COUNCIL PACKET Revised to Include Corrected Exhibit 3 to 08-28-2018 Council Minutes

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 - 7:30 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 15 LOOCKERMAN PLAZA - DOVER, DELAWARE OPEN FORUM - 30 MINUTES PRIOR TO OFFICIAL MEETING (7:00 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 CAPTAIN ELMER N. DAVIS, JR. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN HARE AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS * CONSENT AGENDA THOSE ITEMS ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA WHICH ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND NON-CONTROVERSIAL SHALL BE MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK (*) AND WILL BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE ROLL CALL VOTE OF THE COUNCIL. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS UNLESS A MEMBER OF COUNCIL SO REQUESTS, IN WHICH EVENT THE MATTER SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED A SEPARATE ITEM. * 1. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 2. REZONING REQUESTS - PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCES THE FIRST READING OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCES WAS ACCOMPLISHED DURING THE COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 24, 2017. THE ORDINANCES ARE AVAILABLE AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AT WWW.CITYOFDOVER.COM UNDER "GOVERNMENT." A. #2017-10 - PROPERTY LOCATED AT 826 FOREST STREET, CONSISTING OF 0.5+/- ACRES, OWNED BY SARAH E. JONES. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED RG-1 (GENERAL RESIDENCE), SUBJECT TO COZ-1 (CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE) AND THE PROPOSED ZONING IS C-1A (LIMITED COMMERCIAL), SUBJECT TO COZ-1 (CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE) (TAX PARCEL: ED-05-076.12-01-16.00-000, FOURTH COUNCIL DISTRICT; PLANNING REFERENCE: Z-17-04) B. #2017-11 - PROPERTY LOCATED AT 870-872 FOREST STREET, CONSISTING OF 0.7473+/- ACRES (32,552+/- S.F.), OWNED BY BENNIE SMITH REAL ESTATE, LLC. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED C-1A (LIMITED COMMERCIAL), SUBJECT TO COZ-1 (CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE) AND THE PROPOSED ZONING IS IO (INSTITUTIONAL AND OFFICE), SUBJECT TO COZ-1 (CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE) (TAX PARCEL: ED-05-076.12-01-08.00-000, FOURTH COUNCIL DISTRICT; PLANNING REFERENCE: Z-17-05)

COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 PAGE 2 3. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT/LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT - AUGUST 15, 2017 A. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND BOARDS APPOINTMENT PROCESS (COMMITTEE SENT THIS MATTER TO COUNCIL WITH NO RECOMMENDATION) (COUNCIL MEMBERS DEFERRED THIS ITEM ON AUGUST 28, 2017) * 4. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT - AUGUST 29, 2017 A. SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (1) VIABILITY OF THE SHOTSPOTTER GUNSHOT DETECTION AND LOCATION SERVICE (ANDERSON) (COMMITTEE TABLED UNTIL MEMBERS HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION) (2) QUARTERLY BRIEFING ON DOVER/KENT COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) PROJECTS (COMMITTEE ACTION NOT REQUIRED) (3) QUARTERLY UPDATE - BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN SUBCOMMITTEE (COMMITTEE ACTION NOT REQUIRED) B. UTILITY COMMITTEE (1) DEDICATION OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE - GARRISON OAK TECHNICAL PARK (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED ACCEPTANCE OF THE DEDICATION OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE GARRISON OAK TECHNICAL PARK. DEDICATION IS TO INCLUDE ALL OF THE REFERENCED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.) * 5. MONTHLY REPORTS - JULY 2017 A. CITY ASSESSOR’S REPORT B. CITY COUNCIL’S COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT FUND REPORT C. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT D. CITY PLANNER’S REPORT E. CONTROLLER/TREASURER’S BUDGET REPORT F. FIRE CHIEF’S REPORT G. POLICE CHIEF’S REPORT 6. ACTING CITY MANAGER’S ANNOUNCEMENTS 7. COUNCIL MEMBERS’ ANNOUNCEMENTS 8. ADJOURNMENT /TM S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\COUNCIL-AGENDAS\2017\09-11-2017 COUNCIL AGENDA.WPD EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO: 29 DEL. C. §10004(B)(2) - PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS ON SITE ACQUISITIONS FOR ANY PUBLICLY FUNDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, OR SALES OR LEASES OF REAL PROPERTY; 29 DEL. C. §10004(B)(4) - STRATEGY SESSIONS, INCLUDING THOSE INVOLVING LEGAL ADVICE OR OPINION FROM AN ATTORNEY-AT-LAW, WITH RESPECT TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION, BUT ONLY WHEN AN OPEN MEETING WOULD HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE BARGAINING OR LITIGATION POSITION OF THE PUBLIC BODY;

COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 PAGE 3 29 DEL. C. §10004(B)(6) - DISCUSSION OF THE CONTENT OF DOCUMENTS, EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF "PUBLIC RECORD" IN §10002 OF THIS TITLE WHERE SUCH DISCUSSION MAY DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS OF SUCH DOCUMENTS; 29 DEL. C. §10004(B)(9) - PERSONNEL MATTERS IN WHICH THE NAMES, COMPETENCY AND ABILITIES OF INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES ARE DISCUSSED, UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE REQUESTS THAT SUCH A MEETING BE OPEN 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.

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING The Regular Council Meeting was held on August 28, 2017 at 7:31 p.m. with Council President Slavin presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sudler, Mr. Neil, Mr. Cole, Mr. Polce, and Mr. Lindell. Mr. Hare and Mr. Lewis were absent. Staff members present were Police Chief Mailey, Ms. Peddicord, Mrs. Mitchell, Mr. Hugg, Fire Chief Carey, City Solicitor Rodriguez, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Christiansen was also present (departed at 7:40 p.m.). OPEN FORUM The Open Forum was held at 7:00 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Slavin declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council was not in official session and could not take formal action. Mr. Steven French stated that Loockerman Exchange and the former library were available and asked why the homeless could not live there. He noted that the homeless would need a home before winter. Ms. Janetta Guinn stated that she was stopped by the Dover Police two years ago for not wearing a seatbelt and the judge said that all vehicles in Delaware were required to have seatbelts. Noting that school buses, public transportation, and Dover Police motorcycles do not have seatbelts, Ms. Guinn asked how there could be one law for one person and not another law for somebody else. She noted that there were 7, 8, 9, and 10-year-old kids on school buses getting hurt every day. Responding, Council President Slavin advised that the State Legislature enacts the laws that govern transportation and that Mayor Christiansen would speak with Ms. Guinn after the Open Forum and relay her concerns to the State Legislature. Ms. Guinn, noting recent news stories, asked why police are placed on administrative leave with pay when they do something wrong. Council President Slavin advised Ms. Guinn that Mayor Christiansen would speak with her at the conclusion of the Open Forum. Ms. Cynthia Quevedo stated that she loves all of Councilman Anderson’s posts and that she agrees with him 100%. Mr. Swann Twitty advised that his issues were jobs and homelessness. He stated that it was difficult for people with records to get jobs and there were not equal opportunities. Mr. Eric Abernathy stated that the homeless need to be helped because the homeless situation is not going away until they can all learn to work together to help the situation and get the people off of the street. He noted that a building or a piece of land could be found or they could build tiny houses or some type of affordable housing. Mr. Abernathy stated that you cannot survive on a minimum wage job in Dover. Pastor Aaron Appling advised that they will serve over 50,000 meals to the Dover community this year and that they give out 100 to 125 banana boxes of food to families every single week, or approximately 5,000 boxes per year. He advised that they receive no government assistance and they

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 2 are able to provide food efficiently. Pastor Appling stated that they run into organizations who are funded, and have money, who are far less efficient than they are. He noted that they would continue with their feeding programs and would be extending the program to other parts of the county in October. Pastor Appling, noting that the City partnered with Interfaith Mission and other organizations in the past, requested assistance, such as a vacant building downtown where they can serve more efficiently without spending so much money on gas running back and forth. Ms. Sue Harris stated that she wanted to address a comment made by Mr. Neil during the last City Council meeting that Council is roundly criticized for supporting NCALL and Habitat’s building of affordable homes. She advised that they have never criticized the City's efforts with NCALL or Habitat for Humanity. Ms. Harris stated that the work that they do is commendable and they wholly support their efforts; however, they have no programs for the homeless or the chronically homeless and their efforts are for home ownership. She advised that they are advocating for those who need very low rentals and asked that the City not use its support of NCALL and Habitat for Humanity in defense of any efforts to help the homeless. Ms. Harris advised that she had originally intended to apologize for some of the things that were said during the last meeting, since it appeared that their questions came across as unfounded, reckless accusations of profiteering. She stated that neither she nor Ms. Teri Staub intended for their questions to be taken as accusations, they were simply questions. Ms. Harris advised that she did e-mail an apology the previous week for some inaccurate research she mentioned at the last meeting. She advised that she realized she was inaccurate on the path of transactions and provided research showing the tax payments for each of the NCALL properties (Exhibit #1) that appear to have been disposed of as surplus properties. Ms. Harris stated that, in this process, a total payment to the Tax Assessor's Office was made in a lump sum of approximately $226,500 for FY 2016 and FY 2017. Ms. Harris asked if a funding stream could be created, supported by those tax lien payments, less the demo fees, for surplus abandoned properties, and allocated to help create affordable rental housing in the City of Dover. Ms. Harris advised that they were not there to make accusations and they do not quite understand the defensiveness because their point is not “what are you doing with these funds?” but “what are you not doing with them?” She reiterated that affordable rental housing for the low and very low income is in short supply and a part of the City’s Consolidated Plan is to address that need. Ms. Harris asked that the City consider partnering with additional non-profits to create affordable rental units from surplus properties. Ms. Harris requested that the City clarify in its Code that a grantee is required to submit a certification that will affirmatively further fair housing; that the City will conduct an analysis to identify its impediments, take appropriate actions to overcome them, and keep records. She stated that these impediments are private sector and government actions or behavior against policy, ordinance, regulations like building codes, zoning ordinances, and practices that have the effect of restricting housing choices or the availability of housing choices due to gender, race, familial status, national origin, real origin, and disability. Ms. Harris provided documentation on the analysis made in 2011 and the recommendations that have yet to be implemented (Exhibit #2). The invocation was given by Captain Elmer N. Davis, Jr., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence in recognition of the loss of Councilman Lewis’ mother.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 3 AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Consent Agenda, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare and Lewis absent). ADOPTION OF MINUTES - SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 2017 The Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of August 7, 2017 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Anderson and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 2017 The Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of August 14, 2017 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Anderson and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 2017 The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of August 14, 2017 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Anderson and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. PROCLAMATION - NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS MONTH The City Clerk read the following Proclamation into the record: WHEREAS, National Preparedness Month creates an important opportunity for City of Dover residents to prepare their homes, businesses, and communities for potential natural disasters or terrorist attack, and investing in emergency preparedness can reduce injuries, fatalities, and economic devastation in our community and nation; and WHEREAS, the 2017 National Preparedness Month theme "Disasters Don't Plan Ahead. You Can" emphasizes the importance that we should all take action to prepare, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency's "Ready" Campaign, Citizen Corps, and other federal, state, local, private, and volunteer agencies are working to increase public activities to prepare for emergencies and to educate individuals on how to take action; and WHEREAS, City of Dover citizens are able to help first responders in the community by being trained on how to respond during an emergency and what to do when disaster strikes. Emergency preparedness is the responsibility of every citizen of the City of Dover, and all citizens are urged to make preparedness a priority and work together to ensure that individuals, families, and communities are prepared for disasters and emergencies of any type. Residents are encouraged to participate in preparedness activities and to be proactive in establishing sound plans for addressing emergencies. NOW, THEREFORE, I, ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE do hereby proclaim the month of September 2017 as NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS MONTH in the City of Dover, and urge all citizens, businesses, and

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 4 organizations to develop their own emergency plan and work together toward creating a more prepared society. On behalf of the Mayor and Council, Mayor Christiansen presented Fire Chief Carey with the Proclamation and thanked Police Chief Mailey; Mrs. Kay Sass, Emergency Management Coordinator; Fire Chief Carey; and all first responders for their service. PRESENTATION - RECOGNITION OF SERVICE - JOHN TINSLEY - DOWNTOWN DOVER PARTNERSHIP BOARD OF DIRECTORS (JULY 2014 THROUGH MAY 2017) The City Clerk read the following Certificate into the record: CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION Presented to JOHN TINSLEY Downtown Dover Partnership Board of Directors July 2014 - May 2017 The City of Dover extends sincere appreciation for your public service. August 28, 2017 On behalf of the Mayor and Council, Mayor Christiansen presented the certificate to Mr. Tinsley and thanked him for his service and continued commitment to downtown Dover. SPECIAL DOVER HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION REPORT - JULY 27, 2017 The Special Dover Human Relations Commission (DHRC) meeting was held on July 27, 2017 at 6:03 p.m. with Chairman Henderson presiding. Election of Committee Chair - Education Committee Mr. Henderson advised that Mr. Fleming had expressed an interest in serving as Chair of the Education Committee and asked if there were further nominees. The Commission elected Mr. Paul Fleming to serve as Chair of the Education Committee. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Commission’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare and Lewis absent).

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 5 DHRC Committee Updates Government Policy, Programs, and Practices Committee (Gaddis) Mr. Gaddis advised that there was no report for the Government Policy, Programs, and Practices Committee. Community Engagement Committee (Mullen) Ms. Mullen stated that St. Andrew’s Lutheran Church had reached out to her because she serves on the White Oak/Towne Point Civic Association. She noted that she had not yet responded to St. Andrews and she asked if she could represent the DHRC or should represent the White Oak/Towne Point community when interacting with them. Responding, Mr. Henderson indicated that he had seen Reverend Mark Walters, Pastor, St. Andrew’s Lutheran Church, earlier in the day at a Rotary Club meeting, and Reverend Walters had provided Mr. Henderson with a formal letter stating that St. Andrew’s wanted to get together and ask questions. Mr. Henderson indicated that he would provide this letter to Ms. Mullen and discuss it with her. He advised that this would be an excellent contact for the DHRC, noting that Reverend Walters seemed willing to do outreach for the DHRC. Ms. Mullen stated that the Church the Body of Christ on Townsend Boulevard was also very interested in what the DHRC does, and she was waiting for the development of a DHRC brochure to move forward. Mr. Henderson stated that he would never say no to churches and noted that he may also approach some churches. Mrs. Herbert informed members that she had been working with the National Council on Agricultural Life and Labor Research (NCALL) Restoring Central Dover community engagement forum planning group, and Ms. Mullen had also been doing so when she is available. Mrs. Herbert advised that it is easier for her to attend than Ms. Mullen because Mrs. Herbert does not work. She stated that the group had established an over-arching topic for a series of forums, and the topic was the things that one should know about education. Mrs. Herbert advised that the first forum, scheduled for September 30, 2017, would address available sources to help with education. She explained that this session would relate to services that exist both inside and outside the public schools to support students and families, how families can learn about these services and take advantage of them, and where the gaps are. Mrs. Herbert advised that another forum would be held on November 4, 2017 regarding how external forces and systems, such as poverty, economics, crime, the criminal justice system, and the political system, can work at cross-purposes to students’ success, and how changes in these areas can bridge some of the gaps identified. She indicated that there had been discussion about placing a special emphasis on crime, since crime was a hot and timely topic in the community. Mrs. Herbert indicated that a third forum would be held on January 27, 2018 regarding transitions from high school to college and would be aimed at high school freshmen and sophomores. She stated that this session would be delivered in large part by Delaware State University (DSU) and Wesley College students and would

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 6 possibly include breakout sessions for students of different ages, so that content could be better targeted to what students need to know and when. Mrs. Herbert asked if this series of forums was something that was appropriate for the DHRC, stating that she felt the first forum was appropriate because it was about resources. She also asked if she should continue to attend the NCALL forum group planning meetings or if this should fall under the purview of Mr. Fleming and the Education Committee. Responding to Mr. Henderson, Mrs. Herbert stated that the community engagement forum planning group was part of NCALL, and NCALL had involved Wesley College, DSU, Wesley College Drug and Alcohol Education, and Central Middle School. She explained that Dr. Chanda Jackson, Community Engagement Specialist, NCALL, oversees the entire program. Mrs. Herbert advised that a member of the State Human Relations Commission (SHRC) had been involved in an initial housing forum put on by the group when the SHRC was working on housing; however, she had taken herself off the planning group because the next series of forums proposed was not about housing. Mrs. Herbert suggested that if the DHRC did not participate in any of the other forums, they may want attend the first to talk to families about educational resources and bring DHRC pamphlets. She explained that the forum planning group had not yet developed a title for the event. Mrs. Herbert noted that the group had been meeting every two (2) weeks at 10:00 a.m. on Fridays, and the next meeting was scheduled for Friday, August 4, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. at the Midnight Roast Coffee Shop at Wesley College. Mr. Gaddis noted that he had taught high school for 33 years, and he suggested that the transitions workshop scheduled for January 27, 2017 not be confined to high school to college transitions. He indicated that he would like kids to have the ability to transition from high school to employment, apprenticeships, technical schools, etc. Mr. Gaddis expressed his opinion that there had always been too much emphasis on college and that credence and value should be given to working. He explained that some young people have their own ideas, do not want to go to college, and want to work and do something productive with their lives, and there is a need to help them as well. Mr. Henderson stated that the forums were worth looking into. Mrs. Herbert advised that the planning group seemed to be concerned about whether or not parents would come and bring their kids and wanted to start advertising early; however, Mrs. Herbert indicated that more focus was needed before advertising. She stated that the group was doing very well and putting in the time that was needed for the forums. Mrs. Herbert stated that she had attended a previous forum put on by the group in April 2017 which was very successful. She noted that the group was working to make central Dover better and must hold their events in that area; therefore, the three (3) forums would be held at Wesley College, and Central Middle School would be involved.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 7 Mr. Henderson stated that the forums sounded great, Mrs. Herbert could educate members about the sessions, and they could attend some of them. Mrs. Herbert suggested bringing the DHRC’s brochure. She stated that she was unsure how the DHRC would fit into the forums; however, the forum planning group wanted the DHRC to provide any resources that members knew of, noting that Dr. Jackson needed this information to be sent to her. Mrs. Herbert noted that she herself had not been in Dover long enough to know all of the available resources. She stated that there was a resource called Parent, Inc. that she had never heard of which is very helpful to parents. Mrs. Herbert advised that the planning group had mentioned only the transition from high school to college in regard to the forum planned regarding transitions. She noted that a lot of parents and kids would be cut out if other transitions, such as technical school and work transitions, were not included. Mrs. Herbert agreed with Mr. Gaddis’s previous comments that the high school to college focus may be too narrow. Ms. Mullen informed members that she had recommended to the planning group that they focus on the middle school to high school transition. She noted that a lot of children are being lost at an early age because they are becoming involved in other things that are offered to them. Ms. Mullen expressed the need to condition children’s mindsets to think about college well before high school. She concurred with Mr. Gaddis and Mrs. Herbert that there was a need to consider children who are not interested in college. Mr. Henderson noted that the forums would apply to the DHRC Education Committee, as well as to the Communications Committee for marketing. He advised that if the DHRC could be a conduit of information to advertise and make people aware, it will have fulfilled its role as a commission. Mr. Henderson indicated that the DHRC could advertise that they are in touch with NCALL and that symposiums would be held. He stated that events could be advertised to the community and members’ districts by way of brochures, radio, and social media, such as Facebook and Twitter. Responding to Mrs. Herbert, Mr. Henderson stated that Mr. Fleming could be involved with the forums due to his role on the Education Committee. Mrs. Herbert stated that she thought other members should be included in these types of events. She expressed her hope that Mr. Fleming could come to the next planning group meeting scheduled for August 4, 2017. Education Committee (Fleming) Mr. Fleming apologized for missing the previous DHRC meeting, stating that he had forgotten that the meeting time was 6:00 p.m. and had come at 7:00 p.m. He noted that his attendance would have provided a quorum for the meeting and apologized for taking up members’ time by not being present on time.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 8 Mr. Fleming stated that he had thought members could get exposure for the DHRC by walking in the Fourth of July parade wearing their DHRC shirts; however, he had brought this up at the last minute and members may not have been available. Mr. Fleming recommended that the DHRC participate in these type of events as often as they can so that people know who they are. He stated that all members would not have to walk, but if more than one (1) or two (2) people could participate, this would help expose the Commission to the Dover community. Mr. Fleming noted that an article in the Delaware State News earlier in the week regarding the Student Excellence Equals Degree (SEED) program stated that one (1) of the legislators was upset because he did not think taxpayers should be paying to send other people’s children to school. Mr. Fleming expressed his opinion that this legislator was completely off base and that SEED is an excellent program. He advised that education is not just about degrees and noted that there are many technical programs, such as solar energy, etc. Mr. Fleming expressed his hope that some of the SEED money would work its way into technical programs for high school graduates. He stated that the SEED program is a wonderful opportunity for the citizens of Delaware to transition into higher education, including both technical and degree programs. He encouraged members to find and read this Delaware State News article, which he stated they would find very enlightening. Mr. Fleming estimated that 98% of those who commented in the newspaper the day after the article was published were in favor of the SEED program and helping kids to obtain higher education. Communications Committee (Paige) Reverend Paige advised that she had no report. She noted that she and Ms. Mullen had agreed to work together, since communications overlaps with the community engagement. She noted that Ms. Mullen had performed outreach with radio networks; however, Reverend Paige stated that she had not been involved and they would correct this for next month. Liaison to State Human Relations Commission During the Dover Human Relations Commission Workshop held on May 25, 2017, members considered a Review of DHRC Strategic Plan 2015-2018 Long-Term Objectives and Development of Work Plans. Members discussed objective C.2., “Develop an understanding with the State Human Relations Commission that will delineate the roles and procedures of the two Commissions in the solution of alleged discrimination complaints which fall within the jurisdiction of the State Human Relations Commission and identify and maintain specific ways the two Commissions will work together.” Members discussed appointing a member of the DHRC as a Liaison to the State Human Relations Commission (SHRC) to accomplish this goal. Mr. Henderson nominated Mrs. Herbert to serve as Liaison to the State Human Relations Commission.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 9 The Commission elected Mrs. Sara Herbert to serve as Liaison to the State Human Relations Commission. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Commission’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare and Lewis absent). Mrs. Herbert stated that she had spoken to Ms. Annette Fletcher, Delaware Division of Human Relations, who had encouraged her to attend SHRC meetings, and Mrs. Herbert had attended one (1). She advised that Ms. Fletcher had explained that a public forum is held before the meetings; however, Mrs. Herbert did not observe this and, since they did not have the open forum, she indicated her belief that not many people attend meetings. Mrs. Herbert advised that she attended the SHRC meeting by herself, no one had asked her why she was there, and she was eventually invited to the table. She explained that Ms. Kelly Brown, Delaware Division of Human Relations, takes meeting notes and handles meeting business in Dover. Mrs. Herbert indicated that the meeting is a virtual meeting and is conducted using television, so that those in Wilmington can see participants from southern Delaware. She advised that it was suggested that she talk to Ms. Brown and ask to be placed on an agenda. Mrs. Herbert informed members that she would like to have their feedback regarding establishing a connection with a member of the SHRC who is not from Dover. She explained that she believed that a representative from Dover would already be enmeshed in what is going on in Dover, and she favored being connected with someone who has an unbiased opinion in case questions needed to be asked of the SHRC. Mrs. Herbert advised that she was experiencing difficulty having phone calls returned by the SHRC and noted that SHRC members, like DHRC members, are volunteers. Mrs. Herbert indicated that she wanted to find out how the DHRC and SHRC can interact with each other, noting that she was not absolutely positive that they can. In response to Mr. Henderson, Mrs. Herbert indicated that source of the SHRC meetings is in Wilmington and meetings are run by Mr. Calvin Christopher, Chair, SHRC. She indicated that her phone number had been provided to Mr. Christopher; however, he had not returned the call. Mrs. Herbert reiterated that everyone that sits at the SHRC table is a volunteer, with the exception of Ms. Brown in Dover and Ms. Fletcher in Wilmington. Mr. Gaddis asked what insight Mrs. Herbert was hoping to obtain by connecting with a SHRC member outside of Dover. Responding, Mrs. Herbert stated that she would not know this until she talks to a contact to find out what the SHRC does, versus the DHRC. She noted that during the DHRC Workshop of May 25, 2017, members had discussed subpoenas and other matters. Mrs. Herbert stated that the DHRC handles Dover and the SHRC covers the entire State, which includes Dover, and she wanted clarification so that the DHRC does not step on toes or do something that the SHRC

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 10 is supposed to do. She also noted that connecting with the SHRC relates to long- term goal C.2. of the DHRC Strategic Plan 2015-2018, and is something the DHRC is supposed to do. Mr. Henderson suggested that he accompany Mrs. Herbert to the next meeting and perhaps this connection could be clarified. Mrs. Herbert noted that neither she nor her SHRC contact would be making decisions; however, there was a need to have a bridge to obtain information. She informed members that Mr. Roy Sudler, City Council Representative for the Fourth District, and Kent County Representative to the SHRC, represents the Dover area on the SHRC. She indicated that she had nothing against Mr. Sudler; however, she had noticed that he had not attended some of the SHRC meetings, and she noted that he may be busy and not have the time. Reverend Paige stated that she had excused herself from the conversation. She advised that Mr. Sudler represents Dover on the SHRC and formerly chaired the DHRC. Mrs. Herbert explained that she knew Mr. Sudler and had no problem with him. She acknowledged that he would be much closer than some of the other SHRC members who come from all over the State to attend the meetings. Mr. Henderson advised that he would like to attend an SHRC meeting. In response to Mr. Henderson, Mrs. Herbert stated that she was unsure of the SHRC’s meeting schedule but it was her recollection that meetings are held on the second Thursday of the month at the Cannon Building on Silver Lake Boulevard. She advised that Mr. Henderson could attend with her, and stated that she would contact Ms. Brown first, tell her that they would be coming, and obtain information from her about the meeting date and time. She indicated that she had spoken with Ms. Brown previously and informed her about the long-term objective in C.2 of the DHRC Strategic Plan 2015-2018. Mr. Henderson stated that he and Mrs. Herbert would attend the August SHRC meeting together. DHRC Participation in Radio Segment During the Dover Human Relations Commission (DHRC) Workshop of May 25, 2017, Ms. Mullen informed members that she had an opportunity to participate in a radio talk show segment and asked if this would be permissible. Responding, Mrs. Stein indicated that this item could be placed on a meeting agenda for members' consideration and, if they chose, participation could be recommended to Council. Ms. Mullen advised that she had been in communication with Ms. Benita Gassi from the Ms. Benita Show TV and Radio Network, who had advised her that the cost of DHRC’s participation on the radio would be $125. Ms. Mullen explained that, if members chose to proceed, coverage would be on four (4) networks, including Bomb Baby Radio, Hottest Live Radio, Media Angel TV and Radio, and ACT Boom TV, and there would be continuous advertising and a 15-minute interview segment with

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 11 a member of the DHRC. Ms. Mullen advised that participation would allow the DHRC to update and educate the public on what the Commission is about, its missions and goals, and how the DHRC can help the community. She noted that Ms. Gassi had also offered to provide Twitter and Facebook services, which Mr. Henderson stated would be fine, noting that he is not familiar with this type of media. Ms. Mullen stated that she would have to do some research if members wanted to proceed. Reverend Paige advised, having been in radio herself, that she was not in favor of paying $125 for what the DHRC wants to do. She stated that the DHRC is public service and, in her opinion, there should be no cost for members to discuss who the DHRC is and what they do, and the radio station should invite the DHRC in for this purpose. Reverend Paige noted that radio station WWDE at Delaware State University (DSU) broadcasts beyond DSU and suggested WDOV as well. She indicated that she is acquainted with Ms. Gassi and had no problems with her; however, she was not in favor of paying $125. Reverend Paige advised that she could understand paying this amount to purchase a $125 advertising package but not to inform the community about the DHRC. Ms. Mullen and Mrs. Herbert concurred. Ms. Mullen stated that the $125 cost had been mentioned at the end of her conversation with Ms. Gassi, and she had then advised Ms. Gassi that she wanted to take this information back to the Commission. In response to Mr. Gaddis, Ms. Mullen stated that she was unsure if the radio stations mentioned by Ms. Gassi were licensed. Mr. Gaddis advised that every licensed radio station is required to provide public service time as part of federal licensing. Reverend Paige stated that she was unsure if Ms. Gassi is licensed, noting that Ms. Gassi mostly does internet radio. Reverend Paige advised that Reverend Shonde Greene broadcasts on Faith 1510 in Wilmington, and interviews can be recorded for later broadcast. She indicated that Faith 1510, WWDE, and WDOV are stations in the area with wide listenership that would cover the diverse population that the DHRC is trying to target. Mrs. Herbert noted that Ms. Gassi may not recognize that the DHRC is a public service entity. Reverend Paige advised that she could work with Commissioner Mullen further on this matter, reiterating that communications and community engagement overlap. In response to Mr. Henderson, Ms. Mullen noted that Ms. Gassi had also mentioned blogs and other things. She suggested deferring this item until she and Reverend Paige can collaborate. She stated that radio is a good resource and avenue to utilize to get word out to the public and expressed the desire to reach all segments of people, rather than catering to one (1) type of population. The Commission deferred this matter for collaboration.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 12 Development of DHRC Brochure Referring to the brochure entitled, “Dover Human Relations Commission,” formerly circulated by the DHRC and provided by Mr. Fleming, Mr. Henderson advised that he liked the beautiful logo. During their meeting of April 10, 2017, Council considered the Development of a Concise Statement - Mission and Functions of DHRC and approved the DHRC’s recommendation to accept the concise statement as written. Mr. Gaddis expressed concern that the brochure did not include the concise statement that he and Reverend Paige had developed and was approved by the Commission. Mrs. Stein explained that the brochure being reviewed was used by the Commission previously and had been provided by Mr. Fleming. She noted that it was included to provide members a starting point for a new brochure. Mr. Henderson advised that the brochure was from years ago. He stated that numbers and other things would change and advised that the mission statement could be the first thing to change. Mr. Henderson asked if Mr. Gaddis could take on the task of looking over the excellent but outdated brochure. He stated that this was not intended as a slight to Mr. Fleming and suggested that Mr. Fleming could perhaps do some fine tuning on the brochure. Mr. Gaddis noted that Reverend Paige had also been involved in developing the concise mission statement. Referring to the Mission Statement in the brochure, Mrs. Herbert indicated that she was disturbed by the third paragraph, which stated that “The Commission is authorized to inquire into incidents of inter-group conflicts, disputes and alleged discrimination within the City and to make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council for action to alleviate such conflicts.” Based on the DHRC Workshop held on May 25, 2017, she expressed her understanding that the DHRC is an advisory Commission and noted that this statement sounded more investigative. Mrs. Herbert stated that if the DHRC was allowed to inquire into incidents, this should be listed in the brochure; however, she was unsure that a decision had been made and if the DHRC was allowed to do this. Responding, Mr. Henderson stated that he recalled that it was concluded that issuing subpoenas and getting involved in every small matter was not something that the DHRC would be doing. Mr. Fleming and Reverend Paige concurred. Reverend Paige stated that members had discussed possibly looking into this further down the road, but not now. Reverend Paige stated that she saw the previous brochure as a guideline so that members would know what is needed in the new brochure. She noted that she was delighted to see Mr. Jon Offredo, DHRC Commissioner, Fourth District, when she walked in the door, stating that she did not know that he was a Commissioner. Reverend Paige advised that she had asked Mr. Offredo if he would help her with communications, noting that Mr. Offredo has experience with The News-Journal.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 13 She recommended that she and Mr. Offredo work on the brochure together, stating that she viewed the brochure as falling under communications. Reverend Paige noted that anyone else who wanted to work on the brochure could also do so. The Commission recommended that Reverend Paige and Mr. Offredo work on the brochure, as well as anyone else who wants to do so. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Commission’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare and Lewis absent). Mr. Henderson stated his understanding that Reverend Paige, Mr. Offredo, and Mr. Gaddis would work on the brochure and provide a product at the next meeting. At Mr. Henderson’s request, Mr. Jon Offredo advised that he resides in the Fourth District, and he and his fiancee rent an apartment on The Green above The Delaware Store. He stated that he has been living in Dover for approximately four (4) years and had been a reporter for three (3) of those years at the News-Journal, covering Legislative Hall and the City of Dover. Mr. Offredo stated that he quit this job approximately one (1) year ago and now works for the State of Delaware, Public Defender's Office, where he does legislative policy and communications work. He indicated that he is happy to help in any way possible. Update of DHRC Webpage This item was deferred due to time constraints. Sponsorship of Educational Symposium This item was deferred due to time constraints. DHRC Vacancies This item was deferred due to time constraints. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for acceptance of the Dover Human Relations Commission Report, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare and Lewis absent). COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT - AUGUST 15, 2017 The Council Committee of the Whole met on August 15, 2017 at 6:00 p.m., with Council President Slavin presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson (arrived at 6:23 p.m.), Mr. Sudler (departed at 6:34 p.m. and returned at 6:40 p.m.), Mr. Neil, Mr. Cole, Mr. Polce (departed at 6:34 p.m. and returned at 6:35 p.m.), and Mr. Hare. Mr. Lewis and Mr. Lindell were absent. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Ms. Arndt (Utility), and Mr. Shevock and Dr. Stewart (Legislative, Finance, and Administration).

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 14 UTILITY COMMITTEE Alternative Solar Energy Announcement by DSU and Eastern Woodland Holdings LLC., for Potential Public Private Partnership Opportunity sponsored by Councilman Roy Sudler, Jr. 4th District and Brian Lewis 2nd District Councilpersons Mr. Sudler indicated that he thought that this alternative solar energy proposal would be a great opportunity for a potential solar development in the City of Dover, noting that it was a partnership between Delaware State University (DSU) and Eastern Woodland Holdings LLC. He introduced Mr. Chris Coker, a representative for Eastern Woodland Holdings LLC. Mr. Sudler noted that Mr. J.D. Bartlett had an emergency to tend to at DSU; however, he had met with Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Acting City Manager, prior to the meeting to discuss what they were thinking about proposing to the City. Mr. Coker informed members that he was representing Eastern Woodlands and DSU, and announced that they would be partnering up to do some solar together. He stated that they were still considering that; however, after meeting with Mrs. Mitchell, he believed that he would go after the Request for Proposals (RFP) for 30 megawatts (MW), noting that he thought he could fulfill the City’s needs on that with DSU. Mr. Coker indicated that they were looking to do 20MW to 25MW but, if the station could hold it, they could perhaps do 30 MW. Mrs. Mitchell reminded members that in the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) that was presented to Council by The Energy Authority (TEA) back in April, one (1) of the recommendations was that the City do an RFP for 30 MW of solar. She informed members that she had explained to Mr. Coker that the City would soon be doing that RFP, and becoming aware of it had encouraged him to participate in that process. Mr. Slavin cautioned members not to ask any questions of Mr. Coker, otherwise he may be disqualified from responding to the RFP. Conwell Street Discussion Mrs. Sharon Duca, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer, reviewed her memo dated July 28, 2017 regarding Conwell Street Evaluation. She explained that the Department of Public Works was charged with evaluating Conwell Street in conjunction with researching the development history, current status, and upgrade options. Mr. Sudler asked if there would be another option that would be less complex and timing consuming, such as a paved alley, or something another level down from a street with walkways and curb appeal, and drainage. Responding, Mrs. Duca explained that if Council wanted to pursue the enhancements of this road, technically deeming it an alley and making the appropriate authentication in that manner would create the smaller pavement because it would not require the concrete addition. She stated that it would also give more room within the right-of-way for more natural

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 15 swales, etc. to handle the drainage, noting that the concrete sections on a regular road would make it very difficult and definitely require storm sewer. In response to Mr. Hare, Mrs. Duca stated that there were a couple of houses on the front of the street. Mr. Hare noted that this was not a City street. He asked if the residents wanted to bring it into the City and for the City to take it over. Responding, Mrs. Duca stated that this was her understanding. Mr. Hare asked if this would be any different than, for example, if the contractor for Nottingham Meadows was building houses, did not want to finish the street, and wanted the City to take it over and finish it. He asked if the City would do that. In response, Mrs. Duca advised that Conwell Street would be more similar to Cannon Mill, explaining that the City did have to deal with the roads in that development because the developer went bankrupt. Mr. Hare asked if there was a developer for Conwell Street and Mrs. Duca advised that there was not. Mr. Hare asked who owns the land. Responding, Mrs. Duca stated that it could be considered no man’s land at this point, explaining that it was never transferred to the City; therefore, it would be more likely to still be in Kent County. She explained that technically the land owner would be the original developer of the College Road Settlement from 1899 because they never deeded it over to any municipal entity. Mr. Hare asked how staff was going to determine who owns the land. In response, Mrs. Duca, referring to page 2 of her memo dated July 28, 2017 regarding Conwell Street Evaluation, noted that other sections of roads that wound up being vacated went through the Superior Court. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Duca stated that it would be difficult to trace the underlying owner of the road at this point, which, she believed, was the reason it became a matter of the courts. Mr. Slavin asked if the City had any history regarding who originally paved the road or who paid to have it paved originally. In response, Mrs. Duca advised that information regarding the original paving was not part of any of the research or the plans that staff could find. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Duca informed members that Conwell Street was not a publicly identified road in terms of Municipal Street Aid (MSA); however, it was in regard to Google and that type of thing. Mr. Slavin stated his understanding that if the road was not owned by the City, then it would be a State road. In response, Mrs. Duca indicated that it would be a State or County road. Mr. Slavin stated that typically in a development, a developer will build out a development, build out the roads, and then dedicate them over to the City when they are up to the City’s standards, so that the City does not inherit those costs. He noted, however, that in the case where the developer went bankrupt and left the roads sub-standard, the City was forced to take action out of public safety. Responding, Mrs. Duca stated that those subdivisions were legitimately within City of Dover limits. Mr. Neil stated that he thought that this matter was very perplexing and he did not think that it would get a high priority over existing problems. He advised that his suggestion would be for the City to send all of the people who signed the petition a letter basically stating that this is not City land. Mr. Neil noted that there are many

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 16 issues dealing with the ownership and the deeding to the City, and that while the City will look at the process to see what the City can do, he did not think the individuals should expect it to be done quickly because they signed a petition. He explained that the City should be gentle, but should educate the people who have asked for help that this is not an easy question to answer and is not simply moving them up in a priority. Mr. Neil indicated that a significant amount of work would be going on before getting to the point of moving this matter up in priority, and he stated that he did not know how fast the City should be getting to that point. Mr. Hare, referring to the map entitled “Conwell Street Exhibit,” noted that the houses on State College Road were labeled “property not annexed into the City,” and asked if these properties were not in the City. Responding, Mrs. Duca stated that he was correct. Mr. Hare stated that he did not understand why individuals who live in the County would request the City to pave the roads for them. Mr. Sudler stated that he thought that the owners felt that because it said Conwell Street, it was a City road, and the main objective was to assess whether or not it is a City or County road, which had been done. He thanked Mrs. Duca, noting that she had done a great job. Mr. Sudler stated that there were a few homes on Conwell Street, but that he wanted to hear from Ms. Ryder, a resident of Conwell Street who he believed could speak regarding some of the challenges and difficulties. Mr. Sudler asked if Mr. Hare or anyone else had been on Conwell Street to look at it, or had rode their vehicle down it and seen the stumps. Responding, Mr. Hare stated that he had. Mayor Christiansen stated that he had also been out there and had seen the condition of the street. He advised members that approximately 20 years ago the City went through this same process and it was determined that the street was difficult to bring to City standards because it was mostly in the County. Mayor Christiansen noted that, while he has empathy for the people who live there, there are streets in the City that are really under duress as well. He stated that he did not know if a private individual or a consortium of people could get together and have the street paved as they do in other communities. Mr. Cole thanked Mrs. Duca for the research and the work that she did regarding this matter. Ms. Sandra Ryder, 291 College Road, informed members that her property abuts Conwell Street and she was under the assumption that because it was named, it was a road. She stated that the road had never been paved and explained that, with the problems with the road, people tear their cars up driving on the street. Ms. Ryder noted that she would accept an alley, a few stones, or anything; however, after listening to the discussion, she understood that it was a problem. She asked how much it would be if everyone in the community got together and decided to pave it themselves and what that would run up against. Responding, Mr. Cole advised Ms. Ryder that it was not a City road. Ms. Ryder stated that she still felt that while they are paying taxes something should be done. Mr. Hare stated that Ms. Ryder

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 17 might have to check with the County to make sure they do not have a problem with it, noting that the City would not be giving the permits or anything. Ms. Ryder stated her understanding that members were basically saying that it is too big a problem to be addressed at the moment because there are too many legalities. Responding, Mr. Cole explained that he did not think that members were saying it was too big of a problem, but that there were legalities and the control of the right-of- way and the road. In response to Mr. Hare’s question regarding who owns the property, Ms. Ryder stated that she owns the property from the front to 100 feet in the back; however, she noted that she did not have any idea who owned the street. She explained that she thought that the City or the County owned the street and, since it was named, she thought it had to be a street. Mr. Sudler asked if it was standard procedure for the City to put a street sign name on streets that it does not own. Responding, Mr. Slavin explained that if there was a street sign on Conwell Street, the City does not know the origin of the street sign and, if the City did inadvertently place the street sign, it does not transfer legal ownership of the street to the City. He indicated that he thought that the underlying question was if someone could do the deed research to figure out who the underlying owner of the street is, noting that if it is a County street, the City could go to the County and ask them to improve it, and if it is a City street, the City would have responsibilities. Mr. Neil stated that he did not know how much Ms. Ryder pays, but that he pays more in County taxes than he does in City taxes, so he thought that the County should take this one over. Mr. Anderson, referring to the map entitled “Conwell Street Exhibit,” asked if he was correct in his understanding that half of the properties surrounding Conwell Street were in the City, half were not, and the City did not know the ownership of the street. Responding, Mr. Cole stated that this was correct. Mr. Anderson asked if it would be appropriate to make a motion for the City to do the research to find out who owns it. Mrs. Duca clarified that the City had done the plan and deed research. She informed members that deeds are not developed for street right-of-ways; however, there is the original plot plan for the development. She reiterated that the best example would be similar to a defunct subdivision where the owner has gone bankrupt. Mrs. Duca advised members that this matter would involve some movement of the County or the City to take the street over because the ownership of it basically left with the original developer. Mr. Cole stated, for clarification, that the City is not looking to take this street over, and asked if going through the County would be residents’ best avenue to find out

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 18 what they need to do if they wanted to take it upon themselves to pave it. Responding, Mrs. Duca stated that the County and the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) would be the next steps. Mr. Sudler asked, as a point of clarity, if Mrs. Duca was saying that the City did not want to take the street over, explaining that he thought that she was saying that if the City were to do it, these would be the steps that the City would have to take. In response, Mrs. Duca stated that she was not saying that the City did not want to do it, she was just trying to clarify that there are no actual deeds for the right-of-way. Mr. Anderson moved to recommend referring the matter to staff to find more information on the ownership of the street, seconded by Mr. Sudler. Mr. Hare noted that this was not City property and the people who live around it are not in the City. He indicated that he was at a loss as to why the City would proceed, explaining that he could find a lot of properties that are outside of the City that the City could also research and possibly work on. Mr. Hare asked if the people who live around the property wanted to be annexed into the City and pay City taxes, etc., if the City proceeds. He stated that he felt that the County should be doing something, not the City, since it is not City property. Mr. Sudler stated that he thought the motion was just a point on information so that members would be able to make an educated decision, explaining that it was his understanding that the City did not currently know who owns the property. He noted that although it appeared that the City does not own the property or have any responsibility, he thought that out of a genuine consideration for their Dover constituent, members could at least find out who owns it and possibly even send a letter, or partner with the constituent to send a letter, to the County or State asking for financial assistance or for them to make the proper repairs to bring the street up to code. Mr. Sudler stated that this was the same street that a lady was recently killed on, noting that it is dark and a safety issue. He expressed his opinion that this matter was beyond just dollars and was about public safety in the community and for the constituents of Dover. Mr. Slavin indicated that he thought that staff had done due diligence in collecting the information and that, based on that research, a legal opinion was now needed to advise members regarding ownership and what the City’s legal options are in regard to this matter. He stated that he thought that it was time to escalate this matter and send it to legal counsel for an opinion. Mr. Anderson, referring to his motion to recommend referring the matter to staff to find more information on the ownership of the street, advised members that he meant staff in the broadest sense and most appropriate level, which would include the City’s legal counsel. He indicated that referring it to legal counsel may be the next step; however, he would leave that decision to staff’s professional discretion.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 19 Mr. Neil asked that a fiscal note be provided regarding what it will cost to do this research, explaining that he thought members owed it to the taxpayers to find out. Responding, Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Acting City Manager, stated that she would have to find out how long it would take to do the research to be able to explain how much it would cost. Mr. Neil stated his understanding that it would not only take normal staff time, but professional time to complete this research. In response, Mrs. Mitchell stated that Mr. Neil was correct and that staff would have to talk to Deputy City Solicitor William Pepper to determine whether he would have to have staff research it as well. She explained that City staff had done some research but might need his help. Mr. Cole asked Mr. Anderson and Mr. Sudler if they would be amenable to withdrawing the motion to recommend referring the matter to staff to find more information on the ownership of the street, and instead ask for a legal opinion to be provided at the next Utility Committee meeting. Responding, Mr. Sudler stated that he would be willing to rescind his second to the motion because he was in agreement with getting a legal opinion, as recommended by Mr. Cole. Mr. Anderson stated that he did not really think that the motion was being changed; however, if members wanted to change the wording, he was okay with it because the result of the motions would be the same. The motion to recommend referring the matter to staff to find more information on the ownership of the street was withdrawn. The Committee recommended that a legal opinion regarding the ownership of Conwell Street and the City’s legal options in regard to this matter be provided at the next Utility Committee meeting. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare and Lewis absent). Annual Review and Approval of Governing Policy For Energy Commodity Risk Management Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Acting City Manager, reviewed the proposed amendments to the Governing Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management. Referring to page 8, she advised that the proposed amendments would provide the Utility Director and Controller with oversight rather than responsibility, which would provide everyone an equal say to agree on what changes are made and what transactions are entered into. In reference to the proposed amendments regarding delegation of authority on page 13, Mrs. Mitchell noted that the proposed change would not allow the Executive Risk Management Committee (ERMC) to delegate its approval authority limits to individuals authorized to commit Dover to financial obligations, because they did not want non-Dover people committing the City. Referring to Appendix C on pages 26- 27, she advised members that the Business Risks Topology table on page 26 was meant to be struck through because it is proposed to be removed and replaced with

