Council Minutes

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING The Regular Council Meeting was held on August 27, 2018 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Slavin presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson (departed at 7:58 p.m. and returned at 8:03 p.m.), Mr. Sudler, Mr. Neil, Mr. Lewis (departed at 7:44 p.m. and returned at 7:45 p.m.), Mr. Cole, Mr. Polce (departed at 8:00 p.m. and returned at 8:01 p.m.), and Mr. Lindell. Mr. Hare was 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 7:57 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. There was no one present wishing to speak during the Open Forum. Bishop Thomas L. Holsey offered a moment of silence for former Councilman Robert M. Sadusky and his family, followed by the invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance. Council President Slavin recognized former Councilman James E. Hosfelt, Jr., noting that he is currently a Levy Court Commissioner. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Neil moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried. Mr. Lewis moved for approval of the consent agenda, seconded by Mr. Lindell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare absent). ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 23, 2018 The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of July 23, 2018 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Lewis, seconded by Mr. Lindell and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. PRESENTATION - LUTHERAN SENIOR SERVICES OF DOVER, INC. - PAYMENT-IN-LIEU OF TAXES (PILOT) On behalf of members of Council and the citizens that live in Luther Towers and Luther Village, Mayor Christiansen accepted a contribution from Mr. Gary Coy, Executive Director of Lutheran Senior Services of Dover, Inc., in the amount of $31,828 as payment-in-lieu of taxes (PILOT) for expenses associated with the City services provided to Lutheran Senior Services of Dover throughout the year. Mayor Christiansen noted that they have been giving a PILOT check to the City of Dover for almost 30 years and, to date, Lutheran Senior Services has contributed $450,000.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 2 CERTIFICATE OF CONGRATULATIONS - DOVER LITTLE LEAGUE, PEE WEE DIVISION, SHORE UNITED BANK TEAM (LEWIS) The City Clerk read the following Certificate of Congratulations into the record: Certificate of Congratulations presented to Dover Little League, Pee Wee Division, Shore United Bank Team for their 2018 season record of 9-2. The following athletes are commended for their outstanding performance: Rodney Collins Christopher Leach Dwayne Davis Ethan Mosley Thomas Edwards Asher Semple Liam Hampton Gage Sergent Kaden Howard Alec Yerger The entire team, Manager Arthur Cunningham, Coach Jason Leach, and Confidants Heather Howard, Jesse Howard and Richard Semple are applauded for their commitment and remarkable achievement. The City of Dover extends its sincere congratulations. August 27, 2018 Councilman Lewis presented the Certificate to Mr. Arthur Cunningham, team manager, in recognition of the team’s outstanding performance and assisted Mr. Cunningham with distributing the team trophies. 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 attacks, and investing in emergency preparedness can reduce injuries, fatalities, and economic devastation in our community and nation; and WHEREAS, the 2018 National Preparedness Month theme "Disasters Happen. Prepare Now. Learn How" 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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 3 WHEREAS, City of Dover residents 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 resident of the City of Dover, and all residents 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 the Annual Family Emergency Preparedness Day on Saturday, September 22, 2018 from 10:00a.m. - 2:00p.m. at the Delaware Agricultural Museum. NOW, THEREFORE, I, ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE do hereby proclaim the month of September 2018 as PREPAREDNESS MONTH in the City of Dover, and urge all residents, businesses, and 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 the proclamation to Fire Chief Carleton E. Carey, Jr. PROCLAMATION - NATIONAL RECOVERY MONTH The City Clerk read the following Proclamation into the record: WHEREAS, mental and substance use disorders affect all communities nationwide, but with commitment and support, people with these disorders can achieve healthy lifestyles and lead rewarding lives in recovery; and WHEREAS, by seeking help, people who experience mental and substance use disorders can embark on a new path toward improved health and overall wellness. The focus of Recovery Month this September is to celebrate their journey with the theme "Join the Voices for Recovery: Invest in Health, Home, Purpose, and Community." Recovery Month spreads the message that behavioral health is essential to one's overall wellness, and that prevention works, treatment is effective, and people recover; and WHEREAS, the impact of mental and substance use disorders is apparent in our local community. An estimated 29,000 adults and approximately 9,000 children who reside in Delaware live with a serious mental health condition and, in 2016, 308 Delawareans died from drug overdoses; and WHEREAS, from 2015 to 2016, Delaware had the second highest increase in drug overdose deaths and 40 percent of the overdose deaths related to opioids were from prescription opioids and, in 2016, 3 percent of Delaware's eighth grade students reported using a prescription drug illegally; and WHEREAS, through Recovery Month, people become more aware and able to recognize the signs of mental and substance use disorders, which can lead more people into needed treatment. Managing the effects of these conditions can help people achieve healthy lifestyles, both physically and emotionally; and

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 4 WHEREAS, the Recovery Month observance continues to improve the lives of those affected by mental and substance use disorders by raising awareness of these diseases and educating communities about the prevention, treatment, and recovery resources that are available. Local resources include the City of Dover Police Department's ANGEL Program and the State of Delaware's Help is Here program and, nationally, The Herren Project is an available resource. NOW, THEREFORE, I, ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE, do hereby proclaim September 2018 as RECOVERY MONTH in the City of Dover and call upon our community to observe this month with compelling programs and events that support this year's Recovery Month theme "Join the Voices for Recovery: Invest in Health, Home, Purpose, and Community," and take a stand against substance abuse by participating in Delaware Goes Purple. On behalf of the Mayor, Council, and citizens of Dover, Mayor Christiansen and Councilman Anderson presented the proclamation to Pastor Carol Harris, coordinator for the Vines Community Project coalition, Levy Court Commissioner James E. Hosfelt, Jr., and Reverend Regina Bell, senior pastor of the First Pilgrim Baptist Church and representative for the faith-based communities on the Vines Community Project. Pastor Harris explained that, as a collective County, they were turning Kent County Purple from September 9th through the 22nd to educate and raise awareness about the substance abuse problem. She noted that their covering agency was Kent Sussex Community Services (KSCS), which has been involved since the very beginning. Mr. Anderson advised anyone who wanted to be involved to go to Vines Community Project on Facebook or email Vinescommunityproject@gmail. Reverend Bell stated that they were really looking forward to turning Kent County Purple and sharing in the needs of their community. Commissioner Hosfelt stated that they appreciated the acknowledgment and encouraged others to get involved. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-08 PROPOSING INCLUSION OF HIDDEN CREEK INTO THE KENT COUNTY STORM WATER MAINTENANCE DISTRICT By motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Lewis, Resolution No. 2018-08 was unanimously adopted, as follows: A RESOLUTION PROPOSING INCLUSION OF HIDDEN CREEK INTO THE KENT COUNTY STORM WATER MAINTENANCE DISTRICT WHEREAS, pursuant to 9 Del. C. §5202 et.seq. and Chapter 187 §90.4E(1) of the Kent County Code, a Petition to extend the stormwater maintenance district for the area known as Hidden Creek was submitted by a majority of the real property owners within the proposed district; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 187 §90.4.E(2) of the Kent County Code, the Kent Conservation District inspected the stormwater management facilities for the proposed stormwater maintenance district, identified required repairs, and developed an operation and maintenance plan; and

