CCW Packet

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA JUNE 13, 2017 - 6:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 15 LOOCKERMAN PLAZA - DOVER, DELAWARE PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE WELCOMED ON ANY ITEM AND WILL BE PERMITTED AT APPROPRIATE TIMES. WHEN POSSIBLE, PLEASE NOTIFY THE CITY CLERK (736-7008 OR E-MAIL AT CITYCLERK@DOVER.DE.US) SHOULD YOU WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED. PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS 1. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM COMMUNITY MEETING OF MAY 25, 2017 2. UPDATE - BICENTENNIAL VILLAGE - CONTINENTAL PARK 3. ADJOURNMENT OF PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS 1. CLARIFICATION - REQUEST FOR INCENTIVES - NAIL SPA BY TR (DURING THEIR REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2017, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION THAT STAFF COME BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION WITH REGARD TO BUILDINGS WITH LESS THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET, WHAT THE IMPACT WOULD BE, AND WHETHER OR NOT THE TIME COULD BE INCREASED FOR A SMALLER BUILDING TO HAVE THE ABATEMENT) 2. DISCUSSION - FISCAL YEAR 2017 AUDIT PROGRAM (STAFF RECOMMENDS ACCEPTANCE OF THE AUDIT PROGRAM) 3. ADJOURNMENT OF LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING ADJOURNMENT OF COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING /TM S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\COMMITTEE-AGENDAS\2017\06-13-2017 CCW AGENDA.WPD THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. PURSUANT TO 29 DEL. C. §10004(E)(2), THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, WHICH ARISE AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING.

DOVER PARK & RECREATIONAL CENTER’S STATUS REPORT D I A L O G U E P R E S E N TAT I O N F O R MASTER PLAN! PRESENTED BY: ROY SUDLER, JR. 5-25-2017 C H A I R M A N OF PA R K S & R E C R E ATI ONA L E NH A NC E M E N T C OM M I T TE E

STARTING BELOW GROUND ZERO! The Goal of project “Below Ground Zero!” is to conduct a S.W.O.T. Analysis of restoring and improving Dover Park and Recreational Center. The SWOT Analysis will review the Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities and Threats that will engender more pride and ownership in a new recreational facility for the East-Side of Dover. The Scope of Below Ground Zero! will highlight the current defective conditions of the park's facility, the community’s attitude towards the park, and grassroots monetary resources for constructing a New Recreational Center.

CURRENT STATUS OF DOVER PARK! Defective Drainage Conditions that contribute to an increase in Asphalt Maintenance Cost for Stakeholders / Taxpayers

PAVILION REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 1.) TABLES HAVE BEEN USED FOR BEDS FOR HOMELESS PEOPLE 2). BENCHES HAVE BEEN BURNED DURING THE WINTER TIME TO PRODUCE HEAT 3). 15AMP-120VOLT RECEPTACLES DAMAGED WITH NO EXTERIOR COVER PLATE

PAVILION REPAIRS NEEDED 4.) GRAFFITI VANDALISM 5). ROOF SHEATHING, FELT PAPER AND SHINGLE REPAIRS NEEDED 6). SOFFIT AND FASCIA SHEATHING REPAIRS NEEDED

TREE REMOVAL & MAINTENANCE CONCERNS 1). TREE LIMBS OBSTRUCTING TRAFFIC SIGNS / INDICATORS 2). FALLING TREES LIMBS NEED TO BE REMOVED AND LIMBS DISPOSED OF

STATUS OF EXTERIOR GAME FACILITIES 1). CHECKER / CHESS BOARD TABLE NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED 2). HOPSCOTCH MARKERS / INDICATORS NEED TO BE MODIFIED 3). GROUND SMART RUBBER MULCH AT PLAYGROUND-SET NEEDS TO BE UPGRADED

HEALTHY AND SAFE RECREATIONAL FACILITY 1). FOOTERS FOR SECURITY POST CHAINS NEED HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT, OR A NEW MODERN METAL SECURITY GATE 2). EMERGENCY CALL POST NEEDS TO BE UPGRADED TO A NEW SYSTEM 3). SECURITY CAMERAS NEED TO BE INSTALLED

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS DOVER PARKS AND RECREATIONAL CENTER

SURVEY TIMELINE AND PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION DATE NRSA = NCALL’S RESIDENTS SURVEY ANALYSIS SAC = MT. ZION A.M.E. CHURCH SURVEY [SOCIAL ACTION COMMITTEE] CRNA = CITY’S RECREATIONAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY 2013 Targeted NCALL 2016 Date for RS- New Analysis CRNA- Center Survey 20?? 2014 2017 SAC - Constituents’ Survey Consensus

RESIDENT SURVEY ANALYSIS, DECEMBER 2013

 Safety in the community remains a concern for many respondents in the community as 42% of respondents say that is the thing they liked least about living there. An additional 15 respondents said the “other” thing they liked least about living in the community was crime, drugs, or some other item related to safety, crime or illegal activity. Fifteen-percent say their least favorite thing is their neighbors.

RESPONDENTS ARE MOST INTERESTED IN HAVING VACANT LOTS TURNED INTO NEW HOUSING OR PARKS AND RECREATION SPACE. VACANT LOT PRORITIES! . % Say "Top Priority" New Housing 51% Parks or Recreation Space 35% New Business 13% Community garden/open space 7%

Quality of Life  Respondents were asked to rate a series of aspects that relate to the quality of life in the neighborhood. The majority of respondents feel that access to transportation and the variety of goods and services available for purchase in the community are “very good” or “good.” Safety is the community is rated low by respondents where only 27% feel safety is “very good” or “good.”

2014 SAC – SURVEY RESULTS PROGRAMS DESIRED: VOTES PRIORITY 1). Family Counseling-----------------------------------------------------------69 {8} 2). Alcohol & Drug Prevention------------------------------------------------81 {4} 3). Job Seeking Tips-------------------------------------------------------------103 {1} 4). Gang Prevention-------------------------------------------------------------73 {6} 5). Restorative Support---------------------------------------------------------37 {10} 6). Teen Homelessness---------------------------------------------------------76 {5} 7). Domestic Violence----------------------------------------------------------70 {7} 8). Mentors For At-Risk Youth------------------------------------------------86 {2} 9). Go to School Go to College------------------------------------------------82 {3} 10).Race Relations Study Circle-----------------------------------------------37 {10} 11).Pregnant Teen Awareness--------------------------------------------------62 {9} Note: Number (5). Restorative Support and number 10). Race Relations Study Circle had the same priority rating = 10 Survey-Votes Cast for All Programs Listed was assessed @ = 134 out of 300

2014 SAC – SURVEY RESULTS OTHER PROGRAMS LISTED BY SURVEY’S APPLICANTS 1. Mental Health 2. Marriage Counseling 3. Computer Programs 4. Helping Addict Teens to Clean-Up 5. Tutoring 6. Educational, Financial, Cultural, Budgeting, Marketing and Credit Investment Programs 7. Community Center for School Age Youth 8. Educational Opportunities for Young Children 9. Parenting Skills and Wide Topics throughout the Year 10. Free Meeting Facility 11. Police Gang Prevention 12. Understanding Our Political Process 13. Career and Goal Planning

