Pwosè vèbal

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee Meeting was held on October 10, 2011, at 12:00 p.m. with Mr. Hare presiding in the absence of Mrs. Russell. Members present were Mrs. Horsey and Mr. Lewis. Mr. Anderson was absent. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mrs. Horsey moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried. Presentation - Foster Care Treatment Services Provided by Pressley Ridge Ms. Cha-Tanya Lankford, Pressley Ridge Program Director, provided a presentation, “An Introduction to Pressley Ridge,” (Attachment #1) and stated that her intent was to give members a brief overview of the background, purpose, and function of the organization, which provides treatment foster care (TFC) services. She explained that Pressley Ridge has two (2) foundational beliefs: 1) children matter, and 2) we can make a difference, and noted that every service provided by the organization is based on these beliefs. She provided historical information regarding the founding of the organization and explained that it has evolved throughout the years to meet the needs of children and families served. Mrs. Lankford explained that Pressley Ridge originally provided residential and educational services; however, programs today include residential treatment services, treatment foster care services, community-based services, education services, international programs and services, and the Pressley Ridge Institute, which is the organization’s research arm. Pressley Ridge’s principal purpose is to place children with trained foster care families in homes that provide stability and structure, with permanency and reunification as the primary goal for each child. She noted that many children that are referred to Pressley Ridge have had 12-14 placements before they come to the organization. Mrs. Lankford reviewed information regarding intermediate and long-term goals established and achieved by children served by the organization and their families. She stated that Pressley Ridge provides services in the Dover community, has foster homes in City neighborhoods, and has clients who are presently attending local schools. In response to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Lankford stated that Pressley Ridge does not have a local residential facility but places children in family settings that meet their needs. She explained that the caseload for staff members is between eight (8) and ten (10) children and that each child is treated by a treatment coordinator, supervisor, licensed social worker, therapist, psychiatrist, and trained foster parents. All foster parents receive 40 hours of initial training and 30 additional hours of training each year for dealing with children with behavioral problems. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms Lankford stated that Pressley Ridge is constantly recruiting foster care homes and has homes set aside and waiting for children. In response to Mrs. Horsey, Ms. Lankford noted that there are six (6) other foster care organizations in the State and that Pressley Ridge accepts referrals from these organizations.

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2011 PAGE 2 Ms. Lankford encouraged members to consult Pressley Ridge’s newly updated website for further information and to contact her if they have any additional questions. Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) Partnership with Habitat for Humanity Mrs. Tracy Harvey, Community Development Manager, advised members that the Community Development Office was requesting to establish a Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) Partnership with Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity (CDHFH). She explained that this request was due to the Dover Housing Authority (DHA) Board of Commissioners’ decision to decrease their participation in the NSP program as part of DHA’s plan to restore financial viability to their organization. Mrs. Harvey felt that CDHFH would be an asset to the city’s NSP program due to their successful record in providing homeownership to the low-income population. She stated that CDHFH provides affordable homes with monthly mortgage payments that are lower than the rents typically charged for two (2) or three (3) bedroom apartments. Mrs. Havey indicated that, as part of the NSP, the DHA purchased four (4) properties and sold two (2). Of the remaining properties, one (1) is occupied under a lease-purchase arrangement, and the other, located on Hancock Avenue, has been renovated and is for sale. Once these properties are sold, DHA’s partnership with the City under the NSP will be dissolved. Mrs. Harvey noted that CDHFH has an excellent track record in providing homeownership in Dover, with 14 houses built within City limits, all of which are occupied. The organization recently purchased and renovated the property at 101 Jefferson Court and sold it to a low-income family that was previously living in a shelter. She noted that approximately $205,000 remains in the NSP line of credit, which would be used for CDHFH to purchase and renovate a property to sell to a qualifying family. Mrs. Harvey explained that the organization’s qualifying criteria and selection process for families is very structured, and they have provided permanent homeownership solutions to over 100 adults and children throughout Kent County since they have been in existence. She explained that CDHFH holds the mortgages for all houses that they renovate or construct. In response to Mr. Lewis, Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, indicated that the City has partnered with CDHFH on a number of previous projects, including the renovation of 101 Jefferson Court under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. Mr. Neaton, Economic Development Director, indicated that CDHFH worked with the City on the ABC = 123 Program, which involved performing minor renovations and clean-up in the Downtown Dover area. Mrs. Harvey indicated that CDHFH has an NSP relationship in Sussex County that has been very successful. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mrs. Harvey explained that the $205,000 that remains in the City’s NSP fund consists of the City’s allocation from the NSP as well as proceeds from homes already sold. The initial grant received from NSP was in the amount of $1.5M, and all but $205,000 has been expended. She stated that when the three (3) remaining homes are sold, the proceeds will go into the line of credit and will be used to purchase additional homes. Mrs. Townshend explained that when the City went forward with the NSP, it was determined that the City did not want to own/manage properties or hold mortgages in connection with the program. For this reason, the City partnered with other agencies to perform this function, and the City received