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 20 the table on page 27. Mrs. Mitchell explained that the proposed change to the table related to the regulatory risk, where it was proposed to put the initials for the regulatory agencies rather than the description. Staff recommended approval of the proposed amendments. The Committee recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the Governing Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management, including the new table, as recommended by staff. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the proposed amendments to the Governing Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management, including the new table (Exhibit #3). The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare and Lewis absent). Review of Customer Service Department Shut-Off Procedures (2017 Budget Review - Hare) Mr. Kirby Hudson, Assistant City Manager, encouraged members to review the City Manager’s Monthly Report for June 2017, which was accepted by City Council during their Regular Meeting of August 14, 2017, explaining that it included charts depicting the milestones and accomplishments of the Customer Service Department that he thought members would be pretty happy about. He advised members that, through the utilization of existing policies, the Customer Service Department had been able to reduce the average overall number of daily disconnects from a high of 112 to a low of 50 disconnects per day, noting that people are now starting to pay their bills on time. Mr. Hudson stated that, as part of their research, staff contacted all of the utility companies operating in Delaware and found that the 21-day due date for people to pay their bill was pretty much an industry standard. Mr. Hudson reviewed the Customer Service Department procedure for service disconnection due to non-payment. He explained that everyone gets 21 days to pay their bill and then it takes approximately five (5) days, after the 21st day, before the City disconnects for non-payment. Mr. Hudson noted that this is also around the same time that the second bill is getting generated, so although the individual or family is not two (2) months in arrears, the second bill is getting ready to be sent out, so in a technical sense you could almost say that they are two (2) months behind; however, it is not a full 30 or 60 days. He noted that the billing dates can change for an individual, based on weekends and holidays; however, they still get 21 days to pay. Mr. Hudson advised that Customer Service Department staff who maintain and oversee the disconnection list review it daily for different types of things, such as if it includes any large businesses, or individuals with medical apparatus. He stated that the City does not want to disconnect large businesses, such as Playtex or Edgewell, who tend to pay their bills late, noting that their billing departments may be located out of State, so by the time the check arrives, it could be late. Mr. Hudson informed

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 21 members that when staff notices these types of things on the list, they will make phone calls. Mr. Hudson stated that the list includes codes which indicate if an individual has a history of bouncing checks, which is something else that staff looks for. He noted that staff really tries to do their best and has to perfect this process. Mr. Hudson advised members that staff tries to see if there are individuals on the list who are first-timers or are not usually late with their payments; however, he explained that the list is approximately 50 pages long and there are about eight (8) different screens that they have to go through for each account and staff is trying to do this expeditiously, so they may miss one occasionally. He noted that the City’s current software is unable to indicate whether a person is not usually late with their payments or if they have a good record; however, the new ERP system should be able to indicate these types of things. Mr. Hudson stated that complaints had decreased tremendously, and people were paying their bills. He indicated that, for those individuals who typically pay on time, as well as businesses, who are on the disconnection list, the City’s meter technicians will place door hangers first thing in the morning to provide notice that they will be back around 1:00 p.m. or 2:00 p.m. to disconnect and that they should contact the Customer Service Department immediately. Mr. Hudson stated that the City also makes payment arrangements when individuals contact the Department prior to being disconnected. He noted that the City also has an autopay option and will accommodate the elderly, senior citizens, and other individuals who are on a fixed income or get their money at a particular time during the month, if they sign up for autopay. Mr. Slavin noted that the implementation of this disconnection policy had caused some problems; however, he believed they had leveled out. He thanked the Customer Service Department team, noting that he goes in Weyandt Hall from time to time to either pay a bill or just poke his head in and see what's going on, and had only observed professional, courteous, helpful service. Mr. Slavin stated that he thought that the Customer Service team was one of the leaders in city government when it comes to service because they certainly face some difficult situations and they do it with poise and integrity, which he appreciates. Mr. Slavin reminded members that Council originally made this change because the City was carrying approximately $1M in back utility bills. He noted that electricity is different than phone or cable television service, for which you are billed in advance of the next 30 days you are about to use, because electricity is billed for the 30 days that you already used. Mr. Slavin explained that the City originally began at 30 days and then changed to 60 days which pushed the disconnection out to between 75 and 90 days, and it became onerous to chase down. He stated that the City was spending more money chasing down collections, so it was decided to change the process.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 22 Mr. Slavin indicated that, in implementing the new process, one (1) of the goals was to drive people to automatic payment. He asked if there had been an increase in the number of accounts using automatic payment since the implementation of the new process. Responding, Mr. Hudson, referring to page 3 of the City Manager’s Monthly Report for June 2017, stated that the City had more people signing up for bank draft every month except June and July. He advised that he did not know why the numbers were down in June and July. Mr. Sudler noted that the numbers may have been down in June and July due to the fact that a lot of people were on vacation. Responding, Mr. Hudson stated that it would be interesting to see how the trend moves forward into the next set of holidays at the end of the year. In response to Mr. Hare, Ms. Patricia Marney, Customer Service Director, advised that the City currently had approximately 20,000 residential accounts, 50 disconnections per day, 1,500 disconnections per month, and 18,000 per year. She stated that the City had approximately 24,000 total customers that are billed for electricity each month. Mr. Slavin stated that he thought that some of things that Council wanted to achieve had been achieved. As an example, he shared that he had received a call from the Customer Service Department regarding a constituent in his area who was on the disconnect list and staff noticed that it was an anomaly. Mr. Slavin explained that it took a series of phone calls, emails, and Facebook messages to find out where the individual was; however, it ended up that the customer was simply confused because they had two (2) different accounts and were paying the bills to the wrong account number. Mr. Slavin stated that he appreciated that the City did not just disconnect the customer indiscriminately and everyone worked that issue until it was resolved. Mr. Hudson reminded members that staff was working on getting a new ERP system for the City and he was delighted that the new system would offer automated calling, texting, and emailing. He stated that with this new system, as long as the City has phone numbers and email addresses for each customer, it would be virtually impossible for a customer to say that they did not know their bill was due. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Evaluation of Proposals - Banking and Merchant Services Ms. Lori Peddicord, Acting Controller/Treasurer, advised that the City had solicited proposals for banking and merchant services, and received three (3) proposals. She stated that the proposals were evaluated and scored on several factors, including quality, reputation, location of branches, ability to meet the City's Cash Management requirements, completeness of the proposal, record of performance, technology, future enhancements, government banking experience and the qualifications of the team assigned to the City of Dover. Ms. Peddicord informed members that the Request for Proposals (RFP) required each bank to submit their current audited financial statement including footnotes and the auditor’s opinion, as well as their current Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10K or Form 10Q. She indicated

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 23 that the submission and review of these statements are imperative to the City of Dover’s due diligence to ensure the security of the City’s assets. Ms. Peddicord noted that the RFP also requested a copy of each bank’s ‘SAS’ 70, which is prepared by independent auditors and attests to the banks internal controls in regards to their online banking tools which will be utilized by the City of Dover. She explained that this last piece of due diligence ensures the City of Dover’s funds are safeguarded while being transferred using the banks online software. Ms. Peddicord advised that the estimated combined cost for the services for banking and merchant services, not to include either a earnings credit rating or an interest on balances, were $270,798 for PNC; $302,706 for Wells Fargo; and $249,625 for WSFS. She stated that the City currently had business relations with the recommended bank and merchant provider. Ms. Peddicord informed members that staff was looking to contract the banking services for a five-year contract period; however the contract term for the merchant services would be on an annual basis. She stated that the annual contract term for merchant services was due to the new ERP system the City would be bringing in and other changes that would be occurring. Ms. Peddicord noted that the contract terms had already been discussed with the proposers, and all of the vendors were in agreement that it would be okay. Staff recommended awarding the City's banking services to WSFS Bank and merchant services contract to TSYS. The Committee recommended awarding the City’s banking services to WSFS Bank and merchant services contract to TSYS, as recommended by staff. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare and Lewis absent). Accessibility Evaluation Report Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Acting City Manager, advised members that an Accessibility Evaluation was conducted by Wilson James Associates, Inc. this past April, explaining that the purpose of the evaluation was to identify all elements and spaces that are required to be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and building code standards. She noted that many areas were found to be in compliance and the report only included those items requiring remedial action. Mrs. Mitchell referred to the summary of the major points of the Accessibility Evaluation Report, noting that staff planned to make as many of the improvements as possible within the budget this fiscal year, including the on-street parking signage, the existing doorknobs, and those types of small items. She stated that what could not be done in this fiscal year within the budget, would be programmed into next fiscal year's budget, which would most likely include the toilet rooms off the hallway that need major renovation and the drinking fountain.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 24 Staff recommended making minor improvements in the current year and budgeting for major improvements in FY19. The Committee recommended making minor improvements in the current year and budgeting for major improvements in FY19, as recommended by staff. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare and Lewis absent). Proposed Ordinance #2017-12 Amending Appendix B - Zoning, Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, and Article 6 - Off-Street Parking, Driveways and Loading Facilities (Sponsors: Hare and Slavin) Mr. David Hugg, Acting Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed Proposed Ordinance #2017-12, which would update sections of Articles 5 and 6 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to enhance the flexibility of the Code in several areas, including dumpster, screening and buffer, tree planting, and curbing requirements, as well as add requirements for recycling to Article 5, Section 6 and rewrite Article 5, Section 18 to allow the City to require multi-use path instead of frontage sidewalk under specific circumstances. He informed members that this was the first of a series of zoning and other Code amendments that would be brought forward as a result of recent staff meetings with the development community. Mr. Hugg noted that they had been reviewing the ordinance to find places where it was not clear and make the language easier to follow, address some of the complaints from the development community, and remove language that is no longer relevant. He stated that this is an ongoing initiative and staff would be bringing forward two (2) additional ordinance amendments next month, one (1) regarding adult daycare, and the other dealing with issues with the manufactured home ordinance, which he and Mr. Neil have been working on. In addition, Mr. Hugg advised members that he was working with Mr. Polce on an accelerated site plan review process or rocket docket, noting that he was unsure whether it would be coming forward for consideration in the form of a policy document, a Code change, or both. Staff recommended adoption of Proposed Ordinance #2017-12. Mr. Slavin thanked Mr. Hugg and his staff for developing Proposed Ordinance #2017-12. He advised members that this series of ordinances would be part of the new philosophy of find it, fix it, explaining that as things are found that simply do not pass the common sense test, they are being fixed. Mr. Hare stated that he thought there would also be a proposed ordinance coming forward in regard to reducing the number of notices sent regarding a violation from five (5) to three (3). In response, Mr. Hugg stated that staff would be changing policy and proposing Code amendments in regard to the way the City does code enforcement, as well as the vacant building ordinance to eliminate things that are not

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 25 effective in terms of regulating vacant buildings. He noted that the process needs to be accelerated for people who are not willing to take care of their properties. The Committee recommended adoption of Proposed Ordinance #2017-12, as recommended by staff. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare and Lewis absent). (The First Reading of the ordinance will take place during the latter part of the meeting). Proposed Amendment to Committees, Commissions, and Boards Appointment Process Mr. Slavin proposed that, in deference to the fact that this item was originally introduced at Mr. Lewis' request and he was unable to attend the meeting and Mr. Polce and Mr. Lindell had worked on a compromise, the Committee allow Mr. Polce to explain the compromise and it be forwarded to Council without a recommendation. He explained that by proceeding in this way, when Mr. Lewis and Mr. Lindell return, Council will have the discussion from the Committee to consider and no time will be lost. Mr. Polce indicated that, as a result of the conversation during the Regular Council meeting of July 24, 2017 regarding 2017/18 Annual Appointments Recommended by Mayor Christiansen (deferred during the Annual Meeting of May 8, 2017) (Downtown Dover Partnership Board of Directors and Silver Lake Commission), Mr. Lindell and Mr. Lewis discussed that the right path forward would probably be looking at the application process and determining if a curriculum vitae (CV) or resume is required. Mr. Polce noted that based on the fact that an individual was previously serving, that information and documentation on record would be sufficient; however, if it is a new applicant, the individual would then have to comply with the elongated application that was previously approved. He stated that he thought both Mr. Lewis and Mr. Lindell were in agreement with this; however, he noted that neither was present. Mr. Polce moved to send this matter to Council with no recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil. Mr. Anderson noted that he thought that there was always room to look for improvement. He stated that he believed that there should be a period of time when the applications are signed off on, explaining that they should be checked for new information. Mr. Anderson explained that if members do not regularly check to see if something has changed, there could be conflicts of interest that have arisen and not been asked about, and someone may not have thought to inform the City about them. He noted that just because someone has served on a committee for 10 years does not mean that things have not changed. Mr. Anderson stated that he did not think that the applications needed to be reviewed every year and that it should be simple,

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 26 explaining that if someone has an application on file, they should be able to review it and, if nothing has changed, sign it and say it’s good. He indicated that he did not think a big process was needed but that the applications should be checked. Mr. Sudler stated that, as a suggestion for the future, when members do ordinances or want to make changes, that there is some statistical data stating that something is not working rather than a few people saying it is not working. He stated that he thought it would behoove members to have some tangible data to support changes of ordinances in the future. Mayor Christiansen commended the gentlemen for coming up with a compromise. He explained that it was very frustrating to find people who are interested in serving on committees, as many of the chairmen and the Council President were aware, and a number of people who had served the City for a great length of time had refused to go through the application process because they believe that their service to the City had been a proven fact. Mayor Christiansen advised members that for many of the appointees whom he has reappointed or intends to reappoint to the Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment and other bodies, he had attended meetings to see if they are performing to the expectations of himself, Council and, particularly, the citizens they all serve. He stated that he agreed with Mr. Anderson that members need to always be aware of conflicts of interest; however, he indicated that he thought that the application process was an insult to people who have served with exemplary service. He stated that he appreciated the compromise and concurred with the fact that any new applicant who has not previously served on any committees should fill out an application for the perusal, advice, and consent of Council. Mr. Hare informed members that he would not be at the Regular Council meeting scheduled for August 28, 2017. He stated that he thought that any new applicant should fill out an application, and that anyone who was being considered for reappointment, such as Dr. Stewart or Mr. Shevock, should be asked if anything has changed and if they say no, then they are good. Mr. Hare noted that most of the appointees are professionals and they know if something comes up that is a conflict, they will abstain, just like Council members do. He explained that he did not think that individuals would know if there is going to be a conflict when it is time for their reappointment, and that simply having them sign off on an application to say nothing had changed would be okay. Mr. Sudler indicated that he thought, in the best interest of the City, that the application needed to be on file. He stated that he appreciated the longevity of individuals serving, noting that he had longevity of service in many capacities; however, he noted that they are human and sometimes they forget. Mr. Sudler indicated that he thought that this was about protecting the City and that members cannot leave loopholes which would allow the City to be sued. He explained that, for the best interest of the City of Dover and the 38,000 that members serve, he thought it would behoove them to have something in writing. Mr. Sudler noted that he did not think that a simple five (5) to 10 minute update would be unbearable or

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 27 cause excruciating pain to where individuals could not spend that time and look at it as a precautionary measure to make sure that the City is safe and free from any lawsuits. Mr. Anderson stated that he agreed with Mr. Sudler. He noted that when he had reviewed some of the proposed appointments, there was not even an old application and he had a problem with the idea of only new applicants completing the application. Mr. Anderson explained that he thought that all applicants should have at least one of the new applications on file, so that members can see the information which they are seeking today, not the information from 15 years ago. He stated that no one on Council really has a complete view of the qualifications of the people they are voting to appoint, which was the reason why Council voted to put that system in, in the first place. Mr. Anderson stated that he thought that it was the correct decision then and it is the correct decision now. Mr. Hare stated that he agreed that everyone should have an application on file. He noted, however, that a reappointee, such as Mr. Shevock, should be asked if the information on his application has changed and, if it nothing has changed, that should be okay. Mr. Hare stated that he did not think that members needed to make it a drawn out process. The motion to send this matter to Council with no recommendation was unanimously carried. Noting the absence of Mr. Hare and Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lindell moved to postpone the Proposed Amendment to Committees, Commissions, and Boards Appointment Process. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Mr. Anderson moved for acceptance of the Council Committee of the Whole Report, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried (Hare and Lewis absent). EVALUATION OF BIDS - TELEPHONE SYSTEM UPGRADE The City of Dover completed a telephone system upgrade in 2012. The telephone system consists of three separate servers, each providing different functions. The Call Manager server provides the basic functions of the telephone system (making and receiving calls, forwarding, conferencing, etc.). The Contact Center server allows Customer Service to queue and answer calls. It also gives the Supervisors reporting and analysis functionality. Lastly, the Unity Connection server is the voicemail server. Since the upgrade, a multi-year maintenance agreement was purchased to provide support for the hardware (three servers), the software, and appropriate licensing. The maintenance agreement expires on August 31, 2017. While requesting pricing information to extend the maintenance agreement, it was learned that the vendor, Cisco, will not support the current hardware or software past August 31, 2017. Staff recommended approval of the telephone system upgrade and awarding the work to MTM Technologies for $48,566.47.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 28 Mr. Sudler moved for approval of Staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare and Lewis absent). APPOINTMENT OF DELAWARE MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC CORPORATION (DEMEC) ALTERNATE DIRECTOR (LORI PEDDICORD, ACTING CONTROLLER/TREASURER) By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved to appoint Ms. Lori Peddicord to serve as Delaware Municipal Electric Corporation (DEMEC) Alternate Director. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare and Lewis absent). FIRST READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2017-12 Council President Slavin reminded the public that copies of the proposed ordinance were available at the entrance of the Council Chambers, on the City’s website at www.cityofdover.com under “Government,” or by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at 736-7008 or cityclerk@dover.de.us. Since the ordinances are amendments to the Zoning Code, a public hearing is required. Staff recommended referral of the amendments to the Planning Commission on September 18, 2017 and that a public hearing be set for the Council Meeting of October 9, 2017 at 7:30 p.m., at which time final action by Council will take place. Mr. Neil moved to refer the amendments and set a public hearing before City Council for October 9, 2017 at 7:30 p.m., as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson 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 #2017-12 AMENDING APPENDIX B - ZONING, ARTICLE 5 - SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE 6 - OFF-STREET PARKING, DRIVEWAYS AND LOADING FACILITIES (LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE) ACTING CITY MANAGER'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Acting City Manager, thanked the City staff, the Library staff, the Public Works staff, the Police Department, the volunteers and everybody else that was involved in the Comic Con event. She noted that they put a lot of hard work into the event and it was very successful. Mrs. Mitchell advised that Street Program work is in progress at Wyoming Avenue and Lincoln Street will follow once Wyoming Avenue is completed. She noted that the Lincoln Street Sanitary Sewer repairs are anticipated to start on September 1, 2017. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the Silver Lake Dam Unit's preconstruction meeting is scheduled for later in the week and there will be a drawdown in October. She advised that the water system flushing will start in October, as well as the leaf collection. COUNCIL MEMBERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS Council President Slavin wished Mayor Christiansen a happy birthday on September 4, 2017.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 29 Mr. Anderson thanked the members of Council for their move to ensure that the regulations on businesses are modernized. Mr. Anderson advised that, sometime in the near future, the Fourth District would be doing a business tour with some of the City Staff to hear concerns that have been expressed to them. In Councilman Lewis’ absence, and at his request, Mr. Anderson read, in part, a statement provided by Councilman Lewis, as follows: “I believe it is important that the following statement be read into the record since I am not in attendance at this evenings council meeting and would like for the people that I represent to be aware of the reason for my recent absence.” As the president mentioned, “Last week my mom passed away to meet her creator and today I am finishing the final arrangements for her journey home. The last couple of weeks have been very sad and difficult for my family and I. I had to leave the state of Delaware and travel to Florida where my mom resided. She became ill and was placed on a ventilator, then Hospice care. I would hope that everyone understands family comes first, and again, it's a very sad time for me. So everyone is aware, on Thursday, August 10th, I notified Council President Slavin and copied City Solicitor Rodriguez of my mother's illness. I asked Council President Slavin if I could be excused from the August 14, 2017 Council meeting and this evening's regular Council meeting, for I knew I would be out of town and didn’t want any problems for missing the meetings. Council President Slavin responded in an email with “no problem” and said my family and I would be in his thoughts and prayers, which I sincerely appreciated. While down in Florida caring for my mom at her bedside, I had my cell phone on me at all times and randomly checked my e-mails and text messages on my phone. I received emails from Councilman Slavin inquiring how I was doing and received text messages from Councilmen Sudler and Anderson asking the same. During my absence from Delaware, I received no communication from Mr. Christiansen or Mr. Lindell pertaining to the evening's agenda item Proposed Amendment to Committees, Commissions and Boards Appointment Process.” And he was forwarded a message about the article in the Delaware State News where it was said “he doesn't seem to be anywhere to get ahold of,” referring to him in a newspaper article. Basically, he thinks that, he said he checked, and he certainly would have responded to a text or email message from Mr. Lindell or the mayor, "If they reached out to me like in the past." He reviewed his phone messages, even junk mail, and found no such record regarding the agenda item. And, we did defer the agenda item, so that's appreciated. And there will be more to be said about that. He says, "I personally believe that the current process that was previously voted on by a unanimous vote be left in place. I believe this issue has been politicized by the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 30 Mayor and have not seen any documented complaints since the process was implemented back in October, 2016. The only comment I have heard was from the Mayor indicating one of his Fourth of July Committee appointees declined to fill out an updated application for whatever reason. On another note, to my recollection, when this process was put in place, there was no objection by the Mayor or anyone else. Why now?” Mr. Anderson asked that the e-mail, in its entirety, be made a part of the record (Exhibit #4). Mr. Neil stated that he concurred with the Acting City Manager’s remarks about Comic Con, noting that he attended and it was a marvelous program that continues to bring people into the City. He noted that Thunder Over Dover was an extraordinary event that brought thousands of people to Dover and the personnel at Dover Air Force Base could not have been better representatives of the service people in our country. Mr. Lindell advised that, if he had known that Mr. Lewis' mother was sick, which he did not know until he received the email advising that she had passed away, he would definitely have moved to change the agenda back on August 10th, or made an outreach. He noted that he had been blocked on Facebook, which makes it hard to reach out and make contact. Mr. Lindell advised that he lost his mom in May, and that August 28th was her birthday. He stated that anyone knows that he is not going to be callous when it comes to these things; however, it is hard to communicate when the other person does not want to communicate. Mr. Lindell advised that, over the weekend, he and his family attended Whatcoat United Methodist Church's Community Day and the hospitality and service were great and his daughter had a great time. He stated that he was definitely looking forward to going back next year for the same event. Mr. Sudler moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. TRACI A. McDOWELL CITY CLERK

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2017 PAGE 31 All ordinances, resolutions, motions, and orders adopted by City Council during their Regular Meeting of August 28, 2017, are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /TM S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Council-Minutes\2017\08-28-2017 Council Minutes.wpd Exhibits Exhibit #1 - Property Information Provided by Sue Harris Exhibit #2 - Affirmatively Further Fair Housing in Delaware Provided by Sue Harris Exhibit #3 - Governing Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management Exhibit #4 - E-Mail from Councilman Brian Lewis dated August 28, 2017

EXHIBIT #1 Regular Council Meeting of 08/28/2017 I I City of Dover Property Tax Account History FY 2016 FY 2017 231 N Queen Street 08/17/15 $14933.26 14 S Queen St 08/17/15 $16210.00 67 S Queen St 10/14/15 $7500.00 45 S Queen St 10/14/15 $7500.00 24 N New St 10/13/15 $10500.00 27 N New St 10/14/15 $7500.00 101 S Queen ST 10/14/15 $7500.00 212 N Gov Ave 11/02/2015 28805.96 325 N New St 08/16/2016 $17583.19 08/22/2016 $33672.82 1128 Forrest AVE 02/24/2016 $6149.10 10/12/2016 $25084.86 1126 Forrest Ave 02/24/16 $5130.92 10/12/2016 $1187.61 1124 Forrest Ave 02/24/2016 $1972.12 10/12/2016 $19160.49 10/13/2016 $16164 .19 $113701.4 $112853.20 $226554.50

Page 1 of I Account History Inquiry City of Dover· ~( ;ov ror tal Acc ou11t ID fll 78 Tilx MoJJ Numlier f.D-05-0/G.08-02 -38ll.000 -ll00 Penclrr1<J $ (l.00 Address 231 N QUEEN SI Taxes $ 0.00 Owner nmne NA rIONAL COUNCIL ON AG UFE & Penalty $ 0.00 Add to Total Due $ 0.00 My Properties NQ Payment Due ·J: :JJI J11:J :l•Jol '!;l •I : 01 If you howe any questions, call Customer Service .it (30 2) /3(}-7035 Click on a payment or bill to view more details D0fl') 1yL)f' Y1~1H' i'enod /l !-il,)>1;)' 7/17/17 Payment $ 55 89 - 8/02./16 Payment $572. 30 - 8/02/16 Payment $ 572 30 - 8/02/16 Payment $ 572.JO - 8/02/16 Payment $ 572.30 - 8/07/15 Payment $14,933 .26 - 4 8/07/15 8/07/15 Payment Payment $14,933.2G - $14,933.26 - 8/07 /15 Payment $14,933.26 - 8/07/ 15 Payment $14,93 3.26 - 8/07/15 Payment $14,933.26 - 7/05/12 Payment $ 237 14 - 4/25/12 Payment $ 582. 59 - 4/25/12 Payment $ 582. 59 - 4/25/12 Payment $ 582.59 - 8/31/10 Payment $ 269.00 - 6/30/09 Payment $ 269.50 - 6/12/08 Payment $ 269.SO - 6/06/07 Payment $ 269.50 - 10/27/05 Payment $ 238.27 - 7/29/04 Payment $ !67.28 - 7/31/03 Payment $ 167 .28 - 7/29/02 Payment $ 16/ .14 - 7 /25/01 Payment $ 126.04 - 7/13/00 Payment $ 126.04 - 7/30/99 Payment $ 126.04 - 7/23/98 Payment $ l26 .04 - Ir - - - - - 1 I (i~ Copyngi1l ).000 .. 20 06 Cltv .:.>I [l(l\11.~r, DP:.~w .ire ,\11 n19ht.s He:~erv..:~d I Pnvm.y Polley & Terms of Use I Top of page ! I https://sccurc.cityofdover.com/inde ... 2017-08-18

Page I o I' ·- Own er :I. i'll.'lmc: Inational ' ! ..• v Search J I Reset i'ropci'ty Detail: Parcel ID: Card: S t rce~ Numbc.,,·: Str <:.'. •I. N;im,~ : Zon i ng: LUC: Acres: EDOS-076.08-02-38.00 231 N QUEEN ST RG-1 RESIDENTIAL VACANT LAND 0.17 Owner Information: Property lm;1ges: Owner 1 Name: NATIONAL COUNCIL ON AG LIFE & Picture: Owner 2 Name: LABOR RESEARCH FUND INC Valuation: Appraised Land: $13,800.00 Appraised Bldg: $0.00 Total: $13,800.00 Sketch: There is no sketch available. Sales History: Boole Page: Sa!e Date: Price: Valitlit:y: S;ile Type I&S 26 008 09/28/2012 T 2 VL-8188 114 07/18/2016 T 2 VL-7753 110 08/04/20lS 20,000 L 2 http://dover.ias-clt.com/parccl .dcta ... 2017-08-18

Page I ul' I Home tog111 P.ay Ut.1ity f1 I ax 8dlE; Property Taxes HC!lp :;,,, Support Account History Inquiry Cily of Dover eGov Portal Acr.o11nl llJ 11350 T<lX Milp Nulllbcr ED -05-076.08-06-'l 10.000-000 Pend1n9 $ O.DO Address 1'l S QU~N ST Taxes $ 0.00 Owner nanle NATIONAL COUNCIL ON AG llFE & Penalty $ 0.00 Total Due $ 0.00 "- Ad<1 to, NQ Payment Due :1.:JIUi l':J My Properties '!l·/1l ' 1;1 ;, W! If you have any questions, call Customer Service at (302) 736· 703'j Click on a paylllent or bill lo view more details D~ i tt! ·iync Yt:?tlr f' er!o(i •\/M l >H\ L 8/17/15 Payment $16,210.00. d 8/17/15 Payment $16,210.00 - 10/20/14 Payment $ 124 .63 . 10/20/14 Payment $ 124.b:l . 8/08/14 Payment $ 25.00 . 2/06/13 Payment $ 135.87 . 12/05/11 Payment $13218 · 9/23/10 Payment $ 129.58 - 9/23/10 Payment $ 129.58 - 11/04/09 Payment $ 313.29 - 11/04/09 Payment $ 313.29 . 9/17 /07 Payment $ 143.10. 9/28/06 Payment $ 120.01 . 8/10/05 Payment $ 285.88 . 8/10/05 Payment $ 285.88 . 8/10/05 Payment $ 285.88 - 7/18/03 Payment $ 124.53 . 8/14/02 Payment $ 128.02 - 8/14/02 Payment $ 128.02 . 5/08/02 Payment $ 107.29 . 7/13/00 Payment $ 94.53 - 7/27/99 Payment $ 94.53 . 7/31/98 Payment $ 94.53. _s_.,_,c_h_Re_su_ns_,I ·-~~~ I 1---------·-J__ _ _ _ __ - - - - ----·-- -·----- © Copynght 2000 · 2006 C~ty of Dovef, Dt!law··'.l r~ . All Rights fle~; erv·:~cl Privacy Policy & Terms or Use I Top of page https://sccure.cityofdover.com/inde ... 2017-08-18

Page I of' l Do" fer , DE · I-' SSF.·ssor Da tabase Propc rt\l e a r ch : Pa r e~ ! ID : Own er 1 Nam e: Street N mnhe r : ~ t reet N arn e: ___J L.____ . JJ __. I~ QU EEN ST vi Prope rly Deta H: Pa ree! J.O: Ca r d : Street Number: Streei: N;irne : Zon ing : LUC : EDOS -076.08-06-41.00 14 S QUEEN ST RG -1 EXEMPT VACANT 0.09 Owner lnf<>rrm1tion : Propert:v Images: Owner l Name: CENTRAL DEL HAB FOR HUMANITY Picture : There is no picture available . Owner 2 Name : Sketch: Valu a t i on: There is no sketch available. Appraised Lcind: $10,400 .00 Appraised Bldg: $0.00 Total : $10,400.00 Sales Histo ry: Book: Sale Date: Pri ce: V;ilidity: Sale Type: VL-7726 42 07/23/2 015 10,600 L 2 The information delivered through this on - line database is provided in th e spirit of open i.lccess to govel'nmenl inform ation <111tl is intended as an enhanced service and convenience for citizens of Dover, DE. T1·1e providers of this database: Tyler CLT, Big Room Studios , and Dover, DE assurne no liatJility for any error or omission in the information provided Ile re. Com me nts regard ing this service should be directed to: t im @b igroomstudios.com Fri. Au gust t8, 2 0 17 : 11 :4 S AM : 0.13s: llrnb http: // dover. ias-cl t.com/parcel.deta ... 2017-08-18

Page 4of12 In vestigation by City staff revealed that Ms . Buchanan is correct and her assessment has been revised i n accordance with the co rr ect square footage comp utation ( 14 3 . 03 square feet of 4 " thick concrete and 4 0 . 4 0 squ are feet of 6 " thick concrete) . Also, the sidewalk which was damaged by City t rucks was paid for by t he Cit y and was n ot assessed to t he property owner. A letter was re ce ived from the property owner withdrawing the appeal. No action by Council was ne cessary . 917 S. Bradford Street - Roy Powell An appeal was received from Ro y Powell for s idewalk repairs at 917 S. Bradford Street. Mr. Powell was assessed for 132. 31 square feet of 4" thick concrete at $3. 50 and 30. 0 square feet of 6" thick concrete at $3.75 per square foot, for a total of $575.58. Mr. Powell did not appeal the amount of the assessment, but objected to the construction of the new sidewalk which has caused ponding of water on the sidewalk. Mr. 0' Connor stated that City staff has worked with Mr. Powell and the drainage problem has been corrected. Mr. Powell has agreed to pay the assessment for the replacement of sidewalk. No action by Council was necessary. PUBLIC HEARING - VIOLATION OF DANGEROUS BUILDING ORDINANCE - 14 S. QUEEN -------~ STREET A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider a violation of the Dangerous Building ordinance at 14 S. Queen Street, c--- - - - - -- --__:..·--- owned by Charles E. Murphy, Sr. The Building Inspector, Mr. De Prima, showed slides depicting the structural deterioration throughout the building including rotted timbers, falling ceilings, broken windows and ~ extensive deterioration. The rear of the structure has windows broken out and vagrants sleeping in and around the structure. It is the 11 Building Inspector's opinion that the structure is a fire hazard. The '" ' ' estimated cost of demolition is $7,500. Mr. DePrima pointed out that the lien search is incomplete at this time. The City Solicitor recommended that Council move forward with the public hearing and that the lien search could be completed at a later date. Responding to Mr. Salters, Mr. DePrima stated that rehabilitation costs for the structure would exceed 50 % of its value. Council President Christiansen declared the hearing open. There was no one present wishing to speak during the public hearing. Council President Christiansen declared the hearing closed. https ://www. cityofdover. com/regul... 2017-08-18

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 10, 2015 PAGE4 Mr. Hutchison expressed his opinion that this information could be helpful in the future. Mr. Sudler questioned what one (1) of the major issues was that was identified by the African-American business owners in the downtown area in regard to conducting business in the City of Dover, or an issue related to engaging, encouraging, or advocating for individuals of African-American, Hispanic, or minority descent. In response, Dr. Casson advised members that this study was actually focused on the services and programs that were coming out of the City. Mr. Sudler questioned if a survey could be conducted or if questions could be asked to get current feedback from African-American business owners and minority owners as a whole. Dr. Casson stated that this request went directly to the recommendations of the study in terms of the inclusion plan . He indicated that this would bring the stakeholders to the table to talk about the strategic plan and the focus for addressing some of the needs pertaining to African-American business and workforce development. Dr. Casson encouraged members to consider the economic inclusion plan, which would include the type of surveys that Mr. Sudler mentioned to gather infonnation and find out why African Americans were or were not being engaged. Mr. Hare moved to recommend acceptance of the report as presented, seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. Request to Waive Demolition Liens - 27 North New Street and 45, 67, and 101 South Queen Street Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, advised members that the City had been working in the Downtown Development District (DDD) to improve a number of different components in this area and a number of structures had been demolished there over the last few years. Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity, Inc. had offered to purchase four (4) properties from Dr. Joe Burden, Jr. Under the proposal, the liens would be transferred from Dr. Burden to Habitat, and Habitat would then pay the City of Dover $7,500 for each of the four lots (4), for a total of$30,000. The subject properties were 27 North New Street and 45, 67, and 101 South Queen Street. Each of the properties had been encumbered by a demolition lien due to prior dangerous building declarations. A summary of the offer and associated write-off amounts was as follows: Address Offer Price Total City Lien Write-Off City's 2015 Amount Amount Assessed Land Value 27 N. New Street $ 7,500 $ 22,274.97 $ 14,774.97 $ 13,100 r\"' -'45 S. Queen Street $ 7,500 $ 13,862.18 $ 6,362.18 $ 11,900 67 S. Queen Street $ 7,500 $ 14,348.46 $ 6,848.46 $ 13,800 IOI S. Queen Street $ 7,500 $ 15,684.02 $ 8,184.02 $ 13,400 Totals $ 30,000 $ 66, 169.63 $ 36,169.63

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 10, 2015 PAGES Mr. Koenig advised members that, while the write-off would be substantial, the long tenn benefit of the proposal outweighed the financial impact of this write-off. Mr. Koenig stated that it was staffs strong belief, from an administrative standpoint, that transfening this property would be a good thing for the City of Dover. He noted that the City had preached home ownership in this area and Habitat would virtually guarantee long-tenn home ownership. Staff recommended authorizing the properties to be transfened from Dr. Joe Burden, Jr. to Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity without collecting the City's liens against the properties in exchange for a payment of $30,000 from Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity ($7,500 per parcel). In response to Mr. Shevock regarding whether Dr. Burden owned any other properties in the City, Mr. Koenig stated that Dr. Burden owned a substantial amount of property within the City. Responding to Mr. Shevock as to whether either the write-off or the total lien amount could be transfened to Dr. Burden's other properties and attached for payment, Mr. Koenig stated his belief that this could not be done. He expressed his opinion, in the larger context of dealing with distressed properties, that this would not be a good precedent to start and was unsure if the City could legally do this. Mr. Koenig stated that staff had talked to Mr. William Pepper, Deputy City Solicitor, about this particular transaction and there was no legal reason that the City could not transfer a lien from one (I) property owner to another and then forgive the lien. Mr. Koenig advised members that Dr. Burden had been working with staff and had paid all of his FY 15 taxes. He stated his belief that Dr. Burden had paid FY 16 taxes on all but the subject properties; therefore, progress had been made in a number of areas. Mr. Koenig indicated staff's belief that this land transfer would clear the water in some cases and provide a fast forward to home ownership on these four (4) Jots. He stated that if the City continued to pursue the liens and forced a tax sale, there would be no guarantee that those purchasing the properties would occupy them, as they could be rentals. Mr. Koenig reiterated, under the proposal, that the City would be virtually guaranteed home ownership. Mr. Sudler stated that he was glad that Dr. Burden and the City of Dover had reached an understanding and agreement and were working together. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend approval of Staff's recommendation to authorize the properties to be transferred from Dr. Joe Burden, Jr. to Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity without collecting the City's liens against the properties in exchange for a payment of $30,000 from Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity ($7,500 per parcel). The motion was seconded by Mr. Cole and unanimously carried. Disposition of City Owned Land - Property Located at 710 and 715 Slaughter Street Members were informed that the City of Dover acquired properties located at 710 and 715 Slaughter Street at a monition sale due to liens for taxes and demolition expenses. Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, stated that these were excess properties, as the City had no use for them and would be better served by the properties being redeveloped and restored as taxable properties.

Page 1of 3 KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE 555 Bay Road, DoYcr, Delaware 19901-3615 (302) 744-2300 -- FAX (302) 736-2279 "Serving Kent County With Pride" PROPERTY INFORMATION Pl anning and Building Permits Informati on Reference# ED EAST DOV ER HUNDRED Card# I of l Location ID l 3869 Map Number 2-05-07608-06-4100-0000 I Tax ID 13869 Deed BVP D 7726 0042 Property .P arcel ID 39361 X- EXEMPT Code Current Owner Property Location Q CENTRAL DELAWARE HABITAT FOR, 14 QUEEN ST ..,~ 544 WE BBS LN DOVER, DE 19901 DOVER, DE I 9904 Zoning RGI Acres .09 Additional Owner Sub-Division COMEGYS LOTS Sales History 11 11 I!Liv.Sq.Ft 11.0000 I Date Price 11 Assessment j jTotal Rooms II I 7/29/15 10,600J 1Land 11 1,900l IBedrooms II I 0100100 oj !Buildings 11 I!Full Bath II I I ITotal 11 1,900l 1Half Bath II I jBase Tax Due 11 .ooj !Last Billing Detail I!History I[Farm Info I jTax Penalt~ 11 .ool jTotal Tax Bal. 11 .ooj jsewer Balance 11 .ool lsewer Account# 11 Ii I jNeighborhood # 1100214 !coordinates 11 I10467487 E 0422470 N I !Land Use 11 jLot Dimensions 11 110000025. 00 000015 0. 00 I !Living Units 11 !School District IIt 8 J ICAPITOL I !class IIResiden jFire District 146 j jROBBINS HOSE (DOVER)j !Plat Book Pg 1100000 !sewer District 100 liNONE I !Topography I!Level !Ambulance District 146 ] !ROBBINS HOSE (DOVER)j !street or Road I!Paved jTrash District I Ii I !Fronting IIResiden jLight District I Ii i !Improvement IIv ACANTj !commissioner Dist loo Ii i http ://kent400.co .kent.de. us/cgi-bin ... 2016-09-09

Pa!.!.e 1 ol' I Account History Inquiry City of Dover e(;ov Portill Account ID LOSO 1 ax Milp Number ED-05 -07/ .O'l· 01·O10.000-000 Pendinq $ 0.011 Address 67 s Quu:N ST Taxes $ 0.00 Owner name CEN"IRAL DEL HAB FOR HUMANl'IY Peni1lty $ 0.00 Total Due $ 0.00 - l\.dQ ~Q No Payment Due · 1; l i IJj Ii ~J • My Properties ".ll·Jd •1 ;ri; l h If you have any questions, Cdll Customer Service at (30 2) 116-70:35 Click on a pilyment or hill to view more clctilils Date Tyf)t-:' Year Pt:!n o d t\r!H. Hll lt #' 10/14/15 Payment $7,500.00 - ' 10/1'1/1~ Payment $7,500.00 . 10/14/15 Payment $7 ,500.00 - 2/03/14 Payment $ .108.83 - 2/03/14 Payment $ 308.83 - 12/28/12 Payment $ 291.47 - 3/12/12 Payment $ 307.97 - 8/31/10 Payment $ 274.97 - 6/08/10 Payment $ 9.94 - 2/01/10 Payment $217 .95- 7/31/08 Payment $ 208.56 - 7/31/07 Payment $ 208.56 - 9/01/06 Payment $ 214.82 - 11/30/05 Payment $ 217.95 - 7/30/04 Payment $ 174.68 - 8/29/03 Payment $ 177 .30 - 7/31/02 Payment $ 174.68 - 7/31/01 Payment $ 127.41 - 9/22/00 Payment $ 131.23 - 8/31/99 Payment $ 126 .54 - 10/31/98 Payment $ 130.28 - (C) Cooynght 2000 · 2006 Oty or Dover, Dt.~ldware. AH Right~ R<."se1vcd . Pnva(y Polley & Terms of Use I Top of page https://secure.cityofdover.com/inde ... 2017-08-18

Page 1 or I Property Ta.xes Help & Support Account History Inquiry r City of Dover eGov Portal Ac:rn11nt ID 1910 Ac:cou nt -=-)1H1Hn .-1ry rax Map Numller ED-05·076.08·05 · 730.000 -000 Pendin9 $ 0.00 Address 45 ~ QUEEN sr Taxes $ 0.00 Owner name I'll !:; MILFORD llOUSING DEV CO RP J>enillty $ 0.00 Total Due $ 0.00 No Payment Due u ..Ul 111 ii'.J 'Hj11 ~: ' it!Jf ., If you have any questions, call Customer Servi ce at (302) 736· 7035 Click on a payment or bill to view more details Date l"yµc~ Year Period Amoun t 10/14/15 Payment $7 ,500 .00 . 61 10/14/15 Payment $7,500.00 . 10/14/15 Payment $7,500.00 . 2/03/14 Payment $ 220 .98. 11/16/12 Payment $ 211.98. 12/2 3/11 Payment $ 215.17 . 12/23/11 Payment $ 215 .17 . 7 /05/11 Payment $ 3.27. 9/02/10 Payment $ 199.98 . 12/31/09 Payment $ 181.20 . 7/31/08 Payment $ 170.94 . 7/31/07 Payment $ 170.94 . 9/01/06 Poyment $ 176.07 . 11/30/05 Payment $ 178.63 . 7/30/04 Payment $ 163.58. 8/29/03 Payment $ 166.03 . 7/31/02 Payment $ 163.72 . 11/15/01 Payment $ 115.77 . 7/10/01 Payment $ 287 .71. 7/10/01 Payment $ 287.71 . 12/2 9/99 f'ayrnent $ 100.00 • 12/29/99 Payment $ 100 .00 . fl/0 4/99 Payment $ 50.00 - (9 Copyright 2000 · 2006 City of Dove r, Delaware. All Rights Re::;2rved. Pr'ivacv Policy & Terms of Use I Top of page https ://secure.cityofdover.com/inde ... 2017-08-18

Page 1 nf I Account History Inquiry City of Dover ec;ov J>ort<ll J\ccou11t. m '\c• nu !'l S11n, m;. u r· Tax Map Number E0 -05 -076.08-05·!80.000·000 PendtrHJ $ 0.00 Aclclress 24 N Nf:W ST Taxes $ 0 .(10 Owner name SAFFll:LD,110WARD r & SUE M Penalty $ 0 .00 {:.) Adq tQ Total Due $ 0.00 ·1 : , 1!I iJ1 ::.J ~-:-:. My Properties No Payment Due ii•J•l 'l;J ;! u~ i If you 11ave any questions, call Customer Service at (302) 736··7035 Click on a payment or bill to view more details D.:1te l y1>e Year l ' P,f!(id An10 ; 11tt 7/28/17 Payment $ 44.SS • ·*10/13/15 Payment $10,500 .00 . 4/15/13 Payment $ 228.12. 3/13/12 Payment $ 483. :l!l . 3/13/12 Payment $ 483 .38 . 3/26/10 Payment $ 222.07 . 2/24/09 Payment $ 222 .07 - 4/09/08 Payment $228 . 10- 4/09/07 Payment $ 477.57 - 4/09/07 Payment $ 477.57 • 6/30/06 Payment $ 100.00. 6/30/06 Payment $ 100.00 . 5/03/06 Payment $ 100.00 . 2/14/06 Payment $ JOO 00 · 10/03/03 Payment $ 226.00 . 3/05/03 Payment $ 401.00 - 3/05/03 Payment $ 401.00 - 6/05/02 Payment $ 25.00 . 8/29/01 Payment $ 200.00 - 8/29/01 Payment $ 200.00 - 3/29/00 Payment $ 66.34 • 9/10/99 Payment $ 50.00 - 8/24/99 Payment $ 50.00 · 11/20/98 Payment $ 166.28 . ' l Searcn Resulls / .~~!_::~~~ j \f.) CorvricJhl 2000 2006 C! tv of Dov(:r, De l,w.,.,;! t~ /\ ti H r9!HS !,'.f.!!> l ~ l\1t;d_ Pri vacy Policy & T8ni1 s t 1f IJSe 1 Top of µage https://secure.cityofdover.com/indc ... 2017-08-18