2014 SAC – SURVEY RESULTS ACTIVITIES: VOTES PRIORITY 1). Teen Night------------------------------------------------------------------------115 {2} 2). Summer Camp-------------------------------------------------------------------120 {1} 3). Day Trips--------------------------------------------------------------------------106 {3} 4). Vocal Instructions---------------------------------------------------------------51 {10} 5). Dance Classes--------------------------------------------------------------------69 {8} 6). Visual Arts-------------------------------------------------------------------------48 {11} 7). Multimedia Classes--------------------------------------------------------------46 {12} 8). Theatre-----------------------------------------------------------------------------64 {9} 9). Fitness/ Zumba------------------------------------------------------------------92 {4} 10). Kayaking--------------------------------------------------------------------------8 {14} 11). Gymnasium-----------------------------------------------------------------------87 {5} 12). Learn To Swim-------------------------------------------------------------------86 {6} 13). Martial Arts-----------------------------------------------------------------------82 {7} 14). Racquetball-----------------------------------------------------------------------20 {13} Note: Survey-Votes Cast for All Activities Listed was assessed @ = 111 out of 300

2014 SAC – SURVEY RESULTS OTHER ACTIVITIES LISTED BY SURVEY’S APPLICANTS 1. Boxing Lessons 2. Mini-Gulf Course 3. Pool-Tables 4. Horseback Ridding 5. Racial and Cultural Activities 6. Teen Night with Safety Guidelines Well Planned and Implemented 7. Nutrition and Food Preparation 8. Introductory Vocational Training (masonry, carpentry, cooking, or electrical) 9. Youth Sports Team for Boys and Girls 10. Volleyball 11. Yoga 12. Rehabilitate Tennis Courts 13. A Place to live for Homeless Children 14. Building Skills 15. Teaching Team Building Skills 16. Food Aid 17. Room Rental At Fair-Cost For Social and Birthday Events 18. Go Back To Recess

-- Ci"ty of Dover Re.c rea"t"i o n Needs Asse ssmen"t" I mple n'lcn1:ation t:r ategies -. -.Uilcd pre-" 'ou~ly. one ot' the principa l f)u rposcs of" thi::. a~scsi->ment 1:.- to cnsur~ thnt I in1ncd dollar,.; an! 1nvcstcJ in a "'a;> th.ll. bll!-.l 1TiccL ... the needs ot· Dover"s rc ~i dcnt s Io that end, the fr-,lk•"' inl:J ... lr..iLeµics ""ill guide the it)' ~s ~c p l un r·or cupilnl 1nvest1ncnu. in our recrcntio11 inrru'i.tructurc ;.u\J ~\s "'C work l o pn_ , , 1dc lhl.!' qua lily progn:unn'ling, our rc:-.idcnt-. ha-\. o come to enjoy . • Dc'\.cln.f) muster plans lnr th.: anchor park.. I:>nvcr "s anchor p (u •k-;; serve n-;; reg,iuna l huhs 1·or rccrcnuon "'ithin ·1 hc C:: 1t. ol-L">ovcr. Apptoprialc pl<lnn1ng for in,pro ... crncnu. Lo these purks need-. to 1nvoh. c the publ i~. and the plan,-., for in-1.pro cn'lcnt LO thc-.c parkl:' "'·ill <lri" c the C-it). ·s ~api1ol plan as it 1·~ 1 ntc-. tu parl-.s nnd recren tion . D<"\vcr t>ark s pre iou'>I) ""lnted_ thl-. ::?8-ocrc purk wa.;;; hun,c LO \he C:."ity'.!> first indoor r~crcallon ccnt.:r· Due to i l~ runctional nh-.ulc-.ccnce. cletcriorntion over the yeur-.. and lack u f succc-..s1·u1 progra1nn1in g toJlo" ing the opening of the John VI.'. Pit.-t.s Recrcntion c · cntcr. thi:o. 1ccrcnt1on co:ntcr building was dcn1,01I I shed in 2014. Dua ing rhc dcbolc O\.cr the center·~ do.:1nol it ion. there ""a s i g ni ficanl discu<>sion or the irnport.uncc u1· addrcs.. 1ng th~ r~.;rcat1on needs or rcs1denu. ort the ea~a ~idc or U .s. Route I 3 and the conccm lha1 v~ith the invcst1ncnt"' in Schutt Park ancl the J o hn W . Pill!!. Rc~rcauon Center. the <::1 t.;1 failed 10 provide for 1re'Sidcnts CUSl vr u .s. Route 1 3 \;Vhn ma:> nol b~ ahlc to oc<:c!> thc new nmenitic<;; a t. Schutte Park. Additiona l I::- during th1-. discu~~ion . concern:.. of",atcf:Y and lighting within the park arose. A m~lcr plon fhr Dover Park needs u ., address thc-.c ch:illcngcs. A,.. it relates to the Rccr<-'at1on Nc\!di;,. A s ,.,cs,..ment S.urvcy. the l bl 10,v1ng umcniti~s need to b.: -.uJcJrcs-.cd w 1th1n u rnasl.cr plan lor Dover Purl<.. : • l ndocu:· Rc-.troom-. Pu' cd Loop ·1 rual y~tcn"l ..- 1tncs .. Stutiun~ ulong \he Puvc<l Trail S>~tcm • kutc Purk Spl ash Pu<l • Oicycle Rack ....

TAKING BIG AND BOLD STEPS TOWARDS MEETING THE COST OF A NEW DOVER PARK CENTER  Partnerships with neighborhood groups and developers who could be offered incentives such as tax-breaks, and permit exceptions.

DEPENDENCIES AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES Foundation’s Grants Housing Authority [HUD] Community NEW CENTER! Legislators’ Organizations Funding Capital School Churches District

THE FORMULA FOR INCREASING COMMUNITY PRIDE & O W N E R S H I P F O R D O V E R PA R K A N D RECREATIONAL CENTER’S MASTER PLAN!

OPEN DIALOGUE PERIOD!  PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND, COME T O T H E P O D I U M A N D S TA T E Y O U R NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. THANK YOU!

COl\11\IUNITY MEETING REGARDING RESTORING DOVER PARK AND RECREATIONAL CENTER MAY 25, 2017 - 6:30 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 15 LOOCKERMAN PLAZA DOVER, DELAWARE POWER-POINT PRESENTATION BY: ROY SUDLER, JR. [COUNCILMAN] CHAIRMAN OF PARKS AND RECREATIONAL ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE