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 5 WHEREAS, the property owners of Hidden Creek requested Kent Conservation District complete the required repairs to be paid in full prior to joining the Stormwater Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, Chapter 187 §90.4.E.(7) of the Kent County Code requires that for subdivisions and land developments located within incorporated areas, the petition shall be accompanied by evidence of concurrence of the local governing body. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the proposed stormwater maintenance district expansion is adequate and appropriate; and 2. That all of the property owners within the district are benefitted directly or indirectly thereby; and 3. That it is in the public interest to extend the stormwater maintenance district in the manner proposed; and 4. That the stormwater maintenance infrastructure within Hidden Creek, exclusive of that within Delaware Department of Transportation/City of Dover right-of-way, shall be maintained in accordance with the Operation and Maintenance Plan and that maintenance shall include regular minor and major maintenance as well as emergency repairs as needed, as defined by Chapter 187 §90.4.B of the Kent County Code; and 5. That the inclusion of Hidden Creek within the Stormwater Maintenance District and the resulting infrastructure maintenance managed by the County shall take precedence over any homeowner obligation for stormwater management included in declarations of restrictions or similar development agreements. Any common open space or infrastructure within a community not maintained as part of a stormwater maintenance district shall remain the responsibility of the homeowners; and 6. Inclusion of Hidden Creek with the Stormwater Maintenance District shall not exempt lot owners within the subdivision from participation in a stormwater utility should one be established by the City of Dover; and 7. That the City of Dover Council concurs with the extension of the Stormwater Maintenance District - Hidden Creek. ADOPTED: AUGUST 27, 2018 PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2018-06 WITH SA#1/PC#1 A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider approval of proposed zoning text amendments to Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations; Article 4 - Zoning Bulk

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 6 and Parking Regulations, Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Article 6 - Off-street Parking, Driveways and Loading Facilities, and Article 12 - Definitions. Mr. Neil moved that the Final Reading of Proposed Ordinance #2018-06 be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Cole and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of the ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of June 25, 2018.) Mr. Dave Hugg, Director of Planning and Community Development, advised members that the text amendments would: 1) create a new IMP3 zoning district which encompasses the area of the civil air terminal and the Kent County Aeropark and surrounding lands; 2) create an aeronautics and aviation focused zoning district to help better market the facilities at that location and the connection to Dover Air Force Base to the greater region; 3) address parking standards and maximum parking calculations; and 4) addresses the use of vehicles for signage. Mr. Hugg noted that the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the ordinance. Council President Slavin declared the hearing open. There being no one present wishing to speak during the public hearing, Council President Slavin declared the hearing closed. Mr. Lewis moved for approval of SA#1 and PC#1, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Mr. Anderson moved for adoption of Ordinance #2018-06, as amended, as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and, by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare absent), Council adopted Ordinance #2018-06, as follows: BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 3 – District Regulations, be amended by inserting a new Section 20B – Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone – Industrial Aviation and Aeronautics Center (IPM3), to read as follows: Article 3 Section 20B. - Industrial park manufacturing zone- Industrial Aviation and Aeronautics Center (IPM3). 20B.1 Uses permitted. In an IPM3 zone, 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, and in accordance with performance standards review procedure as set forth in article 5 sections 8.2 and 8.6, and subject to site development plan approval as set forth in article 10, section 2: 20B.11Airports, spaceports, and related facilities, including passenger terminals, cargo facilities, hangars, refueling operations, parking facilities and other uses integral to airport or spaceport operations.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 7 20B.12Commercial or industrial uses that are related to aviation or aeronautics and/or require direct access to an airport, spaceport, or aviation/aeronautics services, including assembly or sale of aircraft or spacecraft, air frames, aircraft or spacecraft engines, associated parts and components, radios or navigational equipment, and similar products or services. 20B.13Public and institutional uses that support the aviation or aeronautics industries such as aviation or aeronautics technical schools, security services, and inspection facilities. 20B.14Bulk storage of fuel, lubricants, fire suppression and other materials integral to design, construction, testing, maintenance, or operation of aircraft or spacecraft. 20B.15Printing, publishing, binding, packaging, storage, warehousing, and transshipment and distribution. 20B.16Business, professional, or administrative offices. 20B.17Radio or television broadcasting towers, telecommunications towers, antenna arrays, and receiving satellite dishes that support aviation, aeronautics, or related operations. 20B.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: Service establishments such as auto rental and travel agencies, commercial parking lots and garages, automobile service stations, car washes, banks, gift shops, newsstands, bookstores, restaurants, bars, medical offices, postal facilities, laundry services, and similar facilities available to airport or spaceport users and employees. The application for conditional use shall clearly demonstrate the relationship of the proposed use to an existing or proposed airport or spaceport. 20B.3 Uses prohibited. The following uses are specifically prohibited: 20B.31Residences. 20B.32Manufacturing uses involving primary production of the following products from raw materials: Asphalt, cement, charcoal, and fuel briquettes; chemicals: aniline dyes, ammonia, carbide, caustic soda, cellulose, chlorine, and carbon black and bone black, creosote, hydrogen and oxygen, industrial alcohol, nitrates (manufactured and natural) of an explosive nature, potash, and synthetic resins, pyroxylin, rayon yarn, and hydrochloric, nitric, phosphoric, picric, and sulphuric acids; coal, coke, and tar products, including gas manufacturing; explosives, fertilizers, glue, and size (animal); linoleum and oil cloth; matches; paint, varnishes, and turpentine; rubber (natural or synthetic); [and] soaps, including fat rendering. 20B.33The following processes: nitrating of cotton or other materials; magnesium foundry; reduction, refining, smelting, and alloying of metal or metal ores; refining secondary aluminum; refining petroleum products, such as gasoline, kerosene, naphtha, [and]

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 8 lubricating oil; distillation of wood or bones; [and] reduction and processing of wood pulp and fiber, including papermill operations. 20B.34Operations involving stock yards, slaughter houses, and slag piles. 20B.35Storage of explosives. 20B.36Landfills. 20B.37Quarries, stone crushers, screening plants, and storage of quarry screenings accessory to such uses, except for temporary construction activities supporting a specific construction project in the IPM3 zone or the adjoining air facility, and lasting only the duration of that construction project. 20B.38Junkyards, automobile dismantling plants or storage of used parts of automobiles or other machines or vehicles or of dismantled or junked automobiles. 20B.39Public assembly facilities, including, but not limited to, churches, libraries, sports fields, theaters, and amphitheaters. 20B.4 Tree planting requirements in the IPM3 zone. 20.B41No new trees shall be planted within 120 feet of any pavement area taxied by operational aircraft or spacecraft. For the purpose of fulfilling the tree density requirements of Article 5, Section 16- Tree planting and preservation, the area of this pavement plus the area of the 120-foot wide buffer around it shall be excluded from the required development area for the property as defined in that section. 20.B42All new trees shall be of a species that does not typically exceed 50 feet in height at maturity. 20B.5 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. 20B.6 Performance standards. All uses in the IPM3 zone are subject to performance standards as set forth in article 5, section 8, including any uses not subject to the performance standards review procedure. 20B.7 Exemptions. Uses in the IPM3 zone are exempt from the following provisions of the City of Dover Code of Ordinances: 20B.71Outdoor storage trailers. Appendix B, Article 5, Section 7.4, where the use of outdoor trailers for storage or distribution is a primary use of the site. 20B.72Fences. Appendix B, Article 5, Section 7.5, where

