COUNCIL PACKET (Revised 07-24-18 CCW Minutes)

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA AUGUST 27, 2018 - 7:30 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 15 LOOCKERMAN PLAZA DOVER, DELAWARE OPEN FORUM - 15 MINUTES PRIOR TO OFFICIAL MEETING (7:15 P.M.) THE “OPEN FORUM” SEGMENT IS PROVIDED TO EXTEND THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO SHARE THEIR QUESTIONS, THOUGHTS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS, AND COMPLAINTS. DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM APPEARING ON THE AGENDA AS A PUBLIC HEARING IS PROHIBITED DURING THE OPEN FORUM AS AN OPPORTUNITY WILL BE PROVIDED DURING CONSIDERATION OF THAT ITEM. CITIZEN COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES. COUNCIL IS PROHIBITED FROM TAKING ACTION SINCE THEY ARE NOT IN OFFICIAL SESSION; HOWEVER, THEY MAY SCHEDULE SUCH ITEMS AS REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS AND ACT UPON THEM IN THE FUTURE. INVOCATION BY BISHOP THOMAS L. HOLSEY PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN LINDELL 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 JULY 23, 2018 2. PRESENTATION - LUTHERAN SENIOR SERVICES OF DOVER, INC. - PAYMENT-IN-LIEU OF TAXES (PILOT) 3. CERTIFICATE OF CONGRATULATIONS - DOVER LITTLE LEAGUE, PEE WEE DIVISION, SHORE UNITED BANK TEAM (LEWIS) 4. PROCLAMATIONS A. NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS MONTH B. NATIONAL RECOVERY MONTH 5. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-08 PROPOSING INCLUSION OF HIDDEN CREEK INTO THE KENT COUNTY STORM WATER MAINTENANCE DISTRICT

COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 2 6. PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2018-06 WITH SA#1/PC#1 THE FIRST READING OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WAS ACCOMPLISHED DURING THE COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 25, 2018. THE ORDINANCE IS AVAILABLE AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AT WWW.CITYOFDOVER.COM UNDER THE "GOVERNMENT" TAB. A. AMENDING APPENDIX B - ZONING, ARTICLE 3 - DISTRICT REGULATIONS; ARTICLE 4 - ZONING BULK AND PARKING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 5 - SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 6 - OFF-STREET PARKING, DRIVEWAYS AND LOADING FACILITIES, AND ARTICLE 12 - DEFINITIONS * 7. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT - JULY 24, 2018 A. UTILITY COMMITTEE (1) DEDICATION OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE - SENATORS LAKE (COMMITTEE 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.) (2) GOVERNING POLICY FOR ENERGY COMMODITY RISK MANAGEMENT (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED ADOPTION OF THE REVISED POLICY) B. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE (1) BOND COUNSEL PROPOSAL - PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP (P3) - PARKING GARAGE (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") (2) REVIEW OF PENSION BENEFITS - COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT (COLA) (2018 BUDGET HEARING) (COMMITTEE TABLED THIS MATTER FOR CONSIDERATION 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) * 8. MONTHLY REPORTS - JUNE 2018 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 9. QUARTERLY REVIEWS (APRIL, MAY, AND JUNE) * A. CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN (CIP) B. PASSPORT ACCEPTANCE FACILITY OPERATIONS AND REVENUES

COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 3 * 10. 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) * 11. REAPPOINTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY MAYOR CHRISTIANSEN - SILVER LAKE COMMISSION - ONE-YEAR TERMS TO EXPIRE MAY 2019 A. NICHOLAS A. ADAMS B. TRICIA K. ARNDT C. ZACHERY C. CARTER D. DEAN E. HOLDEN E. LYLE ALLEN JONES 12. REZONING REQUEST - FIRST READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2018-08 THE FIRST READING IS OFFERED ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. IT IS RECOMMENDED FOR REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 17, 2018 AND THAT A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE CITY COUNCIL BE SET FOR OCTOBER 8, 2018 AT 7:30 P.M., AT WHICH TIME THE FINAL READING AND COUNCIL ACTION WILL TAKE PLACE. THE ORDINANCE IS 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. A. 