Attachment

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA REVISED TO INCLUDE ITEM #3-A DOVER HIGH SCHOOL "COMING HOME" PROCLAMATION JUNE 9, 2014 - 7:30 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 15 LOOCKERMAN PLAZA DOVER, DELAWARE OPEN FORUM - 15 MINUTES PRIOR TO OFFICIAL MEETING (7:15 P.M.) The “Open Forum” segment is provided to extend the opportunity to the general public to share their questions, thoughts, comments, concerns, and complaints. Discussion of any item appearing on the agenda as a public hearing is prohibited during the Open Forum as an opportunity will be provided during consideration of that item. Citizen comments are limited to three (3) minutes. Council is prohibited from taking action since they are not in official session; however, they may schedule such items as regular agenda items and act upon them in the future. INVOCATION BY REVEREND THEODORE HENDERSON PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN SLAVIN AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS * CONSENT AGENDA Those items on the Council Agenda which are considered routine and non-controversial shall be marked with an asterisk (*) and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of Council so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered a separate item. * 1. Adoption of Minutes A. Council Budget Workshop of March 31, 2014 B. Regular Council Meeting of May 27, 2014 2. Presentation - Governor's Healthy Communities Recognition 3. Proclamations A. Dover High School “Coming Home” B. Flag Day and Flag Week 4. Public Hearing - Electric Revenue Fund Budget

Council Agenda - June 9, 2014 Page 2 * 5. Board of Assessment Appeals Exemption Report - May 27 and May 28, 2014 A. Village of Cannon Mill HOA Inc. - Open Spaces (Board recommended approval of request for exemptions) a-1. 2.7 Acres - Cannon Mill Drive a-5. .418 Acres- Quillen Street a-2. .393 Acres - Cannon Mill Drive a-6. 6.1 Acres - East Sheldrake Circle a-3. .773 Acres - East Sheldrake Circle a-7. 3.8 Acres - Loftland Drive a-4. .2111 Acres - East Sheldrake Circle a-8. 5 Acres - Paradee Drive B. Rector Wardens & Vestrymen of Christ Episcopal Church - 509 South State Street (Board recommended approval of request for exemption) C. Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity (Board recommended approval of request for exemptions) c-1. 41 South Queen Street c-2. 70 Mifflin Road c-3. 511 Schooner Way D. YMCA - 825 Kenton Road (Board recommended approval of request for exemption) E. Bible Church of God Inc. (Board recommended approval of request for exemptions) e-1. 1202-1204 White Oak Road e-2. Land - Spruance Road F. Milford Housing Development Corporation (Board recommended approval of request for exemptions for one (1) year and that the request be reviewed again next year; that the owner contact the City of Dover Inspections Department for maintenance issues; and that the owner meet with the City Manager to discuss a PILOT program with the City of Dover) f-1. 1361-1383 Walker Road f-2. 1357 Walker Road * 6. Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Report - May 27, 2014 A. Request for Waiver of Public Street Frontage Requirement - Appendix A - Subdivisions, Article VI - Subdivision - General Requirements and Design Standards, Section E - Lots (Dover Mall) (Committee deferred action on the request until the June 23, 2014 Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting when the applicant can be present) * 7. Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report - May 27, 2014 A. Discussion - Fiscal Year 2014 Audit Program (Committee recommended acceptance of the FY2014 Audit Program) B. Proposed Grant-In-Aid Policy (Committee recommended acceptance of the proposed Grant-In-Aid Policy) C. Request of Dover Housing Authority for City of Dover to Serve as Responsible Entity for Environmental Reviews (Committee recommended that City Council agree not to be the Dover Housing Authority's responsible entity for environmental reviews) D. Proposed Ordinance #2014-16 Amending Appendix E - Commercial and Industrial Building Redevelopment (Sponsors: Anderson and Townshend)(See Item #12) (Committee recommended adoption of Proposed Ordinance #2014-16)

Council Agenda - June 9, 2014 Page 3 * 8. Monthly Reports - April 2014 A. City Assessor’s Report B. City Manager’s Report C. City Planner’s Report D. Controller/Treasurer’s Budget Report E. Economic Development Office Report (March and April) F. Fire Chief’s Report G. Police Chief’s Report 9. Evaluation of Bids - Dover Park Recreation Center Demolition (Staff recommends awarding the demolition contract to Delaware Mulch and Stone in the amount of $35,600) 10. Evaluation of Proposals - System Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) Maintenance Contract (Staff recommends awarding a three (3) year contract to Donovan Contractual Services (DCS) as per the proposal submitted in response to RFP #14-0040PW) * 11. Council President Appointments - 2014/2015 Committees (Annual Appointments Deferred During the Meeting of May 27, 2014) A. Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee B. Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee C. Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee D. Utility Committee E. Compensation Commission F. Construction Code Appeals Committee G. Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) Trust Fund Board H. Retirement Committee - General Employee Pension Plan I. Retirement Committee - Police Pension Plan 12. First Reading - Proposed Ordinances The First Reading is offered on the following proposed ordinances. Final action by Council will take place during the Second Reading of the ordinances on June 23, 2014. Copies of all proposed ordinances are available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or can be obtained from the City Clerk's Office. A. Proposed Ordinance #2014-16 Amending Appendix E - Commercial and Industrial Building Redevelopment (Sponsors: Anderson and Townshend) B. Proposed Ordinance #2014-17 - FY2014/15 City of Dover Budget Ordinances 13. Final Reading - Proposed Ordinances The First Reading of the proposed ordinances was accomplished during the Council Meeting of May 27, 2014. Copies of the proposed ordinances are available at the entrance of the Council Chambers. A. #2014-09 Amending Chapter 50 - Floods; Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Article III - Building Code, Section 22-61; and Appendix F - Fees and Fines

Council Agenda - June 9, 2014 Page 4 13. Final Reading - Proposed Ordinances (Continued) The First Reading of the proposed ordinances was accomplished during the Council Meeting of May 27, 2014. Copies of the proposed ordinances are available at the entrance of the Council Chambers. B. #2014-10 - FY 2014 Budget Amendment C. #2014-14 Amending Appendix D - Downtown Dover Business Improvement District (DDBID), Article III - Establishment of DDBID, Section 3 - Geographic Boundaries, and Section 5 - Management Company 14. Council Members’ Announcements /tm S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Council-Agendas\2014\06-09-2014 REVISED.wpd THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.

COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP A Council Budget Workshop was held on March 31, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. with Council President Bonar presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Lynn (arrived at 6:06 p.m.), Mr. Perza (arrived at 6:10 p.m.), Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Williams, Mr. Hare, and Mr. Hutchison. Council staff members present were Police Chief Bernat, Mrs. Mitchell, Mr. Koenig, Mrs. Townshend, Mrs. Russell, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Carey was also present. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Council President Bonar requested the removal of Item #2-d-4 - Inspection Fees and Permits, noting that the material was included for consideration under Item #2-d-1 - Licenses and Permits. Mr. Hutchison moved for approval of the agenda, as amended, seconded by Mr. Dixon and unanimously carried. INTRODUCTION Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, welcomed all to the Budget Workshop for Fiscal Year 2015, which begins July 1, 2014. He explained that the purpose of the Workshop was to identify where the City currently was financially and that the meeting was the cumulation of the last few months of work by staff, including the submission of budget requests by department heads and meetings held with them to review these requests. As a result, he noted that several items had been “scrubbed” and that it was anticipated that several additional items would be removed from the final budget. Mr. Koenig explained that the budget which would be presented this evening was a working document created to identify all the different issues staff had been dealing with and to follow up on some ideas discussed during the budget meeting with members of City Council in May 2013, including requests of members of Council to increase spending on infrastructure, maintain administrative expenses, etc. He stated that the draft budget included requests for new positions and capital plans. In addition, he noted that it included a gap in the General Fund, which he felt could not be closed before the budget hearings in May since it was significant. Mr. Koenig indicated that consideration must be given to tax and/or rate increases in order to provide additional revenue to the General Fund to continue to provide the level of service residents are accustomed to. He requested that there be dialogue as the information was being presented to provide direction to staff on how the numbers and programs could be refined in order for staff to deliver a budget that would be acceptable. Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, thanked members for giving staff the opportunity to present a preliminary working budget document for consideration at this time, explaining that it was hoped that this exercise would prevent the need to make major adjustments when the draft budget is presented to members in May. She provided members with the preliminary FY2015 working budget pages (Exhibit #1). Mrs. Mitchell noted that the enlarged copies of these pages had also been posted on the walls in the meeting room and invited members to utilize them for making notes, highlighting items, and making other markings (deletions, additions, etc.). GENERAL FUND Mrs. Mitchell reviewed the preliminary FY2015 General Fund Budget. Responding to Mr. Hare regarding the decrease in property tax revenue received, which was reflected in the General Fund Revenue Summary, Mrs. Mitchell explained that, in prior years, senior citizen exempt properties were reported in this calculation. Elaborating, Mr. Koenig explained that

COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP OF MARCH 31, 2014 PAGE 2 the City Assessor provides a calculation of the real property value and what the tax rate would yield in revenue. In years past, this was the amount used to determine property tax revenue. He noted that the City Assessor also provides a sub-calculation which reflects the total amount expected for the senior citizen discount, which equates to approximately $70,000 - $75,000. Staff now accounts for that deduction in the total property tax revenue, which has resulted in a net reduction in revenue. Referring to the revenue estimate for sanitation fees, Mr. Koenig stated that the monthly average was tracking slightly lower ($5,000 per month) due to the loss of out-of-City customers and a reduction in the bulk trash fees as a result of the economy, since people are moving less frequently and residents are putting out less trash that may qualify for bulk. He explained that when the economy was good and residents had a $100 tree load for pickup, they would pay for the bulk pickup; however, now they are putting it out piecemeal in smaller-sized loads that the City picks up free of charge. Mr. Koenig advised members that the rental revenue for the Garrison Farm had decreased due to the construction on the site reducing the amount of land available for farming. Once the infrastructure is in place, depending on development activity, the farmer who utilizes the land may wish to farm some additional lots; however, for FY2015, this amount would decrease. He noted that the actual revenue for the Calpine lease was on the increase. Mrs. Mitchell indicated that the amount listed for revenue for transfer tax had been decreased, based on recent experience. Responding to Mrs. Williams, Mr. Koenig stated that there was no sure knowledge of any new construction that would provide transfer tax revenue. He explained that, although there may be new construction that would result in revenues for permit fees, unless a property transfers ownership, there would not be revenue from transfer tax. As an example, he advised members that the former Playtex site was working its way through the Planning Commission and if the site transfers next year, it would result in a significant transfer tax, which would be accounted for in the $1.1M projected for next year. Mr. Koenig stated that although the activity level on commercial properties had increased, it had not exceeded the current budget year and there was nothing to indicate that staff should budget more revenue next year. Mr. Koenig explained that there was a $136,500 increase reflected in the FY2014 budget for Municipal Street Aid revenue; however, the total funding did not increase. He indicated that the amount included in FY2013 was a combination of operating expenses and a certain amount that was earmarked for capital. In FY2014, this description was changed, and this change in the revised budget would affect both the operating and capital funds. In response to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the revenues listed for the Court of Chancery Fees are incorporation taxes the City receives from the State, since the Court of Chancery is located in the City of Dover. She noted that the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) that the City receives from the State is included in property tax revenues. Mrs. Mitchell advised members that legislation was being considered by the Delaware General Assembly regarding compensatory payments for certain exempt properties owned by the State. She advised members that the proposed legislation would increase the total amount paid by the State and this amount would then be divided among (4) qualifying jurisdictions. If this bill passes, she stated that it was anticipated that the City would receive an additional $48,000. Mrs. Mitchell noted that the State was proposing to eliminate the property tax exemptions for the University of Delaware and Delaware State University, which would

COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP OF MARCH 31, 2014 PAGE 3 result in the State making a PILOT based on those values. Council President Bonar advised members of his understanding, after meeting with the co-chairman of the State’s Joint Finance Committee, that it was unlikely that the legislation would be approved. Mr. Koenig noted the revenue for civil traffic penalties included the Red Light Enforcement Program and reminded members that these revenues were as high as almost $1M when first initiated. He explained that the cameras had accomplished what was desired, which was to cause individuals to obey the traffic signals. As a result, revenues had decreased; however, Mr. Koenig noted that the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) was evaluating the possibility of moving some of the cameras to other locations, which may result in a brief increase in these revenues. In addition, he stated that the State was obtaining a new vendor for the Red Light Enforcement Program and, although there may be “bumps” in revenue, staff did not feel confident in depending on this as a solid revenue stream. Mrs. Mitchell advised members that the revenues for Other Reserves reflected a Verizon grant provided to the City as a reserve for technology. When this money is needed to pay for expenses, it is pulled out of the reserve and goes to the City Manager’s budget for payments. This money is reflected as a transfer into the Other Reserves to serve as a “pass-through” to cover those expenses. Referring to the Expense Summary for the General Fund, Mrs. Mitchell reminded members that, during the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting held on March 10, 2014, she had explained that there was a need to make an accounting change in the pension calculation and the allocation for internal service funds. As a result, in the revised FY2014 budget, the pension unfunded liability costs had been moved to the division expenses; therefore, these costs would be allocated to the utilities for internal service fund charges. Mrs. Mitchell explained that this had resulted in large percentage increases in the division expenses, since the pension fund liability was included. To make this revenue neutral for the current fiscal year, a contribution to the pension fund in the amount of $121,000 was made, which actually benefitted the General Fund and was the amount that the City would have actually contributed anyway. Although the Debt Service reflected a reduction, Mrs. Mitchell advised members that an additional $50,000 was included for interest on the proposed financing for Garrison Oak Park projects, which totaled the $2.9M needed for the streets and stormwater. She stated that the budgeted amount for debt service reflected interest for only six (6) months and that the full debt service would be included beginning in FY2016. With reference to the Other Employment Expenses, Mrs. Mitchell stated that there were reductions in vacation sell back, education assistance, and retirements. Although staff had reduced these amounts by approximately $100,000, she noted that the total expenses had increased by $252,400. Mrs. Mitchell advised members that further explanation regarding these expenses would be provided later in the meeting. Mrs. Mitchell reminded members that during staff’s pension allocation and accounting change presentation to the Legislative, Finance, and Administrative Committee during their meeting of March 10, 2014, there was discussion regarding the underfunding of the Police Pension Plan for the annual required contribution. As a result, she explained that this amount had been increased to get the funding level up to the amount it should be in accordance with an actuarial study.

COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP OF MARCH 31, 2014 PAGE 4 Mrs. Mitchell noted that there had been a significant increase in the Uncollectibles - Trash and Others and that staff would be providing further explanation later in the meeting. In addition, she noted that the Transfer to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Fund for Capital Projects had increased over $1.2M. Mrs. Mitchell indicated that the revisions to the General Fund resulted in the City’s expenses exceeding its revenues. She reminded members that in FY2014 there was a $555,500 budget deficit; however, $609,000 was taken from the prior year reserve balance in order to balance the budget. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the revised FY2014 budget deficit amount was $595,100. Including the $609,000 and the excess from the monies put in the Pension Funds, she stated that the amount taken from the prior year reserve balance ($1,373,600) resulted in a surplus of $778,500 for FY2014; however, she stressed that the surplus was only due to the carry forward. Referring to the Notable Changes in FY2015 versus FY2014, Mr. Koenig stated that a Request for Proposals (RFP) had been requested for a City-Wide Revaluation. He anticipated that the RFP should be back before the May budget hearings, at which time staff would be able to include the actual expense for this line item. Mrs. Mitchell reiterated that the amounts listed on this page reflected only the difference between FY2015 and FY2014 and not the total expenses. In response to Mrs. Williams regarding the method of projecting revenues, Mr. Koenig stated that the revenue projections were very conservative and that, although a conservative approach was made in estimating the expenses, they reflected the amounts requested and any change would be made based on Council’s direction. As an example, he stated that for the Economic Development Office, last year’s request from Kent County Tourism was $15,000, which was budgeted for FY2014 and paid to Kent County Tourism for handling Old Dover Days and other events such as the Amish Bike Tour. In FY2015, Kent County Tourism had requested $18,500 for handling those same events for the City. He explained that the reason for the increase was that there had been no increase in the $15,000 requested for several years and an additional $500 expense was now included for an insurance policy, separate from the City’s umbrella coverage for the Amish Bike Tour. He assured members that it was staff’s desire to have discussion with members of City Council to obtain feedback as to whether or not the increase should be approved. Responding to Mr. Hare regarding the requirement for a City-wide revaluation, Mr. Koenig stated that the City Charter requires a City-Wide revaluation to be conducted no less than every five (5) years. He noted that the Charter was recently changed to extend the requirement to the five (5) years. Ms. Cheryl Russell, City Assessor, advised members that the last revaluation conducted by Kent County was in 1987. Should members of Council wish to have this requirement changed, he stated that a request could be submitted to the State legislators requesting a Charter amendment. He reiterated that the purpose of a reassessment is to properly evaluate real property throughout the City, and if the property values increase, it would be necessary to reduce the tax rate so that its result is revenue neutral. Mr. Hare expressed concern that such an expense is required yet additional tax revenue would not be generated to cover the expense. Mrs. Mitchell noted that there had been significant increases in expenses for the Police Department, totaling $302,700. She explained that the Radio Replacement Program, which was totally new to the City’s budget, had been included in the CIP.

COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP OF MARCH 31, 2014 PAGE 5 Responding to Mrs. Williams, Chief Paul Bernat stated that in addition to inspections for the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA) monies were necessary for travel and training. He confirmed that the City of Dover must pay for CALEA’s travel and lodging expenses for reviewing the City of Dover Police Department for accreditation. With reference to the Silver Lake Dam Inspection, Mrs. Mitchell explained that the inspection is a requirement of the insurance company. Mrs. Mitchell noted that Public Works - Engineering was a new division, explaining that it was previously included in the General Fund and then was moved as a division into the Water/Sewer Fund. She stated that the budget includes a street inspector and an engineer for the streets and stormwater programs in the General Fund, noting that a reduction was reflected in the Water/Wastewater Engineering for moving the street and stormwater program to the General Fund. Mrs. Mitchell indicated that once a Stormwater Utility Planning Feasibility Study is completed, there may be another change in this regard. Responding to Mr. Anderson regarding why this was included in the General Fund, Mrs. Mitchell assured members that stormwater, catch basins, etc., were General Fund items and explained that the feasibility study would determine if the City should start a new utility for stormwater. She advised members that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), along with other organizations, was instituting requirements involving stormwater, such as a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the engineering had always been a part of the General Fund (Public Works Administration) and that last year was the first year it was moved to the Water/Wastewater Fund; however, she did not notice this change until the budget was completed. She assured members that this engineering should be a General Fund expense. Elaborating, Mr. Koenig explained that any water that goes into the stormwater system runs into a water body. Any rainwater that goes into the sanitary system is treated under the Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) Program, which is a part of the Water/Wastewater utility. Depending on the results of the feasibility study, he stated that it may be necessary to create a stormwater utility, which would be related as a General Fund expense. In addition, Mrs. Mitchell stated that this engineer also serves as the engineer for the street program. In response to Council President Bonar regarding the possibility of creating a stormwater utility, Mr. Koenig stated that staff was prepared to make application to the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) for a $90,000 study to conduct a City-wide feasibility study utilizing an outside engineering consultant with experience with such a feasibility study. He stated that the State was interested in this project since the State, through its MS4 permitting, was encouraging the creation of such utilities. As such, the State was willing to fund half of the costs for the feasibility study. Mr. Koenig advised members that the City of Newark had a feasibility study conducted and held public hearings to create the utility; however, an issue arose when it became necessary to levy the tax assessment on the community. As a result, to his knowledge, although the utility structure had been established, they had not implemented the actual revenue structure to date. Mr. Koenig anticipated that the feasibility study for the City of Dover would occur in FY2015 and, if it were determined that the City should move forward with the creation of the utility, there would be a year of discussion in the community. He estimated possible implementation in FY2017-FY2018.

COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP OF MARCH 31, 2014 PAGE 6 Mrs. Williams stated her understanding that the dilemma for the City of Newark involved issues with the University of Delaware. Responding, Mr. Koenig did not think that the dilemma involved the University since the City of Newark would not have the ability to levy the stormwater tax against the University. He noted that it would be the same for the City of Dover, explaining that it would be difficult for the City to levy such a tax against the State of Delaware for their tax exempt properties. Mr. Koenig felt that the issue would be whether there would be a tax or a fee involved, explaining that the City may be able to levy a fee against the State. Elaborating, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the Governor had included some type of tax expense in his budget for this type of issue and questioned how it would affect the City if it were to be collected through County property taxes. If the City were to include such a tax, she questioned if it would result in double taxation. Responding to Mr. Anderson regarding how a stormwater utility would operate, Mr. Koenig used the example of a $10M tar ditch project. He indicated that if this “rain tax” were levied, the City could request a loan from the State through the State Revolving Fund (SRF) for $5M and the State could in turn request that the City bring $5M to the table and issue bonds for stormwater, which would be underwritten by stormwater tax that the City would levy on the project. He indicated that although in theory this approach sounded good, implementation would be difficult. Mr. Anderson expressed skepticism with the idea of the State collecting the monies without providing grants for infrastructure. He felt that if monies were to be collected from City taxpayers, grants should be provided rather than loaning the City money for taxpayers to pay interest back into the fund. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that some of the monies from the State could be in the form of grants; however, he was under the impression it was a loan program and that the State did not want to provide monies through a grant. Referring to the total increase of $937,000 projected in the General Fund for FY2015, Mr. Slavin noted that these were programmatic enhancements and not baseline funding, which would create a $3.1M gap. Since there was only $937,000 in enhancements, he questioned if the assumption was that the balance of the gap was the result of drivers in the budget. He inquired what the amount of the gap would be if members of Council adopted this year’s budget without any programmatic enhancements, no replacement of equipment, etc., and funded only every level of service provided today, taking into consideration insurance costs, payroll, etc. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the police pension actuarial required contribution increase would be $347,600; the reassessment was $100,000 last year and had increased to $130,000, requiring an additional $30,000; the other employment expenses totaled $252,000; and the CIP transfers totaled a $1.2M increase, which was the bulk of the expenses, and then there were also enhancements. With these amounts, she stated that there would be a $2.6M gap, which did not include the $319,000 increase for labor costs. Clarifying, Mr. Koenig stated that if this year’s baseline service budget were carried forward for approval (with only required increases such as labor, insurance, etc.), there would be an approximate $1.5M gap. Mrs. Mitchell noted that last year’s budget projected a $1.4M gap for FY2015. Mrs. Mitchell also reviewed the comparisons for the Water/Wastewater Fund Divisions as well as the Electric Fund Divisions, noting that these budgets were scheduled for review later in the meeting.

COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP OF MARCH 31, 2014 PAGE 7 Mrs. Mitchell reviewed the Personnel Budget for FY2015 without Pension Accounting Change (Page 5 of Exhibit #1). She stated that the personnel budget was based on the current year’s staffing level, as well as wages, and did not include any requested additional staffing or salary increases. Referring to the Other Employment Expenses (Page 6 of Exhibit #1), Mrs. Mitchell reminded members that these expenses included items such as education assistance, vacation sell back, and retirements. She noted that the amount of $652,400 had been included in the General Fund budget (Line 36 - Page 2 of Exhibit #1). She explained that this amount is the actual result versus what was budgeted, noting that the request was for $504,000 and when it was moved to Other Expenses, approximately $40,000 was eliminated since the results for the first year were unknown. Several members relayed concern with the City’s Education Assistance Policy, feeling that it may be too liberal. Responding, Mr. Koenig indicated that the Education Assistance Program was a benefit provided to City employees and was included in the City’s Employee Handbook. In addition, Mrs. Mitchell noted that many of the City’s benefits were also included in employee contracts. Mrs. Mitchell reviewed the Change in Accounting for Pension Contributions (Page 7 of Exhibit #1) and the Personnel Budget without Pension Accounting Change (Page 9 of Exhibit #1). At the request of Mrs. Williams, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she would provide members with the employee benefit rate used for budgeting. Mr. Koenig noted that the City’s increase in personnel costs from FY2014 to FY2015 totaled $153,000 for over 347 employees. According to information provided by the State of Delaware, Mrs. Mitchell stated that there would be an increase in the amount of .37% for healthcare rates, and that the projection included in last year’s budget was 6%. Mr. Koenig explained that the increase in personnel costs included the implementation of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and Dover Organization of Employees (DOE) contracts, changes in healthcare costs, consideration of retirements and new hires for their replacements, etc. The increase did not account for any wage increase proposals for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and Non-Bargaining employees. Putting this in perspective, he noted that last year there were $30M in personnel costs and that for next year’s budget, a $153,000 increase was proposed for these same personnel costs, which was less than 0.5%. In reviewing the 10-year apparatus replacement schedule for the Fire Department (Page 10 of Exhibit #1), Mrs. Mitchell noted that the Department had submitted a request for new Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) in the amount of $309,735. She advised members that the Fire Department had not requested an increase since FY2010. She stated that Chief Matthew Carey had provided discussion points and other documentation for Council’s review (Pages 11-13 of Exhibit #1). In regard to Contributions and Outstanding Items (Page 14 of Exhibit #1), Mrs. Mitchell indicated that staff had requested that all organizations provide a written request for contributions (until such time as the City’s Grant In Aid Policy is approved) and reviewed those items that had been included in the preliminary budget and those that had not yet been included.

COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP OF MARCH 31, 2014 PAGE 8 Responding to concerns of Mrs. Williams regarding lack of a requirement for these organizations to submit an audit, Mrs. Mitchell stated that in order for the City to obtain a review/audit, the City would need to ask organizations requesting contributions to submit a copy of their audited financial statements. She confirmed that all of the organizations are 501(c)(3). Concurring with Mrs. Williams, Council President Bonar suggested that the City require any non-profit organization that is applying for funding from the City of Dover to submit an audit of their financial statements. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell stated that although such a requirement could be included in the Grant In Aid Policy, currently the requirement, which mirrors the State’s policy, is that such organizations provide a compilation (receipts for expenses). She advised members that the Grant In Aid Policy had been completed and would be presented to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee for their review and recommendation to City Council. It was her understanding that members of Council did not want to implement such a requirement for these organizations for this year, since there was a November deadline for submission of requests for contributions. Mr. Hare requested that he be provided a copy of the receipts submitted for review prior to approving and issuing the requested contribution. Responding, Mr. Koenig advised members that the City had simply provided a contribution without any documentation to some organizations, such as Kent County Tourism. Mrs. Mitchell stated that in many instances, the City pays the vendors directly (bills) for events such as the Fourth of July Celebration and the African American Festival. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, stated that the City pays vendors directly for the entertainment provided for the African American Festival. In addition, she stated that the City receives an invoice from the Inner-City Cultural League for staff time, based on a certain number of hours and rate. Several members relayed concern with an organization charging for their “staff” time since this is an unaccountable expense and most members of such organizations donate their time. Mr. Slavin relayed concern that there was currently a $3.1M shortfall in the General Fund and that the additional items requested by the Fire Department, and other organizations for which there were no estimated amounts to date, would only cause this shortfall to increase. By unanimous consent, members took a brief recess. Meeting recessed at 7:21 p.m. and reconvened at 7:35 p.m. Mrs. Mitchell reviewed the Personnel Requests (Page 15 of Exhibit #1), explaining that the annual costs were based on the FY2015 benefit rates and had not been included in the preliminary budget. She noted that impact of the requests on the General Fund totaled $517,459.54 and the impact on the Water/Wastewater Fund was $29,194.87. She reminded members that the expense for the Water Treatment Plant Operator for the Calpine Project would need to be added to the Water/Wastewater Fund, which would be a four (4) year cost. Mrs. Mitchell confirmed that the $29,194.87 listed only represented the costs for the position for half of a year (comment section indicated this amount as the full year cost). Mr. Koenig provided members with specifics regarding each of the requested positions.

COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP OF MARCH 31, 2014 PAGE 9 Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Mitchell explained that, in accordance with the City’s Budget Procedure, monies budgeted for personnel costs are not transferrable unless the monies are used for contractual services, such as hiring temporary employees that would be necessary to fill any position vacated which resulted in a savings. He stated his intention to discuss with the Ad-Hoc Financial and Operational Advisory Committee a procedure that may assist with budgeting for personnel costs. It was his opinion that the City should budget for positions for a full year, and any personnel savings realized during the year would be directed toward an operations reserve with a cap, and then members of City Council could determine how those excess funds should be utilized to assist with Other Post-Employment Benefit (OPEB) or other liability. This would provide a personnel reserve for those times when additional costs are necessary, such as paying for overtime for snow removal or storm damage. Mr. Slavin expressed his concerns with allowing any amount of money that may be a savings in personnel accounts to be used for any other expense, including contractual services. He felt that if the monies were appropriated for positions, there should be restrictions for other uses. In reviewing the Governmental Capital Projects Fund Summary (Page 16 of Exhibit #1), Mrs. Mitchell noted that the only funding source (for the preliminary budget) was a transfer from the General Fund. She stated that the expenses for the Street Program included $1.1M for streets and curbs and $182,000 for vehicles and equipment for next fiscal year. Referring to the large increase for streets, she reminded members that this year’s street program was funded through leftover loan proceeds. Mrs. Mitchell reminded members that the $4.5M expense for the Streets was recently approved by City Council and, although a budget ordinance had not been presented for adoption, these monies were approved for providing stormwater and infrastructure at the Garrison Oak Technical Park. She advised members that these amounts had not been updated in the forecast model for the Water/Wastewater and Electric Funds, and in the General Fund for those projects that had recently been approved by City Council. Therefore, she stated that it would be necessary for staff to go through the forecast models and revise the budgets for those related committee action forms recently approved by City Council. Mrs. Mitchell referred to staff’s request for an increase in licenses and permits (Page 17-19 of Exhibit #1) and noted that specific details and history had been provided by Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development. If staff’s requested increases were approved, she stated that there would be an estimated increase in revenues in the amount of $154,425 (See page 20 of Exhibit #1). In response to Mr. Slavin, Mr. Koenig stated that staff would present any proposed fee increases to City Council for approval prior to finalizing the City’s budget. Mrs. Mitchell reviewed the Property Assessment Projection and Projected Property Tax Receipts (Page 21 of Exhibit #1), which included those organizations that provide a PILOT, and listed the Business Improvement District (BID) tax. In reviewing the details of the Demolition Program (Pages 22 and 23 of Exhibit #1), Mrs. Mitchell noted that the City’s Receivable Balance for FY2007 was $6,754.01 and that for FY2014, it was $446,321.86. She expressed concern that the City’s Uncollectible Reserve totaled $22,954.92 in FY2007 and that a couple of years ago, the City’s auditors found that there were revenues not being

COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP OF MARCH 31, 2014 PAGE 10 collected. As a result, she added $100,000 to the reserve to offset the estimated amount that would not be collected in revenues. Mrs. Mitchell relayed concerns with the auditor’s reaction to the amount of $446,321.86. She had been discussing alternative methods for handling demolition properties with the Director of Planning and Community Development. It was her hope that the City could develop some other option that would prevent the City from paying for the demolition and taking action to collect the debt through monitions or some other means. Mrs. Mitchell reminded members that the auditors deduct money that is over 90 days outstanding from the fund balance, since that amount is not a spendable resource. As a result, she stated that, technically, if the $446,321.86 is not collected within 90 days, the auditor will deduct it from the fund balance. Since staff includes the amount in the fund balance as a spendable resource, she feared that there may be issues in this regard. Mrs. Mitchell urged members to provide suggestions regarding this matter. Responding to Mr. Hutchison, Mrs. Townshend stated that there was a recent article in American City/County as to how the City of Gary, Indiana, handles demolitions. She had spoken with the Deputy City Solicitor and stated that this year, the City would be including the demolition costs on tax bills. Once these debts are included on the tax bills, she stated that a monition sale can be forced. As a result, it was the Deputy City Solicitor’s opinion that the City could take a more aggressive approach to collecting the debt. In some cases, a lien could be placed that would affect any properties in Kent County owned by the owner of said property, which would allow for collection of the debt with the sale of any of the owner’s properties. Otherwise, the collection of the debt would be paid with the sale of the particular property. In response to Mrs. Mitchell’s concerns, Mrs. Townshend questioned if the two (2) year delay for collection through monitions was a Code requirement or in accordance with the City’s Policy. Clarifying, Ms. Russell explained that a property owner must be delinquent in paying two (2) years’ taxes before the City can begin a sheriff’s sale process. As an example, she stated that if an individual were delinquent paying July 2013 taxes and then did not pay their July 2014 taxes, the City would begin the sheriff’s sale process in November of 2014. Mrs. Townshend advised members that she had discussions with the Deputy City Solicitor regarding the possibility of obtaining copies of those invoices his office submits to the City Manager for demolition expenses in order for those costs to be included in the demolition liens for collection. Elaborating on the demolition program, Mr. Koenig noted that $140,000 was originally budgeted for demolitions for the current fiscal year and staff had proposed a budget of $150,000 for next year. He stated that the City had been aggressive in moving demolitions through the process. Mr. Koenig noted that the expenses had increased annually for the last few years. He explained that the expectation was that the queue for demolitions was being reduced; therefore, staff recommended that the City continue to pressure property owners to either maintain their properties or the City would cause their demolition. Mr. Koenig felt that if the City did not take this action, the City would be subjected to the costs associated with vacant structures as well as the police, fire, fire marshal, and code enforcement issues involved. He explained that although the demolition expenses are an increase in the City’s liability for the fund balance, operationally the City is causing the removal of structures that are problematic for City personnel as well as the community. Therefore, he felt it was important for the City to continue to aggressively pursue these property owners, and hopefully owners will realize that the City will take action if properties are not maintained.

COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP OF MARCH 31, 2014 PAGE 11 For clarification, Mrs. Mitchell indicated that, in addition to demolitions, the amount reflected as an Uncollectible Reserve (Page 23 of Exhibit #1) included all General Fund items such as sanitation, police extra duty, fines, etc. Mrs. Mitchell reviewed the Police Extra Duty Program details (Pages 24 through 27 of Exhibit #1). She reminded members that there had been discussion regarding the possibility of charging for the overhead costs and noted that the details included an overhead rate calculation. She stated that a proposal regarding this matter will be presented to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee for their review and recommendation to City Council. Mrs. Mitchell explained that the concept would be to bill the customer the average costs per officer rather than by class of officer, which would save on labor intensive billing which would be required to figure out individual rates. She noted that a Special Event Rate had also been calculated and would be included in the proposal. Mrs. Mitchell indicated that the proposal would provide for an estimated Police Extra Duty income of $787,000 and, with an expense of $701,000, there would be a net result of $86,000, rather than the loss of money that had been realized in the past. With reference to the Sanitation Fees and Expenses (Page 27 of Exhibit #1), Mrs. Mitchell noted that the revenues covered expenses, including depreciation; however, they did not include any overhead costs. She indicated that the number of vehicles purchased may vary in a given year; therefore the depreciation amount represented the purchase of only one (1) vehicle. Mrs. Mitchell reviewed the Legal Expense Trend (Page 28 of Exhibit #1) and noted that in FY2010, there was an approximate $18,000 expense for the OPEB Trust Agreement and the remainder was for FOP negotiations. She explained that the increase in legal expenses was attributed to hourly billing charge versus retainer fee, union negotiations, code enforcement, and customer service issues. Mrs. Mitchell stated that these legal fees represented only the General Fund expenses and did not include issues related to power supply/generation or issues related to Ward Transformer. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mr. Koenig stated that almost all of the Baird Mandalas Brocksted, LLC expenses listed were related to labor negotiations or arbitration/mediation. Mr. Koenig reminded members that in a previous meeting, Mr. Lynn questioned the concept of the City providing in-house legal counsel. He noted that the regular expenses for Schmittinger and Rodriguez are approximately $75,000 per year, although in previous years, these costs had been up to approximately $100,000. Should the City hire an attorney, he stated that there would be a minimum cost of $125,000 - $130,000, which would include salary and benefits. If the City were to hire a full-fledged legal office, the expenses would exceed $200,000. In addition, Mr. Koenig stated that there would also be other costs, such as expenses related to travel; therefore, at this time, staff did not feel that the City should consider an in-house legal office. Noting that the legal expenses had continued to increase during the past few years as the result of labor contract negotiations, Mr. Slavin questioned if the City had realized a return on this investment. Responding, Mr. Koenig felt confident that the long-term investment for the legal services had been realized and would be reflected in the City’s OPEB liabilities. He reminded members that the 15% cost sharing for health coverage was extremely beneficial to the City and, although it may have been possible to achieve that agreement without legal representation, he felt that by having legal representation the end result was achieved. Mr. Koenig indicated that there had

COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP OF MARCH 31, 2014 PAGE 12 been an increase in legal expenses for FY2013 due to the new labor union formed. It was his hope that the City could minimize these costs because, as the City moves forward, those areas of the contract to be reviewed will be fewer than in the past. He explained that during the negotiation process, legal counsel is present to assist the City to respond within the law. WATER/WASTEWATER UTILITY Mrs. Mitchell reviewed the Water/Wastewater Utility Fund Budget (Pages 29 through 31 of Exhibit #1). She expressed concern with the Fund, explaining that the revenues were projected to decrease significantly. As a result, she stated that the expenses for staffing in Engineering and Inspection had been moved to the General Fund, which resulted in a decrease in expenses in the amount of $164,000. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mr. Koenig stated that the revenues included approximately three (3) weeks of Calpine operations; however, the Calpine revenues would not become fully effective until FY2016. At the request of Mr. Lynn, Mr. Koenig confirmed that Calpine would not receive a special water rate and would be charged the City’s water rate, which would likely be higher than the current rate. In response to Mr. Slavin, Mr. Koenig stated that it was estimated that the City would receive an additional $1.6M related to water, estimated at the current water rate, and concurred that there would be a cost to the City for that revenue. Mrs. Mitchell advised members that staff had included the revenue and expenses through the forecast model and would review these details later in the meeting. Mrs. Mitchell reviewed the details regarding the Wastewater Inflow/Infiltration (Page 30 of Exhibit #1) and explained that the information is reviewed to assure that the amounts collected are covering the fees paid for wastewater infiltration. With a projected deficit in the amount of $823,900, she noted that a rate of $1.71 would be necessary to cover the deficit (current rate at $1.05). She explained that if the increase were applied to an individual’s bill (including wastewater and water), it would result in a 6.8% increase in consumption fees. Referring to the current rate of $1.05, Mr. Koenig questioned its intent for covering expenses. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell stated that, in the past, the rate had covered the excess of the treatment expenses and approximately half of the Inflow/Infiltration. However, she reminded members that the City had a deficit fund balance due to treatment charges for Kent County and the rate was established to pay the fund balance down. Since this fund balance had been paid, Mr. Koenig questioned if members wanted this fee to cover the Inflow/Infiltration capital improvements in the future or the City’s capital improvements related to the actual wastewater rate. In response to Mrs. Williams, Mr. Koenig stated that this was a flat rate and is the same charge to residential, commercial, and industrial customers. He noted that the current water rate was $3.00 per 1,000 gallons. Referring to the Groundwater Surcharge from the State, Mrs. Williams questioned what effect this would have on City residents. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that there would be a $47 tax per household on the Kent County tax bill. If the City increased the Inflow/Infiltration rate from $1.05 to $1.71 (66¢ increase), he stated that, with an average household using 7,000 gallons per month, this would equate to a $4.62 increase (approximately $55 per year).

COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP OF MARCH 31, 2014 PAGE 13 Mrs. Mitchell explained that the challenge involved with the Water/Wastewater Fund is that the infrastructure is very expensive and the revenues are very low. As a result, she stated that $2.5M is needed for water and $2.5M in capital each year. In reviewing the Water/Wastewater Improvement and Extension Fund Budget (Page 31 of Exhibit #1), Mrs. Mitchell noted that the transfers from the Operating Fund for both Water (Line 6) and Wastewater (Line 7) did not include sufficient funds to cover the capital projects. She further explained that, with a total of $3.6M necessary to cover these project expenses, the transfer from Water should be $1.6M rather than $1.2M and the transfer from Wastewater should be $3.2M rather than the $1.8M, which had been included on the Water/Wastewater Fund Summary. As a result, she indicated that the $1.8M deficit would be eliminated. In addition, she stated that these amounts had not been updated to reflect the changes to the Garrison Oak Technical Park Projects recently approved by City Council. ELECTRIC FUND Mrs. Mitchell reviewed the Electric Fund Budget (Pages 32 through 33 of Exhibit #1). She noted that an increase in revenues was reflected, and since the City had lowered its rate, there was a decrease in Utility Tax. Mrs. Mitchell reminded members that a $7M transfer from the Rate Stabilization Fund was necessary for FY2014 to cover cash flow issues; however, she stated that no transfer would be necessary for the next fiscal year. She indicated that although there was a high differential for the direct expenditures as the result of the pension changes, the transfer to Pension Unfunded Liability, in the amount of $1.3M, had been eliminated. Referring to the Electric Improvement and Extension Fund (Page 33 of Exhibit #1), Mrs. Mitchell stated that although there was a deficit in the amount of $784,400, there was a budget balance of approximately $2M used for projects, which fluctuates up and down each year. As a result, she stated that although there was money in the Fund to cover the deficit, it would cause a reduction in the fund balance. RATE AND FEE TRENDS - GENERAL FUND, WATER/WASTEWATER FUND, AND ELECTRIC FUND Mrs. Mitchell reviewed a table depicting the Rate and Fee Trends for the General Fund, Water/Wastewater Fund, and Electric Fund (Page 34 of Exhibit #1). She noted that staff had proposed increases for the Water Flat Rate Charge (increase of $1.25), which would provide an additional $229,470 in Water/Wastewater Fund Revenue, and an Electric Customer Charge (increase of $1.00), which would provide an additional $279,612 in Electric Fund Revenue. This additional revenue would help pay for debit/credit card fees. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Mitchell indicated that the $8M transfer from the Electric Utility and equated to 10% of Electric Revenues. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mr. Koenig stated that the City stopped charging customers for debit/credit card transactions. Mrs. Mitchell reminded members that when the City first began accepting debit/credit cards for payment, bank fees were charged to the customer. Then the City Manager eliminated the bank fee and instituted a convenience fee for accepting such payments. She stated that, recently, Mr. Koenig returned to accepting debit/credit cards for payment without any fees to

COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP OF MARCH 31, 2014 PAGE 14 the customer, feeling that this was a customer service issue. Mrs. Mitchell confirmed that when a customer is able to pay by credit card, the City actually receives more payments that they would not otherwise receive. As a result, she stated that the City is receiving more revenue. Elaborating, Mrs. Townshend stated that her office began accepting debit/credit cards in June/July 2013. She stated that, previously, there were many occasions when a customer would want to pick up a building permit and pay with a corporate credit card, since it would take them several days to obtain a corporate check. Since the City did not accept such card payments, these customers, who were willing and ready to pay, were sent away to “chase down money,” causing the City to lose money and customer inconvenience. In addition, Mrs. Townshend stated that those who need to renew their rental permits or business licenses wish to make payment over the phone by debit/credit card. Accepting such payments eliminates staff code enforcement time previously spent “chasing” individuals to obtain such payments and allows these employees more time to work on actual code enforcement issues. Following up, Mr. Koenig reminded members that the City instituted a rate reduction last year and that the debit/credit card fees were considered in the rate reduction calculation. As a result, he felt that the debit/credit card fees were embedded in the new electric rates; therefore, he stated that the City was already accounting for these fees. Council President Bonar requested that staff provide a breakdown of the types of payments made to the City, including those that pay in person, use the drop box, and pay by debit and credit card. Responding to Mr. Perza, Mr. Koenig confirmed that the City receives more revenue as a result of collecting payments by debit/credit card. When consumers have to directly pay a fee for the use of such a card, they will choose not to pay by debit/credit card. He stated that this often leads to the City having to collect the fees, which costs staff time and effort. In conclusion, Mr. Koenig stated that staff was hoping for direction from members of Council, explaining that there was a large deficit in the General Fund. He assured members that staff would “comb” through the budget in hopes of decreasing the deficit amount. While reviewing the personnel issues, he questioned if members of Council had an interest in considering the additional personnel requested by the Police Department, since those costs would result in a large amount of the deficit (see Page 15 of Exhibit #1). After discussing the matter at length, Council President Bonar suggested that members contact the City Manager directly with their suggestions and any additional information desired in order for staff to submit detailed information for the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting scheduled for April 14, 2014 for their review and recommendation to City Council. By unanimous consent, the meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m. TRACI A. MCDOWELL CITY CLERK

COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP OF MARCH 31, 2014 PAGE 15 All orders, ordinances, and resolutions adopted by City Council during their Budget Workshop of March 31, 2014 are hereby approved. DAVID L. BONAR COUNCIL PRESIDENT/ VICE-MAYOR ACTING TM/jg S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Council-Minutes\2014\03-31-2014 COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP.wpd Exhibit Exhibit #1 - Preliminary Budget Working Pages

EXHIBIT #1 Council Budget Workshop of 3/31/2014

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING The Regular Council Meeting was held on May 27, 2014 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Bonar presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Lynn, Mr. Perza, Mr. Slavin, Mr. Hare, and Mr. Hutchison. Mrs. Williams was absent. Council staff members present were Police Chief Bernat, Mrs. Mitchell, Mr. Koenig, Mrs. Townshend, City Solicitor Rodriguez, and Mrs. McDowell. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum was held at 7:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Bonar declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council was not in official session and could not take formal action. Mr. Bruce MacGloan, 53 Planters Run Court, referred to a recent newspaper article that indicated that property taxes collected were not sufficient to cover the City’s Police Department and his surprise that their budget was almost $14M, representing over $1M per month. He felt that there was a big crime problem in the City and that there should be more effort made to rear young people to become good, law-abiding citizens. It was his feeling that building another basketball court would not be the answer and he suggested a more individual focus of contacting churches in an attempt to reach out to the children before they become teenagers and young adults acting out with violence. He explained the importance of showing children how to live a happy and joyful life and hoped that the City would consider this matter. The invocation was given by Councilman Dixon, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Council President Bonar requested the deletion of Agenda Item #9 - Council President Appointments - 2014/2015 Committees, noting that this item would be considered during the Regular Council Meeting of June 9, 2014. Mr. Hutchison moved for approval of the agenda, as amended, seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried. Mr. Hare moved for approval of the consent agenda as presented, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Williams absent). ADOPTION OF MINUTES - ANNUAL COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 12, 2014 The Minutes of the Annual Council Meeting of May 12, 2014 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Hare, seconded by Mr. Dixon and bore the written approval of Council President/Vice-Mayor Acting Bonar. PUBLIC HEARING - VIOLATION OF THE DANGEROUS BUILDING ORDINANCE - 45 SOUTH NEW STREET - HOUSE OF PRIDE A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider a violation of the Dangerous Building Ordinance at 45 South New Street, owned by House of Pride. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, stated that the property consisted of a two (2)