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2011 PAGE 3 grant funds and distributed them to these agencies, who purchase, maintain, repair, and sell properties. She indicated that, as houses sell, the City receives program income from these sales, which is returned to the fund. All funds generated by the sale of these properties will be dedicated to the NSP until 2013. After 2013, remaining funds will be allocated to Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) projects. Mrs. Townshend explained that the NSP was established as foreclosure rates began to rise in an effort to prevent foreclosures from becoming a blight on the community and to turn them into affordable homeownership opportunities. In response to Mr. Hare, Mrs. Harvey confirmed that all housing projects undertaken as a result of the partnership with CDHFH would be within the City of Dover. Mrs. Horsey moved to recommend that Council approve the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) partnership between the City and the Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity, seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried. Proposed Ordinance #2011-25 - Amendment to Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 17 - Shopping Center Development [(SC-1, SC-2 and SC-3)], Subsection 17.3 - Permitted Uses (Relating to Neighborhood Shopping Center Zone) Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed Proposed Ordinance #2011-25, which would amend the SC-1 (Neighborhood Shopping Center) zone to permit retail and service establishments and specify that gas pumps would be permitted in this zone as an accessory use subject to conditional use approval. The proposed ordinance would prohibit wholesaling; warehousing; storage; and motor vehicle service, sales, and/or fueling stations in this zoning classification. Mrs. Townshend stated that, in order to determine the impact of this change, staff reviewed the properties within the City that are currently zoned SC-1, which include the former Playtex Plant at the northwest corner of Route 8 and Route 13, the Hamlet Shopping Center at the corner of Walker and Saulsbury Roads, the Dover Downs Shopping Center (location of Best Buy), and Route 8 Plaza (location of Talbots). She indicated that this type of use was not deemed to be out of character for these properties. In response to Mr. Hare, Mrs. Townshend explained that the need for the proposed ordinance became apparent when an initial land use plan was being considered for the property at the location of the former Playtex Plant at the corner of Route 8 and Route 13, noting that the plan involved consideration of gas pumps as an accessory use at that location. Because this was not a permitted use under the current zoning, staff concluded that it was more appropriate to amend the zoning text to add this as an accessory use than to approach it through the rezoning process, since it was determined that this type of use was not incongruous with the areas surrounding all City properties with this zoning designation. Mrs. Townshend explained that, before development, a site plan would be reviewed by the Planning Commission and a conditional use application for the gas pumps would be required. Conditions could be attached to such an application, including buffering or other protections. She noted that notifications would be sent to property owners within 200 feet and physical posting on the property would also be required.

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2011 PAGE 4 Mrs. Horsey stated that she agreed with the inclusion of the terms “accessory use” and “conditional use,” which she stated added two (2) protections in the ordinance. She felt that the amendment appeared to be a correction to the Code and it was logical to implement the change by ordinance rather than rezoning the individual properties affected to “get around” the existing ordinance. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mrs. Townshend stated that the Playtex property was formerly zoned Industrial Park Manufacturing; however, its current designation is Neighborhood Shopping Center. She noted that the property was rezoned in 2009 as result of the City’s comprehensive rezoning. She recalled that the current designation was the result of a specific request from a realtor who was working with Playtex to market the property at the time. Mr. Lewis expressed concerns regarding the “carbon footprint” left by designating such an accessory use and the potential need to clean up the property if the type of use were to change in the future. In response to Mr. Hare concerning notification of the residents of Bayard Avenue, Mrs. Townshend reiterated that all property owners within 200 feet of the property would be notified and notice of the proposed change would also be posted on the property. Staff recommended that members recommend adoption of Proposed Ordinance #2011-25. Mrs. Horsey moved to recommend adoption of Proposed Ordinance #2011-25 amending Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 17 - Shopping Center Development [(SC-1, SC-2, and SC-3)], Subsection 17.3 - Permitted Uses (Relating to Neighborhood Shopping Center Zone) (Attachment #2), as recommended by staff, seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried. Proposed Ordinance #2011-26 - Amendment to Appendix B - Zoning, Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Section 1 - Supplementary Regulations Applying to Residence Zones and Section 7 - Supplementary Regulations Applying to All Non-Residential Zones (Relating to Corner Lots) Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed Proposed Ordinance #2011-26. She advised members that, based on the definition of a “front yard” in the Zoning Ordinance, corner lots have two (2) front yards, one (1) along each street frontage. The Zoning Ordinance limits the height of a fence in a front yard to four (4) feet. This means that property owners of corner lots are restricted in their ability to install a privacy fence to fence in what many residents would consider a back yard. Mrs. Townshend stated that the proposed ordinance would clarify that corner lots have two (2) front yards; permit such lots in residential zones to have a fence of up to 6½ feet in height in the front yard that is along the side of the principal structure; permit such lots in non-residential zones to have a fence of up to eight (8) feet in height in the front yard that is along the side of the principal structure; and designate which yard on corner lots shall function as the side and rear yards. Additionally, the proposed ordinance would clarify that residential lots with dual frontages would be permitted to have fences of up to 6½ feet in height situated in the yard to the rear of the principal structure and