***************************************************************** ATTENDEES TO SPECIAL Park’s COMMUNITY MEETING MAY 25, 2017 @ 6:30 p.m. Submitted By: Roy Sudler, Jr. Chair of Parks and Recreational Enhancement Committee *****************************************************************  A SPECIAL THANKS TO ALL OF THE MEETING ATTENDEES FROM THE PARKS AND REACRETIONAL ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE: 1. Alyce Wright 2. Amanda Carey 3. Andria L. Bennet (D) – 32 District Delaware House of Legislators 4. Anthony Floyd – NAACP {DE} State Branch -Prison and Criminal Justice- Chair 5. Calmetta Brinkley – {SAC} Social Action Committee Member Mt. Zion A.M.E. 6. Carolyn Courtney – City’s Administrative Assistant to Parks and Recreation’s Director 7. Dave Hugg – Dover’s City Planner and Parks and Recreation Director 8. David Anderson Dover’s 4th District Councilman 9. Denise Devine – Dover’s Assistant Clerk 10. Deborah Polk 11. Dr. Wilma Mishoe DSU-Board of Trustees Committee Member and SAC – Mt. Zion 12. Donald Hughes 13. Donna Mitchell – Dover’s City Manager 14. Ed Christiansian 15. Eddie Diaz – Dover’s City Planner I 16. Fanny Lewis 17. Fred Tolbert {SAC} Social Action Committee Member Mt. Zion A.M.E. 18. George Kinser – Community Leader @ Dover Park 19. Keith Hester- Dover Police Officer MLPL 20. Luz M. Echeuvarria 21. Lawrence Byrd 22. Lewis Charles Jackson 23. Mike Finney – Delaware State News {Media} 24. Michelle Hughes 25. Michael Street 26. Nadlie Carey 27. Pilar Figuroa NAACP – Delaware State Branch Unit {Legal Redress Chair} 28. Precious Tolbert

29. Raulf Kimmerlin 30. Ranfus Galters 31. Reuben Salters {SAC} Social Action Committee Member Mt. Zion A.M.E. and Dover’s Emeritus 4th District Councilman & Founder of Inner City Cultural League 32. Rev. Rita Mishoe Paige {IMA} Social Action Committee Member Mt. Zion A.M.E. and DHRC Member 33. Roy Sudler, Jr. – Dover’s 4th District Councilman and Parks and Recreation Chair 34. Rozalyn Chandler 35. Scott Cole – Dover’s 3rd District Councilman 36. Sharon Duca – Dover’s Public Works Director / Engineer 37. Stephen Roberto Fountain 38. Taj Young 39. Tanner Polce-Dover’s 1st District Councilman and DE. Lt. Governor’s Policy Advisor 40. Tenish Gregory – CenDel Foundation Community Alliance Fund 41. Theodore Anderson DHRC-Chair 42. Tracie McDowell – Dover’s City Clerk’s Office 43. Wanda Mullen –President of Town Point HOA and DHRC Member

Volunteers- Special Parks and Recreation Meeting, 5/25/17 1. Reginald Daniel 2. Frances Thomas 3. Lewis Charles Jackson 4. Lawrence Byrd 5. Alyce Wright and Donald Hughes 6. Rozalyn Chandler 7. Ty Young 8. Amanda Carey 9. Debra Ann Polk 10. Michelle Hughes 11. Precious Tolson

COMMUNITY AND OFFICIAL’S WALK-THROUGH DOVER PARK PICTURES AND DISCUSSION ITEMS MAY 27, 2017

A FEW EXAMPLES OF WEAKNESS/THREATS @ DOVER PARK & RECREATIONAL FACILITY

OVERGROWTH OF VEGETATION AND SAFETY/CRIMINAL ACTIVITY CONCERNS

 STRENGTHS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR DOVER PARK 1. KIDS ARE STILL EXCITED AND RUN TO PLAY ON THE PLAYGROUND FACILITES! 2. AN OPPORTUNITY TO DESIGN A NEW MODERN CENTER ENGENDERING MORE OWNERSHIP AND PRIDE FROM THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD!

MEMORANDUM Sharon J. Duca, P.E. Public Works Director / City Engineer Department of Public Works P.O. Box 475 Dover, Delaware 19903 Phone: (302) 736-7026 Fax: (302) 736-4217 E-mail: sduca@dover.de.us TO: Councilman Roy Sudler, Jr., Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee Chairman CC: Donna S. Mitchell, Acting City Manager Dave Hugg, Acting Director of Planning & Community Development Jason A. Lyon, P.E., Water / Wastewater Manager Robin L. Eaton, Jr., Public Works Operations Manager Michael C. Hamlett, Fleet, Facilities & Sanitation Field Supervisor II George Jamar, Grounds Field Supervisor II Antonio Bray, Streets Field Supervisor I FROM: Sharon J. Duca, P.E., Public Works Director / City Engineer DATE: June 13, 2017 SUBJECT: DOVER PARK UPDATE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS (DPW) TO THE PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE During the week of May 22, 2017, various items were identified that required maintenance in Dover Park by the DPW. The items were identified through a staff meeting on May 22nd, a DPW site visit on May 24th and a community meeting on May 25th. A listing of these items and a status of each is provided below. ITEM # ITEM DIVISION STATUS 1 Pavilion Repairs and Painting Facilities Active COMMENT The pavilions within the park have been assessed by staff. Materials have been purchased to address structural issues and to paint over graffiti. Lockable electric socket covers are also to be installed. Work will be performed as schedule and weather allow. ITEM # ITEM DIVISION STATUS 2 Picnic Table Repair Facilities Active COMMENT The picnic tables within the pavilions have been assessed by staff. Materials have been purchased to repair the tables as needed. Work will be performed as schedule and weather allow.

DOVER PARK UPDATE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS (DPW) TO THE PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 5 ITEM # ITEM DIVISION STATUS 3 Checker Board Tables Repair / Cleanup Facilities Active + Direction Required COMMENT The three (3) checker board tables have been assessed by staff. Materials have been purchased to repair the chairs as needed. The tables are also to be cleaned. Work will be performed as schedule and weather allow. The checker board on the table will not be able to be replaced by DPW staff. A contractor will be required should it be determined that it is intended to retain the game board on the table. ITEM # ITEM DIVISION STATUS 4 Shuffle Board / Hopscotch Area Cleanup Facilities Direction Required COMMENT The shuffle board / hopscotch area markings will not be able to be replaced by DPW staff. A contractor will be required should it be determined that it is intended to retain these areas. ITEM # ITEM DIVISION STATUS 5 Trim Trees by Signage Grounds Complete + Monitor COMMENT Tree overgrowth was identified blocking the signage at the park entrance off White Oak Road. Tree limbs were also identified blocking the stop sign and speed limit sign on the main drive south of the playground. These trees were trimmed and are to be monitored regularly. ITEM # ITEM DIVISION STATUS 6 Playground Surfacing Grounds Pending COMMENT Playground surfacing material is being ordered by the Parks & Recreation Department. Once it is available the Grounds Division will install.

DOVER PARK UPDATE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS (DPW) TO THE PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE June 13, 2017 Page 3 of 5 ITEM # ITEM DIVISION STATUS 7 Repair Area from Vehicle Fire Grounds Complete COMMENT Due to a recent vehicle fire and area on site was damaged. This area has been cleaned up and seeded. ITEM # ITEM DIVISION STATUS 8 Assess Fence Along Eastern Property Line Grounds Active + Direction Required COMMENT The fence along the eastern property line is covered with vegetation. DPW staff will assess the fence line to determine what work can be performed to clear the fence line as well as try to ascertain the integrity of the fence. Clarification is requested to confirm as to whether it is requested that all vegetation be removed along the fence line and to repair / replace the fence as necessary as a result.

