunn understands that City staff members' time is a valuable resource, and will assist the City with development of staff communications to prepare 1· participants for these activities, ensuring that all fact-finding meetings are as productive as possible. I 1· E.6 Staffing and Work Schedule Matrix In Table 12, we have presented the estimated timeframe, consultant staff commitment, and City I· staff commitment, associated with each proposed phase of this project. BerryDunn takes a team approach to system selection consulting engagements and each member of our team brings I valuable expertise to every phase, so all proposed team members will be involved in throughout the project. l I Table 12: Hour and Timeframe Estimates by Phase Project Phase Estimated Estimated City Staff Hours by Role Estimated I Consulting Timeframe Team Hours I Phase 1: Current Hardware 48 Project Sponsor: 12 Week 1 I and Software Initial Project Manager: 16 Assessment Project Team Members: 3 I Functional Area Representatives: 0 I Technical Representatives: 0 Phase 2: Project 32 Project Sponsor: 2 Weeks 1-5 I Management and Planning Project Manager: 24 Bi-Weekly Project Team Members: 24 Status Updates are Functional Area Representatives: 0 ongoing Technical Representatives: 0 BerryDunn I Tab E: Project Plan

Berry Dunn Project Phase Estimated Estimated City Staff Hours by Role Estimated Consulting Timeframe Team Hours Phase 3: Needs Assessment 104 Project Sponsor: 16 Weeks 3-11 Project Manager: 64 Project Team Members : 16-24 per team member Functional Area Representatives: 16- 24 per team member Technical Representatives: 0 Phase 4: Request for 64 Project Sponsor: 2 Weeks 11-15 Proposal Development Project Manager: 40 Project Team Members: 24 Functional Area Representatives: 0 Technical Representatives : 8 Phase 5: System Selection 96 Project Sponsor: 2 Weeks 19-28 Project Manager: 40 Project Team Members: 40 Functional Area Representatives: 16- 24 per person Technical Representatives: 16-24 per person Phase 6: Contract 64 Project Sponsor: 8 Weeks 29-32 Negotiation Project Manager: 64 Project Team Members: 48 Functional Area Representatives : 0 Technical Representatives: 8 per person BerryDunn I Tab E: Project Plan

Berry Dunn Tab F: Cost Proposal As requested by the City, we have provided our fixed and all-inclusive cost proposal, broken down by phase, for performing its requested services in Table 13. BerryDunn does not charge for time spent traveling , so these costs are reflective only of the time our staff will spend on the City's project. We will progress bill the City on a monthly basis. Table 13: Proposed Cost Breakdown by Project Phase Project Phase Cost Phase 1: Current Hardware and Software Initial Assessment $9 ,200 Phase 2: Project Management and Planning $5 ,440 Phase 3: Needs Assessment $17 ,680 Phase 4: Request for Proposal Development $10,880 Phase 5: System Selection · $16 ,320 Phase 6: Contract Negotiation $10,880 Project Total $70,400 Table 14 presents the estimated number of project hours and the hourly rate for each proposed resource. - 'J Table 14: Hourly Rates of Proposed Team Members Team Member Estimated Hourly Rate Project Hours Chad Snow 24 $275 Susan Johnson 164 $205 Kevin Price 100 $200 Adam Bates 120 $150 BerryDunn I Tab F: Cost Proposal

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Legislative, Finance & Administration Committee DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: City Manager's Office DATE SUBMITTED: August 2, 2016 PREPARED BY: Scott D. Koenig, P.E., City Manager SUBJECT: Disposal of excess property- Silver Lake Drive (East Lake Gardens) REFERENCE: NIA RELATED PROJECT: NIA REVIEWED BY: Scott D. Koenig, P.E., City Manager; Donna Mitchell, Controller EXHIBITS: Exhibit #1 - Letter dated April 14, 2016 from Mr. & Mrs. Parham (one (1) page); Exhibit #2 - Highlighted map of the area (one (1) page); Exhibit# 3 (All documents related to the prior action by the Legislative, Finance & Administration Committee and City Council from July 2015 - a total of fifteen (15) pages); 2 photos of the area. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $0 AMOUNT BUDGETED: $0 FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): NIA TIME TIMETABLE: NIA RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Determine that the property is excess property. 2. Authorize the City Manager to convey the excess property in accordance with Exception C of the Procedures for Sale and Disposition of Real Property. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The City Manager's Office has received an additional request to abandon a certain portion of an unimproved right-of-way adjacent to property owned by Bruce & Della Parham at 107 Silver Lake Drive (Exhibit #1 - Letter dated April 14, 2016) and Donald E. Swetland at 6 Lakeview Drive in the East Lake Gardens Subdivision. The primary requestors are Mr. and Mrs. Parham. The Dover City Council authorized the disposal of a portion of this right-of-way in July of 2016. The current request would expand the original disposal of the excess right-of-way to include the highlighted area south of the intersection of the rights-of-way of Lakeview Drive and Silver Lake Drive as depicted on the attached map (Exhibit # 2). This land is currently being maintained by the adjacent property owners as lawn area and is not intended to be developed by the City of Dover for any public use or purpose. If the City of Dover conveys this land to the adjoining property owners, easements must be maintained and recorded for the existing storm sewer infrastructure located in the existing right-of-way. Copies of the information provided for the initial excess property determination are included for reference purposes (Exhibit #3). The adjoining property owners must incur all costs to prepare a deed or a revised deed and survey to accurately describe the land to be conveyed. In addition, the survey and deed must include all utility and infrastructure easements to ensure the city can maintain utilities and infrastructure. Once conveyed, the land will become part of the taxable land calculations. The excess right-of-way is not large enough to create a buildable lot in this subdivision; therefore, the City Manager recommends that the excess property identified in Exhibit #2 be conveyed to the abutting property owner in accordance with Exception C of the Procedures for Sale and Disposition of Real Property. All costs to survey the land and prepare a deed for the transfer of the areas shall be the sole responsibility of the adjoining property owners.