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2011 PAGE 5 non-residential lots with dual frontages would be permitted to have fences of up to eight (8) feet in height situated in the yard to the rear of the principal structure. Mrs. Townshend reviewed a series of diagrams depicting the provisions of the proposed ordinance as they would apply to the designation of front yards and rear yards and fence height restrictions for dual frontage residential and non-residential lots (Attachment #3). She noted that the intent of the proposed Code amendment was to correct language in the zoning ordinance that frequently leaves the City at odds with residents who apply for permits for privacy fencing. In response to Mr. Hare, Mrs. Townshend stated that, currently, property addresses are determined by the street on which the principal structure fronts; however, there is a “legacy” of side yards being used for that purpose and residents are resistant to changing these addresses. Staff recommended that members recommend adoption of Proposed Ordinance #2011-26. Mr. Lewis moved to recommend approval of Ordinance #2011-26 - amending Appendix B - Zoning, Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Section 1 - Supplementary Regulations Applying to Residence Zones and Section 7 - Supplementary Regulations Applying to All Non-Residential Zones (Relating to Corner Lots) (Attachment #4), seconded by Mrs. Horsey and unanimously carried. Benchmarks Established for the Economic Development Office Mr. Bill Neaton, Economic Development Director, reviewed a semi-annual update regarding the progress of the Economic Development Office (EDO) toward meeting its established benchmarks. He advised members that the EDO has two primary objectives: 1) to support the efforts of the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP) (Mr. Neaton serves as the Executive Director of the DDP) and promote downtown business growth; and 2) to promote City-wide economic development. Mr. Neaton reviewed the FY 2010-2011 Strategic Accomplishments of the EDO, as follows: Downtown Dover Partnership and Downtown Dover Business Growth In regard to the DDP and Downtown Business Growth, Mr. Neaton noted that the DDP participated in 19 events in Downtown Dover during FY 2010-2011. A new chairperson of the Organization Committee was elected and fundraising letters were distributed. The goal of completing a merchant satisfaction survey in the downtown area was accomplished with nearly 100% participation and an above average rating was achieved. In reviewing the goals relating to downtown business growth, Mr. Neaton noted that the DDP recently established a $50,000 loan fund to assist downtown businesses in purchasing inventory, remodeling, etc. He indicated that a committee of bankers has been established to review applications for this program and make recommendations to the DDP. Mr. Neaton anticipated that the awarding of these loans would assist area businesses to stay in operation and prosper. He indicated that the goal of working with potential property owners to fill vacant commercial buildings on Loockerman Street was an ongoing process, as many of these properties are not in conformance