Pagl! 1 ol' 1 Hom\! l ogin l"'ay Utility ~( "ra:ii Btllk ~ropcrly ra x e~. H~!p ~ SupprJr l I Account History Inquiry City of Dover eGov Portal I l\ccount ID Tax Map Number 21 :i?. U)-05·076.08-05 · 360.000·0IJO Pending 'f, 0.(l(l l\ddres!; 27 N NEW ST laxes $ 0.00 Owner narne WlSIER,t-ICNRY f, LINDI\ re11alt.y $ 0.00 Ad,d tq Total Due $ 0.00 No Payroent Due !J .:..;j l j,1~ My Properti~ ·)t jif 11;1 "i:~ 1 :t If you have ;rny ~u es tions, call Custorner Service at (302) 736 -/035 Clrck on a payment or bill to viP.w more details Date Ty pt• Y.:.~ d l r e rio l l\n 1 oun~ 7/25/17 Payrnenl $ 53.06 - 10/14/15 Payment $7,500.00 .. ·* 10/14/15 Payment $7,500 .00 - 10/14/15 Payment $7,500 .00 - 2/03/14 Payment $ 289. 87 - 2/03/14 Payment $ 289.87 - 12/28/12 Payment $ 273.56 - 3/12/12 Payment $ 289 .05 . 8/31/10 Payment $ 258.08 - 6/08/10 Payment $ 9.0S - 2/01/10 Payment $ 198.29 - 7/31/08 Payment $ 189.75 - 7/31/07 Payment $ 189.75 - 9/01/06 Payment $ 195.44 - 11/30/05 Payment $ 198.29 - 7/30/04 Payment $ 180.84 - 8/29/03 Payment $ 183.55 - 7/31/02 Payment $ 180.84 - 7/31/01 Payment $ 138.37 - 9/22/00 Payment $ 142.52 . 8/31/99 Payment $ 140.45 - 10/31/98 Payment $ 144.60 - ' ~ eaich Results j NeN Se;uch ' f l (9 Copynghl .WOO · 2006 City of Dover, Delaware . Ali Rights R 1~_;e r\/ e ~1 Privacy Policy & Terms of Use I Top of page https://secure.cityofclover.com/inde ... 2017-08-18

I' age I o I' 2 Dover, DE P ;:irc.c i ID : Owne r :t N;urie : ~-------' IN NEW ST vi !..Search 11 Reset Prop ~ rty Oct;;i!: Parce l ID : Cilrd: Sirnet N um ber : St r eet Nam(! : Zo n ing : LIJ C: Acres: EDOS-076.08-05-36.00 27 N NEW ST RG-1 NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS 0.16 Owner Information: Property I mages: Owner 1 Name: CENTRAL DEL HAB FOR HUMANITY Pic ture: Owner 2. Name: Valuation: Appraised Land: $13,100.00 Appraised Bldg: $0.00 Total: $13,100.00 Ske tch : There is no sketch available. Sales History: Book: Page : Sa le D<l t c : Price: Val i dity: Sil ie Tyµ WB Q 010 164 11 / 07/ 2011 u 2 l&S 026 40 3 03/25/2015 T 2 VL-7817 310 09/29/2015 K http://dover.ias-clt.com/parcel .deta ... 2017-08-18

Page l ol l Account History Inquiry City of Dover eClov Portal Account II) l.. 1]6 rax Map N111111Jer rn -05 -077.09-01 -020.ooo-ooo Pc11d111q $ 0.00 . ,,~JJ.W rr 1.i 1 Address 10 l S QU_I'lN S] _ Taxes Penalty $ 0.00 $ 0.00 ~ I Owner name NATIONAi_ COUNCIL ON AG L!F[ & ~ ...........'""" I Total Due $ 0.00 i. !:: ~ Md to My Properties No Payment Due I If you have any questions , call Cu~torncr Service ,it (302) '/ 36-7035 Click on a payment or bill to view mor~ details !1-'l tc ·1ype Yea r f\~ ri od .l\rno:..nt 10/14/15 Pay1nent $7,500.00 - 0l' io/14/15 Payment $7 ,500.00 - 10/14/15 Payment $7,500.00 - 2/03/14 Payment $ 275.48 - 9/25/12 Payment $ 256.78 - 3/12/12 Payment $ 279.22 - 8/31/10 Payment $ 249.30 - 12/31/09 Payment $ 175.95 - 7/31/08 Payment $ 165.99 - 7/31/07 Payment $ 16$.99 - 9/01/06 Payment $ 170.97 - 11/30/05 Payment $ 17346 - 7/30/04 Payment $ 177.55 - 8/29/03 Payment $ 180 .21 - 7/31/02 Payment $177.42- 7/31/01 Payment $ 130.84 - 9/22/00 Payment $ 134.77 - 8/31/99 Payment $ 132.80 - 10/31/98 Payment $ 125.27 • _J_ (~) Copynyht 2000 · 200G Citv of Dover, Delaware . All Rights Rc~eived Pnv~cy Policy & Terms of Use I Top of page https ://secure.ci tyofdover.com/inde ... 2017-08-18

J>ag1: I o I' 2 f' roperty Sea rch : Parcel ID : .__ ________. IsQUEEN ST vj Search 11 Reset Property De t ail: Parcel ID: Car d : Str e e t ['lllt rflb e:- : S t·i·t:!Ui Na m e : Zorii119 : LUC : A c n.~ s: EDOS-077 .09-01-02 .00 101 5 QUEEN ST RG-1 NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS 0.16 Owner Information: Pr o perty ! m a gt~s: Own er 1 Name: CENTRAL DEL HAB FO HUMANITY P icture : Owner 2 Name: Valuation: Af>praised Land: $13,400.00 Appraised Bldg: $0.00 Total: $13,400 .00 5 k e t.d1: There is no sketch available . Sales History: Boo I<: Page: Sale Date: f>rice : V<i lid it y: Sal(! Typ e WB Q 010 164 11/07/2011 u 2 l&S 026 403 03/25/2015 T 2 VL-7817 304 09/30/2015 K http:!/dover. ias-clt.com/parcel .deta ... 2017-08-18

Page l of 3 KENT COlJNTY, DELAWARE 555 Bay ]~oad, Dover, Delaware 19901-3615 (302) 744-2300 -- FAX (302) 736-2279 "Serving Kent Coun(v With Pride" PROPERTY INFORMATION Planning and Building; Permits Information Reference# ED EAST DOVER HUNDRED Card# I of I Location ID 17247 Map Number 2-05-07709-01-0200-00001 Tax ID 17247 Deed BVP D 7817 0304 Property Parcel ID 39376 X- EXEMPT Code Current Owner Property Location .• CENTRAL DELAWARE HABITAT, FOR 101 QUEEN ST · 7I' 544 WEBBS LN DOVER, DE 19904 DOVER, DE 19904 Zoning RGI Acres .16 Additional Owner Sub-Division Sales History 11 II j jLiv.Sq.Ft 11.0000 I Date Price 11 Assessment I!Total Rooms II I 10/08/15 10! ILand 11 2,6ooj jBedrooms II I 3/25/15 ol lnuildings 11 IIFull Bath II I I!Total 11 2,6ool 1Half Bath II I JBase Tax Due 11 .ool !Last Billing Detail 1IHistocyl jFarm Info I !Tax Penalty 11 .ool !Total Tax Bal. II .ool !sewer Balance 11 .00 !sewer Account# 11 I I jNeighborhood # 1100214 le oo rdina tes 11 j0467847 E 0421976 N I jLancl Use 11 ILot Dimensions 11 10000041.0000001 s i.50 I !Living Units 11 !School District I[18 !CAPITOL I jciass J IResiden jFire District 146 jROBBINS HOSE (DOVER)! !Plat Book Pg 1100000 !sewer District loo !!NONE I jTopography I!Level jArnbulance District J46 J jROBBINS HOSE (DOVER)! !Street or Road J IPaved !Trash District I I1 I jFronting J JResiden 1·J Light District I 11 I !Improvement J Jv ACANTI Jcommissioner Dist Joo 11 I http://kent400.co.kent.de.us/cgi-bin ... 2016-09-09

Page 1 or I Account History Inquiry C:1ty of l) owr p(;ov 1•011,11 i\cco1Jnt II) rax Map Number El>-05-0"16 .08-02-170.000-000 Pendinq $ o.oo Address 212 N GOVfRNORS AVc Taxes $ ll.00 Owner 11dl11P. SAMi\lN,JUSllN Penelly $ 0.00 ·rotill Due $ 0 .00 Add to No Paymi;:nt Due, :1:__\Jl!j 1I: ) My Properties J J!~ol 't;t :1-. r-i lf you have any Q1Jest1ons, call Customer Service at (302) 736- 7035 Clic.k on a payment or bill to view more details Pa l l' l"ype Yea r p,~ ho rl J\niount 7/20/17 Payment $ 43 . 74 - 7/18/16 Payment $ 40.98 - 11/23/15 Payment $ 2.76 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805 .96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805. 96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805 .96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805. 96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805.96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805.96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805.96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805. 96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805.96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805.96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805. 96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805.96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805.96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805.96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805. 96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805. 96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805 .96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805.96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805. 96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805.96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805.96 - 11/02/15 Payment $28,805. 96 - 7/30/12 Payment $ 335.77 - J/27/11 Payment $ 335.7! - 1/28/11 Payment $ 11.93 - 10/29/10 Payment $ 849.52 - 10/29/10 Payment $ 849.52 - 12/11/08 Payment $ 457.63 - 6/18/08 Payment $ 495.94 - 8/17/06 Payment $ 432.09 - 8/25/05 Payment $ 425_70 - 7/28/04 Payment $ 345.2•1 - 7/23/03 Payment $ 345.24 - 7/08/02 Payment $ 345.24 . 7/31/01 Payment $ 334.97 - 7/31/00 Payment $ 334 .97 - 7/30/99 Payment $ 334.97 - 7/22/98 Payment $ 310.86 - ~ CopyngM :?OOf) • 200t> Ci ty of L11JVe r , l~el,)yv(\i .;;. r\n Ri~111t ~- Reserved . Privacy Policy & Terms of U~r: i rcip of ,,age https://securc.cityofdover.corn/inde ... 2017-08-18

Page l of l DeJ ver ~ J Pro perty Sea rch: Paree! ID: 0 1!'.m er :ii. Name: Street Numb er : Street N arne: L _______=i L ______, [~.?- _____. l N GOVE_RNORS AVE vi I Search J I Reset j Property Detai!: Parcei ID: Card: Stree'i: Nll m!Je r: Street i\l a me: Zan i n ~;: LUC: Ac1e s: EDOS-076 .08-02-77 .00 212 N GOVERNORS AV E RG-1 RESIDENTIAL VACANT LAND 0.10 Owner Information: Property Im ages: Owner 1 Name: NCALLRESEARCHINC Picture : Owner 2 N<une: There is no picture available. Sketch: Valuation: There is no sketch available . Appraised Land: $10,800.00 Appraised Bldg: $0.00 Total: $10,800.00 Sales History: Book: Page: Sale Date: V alidity: Sale Type: 02/02/2002 115,000 0 2 RE VL-35 226 08/09/2006 s 2 REVL5704 . 011 01/11/2011 L 2 VL-7840 157 10/20/2015 20,000 L 2 The information delivered through this on - lin e database is provided in t he spi rit of ope n <1ccess to governm ent informa ti on a11li 1s intended as an enhanced service and convenience for citizen s of Dover, OF. . The providers of this database: Tyler CLT, Big Room Studios, and Dover, DE assurne no liabi li t y fo r any error· or omission in the information provided here . Comments regardi ng this service should be clirectc cl tn: tim @bigrooms tudios.com Fri. August 18, 2017: 11:49 AM: 0.16s: llrnll http:!/dover. ias-clt.com/parcel .deta ... 2017-08-18

P~tgc I o!' 2 1)0.V ER POST Neighborhood eyesore at 212 N. Governors Avenue condemned By Antonio Prado/Dover Post Posted Oct 2, 2012 at 3:54 PM Updated Oct 2, 2012 at 4:12 PM Dover officials continue to target problem properties through the city's dangerous buildings ordinance. The latest to be condemned was 212 N. Governors Avenue. THE RUNDOWN The owner of212 N. Governors Ave. has until Oct. 24 to repair or demolish this dilapidated property due to Dover City's Council's recent condemnation of the two story home. Council ordered the property repaired or demolished under the city's dangerous building ordinance at its Sept. 24 meeting. The city Department of Planning & Inspections had condemned the two story, wood framed, single family as unfit for human habitation on July 20 due to the lack of utilities and the amount of broken windows and unsecured doors, Dover Director of Planning & Community Development Ann Marie Townshend said. The property is owned by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, she said. WHAT'S BEING SAID The city has boarded up this property several times, Townshend said. Yet, unknown subjects still entered the dwelling on Aug. 10 and started a fire in the front bedroom of the second floor, causing additional damage to the home, she said. "Currently, the structure is still vacant, with no active utility services and in serious disrepair," Townshend wrote in her report to council. Councilman David Bonar asked if the fire damage to the home was structural in nature or just to the interior of the structure. Townshend said there was no structural damage, but the interior damage was substantial. http://www.doverpost.com/articlc/ ... 20 l 7-08-15

Page 2 n r 2 Councilman Adam Perza asked if the owner had taken any steps to repair the structure. Townshend said no. Councilman David Anderson asked the requisite question of whether proper notice had been given , and Townshend said several letters from the city to the property owner had been returned. City Council then voted 8-0 to condemn the property. (Councilwoman Sophia Russell was absent.) WHAT'S NEXT? The city would order the building inspector to repair or demolish the structure if Deutsche Bank National Trust docs not perform repairs or demolition within 10 days of Oct. 24, Townshend said. If the city goes through with demolition or repairs, the city manager and city solicitor would then recoup the costs of such work through a municipal lean on the property or a lawsuit against the property owner, she said. The cost of demolition is estimated at between $10,000 and $ l 5 ,000. That money, if needed, would come out the $150,000 budgeted in the 2013 fiscal year budget for all demolitions. http://www.doverpost.com/article/ ... 2017-08-15

Pagi...: I ol' 2 Account History Inquiry i\c.count IO 8766 l\ t:C ol int S L.: 1nr.ur y L 1X M~1~ Nu1111J~ 1 r:D ~ OS-061 . 20-0 .1 170 .000· 000 Pe11'dmg ~ 0.00 /\(fdrc<.;; J;5 N NEVJ ~;T raxe.;; $ 0.00 Owner narne CENl DE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY Penalty $ 0.00 Total Due $ 0.00 <1t:: Add to No Paymont Due ~-~ My Properties If you have ony ciuestions, call Customer Service at (302) 736-'10)5 Uick on a payment or bill to vi ew more dota1ls --fHtlf! L/11/17 rrpe P!lyrncnt ' car i\:r.od f\ 1 11~.,unt $ 59.21 - 8/l7./16 Paym en t $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33.672 .82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/lG Payment $33,672.82 . 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Paym en t $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Paym ent $33,672. 82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payrnenl $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Pay ment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/2 2/16 Payment $33,672 .82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672 .82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/22/16 Payment $33,672.82 - 8/16/16 Payment $17 ,583.19 - 8/16/16 Payment $17,583.19 - 8/16/16 Payment $17,583.19 - 8/16/16 Payment $17,583.19 - 8/16/16 Payment $17,583.19 - 8/16/16 Pay ment $17,583.19 - 8/J 6/16 Payment $17,583.19 - 8/16/16 Paym ent $17,583.19 - 8/16/16 Payment $17,583.19 - 8/16/16 Payment $17,583.19 - 8/16/16 Paym ent $17 ,583.19 - 8/16/16 Payment $17,583.19 - 8/16/16 Payment $17.583.19 - 8/16/16 Paym ent $17,583.19 - 8/28/13 Payment $ 571.11 - 8/28/tJ Payment $ 571.11 - l/18/11 Payment $ 258.42 - 8/31/JO Payment $ 258.42 - 7/29/09 Payment $ 316.47 - 7/29/08 Payment $ 316.47 - 5/16/08 Payment $ 784.85 - 5/16/08 Payment $ 784.85 - 2/15/06 Payment $ 500.00 - 2/15/06 Payment $ 500.00 - 2/15/06 Payment $ 127.51 - 9/16/03 Payment $ 3.35 - 8/12/03 Payment $ 219.89 - 4/17 /03 Payrnent $ 249.58 - 7/19/01 Paymnnt $191.80- 7/27/00 Payment $ 191.80 - https://secure.cityofdovcr.com/inde ... 2017-08-18

Page I ol' I PrQpl'rly laxe" Help t'4 Support Account History Inquiry City of Dover e(;ov Portal Account ID 528B Tax Mi1p Nun1ber (l)-05-017. l0-0J ·'.i20 .000-000 Pen<11nq $ 0.00 Address 528 Bl\Y RD laxe5 $6,'.i3'1.1'1 1 Owner name LOS PAISAS l LC Penally $ 2:J. 01 Total Due $6,557.15 ~Pay Biii Add to :/iJJJl1 rJ'.:) My Properties '}i•p l l;J i:.tri-; 1 If you have any questio ns, call Cuslorn<:r Service at (302) 7 36-7035 Click 011 a µ;iyrnent or i)r\I to view more detilils !)ate rype Ye ar Per it1d Arno 111f 'j 8/01/16 Payment $4,726 .87 ' 8/01/16 Payment $4,/26.87 ' 3/21/16 Payment $ 131.91 - 10/01/15 Payment $2,726.87 - 11/24/14 Payn1ent $ 73.31 - 9/10/14 Payrnent $2,38'1.58 - 9/10/14 Payment $2,384.58 - 9/24/13 Payment $2,360.04 ' 9/24/13 Payment $2,360.04 - 9/25/12 Payment $2,291.30 - 8/16/11 Payment $2,391.30 ' 8/16/11 Payment $2,391. 30 . 12/28/10 Payment $ 100.00 . 8/25/10 Payment $2,291 30 . 10/26/09 Payment $ 21.07. 9/16/09 Payment $1 ,384 .02 - 7/29/08 Payment $1,384.02 . 10/16/07 Payrnent $ 42.14. 9/10/07 Payment $1,381\.02 - 7/31/06 Payment $1,384.02. 8/03/05 Payment $1,38'1.02 - 7/26/04 Payment $1,694.55 - 12/15/03 Payment $1,821.22. l 1/20/03 Payment $1,796. 22 . 10/31/02 Payment $1,770.95. 10/02/01 Payment $1,749.76 - 10/06/00 Payment $1,775.25. 8/18/99 Payment $ 25.48 - 8/13/99 Payment $1,698.80. 7/30/98 Payment $1,698.80 . (9 Copyright 2000 · 2006 City ,1f Dover, Delaware. ;\II Ri~Jht':i R~ ~; i:~rv~'!t1 Pnvdcy Policy & Terms of Use i Top of page - -~ -- - - ----- https://secure.cityofdover.corn/inde ... 2017-08-18

Page I or I Account History Inquiry City of Dover eGov Portal /\,~count ID 6386 /\(~1: ot1 n t: ~;un1 11\ ~''" Y Tax Ma1) Nu111ber f'D-05-ff/6. l l ·02-'.i90.000· 000 Pe11rJi11g $ 0.00 /Id dress 1128 FORR[ST /\VE ·raxes $ 0.00 Owner nilme NIST/\ZOS t~OLDINGS LLC Penalty $ 0.00 Add tq Total Due $ 0.00 My Properties No Payment Dulil • f).1l.JrK1! iJ:i or end d l,i~! tH1·.11v··:.:;, ·!ti 'r ·:.:..:JlH1 1'J J!•)•I 'i;: ;l'lf'I If you have any questions, call Customer Service at (302) 736 -7035 Click on a payment or bill to view more details Dutt~ Type Yt:~ i'lr l' eriod An-1ount 7/19/17 Payment $ 337.70 j)( 10/12/16 Payment $25,084.86 . $25,084 .86 . 10/12/16 Payment 10/12/16 Payment $25,084.86 . 10/12/16 Payment $25,084 .86. 10/12/16 Payment $25,084.86. 10/12/16 Payment $25,084.86 - 10/12/16 Pnyment $25,084 .86 - 5/18/16 Payment $ 713.07 - 2/24/16 Payment $6,149.10 - 2/24/16 Payment $6, 149.10 - 2/24/16 Payment $6,149.10 - 2/24/16 Payment $6,149.10. 2/24/16 Payment $6,149.10 - 2/24/16 Payment $6,149.10 - 2/24/16 Payment $6,149.10 - 2/24/16 Payment $6,149 .10 - 2/24/16 Payment $6,149 .10 - 2/24/16 Payment $6,149.10 - 2/24/16 Payment $6,149.10 - 2/24/16 Payment $6,149 .10 - 12/31/14 Payment $ 658.80 - 1/24/14 Payment $ 666.67 - 1/25/12 Payment $1,230.98 - 1/25/12 Payment $1,230 .98 - 10/30/09 Payment $ 513.25 . 7/30/08 Payment $ 498.30 . 7/31/07 Payment $ 498.30 - 7/26/06 Payment $ 498.30. 8/26/05 Payment $ 498.30 . 7/26/04 Payment $ 628.01 - 7/25/03 Payment $ 628 .01 - 7/30/02 Payment $ 628 .15 .. 7/23/01 Payment $ 339 .08 - 7 /18/00 Payment $ 339.08 - 7/26/99 Payment $ 339 .08 - 7/14/98 Payment $ 339.08 - Search Re-,;ults i ____, Ne.v Scarc11 J © Copyr:gi1l 2000 - 2006 City t:•f D1..W1H , De iawarc.~ . A! I ~iqi".1 5 l~P.5•?:rvt~. J. Pnvacy Policy & Ternis. of Use I Top or pal)e https://secure.cityofdover.com/inde ... 2017-08-18

Page I ol' I Account History Inquiry City of Dover eGov Portal Account llJ 60582 1\c.c o11nt ~ rn n n 1 dr / ~ Tax Map Number fD-05·076.11-02 ·2 00.001-000 Pe11<1111g $ 0.00 Address 1126 FORREST AVE laxes $ 0 00 Owner name NIS IAZOS 110LDINGS LLC l'enillty $ 0 00 _) :,l J!i f l ' J if·Jil 'I~! J! J ~ f°l .;f Add to t. -~::. My Properties NQ Payment QuQ r Total Due $ 0.00 " B 1111'."1• "'• 1~ t ,•nt! fi f l, 1~ t !H,O: lf\ " '"' 1: ,1\ If you have any questions, call Customer Service at (302) 736-1035 Click on a payment or bill to view more details Date lype Year Perioct f\!lhJi..ll l ! 7/19/ll Payment $ 113 36 - j 10/12/16 Payment $1,187.61 10/12/16 Payment $1,187.61 - 10/12/16 Payment $1,187.61. 5/18/16 Payment $ 455.04 . 2/24/16 Payment $5,130.9/. - " 2/24/16 Payment $5,130.92 - 2/24/ 16 Payment $5,130.92 . 2/24/16 Payment $5,130.92 . 2/24/16 Payment $5, 130 .92 - 2/24/16 Payment $5, 130.92 - 2/24/16 Payment $5,130.92 - 2/24/16 Payment $5,130.92 - 12/31/14 Payment $ 894.09 - 1/24/14 Payment $ 904.77 - 1/25/12 Payment $1,670.63 - 1/25/12 Payment $1,670.63 . © Copyri~1l1t .:.{/00 - 2006 Cny of Dover, De!awdH!. All Rights R('serve1t Privacy Pohcy & Terms of Use I Top of page https://secure.cityofdover.corn/indc ... 2017-08-18

Page I of' I tlomc> Logm Pay Ul1l1ty & fax 13ills Propf~rty T,Jx: es Help&. Support Account History Inquiry City of Dover eCiov Portal Account ID l\f:£.GW ll :--=;, !1n 11l1tlf '/ Tax Maµ Number fD ·O'.i·IJ/(;. 11 -02-200.000·000 Pe11d111Q $ (l.1)1) l\ddres5 112<\ FORRE~~T AVE raxes $ O.OIJ Owner name NISTAZOS HOLDIN(iS I.LC Penally $ 0.00 Add tQ Total Due $ 0.00 No P.:iyment Due '.:s JJl 1i~ My Properties !!•1 11 •1;> 11 111-1 If you have any que5tion5, call Customer Service at (302) 7.16· 7035 Click on a payment or brll to view more details L\Ji.t' l"ypf~ Y e ,~r Perio, 1 Ar11oon1! 7/19/17 Payment $ 119 83 - $19,164.19 - ~ 10/13/16 Payment 10/13/16 Payment $19,164.19 - 10/13/16 Payment $19.164.19 - 10/13/ 16 Payment $19,164.19 - 10/12/16 Payment $19, 160.49 . 10/12/16 Payment $19,160.49 - 10/12/16 Payment $19,160.49 - 5/18/16 Payment $ 142.06 - ~ 2/24/16 Payment $1,977..12 - 2/24/16 Payment $1,972.12 - 2/24/16 Payment $1,972 .12 - 2/24/16 Payment $1,972.12 - 2/24/16 Payment $1,972.12 - 2/24/16 Payment $1,972.12 . 2/24/16 Payment $1,972.12 - 1/24/14 Payment $ 386.11 - 1/25/12 Payment $ 712.93 - 1/25/12 Payment $ 712.93 - 10/30/09 Payment $ 400.06 - 7/30/08 Payment $ 388.41 - 7/31/07 Payment $ 388.41 - 7/26/06 Payment $ 388.41 . 8/26/05 Payment $ 388.41 - 7/26/04 Payment $ 348.12 - 7/25/03 Payment $ 348.12 . 7/30/02 Payment $ 347 .98 - 7/23/01 Payment $ 321.27 - 7/18/00 Payment $ 321.27 - 7/26/99 Payment $ 321.27 - 7/14/98 Payment $ 321.27 - © Copynghl 2000 - 2G06 City o f Oov..~ r, OC! l.~w~ re /\ii H?qtll'> ~c~;e;-v.;;d Pnvacy Policy & Terms or Use 1 Top of page https://secure.ci tyofdover.com/incle ... 2017-08-18

RESOLUTION NO. 2017-08 APPROVING TIIE 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) ACTI()N PLAN By consent agenda, Mr. Lewis moved for adoption of the proposed resolution, seconded by Mr. Neil and, by a unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-08, as follows: A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) ACTION PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Dover is entitled to~£_2 0,2~ through the ~--/ United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant program; and WHEREAS, the City of Dover has prepared the 2017 Action Pian, in accordance with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development guidelines, that serve as the primary planning document for identifying and meeting the housing and community development needs for the low and moderate-income residents of Dover; and WHEREAS, the City of Dover is in favor of utilizing the Community Development Block Grant funds for the community development purposes in accordance with the National Community Development objectives of benefiting low and moderate income families, eliminating slums and blight, and meeting other community development objectives; and WHEREAS, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development requires the City of Dover to submit a Consolidated Plan and an Action Plan for Application for Federal Assistance including the proposed use of funds and including certain certifications and policies to obtain its $230,289 entitlement; for eligible activities; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER APPROVE THE 2017 Community Developn1ent Block Grant Action Plan and application for Federal Assistance included in the Action Plan, along with certifications and policies attached and authorize its forwarding to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for consideration. '()j{:· ',/? . ADOPTED: JUNE 26, 2017 '/

CITY OF DOVER ORDINANCE# 2017-08 CDBG GRANT FUND CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2017-2018 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: Th e arnoun t her e inaftc-~r named aggregating Two Hundred Eighteen Thousand Eight Hundred dollars ($218,800) or so much th!:reof as may be necessary are hereby Jppropriall; d from current revenues and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018 : OPERATING REVENUES 2017/18 BUDGET PRIOR VEAR BALANCE $ 2,100 COllG GRANTS RECEIVED 216,700 TOTALS $ 218,800 OPERATING EXPENSES 2017/18 BUDGET EXPENDITURES CURRENT VEAR CLOSING COST/DOWN PAYMENT PROGRAM $ 60,000 CURRENT VEAR CONNECTION SUPP PROGRAM 3,000 CURRENT VEAR DOVER INTERFAITH MINISTRY 24,000 CURRENT VEAR MHDC EMERGENCY HOME REPAIR 25,000 CURRENT VEAR HABITAT FOR HUMANITY 21,300 CURRENT VEAR MHDC HOMEOWNER REHAB. 40,000 CURRENT VEAR ADMIN EXPENSE 43,400 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 216,700 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE 2,100 TOTALS $ 218,800 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. ADOPTED: JUNE 26,_2017 27

FY 2017 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET - DOVER , DELAWARE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) OPEF<i\ TltjG f~ EVl-O N U E S $ DIFFERENCE 2015/2016 ORIGINAL 2016/17 2017/18 FY18 VS % AClUAL BUDGET PROJECTED APPROVED FY17 BUDGET CHANGE PRIOR YEAR BALANCE CDBG 2 013 2, 100 2, 100 2, 100 0.0 % PRIOR YEAR BALANCE NSP 85,277 0.0% CDBG GRANTS RECEIVED 231_161 23G,500 ;(19 70 0 216,"100 (19.800) -8.4% REVENUE FROM NSP 25.501 0.0% TOTALS 343,952 238,600 281,800 218,800 (19,800) -8.3% OPrnA TING EXPENSES $ DIFFERENCE 2015/2016 ORIGINAL 2016/17 2017/18 FY18 VS % ACTUAL BUDGET PROJECTED APPROVED FY17 BUDGET CHANGE Prior year Closing cost/down payment program 892 900 0.0% Prior year Neall Research Inc. 1,000 0.0% Prior year Connection Supp Program 2,500 0.0% Prior year MHDC emergency home repair 22,300 0.0% Prior year Habitat for Humanity 5,500 3,000 0.0% Prior year Milford housing H/O rehab 13,400 0.0% Current year closing cost/down payment program 59 , 108 50,000 50 ,000 60,000 10,000 20.0% Current year Connection Comm Supp program 4,952 7,200 7,300 3,000 (4,200) -58.3% Current year Dover interfaith ministry 27.000 22,000 22,000 24,000 2,000 9.1% Current year MHDC emergency home repair 12.990 25,000 25,000 25,000 0.0% Current year Habitat for Humanity 37 ,047 30,000 30,000 21,300 (8,700) -29.0% Current year MHDC homeowner rehab. 39.506 55,000 55,000 40,000 (15,000) -27.3% Current year Peoples Place 6.722 0.0% Current year admin expense 37.444 4"1,300 47,300 43,400 (3,900) -8.2% NSP program expenditures 95.453 0.0% CURRENT YEAR BALANCE CDBG 2,013 2,100 2,100 2,100 0.0% CURRENTYEARBALANCENSP 15.325 0.0% TOTALS 343,952 238,600 281,800 218,800 (19,800) -8 .3% 293

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 10, 2015 PAGES Mr. Koenig advised members that, while the write-off would be substantial, the long tenn benefit of the proposal outweighed the financial impact of this write-off. Mr. Koenig stated that it was staffs strong belief, from an administrative standpoint, that transfening this property would be a good thing for the City of Dover. He noted that the City had preached home ownership in this area and Habitat would virtually guarantee long-tenn home ownership. Staff recommended authorizing the properties to be transfened from Dr. Joe Burden, Jr. to Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity without collecting the City's liens against the properties in exchange for a payment of $30,000 from Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity ($7,500 per parcel). In response to Mr. Shevock regarding whether Dr. Burden owned any other properties in the City, Mr. Koenig stated that Dr. Burden owned a substantial amount of property within the City. Responding to Mr. Shevock as to whether either the write-off or the total lien amount could be transfened to Dr. Burden's other properties and attached for payment, Mr. Koenig stated his belief that this could not be done. He expressed his opinion, in the larger context of dealing with distressed properties, that this would not be a good precedent to start and was unsure if the City could legally do this. Mr. Koenig stated that staff had talked to Mr. William Pepper, Deputy City Solicitor, about this particular transaction and there was no legal reason that the City could not transfer a lien from one (I) property owner to another and then forgive the lien. Mr. Koenig advised members that Dr. Burden had been working with staff and had paid all of his FY 15 taxes. He stated his belief that Dr. Burden had paid FY 16 taxes on all but the subject properties; therefore, progress had been made in a number of areas. Mr. Koenig indicated staff's belief that this land transfer would clear the water in some cases and provide a fast forward to home ownership on these four (4) Jots. He stated that if the City continued to pursue the liens and forced a tax sale, there would be no guarantee that those purchasing the properties would occupy them, as they could be rentals. Mr. Koenig reiterated, under the proposal, that the City would be virtually guaranteed home ownership. Mr. Sudler stated that he was glad that Dr. Burden and the City of Dover had reached an understanding and agreement and were working together. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend approval of Staff's recommendation to authorize the properties to be transferred from Dr. Joe Burden, Jr. to Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity without collecting the City's liens against the properties in exchange for a payment of $30,000 from Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity ($7,500 per parcel). The motion was seconded by Mr. Cole and unanimously carried. Disposition of City Owned Land - Property Located at 710 and 715 Slaughter Street Members were informed that the City of Dover acquired properties located at 710 and 715 Slaughter Street at a monition sale due to liens for taxes and demolition expenses. Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, stated that these were excess properties, as the City had no use for them and would be better served by the properties being redeveloped and restored as taxable properties.

EXHIBIT #2 Regular Council Meeting of 08/28/2017 Excerpts from: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing in Delaware Delaware Housing Coalition Michael Allen Reiman, Dane & Colfax, PLLC Georgetown, Delaware April 4, 2013 "Today's Federal housing official commonly inveighs against the evils of ghetto life even as he pushes buttons that ratify their triumph-even as he OK's public housing sites in the heart of the [African-American] slums, releases planning and urban renewal funds to cities dead-set against integration, and approves the financing of suburban subdivisions from which [African- Americans] will be barred .... "These and similar acts are committed daily by officials who say they are unalterably opposed to segregation, and have the memos to prove it.. .. But when you ask one of these [HUD administrators] why, despite the [fair housing legislation] most public housing is still segregated, he invariably blames it on regional custom, local traditions, personal prejudices of municipal housing officials." --Senator Edward Brooke: 114 Cong. Rec. 2281 [1968] FHA requires HUD to "administer [housing] programs ... in a manner affirmatively to further the policies of [the Fair Housing Act]," including the general policy to "provide, within constitutional limits, for fair housing throughout the United States." - 42 USC §3608 42 U.S.C. §S304(b)(2): "Any grant under [the CDBG program] shall be made only if the grantee certifies to the satisfaction of the Secretary that ... the grant will be conducted and administered in conformity with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq.] and the Fair Housing Act [42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.], and the grantee will affirmatively further fair housing." Preventing the Increase of Segregation " ... the affirmative duty placed on the Secretary of HUD by§ 3608(d)(S) ... requires that consideration be given to the impact of proposed public housing programs on the racial concentration in the area in which the proposed housing is to be built. Action must be taken to fulfill, as much as possible, the goal of open integrated residential housing patterns and to prevent the increase of segregotion, in ghettos, of raci al groups whose lack of opportunities the Act was designed to combat." " ... every court that has considered the question has held or stated that Title VIII imposes upon HUD an oblig<ltion to do more than simp ly refrain from

d iscri rn in atin b (and from purposely aiding discrimination by others) ... This broader goal [of truly open housing] ... r:>fl ect'" t h :. d e ir to haw HUD u ·e it ~, v rc: n\' progr · ;wt J ass i - t in ~ n d! 11g d iscr irnin at ion and segreg, ti OL , to t h . po·nt w i1 er " th E! su p ply of 1p nu i n - Iv op ... n ho u".i ng 11 incr e a .~ t-~ ~~. - NAACP v. Sec'y of Housing and Urban Development, Westchester Litigation: A Cautionary Tale County received $52 million+ in CDBG, HOME, ESG funds from 2000-2006 Receipt of funds required repeated AFFH certifications Litigation brought under the False Claims Act: AFFH certifications were false because County did not consider race-based impediments to fair housing choice Westchester Al 2000 and 2004 Analyses of Impediments ("Als"): "The [Fair Housing Plan] describes the housing needs of handicapped persons, larger/smaller families [and] extended families .... " Als do not identify any impediments on the basis of race, color, national origin or any other protected class, even though County is part of one of the most segregated regions in the country No mention of housing discrimination or residential segregation Settlement Terms County required to ensure development of 750 affordable housing units, within 7 years, in the whitest neighborhoods - 660 units must be built in municipalities with African-American population of less than 3% and Latino population of less than 7% - Additional integrative criteria at the census block group level Settlement Terms !llCounty Returns $30 Million to HUD - $21.6 Million to Fund Integrative Units - $7.5 Million to Pay "Relator's Share" for Ferreting out False Claims County Must Supply an Additional $30 Million for Integrative Units County Pays $2 .5 Million in Attorneys' fees and Costs HUD Administrative Complaints City of Atlanta (race and disability) State of Louisiana (race) Jefferson Parish, Louisiana (race) Danville, Illinois (race) Sussex County, Delaware (race and national origin) Waukesha County, Wisconsin (race) State of Maryland (LIHTC/race)

Sussex County, Delaware Attempt to build a new subdivision of single family, for-sale homes in a community land trust for low-income service and agricultural workers blocked by Planning Commission and County Council The lawsuit, filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleges that the county's planning and zoning commission denied land use approval for a 50-lot affordable housing subdivision proposed by Diamond State Community Land Trust, a Delaware affordable housing developer, in southwestern Sussex County near the town of Laurel, Del. The suit alleges that the Sussex County Council later affirmed the denial of the proposed development. The suit alleges that opposition to the proposal was based partly on the assumption that the subdivision's residents would be Latino and African-American and on stereotypes based on race, color and national origin. The lawsuit arose from a complaint to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that was referred to the Department of Justice. The settlement, also filed today as a proposed consent decree that must be approved by the court, requires that the defendants reconsider the affordable housing proposal using nondiscriminatory criteria and take no actions to obstruct or delay the development of the subdivision . It also requires the county to pay $750,000 to Diamond State Community Land Trust in compensation for its damages. In addition, the settlement requires that the county take affirmative steps to provide for future affordable housing, communicate its commitment to fair housing, and establish mechanisms to ensure affordable and fair housing in Sussex County. Among other things, the county must formulate an affordable and fair housing marketing plan to encourage the development of housing opportunities that are available and accessible to all residents of Sussex county regardless of race, color or national origin, appoint a fair housing compliance officer, and ensure that county officials and staff undergo fair housing training. "The Fair Housing Act guarantees that all Americans have the opportunity to live where they choose regardless of the color of their skin," said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Division . " It is especially important that counties employ their land use powers in a manner that does not obstruct housing choice, and we will take action when jurisdictions block housing because of the race or ethnicity of those who would live there."

Lessons for Recipients of Housing a11d Community Development Funds "[T]he c0 ntrnl g:. ai f ti .c 1 1l ligr. ~o n to A FH [1<>] to en : housin g i i::rim in c.ti -n <111d se grc g <~ t i o n." Taking AFFH seriously can alert a recipient to ways in which private sector activity is harming the recipient AFFH certifications Jre material preconditions to the receipt of HUD funds Courts likely to see claims for payment as implicit AFFH certifications Recipients ignore HUD's Fair I-lousing Planning Guide and AFFH regulations at their peril A recipient must identify all impediments experienced by all protected classes, and must keep records of this analysis - Whether created by public or private sector, impediments must be analyzed - Impediments may include actions or policies that discriminate on the basis of protected class, whether by way of intentional discrimination or disparate treatment -A recipient is not excused from such an analysis by identifying the "greatest" or "most challenging" impediment; it must analyze everything it finds Permitting concentration of affordable housing development in minority neighborhoods likely perpetuates segregation and is a violation of the recipient's AFFH obligation A recipient must take appropriate actions to overcome the impediments identified, and keep records of those actions It is impossible to meet this requirement in the absence of an adequate identification and analysis of underlying impediments Recipients are responsible for the AFFH compliance of their sub-recipients - You can't fund jurisdictions whose policies and practices are AFFH non-compliant -There will be more vigorous AFFH enforcement in the coming years : -Administrative complaints to HUD - HUD "front end" and compliance reviews - Litigation by civil rights groups - Litigation by developers and property owners

AFFH FACT SHEET: THE DUTY TO AFFIRM.ATIVELY FUR_ HER FAI . HOUSI. G WHAT IS THE DUTY TO AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING? From its inception, the Fair Housing Act (and subsequent laws reaffirming its principles) not only prohibited discrimination in housing related activities and transactions but also imposed a duty to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH). The AFFH rule sets out a framework for local governments, States, and public housing agencies (PHAs) to take meaningful actions to overcome historic patterns of segregation, promote fair housing choice, and foster inclusive communities that are free from discrimination. The rule is designed to help programs participants better understand what they are required to do to meet their AFFH duties and enables them to assess fair housing issues in their communities and then to make informed policy decisions. For purposes of the rule. affirmatively furthering fair housing "means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The duty to affirmatively further fair housing extends to all of a program participant's activities and programs relating to housing and urban development." For purposes of the rule. meaningful actions "means significant actions that are designed and can be reasonably expected to achieve a material positive change that affirmatively furthers fair housing by, for example, increasing fair housing choice or decreasing disparities in access to opportunity." WHAT IS THE PROCESS PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS MUST FOLLOW? Under the AFFH rule, an "Assessment of Fair Housing" (AFH) will replace the current "Analysis of Impediments" (Al) process. The AFH Assessment Tool, which includes instructions and data provided by HUD, consists of a series of questions designed to help program participants identify, among other things, fair housing issues pertaining to patterns of integration and segregation; racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty; disparities in access to opportunity; and disproportionate housing needs, as well as the contributing factors for those issues. • The Assessment Tool is intended to help communities understand and identify local barriers to fair housing choice. The AFH provides an approach that will help program participants more effectively affirmatively further the purposes and policies of the Fair Housing Act. • HUD will review the AFH within 60 calendar days after the date of submission. An AFH submission is deemed accepted 61 days after submission unless HUD provides notification on or before that it is not accepted. Non-acceptance notifications will explain the reasons for non-acceptance and how a program participant may remedy deficiencies. • The AFFH rule establishes specific requirements for the incorporation of the AFH into subsequent Consolidated Plans and PHA Plans in a manner that connects housing and community development policy and investment planning with meaningful actions to AFFH. • The AFFH rule links existing community participation and consultation requirements to the AFH process to ensure program participants give the public opportunities for involvement in the development of the AFH and in its incorporation into the Consolidated Plan and PHA Plan.