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 9 a. Dover Air Force Base requires a more robust fence, in which case the fence shall be constructed per Dover Air Force Base Standards; or b. it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission that a more robust fence is required for site safety and security reasons. In approving a waiver for such a fence, the Commission shall consider the following factors: I. The design of the proposed fence, including material and opacity. ii. Whether there are residential land uses adjacent to or across the street from the proposed fence. iii. The proposed setback of the fence from the property line. iv. Whether a berm or vegetated screen could feasibly be included in the setback to screen the fence from view, without compromising the security function of the fence or introducing vegetation hazardous to aircraft or spacecraft operations. 20.B.8 Compliance with AEOZ. Properties in the IPM3 zone shall not be exempt from the requirements of Appendix B, Article 3 Section 22- Airport environs overlay zone (AEOZ). If the proposed use of a property is permitted in the IPM3 zone but prohibited based on the property's location within an accident potential zone (APZ I and II), clear zone (CZ) or noise zone, the use shall be prohibited on that property. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 24 - Planned Neighborhood Design Option (PND), Subsection 24.1 - Generally, be amended to read as follows: Section 24. - Planned neighborhood design option (PND). 24.1 Generally. (a) Planned neighborhoods. In order to encourage superior residential environments through a unified planning process, the planned neighborhood design option shall be permitted in R-20, R-15, R-1O, R-8, RM-1 and RM-2 zones as a conditional use subject to the provisions of article 10 of this ordinance and after a determination by the planning commission that the proposed planned neighborhood design presents a superior community design than would be possible under the conventional zone and is in accordance with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. The minimum size required for a planned residential development shall be 20 acres. (b) Senior citizen housing option. In order to encourage the development of high quality housing opportunities designed to accommodate the particular needs of senior citizens, the senior citizen housing option shall be permitted in all zones as a conditional use, except in the M, IPM, IPM2, IPM3, and C-4 zones within which this

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 10 option shall not be applicable. Preference shall be given to those projects which are within close proximity to public transit services and which are situated within one-quarter mile of a grocery store, pharmacy, restaurant, physician office, senior center or similar convenience service establishment. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 4 - Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations, Section 4.15 - C-3, C-4, R-C, IO zones, be amended to read as follows: Section 4.15. - C-3, C-4, R-C, IO, and CPO zones. Bulk and parking regulations for service commercial (C-3), highway commercial (C-4), recreation and commercial (R-C), institutional and office (IO), and commercial and professional office (C-PO) zones are as follows: C-3 C-4 RC IO C-PO Minimum required: Lot area 5 acres 10,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. Lot width (ft.) 100 150 250 100 50 Lot depth (ft.) 100 150 400 100 100 Front yard (ft.) 20 20 30 10 10 Side yard (ft.) 15 15 50 10 5 10 or equal Rear yard (ft.) 10 to bldg. 50 15 15 height Side or rear yards which 30 30 100 30 25 adjoin a residence zone (ft.) Off-street parking Per 300 sq. ft. floor area or 1 1 1 1 1 Per employee (whichever is 1 1 greater) Maximum permitted: Building height Stories 6 6 10 10 3 Feet 75 75 130 150 45 Floor area ratio 4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 2.0 Lot coverage 80% 75% 85% 85% 75% (Ord. of 9-13-1999; Ord. No. 2014-08, 7-14-2014 ) BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 4 - Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations, Section 4.16 - M, IPM Zones, be amended to read as follows: Section 4.16. - M, IPM zones.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 11 Bulk and parking regulations for industrial zones in M and IPM zones are as follows: IPM3 IPM IPM IPM2 (Aviation (Conventi (Planned (Technolo For All Permitted Uses M and onal Industrial gy Aeronautics Planned) Park) Center) Center) 2½ acres average; Lot area ½ acre 2½ acres 60,000 sq. 10 acres 1 acre ft. minimum Lot width (ft.) 100 200 150 100 100 Lot depth (ft.) 150 300 250 100 100 Front yard (ft.) 40 60 60 60 40 Side yard (ft.) 20 40 40 40 20 Rear yard (ft.) 20 40 40 40 20 Side or rear yard which adjoins 50 100 100 100 50 a residential zone (ft.) Off-street parking space: Per 800 sq. ft. of floor area 1 1 1 1 1 Per employee, per largest working shift (if greater than 1 1 1½ 1 1 the requirement under the floor area calculation) Maximum permitted: Building height Stories 2 Not limit 2 Not limit Not limit Equal to Equal to distance to distance to Feet 35 35 75* nearest lot nearest lot line line Floor area ratio 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lot Coverage 85% 85% 75% 65% 65% *Building height shall comply with all applicable Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Defense, and Unified Facilities Criteria height restrictions and obstruction marking and lighting standards. (Ord. of 3-24-1986; Ord. of 7-12-1993, § 1; Ord. of 8-23-1999; Ord. No. 2009-18, 10-12-2009) BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Section 4 - Supplementary Sign Regulations, Section 4.3 - Sign Definitions, be amended to insert the following definition in its correct alphabetical order:

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 12 Vehicle sign: A sign displaying a name or names, logo types, graphics, commercial messages or any combination thereof, which is attached to, painted on, or otherwise applied to a motor vehicle or utility trailer. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Section 4 - Supplementary Sign Regulations, Section 4.5 - Sign Permitted in All Districts and Not Requiring Permits, be amended by inserting the following in its correct alphabetical order: Q. Vehicle signs subject to the provisions of subsection 4.9-supplementary sign regulations, H., of this section. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Section 4 - Supplementary Sign Regulations, Section 4.6 - Sign prohibited in all districts, be amended to read as follows: 4.6 Sign prohibited in all districts. A. Signs which emit audible sound, vapor, smoke, odor, particles or gaseous matter. B. Any sign which competes for attention with, or may be mistaken for, traffic signals. Also, any sign that is determined by the city planner to constitute a traffic hazard by reason of size, location, content, color, or type of illumination. C. Off-premises signs of any type (billboards, temporary signs, directional signs for developments, etc.), except for shared freestanding signs as provided in subsection 4.4—Design requirements, A.5., and subsection 4.9—Supplementary sign provisions, F., of this section. D. Inflatable signs, except as specifically permitted in subsection 4.9—Supplementary sign provisions, D.3., of this section. E. Reserved. F. Signs painted on or attached to trees, fence posts, natural features, or telephone or utility poles. G. Signs that are flashing, rotating, or that give the appearance of movement, or are illuminated by flashing or intermittent lights, or lights of changing degrees or intensity, except as permitted under subsection 4.4—Design requirements, of this section. H. Temporary signs made of cardboard, paper, canvas or similar impermanent material, except those permitted in subsection 4.9—Supplementary sign provisions, of this section.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 13 I. Window signs covering more than 50 percent of a window or a door, or mounted above the first floor, except those permitted in subsection 4.9—Supplementary sign regulations, A.5., of this section. J. Pennants, balloons, streamers, flags, etc. except when permitted in subsection 4.5—Signs permitted in all districts and not requiring permits and in subsection 4.9—Supplementary sign regulations, D.1., of this section. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Section 4 - Supplementary Sign Regulations, Section 4.9 - Supplementary Sign Provisions, be amended by inserting a new Section H - Vehicle and Utility Trailer Signs, as follows: H. Vehicle and utility trailer signs. Vehicles or utility trailers, shall be permitted to have vehicle signs attached to or painted on them, with no sign permit required. However, the city planner may require any vehicle or utility trailer with a vehicle sign to be moved if he/she determines that the vehicle is inoperable or being used for the sole purpose of displaying signage. Vehicles and utility trailers shall be moved to a location not visible from the public right-of-way, or, if no such location is available, as far away from the public right-of-way as possible. In making the determination, the city planner shall use the following criteria; at least two criteria shall be met before this section requires moving a vehicle: 1. The sign is temporarily attached to the vehicle or utility trailer, rather than painted on or applied in a permanent manner. 2. The sign includes directional copy or symbols that only function correctly when the vehicle or utility trailer is parked in one or more specific locations. 3. The vehicle or utility trailer does not move during the normal business hours of operation of the business. 4. The vehicle or utility trailer is regularly parked in a location or manner to be prominently displayed to the public, even though a more discrete parking area is available at the business location. 5. The vehicle or utility trailer is inoperable, meaning it is not properly and currently registered and tagged; is damaged or disabled as to not immediately be movable; is raised off the ground; is missing required equipment enabling it to travel on a public roadway; is parked in a location where it cannot access a public roadway; or cannot be started and moved off its location. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Section 8 - Performance Standards, Section 8.2 - Uses requiring performance standards review procedure be amended to read as follows:

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 14 8.2 Uses requiring performance standards review procedure. Those uses in the C-3, IPM, IPM2, IPM3, and M zones and uses accessory thereto, which are specified as being subject to performance standards review procedure, are subject to the procedure specified in article 5, section 8.6 in obtaining a site plan approval. The city planner may require other uses, whether existing or proposed and regardless of the particular zoning district, to submit to the performance standards review procedure when there exists reasonable grounds to believe that a proposed use is in violation, or is likely to violate, the performance standards, in which event, the property owner shall comply with [the] performance standards review procedure. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Section 8 - Performance Standards, Section 8.53 - Noise be amended to read as follows: 8.53 Noise. The maximum sound pressure level radiated by any use or facility (other than transportation facilities open to the public) at the property line shall not exceed the values in the designated octave bands given in [the following] table I, after applying the corrections shown in [the following] table II. The sound pressure level shall be measured with a sound level meter and associated octave band analyzer conforming to standards prescribed by the American Standards Association (American Standard Sound Level Meters for Measurement of Noise and Other Sounds, Z243-1944, American Standards Association, Inc., New York, N.Y., and American Standard Specification for an Octave Band Filter Set for the Analysis of Noise and Other Sounds, Z24.10-1953, American Standards Association, Inc., New York, N.Y., shall be used). Table I Octave Band Sound Pressure Range In Level in Decibels Cycles re 0.0002 per Second dyne/cm 2 30— 300 60 301—2,400 40 Above 2,400 30 If the noise is not smooth and continuous and is not radiated between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., one or more of the corrections in table II shall be applied to the decibel levels given in table I. Table II Type of Location of Operation Correction in Decibels or Character of Noise 1. Daytime operation only 2. Noise source operates less than* a. 20 percent of any one-hour period 5 b. 05 percent of any one-hour period 10