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 2 story, wood-framed structure. The property was condemned on March 7, 1999 as unfit for human occupancy due to fire damage that occurred earlier that morning. She noted that the property has had minimal utility usage from 1999 to 2014 and that in January of 2004, the House of Pride established utility service but has used no water. On May 6, 2014, the House of Pride applied for a building permit (#14-535), but as the building has been damaged by fire with no attempts to make repairs since 1999, has had longstanding code violations for use as storage, and has been vacant for many years, the information submitted was insufficient to issue the building permit, as a structural report was required. The Department of Planning and Inspections issued a letter on April 29, 2014 notifying the House of Pride of violations of the Dangerous Building Ordinance and the House of Pride sent a letter, dated May 5, 2014, appealing this notice to City Council. Both letters were included in the material provided to members. Mrs. Townshend provided a chronological history and presentation on the conditions of the house located at 45 South New Street (Exhibit #1). Mrs. Townshend advised members that the inspectors inspected the property earlier in the day and noted that it appeared that some renovations were occurring; however, although a permit application had been submitted and was currently under review, no building permit had been issued for renovations. She indicated that the inspectors also observed that new windows had been recently installed; however, they did not function correctly, which could be the result of incorrect installation. Mrs. Townshend stated that a structural engineering report, dated May 15, 2014 (Exhibit #2), was submitted along with the building permit application that was currently under review. She advised members that the City’s Building Inspector had concerns regarding some of the repair recommendations. After conducting his inspection earlier in the day, he contacted the engineer and, as a result, the engineer will be submitting revised drawings. Should Council extend the amount of time for repairs or demolition of the structure, a building permit may be issued if all the code compliant documents are received by the City. Staff recommended that City Council: 1) declare this building and all accessory structures on this property dangerous; 2) order the property repaired or demolished by June 26, 2014 by the owner or equity owner at their own risk; 3) order the Building Inspector to cause the repair or demolition of the structures if not completed by the owner within 10 days of the date established by City Council; and 4) order the City Manager with the assistance of the City Solicitor to cause the cost of repairs or demolition to be charged against the land on which the building exists as a municipal lien or cause such cost to be added to the tax duplicate as an assessment, or to be levied as a special tax, or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owner. Responding to Mr. Perza, Mrs. Townshend confirmed that if action was being taken to repair the property at a reasonable rate by June 26, 2014, the City would not take further action to demolish the property. She stated that no action had been taken to repair the property until recently. Since there had been some action taken in this regard, she stated that staff would have no objections to extending the repair/demolition completion date from within 10 days to within 45 or 60 days. In response to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Townshend stated that, although the majority of the work required for the property was cosmetic, a substantial amount of structural work was also required. Council President Bonar declared the public hearing open.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 3 Bishop Marion Lott, Executive Director of House of Pride, stated that although he agreed with the report provided to members, he assured members that the House of Pride was in the process of making the necessary repairs to the property. He confirmed that the property was being used for storage prior to his becoming Executive Director. Since he assumed this position, the House of Pride had been prioritizing their buildings and taking the necessary action to bring properties into compliance with City Code. Although the House of Pride property at 45 South New Street was previously not prioritized, he explained that since the violation was posted, the property had been moved up on their list of priorities and the House of Pride was in the process of taking necessary actions. He requested that members of Council extend the time allowed to have the necessary repairs completed, explaining that the property would be a beautiful single-family dwelling, but that this could not be completed within 60 days. Bishop Lott stated that he felt confident that the repairs could be completed by September 2014, which would also allow time to acquire additional funding. Responding to Mr. Hutchison, Bishop Lott estimated that the necessary repairs would cost approximately $8,000-$10,000; however, a contractor had estimated the cost to be approximately $26,000 to complete the property as desired. He stated that most of the labor was being performed by volunteers and the $8,000-$10,000 cost estimate was for cinder blocks and materials not being donated. Bishop Lott explained that Lowe’s and Wyoming Millwork had donated a lot of the material, and that Ace Hardware had donated paint, noting that there is a partnership with many of the local merchants who help provide material. At the request of Mr. Anderson, Bishop Lott advised members that until he became Executive Director, he was not aware that there were so many homeless families in the area. He explained the grave need for affordable single-family homes in the community and how this need coincided with what they were striving to accomplish in central Dover – the restoration of single-family homes in the community. There being no one else present wishing to speak during the public hearing, Council President Bonar declared the public hearing closed. Based on Bishop Lott’s comments, Mr. Hare felt that if completion of the repairs could be made by September, which would be close to 90 days, then progress would be made within 30-45 days; therefore, he suggested that Council grant the request for a 90-day extension. Council President Bonar noted that 90 days from the present date would be August 25, 2014. Mr. Hare moved that the structure located at 45 South New Street be declared a dangerous building and subject to demolition, as recommended by staff; however, that the proposed deadline for repair or demolition be extended from June 26, 2014 to August 25, 2014. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lynn and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Williams absent). PUBLIC HEARING - VIOLATION OF THE DANGEROUS BUILDING ORDINANCE - 110 SOUTH NEW STREET - HOUSE OF PRIDE A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider a violation of the Dangerous Building Ordinance at 110 South New Street, owned by House of Pride.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 4 Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, stated that the property consisted of a three (3) story, wood-framed structure. The property was closed by the City on July 23, 2012 due to numerous repeated violations of the Dangerous Building Ordinance, including not having a viable safety plan for the occupants of the building. This was appealed to Council, and staff's actions were upheld by Council following a hearing on August 27, 2012. Since the City required that the structure be vacated, no actions had been taken by the House of Pride to resolve the deficiencies and to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. On April 29, 2014, the Department of Planning and Inspections issued a letter notifying the House of Pride of violations of the Dangerous Building Ordinance, and House of Pride sent a letter, dated May 5, 2014, appealing this notice to City Council. Both letters were provided to members. Mrs. Townshend stated that, presently, the home had no utilities, was registered as a vacant building, and was condemned as unfit for human occupancy. She provided a chronological history and presentation on the conditions of the house located at 110 South New Street (Exhibit #3). Staff recommended that City Council: 1) declare this building and all accessory structures on this property dangerous; 2) order the property repaired or demolished by June 26, 2014 by the owner or equity owner at their own risk; 3) order the Building Inspector to cause the repair or demolition of the structures if not completed by the owner within 10 days of the date established by City Council; and 4) order the City Manager with the assistance of the City Solicitor to cause the cost of repairs or demolition to be charged against the land on which the building exists as a municipal lien or cause such cost to be added to the tax duplicate as an assessment, or to be levied as a special tax, or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owner. Unlike the previous hearing for violation of the dangerous building ordinance for 45 South New Street, also owned by House of Pride, Mrs. Townshend stated that there had been no activity to make repairs, building permits pending, or discussion of repairs, etc., in regard to this property. In addition, she stated her opinion that the repairs needed for the property at 110 South New Street were more extensive than those at 45 South New Street, also owned by House of Pride. In response to Mr. Perza, Mrs. Townshend stated that, due to the zoning classification, the property would need to be restored as a single-family home. She noted that the property was not previously used as a single-family dwelling, but rather as a combination of apartment units and rooming house type of occupancy. Council President Bonar declared the public hearing open. Bishop Marion Lott, Executive Director of House of Pride, concurred regarding the deplorable condition of the property. He advised members that there were excessive costs involved, indicating that the estimated cost for demolition was $30,000 and repairing the property would cost approximately the same. Bishop Lott explained that the issue was that House of Pride owes money on the building. He stated that the House of Pride was currently in the process of working with a realtor to determine if this property could be combined with property located at 106 South New Street if they could acquire 108 South New Street. It was hoped that combining and selling the properties would allow House of Pride to acquire enough funds to offset some of the costs for other

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 5 buildings. Although the House of Pride did not object to the demolition of the building, Bishop Lott requested that City Council provide additional time to determine if the realtor could combine the properties for a possible sale. Responding to Mr. Hare, Bishop Lott felt that 60 days (July 28) would provide the realtor ample time to complete the combination of property, if possible. Mrs. Townshend explained that even if an extension were approved, staff’s recommendation was to repair or demolish the property by a certain time, not necessarily to have the property under contract. In addition, she reminded members that the City currently had a demolition lien on the property located at 106 South New Street. In response to Mr. Perza, Mrs. Townshend stated that, to her knowledge, the current property taxes had not been paid for 106, 108, or 110 South New Street. Responding to Mr. Hutchison, Mrs. Townshend explained that the property was considered a legal, non-conforming use within the property zoning classification, noting that its use as a combination apartment/rooming house was in existence before the zoning ordinance changed to not allow such use. Since its use as such had ceased for more than a year, she stated that such a use could not be re-established. Bishop Lott assured members of his understanding of the zoning ordinance and that the property must be used as a single-family residence. There being no one else present wishing to speak during the public hearing, Council President Bonar declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Hare moved that the structure located at 110 South New Street be declared a dangerous building and subject to demolition, as recommended by staff; however, that the proposed deadline for repair or demolition be extended from June 26, 2014 to July 28, 2014. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lynn and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Williams absent). SPECIAL SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE REPORT - MAY 12, 2014 A Special Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Meeting was held on May 12, 2014 with Chairman Hutchison presiding. Concerns Related to Permit Parking In Front of Wesley Pre-School and Education Building Members were advised that the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP) acquired and renovated the property located at 22-24 W. Loockerman Street. A lease was negotiated with Transcore, the State of Delaware’s vendor for E-ZPass, and E-ZPass opened at this location in early March. In order to accommodate E-ZPass employees’ parking needs, the DDP included the guarantee of 85 parking spaces in the North Street and Bradford Street parking lots for use by E-ZPass employees. This

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 6 allocation of parking permits caused the City and DDP to work together to reallocate permit, metered, and free two (2) hour parking within the existing municipal lots managed by the DDP. To balance the need for customer parking with employee parking, the City Manager and City Planner jointly decided to convert 13 parking spaces in what is known as “A-Street Lot” from free two (2) hour parking to permit parking. Without making this change, there would be insufficient parking in the Bradford Street Lot to accommodate both employees and visitors. The A-Street Lot was utilized for City employee parking for approximately 18 months during the construction of the Dover Public Library. During this time, the City received no complaints and observed no operational issues with this allocation of parking. Prior to, and since designating 13 permit spaces in this area on March 1, 2014, staff continued to monitor this area and regularly observed open parking among the two (2) hour spaces. Tenants of the Wesley Church Education Building and the Wesley Pre-School expressed concern with the allocation of permit parking in this area, which was previously free two (2) hour parking. No other municipal lot in the area could accommodate the 13 permits. Staff recommended that the permit parking remain as currently configured. If the Committee and Council wished to reconfigure parking in response to the concerns, staff recommended consideration of the following options: 1. Move the mailbox from the current location to the library parking lot near the post office. 2. Remove large holly trees from the landscape island to allow better access to parallel parking spaces on either side of the island. Plant landscaping that has less conflict with vegetation. 3. Move permit parking from the angled parking spaces to the parallel parking spaces on either side of the island. Some permit spaces would still be necessary in the angled parking area. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, explained that there were a total of 24 parking spaces in the area being discussed: 20 parking spaces in the A-Street Lot (13 designated for permit parking, six (6) for two (2) hour free parking, and one (1) for handicapped parking) and four (4) additional two (2) hour free parallel spots on the Loockerman Street side of the median. She noted that if the holly trees located on the median are not trimmed well, inconvenience is caused for those parking in three (3) of the spaces on the south side of the median. She noted that placement of the drive-through mailbox took away one (1) parking space on the south side of the median.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 7 Mrs. Townshend advised members that when the parking needs and availability of the larger area were examined, there was a need to move 13 permit spots from the Barros, McNamara, Malkiewicz and Taylor, PA law firm (located on the corner of Loockerman and State Streets) to the A-Street Lot because they could not be absorbed in the lots on the west side of State Street. Staff talked to the Wesley United Methodist Church a couple of weeks prior to implementing this change and looked at other options; however, they were unable to come up with anything that would resolve the issue. Mrs. Townshend suggested that members hear what the public has to say regarding this topic and that the matter be referred to staff to determine if other configurations would address the specific problems. She stated that, in order to address the issue, staff needed to understand better the actual concerns to determine if parking was not available or if parking spots were not convenient. Mr. Hutchison stated his understanding that Wesley United Methodist Church was looking for a compromise whereby three (3) to five (5) parking spaces could be made available. He questioned if the post office box could be placed in an alternative location and if there was some flexibility to provide spaces for the church. He reminded members that the Church had been at its location for well over 100 years, had made contributions to the community, and that the Church also brought business downtown. Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, stated that staff had tried to keep all the permit parking spots adjacent to each other to avoid multiple conflicting messages in terms of signage. He noted that re-striping had been discussed; however, he felt that significant re-striping would likely involve consultation with the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT). Mr. Koenig stated that staff had not looked at alternative sites for the mailbox. He indicated that the site plan for the Dover Public Library anticipated that the mailbox would be put in a spot similar to its previous location; however, this entrance/exit was very congested. He suggested that there may be better alternative locations. Mr. Anderson expressed his opinion that taking all of the slots in front of the church had caused “angst” and inquired if a few slots could be open to the church and others reserved for permit parking. Responding, Mr. Koenig reiterated that splitting parking designations could cause a need for additional parking signage and difficulties with adherence. He felt the current method provided the easiest, clearest message, but this could be altered if it was Council’s wish. Mr. Perza advised members that he had attended the Wesley Preschool as a child and his daughter now attends the school; therefore he was familiar with the purpose of this portion of the parking lot and the spots used to drop off children. He indicated

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 8 that he did not see the link between these spots and the parking situation on Loockerman Street two (2) to three (3) blocks west. He felt that the situation should be fixed so as not to disrupt the historic use of Wesley Church and the preschool and stated his desire to find a solution to accomplish this. Mr. Dave Casto, 8 Gregory Court, Chair of Trustees, Wesley United Methodist Church, explained that he understood what the City was going through and this was one of the reasons that the Church had been willing to compromise from the beginning. However, he felt that perhaps compromising rather than stating that the Church did not want parking permits in this area at all had been a mistake. He asked members to imagine a business or private, non-profit, enterprise that offered many programs suddenly having 10 parking spots in front of their building taken, noting that he was unaware of any other location in the City where this had occurred. Mr. Casto indicated that this came as a shock to the Church, as they were not involved in the planning processes or informed of what was going on. He stated that one (1) meeting was held the morning that related signs were put up, after the signs were erected. Mr. Casto advised members that a number of individuals utilize the building for different programs and that some of these programs would be expanding. He stated that the availability of two (2) hour parking would allow the church to serve the developmentally disabled and to operate its Clothing Closet. He explained that, at times, parking is not available in close proximity to the church. Mr. Casto expressed his opinion that the Barros, McNamara, Malkiewicz, and Taylor, PA law firm should have made arrangements for their own parking when they moved across the street, rather than having parking spots taken from the Church. He advised members that the Church had always been a good partner with the City, allowing use of their parking for Dover Days, the Schwartz Center, etc. Dr. Joyce Denman, Supervisor of Special Education, Capital School District, explained that the District’s Student Transition to Adult Readiness (STAR) program was started during the previous year to serve students aged 18-21 with significant disabilities who are eligible for public school services. Since being in a school facility with students aged 14-18 was deemed inappropriate for these students, the Wesley Education Building site was selected due to its location near the Dover Public Library and close proximity to community events. The first complete successful year for the program had concluded and parents, teachers, and paraprofessionals were pleased with the setting. Dr. Denman stated that service personnel, including a psychologist, speech language pathologist, physical therapist, occupational therapists, and administrators, come to the site for short visits every day to provide services. These individuals are on very tight schedules because they work at several sites and convenient parking is important to allow them to complete 30-minute sessions and go to their next assignment. In addition, food service providers deliver breakfast, and subsequently lunch, at this location each day.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 9 Mr. Alex Vaughan, 509 Dyke Branch Road, Trustee, Wesley United Methodist Church, requested clarification regarding the path that brought those present to the current meeting and what led to the “path that was taken last December” (parking changes that were made in the A-Street Lot). Responding, Mr. Hutchison stated that the City was considering parking spaces needed in the downtown area. He stated that this included Wesley United Methodist Church and that parking was being discussed in this context. Mr. Vaughan stated that, as a trustee, his interest was from an administrative standpoint. He stated he was aware that the parking spaces had something to do with the Barros, McNamara, Malkiewicz and Taylor, PA law firm, but was also led to believe that it had something to do with the new E-ZPass offices on Loockerman Street. He stated his belief that the history of this parking situation went back many years to when the DDP had facilitated acquiring the former Woolworth’s building that now houses E-ZPass. Mr. Vaughan did not understand why the parking concerns being discussed were not addressed at the time this project was undertaken. Mr. Hutchison stated that the City of Dover and DDP had made a commitment to work with E-ZPass to bring new jobs downtown and to work with the State of Delaware to accomplish this. He expressed his hope that the City could work with Wesley United Methodist Church to get the situation resolved. Mr. Vaughan hoped this would be the result, but stated concern that the Church was not brought into the conversation in December 2013 when staff began addressing the parking concerns. He felt that the parking issues that caused the reallocation of these spaces began several years ago and that leaving the Church out of the discussion was not good neighborhood relations. In response, Mr. Hutchison stated that he had discussed this matter earlier in the day with Mrs. Townshend and Mr. Koenig, and they were well on the way to addressing the concerns expressed. Mr. Vaughan stated that the Church was looking forward to being part of the process. Mr. David Evans, Co-Lay Leader of Wesley United Methodist Church, 388 Clark Farm Road, Smyrna, advised members that approximately 95-96% of the Church’s service is work for those less fortunate and this work is done out of the Wesley Education Building. He noted that the Clothing Closet serves hundreds of needy people who do not have clothes and likely do not have cars; therefore, they must be driven to the Clothes Closet where it is difficult to find a parking spot. In addition, he estimated that 20 people come to the building every Tuesday at 7:00 a.m. for a Bible study, noting that, at 68 years old, he is one of the youngest attendees. Mr. Evans advised members that he had pulled a gentleman from the holly bushes referred to previously because he stumbled getting out of his car. He felt that it might not have become an issue and Church representatives would not be attending the meeting if someone had approached them first regarding this matter instead of

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 10 assuming that the parking spots were not being used, and if the church had explained that 95% of their outreach to needy people was done out of this building. However, he stated that parking was now an issue and a critical need for the individuals who need these services the most. Mr. Jack Royston, 44 Philchrist Drive, expressed concurrence with the comments of the previous speakers, including the need for better communication “with our friends and neighbors.” He stated appreciation for the City taking the time to look into the problem and expressed his hope that it would be resolved in an amicable way. Reverend Amy Yarnall, 140 Hazel Road, indicated that her views had been expressed and stated her appreciation for the City’s consideration of this issue. Mr. Keller stated that he sympathized with the Church and advised those present that the City would do its very best. Mr. Hutchison recommended a 45-day delay on the current issue, which would give Mr. Koenig and Mrs. Townshend an opportunity to come back to members with a proposal. Responding to Mr. Perza regarding the reason for the 45-day time period, Mrs. Townshend stated that the Committee’s current special meeting was being held at the beginning of the month rather than the normal meeting date on the fourth Monday of the month. It was planned to bring the issue back to the Committee at the end of June so that staff could sort through possible scenarios. Mr. Hutchison inquired if something could be done to assist the church in addressing their immediate issues before 45 days. He noted that the correspondence he received regarding this issue indicated a need for three (3) to five (5) parking spaces. Mrs. Townshend stated that there were on-street parking spaces further west on Loockerman Street adjacent to the building owned by Barros, McNamara, Malkiewicz and Taylor, PA and indicated that some of the permit spaces could be shifted to that area. She stated that five (5) to seven (7), and possibly eight (8) spaces could be accommodated if this area were designated for permit parking. Mr. Koenig stated that this could be done; however, he was unsure what the unintended consequences could be. Reverend Yarnall advised members that the STAR and Wesley Preschool programs would not be operating at full capacity during the summer and wanted everyone to realize this if studies regarding parking would be conducted in the summertime. Responding to Mr. Keller as to whether the Barros, McNamara, Malkiewicz and Taylor, PA law firm should also be notified, Mrs. Townshend stated that the law firm was well aware of the issues.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 11 The Committee recommended that the matter be remanded back to staff to meet with Wesley Church to consider the needs and assessments that need to be factored in regarding the Church, its school, and its mission and that staff be authorized to proceed with intermediate permit spot adjustments. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Williams absent). Discussion - Traffic Concerns on College Road (Request of Westminster Village) Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, stated that there had been a request from a resident at Westminster Village to signalize the exit from Westminster Village onto College Road that lines up with North Dover Elementary School. This request was sent to the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) traffic section to determine if this was something that they could look at and to analyze crash data. DelDOT determined that a signal would not have prevented any of the accidents that occurred at this location and did not find that a signal was warranted. Mrs. Townshend advised members that there were continual issues with congestion and speeding on the stretch of College Road extending from the University Courtyard Apartments to the Woodlands of Fox Hall. She recommended reaching out to the DelDOT traffic section and the Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to perform a traffic study in that area to look at traffic counts and measures that could be put in place to help facilitate better flow of traffic. Mrs. Townshend noted that McKee and College Road were both DelDOT roads and that DelDOT would need to implement any changes. Mr. Hutchison suggested that staff have DelDOT look at the area due to the large number of students walking between the apartments and the University on a daily basis. Mrs. Townshend concurred, stating that pedestrian issues and efficient traffic flow were both concerns in the area. Update - Dover High School Construction Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, stated that the Capital School District (CSD) had been working with the Fire Marshal’s Office to complete fire alarm testing so that furniture could be moved into Dover High School later in May. It was hoped that testing would be complete by the end of the current week, and from a building code standpoint, furniture could then be moved in. It was hoped that a temporary Certificate of Occupancy (CO) would be issued in June: however, Mrs. Townshend expressed some concerns, noting that the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) would not agree to a temporary CO until stormwater violations were resolved. She stated that monthly coordination meetings were continuing, with some interim meetings being held regarding stormwater. The stormwater outfall under Route 8 was expected to be finished within the next couple of days, with construction on the east entrance to begin shortly after. Mrs. Townshend stated that staff had advised the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 12 CSD that the east entrance did not need to be entirely complete for the temporary CO to be issued, but the school could not open for the year without its completion. The temporary CO would be very specific as to moving in, setting up, and getting things in place. She noted that DelDOT was getting ready to move forward on the sidewalks and installation of the High-Intensity Activated CrossWalk (HAWK) signal. All but one (1) property owner had signed the easements needed and a more difficult route must be taken to acquire the construction easement for this owner’s property. Responding to Mr. Hutchison regarding the stormwater requirements, Mrs. Townshend stated that DNREC was the controlling factor in regard to stormwater issues and that going against DNREC would jeopardize the City’s status as a regulated community under the stormwater program. Mrs. Townshend stated that staff was working very closely with DRNEC and EDiS to make sure these issues are resolved as quickly as possible. She noted that wet weather and the very cold and snowy winter had made the project difficult. Noting that the southern segment of Dover High Drive and its connection to Tribbett Road must be completed before school opens in September, Mr. Hutchison questioned if staff had issued a written document to that effect. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated that this had not been done because stormwater appeared to be the biggest concern. However, she concurred that the City was at the point that issues related to the roadway should be put in writing because the roadway is critical. Noting the importance of the safety of the children, Mr. Keller questioned if the completion of sidewalk construction and the installation of the HAWK signal would be required for a CO. Mrs. Townshend stated that these aspects were under DelDOT’s control, rather than the CSD’s; however, DelDOT was fairly confident that the HAWK signal and the bulk of the sidewalks would be in place by August. She indicated that no plans had been made to bus the children to school if sidewalks were not completed, but if there were not a safe walking route to school, the CSD would have to provide bus transportation. Responding to Mr. Hutchison, Mrs. Townshend confirmed that the sidewalks under discussion were on the north side of Route 8. It was her belief that, ultimately, sidewalks would be needed on the south side also, as well as on Mifflin Road. In response to Mr. Keller, Mrs. Townshend stated her recollection that approximately 200 children would be using the HAWK signal, although parents may transport some of these children. Mr. Perza questioned if the CSD was aware that they would not be permitted to open the school until all requirements were completed, regardless of whether these requirements were the responsibility of DelDOT or other parties. He expressed the desire to ensure that nothing “slips through the cracks” and that the CSD is made

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 13 aware of all requirements. Responding, Mrs. Townshend indicated that these requirements had been stated at the coordination meetings during the past three (3) months; however, she concurred that putting them in writing would be worthwhile. She stated that EdiS had assured staff that the project would be complete. Mr. Perza expressed a desire to intervene and to avoid “finger pointing” and stated that the bottom line is that children cannot go into the school until it is safe, regardless of who gets it done. He stated he wished to create a record now in this regard. Concurring, Mrs. Townshend stated that the City could not sign off on the project if it were not safe. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for acceptance of the Special Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Williams absent). PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - MAY 12, 2014 The Utility Committee met on May 12, 2014 with Chairman Dixon presiding. Proposed Ordinance #2014-08 - Amending Appendix B - Zoning - Article 3 - District Regulations - Section 10 - Institutional and Office Zone (IO); Section 11 - Neighborhood Commercial Zone (C-1); Section 12 - Limited Commercial Zone (C-1A); Section 13 - Central Commercial Zone (C-2); Section 14 - Limited Central Commercial Zone (C-2A); Section 15 - Service Commercial Zone (C-3); Section 16 - Highway Commercial Zone (C-4); Section 26 - Commercial/Professional Office Development District (C-PO); Article 4 - Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations; Article 10 - Planning Commission; and Article 12 - Definitions During the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee meeting held on April 14, 2014, members considered Proposed Ordinance #2014-08. After much discussion, members recommended that Proposed Ordinance #2014-08 be referred back to staff for a final read through to make recommended changes and clarify language, and returned to the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee on May 12, 2014. City Council approved the Committee’s recommendation during their regular meeting held on April 28, 2014. During the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee meeting on May 12, 2014, Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, advised members that Proposed Ordinance #2014-08 was before the Committee in its original draft format with no revisions since the previous meeting. Mrs. Townshend stated that she had met with Councilman Perza regarding this matter to address the concerns he expressed during the previous meeting. Mrs. Townshend explained that, historically, when staff proposed zoning text amendments without involving the regulated community, they were often directed

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 14 to do so before any action could be taken. As a result, the decision was made to approach the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce (CDCC), the Kent County Association of Realtors, and other members of the community to review the commercial and office zone ordinances to obtain input before bringing the amendments before Council. A little over a year was spent reviewing the ordinances in great detail and each section was scrutinized in an effort to simplify the zoning ordinance and to broaden specific uses to more general use categories. She stated that another goal was to address consistency from one section to another. Bulk standards were also examined, since experience had shown that these standards were causing good design to be set aside because of setback requirements. It was noted that the Planning Commission had the authority to determine if the circulation on the site did not work well. Thresholds for projects that must be considered by the Planning Commission were also considered. Mrs. Townshend indicated that more clarification might be needed in Lines 414-420 of the ordinance to make it clear that new buildings would be treated differently than existing buildings. Mrs. Townshend stated that, to this point, primary discussions had been through the CDCC and the real estate community. Mr. Keith Cooker, Landmark Engineering, and Mr. Bob McLeish, Lighthouse Construction, participated on behalf of homebuilders. She stated that she had spoken with downtown merchants to inform them of the proposed changes. She reminded members that two (2) public hearings would be held regarding the ordinance, one (1) before the Planning Commission and one (1) before City Council; therefore there would be opportunities for the public to share its concerns. In reference to his original concerns in terms of clarity of some sections of the Proposed Ordinance, particularly Section 2.11(a)-(c), Mr. Perza stated that, after meeting with Mrs. Townshend, reviewing the historic process, and understanding the additional steps that would include opportunities for public input before any changes were made, he withdrew his objection to moving forward to Council with the draft Ordinance as presented. The Committee recommended adoption of Proposed Ordinance #2014-08, as drafted by the Planning Department. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Williams absent). (The First Reading of Proposed Ordinance #2014-08 will take place during the latter part of the meeting).

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 15 Updates Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Mrs. Tracey Harvey, Planner I, advised the Committee that the staff had met the U. S. expenditure of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and that all funds were expended 60 days prior to the end of FY 14. Mrs. Harvey stated that the last Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) home was sold last month, closing this program with a total of 11 homes sold and settlement assistance provided to 10 first time home buyers. In response to Councilman Hutchison’s inquiry as to the level of requests for assistance and support, Mrs. Harvey advised that the number of such requests had increased, and the FY 2014 CDBG budget was increased to support those needs. She noted that the summer tends to be a busier time for the program. Responding to Mr. Dixon regarding activities related to the Restoring Central Dover Initiative, a planning initiative for the revitalization of central Dover, Mrs. Harvey stated that several related open houses were held during the previous week at Bayard Plaza and they were well attended (approximately 150 people). A successful street fair also took place on May 10, 2014. She indicated that the National Council on Life and Labor Research (NCALL), the lead agency for the Initiative, was the recipient of a related grant from the Wells Fargo Regional Foundation and that completion of an implementation plan for this grant would be the next step for those working on the project. Recreation Needs Assessment Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend advised the Committee that staff was approximately six (6) weeks behind where they hoped to be at this point in terms of accomplishing the Recreation Needs Assessment. She stated that it was planned to issue a survey to recreation providers in the area for review and then to distribute the survey to the community within the next two (2) weeks. In response to Mr. Hutchison regarding the status of demolition of the recreation building at the Dover Park, Mrs. Townshend advised members that demolition bids were due on May 14, 2014. Once Council approves a bidder, staff will move forward with the project. She indicated that an $80,000 placeholder was included in the FY 15 Capital Improvement Plan budget for future use at Dover Park and the planned use of these funds would be determined by the results of the needs assessment. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for acceptance of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Williams absent).

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 16 UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT - MAY 12, 2014 The Utility Committee met on May 12, 2014 with Chairwoman Williams presiding. Capital School District Request to Transfer Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) Credits (Dover High School) Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, reviewed a request from the Capital School District to transfer water and sewer Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU) from the current Dover High School property located at 1 Pat Lynn Drive to the new school at 1 Dover High Drive. Mr. Koenig explained that, based on calculations made by Mrs. Sharon Duca, Director of Public Works, if the request were approved, the impact fee for the new school would be $18,207, which would include transferred EDUs from the old property in addition to new EDUs created on the new property. If the request were not approved, the impact fee would be $412,692. Mr. Koenig pointed out that although this request is allowable under the City Code, it is only allowed if approved by Council. Members were advised that, per the City of Dover Code of Ordinances, two (2) references are applicable to this request. The first code reference is located in Chapter 110, Article III – Water Service, Division 3 – Water Impact Fees, Section 110-208 (d), and the second code reference is located in Chapter 110, Article IV – Wastewater Service, Division 3 – Wastewater Impact Fees, Section 110-283 (c). Both sections state that “No EDUs shall be transferred from one property to another property, whether or not such properties are owned by the same person, without the approval of city council.” In response to Mrs. Williams’ concern regarding the demolition of the gym, cafeteria, etc. at the current facility, Mr. Koenig advised that members of the Capital School District were present to address those questions. Mr. Sean Sokolowski, Business Manager for Capital School District, advised members that as of May 12, 2014, it was the District’s intent to demolish all of the existing facilities at the current location. Responding to Mrs. Williams, Mr. Sokolowski stated that the fields would remain intact and that keeping the gym, cafeteria, etc. were considered; however, the cost to maintain the structures would be prohibitive. He explained that demolishing the entire facility would allow the contractor to perform a complete demolition. If the contractor were asked to preserve certain sections of the facility, this would change the way the demolition was performed, requiring a great deal more work and increased costs to preserve the heating, air conditioning and ventilation (HVAC), electric, etc. In response to Mr. Slavin, Mr. Sokolowski confirmed that there is a governance from the Department of Education that the building has to be demolished if funds are accepted for the new facility.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 17 Responding to Mrs. Williams, Mr. Sokolowski said that it was not common practice for the Department of Education to require demolition of the existing structure when building a new facility; however, he stated that the Cape Henlopen School District demolished their facility when they built their new high school and the Laurel School District was looking at doing the same. Mr. Sokolowski stated that if the Capital School District wished to maintain the current high school, the Department of Education would not have provided funds to build the new school and would have had to invest in renovating the current building, which would not have been cost effective. In response to Mrs. Williams concerning other school districts being permitted to keep their existing buildings, Mr. Sokolowski said that this is sometimes allowed but would only be possible if there was enough enrollment to fill the old building and the new building, and the Capital School District did not have this capacity. In response to Mr. Blakeman, Mr. Sokolowski stated that Capital School District will maintain ownership of the land where the old school is located; however, there were no immediate plans other than to hold on to it for future use, hopefully for another middle school or an elementary school. Mr. Sokolowski noted that when land was being sought for the new high school, there were not many areas within City limits with enough acreage to accommodate the school, grounds for fields, parking lots, etc.; therefore, it did not make sense to let go of the property. Responding to Mrs. Williams, Mr. Sokolowski stated that the old school property would be accessible to the public, noting that the District continues to keep them in good working order and has rented them out on occasion. In response to Mr. Slavin regarding the City Manager’s recommendation on transferring the EDUs, Mr. Koenig advised members that staff’s position was that the request met the technical merits and the decision was up to City Council. Responding to Mr. Dixon regarding the possibility of retaining the gym and other parts of the facility for youth, Mr. Sokolowski indicated that the gyms at William Henry Middle School and Central Middle School are available; however, funding is not available to do a partial demolition at Dover High School. Responding to Mr. Perza regarding the City having a basis or a precedent to deny a request for transfer of EDUs, Mr. Koenig stated that such a transfer was approved for Capital School District for their administrative offices; therefore, there was a precedent for approving this type of request, but not for denying it, to his knowledge. In response to Mr. Koenig as to whether he recommended the transfer, Mr. Koenig stated that the Public Works Department indicated that the request met the technical merits and the City Manager’s Office recommended approval of the transfer based on those merits.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 18 In response to Mrs. Williams as to whether the gym at the current high school could be left for use as a stand-alone building, Mr. Koenig stated that this was possible; however, the costs associated with doing so would be drastically greater and he did not have authorization to make that recommendation. Additionally, aside from the responsibility and cost associated with maintaining the facility, any agreement that would be established if the gym were to remain would likely include a clause that if the Department of Education wanted to use the property for a school, the City would have to abandon the facility. As a result, it could cost the City millions of dollars to invest in the partial demolition and subsequent maintenance, only to have to abandon the property later. In addition, the certificate that was granted to the Capital School District from the Department of Education specifically stated that the current facility would be demolished. Responding to Mrs. Williams regarding other issues related to construction of the new high school, Mr. Koenig stated that, at this time, he did not have any additional concerns. He indicated that the Capital School District had committed to building a second entrance, the apartment developer had reinitiated their projects so that the road would be extended and tied into the subdivision, and the additional sidewalks on the north side of Route 8 were progressing. He noted that there was one (1) property that may have to go to condemnation; however, all other property owners had agreed to the easements. Responding to Mr. Perza as to whether the City should postpone the transfer until after the school is opened to ensure that all outstanding items are completed, Mr. Koenig indicated that impact fees are traditionally paid at the time of occupancy; however, City Council had the option to suspend action on the transfer until all items are complete. In response to Mr. Blakeman, Mr. Perza advised that if the Capital School District wanted to use the old high school property at a later date, they would have to pay the full impact fees. The committee recommended approval of the transfer of Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) credits for the Capital School District from 1 Pat Lynn Drive to 1 Dover High Drive. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Williams absent). Annual Review and Approval of Governing Policy For Energy Commodity Risk Management Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, reviewed the Governing Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management and explained that this policy governs how the City trades energy. He stated that the hedge program outlines the rules for good transactions that can be reviewed by the internal committee and lets the public know that the City is following the rules. Mr. Koenig advised members that the changes referenced in the document were basically “housekeeping” changes.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 19 The Committee recommended approval of the Governing Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the Governing Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management (Exhibit #4), seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Williams absent). Quarterly Review of Utility Related Capital Investment Plan (CIP) (Electric and Water/Wastewater) Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, reviewed the Capital Investment Plan Project Tracking Report, as of March 31, 2014 which included the financial status of each project, noting some of the projects were complete and some had not been billed yet. Mr. Koenig provided updates on the Garrison Farm project, stating that the water, sewer, and electric projects had been authorized by Council and were underway, as well as the earth moving component of the storm water aspect. Mr. Koenig advised members that George & Lynch, Inc., the contractor for the sewer project, had mobilized and it was expected that the tower contractor would mobilize shortly. Mr. Koenig advised members that Community Transportation Fund projects had been reallocated to South Street adjacent to the hospital, however, it continued to appear open on the report because the contractor had not presented the bill to the City yet. Mr. Koenig indicated that members were starting to catch up on some of the backlog of capital projects, noting that the Horsepond project had made substantial progress and that Council would be considering the extension for services for the Van Sant proposal during their meeting scheduled for later in the evening. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Koenig advised members that the cost of the Garrison Oak Technical Park improvements was approximately $14.2M, including the water tower, the sanitary pumping station and force main, improvements including the road, storm sewers, the water main, gravity sewer main, and design drawings for the entire subdivision. Of that amount, approximately $550,000 was for electric improvements. In response to Mr. Anderson regarding the amount of funds that were provided by City taxpayers and how much was bond money, State contributions, and Calpine contributions, Mr. Koenig stated that he did not have the breakdown with him but offered to provide this information. The State of Delaware did not contribute to the portion of the project that he had described; however, State funds went to the gas line extension. He indicated that there was no cash contribution from Calpine; the $14.2M was City funds from General Fund Bonding, the Water/Sewer Fund, and the Electric Fund. In response to Mr. Slavin, Mr. Koenig advised that the City did not contribute to the gas line and that the total cost was roughly $7M, $2M of which was paid by the state.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 20 Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Koenig advised that the in-ground pipe and elevated storage inside the Garrison Oak Technical Park were designed for the full build-out of the Park; however, if additional wattage is required, it will be necessary to develop additional water resources. Mrs. Williams stated that the Purchase Power Agreement (PPA) and water revenues would be primary resources to recapture costs. Responding to Mr. Perza, Mr. Koenig stated that it was his plan to resume the Tar Ditch Interceptor project within the next 60 days and he hoped to meet with the property owners to attempt to acquire some of the easements. TEA/NAES Report (March) The TEA/NAES Monthly Report for March 2014 was provided to members to enable them to monitor electric sales and revenues received, which will provide a better understanding of any fluctuations that occur and allow the opportunity to make improvements if deemed necessary. The Committee recommended acceptance of the report. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Williams absent). Updates Green Energy Funding and Programming Members reviewed details regarding Green Energy Funding and Programming. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, advised members that the City received three (3) notices of violation of the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. One violation was for non-compliance and two (2) violations were related to properties owned by the City: the former Public Works site and the City of Dover warehouse site. Staff was currently working through these notices of violations and would be making the associated corrections to become compliant. Mr. Koenig advised members that the presentation provided at the Budget Hearings scheduled for the next week would include a request for an Environmental Scientist position to address these issues and remain compliant. Responding to Mr. Hutchison, Mr. Koenig advised that the violations had not cost the City money to date; however, if the City does not become and remain in compliance, financial penalties could be assessed. Garrison Oak Technical Park Project Updates Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, provided the following updates: City Infrastructure Mr. Koenig advised members that A-Del Construction Company, the City’s earth work and road contractor, had begun digging the ponds associated with storm water management. George & Lynch, Inc. was putting in a 16-inch force main on White

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 21 Oak Road that will extend back from the Garrison Farm under Route 1 to the White Oak Farm pump station. He indicated that as soon as there is a passable drive back to the elevated storage tower site, the earth work associated with the sanitary pump station should begin. Mr. Koenig indicated that the work could begin during the current week. He noted that engineers had been reviewing all of the field drawings to proceed with that portion of the project. Calpine Energy Center Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, stated that the Calpine Energy Center was heavily under construction. He advised that weekly teleconferences were continuing regarding the right-of-way clearing back to the 230kV tie and work was progressing with Delmarva Power on building the radio line from the 230kV tie back to the Garrison Energy Center. Mr. Koenig also stated that the gas main work was underway and, as of May 12, 2014, was approximately 52% complete. It was hoped that the area around Dover Downs would be cleaned up in advance of the Firefly Festival so that gas line construction would not be taking place in that area during the festival. He noted that the Uzin Utz project was nearing final approval, noting that a ground breaking was scheduled on Tuesday, May 13, 2014 and construction would begin shortly at Calpine. In addition, Mr. Koenig advised that Chesapeake Gas was scheduled to install the gas distribution line through the Garrison Farm infrastructure once the roads are generally laid out. Mr. Koenig stated that the construction was scheduled for substantial completion by the end of 2014 and that projects seemed to be progressing as scheduled in order to receive flows for Calpine and Uzin Utz. Dover Sun Park Members reviewed details regarding the Dover Sun Park. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for acceptance of the Utility Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Williams absent). LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT - MAY 12, 2014 The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met on May 12, 2014 with Chairman Lynn presiding. Downtown Dover Business Improvement District (BID) Budget and Assessment (Tax) Rates for Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Ms. Cheryl Russell, Tax Assessor, explained that the Business Improvement District (BID) Ordinance adopted by City Council requires that Council adopt a BID budget and assessment every year. She stated that this report represents the proposed budget and assessment for fiscal year 2014-15. Ms. Russell informed members that, based on the assessments provided by the City’s Tax Office, the proposed revenue was $50,000, which would allow for the personnel and administration expenses in the amount of $50,000. Staff recommended approval of the proposed budget and assessment (tax) rates for Fiscal Year 2014/2015, as presented.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 22 The Committee recommended approval of staff’s recommendation. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Williams absent). Discussion - Responsibilities and Reporting Structure for the Mayor and City Manager and Continuation of Full-Time Status for the Position of Mayor Councilman Hutchison stated that it was very important for members to keep in mind that the City of Dover has a City Manager form of government, and that the largest department within the City is the Police Department, with a total of 130.5 people, a budget of $13.5M per year, with $500,000 per year in overtime costs and 700,000 per a year in extra duty work, and that the Police Department also oversees a number of grants ranging from $200,000 to $400,000 annually. He reminded members to also keep in mind that the Police Department has a very complex payroll system, and that the City has strict guidelines and policies regarding promotions and discipline. (City Clerk’s Office Note: The City of Dover has operated under a modified Council- City Manager form of government since 1929.) Mr. Hutchison stated that the Secretary of Homeland Security is in charge of the Delaware State Police, noting that the Secretary is a professional, as is the City Manager for the City of Dover. Referring to the City’s organizational structure, Mr. Hutchison informed members that, having served as Police Chief as well as a part-time and full-time Mayor for the City, one (1) of his greatest concerns was the serious disconnect of the Mayor from the structure of the City. He stated that, as a result of the 1988 Consent Decree, the Mayor was removed from the Council Chambers, lost connection with the City Manager and Council, and was left to do what he/she would like to do. Mr. Hutchison advised members that, whether the City has a full-time or part-time Mayor, it is absolutely necessary to have a job description as well as responsibilities and duties. Mr. Hutchison expressed his opinion that the City of Dover has one (1) of the finest police department’s in the State of Delaware; however, he indicated his concern with the fact that when a Police Chief retires or leaves, only the Mayor is involved with the selection of the new Police Chief. As an alternative, Mr. Hutchison suggested that members consider a change to require the selection of the Police Chief by a Committee of three (3), consisting of the Mayor, City Manager and Council President. He further recommended that following the Committee’s interview process, they make a recommendation to City Council for confirmation. Mr. Hutchison stated that this proposed change would bring the Mayor, City Manager, Council and Police Department under one (1) control and, in his opinion, would work a lot better than the current method. Mr. Hare expressed his opinion that the City of Dover needs to decide whether to have a strong Mayor or City Manager type of government, noting that the City has had a hybrid type of government for as long as he could remember. Mr. Hare stated

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 23 that, in 1997, when the Mayor’s position became full-time, he thought that the City was going to switch to a strong Mayor type of government but it remained the same. It was his recollection that when the Mayor first became a full-time position, a job description was created; however, over the years, it had been eliminated. Mr. Hare stated that he did not disagree with the hiring policy and, whether or not the Mayor or City Manager is in charge of the Police Department, he indicated that the selection of the Chief by a Committee of three (3) would probably be good. Mayor Bonar thanked Mr. Lynn for compiling the in-depth information provided on this topic, and expressed his personal support of the Police Department. He indicated that when this topic was discussed during the 1990s, the members involved, including himself, had the best intentions of a having a system that would operate in the best interest of the City, noting that all of the debate and discussion was prefaced by the phrase “as we perceive it.” Mayor Bonar expressed his opinion that Mr. Hutchison’s suggestion for putting the Police Chief under the City Manager bears merit, but suggested the possibility of creating a Committee with four (4) members for the selection process for the Police Chief. He agreed with Mr. Hutchison that the complexities of the Police Department are increasingly detailed and stated that it requires oversight by someone who is familiar with not only day to day personal management procedures, but also budgeting and hiring procedures as well as contract negotiations. Mayor Bonar expressed his opinion that, nine (9) times out of 10, the City would not elect a Mayor with that type of expertise, but noted that those abilities could be realized by involving the Council President, City Manager, and others in the selection process for the Police Chief. Mayor Bonar reminded members that, ultimately, it was the Committee’s decision whether to forward this matter to Council for full debate, but expressed his opinion that the public should be provided with an opportunity to comment. Referring to the information provided with regard to this topic, Mayor Bonar noted that there were a great number of municipalities throughout the region which have the Police Chief under a City Manager form of oversight, and that it is indicative that most cities with the same type of government as the City of Dover are satisfied with this type of structure. Mr. Lynn stated that it was important to separate the various issues surrounding this topic, noting that the City’s type of government had become intermingled with the decision about whether or not to limit or reduce the Mayor’s powers as well as the decision regarding the part-time/full-time Mayor. Noting that the Legislative and Finance Committee Report of January 25, 1995 and the Special Council Meeting minutes of January 29, 2004 reflect Mr. Hutchison’s advocacy for a full-time Mayor in the City of Dover, Mr. Lynn questioned what had changed Mr. Hutchison’s position regarding this topic. Responding, Mr. Hutchison stated that the status of the full-time Mayor today has changed, compared to what it was when he held the office. For example, he stated that one (1) of the duties and responsibilities of the full-time Mayor was to handle economic development for the entire City; whereas, today there are three (3) additional positions which handle economic development. Additionally, Mr. Hutchison explained that there have been

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 24 many changes over the last 10 years with regard to salaries, benefits, payroll, and the complexities of contracts and he believed that it would be unfair for the Mayor to be responsible for these matters without having the training to do so. He stated that he still wholeheartedly supported a full-time Mayor but explained that the City cannot have a full-time Mayor if he/she is not going to be given and held accountable for specific duties and responsibilities. Mr. Hutchison stated that the Mayor could maintain responsibility for the Police Department, with the City Manager running the daily operations and reporting to the Mayor. Mr. Hare stated that he did not have any objections to the City of Dover having a Mayor-Council form of government or a full-time Mayor, but noted that in cities with a Mayor-Council form of government or a strong Mayor, the Mayor typically has an assistant with similar qualifications and responsibilities as a City Manager. Mr. Hare expressed his opinion that the Mayor of the City of Dover be given more responsibility. Councilman Anderson stated that Mr. Hutchison had raised valid points, and noted that having input from the City Manager, or City’s Manager representative, and the Council President, or the Council President’s representative, would be a very sensible approach for hiring of a replacement Police Chief. Mr. Anderson expressed his opinion that this type of advice and overview would be helpful in the future but noted that it had not been necessary in the past because the City of Dover Code does not allow for outside recruitment for the Chief of Police. He shared his belief that most promotions should be made from with inside the City but that the complete elimination of potential candidates not employed by the City narrows the field. Mr. Anderson suggested that the City conduct a review of the entire process for hiring the Police Chief. He stated that the idea that members of City Council should confirm the selection for Police Chief makes sense, since the Mayor’s other appointments require such confirmation. He stated that he was not in favor of the idea of completely restructuring, noting that there was a movement in the U.S. to restore some measure of accountability to elected officials and law enforcement. Mr. Economic Development Office under the Mayor’s Office which he believed had proven to be a beneficial decision with positive results, in terms of helping businesses grow and bringing jobs to the City. Councilwoman Williams reminded members that, for varying reasons, the last two (2) full-time Mayors did not complete their terms of office and that the recent change to four (4) year terms for the Mayor and members of Council have markedly changed the Office of the Mayor. She also noted that Council currently has the ability to discharge the city manager; however, there is no method, beyond resignation, for recourse of action if Council is dissatisfied with the Mayor. She expressed her concern that the City does not have a provision for recall or impeachment, noting that it could present a problem when there is a full-time Mayor. Mr. Slavin stated that he was a proponent of a full-time Mayor in 2004 and remained a proponent for several reasons. He expressed his belief that, beyond the Mayor’s veto power, Council needs a checks and balance system with a full-time presence.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 25 He stated that Council should use this an opportunity to further delineate the two (2) branches of government, noting that the hybrid approach has blended them and led to confusion. Mr. Slavin emphasized that the City of Dover needs a full-time Mayor because it is a full-time city. Referring to information compiled by the National League of Cities regarding forms of government, Mr. Lynn reviewed the characteristics of a Mayor-Council form of government and shared his opinion that the City of Dover’s form of government has suited the City well throughout its history and that there is plenty of room to grow into this form of government, given that New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles have a similar form of government. In regard to a full-time or part-time Mayor, he noted that the issue was discussed in incredible detail in both the 1990s and in 2004 and that, in both instances, City Council was of the decision that the position of Mayor should be full-time. Additionally, Mr. Lynn stated that a referendum was held which demonstrated that the citizens of the City were in favor of a full-time Mayor and, expressed his belief that, nothing had occurred to lead members to conclude anything to the contrary. With regard to the powers and duties of the Mayor, Mr. Lynn shared a sentiment expressed by Councilman Perza that “the guys with the guns ought to answer to an elected official.” He noted his belief that it would be a dangerous precedent for the Dover Police Department to report to a bureaucrat or unelected official, like the City Manager. Referring to the powers and duties of the Mayor, Mr. Lynn stated his opinion that there is room to rein in the financial aspect of the Mayor’s role with regard to the Police Department, explaining that the budgeting for the Police Department should be proactive instead of reactionary to allow Council the opportunity to have an actual role in forming some of the financial policies of the Police Department, and provide the Controller/Treasurer or another City staff member an opportunity to maintain the financial checks and balances within the Police Department. Mr. Hutchison stated that the City Manager is the City’s paid expert who works for the Mayor and Council. It was his belief that the Police Department runs itself for the most part but that placing the City Manager in charge of the daily operations would provide a chain of command with the Police Chief reporting to the City Manager, who reports directly to the Mayor and Council. It was Mr. Hutchison’s opinion that this type of organizational structure would allow the Mayor to remain as the “point person” for the City while bringing the total City together beginning with the Mayor, City Manager, and Council. Mr. Lynn cautioned members that decisions in contravention of the City’s Charter should not be made based upon the exigencies of the moment, in a rush to judgement. He stated that the formation of the City’s government was made with long deliberation and should not be changed over the course of a week as the result of one (1) event. Mr. Lynn agreed that the current City Manager, Mr. Scott Koenig, was a professional; however, he reminded members that within the past three (3) years, there were discussions in which the judgement and ethics of the former City Manager were called into question. Noting that no single office in the City is immune from corruption or doubt or any other character flaws, Mr. Lynn expressed his opinion that

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 26 the authority of the Police Department should be placed in the hands of an elected official who the electorate controls, rather than in the hands of a bureaucrat, whom it would take nine (9) members of Council to rein in. Mr. Hare agreed that these issues could not be resolved in one (1) meeting. He expressed his preference that members discuss and decide upon the appropriate form of government for the City, prior to entertaining discussion regarding the full-time or part-time Mayor. In regard to the issue of having a full-time Mayor, Mr. Anderson noted that more than 70% of the citizens previously voted in the referendum and that he had not heard a groundswell for change in this regard but the opposite. He expressed that he would like to see someone who is extraordinarily competent and capable in this position but that the budgetary matters for all departments should go through the City Manager’s Office. In regard to the Police Department reporting the City Manager, Mr. Anderson cautioned members to remember that the City’s Charter prohibited Council from engaging with employees under the direction of the City Manager without permission, noting that he would not want to be “out of the loop” when it comes to something as important as law enforcement. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Hare stated that he would favor a change to a City Administrator who reports to the Mayor with Council’s approval, instead of having a City Manager, if that were the decision of the Council. Mayor Bonar reviewed the “Current Trends” in municipal forms of government compiled by the National League of Cities. He encouraged members to review the valuable information available on these issues. He stated that the members had brought up really good points and that the Committee would have to decide how to proceed. Mayor Bonar noted the possibility of creating a group to explore these issues in more detail, reminding members that there would be several months in which to consider these matters before the legislative session occurs in January. He suggested that an opportunity be provided for constituents to express how they feel. Mr. Edward Christian, Jr., 9 Pennwood Dr., Dover, stated that he was accustomed to the City Manager-City Council form of government, in which the Mayor was chosen by City Council members to serve as the presiding officer of City Council and assigned a number of ceremonial duties. He noted that under this form of government, a City Manager was hired by and served under the direction of the City Council, and if he/she was not suitable for the job, then he/she was fired by City Council. In regard to the position of Mayor, Mr. Christian indicated his belief that the duties and responsibilities for the Mayor of the City of Dover were developed based upon the qualifications and areas of expertise of the individual who held the office when it became a full-time, salaried position, and questioned whether the City would find anyone else with that level of expertise to manage the City. He stated that voters often make decisions based on their personal “comfort zones” but rely on the elected officials to lead and guide. Mr. Christian stated that elected officials have a tendency to make decisions based upon what will keep them in office; however, he

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 27 encouraged members to make decisions based on what needs to be done for the benefit of the citizens of the City, while keeping in mind what other cities and localities are doing, as well as relevant history. Mr. Lynn reminded members that this was not necessarily an item which the Committee would need to take action on; however, action could be entertained. As advised by the City Clerk, Traci McDowell, he noted that the Consent Decree may prohibit a strong Mayor. Mr. Rushe stated his belief that the Committee needs to hear more public comment before taking any action. Mr. Hutchison agreed that the City should allow for further public input and discussion. Mayor Bonar agreed that further public input seemed warranted, noting that this evening’s discussion revealed a strong consensus that these topics should at least be considered. Mr. Hare moved to bring this matter back to the Committee to allow for public input and further discussion in regard to the different forms of government. Responding to Mr. Lynn, Mr. Hare stated that the intent of his motion was for the Committee to examine the form of government issue prior to any further discussion regarding the role of the Mayor. After further clarification and discussion, Mr. Hare withdrew his motion. Mr. Slavin moved for the Committee to continue discussion of the responsibilities and reporting structure for the Mayor and City Manager and continuation of full-time status for the position of Mayor, following the 2014 Special Mayoral Election, seconded by Mr. Hare. Mr. Slavin clarified that his motion was to include future discussion of the matter as introduced on this evening’s agenda. Mr. Anderson noted his support for the motion. The Committee recommended to continue discussion of the responsibilities and reporting structure for the Mayor and City Manager and continuation of full-time status for the position of Mayor, following the 2014 Special Mayoral Election. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Williams absent).