Cxhihi/. # I City of Dover (!~) RECEIVED APR 2 0 2016 CITY MANAGER/MAYOR 107 Silver Lake Drive Dover, De 19901 April 14, 2016 Certified Mail Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager City Hall 15 Loockerman Plaza Dover, De 19901 Dear Mr. Koenig: It has been months since we last communicated regarding the abandonment of the city owned property abutting our property at 107 Silver Lake Drive, Dover, De. My wife and I are very anxious to conclude the transfer of the property we first discussed with you in December 2014. We are currently removing young saplings and gum trees on our property, and if there are no objections, we will do the same for the property to be transferred. At your earliest convenience, would you kindly inform us of your progress, including an estimate of how much longer the process will take. We sincerely appreciate your efforts and hope to hear from you very soon. Bruce D . Parham (£)uffe)lf~ Della M. Parham

-- ... ---111 ------------~----------~--- SILVE/l UKE . """ 04 ~~~ == > r:t:J L.J _h.~~ nM ~ j,. 02 ~ ~ 6 , ~ ~~ ---.... \ \ ~~- \~

cxAii:,;-I- #'3 ACTION FORM (1o"-,,~) PROCEEDING: Legislative, Finance & Administration Committee DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: City Manager's Office DATE SUBMITTED: July 2, 2015 PREPARED BY: Scott D. Koenig, P.E., City Manager SUBJECT: Disposal of excess property- Silver Lake Drive (East Lake Gardens) REFERENCE: NIA RELATED PROJECT: NIA REVIEWED BY: Scott D. Koenig, P.E., City Manager; Donna Mitchell, Controller EXHIBITS: Attachment A: Copy of Real Property Tax Map (East Lake Gardens); Attachment B: Copy of property survey for 107 Silver Lake Drive; Attachment C: Letter Received on March 19, 2015; Attachment D: Letter Received on September 30, 2014. Attachment E: Proposed Procedure for Sale and Disposition of Real Property. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $0 AMOUNT BUDGETED: $0 FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): NIA TIME TIMETABLE: NIA RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Determine that the property is excess property. 2. Authorize the City Manager to convey the excess property in accordance with Exception C of the Procedures for Sale and Disposition of Real Property. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The City Manager's Office has received a request to abandon a certain portion ofright-of-way adjacent to property owned by Bruce & Della Parham at 107 Silver Lake Drive in the East Lake Gardens Subdivision. Mr. and Mrs. Parham wish to make various improvements to their property and would like to take ownership of an irregular piece of right-of-way adjacent to their property. Attachment A shows the real property tax map for the subdivision and outlines the varying width right-of-way for Silver Lake Drive. The right-of-way adjacent to 107 Silver Lake Drive is 85 feet wide; where as other rights-of-way in the subdivision are only approximately 50 feet wide. Attachment B shows that approximately thirty-nine (39) of the eighty-five (85) feet is unimproved. Mr. & Mrs. Parham are currently maintaining this area adjacent to their property. The City of Dover has no plans to further improve or enhance this right-of-way. The excess right-of-way is not large enough to create a buildable lot in this subdivision; therefore, the City Manager recommends that the excess property described above be conveyed to the abutting property owner in accordance with Exception C of the Procedures for Sale and Disposition of Real Property. All costs to survey the land and prepare a deed for the transfer of the areas shall be the sole responsibility of Mr. & Mrs. Parham.

/ / -- ~m-/-~-------- ----- . ------ -- ----- i11 ~ + rI---- I -- .......... .,.,. I I I ~ 01 SU,VBR 7 ERTY TAX MAP

H1- \S1..a...::i.\cle.. ab"~doY'C..d. G o..l\e.y (un;""t~•~ e..\l j ~ Se\ to._.,~ rt \rci"" ~\r'e J f==e E-, -Sc.r-e..e.- '='jQ."'c.-e};i.o ·, ......,,,_ \"•f"'"- I 9 <~~eo~~~-e. I .( .s;"o.,~•""'-) e,o.'I ' I f t;J 8 -'~·g- I :r ; s,. ;-\-:! Ce...-,.-\o..\v-,,.~ c...G., 0 C>O 9'(l. (..<-'-¥!--!>\""\ l If I I J!.- 1 (I I ~ \JI 8 e L~ ,1:) = P.o.e, , Jr. t r . ~==6a ~<>u..""4. ·; -.; ~ _;_ ' ·, ~ ~1"' ,._ !:>s&• c,"l,' "'-' --z.e,.. :~4-' 'r"--~"~Q,V\ \~11""\, S'S~'l:>111'.:..i -,.so' ~ ·Jgl ·!&': €) 1 ! "t'j f~ -t" -"l S'i \ Ve.., \._.,,_\ce.. c~~:""1 1?~JL--~ ~ \)..,.·~ .._.'E'._ c.;. ~-\.\.- \(cw-\e<,\ --, GENERAL NOTES: '--\ 1. Lot shown is subject to easements ...... ,,_ S5B"C> I' z.7."W ...; and restrictions of record. \-<..'?_., S<> , 2. Certifications for this plan and for copies of this plan are valid only if they bear the impression seal and S\\"e....- L.o..\c_._ \Jr·,"~ signature of the Licensed Land Surveyor named below. 3. This Plan is based on deed records shown (DIR), on any record plan noted below and on physical evidence found. This plan exceeds tho requirements for a Class B Survey A-rrAC,J/fr/6'/!IT 73 M c C I u re I /"i0. c DRAWING NUMBER- MA,,oG,-1:1-,c... DRAWING BY- W . Arr\ Boundary Survey Plan of property to be conveyed to: ~@@©©D ~J[~@@ .""' '-"<'"'- ~ SCAlf- I''~ 3_a _' Bruce Parham & Della Parham !NCORPORAT!EO DATE- 7/s/n_ 1Prc1'eaelonal Land SlJrvaylng East Lake Gardens Subdivision - Lot 58 (PB#4 Pg#3) 140 Mifflin Road e.0o'5-(..~.I'.:, - a\-o<., # l 07 Silver Lake Drive - City of Dover Dover, Delaware 19904 East Dover Hundred - Kent County - State of Delaware (302) 6744550 rb~ l'!>o ~-'Ft o+,

Attachment C City of Dover RECEIVED MAR 19 2015 CITY MANAGER/MAYOR 107 Silver Lake Dr. Dover, De 19901 March 16, 2015 Mr. Scott Koenig City Manager City Hall 15 Loockerman Plaza Dover, De 19903 Dear Mr. Koenig, I am writing as a follow up to our conversation in December 2014. At that time we discussed the possibility of the City abandoning the City owned property adjacent to 107 Silver Lake Drive in Dover DE. As mentioned previously, the issue of access to our existing property and our desire to build a garage makes attainment of the adjacent City owned property the ideal solution for us. I appreciate the fact that you are busy with the affairs of the City so I respectfully ask if there is anything we can do to expedite the process, please let us know. I will follow up with a phone call in about a week to see if anything is needed from us to move the process forward. Thank you for you consideration and attention to this matter. Sincerely, l>vL~ r.:;;: )4 _f}L_ Della M . Parham