DOVER PARK UPDATE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS (DPW) TO THE PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE June 13, 2017 Page 4 of 5 ITEM # ITEM DIVISION STATUS 9 Replace / Reset Street Signage Streets Complete COMMENT The following street signage was replaced or reset as required: (1) The STOP sign located on the main drive south of the playground was replaced due to etched profanity. (2) The NO VEHICLES BEYOND THIS POINT sign, located at the barricaded entrance off of Willis Road, was replaced due to lack of visibility. (3) The STOP sign and NO OUTLET sign located at the southeast end of the main drive were reset as they were no longer straight or facing the right direction. ITEM # ITEM DIVISION STATUS 10 Graffiti Removal Streets Complete + Monitor COMMENT Graffiti was removed from the following locations. The area is to be monitored regularly. (1) Graffiti (profanity) was removed from the electrical breaker at the baseball field. (2) Graffiti (profanity and graphic drawing) was removed from the fence by the tennis courts by painting the fence. (3) Graffiti was removed from the NO SMOKING sign located between the baseball field and the tennis courts.

DOVER PARK UPDATE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS (DPW) TO THE PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE June 13, 2017 Page 5 of 5 ITEM # ITEM DIVISION STATUS 11 Set Bollards by Tennis Courts Streets Pending COMMENT There is a chain connecting the bollards at the access drive near the tennis courts. This chain will drag on the pavement at times as the bollards are leaning. The bollards are to be set in concrete by staff as soon as the schedule and weather permits to improve this situation. ITEM # ITEM DIVISION STATUS 12 Repaint Gate Streets Pending COMMENT It is proposed to repaint the gate at the entrance to the main drive and replace any signage as necessary as soon as the schedule and weather permits. ITEM # ITEM DIVISION STATUS 13 Storm Drain System Investigation Engineering Active COMMENT Engineering staff is researching site plans for the park. With this information they will identify all catch basins within the park, uncover and confirm interconnections. They will then coordinate with Streets Division to develop a maintenance plan.

From: Krueger, Debbie To: "Heather Fink" Subject: RE: Playground in Bicentennial Village Date: Friday, March 17, 2017 8:30:50 AM Mr. Fink, Thank you for taking the time to send us your thoughts about a playground in Continental Park. We have forwarded your email to Councilman Sudler, Chair of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Development Committee, and your First District Councilmen for their consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact the City Clerk’s Office at 736-7008 or cityclerk@dover.de.us if you have any questions or suggestions. Sincerely, Debbie Krueger Administrative Assistant City Clerk’s Office – City of Dover P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 (302) 736-7008 -----Original Message----- From: Heather Fink Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 9:43 AM To: City Clerks Office Subject: Playground in Bicentennial Village Dear City of Dover, My name is Jonah. I am 8 years old and I live in Bicentennial Village. I am writing to ask you to build a playground in Continental Park. Every day that it is warm, my family and I take a walk. We always walk past the Continental Park sign and my sister and I are sad that it’s not an actual park for kids. When we want to play outside, we have to drive to a park that has a playground. We have a very small yard just like a lot of the other houses in this neighborhood. There is not a lot of room to play outside. I know that there are other kids my age in the neighborhood, but there is no safe place to play outside, so I never get to play with the kids in my neighborhood. A playground would give us a safe place to play with the other kids in our neighborhood. I could be friends wth the kids in my neighborhood. A lot of times there are kids playing in the street. That is not a good idea because our street is very busy. I think a playground would make our neighborhood better and happier. Thank you for reading my letter. Sincerely, Jonah Fink

From: Krueger, Debbie To: "Alison May" Cc: City Clerks Office Subject: RE: Bicentennial Village/agenda item for 3/14 meeting rescheduled for 3/28 Date: Friday, March 17, 2017 8:32:57 AM Mrs. May, Thank you for taking the time to send your thoughts regarding a bench and playground in Bicentennial Village. We have forwarded your email to Councilman Sudler, Chair of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Development Committee, and your First District Councilmen Hosfelt and Hutchison for their consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact the City Clerk’s Office at 736-7008 or cityclerk@dover.de.us if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Debbie Krueger Administrative Assistant City Clerk’s Office – City of Dover P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 (302) 736-7008 From: Alison May Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 12:16 PM To: City Clerks Office Subject: Bicentennial Village/agenda item for 3/14 meeting rescheduled for 3/28 As a resident of Bicentennial Village, I would like to share my support for a bench and playground in our neighborhood. My husband and I often take our toddler to Shutte Park for the closest playground facilities and would greatly welcome a place where we could go as a family within walking distance. There are many young children in our neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhoods who would benefit from such a resource. I hope City Council will support this effort. Thank you for considering my feedback. Alison May

Continental Park Neighbors You’re invited to an Open House Workshop to share your vision of Continental Park Independence Con nental What kind of playground equipment should be installed? Should we install it elsewhere in the neighborhood? Would Park you like to see park benches? Do you have an idea(s)? This is the Ɵme to come on out and share your thoughts with us. We have some neat ideas to share, too! Open House Details When: Thursday, June 22, 2017 Time: 6 – 8 pm Where: Con nental Park (rain locaƟon: Dover Public Library) Who should aƩend? All residents of neighborhoods surrounding the park. Bring the kids, too! (Light refreshments will be served.) Residents this is your chance to have an impact on how your neighborhood park evolves! For more informa on, please call City of Dover Parks & Recrea on Department by dialing (302) 736‐7050.

CITY OF DOVER’S PARK AND RECREATIONAL ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE CHAIR’S ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONTINENTAL PARK JUNE 8, 2017 BY: ROY SUDLER, JR. {4TH DISTRICT COUNCILMAN}  CONTINENTAL PARK’S LANDSCAPING IS VERY IMPRESSIVE!

CITY OF DOVER’S PARK AND RECREATIONAL ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE CHAIR’S ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONTINENTAL PARK JUNE 8, 2017 BY: ROY SUDLER, JR. {4TH DISTRICT COUNCILMAN} No Smoking Ordinance is being disregarded on Continental Park Grounds!

CITY OF DOVER’S PARK AND RECREATIONAL ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE CHAIR’S ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONTINENTAL PARK JUNE 8, 2017 BY: ROY SUDLER, JR. {4TH DISTRICT COUNCILMAN} ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS IN CONTINENTAL PARK 1. There is a need for Dog-Waste Signs 2. Corrective Action for City Metal Indicators Protruding Out of the Park’s Grounds

CITY OF DOVER’S PARK AND RECREATIONAL ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE CHAIR’S ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONTINENTAL PARK JUNE 8, 2017 BY: ROY SUDLER, JR. {4TH DISTRICT COUNCILMAN}  OVERALL, THERE IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE PARK AMENITIES FOR COMMUNITY MEMBERS THAT RESIDE IN THAT AREA