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) ( T A X P A R C E L S : ED- 0 5 - 0 7 7 .1 8 - 0 2 - 7 1 .0 0-000, ED-05-077.18-02-72.0 0 - 0 0 0 , AND ED-05-077.18-02-73.00-000, PLANNING REFERENCE: Z-18-01, 2ND COUNCIL DISTRICT) 13. ANNEXATION/REZONING REQUEST/FIRST READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2018-09 THE FIRST READING IS OFFERED ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. IT IS RECOMMENDED FOR REFERRAL TO THE UTILITY COMMITTEE ON AUGUST 28, 2018; THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 17, 2018; AND THAT A PUBLIC HEARING BE SET FOR OCTOBER 8, 2018 AT 7:30 P.M., AT WHICH TIME THE FINAL READING AND COUNCIL ACTION WILL TAKE PLACE. THE ORDINANCE IS 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. A. AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM RS-1 - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (KENT COUNTY ZONING CLASSIFICATION) TO R-8 - ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE (CITY OF DOVER ZONING CLASSIFICATION) ON THAT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 179 MIFFLIN ROAD, CONSISTING OF 1.37+/- ACRES, OWNED BY STEVEN E. ANDREW (TAX PARCEL: ED-00-076.10-01-32.00-000; PLANNING REFERENCE: AX-18-02; 1ST COUNCIL DISTRICT)

COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 4 14. FINAL READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2018-07 THE FIRST READING OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WAS ACCOMPLISHED DURING THE COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 23, 2018. THE ORDINANCE IS AVAILABLE AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AT WWW.CITYOFDOVER.COM UNDER THE “GOVERNMENT” TAB. A. AMENDING 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 15. CITY MANAGER’S ANNOUNCEMENTS 16. COUNCIL MEMBERS’ ANNOUNCEMENTS 17. ADJOURNMENT /TM S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\COUNCIL-AGENDAS\2018\08-27-2018 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; 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 July 23, 2018 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Slavin presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sudler (arrived at 7:39 p.m.), Mr. Neil, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Cole, Mr. Polce, Mr. Hare, and Mr. Lindell. Staff members present were Major Stump (departed at 7:48 p.m. and returned at 7:57 p.m.), Ms. Peddicord, Mrs. Mitchell, Mr. Hugg, Fire Chief Carey, City Solicitor Rodriguez, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Christiansen was also present (departed at 7:45 p.m.). OPEN FORUM The Open Forum was held at 7:15 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. Mrs. Robin Achenbach, owner of 19 and 21 North American Avenue, stated that the property was a drug house that needed a lot of work when she purchased it. She reviewed the history of the vacant building waivers granted by the City for 19 North American Avenue since 2014 and requested that the fee be waived to allow her to obtain permits. The invocation was given by Bishop Thomas L. Holsey, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Neil moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried (Sudler absent). Mr. Hare moved for approval of the consent agenda, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Sudler absent). ADOPTION OF MINUTES - SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 29, 2018 The Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of May 29, 2018 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Hare, seconded by Mr. Neil and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 9, 2018 The Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of July 9, 2018 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Hare, seconded by Mr. Neil and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 9, 2018 The Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of July 9, 2018 