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 28 Proposed Planning and Inspections Fee Increases Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed Planning and Inspections fee increases proposed for FY 2014/2015. She reminded members that the proposed fee increases were previously presented to members of City Council during the City Council Budget Workshop of March 31, 2014. Mrs. Townshend stated that in reviewing the Planning and Inspections fees, she focused on: 1) the fees that do not come close to cost recovery; and 2) the last time each fee was reviewed. Referring to the fees that do not come close to cost recovery, she expressed her opinion that it did not make very good business sense to place the burden on the taxpayers for a service that benefits one (1) person. For example, she stated when there is a Board of Adjustment application, the meeting costs approximately $600, including $75 per Board member in attendance, legal fees to have legal counsel available, and the costs associated with a newspaper ad and mailing notices. Mrs. Townshend explained that the current fee for a residential variance was $200 and the current fee for a commercial variance was $300; therefore, the fees for this service do not come close to recovering the City’s costs. She stated that staff does advise interested applicants when they believe the applicant does not have a very strong case; however, the applicants often decide to proceed. Mrs. Townshend explained that the proposed increases include several fees in the planning application and building permit category that had not been reviewed or updated since 2004, and that the City’s rental permit fees had not been changed since 2000. She also stated that the City’s public occupancy permit fees had not been adjusted since 1993 and informed members that these permits cost a great deal of staff time to administer because they require the fire marshals to conduct annual site inspections. Mrs. Townshend stated that she also tried to keep the economic climate in mind while reviewing the fees to make sure that the proposals would not jeopardize economic recovery. She noted that the proposed fee increases are modest and do not significantly increase the cost of doing business but would allow the City to recover more of the costs associated with providing services. In regard to the proposed increase for the sign permit fee, Mrs. Townshend explained that many of the City’s sign permits are very near to the minimum fee and that the penalty for installing a sign without a permit is that the permit fee is doubled. She stated that staff had experienced people laughing at them when they inform them that their permit will increase to $30 or $50 as a result of the penalty. Mrs. Townshend informed members that she also reviewed fees for other agencies throughout the State of Delaware and that, in all cases, the City of Dover’s fees, including the proposed increases, were below many other localities and in line with others.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 29 Mr. Slavin reminded members that fee increases are always a difficult issue and when the economy is good, the public asks why the City is trying to slow down the economy and when the economy is bad, why the City is trying to make it harder to do business. He shared his appreciation for the way that Mrs. Townshend presented the information and the inclusion of the last time each fee was adjusted. Mr. Slavin questioned if there was any thought to reintroducing the concept of putting fees on an escalator that would allow for a minor adjustment every other year. He stated that he had talked to a number of people in the business community who said that they would rather see small adjustments to fees than a one time adjustment every so many years. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated that when staff proposed an escalator for the business license fee in 2010, the business community was opposed. She stated that whichever way staff approaches fee increases proves to be the opposite of the way that the business community would want it at that point in time. She stated that the key to the proposed fee increases was keeping the adjustments modest, explaining that, if the City really wanted to correct not having increased the fees for 10 to 20 years, staff would have proposed more significant increases. For example, Mrs. Townshend noted that most of the public occupancy permits, which require the fire marshals to conduct annual fire safety inspections, were currently $25 per year and were proposed to increase to $50 per year. Mr. Slavin questioned whether the proposed increases had been vetted by the business community and whether staff had contacted the Chamber of Commerce. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated that she had not spoken to the Chamber of Commerce but offered to do so. She stated that the difference between the current proposal and those considered in previous years was that the previous proposals included significantly larger increases. Mrs. Townshend reminded members that the rental permit fees were always controversial. She stated that, as proposed, the rental permit fee would increase from $90 to $100 for a house per year and expressed her opinion that rents have surely increased well over $10 within the past 14 years. Mr. Slavin expressed his disagreement with a cost recovery model for fees, stating that, although it is not the case with the current proposal, aligning services with the costs to recover the services typically makes the City overly aggressive on fees. He indicated that many of the individuals who access these services have already paid for them through property taxes and other costs. Mr. Slavin cautioned that the City needed to be very careful to ensure that individuals are not denied their due process rights because they cannot afford the fees associated with services, such as Board of Adjustment applications. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Townshend stated that even with the proposed increase, the City would not come close to recovering the costs associated with conducting a Board of Adjustment meeting. She informed members that a review of the fees for municipalities in Sussex County revealed fees of more than $1,000 for

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 30 the Board of Adjustment because it is a costly process. Mrs. Townshend indicated that while there is the belief that these services are paid for by the general tax base, the general tax base covers only a very small portion of the City’s operations. Mr. Lynn suggested that the Committee table this matter and send notice out to the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Hare expressed his opinion that the City should have a public hearing regarding this matter to provide the Chamber of Commerce as well as the public an opportunity to speak. He stated that he would like to see the inclusion of an escalator, so that the City will not have this to address this again in the future. Mr. Hare moved to defer consideration of the proposed Planning and Inspections fee increases to allow staff to contact the chamber of commerce and schedule and public hearing, seconded by Mr. Slavin. Mr. Slavin stated his belief that the Town of Smyrna, Delaware, has an escalator built into the Town’s ordinances for all of these fees, and asked staff to investigate and provide members with the information. Mrs. Townshend stated that staff was not opposed to an escalator but reminded members that the last time it was brought forward, the business community was opposed. Responding, Mr. Slavin indicated his belief that the business community was previously opposed to the idea because they did not hear about it prior to Council discussions. Mr. Hare requested that staff also provide a fee comparison. The Committee recommended to defer consideration of the proposed Planning and Inspections fee increases to allow staff to contact the chamber of commerce and schedule a public hearing. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Williams absent). Authorization for New Position - Assistant City Manager Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, informed members that during the City Manager's evaluation last fall, City Council indicated that the City Manager's office needed additional staff to improve response times to various inquires and concerns. As a result of these comments, the City Manager was directed to evaluate additional administrative capacity to improve the overall function of the office. He stated that two (2) position descriptions were reviewed, an Executive Assistant for the City Manager and an Assistant City Manager. Mr. Koenig stated that the Assistant City Manager position currently existed in the City’s hierarchy, although it had not been filled for more than 20 years. He explained that an Assistant City Manager, rather than an Executive Assistant for the City

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 31 Manager, would provide greater assistance with respect to the needs of the City Manager's Office as well as the citizens of the City, especially with the complexity of the issues that the City Manager’s Office has begun to handle on a daily basis, including contract negotiations, land purchases, and the general operation of a growing city. The Assistant City Manager position would also provide more value in the area of succession planning for the upper level of the organization. Mr. Koenig stated that the Assistant City Manager position was valued as a Grade 136 with a market salary range of $105,189 - $122,032. Based on the long-term needs of the City, staff recommended authorizing the City Manager to include one (1) Assistant City Manager position in the FY 2015 budget request for the City Manager’s Office. Mayor Bonar commended Mr. Koenig for bringing this matter forward for consideration, noting that it was not an easy topic, given the current fiscal constraints but it is something that needs to be done. Mayor Bonar stated that the City is not as easy to run as it once was and he his aware of the inordinate amount of time that the City Manager has to spend on the telephone and in negotiating sessions. Mr. Slavin moved to defer the item for consideration during the upcoming Special Council Meeting - Budget Review, seconded by Mr. Shevock. By a vote of two (2) yes (Shevock and Slavin), and three (3) no (Hare, Lynn, and Rushe) the motion failed. Mr. Hare moved to authorize the City Manager to include one (1) Assistant City Manager position in the FY 2015 budget request for the City Manager’s Office but that the position not be filled until the budget has been adopted, seconded by Mr. Rushe. By a vote of two (2) yes (Hare and Rushe), and three (3) no (Lynn, Shevock and Slavin) the motion failed. Mr. Lynn moved to authorize the City Manager to include one (1) Assistant City Manager position in the FY 2015 budget request for the City Manager’s Office. The motion failed due to the lack of a second. The Committee recommended to defer the item. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Williams absent). 2015 Property Revaluation and Reassessment Ms. Cheryl Russell, Tax Assessor, informed members that, according to the City Code, the revaluation and reassessment of all real property may be conducted this year, since five (5) years have passed since the last reassessment. She stated that staff sent a Request for Proposals (RFP) out in April so that the City could budget for the reassessment for FY 2015. Ms. Russell indicated that May 1, 2014 was the deadline

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 32 to turn in the sealed bids to the City of Dover, and one (1) bid for the 2015 reassessment was received in the amount of $125,300. She stated that staff would be able to reduce the figure to $108,000 if they complete the printing and mailing. Ms. Russell reminded members that a reassessment is an effort to value all real property at its fair market value in an equitable and uniform manner and shifts the burden of tax among the tax payers. She stated that, after several years without a reassessment, some properties will be over-assessed, some under-assessed based on market and economic conditions. Staff recommended approval to proceed with the 2015 Property Reassessment. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Russell confirmed that the complete reassessment would cost $108,000 and explained that the difference between the 2015 Property Reassessment and the reassessment which was conducted five (5) years ago was that staff has gone out and looked at all of the properties so it does not have to be a comprehensive reassessment. She stated that every property will receive a letter with a new assessed value but that the firm would not have to physically review each property like they previously did. In response to Mr. Shevock, Ms. Russell confirmed that the 2015 Property Reassessment would be conducted by the same firm that conducted the previous reassessment. Mr. Rushe questioned whether staff anticipated an overall increase or decrease in property taxes. Responding, Ms. Russell stated that, for a lot of the commercial properties, staff had noticed that transfers were higher than the current values but, for the most part, the residential property values had decreased slightly in some areas while others were staying about the same. She indicated that the values for new construction were currently very accurate. Ms. Russell reminded members that the reassessment is revenue neutral, so there will be no impact to the tax base for the revaluation. As a point of clarification, Mr. Slavin stated that the reassessment is a revenue neutral exercise; therefore, while the assessed value may go up or down, the City is not allowed to use that as an excuse for increasing taxes. City Council would have to set the tax rate appropriately in order to increase or decrease revenue. In response to Mr. Hare, Ms. Russell confirmed that the City would spend $108,000 on the reassessment and would not receive any additional revenue as a result. Concurring with Mr. Slavin, Ms. Russell stated that it is easier to defend values when they are closer to what the market is indicating. Ms. Slavin noted that if you sell a property that has not had an assessment in 15 years, you would pay the tax rate from 15 years ago rather than current market rate.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 33 Councilman Anderson questioned whether the State law that makes reassessments revenue neutral also allowed for the recovery of the cost of the reassessment. Responding, Ms. Russell stated this question was raised in 2000 and, as she recalled, Delaware did not allow for the recovery. Mr. Anderson stated his belief that the law allowed up to 15% of the value of the assessment to be recovered and requested that staff look further into the matter. The Committee recommended approval to proceed with the 2015 Property Reassessment, as recommended by staff. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Williams absent). FY14 Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program - Police Vehicle Computer and Video Technology Upgrades Police Chief Paul Bernat informed members that the Dover Police Department recently received its annual allocation from the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) for the 2014 Justice Assistance Grant (JAG). Similar to previous years, Dover Police Department was identified as a disparate funding agency along with Kent County because there is no law enforcement function at the county level, unlike Newcastle County in northern Delaware. This disparate condition requires the submission of a joint grant application for the two (2) agencies. Although no funds were designated for Kent County in the allocation document, a Memorandum of Understanding would be completed and signed by both agencies stating that Kent County will waive any claim to the funding on this grant. Chief Bernat stated that the Dover Police Department intends to upgrade/replace eight (8) vehicle computer/video systems. He explained that a portion of the upgrades would be purchased for new vehicles that would be coming on line during FY 2015. Chief Bernat informed members that on April 8, 2014, Windows XP became obsolete and the State of Delaware Division of Communications discontinued support for it and, as a result, the remainder of the grant funds would be used to retrofit older vehicle computer/video systems to bring those units back online and in compliance with Windows 7, the current operating system. He stated that the department was currently short-handed on working computers in vehicles, and was hoping to get approval to submit this application early, so the funding could be released earlier by the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ). Chief Bernat indicated that the department also planned to purchase COBAN systems, a sole vendor purchase, which had been in use by the Delaware State Police and other agencies throughout the state and received good reviews from both the user and maintenance perspectives. As result, the department would purchase the new systems in two (2) or more increments to retrofit older the model vehicles first, as scheduling permits, and retrofit the new vehicles during the FY 2015 budgeted vehicle replacement cycle.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 34 Chief Bernat stated that the City of Dover had been allotted a grant totaling $51,549 and that total project budget was $81,549. Staff recommended approval of the grant project, as requested. The Committee recommended approval of the grant project, as recommended by staff. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Williams absent). Proposed Revenue Policy - Police Extra Duty/Voluntary Overtime Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, reviewed the Proposed Revenue Policy for Police Extra Duty/Voluntary Overtime. She explained that she had a question in regard to section I. Policy, which she and Police Chief Paul Bernat were unable to discuss, and she recommended that the text indicated in red font be included in the policy, as presented. Referring to section IV. Requests for Extra Duty Officers, Mrs. Mitchell stated that Chief Bernat requested the insertion of the first paragraph of subsection F and she subsequently recommended the inclusion of the second paragraph. In reference to section V. Payment Methods, Mrs. Mitchell noted her recommendation for the addition of a second paragraph under subsection B. City Sponsored Events, as indicated in red font. She stated that this policy had been fully vetted with Dover Downs and Chief Bernat and that they had “signed off” on the policy with the indicated changes. Mrs. Mitchell noted that former Police Chief James Hosfelt had been instrumental in assisting her with drafting the policy. Staff recommended adoption of the policy. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the City would earn money from extra duty under the proposed policy and that she had calculated the revenue for the budget. In response to Councilman Hutchison, Mrs. Mitchell confirmed that she was happy with the policy as presented. The Committee recommended adoption of the Revenue Policy - Police Extra Duty/Voluntary Overtime, as recommended by staff. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for adoption of the Revenue Policy - Police Extra Duty/Voluntary Overtime (Exhibit #5), as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Williams absent). Proposed Ordinance #2014-09 Amending Chapter 50 - Floods Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed Proposed Ordinance #2014-09 amending Chapter 50 - Floods; Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Article III - Building Code, Section 22-61; and Appendix F - Fees and Fines, noting that it is a time sensitive matter.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 35 Mrs. Townshend explained that the proposed ordinance would remove the language currently found in Chapter 50 of Dover Code and replace it with the current standards and regulations which are compliant with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). She stated that the City is a participating community in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and, as long as the City complies with certain FEMA required practices, property owners within the City are able to have flood insurance. Mrs. Townshend stated that in order to continue participation in the NFIP, the City is required to implement standards for construction activities within the 100-year floodplain and, when FEMA updates the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), the City is required to update the City’s regulatory requirements to comply with the most current FEMA standards. Mrs. Townshend explained that FEMA is in the process of updating the FIRM for Kent County, with the new maps to take effect on July 7, 2014, and all NFIP communities must have updated regulatory requirements in place by July 7, 2014, when the new maps take effect. Mrs. Townshend stated that the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) hired a consultant to develop model ordinances, approved by FEMA, for Delaware's communities to adopt. She explained that many of the provisions contained in the 2009 and 2012 International Code Council (ICC) series of building codes already comply with the FEMA standards, and the City has adopted the 2009 ICC codes. The model ordinance that staff used in updating the City’s regulation is a code coordinated model that recognizes the standards in the building code and does not duplicate or reiterate these standards. Use of this ordinance minimizes the likelihood for conflict and confusion among chapters of the Dover Code. Mrs. Townshend noted that the regulations that apply directly to buildings are within in the building code and that non building related flood regulations were proposed for inclusion in Chapter 50. Staff recommended adoption of Proposed Ordinance #2014-09. The Committee recommended adoption of Proposed Ordinance #2014-09, as recommended by staff. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Williams absent). (The First Reading of Proposed Ordinance #2014-09 will take place during the latter part of the meeting.) Proposed Ordinance #2014-10 - FY 2014 Budget Amendment In regard to the Committee’s discussion of the Proposed Planning and Inspections Fee Increases, earlier during the meeting, Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, informed members that she would be contacting the chamber of commerce prior to the Special Council Meeting - Budget Review to discuss any changes proposed for the next fiscal year budget and that she could incorporate the proposed Planning and Inspections fees.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 36 Mrs. Mitchell reviewed Proposed Ordinance #2014-10 - FY 2014 Budget Amendment, noting that it was the second set of budget amendments for Fiscal Year 2013/2014. She reminded members that the first budget amendment for Fiscal Year 2013/2014 (Ordinance #2013-08) was approved by Council on January 27, 2014. She explained that the proposed budget amendment adjusts the revenues to reflect the current forecast; reflects the pension accounting changes, shifting the fund expenses back to the Divisions and interfund service line items in the General Fund, Water/Wastewater Fund and Electric Revenue Fund; incorporates internal budget adjustments completed in accordance with the budget amendment authority of the City Manager; transfers $77,000 of savings in temporary help for the Library to the Inspections demolition account to fund the Council action approved for increased demolition cost; and reflects operating expense reductions based on annual budget reviews with the City Manager. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the proposed budget amendment also included additional items, some of which had previously been discussed with City Council, including the Salt Barn, Street Division CIP budget of $50,000 which was inadvertently dropped off in the project carry forwards in the January ordinance; an additional $15,000 for Kent Conservation District storm water; demolition of the White Oak Park recreation building with a current estimate of $70,500 in the Recreation Division CIP; Old Library clean up with a current estimate of $35,000 in the Library Division CIP; $12,000 for contractual services in the Finance Division for an agreed upon procedure engagement with current auditors to review internal control procedures, revenue procedures and cash handling procedures at Recreation, Library and Police Divisions; and a Water Utility, U.S. 13 Water Main, VWQ0907, lawsuit settlement with Eastern States Construction in the amount of $141,600. Mrs. Mitchell noted that all of these items were being funded through salary savings within the budget and transfers to the Capital Project Fund from the General Fund. Staff recommended adoption of Proposed Ordinance #2014-10. Mr. Lynn stated that he would not be supporting the budget amendment because he could not support the demolition of the White Oak Park recreation building. He explained that he could not imagine the City spending $70,500 to demolish a building which the City allowed to become derelict, and essentially demolished by neglect. He expressed his opinion that it is money wasted and that the building could have been used to the benefit of the public and it’s demolition deprives an entire portion of the City of recreational facilities. Mr. Slavin noted that he had recently discussed his concerns regarding the fungibility of the City’s funds, specifically that salary savings are spread across other operational categories, with Mr. Wayne Holden, Ad Hoc Financial and Operational Advisory Committee Chair. Mr. Slavin stated that he deals with the discipline of leaving salary savings in the salary line and operational savings in the operational lines everyday, in his job with the State of Delaware, and that he was encouraging Mr. Holden to incorporate that into some of the Committee’s recommendations. In response to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Mitchell stated that with the accounting change for the pensions, the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 37 City’s Annual Required Contribution (ARC), as determined by the actuary, is based on budgeted salaries. She explained that if the City has attrition, the City might not meet that ARC because the City would not have the salary base there with that percentage. She stated that she and Mr. Koenig had discussed the possibility of recommending a policy change that would require any salary savings to go toward those liabilities to ensure that the City meets the ARC. Mr. Slavin stated that he would support such a policy change. The Committee recommended adoption of Proposed Ordinance #2014-10, as recommended by staff. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Williams absent). (The First Reading of Proposed Ordinance #2014-10 will take place during the latter part of the meeting.) Proposed Ordinance #2014-14 Amending Appendix D - Downtown Dover Business Improvement District (DDBID), Article III - Establishment of DDBID, Section 3 - Geographic Boundaries, and Section 5 - Management Company Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed Proposed Ordinance #2014-14, explaining that it was brought to her attention by Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, that there was a discrepancy between the City’s Dover Downtown Business Improvement District (DDBID) ordinance and the composition of the Downtown Dover Partnership Board of Directors, which is the City’s management company under the DDBID statute. Mrs. Townshend informed members that in drafting Proposed Ordinance #2014-14, she and the City Clerk had examined the State statute regarding the Business Improvement District, the City’s ordinance regarding the DDBID and the composition of the DDP Board of Directors. Mrs. Townshend stated that the proposed amendment specifically designates the Downtown Dover Partnership as the "management company" for the Business Improvement District and removes the requirement that a majority of the management company's Board of Directors be owners or owners' designees of commercial properties within the Business Improvement District. Referring to lines 33, 35, and 36 of the proposed ordinance, she explained that the proposed amendments would require the management company to be comprised of at least five (5) members who either own a commercial property within the DDBID or are the designee of such owner, and remove the language that requires that commercial property owners constitute a majority of the Board of Directors. Mrs. Townshend stated that the State statute requires the five (5) commercial property owner representatives, but does not require that a majority of the Board be commercial property owners. She noted that, with the composition of the DDP Board, it would be almost impossible to have such a majority. Mrs. Townshend stated that the proposed ordinance would help fix the discrepancy, and that she was also working with Mr. Greg Moore, DDP President and Mr. Gerry Street, DDP member, to address a change to the DDP By-laws.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 38 Staff recommended adoption of Proposed Ordinance #2014-14. The Committee recommended adoption of Proposed Ordinance #2014-14, as recommended by staff. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Williams absent). (The First Reading of Proposed Ordinance #2014-14 will take place during the latter part of the meeting.) Proposed Reinstatement of the Fee Waiver Provision for Tax Exempt Properties Mr. Slavin reminded members that during their meeting of January 13, 2014, the Committee recommended adoption of Proposed Ordinance #2014-01 amending Chapter 102 - Taxation, Article IV - Abatement of Real Estate Taxes; Appendix C - Downtown Redevelopment, Article II - Definitions and Article III - Eligibility; and Appendix E - Commercial and Industrial Building Redevelopment, Article II - Eligibility, to require compliance with Section 1-13 - Clean Hands; provide for revocation of the incentives for beneficiaries who are delinquent on obligations to the City; and make tax exempt properties ineligible for the incentives, which was adopted by City Council on February 10, 2014. Mr. Slavin expressed his belief that ordinance #2014-01 was intended to be a Clean Hands ordinance which would ensure that those who were receiving the incentives had “clean hands” and did not have any other issues with the City, and that he did not realize at the time the ordinance was considered that it would also strip away the incentive program for non-profit organizations. He stated that the adoption of the ordinance has had an effect on two (2) large not-for-profit organizations that have been significant to the downtown Dover revitalization. Referring to Line 119 of Proposed Ordinance #2014-01, Mr. Slavin proposed that the Committee recommend reinstatement of the incentive program for the subject properties that are exempt from City of Dover real estate taxes. Councilman Anderson stated that this is a very important provision because much of the development includes not-for-profits, including some community projects which are a very important part of the revitalization of downtown. Responding to Councilman Hutchison, Mr. Slavin stated that he had not discussed this proposal with either the City Manager or Controller/Treasurer to determine the potential budgetary impact. Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, stated that she had not quantified the financial impact of this proposal and questioned whether the issue with the proposal was the financial impact or the general concept. Mr. Lynn stated his belief that the staff would be aware of any financial impact, since this language had been previously removed from the ordinance.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 39 Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, clarified that non-profits can qualify for the incentives as long as the property is not tax exempt. As an example, she stated that, earlier in the day, staff had approved the incentives for the Inner City Cultural League, Inc., a non-profit which qualified for the incentives because the subject property was not tax exempt. Mrs. Townshend stated that staff had reviewed the history of incentives for tax exempt properties since 1998 and could not find any record of a tax exempt property applying for the incentives since, except Bayhealth, which applied in 2008. She stated that Wesley College and the State of Delaware, which are two (2) other major tax exempt organizations within the City, have not applied for or utilized the incentives and have paid all of the applicable fees. Noting her belief that this proposal was based on Bayhealth, Mrs. Townshend stated that prior to 2008, there were no requests from Bayhealth to utilize the incentives. In 2008, the incentives were utilized by Bayhealth for the addition of the parking garage and new podium building. Mrs. Townshend stated that since 1998, the City had issued 141 building permits to Bayhealth, and that they utilized the waiver on eight (8) of those permits, for which the City waived a total of $572,248 in building permit fees and, based on that amount, $7,224.80 (10%) was paid to the Downtown Dover Partnership. Mrs. Townshend noted that since 1998, the City had received $260,498.50 for building permit fees from Bayhealth. Additionally, Mrs. Townshend stated that staff also examined the staff time, since 2009, associated with permits and inspections for Bayhealth, the State of Delaware and Wesley College, the larger non-profits that do not pay any City of Dover property taxes. She stated that staff estimated that they had spent 18 hours per year on inspections related to permits; 8 hours per year on annual life safety inspections; and, in terms of specific building permits, the City had spent 356 staff hours conducting onsite inspections related to building construction. Mrs. Townshend explained that the idea behind making tax exempt properties ineligible for the incentives was that the property owners are receiving a service but they are not paying property taxes, whereas, other property owners who receive the incentives do pay property taxes. She clarified that it was not an unintended consequence and that the information was included in the Committee action form considered by the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee during their meeting of January 13, 2014. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Townshend stated that the value of the construction for Bayhealth had not been totaled but, in reviewing the data gathered by staff, she stated that the permits ranged from $6.7M, $2M, $1.6M, and $9M. In response, Mr. Slavin suggested that members consider not only the amount the City is losing in revenue but also how much the City is generating in development.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 40 Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, expressed his opinion that this matter was a policy issue and stated that his preference, as indicated in the Committee action form considered by the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee during their meeting of January 13, 2014, was that tax exempt property not be eligible for incentives that relate to the General Fund. He noted that there are some instances in which Bayhealth owns property that is revenue generating and still on the tax rolls. Mr. Koenig explained that although Bayhealth has invested a substantial amount of capital in the City, Bayhealth probably would have invested that capital regardless of whether the incentives were offered because the City provides services, including utilities, police and fire, which are all components of building a large industrial facility; in this case, a facility serving as a community hospital. He expressed his desire that tax exempt properties not receive an additional incentive package because of their tax exempt status, since the City does provide services. Mr. Koenig stated his belief that these organizations can plan their projects out and afford to include the components related to these incentives in their business plan. Mr. Koenig reiterated his request that, from a policy standpoint, tax exempt properties not qualify for incentives related to the General Fund. The Committee recommended that staff be requested to prepare an ordinance to reinstate the incentives for tax exempt properties. Mr. Lynn informed members that this was his last meeting as Chairman of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee, noting that he circulated his letter of resignation as Chairman of the Committee to the City Clerk and members of the Committee early in the evening. He thanked the members for their time and service, and stated that it was a pleasure working with all of the members. Mr. Lynn indicated that did not wish to be reappointed as Committee Chair going forward, given that his responsibilities in his campaign for the General Assembly were simply overwhelming, such that he could not continue on in the leadership role that he served in for the past two (2) years. He thanked former Council President Thomas Leary for appointing him to his position as Committee Chairman, noting that it had been fun and an honor to serve, and that he looked forward to working with members of the Committee in the future. Mr. Koenig advised members that the elimination of the incentives for tax exempt properties had affected Bayhealth and their most recent building permit application. He explained the potential impact of any type of changes that may be proposed in this regard in the future. Mr. Koenig stated that during the last five (5) years, approximately $90M of construction value had been added to tax exempt properties in the area. The full value of the building permits would have been approximately $817,000, which would have been added to the City’s General Fund during that time frame. Due to the exemption for those properties, he stated that the City collected $265,000, resulting in approximately $552,000 of incentives granted to two (2) properties during that time ($550,000 to Kent General and over $1,000 to the Cen-Del Foundation Building on Loockerman Street). Mr. Koenig stated that the policy change proposed by staff was directly related to the stress on the General Fund, explaining that the only revenue received from these types of properties is through

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 41 business licenses or building, plumbing, or other permit fees. He stated that, due to numerous discussions that had been held regarding the health of the General Fund, one (1) of the proposals submitted was to eliminate the exemption. Mr. Koenig assured members that the intent was not directed toward any specific property or owners, but rather to single out the tax exempt status of properties. If the exemption were reinstated, as requested, he stated that this would have the potential to affect additional properties, such as the State of Delaware, Wesley College, etc., and if these property owners were to take advantage of the incentives, there would be another significant drain on the General Fund. With regard to the Bayhealth project, Mr. Koenig stated that this was a complicated building from a building and fire code standpoint, requiring a significant amount of staff time for plan review, site visits, inspections, etc. By removing the revenue that would be generated, the City would be adding the additional staff time required as a burden on other entities applying for building permits. He felt it was a reasonable change to the Code when it was proposed. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mr. Koenig stated that, to his knowledge, Bayhealth does not provide a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) to the City. Mr. Slavin stated that during his previous tenure on City Council, there was a philosophy that the City’s fees should support all revenues in specific units, such as Planning and Inspections; however, he disagreed with that concept. He felt that this type of philosophy tends to make the City overly aggressive with fees and explained that the amount of construction and number of jobs that are added are the benefits realized by the City, not the fees collected. Mr. Perza suggested that there be additional study to determine how many additional jobs may result from the construction projects and if they would specifically benefit the City or the State of Delaware. He reminded members that, with the City’s current budget climate, the City must justify funding for covering payroll, revenues, etc., and members should know all facts before giving “handouts” to specific entities in the City. In response to Mr. Slavin, Mr. Koenig confirmed that those entities that currently pay property taxes would still qualify for the incentives. As a result, Mr. Slavin stated that the City already provides “handouts” to specific entities. Mr. Hutchison urged staff to meet with the leadership of Bayhealth to obtain a master plan view of their future and to share the City’s future from an operational point of view. He noted that Bayhealth had always been a great partner of the City and felt assured they would continue to do so in the future. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mr. Koenig felt that such incentives could be considered on a case-by-case basis; however, he stated that Bayhealth has purchased several permits that were not large value. The incentives that they had taken advantage of were for larger permits. As an alternative, he noted that those tax exempt properties that participate in a PILOT are basically categorized as tax paying properties and, as such, the City could negotiate a PILOT and the entity would then qualify for the incentives.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 42 Mr. Slavin moved to refer the matter back to the Legislative, Finance, and Administrative Committee for further study, seconded by Mr. Anderson. Mr. Hare suggested that this matter not be considered by the Committee until staff has the opportunity to meet with representatives of Bayhealth. Council President Bonar suggested, since the matter would not affect the current budget year, that this matter be considered by the Committee after July 1st and that the motion include this stipulation. There being no objections, Council President Bonar indicated that the motion should reflect that the matter would be brought back sometime after July. On a call for the question, the motion to refer the matter back to the Legislative, Finance, and Administrative Committee for further study sometime after July was carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Williams absent). Mr. Slavin moved for acceptance of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Lynn and unanimously carried. SET PUBLIC HEARING - ELECTRIC FUND BUDGET A public hearing on the Electric Revenue Fund Budget is required for compliance with the City of Dover Electric Revenue Bonds Resolution prior to adoption of the budget. Staff recommended that the public hearing be set for June 9, 2014 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Anderson moved to set a public hearing for June 9, 2014 at 7:30 p.m. for the City of Dover Electric Fund Budget, seconded by Mr. Dixon and unanimously carried. SENATE BILL NO. 226 AMENDING TITLE 26 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO PUBLIC UTILITIES Members were provided Senate Bill No. 226, Amending Title 26 of the Delaware Code, relating to Public Utilities. Council President Bonar stated that he requested that this matter be presented to members, explaining that there is an effort in Delaware to make utility bills more transparent. A part of the transparency process is to allow those who receive such bills to be made aware of what they are paying for, such as clean air initiatives, solar power, wind, etc. Council President Bonar noted that Senate Bill No. 226 includes these requirements for municipal governments. He felt that members of City Council should consider expressing their displeasure at being included in the legislation due to the costs of preparing utility bills and the difficulties the City would face in analyzing the true costs to include such detail on the utility bills. As Council President, he requested that members authorize him to send a letter to the State legislators requesting that Senate Bill No. 226 not be considered this year. Mr. Dixon moved to authorize the Council President to send a letter to the legislators requesting that Senate Bill No. 226 not be considered this year. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a roll call vote of six (6) yes (Anderson, Dixon, Slavin, Hare, Hutchison, and Bonar), one (1) no (Lynn), one (1) abstention (Perza), and one (1) absent (Williams).

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 43 Mr. Perza stated that since the matter did not go through the Committee, he was not aware of the specifics; therefore, he felt he was not prepared to vote for or against the request. 2014/2015 MISCELLANEOUS APPOINTMENTS - COUNCIL PRESIDENT (ANNUAL APPOINTMENTS DEFERRED DURING THE MEETING OF MAY 12, 2014) Council President Bonar requested approval of the following appointments: Chamber of Commerce and Greater Dover Committee Liaison Members William F. Hare Beverly C. Williams City/County Committee (Liaison to Kent County) Mayor (Vacant) David L. Bonar William F. Hare James L. Hutchison Beverly C. Williams Scott D. Koenig Kent County Tourism Wallace R. Dixon William G. Neaton (Staff Liaison) Central Delaware Economic Development Council (CDEDC) Liaison Member/Kent Economic Partnership William F. Hare By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the appointments, as recommended by Council President Bonar, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Williams absent). APPOINTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BONAR - CITY CHAPLAINS (ANNUAL APPOINTMENTS TO EXPIRE MAY 2015) Council President Bonar requested approval of the following appointments as City Chaplains: Reverend Theodore A. Henderson of Dover Christian Church Bishop Thomas L. Holsey of Bibleway Temple Church of God in Christ By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the appointments, as recommended by Council President Bonar, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Williams absent). FIRST READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2014-08 Council President Bonar reminded the public that copies of proposed ordinances were available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or could be obtained from the City Clerk's Office. Since the ordinances are amendments to the Zoning Code, a public hearing is required. Staff recommended

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 44 referral of the amendments to the Planning Commission on June 16, 2014, and that a public hearing take place during the Council Meeting of July 14, 2014 at 7:30 p.m., at which time the Final Reading and final action by Council will take place. Mr. Slavin moved to refer Proposed Ordinance #2014-08 to the Planning Commission and set a public hearing before City Council for July 14, 2014 at 7:30 p.m., as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutchison and unanimously carried. In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of the Zoning Ordinance Amendments as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows: PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2014-08 - AMENDING APPENDIX B - ZONING, ARTICLE 3 - DISTRICT REGULATIONS, SECTION 10 - INSTITUTIONAL AND OFFICE ZONE (IO); SECTION 11 - NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE (C-1); SECTION 12 - LIMITED COMMERCIAL ZONE (C-1A); SECTION 13 - CENTRAL COMMERCIAL ZONE (C-2); SECTION 14 - LIMITED CENTRAL COMMERCIAL ZONE (C-2A); SECTION 15 - SERVICE COMMERCIAL ZONE (C-3); SECTION 16 - HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONE (C-4); SECTION 26 - COMMERCIAL/PROFESSIONAL OFFICE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (C-PO); ARTICLE 4 - ZONING BULK AND PARKING REGULATIONS; ARTICLE 10 - PLANNING COMMISSION; AND ARTICLE 12 - DEFINITIONS FIRST READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCES #2014-09, #2014-10, AND #2014-14 Council President Bonar reminded the public that copies of proposed ordinances were available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or could be obtained from the City Clerk's Office. Final action by Council on the proposed ordinances will take place during the Council Meeting of June 9, 2014. In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of the Proposed Ordinances as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows: PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2014-09 - AMENDING CHAPTER 50 - FLOODS; CHAPTER 22 - BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE III - BUILDING CODE, SECTION 22- 61; AND APPENDIX F - FEES AND FINES PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2014-10 - FY 2014 BUDGET AMENDMENT PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2014-14 - AMENDING APPENDIX D - DOWNTOWN DOVER BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (DDBID), ARTICLE III - ESTABLISHMENT OF DDBID, SECTION 3 - GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES, AND SECTION 5 - MANAGEMENT COMPANY PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2014-05 WITH PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT #1 (PC#1) AND COUNCIL AMENDMENT #1 (C#1) - AMENDING APPENDIX B - ZONING, ARTICLE 3 - DISTRICT REGULATIONS, SECTION 2 - GENERAL RESIDENCE ZONES (RG-1 AND RG-2), SUBSECTION 2.4 - CONDITIONAL USES During their Annual Meeting of May 12, 2014, a public hearing and Final Reading of Proposed Ordinance #2014-05 were accomplished, after which, members of City Council tabled the matter.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 45 The Proposed Ordinance would amend Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 2 - General Residence Zones (RG-1 and RG-2), Subsection 2.4 - Conditional Uses. Mr. Anderson moved to remove the matter from the table, seconded by Mr. Slavin and unanimously carried. Mr. Anderson advised members that, after much discussion, he and Mr. Slavin had resolved their concerns and, at their request, staff prepared Council Amendment #1 for consideration. At the request of Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, stated that the amendments to the proposed ordinance resulted in a combination of PC#1 and C#1, explaining that C#1 proposed to eliminate the allowance of Professional Offices as a conditional use on State Street but to allow it on Governors Avenue between Water and Mary Streets and, as a result, this changed the nature of the Planning Commission’s recommendation (PC#1), which would have eliminated State Street and Governors Avenue in their entirety. However, she noted that the intent of C#1 was to maintain the PC#1 amendment that would limit the number of employees to four (4). Mrs. Townshend explained that C#1 would amend PC#1 by amending paragraph (d) to read, as follows: “Professional offices may be permitted on Governors Avenue between Water Street and Mary Street, and on Route 8, subject to the following restrictions:”. She noted that C#1 would maintain the PC#1 amending subparagraph viii, which changes the number of employees from six (6) to four (4), to read, as follows: “The hours of operation shall not commence prior to 6:00 a.m. and shall cease no later than 8:00 p.m., with no more than four (4) employees engaged in the operations upon the premises at any given time.” Concurring, Mr. Anderson reminded members that during their Annual Meeting of May 12, 2014, Council did not approve PC#1. He stated that there were concerns expressed by property owners along State Street who noted that this area is unique in its historical characteristics, which he felt should be respected; however, there were no concerns relayed by property owners along Governors Avenue and/or Route 8. He explained that there is a desire to “reclaim” those areas by restoring empty buildings, creating jobs, etc. He felt confident that the amendments proposed in C#1 respected property owners along State Street as well as those along Governors Avenue. Mr. Slavin noted that several members had received input from property owners along North State Street who expressed concerns regarding the proposed ordinance amendment and stated his feeling that C#1 would satisfy those concerns. He noted that the proposed amendment was not a “blanket” rezoning and consideration would be given for conditional use; therefore, each application would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Council President Bonar thanked Mr. Anderson and Mr. Slavin for developing a resolution to this matter. Mr. Anderson moved for adoption of the proposed ordinance, seconded by Mr. Slavin, and by a unanimous roll call vote (Williams absent), Council adopted Ordinance #2014-05 with PC#1 and C#1, as follows:

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 46 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 2 - General residence zones (RG-1 and RG-2), Subsection 2.4 - Conditional Uses, of the Dover Code be amended by re-designating existing subsection (d) as subsection (e), and inserting a new subsection (d) to read as follows: (d) Professional offices may be permitted on Governors Avenue between Water Street and Mary Street, and on Route 8, subject to the following restrictions: i. The office operations shall be conducted in such a manner as to maintain the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood, and no changes or improvements shall be made to the premises which might preclude utilization of the premises for residential purposes in the future. ii. There shall be no other professional office located in the same zoning district within 250 feet of the premises. iii. No display of products or goods shall be visible from the street. iv. There shall be no exterior effects such as noise, traffic, odor, dust, smoke, gas, fumes, radiation, or electromagnetic interference. v. A minimum of two (2) off-street parking spaces shall be required. vi. No more than four (4) off-street parking spaces shall be permitted. Furthermore, all off-street spaces shall be visually screened from adjacent residential uses, to the greatest extent possible, by employing a landscape screen no less than six and one half (6½) feet high, which landscape screen shall be properly maintained throughout the duration of the professional office use on the subject premises. vii. Signage shall be limited to one (1) sign, not to exceed six (6) square feet in area. No sign may be illuminated. viii. The hours of operation shall not commence prior to 6:00 a.m. and shall cease no later than 8:00 p.m., with no more than four (4) employees engaged in the operations upon the premises at any given time. ix. The Planning Commission shall have the authority to impose such additional conditions and restrictions as may be necessary or appropriate to protect the general health, safety, and welfare of the residents of surrounding properties. ADOPTED: MAY 27, 2014 COUNCIL MEMBERS’ ANNOUNCEMENTS Council President Bonar stated his hope that all enjoyed the Memorial Day Holiday. He stated that he, along with Mr. Anderson, Mr. Dixon, and Mr. Hutchison, were at the Plaza. He noted that the new Vietnam Memorial had been dedicated at the Kent County Complex on Bay Road and encouraged all to visit the site.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 47 By unanimous consent, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. TRACI A. McDOWELL CITY CLERK All orders, ordinances, and resolutions adopted by City Council during their Regular Meeting of May 27, 2014, are hereby approved. DAVID L. BONAR COUNCIL PRESIDENT/ VICE-MAYOR ACTING /TM/jg/js S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Council-Minutes\2014\05-27-2014.wpd Exhibits: Exhibit #1 - Presentation - Violation of Dangerous Building Ordinance - 45 South New Street Exhibit #2 - Structural Engineering Report, Dated May 15, 2014 Exhibit #3 - Presentation - Violation of Dangerous Building Ordinance - 110 South New Street Exhibit #4 - Governing Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management Exhibit #5 - Revenue Policy - Police Extra Duty/Voluntary Overtime

EXHIBIT #1 Regular Council Meeting of 5/27/2014 Violation of Dangerous Building Ordinance 45 S New Street Planning & Inspections Department EXHIBIT #1 Dover, Delaware Regular Council Meeting of 5/27/2014 May 27, 2014

45 S New Street Case History  20 code enforcement cases since 2000 – Exterior/interior code violations – Numerous repeated fire code violations – Violation of the zoning ordinance  Registered as vacant by the city on September 8, 2010  Condemned by City Staff on March 7, 1999 due to fire damage.  Utility service established by House of Pride in 2004 with minimal electric usage and no water usage during this time.

Dangerous Building Code – Chapter 22 Article XI, Sec. 22-381 (4) Fire damage, etc. (5) Unfit for habitation. (9) General welfare. (10) Code violations. (12) Unoccupied buildings.

Recommended Council Action  Declare this building and all accessory structures on this property dangerous.  Order the property repaired or demolished by June 26, 2014 by the owner or equity owner at their own risk.  Order the Building Inspector to cause the repair or demolition of the property if not completed by the owner within 10 days of the date established by City Council.  Order the City Manager with the assistance of the City Solicitor to cause the cost of repairs or demolition to be charged against the land on which the property exists as a municipal lien or cause such cost to be added to the tax duplicate as an assessment, or to be levied as a special tax, or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owner.

EXHIBIT #2 Regular Council Meeting of 5/27/2014

EXHIBIT #3 Regular Council Meeting of 5/27/2014 Violation of Dangerous Building Ordinance 110 S New Street Planning & Inspections Department EXHIBIT #3 Dover, Delaware Regular Council Meeting of 5/27/2014 May 27, 2014

110 S New St Case History  36 code enforcement cases since 2002. – Exterior/Interior code violations – Fire Code Violations – Numerous repeated violations on annual inspections for both fire and housing inspections  Condemned by City Staff on July 18, 2012 due to the numerous repeated violations of City Codes and by not having a viable fire safety plan in place for the occupants of the structure.  Registered as vacant by the city on November 14, 2012.  Source of neighbor complaints.

Dangerous Building Code – Chapter 22 Article XI, Sec. 22-381 (5) Unfit for habitation. (9) General welfare. (10) Code violations. (12) Unoccupied buildings.

Recommended Council Action  Declare this building and all accessory structures on the property dangerous.  Order the property repaired or demolished by June 26, 2014 by the owner or equity owner at their own risk.  Order the Building Inspector to cause the repair or demolition of the property if not completed by the owner within 10 days of the date established by City Council.  Order the City Manager with the assistance of the City Solicitor to cause the cost of repairs or demolition to be charged against the land on which the property exists as a municipal lien or cause such cost to be added to the tax duplicate as an assessment, or to be levied as a special tax, or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owner.