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2011 PAGE 6 with Code. Mr. Neaton stated that the EDO is working with owners to improve properties as part of the aforementioned loan program. In regard to Fiscal Year 2010-2011 strategic accomplishments related to the DDP, Mr. Neaton explained that one of the initiatives of the DDP was to develop a recruitment strategy to attract new businesses to the downtown area. He noted that a Recruitment Subcommittee, chaired by Mr. Anthony DePrima, former City Manager, has been established for this purpose and Mr. DePrima has developed a group of realtors and developers to collaborate on this effort and has put a work plan in place. In regard to the property at 22-24 W. Loockerman Street (“the C. Moore building”), Mr. Neaton stated that the DDP is currently in the process of accepting bids for the renovation of this property and conducting meetings with bidders and Becker Morgan Group to develop cost-saving strategies for retrofitting the building. A Request for Proposals (RFP) has been issued for legal, architecture and engineering (A&E), and landscaping aspects of the project and the DDP approved Becker Morgan Group as the landscape and A&E firm and Street & Ellis as the law firm. Mr. Neaton noted that preliminary plans for the project would be submitted to the City on October 14, 2011. City-Wide Economic Development Mr. Neaton noted that the City’s unemployment rate has remained at or below the State’s unemployment rate and has decreased over the past year. He stated that the EDO continues to follow up with 12 small businesses and ten (10) out-of-town companies that were contacted to encourage locating in the City. In regard to Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Strategic Accomplishments Related to City-Wide Economic Development, Mr. Neaton advised members that completion of a site development master plan for the Garrison Tract and development of an overall marketing plan for the site were major tasks performed by the EDO and that Calpine Corporation has a current lease on Lot #7 at the site. He explained that the original tenant, Macquarie Energy, sold their interest to Calpine, and Calpine is currently awaiting an impact study from Pennsylvania, Jersey, Maryland Interconnection (PJM) before proceeding. He noted that the State of Delaware set aside $3M for infrastructure improvements at the Garrison Tract, and these improvements are also pending receipt of the impact study. Mr. Neaton stated that he spoke with Secretary Alan Levin, Delaware Economic Development Office, who indicated that there was no requirement for matching funds to be committed for this project, although Mr. Neaton indicated that Calpine has committed to matching funds to assist with infrastructure improvements. Mr. Neaton stated that he met with Secretary Collin O’Mara, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, and Secretary Levin regarding the promotion of the Garrison Tract to renewable energy manufacturers outside the State. Mr. Neaton stated that, approximately one (1) week ago, Delaware State University was awarded a $500,000 grant to enhance economic development strategies in central Delaware and that Dr. Michael Casson, Assistant Professor of Economics, plans to work in partnership with the City’s EDO to use these funds to promote development in Dover. Mr. Neaton planned to attend a

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2011 PAGE 7 follow-up meeting with Dr. Casson and Dr. Harry Williams, President, Delaware State University, to determine how to proceed. Mr. Neaton noted that he works with the presidents of all higher educational institutions in the City on a regular basis. In response to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Neaton stated that two (2) businesses closed in the Downtown Dover area last year. He stated that a new tenant would soon occupy the former Hunter House restaurant and that a restaurant specializing in salads will be opened at the location of the former downtown shoe store. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Neaton stated that the projection of less than 10% unemployment in 2011-12 was based on the struggling national economy and a desire to set a realistic goal for the City. At the request of Mr. Hare, Mr. Neaton stated that a list of all vacant commercial buildings in the City could be developed. He noted that information is currently maintained for all vacant buildings over 20,000 S.F. and vacant buildings in the Rt. 13 corridor. He also agreed to develop a list of businesses that have been contacted to encourage locating in Dover, including the types of businesses and their responses. Mr. Lewis moved to accept the Economic Development Office (EDO) report, seconded by Mrs. Horsey, and unanimously carried. UPDATES Planning and Funding for the New Library Mr. Zachary Carter, Director of Parks and Recreation, advised members that a “Topping Off of the Steel” Ceremony has been scheduled for October 20, 2011 at 5:00 p.m. Library donors will be invited to sign a steel beam located inside the building. He stated that M & T Bank will sponsor this event and provide refreshments. Mr. Carter noted that, on October 19, 2011 at 5:00 p.m., the Fordham Brewing Company will hold a Fall Festival in conjunction with the release of a new product and a portion of the funds received will be donated to the Dover Library Foundation. Tickets for this event are currently on sale at the Dover Library, the Fordham Brewing Company, and the Dover Newsstand at a cost of $10 for adults and $5 for children. Mr. Carter stated that a grant has been prepared for submission to ING Direct, who provided funding for the new library during the previous year and subsequently encouraged the City to reapply. Artisans’ Bank also suggested that a grant request be submitted for the project. Mr. Carter stated that a new committee, the “Next Generation Committee” has been formed as part of the library’s Capital Campaign Committee. The Next Generation Committee has set a goal of raising $100,000 for the privilege of naming the storytime room in the new library facility.