Attachment D City of Dover RECEIVED SEP 30 2014 CITY MANAGER/MAYOR. 107 Silver Lake Drive Dover, De 19901 September 27, 2014 Mr. Scott Koenig City Manager City Hall 15 Loockerman Plaza Dover, De 19903 Dear Mr. Koenig, Thank you for coming out to our home on Friday, August 29, 2014. We are writing as a follow up to our discussion last month. We are very interested in purchasing the vacant lot adjacent to our home at 107 Silver Lake Drive, Dover, De. At your earliest convenience, please let us know if the City of Dover is still interested in selling this lot. Thank you again for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Bruce D. Parham, D.D.S. ~Dena M. Parham l k__

Attachment E ....... I • f - - IU/ l~/'i PROPOSED PROCEDURB POR SALE AND DISPOSfflON OF REAL PROPSRTY 1. PUUOSE To . . .Um a pollcf for tit• City o! Dowr flllUl.aiac the u and dilpomdall of_,.. luda. Z. UWS AND POUCDS Qty '11Dollw' Coa of OtdUll&IOII, CIWptlr 2, Adica. IV. Secda 2-99. llldlorilll diapalll of Ualll pllpllty. . tM.,. MIi J. DnDMINA'l'ION A.aa,wt ...............utl ... a&y ..... lll&'Dllolllndll_fft _ _ ... . . . . . . . . of_. land wauld ••• dltMl ao1111a.,flln.., ,._,, ...... Anlnce ~ lhll . . DIMl'Cll:J c..dltl 111 ..... "" ....... w111...-. .._ .. A. '1'11e uaf.dld,ie •d PiAlnce Commltlcie, .,.a NClivfng a ""flllll ro dilpale or. . . ra1 pn,perty. ar.u. prior ro adina • -,c,nunendaCioft ro .. ~ CiLJ Couaa&, mqua IU plllimlt inrOffllltion lncl\Mth1g, but not lilllltcd co. Illa 1bllowlq: a-1) creterminld011 tltat nbja:t parcel u not requilwd by any odi11r City clllputmeat. a-2) wrla. expllaa.liDn of why a,bjecc pll'OII is now surplul. •·3) dlllnnilladan ofwllldlet a mftUW cllan&e "MNld llllllaco the Ille Yllue of 111bjact pu,el and C'aCICNMNlld aid dl•p It wamrttN. a-4) determine it pmeel's euct loaadaft 111d 1lza ii known and, ll not, NCOmlllllld whether said parcel should - surveyed by Ille City prior to any ale aae111pts.

Attachment E . ':. , .... • -Salo - and Dilpalldall or &...a Ptoperty - Plp'tlto II. DoYer City Counc:il, aft« 1WelYiftl a po.sidve recoftlmendalion rro111 1118 lAl&alat!ve and Pinanca CofflftltlD co diapaae of a sur,tus parcel· or fand. .._.I, • put or i• cleJibeado111: b-1) docindne It clilfal ot Ille,.... i1 ill._ City'• ltac ........_ b-2) •Etrnalll ll.....a "1 ale. .it. or-OIIIII' llllW waald Illa inbllUC.f. aw• City'• b·3) damli• if . . City Plaanar lllould bs &'lllcmted Co illitfa1e ZW1111111f11 p.l'OOlduaea. b°") piblicill fie plldnmc lnfilnarloft _ _ , . lllo apJu1 . . - ind 1U aYIUlltUlly for pufCIIM9 IO ... ,.... publia at a..t- a wak r.. two __.. tn a loal IIOWlplPlr, b-'l make put,lfo, ud a put ot tu ,...., all wrlam ooueap,ad • ...._. lld, after tbs publlctdai ~ o! Secdaa ,, Plr.qrtptl 9(4) . . -,. lilald I public heutna ro ftlOlhoie Ill)' odllr aftllal llput. C. Dover Cicy c.ncu. 1811' \IOlflw to ptvoad with the .r. of •rplM llncl, ~ delienld111: c-1) if III unbilad ........ ls ...... ID tllllblilll a ffl!niffl\al lCDlplable prloe. c,.2) whodw ro all . . ,-.a by pabllo . - or by 11111111 bid, and .._ 11D 111lnJinum II a•J•ble offer will lie. · c·l) Ille ct.,. 111d _,. of liCMltislq, with & tnini111u111 of -,oae bdQI 1dvertialllllt cw:a a . _ fOI' two wb in a . . . . . - of pneral dlalllldon within Ille coullty. c"') whedler die ~ o f. . sum,uadirc & paiticular u may INI aadl that die blll inllnl&I of tJII Clty would bl lUY8d by lisdna tha propaty for Ille with a llcenaf Nl1 tllalll •JIIIL o. City Starr 111all, wil" CoU11Clt dirtedon: d•l) arnnae tor alwrdame11tof . . Ille d-2) draft dm Ille blll llllin& Cl1ff a dfsrlpdon of tho parc:41 to lie IOld, dme, dim, 1111d place or ale or bid apenlna. lho Wffls and OOlldldon, ol ate, and t1w City'• atMtion of acctp4111m or ~ of any or aJI bids received ac rhe time of Ille or bid opcnhla.