INTERIM GUIDANCE FOR PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS ON STATUS OF ASSESSMENT TOOLS AND SUBMISSION OPTIONS HUD is providing guidance for Program Participants to assist in carrying out certain responsibilities related to their obligation to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) pending issuance of the final Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) Tool for States and Insular Areas. As interim guidance, this guidance will be updated based on the availability of Assessment Tools for States and Insular Areas and Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), 1 or by January 1, 2019, whichever is earlier. STATUS OF ASSESSMENT TOOLS Program participants will not be required to begin conducting their assessments until the full array of on line resources, including both the Data and Mapping Tool (AFFH-T) and the User Interface are complete and operational. The status of these Assessment Tools and related on line resources are as follows: • Local Government and Joint/Regional : Final and available OMB. Control No. 2529-0054). • PHA and PHA-only collaboration: Final and available (OMB Control No. 2529-0055). OMB has approved the AFH Assessment Tool for PHAs. HUD will issue an additional Federal Register notice notifying PHA's of their new submission date at a later time once additional resources become available. • Qualified PHA (QPHA): Currently unavailable-final version subject to full Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) process. • State and Insular Area: Currently going through PRA Process (see additional details below). GENERAL GUIDANCE FOR PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS Pursuant to 24 C.F.R. § 5.160, AFH submission requirements depend on the type of program participant (or lead entity in the case of a collaboration) and the availability of applicable Assessment Tools and their related Data and Mapping Tool. The following tables are meant to assist program participants in identifying options for collaboration 2 and accompanying submission deadlines. 1 HUD has announced its intention to release an Assessment Tool for Qualified PHAs (QPHAs) . This will be subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) process, and the public will have an opportunity to submit comment. 2 Guidance on how program participants can collaborate on their AFH submissions can be found on www.hudexchange.info/programs/affh . Issued January 18, 2017

Local Governments, States, and Insular Areas Option 1: Option 2: Option 3: Submit an AFH Alone Collaboration with one or more Collaboration with State lead Local Governments or PHAs on Entity on an AFH an AFH Ai;mlicable Assessment Tool : AQQlicable Assessment Tool: AQQlicable Assessment Tool: Local Government Local Government Assessment Assessment Tool for States Assessment Tool Tool with option to use and Insular Areas w ith option Local $500,000 or Less Local to use $500,000 or less Local Government Government Insert if the Government Insert ifthe Program Program Participant is eligible Program Participant is eligible Participants with CDBG Submission Deadline: Submission Deadline: Submission Deadline: Grants in 270 days prior to the Based on lead Submitter' s Based on lead Submitter's FY15 of program year start date for Submission Deadline Submission Deadline, which is $500,000 or the next 3-5-year triggered by approval and Less 3 consolidated planning cycle publication of a final State beginning on or after January Assessment Tool 1, 2019. Local AQ1;2 licable Assessment Tool: AQQ licable Assessment Tool : A1;2Qlicable Assessment Tool : Local Government Local Government Assessment Assessment Tool for States Government Program Assessment Tool Tool and Insular Areas Participants Submission Deadline: Submission Deadline: Based on Submission Deadline : with CDBG 270 days prior to the Lead Submitter's Submission Based on Lead Submitter's Grants in program year start date for Deadline Submission Deadline, which is FY15 that the next 3-5-yea r triggered by approval and are Over consolidated planning cycle. publication of a final State $500,000 Assessment Tool States and A1;2~licable Assessment Tool: A1;21;2licable Assessment Tool: I Insular Assessment Tool for States Assessment Tool for States and Areas and Insular Areas Insular Areas Submission Deadline: Submission Deadline: Triggered by approval and Triggered by approval and publication of a final publication of a final Assessment Assessment Tool for State Tool for State and Insular Areas and Insular Areas 3 For any HOME con sortium who se members do not receive CDBG funds or whose members collectively received $500,000 or less in CDBG fund s in FY2015, the con sortium' s first AFH is due 270 days prior to the program year for which a new 3-5-year Consolidated Plan is due sta rting on or after January 1, 2019 . For any HOME consortium in which members re ceived more than $500,000 in CDBG funds in FY2015, the consortium's first AFH is due 270 days prior to the program year for which a new 3-5 Consolidated Plan is due starting on or after January 1, 2017. 81 Fed . Reg . 73129. 2

Public Housing Agencies Option 1: Option 2: Option 3: Option 4: Submit an AFH Alone PHA-Only Collaboration Collaboration with one Collaboration with on an AFH or more Local State as Lead Entity Governments on an on an AFH AFH Applicable Applicable Assessment Applicable Assessment Applicable Assessment Tool: Tool: PHA Assessment Tool: Assessment Tool : QPHA Assessment Tool with option to use Local Government Assessment Tool for Tool PHA Insert Assessment Tool with States and Insular option to use PHA Areas with option to QPHAs Insert use PHA Insert (Fewer than 550 Units) Submission Deadline: Submission Deadline: Submission Deadline: Submission Deadline: 270 days prior to the 270 days prior to the Based on Lead Triggered by program year start program year start date Submitter' s Submission approval and date for the next 5- for the next 5-year cycle Deadline publication of a final year cycle. of the Lead PHA. Assessment Tool for States and Insular Triggered by the Triggered by the Areas announcement of the announcement of the availability of all availability of all resources for resources for completion of the completion of the Final Final QPHA PHA Assessment Tool Assessment Tool PHAs 1250 Applicable Applicable Assessment Applicable Assessment Applicable or fewer Assessment Tool: Tool: Tool: Assessment Tool: Units PHA Assessment Tool PHA Assessment Tool Local Government Assessment Tool for with option to use 1,250 Assessment Tool with States and Insular unit or fewer PHA Insert option to use the PHA Areas with option to ("PHA Insert") Insert use PHA lnsert4 4 While not final, HUD announced its intention to make an insert available to PHAs with 1250 units or fewer in the case of collaboration using the State Assessment Tool, as it has in the Local Government and PHA Assessment Tools . See 82 Fed. Reg. 4388 (Jan. 13, 2017). 3

Public Housing Agencies Option 1: Option 2: Option 3: Option 4: Submit an AFH Alone PHA-Only Collaboration Collaboration with one Collaboration with on an AFH or more local State as lead Entity Governments on an on an AFH AFH Submission Deadline: Submission Deadline: Submission Deadline: Submission Deadline : 270 days prior to the 270 days prior to the Bas ed on Lead Triggered by program year start program year start date Submitter's Submission approval and date for the next 5- for the next 5-year PHA Deadline publication of a final year PHA Planning planning cycle of the Assessment Tool for cycle. Lead PHA. States and Insular Area s Triggered by the Triggered by the announcement of the announcement of the availability of all availability of all resources for resources for completion of the completion of the Final Final PHA Assessment PHA Assessment Tool Tool Applicable Apglicable Assessment Arrnlicable Assessment Apglicable Assessment Tool: Tool: Tool : Assessment Tool: PHA Assessment Tool PHA Assessment Tool Local Government Assessment Tool for Assessment Tool States and Insular PHAs with Areas more than 1250 units Submission Deadline: Submission Deadline: Submission Deadline: Submission Deadline: 270 days prior to the 270 days prior to the Based on Lead Triggered by program year start program year start date Submitter's Submission approval and date for the next 5- for the next 5-year PHA Deadline publication of a final year PHA Planning Planning cycle. Assessment Tool for cycle. States and Insular Triggered by the Areas Triggered by the announcement of the announcement of the availability of all availability of all resources for resources for completion of the Final completion of the PHA Assessment Tool Final PHA Assessment Tool 4

FEDERAL REGISTER Vol. 80 Thursday, No. 136 July 16, 2015 Part Ill Department of Housing and Urban Development 24 CFR Parts 5, 91, 92, et al. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing; Final Rule

42272 Federal Register I Vol. 80, No. 136 /Thursday, Jul y 16, 2015 I Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND conditi ons that res trict fair hous ing The approach proposed by HUD in URBAN DEVELOPMENT choi ce, and dispariti es in access to 2013, and adopted in this final rule, housing a nd opportunity , id eutify the with revis ions mad e in response to 24 CFR Parts 5, 91, 92, 570, 574, 576, factors that primarily contribute to the publi c comments, strengthens the and 903 crea tion or perp etuation of fair housing process for program parti cipants' (Docket No. FR-5173-F-04] issues, and es tablish fair housing assessments of fa ir hous ing iss ues and priorities and goals. contributing fa ctors and fo r the RIN 2501-AD33 DATES: Effective Date : August 17 , 2015. establi shment of fair housing goa ls and prioriti es by requiring use of an Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Assessment Tool, providing data to George 0. Williams, Sr., Deputy AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HUD. program participants related lo certain Assistant Secretary for Policy, key fair hous ing issu es, and instituting ACTION: Final rule. Legislatives Initiatives and Outreach , a process in whi ch HUD reviews Office of Fair Housing and Equal SUMMARY: Through this final rule, HUD program participants' assessments, Opportunity, Department of Housing provides HUD program participants prioritization, and goa l setting. While and Urban Development, 451 7th Street with an approach to more effectively the statutory duty to affirmatively SW., Room 5246, Washington, DC and effici1rntly incorporate into their further fair housing requires program 20410; telephone number 866- 234- 2689 planning processes the duty to participants to take actions to (toll-free) or 202- 402- 1432 (local). affirmatively further the purposes and affirmatively further fair housing, this Individuals who are deaf or hard of policies of the Fair Housing Act, which final rule (as was the case in the hearing and individuals with speech is title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of proposed rule) docs not mandate impairmen ts may access this number 1968. The f'air Housing Act not only specifi c outcomes for the planning via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal prohibits discrimination but, in process. Instead, recognizing the Relay Service during working hours al conjunction with other statutes, directs importance of loca l decisionmaking , the 1-800-877-8339. HUD's program participants to take new approach establishes basic SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: param eters lo help guide public sector significant actions to overcome historic patterns of segregation, achieve truly I. Executive Summary housing and community development balanced and integrated living patterns, planning and inveslment decisions in promote fair housing choice, and foster Purpose of the Regulatory Action being better informed about fair housing inclusive communities that are free from From its inception, the Fair Housing concerns and consequently help discrimination. The approach to Act (and subsequent laws reaffirming its program participants to be better affirmatively furthering fair housing principles) has not only prohibited positioned lo fulfill their obligation to carried out by HUD program discrimination in housing related affirmatively further fair housing. participants prior to this rule, which activities and transactions but has also Summary of Legal Authority involved an analysis of impediments to provided, through the duty to fair housing choice and a certification affirmatively further fair housing The Fair Housing Act (title VIII of the that the program participant will (AFFH). for meaningful actions to be Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. affirmatively further fair housing, has taken to overcome the legacy of 3601- 3619) declares that it is "the not been as effective as originally segregation, unequal treatment, and policy of the United States to provide, envisioned. This rule refines the prior historic lack of access to opportunity in within constitutional limitations, for fair approach by replacing the analysis of housing. Prior to this rule , HUD directed housing throughout the United States." impediments with a fair housing participants in certain HUD programs lo See 42 U.S.C. 3601 . Accordingly, the assessment that should better inform affirmatively further fair housing by Fair Housing Act prohibits, among other program participants' planning undertaking an analysis of impediments things, discrimination in the sale, rental, processes with a view toward better (AI) that was generally not submitted to and financing of dwellings, and in other aiding HUD program participants to or reviewed by HUD . This approach housing-related transactions because of fulfill this statutory obligation. required program participants, based on "race, color, religion, sex, familial Through this rule, HUD commits to general guidance from HUD, to identify status, 1 national origin, or handicap." z provide states, local govern~ents, impediments to fair housing choice See 42 U.S.C. 3604 and 3605. Section public housing agencies (PHAs), the within their jurisdiction, plan, and take 808(d) of the Fair I-lousing Act requires communities they serve, and the general appropriate actions to overcome the all executive branch departments and public, lo the fullest extent possible, effects of any impediments, and agencies administering housing and with local and regional data on maintain records of such efforts. urban development programs and integrated and segregated living Informed by lessons learned in localities activities to administer these programs patterns, racially or ethnically across the country, and with program in a manner that affirmatively furthers concentrated areas of poverty, the participants, civil rights advocates, fair housing. See 42 U.S.C. 3()08. location of certain publicly supported other stakeholders, and the U.S. 1 The term "familial status" is defined in the Fair housing, access to opportunity afforded Government Accountability Office all Housing Act al 42 U.S.C. 3602(k). ll includes one by key community assets, and commenting to HUD that the Al or more ch ildren who are under the age of 18 years disproportionate housing needs based approach was not as effective as being domi ciled with a parent or guardian. on classes protected by the Fair Housing originally envisioned, in 201 cl HUD 2 Although the Fair Housing Acl was amended in Act. Through the availability of such 1988 to extend civil rights protections lo persons initiated the rulemaking process to with "handicaps," the term "disability" is more data and available local data and propose a new and more effective c ommonly used and accepted today to refer to an knowledge, the approach provided by approach for program participants to individual's physical or mental impairment that is this rule is intended to make program use in assessing the fair housing issues protected under federal civil rights laws, the record participants better able to evaluate their of such an impairment, and being regarded as and factors in their jurisdictions and having such an impairment. For this reason, except present en vironment to assess fair regions and for establishing fair housing where quoting from the Fair Housing Act, this housing issues such as segregation, priorities and goals to address them. preamble and final rule use the term "disability."

Federal Register/Vol 130, No. 136 / Thursday, Jul y 16, 201 5 /Rules and Regulations 42273 Section 808(e)(5) of the Fair Housing Summary of Benefits and Costs sp ec ific local entiti es 1..v ill depe nd on Act (42 U.S.C. 3608(e)(5)) requires th at HUD believes that the rul e, through the extent to which th ey have been I-IUD programs and activities be its improvem ents to th e fair housing complying with th e planning process administered in a manner affirmativel y planning process, has the pot ential for already in place . The local entiti es that furthering th e polici es of th e Fair substantial benefit not only for program have been diligent in compl eting I-lousing Act. participants but also for the rigorous Als may experience a net decrease in administrative burden as a Summaiy of th e Major Provisions of th e communities they serve and the United Slates as a whole. The new approach result of the revised process. Program Rule put in place by this rul e is designed to participants are currentl y required also The Affirmatively Furthering Fair improve the fair housing planning lo engage in outreach and coll ect data in Housing (AfFH) regulations process by providing bett er data and order to meet the obligation to promulgated by this final rule: greater clarity to the steps that program affirmatively fi.1rther fair housing. As a. Replace Lhe AI with a more participants must undertake to assess more fully addressed in the Regulatory effective and standardiZfid Assessment fair housing issues and contributing Impact Analysis that accompanies this of Fair Housing (AFH) through which factors and establish fair housing rule, HUD estimates compliance costs to program participants id entify and priorities and goals to address them. program participants of $25 million evaluate fair housing issues, and factors The fair housing issues, contributing annually, as well as resource costs lo contributing to fair housing issues factors, goals, and priorities identified HUD of $9 million annually. (contributing factors); through this process will be available to The rule covflrs program participants help inform program participants' that are subject to a great diversity of b. Improve fair housing assessment, investments and other decisionmaking, local conditions and economic and planning, and decisionmaking by HUD social contexts, as well as differences in providing data that program participants including their use of HUD funds and other resources. These improvements the demographics of populations, must consider in their assessments of should yield increased compliance with housing needs, and community fair housing-designed to aid program investments. The rule provides for participants in establishing fair housing fair housing and civil rights laws and fewer instances of litigation pertaining program participants to supplement goals to address these issues and to the failure to affirmatively f·urther fair data provided by HUD with available contributing factors; local data and knowledge and requires c. Incorporate, explicitly, fair housing housing. Through this rule, HUD them to undertake the analysis of this planning into existing planning commits lo provide stales, local governments, PHAs, the communities information to identify barriers lo fair processes, the consolidated plan and housing. Also, the rule affords program PHA Plan, which, in turn, incorporate they serve, and the general public, to the fullest extent possible, with local and participants considerable choice and fair housing priorities and goals more flexibility in formulating goals and effectively into housing, and community regional data on patterns of integration priorities to achieve fair housing development decisionmaking; and segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, access to outcomes and establishing the metrics d. Encourage and facilitate regional housing and key community assets that that will be used to monitor and approaches to address fair housing afford opportunity, and document progress. The precise issues, including collaboration across disproportionate housing needs based outcomes of the proposed AFH planning jurisdictions and PHAs; and on characteristics protected by the Fair process are uncertain, but the rule will e. Provide an opportunity for the Housing Act. From these data, program enable each jurisdiction to plan public, including individuals participants should be better able to meaningfully. historically excluded because of evaluate their present environment to II. Background characteristics protected by the Fair assess fair housing issues, identify the Housing Act, to provide input about fair significant contributing factors that A. Legal Authority housing issues, goals, priorities, and the account for those issues, set forth fair HUD's July 2013 proposed rule fully most appropriate uses of HUD funds housing priorities and goals, and set out the legal basis for I-IUD 's and other investments, through a document these activities. authority to issue regulations requirement to conduct community As detailed in the Regulatory Impact implementing the obligation to participation as an integral part of the Analysis (found at www.regulations.gov affirmatively further fair housing, but new assessment of fair housing process. under the docket number 5173- F-03- HUD believes it is important to restate This new approach is designed to RIA), HUD does not expect a large such authority in this final rule. empower program participants and to aggregate change in compliance costs for The Fair Housing Act (title VIII of the foster the diversity and strength of program participants as a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. communities by overcoming historic proposed rule. Currently, HUD program 3601-3619), enacted into law on April patterns of segregation, reducing racial participants are required to conduct an 11, 1968, declares that it is "the policy or ethnic concentrations of poverty, and AI to fair housing choice, take of the United States to provide, within responding to identified appropriate actions to overcome the constitutional limitations, for fair disproportionate housing needs effects of identified impediments, and housing throughout the United States." consistent with the policies and maintain records relating lo the duty to See 42 U.S.C. 3601. Accordingly , the protections of the Fair Housing Act. The affirmatively further fair housing. An Fair Housing Act prohibits rule also seeks to assist program increased emphasis on affirmatively discrimination in the sale, rental, and participants in reducing disparities in furthering fair housing within the financing of dwellings, and in other housing choice and access to housing planning process may increase housing-related transactions because of and opportunity based on race, color, compliance costs for some program race, color, religion, sex, familial status, religion, sex, familial status, national participants , but this final rule, as national origin, or handicap. See 42 origin, or disability, thereby expanding provided in Section lII of this preamble, U.S.C. 3601 et seq. In addition to economic opportunity and enhancing has strived to mitigate the increase of prohibiting discrimination, the Fair the quality of life. such costs. The net change in burden for Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3608(e)(5))

42274 Federal Register /Vo l. 80, No . 136/Thursday, Jul y 16, 2015/Rules and Regul ations requires that HUD programs and In exam ining the legislative history of Th e Act itself docs not define th e activities be ad mini stered in a manner the Fair Housing Act and related precise scope of th e a ffirmati ve ly to affirmatively further the policies of s tatutes, courts have found that the furthering fair housing obligation for the Fair I-lou sing Ac t. Section 808(d) of purpose of the affirmatively furthering HUD's program participants. Over th e the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S .C. 3608(d)) fair hou sing mandate is to ensure that years, co urts have provided so me directs other Federal agencies "to recip ients of Federal housing an d urban guidance for this task. In the first admin ister their programs. . relating deve lopment funds and other Federal ap p el late decision interpreting section to housing and urban development . funds do more thaJ1 simply not 3608, for example, the U.S. Court of in a manner affi rmativel y to further" th e discriminate: Recip ients also must take Appeals for the Third Circuit policies of the Fair Housing Act, and to ac tions to address segregation and emphasized th e importance of racial "coopera te with the Secretary" in this related barriers for groups with and socioeconomic data to ensure that effort. characteristics protected by the Act, as "the agency's judgme nt was an The Fair Housing Act's provisions often refl ected in racially or ethnically informed one" based on an related to "affirmatively .. . concentrated areas of poverty. The U.S. institutionalized method to assess site further[ingJ" fair housing, contained in Supreme Court, in one of the first Fair selection and related issues. Shannon, sections 3608(d) and (el includ e more Housing Act cases it decided, referenced 436 F.2d at 821-22. ln multiple other than the Act's anti-discrimination the Act's cosponsor, Senator Walter F. decisions, courts have set forth how the mandates. NAACP, Boston Chapter v. Mondale, in noting that "the reach of section applies lo specific policies and HUD, 817 F.2d 149 (1st Cir. 1987); see, practices of HUD program participants. the proposed law was lo replace the e.g., Otero v. N. Y. City Haus. Au th., 484 See, e.g., Otero, 484 F.2d al 1132-3 7; ghettos 'by truly integrated and F.2d 1122 (2d Cir. 1973); Shannon v. Langlois v. Abington Haus. Au th., 207 balanced living patterns.'" Trafficante HUD, 436 F.2d 809 (3d Cir. 1970).When F.3d 43 (lsl Cir. 2000); U.S. ex rel. Anti- v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205, 211 Discrimination Ctr. v. Westchester Cnty., the Fair Housing Act was originally (1972). 4 The Act recognized that "where enacted in 1968 and amended in 1988, 2009 WL 455269 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, a family lives, where it is allowed lo 2009). major portions of the statute involved live, is inextricably bound up with the prohibition of discriminatory In addition to the statutes and court better education, better jobs, economic cases emphasizing the requirement of activities (whether undertaken with a motivation, and good living recipients of Federal housing and urban discriminatory purpose or with a conditions." 114 Cong. Rec. 2276-2707 development funds and other Federal discriminatory impact) and how private (1968). As the First Circuit has funds to affirmatively further fair litigants and the government could explained, section 3608(d) and the housing, executive orders have also enforce these provisions In section 3608(d) of the Fair Housing legislative history of the Act show that addressed the importance of complying Act, however, Congress went further by Congress intended that "HUD do more with this requirement. 5 mandating that "programs and activities than simply not discriminate itself; it reflects the desire to have HUD use its B. HUD's July 19, 2013, Propo.~ed Rule relating to housing and urban development" be administered "in a grant programs to assist in ending On July 19, 2013, at 78 FR 43710, manner affirmatively to further the discrimination and segregation, to the HUD published its proposed rule that point where the supply of genuinely described the new assessment of fair purposes of this subchapter." This is not open housing increases." NAACP, housing (AFH) process that would only a mandate to refrain from discrimination but a mandate to take the Boston Chapterv. HUD, 817 F.2d at 154; replace the AI. As stated in the July 19, type of actions that undo historic See also Otero 484 F.2d at 1134 (section 2013, rule, HUD proposed a process that 3608(d) requires that "[a]ction must be should aid program participants to more patterns of segregation and other types taken to fulfill, as much as possible, the effectively carry out the obligation to of discrimination and afford access to goal of open, integrated residential affirmatively further fair housing by opportunity that has long been denied. housing patterns and to prevent the more directly linking the identification Congress has repeatedly reinforced this increase of segregation, in ghettos, of of fair housing issues , prioritization, and mandate, requiring in the Housing and goal selling to housing and community Community Development Act of 1974, racial groups whose lack of opportunity the Act was designed to combat"). development planning processes the Cranston-Gonzalez National currently undertaken by program Affordable Housing Act, and the Quality participants and that is required as a Housing and Work Responsibility Act of identify their overall needs for affordable and supportive housing for the ensuing 5 years, condition of their receipt of HUD funds. 1998, that covered HUD program including housing for homnless persons, and At the jurisdictional planning level, participants certify, as a condition of outline their strategy to address those needs. As HUD requires program participants receiving Federal funds, that they will part of this comprehensive planning process, affirmatively further fair housing. See 42 section 105(b)(15) of NAHA (42 U.S.C. '12705[b)(15)) requires that these program 5 Executive Order 12892, entitled "Leadership U.S.C. 5304(b)(2). 5306(d)(7)(B). participants r.ertify that they will affirmatively and Coordination of Fair Housing in Federal 12705(b)(15), 1437C- 1(d)(16).3 further fair housing. The Quality Housing and Work Programs: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing," issued January 17, 1994, vests primary authority in Responsibility Act of 1998 {QHWRA), enacted into the Secretary of HUD for all federal executive 3 Section 104(b )(2) of the Housing and law on October 21, 1998, substantially modified the departments and agencies to administer their Conunw1ity Development Act (HCD Act) (42 U.S.C. United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 progranlS and activities relating to housing and 5304ro)(2)) requires that, to receive a grant, the state et seq.) (1937 Act), and the 1937 Act was more urban development in a manner that furthers tJie or local governnrnut must certify that it will recently amended by the Housing and Economic purposes of the Fair Housing Acl. Executive Ord er affirmatively further fair housi ng. Section Recovery Act of 2008, Public Law 110-289 [HERA). 12898, entitled "Executive Actions to Address 106(d)(7}(8) of the HCD Act (42 U.S.C. QHWRA introduced formal planning processes for Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 5306(d)(7)(8)) requires a local government that PHAs-a 5-Ynar Plan and an Annual Plan. The Low-Income Populations," issued on February 11 , receives a grant from a state to certify that it will required contents of the Annual Plan included a 1994, declares that Federal agencies shall make it affirmatively furth er fair h ousing. The Cranston- certification by the PHA that the PHA will, among part of their rnission to achieve environmental Gonzalcz National Affordablo Housing Act (NAHA) other things, affirmatively further fair housing. justice "by identifying and addressing, as (42 U.S.C. 12704 et seq.) provides in section 105 (42 •Reflecting the era in which it was enacted, the appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse U.S.C. 12705) that states and local governments that Fair Housing Act's legislative history and early human health or environmental effects of its receive certain grants from HUD must develop a court decisions refer to "ghettos" when discussing program s, policies, and activities on minority comprehensive housing affordability strategy to racially concentrated areas of poverty. populati ons and low-income populations."

Federal Register/V o l. 80, No. 136/Thursday, July 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42275 receiving Commun ity .Development gu id ance and clarity were viewed as more direct link between the AF I-1 and Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment lacking. Specifically, GAO slated that it subsequent program participant Partnerships (HOME), Emergency found that "HUD's limited regulatory planning documents- the consolidated Solutions Grants (ESG), and Housing requirements and oversight" plan an d the PI-IA Plan- that would tie Opportuniti es for Persons With AIDS contributed to many HUD program fair housing planning into the priority (HOPWA) formula funding to und ertake participants placing a "low priority on selling, commitm en t of resources, and an analysis to identify impediments to ensuring that their Als serve as effective specification of activ ities to be fair housing cho ice within the planning tool s." 7 In its undertaken; and (5) a new HUD review jurisdiction and take appropriate actions recommendations, GAO emphasized procedure based on clear standards that to overcome the effects of any that HUD could ass ist program wou ld facilitate th e provision of impediments, and keep records on such participants by providing more effecti ve technical assistance and reinforce the efforts. See§§ 91.225(a)(l), guidance and technical assistance and value and importance of fair housing 91.325(a)(1). 6 Similarly, PHAs must the data necessary to prepare fair planning activities. commit, as part of their planning housing plans. As provid ed in the proposed rul e, the process for PHA Plans and any plans Stemming from substantial interaction new AFH process would be es tablish ed incorporated therein, to examine their with program participants and in regulations in 24 CFR part 5, subpart programs or proposed programs, advocates, and in light of the GAO A, with conforming amendments identify any impediments to fair Report, HUD concluded that t.he current provided in the following regulations: housing choice within those programs, Al process was not well integrated into 24 CFR part 91 (Consolidated address those impediments in a the planning efforts for expenditure of Submission for Community Planning reasonable fashion in view of the funds made by HUD program and Development Programs); 24 CFR resources available, work with participants. HUD recognized that many part 92 (HOME Investment Partnerships jurisdictions to implement any of the program participants actively grapple Program); 24 CFR part 570 (Community jurisdiction's initiatives to affirmatively with how issues involving race, national Development Block Grants); 24 CFR part further fair housing that require PHA origin, disability, and oth er fair housing 574 (Housing Opportunities for Persons involvement, maintain records issues do and should influence grant With AIDS); 24 CFR part 576 reflecting those analyses and actions, decisions as part of housing and (Emergency Solutions Grants Program); and operate programs in a manner that community development. planning. and 24 CFR part 903 (Public Housing is consistent with the applicable I-IUD found that program participants Agency Plans). jurisdiction's consolidated plan. See often turned to outside consultants to collect data and conduct the analysis, A more detailed discussion of HUD's §§ 903.7(0), 903.15. Over the past several years, HUD but that program participants had little July 19, 2013, proposed rule, incl.uding reviewed the efficacy of these incentive or awareness to us e this the specific AFH regulations and mechanisms to fulfill the affirmatively analysis as part of the investments and conforming amendments proposed, can furthering fair housing mandate and other decisions they made as part of the be found at 79 FR 43716 through 43723. concluded that the AI process could be consolidated plan or PHA Plan HUD refers interested parties to the improved to make it a more meaningful processes. HUD further concluded that, preamble to the proposed rul e for a tool to integrate fair housing into in a time of limited resources, HUD detailed discussion of the proposed program participants' planning efforts. could do more to support program AFH process and the reasons for HUD's HUD issued its Fair Housing Planning participants in the process, especially proposal of the features and elements of Guide (Planning Guide) in 1996 to through the provision of data, the new AFH process. provide extensive guidance on how to meaningful technical assistance, and C. Proposed Assessment Tool affirmatively further fair housing. additional guidance. All these findings However, HUD has not, in a systematic led HUD to the decision to offer a new On September 26, 2014, at 79 FR manner, offered to its program approach of linking fair housing issue 57949, HUD published in the Federal participants the data in HUD's identification, prioritization, and goal Register, the proposed "Assessment possession that may better help them setting with program participants' Tool" to be used by program frame their fair housing analysis, and traditional planning processes related to participants to evaluate fair housing HUD generally did not require Ais to be housing and community development. choice in their jurisdictions, to identify submitted to HUD for review. To more effectively carry out its barriers to fair housing choice at the These observations are reinforced by affirmatively furthering fair housing local and regional levels, and to set fair a recent report by the U.S. Government obligation, in the July 19, 2013, rule, housing goals to overcome such barriers Accountability Office (GAO) entitled HUD proposed a new AFH process to and advance fair housing choice . HUD "HUD Needs to Enhance Its replace the Al process. As provided in published the proposed Assessme nt Requirements and Oversight of the proposed rule, the new AFH process Tool for a period of 60 days in Jurisdictions' Fair Housing Plans," involved the following key features: (1) accordance with HUD's July 19, 2013, GA0-10-905, Sept. 14, 2010. See A new fair housing assessment tool; (2) proposed rule, and in accordance with http :I/www.gao.gov/new.items/ the provision of nationally uniform data the Paperwork Red uction Act, 44 U.S.C. d10905 .pdf (GAO Report). In this report, that would be the predicate for and 3501 el seq. the GAO found that there has been would help frame program participants' HUD appreciates the comments uneven attention paid to the AI by local assessment activities; (3) meaningful submitted on the proposed Assessment communities in part because sufficient and focused direction regarding the Tool, and will follow the September purpose of the AFH and the standards 2014 notice with a second notice "For these programs, tlw consolidated plan is by which it would be evaluated; (4) a soliciting comment for another 30-day intended as the program participant's period, as required by the Paperwork comprehensive mechanism to gather relevant 7 The GAO noted Lhat close to 30 percent of the Reduction Act, and advise of changes housing data, detail housing, homelessness, and grantees from whom GAO sought documentation community development strategies, •md commit to had outdated Als and that almost 5 percent of the made lo the proposed Assessment Tool specific actions. These are then updat ed through gran tees were unable to provide Als when in response to the initial 60-day annual action plans. requested. solicitation of comment. ·

42276 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 136/Thursclay, July 16, 2015/Rules and Regulations ln addition, it is important to note d elay the submission date of th e first on where to draw the thres hold for a that th e burd en imposed by the AFH for entitlement jurisdictions small CDBC. Comrnenters suggested that Assessment Tool and additional receiving a grant of 0.0125 p erce nt of the thres hold should be drawn at $1 Assessment Tools issued by HUD must, the CDBG formula appropriation or less . million. A comm enter, co mm enting on in accordance with the Paperwork With respect to Stales and Insular the percen tage th at HUD proposed, Reduction Act, be renewed for approval Areas, HUD advised that it decided to suggested a perce nt.age cutoff of 0.018 by the Office of Management and design a separate Assessment Tool for percent rather than HlJ D's suggested Budget (OMB) every 3 years, al which Stales and Insular Areas. HUD agreed percentage of 0.0125. The cornmenter point, the opportunity is also presented with commenlers responding to the explained tJrnt this thresholu would to assess whether the Assessment Tool Assessment Tool, published on bring the cutoff to approximately is aiding fair housing planning as September 26, 2014, that a separate $500,000, and al that level, intended by this rule. Assessment Tool for States and Insular administrative funds can be up lo Areas would address commenters' $100,000, an increa se from $70,000, D. Solicitation of Comment on Proposed concerns about the AFH approach being Staggered Submission of AFH which is the amount that would be better suited for entitlement available to entitlement jurisdictions On January 15, 2015 , al 80 FR 2062, jurisdictions. HUD also advised that the receiving $348,875- the amount under HUD published in the Federal Register separate Assessment Tool will not be the HUD-proposed threshold. The a document reopening the public provided for public comment as part of public comments received in response comment period on the issue of the second statutorily required public to the January 15, 2015, document can providing a later submission deadline comment period on the Assessment be found at the following Web site: for certain entities. In this document, Tool published on September 26, 2014. http://w·ww.regulations.go1r/ HUD advised that it was considering Rather, HUD will have the Assessment # !docketDetail;D=HUD-2015-0009. providing certain HUD program Tool for States and Insular Areas participants-States, Insular Areas, After consideration of the comments separately undergo the full notice and qualified PI-!As, jurisdictions receiving a comment process (a 60-day notice and on the CDBC threshold , HUD has small CDBG grant-with the option of decided to set the threshold for a small a 30-day notice) under the Paperwork submitting their first AFH at a date later Reduction Act, and this decision CDBG grant at a FY 2015 grnnt of than would otherwise be required for $500,000 or less. HUD believes that this automatically means a later first AFH program participants that are neither submission deadline for States and dollar threshold is appropriate for States, Insular Areas, qualified PHAs, Insular areas. providing a delayed first AFI-1 nor grantees receiving a small CDBG Although not part of the January 15, submission for certain CDBG grantees. grant, as proposed to be defined by the 2015, document, in the preamble to the Therefore, as a result of HUD's January January 15, 2015, document. Assessment Tool published on 15, 2015, proposal and in consideration For PI-!As, section 2702 of title II of September 26, 2014, HUD advised that of comments responding to that the Housing and Economic Recovery the draft Assessment Tool for which proposal, States, Insular Areas, qualified Act (HERA) 8 introduced a definition of public comment was sought is the PHAs, and CDBG grantees receiving an "qualified PHAs" to exempt such PHAs, Assessment Tool designed for use by FY 2015 CDBG grant of $500,000 or less that is, PI-!As that have a combined total entitlement jurisdictions and for joint will have a delayed first-AFH of 550 or fewer public housing units and submissions by entitlement jurisdictions submission deadline, as will all PI-!As, section 8 vouchers, are not designated and for PHAs where the entitlement even those that are not qualified PI-!As. as troubled under section 6(j)(2) of the jurisdiction is chosen as the lead entity. For PHAs, the first AFH submission 1937 Act, and do not have a failing HUD clarified that the Assessment Tool deadline will be based on when the score under the Section Eight is not the tool that will be used by PHA Assessment Tool has been Management Assessment Program regionally collaborating entitlement approved by OMB-following HUD (SEMAP) during the prior 12 months, jurisdictions or PHAs that will not be undertaking the notice and comment from the burden of preparing and making a joint submission, nor will it be process required by the Paperwork submitting an annual PI-IA Plan. Given used by States and Insular Areas. In Reduction Act-and announced by HUD that Congress has determined that brief, HUD committed to provide a as available for use. qualified PHAs should have reduced separate Assessment Tool for PHAs. III. Overview of Final Rule-Key administrative burdens, HUD proposed HUD also advised of its intention to Changes Made at Final Rule Stage that it is appropriate to provide these develop program-specific participant agencies with more time lo submit their Assessment Tools to be available for In the proposed rule, HUD solicited first AFH. public comment al the time that HUD public comment on the new AFI-1 With respect to small CDBG grants, publishes the first Assessment Tool for process and included 19 issues for there is no statutory definition on which its additional 30 days of public which HUD specifically solicited HUD can rely as is the case for qualified comment. HUD since decided to have comment. In Section IV of this PHAs. However, as noted in the January the State and PHA Assessment Tools preamble, HUD provides a summary of 15, 2015, document, in HUD's undergo the full notice and comment the significant comments raised by the Congressional Justifications issued in process under the Paperwork Reduction public comments and provides I-!UD 's support ofHUD's Fiscal Years (FYs) Act (a 60-day notice and a 30-day response to these issues. HUD received 2013 and 2014 budget requests, HUD notice). more than 1,000 public comments on proposed to establish a minimum grant In response to the January 15, 2015, the fuly 19, 2013, proposed rule. HUD threshold of approximately $350,000, document HUD received 21 public appreciates all the questions raised, and based on a percentage of the CDBG comments. The majority of public suggestions and recommendations made formula appropriation. Therefore, HUD commenters were supportive of a by the public cornmenters. After review proposed, similar to qualified PHAs, to delayed submission of the first AFI-1 for and consideration of the public States, Insular Areas, qualified PHAs, comments and upon further 8 Public Law 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654, approved and jurisdictions receiving small CDBG consideration of issues by HUD, the July 30, 2008, sco 122 Slat. 2863. grants. Commenters, however, differed following highlights key clarifications

Federal Register I Vol. 80, No. 136 I Thursda y, July 16, 2015 I Rules a nd Regu lations 42277 and changes mad e by HUD in this final • Acids a definition of "housing specify th e first- AFJ-1. submission rule. programs serving specified populations" deadline, and will ensme th e same level The final rule: to clarify that participation in HUD and of transition as provided for entitlement • Clarifies that HUD supports a Federal housing programs serving jurisdictions, which will be the first balanced approach to affirmatively spec ified populations does not present a program participants to subrnit an AFH. furthering fair housing by revising the fair housing issue of segregation, (See § 5.160(a).) "Purpos e" section of the rule and the provided that such programs com ply • Allows PHAs, whether submitting definition of "affirmatively furth ering with the program regulations and an AFI--l as part of participation with fair housing." Also, HUD has created a applicable Federal civil rights statutes their consolidated plan program now provision listing goals and and regulations. (See § 5.152.) participants, oth er PHAs, or on their priorities a program participant may • Revises the definition of own, to submit an AFH every 5 years, Lake to affirmatively further fair "integration" to provide greater clal'ily imposing on PHAs similar requirements housing, which may include, but are not as to the mem1ing of this term. (See to those placed on jurisdictions subject limited to, place-based solutions and § 5.152.) to the consolidated plan requirements. options to increase mobility for • Adels a definition of "local (See§§ 5.160 and 903.15.) protected classes. (S ee §§ 5.150, 5.152, knowledge" based on and consistent • Provides that a program participant and 5.154.) with the description of such term in the that undertook a Regional AT in • Replaces the term "proactive steps" Assessment Tool. (See§ 5.152.) connection with a grant awarded under in the definition of "affirmatively • Revises the definition of HUD's FY 201 O or 2011 Sustainable furthering fair housing" with the term "segregation" to provide greater clarity. Communities Competition is not " meaninghil actions" and defines (See§ 5.152 .) required to undertake an AFH for the "meaningful actions." (See § 5.152.) • Adds a definition of "qualified first AFH submission st.ago. (See • Revises the definition of PHA." (See § 5.152.) § 5.160(a).) "Assessment Tool" to advise that the • Revises and clarifies how the • Clarifies the conditions under tool is not solely a single form or analysis of data and the identification of which Hlill may not accept an AFH, template, but refers to any form or fair housing priorities and goals should and provides examples of an AFH that template issued by HUD as an be undertaken, including emphasizing is substantially incomplete with respect Assessment Tool for the AFH and that the program participant is to the fair housing assessment, and includes instructions. The definition responsible for establishing appropriate examples of an AFH that is inconsistent makes clear that HUD may issue priorities and goals. (See§ 5.154(d).) with fair housing and civil rights different Assessment Tools for different • Clarifies that although regionally requirements; and emphasizes that HUD types of program participants. collaborating program participants need will work with program participants to • Clarifies, through the addition of a not be contiguous and may cross state achieve an AFH that is accepted. (See new§ 5.151, that implementation of the boundaries, regionally collaborating § 5.162.) new AFH process commences for a program participants should be located • Provides greater flexibility to program participant when the within the same CBSA, as defined by program participants in determining Assessment Tool designated for use by OMB al the time of submission of the when a program participant must revise the program participant has been regional AFH, but HUD allows for an AFH, and specifies conditions when approved by OMB, and the availability exceptions. (See§ 5.156.) HUD may intervene and require a for use of such Assessment Tool is • Emphasizes that "acceptance" of an program participant to revise an AFH, published in the Federal Register. AFH means only that, for purposes of but also provides program participants • Adds a definition of "data" to administering HUD program funding, with the opportunity to disagree with collectively refer to "HUD-provided HUD has determined that the program HUD's determination. HUD also data" and "local data," both of which participant has provided an AFH that expands the lime frame in which to terms are also defined. (See§ 5.152.) meets the required elements. revise an AFH. (See § 5.164.) • Replaces the term "determinant" Acceptance does not mean that the • Revises for PHAs the three options with a more plain language term-"fair program participant has complied with provided in the proposed rule by which housing contributing factor" or simply its obligation to affirmatively further fair a PHA may conduct and submit an "contributing factor." (See§ 5.152.) housing under the Fair Housing Act; has AFH. (See § 903.15.) • Adels a definition of "disability." complied with other provisions of the • Adels a new "certification" (See§ 5.152.) Fair Housing Acl; or has complied with provision, which clarifies that program • Clarifies when disproportionate other civil rights laws and regulations. participants must certify that they will housing needs exist by revising the (See § 5.162.) affirmatively further fair housing when definition of "disproportionate housing • Provides a staggered submission required by statutes and regulations needs." (See §5.152.) deadline for AFHs; that is, the rule governing their programs, and provides • Revises the definitions of "fair specifies the order of submission by that challenges to the certifications will housing choice" and "fair housing which program participants will submit follow the procedures for consolidated issue" by removing outdated their first AFH. The rule provides that plan program participants in 24 CFR terminology (i.e., "handicap") and entitlement jurisdictions receiving an part 91 and for PHA Plan program making certain additional clarifying FY 2015 CDBG grant of $500,000 or less, participants in 24 CFR part 903, as changes. (See§ 5.152.) States, Insular Areas, and PHAs will revised in this final rule. (See § 5.166.) • Adels a definition of "geographic submit their first AFH in the second • Moves fair housing-related material area" which refers lo the area of analysis stage of submission, or at such time as from §903.2(d) to §903.15(d). of a program participant that may be a the Assessment Tool specifically In addition to these changes, HUD jurisdiction, region, slate, Core-Based applicable to one of these program also corrected editorial and technical Statistical Arca (CBSA). or another participants has been approved by OMB errors identified by the commenters. applicable area, depending on the area and announced by HUD as available for HUD believes that these changes, more served by the program participant. (See use. The Assessment Tool specifically fully discussed below, respond to § 5.152.) applicable to a program participant will commenters' requests that they be given

/) ;:/(11 1'(/J' C .\'/(I/(! A11a/1 1.1·i.1· r!/'111111 ~ d11111m ts to Fair l·/011.1·i11g Choi1:r. July lll l I DELAWARE STATEWIDE ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE OBSERVATION: Minimum wage ;md 5ingle-incornc households cannot afford a housing unit renting for the HUD Fair Market Rent in Dover. This situation forces these individuals ;:ind households to double-up with others, or lease Inexpensive, substandard units from unscrupulous landlords. Minorities and female-headed households will be disproportionately impacted because of their lower incomes. OBSERVATION: Persons receiving a monthly SSI check of $674 as their sole source of income, including persons with disabilities, cannot afford a one-bedroom unit rentinp, at the Fair Market Rent of $757. OBSERVATION: Overall, the housing market in the City of Dover is moderately unaffordable, as only 30.9% of the housing units sold in 2009 were considered to be affordable to households earning the median household income of $44,490. When rnedian household income by race is considered, Black households would have a more difficult time purchasing a home than Whites. OBSERVATION: Overall, the housing market in the City of Dover is moderately unaffordable, as only 30.9% of the housing units sold in 2009 were considered to be affordable to households earning the median household income of $44,490. When median household income by race is considered, Black households would have a more difficult time purchasing a home than Whites. OBSERVATION: Black households are disproportionately represented among Section 8 voucher holders. Of the 182 households in Dover using vouchers, 80.2% are Black. In addition, Black households are also disproportionately represented among applicants on the Section 8 waiting list. Of the 641 households waiting for a Section 8 voucher, 81.6% are Black. OBSERVATION: The extensive waiting lists for public housing (614 applicants) and Section 8 (641 applicants) demonstrate a high demand for affordable housing in Dover. Demand is high due to consumer desires to be close to amenities and transit options. OBSERVATION: Analysis of the City's Annual Plan and C/\PER documents reveal a balanced investment of CD!3G funds in both impacted and non-impacted areas. The City should continue its efforts to affirmatively further fair housing by expanding the availability of affordable housing in non-impacted areas. The City should allocate funds for new family housing developments (both sales and rental) on sites outside of impacted areas. OBSERVATION: The City's Planned Neighborhood Design program could be improved from a fair housing perspective by adding incentives for the production of affordable units. The City could provide financial and other incentives to developers in exchan1:5e for the provision of a percentage of housing units to be set-aside for households with incomes at or below a certain rerc entage of the area median income.

Delaware Stale Analysis o/lmp edi111 e111s lo Fair Housing Choice July 20 11 OBSERVATION: The City should simplify its definition of "family" by focusing on whether a hou sehold function s as a cohesive unit rather than distinguishing between related and unrelated persons . A restrictive definition th at limits the number or type of relationship between persons living together as a household unit in a single-family dwelling unit is incompatible with many modern living situations and potentially discriminates against persons with disabilities. OBSERVATION: The City's Planned Neighborhood Design program could be improved from a fair housing perspective by adding incentives for the production of affordable units. The City could provide financial and other incentives to developers in exchange for the provision of a percentage of housing units to be set-aside for households with incomes at or below a certain percentage of the area median income. OBSERVATION: The City of Dover has no provision in Its zoning ordinance to allow more than five unrelated persons with disabilities to live together as a group home. This circumstance limits fair housing choice, particularly for persons with disabilities . The City should amend its ordinance to remove obstacles to the creation of group homes. e. Definition of Family Restrictive definitions of family may impede unrelated individuals from sharing a dwelling unit. Defining family broadly advances nontraditional families and supports the blending of families who may be living together for economic purposes. Restrictions in the definition of family typically cap the number of unrelated individuals that can live together. These restrictions can impede the development of group homes, effectively impeding housing choice for the disabled. However, in some cases, caps on unrelated individuals residing together may be wananted to avoid the health and safety problems created by overcrowding. The City of Dover defines a family as one or more persons occupying a dwelling unit as a single nonprofit housekeeping unit. More than five persons, exclusive of domestic servants, or not more than one boarder or roomer, not related by blood, marriage or adoption, shall not be considered to constitute one family. The City limits the number of wu·elated individuals to five persons. Because the ordinance does not have an exception for group homes for persons with disabilities, this cap unduly restricts the number of persons who can live together in such an arrangement. However, in some cases, restrictions on the number of umelated individuals residing together may be warranted for health and overcrowding issues and to comply with Building and Fire codes adopted at the state and Municipal levels. f. Regulations for Group Homes for Persons with Disabilities Group homes are residential uses that do not adversely impact a community. Efforts should be made to ensure group homes can be easily accommodated tlu·oughout the community under the same standards as any other residential use. Of particular concern are those that serve members of the protected classes such as the disabled. Because a group home for the disabled serves to provide a non-institutional experience for its occupants, imposing conditions are contrary to the purpose of a group home. More impo1iantly, the restrictions, unless executed against all residential uses in the zoning district, are an impediment to the siting of group homes and are in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Two primary purposes of a group home residence are normalization and conummity integration. By allowing group residences throughout the community in agreement with the same standards as applied to all other residential uses occupied by a family, the purposes of the use are not hindered and housing choice for the disabled is not impeded. Towards this end, municipalities may not impose distancing requirements on group homes for persons with disabilities.