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2011 PAGE 8 Mr. Carter noted that an official ribbon cutting will be held for the new Job Center at the existing Dover Public Library on October 14, 2011 at 12:00 noon. Governor Jack Markell and Senator Chris Coons were planning to attend and a tour of the new library construction site will be offered to a limited number of attendees. Mr. Carter stated that construction of the new library was proceeding; the concrete for the first, second, and third floors had been poured; and more than 90% of the structural steel was in place. Within the next two (2) weeks, brickwork will begin and, within the next month, drilling will begin for geothermal wells. CDBG Program Mrs. Tracey Harvey, Community Development Manager, stated that the funding approval agreement for the release of FY 2011 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds was approved by the Mayor on July 21, 2011. All sub-recipient contracts were signed by mid-August and all projects were underway. In response to Mr. Hare, Mrs. Harvey explained that the City serves as a “pass-through” for the majority of program funds, but the Street Repair Project and Housing Rehabilitation Programs were City projects. Mrs. Horsey moved to accept the report, seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried. Housing and Recovery Act of 2008 funds (Neighborhood Stabilization Fund) This information was provided during the discussion of Agenda Item #2, Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) Partnership with Habitat for Humanity. Mr. Lewis moved for adjournment, seconded by Mrs. Horsey and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 1:18 P.M. William F. Hare Acting Chairman WFH/JS/dd/tm S:\AGENDAS & MINUTES\Committee-Minutes\2011\10-10-2011 PR&CE.wpd Attachments Attachment #1 - Presentation - “An Introduction to Pressley Ridge” Attachment #2 - Proposed Ordinance #2011-25 - Amending Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 (Relating to Neighborhood Shopping Center Zone) Attachment #3 - Diagrams Depicting the Provisions of Proposed Ordinance #2011-26 Attachment #4 - Proposed Ordinance #2011-26 - Amending Appendix B - Zoning, Article 5 (Relating to Corner Lots)

ATTACHMENT #1 PR&CE Committee Meeting of 10/10/2011 10/19/2011 An Introduction to Cha-Tanya Lankford, LCSW Program Director An Introduction to Pressley Ridge TFC Services Presentation Outline: I. History II. Mission / Values III. Model of Care IV. Services V. Re-Education VI. Pressley Ridge- Delaware VII. Delaware Specific Outcomes VIII. Question/Answer 1

10/19/2011 Beginnings  Pressley Ridge traces it’s beginnings to two orphanages started in the 1800’s. ◦ The Protestant Orphan Asylum of Pittsburgh and Allegheny – opened in 1832. ◦ The Pittsburgh and Allegheny Home for the Friendless – opened in 1861. Beginnings  In 1866, The Protestant Home for Children moved to a new building in Allegheny City on Ridge Avenue.  Also in 1866, the Home for the Friendless moved to a new building named “Pressley House” on Pressley Street. 2

10/19/2011 Years of Traditional Services . . .  The Protestant Home and the Home for the Friendless continued to operate as traditional orphanages into the 1950’s.  In 1955, Pressley House was reorganized as a residential treatment center for emotionally disturbed children ages six to twelve. The Next Steps . . .  In 1957, the Marshall Avenue property was purchased and cottage-style residences were built.  Pressley House provided residential treatment, educational services, foster care and day care programs.  A special education day-school was built in 1965. 3

10/19/2011 Next Steps . . .  In 1966, the Protestant Home began serving emotionally disturbed children ages 12 to 15, and also provided psychiatric and psychological consultants and caseworkers.  Can you see where this is leading . . . . The Merger  In 1969, the two institutions merged and took the name Pressley Ridge School.  By 1973, all educational and residential services were moved to the Marshall Avenue campus.  The Pressley Ridge board continued to explore innovations in services to troubled children. The Re-Education philosophy was adopted. 4

10/19/2011 Continued Growth  Through the 1970’s, 80’s & 90’s Pressley Ridge continued to add programs and expand services: ◦ 1975 – The Ohiopyle Wilderness School ◦ 1981 – PRYDE Therapeutic Foster Care ◦ 1983 – Residential and Foster Care service expand in Pennsylvania and West Virginia ◦ TFC services expand to Maryland (1988), Ohio (1990), Washington, DC (1998), Portugal (1999), Delaware (2003), Hungary (2006) and Texas (2007) Changing Names  In 1985, the name was change to Pressley Ridge Schools to reflect the diversification of programs and locations.  In 2004, the name was simplified to Pressley Ridge.  In 2008, Pressley Ridge merged with Family and Children’s Services of Central Pennsylvania adding many new, unique programs to the organization. 5

10/19/2011 Pressley Ridge Programs Today  Residential Treatment Services  Treatment Foster Care  Community-based Services  Education Services  International Programs & Services  The Pressley Ridge Institute Our Mission  To improve the adjustment and achievement of children & youth with troubling behaviors through effective programs that focus on all aspects of their lives.  To lead in the development of innovative programing through evaluation, research and outcome measurement.  To champion initiative to improve the system of care for children , youth and their families. 6