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 15 3. Noise of impulsive character (hammering, etc.) -5 4. Noise of periodic character (hum, screech, etc.) -5 Property is located in one of the following zones and is not 5. within 500 feet of any residential district*: a. Central commercial C-2 zone 5 Service commercial C-3 zone b. 10 Manufacturing M zone Property is located in industrial park manufacturing zone IPM, 6. 10 IPM2, or IPM3 *Apply one of these corrections only. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Section 8 - Performance Standards, Section 8.54 - Vibration be amended to read as follows: 8.54 Vibration. No vibration shall be permitted which is discernible without instruments at the property line. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Section 8 - Performance Standards, Section 8.58 - Glare be amended to read as follows: 8.58 Glare. No direct or sky-reflected glare, whether from floodlights or from high- temperature processes such as combustion or welding or otherwise, shall be permitted. This restriction shall not apply to signs otherwise permitted by the provisions of this ordinance. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Section 8 - Performance Standards, Section 8.6 Performance standard procedure, Section 8.61 Application be amended to read as follows: 8.61 Application. An application for a site plan approval shall be accompanied with a performance standard review application when a use or occupancy is required, and shall be referred by the city planner to the planning commission. The applicant shall also submit, in an amount equal to the required number of site plan submissions, a plan of the proposed construction or development, including a description of the proposed machinery, operations, and products, and specifications for the mechanisms and techniques to be used in restricting the emission of dangerous and objectional elements referred to in article 5, section 8.1, in accordance with rules prescribed by the planning commission specifying the type of information required in such plans and specifications, and an affidavit by the applicant acknowledging his understanding of the applicable performance standards and agreement to conform with same at all times.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 16 No applicant will be required to reveal any secret processes, and any information submitted will be treated as confidential if requested. The fee for such application shall include the cost of the special reports required to process it, described below. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 6 - Off-street Parking, Driveways and Loading Facilities, Section 3 - Required Off-street Parking Spaces, be amended by striking Section 3.11 - Maximum Number of Parking Spaces. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 12 - Definitions - Nonresidential zones be amended to read as follows: Nonresidential zones: C-1, C-1A, C-2, C-2A, C-3, C-4, C-PO, RC, IO, M, IPM, IPM2, IPM3, SC-1, SC-2, or SC-3 zone. ADOPTED: AUGUST 27, 2018 COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT - JULY 24, 2018 The Council Committee of the Whole met on July 24, 2018 at 6:02 p.m., with Council President Slavin presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Sudler, Mr. Neil, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Cole, Mr. Polce, and Mr. Hare. Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Lindell were absent. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Ms. Scarborough (Utility), and Mr. Shevock and Dr. Stewart (Legislative, Finance, and Administration). Mrs. Doyle (Utility) was absent. UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee met with Chairman Cole presiding. Dedication of Rights-of-Way and Public Infrastructure - Senators Lake Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the dedication of rights-of-way and public infrastructure for the Senators Lake Subdivision. She advised members that this development had been completed, including all of the punch-list items. Mrs. Mitchell noted that the total construction value of the public improvements was $403,399.50, explaining that the estimated construction value was approximately $85,416 for the sewer utility infrastructure, $87,700 for the water utility infrastructure, $115,105 for the storm water infrastructure, and $115,178 for the street infrastructure. Staff recommended acceptance of dedication of rights-of-way and public infrastructure of the Senators Lake Subdivision. Dedication is to include all of the referenced public improvements.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 17 The Committee recommended approval of staff’s recommendation. By consent agenda, Mr. Lewis moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Lindell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare absent). Governing Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, reviewed the proposed revisions to the Governing Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management. Staff recommended adoption of the revised policy. The Committee recommended approval of staff’s recommendation. By consent agenda, Mr. Lewis moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Lindell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare absent). LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Chairman Hare presiding. Bond Counsel Proposal - Public Private Partnership (P3) - Parking Garage Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, advised that members of City Council had expressed an interest in a downtown parking garage and staff reached out to Ballard Spahr LLP, the City’s current bond counsel, for assistance from their Public Private Partnership (P3)/Infrastructure Group for this Project. She stated that, in doing so, the City will have the expertise needed for the Project and subsequent negotiations. Using the bond counsel will also provide confidentiality of competitive pricing and negotiations. Mrs. Mitchell explained that the Ballard Spahr Proposal consisted of two (2) phases and the expenditure required would be between $100,000 and $150,000. She noted that Phase 1 of the engagement will include preparing a Request for Qualifications and Requests for Proposal for the selection of a preferred vendor, and Phase 2 will commence upon the selection of the preferred developer for the Project and will end upon closing. Mrs. Mitchell stated that Phase 2 will include the negotiations if the City moves forward after Phase 1. Staff recommended authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract with Ballard Spahr, LLP for legal services for the purpose of conducting solicitations and negotiations for a downtown parking garage “Project.” Mr. Neil stated that he is not normally in favor of P3s because he wants to make sure that the citizens get the best value for their money; however, in the case of this garage, he thought it would be to the City’s advantage to be able to enter into a partnership which would lessen the risk and strengthen what the City is able to do regarding the building.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 18 Mayor Christiansen asked if there are time lines and benchmarks that have to be met for each of the phases. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she thought that the proposal included benchmarks. She explained that they had discussed them and, if they were not included in the proposal, she would get some actual benchmarks and disseminate them to the Mayor and members of Council. Mr. Lewis asked if the bond bill money the City received would cover this entire expenditure. In response, Mrs. Mitchell, advised that this was actually budgeted for in the City Manager’s budget through the budget process and would be coming out of those funds. She reminded members that she had previously stated that she had $200,000 budgeted for a consultant or engineering or whatever the City needed for the P3, whether it be a P3 or whether it would be costs for engineering and design if the City did it on its own. Mrs. Mitchell stated that she thought that the bond bill money is for if the City goes forward with construction. She noted that this is just for the legal needs. Mr. Slavin clarified that the money Mr. Lewis was referring to was the $1M that the City received from the State of Delaware. He stated that those funds have to be used for bricks and mortar and cannot be used for fees like this. Mr. Lewis stated that he wanted that clarification so the public is aware that it is City money that is being used for the legal purposes. Mr. Slavin noted that he thought that, as Mr. Neil indicated, this is such a smart way to do this project because it reduces the risk for the City. He explained that this option allows someone else to represent the City, handle the risk, and go through the proposals in a very transparent way. Mr. Slavin stated that the alternative would be the traditional route, which he thought would be very risky, and if the City took that route, they would currently be looking at engineering and architectural fees just to see whether the City could afford to move forward. He noted that the other part of this is that once the City accomplishes its first successful P3, the City will have that experience and be able to do it again. Mr. Slavin moved to recommend authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract with Ballard Spahr, LLP for legal services for the purpose of conducting solicitations and negotiations for a downtown parking garage “Project,” as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cole. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mrs. Mitchell confirmed that this was not committing the City to construction or anything like that. Mr. Hare asked if this matter would have to go to referendum if it was recommended for approval and would cost the City more than $3M. In response, Mrs. Mitchell explained that if the City were to do a bond issue over a certain limit, it would have to go to a referendum; however, a P3 is more like a lease payment, so it would not have to go to a referendum. Mr. Hare questioned whether citizens would have a say if the City decided to build a $15M parking garage and Mrs. Mitchell explained that she did not believe that they would for a P3 because it could go through Council. Mr. Slavin clarified that the citizens would have every say in it because they have an opportunity to attend every Committee and Council meeting. He stated that the citizens would have the opportunity when the City has the Requests for Proposal (RFP) and when Council makes a decision along the way. Mr. Slavin noted that this

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 19 would be a series of votes that City Council, whether it is this Council or the next one, has to make and that they would be transparent about it every step of the way. The Committee recommended authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract with Ballard Spahr, LLP for legal services for the purpose of conducting solicitations and negotiations for a downtown parking garage “Project,” as recommended by staff. By consent agenda, Mr. Lewis moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Lindell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare absent). Review of Pension Benefits - Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) (2018 Budget Hearing) Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, reminded members that, during the Special City Council Meeting - Budget Review of May 29, 2018, a conversation regarding retiree benefits came up and Mr. Slavin asked that this item be placed on a Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee agenda to determine if the City can do something midyear. She stated that she believed that in the past there had been a motion for an annual review and, when the City did a cost of living adjustment (COLA) last year, she was surprised to learn that the City had not done a COLA since 2006. Mrs. Mitchell advised members that, included in the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget, City Council approved an ad hoc 2% COLA for the General Pension Plan retirees and the annual cost was $87,982, as calculated by the City’s actuary. Mrs. Mitchell informed members that she had reviewed the State plans and noted that the legislature grants a COLA every once in a while; however, all of their plans are at least 87% to 100% funded, and some are actually over funded. She reminded members that the City’s plan was currently at 65%. Mrs. Mitchell stated that one of her concerns was that the 2% COLA last year was $88,000, and if members put another 2% in this year or next year, that would be another $88,000 taken away for the actual operating budget. She explained that the City has had some tight times and that does not help fund the operating budget because it is going to be cumulative. Mrs. Mitchell advised members that the City currently has 210 non-police Defined Benefit Plan retirees/spouses of which 110 also receive Medicare B reimbursements, and the Defined Contribution Plan currently has 27 retired employees. She stated that there are currently 95 non-police Defined Benefit Plan active employees and 141 Defined Contribution Plan active employees. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the City has developed two (2) sets of employees, those in the Defined Contribution Plan and those in the Defined Benefit Plan. She explained that the Defined Benefit Plan does not have a provision for COLAs; however, the employees can request a COLA from the legislative body and, in the past, ad hoc COLAs have been considered and approved when presented to City Council. Mrs. Mitchell stated that based on law, the City cannot give the Defined Contribution Plan employees a COLA. Mrs. Mitchell stated that, while she understands the retirees’ rationale, the retirement plans have been moving away from this provision and the State of Delaware’s plans are pretty much closed on automatic COLAs.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 20 Mrs. Mitchell cautioned members, if the City does approve a COLA, that accounting pronouncements changed with the latest accounting standard changes and if an ad hoc COLA is considered substantive, then it is considered automatic, and has to be calculated into the actuary liability as if they are automatic COLAs. Mrs. Mitchell read the definition of substantive from the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Pronouncement 67, as follows: Considerations that might be relative to determine whether such changes are substantively automatic include the historical pattern of granting the changes, the consistency in the amounts of the changes, or in the amounts of the changes relative to a defined cost of living or inflation index. Whether there is evidence to conclude that changes might not continue to be granted in the future despite what might otherwise be a pattern that would indicate such changes are substantively automatic. Mrs. Mitchell reiterated that, if the City does a COLA frequently, they will have to be included in the actuary liability. She stated that she would recommend a five (5) to 10 year window if the City is going to do anything; however, she advised that she would really like to see the funding up higher than 65% before a COLA is considered, which was her recommendation. Staff recommended future ad hoc cost of living increases for the participants of the Defined Benefit Plan be taken under consideration in years where the Pension Plan is fully funded. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Mitchell confirmed that the staff recommendation would be the policy of the City, and it would be up to each Council whether they want to amend the policy in a given budget year. Mr. Slavin asked if it is possible to give retirees a one-time payment that doesn’t go to the base amount, like a bonus or a stipend. In response, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she thought that it would be possible to give a bonus or something similar, rather than a percentage, if it is infrequent. She explained that if a bonus was given frequently, then that would have to be done the same way. Mrs. Mitchell stated that she thought that would be a potential way of doing this; however, she cautioned members that Deputy City Solicitor William Pepper had previously advised her to ensure that whatever she does, do it consistently among the whole group, in order to avoid a discrimination issue. Mr. Slavin stated that he was just looking for different tools that may be available to achieve the outcome without worrying about what the IRS is prohibiting. Mr. Hare asked if it would be possible to discuss this matter every two (2) years instead of every five (5) to 10 years, or if a COLA is not given this year and Social Security gives half a percent increase, the City could discuss it next year and maybe give them half a percent. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell advised that if members are going to discuss it every year and give something every year, it’s going to be considered automatic. She suggested that members could review the pension funding level every so many years and make a decision based on that, explaining that if it has