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Hare, seconded by Mr. Neil and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 23, 2018 PAGE 2 CERTIFICATE OF CONGRATULATIONS - DOVER HIGH SCHOOL BOYS TRACK AND FIELD TEAM - DIAA DIVISION STATE CHAMPIONSHIP (MAY 21-22, 2018) The City Clerk read the following Certificate of Congratulations into the record: Certificate of Congratulations presented to The Dover High School Boys Track and Field Team for scoring 122 points and capturing the Division I Delaware Interscholastic Athletic Association (DIAA) Track and Field Team Championship on May 21 - 22, 2018. The team has been a perennial power in the Henlopen Conference and the State of Delaware. The following student-athletes are commended for their outstanding performance: Coleman Akers Tajae Cooper Jay-Roan Lopez Jared Spencer Hezekiah Ali-Bentley Chawes Evans Zavien Martin Tyrone Stanley Joshua August Roshon Gladney Darrell Muncison Courtland Suggs Keith Bessick Nathanael Guy Azim Opare Justice Thompson Adul-Rahim Bracey JaRod Hamilton Antonio Palas Travon Towson Isreal Brown-Foster Hugo Harp Victa Phillips Kwama Veal Za’Kess Brown Ric Johnson D’Aire Purnell Tahj Ward Qualeak Bumbrey Theodore Johnson Tylis Randall Javontae Wayman Tamir Caldwell Tyjhir Joyner Tyrese Sanabria Gavin Williams Joel Cintron James Kilby Julius Snipes Jerren Williams Special recognition is given to the following team members, who were named State Champions in one or more events: Bradley Anyanwu (Shot Put) Tayshaun Chisholm (110 High Tykwan Joyner (4x200 Meter Relay) Dalonzo Bouges (4x200 Meter Relay) Hurdles, 300 Intermediate Hurdles, and Jakari Long (100 and 200 Meter 4x200 Meter Relay) Dash and 4x200 Meter Relay) The entire team and Coaches James Solomon, Roger Lilly, Michael Denny, James Kilby, Jr., Vanessa Perez and Vincent Terenik, are applauded for their remarkable achievement. The City of Dover extends its sincere congratulations. July 23, 2018 On behalf of the Mayor, Council, and citizens of the City of Dover, Mayor Christiansen and Councilman Lindell presented the Certificate to the members and coaches of Dover High School Boys Track and Field Team. On behalf of Dover High School, coach James Solomon thanked everyone who had a hand in capturing the Division I Delaware Interscholastic Athletic Association (DIAA) Track and Field Team Championship and the City for its recognition.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 23, 2018 PAGE 3 TRIBUTE NO. 2018-01 - WALLACE DIXON The City Clerk read the following Tribute into the record: A TRIBUTE EXPRESSING SYMPATHY AND CONDOLENCES UPON THE PASSING OF WALLACE R. DIXON WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the City of Dover have been greatly saddened by the death of Wallace R. Dixon, former Councilman and City Chaplain, who passed away on July 7, 2018; and WHEREAS, Wallace R. Dixon was appointed to serve as City Chaplain on September 11, 2000 and as the Chaplain for the Dover Police Department on August 20, 2002, and he served continuously in both capacities until being sworn in as Councilman of the Fourth District on December 10, 2012. He served with distinction as Councilman until May 11, 2015 and, during his tenure, served as Chair of the Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee and as a member of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee, Downtown Dover Partnership Board of Directors, and Kent County Tourism Board of Directors. Following his two years of service to the citizens of Dover, Wallace R. Dixon was again appointed to serve as City Chaplain from May 26, 2015 until his death; and WHEREAS, Wallace R. Dixon served with dignity and integrity, demonstrating empathy and compassion toward his colleagues, City staff, and constituents alike, and speaking up for those whose concerns might otherwise have gone unnoticed. His contributions to the community extended well beyond his service to the City of Dover and included his service on the Steering Committee for Restoring Central Dover, which continues to be an engine of economic and social revitalization for downtown Dover. Wallace R. Dixon will be deeply missed by the Bible Way Temple Church of God in Christ congregation, friends, family, and all of those whose lives he has touched. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and Council extend their deepest sympathy and condolences to the family and friends of Wallace R. Dixon and hope that they will be consoled by the memories of his exemplary life and commendable achievements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and Council direct the City Clerk to place this Tribute in the permanent records of the City of Dover and that a copy of this Tribute be provided to the family of Wallace R. Dixon. JULY 13, 2018 On behalf of the Mayor, Council, and citizens of Dover, Mayor Christiansen presented the Tribute to the Dixon family and thanked them for Councilman Dixon’s service. (City Clerk’s Office Note: Mayor Christiansen presented the tribute to the Dixon family at Councilman Dixon’s funeral on July 13, 2018.) Mrs. Dixon accepted the Tribute on behalf of her husband and noted that he was a silent giant and that he lived what he talked and when he said something, it meant something. She thanked the City for honoring him.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 23, 2018 PAGE 4 By Unanimous Consent, Tribute No. 2018-01 was adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - DISPOSAL OF EXCESS PROPERTY During their Regular meeting of June 11, 2018, members of Council approved the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee’s recommendation of May 15, 2018 with regard to 1502 Rear College Road, 145 North Ann Avenue, 1370 College Road, 237 Rear Mifflin Road, White Oak Road, 423 Collins Drive, 715 Slaughter Street, 416 West Division Street, and 710 Slaughter Street, as follows: 1. Determine that the property is excess property; 2. Authorize the City Manager to convey the excess property in accordance with Chapter 2, Section 2-422 d - Standard Method of Disposition unless requested by the City Council to dispose in accordance with Chapter 2, Section e - Exception to Standard Method of Disposition; and 3. Authorize the City Manager's Office to negotiate a final sale price. Notice of the public hearing was properly advertised for this time and place. Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, advised that these nine (9) properties were obtained through a monition sale. She stated that there is an interested buyer for one (1) property and requested that the recommended method of disposal be used for the disposition of the remaining eight (8) properties, noting that she hoped to bundle them for sale. Council President Slavin declared the public hearing open. Ms. Sue Harris, 241 Pine Street, advised that she had approached the City over the last few years in hopes of working together to create affordable rental housing in the form of tiny houses. She requested that the City consider working with them on a pilot project using 710 and 715 Slaughter Street. Ms. Harris advised that the lots were 50-by-150 and 30-by-160 and they could easily put five (5) houses on each lot for 10 individuals with the same density as two single houses. With there being no one else wishing to speak, Council President Slavin declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Sudler moved to authorize the City Manager to convey the excess property in accordance with Chapter 2, Section 2-422 d - Standard Method of Disposition and to authorize the City Manager's Office to negotiate a final sale price. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT - JULY 10, 2018 The Council Committee of the Whole met on July 10, 2018 at 6:02 p.m., with Council President Slavin presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sudler, Mr. Neil, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Polce, Mr. Hare, and Mr. Lindell. Mr. Cole was absent. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Mr. Caldwell and Dr. Warfield (Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement), Mrs. Doyle and Ms. Scarborough (Utility), and Mr. Shevock and Dr. Stewart (Legislative, Finance, and Administration).