10/19/2011 Re-ED is our Foundation- Our Values  Nicholas Hobbs  Six Re-Education Value Statements: ◦ Idealism is Imperative ◦ Relationships are Paramount ◦ Joy in Our Work is Essential ◦ Re-ED is our Foundation ◦ We Strive for Quality – Nothing Less than the Best ◦ We are All Teachers and We are All Learners Re-ED is our Foundation  Twelve Re-ED Principles 1. Life is to be lived now; 7.Feelings should be nurtured; 2. Trust is Essential; 8. The group is very important; 3. Competence makes a difference; 9. Ceremony & ritual give order; 4.Time is an ally; 10. The body is the armature of self; 5.Self-control can be taught; 11. Communities are important; 6. Intelligence can be taught; 12. Know some joy in each day; 7

10/19/2011 Pressley Ridge- Model of Care Pressley Ridge- Delaware The beginning  Services in Delaware began Spring 2003  Luke McDonough, MS came from Pressley Ridge Day School in Pittsburgh and began the program from his home in Magnolia, DE  Introduced to Delaware to provide specific Individualized Residential Treatment (IRT) services for youth in care 8

10/19/2011 Initial IRT Services  IRT was a structured program with specific requirements of parents: ◦ Preferred two parent homes; ◦ Preferred one parent not work and primary role was as the care taker of the IRT youth; Next Chapter  Cha-Tanya Lankford, LCSW began September 2005; charged with increasing census & programming capacity  Luke McDonough returned to Pittsburgh  Program experienced continued growth in 2005 and 2006 ◦ 2005- 18 youth and approximately 23 homes to 45 youth and 70 homes 9

10/19/2011 Growth Spurt  February 2007 new contract entered into with DFS to provide Treatment Foster Care (TFC) services; ◦ Increased Levels of Care (LOC) of TFC that included Level IV & V ◦ Resulted in continual recruitment and certification efforts Expansion  2008 marked by continued growth  Expanded and opened two additional offices in the state- one office servicing each County (New Castle & Sussex);  Growth continued throughout 2008 & 2009 10

10/19/2011 The Recession of 2009  January 2009 the State of Delaware hit with the great financial crisis;  The Delaware TFC programs felt the hit via a dramatic decrease in referrals and placements;  Census peaked at 90 youth and 120 TFC homes throughout the state; Stabilization  2010 – 2011 Programs and services have begin to level off;  Today serve approximately 65 youth/year  75 TFC homes located throughout the state; 11

10/19/2011 Going Forward • Seeking to provide specialty services in the state; Take advantage of the niche treatment needs of the state (juvenile sex offenders) • Increase community based services • Continue community based outreach • Seeking additional financial streams: • Medicaid Billing Delaware Outcomes - Immediate Outcomes Benchmark Delaware Results Service Line Score Result Goal 1: Feel better about 80% 87% family sit/life (based on Satisfaction Survey Results) Goal 2: Hopefulness in 80% 100% 69% future quality of life (based on Follow Up Interview Results) 12

10/19/2011 Delaware Outcomes - Intermediate Outcomes Benchmark Delaware Results Service Line Score Result Goal 1: Individuals 80% 87% manage their behavior and relationships with family and peers (based on Satisfaction Survey Results) Goal 2: Successfully 80% 82% 90% Manage Behavior at Follow‐Up (based on Follow Up Interview Results) Delaware Outcomes – Long Term Outcomes Benchmark Delaware Results Service Line Score Result Goal 1: Obtain 90% 91% Permanency/Stability (based on the # of internal transfers that occurred in the program) Goal 2‐Indicator I: 80% 77% 90% Improvement in Permanency and Stability at Discharge (based on the living environment at discharge) 13

10/19/2011 Delaware Outcomes – Long Term cont’d. Outcomes Benchmark Delaware Results Service Line Score Result Goal 2‐Indicator II: 80% 93%‐Less Less LE ‐83% At follow up, youth will restrictive LE continue to live in a less No Moves‐85% restrictive placement 71%‐No Moves and experience no since d/c moves. Goal 3: Improvement in 80% 74% Functioning (Well‐being) (CAFAS) Indicator I‐ improvement in CAFAS/PECFAS scores at d/c Delaware Outcomes – Long Term cont’d. Outcomes Benchmark Delaware Results Service Line Score Result Goal 4: Achieve Safety 80% 100% 98% At Follow‐up, youth will be free from harm or victimization Goal 5: Educational 80% 82% of them were 95% of them Functioning ‐ Youth will attending school were attending be attending school, or had graduated school or had receiving good grades or graduated 67% of those will have graduated. attending school 70% of those reported attending school receiving good reported grades receiving good grades 14