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 21 increased five (5) points, then maybe members might want to do something at that time. Mr. Hare indicated that, as Mr. Slavin said, it could be a one-time bonus instead of a percentage, and stated that he did not think the City should go five (5) to 10 years without discussing this matter. Mrs. Mitchell advised that she is looking at the liabilities and trying to get the funding level up, so that it is not impacted, explaining that as members impact that, they are impacting what is available for the budget. Mr. Hare suggested discussing this matter again in the spring to see where the funding liability is when it is time to budget. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mrs. Mitchell stated that her recommendation would be to discuss this matter when the Plan is fully funded; however, members can amend her recommendation as they see fit. She advised that her recommendation was based on the budget impact, explaining that the funding level significantly affects the liabilities. Mr. Hare noted that he could not remember the last time the Plan was fully funded. In response, Mrs. Mitchell advised that one of the things that affected the funding was when the Plan was moved out of the retail portfolio with Merrill Lynch to an institutional plan with Pierce Park Group. She explained that when that move was made, all of the investments had to be cashed in and that’s what took the Plan down because there were large market losses during that time. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Mitchell confirmed that the investments were moved at the behest of the enrollees. She explained that this was requested because Merrill Lynch was making a lot of fees off of the wealth plan that they had the investments in. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the Plan started to rebound in 2008, however, that was when the market took another dive. In response to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Mitchell confirmed that one of the reasons why the Plan dropped below 100% funding was also the new GASB standard that required the City to book expenses that were not previously required. Mr. Hare noted that, in reviewing the funding levels of other municipalities, the City’s funding is significantly lower. He stated that the level of other municipalities was approximately 85%, while the City is at 60%. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell advised that the City had made a lot of progress over the last several years, noting that the funding level was at 40% not too long ago. She stated that the market had rebounded in the last couple of years, and the City was putting in the excess money from personnel savings in the prior year budget and had put a lot of electric money into the plan to get it funded. Mr. Hare indicated that he thought members should at least review this matter every other year. In response to Mr. Shevock, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she did not have a schedule or projection of when the percentage might be higher, explaining that one never knows

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 22 what the market values are going to be at the end of the year. She advised that the City is funding the Plan based on the actuary required contributions. Mr. Cole asked if there was any reason why members could not continue to review the funding each year. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell stated that if members wanted to continue to have this discussion every year, she was okay with keeping it the way it was. Mr. Hare noted that discussing this matter every year might at least help members understand why the funding isn’t going up. Mr. Hare moved to leave it like it is, seconded by Mr. Sudler. Mr. Lewis stated that, for the most part, he concurred, noting that members can at least get an update annually. Mr. Slavin asked that an opportunity be provided for public comment prior to members voting on the motion. The motion to leave it like it is was rescinded by Mr. Hare and Mr. Sudler. Mr. Lester Blakeman, Sr., 209 Falmouth Way, reviewed information he had compiled regarding the civilian pension plan. Mr. Blakeman, referring to item 3 on his handout entitled “Points to Pounder, Civilian Pension Plan” and the “Breakdown of Monthly Pension Payments, Civilian Pension Plan (Retiree Payment as of January 15, 2008),” noted that in 2008 there were 74 retirees making less than $1,000 per month, 62 retirees making less than $2,000 per month, 33 retirees making less than $3,000 per month, one (1) retiree making $3,090 per month, one (1) retiree making $4,212 per month, and one (1) retiree making $4,551 per month, so they were not getting rich on their pension payments. He stated that some of the retirees were actually receiving $200 per month, so the 2% increase gave them an additional $480 per year. Mr. Blakeman indicated that those people are struggling and a lot of them are spouses of retirees who have died, which is a difficult group to deal with. Mr. Blakeman stated that there’s no question in anybody’s mind that the goal of fully funding the pension plan is extremely critical and he will support anything that accomplishes that goal. He requested that, prior to making a decision, members of Council be provided with the monthly payment amounts for all current retirees, listed from lowest to highest, without their names but including their status, age, and date of retirement. Mr. Blakeman indicated that he thought that this would give members the ability to see the people they’re talking about and the amounts they are receiving, so they can make an informed decision regarding increases. Mr. Blakeman also requested some type of assurance of when the Plan would be fully funded, explaining that the retirees need some confidence that it will not be another 12 years before a COLA is made. He stated that he knew that this seemed like a lot; however, he asked members to understand his perspective that all union and non-union employees and police retirees get an increase every year, and the civilian retirees are the only group that do not. Mr. Blakeman noted that the pension plans are non-negotiable and were written by the City for the two (2) employee groups, with no input from them. He indicated that he thought that the civilian retirees had provided as much support,