EXHIBIT #4 Regular Council Meeting of 05/27/2014 City of Dover, Delaware Governing Policy For Energy Commodity Risk Management Amended by City Council: May 27, 2014 Effective: September 10, 2012 Approved by: City of Dover Council Date: September 10, 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE OF THE RISK MANAGEMENT POLICY ..................................................................3 A. Introduction.....................................................................................................................3 B. Scope of Policy ................................................................................................................3 C. Objectives and Risk Philosophy ...................................................................................4 D. Policy Administration ....................................................................................................4 MANAGEMENT AND CONTROLS .............................................................................................5 A. Utility Committee of The City Council .......................................................................5 B. Executive Risk Management Committee ....................................................................5 1. City Manager .............................................................................................................................. 7 2. Director of the Utility................................................................................................................. 7 3. Controller .................................................................................................................................... 7 4. TEA Member Services Manager............................................................................................... 8 DISCUSSION OF RISKS ...............................................................................................................8 MARKETING AND TRADING PRACTICES ..............................................................................9 A. Standards of Conduct ....................................................................................................9 B. Products, Activities and Limitations ...........................................................................9 C. Contract Documentation and Confirmations...........................................................10 D. Training..........................................................................................................................11 E. New Product Protocol .................................................................................................11 RISK LIMITS AND RISK MEASUREMENTS...........................................................................11 A. Limits..............................................................................................................................11 1. Volume/Maturity/Value Limits ........................................................................................... 11 2. Volume Limits .......................................................................................................................... 12 3. Locational Limits ...................................................................................................................... 12 B. Stress Testing and Back Testing .................................................................................12 C. Instances of Exceeding Risk Limits............................................................................12 CREDIT POLICY ..........................................................................................................................12 A. Measuring Credit Risk .................................................................................................13 B. Analysis and Extension of Credit Limits ..................................................................13 C. Instances of Exceeding Credit Limits ........................................................................14 REPORTING .................................................................................................................................14 A. Risk Reporting ..............................................................................................................14 B. Credit Reporting ...........................................................................................................15 C. Hedge Effectiveness Reporting ..................................................................................16 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS ............................................................................16 POLICY DISTRIBUTION AND COUNSEL ...............................................................................16 A. Distribution Outside The City ....................................................................................16 B. Designated Counsel .....................................................................................................16 APPENDIX A – Approved Products .............................................................................................17 APPENDIX B – Approved Counterparties and Threshold Tables ................................................18 APPENDIX C – Business Risks ....................................................................................................22 APPENDIX D – Glossary ..............................................................................................................23 APPENDIX D – Swap Transaction Representative ......................................................................25 2

PURPOSE OF THE RISK MANAGEMENT POLICY A. Introduction The City of Dover (“City”) and its customers are routinely exposed to energy price risk, volume variability risk, basis risk and credit risk – herein referred to collectively as energy commodity risk - in the normal conduct of serving its electric load requirements. Volatility of energy commodity prices and volumetric uncertainty (either supply/generation or load obligations) impose a substantial and direct risk to the City’s financial and operating performance. By authority of its charter, the City has responsibility for overseeing the City’s electricity operations, including the management of its cost of serving Dover’s customers. By agreement dated May 6, 2011 and approved by the City (the “EMA”), the City has engaged The Energy Authority, Inc. (“TEA”) to assist the City with Asset Management and Strategic Planning Services, Risk Management Services, and Energy Management Services. This Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management (“Policy”) is established the explicit understanding that the City has retained and delegated responsibilities to TEA to provide Risk Management Services. Additionally, the City has issued this Policy for dealing with the philosophy, framework and delegation of responsibilities necessary to govern activities related to Dover’s energy commodity risk management. As set forth herein, the City has established an organizational structure, delegated responsibility and established internal controls and procedures to ensure that all transactional and oversight activities are conducted in compliance with this Policy and in accordance with the City’s normal reporting, legal, financing and regulatory requirements relating to energy assets and transactions. B. Scope of Policy This Policy covers all transactions entered into the by the City of Dover designed to meet the City’s electric load requirement and the management of risk related to these transactions. In the event of conflict between this Policy and the EMA, the Policy shall control. This Policy is separate and distinct from enterprise risk management policies and procedures addressing the City’s safe operation of its generating stations and energy infrastructure, insurance requirements, permit compliance, employee matters regulatory compliance with laws and regulations of the State of Delaware and Federal 3

Agencies such as EPA, FERC, NERC and CFTC or other potential risks to the City beyond the purchase and sale of fuel and electric power and its ancillary products. C. Objectives and Risk Philosophy The objectives of the Policy are to identify energy commodity price and credit risk exposures and give the City a framework for the quantification and management of these exposures. The Policy will identify the reports needed to convey how the identified risk exposures can potentially impact the City’s overall cost of providing electricity service to its customers and report on the risk management of the transactions associated with City’s electric load requirements. Under the Policy, risk management activities will be conducted consistent with the City’s overall objective of appropriate risk mitigation. There are several objectives of the Policy which, when taken and executed together, serve to manage the City’s energy commodity price exposures. Specifically, the Policy:  Establishes framework for developing credit limits for counterparties and quantifies and manages the credit exposures related to potential counterparty abrogation  Quantifies the impact of the above exposures on City’s financial results  Manages the impact of the above exposures in line with the City’s identified level of risk tolerance  Provides clear delineation of responsibilities and authority, outline a separation of duties, and ensure reporting of risk is timely and accurate.  Ensures that the impact of any action affecting the City’s position is consistently quantified, monitored and authorized. The City’s risk management activities will be conducted consistent with its overall objective of appropriate risk mitigation and never for purposes of speculation. D. Policy Administration This Policy has been approved by the Executive Risk Management Committee and The Utility Committee of the Dover City Council. The Utility Committee must approve modifications to the Policy with the exception of the appendix information which can be modified with the approval of the Executive Risk Management Committee. 4

MANAGEMENT AND CONTROLS This Policy articulates the management and organization of the City and TEA to serve as a control framework outlining delegation of duties and responsibilities. A. Utility Committee of The City Council The Utility Committee of The City Council (The Committee) has a responsibility to provide approval of this Policy. With this approval, The Committee also assumes additional duties. They will understand the risks the City is and could be exposed to due to their energy commodity risk management activities. In this role, the Committee will have a responsibility to also understand the City’s policies and procedures, internal controls and systems which are used to help manage the City’s energy commodity risks. The Committee will approve any amendments to the Policy or limits within. The Executive Risk Management Committee will update the Committee periodically regarding the Policy and its functions. It will be the Committee’s responsibility to:  Discuss guidelines and strategic policies that govern the process by which the Energy Risk Management Committee assesses and manages risks  Review and approve the risk policy at least annually  Approve new members of the Executive Risk Management Committee  Acknowledge the risk inherent in transactions covered under this Policy B. Executive Risk Management Committee An Executive Risk Management Committee (“ERMC”) has been formed to provide executive management oversight for the City’s energy commodity risk management activities. The ERMC is charged with the creation, amendment and administration of this Policy, including acquiring any approvals required by the Utility Committee, and will ensure that all energy commodity risk management activities of the City are performed consistent with this Policy. The ERMC will meet at least monthly to review compliance and conduct its business as described in this Policy. The ERMC shall be comprised of the following voting members: The City Manager, The Director of Utility, The City’s Controller and TEA’s Client Service Manager. The City’s ERMC will make decisions following the process outlined in this Policy. TEA’s Client Services Manager may include representatives from other areas within TEA in the monthly ERMC meetings who will attend in person or by conference call as non-voting advisors. Other City employees and TEA staff may also be asked to attend 5

meetings from time-to-time, as the ERMC deems necessary. The responsibilities of the ERMC shall include:  Establish scope and frequency for management reporting to the Utility Committee.  No less than annually, review the City’s Energy Commodity Policies and Procedures for correctness and completeness.  Review and approve any new risk report or change to an existing risk report provided by TEA to monitor risks outlined in this Policy.  Understand and approve any models, methodologies, and assumptions used for measuring risks such as volume risk, process risk, counterparty risk and commodity risk.  Monitor the City’s risks and ensure they are within the limits and are being managed according to what is indicated within the City’s Policy and associated procedures  Understand the City’s risk management objectives and risk tolerances.  Review and approve the risk management and trading strategy programs and associated risk. Each program should be reviewed to ensure alignment with Policy objectives and compliance with risk limits within this Policy.  Periodically review any risk management program approved in light of recent market changes, and ensure continued compliance with its established guidelines  Review and approve new products, markets, trading counterparties and credit limits  Review all violations and exceptions to this Policy and report such to the Committee.  Approve the individuals or companies that engage in the City’s commodity transactions and are subject to the limits within this Policy.  Ensure that the individuals or companies authorized to transact on behalf of the City as well as manage its risks, are appropriately trained and qualified.  Ensure independence and segregation of duties between front, middle and back office at TEA. Recommend changes to this Policy to the City’s Utility Committee for approval and ensure the Utility Committee understands the City’s overall compliance with this Policy and associated procedures The ERMC will meet at least monthly to review risks identified and reported on by the Policy, this meeting shall be chaired by The City Manager. Minutes of each meeting of the ERMC shall be recorded and reflect any decisions and follow-up action items to be performed. These minutes will be reviewed and approved by the members of the ERMC in a timely manner. Each member of the ERMC has a unique role as defined below: 6

1. City Manager The City Manager is independent of all commercial functions and carries the responsibility of establishment and maintenance of risk management for the City. The City Manager will be a voting member of the ERMC and act as a chair of the ERMC. Other responsibilities include:  Ensure this Policy is maintained.  Oversee reviews of the City’s energy commodity risks, limits, risk measurement methodologies and models, and programs and recommend changes to the ERMC.  Ensure potential transactions and their impacts on the City’s risks and limits defined within this Policy.  Develop and monitor the implementation of the Policy, and oversee other risk management processes and procedures established by this Policy or otherwise by the ERMC. 2. Director of the Utility The Director of the Utility is responsible for all trading, hedging, pricing, structuring, and market and operational risk management activities associated with the City. The Director of the Utility will be a voting member of the ERMC. Other responsibilities include:  Review the effectiveness of transaction processing systems and procedures relating to risk measurement.  Recommend operational risk and business risk assessment guidelines. 3. Controller The Controller is independent of all commercial functions and carries the responsibility of the City’s accounting practices. The Controller will be a voting member on the ERMC. Other responsibilities include:  Perform financial accounting including accounting for hedging and derivatives activities.  Comply with tax rules and make appropriate tax elections.  Record realized and unrealized gains and losses.  Reconcile general ledger, cash transactions and margin accounts.  Implement tax-hedge accounting policies and other regulatory tax requirements.  Develop and maintain documentation outlining standard procedures for conducting business.  Invoice counterparties and resolve billing disputes.  Perform daily/weekly/monthly transaction checkout with counterparties. 7

 Develop and maintain documentation outlining standard procedures for conducting business. 4. TEA Client Services Manager The TEA Client Service Manager roles and responsibilities are defined exhibit B of the EMA between the City and TEA. The TEA Client Service Manager will be a voting member on the ERMC. Other responsibilities include:  Monitor risk reports between ERMC meetings.  Report to the Committee and the ERMC on the City’s adherence to all limits and functions within this policy.  Engage the ERMC in discussions regarding events or developments that could expose the company to potential losses.  Recommend to the ERMC specific risk limits consistent with the City’s risk management objectives, risk tolerance, and risk management policy.  Coordinate and distribute independent market fundamental analysis.  Provide advisory support and recommendations as specified in Article 5 of the EMA. DISCUSSION OF RISKS This Policy covers the management of all material energy market risks faced by the City. A comprehensive list of risks that are or could be relevant to City is shown in Appendix C of the Policy. Among the most critical of these risks are commodity risk, counterparty risk, process risk, volume risk, and budget risk. These risks are measured by the limit structure and controls outlined in the Policy. Commodity risk represents the potential adverse impacts to the value of the City’s portfolio due to changes in the market. Commodity risk encompasses volatility risk, forward price risk, basis risk, correlation risk and liquidity risk. Counterparty risk represents the potential losses the City could incur due to delivery risk and receivable risk. Delivery risk stems from a supplier or trading counterparty that is unable or unwilling to perform on its commitments including but not limited to delivery or receipt of commodities. Receivable Risk includes the City’s risk associated with a counterparty’s timeliness of payment for services rendered. Process risks represents the risks associated with process problems including, but not limited to, inaccurate data capture, untimely trade execution or settlement problems. Controls over process risks are embedded in the organizational structure of TEA through the design processes and operating procedures. 8

Volume Risk represents the potential for unforeseen changes from projections of excess or shortfall of capacity or energy from the actual needs. When variances are large coupled with large costs to transact and adverse moves in market prices this risk could be realized. In management of this risk, the City must be aware of the fact that unexpected variations in volume are often highly correlated with price movements. Budget Risk represents the potential to deviate outside of tolerable bounds of the City’s budget. Deviations from budget can be caused by forecast error or unforeseeable adverse changes in market prices. MARKETING AND TRADING PRACTICES A. Standards of Conduct Individuals authorized to transact for the City shall not misrepresent, conceal or withhold information regarding energy commodity trading and risk management transactions to any person responsible for the accurate recording and/or reporting of such transactions; participate in any such transaction or similar activity for the benefit of any party other than the City; or hold or be a beneficiary of any financial interest in any entity with which the employee is engaged in trading or other business activity (other than ownership of an interest in a mutual fund managed by another party). Further, no employee authorized to place or execute such transactions may engage in trading power or energy commodities derivative instruments for his or her personal account. B. Products, Activities and Limitations Pursuant to achieving the City’s core objectives for the purpose of energy commodity risk management, the following limitations shall apply.  Permissible instruments will be restricted to the products and instruments specified in Appendix A – Approved Products of the Policy; o All physical forward transactions shall be governed by the Edison Electrical Institutive (EEI), North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB), or similar agreements with counterparties approved by the City. o The City reserves the right to enter into financial hedge transactions to effectuate Policy objectives, but does not authorize TEA to enter into financial hedge transactions on its behalf. Any such financial transactions that the City may enter into shall be governed by ISDA agreements with counterparties as approved by the City.  The maturity for each permissible instrument will be restricted to the maturity limits specified in the risk limits section of the Policy. 9

 Transaction volumes for each risk management transaction will be restricted to the amounts specified in the Risk Limits section of the Policy.  Risk management transactions will be outlined in the City of Dover Hedge Program which will be approved by the ERMC. Risk management transactions may include the following: o Hedging the forward price of purchased power for delivery to the City as needed to meet its electric load requirements. o Hedging the forward price of natural gas and fuels as needed to generate power to meet the City’s electric load requirements. o Unwinding of hedges to accommodate changes in expected load requirements, or for economic reasons subject to explicit constraints set by the ERMC. C. Contract Documentation and Confirmations No over-the-counter transaction may be executed until an EEI, NAESB, or similar agreement has been authorized by the City, approved by the ERMC and fully executed by the parties. Written confirmations will be required from counterparties, as defined in the Master Service Agreement between the City and counterparty, within one business day or such longer time as required by the contract in question for all risk management transactions. Contemporaneous with any commitments and prior to receipt of written confirmations, verbal commitments shall be memorialized internally as to instrument structure, quantity, relevant time horizon, price and any other relevant terms; such internal documentation shall be time stamped and correlated to the ultimate written confirmation to or from the counterparty. Both the internal documentation as well as the written confirmation from the counterparty shall be provided to TEA’s Risk Control Group immediately upon receipt for verification. In the event that there is a material failure to provide timely documentation or confirmations, then at the City Manager’s sole discretion, the offending individual’s authorization may be suspended. Similarly, if the failure to provide timely documentation or confirmations is due to the failure of counterparty, then at the discretion of the City Manager, a moratorium may be imposed on transactions with that counterparty. In such cases, the City Manager shall notify the ERMC of the issues leading to the suspension or moratorium shall. Nothing herein shall inhibit the City Manager from bringing control issues to the TEA’s Client Services Manager prior to a decision on materiality or the imposition of a suspension of trading privileges or counterparty moratorium. 10

D. Training The ERMC will ensure that all City employees and/or TEA Staff that will execute transactions on behalf of the City will have appropriate training in the markets in which the transactions occur. E. New Product Protocol As required to manage the City’s energy commodity risk the ERMC shall approve new products provided the requirements of the New Product Approval Procedure are met. RISK LIMITS AND RISK MEASUREMENTS A. Limits The limit structure is designed to quantify the types of risk in City’s energy commodity portfolio. The City will manage and report on its energy commodity market risk using Volume/Maturity/Value Limits, a Cost of Service Limit and a Hedge Loss Limit. 1. Volume/Maturity/Value Limits Transaction limits for the Individuals Authorized to execute transactions and the maturity limits for each permissible instrument are listed below. Transactions for amounts in excess of those listed may be executed only upon approval of the ERMC. This limit, maturity and value structure is not intended for use when transacting day- ahead and real time in the PJM market. Maximum Daily Notional Limits Volume/Maturity/Value Limits Volume Value ($000) Balance of the Month through 12 Months 50 20,000 Power Between 13 Months and 24 Months 50 20,000 (MW) Between 25 Months and 36 Months 25 10,000 Hourly Limit Between 37 Months and 48 Months 25 10,000 Between 49 Months and 60 Months 25 10,000 Balance of the Month through 12 Months 30,000 400 Natural Gas Between 13 Months and 24 Months 30,000 400 (MMBtu) Between 25 Months and 36 Months 10,000 200 Monthly Limit Between 37 Months and 48 Months 10,000 200 Between 49 Months and 60 Months 10,000 200 Balance of the Month through 12 Months 6,000 400 #2/#6 Fuel Oil Between 13 Months and 24 Months 6,000 400 (Bbl) Between 25 Months and 36 Months 3,000 200 Monthly Limit Between 37 Months and 48 Months 3,000 200 Between 49 Months and 60 Months 3,000 200 11

The amounts in the table above refer to the maximum volume of orders that can be placed in any one day the individuals authorized to conduct trades for the specified time period. On any one day the maximum transaction volume placed can be for up to 50 MegaWatts per hour for every hour during a single calendar month (including both on-peak and off-peak hours), OR 25,000 MMBtu per month for all months pertinent to the natural gas transaction, OR 6,000 Bbl per month for all months pertinent to the oil transaction. 2. Volume Limits For no reason should a transaction be executed that exceeds the City’s electric load requirements. If there is an adjustment to the City’s electric load requirements and the existing transactions greater than 100% of the adjusted electric load requirements the ERMC will review and approve the offsetting strategy deployed in sufficient proportion to mitigate the encroachment. 3. Locational Limits Non-Commodity Transactions must support the requirement of one of the City’s generation units, native load or transaction locations. B. Stress Testing and Back Testing The City’s positions shall be periodically stress tested and models shall be back tested. The processes around these tests are outlined in the Stress Testing and Back Testing Procedure. C. Instances of Exceeding Risk Limits Should the City or TEA enter into a transaction that causes the portfolio to exceed any above mentioned limits the Director of the Utility shall, in addition to notifying the ERMC, also notify the Chair of The Committee as soon as practicable and shall provide periodic reports to the Chair on the status the transactions for as long as the City is exceeding its limits. The ERMC will review and determine whether any liquidation or offsetting of transactions is warranted. The incident will be documented as a Policy Exception by the Director of the Utility. CREDIT POLICY Credit Risk is the risk due to the uncertainty in a counterparty’s ability to meet its contractual obligations. The primary objective of this credit policy is to mitigate, to the extent commercially reasonable, the credit risks associated with transactions covered in this Policy while still allowing the City to achieve its objectives. 12

A. Measuring Credit Risk The status of credit risk will be measured and reported through reports provided by TEA. The current credit exposure will be reported at the agreement level via a Counterparty Credit Report provided by TEA. This information will be made available in real time to TEA trading personnel so that it can be checked prior to executing transactions for the City. Those responsible for risk oversight at the City and TEA will have access to this information no less frequently than once per day. The ERMC will monitor overall credit utilization and any credit exceptions at least monthly. When measuring the current credit risk, netting will be applied to the exposure if the City’s contract with a counterparty includes provisions for netting. B. Analysis and Extension of Credit Limits Physical and financial commodity transactions will be executed with counterparties approved by the ERMC with credit available to support the transactions. The creditworthiness of a counterparty will be determined by both qualitative and quantitative factors. Factors shall include, but not limited to:  A company’s debt credit ratings provided by the rating agencies.  Financial data such as an analysis of the income statement, balance sheet, and cash flow, as well as liquidity and capital structure.  Subjective factors such as company’s fuel diversity, overall size, risk management policy and internal controls, geographic diversity, and market intelligence. A credit limit is the amount of unsecured credit granted to a counterparty. Unsecured credit exposure includes amounts owed by the counterparty, whether billed or not, and the mark-to-market differences in value of any collateral which the counterparty has provided the City. Any net exposure above the collateral threshold will require the posting of collateral by a counterparty. Further information on the City’s procedure for establishing credit is contained in the Counterparty & Credit Review Process. Collateral thresholds, term limitations and credit exposure limits will be subject to the maximums indicated in Appendix B, based upon the lower of the S&P and Moody’s credit ratings. At no time will the City incur a credit exposure with any counterparty greater than $60,000,000. 13

C. Instances of Exceeding Credit Limits The City and TEA are restricted by the credit limits approved by the ERMC. The ERMC can suspend trading with a counterparty, if that counterparty’s credit limit has been reached or exceeded. The City or TEA traders shall not exceed the Counterparty Credit Limit by executing transactions with any counterparty without approval of the ERMC. The ERMC will determine when it’s appropriate to require additional collateral if a counterparty’s credit exposure exceeds its credit limit. Collateral includes standing letter of credit, cash, and prepayments. All credit exceptions will be documented and reported to the ERMC and the Committee as Policy Exceptions. REPORTING A. Risk Reporting Preparation of timely reports is critical to monitoring risk. TEA will furnish the required reports on a regular frequency for the City in a format acceptable to the ERMC. In addition, the ERMC and its designees will be provided access to the City’s risk reports as updated daily via TEA’s secure Web Portal. Reports required on a monthly basis and for periodic meetings of the ERMC include the following:  Profit and Loss Report The Profit and Loss (P&L) Report shows the daily realization of transactions at either the transaction price or the market price as transaction roll from unrealized to realized. This report should show volumes, transaction prices and market prices of realized physical and financial power and fuel transactions.  Mark to Market Report The Mark to Market (“MTM”) Report conveys the potential transaction exposure if the energy commodity portfolio was liquidated at the most recent market settlement prices. This report should show volumes, transaction prices and market prices of unrealized physical and financial power and fuel transactions. 14

 Activity Report The Activity Report presents a summary of all energy commodity risk management activities undertaken, including new transactions taken, existing transactions settled/liquidated, and any transactions unwound.  Cost of Service Report The City’s exposure to energy price risk shall be monitored and reported on a Cost-of- Service basis. All calculations are at the wholesale level. The Cost-of-Service recognizes all prior (expired) months within the Power Year on the basis of actual (incurred) costs, and recognizes all forward (pending) months within the Power Year on the basis of expected forward power and fuel prices and expected forward load-following risks. As defined below, the Cost-of-Service is an aggregation of Forward Energy Commodity Portfolio Cost, the Load Following Cost Expectation and the City’s Budget Target for Purchase Power Expense. o The Net Purchased Power Cost shows the net cost of all physical and financial transactions related to the City’s anticipated commodity requirements for power and fuel and is based on the price of all hedge transactions plus the forward market price of all unhedged transactions valued at current forward prices for energy commodities, customer-level cost per MWH of all physical and financial transactions related to Dover’s actual plus anticipated energy. o The expected fixed costs defined as load-serving entity (LSE) capacity costs, transmission costs and TEA management fees. o The Expected Load-Following Cost for a specified power year is defined as the expected cost (or revenue) associated with intra-month load variations due to weather or other events affecting demand. As an interim measure due to lack of necessary market information and the rapid evolution of the PJM RTO market, the ERMC has specified $2.50 per MWH as an estimate of the Load Following Cost to be used for estimating the City’s Forward Cost-of-Service Report. The ERMC will update the Expected Load Following estimate while lack of necessary market information persists no less than annually. o The Budget Target for Purchase Power Expense represents the City’s view of expected purchase power expense. B. Credit Reporting  Counterparty Credit Report The Counterparty Credit Report conveys the exposure to all counterparties with which the City has credit exposure resulting from its energy commodity risk management activities.  CFTC Reporting The City understands that transacting over the counter (OTC) swaps carries an additional Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) reporting function. Once 15

required by the CFTC, the City will report on how the City generally meets its financial obligations associated with entering into non-cleared swaps in a manner acceptable to the CFTC. C. Hedge Effectiveness Reporting If the City’s transactions require a hedge effectiveness test, those testing results will be reported to the ERMC no later than one month after the end of the financial reporting period. The report will include a summary of testing methodology, assumptions of the testing and the outcome of results with a pass or fail by transaction. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS Since information systems play a vital role in The City’s trading abilities, the City shall ensure that the information systems and technology used to store all transaction information is maintained and secure. The City’s transactions will be stored in TEA’s enterprise trading and risk management system. TEA uses the TriplePoint Commodity XL (CXL) system, integrated with Commodity XL for Credit Risk (Credit Risk). TEA has assigned a Database Administrator (DBA) that is charged with the database security and maintenance for the transaction database, CXL. The following safeguards for data security and backup will be installed:  Transaction data stored in the system of record will be replicated daily to ensure data redundancy;  The CXL database will be backed up at least daily after the close of business. POLICY DISTRIBUTION AND COUNSEL A. Distribution Outside The City The City’s Policy is restricted to the use of the City and TEA organizations. It shall not be distributed outside these organizations without the consent the ERMC. B. Designated Counsel Questions about the interpretation of any matters of this Policy should be referred to ERMC. The ERMC will provide clarification and explanation on any updates to this Policy. All legal matters stemming from this Policy will be referred to the City’s Legal Counsel. 16

APPENDIX A – Approved Products The following shall constitute a list of approved products to be utilized by TEA to manage the City’s energy commodity portfolio:  Physical Power  Physical Natural Gas Delivered Dover via Eastern Shore Pipeline  Physical Residual Fuel Oil (#6) Delivered Dover  Physical Residual Fuel Oil (#2) Delivered Dover  Capacity  Financial Power  Financial Call Option  Financial Put Option  PJM Demand Bids and Generation Offers  PJM InSchedules  PJM Transmission Products o Financial Transmission Rights o Annual Auction Revenue Rights  PJM Tier 2 Synchronized Reserves The above instruments can be executed by TEA on behalf of the City of Dover for the current and next two successive Power Years (July to June). 17

APPENDIX B – Approved Counterparties and Threshold Tables This Appendix establishes approved counterparties and their Collateral thresholds. Collateral thresholds, term limitations and credit exposure limits that are subject to the following maximums based upon the lower of the S&P and Moody’s credit ratings: Credit Thresholds from Dover Extended to the Counterparty Constellation Energy Threshold S&P Moody's $ 60,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 50,000,000 AA‐ to AA+ Aa3 to Aa1 $ 50,000,000 A‐ to A+ A3 to A1 $ 40,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 30,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ 20,000,000 BBB‐ Baa3 $ ‐ Below BBB‐ Below Baa3 Integrys Threshold S&P Moody's $ 20,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA‐ to AA+ Aa3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A‐ to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ 1,000,000 BBB‐ Baa3 $ ‐ Below BBB‐ Below Baa3 Sempra Energy Threshold S&P Moody's $ 20,000,000 A or above A2 or above $ 20,000,000 A‐ to A+ A3 $ 15,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 10,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ ‐ BBB‐ or lower Baa3 or lower Conectiv Threshold S&P Moody's Unspecified * Above BBB+ Above Baa3 $ ‐ Below BBB‐ Below Baa3 * Conectiv does not have a defined credit threshold, so for planning purposes, a $10,000,000 threshold is imposed as a conservative limit 18

Macquarie Cook Power Threshold S&P Moody's $ 25,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA‐ to AA+ Aa3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A‐ to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ ‐ BBB‐ or below Baa3 or below FPL Energy Threshold S&P Moody's $ 30,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 25,000,000 AA‐ to AA+ Aa3 to Aa1 $ 20,000,000 A‐ to A+ A3 to A1 $ 15,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 10,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ ‐ BBB‐ or below Baa3 or below Deutsche Bank Threshold S&P Moody's $ 25,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA‐ to AA+ Aa3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A‐ to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ ‐ BBB‐ or below Baa3 or below Barclays Bank Threshold S&P Moody's $ 25,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA‐ to AA+ Aa3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A‐ to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ ‐ BBB‐ or below Baa3 or below 19

Credit Thresholds from the Counterparty Extended to Dover Constellation Energy Threshold Fitch Moody's $ 40,000,000 AA‐ or Above Aa3 or above $ 30,000,000 A+ A1 $ 20,000,000 A A2 $ 10,000,000 A‐ A3 $ ‐ BBB or below Baa1 or below Integrys Threshold Fitch Moody's $ 20,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA‐ to AA+ Aa3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A‐ to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ 1,000,000 BBB‐ Baa3 $ ‐ Below BBB‐ Below Baa3 Sempra Energy Threshold Fitch Moody's $ 27,000,000 A‐ or above A3 or above $ 5,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 1,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ ‐ BBB‐ or lower Baa3 or lower Conectiv Threshold Fitch Moody's Unspecified * Above BBB+ Above Baa3 $ ‐ Below BBB‐ Below Baa3 *Conectiv does not have a defined credit threshold, so for planning purposes, a $10,000,000 threshold is imposed as a conservative limit 20

Macquarie Cook Power Threshold Fitch Moody's $ 25,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA‐ to AA+ AA3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A‐ to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ ‐ BBB‐ or below Baa3 or below FPL Energy Threshold Fitch Moody's $ 23,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 18,000,000 AA‐ to AA+ AA3 to Aa1 $ 13,000,000 A‐ to A+ A3 to A1 $ 8,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 3,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ ‐ BBB‐ or below Baa3 or below Deutsche Bank Threshold Fitch Moody's $ 25,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA‐ to AA+ AA3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A‐ to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ ‐ BBB‐ or below Baa3 or below Barclays Bank Threshold Fitch Moody's $ 25,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA‐ to AA+ AA3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A‐ to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ ‐ BBB‐ or below Baa3 or below 21

APPENDIX C – Business Risks Business Risks Topology Commodity Counterpart Process Risk Volume Risk Budget Risk Risk y Risk Receivables Market Load Market Price Risk Risk Deadline Risk Uncertainty Uncertainty Performance Reporting Load Volume Risk Supply Risk Risk Risk Uncertainty M2M/Forward Generation Forecast Error Curve Risk Uncertainty Liquidity Risk Basis Risk 22

APPENDIX D – Glossary Back Office – That part of a trading organization which handles transaction accounting, confirmations, management reporting, and working capital management. Bilateral Transaction - Any physical or financial transaction between two counterparties, neither of whom is an Exchange or market entity (e.g. MISO). Capacity – The real power output rating of a generator or system, typically in megawatts, measured on an instantaneous basis. Commodity - A basic good used in commerce that is interchangeable with other commodities of the same type. Commodities are most often used as inputs in the production of other goods or services. The quality of a given commodity may differ slightly, but it is essentially uniform across producers. When they are traded on an exchange, commodities must also meet specified minimum standards, also known as a basis grade. Financial Bilateral Transaction – A Bilateral Transaction that is non-physical and is defined by a Source Point, Sink Point, and Delivery Point that may be any CP Nodes as specified by the Midwest ISO. Financial Forward – An agreement regarding a position in a specified commodity, a specified price, and a specified future settlement date, that does not result in physical delivery of the commodity. Rather one party in the agreement makes a payment to the other party on the basis of the commodity price at the future date. Front Office – That part of a trading organization which solicits customer business, services existing customers, executes trades and ensures the physical delivery of commodities. Hedging Transaction - A transaction designed to reduce the exposure of a specific outstanding position or portfolio; “fully hedged” equates to complete elimination of the targeted risk and “partially hedged” implies a risk reduction of less than 100%. Mark-to-Market Value – A measure of the current value of unrealized positions; includes both Open Positions and Closed Positions. Middle Office – That part of a trading organization that measures and reports on market risks, develops risk management policies and monitors compliance with those 23

policies, manages contract administration and credit, and keeps management and the Board informed on risk management issues. Policy – Dover’s Governing Policy for Energy Commodity Risk, as amended and approved by The Utility Committee. Portfolio – A collection of transactions. Realized Gains/(Losses) – The amount earned (or lost) from a transaction , considered to be realized once the time for performance has lapsed (e.g. delivery of power in the case of physical transactions or expiration of an option in the case of financial transactions). Term – The total duration of a contract, defined as the number of days between the beginning flow date and ending flow date, inclusive. Unrealized Gains/ (Losses) – The amount expected to earn (lose) on a specific transaction(s); however, the time for performance has not lapsed. The total value of Unrealized Gains/ (Losses) is the Mark-to-Market value. 24

APPENDIX D – Swap Transaction Representative Purpose: To ensure that the City of Dover, a Special Entity under the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act, selects a qualified representative (“Representative”) to provide advice and guidance when entering into swap transactions with Swap Dealers or Major Swap Participants. Definitions: Special Entity: As defined in 7 U.S.C. 6s(h)(2)(C) and further interpreted in 17 C.F.R. 23.401(c). The City of Dover is a Special Entity as defined by 17 C.F.R. 23.401(c)(2). Swap Dealer: As defined in 7 U.S.C. 1a(49) and further interpreted in 17 C.F.R. 1.3(ggg) Major Swap Participant: As defined in 7 U.S.C. 1a(33) and further interpreted in 17 C.F.R. 1.3(hhh) Representative: As defined in this policy and 17 C.F.R. 23.450 Policy: Selection: The City of Dover shall endeavor to seek and employ an individual or entity that will voluntarily act as a Representative for all energy commodity swap transactions between XXXX and any Swap Dealer or Major Swap Participant. The Representative must meet the following qualifications identified in 17 C.F.R. 23.450(b): (i) Has sufficient knowledge to evaluate the transaction and risks; (ii) Is not subject to a statutory disqualification; (iii) Is independent of the swap dealer or major swap participant; (iv) Undertakes a duty to act in the best interests of the Special Entity it represents; (v) Makes appropriate and timely disclosures to the Special Entity; (vi) Evaluates, consistent with any guidelines provided by the Special Entity, fair pricing and the appropriateness of the swap; and (vii) In the case of a Special Entity as defined in § 23.401(c)(2) or (4), is subject to restrictions on certain political contributions imposed by the Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or a self-regulatory organization subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission; provided however, that this paragraph (b)(1)(vii) of this section shall not apply if the representative is an employee of the Special Entity. The Representative and the City of Dover shall enter into a legal agreement that binds the Representative to comply with items (i) through (vii) in this policy. 25

At no longer than any 12 month interval, the City of Dover shall review the performance of the Representative to ensure compliance with items (i) through (vii) in this policy. 26

EXHIBIT #5 Regular Council Meeting of 05/27/2014 CITY OF DOVER REVENUE POLICY EXTRA DUTY / VOLUNTARY OVERTIME I. POLICY The City of Dover Police Department recognizes the need for individuals and businesses to have the services of police officers for special events or other functions that would not be part of routine patrol. The Department will ensure that these needs are met by permitting officers to work for these employers in their capacity as Dover Police Officers. Additionally, the Department shall seek to secure grant funding to compensate officers for voluntary patrols in and around specific areas of the city, supplementing the normal activities of the Department. II. PURPOSE It is the purpose of this document to outline the extra duty billing rates and procedures to our customers and granting agencies. III. RESPONSIBILITIES The Special Enforcement Unit Commander will be the Extra Duty Coordinator and will assign clerical support as well. The Extra Duty Coordinator shall be responsible for ensuring that all requests conform to this Procedural Notice, City ordinances, and to oversee compliance with departmental regulations. The Chief of Police will determine if an extra duty request is a “must fill” position, due to safety concerns to the public or to police. When this occurs, and no one has volunteered to work the position, the Extra Duty Coordinator will be responsible for assigning this extra duty job to an officer. The Extra Duty Coordinator will be responsible for determining the adequate number of officers to staff an event. In cases where the staffing was underestimated the on-site supervisor or working shift commander, at an event may, at his discretion, notify the employer and the extra duty coordinator that additional officers are needed. Regardless of whether or not the employer was able to be notified, the on-site supervisor may call in additional officers and the employer will be billed accordingly. Examples of “Special Events” requiring extra duty assignments include, but are not limited to, events: 1. That require a City of Dover permit 2. Involve temporary road closures 3. Require right of way closures 4. Bicycle or foot races or walks 5. Active traffic control- where an officer is actively/physically engaged in directing vehicular or pedestrian traffic 6. Other special events 1

IV. REQUESTS FOR EXTRA DUTY OFFICERS Any individual or private firm may request extra duty officers for work within the city limits of Dover. Requests must be received between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:00 pm Monday through Friday and can be mailed, emailed, faxed or brought in person to the Dover Police Department. Applications must be received seven (7) days before the event. Any requests made less than seven (7) days in advance are only processed with the understanding that the assignment may not be filled. These requests will be directed to the Extra Duty Coordinator, who will ensure that the requesting party understands the payment and cancellation procedures. The Extra Duty Coordinator will try to accommodate any schedule requests made by the employer if made within one hour prior to the time of the event. It shall be the responsibility of the Extra Duty Coordinator to review all requests and the work required. The extra duty request will be denied if: A. The employment is prohibited by State Law, City Ordinance, or Dover Police Department Rules & Regulations. B. The employment presents a potential risk of injury due to the lack of officers being requested for the assignment. C. The request requires the officer to act in any capacity other than a law enforcement official. D. The final determination of whether a permit is approved rests with the Extra Duty Coordinator. While efforts will be made to comply with the assignment duties as defined by the business representatives, the Dover Police Department maintains exclusive rights in determining the number of officers required in order to maintain a safe environment for all and dictate placement and duties. E. On occasion, specific staffing levels and officer placement are influenced by City of Dover Ordinances and unique circumstances identified by the City of Dover Council regarding zoning approval for individual establishments and land parcels. F. Major re-occurring special events within the City of Dover may involve more defined and detailed staffing and planning processes that may be outlined in a memorandum of understanding at the discretion of the Chief of Police or his designee. Any separate agreements must adhere to the requirements of the Extra Duty Revenue/Voluntary Overtime Policy and all other City of Dover personnel and financial policies and procedures as promulgated by the City Council, City Manager, or Controller Treasurer. V. PAYMENT METHODS Billing and processing for all extra duty accounts will be handled in accordance with current City of Dover finance policies. A. Non-Recurring permits 2

Employers who are using the extra duty services one time, or are determined by the Extra Duty Coordinator as a high risk customer, must pay for services before the assignment commences. Officers can work additional hours with permission granted by the shift commander or extra duty coordinator. If this should occur, the extra duty employer must pay the additional charges on the next business day to the Extra Duty Coordinator. To prevent this, the employer may pay for extra hours and if unused, will be reimbursed. No officer is allowed to accept monies from an extra duty employer. B. City Sponsored Events The cost of police personnel to maintain safety for the actual event, those officers assigned to traffic and/or crowd control, will be absorbed by the City of Dover. City sponsored events will be staffed by officers scheduled during the hours of the event. For events that required additional staffing levels, regular overtime will be scheduled and paid to those officers that actually work overtime. C. Extra Duty for Non City Sponsored Events The Extra Duty Coordinator will schedule officers to work non-city sponsored events. The expense associated with this extra duty will be the responsibility of the event organizers. The Coordinator may also arrange for additional requests for police services, such as money escorts or overnight security. VI. REPORTING PROCEDURES The officer may elect to go directly to the job site and report to the point of contact identified on the assignment worksheet. That contact (or his/her designee) will be responsible for completing the time-on-duty and time-off-duty sections, along with the Extra Duty Employer section of the assignment worksheet. If the officer elects to do this, he/she must contact the on-duty Shift Supervisor by telephone to be input into the CAD system. VII. FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR EXTRA DUTY An employer, upon realizing that the officer failed to appear, should notify the extra duty coordinator at (302)- 736-7145 immediately and also call the on duty shift commander at (302)736-7111. 3

VIII. CANCELLATIONS OF EXTRA DUTY A. Extra duty assignments will not be canceled less than one hour prior to the scheduled start time, except as authorized by a Unit or Division Commander, during regular duty hours, or after regular duty hours, the On-Call Lieutenant. B. In the case of a departmental need or community emergency, the Chief of Police or designee may cancel any extra duties assignments. The extra duty officers would then be immediately available for service to the department. IX. PROCEDURE FOR CANCELLATIONS OF EXTRA DUTY ASSIGNMENTS NOTIFICATIONS A. Cancellations by the extra duty employer should be made at least one hour before the time the assignment is scheduled to begin. If cancellation is made in less than an hour (with the exception of a natural disaster) the customer will be charged and the assigned officers will be paid a minimum of 3 hours as per the FOP Union contract. When an extra duty assignment is canceled by an extra duty employer the following procedure will be followed: 1. The person who receives the cancellation notice will document in the extra duty book, the date and time the cancellation call was received, and they will initial next to this entry. 2. The person will then notify the officer who had signed up for the extra duty assignment. a. This notification will be by leaving the officer a voice mail message stating the particular extra duty assignment was canceled. b. If the cancellation notice was received after normal working hours and the assignment is for the next business day the person receiving the notification will comply with the above steps but they will also attempt to contact the officer at the officer’s residence. 3. The person’s initials next to the entry will signify that his person did in fact notify the officer. B. When an extra duty assignment is canceled for inclement weather the following procedure will be followed: 1. The officer who has signed up for the extra duty assignment will be responsible for contacting the On Duty Supervisor at least one (1) hour prior to the start of the extra duty assignment. The On Duty Supervisor will make the determination if an extra duty assignment will be canceled due to inclement weather at this time. 2. If extra duty assignments are going to be canceled due to inclement weather in advance of the assignment, the officer making the decision to cancel the assignment will ensure that the officers are notified in advance if possible. (i.e.: leaving the officer a message at his residence if possible, if not then a voice mail message) 4

3. Officers are required to check their voicemail one (1) hour prior to the scheduled start time of all assignments unless notified previously. C. A phone message will be left for the Extra Duty Coordinator advising of the cancellation and that the officer(s) were in fact notified. D. Some extra duty assignments will be canceled regularly due to inclement weather where others such as grant-related extra duty assignments are generally not canceled for inclement weather, unless such weather is severe. Officers are expected to be prepared to adapt to existing weather conditions. X. DISCONTINUATION OF SERVICE If the Chief of Police or his designee or the Extra Duty Coordinator, determines that it is in the best interest of the department to discontinue an extra duty service, the customer employer will be immediately notified. XI. BILLING POLICY A. Billing rates for Fiscal Year 2015 are as indicated in Attachment 4. B. Officers pay rates for extra duty assignments, regardless of type, are governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement. C. The City of Dover will pay the officers wages as well as pay for worker’s compensation and general liability insurance, administrative resource costs, automobile fuel, maintenance and insurance. An overhead rate is added to the contractual Extra Duty rate to cover this cost. D. Officers working an extra-duty assignment will be paid a 3-hour minimum. If the assignment is not canceled according to policy, or if the officer is released from the assignment less than 3 hours from the start time, he/she will receive three (3) hours pay at the extra duty rate. E. If an officer is late to the assignment for any reason, the officer will be paid only for actual hours worked. F. Officers are held strictly accountable for their extra duty assignment worksheets, as this is the source document by which officers are paid. The customer or designee must sign the worksheet upon completion of the assignment. For large assignments, the customer must sign the master worksheet that covers all the officers on that assignment. Officers will be compensated for extra duty assignments during the pay period in which the worksheet is submitted to payroll. G. If an officer must work additional hours on an extra duty assignment, the customer is responsible for payment of the additional costs, as long as the overage is due to the extra duty assignment and is necessary. H. At the conclusion of the extra duty assignment, the officer should place the assignment worksheet in the payroll mailbox, but no later than the officer’s next scheduled workday. Loss of an extra duty assignment worksheet may result in a delay of payment to the officer, or may cause the officer to forfeit pay. Reproduction of assignment worksheets 5

may be done with the approval of the Extra Duty Coordinator. The officer will have sole responsibility for obtaining the proper signatures/dates/times. All employees working extra duty are required to submit accurate assignment worksheets. The accuracy of these assignment sheets is critical in ensuring appropriate employee compensation. The employee’s signature must match the printed name of the employee assigned the duty. The editing of extra duty worksheets by the employee is permitted for the purpose of adding accurate information. G. Any officer who falsifies any portion of the extra duty assignment worksheet will be subject to discipline under General Order 26, Code of Conduct. XII. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION/LIABILITY The City of Dover is self- insured for general liability and statutory workers’ compensation coverage. Police officers assigned to extra duty work are afforded workers compensation coverage. XIII. EFFECTIVE DATE This Procedure shall become effective upon adoption of City Council. Rates will be reviewed on an annual basis and revised upon Council approval during the adoption of the annual budget. 6

Attachment 1 NOTICE TO CUSTOMERS The officers are at all times subject to the policies and procedures of the City of Dover and the rules and regulations governing employees of the Dover Police Department (DPD). A customer has no authority over police personnel and is restricted to providing only a general assignment of duties to be performed by the officer. Those duties never supersede DPD policy or procedures and employers of the extra duty officers should so be advised. Extra duty officers remain under the exclusive control of the department and accountable for strict adherence to departmental rules and regulations. Any conflicting rules of employers of extra duty officers will be disregarded. The officer shall refuse to perform any duties deemed to be in conflict with the guidelines established by the Dover Police Department. As determined by the Department, officers may be recalled from extra duty to on-duty status. This permit is for Law Enforcement work only and does not exempt customers from obtaining other necessary permits for this event. The City of Dover Police Department is NOT obligated to provide extra duty services. A permit will not be issued to any person, firm, or organization whose offices, members, business, or operations are questionable or for any event of a potentially compromising nature. Dover Police Department officers are NOT permitted to receive cash from customers for any reason whatsoever. The undersigned customer agrees, individually and on behalf of the named applicant, to promptly pay for extra duty services rendered. Further, the undersigned agrees, individually and on behalf of the named applicant to pay all costs, expenses and attorney’s fees incurred in the collection of any sums due hereunder. Paul M. Bernat. Chief of Police I have read and understand the “Extra Duty Conditions of Permit” and “Notice to Customers” ________________________________________________________________ Customer-Individually and as Authorized Representative Date _____________________________ Federal ID 7

Attachment 2 DOVER POLICE DEPARTMENT BILLING INFORMATION FORM TO: DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE FROM: Dover Police Department Date: 6/4/14 THIS SECTION TO PLEASE BILL AS FOLLOWS BE COMPLETED BY THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT TYPE OF ACCOUNT CODE ACCOUNT NUMBER VENDOR: THIS WORK DONE ON: LOCATION: As Requested SECTION DESCRIPTION OF WORK DONE: Police services # HOURS: TO BE DETAIL OF CHARGES LABOR: COMPLETED OVERHEAD: VEHICLE: 0 BY THE TOTAL BILL: OPERATING MANUAL PAYMENT INTRUCTIONS: Take this invoice to the City of Dover Customer Services Department located at 5 East Reed Street, Dover DE 19901. Only cash, money order or certified funds payments will be accepted. DEPARTMENT AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE FINANCE DEPARTMENT RECEIVED BY RECEIVED ON KEYED BY VERIFIED BY 8

Attachment 3 Dover Police Department Extra Duty Request Form Type of Event: Number of people attending: Location of event: Dates & Times Requested: Billing Information: Name: Address: Phone #’s: Cell # Work # Contact person at the event: Contact person cell #: Person(s) requesting officer(s): Signature of requesting person: The responsible party will be charged a 3-hour minimum (per officer) if the assignment is not canceled one (1) hour before the assigned start time. If the officer(s) are released from the assignment less than three (3) hours from the start time, he/she will receive three (3) hours pay. To cancel an assignment, dial (302) 736-7111. Official use only, does not write below Number of officers assigned: Times officers assigned: to Approved: Return this form or fax it to: Special Enforcement Unit Commander. Fax # (302) 672-1842, any additional questions, dial (302) 736-7145 9

Attachment 4 City of Dover Officer Extra Duty Billing Rates for Grant Related Events Officer Billing Rank Rate Patrolman $42.00 Patrolman 1st Class $51.00 Corporal $55.00 Master Corporal $65.00 Sergeant $72.00 Lieutenant $78.00 Captain $85.00 Officer Extra Duty Billing Rates for Office of Highway Safety Grants Federal Approved Rate $50.00 City of Dover Officer Extra Duty Billing Rates for Special Events (Spectator’s over 5,000) Officer Total Billing Overhead Hourly Rank Rate Rate Rate Special Event Rate $57.00 $2.00 $59.00 City of Dover Officer Extra Duty Billing Rates for Non-Special Events Officer Total Billing Overhead Hourly Rank Rate Rate Rate Extra Duty Rate $57.00 $6.00 $63.00 Vehicles Actively Used on Extra Duty Jobs - Hourly Rate $ 16.25 10

Page 1 of 2 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Dover Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, June 9, 2014 at 7:30 PM in the Council Chambers of Dover City Hall to consider adoption of the following proposed Electric Fund budgets for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015. The following budgets have been submitted to the Mayor and Council for their review and consideration and the amounts are subject to change. Reference copies of the proposed budget are available at the Dover Public Library, Weyandt Hall (5 East Reed Street), and the City Clerk’s Office. ELECTRIC REVENUE FUND BEGINNING BALANCE $ 9,253,600 REVENUE DIRECT SALES TO CUSTOMER 78,043,000 UTILITY TAX 1,296,900 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 624,600 RENT REVENUE 200,000 GREEN ENERGY 130,000 INTEREST EARNINGS 12,000 TOTAL REVENUES 80,306,500 TOTAL REVENUES AND BEGINNING BALANCE $ 89,560,100

Page 2 of 2 EXPENSES POWER SUPPLY $ 21,823,000 SOLAR ENERGY 2,067,600 SOLAR RENEWAL ENERGY CREDITS 378,600 POWER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT 996,000 PJM CHARGES - ENERGY 11,499,800 PJM CHARGES - TRANSMISSION & FEES 7,234,100 CAPACITY CHARGES 9,958,900 POWER SUPPLY SUBTOTAL 53,958,000 PLANT OPERATIONS 6,141,100 GENERATIONS FUELS 1,611,100 PJM SPOT MARKET ENERGY (2,232,800) PJM CREDITS (486,700) CAPACITY CREDITS (8,881,500) GENERATION SUBTOTAL (3,848,800) POWER SUPPLY & GENERATION TOTAL 50,109,200 DIRECT EXPENDITURES TRANSMISSION/DISTRIBUTION 4,028,700 ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING 1,370,900 ADMINISTRATION 636,600 METER READING 267,600 SYSTEMS OPERATIONS 686,300 DIRECT EXPENDITURE SUBTOTALS 6,990,100 OTHER EXPENSES: UTILITY TAX 1,296,900 ALLOW FOR UNCOLLECTIBLES 200,000 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES - RFP'S 100,000 RETIREES HEALTH CARE 513,300 OTHER EMPLOYMENT EXPENSES 54,200 OPEB UNFUNDED LIABILITY 1,009,800 GREEN ENERGY PAYMENT TO DEMEC 130,000 INTRAFUND SERVICE FEES 3,640,600 INTEREST ON DEPOSITS 20,000 INVENTORY WRITE OFFS 175,000 DEBT SERVICE 3,297,000 OTHER EXPENSES SUBTOTAL 10,436,800 TRANSFER TO IMPROVEMENT & EXTENSION 4,750,000 GENERAL FUND 8,000,000 TRANSFER TO SUBTOTAL 12,750,000 TOTAL EXPENSES 80,286,100 BUDGET BALANCE 9,274,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES AND BUDGET BALANCE $ 89,560,100 IMPROVEMENT & EXTENSION FUND BEGINNING BALANCE $ 3,362,200 RECEIPTS INTEREST EARNINGS 24,800 GENERAL SERVICE BILLING 250,000 TRANSFER FROM ELECTRIC 4,750,000 TOTAL RECEIPTS 5,024,800 TOTAL RECEIPTS AND BEGINNING BALANCE $ 8,387,000 EXPENSES ELECTRIC GENERATION 2,240,000 TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION 1,033,000 ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING 1,663,100 TOTAL EXPENSES 4,936,100 BUDGET BALANCE 3,450,900 TOTAL EXPENSES AND BUDGET BALANCE $ 8,387,000

Office of City Assessor June 9, 2014

Board of Assessment Appeals May 27, 2014 The Board of Assessment Appeals was brought to order by Chairman Garfinkel. Board Members present were: Chairman William Garfinkel, James Welsh, and Tom Burns. Staff present was City Assessor Cheryl Russell and Administrative Assistant Annette Hart. Exemptions 2.A.1 Village of Cannon Mill HOA Inc. Location: Open Spaces – Village of Cannon Mill BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS These parcels fall under State Statute 9 Del. C. §8110 Civic organizations owning parkland. EXEMPTION REQUEST ED05-076.03-01-92.00 $132,900 ED05-076.03-01-93.00 42,400 ED05-076.03-01-94.00 57,300 ED05-076.03-01-95.00 34,600 ED05-076.03-01-96.00 72,300 ED05-076.03-01-99.00 135,500 ED05-076.03-03-38.00 293,300 ED05-076.03-03-39.00 223,000 $991,300 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommend that the request for exemption be approved. Mr. Ashburn was present for the hearing. He explained to the board that the HOA had been recently activated and is asking for the tax exempt status for the open spaces in the development. Chairman Garfinkel asked Mr. Ashburn to clarify what he means by open space, he wanted to make sure that these were non buildable lots. Mr. Ashburn assured the board that these lots would never be built on. 1

Mr. Burns asked if Mr. Ashburn had just recently bought 18 lots in the development. Mr. Ashburn concurred and went on to explain that he was not able to build on these lots until he took responsibility of the storm ponds which is why the HOA was activated. Chairman Garfinkel closed the hearing and opened for discussion. Mr. Welsh made the motion to accept the request for exemption, which was seconded by Mr. Burns. Motion carried 3-0. Chairman Garfinkel explained to the applicant, that the City Council was the final decision and that a letter with the date of the Council Hearing would be mailed to them. 2. A.1. Rector Wardens & Vestryman of Christ Episcopal Church Location: 509 S. State Street BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office. This property was purchased by the church in April 2012. The property is surrounded by other property owned by the church that is exempt from City of Dover taxes. This property is exempt from Kent County Taxes. Exemption Request $48,700 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommend that the request for exemption be approved. Mr. Emerson, who is a member of the Vestryman of Christ Episcopal Church, was present for the hearing. Mr. Emerson explained to the board that the church purchased this property to make it part of the church yard. He stated that the church would like to use the property simply as an extension of the church yard and use the property for events like picnics after church. Mr. Emerson told the board that the May Pole dance used to be held on that property and is hoping that one day it will be held there once more. 2

Chairman Garfinkel asked the City Assessor if she would like to add something, at which time Ms. Russell told the board that the City recommends the exemption be granted. Mr. Burns suggested that the church look into combining this parcel with the parcel the church is constructed on. Mr. Welsh made the motion to approve the exemption, which was seconded by Mr. Burns. Motion carried 3-0. Chairman Garfinkel explained to the applicant, that the City Council was the final decision and that a letter with the date of the Council Hearing would be mailed to them. 2. C. 2. Central Habitat for Humanity Location: 41 S Queen Street 70 Mifflin Road 511 Schooner Way BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS An exemption request was submitted to the Assessor’s Office. This property is being renovated for a low-income family to provide an affordable mortgage. Once this property is complete and the ownership is transferred, the property will be added back to the tax rolls. (As a supplemental billing) EXEMPTION REQUEST $ 23,200 $ 67,400 $135,200 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommend that the request for exemption be approved. Mrs. Tice, Executive Director, was present for the hearing. Mrs. Tice told the board that the organization has been serving Kent County for the past 24 years and has helped 36 families find a home. The organization helps low income, hardworking 3

people. She explained that the owners do pay a mortgage which is offered by Habitat for Humanity at a 0% interest. The organization has built 17 homes within the City of Dover. Chairman Garfinkel asked the Assessor what the city’s recommendation is, at which time the Assessor stated that the City recommends the exemption be approved. Ms. Russell also pointed out that these properties will go back on the tax roll once they have been purchased by the new owners. Chairman Garfinkel asked about the plans for 511 Schooner Way. Mrs. Tice explained that the property will need some external as well as internal renovations and hopes to sell 511 Schooner Way and 70 Mifflin in 2015. 42 S Queen will be put in a Land Bank, according to Mrs. Tice, which means that the property will be held on until the surrounding are improved or more properties can be purchased by the organization which are located within the same neighborhood. She stated that it will be more than likely 2016 by the time they will be able to sell this property. Mr. Burns made the motion to approve the exempt request for all of the three (3) properties, which was seconded by Mr. Welsh. Motion carried 3-0. Chairman Garfinkel explained to the applicant, that the City Council was the final decision and that a letter with the date of the Council Hearing would be mailed to them. 2. D.1. YMCA Location: 825 Kenton Road BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS An exemption request was submitted to the Assessor’s Office. This parcel falls under State Statute 9 Del. C. §8106 Specific organizations and purposes. This property was purchased by the YMCA from the Kent Swimming Club. The property was exempt from property taxes at the time of purchase (July 1, 2013) and has not been placed back on the tax rolls. Exemption Request: $1,496,000 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommend that the request for exemption be approved. 4

Mr. Jaywork, attorney and representative of the YMCA as well as Mr. Kelley, Chief Operating Officer, were present for the hearing. Mr. Jaywork went over the packet submitted to the city which included the 501C3, the deed, and papers of Incorporation. He stated that the YMCA is a Non-Profit Organization. Mr. Kelley told the board that the pool opened this weekend and that they had a great turn out. Chairman Garfinkel asked the Assessor if she had to add anything, at which time Ms. Russell told the board that the City recommends approval of the exemption. Mr. Burns asked how the YMCA swimming pool membership is different from the Maple Dale membership. Mr. Kelley explained that you may become a member of the YMCA just for the summer months and be able to use the YMCA as well as the pool on Kenton Road. The YMCA also offers financial help for those who cannot afford a membership at the YMCA. Mr. Burns asked if most of the property was considered Wet Lands. Mr. Kelley concurred that some of the property is considered Wet Lands which will benefit the usage of the property, as the YMCA is looking to have a Day Camp at the location and will add trails where the children may explore. Mr. Burns asked if most of the property was considered Wet Lands and if therefore the property could not be developed. Mr. Jaywork and Mr. Kelley assured Mr. Burns that the Wet Land could not be built on. Mr. Burns made the motion to accept the exempt request, which was seconded by Mr. Welsh Motion carried 3-0 Chairman Garfinkel explained to the applicant, that the City Council was the final decision and that a letter with the date of the Council Hearing would be mailed to them. 5

1. E.1 Bible Church of God Inc. Location: 1202-1204 White Oak Road Land – Spruance Road BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS An appeal form was submitted to the Assessor’s Office. Kent County records indicate that this property is Exempt from Kent County Taxes. Property is being used as a worshiping facility. EXEMPTION REQUEST $192,300 $ 4,200 Pastor Miller, as well as the Secretary of the Church, was present for the hearing. The pastor told the board that the vacant land was used for church parking. He also mentioned that the church has been in place for approximately seven (7) years and that the County has already granted them the tax exemption. Mr. Burns suggested that the church look into combining the two parcels into one. Mr. Welsh made the motion to accept the request for exemption for both parcels which was seconded by Mr. Burns. Motion carried 3-0. Chairman Garfinkel explained to the applicant, that the City Council was the final decision and that a letter with the date of the Council Hearing would be mailed to them. Meeting was adjourned at 2:38 P.M. 6

Board of Assessment Appeals May 28, 2014 The Board of Assessment Appeals was brought to order by Chairman Garfinkel. Board Members present were: Chairman William Garfinkel, James Welsh, and Tom Burns. Staff present was City Assessor Cheryl Russell and Administrative Assistant Annette Hart. Agenda Additions/Deletions Mr. Burns moved for approval of the agenda which was seconded by Mr. Welsh and unanimously carried. Exemptions 2.A.2 The Milford Housing Development Corp. Location: 1361-1383 Walker Road & 1357 Walker Road BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS These parcels fall under State Statute 9 Del. C. §8105 Properties are exempt from Kent County Taxes as of April 2013. These properties are currently exempt with the City of Dover. The owner was required to come back again this year for review by the Board of Assessment Appeals. EXEMPTION REQUEST $464,300 $515,900 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommend that the request for exemption be approved. Mr. Huxtable, Vice President, was present for the hearing. Mr. Huxtable started by going over the organization’s mission which is to provide affordable housing for families of modest income. He also told the board that the homes on Walker Road were built 18-19 years ago and were purchased by The Milford Housing Development Corporation last year in hopes to renovate and rent these units out to low income families. Mr. Huxtable also stated that the organization is a Non- Profit organization and has the 501C3 Status. He provided the board with copies of the Exempt letter from Kent County, a copy of the

organizations 501C3 and a copy of the organization’s annual report. Mr. Huxtable told the board that the organization was granted tax credits to help with the renovation of the properties. He went on to explain that the organization has written a letter to the City Manager to discuss a possible PILOT program which could go into effect once the organization has purchased the third parcel and all three parcels have been combined into one parcel. Mr. Burns asked if the organization is currently in other PILOT programs. Mr. Huxtable stated that this will be the first time they engage in such a program. Mr. Burns expressed his concern about the outside conditions of the parcel, he told Mr. Huxtable that he drove through the development the morning of the hearing and was surprised about the trash, weeds, and uncut grass. Mr. Huxtable explained the lengthy process the organization has to go through to get the proper funding and zoning. In Mr. Burn’s opinion no funding should be needed to power wash the siding, fix windows or door screens. He pointed out that the organization, according to the annual report provided by Mr. Huxtable, has plenty of volunteers that could perform these tasks. Mr. Huxtable assured that he will talk to the property management company regarding the conditions of the property. Mr. Burns went on to tell Mr. Huxtable that he more than likely will be back before the Board next year, and would like to see that the organization has improved the outside conditions of the property. Chairman Garfinkel asked about the PILOT programs with the City of Dover and Kent County, making sure that the organization is looking into that program. Mr. Huxtable assured that they are in contact with the City of Dover as well as Kent County regarding the PILOT program. Mr.Burns made the motion to accept the exempt request for one (1) year and the owner to contact the City of Dover Inspections Department for maintenance issues and that the owner meet with the City Manager to discuss the PILOT program with the City of Dover, which was seconded by Mr. Welsh. Motion passed 3-0 Meeting was adjourned at 9:45 A.M.

SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Meeting was held on May 27, 2014 at 4:30 p.m. with Chairman Hutchison presiding. Members present were Mr. Dixon, Mr. Perza (arrived at 4:34 ), and Mr. Keller. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Dixon moved for approval of the agenda as presented, seconded by Mr. Keller and unanimously carried. Request for Waiver of Public Street Frontage Requirement - Appendix A - Subdivisions, Article VI - Subdivision - General Requirements and Design Standards, Section E - Lots (Dover Mall) Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, advised the Committee that Simon Property Group, owner of the Dover Mall, L.P., was proposing to create three (3) parcels of land from the existing 149.3225+/- acre parcel of the Dover Mall. She explained that the parcel would be subdivided into a 53.1704+/- acre parcel, a 30.7046+/- acre parcel, and a 65.4475+/- acre parcel. Mrs. Townshend stated that the property is zoned SC-3 (Regional Shopping Center Zone), and a portion is subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) Tier 3 – Excellent Recharge Area. The property is located on the east side of North DuPont Highway and south of but not adjacent to Rustic Lane. Mrs. Townshend explained that, as proposed, the subdivision would create two (2) lots without frontage on a public street, which is required by the Zoning Ordinance. She stated that in the waiver request submitted by the applicant, the applicant stated that proposed Lots 1 and 2 have frontage on State Route 1; however, proposed Lot 2 does not have frontage on this route. The purpose of the requirement for frontage on a public street is to ensure access to lots created. As State Route 1 is a limited access highway where direct access is not permitted, frontage on State Route 1 was not deemed adequate to meet the requirements of the Land Subdivision Regulations. Mrs. Townshend explained that, typically, a request for a waiver from the requirement of the subdivision is presented before the Planning Commission, who then makes a recommendation to City Council; however, due to the nature of this request, which involved street lengths and street design, the Planning Commission’s recommendation was being presented to the Committee to make a recommendation to Council. Mrs. Townshend reviewed a map of the property, pointing out the location of Route 1 in relation to the Dover Mall and the proposed subdivided plots in the rear. Mrs. Townshend explained that the original request included residential zoning for Lot 1, but this portion of the request was withdrawn after a negative recommendation from the Planning Commission; therefore, zoning would be commercial only. She advised members that when the property was planned for residential use, all of the emergency services (Police Department, Fire Department, the Fire Marshal, etc.) expressed safety-related concerns about Lots 1 and 2 not having frontage. Once the residential component was removed, the Police Department and Fire Marshal retracted their concerns; however, the Fire Department continued to have concerns. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested waiver subject to inclusion of the necessary easements listed in the Development Advisory Committee Report.

SPECIAL SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 2 Mrs. Townshend explained that the Planning Commission and the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) expressed concerns about extending Rustic Lane; however, if the road were marked for emergency access only, they would agree to the extension. Responding to Mr. Hutchison, Mrs. Townshend advised that, if approved, the application specifies that the property would be commercially based; however, she cautioned that this was based on the current zoning and if the zoning regulations change, this could potentially allow for residential use. Mrs. Townshend expressed her concern regarding that possibility; however, she also noted that only two (2) properties within the City of Dover had the same zoning classification (SC-3); therefore, if there was a proposal to make a change to that section of the zoning ordinance, this property would likely be considered in regard to its potential for residential use and the potential impact. In response to Mr. Hutchison, Mrs. Townshend said that any application for a change to the zoning ordinance to allow for residential use would be considered by the Planning Commission and Council and two (2) public hearings would be required. Stating his feeling that he would never support residential zoning on the Dover Mall property, Mr. Hutchison asked if discussions had taken place with representatives of the Dover Mall. Responding, Mrs. Townshend advised members that she had made them aware of the City’s concerns with approving the frontage waiver request, recognizing that the location is between the speedway, the highway, and the Dover Mall which would not be an ideal situation for a residential area. In response to Mr. Keller, Mrs. Townshend advised that, presently, no plans were in place for Lots 1 and 2; however, discussions had taken place in consideration of “big box” tenants on Lot 2. Responding to Mr. Keller, Mrs. Townshend concurred that the infrastructure required to build on the property would be massive. She noted that a determination would have to be made regarding how to provide sewer and water, as there would be no ability to tap into the private lines that serve the Mall. Access to the main line would have to be routed through the property, or off Rustic Lane. In addition, Mrs. Townshend stated that the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) had started discussions regarding a traffic impact study, noting that there was a concept to put in a service road that would connect Scarborough Road and Leipsic Road, and that the applicant may be responsible for constructing a portion of this road. Mr. Keller expressed concerns that this proposal would involve major expenditures on the part of the State and City of Dover, questioning who would bear the burden of even the limited access road in the rear of the property. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated that it was hoped that the State would work on this portion of the funding. Responding to Mr. Hutchison regarding the timeframe that the property owner would have to move forward if the waiver were approved as presented, Mrs. Townshend advised that if the request were approved and the lots were recorded, the lots could be sold immediately. Mr. Dixon expressed his disapproval, stating there were too many variables.

SPECIAL SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 3 Mr. Perza advised members that, although he personally did not have any information regarding this particular project, his firm (May and Perza, PA) represents Simon Property Group; therefore, he indicated that he would not be taking a position on the matter at this time. Responding to Mr. Hutchison regarding the result if the Committee denied the request, Mrs. Townshend stated that the Committee could only recommend against approving the request; the final decision would be determined by Council. Mrs. Townshend noted that without approval of the request, the applicant would not be able to subdivide the lots. Mr. Hutchison stated that he believed the Dover Mall was good for the community and wanted to support their growth; however, he also wanted to be sure that the community is protected. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated that the Committee also had the option of not make a recommendation either for or against approval of the waiver and to defer the decision directly to Council or to defer action until the next meeting and request that the applicant be present to answer questions. Mr. Keller and Mr. Hutchison conveyed their preference to defer the matter until the next Committee meeting when the applicant could be present to answer questions. Mr. Keller noted that there was a lot of information to be considered and he felt it was very important to have all of the facts and details before a recommendation was made, noting the amount of money and infrastructure involved. Mr. Keller moved to defer action on the request until the June 23, 2014 Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting when the applicant can be present to answer questions. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutchison and unanimously carried. Mr. Hutchison moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Keller and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 4:48 p.m. James L. Hutchison, Sr. Chairman JLH/MK/js/dd/tm S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Committee-Minutes\2014\05-27-2014 SA&T.wpd

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting was held on May 27, 2014, at 6:01 p.m. with Chairman Lynn presiding. Members present were Mr. Hare (arrived at 6:29 p.m.), Mr. Slavin, and Mr. Shevock. Mr. Rushe was absent. Other members of Council present were Mr. Anderson (arrived at 6:05 p.m.), Mr. Dixon, and Mr. Hutchison (arrived at 6:09 p.m.). AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Slavin moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. Discussion - Fiscal Year 2014 Audit Program Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, reviewed a presentation entitled “Auditor’s Responsibility for Communicating with Audit Committee.” She reminded members that the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee had served as the City’s Audit Committee during the last few years and that she typically provides a similar presentation to members each year at the commencement of the audit cycle. Mrs. Mitchell noted that the 2014 Audit Calendar was provided and included the dates that the draft and final audit report would be brought before the Committee. Mr. Slavin moved to recommend acceptance of the Fiscal Year 2014 Audit Program, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. Proposed Grant-In-Aid Policy Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, reminded members that, during their Regular Meeting of January 27, 2014, City Council accepted the City of Dover FY 2015 Grant-In-Aid Application and Procedures, as recommended by the Committee. She stated that, since that time, she had updated this document, which was similar to that used in the State of Delaware grant-in-aid process, to incorporate a “Policy Objective” in the Grant-in-Aid Application Instructions. Mrs. Mitchell reviewed the Policy Objective and inquired if members had any suggestions for change. Mr. Slavin moved to recommend acceptance of the proposed Grant-In-Aid Policy (Attachment #1), seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. Request of Dover Housing Authority for City of Dover to Serve as Responsible Entity for Environmental Reviews Chairman Lynn advised members that a memorandum in regard to this matter from Ami Sebastian Hauer, Executive Director, Dover Housing Authority (DHA), dated May 27, 2014, (Attachment #2) had been received earlier in the day and circulated to members by email. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, advised members that, in July 2013, the DHA requested that the City of Dover serve as its Responsible Entity for Environmental Reviews in accordance with Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations. The City Manager, City Planner, and Community Development Manager met with DHA staff several months ago to discuss a draft agreement and the expectations of the City under the draft

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 2 agreement. Based on the information presented, City staff verbally agreed that the commitment was acceptable. Following this discussion with the DHA, the City’s Community Development Manager attended HUD training and discussed the responsible entity responsibilities with a HUD staff person responsible for environmental reviews. Based on the information obtained in this interaction with HUD, the City’s responsibilities as the responsible entity would be far more significant than originally conveyed by the DHA. Mrs. Townshend stated that, after discussing this matter with HUD, staff was advised that if the City of Dover did not agree to serve as the responsible entity, HUD would request that the Delaware State Housing Authority (DSHA) take on this responsibility and if the State declines, HUD would perform this role. She explained that the decision of the City not to enter into an agreement to serve as the responsible entity would not inhibit the DHA’s eligibility to accept HUD funding. Mrs. Townshend informed members that all federal funds spent are subject to the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), as well as other related acts, including the State Historic Preservation Act. For any project undertaken by DHA, a review would be required to determine: 1) if the scope of services is exempt from NEPA requirements, or 2) if there is a finding that must be pursued. Although most DHA projects consist of minor capital projects or minor rehabilitation of existing facilities and would be exempt, all of DHA’s investment plans would have to be reviewed, not just the capital plan. Many of the maintenance projects imbedded in the operating budget could also be subject to environmental reviews. Staff determined that quite a bit of paperwork, project management, contract management, and oversight would be required and Mrs. Townshend stated that the City did not have adequate staff at this point to perform these functions. She explained that several years ago when one (1) of the planners left the Planning Department, a planner position was eliminated and the associated responsibilities were combined with the Community Development Manager position. The current Community Development Manager was now performing planning and community development work. Since the scope of the DHA’s funding is much larger than that received by the City of Dover from HUD through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, the amount of responsibility in terms of environmental reviews would be exponentially greater. Mrs. Townshend indicated that she had been advised by HUD that HUD would take responsibility for environmental reviews associated with current funding that was being held from Federal FY 2013 because there was no responsible entity in place for the DHA; therefore, the current request was for the City to serve as responsible entity beyond FY 2013. Staff recommended that the City not agree to be the Dover Housing Authority’s responsible entity for environmental reviews. Mr. Lynn stated that, in reviewing the memo received from the DHA earlier in the day, it appeared that many of the concerns would be ameliorated because the DHA would hire a third-party entity to conduct environmental reviews and would pay for these reviews. He questioned if the concern was that many of the smaller capital projects would not need environmental review. Mrs. Townshend confirmed that this was the case and that there would be a good deal of documentation that would require review, records would need to be maintained, and staff would have to look at the exact scope

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 3 of each of DHA’s projects to determine if they were exempt from the requirement for an environmental review. For example, although cleaning projects would be exempt, staff would have to determine if an environmental review would be required for projects such as painting, changing cabinets, and working with the HVAC system. Responding to Mr. Slavin regarding the nature of activities that would be considered exempt, Mrs. Townshend stated that there would be a categorical exclusion for activities that had no environmental impact. She confirmed that these exclusions could change over time and there would be a need to develop a knowledge base regarding what had and had not been excluded in the past. Mrs. Townshend provided two (2) related memoranda, dated May 17, 2010, from HUD - Philadelphia Office (Attachment #3) regarding environmental reviews as they relate to operating funds that are in the operating budget and to public housing authorities. Mrs. Townshend advised members that even minor capital projects that come under the operating budget would have to go through the process. She stated that staff would have to expand their expertise and workload and she felt that this responsibility could not be absorbed at this point. Mr. Shevock questioned what the City’s financial exposure would be by taking on this responsibility, if the City could be responsible for possible class action suits that might arise, or if there would be a need to pay for insurance to protect the City. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated that HUD did not anticipate that the City would end up with sanctions; however, if a related Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) were signed, the City would be taking on the legal responsibility for environmental reviews. She felt that if the City were to sign off on a large capital project and state that there was no significant impact and there was such an impact, the City could be vulnerable. Mr. Shevock stated that environmental engineering firms perform this type of work and questioned why they would not be under contract to the DHA to complete the necessary paperwork. In response, Mrs. Townshend stated that much of the work would be contracted to an environmental firm; however, there was a requirement for a legal entity to monitor this paperwork, “make the final calls,” ensure that projects are done, perform record keeping, and ensure that projects that are determined to fit the definition of a categorical exclusion actually do so. She noted that HUD staff had cited examples in the City’s region where housing authorities did not provide the information needed to make the correct decision to the unit of local government as it relates to the environmental review process. In response to Mr. Lynn regarding the resultant effect on the DHA if the City did not assume this responsibility, Mrs. Townshend stated that the DHA would continue as they are now and would have to find out if the State would take on this role. If the State chose not to do so, HUD would do this. It would not affect DHA’s ability to obtain capital funds and there would be no problem with its funding in the interim while the responsible entity is determined. Mrs. Townshend stated that HUD had assured her that they were taking care of the work for the current funding of the DHA. Mr. Slavin advised members that NEPA is supposed to be conducted by the federal agency involved and that HUD was the only federal agency he was aware of that pushes this responsibility down to the grantees. As a result, a very technical review process was being pushed to organizations that are not engineered to perform this review. In his opinion, involving the City would not be the proper

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 4 course and this should be directed back to HUD so that HUD can live up to the federal law. Mr. Slavin indicated that almost every federal agency has a federal historic preservation officer who handles this side of the NEPA process, conducts reviews, determines what falls under categorical exclusions, and makes these decisions or hires a firm to manage this. Responding to Mr. Anderson regarding whether the subcontractor performing the work would be liable if the work was misconducted, Mrs. Townshend stated that the contractor would have culpability; however, as the government agency signing off on projects, she felt that the City would also incur some culpability if something were missed. Mr. Anderson inquired if this process had caused a delay in the release of hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding. Mrs. Townshend stated that this was the case. She indicated that during a conference call with HUD approximately two (2) weeks ago, she asked who had been performing this responsibility prior to the current time. HUD advised her that they had received an email that indicated that the City of Dover was doing so and, at some point after they received this email, HUD requested a MOU and funds began to be held because no MOU was provided. It was HUD’s understanding that the City of Dover had agreed to be the responsible entity, had been performing this function, and had decided to no longer do so. Mrs. Townshend stated that she explained to HUD that the City had not been acting in this capacity and, once the Public Housing Office realized that the City had not been acting in this role, they assured Mrs. Townshend that the City of Dover was under no obligation to serve as the responsible entity, that HUD would serve as the responsible entity and oversee environmental reviews for the current round of funding allocated to DHA, HUD would not hold these funds, and that this would not affect DHA’s ability to receive funds. However, HUD indicated that a responsible entity needed to be designated. Mr. Hutchison inquired if the agreement had been reviewed by the City Solicitor. Mrs. Townshend explained that the City Solicitor reviewed a previous draft of the agreement; however, this was before additional information was received from HUD and staff concluded that this was not a role that the City could take on. Mr. Lynn inquired about the ratio of the projects that would come under the umbrella of a third-party entity versus those that would go through the City. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated that ultimately everything would go through the City. She indicated that currently there were only small capital minor rehabilitation projects involved that would likely not be contracted out and would be determined to be exempt from the requirements. However, these projects would be submitted to the City for a review of project scope and a determination regarding exemption would have to be made. New, large projects, such as building new public housing, acquiring new sites, or taking down and rebuilding existing projects, would be contracted to a third party. Ms. Ami Sebastian Hauer, Executive Director, DHA, advised members that capital improvement work undertaken by the DHA is mainly done through the capital fund program. The funding available through operating funds is used for routine work and to cover administration. She stated that capital fund money is used for improving and upgrading units because operating funds are not available, noting that funding cuts occur every year.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 5 Mr. Lynn questioned if an environmental review under the purview of the City would be required if a unit damaged by a tenant was in need of repair, such as repainting or redoing the kitchen, following the departure of a tenant. Responding, Ms. Hauer stated that capital fund projects would involve upgrades to the HVAC system, reinforcement of stairwells, installation of air conditioning in public housing units to improve air quality, etc. Mr. Anderson inquired why it would be better to have the City involved than HUD. Responding, Ms. Hauer stated that HUD had informed the DHA that because they are within the City of Dover and must comply with local building codes and City ordinances, it was felt it that it would make more sense for the City of Dover to become the responsible entity. In regard to how the DHA would deal with staffing issues, she explained that the DHA would assume all responsibility for any associated costs, including staffing, contracting, and training of those working on the environmental review process. In response to Mr. Slavin regarding why the DHA did not choose to perform the function required since they were willing to pay for it, Ms. Hauer stated that HUD prefers that a legal entity, such as the City of Dover, assume the responsibilities. Mr. Anderson noted that HUD regulations would not allow the DHA to be its own responsible entity. Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, advised members that the City was stretched very thin at the staff level and if the City did not absolutely have to perform this function, staff’s preference was that it not. He noted that those involved with federal regulations know that these regulations do not get any easier. Mr. Koenig expressed his fear that if the City assumed the responsible entity role, it could become more complicated as the regulations get more stringent, change, or evolve. He reiterated that it was staff’s recommendation not to take this on. He concurred with Mr. Slavin that this was an odd process in that the federal agency had pushed this responsibility down to the local level. Responding to Mr. Lynn regarding the term of the MOU that would be required, Mrs. Townshend stated that the draft MOU had a ten-year term. Based on the City’s current experience with HUD, it was her belief that if the City were to enter into an agreement, there would be quite a bit more scrutiny if the City felt the need to back out at some point. Mrs. Townshend reiterated that when HUD believed that the City had agreed to serve as the responsible entity and had decided not to serve any longer, HUD staff was very stern in their “push back” in discussions regarding the City not performing this function. Noting Mr. Koenig’s concern that the responsibility could become more cumbersome in the future due to legislative changes, Mr. Lynn questioned if this could be addressed by shortening the term of the agreement, noting that this would allow the City to observe the manpower time that would be invested. He inquired if the ten-year term was mandated. He also noted that if the DHA would hire a third-party entity to perform the work, this entity would be paid for by the DHA and presumably the third party would indemnify the City and hold the City harmless. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated her belief that the ten-year term was not mandated; however, she did not believe that the City had the staff time to ensure quality control under the provisions of the current agreement. She advised members that under the CDBG program, the City receives approximately $250,000 per year from HUD. Of that, less than $100,000 goes to projects that are subject to NEPA, since most funds are used for down payment assistance, program administration, money provided to the Dover

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 6 Interfaith Mission for Housing and are not subject to NEPA. HUD stated that they would accept responsibility for $400,000 in Federal FY 2013 funds; therefore, she stated that staff would be looking at expanding the $100,000 that the City is currently responsible for in rehabilitations to $500,000 with the DHA capital program. This task could be contracted out but the City would still have to ensure that all of the paperwork is correct. Mrs. Townshend felt that saying the work could be contracted out minimized the fact that staff would have to put forth the effort to make sure that everything is done correctly. Mr. Slavin stated his understanding of everything that the DHA was going through and what they were trying to accomplish; however, he felt that the City should take a stand that this was almost an unfunded federal mandate that was washing down to local government without any funding attached to it. Even if funding were present, he reminded members that the City was considering a proposed budget that requires more than a 20% increase in property taxes and hiking many fees in order to break even, and provides the same number of man hours next year that are present in the current year. He cautioned members about the need to be careful regarding taking on any additional tasks, especially those that are not in the core mission of the City. Mr. Slavin moved to accept staff’s recommendation that City Council agree not to be the Dover Housing Authority’s responsible entity for environmental reviews, seconded by Mr. Shevock and carried by a vote of three (3) yes (Mr. Slavin, Mr. Shevock, and Mr. Hare) and one (1) no (Lynn). Proposed Ordinance #2014-16 Amending Appendix E - Commercial and Industrial Building Redevelopment (Sponsors: Anderson and Townshend) Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, reminded members that, during their Regular Meeting of April 9, 2012, Council adopted Proposed Ordinance #2012-07, amending the City of Dover Code of Ordinances by inserting a new Appendix E - Commercial and Industrial Building Redevelopment. She advised members that Appendix E had proved successful and, as a result, she and Councilman Anderson had discussed extending the provisions of this ordinance. Mrs. Townshend explained that Proposed Ordinance #2014-16 would extend the sunset provision for the tax abatement, impact fee waiver, and building permit waiver incentives for three (3) years. Mr. Anderson advised members that the incentives associated with this ordinance had been quite successful in relation to business entities, such as Redner’s Warehouse Markets, and benefitted new businesses as well as existing businesses that wished to expand. He stated that, with the end of the trial for the incentives now approaching, he felt that extending the incentives would allow the economic development team to market the City with some degree of certainty. Instead of wondering if one (1) of “the better tools in their toolbox” would be lost in six (6) months, the economic development team could use the leverage of a three (3) year extension to entice businesses to act more quickly in making decisions. Mr. Anderson noted that the incentive had worked very well in the City for organizations that are operated for profit as well as for taxable but non-profit organizations, including the cultural buildings being constructed downtown. Mr. Slavin moved to recommend adoption of Proposed Ordinance #2014-16, seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 27, 2014 PAGE 7 By unanimous consent, the meeting adjourned at 6:43 p.m. Sean M. Lynn Chairman SML/TM/js/dd S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Committee-Minutes\2014\05-27-2014 LF&A.wpd Attachments Attachment #1 - Proposed Grant-In-Aid Policy Attachment #2 - Memorandum from Ami Sebastian Hauer, Executive Director, Dover Housing Authority (DHA), dated May 27, 2014 Attachment #3 - Two (2) Memoranda from HUD - Philadelphia Office, dated May 17, 2010, Related to Environmental Reviews

ATTACHMENT #1 LF&A Committee Meeting of 05/27/2014 CIUOF DOVER GRANT -IN-AID APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS Funding Requests Are Due No Later Than 4:30 p.m., Friday, November 1, 20xx. City of Dover Finance Department P.O. Box 475 Dover, Delaware 19903 OR Finance Department Weyandt Hall 5 E. Reed Street, Suite 300 Dover, Delaware 19901 Applications can be downloaded from the City website To save the document to your computer from the website you must do the following: + Go the http:// + Click on the Grant-In-Aid Application link; + Right-click on the Word document (FY15 GIA Application.doc); + Left click on Save As or Save Target As; + Select where to save the file . For technical assistance for downloading document please call the Finance Department at 302-736-7018.

FUNDING REQUESTS ARE DUE ON OR BEFORE FRIDAY NOVEMBER 1, 20xx. This funding request format has been designed to provide for a tightly focused and informative presentation of the organization's request for funds based on a clear statement of the organization's purpose (or goals and objectives); a concise description, the financing requirements, and anticipated accomplishments for each of the programs or services being offered to meet these purposes; and the resulting total organization projections of income and expenses. PLEASE READ ALL THE MATERIAL CAREFULLY BEFORE PREPARING THE REQUEST. Additional supplemental material may be requested by the Grant-in-Aid Committee. We are requesting that each organization provide the original and one copy of the funding request and one copy of your most recent audit and the audit's management letter or a compilation statement, by a Certified Public Accountant or independent Public Accountant. DO NOT SUBMIT TAX FORMS. Please number each page and indicate organization name on each page. Please do not staple your application. GENERAL DIRECTIONS 1. Fiscal Year- Your budget request from the State of Delaware is for the period July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. Information involving audited data or historical financial data will be based on your organization's fiscal year. The information for prior year would be taken from your organization's audit or compilation statement. PLEASE NOTE: Organizations using fiscal years should apply the following : Prior Year- FY 2013 Current Year- FY 2014 Proposed Year- FY 2015 Organizations using calendar years should apply the following: Prior Year- 2012 Current Year - 2013 Proposed Year - 2014 2

2. Rounding Figures - All figures should be rounded to the nearest hundred dollar. 3. Labeling - Please type the organization name clearly on each form as the forms may be separated during processing. 4. COMPLETE ENTIRE APPLICATION - ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS; EXPLAIN WHY A PARTICULAR QUESTION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOUR ORGANIZATION. 5. Forward completed application by November 1. 20xx. to: Finance Department Weyandt Hall P.O. Box 475 Dover, Delaware 19903 OR Controller/Treasurer Weyandt Hall 5 E. Reed Street, Suite 300 Dover, Delaware 19901 3

POLICY OBJECTIVE The purpose of this policy is to standardize the method by which the City of Dover provides financial assistance for community events sponsored by non-profit organizations that benefit all of the Citizens of Dover or enhances the City's Economic Development initiatives. The applicant must be a non-profit organization incorporated in the State of Delaware and is located in the City of Dover. Any public funding request will be limited to the purpose of this policy as described above. All City of Dover policies are to subject to the City of Dover Charter Part II Code of Ordinances Chapter 2, Article 1, Division 4 "Code of Conduct", which is licable to all elected and appointed officials and to all employees of the City of In consideration of these guidelines and policies, should be on a strict, rather than loose, construction basis, and obviously, the be to rationalize ways and means for circumvention. The City of Dover Grant-In-Aid Policy will be Council. 4

GUIDELINES FOR FY 2015 GRANTS-IN-AID A. Only non-profit organizations are eligible to apply for Grant-In-Aid. · B. No funds will be appropriated for the purpose of paying personnel cost, relocation, purchasing buildings or rehabilitation or renovation of buildings. C. In order for an organization to be considered for a Grant-In-Aid for FY 2015, the organization must: of ng (budget) procedures and an annual audit. sin accordance with the application. 10. Demonstrate community support. 11. Request funds only for a program which does not receive full funding from other sources of revenue. 5

Instructjons; Form 1 MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION Official Name: Indicate legal name of organization on Incorporation Certificate or other legal documents. Please list any additional names your organization uses-if a trade name or other operating name is used. Address of Management Office: Where should co and checks, etc., be forwarded? P.O. Box, please include Physical Address Contact Representative: Indicate: ,, ~ ~ ~/ ' '' -~~se provide t ~ rganization background in a concise na~~e as foil -~ 1. ~~ . .·~ tbn mission statement; 2. Organization location(s), days and hours of operation. 6

Instructions: Form 3 REVENUE This form requests the total revenue for your organization. Note that the categories are by sources of revenue as follows: Federal Government State Government City Government In-Kind City Services (estimated va Investment Sale of Materials Dues Contributions or Donations Miscellaneous Other Also, Federal Government and as shown on the form. Be sure to i and State Government revenues. The total of all revenue ,~~ ( ' ' ~J:-Jorm is used ~port ca~ of disbursif~ ts. ~ rsements by your organization by ~~ge is used to report operating expenses of your The top ~-~ron of th organizatiori~ , ~ The lower portio , ~J categories. •. sed to report non-expense disbursements by various Total Expenses and the Total Non-Expense Disbursements should be reported on the Total Disbursement line at the bottom of the form. 7

Instryctions. Form 5 FEDERAL & STATE GRANTS This form recei ve requests a re d through . State Grants. your organization has th e Federal portmg & of all f . undmg List the project name, fiscal year in which amount. . the award was made, and the ~ ~' "~ ,~~~~ ' Ali! ' ' ~ \~~~'' ' p ~' ,~~ ' ~ r ~ ~~~\ ~ ~~' ~,, '''' ~ ' '' J ~ 8

Instructjoos; Form 6 SUMMARY This report consolidates the revenue (Form 3) and disbursements (Form 4). Line 1 Total revenue from Form 3. Line 2 Total disbursements from Form 4. Line 3 Line 1 and Line 2. Line 4 Carryover - This line should column the available bala For the current year's amount on Line 5 for the Line 5 Line 6 previous year amount of the should be reflected on 7, the total of all these I Form 6, Line 6. 9

Instructjons; Form 7 PROGRAM INFORMATION Note: One page is required for each program. Line 1 Program Name & Target Population: indicate name of program and who the service is targeting. How do you make the target population aware of the service? Line 2 Program Description- indicate the activities associated with this program. Line 3 Which other community organ similar services? Indicate Line 4 Line 5 Line 6 Line 7 nights of shelter ten people (the same people or different people) for five hours per day, 250 days per year, the <:l'o r-..,r·o would be 12,500 hours of training. Line 9 Line 10 Program disbursements Line 11 Difference between Lines 9 and 10. Line 12 Program Grant-in-Aid - Proposed year should reflect that portion of Form 6, Line 6 that applies to this program. 10

Instructjons; Form 8 SCHEDULE OF POSITIONS & SALARIES Please list all positions filled by your organization, the number of employees in each position, and the salary and salary range of each position. Indicate that your organization ""' 0'"~m and the date that the application your organization. FORMS IN PLACE OF AN AUDIT OR .......,_..... ENTS. 11

CITY OF DOVER GRANT-IN-AID APPLICATION FORM FY 2015 FUNDING REQUESTS ARE DUE NO LATER THAN (TIME, DAY, DATE}. Official Name of Organization : Date of Incorporation: 9 digit Federal Employer Identification No.: DDDDDDDDD Contact Representative: Phone Number (daytime) : E-mail address: YES NO Are you a first time applicant? DO Did you receive a Grant-in-Aid Award in Fiscal Year 2014? DO If yes, does this application include a request to fund a new program? DO Is your organization receiving or has your organization received Grant in Aid from other government agencies? DO If yes, what is the total amount of Grant in Aid money received from other government agencies? $

FORM 1 ORGANIZATION: YEAR: 2015 MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION Official Name of Organization: Address of Management Office: Street Address or Location: Physical Location of organization for site visits Phone Number: Contact Representative: Name: Address: Phone Number: (Daytime) E-Mail Address: Names of Board of Directors and Daytime Telephone Numbers: Names of Officers and Daytime Telephone Numbers

FORM 2 ORGANIZATION : YEAR: 2015 ORGANIZATION BACKGROUND ORGANIZATION MISSION STATEMENT: ORGANIZATION LOCATION(s) where services are actually provided, days and hours of operation for site visits.

FORM 3 ORGANIZATION: YEAR: 2015 REVENUE Revenue Source Previous Year Current Year Proposed Year FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MEDICARE MEDICAID . GRANTS OTHER STATE GOVERNMENT GRANT IN AID CONTRACTSBYSTATEAGENCY CITY OF DOVER GRANT IN AID xxxxxxxxxx OTHER (LIST) INVESTMENTS DIVIDENDS & INTEREST SALE OF ASSETS SALE MATERIALS DUES CONTRIBUTIONS or DONATIONS MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL REVENUE

FORM 4 ORGANIZATION: YEAR: 2015 DISBURSEMENTS Previous Year Current Year Proposed Year EXPENSES Salaries Employee Benefits Payroll Taxes Professional Fees Supplies Telephone and Fax Postage Rent Utilities Repairs and Maintenance Printing and Publications Travel, Conferences and Meetings Dues Assistance to Individuals Grants and Awards (other than Grant in Aid) Other (List) Miscellaneous TOTAL EXPENSES NON-EXPENSE DISBURSEMENTS Equipment Vehicles Mortgage/Loans Investments Other TOTAL NON-EXPENSE DISBURSEMENTS TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS

FORM 5 ORGANIZATION : YEAR: 2015 SA. FEDERAL & STATE GRANTS If you are a Federal/State Grant Recipient, please complete this form; Name of Project Fiscal Year Amount $

FORM 6 ORGANIZATION: YEAR: 2015 SUMMARY Previous Current Proposed Year Year Year 1 TOTAL REVENUE on Form 3 2 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS on Form 4 3 OPERATING SURPLUS/DEFICIT 4 CARRYOVER 5 NET SURPLUS/DEFICIT 6 GRANT IN AID REQUEST Programs from Form 7 to be funded through Grant in Aid in FY 2015 Amount Requested 7 TOTAL (THIS LINE SHOULD EQUAL LINE 6 OF PROPOSED YEAR COLUMN)

FORM 7 ORGANIZATION: YEAR: 2015 PROGRAM INFORMATION 1. Program Name & Target Population : 2. Program Description: 3. Which other community organizations provide this or similar services? 4. How will the program obtain its objective & how will the outcomes be measured? 5. What progress has been made in the past year to achieve the program's objectives? Previous Current Proposed Year Award - -- · -Award ------ ---- -- - -~ - 6. Number of People Served 7. Service Measure 8. Amount of Service 9. Program Revenue 10. Program Disbursements 11. Surplus/Deficit 12. Amount of Grant in Aid Requested for this Program - ~- - -

FORM 8 ORGANIZATION: YEAR: 2014 SCHEDULE OF ALL POSITIONS AND SALARIES SUPPORTING ACTUAL EXPENSES AND BUDGET ESTIMATES FOR AGENCY STAFF Position Title Number of Salary Range Previous Current Proposed Positions Salarv Salary Salary $ $ $ $

FORM 9 ORGANIZATION: YEAR: 2014 (ORGANIZATION) AGREES: 1. To submit funding requests on the forms provided at the times designated and to participate in the allocations review process. 2. To provide an annual certified audit and other financial statements, service figures, and reports or audits as required by the City of Dover. 3. To cooperate with other organizations, both voluntary and public, in responding to the needs of the community and in promoting high standards of efficiency and effectiveness. 4. To submit accurate information with this application. NOTE: Any misstatement of facts may forfeit any remaining balance of grants due and/or future grants. 5. That this organization meets the criteria established (City Council will need to establish criteria for eligibility) and uses any Grant-in-Aid appropriated by the City Council in accordance with those provisions and any additional restrictions that may be set forth in the Grant-in-Aid policy. 6. This agency agrees to provide the City Controller/Treasurer with financial or programmatic information upon request. This agreement has been read and approved at the meeting of the governing body of the (ORGANIZATION'S NAME AND DATE) BY: (President or Chairman) DATE Daytime Phone Number: (Executive Director) DATE

FORM 10 COPY OF MOST RECENT AUDIT PREPARED BY INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBUC ACCOUNTANT OR PUBUC ACCOUNTANT SAMPLE A-B-C ATTACHED MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR ABOVE IF RECENT AUDIT IS NOT AVAILABLE. DO NOT SEND TAX FORMS

SAMPLE A ORGANIZAITON: YEAR: 2015 BALANCE SHEETS FOR FISCAL YEARS ENDING (MONTH) 2012 AND 2013 (MONTH), 2012 (MONTH), 2013 ASSETS Cash Accounts Receivable Investments - at cost (market value $ _) PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT- at cost Land Buildings and Improvements Furniture and Equipment Transportation Equipment Less Accumulated Depreciation TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES Accounts payable and accrued expenses Grants designed for future periods Fund balances Undesignated Designated TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES

SAMPLE B ORGANIZATION: YEAR: 2015 STATEMENT OF SUPPORT. REVENUE AND EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES FOR YEARS ENDING JUNE 30. 2012 AND 2013 (MONTH), 2012 (MONTH), 2013 PUBLIC SUPPORT AND REVENUE Contributions Allocated by United Way of DE Fees and grants from government agencies Otherrevenue(losses) Investment Income Gain(loss) on sale of investments Miscellaneous EXPENSES Program Services Supporting Services Management and General EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF PUBLIC SUPPORT AND REVENUE OVER EXPENSES FUND BALANCES Beginning of year previously reported End of Year

SAMPLE C ORGANIZATION: YEAR: 2015 STATEMENTS OF FUNCTIONAL EXPENSES YEARS ENDING (MONTH), 2012 AND 2013 Program Supporting Total Expenses Services Services Year ending (MONTH), 2012 Salaries Employee Benefits Payroll Taxes Professional Fees Supplies Telephone & Utilities Postage and Shipping Rent Maintenance Printing and Publications Travel Conferences & Meetings Assistance to Individuals Membership Dues Awards and Grants Miscellaneous Depreciation Program Supporting Total Expenses Services Services Year ending (MONTH), 2013 Salaries Employee Benefits Payroll Taxes Professional Fees Sl!Qf>lies Telephone & Utilities Postage and Shipping Rent Maintenance Printing and Publications Travel Conferences & Meetings Assistance to Individuals Membership Dues Awards and Grants Miscellaneous Depreciation

ATTACHMENT #2 LF&A Committee Meeting of 05/27/2014 76 Stevenson Drive Dover, DE 19901 302-678-1965 voice 302-678-1971 fax 1-800-545-1833, ext. 816 TDD dover.housingauthority@dhade.org email MEMORANDUM Date: May 27, 2014 To: City Council Scott D. Koenig, City Manager Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning & Community Development From: Ami Sebastian Hauer, Executive Director, Dover Housing Authority RE: Request from Dover Housing Authority for City of Dover to Act as Responsible Entity for Environmental Reviews On behalf of the Board of Commissioners and staff of the Dover Housing Authority, I am requesting the Legislative, Finance and Administration Committee’s consideration in recommending the approval of the City of Dover to enter into an agreement with the Dover Housing Authority to become the Responsible Entity for Environmental Reviews on behalf of the Dover Housing Authority. The Dover Housing Authority understands that this agreement will create additional responsibilities and duties for City of Dover staff, therefore we offer the following provisions to the Agreement: 1. The City of Dover may contract an outside agency/company to conduct the Environmental Review and prepare the required report; said agency/company to be procured following the City of Dover’s Procurement Policies; 2. The Dover Housing Authority will assume responsibility for any and all costs associated with the completion of the Environmental Review process and report; 3. The Dover Housing Authority will assume responsibility for any and all costs associated with the training of the agency/company selected to complete the Environment Review process, if necessary; 4. The Environmental Review process will be limited to no more than two reports a year. The Dover Housing Authority prepares an Annual Plan and 5-Year Plan as a requirement for its Capital Fund Program for submission and approval by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on an annual basis. Upon approval and

availability of funding levels, an Environmental Review must be completed prior to starting any capital improvements. The Dover Housing Authority will submit its Annual Plan and 5-Year Plan to the City of Dover upon approval by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. In her memo to City Council, Ms. Townshend expressed concerns over the competence of the Dover Housing Authority and challenges the City of Dover has encountered in working with our organization in the past. To address those concerns, we submit the following: 1. In 2009, I contacted former City Manager, Anthony DePrima, regarding the Responsible Entity requirement by HUD. We discussed it briefly, but a written agreement was not pursued because the Dover Housing Authority’s capital improvement projects did not require a full, complete environmental review. 2. When I initially submitted the request to the City of Dover, and subsequently met with Mr. Koenig, Ms. Townshend, and Ms. Harvey, I mistakenly stated that the Dover Housing Authority (with assistance from our Architectural/Engineering firm on contract) would complete the review for the smaller capital improvement projects as 95% of Dover Housing Authority’s projects are renovation projects and considered “Categorically Excluded”. This was incorrect, the Dover Housing Authority cannot make any determination with regard to its projects. During the meeting, the provision of the City of Dover contracting a firm to conduct the review and prepare any required reports, and the Dover Housing Authority assuming any and all costs associated with the contract, was discussed. 3. The Dover Housing Authority’s performance under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program was not stellar, but we believe we did a satisfactory job given the challenges of the program itself. Policies and procedures were not clear at the beginning of the program. The Dover Housing Authority worked very closely with City of Dover staff to complete program requirements and goals. 4. City Council was given a copy of a memo to the Dover Housing Authority’s Board of Commissioners summarizing complaints and accusations received by the Mayor and Kay Sass; we note there was no time period noted for when the accusations and complaints were received. My staff and I responded to all of the complaints listed at the time the City of Dover first brought them to our attention. The Dover Housing Authority must administer its public housing and Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program in accordance to federal regulations and the Delaware Landlord Tenant Code. The majority of the complaints are a result of enforcement of said regulations and code; with regard to the other complaints, we will be happy to address them, if requested. Following the Dover Housing Authority’s Board Meeting, I telephoned Ms. Sass to discuss the memo. I stated that I believed that the issues had been resolved at the time of the complaints; Ms. Sass stated that the memo was a compilation of complaints and accusations received by the City. Ms. Sass and Mayor Carey both had been given my cell phone number for direct communication with me, during the phone call, I again gave Ms. Sass my cell number.

The Dover Housing Authority believes that it is not a matter of competence, but a matter of understanding that enforcement of rules, regulations, and policies will result in dissatisfied applicants and residents of our programs if the result is not as they expected. Thank you for the opportunity to submit our request. We sincerely and humbly hope that the City of Dover will approve our request so we may proceed with our plans to improve our public housing units and developments.