10/19/2011 Questions? Pressley Ridge TFC Cha-Tanya Lankford, LCSW Program Director 846 Walker Road Suite 32-1 Dover, DE 19904 302-677-1590 office 302-677-1591 fax 302-423-5072 cellular www.pressleyridge.org Pressley Ridge- New Castle Co. Pressley Ridge- Sussex Co. 56 W. Main Street 20145 Office Circle Suite 203 Unit 2 Newark, DE 19702 Georgetown, DE 19947 15

ATTACHMENT #2 PR&CE Committee Meeting of 10/10/2011 CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2011-25 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN 2 COUNCIL MET: 3 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 17 - Shopping Center 4 Development [(SC-1, SC-2 and SC-3)], Subsection 17.3 - Permitted Uses, be amended by inserting 5 the text indicated in bold, blue, italics and deleting the text indicated in bold, red, strikeout as 6 follows: 7 8 17.31 In a neighborhood shopping center (SC-1), the following are permitted uses: 9 1. All uses permitted in the neighborhood commercial zone C-1, with no limitation on the 10 size of establishments; 11 2. Business, professional and governmental offices, public libraries, banks and restaurants.; 12 3. Retail and service establishments, subject to the following: 13 (a) The following uses shall be prohibited: 14 i. Wholesaling, warehousing, storage; 15 ii. Motor vehicle service, sales, and/or fueling stations. 16 (b) Gasoline pumps shall be permitted only as an accessory use and shall be subject 17 to conditional use approval by the planning commission in accordance with 18 Appendix B - Zoning, Article 10 - Planning Commission, Section 1 - Approval of 19 conditional uses. 20 ADOPTED: * 21 SYNOPSIS 22 The proposed ordinance would amend the SC-1 (Neighborhood Shopping Center) 23 zone to permit retail and service establishments, would specify that gas pumps would 24 be permitted only as an accessory use and would be subject to conditional use 25 approval, and would prohibit wholesaling, warehousing, storage, and motor vehicle 26 service, sales, and/or fueling stations. 27 Actions History 28 October 10, 2011 - Scheduled for consideration by the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee 29 S:\ORDINANCES\2011\Draft\Ordinance 2011-25 - Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3, Section 17, Relating to Permitted Uses Within the Neighborhood Shopping Center Zone.wpd

ATTACHMENT #3 PR&CE Committee Meeting of 10/10/2011

ATTACHMENT #4 PR&CE Meeting of 10/10/2011 CITY OF DOVER ORDINANCE #2011-26 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN 2 COUNCIL MET: 3 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 5 – Supplementary Regulations, Section 1 – Supplementary 4 Regulations Applying to Residence Zones, Subsection 1.3 – Corner Lots, be amended by 5 inserting the text indicated in bold, blue, italics as follows: 6 1.3 Corner lots. 7 1.31 Corner Visibility. In all zones within the city, no structure, fence, wall, landscaping, 8 earthen berm, sign or any other form of obstruction to visibility, in excess of three feet in 9 height above the adjacent street grade, shall be erected, placed or maintained on any 10 corner lot within the triangular area formed by intersecting right-of-way lines. Two sides 11 of the triangular area shall be 20 feet in length and measured from the point of 12 intersection of the right-of-way lines as further illustrated in figure 5-1. 13 1.32 Yard Requirements. Corner lots are considered to have two front yards. The rear 14 yard for a corner lot shall be the yard that is opposite the street upon which the 15 principal structure fronts. The side yard for a corner lot shall be the yard that is 16 opposite the street adjacent to the side of the principal structure. 17 1.33 Fences. A fence on a corner lot shall comply with the front yard requirement for 18 height along the street upon which the principal structure fronts. A fence on a corner 19 lot shall comply with the side yard requirement for height along the street adjacent to 20 the side of the principal structure. 21 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 22 That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 5 – Supplementary Regulations, Section 1 – Supplementary 23 Regulations Applying to Residence Zones, Subsection 1.5 – Exceptions to Yard Requirements, 24 be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue, italics and deleting the text indicated in 25 bold, red, strikeout as follows: 26 1.5 Exceptions to yard requirements. 27 1.51 Permitted obstructions. Cornice or cantilevered roofs and chimneys may project not 28 more than two and one-half feet into a required yard. Belt courses, windowsills and other 29 ornamental features may project not more than six inches into a required yard. Paved 30 terraces, steps, and walks (other than such as are needed for access to the buildings on the 31 lot) shall not project within 15 feet of a street line or four feet of a property line. 32 1.52 Entries and porticos. A roofed-over but unenclosed projection in the nature of an 33 entry, portico or awning not more than eight feet wide and extending not more than six 34 feet into the required front yard shall be exempt from the requirements of this section