Attachment E • 4it • , • • - • "Slla ad Dil,citiclon or •· J Pn,pecty - ec:nw d-3) order Md dillrlbllll a .,fflcltnt number or Ille bills for po1tin1 and disufbudan ua die County CollCthoua. u die lit.c, and in Ille ptteral ara of the parcel. d-') olJllin tJll arvm or a p,at rdOIIII ......_. it111d ale Is ro be a public IIICUon. d-S) canduc:t die Ille and submit the ....i11 co Dowr City Council. d-') obtain lhe arvlca of a Uceaal aal - ...t If Ala 11 ta be brokered. S. Dcvar Cliy Cvlalcll, after conftmlinJ Ch• ale, 1llall: •1> Rquar 1111 City Solfclcor ta pnpue I deed for execution and ro amnae tot final lilldelMIC willa . . purchuu " wtddl dane Ult City will deliver Ille deed, Ille pun:1ur will --111 b&llnc:m due. ud die Cit)' Solidtor wW. ftCOl'd &aid ._., In t h e ~ of Deedl Offlm tor bu county. F. It any mz11 , . _ of 111111 la too 1111111 or lm,zulat fn sblpe to be of any wlm lo u,-. adieli • u abaDIS owns, lt .,..y lte dd iu JUdl owner ac eltllcr lu b qpn.i.11111 fair lalbl ,arm. or at itl &Jr matcc wbae u esablilhell by tire aty•s II a - t NIIIIIIII. wfli• • Oau,idl lllall ldect. t1le C:Olfa of till, appraud and all Japl OOIII ..U • paid by lie owner , e q ~ tho collwyuce. 0, CGIII of Coll,,.,_,. UUII . . _ lpSl8ld by DcMr a&, CauncU, all INl llld a:olll, lepl or Olbtrwlll, uenallw will! Ille ale aad conwyance oC Ill . . , Jaalda IUll be pale! by Illa parchuer. 5. UCIPltONS 10 STANDAIU> Mnll<>D 01' DJSP0Sm0N Sale CO ag ahvuinr pww· When, In du, oplnion or CJry Council, a publfc: tale would be dc:Uimmral co Ute lands of an abua.i:r, and/or Illar a public sale would plac.e die abutaer at Wlduc ruk; or that the combination of abullier's land ud Clly's land would be subscantially pealm' in value than !hat of die aim of thtt parcels corwdercd indlvfdually, Oover City Council may dl.recc the City Assmoc to bave preplffd one or more unbialfld fee •ppraisals o( die pu:et. Thereafter, the .tubject land will be offend ror ale r.o the said abutt.er al Ike appf'liJal prica, plu.1 !:ha apprmal roes. plus Ille lepl co.us. In tfle event lhc offer is not ac:cepred, a public ale may be ocdcad. Examples of detrimental affect mi&J,c be whll\ tM surplus City parcel lies becwecn • lbuttin& or property and !he .meer and development of I.tie pll'Clll would obsenlet vfslblitty dte atJutl.er's property, or when che surplus p11cul Is ioncd mutcHamlly and abuts a iinsfe fllrnlly .,-.-1.