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 23 help, and success in being a place where people want to live as everybody else, and they should not be singled out because the plan is not fully funded. Mr. Blakeman stated that the cost of living had increased for the civilian retirees just like it had for everyone else, yet in the past 12 years, they only received a 2% increase. He noted that he really wants to have the plan fully funded; however, he does not know why the retirees should be punished, since the unfunded liability is not their fault. Mr. Blakeman reminded members that the GASB told the City some time ago that the City should have been funding the pension plan and the expenses as they went and that was not done. He stated that the sitting Councils elected to put it off, until they finally had to start acknowledging it. Mr. Blakeman indicated that he did not believe that it was fair for Council to tell the retirees that they do not get a COLA because it’s going to cost more money, when they give the employees a pay raise, which also takes money. Mr. Sudler asked Mrs. Mitchell if the City could look into Mr. Blakeman’s request regarding an increase for the civilian employee pension plan members. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell reminded members that the civilian retirees in the 401 plan do not get the option for a COLA and they also helped do the same things for the City that the other civilian retirees did. She advised that the real issue, however, is budgetary, explaining that the City did not plan on a COLA or get an actuary analysis, so she was not prepared to provide an opinion regarding whether the City should give a COLA. Mrs. Mitchell stated that it was her recommendation that if Council is going to give a COLA every year, it needs to be built into the actuary study, and that it would cost more than $80,000, so Council would need to decide where the revenue is going to come from. Mrs. Mitchell reviewed the current demographics for the General Employee Pension Plan, explaining that the changes in demographics since 2008 have impacted the liability. She stated that there were currently 64 members of the plan receiving under $1,000, 84 members receiving between $1,000 and $2,000, 49 members receiving between $2,000 and $3,000, 10 members receiving between $3,000 and $4,000, six (6) members receiving between $4,000 and $5,000, and one (1) member receiving more than $5,000. Mrs. Mitchell advised that a lot of Baby Boomers are retiring at a younger age because, under the older plan, employees can retire with 20-25 years of service. She explained that these Baby Boomer retirees make higher wages than some of the older retirees and the spouses of the retirees, and they have a long life expectancy, and these factors are impacting the liability. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she could not provide an estimate in regard to the cost without the actuarial analysis; however, the cost for an automatic COLA would be significant. In response to Mr. Polce, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the General Employee Pension Plan was 65% funded. Mr. Polce stated that he would like to see the City’s net asset ratio of the unfunded liability portfolio, as well as the net asset ratio of the entire portfolio, explaining that he thought this information would provide members with an accurate representation of the severity of the issue and how quickly they must act.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 24 Mrs. Mitchell advised members that the Police Pension Plan does have an automatic 2% COLA and the State of Delaware gives the City approximately $500,000 per year toward funding that unfunded liability and the Police Pension Plan. She stated that the General Employee Pension Plan does not have an automatic COLA, and that Plan is only funded by the City. Mrs. Mitchell noted that, since she had worked for the City in 1978 under the previous Finance Director, as far as she could recall, the City had always had an actuary study and funded the plan based on what the actuary said. She stated that changes in the market, GASB, and IRS since 1978, as well as the Orange County, California scandal and the Dodd-Frank laws had created many issues for the defined benefits plans, explaining that the City did not have complete control over everything that happened and it was not necessarily the City’s funding. Mr. Slavin stated that he thought that the overall sentiment was that members would like to do something and would like the flexibility to do it; however, it is a data driven decision and they do not currently have the data to make that decision. He explained that members needed to be careful about saying that they would review the data every year, noting that, because of the IRS regulations, it would be considered automatic and the City would automatically have to book the expense. Mr. Slavin, referring to Mr. Blakeman’s comment that the GASB said that the City should have been doing this all along, clarified that the GASB did not say that and these were new rules, which were the result of other places, like Enron, that completely underfunded their pensions with the hopes that they would become more successful in later years and left people with nothing. He noted that Mr. Blakeman had stated that everyone except the civilian pensioners get a raise, including elected officials, and clarified that he did not believe elected officials in the City had received a raise since 2002. Mr. Neil stated that he thought that members needed to look at this a little bit differently. He noted that, as Mrs. Mitchell mentioned, people are retiring younger, after 25 years of service, and social security is the ultimate safety net and pensions from state governments are an add-on to that; however, he explained that there is a gap when a person is not eligible for social security. Mr. Neil stated that the question is whether the City should fund pensions so that retirees never have to work again, and if they are considering the pension as the only means by which the retiree will live until they can receive social security. He explained that, with the gap between retirement and receiving social security, he thought that there was a very good chance that the retirees are going to seek employment. Mr. Neil noted that the other factor to consider is the loyalty that the City has to people who have served them loyally. He stated that he thought that it’s a reward that the City gives for the services that the employees have provided, but questioned whether it should be given as the primary means of being able to live. Mr. Blakeman clarified that he was not requesting a COLA every year and he did not think it was reasonable to ask for a COLA every year. He reviewed the “COLA History” he compiled, noting that he understood from the history that they are not going to get a COLA every year; however, it was addressed on a fairly regular basis.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 25 Mr. Blakeman indicated that 12 years was a long time to wait for consideration, stated that some acknowledgment in less than 12 years would be appreciated. Mr. Slavin stated that he thought that this was a topic worth further discussion once members have some of the other data to help inform their decisions. The Committee tabled this matter to be brought back at a future date when Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, has gathered the appropriate data, and that it be communicated to Mr. Lester Blakeman and the retirees in advance so they can be a part of the discussion. By consent agenda, Mr. Lewis moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Lindell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare absent). By consent agenda, Mr. Lewis moved for acceptance of the Council Committee of the Whole Report, seconded by Mr. Lindell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare absent). MONTHLY REPORTS - JUNE 2018 By motion of Mr. Lewis, seconded by Mr. Lindell, the following monthly reports were accepted by consent agenda: City Assessor's Report City Council’s Community Enhancement Fund Report City Manager's Report City Planner's Report Controller/Treasurer's Budget Report Fire Chief's Report Police Chief's Report QUARTERLY REVIEW (APRIL, MAY, AND JUNE) CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN REPORT Members were provided the Quarterly Capital Investment Plan Report as of June 30, 2018. By consent agenda, Mr. Lewis moved for acceptance of the Quarterly Capital Investment Plan Report as of June 30, 2018. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare absent). QUARTERLY REVIEW - PASSPORT ACCEPTANCE FACILITY OPERATIONS AND REVENUES REPORT Members were provided the Annual Passport Acceptance Facility Operations and Revenues Report as of August 2018. Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, reminded members that Council had approved the passport facility on a trial basis, to be reviewed after the first year. She noted that the first year had ended and there was a net profit of approximately $25,000 from the passport facility. Staff recommended continuing the passport acceptance facility operations permanently.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 26 Mr. Lewis asked if the part-time employees were still running the facility. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell advised that the two part-times employees were still there and they work very well together. She noted that they have coordinated their schedules so that the facility can be open one more day a week while maintaining the same hours. Mr. Sudler moved for approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded Mr. Lindell and unanimously carried. APPOINTMENT RECOMMENDED BY MAYOR CHRISTIANSEN - PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAC) OF THE DOVER/KENT COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) - ALBERT W. HOLMES, JR. - AT-LARGE ALTERNATE (TO FILL THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF C. DAVID JAMISON - TERM TO EXPIRE JULY 2019) Mayor Christiansen requested the appointment of Albert W. Holmes, Jr. to the Public Advisory Committee (PAC) of the Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to fill the unexpired term of C. David Jamison, term to expire July 2019. By consent agenda, Mr. Lewis moved for approval of the appointment of Mr. Holmes, as recommended by Mayor Christiansen. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare absent). REAPPOINTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY MAYOR CHRISTIANSEN - SILVER LAKE COMMISSION - ONE-YEAR TERMS TO EXPIRE MAY 2019 Mayor Christiansen recommended the following reappointments to the Silver Lake Commission for one-year terms to expire May 2019: Nicholas A. Adams Tricia K. Arndt Zachery C. Carter Dean E. Holden Lyle Allen Jones By consent agenda, Mr. Lewis moved for approval of the reappointments to the Silver Lake Commission, as recommended by Mayor Christiansen. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare absent). REZONING REQUEST - FIRST READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2018-08 A request was received to rezone properties located at 127, 129, 133 and 135 Roosevelt Avenue, consisting of three parcels of land (133 and 135 Roosevelt Avenue share one parcel) containing 0.83+/- acres, owned by The Clyde Corporation. The properties are currently zoned R-8 (One-Family Residence) and the proposed zoning is RG-2 (General Residence). (Tax Parcels: ED-05-077.18-02-71.00-000, ED-05-077.18-02-72.00-000, and ED-05-077.18-02-73.00-000, Planning Reference: Z-18-01, 2nd Council District) Prior to amending the zoning ordinances and zoning map of the City of Dover, a public hearing is required.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 27 Mr. Neil moved to refer the request to the Planning Commission on September 17, 2018 and set a public hearing for October 8, 2018 at 7:30 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried. In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of Proposed Ordinance #2018-08 as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 127, 129, 133 AND 135 ROOSEVELT AVENUE ANNEXATION/REZONING REQUEST/FIRST READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2018-09 - PROPERTY LOCATED AT 179 MIFFLIN ROAD, OWNED BY STEVEN E. ANDREW A request was received for annexation and rezoning of property located at 179 Mifflin Road, consisting of 1.37+/- acres, owned by Steven E. Andrew. This property is currently zoned RS-1 - Single Family Residential (Kent County zoning classification) and the proposed zoning is R-8 - One Family Residence (City of Dover zoning classification). Staff recommended that the request be referred to the Utility Committee on August 28, 2018 and to the Planning Commission on September 17, 2018; and that a public hearing be set for October 8, 2018 at 7:30 p.m. (Tax Parcel: ED-00-076.10-01-32.00-000; Planning Reference: AX-18-02; 1st Council District) Mr. Neil moved for referral, as recommended, seconded by Mr. Cole and unanimously carried. In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of the proposed Ordinance as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 179 MIFFLIN ROAD FINAL READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2018-07 The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of July 23, 2018. Council President Slavin reminded members of the public that copies of the proposed ordinance were available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or on the City’s website at www.cityofdover.com under “Government.” Mr. Neil moved that the Final Reading of the proposed ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried. Mr. David Hugg, Director of Planning and Community Development, advised that the amendment was the result of an appeal which the City lost due to unclear language in the difference between how long a vehicle that was inoperable or had been wrecked could remain on a property, versus one that had an expired registration. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg stated that the amendment would not conflict with State statutes.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 28 By motion of Mr. Anderson, seconded by Mr. Neil, Council, by a unanimous roll call vote (Hare absent), adopted Ordinance #2018-07, as follows: BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: That Chapter 106 - Traffic and Vehicles, Article III - Stopping, Standing and Parking, Division 1 - Generally, Section 106-130 - Wrecked, Nonoperating, or Improperly Parked or Equipped Vehicles of the Dover Code be amended to read as follows: Sec. 106-130. - Wrecked, nonoperating, or improperly parked or equipped vehicles. (a) Prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to park any vehicle or permit any vehicle to remain parked on the streets of the city when that vehicle is wrecked, nonoperating or improperly equipped to such an extent that it would be unlawful to drive the vehicle upon the streets of the city in its condition. (b) Leaving vehicles on property. (1) It shall be unlawful for any person in charge or in control of any property within the city, whether as owner, tenant, occupant, lessee or otherwise, to: a. allow any vehicle partially dismantled, stripped, nonoperating or in such repair as to render it unable to operate legally on a public street, or a wrecked, junked or discarded vehicle to remain on the property for more than five days; or b. allow any operable unregistered or uninspected vehicle to remain on the property for more than 90 days. (2) This subsection shall not apply with regard to a vehicle in an enclosed building or enclosed area designed and approved for such purposes, a vehicle on the premises of a business enterprise licensed and approved for vehicle storage or salvage or repair, or a vehicle in an appropriate storage place or depository maintained in a lawful place and manner as approved by the city. (3) Unregistered or uninspected vehicles whose owners have properly parked and secured them and who have notified the department of planning and inspections may be granted extensions of the 90-day limit on keeping of unregistered or uninspected vehicles for reasons including but not limited to out-of-state military service, illness, extended travel or such other reasons as approved by the department. (c) Parking in grass. Vehicles shall not be permitted to be parked in front, side, or rear yards required by appendix B pertaining to zoning, except in approved driveways, garages, carports, or parking pads. (Code 1968, § 31-81; Code 1981, § 13-37; Ord. of 11-12-1996)