Proposed Ordinance #2011-26 – Appendix B – Zoning, Article 5 Page 2 35 when the building otherwise complies with the regulations of this section. In computing 36 the average setback, the presence of such entries and porticos shall be ignored. 37 1.53 Existing setback. No proposed one-family or two-family dwelling need have a 38 setback greater than the average setback of the two existing dwellings with the greatest 39 setbacks within 200 feet on each side of the said proposed dwelling, on the same side of 40 the street and within the same block and the same zone. 41 1.54 Open decks. An open deck or patio extending to within ten feet of a rear lot line or 42 within 20 feet of a rear lot for second story decks shall be exempt from rear yard setback 43 requirements and lot coverage requirements so long as the principal structure complies 44 with the regulations. Such open decks or patios shall not be enclosed and used as a part of 45 the principal structure. 46 1.55 Fences. Fences or walls shall be limited to a maximum height of four feet above 47 the ground when situated within front yard areas, and shall be limited to a maximum 48 height of six and one-half feet above ground when situated within side and rear yard 49 areas. , except that corner lots shall comply with the more restrictive provisions of 50 article 5, section 1.31. Fences situated on corner lots shall be subject to the provisions 51 of article 5, section 1.3. For the purposes of this provision, on lots with dual street 52 frontage that are not corner lots, a fence situated to the rear of the principal structure 53 shall be limited to a maximum height of six and one-half feet above ground. Fences or 54 walls with a height in excess of six and one-half feet above ground shall conform to the 55 setback requirements for dwelling buildings as set forth in article 4 of this Appendix. 56 Fence material commonly referred to as "barbed wire" and/or "razor wire," or any similar 57 material, shall be prohibited in residential zones. 58 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 59 That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 5 – Supplementary Regulations, Section 7 – Supplementary 60 Regulations Applying to All Non-Residential Zones, Subsection 7.5 – Fences, by inserting the 61 text indicated in bold, blue, italics and deleting the text indicated in bold, red, strikeout as 62 follows: 63 7.5 Fences. Fences or walls shall be limited to a maximum height of four feet above the 64 ground when situated within front yard areas, and shall be limited to a maximum height 65 of eight feet above [the] ground when situated within side and rear yard areas, except 66 that corner lots shall comply with the more restrictive provisions of article 5, section 67 1.31. Fences situated on corner lots shall be subject to the provisions of article 5, 68 section 1.3. For the purposes of this provision, on lots with dual street frontage that are 69 not corner lots, a fence situated to the rear of the principal structure shall be limited to 70 a maximum height of eight feet above ground. Fences or walls with a height in excess 71 of eight feet above [the] ground shall conform to the setback requirements for dwelling 72 buildings as set forth in article 4 of this Appendix. Fence material commonly referred to

Proposed Ordinance #2011-26 – Appendix B – Zoning, Article 5 Page 3 73 as "barbed wire" and/or "razor wire," or any similar material shall be prohibited along 74 property lines which adjoin residential zones. 75 76 ADOPTED: * 77 78 SYNOPSIS 79 The proposed ordinance would clarify that corner lots have two front yards; 80 permit such lots in residential zones to have a fence of up to six and one-half feet 81 in height in the front yard that is along the side of the principal structure; permit 82 such lots in non-residential zones to have a fence of up to eight feet in height in 83 the front yard that is along the side of the principal structure; and designate which 84 yard on corner lots shall function as the side and rear yards. Additionally, the 85 proposed ordinance clarifies that residential lots with dual frontages would be 86 permitted to have fences of up to six and one-half feet in height situated in the 87 yard to the rear of the principal structure and non-residential lots with dual 88 frontages would be permitted to have fences of up to eight feet in height situated 89 in the yard to the rear of the principal structure. 90 Action History 91 October 10, 2011 - Scheduled for Consideration by the Parks, Recreation, and Community 92 Enhancement Committee 93 S:\ORDINANCES\2011\Draft\Ordinance 2011-26 - Appendix B - Zoning, Article 5, Section 1, Relating to Corner Lots.docx