COUNCIL MINUTES HISTORY OVERVIEW OF THE REQUEST FOR INCENTIVES - NAIL SPA BY TR EXCERPT OF MARCH 13, 2017 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES The Regular Council Meeting was held on March 13, 2017 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Slavin presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sudler, Mr. Neil, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Cole, Mr. Hosfelt, Mr. Hare, and Mr. Hutchison. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - FEBRUARY 8, 2017 The Economic Development Committee met on February 8, 2017 at 2:01 p.m. with Mayor Christiansen presiding. Members present were Councilman Cole; Mr. Koenig, City Manager; Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Gregory Moore, President, Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP) Board of Directors; and Mr. K.C. Sheth. Councilman Hare and Mr. Hammond were absent. Identify Challenges to the Goal/Vision and Develop Strategies Mrs. Townshend advised that one (1) of the challenges to the vision would be communication. She indicated that when she attends Restoring Central Dover meetings, she is regularly asked about the City’s new economic development structure. Mrs. Townshend stated that the business community also probably wants to have a sense of where to go since there is no longer a City Economic Development Office. Mayor Christiansen stated that the Chamber of Commerce had called and asked to attend Economic Development Committee meetings so that there is not duplication of efforts. Mrs. Townshend informed members that the economic development page on the City’s website goes back to the time when the City had staffing for economic development. She suggested looking at what members wanted under economic development for the website, so that someone who knows nothing about Dover and clicks on economic development would get information regarding where to start, rather than calling an office that is no longer there. Mayor Christiansen asked Mr. Koenig if anybody on staff could feed current information into that portion of the City’s website. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that Mr. Kirby Hudson, Assistant City Manager, would be working on this. Mr. Cole noted that one (1) of the challenges would be existing building vacancies. Mayor Christiansen asked if there was a current inventory of vacant buildings downtown and throughout the City. In response, Mrs. Townshend indicated that there is a vacant building registration that monitors the fact that buildings are vacant

COUNCIL MINUTES HISTORY - OVERVIEW OF THE REQUEST FOR INCENTIVES - NAIL SPA BY TR PAGE 2 but does not give details on condition. She noted that staff inspects buildings to make sure they are secure and that most of the vacant buildings at this point would probably need an architect in order to be re-occupied. Mrs. Townshend advised that a building that has been vacant for five (5) years or a decade typically has some deterioration, and there is a challenge because a lot of these buildings are not turnkey space. Mr. Koenig noted that the vacant building registry would not be a full inventory, because there may be vacant commercial properties that are listed with a commercial realtor. Mrs. Townshend stated that these properties would still be on the list. Mr. Koenig commented that the realtors’ inventory changes quickly. Mrs. Townshend advised that if part of a building is vacant, it would not be registered. She explained, for instance, that a lot of commercial vacancies downtown had occupied apartments above them; however, they are not part of the vacant building registration, which only includes buildings that are fully vacant. Responding to Mayor Christiansen regarding whether there was a way to remedy this, Mr. Koenig advised that there was no easy way to do so. Mrs. Townshend commented that this could only be remedied through the code; however, the code had been changed to create this exception. She explained that staff had received a lot of negative feedback from the real estate community because realtors did not believe it was necessary to register properties that had vacant commercial space but also people living in them. Mrs. Townshend indicated that the code had been changed to accommodate this; however, it could be changed back through the action of Council. Mr. Donald Rowe stated that he is one-half of the team that owns TR Nail Spa at 1188 Forrest Avenue. He asked if the properties on the vacant building list were split between office spaces and warehouses and if warehouses were also available on the list to be reviewed. Responding, Mr. Koenig advised that it is difficult for the City to manage the information on the list, noting that there is a requirement to register vacant buildings, but this is not a register that someone would consult to find space. He suggested contacting a commercial realtor who could take someone through spaces, show the pros and cons of each space, and be able to talk about cost. Mr. Koenig explained that the City may know when a space was vacated but not the history of the space, its quality from a rental standpoint, and if this is a space where someone would like their business to go. Mr. Koenig indicated that commercial realtors can be depended on for lists of available spaces and to know what the market is doing. He informed members that the City has a very generic registry that is not a depository of the best information to help someone to make a decision whether a space suits them. Ms. TR Rowe, TR Nail Spa, asked if the City could go to the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) and ask for this information. Responding, Mr. Koenig explained that an individual could do this. He noted that if the City did this, the City would have

COUNCIL MINUTES HISTORY - OVERVIEW OF THE REQUEST FOR INCENTIVES - NAIL SPA BY TR PAGE 3 to be in the process of updating this information all the time, which is not a business line that the City had been in. Mrs. Townshend explained that the vacant building ordinance was created as part of the City’s code enforcement program and is managed under this program. She noted that genesis of the ordinance was in monitoring the buildings, keeping an inventory, and collecting fees to try to discourage people from keeping buildings needlessly vacant. Mrs. Townshend advised that the registry is just a list of addresses and does not distinguish between a house, a commercial building, or a warehouse. She stated that there are registered vacant buildings of all of those varieties, but this cannot be determined by looking at the list. She indicated that she was unsure if the City’s Naviline system could be set up to do this if this was something that Council desired, noting that this would be a very large task. Ms. Rowe asked if a building could be listed on two (2) different registries and if buildings downtown that have a vacant business and also apartments are listed as business or residential. In response, Mrs. Townshend indicated that vacant buildings are listed only as vacant and the City’s level of inventory does not include information regarding whether the property is business or residential. Mr. Rowe asked if realtors who own properties are required to register properties through the City. He questioned if someone driving who saw a sign posted could have come to the City as a starting point to find information about a building, not necessarily its condition or what was needed to bring it up to code. Responding, Mrs. Townshend advised that most of the vacant buildings are not owned by realtors but by individuals, LLCs, or banks. She indicated that the City has information about who the responsible party is that owns the property and may or may not have information regarding who has listed it. Ms. Rowe stated her understanding that someone coming to the City who was looking for buildings would have to go to a realtor who would hopefully know all the vacant buildings or businesses, and this person could not click on a City page that would show the locations of vacant businesses. In response, Mr. Koenig stated that he, personally, would suggest that they go to a realtor, because they would then be connected with a broker or agent who would work tirelessly to put them in a space. He explained that realtors would work 24/7 and call their contacts and everybody who could put them in a space. Mr. Koenig advised that the City only knows what is registered as vacant. He advised that if something came up the day before, it may not be required to be on the City’s vacant building registry yet. He pointed out that calling the City versus a realtor could cause someone to miss an opportunity because the City would not know about this vacancy yet. Ms. Rowe asked what City areas are eligible for incentives. She noted that Route 8 was a country area with cornfields when she was growing up, but now it is

COUNCIL MINUTES HISTORY - OVERVIEW OF THE REQUEST FOR INCENTIVES - NAIL SPA BY TR PAGE 4 considered the City of Dover. She advised that she had not received incentives and asked where the incentive area starts and ends. In response, Mrs. Townshend explained that there are a number of sets of incentives, including some that apply in the downtown area. Ms. Rowe was provided a brochure regarding the Downtown Development District (DDD) Program that included a map of the downtown area. Mrs. Townshend stated that there is a set of incentives for vacant commercial and industrial buildings that provide some relief of the building permit fee, tax relief on the value of improvements, and a discount for applicable impact fees for commercial and industrial buildings that are over 5,000 square feet. In response to Ms. Rowe, Mrs. Townshend explained that DDD incentives are separate from the incentives for vacant commercial and industrial buildings. She stated that any building in the DDD district can qualify for incentives; however, the incentive with the 5,000 square foot limitation could apply outside of the DDD. Mr. Koenig advised that it is best to set up a meeting with staff to go over all the incentives, because they vary depending on location within in the City. He stated that information regarding incentives is on the City’s website and staff had reviewed incentive information with realtors, although realtors change and they may not always have current information. Mr. Koenig suggested setting up an appointment to go over the individual incentive packages, especially if there is an idea of an actual property where there is interest, noting that this is very much a one-on-one conversation. Mr. Koenig stated that, during the Council Retreat held on January 6, 2017, members discussed a business ombudsman position, which would potentially be a new position created in a future budget. He explained that people could make an appointment to see the ombudsman, explain what they want to do, and find out what incentives the City has to offer. Mr. Koenig advised that a businessperson could bring in their representatives, such as a real estate agent, engineer, or others representing their interests, and meet with a number of different staff people. He advised that the City does not have an ombudsman right now; however, there were many members of staff who could at least get Mr. and Ms. Rowe through the first couple of steps. Mr. Koenig indicated that one (1) of the current problems at the staff level was that people come in with an idea but do not bring in all the information, which in many cases they do not have. He stated that they may not have their agent or engineer with them, and everyone tries to make notes that may not make sense when they go back to review them. Mr. Koenig explained that the City was in a transition, reiterating that there had been discussion at the Council retreat about potentially having a person who could help people navigate some of the regulatory hurdles of opening a business, reach out to more people, and get more small businesses interested in the City of Dover.