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 29 State Law reference - Driving of hazardous vehicles prohibited, 21 Del. C. § 4335. ADOPTED:AUGUST 27, 2018 CITY MANAGER'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, announced that the City offices would be closed on September 3rd in observation of Labor Day. COUNCIL MEMBERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS Council President Slavin reminded members to wish Mayor Christiansen a happy birthday on September 4th. Mr. Lewis announced that he attended Comic Con on Saturday and noted that the event is getting bigger and bigger as the years progress. He stated he went to a local restaurant afterward and there were people there eating that had participated in Comic Con so it is good for the City. Mr. Lewis stated that he also attended a lot of back to school events. Mr. Sudler announced that The Grand Masonic Lodge, located on State College Road, would be hosting a back to school barbecue on Saturday, September 1st, from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Mr. Anderson invited everyone to participate in the Kent Goes Purple movement, starting with Purple Sunday, and encouraged churches and members of the faith community to bring attention and the solution on Purple Sunday. He also invited anyone who was interested to visit Vines Community Project or Delaware Goes Purple on Facebook. Mr. Anderson also invited everyone to a rally on September 15th on The Green around noon. Mr. Polce commended Mr. Hugg and his team for a really great open house event that featured the City’s Comprehensive Plan the previous Thursday at the public library. He advised that he was struck by the robust data that many will find very interesting as they think very strategically about the future of the City and by the desire of many in the community to be bold with economic development opportunities. Mr. Polce noted that the data reflects that they are doing things well, but not necessarily great, and to be very creative and to be very bold in their economic development opportunities as they move forward. Mr. Lindell advised that he had the opportunity to attend the Capital School District opening day ceremonies the previous week and he had a special guest with him, his four-year-old daughter. He noted that it was a valuable time to have her with him because the guest speaker was Congresswoman Lisa Blunt Rochester, who had a very poignant message for the group that was gathered there: “Rather than getting frustrated, get motivated - You get more done that way.” Mr. Lindell wished all of the students in the Dover area, from preschool all the way to college, a great school year, and a safe one as well. Mr. Cole moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 30 Meeting adjourned at 8:23 p.m. TRACI A. McDOWELL CITY CLERK All ordinances, resolutions, motions, and orders adopted by City Council during their Regular Meeting of August 27, 2018, are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /TM/jt S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Council-Minutes\2018\08-27-2018 Council Minutes.wpd