ATTACHMENT #3 LF&A Committee Meeting of 05/27/2014

Monthly Report April 2014 Office of City Assessor

Assessor’s Report Number of Deeds Stamped for the Transfer Tax Dollar Amount for the Month of April 2013/2014 Month of April 2013/2014 $489 40 34 $500 26 Thousand 30 15 18 20 10 9 $31 $12 2 6 5 $29 $0 $18 10 0 2013 $36 $11 2013 0 $0 2014 2014 First Time Buyer for Month of April 2013/2014 Realty April 2013/2014 PropertySales in Dollars Received Prior to Recording 18 20 15 Res. Non‐First $33 $40 Millions 15 10 Time Buyers $30 9 $20 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $0 $0 10 Res. First Time 2013 $10 Buyers $0 5 2014 0 2013 2014 Major Updates February ‐ 14 March ‐ 14 April ‐ 14 Assessment Change $630,900 $2,672,600 ‐ $28,000 Residential Sales Ratio Report Sales in Study Total Assessed Total Sale Price Ratio PRD Value 14 $2,477,900 $2,457,661 1.08 1.02 Ratio – Assessed Value divided by Sale Price. 1

Assessor’s Report PRD – Mean – A PRD above 1.03 tends to indicate assessment regressivity – high valued properties are under appraised relative to low valued properties. A PRD below .98 tends to indicate assessment progressivity – high valued properties are relatively over appraised. Points of Interest Scanning & Filing ‐ All new deeds are being scanned and attached to the CAMA software for easy retrieval. ‐ All appeal documents and correspondence are being scanned and attached to the CAMA software for easy retrieval. ‐All old property record cards are being scanned and indexed into Fortis. 2015 Revaluation ‐ The Assessor’s Office has started the 2015 Revaluation process by visiting various neighborhoods and collecting data, if necessary Assessor’s Office Supplemental Billing ‐ April Supplemental bills went out totaling $3,879.90 Appeals ‐ Posted Assessment Register on the web, in City Hall, Dover Library and Assessor’s Office. ‐ Appeals submitted by the April 30, 2014 deadline: Commercial: 5 Residential: 7 Exemption Request: 10 2

MAY 16, 2014 CITY OF DOVER PAGE: 1 10:29 AM SALES RATIO REPORT CA324 PARID NBHD LUC ADDRESS UNITS STYLE YRBLT STORIES SFLA GRADE CDU TOTAL APPR SALE DT PRICE ASR ED05-057.17-01-71.00 16F R10 204 GRINDING WHEEL DR 1 8 1993 2 1547 C+ AV 150,100 01-APR-14 149,900 ED05-067.01-01-34.00 26A R10 338 TOPAZ CIR 5 2014 2 2307 B GD 254,100 03-APR-14 271,641 ED05-067.01-01-39.00 26A R10 7 TANZANITE CT 5 2014 2 2103 B GD 248,400 01-APR-14 259,820 ED05-067.09-03-26.00 20A R10 35 WHITEMARSH CT 1 8 1983 2 2378 B- GD 199,400 22-APR-14 210,000 ED05-067.16-02-48.00 11A R10 724 N GOVERNORS AVE 1 3 1948 1 1354 C+ AV 156,700 04-APR-14 147,000 ED05-067.18-02-06.00 17 R10 680 INDEPENDENCE BLVD 1 5 1976 2 2220 B AV 190,800 22-APR-14 195,000 ED05-067.19-03-40.00 17 R10 11 PATRIOT DR 1 5 1990 2 2370 B GD 206,700 24-APR-14 216,900 ED05-067.19-03-44.00 17 R10 21 PATRIOT DR 1 5 1990 2 2353 B GD 204,000 30-APR-14 210,000 ED05-067.20-01-31.00 10 R10 539 PEAR ST 1 5 1963 2 1440 C+ GD 157,300 28-APR-14 138,500 ED05-068.14-03-50.00 13 R10 1212 HARRISON DR 1 14 1964 1 1130 C FR 138,400 30-APR-14 136,000 ED05-076.06-08-23.00 17A R10 111 PERIWINKLE DR 1 13 1995 2 1260 C+ AV 130,200 23-APR-14 113,900 ED05-076.06-08-54.00 17A R10 15 PERIWINKLE DR 1 13 1995 2 1260 C+ AV 129,800 28-APR-14 115,000 ED05-076.13-03-10.00 25 R10 315 CHARRING CROSS DR 1 13 1997 2 1848 C+ AV 138,800 01-APR-14 134,000 ED05-076.20-01-23.00 5 R10 49 SHERWOOD CT 1 16 1959 1 1626 C+ AV 173,200 30-APR-14 160,000

CITY MANAGER’S MONTHLY REPORT APRIL 2014 City Manager’s Monthly Report, April 2014

Customer Services  In the month of April, we processed 3,252 credit card payments for the month totaling $714,264.59. Human Resources  Continued contract negotiations. Library  695 attended 54 programs for adults.  574 attended 17 programs for teens.  894 attended 34 programs for children.  34 volunteers completed 409.5 hours of service.  135 attended 26 programs/classes coordinated through the Job Center. Public Works  Working on CIP and additional funding for future street program and other projects. 2 City Manager’s Monthly Report, April 2014

CUSTOMER SERVICES WORK ORDERS PROCESSED Extensions of Credit 3,000 400 2,500 296 2,094 2,166 2,136 300 259 1,919 228 243 239 244 2,000 1,820 1,809 210 214 198 1,679 1,707 1,613 195 194 188 1,515 200 177 1,386 1,399 1,366 1,500 1,000 100 500 Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- 0 Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 CUSTOMER PAYMENT USAGE CUTS FOR NON PAYMENT 80,000 $2,000,000 52,866 $1,539,544 60,000 54,389 $1,600,000 40,000 $1,200,000 23,984 22,965 18,985 17,193 $800,000 20,000 3,246 $349,187 $324,987 139 $400,000 0 Drive-Thru Over the Mail, Drop Credit Bank Drafts $- Window Counter Box Cards 2014 YTD 2013YTD April 2014 April 2013 FYTD14 FYTD13 FY 2014 FY 2013 Major Program Updates Apr 2014 Apr 2013 Difference Year-to-Date Year-to-Date Number of Customers Served 19,285 22,988 (3,703) 211,186 231,088 Final Bills 663 629 34 6,297 6,121 Estimated Bills 163 157 6 1,706 1,586 Penalties Posted $ 24,076 $ 19,054 5,022 $ 196,260 $ 195,046 Extensions of Credit - Amount Extended $ 85,317 $ 88,030 (2,713) $ 749,325 $ 805,307 Balance Transfers $ 11,093 $ 7,580 3,513 $ 50,807 $ 34,966 Utility Collections $ 31,706 $ 32,172 (466) $ 246,192 $ 230,048 Special Assessments $ - $ - - $ - $ 659 Miscellaneous Billings $ 11,050 $ 101,234 (90,184) $ 1,214,829 $ 1,203,512 CNP through Disconnect Collars $ 9 $ 32 (23) 188 312 Court Cases - - - - - Tamperings 2 - 2 4 18 Taxes Levied (includes carry forward) $ 280,958 $ 366,301 (85,343) $ 10,914,236 $ 10,921,443 Billing Adjustments $ 9,357 $ 4,321 5,035 $ 3,875 $ (2,274) Total Taxes Collected $ 39,346 $ 32,051 7,295 $ 10,691,011 $ 10,589,240 Taxes Outstanding $ 250,968 $ 329,929 (78,960) $ 250,968 $ 329,929 Payments in Lieu $ - $ 5,000 (5,000) $ - $ 58,450 Billing Accuracy (on schedule billings) 99.0% 99.0% - 99.0% 99.0% Bills Published on Schedule 99.0% 99.0% - 99.9% 99.9% Meters Read on Schedule 99.9% 99.9% - 99.9% 99.9% Customer Satisfaction Rating 99.9% 99.9% - 99.7% 99.7% Delinquent Accounts Collected 99.7% 99.7% - 99.8% 99.8% City Manager’s Monthly Report, April 2014 3

HUMAN RESOURCES April May June July August Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April Category Total 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 * Caucasian 287 283 282 281 279 283 284 285 287 288 288 290 289 N/A * Minorities 54 53 53 54 54 54 56 55 56 57 57 58 58 N/A Hired 4 3 1 2 2 7 4 1 3 5 1 3 0 36 Terminated/ Resigned/ 4 8 2 1 3 2 1 1 0 3 1 0 1 27 Retired/Other Transferred/ 1 1 0 2 0 4 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 13 Promoted Jobs Posted 5 5 8 5 5 3 2 0 2 4 4 3 3 49 Workers Comp. Inju- 1 4 3 4 3 7 2 2 1 5 2 2 0 36 ries Workers Comp. Hours 62 28 0 119 62 384 110 48 120 116 0 128 125 1302 Insurance Claims 2 3 7 4 6 2 2 1 4 5 2 4 4 46 Full-time Employees: 330 Part-time Employees: 17 (4 Pitts Center, 1 Recreation, 11 Library, 1 Customer Service) -Numbers do not reflect, temporary, seasonal, relief fire dispatchers, committee or council members. Retired/Transferred/Promoted: Chief of Police Positions Posted: (2) Library Assistants – part-time; Playground Leaders I & II; Civil Engineer Recruitment Information (Positions closed in April) Asian/ American Hispan- In Out Position Total Female Male Unknown Black White Pacific Indian/Alaskan Unknown ic Dover Dover Islander Native Civil Engineer 7 4 1 2 0 2 1 1 1 2 0 7 Playground Leaders 32 13 16 3 17 11 1 - - 3 17 15 Library Assistant (2) 68 48 20 0 27 33 1 2 3 2 44 24 Part-time Unfilled/Open Positions by Department* Unfilled/Open Positions April May June July Au- Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April By Department 13 13 13 13 gust 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 13 Electric 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Public Works 19 22 22 20 20 16 15 15 14 13 13 13 13 Police 1 0 1 2 3 3 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 All Other Departments 7.5 5.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6 7.5 6.5 5 6 5 5 5 Totals 30.5 31.5 33.5 32.5 33.5 29 28.5 27.5 25 24 24 23 24 *Not used for Budgeting Purposes ² The following has been updated to reflected the Fiscal 2013-14 Budget Electric: Electric Director, Electrical Engineer, (3) Lineman 1st Class Public Works: Utility Maintenance Mechanic II/Wastewater, Operations -Construction Manager, Building Craftsperson I , Motor Equipment Operator III (Streets), (2) Motor Equipment Operators II (Grounds), Motor Equipment Operator I (Water), Motor Equipment Operator III (Sanitation), Public Works Operation Manager, Civil Engineer l, Utility Construction Worker, Nursery Worker II, Grounds Superintendent Police: Police Officer All Other Departments: (2) Library Assistant (part-time), Storekeeper Buyer I, Fire Dispatcher, Accountant II, Assistant Finance Director 4 City Manager’s Monthly Report, April 2014

HUMAN RESOURCES continued Workers Comp Injuries 20 15 10 5 0 Apr- Ma y- Jun- Jul - Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Ja n- Feb- Ma r- Apr- 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 Electric Public Works Police Others Electric: 0 Public Works: 0 Police: 0 All Other Depts.: 0 Turnover Statistics 2010 2011 2012* 2013 * 2014 Total Turnover % 5.57 6.75 11.00 10.91 1.44 Termination Turnover % 0.27 1.08 0.29 1.47 0 Resignation Turnover % 2.12 4.05 5.21 5.01 .58 Retirement Turnover % 3.18 1.62 5.50 4.42 .87 * Healthcare cost sharing implemented ** Healthcare cost sharing implemented for DOE Average Employees 2010 2011 2012* 2013* 2014 Total Number of Employees Separating from Service 21 25 38 37 4 Average Number of Full-time Employees 362 356 333 325 330 Average Number of Part-time Employees 16 15 12 14 16 * Healthcare cost sharing implemented City Manager’s Monthly Report, April 2014 5

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Service Requests Resolved Citizen Action Center - Customers w/ New 200 150 Issues 170 165 164 130 150 130 110 122 115 113 113 104 104 101 90 97 100 70 54 50 103 102 106 80 87 84 50 30 56 56 55 57 55 55 32 10 0 Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 Programming Requests Completed Page Views - City of Dover Web Page 20 35,000 17 15 15 15 15 30,000 14 15 13 25,000 12 12 Pages Viewed 11 10 20,000 10 8 29,413 29,435 27,721 25,196 25,562 25,827 24,615 26,455 26,498 15,000 21,716 21,692 23,682 19,884 5 3 10,000 5,000 0 0 Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- Apr - May- Jun- Jul- Aug - Sep - Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr - 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 Current Performance Indicators Last Month Same Month Month Last Year iSeries Availability 100% 100% 100% Server Availability 100% 100% 100% AS/400 Connections (concurrent/authorized users) N/A N/A N/A PCs Supported 364 364 352 Scheduled PCs Replaced - - - Servers Supported 19 19 15 People Trained 28 14 4 Availability Statistics based on 7:00 AM until 5:00 PM Monday—Friday 6 City Manager’s Monthly Report, April 2014

LIBRARY Reference Transactions 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Adult Teen Children Apr 14 Adults – 1049 Teens – 452 Children – 462 Circulation April 14 FYTD 14 April 13 FYTD 13 Dover residents 19,894 212,829 19,791 188,904 Ebooks 1,493 13,910 1,012 9,399 Kent residents* 14,259 151,467 17,109 147,716 Non-county residents 2,088 23,857 2,328 20,860 Registrations Dover residents 330 3,730 312 3,557 Kent residents* 33 694 130 1,235 Non-county residents 7 73 12 110 Other Visiting Patrons 22,543 268,281 21,822 263,613 Meeting Room Usage 1,822 19,110 2,007 10,395 Photocopier Usage 1,249 11,510 1,589 12,944 Computer Printing Usage 3,209 25,633 2,584 20,033 Computer Users 4,636 46,898 4,810 39,898 Wireless Computer Users 1,552 13,295 Holds (Total) 6,536 61,851 7,106 58,707 *Breakout of Kent County Residential Statistics Circulation Registrations Harrington: 142 Harrington: 2 Milford: 74 Milford: 0 Smyrna: 1,125 Smyrna: 5 Outside City Limits: 12,918 Outside City Limits: 26 Total Registered Users: (Card Holders) City: 23,081 Kent County: 12,647 Outside Kent County: 957 Other Points of Interest: Inter/Interlibrary: 69 items loaned out Technical services: 2,159 items added 37 items borrowed 697 items deleted Volunteers: 409.5 hours of service completed City Manager’s Monthly Report, April 2014 7

PUBLIC WORKS Administration Administrative review and inspection services continued on all residential and commercial developments. The following residential subdivisions are in various phases of construction: Oak Shadows Emerald Pointe Eden Hill (Residential) Patriot Village Farthing Woods Village of Cannon Mill Clearview Meadows Sanitation Monthly Total Refuse (Tons) Sanitation Hours 1,500 1200 956 942 911 1000 1,000 840 845 855 875 873 790 777 673 679 699 800 569 566 576 597 600 500 407 392 330 298 315 250 238 263 400 160 171 173 146 146 127 146 200 35 37 - 0 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Bulk Collection Mechanized Hand Trash Container 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 Collection Collection Repair/Delivery Bulk Automated Apr 14 Apr 13 APRIL 2014 FYTD 14 APRIL 2013 FYTD 13 Trips to DSWA Sandtown Landfill 188 1,868 180 1,547 Total Tonnage to DSWA 1,018.75 9,299.74 999.94 7,456.71 90-Gallon Containers Delivered 31 183 17 220 300-Gallon Containers Delivered 0 20 1 25 Total Man Hours-containers Delivered 35 311 37 374 CURBSIDE RECYCLING TOTAL # OF TOTAL # OF STATS HOUSEHOLDS ACCOUNTS WEIGHT/LBS. AVE. LBS. COLLECTED April 2014 19,394 8,910 286,560 14.78 8 City Manager’s Monthly Report, April 2014

PUBLIC WORKS continued Streets APRIL 2014 FYTD 14 APRIL 2013 FYTD 13 Signed Installed 46 351 9 197 Signs Repaired 17 105 7 83 Curbs Painted Yellow (feet) 11,324 12,630 14,513 20,127 New Post Installed 4 48 0 29 Storm Catch Basins Repaired 3 17 0 1 Storm Catch Basin Repairing (Hrs.) 29 99 0 1 Storm Catch Basins Cleaned 10 301 40 1,836 Storm Catch Basins Cleaning (Hrs.) 24 158 21 704 Hot Mix Patching (Tons) 0 1 0 236 Hot Mix Patching (Hrs.) 0 0 0 283 Cold Mix Patching Hrs.) 41 169 24 483 Concrete Work (Hrs) 2 238 0 273 Concrete Patching (Cubic Yards) 6 27 0 0 Ditch Work (Hrs). 36 99 16 106 Street and Alley Maintenance (Hrs) 22 452 0 1,336 Street Sweeping (Miles) 1,447 6,846 1,206 8,354 Street Sweeping (Cubic Yards) 288 1,656 636 2,168 Leaves Collected (Cubic Yards) 1,075 8,676 72 14,527 Leaf Collection (Miles) 860 4,796 386 5,979 Grounds Total Work Orders = 7 General = 5 Arborist = 2 Arborist Crew APRIL 2014 APRIL 2013 Trees Trimmed 80 19 Trees Removed 3 1 Stumps Removed 2 7  Limed low street trees.  Tree and stump removals  Evaluate trees. Beautification Crew  Worked in greenhouse potting plants, plugs and watering plants  Weeding flower beds. Mowing Crew  Mowed grass at various city locations  Sprayed weeds. City Manager’s Monthly Report, April 2014 9

PUBLIC WORKS continued Geographic Information Systems (GIS)  Created and printed multiple posters for Economic Development Office, the Mayor’s office, and Dover Public Library.  Created Exhibit maps for Schutte Park, CDBG NSP Affordable Housing Properties maps & DID Land Use maps for the Planning Department.  Worked with Planner on various questions about ArcGIS software.  Trained engineer on GPS unit and collection sanitary sewer data.  Updated and reprinted voting district maps for the City Clerk’s office.  Created and maintained various GIS layers such as parcels, rentals, curbside recycling, fleet maintenance.  Trained Planning & Inspections staff on the large format scanner. Fleet and Facilities Management Fleet Maintenance Work Orders: 96 Major Program Updates MEASURE APRIL 2014 APRIL 2013 DIFFERENCE Scheduled Preventative Mainte- 16 out of 29 17 out of 29 nance appointments being kept 55.17 % - 3.45 % 58.62 % (Quantity and Percentage) Facilities Management Routine work orders completed 29 out of 29 22 out of 24 within 5 days (Quantity and Per- 8.33 % 100 % 91.67 % centage) Emergency work orders completed 1 out of 1 2 out of 2 within 2 days (Quantity and Per- 0% 100 % 100 % centage) 10 City Manager’s Monthly Report, April 2014

PUBLIC WORKS continued Water/Wastewater Water Production/Billed Consumption/Flow to Kent County 255000000 205000000 155000000 105000000 55000000 5000000 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 Total Water Prod. Billed Consumpt. Total Flow to County City Readings ENGINEERING SUMMARY Major Program Updates APRIL 2014 APRIL 2013 DIFF FY14 YTD FY13 State and Federal Violations 0 violations 0 violations - - - Water Quality Complaints 1 30 -29 98 111 Plan Review Completed Within 14 plans 7 plans +7 76 77 30 days of Submission 100% 100% OPERATIONAL SUMMARY Task APRIL 14 APRIL 13 CURRENT FY 1,260,285,00 Water Production - Daily Average 4,099,167 4,158,667 0 Average Field Response Time (goal is <30 minutes) 17.18 13.00 17.64 Water Mains Repaired 0 0 4 Water Service Lines Repaired 0 2 7 Wastewater Mains Repaired 0 0 0 Wastewater Service Lines Repaired 0 2 3 Sewer Lines Flushed - linear feet 54,538 48,488 1,030,797 Sewer Mains Videoed -linear feet 261 0 19,733 Total Fire Hydrants in Service 1,807 1,806 1,807 Total Water Meters in City Distribution System 14,201 14,107 14,201 City Manager’s Monthly Report, April 2014 11

PUBLIC UTILITIES Electric System Peak Total System Load 200 100,000 164.2 80,225 150.9 156.8 144.8 70,462 141.5 80,000 67,058 66,408 60,085 60,871 59,792 60,375 123.6 118.24 57,155 58,463 150 55,369 107.1 105.94 108.35 106.4 52,890 51,922 99.89 96.14 60,000 100 40,000 50 20,000 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 Outages Customers of Gained/Lost 35 8,000 50 25 6,000 39 40 Outages Customers 15 4,000 30 20 15 5 2,000 10 11 9 10 5 7 5 5 5 2 4 3 Apr 13 May 13 Jun 13 Jul 13 Aug 13 Sep 13 Oct 13 Nov 13 Dec 13 Jan 14 Feb 14 Mar 14 Apr 14 -5 0 0 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Outages Customers 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 Outages: 2 Customers: 475 Electric Monthly Outage Report The annual outage goal will be less than 295 Controllable Outages Average Response Time minutes per customer, which is a Delaware Annual goal is less than 40 Goal is less than 30 minutes Standard. This will be measured by calculating the System Average Interruption Duration Index. Month Year-to-date Month Year-to-date FY 14 YTD FY 13 FY 12 1 32 28.5 Minutes 28.2 Minutes 67.76 50.74 39.44 APR 14 APR 13 FY14 YTD PROGRAM UPDATES Tree Trimming 318 234 2031 Number of Oil Releases 1 0 10 Lost Time Accidents – All Electric Utility Divisions 1 0 2 New Services 5 5 96 Major Goals Completed in the Past Two Months N/A 12 City Manager’s Monthly Report, April 2014

City Planner’s Monthly Report Planning, Inspections & Recreation APRIL 2014 Planning, Inspections & Recreation Highlights  Challenger Basketball - Partnering with local schools for the physi‐ cally and mentally challenged, we hosted Challenger Basketball in the John W Pitts Recreation Center. Nine participated in this fun and fulfilling event. Thanks to DSU Cheerleaders, Dover High School girls basketball coach and players for making our participants day a little more special.  Central DE Chamber of Commerce 55+ Expo - Jane Harris & Car‐ olyn Courtney staffed our booth at the 55+ Expo held at Dover Downs. This was very productive for promoting the activities and programs of the department. Many were interested in our senior fitness programs and our summer camps for their grandchildren. The CDCC noted 81% of attendees where from Wilmington to Ocean View. 19% were visiting Delaware and of those 7% were interested in moving to Delaware.  Dover Park - Hosting the DuDover du‐athalon, a biking and running event, Brick’s Multisport reported 96 participants were on hand for this year. This was the fourth year of hosting the event at Dover Park and they are looking forward to booking with us in 2015.  Easter Egg Hunt ‐ We held another successful Easter Egg Hunt at Schutte Park, an estimated 300 chil‐ dren participated in this years hunt. Personnel and Training Updates  On April 4, 2014 Dawn Melson‐Williams a ended a Webinar on “Pedestrian & Bicycle Planning” sponsored by APA Delaware. Ann Marie Townshend was one of the presenters in the webinar.  Carolyn Courtney, Mare a Savage‐Purnell, David McGinnis, and Debbie Krueger a ended and passed Heartsaver® First Aid/CPR training on April 22 or April 23, 2014 held at the John W Pitts Recreation Center.

Planning, Inspections & Recreation Revenue FY '14 Budget FY '14 Actual (YTD) Revenue Stream LOOKING FORWARD ….. Business License $1,460,000 $ 1,444,259 99% The following ac vi es are Trailer License $20,500 $ 21,514 105% planned for May and will be Building Permits $400,000 $ 549,473 137% reported in the May Monthly Cert. of Occupancy $9,000 $ 4,670 52% report: Public Occupancy $10,000 $ 9,484 95%  Bike to Work Day on May 14, Lodging House $14,000 $ 14,574 104% 2014 Plumbing/Heating/Air $75,000 $ 58,228 78%  Dover Days Sprinkler $25,000 $ 21,068 84%  Silver Lake Clean Up Rental Inspection Fee $345,000 $ 347,924 101% Miscellaneous $20,000 $ 40,301 202% Fire Protection Fees $31,000 $ 28,030 90% Vacant Building Reg. $60,000 $ 138,750 231% Total P&I Revenue $2,469,500 $ 2,678,275 108% Recreation $133,000 $108,636 82% PLANNING OFFICE The Planning Office is part of the review process for certain types of construction activity permits (Building Permits, Sign Permits, etc.) and Certificate of Occupancy permits. For April 2014, Planning Staff was in- volved with review of 60 Permits and 5 Certificates of Occupancy permits (2014 calendar year total of 266 Permits and COs compared to 276 for 2013). Planning Staff also reviews new applications for Business Li- censes and Rental Dwelling Permits. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Planning Staff continues to focus on the various implementation items identified in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan as amended.  On-going efforts of the Planning Office include participating in planning for the participating in the planning and development design of Garrison Oak Technical Park, the pending updates to the FIRM Maps (Flood Insurance Rate maps) issued by FEMA for flood plains, and research for future ordinance amendments related to the commercial zoning classifications.  Planning Staff attended the Delaware Population Consortium meeting on April 24, 2014. The Delaware Population Consortium provides 30-year population and employment projections for the State, counties, and selected municipalities including the City of Dover.  A proposed package of Text Amendments to the Commercial, Office, and Institutional zoning districts was presented to the Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee of City Council on April 14, 2014. After discussion, the amendments were referred back to Planning Staff for additional

language drafting and editing. It is anticipated the series of Amendments will begin the formal review pro- cess in late May. Pending Ordinance Development Planning Staff continues to develop proposed text amendments to the City’s Floodplain Regulations to be in compliance with FEMA’s regulations for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Additional tech- nical assistance is provided by DNREC and their flood ordinance consultant. A Draft Ordinance #2014-09 has been developed to amend the Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 50 – Floods. It will be presented to the Legislative Finance and Ad- ministration Committee of City Council in early May to begin the formal review process. This review and update of the City’s Flood- plain Regulations is required as new FIRM Maps (Flood Insurance Rate maps) will become effective in July 2014. New Dover High School Project (C-10-05/S-11-18) Construction activities related to site improvements and the building construction activities continue at the new Dover High School project site. The monthly coordination meeting on the project was held on April 24, 2014 for updates on the construction. DNREC has identi- fied significant compliance issues with erosion and sediment control issues on the project site to be reme- died. The sidewalk improvement project for the north side of Route 8 and the HAWK are progressing through the design process at DelDOT. Information on each agency’s requirements for compliance in order to allow furniture move-in, in order to issue a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, and to issue a Final Cer- tificate of Occupancy were discussed. Construction Activity  Planning Staff conducted Pre-Construction Meeting for the Luther Village PND-SCHO, Phase 3 pro- ject for the third apartment building with residential activity building on the site off Babb Drive and con- ducted the Pre-Construction meeting for the North Street Pocket Park to be located at 301 South Gover- nors Avenue. These meetings help coordinate construction activities and the City permitting and inspec- tion processes.  The Planning Staff continues to participate in weekly coordination conference calls with Calpine regard- ing the Garrison Energy Center project at 450 Garrison Oak Drive (Lot 7 of the Garrison Oak Tech- nical Park). The Final/Final Administrative Site Plan (S-12-17) approval for the Garrison Energy Center Phase 1 was granted on September 6, 2013 subject to conditions of approval and the project construction is well underway. BOARD AND COMMISSION ACTIVITY  Board of Adjustment The Board of Adjustment did not meet in April. The next regular scheduled meeting of the Board of Ad- justment is scheduled for May 21, 2014.  Historic District Commission The Historic District Commission met on April 17, 2014. The next Historic District Commission meeting is scheduled for May 22, 2014.  HI-14-03 Construction of a Parking Lot, Handicap Access, and the Landscape Plan at 6 South State Street –Recommended conditional approval of the Architectural Review Certification to the Plan- ning Commission.

Planning Commission The Planning Commission met on April 21, 2014. The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for May 19, 2014.  C-10-05 New Dover High School: Revision to Sidewalk— Recommended approval of application revision to the sidewalk (removal of S-curve connecting sidewalk from Forrest Avenue to front of school) at 1 Dover High Drive.  S-14-04 Kent County Community School Additions at 65 Carver Road and 901 Forest Street—Recommended to approval of application S-14-04 Building Additions to include the bicycle rack being moved to the back of the school at the main entrance of the school and all DAC comments.  S-14-05 Winner Volkswagen Showroom at 1387 North DuPont Highway - Recom- mended approval of new Winner Volkswagen Showroom building and site improvements, including approval of the waiver for a reduction of Arterial Street Buffer and approval of a Tree Mitigation Plan to allow for off-site tree planting as discussed in the DAC comments.  C-14-04 Personal Service Nail Salon at 235 West Loockerman Street - Recommended approval to establish a personal service establishment (Nail Salon) at 235 West Loockerman Street including all DAC comments.  C-14-02 YMCA of Delaware Kent Swim Club at 825 Kenton Road—Recommended ap- proval to establish Conditional Use for YMCA of Delaware at the previous Kent Swim Club property and approval of waiver request for partial elimination of sidewalk (on Kent on Road) allowing payment in– lieu of construction and to include all staff recommenda- tions and DAC comments.  S-14-08 Woodland Tree Clearing Plan of 560 Bay Road— Recommended to approval of Woodland Tree Clearing Plan at 560 Bay Road including the waiver request to exceed to amount of woodland clearing, DAC comments and with the condition that all fines are cleared prior to any accomplishment of work.  MI-14-02 Text Amendment: Revisions to Conditional Uses in RG-1/RG-2 – Recommended approval to City Council for MI-14-02 Text Amendment: Revisions to Con- ditional Uses in RG-1/RG-2 to include reducing the number of employees to four (4) and to change the boundaries to be properties along Route 8 only.  MI-14-03 Text Amendment: Revisions to Uses in Shopping Center Development Zones — Recommended approval to City Council for MI-14-03 Text Amendment: Revisions to Uses in Shopping Center Development Zones for the proposed ordinance to add light motor vehicle service as an accessory use in the (SC-2) Commercial Shopping Center Zone sub- ject to conditions and with an amendment to strike lines 7-18 related to (SC-3) Regional Shopping Center Zone pertaining to a proposal to add residential uses subject to conditions.  S-14-03 Watertower Place at 50 North DuPont Highway - Recommended Conditional- approval for Watertower Place of 4 commercial retail and restaurant buildings including all DAC comments and all waivers with the stipulation for a partial elimination of sidewalk at this point in time on Kings Highway.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM CDBG FY13 Projects Contracts for FY13 projects have been executed and projects are underway.  Homeownership Assistance Program Three (3) first-time homebuyers were provided downpayment assistance to purchase afforda- ble housing in the City of Dover.  MHDC Homeowner Rehabilitation Program CDBG funds will be used to rehabilitate owner occupied homes in the City of Dover found in violation of the City’s housing code. Four (4) homes have been completed. Dover Interfaith Mission to the Homeless CDBG funds will be used for operations costs for the shelter.  MHDC Emergency Home Repair Project CDBG funds will be used to assist very low income homeowners with emergency repairs to eliminate severe housing conditions that constitute health and safety hazards. Seven (7) homes have been completed.  NCALL Research CDBG funds will be utilized for foreclosure prevention and pre-purchase homeownership counseling services for up to ten (10) Dover residents.  Elizabeth W. Murphey School CDBG funds will be used for minor renovations for one of the facilities that services children that are at risk for homelessness. Replacement of the windows has been completed.  Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) The City was awarded $1,426,740 for the acquisition and rehab of foreclosed properties to be sold to qualifying families. A total of $2,080,554 including program income has been ex- pended on the acquisition and renovations for eleven (11) properties. Ten (10) properties have been sold, and one is a rental that serves persons with disabilities. Ten (10) first-time homebuyers have purchased homes through the NSP Settlement Assistance Program. 218 Ann Avenue (sold) 337 N. Governors Avenue (sold) 343 Mimosa Avenue (sold) 254 Green Blade Drive (sold) 907 Woodcrest Avenue (sold) 302 Stone Brook Place (sold) 1430 S. Hancock (group home rental) 11 Westover Drive (sold) 1415 S. Hancock (sold) 110 Thames Drive (sold) 4 Bennington Street (sold)

Dangerous Buildings, Vacant Buildings & Demolitions  105 S. Queen Street—A residential Renovation Permit has been obtained and a re- inspection to the home shows that work continues to be made as finances provide.  200 N. West Street—The owner was granted their request for a use variance by the City Board of Adjustment on January 27th. No permits for renovations have been obtained  27 N. New Street—Home was condemned as unfit for human occupancy with notice going to the owner to make repairs by January 9, 2014, or the structure will be brought forward to Council as a dangerous building. On January 27th, Dover City Council declared the home dangerous and ordered the property owner to either make repairs or have the home demolished by February 27, 2014. No repairs have been made. The asbestos abatement is complete and demolition to the structure has started.  814 Maple Parkway—A lien search was ordered for the property. The in-ground pool has been condemned as an unsafe structure and will be taking forward to Council as a danger- ous structure. On April 14, 2014 Council approved staff’s recommendation to have the pool demolished. The owners were giving until May 14, 2014 to have the pool demol- ished, or the City would proceed with demolition.  830 Maple Parkway—A lien search has been completed. The management company for the lien holder has been in contact with staff and plans on covering the pool and making it safe. The pool has been properly covered and is in code compliance.  409 South DuPont Highway—Notice was sent to the owner to have repairs made or the property will go forward to City Council on April 14, 2014 to have Council declare it dan- gerous. The owner of the property has obtained a structural engineers report and has sub- mitted plans to renovate the structure.  39 N. New Street—Notice was sent to the owner to have the home demolished by March 30, 2014 or City Staff will move forward to present the property to City Council on April 14, 2014 with the recommendation to have the structure demolished. The owner has ob- tained a Demolition Permit for the demolition of the structure. The start date for the dem- olition is June 6, 2014.  12 N New Street—Council approved Staff’s recommendation for demolition and gave the owner until May 28, 2014 to demolish the structure or the City would proceed with demo- lition.  Vacant Buildings—During the month of April, twenty-eight (28) additional buildings were registered as vacant, and $15,000.00 in vacant building registration fees were collected.

Code Enforcement Activity—APRIL Case Type # cases current # cases % staff ini ated % staff ini ated month YTD current month YTD No valid Rental Permit 119 129 100% 99% No valid Building Permit 12 20 70% 85% Tall grass and weeds 95 97 96% 96% Unregistered vehicle 4 14 100% 93% Abandoned vehicle 13 40 77% 88% Annual Housing Inspec on 68 222 88% 93% Property Maintenance – 73 196 41% 66% Exterior Electric Termina on 62 80 98% 99% Dover Code of Ordinances 61 205 69% 75% Zoning 10 38 70% 76% Total Cases 517 1041 Total # of Inspec ons For 601 Month 12 N. New Street

Fire Marshal’s Office, Building Inspections & Licensing Summary LIFE SAFETY Inspec ons APRIL 14 FYTD 14 APRIL 13 FYTD 13 Annual Inspec ons/Life Safety Inspec ons 23 147 23 261 Fire/Code/DCO Complaints 38 158 98 316 Inspec on Deficiencies 53 241 49 100 C/O & Acceptance Tests 4 15 3 46 Accidental $84,000 $1,117,000 $ $96,450.00 Incendiary $0 $0.00 $15,000.00 $16,100.00 Undetermined $0 $20,000 $75,000 $76,000.00 PERMITTING AND LICENSING Permits Issued APRIL 14 FYTD 14 APRIL 13 FYTD 13 Administra ve Permit 3 5 2 23 Building Addi on/Renova on Permits 39 101 40 257 Building Permits 12 43 19 118 Demoli on Permits 3 13 6 44 Fence Permits 5 17 16 77 Fire Preven on Permits 7 22 12 97 Mechanical Permits 24 113 17 244 Plumbing Permits 26 93 25 279 Sign Permits 11 64 37 212 Swimming Pool Permits 1 1 2 13 Business Licenses 29 11 41 1061 Merchant Licenses 2 12 6 272 Contractor Licenses 28 120 36 735 Lodging House Licenses 15 44 0 51 Mobile Homes 5 20 7 232 Public Occupancy 17 294 14 347 Rental Dwelling 147 2827 118 3000 BUILDING INSPECTIONS Inspec ons APRIL 14 FYTD 14 APRIL 13 FYTD 13 Building 66 733 215 2,871 Plumbing/Mechanical 47 987 181 2,945 Cer ficate of Occupancy 5 36 9 81

Fire Marshal’s Office—At a Glance Number of Fires Requiring FM Response for April 2014 9 Accidental 1 Undetermined 1 Incendiary 24 hours of inves ga on me Recreation Division Enrollment Summary April 2013 verses April 2014 Category FY13 FY14 General Recrea on 148 148 Sports 69 87 Trips 35 45 Leagues #’s are s ll coming in Camps 26 26

Revenue Breakdown: April 2013 verses April 2014 General Recreation General Recreation Sports Sports Trips Trips Leagues Leagues Building & Field Rentals Building & Field Rentals Camps Camps General Recreation $3,580 General Recreation $3,256.50 Sports $909 Sports $905 Camps $415 Trips $65 Trips $326 Leagues $12,575 Building & Field Rentals $1,050 Leagues $5,320 Camps $1,715 Building & Field Rentals $2,885

John W. Pitts Recreation Center – APRIL 2014 Total Program Attendance Facility Usage By The Hour 14,000 800 12,000 10,000 600 8,000 400 6,000 4,000 200 2,000 0 Apr 13 0 Apr 13 May 13 June 13 July 13 Aug 13 Sept 13 Oct 13 Nov 13 Dec 13 Jan 14 Feb 14 Mar 14 Apr 14 May 13 June 13 July 13 Aug 13 Sept 13 Oct 13 Nov 13 Dec 13 Jan 14 Feb 14 Mar 14 Apr 14 ** Program Attendance figures includes daily participants, parents and spectators in the facility. Facility Usage By The Hour APR 14 FYTD 14 APR 13 FYTD 13 Open Gym 484 4,173.5 533.75 4,638.75 Fitness Classes 68.5 576.5 54.5 474.75 Leagues 32 840 12 724 Camps 32.5 587.5 32.5 81.5 Sports Classes 24.5 214.25 16 168 Meetings & Rentals 31 292.5 55.5 298 Enrichment Classes 6 68.5 2 52 Total Facility Usage Hours 678.5 6,752.25 706.25 6,437 Daily Program Attendance** APR 14 FYTD 14 APR 13 FYTD 13 Total 1,763 45,864 2,926 46,727 Open Gym 503 4,575 1,081 7,725 Fitness Classes 426 3,385 382 3,440 Leagues 292 27,277 255 26,383 Camps 130 1,438 115 369 Sports Classes 261 2,113 205 1,493 Meetings & Rentals 125 6,920 884 6,121 Enrichment Classes 26 156 4 115 Since our opening in late April 2008, we have had 318,083 guests at the John W. Pitts Recreation Center. April Open Gym Registrations and Packages Sold Packages Sold: March. MTD YTD FYTD Daily: 24 $75 329 $987 Individual Quarterly: 4 $15 21 $315 Individual Annual: 0 $0 1 $ 50 Family Quarterly: 0 $0 6 $180 Family Annual: 1 $100_ 2 __ $200___ Revenue: $190 $1,732

CITY OF DOVER FINANCE AND PROCUREMENT & INVENTORY DEPARTMENTS APRIL 2014 - MONTHLY BUDGET REPORTS PLEASE NOTE – THIS REPORT PROVIDES TOP LINE INFORMATION ON THE OPERATING FUNDS. IF YOU WOULD LIKE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

CITY OF DOVER ACTIVITY REPORTS April 2014 SSS FINANCE DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY LEVELS FY13 YTD FY14 YTD BANK TRENDS Number of Deposits Made (Hand, ACH & Wire, Lockbox) 4,651 5,363 Total Amount of All Deposits $ 125,822,461 $ 106,847,869 PAYROLL Hours % Amount Hours % Amount Gross wages per registers 697,236 100.0% $ 16,554,626 689,387 100.0% $ 16,041,866 Wages and Hours Worked Regular 583,897 83.7% $ 12,940,001 577,701 83.8% $ 12,446,931 All over time 30,515 4.4% $ 1,334,274 29,832 4.3% $ 1,190,589 Other Paid or Unpaid Wages and Hours Vacation 35,505 5.1% $ 919,112 35,207 5.1% $ 915,071 Sick 16,575 2.4% $ 413,877 14,399 2.1% $ 364,648 Terminal Leave - Retiree Vacation/Sick Payout 16,613 2.4% $ 480,164 10,927 1.6% $ 348,596 Comp Time 6,828 1.0% $ 192,487 7,059 1.0% $ 198,144 Personal 1,455 0.2% $ 40,895 1,249 0.2% $ 35,485 Leave Without Pay 4,397 0.6% $ - 3,889 0.6% $ - Other (description below) 1,452 0.2% $ 233,816 9,127 1.3% $ 542,368 Other includes: pay adjustments, military differential pay, training, committee meetings, worker compensation tracking/adjustments, etc. Other Activity Number of Pay Periods 21 21 Number of Payroll Checks & Direct Deposits Issued 7,616 7,563 Number of Pension Checks Issued 2,478 2,563 Total Pension Benefits Paid - Defined Benefit Plan $ 4,100,437 $ 4,313,502 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Number of Check Vouchers 5,090 5,032 Number of EFT Vouchers 1,843 1,742 Vouchers Dollar Amount Disbursed $ 73,416,527 $ 69,355,572 PROCUREMENT & INVENTORY ACTIVITY LEVELS Contingency & Warehouse Stock Items on Hand with No Usage $2,700,000 2400 $730 $2,600,000 2200 $630 $2,500,000 Total Dollar Value Total Line Items 2000 $2,400,000 $530 1800 $2,300,000 Thousands $430 $2,200,000 1600 $330 $2,100,000 1400 $2,000,000 1200 $230 $130 Total Dollar Value Total Line Items $30 Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 Value: $2,506,966 Line Items: 1,454 Ele ctric Water General Electric: $667,667 Water: $29,993 General: $34,382 Fuel Use Unleaded: 9,984.4 gallons Diesel: 6,519.1 gallons Total Cost: $ 49,885 Electric $ 159,657 Water $ 482 General $ 10,889

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – April 2014 General Fund Summary Revised 83% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 3,455,200 $ 4,219,800 $ - $ 4,219,800 0.0% Revenues Court of Chancery Fees 863,200 863,200 767,700 95,500 88.9% Fines & Police Revenues 1,316,000 1,316,000 847,204 468,796 64.4% Franchise Fees 606,200 606,200 406,403 199,797 67.0% Grants 623,500 623,500 277,626 345,874 44.5% Intrafund Services 4,454,300 4,454,300 3,440,654 1,013,646 77.2% Library & Recreation Revenues 599,600 599,600 499,527 100,073 83.3% Licenses & Permits 2,627,500 2,627,500 2,897,712 (270,212) 110.3% Property Taxes (Includes BID Revenue) (1) 11,169,500 11,169,500 11,101,588 67,912 99.4% Miscellaneous Revenues 138,300 138,300 76,745 61,555 55.5% Sanitation Revenues 2,676,500 2,676,500 2,164,047 512,453 80.9% Garrison Farm Rent Revenue 118,500 118,500 78,149 40,351 65.9% Transfers-In from Special Funds & Utilities Municipal Street Aid Fund 527,400 531,100 497,955 33,145 93.8% Civil Traffic Penalties 600,000 600,000 234,170 365,830 39.0% Transfer Taxes 1,315,500 1,315,500 1,284,615 30,885 97.7% Verizon, Contingency and CI Reserves 32,000 32,000 21,000 11,000 65.6% Police Grants 110,000 126,800 63,365 63,435 50.0% Water/Wastewater Fund 500,000 500,000 375,000 125,000 75.0% Electric Fund 8,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 2,000,000 75.0% Total Revenues 36,278,000 36,298,500 31,033,460 5,265,040 85.5% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 39,733,200 $ 40,518,300 $ 31,033,460 $ 9,484,840 76.6% Expenditures City Clerk & Council $ 442,200 $ 445,600 $ 339,289 $ 106,311 76.1% Mayor, City Manager & Human Resources 874,900 886,800 723,240 163,560 81.6% Police & Police Extra Duty 14,331,800 14,517,300 11,242,408 3,274,892 77.4% Public Services 4,131,800 4,192,700 3,135,065 1,057,635 74.8% Procurement & Inventory, Facilities Mgmt., Vehicle Maint. 1,870,900 1,872,500 1,423,220 449,280 76.0% Planning & Inspections 2,045,600 2,129,900 1,647,740 482,160 77.4% Finance, Info Tech & Customer Services 2,676,400 2,694,900 2,072,237 622,663 76.9% Library & Recreation 2,038,600 1,970,500 1,512,749 457,751 76.8% Fire Department 692,100 692,100 545,931 146,169 78.9% Assessor 198,300 198,300 157,564 40,736 79.5% Contribution to DDP 162,400 162,400 121,800 40,600 75.0% Miscellaneous Grant Expense 25,000 25,000 - 25,000 0.0% Other Employment Expenses 400,000 118,800 - 118,800 0.0% Insurance 658,900 658,900 490,771 168,129 74.5% OPEB - Retiree’s Health Care Contribution 1,636,500 1,636,500 1,227,375 409,125 75.0% Police Pension Trust Contribution - State Grant 500,000 500,000 276,626 223,374 55.3% Appropriation to Employee Pension Fund - Unfunded Liability 1,159,100 1,923,700 869,325 1,054,375 45.2% Appropriation to Police Pension Fund 307,400 307,400 307,400 - 100.0% Street Lights 836,000 836,000 643,245 192,755 76.9% Debt Service 557,300 557,300 552,051 5,249 99.1% Provision for Uncollectible 10,000 10,000 10,000 - 100.0% Transfers Out Capital Projects Fund 1,278,300 1,278,300 958,725 319,575 75.0% Total Expenditures 36,833,500 37,614,900 28,256,761 9,358,139 75.1% Budget Balance - Working Capital 2,899,700 2,903,400 - 2,903,400 0.0% Total Budget Balance & Expenditures $ 39,733,200 $ 40,518,300 $ 28,256,761 $ 12,261,539 69.7% Reserve Balances Contingency $ 723,600 $ 725,500 $ 715,803 (1) Property Taxes are the taxes billed and not cash received. The outstanding receivable balance as of 4/31/14 is $249,177.46 as compared to $328,555 in April 2013.

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – April 2014 Water/Wastewater Fund Summary Revised 83% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance - Water $ 770,800 $ 732,700 $ - $ 732,700 0.0% Beginning Balance - Wastewater $ 412,600 $ 441,400 $ - $ 441,400 0.0% Beginning Balance - Kent County Treatment $ 141,600 $ (17,300) $ - $ (17,300) 0.0% 1,325,000 1,156,800 - 1,156,800 0.0% Revenues Water Fees 4,730,700 4,730,700 3,683,429 1,047,271 77.9% Wastewater Fees 3,642,700 3,642,700 2,951,715 690,985 81.0% Kent County Treatment Fees 2,980,300 2,980,300 2,427,256 553,044 81.4% Ground Water Inflow Adjustment 1,324,600 1,324,600 1,090,463 234,137 82.3% Water Tank Leases 333,800 333,800 267,957 65,843 80.3% Miscellaneous Service Fee 105,100 82,000 56,302 25,698 68.7% Impact Fees - Water 357,000 357,000 237,495 119,505 66.5% Impact Fees - Wastewater 323,000 323,000 216,922 106,078 67.2% Total Revenues 13,797,200 13,797,200 10,931,539 2,865,661 79.2% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 15,122,200 $ 14,954,000 $ 10,931,539 $ 4,022,461 73.1% Expenses Water/Wastewater Operating Divisions Engineering & Inspection $ 664,400 $ 634,700 $ 299,167 $ 335,533 47.1% Water 433,900 436,900 353,720 83,180 81.0% Water Treatment Plant 1,501,800 1,507,800 1,100,619 407,181 73.0% Wastewater 945,100 946,000 662,694 283,306 70.1% Construction 351,400 352,200 220,725 131,475 62.7% Kent County Treatment 3,524,800 3,524,800 2,971,918 552,882 84.3% Intrafund Service Fees 1,233,400 1,233,400 993,030 240,370 80.5% Pension Unfunded Liability 339,400 339,400 254,550 84,850 75.0% OPEB - Retiree's Health Care Contributions 200,000 200,000 150,000 50,000 75.0% Debt Service 1,019,500 1,019,500 864,228 155,272 84.8% Other Employment Expenses 25,000 10,800 - 10,800 0.0% Transfers Out General Fund 500,000 500,000 375,000 125,000 75.0% Water I & E Fund 1,200,000 1,233,200 600,000 633,200 48.7% Wastewater I & E Fund 1,330,000 1,330,000 665,000 665,000 50.0% Total Expenses 13,268,700 13,268,700 9,510,651 3,758,049 71.7% Budget Balances Budget Balance - Working Capital - Water 1,056,400 1,018,300 - 1,018,300 0.0% Budget Balance - Working Capital - WW 797,100 825,900 - 825,900 0.0% Budget Balance-Working Capital - KSA - (158,900) - (158,900) 0.0% Total Budget Balances 1,853,500 1,685,300 - 1,685,300 0.0% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 15,122,200 $ 14,954,000 $ 9,510,651 $ 5,443,349 63.6% Reserve Balances Contingency-Water $ 105,600 $ 106,600 $ 104,508 Contingency-Wastewater $ 191,500 $ 190,800 $ 188,978 Impact Fee Reserve - Sewer NO BUDGET NO BUDGET $ 3,768,572 Impact Fee Reserve - Water NO BUDGET NO BUDGET $ 199,738 Bond Coverage Ratio (Covenant 1.20) 3.99 4.03 4.18

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – April 2014 Electric Revenue Fund Summary Revised 83% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 7,152,400 $ 6,620,900 $ - $ 6,620,900 0.0% Revenues Sales to Customers 76,286,700 76,286,700 65,242,817 11,043,883 85.5% Utility Tax 1,492,200 1,492,200 1,058,891 433,309 71.0% Weyandt Hall Rents 251,000 251,000 134,682 116,318 53.7% Miscellaneous Revenues 737,800 737,800 584,365 153,435 79.2% Interest Earned 119,400 119,400 (3,260) 122,660 -2.7% Transfer from Rate Stabilization 4,000,000 4,000,000 7,000,000 (3,000,000) 175.0% Intrafund Service Receipts Water/Wastewater 98,500 98,500 80,017 18,483 81.2% Total Revenues 82,985,600 82,985,600 74,097,512 8,888,088 89.3% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 90,138,000 $ 89,606,500 $ 74,097,512 $ 15,508,988 82.7% Expenses Power Supply & Generation Hedged Energy $ 23,832,000 $ 23,832,000 $ 24,506,047 $ (674,047) 102.8% Power Supply Management 996,000 996,000 830,000 166,000 83.3% Capacity Charges 15,787,200 15,787,200 13,361,950 2,425,250 84.6% Dover Sun Park Energy 1,565,800 1,565,800 1,175,760 390,040 75.1% Solar Renewal Energy Credits 300,000 300,000 222,785 77,215 74.3% PJM Charges - Energy 12,812,900 12,812,900 14,291,390 (1,478,490) 111.5% PJM Charges - Transmission & Fees 4,740,000 4,740,000 6,502,824 (1,762,824) 137.2% Total Power Supply 60,033,900 60,033,900 60,890,756 (856,856) 101.4% Plant Operations 6,015,800 6,015,800 4,271,552 1,744,248 71.0% Generation Fuels - - 2,274,957 (2,274,957) 0.0% Capacity Credits (15,079,800) (15,079,800) (13,034,000) (2,045,800) 86.4% PJM Spot Market Energy (230,500) (230,500) (753,720) 523,220 327.0% PJM Credits (397,000) (397,000) (5,607,709) 5,210,709 1412.5% Total Generation (9,691,500) (9,691,500) (12,848,920) 3,157,420 132.6% Total Power Supply & Plant 50,342,400 50,342,400 48,041,836 2,300,564 95.4% Electric Operating Divisions: Transmission/Distribution 3,302,500 3,312,200 2,309,159 1,003,041 69.7% Electrical Engineering 1,192,200 1,194,500 813,912 380,588 68.1% Administration 597,000 597,800 405,276 192,524 67.8% Meter Reading 220,300 221,900 176,952 44,948 79.7% Systems Operations 543,600 553,500 448,091 105,409 81.0% Intrafund Services 3,319,400 3,319,400 2,527,641 791,759 76.1% Utility Tax 1,492,200 1,492,200 1,058,891 433,309 71.0% OPEB Trust Contribution - Unfunded Liability 975,700 975,700 731,775 243,925 75.0% OPEB - Retirees Health Care Contribution 513,300 513,300 384,975 128,325 75.0% Pension Trust Contribution - Unfunded liability 1,314,200 1,314,200 985,650 328,550 75.0% Interest on Deposits 27,000 27,000 17,635 9,365 65.3% Green Energy Payment to DEMEC 135,800 135,800 108,563 27,237 79.9% Accounts Receivable Write-Offs 200,000 200,000 200,000 - 100.0% Other Employee Expenses 150,000 125,700 - 125,700 0.0% Contractual Services RFP's 100,000 100,000 20,919 79,081 20.9% Debt Service 3,301,900 3,301,900 2,833,435 468,465 85.8% Transfers Out: General Fund 8,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 2,000,000 75.0% Electric Improvement & Extension Fund 5,448,600 4,918,600 2,724,300 2,194,300 55.4% Total Expenses 81,176,100 80,646,100 69,789,010 10,857,090 86.5% Budget Balance - Working Capital 8,961,900 8,960,400 - 8,960,400 0.0% Total Budget Balance & Expenses $ 90,138,000 $ 89,606,500 $ 69,789,010 $ 19,817,490 77.9% Reserve Balances Contingency Reserve $ 826,500 $ 826,500 $ 817,355 Insurance Reserve $ 739,000 $ 739,000 $ 735,851 Rate Stabilization Reserve $ 13,644,000 $ 13,644,000 $ 10,443,011 Bond Coverage Ratio (Covenant 1.25) 1.97 3.34 1.04 Megawatt Hours Sold & Purchased Sales to Customers MWh (excluding Street Light MWh) 712,675 712,675 604,285 Sales per MWh $ 107.04 $ 107.04 $ 107.97 Purchased/Generated MWh 725,818 725,818 638,851 All In MWh Supply & Generation $ 69.36 $ 69.36 $ 75.20