Attachment E . . ... Sala 111d ~tian ot Rio Pral'9r(y .. ~ • f Pua&wc ,.... - Yndn pl Jeedr A 1111da of lands may be lfPllMd w11111 II fa mown beyond doubt dlal such a IIMl-'l•..-1oar ..._ llwl fie llndl a,..,. utd/r,r • ID• er...._ a ·dollar ror dollar• 111a111& •q- on & •111uue foot for tbot" Br. . . C C:Oo.,....,olodd +er«aV« w+ulfdebks penm· City ..,.ufsldons ror coads, udlky -,ae. etc. 111&7. ,o.r ncll usa,e la ecc:omplbflal, S.w a IIMll llltp of land tbM ls odd dllp!ld 111d YAbuiktlblD. DcMI' City Coulldl may~ Ille convoym of mis ll'rlp of land co Ill uumn, °" PfllPlllt1 °"'*' 1-.quM ot 111d .,.,..._ "Ole prb b' . _ lands IILIU a.o • the amo cost liuls .. Iba& pid by die CILy. Ir CORV011ftCC is .... In acw of two ,-rs att« the . . of acy eocpi#,., '*' h oonafdarldan sblll tlthu be bwd an a pdm fllcatallshed by III uoblalDIS . . .....,,. _ . • ._ billa of dl8 value added II die lln&alls p,apaty by Ille aoquialdaft of llid Jand1, • on ee City'• mat bub tor the pll'Oll aiQUIIDd ftJr fllflldoa. wllichcMsr Dowr a&y OMdl all IIIICII. All ,-, lllpl or odlerwbe, vrcirw wllh tho coaveywu:ie ue co IIIIO plf.cl bykpun:MW. Donedon or J •ad m Naa::Pmftc Qcpaigtfou: 11. ID u.o oplalOll or Dowr Qty c.ecn, ._ , wh of a,-.1 af lllCISI find IO& IIOfl1ldt ....,sndoo would a. la the bait In...- of 1119 Cley of Dower, CollllCD Ihm nmrves lllflD 1'3dfdle dJhC., 11111D 1sac:h daudon.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting was held on July 13, 2015, at 6:03 p.m. with Chairman Hare presiding. Members present were Mr. Sudler (anived at 6:08 p.m.), Ms. Maucher, and Mr. Shevock. Mr. Cole was absent. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Neil (arrived at 7:02 p.m.), Mr. Lewis (anived at 6:55 p.m.), Mr. Hosfelt, Mr. Hutchison, and Mr. Slavin. Mayor Christiansen was also present. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Shevock moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Ms. Mancher and unanimously carried. Fiscal Year 2014/15 Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program - Police Vehicle ComputerNideo Technology Upgrades & SORT Firearms Major Marvin Mailey, Deputy Chief of Police, advised members that the Dover Police Department recently submitted a grant application through the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) for the 2015 Justice Assistance Grant (JAG). He stated that the Dover Police Department intends to upgrade/replace nine (9) additional vehicle computer/video systems. Grant funding will be combined with $54,000 budgeted for the mobile data computer (MDC) portion of the system for this purchase. Major Mailey stated that these systems will be purchased for the nine (9) new vehicles that will be coming on line during FY16. The vendor for the purchase would be CO BAN and was approved as a sole vendor last year when grant funds were used for the same purpose. This brand of equipment is currently being used by the State Police and other agencies throughout the state. Major Mailey indicated that a portion of the funds would also be used to replace three (3) shotguns and night scopes for the department's Special Operations Response Team (SORT), noting that the weapons are more than 20 years old. This purchase would be awarded to a state contract vendor that is an authorized gun dealer. Major Mailey stated that this grant request is for $48,891 from the state to assist with the purchase of these items. He informed members that the grant had been applied for; however, to date, it had not been approved. Major Mailey indicated that the police department was quite certain that the grant would be approved, since it is an annual application. Staff recommended approval of the grant project, as requested. Ms. Maucher moved to recommend approval of the grant project, as requested. The motion was seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. Disposal of Excess Property - Silver Lake Drive (East Lake Gardens) Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, informed members that the City Manager's Office had received a request to abandon a certain portion of right-of-way adjacent to property owned by Bruce and Della Parham at 107 Silver Lake Drive in the East Lake Gardens Subdivision. He stated that · Mr. and Mrs. Parham wished to make various improvements to their property and would like to take ownership of an irregular piece of right-of-way adjacent to it.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF JULY 13, 2015 PAGE2 Mr. Koenig reviewed a property survey for 107 Silver Lake Drive and explained that Mr. Parham's driveway is located off of the odd shaped right-of-way on Silver Lake Drive and Mr. Parham mows approximately 40 feet of grass before he gets to the actual edge of the roadway. Mr. Koenig stated that Mr. Parham contacted him to determine the City's interest in disposing of this excess right-of-way because he is desirous of expanding his house and adding on a garage. Mr. Koenig reviewed the real property tax map for the subdivision outlining the varying widths of the rights-of-way for Silver Lake Drive, noting that the right-of-way adjacent to 107 Silver Lake Drive is 85 feet wide; whereas, other rights-of-way in the subdivision are only approximately 50 feet wide. Mr. Koenig informed members that approximately 39 feet of the 85 foot right-of-way is unimproved. He stated that Mr. and Mrs. Parham are currently maintaining this area adjacent to their property and the City of Dover has no plans to further improve or enhance this right-of-way. Mr. Koenig explained that the City may have previously desired to put in an additional boat ramp in this area; however, during his employment with the City, it has never been pursued, nor had there been any indication that the City would pursue adding a boat ramp or any type of parking in this area. He stated that Mr. Parham' s request is essentially that the City allow him to hire a surveyor and create a deed to transfer this excess right-of-way to his property. Mr. Koenig explained that once this parcel is transferred, it would become part of Mr. Parham's lot and part of the taxable real property in the City. Mr. Koenig stated that the excess right-of-way is not large enough to create a buildable lot in this subdivision; therefore, it was his recommendation that the excess property be conveyed to the abutting property owner in accordance with Exception C of the Procedures for Sale and Disposition of Real Property. He advised that all costs to survey the land and prepare a deed for the transfer of the area shall be the sole responsibility of Mr. and Mrs. Parham, if they wish to proceed, and that staff would review all of the documentation prior to signature. Staff recommended the following: 1) determine that the property is excess property; and 2) authorize the City Manager to convey the excess property in accordance with Exception C of the Procedures for Sale and Disposition of Real Property. Referring to the excess property to be conveyed to Mr. Parham, Mr. Shevock questioned the amount of money that this would add to the tax roll. Responding, Mr. Koenig explained that the amount was difficult to distinguish as an unbuildable lot by itself, noting that it would essentially be added to the land value of Mr. Parham's parcel and the assessor would appropriately value it. In response to Mr. Hare, Mr. Koenig explained that if Mr. Parham were to build a garage, this would add another assessment. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mr. Koenig stated that he could not determine that the City had any use for this property; therefore, it is excess.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF JULY 13, 2015 PAGE3 In response to Mr. Anderson and referring to the real property tax map for the subdivision, Mr. Koenig explained that Mr. Parham's property was labeled as parcel 06 and is located immediately adjacent to Silver Lake Drive, beginning where the right-of-way increases to 85 feet and running all the way to the lake. Mr. Anderson questioned whether this property was near Sunset Drive, noting that residential complaints were previously received because people did not have access to get out of the driveway. Responding, Mr. Koenig referred to the real property tax map for the subdivision, explaining his understanding that Garden Lane used to extend further to the right of the word Garden as depicted on the map. He stated that the right-of-way was abandoned to a property owner in 1985 and became part of the subject property. Mr. Koenig indicated that this situation was similar but not quite the same. Referring to the complaints, he stated that staff had reviewed the surveys of at least one (1) of the property owners, as well as the Council minutes where the right-of-way was abandoned. Mr. Koenig stated that, based on his non-legal review, it appeared that the property owner had done things correctly in accordance with what he was granted by the City. In response to Mayor Christiansen, Mr. Koenig advised that, to his knowledge, there were no utilities in this right-of-way and that the survey of the area would determine the existence of any utilities. Mr. Koenig explained that there was an overhead pole line on the east side of the property where the right-of-way becomes 85 feet, which carries electric, telephone, and cable. He stated his understanding that the water and sewer lines were in Silver Lake Drive. Mr. Koenig informed members that the City would maintain a utility easement over any utilities indicated by the survey. Regarding the access issue referred to by Mr. Anderson, Mayor Christiansen stated that there is a fire hydrant that is located on private property due to the City conveying the property. Mr. Koenig stated that the fire hydrant in this area would most likely be abandoned or moved in the future. Mr. Hutchison questioned whether the City had canvassed the neighborhood to determine what the feelings were regarding this matter. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that the neighborhood had not been canvassed and letters were not sent to the neighborhood because this situation was different than when the City abandons the full right-of-way. He stated that if members would like that to be done, staff could do it just to make sure there are no objections. Mr. Shevock moved to recommend, provided local property owners are surveyed and there are no problems, that a certain portion of right-of-way adjacent to property located at 107 Silver Lake Drive in the East Lake Gardens Subdivision, owned by Bruce and Della Parham, be determined to be excess property, and that the City Manager be authorized to convey the excess property in accordance with Exception C of the Procedures for Sale and Disposition of Real Property, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Ms. Maucher and unanimously carried.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 27, 2015 PAGE26 would be COBAN and was approved as a sole vendor last year when grant funds were used for the same purpose. This brand of equipment is currently being used by the State Police and other agencies throughout the state. Major Mailey indicated that a portion of the funds would also be used to replace three (3) shotguns and night scopes for the department's Special Operations Response Team (SORT), noting that the weapons are more than 20 years old. This purchase would be awarded to a state contract vendor that is an authorized gun dealer. Major Mailey stated that this grant request is for $48,891 from the state to assist with the purchase of these items. He informed members that the grant had been applied for; however, to date, it had not been approved. Major Mailey indicated that the police department was quite certain that the grant would be approved, since it is an annual application. Staff recommended approval of the grant project, as requested. The Committee recommended approval of the grant project, as requested. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the Committee's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Hutchison and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Anderson and Lewis absent). Disposal of Excess Property - Silver Lake Drive (East Lake Gardens) Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, informed members that the City Manager's Office had received a request to abandon a certain portion of right-of-way adjacent to property owned by Bruce and Della Parham at 107 Silver Lake Drive in the East Lake Gardens Subdivision. He stated that Mr. and Mrs. Parham wished to make various improvements to their property and would like to take ownership of an irregular piece of right-of-way adjacent to it. Mr. Koenig reviewed a property survey for 107 Silver Lake Drive and explained that Mr. Parham 's driveway is located off of the odd shaped right-of-way on Silver Lake Drive and Mr. Parham mows approximately 40 feet of grass before he gets to the actual edge of the roadway. Mr. Koenig stated that Mr. Parham contacted him to determine the City's interest in disposing of this excess right-of-way because he is desirous of expanding his house and adding on a garage. Mr. Koenig reviewed the real property tax map for the subdivision outlining the varying widths of the rights-of-way for Silver Lake Drive, noting that the right-of-way adjacent to 107 Silver Lake Drive is 85 feet wide; whereas, other rights-of-way in the subdivision are only approximately 50 feet wide. Mr. Koenig informed members that approximately 39 feet of the 85 foot right-of-way is unimproved. He stated that Mr. and Mrs. Parham are currently maintaining this area adjacent to their property and the City of Dover has no plans to further improve or