Dl'laJ11are State Analy sis 0(111111edi111 1111t.1· to F,1ir Housing Choice .ht(!' :!011 In J-Jorizon House Development Services, inc. v. Township of Upp<!I' Southa111pto11, PA, the court found a 1,000-foot spacing requirement to be in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The court also found the Township's requirement for an applicant to seek and receive a variance from the ordinance to establish a group home within the 1,000-foot distance also to be a violation. The City of Dover has no definition encompassing the "group home" use . Presumably, a group home could be established as a single-family dwelling unit in any residential district as a result. However, the City's definition of "family" does not allow for more than five unrelated persons to share a family household, which would also not allow more than five unrelated persons to live together in a group home. Impediment #1: The City's increasingly diverse minority population may require language accommodations to ensure that all residents can access programs and services. Impediment #2: Minority households have greater difficulty becoming home owners in Dover because of lower incomes. Impediment #3: The City's supply of housing that is affordable to households up to 80% of median household income ls inadequate Impediment #4: The City's supply of affordable and accessible housing units is inadequate to meet demand. Impediment #5: The City's process for allocating and reporting CDBG funds could be improved from a fair housing perspective. Impediment #6: Policy documents utilized by the Dover Housing Authority could be improved from a fair housing perspective. Impediment #7: The 2008 Comprehensive Plan does not recognize the City's responsibility to affirmatively further fair housing. Impediment #8: The City of Dover's zoning ordinance limits fair housing choice for certain families and persons living in group homes. Impediment #9: Members of the protected classes could be more fully represented on City boards and commissions dealing with housing issues. Impediment #1 O: Mortgage loan denials and high-cost lending disproportionately affect minority applicants. ~{. Signature Page for thH City of Dover By my signature I certify that the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice for the City of Dover is in compliance with the intent and directives of the regulations of the Community Development Block Grant Program regulations. (Signature of Authorizing Official) Date

In the Al report The Delaware Code '' Definition of Frtmily" reach: One or more persons occupying ti dwelling unit as a single nonprofit housekeeping unit. Does not include more than five persons not n~l<Jted by blood, marriage or adoption. The comments: No ex plicit exception for group homes for persons with disabilities. In the report Th e Delawcire Treatment of Group Homes reads : "No definition" . Could presumably exist as single fam ily un less it exceeds five residents. The comments: Cap on unrelated residents sharing house prevents any group home from having more than five residents. That is inconsistent with the Fair Housing Act. At a Sept 12, 2011 Dover City council meeting a review of the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice was discussed . As a federal entitlement community that receives CDBG funds from HUD the city is required to certify that funds will be carried out and administered according to the fair housing act. It was noted that HUD defines an impediment to fair housing choice as any actions, omissions, or decisions that restrict, or have the effect of restricting, th e availability of housing choices based on race, religio n, sex, disability, familial sta tus, or national origin . Ann Marie Townshend reported that the city had contracted a consulting firm to conduct the Analysis of Impediment which reviews entitlem ent community's laws, regu lations, and administrative policies and procedures affecting accessibility of housing. This analysis outlines the impediments for Dover and provides recommendations and strategies in order for the city to meet fair housing goals. Approval and implementation of the Fair Housing Action Plan will preserve the City's eligibility for funding from HUD and protect the City in the event of litigation relating to fa ir housi ng. Responding to a question from Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Townshend stated that the current definition pf family, in this context, is "not more than five (5) unrelated people functioning as a household, not including a butler." She explained that the difficulty is determining whether or not people are functioning as a household. Mrs. Townshend indicated that staff plans to conduct research on this topic and will submit an ordinance to redefine "family." Mr. Anderson felt that there shou ld not be any amendment that would hinder college students who are residing together from obtaining affordable housing, noting this is a very important industry for the City. Responding to Dr. Jon es, Mrs. Harvey advised members that 2012 timelines were provided for some of the Strategies to Address Impediments since the consultants felt that these measures could be implem ented within one (1) year; however, others were assigned a later date for completion sin ce the Comprehensive Plan will not be released until 2014. She noted that the consultants suggested a five (5) year timeframe for implementation of many of the strategies. Mrs. Townshend exp lained that she and Mrs . Harvey plan to set annual goals for achievement of the objectives li sted.

Interesting to note that the rch 2006 council min11te5 report thnt M r<;. Trocey 1-furvey orlvi~;cd men1h ers thot the Analysis of Impediments study r.ompletecl by th e Center fo r Comrn11nity l?escarch U of O completed in Sept of 2003 and the addendum of Jon 2004 identified thefollowinr1 imp ediment•; ond th e need for corrective octions to remedy the; l.ack of Affordable f-lou.sing General ond for Persons with Disabilities; lack of rair /-lousing Education ond Outreoch and Segregated /-/ousinq ond r:·oir f-fousinq Programs and Activities for the City of Dover. According to The Federal Office of Housing and Urban Development definitions of what constitutes a family are very clearly defined. The Equal Access Rule defines family as follows: Family includes, but is not limited to, regardless of marital status, actual or perceived sexual orientation, or gender identity, the following: 1. A single person, who may be an elderly person, displaced person, disabled person, near-elderly person, or any other single person; or, 2. A group of persons residing together, and such group includes, but is not limited to: a. A family with or without children (a child who is temporarily away from the home because of placement in foster care is considered a member of the family}; b. An elderly family; c. A near-elderly family; d. A disabled family; e. A displaced family; and, f. The remaining member of a tenant family. Family includes, but is not limited to, regardless of marital status, actual or perceived sexual orientation, or gender identity, any group of persons presenting for assistance together with or without children and irrespective of age, relationship, or whether or not a member of the household has a disability. A child who is temporarily away from the home because of placement in foster care is considered a member of the family. What this means is that any group of people that present together for assistance and identify themselves as a family, regardless of age or relationship or other factors, are considered to be a family and must be served together as such. Further, a recipient or subrecipient receiving funds under the ESG or CoC Programs cannot discriminate against a group of people presenting as a family based on the composition of the family (e.g., adults and children or just adults), the age of any member's family, the disability status of any members of the family, marital status, actual or perceived sexual orientation, or gender identity. Here are two examples of how this might apply: o An emergency shelter, transitional housing project, or permanent housing project that serves households with children. While it is acceptable for a shelter or housing program to limit assista11ce to households with children, it may not limit assistance to only women with children. Such a shelter must also serve the following family types, should they present, in order to be in compliance with the Equal Access rule: o Single male head of household with minor child(ren); and o Any household made up of two or more adults, regardless of sexual orientation, marital st<itus, or gender identity, presenting with minor child{ren). In this example, the emergency shelter or housing program would not be required to serve families composed of only adult members and could deny access to these types of families provided thilt all adult-only families are treated equally, regardless of sexual orientation, marital status, or gender identity.

o A permanent supportive housing project under the CoC Prop,ram rule that serves chronically homeless families. A permanent supportive llou~; ing prop,ran1 tliat serves families must serve all types of families and cannot clisr:riminate ;:igainst any family based on marital status, actual or perceived sexual orientation of the family members, or gender identities of the family members. Therefore, if two adults present together as a family, the recipient or subrecipient must serve the two adults as a family and may not require µroof of rnarriage and may not limit assistance to couples in a heterosexual relationship. Group House of Port Washington v. Board of Zoning ilnd Appr~al' of the Town of North Hempstead. 45 N.Y. 2d 266, ilt 272 (1978). The Town had defined family as o "[o]ne (1) or more persons related by blood, m<miage or legal adoption re~iding or cooking or warming food as a single housekeeping unit; with whom there m~y not be more than two (2) boarders, roomers or lodgers who must live together in a common household." o In a 4-3 decision, Court of Appeals held that the definition of "family" improperly excluded from its scope group homes. The Court explained that in zoning for stable neighborhoods in a single family district, local governments must include the functional and factual equivalents of natural families, as well as traditional families. I. Guidelines to Drafting a Definition of Family In light of the numerous state and federal court decisions on the subject of defining "family," some guidelines may be gleaned as to constitutionally permissible standards. 1. Preservation of the character of single-family areas remains a legitimate purpose of zoning. 2. Zoning may not exclude a group which "in every way but a biological sense is a single family" (White Plains, supra); or a household "which poses no threat to the goal of preserving the character of the traditional single-family neighborhood" (McMinn supra). 3. Court decisions have indicated that the "factual and functional equivalent" of a traditional family of unrelated persons may be evidenced by the following: 1. single housekeeping unit; 2. more or less permanent living arrangement; 3. stable, rather than transient living arrangements (except where the hand1caµped are affected); 4. a grouµ headed by a householder caring for a 1·easonable number of children as one would be likely find in a biologically unitary family (White Plains 34 N.Y.2d at 30G). The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution gives federal ICJws, such as the Fair Housing Act, precedence over conflicting state and local laws. Consequently, the Fair Housing Act prohibits state and local land use and zoning laws, policies, and practices that discriminate based on a characteristic protected under the Fair Housing Act. As defined in the Fair Housing Act, prohibited practices include making unavailable or denying housing (including vacant land that may be developed into residences) because of a protected characteristic.

In a jOlrll stat ernent betwe en HUD and DOJ practicP.s thi.lt rnay viok1te the FHAA are: o Proh i biting or restri cting the developr m~ nl of housing bilsed 011 tlw belief th,1t th e r f~sidi:nts have a particul ar prote cted characteri stic, such as race, disability, or fornily status o Imposing restrictions 011 housing because of alleged public safety concerns l.J<J S t~d on stE!reotype s about the residents or anticipated residents who have protected characteristics. o Refusing to provide reasonable accommodations to land use or zoning policies when such accommodations may be necessary to allow persons with disabilities to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing. A Land use or zoning practice can result in an unjustified discriminatory effect if it cCJused or predictably will cCJuse a disparate impact on a group of persons, or if it creates, increases, reinforces, or perpetuates segregated housing patterns because of protected characteristics. When enacting or applying zoning or land use laws, state and local governments may not act because of the fears, prejudices, stereotypes, or unsubstantiated assumptions that community members may have about current or prospective residents because of the residents protected characteristics. A local government may not block a group home or deny a requested reasonable accommodation in response to neighbors' stereotyping fears or prejudices about persons with disabilities or a particular type of disability. DEFINITION OF DISABILITY/ HANDICAP The Fair Housing Act uses the term "handicap" instead of "disability." Under the Act, "handicap" means, with respect to a person, or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment. This term does not include current, illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance. "Physical or mental impairment" includes: 1. any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological; musculoskeletal; special sense organs; respiratory, including speech organs; cardiovascular; reproductive; digestive; genito-urinary; hemic and lymphatic, skin; and endocrine; or 2. any mental or psychological disorder, such as mental retardation, organic brain 99 syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities. 11 The term physical or mental impi:lirment" includes, but is not limited to, such diseases and conditions as orthopedic, visual, speech and hearing impairments, cerebral palsy, autism, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, multiple scl erosis, can cer, heart disease, diabetes, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection, mental retardation, emotional illness, drug addiction (other than addiction caused by current, illegal use of a controlled substance) and 100 alcoholism. "Major life activities" means functions such as caring for one's self, performing manual tasks, 101 walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.

In July of 201S HUD announced the ''Final Huk~". Mea ningful action~; to add r e ~; ~ signifir..rnt dispariti es in housing needs and in access to <) pµn rl unity, 1epl 1:1cing :,i:greg atf;d living p<Hterns with tnily int egr ated and balanced living patterns, transfom·Jing raci ally <.rnd ethni ca lly cor1 ce nt1nted areas of pove rty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintain complia nce with the civil rights and fair housir1g laws. The AFFH Final rules applies to States and local governments that n~ ccivecl CPD formula grants (CDUG, HOME, ESG, or HOPWA) as well as public housing agencies. Those agencies that were previously required to complete the /\I will now be required to complete will now conduct a new Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). The rights of recovering alcoholics and drug addicts to live in Oxford Houses located in good neighborhoods are well established. A memorandum summarizing cases involving Oxford House precedents under the federal Fair Housing Act entitled Legal Memo Zoning can be downloaded.

EXHIBIT #3 Regular Council Meeting of 08/28/2017 City of Dover, Delaware Governing Policy For Energy Commodity Risk Management Effective: August 28, 2017 Approved by: City of Dover Council (Last Revision August 10, 2015)

TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE OF THE RISK MANAGEMENT POLICY ..................................................................4 A. Introduction.....................................................................................................................4 B. Scope of Policy ................................................................................................................4 C. Objectives and Risk Philosophy ...................................................................................5 D. Policy Administration ....................................................................................................5 MANAGEMENT AND CONTROLS .............................................................................................6 A. Utility Committee of The City Council .......................................................................6 B. Executive Risk Management Committee ....................................................................6 1. City Manager ................................................................................................................. 8 2. Director of the Utility .................................................................................................... 8 3. Controller........................................................................................................................ 8 4. TEA Client Services Manager ...................................................................................... 9 DISCUSSION OF RISKS ...............................................................................................................9 MARKETING AND TRADING PRACTICES ............................................................................10 A. Standards of Conduct ..................................................................................................10 B. Products, Activities and Limitations .........................................................................11 C. Contract Documentation and Confirmations...........................................................11 D. Training..........................................................................................................................12 E. New Product Protocol .................................................................................................12 RISK LIMITS AND RISK MEASUREMENTS...........................................................................12 A. Limits..............................................................................................................................12 1. Delegation Authority .................................................................................................. 12 2. Volume Limits ............................................................................................................. 13 3. Locational Limits ......................................................................................................... 13 B. Stress Testing and Back Testing .................................................................................13 C. Instances of Exceeding Risk Limits............................................................................13 CREDIT POLICY ..........................................................................................................................13 A. Measuring Credit Risk .................................................................................................14 B. Analysis and Extension of Credit Limits ..................................................................14 C. Instances of Exceeding Credit Limits ........................................................................15 REPORTING .................................................................................................................................15 A. Risk Reporting ..............................................................................................................15 B. Credit Reporting ...........................................................................................................16 C. Hedge Effectiveness Reporting ..................................................................................17 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS ............................................................................17 2

POLICY DISTRIBUTION AND COUNSEL ...............................................................................17 A. Distribution Outside The City ....................................................................................17 B. Designated Counsel .....................................................................................................17 APPENDIX A – Approved Products .............................................................................................18 APPENDIX B – Approved Counterparties and Threshold Tables ................................................19 APPENDIX C – Business Risks ....................................................................................................24 APPENDIX D – Glossary ..............................................................................................................25 APPENDIX E – Swap Transaction Representative .......................................................................27 3

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 4

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. 5

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 6

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. 7

Each member of the ERMC has a unique role as defined below: 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 has oversight 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 oversight responsibilities associated with 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. 8

 Develop and maintain documentation outlining standard procedures for conducting business.  Invoice counterparties and resolve billing disputes.  Perform daily/weekly/monthly transaction checkout with counterparties.  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.  Update RMC on training of TEA employees. 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. 9

Process risk 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. 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. Regulatory Risk arises from participation in regulated markets. With the Independent System Operator (ISO) implementation of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order 741, the City faces increasing regulatory risk when participating in wholesale energy markets. The TEA Compliance department works in conjunction with the TEA Risk Control department to help the City manage regulatory risk. Regulatory risk is managed by:  Annual Compliance Training for all employees participating in regulated markets;  Integration of the appropriate compliance culture within the Trading department through ongoing interaction between Compliance and Trading;  An independent monitoring and exposure measurement on transactions that could trigger an increase in regulatory risk. 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. 10

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.  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 11

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. 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 the City’s energy commodity portfolio. The City will manage and report on its energy commodity market risk using Delegation of Authority Limit, a Volume Limit and a Locational Limit. 1. Delegation Authority The Utility Committee delegates the following approval authority limits to the Dover ERMC. The ERMC may not delegate these authorities to individuals authorized to commit Dover to financial obligations. 12

Position Maturity Limit Term Limit Notional Value Limit Dover ERMC 5 years 5 years 20,000,000 TEA 1 month 1 month 1,000,000 This limit structure is not intended for use when transacting day-ahead and real time in the PJM market. 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 13

extent commercially reasonable, the credit risks associated with transactions covered in this Policy while still allowing the City to achieve its objectives. 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. 14

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, of all existing forward transactions executed, 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. 15

 Daily Activity Report The Activity Report presents a summary of the day’s trades executed in the bilateral energy market.  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 16

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. 17

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  Physical Residual Fuel Oil (#2)  Capacity  Financial Power  Financial Options  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). 18

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 Exelon Generation Company, LLC Threshold S&P Moody's $ 60,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 50,000,000 A‐ to AA+ A3 to Aa1 $ 40,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 30,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ 20,000,000 BBB‐ Baa3 $ ‐ Below BBB‐ Below Baa3 AEP Energy Partners, Inc. Threshold S&P Moody's $ 10,000,000 BBB‐ and Above Baa3 and Above $ ‐ Below BBB‐ Below Baa3 BP Energy Company Threshold S&P Moody's $ 60,000,000 AA‐ to AAA Aa3 to Aaa $ 45,000,000 A+ A1 $ 30,000,000 A A2 $ 15,000,000 BBB to A‐ Baa2 to A3 $ ‐ Below BBB Below Baa2 Calpine Energy Services, L.P. Threshold S&P Moody's $ 25,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 15,000,000 AA‐ to AA+ Aa3 to Aa1 $ 10,000,000 A‐ to A+ A3 to A1 $ 5,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 3,000,000 BBB‐ to BBB Baa3 to Baa2 $ ‐ Below BBB‐ Below Baa3 19

EDF Trading North America, LLC Threshold S&P Moody's $ 18,000,000 Fixed Fixed PSEG Energy Resources & Trade, LLC Threshold S&P Moody's $ 20,000,000 BBB‐ and Above Baa3 and Above $ ‐ Below BBB‐ Below Baa3 Sequent Energy Management, L.P. Threshold S&P Moody's $ 5,000,000 Fixed Fixed 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 Macquarie Energy, LLC 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 Morgan Stanley Capital Group 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 20

NextEra Energy Marketing, LLC 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 Credit Thresholds from the Counterparty Extended to Dover AEP Energy Partners, Inc. Threshold S&P Moody's $ 10,000,000 BBB‐ and Above Baa3 and Above $ ‐ Below BBB‐ Below Baa3 BP Energy Company Threshold S&P Moody's $ 30,000,000 AA to AAA Aa2 to Aaa $ 25,000,000 AA‐ Aa3 $ 20,000,000 A+ A1 $ 15,000,000 A A2 $ 5,000,000 BBB to A‐ Baa2 to A3 $ ‐ Below BBB‐ Below Baa3 21

Calpine Energy Services, L.P. Threshold S&P Moody's $ 10,000,000 AA‐ to AAA Aa3 to Aaa $ 7,500,000 A‐ to A+ A3 to A1 $ 5,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 3,000,000 BBB‐ to BBB Baa3 to Baa2 $ ‐ Below BBB‐ Below Baa3 Exelon Generation Company, LLC Threshold Fitch Moody's $ 60,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 50,000,000 A‐ to AA+ A3 to Aa1 $ 40,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 30,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ 20,000,000 BBB‐ Baa3 $ ‐ Below BBB‐ Below Baa3 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 PSEG Energy Resources & Trade, LLC Threshold S&P Moody's $ 12,000,000 * Fixed Fixed *Threshold is $12,000,000 as long as Dover maintains a Debt Service Coverage greater than 1.25% and Total Net Assets of at least $50,000,000 and Total Net Assets do not decline by more than 25% on a fiscal year end basis. Morgan Stanley Capital Group 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 22

Macquarie Energy, LLC 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 NextEra Energy Marketing, LLC 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 EDF Trading North America, LLC Threshold S&P Moody's $ 18,000,000 Fixed Fixed 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 23

APPENDIX C – Business Risks Business Risks Topology Commodity Counterparty Process Volume Budget Regulatory Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk Market Receivables Load Market Price Risk Deadline CFTC Risk Uncertainty Uncertainty Risk Performance Reporting Load Volume Risk Supply Risk FERC Risk Risk Uncertainty M2M/Forward Generation Forecast RTO Curve Risk Uncertainty Error Liquidity Risk Basis Risk 24

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 policies, manages contract administration and credit, and keeps management and the Board informed on risk management issues. 25

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. 26

APPENDIX E – 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. 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. 27

EXHIBIT #4 Regular Council Meeting of 08/28/2017 McDowell, Traci From: David Anderson <davidlevianderson@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 5:05 PM To: Sudler, Roy; Lewis, Brian E. Cc: Anderson, David; City Clerks Office Subject: Re: Fwd: Councilman Lewis would like for you to read this Statement of Absence from Meetings at tonight's Council Meeting Will do. On Aug 28, 2017 4:51 PM, "Roy Sudler Jr" <Roysudlerjr@comcast.net> wrote: Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Brian Lewis <belewis1966@hotmail.com> Date: August 28, 2017 at 12:49:23 PM EDT To: "davidlevianderson@gmail.com" <davidlevianderson@gmail.com> Cc: "roysudlerjr@comcast.net" <roysudlerjr@comcast.net> Subject: RE: Statement of Absence from Meetings I believe it is important that the following statement be read into the record since I am not in attendance at this evenings council meeting and would like for the people that I represent to be aware of the reason for my recent absence. Last week my mom passed away to meet her creater and today I am finishing the final arraignments of her journey home. The last couple of weeks have been very sad and difficult for my family and I. I had to leave the State of Delaware and travel to Florida where my mom resided. She became ill and was placed on a ventilator then hospice care? I would hope that everyone understands family comes first and again this is a very sad time for me. So everyone is aware, on Thursday, August 10th, I notified Council President Slavin and copied City Solicitor Rodriguez of my mothers illness. I asked Council President Slavin if I could be Excused from the 8/14/17, Council Meeting and this evenings Regular Council Meeting for I knew I would be out of town and didn't want any problems for missing the meetings. Council President Slavin responded in an email with "No Problem" and said my family and I would be in his thoughts and prayers, which I sincerely appreciated. While I was down in Florida caring for my Mom at her bedside. I had my Cell Phone on me at all times and randomly checked my e-mails and texts messages on my phone. I received emails from Councilman Slavin inquiring how I was doing and received text messages from Councilman Sudler and Anderson asking the same. During my absence from Delaware I received no communication from Mayor Christiansen or Mr. Lindell pertaining to this evenings agenda item "Proposed Amendment to Committees, Commissions and Boards Appointment Process. In a Delaware State News Article forwarded to me by Council President Slavin on 8/16/17, while in Florida. Mayor Christiansen stated in the article "he doesn't seem to be anywhere to get ahold of" referring to me. (See Newspaper Article) In a email to Mr. Polce and copied to me by Mr. Lindell on 8/18/17, Mr. Lindell states, 1

"Brian is a hard man to find in order to have a conversation"(See Attached Email). In addition to this statement , Mr. Lindell wrote extended comments in his email that I believe were unnecessary or relevant to the matter. In fact, I felt the comments expressed bitterness and animosity towards me. Something, I don't think we need with all Rhetoric of Hate that is going on in this Country today. It is abundantly clear that Mr. Lindell does not believe in Transparency for he criticizes me for talking to the press on city matters as he eluded to when he indicated "he's looking into getting press credentials because Brian seems to have no problem having conversation or being available to those who posses one." I would have certainly responded to a text or email from Mr. Lindell or the Mayor if they reached out to me like in the past. After carefully reviewing my phone records, emails and even junk emails I have found no record of the Mayor or Mr. Lindell ever attempting to contact me in regard to Agenda Item "Proposed Amendment to Committees, Commissions and Boards Appointment Process" to discuss other then the copied email I received from Mr. Lindell on 8/18/17, to Mr Polce. (See Attached Email) In fact the last direct email I received from Mr. Lindell was on 7/5/17, requesting that a traffic matter near Fox Hall be placed on the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Agenda in which he knew how to contact me then (See Attached). So, I believe Mr. Lindell has my email if he needed to reach me within the last 3 weeks. The last text message I received from Mayor Christiansen was 5/30/17. So, I believe the Mayor has my cell phone number and email if he needed to reach me within the last 3 weeks. As far as Mr. Lindells's comment regarding Facebook it is my right to block who I want. As far as the Agenda Item "Proposed Amendment to Committees, Commissions and Boards Appointment Process" At the Council Committee of the Whole - Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting of August 23, 2016, members asked Councilman Anderson and I to come up with recommendations for advancing a more effective recruitment process for city commissions committees and boards which included having current members reapply with an updated application. We introduced recommendations and ideas, that were solidified and then subsequently voted upon by both the Council Committee of a Whole and the Full City Council by unanimous vote. I personally believe that the current process that was previously voted upon by a unanimous vote be left in place. I believe this issue has been politicized by the Mayor and have not seen any documented complaints since the process was implemented back on October, 2016. The only comment that I have heard, was from the Mayor who indicated one of his 4th of July Committee Appointees declined to fill out an updated application for whatever reason. On another note, to my recollection when this process was put in place a year ago there where no objection by the Mayor or anyone else. Why now? Thank you Councilman Lewis Get Outlook for Android 2

PETITION TO AMEND THE ZONING DISTRICT Public Hearing before the Dover City Council September 11, 2017 Applicants/Owners: Sarah E. Jones Address: 826 Forest Street, Dover, DE (Store Addressed as 828 Forest Street) Location: South side of Forest Street between Gibbs Drive and Lincoln Street Tax Parcel ID #: ED-05-076.12-01-16.00-000 Size: 0.5 acres Present Use: Retail Establishment (Liquor Store) Proposed Use: Retail Establishment (Liquor Store) Comprehensive Plan Designation: Mixed Use Present Zoning: RG-1 (General Residence Zone)/COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) Proposed Zoning: C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone)/COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) Reason for Request: To allow the existing use to remain on site instead of sunset due to City Council action requiring the sunsetting of nonconforming uses in residential zones File Number: Z-17-04 Associated File Number: MI-16-13 Nonconforming Uses in Residential Districts Ordinance Number: 2017-10 Planning Commission Recommendation: Following a public hearing on August 21, 2017, where two members of the public spoke regarding the application, the Planning Commission moved by vote of 8-0 to recommend in favor of the proposed rezoning. (Draft Minutes attached)

Z-17-04 Lands of Sarah Jones at 826/828 Forest Street Report to City Council: Planning Commission Recommendation of August 21, 2017 Page 2 Overview The applicant’s property consists of one parcel currently zoned RG-1 (General Residence Zone). This rezoning request would rezone the parcel from RG-1 to C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone). The property is also subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) and would remain as such following rezoning. The Rezoning request is necessary due to the Planning Office’s ongoing project, assigned by City Council in December 2015, to sunset nonresidential, nonconforming uses in the City’s residential zones. This sunsetting is required under the Zoning Ordinance, Article 7 §1.53: Article 7 Section 1. Nonconforming buildings and uses. 1.53 In any residence zone, any non-conforming use of buildings which is not permitted under the provisions of this ordinance may be continued for a period of: a) Twenty years after the effective date of this ordinance, or b) Forty years after the initial construction of the building containing such use or of any addition thereto adding 50 percent or more to the floor area occupied by such use, Whichever is the longer period, provided that, after the expiration of that period, such nonconforming use shall be terminated. However, no such nonconforming use shall be permitted to continue for a period exceeding two years, unless such use shall be operated in conformance with performance standards established in article 5, section 8. The effective date of the current Zoning Ordinance is April 21, 1975. As such sufficient time has passed that most remaining nonconforming uses in the City’s residence zones must now be discontinued or brought into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Existing Property The property at 826 Forest Street is the location of a retail store (liquor store) building. The retail store is addressed as 828 Forest Street and situated on the western portion of the property. Available Business License records dating back to 1998, show a Merchant License for the business known as E&J West Dover Liquors. Though in a residential zone, this store is located next to and across from several commercially zoned properties. It has a small amount of frontage on Lincoln Street but no driveway access to it; access is from Forest Street. Surrounding Land Uses: The surrounding uses vary. Immediately surrounding this property on the east and south are residential properties zoned RG-1 (General Residence Zone) and with properties zoned R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) further to the south. Directly adjacent on the west also fronting on Forest Street are two parcels zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Zone) which include one- family residences. This property is part of the general area of single family dwellings is known as Lincoln Park. To the north of the subject property across Forest Street is a mix of zoning including C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone), and C-3 (Service Commercial Zone). The commercial uses in this area include a laundromat, car wash, and retail store. Comprehensive Plan: In the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, the Land Development Plan (Map 12-1 as amended, dated March 2012) recommends that this property be used for Mixed Use land use classification. Specifically, regarding Mixed Use in the downtown area, the Comprehensive Plan identifies the following goal:

Z-17-04 Lands of Sarah Jones at 826/828 Forest Street Report to City Council: Planning Commission Recommendation of August 21, 2017 Page 3 Enhance the role of Downtown Dover as a major employment, residential and commercial center as well as the symbolic and cultural heart of the community, and recognize its unique heritage and historic resources. Provide for mixed use development allowing greatest variation of uses. The Rezoning request is also consistent with the Land Use Classification of Mixed Use. Table 12-1: Land Use and Zoning Matrix specifies that the following zones are compatible with this land use classification. The property is not located with the Downtown Development Target Area.1 - C-2 (Central Commercial) *within the Downtown Development Target Area only - C-2A (limited Central Commercial) - TND (Traditional Neighborhood Design) - C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) - C-1A (Limited Commercial) - RGO (General Residence and Office) *within the Downtown Development Target Area only - R-8 (One Family Residential) - R-7 (One Family Residential) - RG-1 (General Residential) - RG-2 (General Residential) - RG-4 (Multi-Story Apartments) - C-3 (Service Commercial) - CPO (Commercial/Professional Office) - IO (Institutional and Office) Request for C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) The uses permitted in the C-1A zoning district are listed in Article 3 §12 of the Zoning Ordinance. See Code excerpt below. Article 3 Section 12. - Limited commercial zone (C-1A). 12.1 Uses permitted. In a limited commercial zone (C-1A), no building or premises shall be used, and no building or part of a building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended, or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any purpose, except the following: (a) Retail stores. (b) Personal service establishments. (c) Service establishments. (d) Restaurants. (e) Business, professional, and governmental offices. (f) One family residences, including attached and semi-detached dwellings, complying with the bulk standards of the RG-1 (General Residence) zone. (g) Apartments and multi-family dwellings. 12.2 Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted, conditional upon the approval of the planning commission in accordance with the procedures and subject to the general conditions set forth in article 10, section 1: (a) Drive-throughs accessory to a permitted use. 12.3 Uses prohibited. The following uses are prohibited: 1 The 2008 Comprehensive Plan references the “Downtown Target Area.” This is equivalent to the “Downtown Redevelopment Target Area” as defined and whose boundaries are described in Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix C.

Z-17-04 Lands of Sarah Jones at 826/828 Forest Street Report to City Council: Planning Commission Recommendation of August 21, 2017 Page 4 (a) Fuel pumps and motor vehicle storage, sales, or repairs. 12.4 Enclosed buildings. All permitted uses and all storage accessory thereto, other than offstreet parking, shall be carried on in buildings fully enclosed on all sides, except for outdoor eating areas associated with restaurants and outdoor sales areas approved by the city plann er. 12.5 Performance standards. All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in article 5, section 8.1. 12.6 Site development plan approval. Site development plan approval in accordance with article 10, section 2 hereof shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for the erection or enlargement of all structures and prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for any change of use. The existing and proposed use as a retail store (liquor store) would be permitted in the C-1A Zone. Corridor Overlay Zone The provisions of the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) in Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §27 are established to “promote superior urban corridor development and the highest quality built environment.” There are a series architectural, parking, and landscaping guidelines that would be required by the COZ-1 zoning district, if redevelopment of the property is proposed. Recommendation of the Planning Staff And Recommendation of the Planning Commission: Staff supports the rezoning request from RG-1 to C-1A. The zoning district of C-1A is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan as the Map 12-1: Land Development Plan depicts property with a Mixed Use land use classification. The C-1A zone is the lowest density zoning classification that would permit a retail store utilized as a liquor store. There is another C-1A zoned property nearby. The property could be rezoned to C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Zone), but in such a case it would still be a nonconforming use, albeit not in a residential zone because of the prohibition of liquor stores in the C-1 zone. Staff recommends that the property remain subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) due to the frontage on to Forest Street. The purposes of the COZ-1 are to promote superior urban corridor development; to foster coordination and linkage among corridor properties; to preserve functionality and efficiency of the roadway for traffic movement; and to achieve a visually balanced streetscape environment friendly to the pedestrian and motorist. (Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §27). This segment of Forest Street is a gateway into the Downtown area of Dover. The Staff recommendation was made without the benefit of hearing the comments of surrounding landowners and residents as the Public Hearing had not yet occurred. Following a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission on August 21, 2017, where the application’s representative and two members of the public spoke regarding the proposed rezoning, the Planning Commission unanimously (of the members present) recommended in favor of the rezoning as proposed (8-0). See the included excerpt of the DRAFT Meeting Minutes of the August 21, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. The comments received from the other member agencies of the Development Advisory Committee (D.A.C.) are also provided.

Z-17-04 Lands of Sarah Jones at 826/828 Forest Street Report to City Council: Planning Commission Recommendation of August 21, 2017 Page 5 ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1) In accordance with the provisions of Dover Code, Chapter 1, Sec. 1-13 Clean Hands (b) Obligations which must be current, the City will be unable to grant final action on this Rezoning Application as property taxes are delinquent (as of July 31, 2017) for the involved property. All payments due to the City must be paid in full into order to complete the review process and receive any final approval. a. For questions regarding the property tax billing, you may contact the Tax Assessor’s Office at (302) 736-7022. b. As of August 31, 2017, the property taxes for this property had not been paid. 2) Formal Notice of Decision will indicate actions taken on this rezoning by the Planning Commission and City Council, and will indicate the resolution (or lack thereof) of the property’s nonconforming use status. 3) The applicant shall be aware that following any decision made by City Council in regards to approval of this rezoning, that a Site Plan, Subdivision Plan and or appropriate Building Permits must be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the establishment of a new use or any construction activity on the site. The applicant should contact the Planning Staff to determine the appropriate review process for any proposed projects. 4) The applicant shall be aware that approval of any rezoning application does not represent a Building Permit, other construction activity permit approval, or authorization to establish a new use. A separate application submission showing any proposed improvements is required before issuance of permits by the City of Dover. 5) The business (retail store) located on the property is required to maintain a City of Dover Business License. The new licensing year started August 1st and the applicant should have received information on the process for renewal of the Business License. For questions and processing of Business Licenses, contact the City’s Permitting & Licensing Division at (302) 736-7010. Attachments:  Excerpt from DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2017  Development Advisory Committee Comments from City of Dover Electric & Public Works Departments, City Office of the Fire Marshal, DelDOT, and Kent Conservation District  Zoning Map Exhibit

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION August 21, 2017 Excerpt from Meeting Minutes – DRAFT Z-17-04 Lands of Sarah Jones at 826/828 Forest Street – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council on the rezoning of one parcel of land totaling 0.5 acres+/- located on the south side of Forest Street between Gibbs Drive and Lincoln Street. The property is zoned RG-1 (General Residence Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The proposed zoning is C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The owner of record is Sarah E. Jones. Property Address: 826/828 Forest Street. Tax Parcel: ED-05-076.12-01-16.00-000. Council District 4. Ordinance #2017-10. For this zoning map amendment, the First Reading was completed on July 24, 2017. Public Hearing before the Planning Commission is scheduled for August 21, 2017, and Final Reading/Public Hearing is scheduled before City Council for September 11, 2017. This application is associated with item MI-16-13: Nonconforming Uses in Residential District. The Rezoning is proposed in order to comply with City Council action requiring the sunsetting of nonconforming uses in residential zones. Representatives: Ms. Jocelyn Jones, E&J West Dover Liquors Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this application is a rezoning application. It is in regards to the property located at 826 Forest Street. The store on the property is also addressed as 828 Forest Street. The property is on the south side of Forest Street between Gibbs Drive and Lincoln Street. Currently, the present zoning of the property is RG-1 (General Residence Zone) and it is subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The application before us this evening seeks a zoning classification of C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) with the property remaining subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The reason for the request is to allow the existing use which is a retail establishment of a liquor store to remain on the site instead of sunsetting due to its nonconforming use status in the residential zone. As mentioned, the property is currently zoned RG-1 (General Residence Zone) and the Planning staff has been working through a project City wide to identify non-residential uses that are non-conforming that happen to be located on properties that are zoned residentially. It is the location of a retail store; specifically, the E&J West Dover Liquors which has been that for a number of years at the existing building on the site. This application does not involve any construction or redevelopment of the property. It is strictly about the zoning classification of the property. Surrounding the site is really a mix of residential zoning classifications as well as some nearby commercial zones including C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Zone), C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and also C-3 (Service Commercial Zone). Most of the commercial zones are specifically across the street from this property. With all rezonings, we have to look at the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan for this area identifies the appropriate land use classification as Mixed Use. When they refer to the land-use and zoning matrix, the classification of C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the types of uses that are allowed in the C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) include retail stores, personal service establishments, restaurants, and a variety of types of offices. It does allow for one-family residences and apartments and multi-family dwellings as permitted uses. There are some conditional uses that Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2017 Page 1 of 4

are allowed through a specialized process and then several uses that are specifically prohibited which in this case would include a prohibition of fuel pumps and any kind of motor vehicle storage, sales or repairs in that C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) classification. The property is also subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) and this is a zone that adds a series of architectural, parking and landscaping guidelines should re-development of the property be anticipated. With this application, the Planning Staff is supporting the rezoning request from RG-1 (General Residence Zone) to C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) noting that the C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) is the lowest density zoning classification that would permit this type of retail store within the zone. They also recommend that the property remain subject to the COZ (Corridor Overlay Zone). They have a number of advisory comments to the applicant including a notation that currently the property taxes are delinquent on this property. That is an item that must be taken care of before City Council can take final action on this specific property and its rezoning request. There are comments from the participating Development Advisory Committee agencies but most of those comments indicate no objection to the rezoning of the property. They just identify some advisory comments should re-development in the future be anticipated by the property owner. Tonight, the Planning Commission is making a recommendation in regards to the rezoning of the property. The Planning Commission’s recommendation after the public hearing will be forwarded to City Council. City Council will conduct their own public hearing and take all of the items and information under consideration before they take final action on the rezoning. Mr. Holt questioned if there have been any problems or difficulties with the liquor store in that neighborhood or from the neighbors? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Planning Staff did have several people that did come in to inquire about the application that was filed because they received notice but they did not seem to indicate any issues with the property itself. There is public here this evening that you may hear from. The types of code violations that the property has had over the years have been related to licensing requirements for being slightly late on their Business License for the year and things of that nature. Mr. Tolbert stated that the review process cannot be completed as long as taxes are delinquent. Will any action that the Planning Commission takes be impacted by the outstanding taxes that are due? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the indication from the Planning Staff is that they are continuing to move it through the process in hopes that the applicant will take care of that before they get to the final step in the process which is action by City Council. When this application initially started the review process, taxes were not yet due and they were due by July 31, 2017 which was mid-way through the process. The portion of the Ordinance that they are referring to is the Clean Hands Provisions of the Dover Code of Ordinances which require applications, permits, licenses and the like to be current with all obligations to the City and that would include paying taxes. Ms. Jocelyn Jones stated that she was here on behalf of E&J West Dover Liquors and she is in agreement with the review that was just heard. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2017 Page 2 of 4

Mr. Tolbert opened a public hearing. Ms. Amelia Howard – 814 Forest Street Dover DE 19904 Ms. Howard stated that she has no problem with them rezoning the liquor store which is 828 Forest Street but 826 Forest Street used to have a house there and is residential. Why can’t that property remain residential and 828 Forest Street go to commercial? If they rezone it and the property is sold, then you don’t know what’s going to be put there. Responding to Ms. Howard, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the information that they have indicates that the property is one large property. It is not two separate lots meaning that the store on one lot and where the house was is on another lot. The City’s records indicate that it is one large tract of land and they typically rezone the entire parcel. The C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) that they are seeking does allow for a single family residence or for an apartment or multi- family building as a use on the property. So that vacant area could still be used as residential under the proposed zoning if that is successful. Ms. Howard stated that she doesn’t have a problem with that being a residential area. She just doesn’t want them to expand out with a bigger liquor store or something like that because they have a lot of traffic on that street. Most of the time she has to go east to a back street to go west from her house and so do her neighbors. If they put something bigger there it’s going to be even more congested. Responding to Ms. Howard, Mr. Tolbert stated that if they want to put something bigger there at some point, they are going to have to come before this Commission and everyone will have an opportunity to address that issue at that time. Mr. Victor Giangrant – Westside Car Wash, 805 Forest Street Dover DE 19904 Mr. Giangrant stated that he owns Westside Car Wash. They are adjacent to the liquor store. It is quite interesting working next to a liquor store. He picks up beer cans and whiskey glass every day. His customers get panhandled every day. There are people hanging out along side of the liquor store in a drunken stupor yelling and screaming obscenities. It’s a tough place to do business when you have that type of environment so he is against it. Although he is pro-business, he doesn’t think that a liquor store is the proper place in a residential area in his opinion. Mr. Tolbert closed the public hearing. Dr. Jones questioned if the applicant understands and accepts the concern about the taxes, that it will not go further in all probability? Responding to Dr. Jones, Ms. Jones stated yes. Mr. Tolbert stated that he would like to hear the applicant’s response to Mr. Giangrant’s concerns. Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Jones stated that she has not had any complaints and Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2017 Page 3 of 4

there hasn’t been any beer cans or bottles around the area of the liquor store. His employees drink there very much so the empty cans and bottles are on his side. She hasn’t had anyone yelling in a stupor or drunk on the side of the store so she hasn’t had any complaints. Also, this store has been here for over twenty years. Even before her family became the owners, the store was there for fifteen years prior. There were two owners before them. Mr. Tolbert stated that the only reason that he brought it up was that he wanted her to be aware of a complaint that’s being made. He also wants to state that if the complaint is valid then it should be brought to the attention of the police so that they can look into that matter. The Planning Commission can’t come out and police that area so you have an obligation to bring it to the attention of the police or also talk to the owner of the establishment to come to an agreement as to what is going to be done about it. Dr. Jones moved to recommend approval to City Council for Z-17-04 - Lands of Sarah Jones 826-828 Forest St for the rezoning request from RG-1 (General Residence Zone) to C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and to retain the zoning of the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone), seconded by Ms. Maucher and the motion was carried 8-0 by roll call vote with Ms. Edwards absent. Mr. Holden voting yes, due to Staff comments and the long standing history of the property utilized as currently. Mr. Roach voting yes. Mr. Holt voting yes; due to the last standing history of the property and hopefully something can be worked out with the car wash next door to resolve the problem. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; it fits within the zoning of that area. Dr. Jones voting yes; for previous reasons stated. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; as the rezoning brings the property in compliance with City Council’s request for sunsetting of non-conforming uses. Ms. Maucher voting yes; as it eliminates a non-conforming use property. Mr. Tolbert voting yes; the application brings the applicant into compliance with the City Code. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this application will next be heard at the City Council meeting on September 11, 2017. It is also subject to public hearing at that meeting as well. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2017 Page 4 of 4

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: AUGUST 2, 2017 APPLICATION: LANDS OF SARAH JONES AT 826 FOREST STREET FILE #: Z-17-04 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover CONTACT PERSON: Paul Waddell - Electric Jason A. Lyon, P.E. – Public Works CONTACT PHONE #: ELECTRIC - 302-736-7072 PUBLIC WORKS – 302-736-7025 T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ’ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / STREETS / SANITATION / GROUNDS Our office has no objection to the rezoning of: ED-05-076.12-01-16.00-000 RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER / SANITATION / STORMWATER / STREETS / GROUNDS 1. Should this site be redeveloped, which includes modifications to the use, the applicant / developer will be responsible for all costs associated with providing the appropriate meter / service / main to this site based upon the use including any necessary system upgrades or extensions. The appropriateness and adequacy of electric, water and sewer services and meters will be assessed at that time. (Please note that each water meter registered with the City of Dover must have a separate service line.) Should the existing water and sanitary sewer services no longer be required based upon the proposed use, they must be properly abandoned at the mains in accordance with all City of Dover Department of Public Works standards and specifications. 2. Any redevelopment shall adhere to the City of Dover Water/Wastewater Handbook, the Specifications, Standards & Procedures for City of Dover Public Works requirements, and the City of Dover’s Electric Service Handbook. 3. Please note that renovations and or change of use projects must ensure that the water and wastewater service is brought up to current requirements. This may include relocating the water meter outside or changing service line sizes. Please ensure you schedule a meeting with the Department of Public Works during the planning phase for this site. Additional impact fees may apply for future development. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / STREETS / SANITATION / GROUNDS 1. None. I F Y OU H AVE A NY Q UESTIONS OR N EED TO D ISCUSS ANY OF THE A BOVE C OMMENTS , P LEASE C ALL THE A BOVE C ONTACT P ERSON AND THE P LANNING D EPARTMENT AS S OON AS P OSSIBLE .

C F Z-17-04 I I T R CITY OF DOVER Y E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE O M F A APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY R D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 08/09/17 D S O H V A E L R APPLICATION: Lands of Sarah Jones at 826 Forest St FILE #: Z-17-04 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Jason Osika, Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY, AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT: Routine Comments: 1. The installation of natural gas and LP gas meters, regulators, valves, and LP gas bottles shall be protected from impact damage by impact protection. Natural gas and LP gas meters, regulators, and valves located inside structures shall have impact protection, except when located in separate protected utility rooms. Dimensions of bollards. Bollards shall be a minimum of six-inch diameter filled with concrete. The bollard shall be set into the ground at a depth of at least 36 inches (three ft.) embedded in concrete at a minimum of 18 inches surrounding the bollard. The bollards must be a least 48 inches (four ft.) in height above the finish grade elevation. Any deviation of the stated requirements must be approved by the fire marshal and/or chief building inspector. The above dimensions shall serve as the requirement for installation; however the fire marshal and/or chief building inspector shall have the authority to require more stringent dimensions to fit the needs of devices warranting impact protection. Color of bollards. Bollards should be of the following colors; yellow, amber or orange. All colors shall be of fluorescent or have a reflective coating. Any deviation of the stated requirements must be approved by the fire marshal and/chief building inspector. (City of Dover Code of Ordinances, 46-4) 2. Every house, building or structure used or intended for use as living quarters or as a place for conducting business, and having any wall facing or abutting any public or private street or alley, shall have displayed on that wall, in legible, easily read characters which are of contrasting color to the background, the proper street number for such house, building, or structure in accordance with the following: One-family and two-family residential structures, height, the number shall measure a minimum of four inches in height, location, the number shall be placed on the house above or to the left or right of the front entrance, color, the number shall be contrasting to the background color, Arabic numerals, all numbers shall be Arabic numerals. Multiple-family dwellings, measurements, the number shall measure a minimum of six inches when identifying individual apartments with exterior doors, and 12 inches when identifying buildings with apartment complexes where there

are two or more buildings not assigned street addresses. Individual buildings with street addresses shall have numbers measuring six inches, location, numbers shall be placed either in the center of the building or on the street end of the building so as to be visible from either the public or private street or from the parking lot, color, numbers shall be contrasting to the background color, Arabic numerals, all numbers used shall be Arabic numerals. Commercial, industrial and office buildings, height, the numbers shall measure a minimum of 12 inches in height, location generally, numbers shall be placed either in the center of the building or on the street end of the building so as to be visible from either the public or private street or from the parking lot, property line or driveway, should the building be located far enough from a public or private road so that the numbers are not clearly visible from the street, then the street address shall also be posted on the property at or near the property line or driveway to said building, color; each building, numbers shall be contrasting to the background color and shall be placed on each building in the complex, Arabic numerals, all numbers used shall be Arabic numerals, Shopping centers. Shopping centers consisting of two or more stores shall have a tenant or suite number affixed to the front of the tenant space and on the outside of the rear door which corresponds with that tenant space. Numbers shall measure six inches in height. (City of Dover Code of Ordinances, 98-344) APPLICABLE CODES LISTED BELOW (NOT LIMITED TO): 2015 NFPA 1 Fire Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2015 NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2013 NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2013 NFPA 13 Installation of Sprinkler Systems (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2009 IBC (International Building Code) Latest editions of all other NFPA Codes as defined by the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations City of Dover Code of Ordinances *If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person listed.

CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O D.A.C. MEETING DATE: August 2, 2017 T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Lands of Sarah Jones at 826 Forest Street FILE#: Z-17-04 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Jonathan T. Moore PHONE#: 760-2145 =============================================================== THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY & STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: DelDOT has no comments regarding city & state code at this time. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: DelDOT has no recommendations at this time. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: DelDOT has no advisory comments at this time. If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the planning department as soon as possible.

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY August 2017 APPLICATION: Lands of Sarah Jones at 826 Forest Street FILE #: Z-17-04 REVIEWING AGENCY: Kent Conservation District CONTACT PERSON: Jessica Verchick PHONE #: 741-2600 ext.3 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: Source: Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Regulations CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Kent Conservation District has no objection to the re-zoning plan for the above referenced site. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1. If at any time expansion or earth disturbing activity (clearing, grubbing tree clearing etc.) takes place and exceeds 5000 square feet; a detailed Sediment and Stormwater Management Plan must be submitted and approved to the Kent Conversation District.

City of Dover Application No.: Z-17-04 Department of Planning & Inspections C-2A to Wes t IO ion S n Dr D i vi s C-3 C-1A Forest S t C-1 Site RG-1 Lincoln St C-3 Davis Cir Cherry St R-8 RG-1 RG-1 R-8 R-8 RG-3 IO Title: Lands of Sarah E. Jones Legend Address: 826 Forest Street Parcel ID: ED-05-076.12-01-16.00-000 Subject Property Current Zoning: RG-1, COZ-1 (partial) Proposed Zoning: C-1A, COZ-1 (partial) Dover Parcels Owner: Sarah E. Jones Zoning Date: 7/13/2017 Corridor Overlay Zone 2012 Buildings Kent County Parcels « 0 75 150 300 Feet Dover Boundary

FINAL READING City of Dover PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2017-10 1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY 2 OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 826 FOREST STREET 4 WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within the 5 limits of the City of Dover; and 6 WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of property 7 described below from RG-1 (General Residence Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) 8 to C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). 9 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 10 DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 11 1) That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning 12 Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation from RG-1 13 (General Residence Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) to C-1A (Limited 14 Commercial Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) on that property located on 15 the south side of Forest Street between Gibbs Drive and Lincoln Street at 826 Forest Street, 16 consisting of 0.5+/- acres, owned by Sarah E. Jones. 17 (Tax Parcel: ED-05-076.12-01-16.00-000; Planning Reference: Z-17-04; Council District: 4) 18 19 ADOPTED: * 20 S:\ORDINANCES\2017\DRAFT\ORDINANCE #2017-10 REZONING - 826 FOREST STREET\ORDINANCE #2017-10 - REZONING-826 FOREST STREET-FINAL READING.wpd 21 22 Actions History 23 09/11/2017 - Scheduled for Public Hearing/Final Reading - City Council 24 08/21/2017 - Public Hearing - Planning Commission 25 07/24/2017 - First Reading - City Council

PETITION TO AMEND AND ZONING DISTRICT Public Hearing before the Dover City Council September 11, 2017 Applicants/Owners: Bennie Smith Real Estate, LLC Equitable Owners: St. Nicholas Ukrainian Orthodox Mission Address: 870-872 Forest Street, Dover, DE Location: South side of Forest Street east of Gibbs Drive Tax Parcel ID #: ED-05-076.12-01-08.00-000 Size: 0.7473 acres (32,552 SF+/-) Present Use: Two Buildings: Office Building & Day Care Center Proposed Use: Two Buildings: Place of Worship, School, and Business Office of philanthropic and charitable institution & Day Care Center Comprehensive Plan Designation: Mixed Use Present Zoning: C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone)/COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) Proposed Zoning: IO (Institutional and Office Zone)/COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) Reason for Request: To allow for the establishment of new uses of a Place of Assembly (Place of Worship), School and Business Office of a philanthropic and charitable institution in existing building. File Number: Z-17-05 Ordinance Number: 2017-11 Planning Commission Recommendation: Following a public hearing on August 21, 2017, where no members of the public spoke regarding the application, the Planning Commission moved by vote of 6-0 to recommend in favor of the proposed rezoning (2 members recused). (Draft Minutes attached)

Z-17-05 Lands of Bennie Smith Real Estate, LLC at 870-872 Forest Street Report to City Council: Planning Commission Recommendation of August 21, 2017 Page 2 Overview This rezoning application consists of for one parcel of land totaling of 0.7473 acres (32,552 S.F.) of area. The property is currently zoned C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The proposed zoning classification is IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The property known as 870-872 Forrest Street is situated on the south side of Forest Street and east of Gibbs Drive. The owner of record is Bennie Smith Real Estate, LLC. The equitable owner is St. Nicholas Ukrainian Orthodox Mission. Tax Parcel: ED-05-076.12-01-08.00-000. Previous Applications: On September 22, 2003, this property at 870 Forest Street was approved for rezoning by City Council from RG-1 (General Residence Zone) to CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone) with the property also subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone 1). Application Z-03-03. Redevelopment of this parcel of land was then reviewed under Site Plan S-04-01and approved by the Planning Commission on January 20, 2004. The Site Plan proposed that the two existing buildings be utilized as office buildings and include site improvements for parking and landscaping. On November 15, 2004, a Conditional Use Site Plan C-04-08 was reviewed and granted conditional approval by the Planning Commission to permit the use of the existing Building #2 (rear building addressed as 872 Forest Street) on the property as a Day Care Center. As part of the motion, the Planning Commission set the maximum number of children for this Day Care Center at sixty (60) children. Conditional Use Site Plan (C-04-08) was granted Final Plan approval on June 8, 2005. Construction activities were begun to renovate the buildings and complete the site work. During the implementation of the plan a discrepancy between the approved Site Plan and the approved Landscape Plan was identified related to the opaque barrier requirements and as a result the Planning Commission considered and approved a waiver request for the opaque barrier requirements on September 19, 2005. On September 10, 2012, this property at 870 Forest Street was approved for rezoning by City Council from CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone) to C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) with the property also subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone 1). Application Z-12-02. Existing Property: The subject property consists of one parcel of land and includes two (2) existing buildings. The use of the front building at 870 Forest Street is currently established as an office building. The rear building at 872 Forest Street currently houses a Day Care Center known as Cindy’s Bright Stars Learning. Surrounding Land Uses: The surrounding uses vary. Immediately surrounding this property are residential properties zoned RG-1 (General Residence Zone) and with properties zoned R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) further to the south. This area of single family dwellings is known as Lincoln Park. To the north of the subject property across Forrest Street (Route 8) is zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and is the location of an elementary and middle school. To the northeast of this parcel at the intersection of Forrest Street and Division Street is a mix of zoning including C-1A (Limited

Z-17-05 Lands of Bennie Smith Real Estate, LLC at 870-872 Forest Street Report to City Council: Planning Commission Recommendation of August 21, 2017 Page 3 Commercial Zone), and C-3 (Service Commercial Zone). The commercial uses in this area include a laundromat, car wash, and retail store. Further east on Forest Street are two parcels zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Zone). Those properties fronting on Forest Street are within the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) which requires enhanced design requirements for development activities such as landscaping, setbacks, building placement, parking, buffering, etc. to promote superior urban design. Comprehensive Plan: In the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, the Land Development Plan (Map 12-1 as amended, dated March 2012) recommends that this property be used for Mixed Use. Specifically, regarding mixed use in the downtown area, the Comprehensive Plan identifies the following goal: Enhance the role of Downtown Dover as a major employment, residential and commercial center as well as the symbolic and cultural heart of the community, and recognize its unique heritage and historic resources. Provide for mixed use development allowing greatest variation of uses. The rezoning request is also consistent with the Land Use Classification of Mixed Use. Table 12- 1: Land Use and Zoning Matrix specifies that the following zones are compatible with this land use classification. The property is not located with the Downtown Development Target Area.1 - C-2 (Central Commercial) *within the Downtown Development Target Area only - C-2A (limited Central Commercial) - TND (Traditional Neighborhood Design) - C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) - C-1A (Limited Commercial) - RGO (General Residence and Office) *within the Downtown Development Target Area only - R-8 (One Family Residential) - R-7 (One Family Residential) - RG-1 (General Residential) - RG-2 (General Residential) - RG-4 (Multi-Story Apartments) - C-3 (Service Commercial) - CPO (Commercial/Professional Office) - IO (Institutional and Office) Request for IO (Institutional & Office Zone) The types of permitted uses in the IO Zone are given Article 3 §10 of the Zoning Ordinance. The permitted uses include the following: Article 3 Section 10. - Institutional and office zone (IO). 10.1 Uses permitted. In an institutional and office zone (IO), no building or premises shall be used, and no building or part of a building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended, or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any purpose, except the following: (a) Business, professional, or governmental offices. 1 The 2008 Comprehensive Plan references the “Downtown Target Area.” This is equivalent to the “Downtown Redevelopment Target Area” as defined and whose boundaries are described in Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix C.

Z-17-05 Lands of Bennie Smith Real Estate, LLC at 870-872 Forest Street Report to City Council: Planning Commission Recommendation of August 21, 2017 Page 4 (b) Banks. (c) Research, design, and development laboratories. (d) Public and institutional uses including hospitals, medical clinics, libraries, police stations, courthouses, transit centers, schools, colleges, universities, places of public assembly, philanthropic and charitable institutions, parks, playgrounds, pub lic indoor recreation centers, athletic fields. (e) Public utility rights-of-way and structures necessary to serve areas within the city. (f) Day care centers, provided they are established in accordance with all applicable state regulations pertaining to child care and provided that they are established and maintained in accordance with article 5, section 14 of this ordinance. (g) Emergency shelters and transitional housing. 10.2 Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted, conditional upon the approval of the planning commission in accordance with the procedures and subject to the general conditions set forth in article 10, section 1: (a) Firearm ranges, prisons, and correctional facilities. (b) Public incinerators. (c) Hotels and restaurants. 10.3 Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory to other permitted uses on a lot. (a) Clinics, cafeterias, and recreational facilities. (b) Motor vehicle storage and repair facilities accessory to a public or institutional use. (c) Restaurants that are on a campus and intended to support users of the campus. 10.4 Uses prohibited. The following uses are prohibited: (a) Landfills, dumps. 10.5 Enclosed buildings. All permitted uses and all storage accessory thereto, other than offstreet parking, shall be carried on in buildings fully enclosed on all sides, except for outdoor eating areas associated with restaurants approved by the city planner. 10.6 Performance standards. All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in article 5, section 8.1. 10.7 Site development plan approval. Site development plan approval in accordance with article 10, section 2 hereof shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for the erection or enlargement of all structures and prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for any change of use. Corridor Overlay Zone The provisions of the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) in Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §27 are established to “promote superior urban corridor development and the highest quality built environment.” There are a series architectural, parking, and landscaping guidelines that would be required by the COZ-1 zoning district, if redevelopment of the property is proposed. Recommendation of the Planning Staff And Recommendation of the Planning Commission: Staff recommends that the rezoning be granted as requested from C-1A to IO. The zoning district of IO (Institutional & Office zone) is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as the Map 12-1: Land Development Plan depicts the property with a Mixed Use classification.

Z-17-05 Lands of Bennie Smith Real Estate, LLC at 870-872 Forest Street Report to City Council: Planning Commission Recommendation of August 21, 2017 Page 5 Staff recommends that the property remain subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) due to the frontage on to Forest Street. The purposes of the COZ-1 are to promote superior urban corridor development; to foster coordination and linkage among corridor properties; to preserve functionality and efficiency of the roadway for traffic movement; and to achieve a visually balanced streetscape environment friendly to the pedestrian and motorist. (Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §27). This segment of Forest Street is a gateway into Downtown Dover. The Staff recommendation was made without that benefit of hearing the comments of surrounding landowners and residents as the Public Hearing had not yet occurred. Following a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission on August 21, 2017, where the application’s representative and no members of the public spoke regarding the proposed rezoning, the Planning Commission recommended in favor of the rezoning as proposed (6-0) with two members recused. See the included excerpt of the DRAFT Meeting Minutes of the August 21, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. The comments received from the other member agencies of the Development Advisory Committee (D.A.C.) are also provided. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1) Prior to establishing any use or commencing with any construction on the subject property, including within the existing buildings, the applicant shall contact the Planning Office so that the appropriate review process can be determined and coordinated with other reviewing entities including the Fire Marshal’s Office, Public Works/Utilities, and the Chief Building Inspector. 2) The applicant shall be aware that approval of any rezoning application does not represent Site Development Plan or Record Plan approval. A separate Site Development Plan must be submitted and approved if development activities are proposed on the property. 3) The applicant shall be aware that approval of any rezoning application does not represent a Building Permit or other construction activity permit approval. A separate application submission showing all improvements is required before issuance of permits by the City of Dover. 4) All businesses operating in the City of Dover are required to obtain a City of Dover Business Licenses from the Licensing and Permitting Division located in City Hall. Certain types of uses also require a Public Occupancy permit. Attachments:  Excerpt from DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2017  Development Advisory Committee Comments from City of Dover Electric & Public Works Departments, City Office of the Fire Marshal, DelDOT, and Kent Conservation District  Zoning Map Exhibit

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION August 21, 2017 Excerpt from Meeting Minutes – DRAFT Z-17-05 Lands Bennie Smith Real Estate, LLC at 870-872 Forest Street – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council on the rezoning of one parcel of land totaling of 0.7473 acres (32,552 S.F.) of area. The property is currently zoned C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The proposed zoning classification is IO (Institutional & Office Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The property known as 870-872 Forrest Street is situated on the south side of Forest Street and east of Gibbs Drive. The owner of record is Bennie Smith Real Estate, LLC. The equitable owner is St. Nicholas Ukrainian Orthodox Mission. Tax Parcel: ED-05-076.12-01-08.00-000. Council District 4. Ordinance #2017-11. For this zoning map amendment, the First Reading was completed on July 24, 2017. Public Hearing before the Planning Commission is scheduled for August 21, 2017, and Final Reading/Public Hearing is scheduled before City Council for September 11, 2017. Representatives: Mr. Chuck Spiegleman, McGinnis Real Estate Mr. Holt recused himself from this application. (As his wife is a member of the proposed church tenant.) Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this application is a rezoning that is located at 870-872 Forest Street. This location is on the south side of Forest Street closer to Gibbs Drive. The property has two existing buildings on it. Currently, the front building is utilized as an office building and the building at the rear is a day care center. The present zoning of the property is C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and it is subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). This proposal is a request to rezone to IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and remain subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The reason for the request is to allow for the establishment of new uses in the building that is closest to Forest Street. The intended uses are a place of assembly as a place of worship with associated school and business office functions for that facility. The property is just over 32,000 SF in size and extends to the south of Forest Street. This property has been through several rezoning and site development applications over the years. It was originally zoned RG-1 (General Residence Zone) and then in 2003 was rezoned to CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone). After which time the day care center was developed through a Conditional Use process and then in 2012 the property was rezoned from CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone) to C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) with the intent to include some retail uses in that initial building. Today, the Commission is considering the request to IO (Institutional and Office Zone). Like the previous property, this one is surrounded by a variety of residential uses and zoning classifications with some residential specifically to its south, west and east. The bulk of the commercial in the area is located across Forest Street. The Comprehensive Plan for this area shows the land-use classification as Mixed Use. The IO (Institutional and Office Zone) is an Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2017 Page 1 of 3

appropriate zoning classification for that land-use category. The types of uses that would be allowed in the IO (Institutional and Office Zone) include a variety of offices, banks and research and development laboratories. It also includes a variety of public and institutional uses which include things like schools and places of public assembly and also day care centers. There are some items that would be a Conditional Use application should they be pursued and there are some uses that are specifically prohibited in the IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and that would include landfills and dumps. The property is currently subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) and that would remain with the rezoning request. As noted, the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) is more related to the redevelopment of a site because it focuses on architectural, parking, and landscaping guidelines for development activities. With this application, the Planning Staff is recommending that the rezoning be granted from the C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) to IO (Institutional and Office Zone) as it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as a fitting Mixed Use classification. They also recommend that it remain subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) for any future re-development. Planning Commissioners may note that this property also had a slight issue with its property taxes as of July but the property taxes have been paid for this specific property location. The DAC Report goes on to provide comments from the other participating agencies which have no objection to the rezoning; they just provide some guidance should re-development activities be anticipated at the site including new uses that may occupy the buildings on the site. The Planning Commission is making a recommendation to City Council on the applicant’s request to seek the zoning classification of IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and remaining subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). Dr. Jones recused herself from this application. While she is not on a regular payroll of the property owner but occasionally she is called (Bennie Smith Funeral Services). Mr. Spiegleman stated that he agrees with the statements made by Mrs. Melson-Williams. Their office represents Mr. Bennie Smith, the property owner as well as Saint Nichols Ukrainian Orthodox Mission, the applicant. The applicant is present here tonight and they are requesting the rezoning of the property from its current zoning with Staff recommendation to allow a place of worship and a business office in an existing building while at the same time maintaining the existing day care facility located on the property. Mr. Tolbert questioned if Mr. Spiegleman agreed with Staff’s comments and would work collaboratively with them? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Spiegleman stated yes. Mr. Roach stated that he knows that the day care has been operating. Is the applicant planning on opening the place of worship in the front building and then closing the day care or will they be having that in conjunction with the place of worship or will it be a whole separate entity being run differently? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Spiegleman stated that currently the day care is going to remain a day care. The front building will be changed. There are no development plans at this time. Mr. Tolbert opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2017 Page 2 of 3

Ms. Maucher moved to recommend approval to City Council for Z-17-05 Lands of Bennie Smith Real Estate LLC 870-872 Forest Street for the change in zoning from C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) to IO (Institutional and Office Zone) with the property remaining subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone), seconded by Mrs. Welsh and the motion carried 6-0 with Mr. Holt and Dr. Jones recused and Ms. Edwards absent. Mr. Holden voting yes; due to Staff comments and the recommended rezoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and lack of public opposition. Mr. Roach voting yes. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; based on the previous statements. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; the rezoning brings the property into compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Maucher voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mr. Tolbert voting yes; the applicant is willing to work collaboratively with Staff and the application is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this application will next be heard at the City Council meeting on September 11, 2017. It is also subject to public hearing at that meeting as well. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2017 Page 3 of 3

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: AUGUST 2, 2017 APPLICATION: LANDS OF BENNIE SMITH REAL ESTATE, LLC AT 870- 872 FOREST STREET FILE #: Z-17-05 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover CONTACT PERSON: Paul Waddell - Electric Jason A. Lyon, P.E. – Public Works CONTACT PHONE #: ELECTRIC - 302-736-7072 PUBLIC WORKS – 302-736-7025 T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ’ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / STREETS / SANITATION / GROUNDS Our office has no objection to the rezoning of: ED-05-076.12-01-08.00-000 RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER / SANITATION / STORMWATER / STREETS / GROUNDS 1. Should this site be redeveloped, which includes modifications to the use, the applicant / developer will be responsible for all costs associated with providing the appropriate meter / service / main to this site based upon the use including any necessary system upgrades or extensions. The appropriateness and adequacy of electric, water and sewer services and meters will be assessed at that time. (Please note that each water meter registered with the City of Dover must have a separate service line.) Should the existing water and sanitary sewer services no longer be required based upon the proposed use, they must be properly abandoned at the mains in accordance with all City of Dover Department of Public Works standards and specifications. 2. Any redevelopment shall adhere to the City of Dover Water/Wastewater Handbook, the Specifications, Standards & Procedures for City of Dover Public Works requirements, and the City of Dover’s Electric Service Handbook. 3. Please note that renovations and or change of use projects must ensure that the water and wastewater service is brought up to current requirements. This may include relocating the water meter outside or changing service line sizes. Please ensure you schedule a meeting with the Department of Public Works during the planning phase for this site. Additional impact fees may apply for future development. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / STREETS / SANITATION / GROUNDS 1. None. I F Y OU H AVE A NY Q UESTIONS OR N EED TO D ISCUSS ANY OF THE A BOVE C OMMENTS , P LEASE C ALL THE A BOVE C ONTACT P ERSON AND THE P LANNING D EPARTMENT AS S OON AS P OSSIBLE .

C F Z-17-05 I I T R CITY OF DOVER Y E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE O M F A APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY R D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 08/09/17 D S O H V A E L R APPLICATION: Lands Bennie Smith Real Estate, LLC at 870-872 Forest Street FILE #: Z-17-05 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Jason Osika, Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY, AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT: Routine Comments: 1. The installation of natural gas and LP gas meters, regulators, valves, and LP gas bottles shall be protected from impact damage by impact protection. Natural gas and LP gas meters, regulators, and valves located inside structures shall have impact protection, except when located in separate protected utility rooms. Dimensions of bollards. Bollards shall be a minimum of six-inch diameter filled with concrete. The bollard shall be set into the ground at a depth of at least 36 inches (three ft.) embedded in concrete at a minimum of 18 inches surrounding the bollard. The bollards must be a least 48 inches (four ft.) in height above the finish grade elevation. Any deviation of the stated requirements must be approved by the fire marshal and/or chief building inspector. The above dimensions shall serve as the requirement for installation; however the fire marshal and/or chief building inspector shall have the authority to require more stringent dimensions to fit the needs of devices warranting impact protection. Color of bollards. Bollards should be of the following colors; yellow, amber or orange. All colors shall be of fluorescent or have a reflective coating. Any deviation of the stated requirements must be approved by the fire marshal and/chief building inspector. (City of Dover Code of Ordinances, 46-4) 2. Every house, building or structure used or intended for use as living quarters or as a place for conducting business, and having any wall facing or abutting any public or private street or alley, shall have displayed on that wall, in legible, easily read characters which are of contrasting color to the background, the proper street number for such house, building, or structure in accordance with the following: One-family and two-family residential structures, height, the number shall measure a minimum of four inches in height, location, the number shall be placed on the house above or to the left or right of the front entrance, color, the number shall be contrasting to the background color, Arabic numerals, all numbers shall be Arabic numerals. Multiple-family dwellings, measurements, the number shall measure a minimum of six inches when identifying individual apartments with exterior doors, and 12 inches when identifying buildings with apartment complexes where there

are two or more buildings not assigned street addresses. Individual buildings with street addresses shall have numbers measuring six inches, location, numbers shall be placed either in the center of the building or on the street end of the building so as to be visible from either the public or private street or from the parking lot, color, numbers shall be contrasting to the background color, Arabic numerals, all numbers used shall be Arabic numerals. Commercial, industrial and office buildings, height, the numbers shall measure a minimum of 12 inches in height, location generally, numbers shall be placed either in the center of the building or on the street end of the building so as to be visible from either the public or private street or from the parking lot, property line or driveway, should the building be located far enough from a public or private road so that the numbers are not clearly visible from the street, then the street address shall also be posted on the property at or near the property line or driveway to said building, color; each building, numbers shall be contrasting to the background color and shall be placed on each building in the complex, Arabic numerals, all numbers used shall be Arabic numerals, Shopping centers. Shopping centers consisting of two or more stores shall have a tenant or suite number affixed to the front of the tenant space and on the outside of the rear door which corresponds with that tenant space. Numbers shall measure six inches in height. (City of Dover Code of Ordinances, 98-344) ADDITIONAL / SPECIFIC COMMENTS: 1. 870 Forest St is the front building, 872 Forest St is the rear building (daycare) 2. There has been discussion about 870 Forest St becoming a place of assembly. Please contact the Fire Marshal and Chief Building Inspector to schedule a meeting to discuss the same. Additional comments would be supplied in regards to a change of use (to possibly include, but not be limited to a Fire Alarm System, Fire Suppression System, and access). APPLICABLE CODES LISTED BELOW (NOT LIMITED TO): 2015 NFPA 1 Fire Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2015NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2013 NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2013 NFPA 13 Installation of Sprinkler Systems (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2009 IBC (International Building Code) Latest editions of all other NFPA Codes as defined by the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations City of Dover Code of Ordinances *If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person listed.

CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O D.A.C. MEETING DATE: August 2, 2017 T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Lands of Bennie Smith Real Estate, LLC at 870-872 Forest Street FILE#: Z-17-05 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Jonathan T. Moore PHONE#: 760-2145 =============================================================== THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY & STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: DelDOT has no comments regarding city & state code at this time. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: DelDOT has no recommendations at this time. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: DelDOT has no advisory comments at this time. If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the planning department as soon as possible.

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY August 2017 APPLICATION: Lands of Bennie Smith Real Estate, LLC at 870-872 Forest Street FILE #: Z-17-05 REVIEWING AGENCY: Kent Conservation District CONTACT PERSON: Jessica Verchick PHONE #: 741-2600 ext.3 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: Source: Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Regulations CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Kent Conservation District has no objection to the re-zoning plan for the above referenced site. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1. If at any time expansion or earth disturbing activity (clearing, grubbing tree clearing etc.) takes place and exceeds 5000 square feet; a detailed Sediment and Stormwater Management Plan must be submitted and approved to the Kent Conversation District.

City of Dover Application No.: Z-17-05 Department of Planning & Inspections C-2A to IO Wes n Dr St Division C-1A Forest S t C-1A C-1 RG-1 Gibbs Dr Site RG-1 Lincoln St Davis Cir R-8 R-8 Reese St R-8 RG-1 R-8 Title: Lands of Bennie Smith Legend Address: 870-872 Forest Street Parcel ID: ED-05-076.12-01-08.00-000 Subject Property Current Zoning: C-1A, COZ-1 (partial) Proposed Zoning: IO, COZ-1 (partial) Dover Parcels Owner: Bennie Smith Real Estate LLC Zoning Date: 7/13/2017 Corridor Overlay Zone 2012 Buildings Kent County Parcels « 0 75 150 300 Feet Dover Boundary

FINAL READING City of Dover PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2017-11 1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY 2 OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 870 - 872 FOREST STREET 4 WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within the 5 limits of the City of Dover; and 6 WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of property 7 described below from C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) 8 to IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). 9 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 10 DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 11 1) That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning 12 Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation from C-1A 13 (Limited Commercial Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) to IO (Institutional 14 and Office Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) on that property located on the 15 south side of Forest Street and east of Gibbs Drive at 870 - 872 Forest Street, consisting of 0.7473+/- 16 acres (32,552+/- S.F.), owned by Bennie Smith Real Estate, LLC. 17 (Tax Parcel: ED-05-076.12-01-08.00-000; Planning Reference: Z-17-05; Council District: 4) 18 19 ADOPTED: * 20 S:\ORDINANCES\2017\DRAFT\ORDINANCE #2017-11 REZONING - 870-872 FOREST STREET\ORDINANCE #2017-11- REZONING-870-872 FOREST STREET-FINAL READING.wpd 21 22 Actions History 23 09/11/2017 - Scheduled for Public Hearing/Final Reading - City Council 24 08/21/2017 - Public Hearing - Planning Commission 25 07/24/2017 - First Reading - City Council

Application and Recruitment Process for City Committees, Commissions, and Boards - Summary/Timeline 07/11/2016 During the Regular City Council Meeting of July 11, 2016, members considered reappointments recommended by Mayor Christiansen and referred the issue of designing and expanding the recruitment for City committees, commissions and boards to the Council Committee of the Whole. Mr. Hare suggested requesting Councilmen Anderson and Lewis to get together and make recommendations to the Committee in this regard. 08/23/2016 During the Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Meeting of August 23, 2016, Mr. Lewis reviewed his suggestions regarding designing and expanding recruitment. Mr. Anderson was absent. Among Mr. Lewis’s suggestions were the following: 1) When applications come in, have the City Clerk or person receiving applications provide Council members with copies of resumes and applications to review before the City Council meeting. 2) Require all individuals interested in serving on a board or commission, including members wishing to be reappointed, to fill out an application with a resume since reappointed members may have new information they need to provide. Mrs. Sass reviewed the proposed application. After discussion, the Committee deferred this matter until September 27, 2016 to allow the ideas to be solidified, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Anderson to review and refine it further, and for Mrs. Sass and the City Clerk’s Office to work together. 09/27/2016 During the Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Meeting of September 27, 2016, Ms. Kay Sass, Public Affairs and Emergency Management Coordinator, again reviewed the application. There was general discussion about designing and expanding recruitment for City Committees, Commissions, and Boards. Members recommended acceptance of staff’s recommendation. At the request of Mr. Anderson, Mrs. McDowell read the “Proposed Recommendations for Advancing a more effective Recruitment Process for City Commissions, Committees and Boards,” which were submitted by Mr. Lewis into the record, as follows: 1) Advertise/publish vacancies via. Local Newspapers, City Website and City Social Media. (To include information on how to apply and the duties of the particular board/commission.) - Kay Sass, Public Relations 2) When applications of Interest are received by the City, provide City Council Members copies of all applications and resumes to personally review before placing on Council Agenda for Appointment. - City Clerk’s Office 3) Members currently serving on City Boards/Committees/Commissions wishing to be reappointed and continuing to serve must reapply with an updated resume. - City Clerk’s Office 4) A volunteer opportunities posting with all current vacancies be established on the website.

Application and Recruitment Process for City Committees, Commissions, and Boards - Summary/Timeline Page 2 5) New Board/Committee/Commission appointments must agree to go for sponsored training provided by the DLLG or other training fascinators to assist in becoming more familiar and to get a better understanding of the board/committee/commission they will be serving on. This training will strengthen and enhance their role and duty. Members recommended adoption of points #1 - #4 and deferred consideration of point #5, related to the requirement of training for board, committee, and commission appointees, until the next meeting of the Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee, and to recommend that the City Clerk’s Office and the Human Resources Director come back with an explanation of the onboarding process for new appointees. These recommendations were approved on consent by Council during their meeting of October 10, 2016. 10/11/2016 During the Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting of October 11, 2016, members considered Determination of Requirements in Addition to Being Economic or Business Oriented and Term Length for the Newly Added Minority Voting Members of the Economic Development Committee. Mayor Christiansen stated that it had been the intention to appoint two (2) minority voting members to the Economic Development Committee, and this had now been sanctioned by Council. Mayor Christiansen stated that they wished these minority members to have economic or business-oriented qualifications and be approved by the members of the City Council. He advised that it was recommended that the term length for members of the Committee be in accordance with the Council year, which runs from May to May. He indicated that it was recommended that applicants fill out a form of interest, along with a resume of qualifications, to be brought to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee for review, and that nominees be subject to the approval of Council. He also noted that applicants would fall under the Clean Hands Ordinance that all members of Council and committees are subject to. Members recommended that the nominations for the appointments of minority members to the Economic Development Committee be made by the Council President; that the full Council vote on them; that the terms be for one (1) year, from May to May; and that the initial appointments be for a partial year from now through May. This recommendation was approved by Council by consent agenda during their Regular Meeting of October 24, 2016. Members also considered Onboarding for New Committee Members/Councilman Lewis’ Recommendation #5 and tabled this matter to allow Mrs. Townshend to conduct research and come back to Council at a future date with her findings. 01/09/17 During the Regular Council Meeting of January 9, 2017, members considered Clarification of Appointment Application Requirements/Proposed Amendments to Application. Mr. Lewis advised that, after discussion with Mrs. McDowell, City Clerk, he agreed that the application should be revised to include more detailed information related to job duties and responsibilities and the requirement for resumes be eliminated. 08/15/17 During the Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of August 15, 2017, members reconsidered the Committee Appointment Process. Mr. Slavin proposed that, in deference to the fact that this item was originally introduced at Mr. Lewis' request and he was unable

Application and Recruitment Process for City Committees, Commissions, and Boards - Summary/Timeline Page 3 to attend the meeting and Mr. Polce and Mr. Lindell had worked on a compromise, the Committee allow Mr. Polce to explain the compromise and it be forwarded to Council without a recommendation. The motion to send this matter to Council with no recommendation was unanimously carried. 08/28/17 During the Regular Council Meeting of August 28, 2017, due to the absence of Mr. Hare and Mr. Lewis, the motion to postpone the Proposed Amendment to Committees, Commissions, and Boards Appointment Process was unanimously carried. S:\RESEARCH\Application and Recruitment Process for City Committees, Commissions, and Boards\Application and Recruitment Process for City Committees, Commissions, and Boards - Timeline.wpd

COUNCIL MINUTES HISTORY - APPLICATION AND RECRUITMENT PROCESS FOR CITY COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND BOARDS An Excerpt from the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of August 28, 2017: COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT - AUGUST 15, 2017 LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Proposed Amendment to Committees, Commissions, and Boards Appointment Process Mr. Slavin proposed that, in deference to the fact that this item was originally introduced at Mr. Lewis' request and he was unable to attend the meeting and Mr. Polce and Mr. Lindell had worked on a compromise, the Committee allow Mr. Polce to explain the compromise and it be forwarded to Council without a recommendation. He explained that by proceeding in this way, when Mr. Lewis and Mr. Lindell return, Council will have the discussion from the Committee to consider and no time will be lost. Mr. Polce indicated that, as a result of the conversation during the Regular Council meeting of July 24, 2017 regarding 2017/18 Annual Appointments Recommended by Mayor Christiansen (deferred during the Annual Meeting of May 8, 2017) (Downtown Dover Partnership Board of Directors and Silver Lake Commission), Mr. Lindell and Mr. Lewis discussed that the right path forward would probably be looking at the application process and determining if a curriculum vitae (CV) or resume is required. Mr. Polce noted that based on the fact that an individual was previously serving, that information and documentation on record would be sufficient; however, if it is a new applicant, the individual would then have to comply with the elongated application that was previously approved. He stated that he thought both Mr. Lewis and Mr. Lindell were in agreement with this; however, he noted that neither was present. Mr. Polce moved to send this matter to Council with no recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil. Mr. Anderson noted that he thought that there was always room to look for improvement. He stated that he believed that there should be a period of time when the applications are signed off on, explaining that they should be checked for new information. Mr. Anderson explained that if members do not regularly check to see if something has changed, there could be conflicts of interest that have arisen and not been asked about, and someone may not have thought to inform the City about them. He noted that just because someone has served on a committee for 10 years does not mean that things have not changed. Mr. Anderson stated that he did not think that the applications needed to be reviewed every year and that it should be simple,

COUNCIL MINUTES HISTORY - APPLICATION AND RECRUITMENT PROCESS FOR CITY COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND BOARDS PAGE 2 explaining that if someone has an application on file, they should be able to review it and, if nothing has changed, sign it and say it’s good. He indicated that he did not think a big process was needed but that the applications should be checked. Mr. Sudler stated that, as a suggestion for the future, when members do ordinances or want to make changes, that there is some statistical data stating that something is not working rather than a few people saying it is not working. He stated that he thought it would behoove members to have some tangible data to support changes of ordinances in the future. Mayor Christiansen commended the gentlemen for coming up with a compromise. He explained that it was very frustrating to find people who are interested in serving on committees, as many of the chairmen and the Council President were aware, and a number of people who had served the City for a great length of time had refused to go through the application process because they believe that their service to the City had been a proven fact. Mayor Christiansen advised members that for many of the appointees whom he has reappointed or intends to reappoint to the Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment and other bodies, he had attended meetings to see if they are performing to the expectations of himself, Council and, particularly, the citizens they all serve. He stated that he agreed with Mr. Anderson that members need to always be aware of conflicts of interest; however, he indicated that he thought that the application process was an insult to people who have served with exemplary service. He stated that he appreciated the compromise and concurred with the fact that any new applicant who has not previously served on any committees should fill out an application for the perusal, advice, and consent of Council. Mr. Hare informed members that he would not be at the Regular Council meeting scheduled for August 28, 2017. He stated that he thought that any new applicant should fill out an application, and that anyone who was being considered for reappointment, such as Dr. Stewart or Mr. Shevock, should be asked if anything has changed and if they say no, then they are good. Mr. Hare noted that most of the appointees are professionals and they know if something comes up that is a conflict, they will abstain, just like Council members do. He explained that he did not think that individuals would know if there is going to be a conflict when it is time for their reappointment, and that simply having them sign off on an application to say nothing had changed would be okay. Mr. Sudler indicated that he thought, in the best interest of the City, that the application needed to be on file. He stated that he appreciated the longevity of individuals serving, noting that he had longevity of service in many capacities; however, he noted that they are human and sometimes they forget. Mr. Sudler indicated that he thought that this was about protecting the City and that members

COUNCIL MINUTES HISTORY - APPLICATION AND RECRUITMENT PROCESS FOR CITY COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND BOARDS PAGE 3 cannot leave loopholes which would allow the City to be sued. He explained that, for the best interest of the City of Dover and the 38,000 that members serve, he thought it would behoove them to have something in writing. Mr. Sudler noted that he did not think that a simple five (5) to 10 minute update would be unbearable or cause excruciating pain to where individuals could not spend that time and look at it as a precautionary measure to make sure that the City is safe and free from any lawsuits. Mr. Anderson stated that he agreed with Mr. Sudler. He noted that when he had reviewed some of the proposed appointments, there was not even an old application and he had a problem with the idea of only new applicants completing the application. Mr. Anderson explained that he thought that all applicants should have at least one of the new applications on file, so that members can see the information which they are seeking today, not the information from 15 years ago. He stated that no one on Council really has a complete view of the qualifications of the people they are voting to appoint, which was the reason why Council voted to put that system in, in the first place. Mr. Anderson stated that he thought that it was the correct decision then and it is the correct decision now. Mr. Hare stated that he agreed that everyone should have an application on file. He noted, however, that a reappointee, such as Mr. Shevock, should be asked if the information on his application has changed and, if it nothing has changed, that should be okay. Mr. Hare stated that he did not think that members needed to make it a drawn out process. The motion to send this matter to Council with no recommendation was unanimously carried. Noting the absence of Mr. Hare and Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lindell moved to postpone the Proposed Amendment to Committees, Commissions, and Boards Appointment Process. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. An Excerpt from the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of January 9, 2017: CLARIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS/PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO APPLICATION During their Regular Meeting of October 10, 2016, City Council approved revisions to the application for appointment to a City Committee, Commission, or Board. After having received the new applications, Staff requested clarification on whether the application was sufficient or if a resume should also be requested, both for new applicants and members wishing to be reappointed.

COUNCIL MINUTES HISTORY - APPLICATION AND RECRUITMENT PROCESS FOR CITY COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND BOARDS PAGE 4 Mr. Lewis advised that, after discussion with Mrs. McDowell, City Clerk, he agreed that the application should be revised to include more detailed information related to job duties and responsibilities and the requirement for resumes be eliminated. Mr. Lewis moved for approval of the revised application (Exhibit #1) and elimination of the resume requirement for new appointments and re-appointments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried. An Excerpt from the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of October 10, 2016: C O U N C I L C O MMI T T EE OF THE WH O L E RE PO R T - SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Designing and Expanding Recruitment for City Committees, Commissions, and Boards During the Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting of August 23, 2016, members considered Designing and Expanding Recruitment for City Committees, Commissions, and Boards. Members deferred this matter until September 27, 2016 to allow the ideas to be solidified, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Anderson to review and refine it further, and for Mrs. Sass and the City Clerk’s Office to work together. Mrs. Kay Sass, Public Affairs and Emergency Management Coordinator, stated that she had reviewed the information pertaining to committees, commissions, and boards with the City Clerk’s Office. She noted that at the previous meeting, she had suggested that social media postings of vacancies could be distributed through five (5) or six (6) postings starting at 10 to 12 weeks prior to applications being due, with repostings at six (6) to eight (8) weeks, two (2) to four (4) weeks, three (3) to five (5) days, and on the final date of the acceptance of applications. Mrs. Sass explained that she and the City Clerk are the individuals who are authorized to post on social media for the City and could cover this responsibility. She stated that they also believed that a link could be placed on the main page of the City website showing the listing of available committees, the openings, and the application. Mrs. Sass expressed her hope that each member had an opportunity to review the application that was proposed at the previous meeting, which she felt was a big improvement from the current application. She noted that it was much more thorough and requested information from applicants that should result in a diverse selection of individuals from across the City. Mrs. Sass explained that, when creating the application, Mrs. Traci McDowell, City Clerk, compared different applications, including those from Newark and the State of Delaware, and the best portions were

COUNCIL MINUTES HISTORY - APPLICATION AND RECRUITMENT PROCESS FOR CITY COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND BOARDS PAGE 5 incorporated in the proposed City application. It was Mrs. Sass’s opinion that there were benefits to having laymen on committees, noting that some people approach matters by considering their financial impact, some by the time management impact, and others by the impact on the community as a whole. She expressed her hope that members would be open to not limiting an applicant because they did not believe that they were a subject matter expert. Mrs. Sass felt that everyone could offer something and felt it important to keep an open mind, noting that there are subject matter experts on staff that could help to clarify matters. She encouraged all individuals to apply and personally felt that committees should not be limited but should reflect the community as a whole. Mr. Hutchison expressed his compliments regarding the proposed application and questioned how long applications remain on file after submission. Responding, Mrs. McDowell stated that applications are kept forever. Dr. Stewart noted that she had not been present when this was previously discussed and asked whether the goal was to obtain more applicants, more qualified applicants, or more diverse applicants. Responding, Mr. Anderson stated his belief that the City was not hearing from enough people and indicated that he had been approached by people who wanted to be involved in the City but were unsure how to do so, what positions were available, or were hearing about openings too late. He explained that he wanted to make the process simple so that individuals could go to one (1) place to see openings and how to apply. Mr. Anderson stated that the goal for the application was to provide useful information for members to review. He indicated that applications are currently not distributed unless requested. Mr. Anderson noted that if someone applies and is not chosen for a committee, their application would provide useful information that would allow them to be considered for different opportunities. He expressed the desire to get more people involved and to provide a pool of individuals that can be contacted to fill other vacancies. Mr. Anderson noted that it would also be helpful to be able to provide an explanation when asked about why someone was chosen and to be able to state, for example, that they had some background or interest, or that they were the only applicant. He stated that there are vacancies that have existed for years as a result of the current process, and he felt this illustrated that information was not getting distributed since there are frequently people who state they want to serve. Mr. Neil stated his belief that people do not realize that they have an opportunity to serve and volunteer their time, and that opening up the pool for committees would give them an opportunity to become involved in government. He noted that Councilman Lewis was not present this evening but had previously suggested requiring training through the Delaware League of Local Governments (DLLG). Mr. Neil stated that it was difficult to find people who are interested enough in the

COUNCIL MINUTES HISTORY - APPLICATION AND RECRUITMENT PROCESS FOR CITY COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND BOARDS PAGE 6 City to volunteer their time and effort. He felt that they should not be discouraged by imposing requirements, which would close more doors than it would open. Mr. Neil suggested bringing individuals in, letting them experience what is here, and allowing them to go to staff and Council to understand aspects of government. He felt that staff had done a marvelous job in heading up this effort and providing a form to allow for a greater pool of people. Mrs. Sass clarified that information had always been available on the website for all of the openings that had existed and that it was not a matter of this not being there for the public. She stated that sometimes it is a matter of people not being interested, and suggested that perhaps another way must be found. Mr. Anderson disagreed, stating that he was aware of existing vacancies that were not reflected on the website. Responding, Mrs. Sass stated that the City had just converted to a new website and the priority was to make sure that meeting minutes and agendas required by law were posted. She noted that there would be several weeks of correcting errors found throughout the entire site. Mr. Anderson stated that he had looked at the website earlier in the day and all the vacancies were not listed. For example, he noted that the listing for the Dover Human Relations Commission (DHRC) was not current and that Mr. Kenneth Roach was still listed as the Fourth District Representative, although this position was vacant. Mr. Anderson noted that another committee listing was not current, although he could not recall what it was. Mr. Hare stated that there were vacancies on the DHRC in the First and Fourth Districts and noted that it was incumbent on Council members to encourage people to get involved and make recommendations for committees. He asked if Mr. Anderson had made recommendations for the Fourth District. Responding, Mr. Anderson stated that he had not made a recommendation yet; however, he had reached out to people who were considering applying. Mr. Hare stated that a vacancy on the Compensation Commission was about to be filled. He expressed his belief that requiring committee members to be trained through the DLLG might be counterproductive, noting that these were not high-paid positions but volunteer opportunities, and putting restrictions on them might discourage applicants. Mr. Hare agreed with the application process and having vacancies listed. Mrs. Sass advised that staff would be happy to start promoting openings if Council was ready and wanted staff to do so. Mr. Slavin stated that the reason for the discussion was to develop a wide expanse of diverse candidates with deep, varied backgrounds. He indicated that better

COUNCIL MINUTES HISTORY - APPLICATION AND RECRUITMENT PROCESS FOR CITY COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND BOARDS PAGE 7 information was also needed to vet candidates. Mr. Slavin stated that Councilman Lewis had raised this issue. As someone with responsibility of making many of these appointments, Mr. Slavin stated that he had not been calling members to tell them that there were vacancies and request names, noting that the process was not as simple as just thinking about who would do well in a position. He explained that he had run into roadblocks, noting that in some cases individuals were already serving on other boards or commissions at the State or County level. In addition, Mr. Slavin noted that an individual’s appointment must be vetted by their employer to make sure there are no conflicts of interest, and they must go through the City’s Clean Hands Ordinance. He stated that some boards require residence by district, and some do not. Mr. Slavin advised that it is not a simple process of penciling in names on rosters and obtaining appointees. He indicated that some are volunteer positions and others offer a meager amount of pay, and that people work a lot these days, often working varied hours, leaving those who work Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. few and far between. Mr. Slavin stated that Council would continue to work at this. In regard to training, Mr. Slavin felt there should be an onboarding process for new appointees to any committee, commission, or assignment, similar to the process that a full-time or part-time employee goes through. He asked that the City Clerk’s Office or the Human Resources Director look at this process and provide members with an overview of what that process involves. Mr. Slavin stated that he was not convinced that sending these individuals to another organization for training would fit the City’s needs, noting that he was unsure what training Mr. Lewis was proposing that they be sent to. Mr. Slavin believed that useful information would include how meetings are run, how to access information on the City’s website, who appointees can call within the City, and what resources are available to them. He noted that a huge portion of the training would be related to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) laws so that people would be grounded when they walk in the door. Mr. Hare recalled that, in the 1990s, one-hour workshops were held for newly- appointed committee members, and explanations were provided about FOIA rules, etc. He agreed with this approach, rather than sending members elsewhere for training. Mr. Slavin stated that it may be cheaper to bring a resource in to train all appointees in one (1) place, rather than sending them elsewhere. Referring to page 4 of the proposed application, Mr. Shevock questioned why it would be desired to have applicants indicate if they or a relative have a disability, and to describe their disability, gender, and ethnicity. He noted that providing this information was optional; however, he questioned what it had to do with working on

COUNCIL MINUTES HISTORY - APPLICATION AND RECRUITMENT PROCESS FOR CITY COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND BOARDS PAGE 8 a committee. Responding, Mrs. Sass indicated that it would be up to members’ discretion whether this should be included; however, she advised that this was included to make sure that the committees, commissions, and boards represent a true snapshot of the Dover community. She explained the desire to ensure that minorities include various groups such as African-Americans, women, and Indians. Mrs. McDowell stated her belief that these questions came from the State and probably dealt with obtaining someone with the experience needed for a particular committee. She noted that, in creating the new application, there was a lot of discussion about diversity and the makeup of committees. Mrs. McDowell noted that staff could not say what the races or nationalities of current members were because they never ask. Mr. Slavin explained that these questions reflect standard information gathering required by Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) practices. He stated that this information is optional, but the City would try to capture it to show that its recruitment process is fair. Mr. Neil suggested including a statement that the City does not discriminate under any circumstances in regard to ethnicity, gender or disability. He also expressed the importance of making sure that the disabled can get into the City’s facility. Mr. Neil noted that there could be difficulty because it is not very convenient for someone in a wheelchair to come into the Council Chambers to serve on a committee, and allowances may have to be made. Mr. Anderson felt it was a good suggestion to add that the City provides equal opportunity and does not discriminate on any lawful basis. Mr. Slavin indicated that the discussion had pivoted and was now addressing EEO policies. He advised that he, Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, and Mrs. Kim Hawkins, Human Resources Director, had discussed this approximately two (2) weeks ago. Mr. Slavin stated that had noticed that when he clicked on the EEO policy statement on the old City website, it indicated that it was “under construction,” and he was unsure what had caused this. He informed members that he had asked Mrs. Hawkins to prepare a full briefing on what the City’s policy is, what its goals are, where the City is vis-a-vis those goals, and what strategies are in place with recruitment and hiring. Mr. Slavin indicated that he believed that some of his questions had been shared with members of Council. He stated that this matter was scheduled for consideration during the Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative Finance, and Administration Committee’s second meeting in October. Mr. Slavin expressed his opinion that the EEO statement should go on everything that the City has, not just hiring-related information. Mr. Anderson agreed with Mr. Slavin and stated his hope that members would review the report prepared by Dr. Bobby Jones related to recruitment that Council

COUNCIL MINUTES HISTORY - APPLICATION AND RECRUITMENT PROCESS FOR CITY COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND BOARDS PAGE 9 passed and enacted, which he felt had fallen a little by the wayside. (City Clerk’s Office Note: During their Regular meeting of February 13, 2012, Council accepted the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee’s recommendation that the Minority Recruitment Committee (MRC) Report be referred to staff for a report back to the Committee within 60 days. During their Annual meeting of May 14, 2012, Council accepted the Implementation Plan for the Minority Recruitment Committee Recommendations, as recommended by the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee.) The Committee recommended acceptance of staff’s recommendation. By consent agenda, Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Members were provided “Proposed Recommendations for Advancing a more effective Recruitment Process for City Commissions, Committees and Boards”, as submitted by Councilman Lewis. Referring to this document, Mr. Anderson noted that most of the five (5) recommendations it included had been implemented. The Committee recommended that the five (5) points submitted by Councilman Lewis be adopted, with division of the question between point #4 and point #5, and that point #5 be voted upon separately. At the request of Mr. Anderson, Mrs. McDowell read “Proposed Recommendations for Advancing a more effective Recruitment Process for City Commissions, Committees and Boards” into the record. Referring to the recommendation regarding advertising and publishing vacancies, Mrs. Sass advised members that she had absolutely no problem doing the social media and website postings; however, she explained that she did not have an advertising budget and suggested that this recommendation be rephrased. Responding, Mr. Anderson stated that it would be up to members to come up with the money to advertise and it was not for Mrs. Sass to be concerned with. He noted that the recommendation was to “advertise/publish” and did not mandate advertising; therefore, a press release could be issued and would have no cost. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Anderson stated that advertising would not necessarily mean paid advertising. By consent agenda, Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation for adoption of “Proposed Recommendations for Advancing a more effective Recruitment Process

COUNCIL MINUTES HISTORY - APPLICATION AND RECRUITMENT PROCESS FOR CITY COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND BOARDS PAGE 10 for City Commissions, Committees and Boards” points #1 - #4. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. The Committee deferred consideration of “Proposed Recommendations for Advancing a more effective Recruitment Process for City Commissions, Committees and Boards” point #5, related to the requirement of training for board, committee, and commission appointees, until the next meeting of the Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee, and to recommend that the City Clerk’s Office and the Human Resources Director come back with an explanation of the onboarding process for new appointees. By consent agenda, Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Hare questioned if this would relate to members of committees, commissions, and boards attending DLLG training. Responding, Mr. Slavin stated that this question would be deferred until members determine what can be taught in-house. By consent agenda, Mr. Sudler moved for acceptance of the Council Committee of the Whole Report, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. An Excerpt from the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of September 12, 2016 COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT - AUGUST 23, 2016 LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Designing and Expanding Recruitment for City Committees, Commissions, and Boards During the Regular City Council Meeting of July 11, 2016, members considered reappointments recommended by Mayor Christiansen and members referred the issue of designing and expanding the recruitment for City committees, commissions and boards to the Council Committee of the Whole. Mr. Hare suggested requesting Councilmen Anderson and Lewis to get together and make recommendations to the Committee in this regard. Mr. Lewis advised members that he had not spoken with Mr. Anderson and was unsure of his ideas; however, Mr. Lewis had several suggestions, as follows: 1) Advertise or place news briefs through the local media regarding vacancies on boards or committees.