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 23, 2018 PAGE 5 PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee met with Chairman Sudler presiding. Update - Healthy Neighborhood Subcommittee on Behavioral Health (Polce) Councilman Polce reviewed a presentation entitled “Healthy Neighborhoods, Behavioral Health Subcommittee.” He reminded members that he was appointed by Council President Slavin to the Delaware Center for Health Innovation (DCHI) Dover/Smyrna Healthy Neighborhoods Council. Mr. Polce explained that the Healthy Neighborhoods Council is tasked to implement Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMMI) State Innovation Models (SIM), which is $175,000 of grant money the State applied for approximately five (5) years ago. He stated that the Healthy Neighborhoods Council had been part of the SIM process for the past four (4) years and had developed two (2) subcommittees, one related to chronic disease and wellness lifestyles, which actually presented the Play Streets program that was implemented in the City, and one related to behavioral health, of which he serves as the chair. Mr. Polce noted that the Behavioral Health Subcommittee consists of advocates, and individuals from the provider community, including Bayhealth, Nemours, Dover Behavioral Health, and State agencies, including the Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health and Public Health. He stated that the main goal is to bring initiatives and proposals to the local area that garner local support and greater health outcomes to increase access to care in populations that necessarily have not received specific types of care. Mr. Polce advised that, over the past month, the subcommittee had put forth three (3) initiatives in partnership with a number of working groups: 1) Lockers for Engagement Initiative, 2) Domestic Violence Engagement Initiative, and 3) Police Connections Alliance. Mr. Polce provided an overview of the three (3) initiatives. Referring to the Domestic Violence Engagement Initiative, he indicated that there had been a 25% increase in domestic violence incidents in Kent County on the Domestic Violence Hotline; however, there had been a decrease in providers specific to domestic violence situations. Mr. Polce stated that, currently in Dover and Kent County, there is a complete lack of a provider network for treatment for individuals who are experiencing this trauma and these types of crises. He informed members that the Domestic Violence Engagement Initiative utilized a community health worker based model and People’s Place would now be employing an additional community health worker and a high-risk advocate, who is trained with deep confidence in domestic violence situations, to help individuals who are experiencing these crises and trauma move through the health system and receive adequate quality care. Mr. Polce, referring to the Police Connections Alliance initiative, noted that Delaware is at the fastest growing rate of overdose fatality, and is currently the eighth

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 23, 2018 PAGE 6 state with the highest overdose fatality rate in the nation. He informed members that just over a month ago Delaware was reported as having over 225 overdoses this year, which is well beyond the pace from last year. Mr. Polce indicated that the Police Connections Alliance program was adapted from the New Castle County program which began two (2) months ago, where a master-level social worker was embedded in with the police entity, and the master-level social worker has been able to triage situations, ranging from substance use disorder to individuals experiencing a mental illness crisis. He stated that they were partnering with Connections and local police agencies and were looking into piloting this program in Dover, Milford, and Smyrna. Mr. Polce advised that, based on statistics gathered from epidemiologists at Public Health, approximately 12.5% of the population in Kent County self-identify as having a substance use disorder and a co-occurring disorder, which means there’s an underlying mental illness as well. He noted that although local policing entities may have received Crises Intervention Training (CIT) through the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), officers may not necessarily be equipped to deal with comorbid individuals who are both crippled with addiction as well as an underlying mental health issue. Mr. Polce advised that a partnership has also been struck with Nemours and Dover Behavioral Health to offer mental health training 101 to churches, community centers, etc. He stated that they did their first training three (3) months ago and it was geared specifically to the ecumenical community, noting that it is really important for the ecumenical community to be aware of what individuals in their community are facing and the stigma associated with brain health. Mr. Polce informed members that these trainings are offered at no cost and can be tailored to the community. He stated that a member of the subcommittee is the point of contact, and if anyone is interested in taking a training to a community organization or church, to let him know. Mr. Polce informed members that the subcommittee is also exploring harm reduction options, explaining that harm reduction is a component of substance use disorder more specific to opioid use disorder. He stated that they have also been working with Capital School District to implement the Botvin Program, which is an evidence-based program and curriculum that will better equip youth to deal with mental health issues. Mr. Sudler thanked Mr. Polce for the very detailed and informative presentation. Mr. Neil stated that he thought that this was phenomenal. He asked Mr. Polce whether enough information had been accumulated yet to gauge the response of the people who he is reaching out to and what their reaction is. Referring to the locker initiative, Mr. Neil asked whether individuals have access to medications or medical services they may need. He also asked if there was any measurable data yet regarding the domestic violence type of situations. In response to Mr. Neil, Mr. Polce stated that this is an example of a great opportunity for the City to play a collaborative role, noting that the full onus of all of these programs are with the providers who have