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 27, 2015 PAGE 27 enhance this right-of-way. Mr. Koenig explained that the City may have previously desired to put in an additional boat ramp in this area; however, during his employment with the City, it has never been pursued, nor had there been any indication that the City would pursue adding a boat ramp or any type of parking in this area. He stated that Mr. Parham's request is essentially that the City allow him to hire a surveyor and create a deed to transfer this excess right-of-way to his property. Mr. Koenig explained that once this parcel is transferred, it would become part of Mr. Parham's lot and part of the taxable real property in the City. Mr. Koenig stated that the excess right-of-way is not large enough to create a buildable lot in this subdivision; therefore, it was his recommendation that the excess property be conveyed to the abutting property owner in accordance with Exception C of the Procedures for Sale and Disposition of Real Property. He advised that all costs to survey the land and prepare a deed for the transfer of the area shall be the sole responsibility of Mr. and Mrs. Parham, if they wish to proceed, and that staff would review all of the documentation prior to signature. Staff recommended the following: 1) determine that the property is excess property; and 2) authorize the City Manager to convey the excess property in accordance with Exception C of the Procedures for Sale and Disposition of Real Property. Referring to the excess property to be conveyed to Mr. Parham, Mr. Shevock questioned the amount of money that this would add to the tax roll. Responding, Mr. Koenig explained that the amount was difficult to distinguish as an unbuildable lot by itself, noting that it would essentially be added to the land value of Mr. Parham's parcel and the assessor would appropriately value it. In response to Mr. Hare, Mr. Koenig explained that if Mr. Parham were to build a garage, this would add another assessment. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mr. Koenig stated that he could not determine that the City had any use for this property; therefore, it is excess. In response to Mr. Anderson and referring to the real property tax map for the subdivision, Mr. Koenig explained that Mr. Parham 's property was labeled as parcel 06 and is located immediately adjacent to Silver Lake Drive, beginning where the right-of-way increases to 85 feet and running all the way to the lake. Mr. Anderson questioned whether this property was near Sunset Drive, noting that residential complaints were previously received because people did not have access to get out of the driveway. Responding, Mr. Koenig referred to the real property tax map for the subdivision, explaining his understanding that Garden Lane used to extend further to the right of the word Garden as depicted on the map. He stated that the right-of-way was abandoned to a property owner in 1985 and became part of the subject property. Mr. Koenig indicated that this situation was similar but not quite

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 27, 2015 PAGE 28 the same. Referring to the complaints, he stated that staff had reviewed the surveys of at least one ( 1) of the property owners, as well as the Council minutes where the right-of-way was abandoned. Mr. Koenig stated that, based on his non-legal review, it appeared that the property owner had done things correctly in accordance with what he was granted by the City. In response to Mayor Christiansen, Mr. Koenig advised that, to his knowledge, there were no utilities in this right-of-way and that the survey of the area would determine the existence of any utilities. Mr. Koenig explained that there was an overhead pole line on the east side of the property where the right-of-way becomes 85 feet, which carries electric, telephone, and cable. He stated his understanding that the water and sewer lines were in Silver Lake Drive. Mr. Koenig informed members that the City would maintain a utility easement over any utilities indicated by the survey. Regarding the access issue referred to by Mr. Anderson, Mayor Christiansen stated that there is a fire hydrant that is located on private property due to the City conveying the property. Mr. Koenig stated that the fire hydrant in this area would most likely be abandoned or moved in the future. Mr. Hutchison questioned whether the City had canvassed the neighborhood to determine what the feelings were regarding this matter. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that the neighborhood had not been canvassed and letters were not sent to the neighborhood because this situation was different than when the City abandons the full right-of-way. He stated that if members would like that to be done, staff could do it just to make sure there are no objections. The Committee recommended, provided local property owners are surveyed and there are no problems, that a certain portion of right-of-way adjacent to property located at 107 Silver Lake Drive in the East Lake Gardens Subdivision, owned by Bruce and Della Parham, be determined to be excess property, and that the City Manager be authorized to convey the excess property in accordance with Exception C of the Procedures for Sale and Disposition of Real Property, as recommended by staff. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the Committee's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Hutchison and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Anderson and Lewis absent). Time line for Review of Fiscal Year 2016/17 Budget (Deferred during the meeting ofJune 22, 2015) Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, reviewed the FY 16 Budget Calendar. He explained that advancing the timeline would create challenges regarding revenue projection. Mr. Koenig informed members that City Council recently adopted the FY 16 Budget which included the expected revenue projections, and the State did maintain the expected levels; however, it remained an unknown factor until the end of June. He

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Legislative, Finance & Administration Committee DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: City Manager’s Office DATE SUBMITTED: July 29, 2016 PREPARED BY: Ann Marie Townshend, AICP, Director of Planning and Community Development, and Scott D. Koenig, P.E., City Manager SUBJECT: Disposal of Excess Property – 106 and 110 South New Street – Offer from NCALL Research, Inc. REFERENCE: N/A RELATED PROJECT: Downtown Development District / Restoring Central Dover APPROVALS: Scott D. Koenig, P.E., City Manager and Donna Mitchell, CPA, City Controller EXHIBITS: Letter dated July 21, 2016 from Karen Speakman, Deputy Director, NCALL Research, Inc.; Procedure for Sale and Disposition of Real Property EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: N/A AMOUNT BUDGETED: N/A FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): N/A TIMETABLE: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Determine that the property is excess property; 2. Authorize the City Manager to complete a final agreement of sale to NCALL Research, Inc. for $10,000 per property. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The City of Dover acquired the subject properties through a land donation from the House of Pride in 2015. Prior to the donation from the House of Pride, these properties were encumbered by a lien for demolition expenses. City staff considers these properties to be excess properties, as the City has no use for the property and the City will be better served by these properties being redeveloped and restored as taxable owner occupied properties. The City of Dover has a procedure for Sale and Disposition of Real Property. The procedure includes a “Standard Method of Disposition” which begins at the Legislative, Finance and Administration Committee. The steps are articulated in the procedure, but include first a decision by Council (after a favorable recommendation by the Committee) to dispose of the surplus property, and subsequently the method of disposal (auction or sealed bid). The procedure also includes “Exceptions to Standard Method of Disposition”, which states as Exception D, “Donation of Land to Non-Profit Organizations: If, in the opinion of the Dover City Council, the donation of a parcel of excess land to a non-profit organization would be in the best interest of the City of Dover, Council then reserves unto itself the right to make such a donation. In this case, NCALL Research, Inc. has submitted an offer to purchase the subject properties for an amount below the assessed value of the land; therefore, the transaction represents a partial donation on the City’s part. Sale of these properties to NCALL is consistent with the goals of the Downtown Development District and Restoring Central Dover, to foster home ownership for low and moderate income households. This also supports the City’s goal and mandate to affirmatively further fair housing by allowing for location choices for low and moderate income households.