COUNCIL MINUTES HISTORY - APPLICATION AND RECRUITMENT PROCESS FOR CITY COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND BOARDS PAGE 11 2) Place postings of such vacancies on the City’s website or Facebook with information on how to apply for the particular board or vacancy. 3) When applications come in, have the City Clerk or person receiving applications provide Council members with copies of resumes and applications to review before the City Council meeting. 4) Require all individuals interested in serving on a board or commission, including members wishing to be reappointed, to fill out an application with a resume since reappointed members may have new information they need to provide. 5) With respect to training, Mr. Lewis advised that he would inquire through the Delaware League of Local Governments (DLLG) if basic training was offered for individuals who want to serve, for example, on the Planning Commission or Dover Human Relations Commission. He explained that, while he was serving as a school board member, the Delaware School Board Association had offered training on how to be a good school board member, including training on finances and various things that Mr. Lewis thought were essential. Mr. Sudler agreed with Mr. Lewis, believing that this type of training would enhance individuals’ understanding of the duties and expectations of committee members, as well as the City of Dover in general. Mr. Neil indicated that this was not a new idea, noting that the State of Delaware has an entire board for this process. He explained that the State also has forms to be filled out and applicants must have resumes stating their expertise, noting that the City may not need a process that was this extensive. Mr. Neil was unsure if this should be a matter for the City Clerk’s Office or Human Resources Department, but thought that in essence it was part of Human Resources. He did not feel there was a need to reinvent the wheel but to style a process for the City and determine who would receive and hold the information. Mr. Neil stated that news releases to the media would get the word out without additional expense. Mr. Lewis concurred that a process already existed; however, he expressed the need to advance and improve it, particularly in regard to recruiting.

COUNCIL MINUTES HISTORY - APPLICATION AND RECRUITMENT PROCESS FOR CITY COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND BOARDS PAGE 12 Mrs. Kay Sass, Public Affairs and Emergency Management Officer, stated that everything Mr. Lewis had mentioned could easily be covered and that there were many options with no cost, including use of social media through Facebook. She recommended that a link be placed on the main page of the City’s website to the listing of available committee openings, and the application. Mrs. Sass advised that press releases could be done; however, funds would have to be budgeted if other advertising was desired. With respect to social media, Mrs. Sass recommended a total of five (5) posts in order to issue information with the greatest impact on the community, starting at 10- 12 weeks prior to applications being due and with reposting at six (6) to eight (8) weeks, two (2) to four (4) weeks, three (3) to five (5) days, and on the due date. She explained that staff asks for notice of at least two (2) weeks when accepting information from the community to post on Facebook so to allow adequate time to incorporate this in their schedule, since Facebook is not a primary focus of staff’s job duties that is done daily. Referring to the proposed Application for Committee, Commission, or Board Appointment, Mrs. Sass advised that the City Clerk had developed this application, which covered many of the concerns expressed by Councilmen Lewis, Sudler, and Anderson. She noted that the application asked applicants to describe the skills they have that would enhance the productivity of the committee, commission, or board. Mrs. Sass felt that the proposed application was a big improvement from the current application as it was much more thorough and requested applicants to identify their districts, allowing the ability to obtain a cross section from the community. Mrs. Sass commented that many changes would be made to the City’s website, hopefully within the next few days. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mrs. Sass indicated that it is very easy to have press releases put in the newspaper. Although they are not always guaranteed to be printed, she felt it likely that the media would be more than happy to pick up on them. Mr. Slavin suggested that this would be an opportunity to pilot Facebook boosts and Twitter ads, which are very inexpensive. He explained that a Facebook boost will boost a message beyond the people who “like” a page or who are from the area. Mr. Slavin indicated that the frequency can be specified, analytics can be received regarding effectiveness, and this would also allow for periodic release, as suggested previously by Mrs. Sass. He indicated that the cost to boost an ad is only $5. Mr. Shevock questioned who would develop the qualifications and review the applications to determine who is qualified. Responding, Mrs. Sass stated her

COUNCIL MINUTES HISTORY - APPLICATION AND RECRUITMENT PROCESS FOR CITY COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND BOARDS PAGE 13 understanding that Council wanted to start this conversation among the Committee members to establish some guidelines. Mr. Shevock noted that each committee would need different qualifications and felt the qualifications should be advertised before someone completes an application. Mr. Hare advised that he did not totally agree with the City putting out the qualifications and felt this was a question of what an applicant feels they can bring to a committee, such as a former parks and recreation director or someone with experience in public utilities. He believed that members would limit the committees by requiring utility experience for members of the Utility Committee. Mr. Hare believed there were individuals who do not have a financial background but would make very good Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee members because they had run a business, etc. In his opinion, members should let the applicant tell them what they can bring to the committee. Mr. Neil advised that the State application includes recommendations from at least three (3) individuals endorsing or supporting the application. He felt it would be up to the councilmen who would review the application, recommendations, and skills that an applicant brings and hopefully the district representatives could get together to make an appointment. Mr. Neil did not believe that the City would be deluged with applications. For clarification, Mr. Slavin noted that the Council President or Mayor makes appointments and Council approves appointments. Mr. Hare noted that civilian members of standing City committees are paid a stipend. Mr. Sudler felt that, although a detailed job description was not needed, a statement could be included that experience is preferred. He believed that applicants need to know exactly what will be expected of them and make an educated decision on whether or not a committee suits them. He suggested perhaps providing a summary of what the committee does so applicants could know whether or not they are eligible. Responding, Mrs. Sass pointed out that this information is currently available on the website for each committee. Mr. Hare felt that it was up to Council members to actively reach out and find individuals in their districts that they believe would do well on committees and recommend them to the Mayor and Council President. Responding, Mr. Lewis stated that he had recommended individuals with experience who were not appointed. Mr. Hare stated that he shared this experience; however, the individuals who were appointed were also good people.

COUNCIL MINUTES HISTORY - APPLICATION AND RECRUITMENT PROCESS FOR CITY COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND BOARDS PAGE 14 Mr. Lewis stated that he would like to see a better recruitment tool, which he felt could be accomplished through Mrs. Sass. He reiterated that he planned to check with the DLLG to see if they offer training for individuals that do not have the experience. In Mr. Lewis’s opinion, it would behoove applicants to have some experience to serve on committees. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, stated that her department staffs three (3) boards and commissions, and she believed that a bigger pool of interest was needed. She expressed concern about waiting until there is a vacancy to solicit for it. Mrs. Townshend felt that an application could be made available, people should be encouraged to apply, and they should be allowed to self-select what they feel they are qualified for and interested in. She expressed concern with waiting to advertise until there is a vacancy since there may not be an applicant from the district with a vacancy. Mrs. Townshend noted that the Planning Commission, like Council, has two (2) representatives from each district and one (1) at-large member. She suggested a rolling application process so there would not be a large expanse of time while trying to find someone to serve. Mr. Slavin felt that a rolling application process would create a large expanse of time if people submit an application and there is no spot for them. He stated that they would then have a legitimate complaint that they tried to serve and the City never took them up on their offer. Responding, Mrs. Townshend noted that many appointments are made at the same time of year. Mr. Slavin stated the need to be sensitive to this issue and felt that a solution could not be created without looking at all angles. Mrs. Townshend explained that the Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment, Historic District Commission, and standing Council committees are all appointed between May and July, and suggested having a window that the application process is open with lead time. She noted that there was currently a vacancy on the Planning Commission, and that members are sometimes unable to attend meetings. Mrs. Townshend advised that approximately a year ago a Planning Commission meeting had been canceled because there was no quorum. She stated that this was the first time that this had happened since she had been with the City and expressed concern that perpetuating vacancies could create an operational issue. Referring to Mr. Lewis’s comment that current members should submit an application when their term is expiring, Mr. Hare suggested that they submit a shorter application and a letter of interest. Mr. Neil moved to defer this matter to allow the ideas to be solidified and brought back. He stated that a very good start had been made with the application prepared

COUNCIL MINUTES HISTORY - APPLICATION AND RECRUITMENT PROCESS FOR CITY COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND BOARDS PAGE 15 by the City Clerk and felt that Mr. Anderson and Mr. Lewis should review this matter, refine it further, and bring it back. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lewis reiterated that he would like to hear Mr. Anderson’s ideas, noting that they were supposed to collaborate together. He stated that he liked Mrs. Sass’s suggestions and would like to see them initiated. Mr. Hare thought that Mrs. Sass had summarized the entire issue. Mr. Sudler asked if Mrs. Sass and the City Clerk’s Office would work together on this and if this would be part of the motion or if members would leave this open, and questioned if this item would be brought back in 30 or 60 days. Responding, Mr. Hare indicated that they would work together and the matter would be brought back at the second meeting in September. The Committee deferred this matter until September 27, 2016 to allow the ideas to be solidified, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Anderson to review and refine it further, and for Mrs. Sass and the City Clerk’s Office to work together. Mr. Hare moved for acceptance of the Council Committee of the Whole Report. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried. An Excerpt from the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of July 11, 2016: REAPPOINTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY MAYOR CHRISTIANSEN (DEFERRED DURING THE COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2016) Mayor Christiansen recommended the following reappointments: Board of Adjustment - Three (3) Year Terms to Expire July 2019 K.C. Sheth, Chairman William A. Hufnal Planning Commission - Three (3) Year Term to Expire June 1, 2019 Kathleen Welsh - First District Council President Slavin advised that the reappointments were deferred during the Council meeting of June 27, 2016 because Mr. Lewis had questions regarding the appointments and Mayor Christiansen was not in attendance at the meeting to answer them. Mr. Lewis advised that he subsequently spoke with Mayor Christiansen regarding the appointments, noting that the issue he had was with the process and how they were recruiting appointees. He stated that he would like to see the process changed in the future, possibly by setting up a committee to do

COUNCIL MINUTES HISTORY - APPLICATION AND RECRUITMENT PROCESS FOR CITY COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND BOARDS PAGE 16 a better job in recruiting. Councilman Lewis stated that Mayor Christiansen advised him that openings on boards and commissions are not advertised or placed on the website. Mr. Lewis noted that when the Mayor was running for office, he had indicated that he wanted to see new people on these commissions with new and innovative ideas. Mr. Sudler stated that he concurred with Councilman Lewis that it would serve the best interests of the City of Dover if appointees have some kind of credentials for their appointment to a commission or board. He did not feel that people should just be appointed because they want to be on a committee. Mr. Sudler believed that an appointee’s resume should reflect the position that they are being appointed to, so that the decisions being made on that committee will reflect the knowledge that they have, rather than having someone just fill a position. Mr. Anderson stated that the application for appointment to a committee, commission, or board is available on the City’s website and encouraged anyone who may be interested to apply. He stated his feeling that there needed to be more promotion, such as linking it to the City’s Facebook page and advertising in the newspapers, especially prior to the annual appointments. Mr. Anderson felt that the appointments currently under consideration were all solid and he intended to vote for their confirmation. Mr. Anderson moved to request the City Clerk’s Office to coordinate a public relations plan for expanding appointments to City committees, commissions, and boards and report to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee in the next 60 days. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis. Mr. Slavin suggested providing a demographic analysis showing the committee, commission, and board representation. Mr. Sudler stated that he felt the current system was working; however, his main concern was ensuring that individuals applying have a skillset or a resume that reflects that they have the qualifications for the committee they are being appointed to. Mr. Lewis disagreed that the current system was working, noting that he knows of many people in the community who would like to serve government, and there is no way for them to know that there is a vacancy on boards and commissions. He added that he would like to see people appointed to these committees with expertise in the field of the committee that they are serving on. Mr. Cole agreed with the concept; however, he reminded members that these are Mayor and Council President appointments and it is their responsibility to find someone who is qualified without asking staff to recruit for them. Mr. Hutchison concurred. Mr. Hare stated that he felt they were qualified to recommend people with credentials to appoint to the committees. He stated that he makes those he knows who are interested in serving aware of any

COUNCIL MINUTES HISTORY - APPLICATION AND RECRUITMENT PROCESS FOR CITY COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND BOARDS PAGE 17 openings. Mr. Hare felt this was their responsibility as Councilmen and that they had obtained good people to serve on committees. Mr. Sudler asked if any vacancies were currently being advertised, recalling that at one time this had been done. Responding, Mrs. Traci McDowell, City Clerk, stated that the Dover Human Relations Commission advertised its vacancies many years ago; however, vacancies were not currently being advertised. She advised that all of the committees are listed on the City’s website, and there is a link to the application within the list. Mr. Lewis asked if Mr. Anderson would consider withdrawing his motion to request the City Clerk’s Office to coordinate a public relations plan for expanding the appointments to City committees, commissions, and boards and report to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee in the next 60 days, noting that he would be more inclined to have a volunteer committee of a few Council members set up to try and resolve this matter. Mr. Anderson withdrew his motion and Mr. Lewis, as the seconder, agreed. As someone who has to make recommendations for appointments, Mr. Slavin advised that, in addition to qualifications, he wants to make sure that there is male/female balance on the committees. He has also tried to ensure that there is minority representation on every committee and to bring new faces to the committees as much as possible. Mr. Slavin advised that fair district representation must be considered, noting that there are also some veteran retired employees and people who have been involved with the City who could bring great value to the discussions. Mr. Anderson noted that the City has a Public Relations Officer who already does the job of putting out press releases, updating the website and Facebook, so it would not be overwhelming to anyone to make sure links are put on the site and that major appointments are released to the media a couple months beforehand, and that they are promoted on the site. Mr. Anderson felt that this should be planned. Mr. Anderson moved to refer the issue of designing and expanding the recruitment for City committees, commissions, and boards to the Council Committee of the Whole. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis. Mr. Neil reminded members that when a person is recommended for appointment, the City Clerk requests them to send a biography for Council’s consideration so they are not blindly appointing members. He agreed that there was nothing wrong with letting the public know how to contact them if they are interested in serving and what their qualifications should be. Mr. Lewis stated that all he was looking for was a better recruitment tool so the public as a whole is aware that there is an opening on a particular board or committee.

COUNCIL MINUTES HISTORY - APPLICATION AND RECRUITMENT PROCESS FOR CITY COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND BOARDS PAGE 18 Mr. Hare suggested, instead of referring the matter to the Council Committee of the Whole, requesting Councilmen Anderson and Lewis to get together and make recommendations to the Council Committee of the Whole. Mr. Hutchison stated that he liked the idea of creating some type of method whereby more people could at least get their resumes in for consideration, noting that the ultimate recommendation is for either the Mayor or the Council President to offer for Council’s consideration. The motion to refer the issue of designing and expanding the recruitment for City committees, commissions, and boards to the Council Committee of the Whole was carried with Mr. Hare voting no. Mr. Slavin requested that Mrs. Kay Sass, Public Affairs Coordinator, and Mrs. Traci McDowell, City Clerk, be present at the Council Committee of the Whole meeting on Tuesday, July 26, 2016 to talk through some of the issues of how to promote and publicize committee appointment vacancies. Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the reappointments of K.C. Sheth and William Hufnal to the Board of Adjustment and Kathleen Welsh to the Planning Commission, as recommended by Mayor Christiansen. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried with Mr. Lewis not voting. /dak S:\RESEARCH\Application and Recruitment Process for City Committees, Commissions, and Boards\Application and Recruitment Process for City Committees, Commissions, and Boards - Council Minutes History.wpd

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Council Committee of the Whole met on August 29, 2017 at 6:03 p.m., with Council President Slavin presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sudler, Mr. Neil, Mr. Polce (departed at 6:50 p.m. and returned at 6:51 p.m.), and Mr. Lindell. Mr. Lewis, Mr. Cole, and Mr. Hare were absent. Mayor Christiansen was also present (departed at 6:37 p.m., returned at 6:39 p.m., and departed at 7:00 p.m.). Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Mr. Garfinkel (Safety Advisory and Transportation), and Ms. Arndt (Utility). Mr. Shelton (Safety Advisory and Transportation) was absent. SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee met with Council President Slavin presiding in the absence of Chairman Lewis. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Viability of the Shotspotter Gunshot Detection and Location Service (Anderson) During the Council Committee of the Whole/Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Meeting of July 26, 2016, members discussed the Viability of the ShotSpotter Gunshot Detection and Location Service and deferred the item for further investigation. During the Council Committee of the Whole/Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Meeting of August 23, 2016, Marvin Mailey, then serving as Deputy Police Chief, addressed the questions that members had posed during the July 26, 2016 meeting discussion of this item. Mr. Anderson indicated that this matter was a very important issue in the City. He stated that, in spite of the fact that the City has one of the finest police forces in the region, there is a human element when it comes to shootings. Mr. Anderson explained that, from his experience, it can be very hard to tell exactly where shots are coming from because of echoes and ricochets. He advised that the City’s police officers usually respond to calls regarding shootings within a couple of minutes but are often spread out because they are not sure where the problem is. Mr. Anderson noted that officers had been very effective in dealing with the problems and apprehending suspects very quickly or finding weapons that escaping suspects had gotten rid of; however, the question was what more could be done to help officers be more efficient. Mr. Anderson stated that a new Shotpotter-type technology was developing and had been tested, and he noted that he did not think the City should be limited to any particular vendor. He explained that this technology helps to pinpoint exactly where gunfire comes from and had been used in some places with great success. Mr. Anderson noted that the technology was less successful in other places, particularly where the police are advised exactly when and where an incident occurs and it takes them 15 or 20 minutes to appear, which is not a problem with the police force in Dover. He advised that it is important to put so much heat on the criminals that they know the risk of getting caught is too high and find somewhere else to go.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF AUGUST 29, 2017 PAGE 2 Mr. Anderson advised that members had considered this type of technology a year ago and found it an intriguing and promising prospect; however, the price tag was understandably an issue and there was a need to research where to get money. He noted that new technology by GE made this matter worthy of discussion, explaining that GE now had ShotSpotter sensors with LED lights, with the benefit of brighter lights and associated cameras. Mr. Anderson indicated that there were now also ShotSpotter sensors on existing infrastructure, instead of having to go through the expense of trying to put sensors in buildings, etc., and having to build an entirely new meshed infrastructure. He stated that the LED lights would allow for obtaining energy-saving grants, and public safety grants could also be obtained. Mr. Anderson advised that, in checking with Representative Sean Lynn and Senator Colin Bonini and having them research this, it looked like ShotSpotter would also qualify for transportation spending, which would open up an entirely new realm of possibilities and definitely had the support of at least these two (2) members of the legislature. Mr. Anderson advised that Police Chief Mailey had been doing technical research. Police Chief Marvin Mailey stated that ShotSpotter had partnered with GE and AT&T in an endeavor to expand upon the standing ShotSpotter platform. He advised that this expansion would not entirely replace the existing platform and ShotSpotter would still have to locate microphones on structures; however, the new technology would expand the reach by putting them in light fixtures as well. Chief Mailey noted that you cannot have a ShotSpotter system that is independent of microphones being affixed to buildings. He stated that this harbor system would be slightly cheaper and provide the same coverage as far as ShotSpotter detection, noting that the City had previously looked at a footprint of roughly five (5) to six (6) miles. Chief Mailey indicated that the City would lease the system by contract, and the down side was that when the contract is up, if the City did not pay for the product in the outgoing years, it would not own it. Chief Mailey noted that he had previously spoken about a product called Verbi that costs more at the initial time of purchase, and the City would have to pay for the service as well; however, the City would not pay for hardware in the outgoing years. He explained that the ShotSpotter setup with AT & T and LED is very new, was currently being test piloted in a few areas, and there were no test results yet regarding its success. Chief Mailey advised that, earlier in the day, he had requested documentation from a salesperson. He stated that this individual was unable to produce documentation because the setup was so new, but he offered to send a complete layout of the cost to outfit the City when it becomes available. Chief Mailey stated that he believed the previous cost sheet from last year indicated a cost of $195,000 per year. Mayor Christiansen stated that he and Chief Mailey met with ShotSpotter representatives approximately two (2) months ago, and he and former Chief Bernat met a number of times with ShotSpotter, as well as the City of Wilmington, to track their success. Chief Mailey stated that ShotSpotter representatives advised that the first-year cost would be $235,000 and the initial year costs approximately $40,000 more than the outgoing yearly cost of $195,000. He indicated that representatives also provided guidance on grants and advised the City to reach out to stakeholders. Chief Mailey informed members that he had obtained contact information and emailed one (1) a representative from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) asking if they had time to talk about the feasibility of helping the City to fund

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF AUGUST 29, 2017 PAGE 3 the ShotSpotter technology. He noted that the ShotSpotter salesman had advised that reaching out to HUD and perhaps the local hospital would probably be the best options. Chief Mailey indicated that he had not spoken with the CEO of Bayhealth Medical Center, stating that it would be difficult to ask someone that he does not know for approximately $200,000; however, he stated he would reach out to him. He noted that the cost of the product was tremendous; however, it would greatly help the Police Department’s capacity to respond to shots fired complaints and put officers at the spot where they need to be without guesswork. Chief Mailey explained that, within seconds of shots being fired, this is relayed through a network to a response or receiving center where they analyze the shot, verify that it was a shot, and transmit it to the local police department so that officers can be deployed to the exact location. He stated that this approach had been somewhat successful in a lot of cities, and others had not liked it at all. Chief Mailey noted that he had spoken with Police Chief Robert Tracy in Wilmington, where the technology had been used for several years, and Chief Tracy was not against it but was not overjoyed with some of the results he had seen. Mayor Christiansen stated that he would facilitate a meeting with Mr. Terry Murphy, President and Chief Executive, Bayhealth Medical Center. Mayor Christiansen informed members that one (1) of the first contacts they had with ShotSpotter was when Attorney General Matt Denn released some of the funds from the Bank of America settlement; however, it proved to be cost-prohibitive. He noted that there had been an ongoing research process since that time, during the regime of former Chief Paul Bernat and the succession of Chief Mailey. Mayor Christiansen stated that he had discussed this topic at the Conference of Mayors in Washington in January and was provided with maps with some of the statistics. He indicated that, because of the City’s tight budget situation, the City would have to rely on grant monies and also hunt for funds through its own resources to facilitate this program to any extent. Mayor Christiansen advised that, if the City is committed to this program and becomes reliant on it, it will be an ongoing expense for which Council will have to assume the costs. He explained that the City had received grants for the police cadet program, which was self-sustaining for 18 months, and the City then had to pick up the costs. Mayor Christiansen stated that the system is proprietary and the equipment would eventually be turned over to the City after the initial contract. Mayor Christiansen stated that he was not 100% convinced of the success of the program. He noted that he had talked to Mayor Bill de Blasio from New York City, who indicated that they were very happy with their system. Mayor Christiansen advised that New York’s response time was probably not as rapid as the Dover Police Department’s. He indicated that when they spoke to the City of Wilmington initially, Wilmington was reporting moderate success. Mayor Christiansen stated the need to think about whether to move forward with this program and to consider not only the success of the program but also the actual budget cost. Mr. Anderson indicated that the ShotSpotter people had been more responsive than those from Verbi and asked what the annual cost of service would be for Verbi. Responding, Chief Mailey stated that the startup cost would be approximately $350,000. He indicated that after that there would be a cost for the monitoring service, which he imagined would be much cheaper; however, he could not put a dollar figure on it without verifying it with Verbi. Mr. Anderson noted that this cost would make a difference and stated the need to look at various options.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF AUGUST 29, 2017 PAGE 4 Mr. Anderson stated that the spike in problems with shootings had largely been driven by drug turf, due to changes in leadership and other items, and may not be a permanent situation. He asked, if the City went with a leased system and could get the number of shootings down, whether the City could reassess whether or not to keep the system after a five-year contract. Responding, Chief Mailey stated that this would be an option with ShotSpotter. He advised that the hardware is purchased with Verbi and would belong to the City, and the City would pay for the service cost. Chief Mailey noted that the problems regarding drug turf and increases in shootings had been identified and addressed quite successfully. He explained that the Police Department was making a lot of progress, they had great people who were working hard, and they had a good plan that was working. Mr. Anderson stated that the Department does have good people and asked Chief Mailey to let them know that Council supports them in their efforts. Mr. Neil stated that, when members considered this matter previously, the area being discussed was very narrow. He indicated that the question was, when looking at a pot of money to help protect citizens, whether it should be spent to cover three (3) to five (5) miles versus the City’s entire area. Mr. Neil noted that members were weighing whether this money could be used for additional cadets, services, or other things, stating that he would look to Chief Mailey to give members an idea of how this would be spent. He stated that it was wonderful to look at the technology, noting that the price usually comes down as progress is made; therefore, this could be something to look forward to. Mr. Neil noted that if City was to spend this enormous amount of money to cover three (3) to five (5) miles, when the City is much larger, he was concerned about problems in the Third District in the White Oak and Towne Point area. He stated that he was delighted that Chief Mailey was looking at what was available and he looked forward to Chief Mailey providing members with information regarding how he feels the money could be spent and how they can help him to do a better job. Mr. Polce stated that he echoed some of Mr. Neil’s concerns. He advised that, as the second-newest member of Council after Mr. Lindell, he tries to do research for every Council meeting. Mr. Polce advised that he had the opportunity to ride with a Dover police officer a little over a month ago, and it was amazing what they do with their limited resources. He explained that, on this rainy Thursday evening, there were 12 patrol units on the street by the computer system; however, due to vacation, sick time, etc., there were approximately nine (9) officers to patrol a city of 40,000 plus. Mr. Polce indicated that their response time, going from the Wawa on Route 8 across town, had been very fast. Mr. Polce stated that, from his research regarding ShotSpotter and this type of technology, he had immense concerns regarding the financial allocation, practicality, functionality, and potential legal implications that the City could be exposed to. He noted that some cities had used this technology very well and implemented it with success; some stated that there had been a 10% reduction in shooting incidents, which was amazing; and some had reported a nominal decrease. Mr. Polce stated that most concerning was research he pulled from around the City of Oakland, California, where there were a number of pending legal cases that were now finding their way through the circuit court based on this technology. He explained that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had picked up on this, and this had made him pause and really deliberate on the necessity of this technology. Mr. Polce advised that in Oakland there had been claims that this technology had been able to identify specific voices, and those voices had been used to prosecute individuals, arguably without true discretion. He stated that this would open a massive door to technology surveillance policing

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF AUGUST 29, 2017 PAGE 5 and the question of where Big Brother stops. Mr. Polce advised that he unequivocally supported the Dover Police Department; however, he indicated that they needed more officers and to re-engage community policing to really make an impact. He stated that, with these concerns within the court system and the limited information that they had, especially when looking to spend a quarter of a million taxpayer dollars, members could not make a sound decision. Mr. Polce also stated concerns regarding the scientific validity of the statistics gathered about the success and the success rate. He noted, as an academician, he looks at data and sees that it may not be that valid. Mr. Polce indicated, as a social scientist, that members could find greater value in Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data, gun violence data nationally, and in identifying where the City’s issues are in the census block. Mr. Polce advised that he agreed absolutely with Chief Mailey and commended him on targeting specific areas and then making sure that the patrolmen are right there. He explained that on the rainy Thursday night that he mentioned, there were two (2) reports of gunshots, and when participating in the ride-along, they were at both scenes within 90 seconds after coming across town. Mr. Polce stated that the Police Department’s work is amazing and the City’s resources need to be spent in the form of bodies, community policing, letting Chief Mailey and his Department come up with the proposal that makes the most sense. Mr. Polce moved to table the matter until members have additional information, seconded by Mr. Lindell. Mr. Sudler asked Chief Mailey for his thoughts regarding whether this technology could be utilized right now versus more police officers. Responding, Chief Mailey stated that there is nothing that trumps an officer in a squad car being able to respond to the area. He noted that the technology would put officers at the exact spot and there would be no guesswork for looking around; however, as Mr. Polce stated, on a night when there are 12 officers on paper but two (2) out on Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave and one (1) injured, ShotSpotter cannot fill that void. Chief Mailey stated that ShotSpotter would get officers to the spot quicker. He explained that, although he would like to ask for additional police officers, he had not done so and did not plan to, noting that he takes the resources that he has. Chief Mailey informed members that changes were being made within the Police Department to fully staff the patrol unit by robbing Peter to pay Paul, and had done so for the last several years while he was a member of staff and in a position to be a part of those meetings and conversations. He stated that technology is great and is used to help the Department perform more efficiently; however, he would always rather have the manpower. Mr. Slavin indicated that he was hearing a healthy amount of skepticism, which was not necessarily a bad thing. He stated that tabling was the proper action to take because members did not have enough information to make a recommendation. Mr. Slavin indicated that he had a procedural concern and stated his assumption that this item would be part of a request for next fiscal year’s budget, rather than a mid-year expense. He noted that there was not $195,000 laying around that members wished to spend. Mr. Slavin advised that he encouraged continuation of this discussion, which would inform the draft budget and the budget that would eventually come forward. He stated that, philosophically, he would rather see the City’s money spent on reducing the number of shootings than responding to them faster. Mr. Slavin noted that the technology was interesting; however, he thought the gain would be better before the shootings occur than after.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF AUGUST 29, 2017 PAGE 6 Mr. Anderson stated that members would not have to make an either/or choice because the money for the technology would not be money that could be spent on the officers if the City had these particular grants. He indicated that energy grants and transportation funds, which could be used for lighting upgrades and other issues, as well as crime grants, would not go toward hiring police officers. Mr. Anderson advised that hiring officers could be discussed, noting that he had always been supportive of this and had supported the addition of police officers three (3) times while on Council. He stated that unless enough officers would be hired to put substations in every neighborhood, which he did not see the City heading toward, technology would be needed to help officers. Mr. Anderson noted that hiring 30 more officers was not part of the discussion or budget. Mr. Anderson stated that one (1) of the reasons this matter had been brought up was because it was time to do research on grants and to include this as part of discussion when a public service fee is brought up and when looking at new transportation funds coming in. He indicated that it was currently time to have this discussion because the City would be looking at public money that could be coming in for public safety. Mr. Anderson stated there was a need to know what mix of technology and people would best serve, noting that he fully supports both. Mr. Lindell stated that he agreed with Mr. Anderson that discussion is good on issues that can help the Police Department with crime in the City; however, he likes to rely on the experts in the field. Having also done a ride-along, he stated that he could vouch for the speeds of those rides, and the Police Department’s response time and professionalism were excellent. Mr. Lindell indicated that he had to take Chief Mailey’s word that they were making progress and suggested letting the experts continue to quarterback the situation and come to members to further the discussion if they need something. He stated that he did not necessarily want to invest in something that the City would be on the hook for leasing year after year, after buying the hardware, or to put future Councils in the same position. Responding to Mr. Lindell, Mayor Christiansen estimated that the cost of putting an officer on the street at roughly $82,000 - $84,000, including salary, training, and benefits and not including a car. Mr. Lindell asked if this equipment or two (2) more police officers on the street would make a bigger difference in helping to reduce the shootings. Responding, Chief Mailey stated that he would rather have the two (2) officers. He noted that he had heard the concern from Council and the community, and the Dover Police Department had established why there had been so many shootings in the City and was addressing the problem. Chief Mailey advised that the problem was not a broad sweep where they had no idea who was committing the shootings. He explained that they knew who was committing them, they had the Department’s attention, and the Department had been making policing and tactical decisions to remove them from the streets of Dover. Chief Mailey stated that he thought members would be very happy with the results at the end of this project. Mr. Lindell stated that he relies on the advice of present and past experts. Referring to the Council Committee of the Whole Report of July 26, 2016, he noted that former Councilman James Hutchison had stated that this equipment could be considered; however, when the price tag is considered, he felt that putting boots on the ground and possibly paying extra duty officers to become more involved in community policing would provide a better value than this device. Mr. Lindell stated that former

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF AUGUST 29, 2017 PAGE 7 Councilman James Hosfelt had some of the same skepticism about the program as well. Mr. Lindell suggested letting the Police Department do what they need to do and come to members if they need assistance and a discussion of what they need to get the job done. The motion to table the matter until members have additional information was unanimously carried. Quarterly Briefing on Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Projects Mr. James Galvin, AICP, Principal Planner, Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), advised members that the executive director of the MPO had left as of June 30, 2017 and the MPO was currently searching for a new executive director. He stated that they had received applications and anticipated a review process and potential hiring by October. Mr. Galvin informed members that one of the most important projects the MPO was working on was the Dover Parking Study. He advised members that the MPO had provided several public comment opportunities during the last couple of months, with the most recent meeting held on Thursday, August 24, 2017. Mr. Galvin reviewed an updated presentation entitled “Downtown Dover Parking Study,” dated August 24, 2017 (Attachment #1), noting that it was the version of the presentation that was presented to the Dover community on August 24, 2017. Referring to the graph on page 4 of the presentation, Mr. Galvin noted that he believed that the red area labeled “Off-Street Parking Takes this much space” was actually representative of on-street parking. In reference to page 7 of the presentation, he informed members that the MPO is going to suggest that the consultants not use the graphic of the disembodied parking lot because it is confusing and they received many comments regarding it during the public workshop. Referring to the Cost of Parking, page 9, Mr. Galvin informed members that there were comments during the public workshop that Dover should not be compared with Wilmington; Newark; Annapolis, Maryland; or Media, Pennsylvania, because Dover is more like Smyrna and Milford. Mr. Galvin advised that he disagreed with these comments and thought that Dover was more like Newark. Mr. Galvin noted that there would not be any spots gained with Potential Improvement Scenario 1; 40 spots would be gained with Scenario 2; 40 spots would be gained with a combination of Scenarios 1 and 2; with Scenario 3, 22 spots would be gained out of the 1,800 that they counted; Scenarios 2 and 3 would provide a total gain of 62 spots; and 318 spots would be gained with Scenario 4, the garage. Mr. Sudler asked if there was any projected profit forecast for the $4M or $100,000 options. Responding Mr. Galvin explained that the consultant had not done a profit forecast yet and he had not had the opportunity to do one himself. He stated that he expected that the profit forecast would be included in the final report.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF AUGUST 29, 2017 PAGE 8 Mr. Neil informed members that he had attended the community meeting on August 24, 2017 and he thought that the report and the personnel there anticipated virtually every question he had to ask and they did it well. He noted that the presentation also included directional signage, which he thought was a very important component. Mr. Neil stated that the fact that there are a number of places where you need a permit was also discussed. He noted that he thought that the City charges a permit fee, which is probably less than the amount that should be charged, explaining that it could help pay for the additional parking. Mr. Neil stated that he was very familiar with Annapolis and, because it is a capital city, parking is difficult to come by. He explained that there are a lot more stores and a lot more activity because of the Naval Academy, and they can afford to drive up the prices of parking, since there isn’t any. Mr. Neil noted that Annapolis and many other cities in Maryland have parking garages, and stated that he thought that a public-private partnership may be able to be brought in to provide that additional parking. He indicated that he provided one of the Langan representatives with contact information for Ms. Wendy Vestfall, Executive Director, Kent County Tourism, because he thought a synergy could be worked out between tourism and parking. Mr. Neil stated that the more we can do to make it easier for people to come and to park, the better it will be for the merchants and the City as a whole. Mr. Galvin, referring to page 22 of the presentation, informed members that there was discussion regarding having shared cars located somewhere in downtown Dover. He stated that he thought that this would really work if there was a parking garage to put the shared cars in, and he expected that to be one of the ideas included in the final report. Mr. Galvin reviewed the Parking Study deliverables, indicating that the project management portion was simply getting the consultant to talk to the MPO and the second deliverable was stakeholder and public participation. He stated that the MPO had pushed them to make sure that they get good public participation. Mr. Galvin advised that, for the last workshop, public notices went out three (3) or four (4) weeks ahead of time and were shared with the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP) and posted on their website and the City's website. He stated that he thought that the result showed since more than 40 people attended the workshop. Mr. Galvin advised that the next step was data collection and baseline analysis, which had been completed, and the consultant had gone into the alternatives analysis, which was included in the presentation. He stated that the fifth step would be a preferred plan which they are developing now, and the last is a final report. Mr. Galvin noted that the study was running behind schedule, explaining that the consultant’s contract, which he believed was signed approximately one (1) year ago, stated that they would have it completed within six (6) months. He advised that he had only recently become involved with the study, since Mr. Rich Vetter left the MPO. Referring to other MPO projects, Mr. Galvin advised members that they were finishing the Regional Bike Plan, which had a good public outreach component, and the public comment period had just ended. He stated that they were tweaking the plan, would be presenting it to the MPO Council in two (2) weeks, and would be happy to present it to City Council as well. Mr. Galvin noted that the request for proposals (RFP) for a Milford parking study was in draft.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF AUGUST 29, 2017 PAGE 9 Members were informed that the West Dover Connector was scheduled to open in September. Mr. Anderson asked if parking apps were part of the discussion, noting that they would be simple, relatively inexpensive, and go well with signage. In response, Mr. Galvin advised that parking apps had not been part of the discussion so far. He noted that this was brought up during the last workshop, and he was certain the consultants would be happy to provide an app at an additional cost. Mr. Slavin stated that, based on his personal experience, the apps work very well and are very convenient. Mr. Anderson advised that he had heard a concern about morning and afternoon rush hour traffic and the difficulty getting onto Governors Avenue and New Burton Road from Crossgates. He asked if there had been any studies on those types of traffic patterns. Responding, Mr. Galvin advised that, to an extent, New Burton Road is going to have more traffic when the West Dover Connector opens, because there is an exit off the West Dover Connector to New Burton Road at the Boys and Girls Club and County facility. He stated that the MPO had not done a study on New Burton Road and he did not think one had been done in a while. Mr. Galvin recalled that the biggest thing that came out of the MPO for New Burton was getting pedestrian facilities, noting that there were not currently any. He indicated that he thought that New Burton Road would be one of the more difficult streets to discuss additional lane area for, if that was an alternative, given the constraints in the area between the railroad tracks and the property owners to the east. Mr. Galvin stated that it is something that the MPO may want to look in future years. Mr. Anderson stated that there was a suggestion a while ago for the West Dover Connector to be named after William Penn, and he asked if that had been given any consideration or if there was a naming convention. Responding, Mr. Slavin stated his belief that it had been named the POW-MIA Highway. Mr. Galvin noted that it had been named and the MPO was not involved in the naming. Mr. Kirby Hudson, Assistant City Manager, informed members that he had attended the community meeting of August 24, 2017 and, during that meeting, he stated that he thought that the wayward signs were great; however, signage on Route 1 had not been mentioned. He advised that the consultants said that they would put that in the notes. Quarterly Update - Bicycle/Pedestrian Subcommittee Mr. David Hugg, Acting Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed the Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittee Quarterly Update for August 2017. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF AUGUST 29, 2017 PAGE 10 UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee met with Council President Slavin presiding in the absence of Chairman Cole. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Anderson moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Dedication of Rights-of-Way and Public Infrastructure - Garrison Oak Technical Park Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Acting City Manager, advised members that the Department of Public Works had requested that all public infrastructure improvements related to the Garrison Oak Technical Park be dedicated to the City of Dover for permanent ownership and maintenance. Referring to the list of public improvements, she noted that since the City of Dover was the developer of this project, the contractor, account number, and project codes associated with the specific infrastructure were notated. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the total construction value of capitalized public improvements was $12,241,583.21, the final budget was $12,983,000, and the total expenses with non-capital was $13,078,497.53. She explained that the total expenses amount was different because it included the engineering costs and items that were not being capitalized. Members reviewed a map depicting the general location and configuration of the subject rights-of-way. Mrs. Mitchell noted that all construction aspects had been completed to meet the City of Dover Standards and Specifications for Public Works Construction as well as the Water/Wastewater Handbook, and a one (1) year Maintenance Bond and a Release of Liabilities would be submitted as part of the dedication process. She stated that required as-built drawings of the infrastructure as well as videos of the sanitary sewer mains had been provided to staff. Staff recommended acceptance of the dedication of rights-of-way and public infrastructure of the Garrison Oak Technical Park. Dedication is to include all of the referenced public improvements. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Mitchell confirmed that this was a pro forma action, explaining that at the conclusion of a City project, the City dedicates the streets and accepts them. Mr. Neil moved to recommend acceptance of the dedication of rights-of-way and public infrastructure of the Garrison Oak Technical Park, as recommended by staff. Dedication is to include all of the referenced public improvements. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindell and unanimously carried. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Utility Committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:08 p.m.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF AUGUST 29, 2017 PAGE 11 Mr. Polce moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindell and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:08 p.m. Timothy A. Slavin Council President TAS/TM/dd S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Committee-Minutes\2017\08-29-2017 CCW.wpd Attachments Attachment #1 - Updated presentation entitled “Downtown Dover Parking Study,” dated August 24, 2017, provided by Mr. James Galvin, AICP, Principal Planner, Dover/Kent County MPO

ATTACHMENT #1 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 08/29/2017 Downtown Dover Parking Study Presented to the Dover Community August 24, 2017 These are the notes related to the board used at the 3rd Public Meeting for the Downtown Dover Parking Study. They were prepared by Langan Engineering and KSK Architects Planners Historians, on behalf of the Dover / Kent County MPO and the City of Dover. They document the findings of a year‐long investigation of parking issues in downtown Dover.