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – April 2014 General Capital Project Fund Summary Revised 83% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance - Projects $ 241,200 $ 2,801,800 $ - $ 2,801,800 0.0% Beginning Balance - Library $ (74,700) $ 256,500 $ - $ 256,500 0.0% Revenues State Grant - Other 15,000 15,000 - 15,000 0.0% Interest Earnings - - 8,958 (8,958) 0.0% Income from Sale of Assets - - 15,664 (15,664) 0.0% Transfer from Community Transportation Fund - 60,500 60,500 - 100.0% Transfer from General Fund for Projects 1,278,300 1,278,300 958,725 319,575 75.0% Contractor Contributions - 264,800 264,765 35 100.0% Transfer from Parkland Reserve 95,000 80,000 - 80,000 0.0% MSA Capital Contribution - 251,200 - 251,200 0.0% Subtotal Revenues 1,388,300 1,949,800 1,308,612 641,188 State Grant - Library - 150,000 142,887 7,113 95.3% Library Capital Pledges - 5,000 7,500 (2,500) 150.0% Subtotal Library Project Receipts - 155,000 150,387 4,613 97.0% Total Revenues 1,388,300 2,104,800 1,458,999 645,801 69.3% Total Beginning Balance & Revenue $ 1,554,800 $ 5,163,100 $ 1,458,999 $ 3,704,101 28.3% Expenditures Fire $ 238,500 $ 238,500 $ 238,515 $ (15) 100.0% Grounds Maintenance 50,100 50,100 30,249 19,851 60.4% Library - 411,500 76,198 335,302 18.5% Recreation 95,000 95,000 - 95,000 0.0% Code Enforcement 30,000 30,900 - 30,900 0.0% Police 257,300 362,400 276,785 85,615 76.4% Streets 251,500 3,395,700 692,744 2,702,956 20.4% Sanitation 402,100 402,100 387,504 14,596 96.4% Information Technology 7,000 7,000 - 7,000 0.0% Facilities Management 17,800 17,800 17,795 5 100.0% Procurement & Inventory 55,000 55,000 - 55,000 0.0% Total Expenditures 1,404,300 5,066,000 1,719,790 3,346,210 33.9% Budget Balance - Projects 150,500 97,100 - 97,100 0.0% Total Budget Balance & Expenditures $ 1,554,800 $ 5,163,100 $ 1,719,790 $ 3,443,310 33.3% Reserve Balances Capital Asset Replacement Reserve $ 512,000 $ 515,300 $ 509,251 Parkland/Recreation $ 110,000 $ 125,400 $ 203,692

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – April 2014 Water/Wastewater Improvement & Extension Fund Summary Revised 83% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance - Water $ 1,620,000 $ 4,473,800 $ - $ 4,473,800 0.0% Beginning Balance - Wastewater $ 660,900 $ 2,807,000 $ - $ 2,807,000 0.0% Revenues Bond Proceeds - Water - 3,000,000 3,000,000 - 100.0% Bond Proceeds - Wastewater - 1,067,900 1,005,960 61,940 94.2% State Loan-Wastewater 2011 - 62,000 62,000 - 100.0% Arbitrage Rebate - IRS Refund - 66,000 68,614 (2,614) 104.0% Income from Sale of Assets - - 4,343 (4,343) 0.0% Interest Earned 25,000 25,000 29,211 (4,211) 116.8% Transfer from Operating Fund for Water 1,200,000 1,233,200 600,000 633,200 48.7% Transfer from Operating Fund for Wastewater 1,330,000 1,330,000 665,000 665,000 50.0% Transfer from Impact Fee Reserve - Water 390,000 390,000 - 390,000 0.0% Transfer from Impact Fee Reserve - Wastewater - 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 0.0% Total Revenues 2,945,000 8,174,100 5,435,128 2,738,972 66.5% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 5,225,900 $ 15,454,900 $ 5,435,128 $ 10,019,772 35.2% Expenses Water $ 1,476,800 $ 7,499,700 $ 1,089,774 $ 6,409,926 14.5% Wastewater 1,251,000 5,252,400 309,477 4,942,923 5.9% Water Construction 90,000 90,000 89,500 500 99.4% Total Expenses 2,817,800 12,842,100 1,488,751 11,353,349 11.6% Budget Balance - Working Capital - Water 1,655,700 1,552,800 - 1,552,800 0.0% Budget Balance - Working Capital - Wastewater 752,400 1,060,000 - 1,060,000 0.0% Total Budget Balances 2,408,100 2,612,800 - 2,612,800 0.0% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 5,225,900 $ 15,454,900 $ 1,488,751 $ 13,966,149 9.6% Reserve Balances Capital Asset Replacement - Water $ 513,000 $ 514,000 $ 507,378 Capital Asset Replacement - Wastewater $ 512,300 $ 512,900 $ 506,217

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – April 2014 Electric Improvement & Extension Fund Summary Revised 83% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 3,091,000 $ 3,980,200 $ - $ 3,980,200 0.0% Revenues Interest Earnings 25,200 25,200 2,648 22,552 10.5% Transfer from Electric Revenue Fund 5,448,600 4,918,600 2,724,300 2,194,300 55.4% General Service Billing 440,000 440,000 231,873 208,127 52.7% Total Revenues 5,913,800 5,383,800 2,973,260 2,410,540 55.2% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 9,004,800 $ 9,364,000 $ 2,973,260 $ 6,390,740 31.8% Expenses Electric Generation $ 2,117,800 $ 2,130,000 $ 1,016,095 $ 1,113,905 47.7% Transmission/Distribution 1,100,000 1,144,600 446,122 698,478 39.0% Electrical Engineering 2,405,800 2,627,500 912,299 1,715,201 34.7% Total Expenses 5,623,600 5,902,100 2,374,516 3,527,584 40.2% Budget Balance - Working Capital 3,381,200 3,461,900 15,420 3,446,480 0.4% Total Budget Balance & Expenses $ 9,004,800 $ 9,364,000 $ 2,389,936 $ 6,974,064 25.5% Reserve Balances Depreciation Reserve $ 9,977,100 $ 10,003,100 $ 9,893,457 Future Capacity Reserve $ 10,131,400 $ 10,145,800 $ 10,042,512 City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – April 2014 Community Transportation Improvement Fund Revised 83% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ - $ 209,200 $ - $ 209,200 0.0% Revenues Grants Revenue 500,000 1,387,600 468,278 919,322 33.7% Interest Earned 500 500 294 206 58.8% Total Revenues 500,500 1,388,100 468,572 919,528 33.8% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 500,500 $ 1,597,300 $ 468,572 $ 1,128,728 29.3% Expenses Program Expenses - Del Dot $ 500,000 $ 1,395,100 $ 754,962 $ 640,138 54.1% Program Expenses - City appropriated - 62,800 62,800 - 100.0% Transfer to Capital Project Fund - 60,500 60,500 - 100.0% Total Expenses 500,000 1,518,400 878,262 640,138 57.8% Budget Balance - Working Capital 500 78,900 - 78,900 0.0% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 500,500 $ 1,597,300 $ 878,262 $ 719,038 55.0%

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – April 2014 Police Grant Funds Revised 83% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 100 $ 175,200 $ - $ 175,200 0.0% Revenues Grants Received 413,000 390,500 223,793 166,707 57.3% Interest Earned - - 674 (674) 0.0% Total Revenues 413,000 390,500 224,467 166,033 57.5% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 413,100 $ 565,700 $ 224,467 $ 341,233 39.7% Expenses Program Expenses/Supplies $ 191,000 $ 249,000 $ 124,194 $ 124,806 49.9% Computer Hardware 60,000 58,700 17,875 40,825 30.5% Telephone/Fax 15,000 15,000 12,743 2,257 85.0% Training/Conference/Food/Travel 36,000 32,000 - 32,000 0.0% Consulting/Audit Fees 1,000 1,000 - 1,000 0.0% Contractual services - 6,000 3,887 2,113 64.8% Operating Transfers - Out 110,000 126,800 63,365 63,435 50.0% Total Expenses 413,000 488,500 222,064 266,436 45.5% Budget Balance - Working Capital 100 77,200 - 77,200 0.0% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 413,100 $ 565,700 $ 222,064 $ 343,636 39.3%

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – April 2014 Library Grant Fund Revised 83% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ - $ 27,800 $ - $ 27,800 0.0% Revenues Grants Received 270,100 276,600 279,138 (2,538) 100.9% Total Revenues 270,100 276,600 279,138 (2,538) 100.9% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 270,100 $ 304,400 $ 279,138 $ 25,262 91.7% Expenses Program Expenses/Supplies-State Grants $ 28,000 $ 28,000 $ 10,861 $ 17,139 38.8% Program Expenses/Supplies-Federal Grants - - 2,500 (2,500) 0.0% Office Supplies 24,000 24,000 17,899 6,101 74.6% Printing/Duplicating 8,900 8,900 5,848 3,052 65.7% Postage 100 100 33 67 33.0% Books 124,900 124,900 87,063 37,837 69.7% Furniture 4,700 4,700 4,297 403 91.4% Audio Visual Supplies 74,000 74,000 53,064 20,936 71.7% Training/Conference/Food/Travel 3,500 3,500 1,666 1,834 47.6% Office Equipment/Repairs & Maintenance 2,000 2,000 3,213 (1,213) 160.7% Total Expenses 270,100 270,100 186,444 83,656 69.0% Budget Balance - Working Capital - 34,300 - 34,300 0.0% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 270,100 $ 304,400 $ 186,444 $ 117,956 61.2% City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – April 2014 CJC Grants/Aid Revised 83% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Revenues Grants Received 31,800 34,000 19,155 14,845 56.3% Total Revenues 31,800 34,000 19,155 14,845 56.3% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 31,800 $ 34,000 $ 19,155 $ 14,845 56.3% Expenses Contractual Services $ 31,800 $ 34,000 $ 19,155 $ 14,845 56.3% Budget Balance - Working Capital - - - - 0.0% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 31,800 $ 34,000 $ 19,155 $ 14,845 56.3%

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – April 2014 CDBG Fund Revised 83% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ - $ 4,800 $ - $ 4,800 0.0% Revenues Grants Received 244,800 244,800 251,917 (7,117) 102.9% Total Revenues 244,800 244,800 251,917 (7,117) 102.9% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 244,800 $ 249,600 $ 251,917 $ (2,317) 100.9% Expenses Current Year Closing Cost/Down Payment Program $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ - 100.0% Current year Dover Interfaith Ministry 27,500 27,500 30,333 (2,833) 110.3% Current Year MHDC Emergency Home Repair 40,000 40,000 48,187 (8,187) 120.5% Current Year Elizabeth W Murphy School 39,700 39,700 38,574 1,126 97.2% Current Year NCALL Research Inc. 8,900 8,900 4,500 4,400 50.6% Current Year Milford Housing H/O Rehabilitation 39,700 39,700 62,245 (22,545) 156.8% Current Year Salaries 49,000 49,000 20,892 28,108 42.6% NSP Expense - - 77,466 (77,466) 0.0% Total Expenses 244,800 244,800 322,197 (77,397) 131.6% Budget Balance - Working Capital - 4,800 - 4,800 0.0% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 244,800 $ 249,600 $ 322,197 $ (72,597) 129.1% City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report – April 2014 After School Program/Substance Abuse Prevention Fund Revised 83% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ - $ 41,000 $ - $ 41,000 0.0% Revenues Grants Received 55,630 36,900 36,852 48 99.9% Recreation Revenue 33,000 33,000 16,542 16,458 50.1% Total Revenues 88,630 69,900 53,394 16,506 76.4% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 88,630 $ 110,900 $ 53,394 $ 57,506 48.1% Expenses Temporary Help/Benefits $ 33,000 $ 54,000 $ 18,029 $ 35,971 33.4% Program Expenses/Supplies 55,630 36,900 20,636 16,264 55.9% Total Expenses 88,630 90,900 38,665 52,235 42.5% Budget Balance - Working Capital - 20,000 - 20,000 0.0% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 88,630 $ 110,900 $ 38,665 $ 72,235 34.9%

Monthly Report March 2014 Economic Development Office

2014_03 Economic Development  Weekly Calpine Conference Calls  Review insurance information with Connor Strong regarding 22-24 W Loockerman St  Attended DDP Parking Committee Meeting  Attended Bayhealth Board of Advisors Meeting  Conference call with Director of Corporate & International Development for the State of Delaware and scheduled follow-up meeting  Conference call with Philipp Utz regarding Army Corps of Engineers nationwide permit  Reviewed possible ground-breaking dates with Uzin Utz  Attended Wesley College Frear Building Dedication  Attended E-ZPass Dedication Ceremony  Provided demand response information to Scott Lynch at DEMAC  Attended Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce Board Meeting  Attended Legislative Luncheon at Dover Downs  Participated in Merchants Committee organization meeting  Attended Leads Group meeting at R&R Commercial Realty and gave a brief overview of downtown initiatives  Reviewed electric contract proposal with potential subcontractor for Calpine  Attended NCALL monthly meeting  Met with State Director of Corporate & International Development, provided information on SunRoc Building and Garrison Oak Technology Park  Met with TransCore regarding several minor building concerns and provided them with utility bills  Attended DEEDS meeting  Participated in conference call with Calpine regarding draft proposals for road improvements at Garrison Oak Technology Park  Billed Calpine for ground lease at Garrison Oak Technology Park  Reviewed amendment with Calpine to additional ground lease at GOTP  Clarified for City of Dover Finance Department the billings for Calpine  Met with Dr. Casson from Delaware State University to discuss format for economic symposium  Met with principals of Mountain Engineering  Attended DDP Economic Development Committee Meeting  Met with grant writer from Delaware Technical & Community College to discuss assistance with the EDA Grant  Attended Kent County Plant Managers Meeting at Delaware State University  Arranged for repair of canopy at 22-24 W Loockerman St  Attended Kent County Tourism Board Meeting  Arranged for Public Works to re-grade road at Garrison Tract for delivery of transformer to Garrison Energy Center  Met with Joe Petrosky to discuss concerns regarding the State Street Alley

 Provided overview of Economic Development office activities and DDP activities to Councilmen Wallace Dixon and David Anderson  Reviewed Eastern Shore Natural Gas’ HUD-1 closing document and reimbursement letter  Attended Food Innovation District Advisory Committee Meeting  Met with Dr. Casson to review the outline for the Inclusion Study  Attended Kent Economic Partnership Annual Dinner  Started the dialogue with Congressman Carney’s office for tour of Kraft Foods Measures:  1 Maintain an unemployment rate for the City of Dover that is lower than national and state averages 2011-2012 Actual 2012-2013 Actual 2013 - 2014 Projected Results <10% unemployment rate in < 10% unemployment rate in <10% unemployment rate in June 2012 June 2013 June 2014 8.2% - US Rate 7.6% - US Rate 6.7 % - US Rate 6.8 % - DE Rate 7.3% - DE Rate 5.9 % - DE Rate 8.6% - City of Dover Rate 9.8% - City of Dover Rate 7.7% - City of Dover Rate June 2012 – Actual June 2013 Actual March 2014 Actual  2 Monitor number of contacts with small businesses and with out-of-town companies interested in locating in Dover 2011-2012 Actual 2012-2013 Actual 2013 - 2014 Projected Results ≥20 contacts with potential >20 contacts with potential >20 contacts with potential small businesses; small businesses; small businesses; 10 contacts YTD 18 Contacts YTD 12 Contacts YTD ≥11 contacts with out-of-town >11 contacts with out-of-town >11 contacts with out-of-town companies interested in companies interested in companies interested in locating in Dover locating in Dover locating in Dover 9 Contacts YTD 7 Contacts YTD 10 Contacts YTD 2014-03 Downtown Dover Partnership  Provided technical assistance to four (4) prospective small business individuals on overall business development within the Downtown Dover Business District  Provided technical assistance (orientation) to one (1) existing small business owner in preparing and submitting small business loan application for loan consideration  Continued providing technical assistance to three (3) prospective small business individuals on locating available space within the downtown district to lease  Coordinated and implemented logistics (permits, parade registrations, equipment set-up, etc.) for the St Patrick’s Day Parade activities held on March 14th

 Coordinated media (newspaper announcements), website and social media press releases of series of Special Events which occurred during March ’13 in downtown Dover  Continued working with DDP Board President on DDP organizational materials to be disseminated and presented to newly structured Merchants Committee  In collaboration with the Delmarva Black Chamber of Commerce – Capacity Building Committee disseminated the Small Business Development Survey to merchants in the downtown Dover Corridor  Completed the first draft of Parking Committee Annual Downtown Dover Safety & Security Survey ‘14 to be conducted in May ‘14  Completed first phase new Parking Lot Directional Banner Project with Parking Committee  Continued working with the Capital Holiday Celebration Committee on the development of the Capital Holiday Celebration ‘14 event  Attended and participated as a network partner in the monthly Kent County Open for Business workshop on March 6th  Continued providing technical assistance to the Delaware Technical Community College Planning Committee on the development of the Business Development Summit ‘14  Continued working with the Promotion/Marketing Committee on the development of the Farmers Market Project scheduled for June ‘14  Facilitated the interview for the hiring of the Farmer’s Market Manager with William Neaton and Tonda Parks on March 19th  Meet with Ralph Matthews from the Office of Food Protection and Dave Smith from the Office of the Delaware Agriculture to further discuss Variance Permits needed to operate in the Farmer’s Market  Participated in the Delaware Technical Community College ‘14 Diamond Challenge for the High School Entrepreneurs-Business Plan Review Panel on March 26th  Met with Mike Malkiewicz from the Capital City Rotary Club to further discuss the scheduled June 14th Dover Mile and Colonial Rotary 5K Run in downtown Dover  Teleconference with Dr. Jacqueline Washington from Delaware State University – Division of Academic Enrichment to discuss Volunteer Summer Bridge Partnership Program for students  Continued working with the Organization Committee in reorganizing the DDP Fund Raising Program  Worked with Robert Landry from TransCore on the Good Neighbor Promotion Initiative  Continued working with NCALL and Planning Committee on logistics of the Restoring Central Dover Project  Participated in the Wesley College Community Survey needed as part of their preparation of the College’s Strategic Plan  Participated in the University of Delaware – MBA Case Competition Bringing Farm Fresh Alternatives to Low Income Families in Delaware Survey  Conducted research and disseminated information on the Citizens Institute on Design Grant to DDP Board and committee members  Attended the Main Street Four Point Training on Organizational Development and Promotions on March 19th  Attended Downtown Delaware – Secrets of Raising Money through Sponsorships Training on March 6th

Monthly Report April 2014 Economic Development Office

2014_April Economic Development  Calpine Weekly Conference Calls  Met with Amy Mullen to discuss her role as volunteer Farmers Market Manager  Met with Diane Laird, Main Street Delaware, to review plan for National Main Street Center Assessment of Downtown Dover Partnership  Met with Compliance Environmental to discuss cost estimate for future work at Chesapeake Supply site  Attended Governor Markell’s press conference to promote Downtown Development Districts  Attended DSU Economic Development Symposium and made a presentation on Garrison Oak Technology Park  Reviewed the agenda with DEDO for upcoming site visit at Garrison Oak Technology Park with a manufacturing prospect  Reviewed Brownfield invoices for Capital Scrap with Compliance Environmental  Discussed Brownfield grant application for Action Tire  Attended CDCC Board meeting  Reviewed road maintenance agreement proposal with Calpine and City Manager  Met with TransCore representatives and discussed building concerns  Met with Mayor Carey, representatives from DEDO and prospects for manufacturing site at Garrison  Took prospects to the GOTP and provided overview of different properties at Garrison  Met with USDA to discuss grant opportunities  Provided DEDO with additional information for Garrison prospect  Reviewed closing documents with attorney for Uzin Utz prior to scheduled closing  Final review with Compliance Environmental of Brownfield Application for 229 S Governors Avenue  Reviewed zoning information regarding the former Metro Market building with realtor  Attended DTCC Economic Summit Planning Meeting  Discussed 501c3 status for DDP with Senator Carper’s staff, signed off on documentation to allow them to receive information  Attended meeting with Philipp Utz with U.S. German Chamber of Commerce and German business people from throughout the East Coast  Attended Food Innovation District Advisory Board meeting  Attended DDP Board meeting  Attended Business Development Roundtable at Kent County Levy Court and provided overview of city-wide economic development initiatives  Reviewed the closing documents with Schmittinger and Rodriguez for Uzin Utz and provided additional information regarding Army Corps of Engineer permits, zoning at GOTP, and letter from City Planner confirming the Uzin Utz manufacturing process is a permitted use  Met with Gregg Moore, Cameron Llewellyn, Lauren Tinsley and Lucy Findlay to discuss role of the Merchants Committee

 Represented City of Dover at Uzin Utz closing on Lot 12 at GOTP Measures:  1 Maintain an unemployment rate for the City of Dover that is lower than national and state averages 2011-2012 Actual 2012-2013 Actual 2013 - 2014 Projected Results <10% unemployment rate in < 10% unemployment rate in <10% unemployment rate in June 2012 June 2013 June 2014 8.2% - US Rate 7.6% - US Rate 6.3 % - US Rate 6.8 % - DE Rate 7.3% - DE Rate 5.8 % - DE Rate 8.6% - City of Dover Rate 9.8% - City of Dover Rate 7.4% - City of Dover Rate June 2012 – Actual June 2013 Actual April 2014 Actual  2 Monitor number of contacts with small businesses and with out-of-town companies interested in locating in Dover 2011-2012 Actual 2012-2013 Actual 2013 - 2014 Projected Results ≥20 contacts with potential >20 contacts with potential >20 contacts with potential small businesses; small businesses; small businesses; 10 contacts YTD 18 Contacts YTD 14 Contacts YTD ≥11 contacts with out-of-town >11 contacts with out-of-town >11 contacts with out-of-town companies interested in companies interested in companies interested in locating in Dover locating in Dover locating in Dover 9 Contacts YTD 7 Contacts YTD 10 Contacts YTD 2014-04 Downtown Dover Partnership  Provided technical assistance to three (3) prospective small business individuals on overall business development within the Downtown Dover Business District  Continued providing technical assistance to three (3) prospective small business individuals on locating available space within the downtown district to lease.  Coordinated and implemented logistics (permits, parade registrations, equipment set-up, etc.) for the First Friday Event held on April 4th.  Coordinated media (newspaper announcements), website and social media press releases of series of Special Events which occurred during April ’13 in downtown Dover.  Coordinated all necessary media releases to inform the public and merchant of the scheduled Grand Opening of Independent Resources on May 1st.  Coordinated all necessary media releases to inform the public and merchant of the scheduled Grand Opening of Shear Dreams on May 2st.  Coordinated all necessary media releases to inform the public and merchant of the scheduled Grand Opening of Celebrity Vintage Clothing on May 2st.

 Disseminated to the downtown merchants and network partners information on the 2014 Delaware Cyber Space Hacking Workshop sponsored by the State of Delaware Technology Department.  Disseminated to the downtown merchants and network partners information on the 7(a) Construction Financing Program sponsored by Celtic Bank a small SBA Lending Bank.  Attended the Downtown Dover Merchant’s Meeting on April 8th.  Disseminated to the downtown merchants and network partners information on the “Adapting to the Changing Construction industry” Training sponsored by the Delaware State Office of Supplier Diversity  Completed and submitted the USDA Rural Business Enterprise Grant for review and consideration for funding on April 18th  Updated Downtown Dover Building Vacancy Listing  Continued working with DDP Board President on researching, obtaining and providing pertinent information /documents related to Acme building to PNC Bank for the purpose of conducting an appraisal  Continued working in collaboration with the Delmarva Black Chamber of Commerce – Capacity Building Committee in disseminating the “Small Business Development Survey” to minority merchants in the downtown Dover Business District  Completed second phase of new Parking Lot Directional Banner Project with Parking Committee  Coordinated all necessary logistics and marketing to conduct Grand Opening for the Blue Hen Auction Company on April 4th  Attended and participated as a network partner in the monthly Kent County Open for Business workshop on April 4th  Continued working with the Promotion/Marketing Committee Phase II vendor selection on the development of the Farmers Market Project scheduled for June 18th  Continued working with NCALL and the Planning Committee on the selection of the Open House sites for the Restoring Central Dover Project  Attended the Main Street Four Point Training on Economic Restructuring and Design on April 19th

Monthly Report APRIL 2014

Time Period From 4/30/2013 to 4/30/2014 Alarms by Month of Year Dover Fire Department Month Totals January 134 Febuary 85 March 92 April 81 May 98 June 87 July 93 August 93 September 85 October 101 November 72 December 96 No Date 0 Total Calls 1,117 Date: 5/5/2014 Page: 1

Date Range: From 4/1/2014 to 4/30/2014 Incident Type Report (Summary) Dover Fire Department Count Pct of Total Est Total Est Incident Type Incidents Loss Loss 1 Fire 111 Building fire 4 5.26% $0 0.00% 113 Cooking fire, confined to container 9 11.84% $0 0.00% 131 Passenger vehicle fire 2 2.63% $0 0.00% 138 Off-road vehicle or heavy equipment fire 1 1.32% $0 0.00% 140 Natural vegetation fire, other 1 1.32% $0 0.00% 141 Forest, woods or wildland fire 1 1.32% $0 0.00% 150 Outside rubbish fire, other 3 3.95% $0 0.00% 151 Outside rubbish, trash or waste fire 1 1.32% $0 0.00% Totals 22 28.95% $0 0.00% 2 Overpressure Rupture, Explosion, Overheat(no fire) Totals 0 0.00% $0 0.00% 3 Rescue & Emergency Medical Service Incident 300 Rescue, EMS incident, other 2 2.63% $0 0.00% 311 Medical assist, assist EMS crew 1 1.32% $0 0.00% 322 Motor vehicle accident with injuries 2 2.63% $0 0.00% 353 Removal of victim(s) from stalled elevator 1 1.32% $0 0.00% Totals 6 7.89% $0 0.00% 4 Hazardous Condition (No Fire) 411 Gasoline or other flammable liquid spill 1 1.32% $0 0.00% 424 Carbon monoxide incident 1 1.32% $0 0.00% 430 Radioactive condition, other 1 1.32% $0 0.00% 440 Electrical wiring/equipment problem, other 1 1.32% $0 0.00% 442 Overheated motor 1 1.32% $0 0.00% 444 Power line down 2 2.63% $0 0.00% 480 Attempted burning, illegal action, other 1 1.32% $0 0.00% Totals 8 10.53% $0 0.00% 5 Service Call 531 Smoke or odor removal 1 1.32% $0 0.00% 555 Defective elevator, no occupants 1 1.32% $0 0.00% Totals 2 2.63% $0 0.00% 6 Good Intent Call 600 Good intent call, other 12 15.79% $0 0.00% Totals 12 15.79% $0 0.00% 7 False Alarm & False Call 700 False alarm or false call, other 9 11.84% $0 0.00% 710 Malicious, mischievous false call, other 2 2.63% $0 0.00% 730 System malfunction, other 2 2.63% $0 0.00% 733 Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 2 2.63% $0 0.00% 740 Unintentional transmission of alarm, other 4 5.26% $0 0.00% 743 Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 2 2.63% $0 0.00% 745 Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional 3 3.95% $0 0.00% 746 Carbon monoxide detector activation, no CO 2 2.63% $0 0.00% Totals 26 34.21% $0 0.00% 8 Severe Weather & Natural Disaster Date: 5/5/2014 Page: 1

Date Range: From 4/1/2014 to 4/30/2014 Incident Type Report (Summary) Dover Fire Department Count Pct of Total Est Total Est Incident Type Incidents Loss Loss Totals 0 0.00% $0 0.00% 9 Special Incident Type Totals 0 0.00% $0 0.00% Totals 76 $0 Date: 5/5/2014 Page: 2

Date Range: From 4/1/2014 to 4/30/2014 Incident Run Log Company: All Companies Dover Fire Department Sorted by: Date of Incident Date FDID Incident# Alarm ### Address Suite Type 04/01/2014 30046 2014-000312 20:30 734 CAROL ST Building fire 04/02/2014 30046 2014-000313 13:47 10 FAIRWAY LAKES DR G False alarm or false call, other 04/02/2014 30046 2014-000314 19:32 528 SCHOONER WAY Unintentional transmission of alarm, other 04/02/2014 30046 2014-000315 21:23 21 WAYNE Unintentional transmission of alarm, other 04/02/2014 30046 2014-000316 22:42 22 FREEDOM DR Good intent call, other 04/03/2014 30046 2014-000317 10:44 PARHAVEN DR Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional 04/03/2014 30046 2014-000318 19:34 1200 N DUPONT HWY False alarm or false call, other 04/04/2014 30046 2014-000319 06:55 1137 S STATE ST Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 04/04/2014 30046 2014-000320 09:55 121 S STATE ST Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional 04/04/2014 30046 2014-000321 14:39 30 OLD RUDNICK LA False alarm or false call, other 04/04/2014 30046 2014-000322 16:56 69 MCDANIEL DR Outside rubbish fire, other 04/05/2014 30046 2014-000323 01:55 9 PAR HAVEN DR C Cooking fire, confined to container 04/05/2014 30046 2014-000324 12:52 32 SCIOTO CT Good intent call, other 04/05/2014 30046 2014-000325 18:19 387 ACORN LA Cooking fire, confined to container 04/06/2014 30046 2014-000326 11:30 655 BAY RD Good intent call, other 04/06/2014 30046 2014-000327 21:48 129 MADISON CT Outside rubbish fire, other 04/07/2014 30046 2014-000328 02:31 200 BANNING ST 170 False alarm or false call, other 04/09/2014 30046 2014-000329 11:52 400 COURT ST Defective elevator, no occupants 04/09/2014 30046 2014-000330 16:32 202 PERSIMMON CIR EAST Electrical wiring/equipment problem, other 04/09/2014 30046 2014-000331 19:29 40 LAUREL DR Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 04/09/2014 30046 2014-000332 21:34 51 WEBBS LN J Unintentional transmission of alarm, other 04/10/2014 30046 2014-000333 00:56 1012 COLLEGE RD 103 Unintentional transmission of alarm, other 04/10/2014 30046 2014-000334 07:39 97 COMMERCE WAY 102 Motor vehicle accident with injuries 04/10/2014 30046 2014-000335 18:00 2735 FORREST AVE Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 04/10/2014 30046 2014-000336 18:29 725 HORSEPOND RD Rescue, EMS incident, other 04/10/2014 30046 2014-000337 19:07 236 N GOVERNORS AVE Attempted burning, illegal action, other 04/11/2014 30046 2014-000338 11:19 1131 N DUPONT HWY Off-road vehicle or heavy equipment fire 04/11/2014 30046 2014-000339 20:10 1700 N DUPONT HWY BLDG B Carbon monoxide detector activation, no CO 04/12/2014 30046 2014-000340 09:35 219 CANAL ST Good intent call, other 04/12/2014 30046 2014-000341 14:22 87 OLD FORGE DR Forest, woods or wildland fire 04/12/2014 30046 2014-000342 19:14 1137 S STATE ST Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 04/12/2014 30046 2014-000343 21:51 600 JEFFERIC BLVD False alarm or false call, other 04/12/2014 30046 2014-000344 23:40 415 COUNTRY DR Cooking fire, confined to container 04/13/2014 30046 2014-000345 12:39 6 CHATHAM CT Building fire 04/13/2014 30046 2014-000346 13:15 1016 WYOMING MILL RD Motor vehicle accident with injuries 04/14/2014 30046 2014-000347 01:50 400 N DUPONT HWY F False alarm or false call, other 04/14/2014 30046 2014-000348 15:17 282 S. DUPONT HIGHWAY Good intent call, other 04/14/2014 30046 2014-000349 20:21 300 HIAWATHA LANE Outside rubbish, trash or waste fire 04/15/2014 30046 2014-000350 11:15 1200 N DUPONT HWY Overheated motor 04/15/2014 30046 2014-000351 20:32 1450 FORREST AVE Passenger vehicle fire 04/16/2014 30046 2014-000352 00:34 N NEW ST & MARY ST Good intent call, other 04/16/2014 30046 2014-000353 10:37 915 S DUPONT HWY Carbon monoxide incident 04/16/2014 30046 2014-000354 11:08 720 LAKEWOOD PL Cooking fire, confined to container 04/16/2014 30046 2014-000355 17:50 167 SAXTON RD System malfunction, other 04/16/2014 30046 2014-000356 21:58 640 S STATE ST Radioactive condition, other 04/17/2014 30046 2014-000357 14:17 200 W LOOCKERMAN ST Cooking fire, confined to container 04/18/2014 30046 2014-000358 07:05 858 WOODCREST DR BLDG F Cooking fire, confined to container 04/18/2014 30046 2014-000359 10:52 1156 W WALKER ROAD False alarm or false call, other 04/19/2014 30046 2014-000360 10:39 336 PARADEE DR 04/19/2014 30046 2014-000361 15:03 216 SOUTH ST Building fire 04/20/2014 30046 2014-000362 18:06 55 CHATHAM CT False alarm or false call, other 04/21/2014 30046 2014-000363 00:55 32 ROCKFORD CROSSING Carbon monoxide detector activation, no CO 04/21/2014 30046 2014-000364 22:29 320 RAYMOND ST Cooking fire, confined to container 04/22/2014 30046 2014-000365 07:37 WHITEOAK ROAD/SR 1 Passenger vehicle fire 04/22/2014 30046 2014-000366 12:39 103 WOLF CREEK BLVD 4-1 Natural vegetation fire, other 04/22/2014 30046 2014-000367 12:48 97 COMMERCE WAY 105 Gasoline or other flammable liquid spill 04/22/2014 30046 2014-000368 13:24 298 S DUPONT WHY Good intent call, other 04/23/2014 30046 2014-000369 12:21 56 PAR HAVEN DR G System malfunction, other 04/23/2014 30046 2014-000370 14:33 1159 N DUPONT HWY Good intent call, other Date: 5/5/2014 Page: 1 Time:3:35 PM

Date FDID Incident# Alarm ### Address Suite Type 04/23/2014 30046 2014-000371 19:11 1679 S STATE ST Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional 04/24/2014 30046 2014-000372 13:40 N DUPONT HWY & WHITE OAK RD Good intent call, other 04/24/2014 30046 2014-000373 14:12 261 N DUPONT HWY 1 Good intent call, other 04/24/2014 30046 2014-000374 16:12 110 GALAXY DR Good intent call, other 04/24/2014 30046 2014-000375 18:50 725 HORSEPOND RD Medical assist, assist EMS crew 04/25/2014 30046 2014-000376 11:54 1179 MADISON CT Cooking fire, confined to container 04/25/2014 30046 2014-000377 13:22 1650 N DUPONT HWY Outside rubbish fire, other 04/25/2014 30046 2014-000378 15:46 401 DOVE VIEW DR Removal of victim(s) from stalled elevator 04/25/2014 30046 2014-000379 19:36 35 LOOCKERMAN PLAZA Malicious, mischievous false call, other 04/26/2014 30046 2014-000380 02:34 2541 FORREST AVE Power line down 04/26/2014 30046 2014-000381 19:25 1706 N DUPONT HWY Malicious, mischievous false call, other 04/26/2014 30046 2014-000382 19:52 25 SCIOTO CT Good intent call, other 04/26/2014 30046 2014-000383 20:12 956 WHATCOAT DR Smoke or odor removal 04/28/2014 30046 2014-000384 16:48 725 HORSEPOND RD Rescue, EMS incident, other 04/29/2014 30046 2014-000385 14:27 4128 FORREST AVE Power line down 04/29/2014 30046 2014-000386 15:06 209 S STATE ST Building fire 04/29/2014 30046 2014-000387 22:37 1572 N DUPONT HWY False alarm or false call, other 04/30/2014 30046 2014-000388 07:37 103 PAR HAVEN DR K Cooking fire, confined to container Total Incidents: 77

Incident Vehicle Response Period From 4/1/2014 to 4/30/2014 Dover Fire Department Vehicle Vehicle Response B9 10 BT 0 CAR 1 11 CAR 2 23 E2 52 E3 38 E4 44 E6 49 E7 15 E8 0 FT 1 L1 47 L2 41 L3 0 R1 37 SO1 0 SO2 0 T1 0 U1 3 U2 0 Total Vehicle Responses 371 Date: 5/5/2014 Page: 1

APRIL 2014

Dover Police Department Monthly Report To Mayor and City Council “To Protect and Serve” April 2014

DEPARTMENT OF POLICE Paul M. Bernat 400 South Queen Street Chief of Police Dover, Delaware 19904 F.B.I.N.A. 302-736-7111 Fax: 302-672-1842 May 27, 2014 Honorable David L. Bonar, Mayor Members of Dover City Council City Hall Dover, DE 19901 Mayor Bonar and Council Members: The following is the monthly report for Dover Police Department activities for the month of April 2014: COMPLAINTS Total complaints received through April 30th, numbered 10,642. This is a decrease of 591 complaints over the same time period last year. 12,000 11,677 11,233 10,642 11,000 10,228 10,209 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS 25 Cases Reported in 20 April 15 Cases Cleared in April 10 7 4 5 5 Cases Cleared 5 1 from Previous 0 1 1 1 Months 0 Burglary Robbery Rape

Report to Mayor and Council April 2014 Page 3 COMMUNITY POLICING/QUALITY OF LIFE SECTION ENFORCEMENT ACTION Contacts ABANDONED VEHICLES 0 ALCOHOL VIOLATIONS/DUI’S 3 ASSIST OTHER 2 WARRANTS ON FILE 0 BIKE ON SIDEWALK 3 CITY PARK VIOLATIONS 0 CRIMINAL ARRESTS 4 DRUG RELATED ARRESTS 2 LOUD MUSIC 4 MISCELLANEOUS VIOLATIONS 17 PARKING VIOLATIONS 26 PEDDLER 0 MEETINGS 145 PROSTITUTION 0 COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT 0 DCO’S WANTED CHECKS/CPC’S 17 TRAFFIC ARRESTS 14 WARNINGS 15 FUGITIVE 3 TOTAL CONTACTS 255 TRAFFIC ARRESTS 8,000 The department issued 4,926 traffic citations 7,500 6,925 through this reporting period. This is a decrease of 7,000 6,500 5,927 5,795 367 citations over the number issued during the 6,000 5,293 4,926 same period last year. 5,500 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 TRAFFIC CRASHES Through April 30th, Dover Police investigated 667 1,000 traffic crashes. This is an increase of 22 crashes 900 investigated during the same period last year. 800 654 645 667 700 607 593 600 500 400 300 200 100 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Report to Mayor and Council April 2014 Page 4 911 CENTER During the month of April, the Dover Police Department handled a total of 10,223 calls 24% averaging 341 calls per day. Dispatchers handled 2,430 calls on the 911 wireless lines, 699 calls on the 911 landlines, and 179 calls on the Voice Over 911 Wireless Internet Protocol lines, the remaining 6,915 were 911 Landline administrative calls. 7% VolP 67% 2% Administrative CITY ORDINANC E SUMMONS 3,036 Through March 31st, we issued 2,239 City 3,100 2,900 2,495 2,559 2,444 ordinance summons, a decrease of 205 2,700 2,239 2,500 2,349 summonses over the same period last 2,300 1,979 year. *Note: Of those summonses issued 2,100 1,851 in April, 22 DCO’s were issued for 1,900 1,700 1,428 handicapped parking violations, 6 for fire 1,500 1,181 lane parking violations, 26 for false 1,300 1,100 alarms (0, for 1-2, 24, for 3-5 alarms, 1, 900 for 6-9 alarms, 1, for 10-15 alarms, and 700 500 0, for 16 or more alarms) and 14 for noise 300 violations (8 for vehicle violations and 6 100 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 for residence violations). ISSUED PAID Please visit our new website at www.doverpolice.org for up to date information on crimes and activities in the City of Dover. Respectfully Submitted, Paul M. Bernat Chief of Police

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: City Council DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Parks & Recreation DATE SUBMITTED: June 2, 2014 PREPARED BY: Ann Marie Townshend, AICP, Director of Planning and Community Development SUBJECT: Evaluation of Bids –Dover Park Recreation Center Demolition REFERENCE: N/A REVIEWED BY: City Manager, Controller/Treasurer EXHIBITS: Vendor Quote EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $35,600 AMOUNT BUDGETED: $70,500 FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): Recreation Division CIP Fund 147 TIME TIMETABLE: Demolition will begin following approval by City Council RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that City Council authorize staff to award the contract to Delaware Mulch and Stone in the amount of $35,600. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS As City Council is aware, the former recreation center building at Dover Park has been vacant for almost two years and has fallen into a state of disrepair. The building, which was built in 1974, is not an accessible building, has roof leaks that have caused moisture and mold, and has become functionally obsolete in meeting the current day recreation demands. The Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee thoroughly reviewed options for whether to invest in upgrades to the building or `demolish the building, ultimately concluding that the building should be demolished and community input sought as to how to improve the provision of recreation opportunities in Dover Park and the surrounding area. This recommendation was ultimately approved by City Council. Staff solicited bids for the demolition of the building. Two responsive bids were received. These include: Delaware Mulch and Stone $35,600 Design Contracting, Inc. $39,800 The asbestos abatement will be performed by a separate contractor in response to bids solicited by Compliance Environmental, the environmental consulting firm on contract with the City of Dover. Compliance Environmental will oversee the asbestos abatement and the coordination between the asbestos contractor and demolition contractor. The cost of the asbestos abatement will be $12,995, and oversight by Compliance Environmental is estimated at $8,000. The combination of the contract with Delaware Mulch and Stone and the contracts for environmental oversight and asbestos abatement will be within the project budget, estimated at $56,595. Staff recommends that Council authorize staff to award the demolition contract to Delaware Mulch and Stone in the amount of $35,600.

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: City Council AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Public Works DATE SUBMITTED: 05/30/14 PREPARED BY: Sharon J. Duca, P.E., Public Works Director / City Engineer SUBJECT: Evaluation of Proposals – System Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) Maintenance Contract REFERENCE: N/A RELATED PROJECT: N/A APPROVALS: City Manager, Controller EXHIBITS: N/A EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Not to exceed budget AMOUNT BUDGETED: N/A FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): Funding is provided within the operations budget for Wastewater, 412-6900-569.30-31 or applicable CIP project. Historical spending: FY ’09 - $46,558; FY ’10 - $24,650; FY ’11 - $22,250; FY ’12 - $18,100; FY ’13 - $17,212; FY ’14 (through April) - $15,390 TIME TIMETABLE: Notice to Proceed to be issued within 30 days of Council approval. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Staff recommends awarding a three (3) year contract to Donovan Contractual Services (DCS) as per the proposal submitted in response to RFP #14-0040PW. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The Department of Public Works (DPW) operates one (1) fixed System Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems to monitor and control forty (40) wastewater pumping stations. In addition the DPW operates the communication system for each location which communicates either through fiber optics or a radio system. The proposal package was advertised by the City’s Contract and Procurement Manager under Proposal #14-0040PW and we received two (2) responses to the request. The proposals were evaluated on experience, training, emergency response time and geographical knowledge of the City. DCS and Optimum Controls Corporation both presented acceptable proposals. The selection was based on the experience, knowledge and geographical knowledge that DCS has with the current SCADA configuration and a lower price. The services to be provided under this contract will include support for the current staff that is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the current SCADA components and the possibility of assisting with the upgrade of obsolete equipment. In addition the contractor will assist staff with the troubleshooting and repair of the radio/fiber communication system and related components. DCS submitted all of the contractor’s qualification information. In conclusion, staff recommends awarding the SCADA maintenance contract to DCS for a duration of three (3) years. Average Hourly Rate – Normal Hourly Rate – Non Normal Min. Monthly Retainer Evaluated Working Hours Working Hours Score Contractor Location Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 DCS Dover, DE 74 $250 $250 $250 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 Optimum Reading, 35 $1,690 $1,820 $1,950 $125 $128 $130 $188 $191 $196 Controls PA Corp.