COUNCIL MINUTES HISTORY - OVERVIEW OF THE REQUEST FOR INCENTIVES - NAIL SPA BY TR PAGE 5 Ms. Rowe indicated that approximately five (5) staff members had come to her business. She stated that they did not have complete information, noting that some of them thought that she was eligible for the incentives. Ms. Rowe advised that she had a representative from every facet that she would need to make her business come to fruition. Mrs. Townshend stated that there had been staff there from the regulatory end but not the incentive end. She noted that the business was just outside the DDD. Mayor Christiansen suggested considering the expansion of the incentive district in the future. Responding, Mrs. Townshend advised that, under the State program, the City was limited to 225 acres for the DDD program and was maxed out. In response to Mayor Christiansen regarding other City incentives, Mr. Koenig advised that these incentives were at the pleasure of Council. Mayor Christiansen stated that Mr. and Ms. Rowe could appeal to Council through the Economic Development Committee, and Ms. Rowe asked for the process for this. Mrs. Townshend advised that this would require a legislative change and that this was something that could come out of the Committee. Mayor Christiansen asked Ms. Rowe to write a letter to the Economic Development Committee making her request. Mrs. Townshend stated that TR Rowe Nail Spa was under 5,000 square feet, and Ms. Rowe confirmed this. Mrs. Townshend advised that if the business was larger than 5,000 square feet, it would have been eligible for one (1) set of incentives, so it may be a matter of reviewing the current 5,000 square foot threshold. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for acceptance of the Economic Development Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Lewis and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - MARCH 1, 2017 The Economic Development Committee met on March 1, 2017 at 2:03 p.m. with Mayor Christiansen presiding. Members present were Mr. Hudson, Assistant City Manager; Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Hammond; Mr. Gregory Moore, President, Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP) Board of Directors; and Mr. Sheth. Mr. Cole, Mr. Hare, and Mr. Koenig were absent. Request for Incentives - Nail Spa by TR Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, referred to the letter dated February 17, 2017 received from Ms. TR Rowe, Nail Spa by TR, requesting incentives. She explained that the letter requested that a variety of incentives that are available within the Downtown Development District (DDD) be applied to Nail Spa by TR, and Mrs. Townshend noted that this would mean applying the incentives to an area larger than the DDD.

COUNCIL MINUTES HISTORY - OVERVIEW OF THE REQUEST FOR INCENTIVES - NAIL SPA BY TR PAGE 6 Referring to the list of incentives requested in the letter, Mrs. Townshend explained that incentives #1 - Architectural Support and #2 - Facade Improvement Grants were Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP) incentives that the City of Dover does not have authority over and could not act on. She advised that incentive #3 - Sustainable Energy Utility and #7- Kent County Incentives were administered by Kent County, noting that #7 applied only to projects in the State’s designated DDD. Mrs. Townshend advised that the remaining incentives, which were in the City’s purview to consider, included #4 - Business License Fee Waiver, #5 - Permit Fee Waiver, #6 - Property Tax Abatement, and #8 - Square Footage. Members were provided Appendix E - Commercial and Industrial Building Redevelopment Incentives of the Dover Code. Mrs. Townshend explained that it is this section of the code, rather than the DDD incentives, that requires a 5,000 square foot minimum. Mrs. Townshend stated that the business license fee waiver incentive was created when the City submitted its DDD application. She noted that the application requested that the City develop incentives that would be specific to the district and would not be Citywide; therefore, she stated that she did not believe the City was in a position to alter this incentive. Mrs. Townshend stated that she thought an option that might be available to Council, if they wanted to move forward, would be to consider the commercial and industrial building redevelopment incentives in Appendix E. She noted that these incentives are slightly different and not quite as generous as the DDD incentives, nonetheless they have some cash value. Mrs. Townshend explained that Appendix E addresses vacant commercial and industrial buildings or tenant spaces and tries to encourage their utilization. She noted that a minimum 5,000 square foot floor area had been set for projects to qualify for these specific incentives, and if this requirement was eliminated, a project such as the Nail Spa by TR would be eligible for the incentives under that program. Referring to Appendix E, Article III - Incentives, she pointed out that the program allows for a partial waiver of permit fees, and that 50% of the fees for building, plumbing, mechanical, and fire protection permits would be waived, as well as 50% of the City impact fees. Mrs. Townshend advised that there would be a property tax waiver not to exceed 10 years on the value of the improvements. Mrs. Townshend stated that if members wanted to entertain projects such as this in the future, simply striking the 5,000 square foot minimum would work. She noted that if they wanted the change to apply retroactively to the requested project, an ordinance amendment would be needed to strike the 5,000 square foot minimum and include a retroactive date so that the amendment could be applied to any other property that would qualify. Mrs. Townshend cautioned members that if the amendment is retroactive, the City would be refunding money that it has already collected due to the need to be fair. She stated that the 5,000 square foot minimum could not be stricken for just one (1) business and not for others.

COUNCIL MINUTES HISTORY - OVERVIEW OF THE REQUEST FOR INCENTIVES - NAIL SPA BY TR PAGE 7 Mr. Moore asked if the response to the request for incentives #1 and #2 would be that applications for these incentives must be filed separately to the DDP. Responding, Mrs. Townshend explained that Nail Spa by TR was outside the downtown area; therefore it would not qualify. She advised that the answer from the City would be that incentives #1, #2, #3, and #7 are not within the City's purview to do anything about, but the City could specifically look at Appendix E of the code to address the fee waiver request. Ms. TR Rowe, TR Rowe Nail Spa, 1188 Forrest Avenue, explained that her business is located in an area on Forrest Avenue that was expanding, noting that Autozone, Starbucks, a bank, and some more facilities will be coming out that way. She stated that, although this was not a historic district like the downtown area, people would be employed, which would help the City of Dover, and this was why she was asking for these considerations. Mayor Christiansen suggested forwarding this matter to Council for assignment to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee for review of Mrs. Townshend’s recommendations and the recommendations of the Committee, and perhaps consider the request for reciprocity on the current project to hopefully encourage expansion once everything else out there starts to expand. The Committee recommended forwarding this matter to Council and to present a proposed amendment to the ordinance to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee, along with a retroactive date and the number of other permits and properties the amendment would apply to, so that there would be a sense of what the amendment would do to the revenue that had already been collected. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Lewis and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. EXCERPT OF APRIL 10, 2017 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES The Regular Council Meeting was held on April 10, 2017 at 7:40 p.m. with Council President Slavin presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sudler, Mr. Neil, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Cole, Mr. Hare, and Mr. Hutchison. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT - MARCH 28, 2017 The Council Committee of the Whole Meeting was held on March 28, 2017 at 6:00 p.m., with Council President Slavin presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson (arrived at 6:13 p.m.), Mr. Neil, Mr. Cole, Mr. Hare, and Mr. Hutchison. Mr. Sudler and Mr. Lewis were absent. Mayor Christiansen was also present (departed at 7:41 p.m. and returned at 7:52 p.m.). Civilian members present for their