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 23, 2018 PAGE 7 been identified. He explained that, specifically with Interfaith, they have done a great deal of work ensuring that they have point of contacts and connections with all of the critical services they might need. Mr. Polce advised that one of the benefits of having a collaborative working group is having these points of contact identified and accessible. He noted that both the domestic violence proposal as well as the homelessness locker engagement initiative have point of contacts for Bayhealth, Dover Behavioral Health, Connections, the Department of Labor, Delaware State Housing Authority, and Medicaid and Medicare at the State and federal levels. Mr. Polce informed members that having points of contact accessible does not necessarily guarantee access; however, they have had tremendous feedback from Bayhealth, Dover Behavioral Health, and Connections regarding their awareness that this pilot is ongoing and allocating specific resources, including beds and staffing capacity for these projects, since there will be an influx of services called upon. Mayor Christiansen thanked Mr. Polce for his service on the subcommittee and asked him to pass along the City’s gratitude to all of the members. He stated that he thought that this dispels the notion that the members of Council were not compassionate towards those who are less fortunate and are in great need. Mayor Christiansen explained that the fact that the City had put together a blue ribbon commission and the Council President appointed Mr. Polce to the Healthy Neighborhoods subcommittee shows that members are compassionate and are looking for answers to this ongoing issue. He thanked the members of Council for their continued support of the issues and the final results that are going to come back from the blue ribbon commission. Mr. Anderson praised the subcommittees for the great work they are doing, noting that the interaction that he had experienced had been extraordinarily positive. He stated that he appreciated the tremendous amount of work that Mr. Polce had dedicated to this. Noting that Mr. Polce indicated that there were 225 overdoses this year, he asked whether those were all fatal overdoses. Responding, Mr. Polce stated that 225 was the number of fatal overdoses statewide. Mr. Anderson asked how many overdoses and overdose deaths had occurred in Kent County and how many people had been saved by naloxone. In response, Mr. Polce stated that he could provide members with Kent County specific data. He advised that, historically, Kent County had trended 2% lower than New Castle County; however, he stated that he would reconfirm that information as well. Mr. Polce noted that he could also provide the accessible data regarding Narcan, with the caveat that Narcan had just become widespread in the past year, so anyone can administer it and the data would not necessarily be recorded accurately. He explained that he can compile and provide the State and County level data; however, the data does not go to the census track, so there will not be very specific data for Dover. Mr. Anderson noted that a lot of people are getting into substance abuse as an effort at self-medication, and that Mr. Polce had indicated a rate of 12.5% behavioral health comorbidity. Mr. Anderson asked if this was 12.5% of the people who are admitted

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 23, 2018 PAGE 8 addicts or 12.5% of the population. Responding, Mr. Polce explained that this is self-identified data, and most of this data is compiled by three (3) sources: 1) intake forms when someone receives treatment, 2) point-in-time (PIT) counts for the transient community, collected by the housing alliance, and 3) emergency department (ED) numbers, which are based on individuals who self-identify as a user/misuser and indicate their drug of choice when they go to the ED. Mr. Anderson asked when Kent County Connections partners would be joining the New Castle County model. He stated that it had obviously not started yet; however, he thought that it seemed like it would be a natural enhancement and progression from the Angel program and others. He asked if Mr. Polce knew what the target start dates were or whether they were waiting on more statistics from New Castle. In response, Mr. Polce advised that they were waiting on the check from the federal government. He explained that Connections is the fiduciary steward of the allocated funds and CMMI was in the process of final approval last week. Mr. Polce noted that he wanted to ensure that the approval was given on all three (3) of these initiatives, which was why a copy of his presentation was not available prior to the meeting. He stated that the locker program was an earlier initiative and, there was about a two (2) month lag, so they have been operational for approximately a