If the offers from NCALL Research, Inc. are accepted, the City of Dover would need to write off a portion of the City’s expenses related to the prior demolition as well as other charges. A summary of the write-offs is as follows, based on the offer from NCALL Research, Inc. and the summary of prior expenses. Address Offer Price Expenses Write-Off City’s Assessed Amount (Loss) Land Value 106 South New Street $10,000 $21,902.75 $11,902.75 $13,100 110 South New Street $10,000 $37,015.50 $27,015.50 $11,600 Staff recommends transferring the properties to NCALL Research, Inc. for the development of owner occupied housing in exchange for a payment of $10,000 per property.

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON AGRlCULTURAL LIFE AND LABOR RESEARCH FUND, INC. "First in housing services, because we care." BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 21, 2016 James McGiffin, Jr. Scott Koenig President City Manager J. Randall Kunkle City of Dover Vice President P.O . Box475 Tracey Harvey Dover, DE 19903 Secretary RE : Properties at 110 and 106 S. New Street Dear Mr. Koenig: Dan Kuennen Treasurer NCALL Research, Inc. would like to purchase the two lots at 110 S. New Street and 106 S. David Annis New Street for $10,000 each from the City of Dover for the construction of owner occupied Joe Belden houses. As you know NCALL is a Dover-based non-profit housing organization that is the lead agency for the Restoring Central Dover effort. NCALL, along with Central Delaware Habitat Vickie Bryant for Humanity and MHDC, is building houses for first-time home buyers in Central Dover and Jacqueline Chatmon we are targeting our efforts primarily with in the Downtown Development District. NCALL also provides pre-purchase counseling which assists first-time home buyers through the Rev. William Grimes process of becoming mortgage ready and we have assisted over 8,000 Delaware families in Christine Harris becoming homeowners. More information about NCALL and Restoring Central Dover can be found at our website, www.ncall.org. Jeanine K.leimo John Moore I have attached sample house plans of what we intend to build. We are in the midst of applying for grant subsidies to make the houses affordable to area households and I would Amy Walls need a signed agreement of sale by August 8th in order to submit sufficient documentation to the Federal Home Loan Bank and DSHA's Housing Development Fund. We plan to EXECUTIVE purchase the lots upon receipt of these two grants, which I expect would be by January 2017 . DIRECTOR Joe L. Myer I look forward to the City of Dover's approval of this offer and I will then develop an Agreement of Sale document to be executed. If you should need any additional information, BOARD MEMBER EMERITUS please do not hesitate to contact me at 678-9400 or kspeakman@ncall.org. Lee Reno Sincerely, John Frisk Roland R . Ridgeway ~ 6,~ lI - Karen B. Speakman Deputy Director 363 Saulsbury Road, Dover, DE 19904 • (302) 678-9400 • Fax (302) 678-9058 • www.ncall.org ~ghhoNlorb- ,...._ :.~:~.~ c .. A • .,. 1 . . 0 ., • . , . . . United Wt:iy A/jiliate Axency AA + z

GARAGE 11'-'3" x 21'-8" BEDROOM#l 13'-4" x18'~ /YIHY17~~ NCALL RESEARCH, INC.

/!ffw,,~ J"!CALL RF.SEARCH, INC -----~-: ~ --- - -- -- -----

BEDROOM#! 15'-S" X13'-0" W.LC. UVING GARAGE ~ ox= U'-3' X2:J.'.a• O(ill) I 5/ier~· 16975.F. NCALL RESEARCH, INC.

fl'fw, (j}f~ I 1734 S.F. NCALL RFSEARCH, INC I

.. . .·, " I - rruupu.a.... IO/ l'+f'i PROPO SED PROCE DURE FOR SALE AND DISPO SITION OF REAL PROPE RTY l. PlJRPOSE To establish a policy for the City of Dover replatin g the sale and disposition of excea Janda. Z.. LAWSA NDPOU Cll'S Cily of Dcrler Code of OJdinances, Chlpla' 2, Article IV, Secdon 2-99, ...aborims the Ille 1nd dispcwl of emm pqerty . · 3. DE'l'BRMJNATION A <lty Stiff member, upon dell:rmiding tlllt a Qty OWDlld parcel of lad .ii acea in nafum ad dm die cffspml of IUCb lud would be bea.efldll to the City of Cova', will mqvest, thmaab die lcai"'dv e and F1mnce Commiam, dllt tile Doftr' City Council cansidcr dflpoa1 of sach ·land. 4'. STANDARD Mlt'l'ROD 01' DISPOSIDON A. 1be Ugislat iw lad Finance Commlaiee, upon m:eiving a request to dispose ot acea real property, ahall, plior to making a recommendation to the Dowr' City Coundl, request all perdaent infonnad.on including, but not limical to, tile following: a-1) delerminalioa that subject parcel ii not iequired by any oeher City department. a-2) wriuen explalla&ion of why subject pucel is now surplus. a-3) determinadon of whether a mnin1 change would enhance the ale value of subject paRZ1 and recommend Slid chlnp if wanante d. a-4) determine if parcel's exact location and size is known and, if not, mcommend whether said parcel should be surveyed by lhe City prior to any sale attempts.