Downtown WhatDover Parking Study is the Project? – “Too much?” – “Too little?” – “Too pricy?” – “Too cheap?” – “Easy to Understand?” – “Convenient to where I want to go?” The downtown Dover study focused on the key streets along the commercial areas downtown – mostly blocks along and adjacent to Loockerman Street and The Green. And tried to better understand from where the inefficiencies and complaints about parking came.

What is the Project? = approximately 6.5 acres The parking study area is the area shown by the red dotted line in this figure. The Primary study area is the area bounded by Water Street to the south, West Street to the west, Fulton Street to the north and State Street to the east. Additionally we studied the area around the City Hall Lot which is bounded by State Street to the west, Division Street to the north, Loockerman Street to the south and Park Drive to the east

Private Parking Lots Take Public Parking Lots Take What is the Project? this much space this much space Off‐Street Parking Takes this much space = approximately 6.5 acres When all on‐street and off‐street, public and private parking spots are counted, they total over 1,800 spots – which is a large number of parking spots for a downtown and city of this size and character. This graph show how much area each type of parking would take if they were all consolidated into a single block.

What is the Project? This plan shows the total number and type of parking for all areas studied.

Parking Count Findings • On-Street Parking – Peak Hour – 12:30 to 1:30 pm – Peak Occupancy Rate – 75% – Peak Violation Rate – 16% • Off-Street Parking – Peak Hour – 11 am – Noon – Peak Occupancy Rate – 63% Some key findings from the study included: • Peak parking usage is typically around lunchtime, both for on‐street and off‐street parking. • Even at these peaks, parking occupancy rates never approach capacity. For example, the peak rate for on‐street parking is 75%. Well‐managed parking networks can have occupancies of 90% and still satisfy most users. • The peak violation rate for on‐street parking is fairly high. Over 16% of users were not in compliance during the day – and that number does not include the “parking surfers” that might be gaming the current parking system. That means that a sizable portion of users is staying well over the parking limits and not paying their fair share for parking.

Parking Study Findings Peak Occupancy Per Lot 65% 63% 83% 84% 62% 21% When we take a closer look at Off‐Street Parking, we see that the average 63% rate is actually not representative, since there is wide discrepancy in rates amongst all lots. For example, the North and Loockerman Way lots have occupancies over 80%, while the Governor’s Avenue lot has occupancy below 25%. The existing parking capacity could be better managed and much better utilized.

Cost of DOVER Parking: Wilmington (Per Hour / On Street) Newark Annapolis, MD Media, PA So then, we start looking for some reasons behind these parking patterns. One reason is cultural – people have just gotten used to the current way parking works downtown. But the current way also pushes away all those customers and visitors who cannot find parking. Another reason is the pricing structure. We looked at over 10 peer cities to compare parking costs.

Cost of DOVER Parking: Wilmington (Per Day / 12 x Public Lots) Newark 8x Annapolis, MD 13 x Media, PA The peer cities included not only cities in DE, such as Wilmington, Newark, Middletown, Smyrna, Milford, Seaford, and Lewes; but also other cities of same size and/or per capita income in surrounding states (such as Media, West Chester, and Lancaster PA; College Park, MD), and other capital cities of approximately same size and/or per capita income (Annapolis MD, Harrisburg PA, Trenton NJ, and Concord NH). Of all cities that had regulated parking facilities, Dover had the lowest cost – by far – for both on Street and off‐street parking. As an example, the 2nd and 3rd cheapest options in each category were: • On‐Street Parking – (1) Dover (Free), (2) Media (50 cents/hr), and (3) Concord (75 cents/hr). • Off‐Street Parking – (1) Dover ($1 a day), (2) West Chester ($8 a day), and (3) Wilmington ($11.85 average a day)

How Would You Spend Your ? , but 20 mins only Quick Errand to Downtown / hr, On‐Street Dover / hr, Off‐Street All day, Off‐Street Day-long Stay All day, On‐Street, but moving car every 2 hours All day, On‐Street We used this board to gauge the public’s preferences.

Current: What is the Project? Another reason for the current parking patterns is the confusing layouts and regulations of existing off‐street parking lots. Some lots might have 3 or 4 different types of permitted parking, and the routes thru them might be confusing as well. Finally, it is not easy to distinguish from the street where a visitor should go to find the right type of parking. We designed four different scenarios, based on stakeholder input – and used those to get feedback from stakeholders and the public about what might be acceptable solutions / changes.

Potential ImprovementWhat is the Project? Scenario BRADFORD STREET LOT (Proposed – Scenario 1): 1: Total Parking Spaces: 111 Permit parking: 72 plus 11 new spaces (converted from 2‐Hour and 15‐min parking) Meter parking: 22 (reconfigured) ADA Parking: 5 LOOCKERMAN WAY LOT (Proposed – Scenario 1): Total Parking Spaces: 35 Meter parking: 33 ADA Parking: 2 GOVERNORS AVE LOT (Proposed – Scenario 1): Total Parking Spaces: 103 Permit parking: 42 plus 10 new spaces (converted from 2‐Hour parking) Tenant Parking: 40 ADA Parking: 2 Scenario 1 focuses on creating a simple structure of only 2 types of parking – metered and permit parking; and on consolidating spots so they are easier to see and access from the street. Under this scenario, we proposed converting all of the Loockerman Street lot to metered parking to cater to visitors and customers to the downtown Loockerman St businesses; and also consolidating metered parking spots within the Bradford Street lot.

Potential NEW STATE STREET ALLEY LOT (Proposed – Scenario 2): Total Parking Spaces: Approximately 40 ImprovementWhat is the Project? Meter parking: 40 (reconfigured) ADA Parking: 4 Scenario 2: GOVERNORS AVE LOT (Proposed – Scenario 2): Total Parking Spaces: 103 Permit parking: 42 plus 10 new spaces (converted from 2‐Hour parking) Tenant Parking: 40 ADA Parking: 2 Scenario 2 focused on creating additional capacity by creating a new lot along the State St Alleyway.

Potential ImprovementWhat is the Project? Scenario BRADFORD STREET LOT (Proposed – Scenario 3): 3: Total Parking Spaces: 111 Permit parking: 72 plus 33 new spaces (converted plus new) Meter parking: 22 (reconfigured) ADA Parking: 5 LOOCKERMAN WAY LOT (Proposed – Scenario 3): Total Parking Spaces: 35 Meter parking: 33 ADA Parking: 2 GOVERNORS AVE LOT (Proposed – Scenario 3): Total Parking Spaces: 103 Permit parking: 42 plus 10 new spaces (converted from 2‐Hour parking) Tenant Parking: 40 ADA Parking: 2 Scenario 3 is an enhanced version of Scenario 1, with an expanded Bradford Street lot to address additional demand for permit parking.

Potential ImprovementWhat is the Project? Scenario BRADFORD STREET GARAGE (Proposed – Scenario 4): 4: Total Parking Spaces: approx. 400 (3 stories) Permit parking: 200 Meter parking: 200 ADA Parking: 15 LOOCKERMAN WAY LOT (Proposed – Scenario 4): Total Parking Spaces: 35 Meter parking: 33 ADA Parking: 2 GOVERNORS AVE LOT (Proposed – Scenario 4): Total Parking Spaces: 103 Permit parking: 42 plus 10 new spaces (converted from 2‐Hour parking) Tenant Parking: 40 ADA Parking: 2 And finally, Scenario 4 would be the “Garage Scenario”, a point where demand is high enough that a parking garage structure is made viable for development. Based on preliminary input from stakeholders, one potential location would be on an expanded Bradford Street lot site.

How Would You Spend Your ? Scenario 1 Less than $100k Scenario 2 $1M to $2M Scenarios 1 and 2 $1M to $2M Scenario 3 $1M to $2M Scenarios 2 and 3 $2M to $4M Scenario 4 Over $4M However, each of these scenarios have costs. We suggest that the City would do best to address the “low hanging fruit” and take the more affordable measures first. And then Scenario 4 should only be implemented when downtown redevelopment has advanced enough to warrant the additional supply and cost of a new garage.

Wayfinding and Signage Another requisite solution to the parking issues is to better guide customers and visitors to the existing available parking. And, in addition, help downtown businesses by better branding od Downtown, as well as better signage along Route 1, US 13 and other major corridors – so that everyone that drives near Dover would know that, just off this exist or after a left at this traffic light, there is a very cool destination – Downtown Dover!

Wayfinding and Signage We propose three layers of signage – on the outside perimeter, highway directional signage pointing to “Historic Downtown Dover”; in the downtown perimeter, “Welcome to Historic Downtown Dover” signs; and then once downtown, better directing drivers to the right parking locations. This wayfinding system would be a very efficient use of scarce dollars.

Potential On-Street Parking Zones In addition, going back to the question of pricing, we would recommend creating a tiered system of pricing for both on‐street and off‐streets parking. Our final report will have more details on a recommended pricing structure that can be implemented. But the pricing strategy will be developed in conjunction with input from stakeholders and public and will be implemented as a pilot so that 6 or 12 months later, the pricing strategy can be revisited and adjusted based on customer reaction and actual real‐life results. The tiered system, however, should follow some basic principles: • Be simple to understand and market • Have the highest costs at the highest demand locations • For off‐street lots, limits parking categories to permitted locations and metered locations, reducing the number of categories from 4 to 2 • On the other hand, create a greater variety of permits to get better utilization of existing permit spots. For example, some permit holders might opt to renew a (Cheaper) weekday‐only or weeknight‐only permit, instead of a 24‐hour/30‐day a month permit.

Streetscape and Safety In addition, Dover should also think about streetscape enhancements downtown – to increase safety, aesthetics and attract more visitors; as well the creation of gateways along Route 13, so that drivers recognize that there is a cool city behind each intersection, and not just another strip mall or gas station. This slide shows streetscape enhancements along Loockerman, including lighting and safety cameras; and the creation of a parallel pedestrian corridor that connects all parking lots between Governor’s Avenue and City Hall. Instead of a dark back alley, now visitors would have an attractive, brick pavement sidewalk, well‐lit and landscaped, to connect them to Loockerman St and State St businesses, and local and state government offices.

Gateways This board showcases visions of what the gateways along Route 13 could look like.

New Technologies XOnline Payments Smart Meters In‐Car Meters Kiosk Meters Car Sharing Pay by Phone Solar PV Bike Sharing and more… Finally, the final report will also have suggestions in relation to how new technologies can help Dover better manage its parking.

Monthly Report July 2017 Office of City Assessor

ASSESSOR’S REPORT Number of Deeds Stamped for Transfer Tax Dollar Amount for the Month of July 2016/2017 the Month of July 2016/2017 38 $87 40 $100 30 Thousands $62 30 23 19 17 22 $25 20 10 $50 $23 2 1 5 2016 $6 $2 $3 $5 10 2016 0 $0 2017 2017 First Time Buyer for the Month July 2016/2017 Realty of July 2016/2017 PropertySales in Dollars 38 Received Prior to Recording 40 $6 $6 $4 30 23 Res. Non‐First $3 $3 Millions 19 $4 17 Time Buyers $1 $0 $0 $0 20 $2 2016 Res. First Time $0 10 Buyers 2017 0 2016 2017 Major Updates May ‐ 17 June ‐17 July‐ 17 Assessment Change $3,921,800 $2,827,800 ‐ $501,700 Residential Sales Ratio Report Sales in Study Total Assessed Total Sale Price Ratio PRD Value 41 $5,747,100 $6,446,310 0.89 1.05 1

ASSESSOR’S REPORT Ratio – Assessed Value divided by Sale Price. PRD – Mean – A PRD above 1.03 tends to indicate assessment regressivity – high valued properties are under appraised relative to low valued properties. A PRD below .98 tends to indicate assessment progressivity – high valued properties are relatively over appraised. 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. Assessor’s Office ‐ 2017 Tax Bills were generated, printed, sorted and mailed. 2

AUG 11, 2017 CITY OF DOVER PAGE: 1 02:13 PM SALES RATIO REPORT CA324 PARID NBHD LUC ADDRESS UNITS STYLE YRBLT STORIES SFLA GRADE CDU TOTAL APPR SALE DT PRICE ASR ED05-056.20-01-13.00 18 R10 126 MAPLE GLEN DR 1 5 2004 2 2640 B AV 232,200 28-JUL-17 289,500 ED05-057.17-02-12.00 18 R10 216 MILLCREEK DR 1 8 1994 2 1440 C+ AV 143,100 10-JUL-17 165,000 ED05-067.01-01-27.00 18 R10 10 AQUAMARINE CT 1 5 2011 2 1569 B AV 212,900 31-JUL-17 244,000 ED05-067.09-01-20.00 3 R10 312 TROON RD 1 5 1975 2 1808 C+ AV 218,800 20-JUL-17 220,000 ED05-067.15-04-03.06 10 R10 842 WOODCREST TRN 1 8 1987 2 1406 C AV 153,500 15-JUL-17 100,000 ED05-067.16-02-02.00 10 R10 609 FAIRVIEW AVE 1 3 1948 1.5 1593 C+ AV 168,800 12-JUL-17 175,000 ED05-067.16-02-48.00 10 R10 724 N GOVERNORS AVE 1 3 1948 1 1354 C+ AV 135,300 28-JUL-17 228,900 ED05-067.17-04-58.00 3 R10 129 SWEETGUM DR 1 6 1993 2 1842 B- AV 174,700 30-JUL-17 235,000 ED05-067.18-03-60.00 17 R10 4 LIBERTY DR 1 3 1980 1 1702 C AV 149,700 10-JUL-17 205,000 ED05-067.20-03-48.00 9 R10 321 N GOVERNORS AVE 1 8 1973 2 1368 C- AV 72,600 20-JUL-17 107,000 ED05-068.10-04-20.00 13 R10 24 ANCHOR LN 1 5 2002 2 1876 C+ AV 164,300 28-JUL-17 195,000 ED05-068.17-01-30.00 8 R10 511 PENNSYLVANIA AVE EXT 1 6 1950 1 1911 C+ AV 197,100 06-JUL-17 142,100 ED05-068.19-05-83.00 14 R10 214 THORNTON ST 1 13 2006 3 2016 C+ GD 146,500 10-JUL-17 187,000 ED05-068.20-01-51.00 14 R10 19 NICHOLAS DR 1 2016 2 2472 B- AV 221,000 20-JUL-17 229,900 ED05-076.03-01-05.00 14 R10 4 LESTER CT 1 5 2006 2 1903 C+ AV 214,500 06-JUL-17 242,000 ED05-076.03-01-74.00 14 R10 132 W SHELDRAKE CIR 1 2016 2 1891 C+ AV 188,900 28-JUL-17 245,000 ED05-076.03-01-76.00 14 R0 140 W SHELDRAKE CIR 31,300 13-JUL-17 37,500 ED05-076.03-04-29.00 11 R10 204 SAXONDALE LN 1 5 2007 2 2601 B AV 238,900 14-JUL-17 289,900 ED05-076.05-01-11.03 17 R10 3 MARSH CREEK LN 1 13 1996 2 1200 C AV 110,300 28-JUL-17 127,000 ED05-076.05-03-60.00 14 R10 97 STONEY DR 1 8 1989 2 1394 C+ AV 130,300 19-JUL-17 155,900 ED05-076.05-04-01.023 102 R50 44 COURTSIDE DR 1 20 1978 1 1008 C- AV 43,400 07-JUL-17 100,000 ED05-076.05-04-01.077 102 R50 56 PAR HAVEN DR 1 20 1978 1 1008 C- AV 43,100 26-JUL-17 42,000 ED05-076.06-02-01.00- 103 R50 7 ATRAM HALL 1 20 1973 1 939 B GD 64,400 06-JUL-17 60,000

AUG 11, 2017 CITY OF DOVER PAGE: 2 02:13 PM SALES RATIO REPORT CA324 PARID NBHD LUC ADDRESS UNITS STYLE YRBLT STORIES SFLA GRADE CDU TOTAL APPR SALE DT PRICE ASR 124 ED05-076.06-02-01.00- 103 R50 5 DOVER HALL 1 20 1973 1 794 B GD 56,800 18-JUL-17 55,000

CITY COUNCIL - FY 17/18 Page 1 of 3 COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT FUND 110-1200-512.30-37 Current Balance - $21,581.94 COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT FUND - $2,500 FOR EACH COUNCIL MEMBER PER DISTRICT AND $5,000 FOR THE AT-LARGE COUNCIL MEMBER. THE PURPOSE OF THE BUDGETED AMOUNT $25,000.00 FUND IS TO ALLOW MEMBERS TO CONTRIBUTE FUNDS TO A SMALL PROJECT OR COMMUNITY NEEDS IN EACH DISTRICT. TOTAL $25,000.00 COUNCIL P.O. #/ TOTAL YEAR TO DATE SPONSOR VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE # CHARGES DATE BALANCE 07/12/17 Anderson Inner City Councilman Anderson authorized the use of Email dated $600.00 $600.00 $24,400.00 Cultural League, $600.00 of his community enhancement funds 07/11/17 from Inc. to fund 50% of the membership dues for 5 David needy students to participate in the Sankofa Anderson to African Drum and Dance Troupe. City Clerk's Office 07/16/17 Anderson MLK Jr. Councilman Anderson authorized the use of Email dated $500.00 $1,100.00 $23,900.00 Educational $500.00 of his community enhancement funds 07/16/17 from Community to help pay for breakfast and lunch for the David Center, Inc. Saturday Academy participants. Anderson to City Clerk's Office 07/26/17 Slavin Central Councilman Slavin authorized the use of Email dated $670.56 $1,770.56 $23,229.44 Delaware $670.56 to purchase incidental equipment and 07/26/17 from Habitat for play apparatus for the Habitat for Humanity's Tim Slavin to Humanity pop up parks/play streets program. It was noted Traci that the games would be usable for future McDowell events too. 07/31/17 Hare Air Force Ball Councilman Hare authorized the use of $500.00 Dover Downs $500.00 $2,270.56 $22,729.44 Committee for the deposit to reserve the Dover Downs Banquet Event ballroom for 436 Squadron's Annual Air Force Order (BEO) Ball. #24,727 dated 06/27/17 09/07/17 S:\BUDGETS\Coun-18.qpw

CITY COUNCIL - FY 17/18 Page 2 of 3 08/02/17 Cole Dover Library Councilman Cole authorized the use of his Sam's Club $397.50 $2,668.06 $22,331.94 Foundation community enhancement funds to reimburse receipt dated the Dover Library Foundation for the purchase 08/15/17; of bottled water for the Dover Comic Con 2017 Email dated event. 08/02/17 from Scott Cole to Traci McDowell 08/07/17 Neil 3d Airlift Councilman Neil authorized $100.00 of his Email dated $100.00 $2,768.06 $22,231.94 Squadron community enhancement funds to be donated to 08/07/17 from Booster Club the 3d Airlift Squadron Booster Club for the Fred Neil to Dover Air Force Base Open House. Traci McDowell 08/14/17 Anderson Boys and Girls Councilman Anderson authorized a donation of Emails dated $100.00 $2,868.06 $22,131.94 Club of $100.00 of his community enhancement funds 08/08/17 and Delaware to the Boys and Girls Club of Delaware, for the 08/14/17 from Greater Dover Boys and Girls Club - 4th District David children. Anderson to Debbie Krueger 08/14/17 Anderson City of Dover Councilman Anderson authorized a donation of Email dated $250.00 $3,118.06 $21,881.94 Parkland $250.00 of his community enhancement funds 08/14/17 from Reserve for the Back to School Giveaway and Rib-Off David Fundraiser Initiative (to be credited to the City's Anderson to Parkland Reserve) Debbie Krueger 08/23/17 Cole Dover High Councilman Cole authorized $300.00 of his Email dated $300.00 $3,418.06 $21,581.94 School community enhancement funds to help pay for 08/23/17 from AFJROTC storage units for the air rifles used by the Rifle Scott Cole to Booster Club Team. Traci McDowell $3,418.06 $21,581.94 09/07/17 S:\BUDGETS\Coun-18.qpw

CITY COUNCIL - FY 17/18 Page 3 of 3 Budgeted District Council YTD Expenditures Balance Amount Sponsor $5,000.00 At-Large Slavin $670.56 $4,329.44 $2,500.00 1st District Lindell $0.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 1st District Polce $0.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 2nd District Hare $500.00 $2,000.00 $2,500.00 2nd District Lewis $0.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 3rd District Cole $697.50 $1,802.50 $2,500.00 3rd District Neil $100.00 $2,400.00 $2,500.00 4th District Anderson $1,450.00 $1,050.00 $2,500.00 4th District Sudler $0.00 $2,500.00 TOTAL $3,418.06 $21,581.94 09/07/17 S:\BUDGETS\Coun-18.qpw

CITY MANAGER’S MONTHLY REPORT JULY 2017

Average Disconnects 112 112 99 96 92 86 77 71 69 61 58 53 58 60 49 48 50 44 48 21 24 19 19 26 Average Accounts Cut Per Day Average Accounts Available to Cut Per Day

Work Orders Processed 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 JUL-16 AUG-16 SEP-16 OCT-16 NOV-16 DEC-16 JAN-17 FEB-17 MAR-17 APR-17 MAY-17 JUN-17 JUL-17 Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul-16 Jul-17 16 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 17 17 Series1 1,539 2,423 1,939 1,955 1,615 1,643 1,437 1,478 1,665 1,325 1,515 1,996 1,955 Payment Agreements / Extensions 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul-16 Jul-17 16 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 17 17 Series1 402 587 549 501 565 467 487 385 467 525 523 436 501 CUSTOMER PAYMENT USAGE 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Drive-Thru Over the Mail, Drop Box Credit Cards Bank Drafts Window Counter 2018 YTD 2,508 4,964 23,862 261 1,789 2017 YTD 2,662 4,986 21,936 276 1,882

Total Accounts Bank Drafted 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2017 1668 1747 2214 1660 2226 1662 1863 1989 306 0 0 0 2016 1605 1751 1954 1636 1982 1775 1812 2309 1602 1831 1886 1770 Customer Payments Made Through Bank Draft 600000 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2017 279823.56 297914.5 342455.53 256771.02 339351.31 267485.44 351745.72 424715.11 53423.85 0 0 0 2016 247351.87 276553.6 327013.78 253729.28 289793.16 263957.73 317148.01 480391.62 374575.25 389971.29 302860.98 259092.91

ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT Electric Divisions System Peak Total System Load Number Customers Month outages customers Nov 15 53,746 Gained Nov 15 95.5 Dec 15 56,155 Nov 15 5 2629 Nov 15 61 Dec 15 94.64 Jan 16 62,563 Dec 15 2 17 Dec 15 20 Jan 16 116.96 Feb 16 57,888 Jan 16 5 245 Jan 16 21 Feb 16 110.15 Mar 16 55,967 Feb 16 2 106 Feb 16 14 Mar 16 98.93 Apr 16 53,202 Mar 16 7 353 Mar 16 16 Apr 16 100.37 Apr 16 5 672 Apr 16 29 May 16 128.16 May 16 56,586 May 16 2 206 May 16 13 June 16 133.59 June 16 65,414 June 16 14 601 June 16 53 July 16 165.92 July 16 80,114 July 16 9 307 July 16 13 Aug 16 162.61 Aug 16 83,086 Aug 16 9 214 Aug 16 13 Sept 16 159.99 Sept 16 67,117 Sept 16 7 915 Sept 16 35 Oct 16 116.94 Oct 16 57,707 Oct 16 8 224 Oct 16 27 Nov 16 98.27 Nov 16 54,812 Nov 16 6 4293 Nov 16 41 Dec 16 60,179 Dec 16 5 207 Dec 16 37 Dec 16 101.04 Jan 17 3 12 Jan 17 40 Jan 17 113.04 Jan 17 63,172 Feb 17 1 2 Feb 17 31 Feb 17 106.4 Feb 17 54,811 Mar 17 4 160 Mar 17 15 Mar 17 108.2 Mar 17 60,690 Apr 17 4 114 Apr 17 58 Apr 17 54,062 May 17 5 148 May 17 58 Apr 17 107.03 June 17 7 3084 June 17 25 May 17 133.93 May 17 57,823 July 17 19 2556 July 17 90 June 17 155.81 June 17 70,081 July 17 162.88 July 17 79,883 Electric Monthly Outage Report The annual outage goal will be less than 295 minutes per customer, which is a Delaware Standard. This will be measured by calculating the System Average Interruption Duration Index. FY 18 YTD FY 17 FY 16 39.8 29.59 24.98 Controllable Outages Average Response Time Annual goal is less than 40 Goal is less than 30 minutes Month Year-to-date Month Year-to-date 5 5 36.74 Minutes 36.74 Minutes PROGRAM UPDATES JULY 17 JULY 16 FY18 YTD Tree Trimming 459 337 459 Number of Oil Releases 0 1 0 Lost Time Accidents – All Electric Utility Divisions 0 0 0 New Services 90 13 90

HUMAN RESOURCES July 2017 Category July August Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June* July Total 16 16 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 Caucasian* 297 294 296 301 302 300 299 296 293 290 289 291 292 n/a Minorities* 70 69 71 72 72 71 71 71 72 73 73 74 79 n/a Hired 3 0 5 9 3 1 5 1 5 1 3 3 9 48 Terminated/Resigned/ 8 4 1 1 2 4 6 4 7 3 4 3 3 50 Retired/Other Transferred/Promoted 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 3 16 Jobs Posted 5 7 3 3 1 7 2 6 7 5 2 1 7 56 Workers Comp. Injuries 3 3 3 6 3 0 2 2 2 2 4 3 1 34 Workers Comp. Hours 271 340 171 254 319 342 259 252 397 275 648 475 417 4420 *339 Full-time Employees: Part-time Employees: 32 (3 Pitts Center, 1 Recreation, 18 Library, 1 Customer Service, 1 Central Services, 8 Police Department) -Numbers do not reflect, temporary, seasonal, relief fire dispatchers, committee or council members. * Updated Position Hired: (5) Cadets; Customer Service Representative I; LAN Analyst (IT); Planner I; Library Clerk (part-time) Position Transferred/Promoted: Lineman Second Class to Electric Meter Tech I; Substation Technician to Engineering Fieldman, Police Captain to Major Position Terminated/Resigned/Retired: Office Assistant II; Field Service Supervisor II (Grounds), Substation Technician I Positions Posted: Electric Director, Public Works Inspector, Water Treatment Plant Operator I, Budget Analyst, Gardener I, Laborer II, Billing Supervisor Open or Currently Recruiting* Open or Currently July August Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June July Recruiting 16 16 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 By Department Electric 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 7 Public Works 11 13 11 5 6 6 5 5 6 6 6 7 8 Police 2 3 2 1 1.5 3 5.5 6 7.5 9.5 9 8 6.5 All Other 9.5 10 9 9 14 13.5 11.5 11.5 12 10 9.5 9 7.5 Departments Totals 26.5 29 25 18 25.5 26.5 26 26.5 29.5 29.5 28.5 29 29 *Not used for Budgeting Purposes  The following has been updated to reflected the Fiscal 2017-18 Budget Electric: Lineman 2nd class, Engineering Fieldman; Key Accounts, Electric Director, (2) Substation Technician, Groundworker Public Works: Utility Maintenance Mechanic I; Lead Laborer (Grounds); Laborer II (Grounds); Public Works Inspector, Gardener I, Motor Equipment Operator III (Water/wastewater); Water Treatment Plant Operator I, Field Supervisor II (Grounds) Police: Cadet; (3) Police Officers, (2) Communication Operator; Evidence Technician All Other Departments: City Manager, Director Planning & Inspections, Field Service Representative I (Customer Service-Meter Reading); Billing Supervisor (Customer Service); Customer Service Clerk I (part-time); Inspector I (Fire Marshal); Budget Analyst; Office Assistant

HUMAN RESOURCES (Continued) Turnover Statistics 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Turnover % 5.57 6.75 11.00 10.91 6.02 12.05 8.68 7.66 Termination Turnover % 0.27 1.08 0.29 1.47 .57 .28 .54 .82 Resignation Turnover % 2.12 4.05 5.21 5.01 2.29 7.56 6.24 4.10 Retirement Turnover % 3.18 1.62 5.50 4.42 3.15 4.20 1.90 2.19 Other - - - - - - - .55 2012 Healthcare cost sharing implemented 2013 Healthcare cost sharing implemented for DOE 2016 RIF in Economic Development Average Employees 2010 2011 2012* 2013* 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Number of Employees 21 25 38 37 21 42 32 28 Separating from Service Average Number of Full-time 362 356 333 325 331 333 340 340 Employees Average Number of Part-time 16 15 12 14 18 24 28 25 Employees * Healthcare cost sharing implemented Workers Compensation Cost CY 2017 26 2 14 Department 19 6 247 13 9 8 11 Total Cost (In thousands) Total $355,000

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES Service Requests Resolved 80 63 58 60 55 49 49 44 42 44 41 38 36 40 31 27 20 0 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17 Jul-17 Programming Requests Completed 40 29 27 29 28 30 24 22 21 22 20 18 16 18 17 20 10 0 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17 Jul-17 Page Views - City of Dover Web Page 45,000 40,000 35,000 Pages Viewed 30,000 25,000 40,773 36,155 20,000 24,670 27,522 25,578 27,338 25,417 24,034 23,712 23,724 22,895 15,000 17,766 16,020 10,000 5,000 0 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17 Jul-17 Noteworty: Started Contract work with Berry Dunn & Tyler Technologies New LAN Analyst - Joseph Halfpenny - started Established a plan for Reed Street staff emergency relocations

July 2017 Monthly Report Highlighted Special Events & Attendance: Chef Lodvociv Benz Art Exhibit Grand Opening 60 Children's Turtle Dance Music Program 67 Poetry in Motion Workshops w/Amillion 47 Total Items Checed Out: 35,467 Programs: Offered Attended E-books: 2,720 Adult 37 496 New Library Cards: 346 Teens 37 274 Children 41 820 Library Card Holders: 40,753 Job Center 41 318 Service Area Population: 59,354 Library Visitors: 26,251 Meeting Rooms Usage: 1,249 Computer Users: 4,319 Wireless Users: 1,988 Items Loaned to/Received from Other Libraries: 7,035

PUBLIC WORKS Construction Inspection Subdivisions Site Development The following required inspection services The following required inspection services Seskinore Court The Grande, Building 4 Chestnut Grove Chesapeake Utilities- Dover Campus Clearview Meadows Eden Hill Medical Center Eden Hill Reed Street Apartments Nottingham Meadows Leander Lakes Senators Lakes Eden Hill Commercial Center Garrison Oak Technical Park Islamic Society of Central Delaware Tall Pines Whatcoat Apartments Sanitation JULY 17 FYTD 18 JULY 16 FYTD 17 Trips to DSWA Sandtown Landfill 184 184.00 169 169.00 Total Tonnage to DSWA 1,039.05 1,039.05 986.39 986.39 90-Gallon Containers Delivered 78 78.00 45 45.00 300-Gallon Containers Delivered 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total Man Hours-containers Delivered 24 24.00 19 19.00

Streets JULY 17 FYTD 18 JULY 16 FYTD 17 Signed Installed 17 17.00 16 16.00 Signs Repaired 3 3.00 4 4.00 Curbs Painted Yellow (feet) 256 256.00 2,639 2,639.00 New Post Installed 4 4.00 1 5.00 Storm Catch Basins Repaired 0 0.00 6 6.00 Storm Catch Basin Repairing (Hrs.) 0 0.00 5.5 5.50 Storm Catch Basins Cleaned 20 20.00 3 23.00 Storm Catch Basins Cleaning (Hrs.) 15.00 15.00 4 19.00 Hot Mix Patching (Tons) 8.10 8.10 0 8.10 Hot Mix Patching (Hrs.) 8 8.00 0 8.00 Cold Mix Patching Hrs.) 5.1 5.08 28.5 33.58 Concrete Work (Hrs) 12.0 12.00 4 16.00 Concrete Patching (Cubic Yards) 8.00 8.00 0.30 8.30 Ditch Work (Hrs). 2 2.00 0 2.00 Street and Alley Maintenance (Hrs) 26.0 26.00 0 26.00 Street Sweeping (Miles) 1,422 1,422.00 1,862 3,284.00 Street Sweeping (Cubic Yards) 84.25 84.25 119 202.83 GROUNDS Work Orders Total Work Orders = 9 General = 2 Arborist = 7 Arborist Crew July 2017 July 2016 Trees Trimmed 37 17 Trees Removed 1 7 Stumps Removed 18 4 Trees Planted 0 0 Root Pruning 4 0 Beautification Crew Gateway flower bed planted and irrigation system repairs completed Memorial bed replanted in preparation for Labor Day Green house is being cleaned for the end of the season Preparing tulip bulb order Watering of hanging baskets Mowing Crew All mowing equipment in good operating order Mowed city properties and parks

Litter Removal Litter is being picked up on City properties as per the weekly schedule Litter person has been asked to be observant of destruction in parks Miscellaneous Washed mowing equipment Assisted water/wastewater with mowing for access to maintain lines Mowed shallow wells at treatment plant Installed playground surfacing at Silver Lake and Heatherfield GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS) City Clerk's Office Created a City Council Member Web App. City Manager’s Office Created a 'Dover Highlights' map for use in a presentation. Printed one 24"x36" copy and sent a PDF copy to the requester. Public Works Monthly DSWA Billing database update. Public Works Bi-Monthly Recycling Update sent to both Inland and Republic Services. Public Works Create storm sewer QC methodology for checking KCI's deliverables. Public Works Set up 2 tablets for jet trucks. Public Works Went over new tablets for the Jet Truck Protocol with Engineer. Also troubleshot and resolved GPS issue. Public Works Troubleshot camera truck issues. Downloaded and installed new ArcMap license. Public Works Monthly Recycling Customer Update for both Inland and Republic Services. Public Works Created a 'City Council Facility Tour' map. Printed one 18"x18" copy. Sent a PDF to the requester. Public Works Provided requester with Excel lists of the Tree Inventory and Grass Maintenance in and out of City Parks. Public Works Updated the Parcels, Rentals, and Active AHIs layers. Public Works Updated the map of the Kirkwood St Alley Abandonment to the newest iteration. Sent a PDF to requester. Public Works Updated and exported the 8.5"x11" 'Recycling Zones' maps into PDF for the new contractor. Public Works Created Water, Storm Water, and Sanitary Sewer plan maps for MISS Utility Tickets. FLEET AND FACILITIES MANAGEMENT Fleet Maintenance PM Work Orders Completed: 15 Number of Tire Repairs: 7 Number of Road Repairs: 7 Other Work Orders: 40 Repair Hours: 180 Road Repair Hours: 6 Total Work Orders: 55 Fabrication Hours: 6 Misc. Hours: 110 PM Hours: 65 # Of Scheduled PM’s: 42 # Of Scheduled PM’s: Completed: 10

Major Program Updates July July MEASURE 2017 2016 DIFFERENCE 10 out of 42 23.81 % Fleet Maintenance - Scheduled 7 Vehicles/Equipment were Preventative Maintenance 12 out of 42 serviced prior to May, 5 were - 4.76% appointments being kept 28.57 % disposed of or replaced, and 20 (Quantity and Percentage) vehicles were not turned in for service. Facilities Maintenance Facilities - Routine work orders 19 out of 19 35 out of 35 completed within 5 days 0% 100 % 100 % (Quantity and Percentage) Facilities - Emergency work orders 5 out of 5 1 out of 1 completed within 2 days 0% 100 % 100 % (Quantity and Percentage) Water/Wastewater Divisions June 16 July 16 Aug 16 Oct 16 Nov 16 Sept 16 Dec 16 Total Water Prod. 172,331,000 204,088,000 203,656,000 173,574,000 122,328,000 176,510,000 132,009,000 Billed Consumpt. 147,393,000 181,484,000 179,460,000 159,687,000 133,279,000 184,214,000 114,760,000 Total Flow to County 129,309,000 129,725,000 158,799,000 169,995,000 114,255,000 125,583,000 114,682,000 City Readings 158,898,575 146,440,837 178,307,328 147,838,447 150,270,118 135,635,579 136,196,345 Jan 17 Feb 17 March 17 April 17 May 17 June 17 July 17 Total Water Prod. 139,873,000 126,731,000 153,874,000 142,087,000 171,797,000 183,692,000 195,693,000 Billed Consumpt. 114,760,000 150,473,000 120,373,000 127,958,000 127,958,009 161,418,000 179,460,000 Total Flow to County 141,147,600 115,346,000 120,431,000 123,927,000 170,213,000 136,745,000 125,926,000 City Readings 148,506,989 134,835,733 135,076,400 168,499,897 141,349,551 138,366,768 142,470,400 ENGINEERING SUMMARY Major Program Updates JULY 17 JULY 16 DIFF FY18 YTD FY17 YTD State and Federal Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Water Quality Complaints 3 2 +1 3 2 Plan Review Completed Within 30 days of Submission 6 4 +2 6 4

OPERATIONAL SUMMARY Task JULY 17 JULY 16 CURRENT FY Water Production - Daily Average 6,312,677 6,583,484 37,938,500 Average Field Response Time (goal is <30 minutes) 21.00 18.00 21.00 Water Mains Repaired 0 1 0 Water Service Lines Repaired 3 2 3 Wastewater Mains Repaired 0 2 0 Wastewater Service Lines Repaired 0 0 0 Sewer Lines Flushed - linear feet 46,362 62,003 46,362 Sewer Mains Videoed -linear feet 1,093 674 1,093 Sewer Manholes Cleaned 246 224 246 Total Fire Hydrants in Service 1,839 1,820 1,839 Total Water Meters in City Distribution System 14,654 14,447 14,654

City Planner’s Monthly Report Planning, Inspections & Recreation JULY 2017 Planning, Inspections & Recreation Highlights Some Items to Call to Your Attention: Concern about the condition of the City’s Parks system remains a priority. In July playground/equipment surfaces were upgraded in Dover, Silver Lake, Williams, and Mayfair Parks. Planning staff were actively involved in a number of studies and projects including Restoring Central Dover Community Planning Implementation, Dover/Kent MPO Regional Bicycle Plan update and the Downtown Parking Study. Staff was involved in a coordinated effort to address blighted hous- ing in targeted downtown blocks, review of the Capital Gateway Plan (prepared last year through the MPO), and developing priorities for sub- mission to DelDOT and the MPO for capital transportation projects Development activity continues at a healthy pace. In July, 19 permits were issued for new homes, over $10 million of new commercial projects were permitted, and the City received HUD approval for the FFY 17 CDBG pro- grams addressing home ownership, shelter, rental assistance and housing rehab. Building staff issued 234 permits of various kinds (versus 177 in July 2016) and conducted 676 inspections (versus 371 last year). But not everyone followed the rules in July. Code Enforcement handled 233 cases of which 84 involved tall grass, weeds or other exterior property maintenance violations.

City Planner’s Monthly Report Planning, Inspections & Recreation More Highlights!  Julian Swierczek joined the City’s Planning Office as a Planner I on July 11, 2017.  Summer Camps going strong! Super Summer Play- ground our weekly day camp took off with 104 kids in July, Hoopville Bas- ketball Camp hosted 33 kids, Hoopville Basketball Clinic hosted 7 kids, and Soccer Camp hosted 26 youth! We have a few more weeks of camps left before the kids are back in school in late August.  Playground Maintenance—included a total of 200 cubic yards of Engi- neered Wood Fiber being added to playground/equipment surfaces in the following locations: Dover Park, Silver Lake Park, Williams Park and Mayfair Park.  Dover High School Partnership program—offered four weeks of Free “Tuesday Track Meets” at Dover High. We had 46 participants for boys and girls ages 5 to 14.  Performing Arts on The Green - So far our performance attendance records show Smooth Sound drew in 88 inside due to rain, Reptile World entertained 132 inside due to heat, The Reunion showcased to a crowd of 237, and Dirty Deal played to 192. Be sure to join us on Thursdays now until September 7th at 7 pm. The 2017 series was made possible by the City of Dover, YMCA of Dover, Eden Hill Medical Group and Chesapeake Utilities. The schedule offers a little of something for the whole family to enjoy!

PROGRESS IN PICTURES NEMOURS duPont Pediatrics at 201 Towne Centre Drive (Suite 500) within the Eden Hill Farm TND: Neighborhood Commercial District “Gym Starz” 155 Commerce Way

PROGRESS IN PICTURES Village of Westover - 2 Margate Circle Seskinore - 10 and 12 Seskinore Court

Planning & Inspections Revenue FY'18 Actual Revenue Stream FY '18 Budget (YTD) % of Budget PERFORMING ARTS ON Business License $1,467,000 $ 980,165 67% Trailer License $19,000 $ 6,165 32% THE GREEN SERIES—The Building Permits $800,000 $ 123,879 15% 41st season is underway! Cert. of Occupancy $13,000 $ 1,995 15% Be sure to join us on Public Occupancy $23,000 $ 150 1% Thursdays now until Sep- Lodging House $14,000 $ 28 0% tember 7th at 7pm. Plumbing/Heating/ Air $115,000 $ 16,534 14% Rental Inspection Fee $437,000 $ 665 0% Miscellaneous $27,000 $ 2,281 8% Fire Protection Fees $65,000 $ 6,466 10% Code Enforcement Fines $35,000 $ 475 1% Vacant Building Reg. $250,000 $ 33,750 14% Total P&I Revenue $3,265,000 $ 1,172,553 36% July 31 2017 PERSONNEL AND TRAINING  July 21, 2017 was Angela Greenlee’s last day with the City of Dover. Angie took on an Assistant Supervisor position with Five Below in Dover, Dela- ware. PLANNING OFFICE The Planning Office is part of the review process for certain types of construc- tion activity permits (Building Permits, Sign Permits, etc.) and Certificate of Occupancy permits. For July 2017, Planning Staff was involved with review of 75 Permits and 17 Certificates of Occupancy permits. This results in a 2017 cal- endar year to date total of 656 Permits and Certificates of Occupancy (2016 cal- endar year to date total of 645 Permits and COs compared to 549 for 2015). Planning Staff also reviews new applications for Business Licenses 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.  The Planning Office continues to be involved in the following studies and projects: Re- storing Central Dover Community Plan implementation, the Dover/Kent County MPO Regional Bicycle Plan Update project, and Downton Parking Study.  The Planning Office is utilizing the data collection from fieldwork for the study of “Non- conforming Uses” to identify non-compliant uses in specific residential zones. The first set of non-conforming property owners (Round 1) received Notification Letters in August 2016 with December 31, 2016 as the sunsetting date for the nonconforming uses. A num- ber of the identified properties took action to resolve the non-conformity. The second set of non-conforming properties (Round 2) were sent letters on February 24, 2017 to notify them of the non-conformity with June 30, 2017 as the sunsetting date for the nonconform- ing uses if not resolved. In July, a Board of Adjustment application was approved to re- solve a non-conformity at a property (V-17-13). A rezoning application was filed in early July (Z-17-04) to begin the review process regarding another property. Construction Activity  Construction activities continue at several multi-family residential projects including the Tall Pines project at 1655 and 1665 Kenton Road (S-14-18), Leander Lakes Apartments (S-12-18), and Phase 2 of the Blue Hen Apartment Complex (S-15-12). the reconstruction of Liberty Court Apartments (S-16-22) and the renovations of Whatcoat Village Apart- ments (S-16-05).  Permits were issued to begin construction of the following projects: Enterprise Office Building at 285 Beiser Boulevard (S-16-01); and The Arbors – Senior Garden Apartments at 1051 College Road (S-16-07).  There is residential construction activity in Clearview Meadows PND, Nottingham Mead- ows, Senators Lake, Seskinore, Village of Cannon Mill, Village of Westover and Chestnut Grove Farms. Certificates of Occupancy were issued to four (4) one family detached dwellings and two (2) duplex units in July.  The first building in the Eden Hill Farm TND Neighborhood Commercial District located at 201 Towne Centre Drive received a Certificate of Occupancy for its first tenants Nemours Pediatrics. JULY (2017) FY18 TOTAL FOR FY18 New Home Permits Issued 19 19 Value of Commercial Projects $10,167,529.00 $10,167,529.00 Downtown Incentives (Fees $1,801.00 $1,801.00 Waived)

BOARD AND COMMISSION ACTIVITY Planning Commission The Planning Commission met on July 17, 2017 in the Dover Police Department Public Assembly Room. The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for August 21, 2017. S-17-15 Dover Station at 655 West North Street – Planning Commission moved to grant conditional approval of the Site Development Plan to permit construction of a 20,000 S.F. two-story office building and a 6,000 S.F. emergency shelter facility as well as associated site improvements. This project adds to the existing development at 645 West North Street and will share site access from Clarence Street. Ac- tion by the Commission included approval of the waivers for the partial elimination of the opaque barri- er and the alternative format of opaque barrier; denial of the waiver for the reduction in loading space; and include the requirement that the City Engineer confirm before Building Permits that the roadways are adequate in width and capacity for traffic as a follow-up to neighbor concerns expressed in the pub- lic hearing testimony; and that the City Solicitor ensure that the use is compliant with zoning, SB-17-02 Minor Subdivision Plan for Panera Bread Restaurant at 545 North DuPont Highway – Planning Commission moved to grant conditional approval of a Minor Subdivision Plan to permit the subdivision of an 0.86 acre (37,341 S.F.) lot from the 8.417-acre parcel. The new lot coincides with the pad site area of Capitol Commons that is under development as the Panera Bread Restaurant. T