City of Dover 2014/15 COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - COUNCIL PRESIDENT 1. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE - This committee advises the city council on proposed Charter amendments, ordinances to be adopted or amended, and other legislative matters; financial matters, including the city's budget, assessments, and taxation and administrative issues, policy, procedures, and operations of the city. The committee advises the city council regarding matters relating to the mayor, council, city manager's office, finance department, administrative services, city clerk's office, tax assessor's office, human resources department, central services department, information technology department, election board, pension boards, and any other departments, committees, and other areas as deemed appropriate. Consists of five (5) members - three (3) elected City officials and two (2) City residents. Four (4) members shall be appointed by the Council President and one (1) member shall be appointed by the Committee Chair. A. Timothy A. Slavin - Chair B. David L. Anderson C. William F. Hare D. Daniel T. Shevock (by Council President) E. Roy Sudler, Jr. (by Committee Chair) 2. PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE - This committee advises the city council on parks, playgrounds, open space, and other recreational facilities and programs; matters relating to the community enhancements by reviewing and commenting on community plans, and recommends appropriate funding for each community improvement project; advises the city council on landscaping and beautification programs and tree preservation requirements, and assists in developing an understanding of the objectives and methods of tree conservation. The Committee advises city council regarding matters relating to the parks and recreation department, planning department, grounds department, community development, Silver Lake Commission, Greater Dover Arts Council, library commission, and other areas as deemed appropriate, including funding. Consists of five (5) members - three (3) elected City officials and two (2) City residents. Four (4) members shall be appointed by the Council President and one (1) member shall be appointed by the Committee Chair. A. Wallace R. Dixon - Chair B. David L. Anderson C. Adam M. Perza D. Ann Baker Horsey (by Council President) E. M. Milford Caldwell, Jr. (Appointed by Chairperson)

COUNCIL PRESIDENT APPOINTMENTS - 2014/2015 COMMITTEES PAGE 2 3. SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE - This committee advises the city council on public safety issues, policies, procedures, and operations relative to emergency operations, and fire and police services. The Committee shall act as an advisory committee to the city council regarding matters relating to the police department, fire department, department of inspections, and other areas as deemed appropriate. Consists of five (5) members - three (3) shall be elected City officials and two (2) shall be City residents. Four (4) members shall be appointed by the Council President and one (1) member shall be appointed by the Committee Chair. A. James L. Hutchison, Sr. - Chair B. Wallace R. Dixon C. Adam M. Perza D. David J. Truax (Effective July 3, 2014) (by Council President) E. Thomas J. Keller, Jr. (by Committee Chair) 4. UTILITY COMMITTEE - This committee advises the city council on the installation, maintenance, repair, improvement, and relocation of electric, water, sewer, streets, communication utilities and other infrastructures within the city and lawfully extending beyond the city corporate limits; shall advise the city council on the issue of utility consumption rates, suggested code amendments, and condemnation of public rights-of-way; and shall act as an advisory committee to determine and establish utility issues, policies, procedures, and operations relative to electric, water, sewer, communications, etc., including, but not limited to, nonconsumption utility fees, utility extensions, impact fees, and service connection fees. The Committee shall act as an advisory committee to the city council regarding matters relating to the electric department, and public works department, including water, sewer, and sanitation divisions, and other areas as deemed appropriate. Consists of five (5) members - three (3) shall be elected City officials and two (2) shall be City residents. Four (4) members shall be appointed by the Council President and one (1) member shall be appointed by the Committee Chair. A. Beverly C. Williams - Chair B. Adam M. Perza C. Timothy A. Slavin D. Richard K. Snaman (by Council President) E. Lester L. Blakeman, Sr. (by Committee Chair)

COUNCIL PRESIDENT APPOINTMENTS - 2014/2015 COMMITTEES PAGE 3 5. COMPENSATION COMMISSION - To consider compensation for the Mayor, City Council, and paid members of City Committees and Commissions. The compensation commission shall consist of five members, one (1) member appointed by the mayor, one (1) member appointed by the council president, and three (3) members appointed by city council during the annual meeting. Members shall be city residents who are registered to vote in city elections. Members shall serve two-year terms and cannot be reappointed within the next two (2) years. The controller/treasurer and human resources director shall serve as ex-officio, nonvoting members. A. Vacant (by Council) B. Vacant (by Council) C. Vacant (by Council) 6. CONSTRUCTION CODE APPEALS COMMITTEE - This committee shall hear appeals by any person aggrieved by a decision of the building inspector in respect to the provisions of Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations (Plumbing, Mechanical, and Fire Prevention). Consists of three (3) members - two (2) elected City officials and the City Manager. A. Adam M. Perza - Chair B. Sean M. Lynn C. Scott D. Koenig - City Manager 7. OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (OPEB) TRUST FUND BOARD - This board shall adopt a trust agreement for the OPEB fund (and may amend the trust agreement from time to time), shall take all actions necessary and appropriate to establish and maintain the OPEB fund as a trust that is exempt from taxation under Internal Revenue Code § 115 [26 U.S.C. § 115]. The trust shall be maintained and administered by the board solely for the benefit of participants, retirees, and beneficiaries by providing payments for retiree health insurance for medical care in compliance with Internal Revenue Code § 105 [26 U.S.C. § 105] and with the Dover Code as presented and verified by representatives and/or retiree health insurance service providers of the city. Consists of five (5) members - the controller/treasurer, human resources director, city manager, and two (2) elected city officials. A. William F. Hare B. Beverly C. Williams

COUNCIL PRESIDENT APPOINTMENTS - 2014/2015 COMMITTEES PAGE 4 8. RETIREMENT COMMITTEE - GENERAL EMPLOYEE PENSION PLAN - The duties of this committee are to manage the city employees' pension plan. Consists of seven (7) members - two (2) elected City officials, the City Manager, the City Controller/Treasurer and three (3) elected by eligible employees, with three (3) year staggered terms with elections held in June. A. David L. Anderson B. Sean M. Lynn 9. RETIREMENT COMMITTEE - POLICE PENSION PLAN - This committee shall administer the [retirement] plan and shall have the power and the duty to take all action and to make all decisions necessary or proper to carry out the plan. Consists of seven (7) members - two (2) elected City officials, the City Manager (Ex-Officio), Chief of Police (Ex-Officio), and three (3) elected by members of the plan to three (3) year staggered terms, with elections held in January and presented to Council for confirmation. A. David L. Anderson B. Sean M. Lynn FORMS ANNLMTG.CP Prepared by: City Clerk's Office/tm S:\ANNUAL MEETINGS\2014 Meeting\Annual Meeting-Council President.wpd

FIRST READING CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2014-16 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL 2 MET: 3 That Appendix E - Commercial and Industrial Building Redevelopment, Article VI - Severability and 4 Effective Dates, Section 2 - Effective Dates of the Dover Code be amended by deleting the text indicated 5 in bold, red, strikeout, and inserting the text indicated in bold, blue text, as follows: 6 Section 2. Effective dates. 7 This ordinance shall be became effective as of April 15, 2012. The provisions of this ordinance shall 8 no longer apply after December 31, 2015 2018. 9 ADOPTED: * 10 S:\ORDINANCES\2014\DRAFT\Ordinance #2014-16 Amending Appendix E - Commercial and Industrial Building Redevelopment-FIRST READING.wpd 11 SYNOPSIS 12 The proposed amendment extends the sunset provision for the tax abatement, impact fee 13 waiver, and building permit waiver incentives for three (3) years. 14 (SPONSORS: ANDERSON AND TOWNSHEND) 15 Actions History 16 06/09/2014 - Scheduled for First Reading at Council 17 05/27/2014 - Introduced at Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee

FIRST READING CITY OF DOVER ORDINANCE # 2014-17 2014-2015 BUDGET ORDINANCES 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 2 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Forty One Million Seven Hundred Forty Three Thousand Nine Hundred 3 dollars ($41,743,900) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues and 4 other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year beginning 5 July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015: 6 GENERAL FUND 7 REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2014-2015 8 2013/14 2014/15 9 REVISED BUDGET 10 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 4,219,800 $ 3,393,000 11 REVENUES 12 FINES AND POLICE REVENUE 573,900 629,300 13 INVESTMENT INCOME 40,000 40,000 14 LIBRARY REVENUES 70,500 71,600 15 KENT COUNTY BOOK REIMBURSEMENT 460,000 450,000 16 BUSINESS LICENSES 1,460,000 1,460,000 17 PERMITS AND OTHER LICENSES 1,332,500 1,354,200 18 MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES 53,100 53,900 19 POLICE EXTRA DUTY 650,000 659,500 20 PROPERTY TAXES 11,046,000 11,049,200 21 BID REVENUE 49,500 50,000 22 RECREATION REVENUE 148,800 148,800 23 FRANCHISE FEE 636,000 636,000 24 SANITATION FEES 2,595,600 2,595,600 25 RENT REVENUE - GARRISON FARM 118,500 101,400 26 COURT OF CHANCERY FEES 1,002,200 1,023,000 27 REVENUES SUBTOTAL 20,236,600 20,322,500 28 INTERFUND SERVICE RECEIPTS 29 INTRAFUND SERVICE RECEIPTS WATER/WASTEWATER 1,360,300 1,354,900 30 INTRAFUND SERVICE RECEIPTS ELECTRIC 3,572,700 3,508,100 31 INTERFUND SERVICE RECEIPTS SUBTOTAL 4,933,000 4,863,000 32 GRANTS 33 POLICE RELATED 126,800 124,000 34 POLICE PENSION GRANT 500,000 500,000 35 GREEN ENERGY GRANT 98,500 98,500 36 MISCELLANEOUS GRANTS 25,000 25,000 37 GRANTS SUBTOTAL 750,300 747,500 38 TRANSFERS FROM 39 TRANSFER TAX 1,393,000 1,250,000 40 MUNICIPAL STREET AID 663,900 663,900 41 CIVIL TRAFFIC PENALTIES 368,400 500,000 42 WATER/WASTEWATER 500,000 500,000 43 ELECTRIC 8,000,000 9,500,000 44 OTHER RESERVES INCLUDING CONTINGENCY 32,000 4,000 45 CONTINGENCY FUND 250,000 - 46 TRANSFERS FROM SUBTOTAL 11,207,300 12,417,900 47 TOTAL REVENUES 37,127,200 38,350,900 48 TOTALS $ 41,347,000 $ 41,743,900 1

FIRST READING 49 2014-2015 BUDGET ORDINANCES - CONTINUED 50 GENERAL FUND - EXPENDITURES AND BUDGET BALANCE FOR 2014-2015 51 2013/14 2014/15 52 DEPARTMENT EXPENSES REVISED BUDGET 53 CITY CLERK $ 371,700 $ 383,200 54 COUNCIL 107,800 106,600 55 TAX ASSESSOR 208,400 309,500 56 FIRE 741,600 716,100 57 GROUNDS MAINTENANCE 1,160,700 1,123,800 58 LIBRARY 1,336,900 1,393,100 59 RECREATION 717,200 706,400 60 LIFE SAFETY 491,400 504,800 61 CODE INFORCEMENT 432,300 418,400 62 PLANNING 422,600 444,100 63 INSPECTIONS 695,200 602,100 64 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 215,200 223,000 65 POLICE 14,346,800 13,986,100 66 POLICE EXTRA DUTY 776,800 712,500 67 STREETS 660,300 665,100 68 SANITATION 2,253,500 2,248,000 69 CITY MANAGER 460,000 592,500 70 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 740,000 728,700 71 FINANCE 980,000 947,100 72 PUBLIC SERVICES - ADMINISTRATION 513,100 514,800 73 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 689,100 677,800 74 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING - 192,600 75 PROCUREMENT & INVENTORY 559,400 535,600 76 FLEET MAINTENANCE 770,900 776,700 77 CUSTOMER SERVICES 1,232,200 1,040,300 78 HUMAN RESOURCES 393,100 379,700 79 MAYOR 83,300 74,900 80 DEPARTMENT SUBTOTALS 31,359,500 31,003,500 81 OTHER EXPENSES 82 DEBT SERVICE 557,300 708,600 83 CONTRIBUTION TO DDP 162,400 70,000 84 MISCELLANEOUS GRANT RELATED EXPENSES 25,000 25,000 85 INSURANCE 658,900 724,800 86 RETIREES HEALTH CARE 1,636,500 1,636,500 87 OTHER EMPLOYMENT EXPENSES 10,700 500,000 88 PENSION UNFUNDED LIABILITY 121,000 - 89 POLICE PENSION FUND - STATE GRANT 500,000 500,000 90 POLICE PENSION FUND - UNFUNDED LIABILITY 689,400 655,000 91 UNCOLLECTIBLES - TRASH AND OTHER 10,000 50,000 92 STREET LIGHTS 774,500 - 93 OTHER EXPENSE SUBTOTAL 5,145,700 4,869,900 94 TRANSFERS 95 TRANSFER TO CAPITAL FUND - PROJECTS 1,448,800 2,196,000 96 TRANSFER TO PARKLAND RESERVE - 100,000 97 TRANSFERS SUBTOTAL 1,448,800 2,296,000 98 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 37,954,000 38,169,400 99 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE 3,393,000 3,574,500 100 TOTALS $ 41,347,000 $ 41,743,900 101 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 102 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 103 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 104 ADOPTED: * 2

FIRST READING 105 2014-2015 BUDGET ORDINANCES - CONTINUED 106 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 107 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Six Million Forty Five Thousand Five Hundred dollars 108 ($6,045,500) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues and other 109 funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014 110 and ending June 30, 2015: 111 GOVERNMENTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 112 REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2014-2015 113 REVENUES 114 2013/14 2014/15 115 REVISED BUDGET 116 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 3,058,300 $ 117,100 117 REVENUES 118 STATE GRANTS - OTHER 15,000 153,000 119 BOND PROCEEDS - STREET PROGRAM - 2,661,100 120 LEASE PURCHASE OF FIRE AND POLICE EQUIPT - 918,300 121 CONTRACTOR CONTRIBUTIONS 264,800 - 122 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND FOR PROJECTS 1,448,800 2,196,000 123 TRANSFER FROM PARKLAND RESERVE 80,000 - 124 TRANSFER FROM MUNICIPAL STREET AID CAPITAL GRANT 251,200 - 125 TRANSFER FROM COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION GRANT 60,500 - 125 SUBTOTAL PROJECT RECEIPTS 2,120,300 5,928,400 126 STATE GRANTS - LIBRARY 150,000 - 127 LIBRARY CAPITAL PLEDGES 5,000 - 128 TOTAL REVENUES 2,275,300 5,928,400 129 TOTAL BEGINNING BALANCE AND REVENUES $ 5,333,600 $ 6,045,500 130 EXPENSE SUMMARY 131 2013/14 2014/15 132 DEPARTMENT EXPENSES REVISED BUDGET 133 FIRE $ 238,500 $ 827,300 134 GROUNDS MAINTENANCE 50,100 68,100 135 LIBRARY 446,500 - 136 RECREATION 172,000 146,000 137 CODE ENFORCEMENT 30,900 - 138 POLICE 342,400 499,100 139 STREETS 1,524,600 1,470,300 140 STREETS GARRISON FARM INFRASTRUCTURE 1,936,100 2,586,100 141 SANITATION 395,600 256,500 142 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 7,000 - 143 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 17,800 - 144 PROCUREMENT & INVENTORY 55,000 - 145 DEPARTMENT SUBTOTAL 5,216,500 5,853,400 144 BOND/LOAN ISSUANCE COST - 75,000 146 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE 117,100 117,100 147 TOTALS $ 5,333,600 $ 6,045,500 148 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 149 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 150 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 151 ADOPTED: * 3

FIRST READING 152 2014-2015 BUDGET ORDINANCES - CONTINUED 153 GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY 154 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2014-2015 155 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 156 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Four Hundred Sixty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred 157 dollars ($467,900) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current 158 revenues and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the 159 fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015: 160 CASH RECEIPTS 161 2013/14 2014/15 162 REVISED BUDGET 163 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 734,000 $ 466,000 164 INTEREST EARNED 3,000 1,900 165 TOTALS $ 737,000 $ 467,900 166 EXPENSE SUMMARY 167 2013/14 2014/15 168 REVISED BUDGET 169 TRANSFER TO OPERATING ACCOUNT $ 271,000 $ - 170 171 CARRY FORWARD TO NEXT YEAR 466,000 467,900 172 TOTALS $ 737,000 $ 467,900 173 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 174 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 175 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 176 ADOPTED: * 4

FIRST READING 177 2014-2015 BUDGET ORDINANCES - CONTINUED 178 GENERAL CAPITAL ASSET RESERVE 179 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2014-2015 180 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 181 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Five Hundred Twelve Thousand Three Hundred dollars ($512,300) or 182 so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues and 183 other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year 184 beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015: 185 CASH RECEIPTS 186 2013/14 2014/15 187 REVISED BUDGET 188 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 507,300 $ 509,800 189 RECEIPTS 190 INTEREST EARNINGS 2,500 2,500 191 TOTAL RECEIPTS 2,500 2,500 192 TOTALS $ 509,800 $ 512,300 193 EXPENSE SUMMARY 194 2013/14 2014/15 195 REVISED BUDGET 196 CARRY FORWARD TO NEXT YEAR $ 509,800 $ 512,300 197 TOTALS $ 509,800 $ 512,300 198 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 199 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 200 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 201 ADOPTED: * 5

FIRST READING 202 2014-2015 BUDGET ORDINANCES - CONTINUED 203 PARKLAND/RECREATION RESERVE 204 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2014-2015 205 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 206 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Three Hundred Four Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars 207 ($304,800) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues 208 and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal 209 year beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015: 210 OPERATING REVENUES 211 2013/14 2014/15 212 REVISED BUDGET 213 PRIOR YEAR BALANCE $ 202,900 $ 203,800 214 GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION - 100,000 215 INTEREST INCOME 900 1,000 216 TOTALS $ 203,800 $ 304,800 217 OPERATING EXPENSES 218 2013/14 2014/15 219 REVISED BUDGET 220 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE 203,800 304,800 221 TOTALS $ 203,800 $ 304,800 222 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 223 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 224 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 225 ADOPTED: * 6

FIRST READING 226 2014-2015 BUDGET ORDINANCES - CONTINUED 227 MUNICIPAL STREET AID FUND 228 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2014-2015 229 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 230 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Six Hundred Sixty Four Thousand 231 dollars ($664,000) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current 232 revenues and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the 233 fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015: 234 CASH RECEIPTS 235 2013/14 2014/15 236 REVISED BUDGET 237 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 251,500 $ 100 238 STATE GRANT - OPERATIONS 663,900 663,900 239 TOTALS $ 915,400 $ 664,000 240 BUDGET SUMMARY 241 2013/14 2014/15 242 REVISED BUDGET 243 TRANSFER TO GENERAL FUND - OPERATIONS $ 664,100 $ 663,900 244 TRANSFER TO GENERAL FUND - CAPITAL 251,200 - 245 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE 100 100 246 TOTALS $ 915,400 $ 664,000 247 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 248 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 249 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 250 ADOPTED: * 7

FIRST READING 251 2014-2015 BUDGET ORDINANCES - CONTINUED 252 WATER/WASTEWATER FUND 253 REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2014-2015 254 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 255 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Fifteen Million Two Hundred Fifteen Thousand Three Hundred 256 dollars ($15,215,300) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current 257 revenues and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the 258 fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015: 259 2013/14 2014/15 260 REVISED BUDGET 261 BEGINNING BALANCE - WATER $ 732,700 $ 658,400 262 BEGINNING BALANCE - WASTEWATER 441,400 (98,500) 263 BEGINNING BALANCE - KCSA (17,300) 155,000 264 TOTAL BEGINNING BALANCES 1,156,800 714,900 265 BASE REVENUE 266 WATER FEES 4,396,000 4,616,400 267 WASTEWATER FEES 3,529,000 3,706,800 268 WASTEWATER ADJUSTMENT FEES 2,900,000 2,902,600 269 GROUNDWATER INFLOW ADJUSTMENT 1,302,300 1,862,500 270 WATER TANK SPACE LEASING 321,200 331,900 271 SEWER IMPACT FEES 237,900 427,900 272 WATER IMPACT FEES 262,700 472,700 273 INTEREST - WATER 3,900 9,000 274 INTEREST - WASTEWATER 6,100 14,000 275 MISCELLANEOUS SERVICE FEE 64,400 156,600 276 TOTAL REVENUES 13,023,500 14,500,400 277 TOTAL BEGINNING BALANCES AND REVENUES $ 14,180,300 $ 15,215,300 8

FIRST READING 278 2014-2015 BUDGET ORDINANCES - CONTINUED 279 2013/14 2014/15 280 DIRECT EXPENSES REVISED BUDGET 281 ENGINEERING & INSPECTION $ 499,000 $ 500,900 282 WATER CONSTRUCTION 340,800 252,500 283 WATER DEPARTMENT 474,700 485,300 284 WATER TREATMENT PLANT 1,495,200 1,576,900 285 WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT 885,700 974,100 286 DIRECT EXPENDITURE SUBTOTAL 3,695,400 3,789,700 287 OTHER EXPENSES 288 DEBT SERVICE - WATER 403,800 534,100 289 DEBT SERVICE - WASTEWATER 603,400 617,900 290 RETIREES HEALTH CARE 200,000 200,000 291 OTHER EMPLOYMENT EXPENSES 10,800 17,700 292 KENT COUNTY TREATMENT CHARGE 4,030,000 3,655,000 293 INTRAFUND SERVICE FEES 1,458,800 1,354,900 294 OTHER EXPENSES SUBTOTAL 6,706,800 6,379,600 295 TRANSFER TO 296 GENERAL FUND FROM WATER 250,000 250,000 297 GENERAL FUND FROM WASTEWATER 250,000 250,000 298 WATER IMP AND EXT 1,233,200 1,200,000 299 WASTEWATER IMP AND EXT 1,330,000 1,800,000 300 TRANSFER TO SUBTOTAL 3,063,200 3,500,000 301 TOTAL EXPENSES 13,465,400 13,669,300 302 CURRENT YEAR BALANCES 303 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE WATER 658,400 1,020,100 304 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE WASTEWATER (98,500) (739,200) 305 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE KCSA 155,000 1,265,100 306 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE SUBTOTALS 714,900 1,546,000 307 TOTAL CURRENT YEAR BALANCES AND EXPENSES $ 14,180,300 $ 15,215,300 308 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 309 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 310 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 311 ADOPTED: * 9

FIRST READING 312 2014-2015 BUDGET ORDINANCES - CONTINUED 313 WATER/WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENT & EXTENSION FUND 314 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2014-2015 315 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 316 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Six Million Four Hundred Twenty One Thousand Eight Hundred 317 dollars ($6,421,800) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues 318 and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year beginning 319 July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015: 320 CASH RECEIPTS 321 2013/14 2014/15 322 REVISED BUDGET 323 PRIOR YEAR BALANCE - WATER $ 4,473,800 $ 1,021,200 324 PRIOR YEAR BALANCE - WASTEWATER 2,807,000 1,060,000 325 TOTAL BEGINNING BALANCES 7,280,800 2,081,200 326 RECEIPTS 327 BOND PROCEEDS - WATER - 2013 ISSUE 3,000,000 - 328 BOND PROCEEDS - WASTEWATER - 2013 ISSUE 1,067,900 - 329 STATE LOAN-WASTEWATER 2011 ISSUE 62,000 - 330 ARBITRAGE REBATE - IRS REFUND 66,000 - 331 TRANS FROM OPERATING FUND FOR WATER 1,233,200 1,200,000 332 TRANS FROM OPERATING FUND FOR WASTEWATER 1,330,000 1,800,000 333 TRANSFER FROM WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE RESERVE 1,000,000 1,315,600 334 INTEREST INCOME 25,000 25,000 335 TOTAL RECEIPTS 7,784,100 4,340,600 336 TOTALS $ 15,064,900 $ 6,421,800 337 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2014-2015 338 EXPENSE SUMMARY 339 2013/14 2014/15 340 EXPENSES REVISED BUDGET 341 WATER $ 7,641,300 $ 1,336,900 342 WASTEWATER 5,252,400 3,273,200 343 WATER TREATMENT PLANT - 38,100 344 WATER CONSTRUCTION 90,000 - 345 TOTAL EXPENSES 12,983,700 4,648,200 346 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE - WATER 1,021,200 858,700 347 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE - WASTEWATER 1,060,000 914,900 348 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE SUBTOTALS 2,081,200 1,773,600 349 TOTALS $ 15,064,900 $ 6,421,800 350 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 351 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 352 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 353 ADOPTED: * 10

FIRST READING 354 2014-2015 BUDGET ORDINANCES - CONTINUED 355 WATER/WASTEWATER CAPITAL ASSET RESERVE 356 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2014-2015 357 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 358 The amount hereinafter named aggregating One Million Forty Four Thousand Three Hundred Dollars 359 ($1,044,300) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current 360 revenues and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for 361 the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015: 362 CASH RECEIPTS 363 2013/14 2014/15 364 REVISED BUDGET 365 BEGINNING BALANCE - WATER $ 505,400 $ 514,000 366 BEGINNING BALANCE - WASTEWATER 504,300 512,900 367 TOTAL BEGINNING BALANCES 1,009,700 1,026,900 368 RECEIPTS 369 INTEREST EARNINGS - WATER 8,600 8,700 370 INTEREST EARNINGS - WASTEWATER 8,600 8,700 371 TOTAL RECEIPTS 17,200 17,400 372 TOTALS $ 1,026,900 $ 1,044,300 373 EXPENSE SUMMARY 374 2013/14 2014/15 375 REVISED BUDGET 376 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE - WATER $ 514,000 $ 522,700 377 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE - WASTEWATER 512,900 521,600 378 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE SUBTOTALS 1,026,900 1,044,300 379 TOTALS $ 1,026,900 $ 1,044,300 380 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 381 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 382 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 383 ADOPTED: * 11

FIRST READING 384 2014-2015 BUDGET ORDINANCES - CONTINUED 385 WATER/WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE RESERVE 386 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2014-2015 387 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 388 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Three Million Seventy One Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars 389 ($3,071,800) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current 390 revenues and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for 391 the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015: 392 CASH RECEIPTS 393 2013/14 2014/15 394 REVISED BUDGET 395 BEGINNING BALANCE - WATER $ 197,100 $ 200,500 396 BEGINNING BALANCE - WASTEWATER 3,756,100 2,820,000 397 TOTAL BEGINNING BALANCES 3,953,200 3,020,500 398 RECEIPTS 399 INTEREST EARNINGS - WATER 3,400 3,400 400 INTEREST EARNINGS - WASTEWATER 63,900 47,900 401 TOTAL RECEIPTS 67,300 51,300 402 TOTALS $ 4,020,500 $ 3,071,800 403 EXPENSE SUMMARY 404 2013/14 2014/15 405 REVISED BUDGET 406 TRANSFER TO I & E FUND FROM WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES $ 1,000,000 $ 1,315,600 406 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE - WATER 200,500 203,900 407 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE - WASTEWATER 2,820,000 1,552,300 408 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE SUBTOTALS 3,020,500 1,756,200 409 TOTALS $ 4,020,500 $ 3,071,800 410 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 411 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 412 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 413 ADOPTED: * 12

FIRST READING 414 2014-2015 BUDGET ORDINANCES - CONTINUED 415 WATER/WASTEWATER CONTINGENCY RESERVE 416 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2014-2015 417 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 418 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Three Hundred Two Thousand Five Hundred dollars 419 ($302,500) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues 420 and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year 421 beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015: 422 CASH RECEIPTS 423 2013/14 2014/15 424 REVISED BUDGET 425 BEGINNING BALANCE - WATER $ 104,100 $ 105,900 426 BEGINNING BALANCE - WASTEWATER 188,300 191,500 427 TOTAL BEGINNING BALANCES 292,400 297,400 428 RECEIPTS 429 INTEREST EARNINGS 5,000 5,100 430 TOTAL RECEIPTS 5,000 5,100 431 TOTALS $ 297,400 $ 302,500 432 BUDGET SUMMARY 433 2013/14 2014/15 434 REVISED BUDGET 435 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE - WATER 105,900 107,700 436 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE - WASTEWATER 191,500 194,800 437 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE SUBTOTALS 297,400 302,500 438 TOTAL EXPENSES AND CURRENT YEAR BALANCES $ 297,400 $ 302,500 439 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 440 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 441 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 442 ADOPTED: * 13

FIRST READING 443 2014-2015 BUDGET ORDINANCES - CONTINUED 444 ELECTRIC REVENUE FUND 445 REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2014-2015 446 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 447 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Ninety One Million Sixty Thousand One Hundred 448 dollars ($91,060,100) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby 449 appropriated from current revenues and other funds for the use by several departments of the 450 Municipal Government for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015: 451 2013/14 2014/15 452 REVISED BUDGET 453 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 6,620,900 $ 9,253,600 454 BASE REVENUE 455 DIRECT SALES TO CUSTOMER 78,971,700 78,043,000 456 UTILITY TAX 1,312,300 1,296,900 457 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 579,100 624,600 458 RENT REVENUE 180,000 200,000 459 GREEN ENERGY 130,000 130,000 460 INTEREST EARNINGS 12,000 12,000 461 TRANSFER FROM RATE STABILIZATION 7,000,000 1,500,000 462 INTRAFUND SERVICE RECEIPTS WATER/WASTEWATER 98,500 - 463 TOTAL REVENUES 88,283,600 81,806,500 464 TOTALS $ 94,904,500 $ 91,060,100 14

FIRST READING 465 ELECTRIC REVENUE FUND - CONTINUED 466 REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2014-2015 467 2013/14 2014/15 468 EXPENSES REVISED BUDGET 469 POWER SUPPLY $ 26,458,900 $ 21,823,000 470 SOLAR ENERGY 1,729,200 2,067,600 471 SOLAR RENEWAL ENERGY CREDITS 352,600 378,600 472 POWER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT 996,000 996,000 473 PJM CHARGES - ENERGY 17,274,000 11,499,800 474 PJM CHARGES - TRANSMISSION & FEES 7,420,000 7,234,100 475 CAPACITY CHARGES 15,614,100 9,958,900 476 SUB-TOTAL POWER SUPPLY 69,844,800 53,958,000 477 PLANT OPERATIONS 5,791,600 6,141,100 478 GENERATIONS FUELS 1,603,800 1,611,100 479 PJM SPOT MARKET ENERGY (1,004,500) (2,232,800) 480 PJM CREDITS (5,314,800) (486,700) 481 CAPACITY CREDITS (15,079,800) (8,881,500) 482 GENERATION SUBTOTAL (14,003,700) (3,848,800) 483 POWER SUPPLY & GENERATION SUBTOTAL 55,841,100 50,109,200 484 DIRECT EXPENDITURES 485 TRANSMISSION/DISTRIBUTION 3,776,300 4,028,700 486 ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING 1,285,300 1,370,900 487 ADMINISTRATION 628,400 636,600 488 METER READING 273,800 267,600 489 SYSTEMS OPERATIONS 675,800 686,300 490 DIRECT EXPENDITURE SUBTOTALS 6,639,600 6,990,100 491 OTHER EXPENSES: 492 UTILITY TAX 1,312,300 1,296,900 493 ALLOW FOR UNCOLLECTIBLES 200,000 200,000 494 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 100,000 246,800 495 RETIREES HEALTH CARE 513,300 513,300 496 OTHER EMPLOYMENT EXPENSES 125,700 54,200 497 OPEB UNFUNDED LIABILITY 975,700 1,009,800 498 GREEN ENERGY PAYMENT TO DEMEC 130,000 130,000 499 INTRAFUND SERVICE FEES 3,572,700 3,508,100 500 INTEREST ON DEPOSITS 20,000 20,000 501 INVENTORY WRITE OFFS - 175,000 502 STREET LIGHTS - 774,500 503 DEBT SERVICE 3,301,900 3,297,000 504 OTHER EXPENSES SUBTOTAL 10,251,600 11,225,600 505 TRANSFER TO 506 IMPROVEMENT & EXTENSION 4,918,600 4,750,000 507 GENERAL FUND 8,000,000 9,500,000 508 TRANSFER TO SUBTOTAL 12,918,600 14,250,000 509 TOTAL EXPENSES 85,650,900 82,574,900 510 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE 9,253,600 8,485,200 511 TOTALS $ 94,904,500 $ 91,060,100 512 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 513 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 514 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 515 ADOPTED: * 15

FIRST READING 516 2014-2015 BUDGET ORDINANCES - CONTINUED 517 ELECTRIC UTILITY IMPROVEMENT AND EXTENSION FUND 518 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2014-2015 519 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 520 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Eight Million Three Hundred Eighty Seven Thousand 521 dollars ($8,387,000) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current 522 revenues and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the 523 fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015: 524 CASH RECEIPTS 525 2013/14 2014/15 526 REVISED BUDGET 527 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 3,868,500 $ 3,362,200 528 RECEIPTS 529 TRANSFER FROM ELECTRIC 4,918,600 4,750,000 530 GENERAL SERVICE BILLING 440,000 250,000 531 INTEREST EARNINGS 25,200 24,800 532 TOTAL RECEIPTS 5,383,800 5,024,800 533 TOTALS $ 9,252,300 $ 8,387,000 534 EXPENSE SUMMARY 535 2013/14 2014/15 536 EXPENSES REVISED BUDGET 537 ELECTRIC GENERATION $ 2,130,000 $ 2,240,000 538 TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION 1,144,600 1,033,000 539 ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING 2,615,500 1,663,100 540 TOTAL EXPENSES 5,890,100 4,936,100 541 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE 3,362,200 3,450,900 542 TOTALS $ 9,252,300 $ 8,387,000 543 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 544 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 545 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 546 ADOPTED: * 16

FIRST READING 547 2014-2015 BUDGET ORDINANCES - CONTINUED 548 ELECTRIC UTILITY CONTINGENCY RESERVE 549 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2014-2015 550 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 551 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Eight Hundred Twenty Six Thousand dollars 552 ($826,000) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues 553 and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year 554 beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015: 555 CASH RECEIPTS 556 2013/14 2014/15 557 REVISED BUDGET 558 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 814,200 $ 820,100 559 RECEIPTS 560 INTEREST EARNINGS 5,900 5,900 561 TOTAL RECEIPTS 5,900 5,900 562 TOTALS $ 820,100 $ 826,000 563 EXPENSE SUMMARY 564 2013/14 2014/15 565 REVISED BUDGET 565 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE 820,100 826,000 566 TOTALS $ 820,100 $ 826,000 567 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 568 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 569 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 570 ADOPTED: * 17

FIRST READING 571 2014-2015 BUDGET ORDINANCES - CONTINUED 572 ELECTRIC UTILITY DEPRECIATION RESERVE 573 SOURCES AND USE OF FUNDS FOR 2014-2015 574 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 575 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Nine Million Nine Hundred Ninety Eight Thousand 576 Two Hundred dollars ($9,998,200) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby 577 appropriated from current revenues and other funds for the use by several departments of the 578 Municipal Government for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015: 579 CASH RECEIPTS 580 2013/14 2014/15 581 REVISED BUDGET 582 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 9,855,700 $ 9,898,000 583 INTEREST EARNINGS 42,300 100,200 584 TOTALS $ 9,898,000 $ 9,998,200 585 BUDGET SUMMARY 586 2013/14 2014/15 587 REVISED BUDGET 588 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE 9,898,000 9,998,200 589 TOTALS $ 9,898,000 $ 9,998,200 590 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 591 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 592 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 593 ADOPTED: * 18

FIRST READING 594 2014-2015 BUDGET ORDINANCES - CONTINUED 595 ELECTRIC UTILITY FUTURE CAPACITY RESERVE 596 SOURCES AND USE OF FUNDS FOR 2014-2015 597 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 598 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Ten Million One Hundred Forty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred 599 dollars ($10,148,700) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues 600 and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year 601 beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015: 602 CASH RECEIPTS 603 2013/14 2014/15 604 REVISED BUDGET 605 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 10,004,200 $ 10,076,200 606 INTEREST EARNINGS 72,000 72,500 607 TOTALS $ 10,076,200 $ 10,148,700 608 BUDGET SUMMARY 609 2013/14 2014/15 610 REVISED BUDGET 611 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE 10,076,200 10,148,700 612 TOTALS $ 10,076,200 $ 10,148,700 613 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 614 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 615 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 616 ADOPTED: * 19

FIRST READING 617 2014-2015 BUDGET ORDINANCES - CONTINUED 618 ELECTRIC UTILITY INSURANCE STABLIZATION RESERVE 619 SOURCES AND USE OF FUNDS FOR 2014-2015 620 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 621 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Seven Hundred Forty Three Thousand Six Hundred dollars 622 ($743,600) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues 623 and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year 624 beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015: 625 CASH RECEIPTS 626 2013/14 2014/15 627 REVISED BUDGET 628 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 733,000 $ 738,300 629 INTEREST EARNINGS 5,300 5,300 630 TOTALS $ 738,300 $ 743,600 631 BUDGET SUMMARY 632 2013/14 2014/15 633 REVISED BUDGET 634 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE 738,300 743,600 635 TOTALS $ 738,300 $ 743,600 636 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 637 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 638 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 639 ADOPTED: * 20

FIRST READING 640 2014-2015 BUDGET ORDINANCES - CONTINUED 641 ELECTRIC UTILITY RATE STABLIZATION RESERVE 642 SOURCES AND USE OF FUNDS FOR 2014-2015 643 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 644 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Ten Million Five Hundred Eighty Three Thousand 645 dollars ($10,583,000) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current 646 revenues and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for 647 the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015: 648 CASH RECEIPTS 649 2013/14 2014/15 650 REVISED BUDGET 651 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 17,382,100 $ 10,507,300 652 INTEREST EARNINGS 125,200 75,700 653 TOTALS $ 17,507,300 $ 10,583,000 654 BUDGET SUMMARY 655 2013/14 2014/15 656 REVISED BUDGET 657 TRANSFER TO ELECTRIC FUND $ 7,000,000 $ 1,500,000 658 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE 10,507,300 9,083,000 659 TOTALS $ 17,507,300 $ 10,583,000 660 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 661 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 662 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 663 ADOPTED: * 21

FIRST READING 664 2014-2015 BUDGET ORDINANCES - CONTINUED 665 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND 666 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2014-2015 667 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 668 The amount hereinafter named aggregating One Million Six Hundred Thirty Six Thousand One Hundred 669 dollars ($1,636,100) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues 670 and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year 671 beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015: 672 OPERATING REVENUES 673 2013/14 2014/15 674 REVISED BUDGET 675 PRIOR YEAR BALANCE $ 1,267,800 $ 1,135,000 676 INTEREST INCOME 10,600 10,600 677 PREMIUM FROM CITY 490,700 490,500 678 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 3,100 - 679 TOTALS $ 1,772,200 $ 1,636,100 680 OPERATING EXPENSES 681 2013/14 2014/15 682 REVISED BUDGET 683 PROGRAM EXPENSES/SUPPLIES - CLAIMS $ 450,000 $ 450,000 684 INSURANCE 92,600 92,600 685 BANK FEES 600 600 686 STATE OF DEL - SELF INSURANCE TAX 37,000 37,000 687 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 57,000 57,000 688 TOTAL EXPENSES 637,200 637,200 689 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE 1,135,000 998,900 690 TOTALS $ 1,772,200 $ 1,636,100 691 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 692 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 693 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 694 ADOPTED: * 22

FIRST READING 695 2014-2015 BUDGET ORDINANCES - CONTINUED 696 COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT FUND 697 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2014-2015 698 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 699 The amount hereinafter named aggregating One Million Five Hundred Seventy Nine Thousand Four Hundred 700 dollars ($1,579,400) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues 701 and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year 702 beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015: 703 OPERATING REVENUES 704 2013/14 2014/15 705 REVISED BUDGET 706 PRIOR YEAR BALANCE $ 209,200 $ 78,900 707 GRANTS REVENUE - DELDOT 1,387,600 500,000 708 INTEREST INCOME 500 500 709 TOTALS $ 1,597,300 $ 579,400 710 OPERATING EXPENSES 711 2013/14 2014/15 712 REVISED BUDGET 713 PROGRAM EXP. GRANT RELATED $ 1,395,100 $ 500,000 714 PROGRAM EXP. CITY APPROPRIATED 62,800 - 715 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT - GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 60,500 - 716 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE 78,900 79,400 717 TOTALS $ 1,597,300 $ 579,400 718 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 719 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 720 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 721 ADOPTED: * 23

FIRST READING 722 2014-2015 BUDGET ORDINANCES - CONTINUED 723 LIBRARY GRANT FUND 724 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2014-2015 725 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 726 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Two Hundred Ninety One Thousand Four Hundred dollars 727 ($291,400) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues 728 and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year 729 beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015: 730 OPERATING REVENUES 731 2013/14 2014/15 732 REVISED BUDGET 733 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 27,800 $ 17,300 734 STATE GRANT 274,100 274,100 735 FEDERAL GRANT 2,500 - 736 TOTALS $ 304,400 $ 291,400 737 OPERATING EXPENSES 738 2013/14 2014/15 739 REVISED BUDGET 740 PROGRAM EXPENSES/SUPPLIES $ 4,700 $ 2,000 741 OFFICE SUPPLIES 24,000 24,000 742 PRINTING/DUPLICATING 8,900 8,900 743 POSTAGE 28,000 28,000 744 BOOKS 128,900 128,900 745 FURNITURE 74,000 74,000 746 AUDIO VISUAL SUPPLIES 100 100 747 TRAINING/CONF/FOOD/TRAV 3,500 3,500 748 OFFICE EQUIPMENT/REPAIRS & MAINT 2,000 2,000 749 COMPUTER HARDWARE - 2,700 750 OTHER EQUIP - PURCHASE 10,500 - 751 SUBTOTAL EXPENSES STATE GRANTS 284,600 274,100 752 PROGRAM EXPENSES/SUPPLIES 2,500 - 753 SUBTOTAL EXPENSES FEDERAL GRANTS 2,500 - 754 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE 17,300 17,300 755 TOTALS $ 304,400 $ 291,400 756 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 757 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 758 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 759 ADOPTED: * 24

FIRST READING 760 2014-2015 BUDGET ORDINANCES - CONTINUED 761 POLICE GRANTS FUND 762 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2014-2015 763 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 764 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Four Hundred Sixteen Thousand Two Hundred dollars 765 ($416,200) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues 766 and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year 767 beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015: 768 OPERATING EXPENSES 769 2013/14 2014/15 770 REVISED BUDGET 771 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 175,200 $ 77,200 772 STATE AND FEDERAL GRANTS 390,500 339,000 773 TOTALS $ 565,700 $ 416,200 774 OPERATING EXPENSES 775 2013/14 2014/15 776 REVISED BUDGET 777 POLICE EQUIPT & PROG SUPP 224,700 156,000 778 TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT 60,000 50,000 779 CELL PHONE CHARGES 15,000 15,000 780 TRAINING 36,000 32,000 781 AUDIT FEES 1,000 1,000 782 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES - 6,000 783 SUBTOTAL EXPENSES 336,700 260,000 784 OPERATING TRANSFERS-OUT 151,800 124,000 785 SUBTOTAL FINANCING USES 151,800 124,000 786 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE 77,200 32,200 787 TOTALS $ 565,700 $ 416,200 788 The above budget represents the combination of all State & Federal Grants. 789 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 790 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 791 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 792 ADOPTED: * 25

1 FINAL READING 2 3 CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2014-09 4 5 WHEREAS, the City of Dover, Delaware has the authority to adopt regulations designed to promote the 6 public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizenry; and 7 8 WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has identified special flood hazard areas 9 within the boundaries of the City of Dover and such areas may be subject to periodic inundation which may 10 result in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, 11 extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all of which 12 adversely affect the public health, safety and general welfare, and 13 14 WHEREAS, the City of Dover was accepted for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program 15 on September 16, 1982 and the City of Dover desires to continue to meet the requirements of Title 44 Code of 16 Federal Regulations, Sections 59 and 60, necessary for such participation; and 17 18 WHEREAS, the City of Dover has, in Chapter 22 – Buildings and Building Regulations, of the Dover 19 Code of Ordinances adopted a building code that contains provisions for the design and construction of 20 buildings, structures, and dwellings in flood hazard areas; and 21 22 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 23 DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 24 25 That Chapter 50 – Floods, of the Dover Code of Ordinances, be amended by deleting it in its entirety and 26 inserting in lieu thereof the following: 27 28 Chapter 50 FLOODS 29 30 ARTICLE I – IN GENERAL 31 32 Sec. 50-1. Findings. 33 The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has identified special flood hazard areas within the 34 boundaries of the City of Dover, Delaware. Special flood hazard areas are subject to periodic inundation which 35 may result in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental 36 services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all of 37 which adversely affect the public health, safety and general welfare. Development that is inadequately 38 elevated, improperly floodproofed, or otherwise unprotected from flood damage also contribute to the flood 39 loss. 40 41 The City of Dover agreed to meet the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program and was 42 accepted for participation in the program on September 16, 1982. As of that date or the initial effective date of 43 the City of Dover Flood Insurance Rate Map, all development and new construction as defined herein, are to be 44 compliant with these regulations and the flood load and flood-resistant construction provisions of the building 45 code. 46 47 Sec. 50-2. Statement of purpose. 48 It is the purpose of these regulations to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, and to: 49 (A) Protect human life, health and welfare; Page 1

50 (B) Encourage the utilization of appropriate construction practices in order to prevent or minimize 51 flood damage in the future; 52 (C) Minimize flooding of water supply and sanitary sewage disposal systems; 53 (D) Maintain natural drainage; 54 (E) Reduce financial burdens imposed on the community, its governmental units and its residents, by 55 discouraging unwise design and construction of development in areas subject to flooding; 56 (F) Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally 57 undertaken at the expense of the general public; 58 (G) Minimize prolonged business interruptions; 59 (H) Minimize damage to public facilities and other utilities such as water and gas mains, electric, 60 telephone and sewer lines, streets and bridges; 61 (I) Reinforce that those who build in and occupy special flood hazard areas should assume 62 responsibility for their actions; 63 (J) Minimize the impact of development on adjacent properties within and near flood prone areas; 64 (K) Provide that the flood storage and conveyance functions of the floodplain are maintained; 65 (L) Minimize the impact of development on the natural and beneficial functions of the floodplain; 66 (M) Prevent floodplain uses that are either hazardous or environmentally incompatible; and 67 (N) Meet community participation requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program as set forth 68 in the Code of Federal Regulations at 44 C.F.R. Section 59.22. 69 70 Sec. 50-3. Areas to which these regulations apply. 71 These regulations shall apply to all special flood hazard areas within the jurisdiction of the City of Dover, 72 as identified in Section 50-4. 73 74 Sec. 50-4. Basis for establishing special flood hazard areas. 75 For the purposes of these regulations, and for the purpose of establishing flood hazard areas in the 76 building code [Section 1612.3 and Table R301.2(1)], the following are adopted by reference as a part of these 77 regulations and serve as the basis for establishing special flood hazard areas: 78 (A) The FEMA Flood Insurance Study for Kent County , Delaware and Incorporated Areas dated 79 July 7, 2014 and all subsequent amendments and/or the most recent revision thereof. 80 (B) The FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for Kent County , Delaware and Incorporated Areas dated 81 July 7, 2014 , and all subsequent amendments and/or the most recent revision thereof. 82 (C) Other hydrologic and hydraulic engineering studies and/or maps prepared pursuant to these 83 regulations or for other purposes, and which establish base flood elevations, delineate 100-year 84 floodplains, floodways or other areas of special flood hazard. 85 (D) The City of Dover may identify and regulate new local flood hazard or ponding areas. These 86 areas should be delineated and adopted on a “Local Flood Hazard Map” using best available 87 topographic data and locally derived information such as flood of record, historic high water 88 marks or approximate study methodologies. 89 (E) Where field surveyed topography indicates that ground elevations are below the closest 90 applicable base flood elevation, even in areas not delineated as a special flood hazard area on a 91 flood hazard map, the area shall be considered as special flood hazard area. 92 Page 2

93 Maps and studies that establish special flood hazard areas are on file at the City of Dover Department of 94 Planning and Inspections. 95 96 Sec. 50-5. Abrogation and greater restrictions. 97 These regulations are not intended to repeal or abrogate any existing ordinances including subdivision 98 regulations, zoning ordinances or building codes. In the event of a conflict between these regulations and any 99 other ordinance, the more restrictive shall govern. These regulations shall not impair any deed restriction, 100 covenant or easement, but the land subject to such interests shall also be governed by these regulations. 101 102 Sec. 50-6. Interpretation. 103 In the interpretation and application of these regulations, all provisions shall be: 104 (A) Considered as minimum requirements; 105 (B) Liberally construed in favor of the governing body; 106 (C) Deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers granted under state statutes; and 107 (D) Where a provision of these regulations may be in conflict with a state or Federal law, such state 108 or Federal law shall take precedence , where more restrictive. 109 110 Sec. 50-7. Warning and disclaimer of liability. 111 The degree of flood protection required by these regulations is considered reasonable for regulatory 112 purposes and is based on scientific and engineering considerations. Larger floods can and will occur on rare 113 occasions. Flood heights may be increased by man-made or natural causes. These regulations do not imply that 114 land outside of the special flood hazard areas or uses that are permitted within such areas will be free from 115 flooding or flood damage. These regulations shall not create liability on the part of the City of Dover , any 116 officer or employee thereof, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency, for any flood damage that results 117 from reliance on these regulations or any administrative decision lawfully made thereunder. 118 119 50-8. Severability. 120 Should any section or provision of these regulations be declared by the courts to be unconstitutional or 121 invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the regulations as a whole, or any part thereof other than 122 the part so declared to be unconstitutional or invalid. 123 124 Secs. 50-9—50-19. Reserved. 125 126 ARTICLE II. ADMINISTRATION 127 128 50-20. Designation of the floodplain administrator. 129 The city planner is hereby appointed to administer and implement these regulations and is referred to 130 herein as the floodplain administrator. The floodplain administrator is authorized to: (A) Fulfill the duties and 131 responsibilities set forth in these regulations, (B) Delegate duties and responsibilities set forth in these 132 regulations to qualified technical personnel, plan examiners, inspectors, and other employees, or (C) Enter into 133 a written agreement or written contract with another jurisdiction or agency, or private sector entity to administer 134 specific provisions of these regulations, upon receiving necessary approvals. Administration of any part of these 135 regulations by another entity shall not relieve the community of its responsibilities pursuant to the participation 136 requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program as set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations at 44 137 C.F.R. Section 59.22. 138 Page 3

139 50-21. Duties and responsibilities of the floodplain administrator. 140 The duties and responsibilities of the floodplain administrator shall include but are not limited to: 141 (A) Coordinate with the building official to support administration, interpretation, and enforcement 142 of the flood load and flood-resistant construction provisions of the building code. 143 (B) Review applications for permits to determine whether proposed activities will be located in 144 special flood hazard areas. 145 (C) Interpret floodplain boundaries and provide flood elevation and flood hazard information. 146 (D) Review applications to determine whether proposed activities will be reasonably safe from 147 flooding. 148 (E) Review applications to determine whether all necessary permits have been obtained from those 149 Federal, state or local agencies from which prior or concurrent approval is required. 150 (F) Verify that applicants proposing to alter or relocate a watercourse have notified adjacent 151 communities and the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 152 (Division of Watershed Stewardship), and have submitted copies of such notifications to the 153 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 154 (G) Issue permits to develop in special flood hazard areas when the provisions of these regulations 155 have been met, or disapprove the same in the event of noncompliance. 156 (H) Inspect special flood hazard areas to determine compliance with these regulations or to 157 determine if noncompliance has occurred or violations have been committed. 158 (I) Review submitted Elevation Certificates for completeness. 159 (J) Submit to FEMA data and information necessary to maintain flood hazard maps, including 160 hydrologic and hydraulic engineering analyses prepared by or for the City of Dover , corrections 161 to labeling or planimetric details, etc. 162 (K) Maintain and permanently keep all records for public inspection that are necessary for the 163 administration of these regulations including Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Letters of Map 164 Amendment and Revision, records of issuance and denial of permits, determinations of whether 165 development is in or out of special flood hazard areas for the purpose of issuing permits, 166 elevation certificates, other required certifications, variances, and records of enforcement actions 167 taken for violations of these regulations. 168 (L) Enforce the provisions of these regulations. 169 (M) Assist with and coordinate flood hazard map maintenance activities. 170 (N) Conduct, with the building official, determinations as to whether existing buildings and 171 structures damaged by any cause and located in special flood hazard areas, have been 172 substantially damaged. 173 (O) Make reasonable efforts to notify owners of substantially damaged buildings and structures of 174 the need to obtain a permit prior to repair, rehabilitation, or reconstruction, and to prohibit the 175 non-compliant repair of substantially-damaged buildings except for temporary emergency 176 protective measures necessary to secure a property or stabilize a structure to prevent additional 177 damage. 178 (P) Undertake, as determined appropriate by the floodplain administrator due to the circumstances, 179 other actions which may include but are not limited to: issuing press releases, public service 180 announcements, and other public information materials related to permit requests and repair of 181 damaged structures; coordinating with other Federal, state, and local agencies to assist with Page 4

182 substantial damage determinations; providing owners of damaged structures materials and other 183 information related to the proper repair of damaged structures in special flood hazard areas; and 184 assisting owners with National Flood Insurance Program claims for Increased Cost of 185 Compliance payments. 186 (Q) Notify the Federal Emergency Management Agency when the corporate boundaries of the City 187 of Dover have been modified. 188 189 50-22. Permits required. 190 It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to begin construction or other development which is wholly 191 within, partially within, or in contact with any identified special flood hazard area, as established in Section 50- 192 4, including but not limited to: subdivision of land, filling, grading, or other site improvements and utility 193 installations; placement or replacement of a manufactured home; recreational vehicles; installation or 194 replacement of storage tanks; or alteration of any watercourse, until a permit is obtained from the City of Dover. 195 These regulations are intended to be administered and enforced in conjunction with the building code. No 196 permit shall be issued until the requirements of these regulations and, as applicable, the flood load and flood- 197 resistant construction provisions of the building code, have been met. Permit fees shall be as provided for in 198 Appendix F – Fees and Fines. 199 200 50-23. Application required. 201 Application for a permit shall be made by the owner of the property or his/her authorized agent, herein 202 referred to as the applicant, prior to the actual start of construction. The application shall be on a form furnished 203 for that purpose. For applications for buildings and structures, these required minimum contents of the 204 application are in addition to the requirements of the building code. 205 206 (A) Application contents. 207 At a minimum, applications shall include: 208 (1) Site plans drawn to scale showing the nature, location, dimensions, existing and proposed 209 topography of the area in question, the limits of any portion of the site that was 210 previously filled, and the location of existing and proposed structures, excavation, filling, 211 storage of materials, drainage facilities, and other proposed activities. 212 (2) Elevation of the existing natural ground where structures are proposed, referenced to the 213 datum on the Flood Insurance Rate Map, and an Elevation Certificate that shows the 214 ground elevation and proposed building elevations (identified in Section C of the 215 Elevation Certificate as “Construction Drawings”). 216 (3) Delineation of special flood hazard areas, floodway boundaries, flood zones, and base 217 flood elevations. Where surveyed natural ground elevations are lower than the base flood 218 elevations, base flood elevations shall be used to delineate the boundary of special flood 219 hazard areas. If proposed, changes in the delineation of special flood hazard areas shall 220 be submitted to and approved by FEMA in accordance with Section 50-23(B). Where 221 special flood hazard areas are not delineated or base flood elevations are not shown on 222 the flood hazard maps, the floodplain administrator has the authority to require the 223 applicant to use information provided by the floodplain administrator, information that is 224 available from other sources, or to determine such information using accepted 225 engineering practices. 226 (4) For subdivision proposals and development proposals containing at least 50 lots or at 227 least 5 acres, whichever is the lesser, and where base flood elevations are not shown on 228 Flood Insurance Rate Maps, hydrologic and hydraulic engineering analyses and studies as Page 5

229 required by Section 50-31(D). 230 (5) Elevation of the lowest floor, including basement, or elevation of the bottom of the 231 lowest horizontal structural member, as applicable to the flood zone, of all proposed 232 structures, referenced to the datum on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. 233 (6) Such other material and information as may be requested by the Floodplain Administrator 234 necessary to determine conformance with these regulations. 235 (7) For work on an existing structure, including any improvement, addition, repairs, 236 alterations, rehabilitation, or reconstruction, sufficient information to determine if the 237 work constitutes substantial improvement, including: 238 (a) Documentation of the market value of the structure before the improvement is 239 started or before the damage occurred. 240 (b) Documentation of the actual cash value of all proposed improvement work, or the 241 actual cash value of all work necessary to repair and restore damage to the before 242 damaged condition, regardless of the amount of work that will be performed. 243 (8) Certifications and/or technical analyses prepared or conducted by an appropriate design 244 professional licensed in the State of Delaware, as appropriate to the type of development 245 activity proposed and required by these regulations and the building code: 246 (a) Floodproofing Certificate for dry floodproofed non-residential structures, as 247 required by the building code. 248 (b) Certification that flood openings that do not meet the minimum requirements for 249 non-engineered openings but designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood 250 forces, as required by the building code. 251 (c) Technical analyses to document that the flood carrying capacity of any 252 watercourse alteration or relocation will not be diminished and documentation of 253 maintenance assurances as required in Section 50-40(C). 254 (d) Hydrologic and hydraulic engineering analyses demonstrating that the cumulative 255 effect of proposed development, when combined with all other existing and 256 anticipated development will not increase the wat