.. .. . ':. r . •· • • 'Sa le and DilpOliti Pt pT W Q - on or RWll Property - B. Dover City Council, after receiv ing a positive recommendati Finance Commiuee to dis pose of a surplus parcel on from the Leaialadve and deliberations: of lan d, shllll, u pu t of its b-1) demrmine If dil po lll of the pm ad is in the Ci ty' s beat intm'eltl. b-2) deletmine if dilP"I" by Ille, sift, or an e other int ma ts. mew would best aw a. Qt y'• l>-3) determine if1he City Pla nner should be requested to ini tia te ftlllDftin& procedma. M ) publicim tho peatin Mt informldon canceming the up lu for pu rcb ue to die pn en .l newspaper. vallc at least on.ioe a weeks pa red ind its availability for tw o we eb in a local b-S) ma ke public, uul a pu t of the NCOl'd, all written aft er the publicizing requh comsspoadence roceiwcl an emen d, public ha rin g to leCl!liw any .tl of Se cd oa 4, Pa rq np h B(4) ue met. hold a OCber citizr.n input. C. Dover Ci ty Council, aft er VOtin& to pm cee d with delermine: the • of mrpl.111 Jmd. lbal1 (°') c-1 ) if 111 unbiued w ni c-2 ) whether to 1811 the lll ii ·aeeded to ala bli sh a minimum ' .ac ep llb le price. pm ml by pa bli c auction minimum uceptlble oft'er wi or by a!llJed bid , an d wb ll be. l& the c-3) the decree ud sco pe of adYelt adverti.sement once a week for ising, with a minimum of apasm:e bdDa two weeb in a newspaper within die county. of pn ea l ciJ1:u1ation c- i) whether the circwnatln cel of and surmunding a pa rti cu lar sal the best interests of the City would be ll:I Wd by listing the e may be such 1hat a licensed real escate qe nL property for sale wi th D. City Staff shall, with Co uncil diNCtion: d· 1) arrange for advertiJem ent of die sale d·2 ) draft the Siie bill main& out a dacripcion of lhe pa rcel to be pla ce of sale or bid CJ1Jen in1. the am s and conditions sold, time, dale. and reservation of acceptance or ~ of sale, and the City's on of any or aJl bids or bid opening. received at the time of sale

~ I - • • • • '-sal e and Dilp osid on of i. PaECTlrc .J Prop erty - d-3) order and diatribua: a sufficient number of sale bills for posting and distribution in the Cou nty Cou rtho use, a the site, and in the general area of the parc el. d-4) abtain the selYicm of a pmf eaio nal auct ioneer if said ale is to be a publ ic auct ion. d-S} cond uct the II.le and submit the miu lts to Dow r City Cou ncil. d-6) obtain the Jel'Yices of a lice n.d real utal e apn t if sale is to be brok ered . B. Dover City Council. aftm' conf umin g the sale. shal l: e-1) iequ est the City Soli citor to prepue a deed for exec ution and to mnn ge for final settlement wilb the puichuer at which lime the City will deliver the deed, the purchaser will pay all balances due. and die Qty Solicitor will ftJCOid said deed, in the Recorder of Deeds Office for Kent COU tlty. F. If any excess pam el of land Is too SJDll1 or im& anyone other- than an abutting owner, it may be ular in shape to be of any 'Yllue ta IOld. co such owner at eithe r its fee appr aise d fair mar bt value, or at itl f'ai.r madm!t value as emblisbed by du: CilJ1s . . . . - t ftlCOldl. wlaic:bewr OJuacil lhlll lelec:t. lep l com sball be paid by the owner .mquestin ne costs of the appraisal Ind all g the convey.nee. G. Com of Conveyance U.alm OCherw1se specified by DcMlr' al)' Council, all fees and coses, legal or otbenri.se, associaaed with tbe Ille 111d canvey1nce of Ill excess lands shall be paid by Cbe pmcbasei'. S. EX<21'110NS TO Sl'ANDARD METHOD OF DJS P08 mO N Sale to M abuHin& own er; Whe n, in the opinion of City Cou ncil. a dettimentll oo the lands of an abutter, and/or that a publ ic sale would be public sale would place the abuuer at undue riak; or that the com bina tion of abuu er's land and City 's land wou ld be subs tanti ally greU valu e than that of the sum of the parcels cons er' in idered indiv idua lly, Dov er City Cou ncil may the City Assessor t.o have prepared one or more unbi dire ct ased fee·apprai.sals of the parc el. Theceafter, the subject land will be offeted for ale to the said llbutter at the appraisal pric e, plus the app fees, plus the legal costs. In the event the ofte mia l r is not accepted, a public sale may be ordeftld. Exa mpl es of detrimental affec t migh t be when the surp lus City parcel lies betw een an abut tin1 property and the street and development of the parc el would obst ruct visibility of the abut ter's prop erty , of when the surplus parcel is zone d multi-family and abut s a sing le family ~-

... .. ~ .. ... ·• Bale llld Dilpolition of Rl,,.,.,.. Property ~ EaaPou r - Irado of lands· A ttade of lands may be applVYed when it is shown beyond doubt dial such a. lrllde will be eqUll to or bealm' thlll lhe lands llD be lndcd either on a •square foot for squme foot• memure ud/or on a •cfolJar for c1o11ar• meuuie. ?.¥ceprjm C. CmYCPOQO of cxld . . . aml/gr tg1b11jkfablc perm's: City 1equi.titions for roads, utility aaam. etc. may, after such usage is accomplished, leave a small strip of land that is odd shaped and unbuildlblc. Dover City Council may approve die conveyance of this strip of land to an mbuUing J>RJ1*tY owner on requesl of' said owner. The prico for die. lands lhaU be at the same cost basis as that pmid by the City. If conveyance is made in excess of two years after' the date or Qty llCqUililiaa. dMrl the oamideradon shall either be bum on a price escah1ished by an unbiaecl fee W"illl JDlde m Ille bisis of the value added to die lbuUin& praperty by the acq••isi.doa of aid lands, ar on die Ci~s cost buis for the pua:I adjUllCCI fur iaflatfan, whicheYer Dova- Qty Counc:i1811 lllect. All £eea. lepl or~ UIOCialed wilh the conveyance are to be plid by Ille pun:ham '. &CCll'im'D. ") Dooado g of land tg Nqn=Pmfit <>rpojp tigm: If, iD Cbo opla~' of Dover City Coe•ncr1, .... cbwtlml ofa pll\W maaa lml ID a nan-pmfit arpnilll ion would be in the best mlmelt of tlle City of Do¥ct, Council lhen resezves UlllD Itself lbe right IO maim such donali.on.