COUNCIL MINUTES HISTORY - OVERVIEW OF THE REQUEST FOR INCENTIVES - NAIL SPA BY TR PAGE 8 Committee meetings were Ms. Arndt and Mr. Blakeman (Utility), Mr. Caldwell (Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement), Mr. Keller and Mr. Shelton (Safety Advisory and Transportation), and Mr. Shevock and Dr. Stewart (Legislative, Finance, and Administration). Mrs. Horsey (Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement) was absent. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting was held with Chairman Hare presiding. Request for Incentives - Nail Spa by TR During their meeting of March 1, 2017, the Economic Development Committee recommended forwarding the Request for Incentives - Nail Spa by TR to Council and to present an amendment to the ordinance to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee, along with a retroactive date and the number of other permits and properties that the amendment would apply to, so that there would be a sense of what the amendment would do to the revenue that had already been collected. City Council approved this recommendation during their Regular Meeting of March 13, 2017. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, advised that a request had been received from the owner of Nail Spa by TR to expand the Downtown Development District (DDD) incentives to a larger area. She explained that Ms. TR Rowe had recently opened a business in the City and was not eligible for the incentives. Mrs. Townshend indicated that the DDD was a very geographically focused program and, under the State’s program, the City was limited to 225 acres. She indicated that there was not a good way to expand the incentives beyond that area; however, there was an incentive in Appendix E of the Dover Code of Ordinances for commercial and industrial building redevelopment. Mrs. Townshend indicated that this incentive requires a minimum of 5,000 square feet of floor area and allows for a waiver of half of the building permit fees and half of the impact fees, as well as tax abatement for 10 years on the value of the improvements. She noted that Nail Spa by TR occupies less than that 5,000 square foot threshold; therefore, it did not qualify for this incentive. Mrs. Townshend advised that, during the Economic Development Committee meeting, members discussed bringing forward an amendment to strike the language in Appendix E regarding the minimum 5,000 square foot floor area so that smaller areas would qualify for the incentives. She indicated that another aspect discussed was making the amendment retroactive so that this particular business owner would be able to receive the incentives. Mrs. Townshend stated that she had explained that, in order to be fair, there would be a need to look at other businesses that did not get the incentive because of their size. She indicated that she had offered to review this matter and bring forward what the costs would be; however, it was determined that

COUNCIL MINUTES HISTORY - OVERVIEW OF THE REQUEST FOR INCENTIVES - NAIL SPA BY TR PAGE 9 the permit was issued for renovations for Nail Spa by TR in July 2015, the Certificate of Occupancy was granted in September 2015, and the funds were collected in a prior fiscal year. Mrs. Townshend explained that if the amendment was made retroactively, it would apply to many locations and it would require a great amount of staff time to comb through all of the building permits to determine how widely applicable it would be. In addition, she noted that typically money is not refunded from prior fiscal years and thought this was a bad precedent to set. Mrs. Townshend indicated that there were two (2) things coming out of Committee: 1) the retroactivity which she would not recommend, based on the datedness of the permits and the renovations that were completed; and 2) changing the ordinance going forward to remove the 5,000 square feet of floor area, which would make very small tenant spaces and shopping centers eligible for the incentives. She noted that this would be a benefit on the business side of things; however, there would be a cost on the revenue side of things. Mrs. Townshend stated that it seemed fair to remove the threshold given that 5,000 square feet was not a magic number. Mr. Anderson stated that he agreed with Mrs. Townshend and did not see any reason to give any money back retroactively. He asked if it would be acceptable to take the July 1, 2015 date and allow businesses to apply for their 10-year exemption 10 years forward from the year that it is approved. Responding, Mrs. Townshend advised that this would be a middle ground position that would not require researching of back permits and refunding money from prior years. Mr. Anderson stated that this would put the responsibility on the property owner, noting that the City would provide public notice on the City’s website, possibly by placing a small legal ad in the newspapers, and through the Chamber. This would put the responsibility on the property owner to do the application, rather than on staff to research, and would not take money from other taxpayers. He questioned if this would be a way to achieve the objective and Mrs. Townshend stated that she thought that it would. Mr. Hare questioned if the City would still be refunding money. In response, Mrs. Townshend stated that it would not, and this would be tax abatement going forward 10 years from the time of application rather than going backward. Mr. Neil asked how much money the tax abatement would be for a small building with 2,500 square feet. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell indicated that this would depend on the current assessed value. Mrs. Townshend noted that this could vary depending on the location of the property in the City and its condition. Mr. Anderson noted that the project has to be at least $15,000. Dr. Stewart stated her understanding that the request was to eliminate the 5,000 square foot minimum; however, it was unknown how much this would cost in the

COUNCIL MINUTES HISTORY - OVERVIEW OF THE REQUEST FOR INCENTIVES - NAIL SPA BY TR PAGE 10 future if businesses that did not previously qualify could qualify going forward, and this was confirmed by Mrs. Townshend. In response to Dr. Stewart regarding the location of the property, Mrs. Townshend indicated that it was located just before the Arby’s on Route 8. Mr. Hare asked if the downtown development incentives would be expanded, and Mrs. Townshend responded that they would not. She stated that incentives had been developed for vacant commercial properties on Route 13, industrial buildings, and industrial parks to encourage their reuse. Mrs. Townshend advised that these incentives had been used for the Walmart redevelopment and Mission Barbecue projects. She noted that this was a lesser incentive than those in the downtown area but was nonetheless an incentive. She reiterated that the request was to remove the 5,000 square foot threshold. Mr. Hare questioned if the 5,000 square foot threshold could be left and another threshold could be established with a little less incentive, and Mrs. Townshend indicated that this could be done. Mr. Neil expressed his opinion that members did not have enough information to know what approving this would cost and stated the need for more information. Mr. Slavin asked if the City had any kind of modeling for incentives that would indicate, if the City is giving on the revenue side, what the gain would be in economic impact of the business on the community. He noted that everyone wanted to be pro-business but, at the same time, he would not want another Council 10 years from now to question this amendment and have to undo it. Mrs. Townshend stated that she did not know that there was a specific model; however, typically, incentives are targeted to address a specific problem. She stated that a number of fairly large businesses were leaving or vacant, such as Walmart and K-Mart, which was causing concern. Mrs. Townshend noted that these incentives were put in place to address a specific problem. She did not know that the proposal would necessarily solve a problem. She questioned if expanding the incentive would be solving a problem that does not exist or if the whole purpose was to be business friendly. She stated that it was known that businesses would not happen in the downtown area without these incentives and noted that the variety of incentives through the State, County, and City were making it worthwhile for people to invest. Mrs. Townshend indicated that she was unsure that the problem exists outside of the downtown area. She stated her belief that the incentive should be targeted to a problem that the City is trying to solve, noting that she was not convinced that there was necessarily a problem, other than wanting to be more friendly to business. Mr. Shevock asked if the incentive for 5,000 square feet was the same for 10,000 square feet. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated that it was; however, she noted that there were permit fee and impact fee partial waivers; therefore the value of the

COUNCIL MINUTES HISTORY - OVERVIEW OF THE REQUEST FOR INCENTIVES - NAIL SPA BY TR PAGE 11 incentive would change. She advised that the costs and permit fees for renovating a very large space would be more; therefore, the savings would be more. She noted that this would be proportionate. Mr. Shevock asked, if this would proportionately go up, whether the fees could proportionately come down for someone with lesser square footage, and Mrs. Townshend stated that it would. Mr. Shevock indicated that this would be the thing to do, noting that everyone would then be equal. Mrs. Townshend agreed and noted that there would still be a $15,000 minimum of construction value. Mr. Anderson stated that it was important not just to be friendly to business but to maintain the flow of business. He noted that businesses come and go, and business places become empty, and the value of them goes down. Mr. Anderson advised that it was found that if incentives are put in place, people invest and increase the value of the property. He noted that this incentive does not lower the amount of taxes collected from a property but increases taxes collected; however, it temporarily increases the amount collected at a lower rate. Mr. Anderson indicated that it encourages people to improve the value of the property, so it provides in the long run a higher tax base and more tax revenue. He stated that in the short run it provides more revenue, fees, and economic activity and is designed to bring in more business activity and generate more revenue. Mr. Anderson noted that this design does not have any value difference, noting that there are small empty spaces and that filling five (5) 2,000 or 2,500 square foot office or store spaces is just as valuable as filling one (1) of the bigger stores. Mr. Anderson advised that small business cannot be left out anymore and the City must be friendly to them, not only to the medium and larger businesses. Mr. Slavin indicated the desire to approach this issue with some science behind it. He expressed the desire to be as business friendly as possible, especially to small businesses, and indicated that this was not necessarily a bad idea; however, he was not convinced with the information provided that the City would be getting a benefit. Mr. Hare stated that, based on what he was hearing, any small business could come to the City and receive a 10-year tax exemption, just like Ross or Big Lots. Mrs. Townshend clarified that all these businesses would receive tax abatement. Mr. Hare noted that a business such as a massage parlor could shut down, reopen with a new owner, and get 10 years in tax abatement. Responding, Mrs. Townshend indicated that they would have to demonstrate that they had $15,000 worth of construction value in renovations for tax abatement. Mr. Hare stated that he did not think that members had enough information to make an educated decision. Mr. Anderson pointed out that it would not lower the taxes that are currently paid and is not a tax abatement on the property but a tax abatement on the improvement. He

COUNCIL MINUTES HISTORY - OVERVIEW OF THE REQUEST FOR INCENTIVES - NAIL SPA BY TR PAGE 12 noted that it is designed to give a partial tax abatement on the increased value for a period of time if more money is invested. Mr. Anderson indicated that it would not pay someone to shut their business down and reopen it because it would not change their taxes. He explained that it was not designed to create more taxes in property in the City of Dover, but to increase the amount of taxable property in the City of Dover, and to provide a partial abatement on the improvement value of the property. Mr. Hare asked, when the Walmart center reopened, if they were still paying 100% of the property taxes that they were paying. Mrs. Townshend responded yes and noted that they were also paying the increased value on the outbuildings; however, they were receiving an abatement on the main building. She explained that if their taxes had increased from $5,000 to $7,500, they would still be paying only $5,000 over the next 10 years. Mr. Hare asked if the individual from Nail Spa by TR was requesting just an abatement. Responding, Mrs. Townshend advised that her letter had indicated that she wanted the downtown incentives. She indicated that she was unsure if Ms. Rowe was the property owner and, if not, what the structure of her lease was. Mrs. Townshend advised that she did not know if Ms. Rowe was paying the taxes or if the landlord was paying them. Mr. Hare expressed his opinion that expanding the downtown incentives would be opening up a can of worms and questioned how far out the incentives would be extended. He stated that businesses outside the DDD should be treated like the Big Lots property or anyone else, and Mrs. Townshend agreed. He expressed the need to come back with a plan before this issue could be addressed. Mayor Christiansen advised that Mrs. Traci McDowell, City Clerk, had pointed out that the ordinance had a sunset date of December 31, 2018, and he recommended taking it back and massaging it prior to its being sunset. The Committee recommended that Staff come back with a recommendation with regard to buildings with less than 5,000 square feet, what the impact would be, and whether or not the time could be increased for a smaller building to have the abatement. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. /dak S:\RESEARCH\Request for Incentives - Nail Spa by TR.wpd

Presented by: Lori Peddicord Assistant Controller/Treasurer June 13, 2017

 Three primary purposes  Matters to be communicated  Auditor’s responsibility  Planned scope and timing of audit  Significant findings from the audit 2

 To clearly communicate an overview of the audit scope, the timing of the audit, and the auditor’s responsibilities.  To provide timely observations arising from the audit that are relevant to oversight of the financial reporting process.  To obtain relevant audit-related information from those charged with governance. 3

 The auditor’s responsibilities under generally accepted auditing standards.  This will be detailed in the auditor’s engagement letter, a copy of which will be provided to each audit committee member. 4

 An overview of the planned scope and timing of the audit that is not so detailed as to compromise audit effectiveness.  This will be summarized in a memo to the committee and discussed with the committee before commencement of the audit. 5

 The auditor’s views about findings or issues that the auditor considers to be significant and relevant to those charged with governance regarding their oversight of the financial reporting process.  These will be communicated near or at the end of the audit. 6

City of Dover 2017 Audit Calendar MAY JUNE JULY S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Detail Audit Plan 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 13 14 15 16 17 9 10 11 12 Close AP & GL 14 15 Submitted 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Auditors - preliminary auditwork including walk throughs and inventory testing Measure fuel @ 28 29 30 31 25 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 - Inventory listing received morning of 6/12/17 from IT. plant 30 31 AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Draft Draft CAFR 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 15 Schedules/Statem 17 18 19 21 Complete * ents to auditor Test of controls Draft CAFR to 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 19 20 21 22 23 22 24 25 26 27 28 started auditor Test of Controls 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 30 29 30 31 Completed *Draft CAFR completed by October 20 (includes Notes & Statistical Section) NOVEMBER DECEMBER S M T W T F S S M T W T F S Holidays - Green Final chgs from Draft CAFR to City Auditor 2 Clerk 4 1 2 Meetings with Auditors if requested by LFA 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Key Dates in Yellow 12 LF&A Meeting 14 15 16 17 18 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Final Changes 19 20 21 23 24 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 made to CAFR CAFR Sent to 26 27 28 29 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 GFOA Final CAFR completed by November 22 (includes all Sections and TOC) 31 7

8