month now. Mr. Polce stated that he could only speculate regarding the start date, and would never want to speak for the federal government, but he anticipated that a strong start date would be the middle or end of August. Mr. Lewis commended Mr. Polce for his due diligence, serving on the subcommittee, and trying to implement as many changes as possible to help the needy in the community and the local area. In regard to Mr. Neil’s question regarding medical programs, he noted that he served on the board of directors and volunteered for many years with Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing (DIMH) and DIMH has a trailer on- site that is like an intake center. Mr. Lewis clarified that the DIMH locker program had actually been in existence since 2014, noting that he had donated lockers from the old high school; however, it had advanced along with other programs and is an excellent program. Mr. Lindell stated that he applauded Mr. Polce’s efforts on this issue, noting that he knew that Mr. Polce had focused on this issue at the State level for quite awhile as well. Noting that these programs are funded by a State grant, he stated that he would hate to see the programs disappear when that funding runs out. Mr. Lindell asked whether there was a commitment at the State level for the programs that work to continue to be funded after the grant expires. Responding, Mr. Polce stated that he was hoping that someone would ask about sustainability because it is critically important. He informed members that there is not funding coming directly from the State; however, the work of the Healthy Neighborhoods Council and the SIM will continue. Mr. Polce advised that they would be using community benefit dollars from the hospital systems, explaining that, essentially, each hospital gets a pot of money for community good and the hospital systems have pretty much stepped up to the plate and are going to continue to fund highly effective programs. He stated

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 23, 2018 PAGE 9 that they will be reporting all of the data from their three (3) initiatives, and Wilmington and Sussex County also have a number of initiatives. Mr. Polce advised that the Connections Police Alliance is actually going to be funded in a different way because it’s now part of the State's overdose system of care which is a new program that the State is taking on and ensuring that first responders have an individual with them who’s trained in behavioral health in specific crisis scenarios. UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee met with Council President Slavin presiding in the absence of Chairman Cole. Evaluation of Proposals - Schutte Park Grading Plan Engineering Design Support Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the evaluation of proposals for the Schutte Park Grading Plan Engineering Design Support. Staff recommended awarding the contract to Duffield Associates for the Schutte Park Grading Plan Engineering Design Support, Bid #18-0031PW, for the amount of $42,300. Mr. Anderson asked if the bid prices were adjusted for local business preference. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she would have to check with Mrs. Sharon Duca, Public Works Director/City Engineer, explaining that the local vendor preference is typically noted on the action form when applicable. Mr. Hare moved to recommend awarding the contract to Duffield Associates for the Schutte Park Grading Plan Engineering Design Support, Bid #18-0031PW, for the amount of $42,300, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindell. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the City had used Duffield Associates in the past and they did good work. She noted that the City had also used Century Engineering, and Pennoni Associate in the past and they were good vendors as well. The Committee recommended awarding the contract to Duffield Associates for the Schutte Park Grading Plan Engineering Design Support, Bid #18-0031PW, for the amount of $42,300, as recommended by staff. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Sudler absent).

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 23, 2018 PAGE 10 Evaluation of Proposals - Wellhead Redevelopment Program Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, reviewed the background and analysis, and the budgeted and historical spending amounts regarding the evaluation of proposals for the Wellhead Redevelopment Program. Staff recommended awarding a three (3) year contract, with the City option of two (2), one (1) year extensions, for the Wellhead Redevelopment program to A.C. Schultes of Delaware, Inc. as per the pricing included in the proposal submittal. The Committee recommended awarding a three (3) year contract, with the City option of two (2), one (1) year extensions, for the Wellhead Redevelopment program to A.C. Schultes of Delaware, Inc. as per the pricing included in the proposal submittal, as recommended by staff. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Sudler absent). LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Chairman Hare presiding. Proposed Ordinance #2018-07 Amending 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 Mr. David Hugg, III, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed Proposed Ordinance #2018-07, explaining that it amends language that has created confusion regarding the difference between vehicles that are abandoned in an inoperable condition and vehicles that are in an operable condition but are not properly licensed or registered, and the length of time those vehicles can remain on a property. Mr. Hugg informed members that staff recently lost an enforcement action on appeal to the Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals regarding Section 106-130 and the proposed amendment was developed at the request of that Board and in consultation with the City Solicitor. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mr. Hugg confirmed that Mr. Hare could park an unlicensed or untagged car in his driveway and work on it for 90 days, if the car is in an operable condition. Mr. Hugg informed members that the situation that staff recently encountered was that an individual had a vehicle that was in an operable condition parked on his property but not properly registered and staff ordered it towed after two (2) warnings and ten days. He stated that the individual appealed and, upon reviewing the language in the Code, it was clear that the vehicle could have been there for up to 90 days. Mr. Hugg explained that the proposed amendment does not change the intent of the ordinance, it simply clarifies the wording.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 23, 2018 PAGE 11 Mr. Lewis asked if the Department of Planning and Inspections explored State Code to ensure that there are no conflicts. In response, Mr. Hugg advised that the City is not conflicting with State Code. He stated the City does not enforce State Code, the City enforces the City ordinances that relate to vehicles. Mr. Hugg noted that City staff relies on the State Code and State offices to confirm whether a vehicle is registered and has a proper owner, etc. The Committee recommended adoption of Proposed Ordinance #2018-07. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Sudler absent). (The First Reading of the ordinance will take place during the latter part of the meeting). By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for acceptance of the Council Committee of the Whole Report, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Sudler absent). QUARTERLY REVENUE REPORT Members were provided the Quarterly Revenue Report as of June 30, 2018. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for acceptance of the Quarterly Revenue Report as of July 2018. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Sudler absent). REAPPOINTMENT RECOMMENDED BY CHAIRMAN WILLIAM F. HARE - COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION SUBCOMMITTEE - COURTNEY STEWART - ONE-YEAR TERM TO EXPIRE MAY 2019 Chairman Hare recommended the reappointment of Dr. Courtney Stewart to serve on the Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative, Finance, and Administration Subcommittee for a one-year term to expire May 2019. By Consent Agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the reappointment of Dr. Stewart, as recommended by Chairman Hare. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY MAYOR CHRISTIANSEN Mayor Christiansen recommended the following appointments/reappointments: Election Board - At-Large - Juanita F. Walker - Three-Year Term to Expire May 2020 Planning Commission - Second District - Thomas Holt - Three-Year Term to Expire June 1, 2021 By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the appointments/reappointments to the Election Board and the Planning Commission, as recommended by Mayor Christiansen. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Sudler absent).

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 23, 2018 PAGE 12 FIRST READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2018-07 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. Final action by Council on the proposed ordinance will take place during the Council Meeting of August 27, 2018. 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: 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 CITY MANAGER'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, announced that there have been a lot of pre-construction meetings on several major public works projects and reminded members that the North State Street water main replacement is tentatively scheduled to start on August 6, 2018 and some traffic calming will be necessary. COUNCIL MEMBERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS Council President Slavin reminded members that the City Council meeting of August 13, 2018 and the Council Committee of the Whole meeting of August 14, 2018 are canceled because of a variety of issues. He also wished Councilman Anderson a happy birthday on July 29th. Mr. Polce announced that, on August 10th, Council President Slavin was having a birthday and, on July 29th was Mrs. McDowell's birthday. Mr. Neil made the following announcement: “Kent County Tourism with Dover as its Jewel has kicked into high gear and is bringing new found money to our Hotels, Motels, restaurants and attractions. While DE Turf is a part of the increase, the work of the new Team under Wendie Vestfall is the force behind the new flow of income. Dover budgets $18,500 per year of income, with the bulk of income coming from the Delaware accommodation tax. The low ebb during the recession was 2008-09 with $247.2 K, and recovered in 2014-15 to $369 K before the new Team took over. FY 2017-18, $452.4 K set a new record for income. On June 26, the Mayor and I greeted a group of 14 Travel Writers and 14 Tour Operators at the Grey Fox who were a part of the FAM Group that visited and toured here for 3 days. There were a number of Veterans Reunion groups in that mix. The Travel Writers have a following, and their visit has already paid electronic and print dividends.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 23, 2018 PAGE 13 The resulting 42 K on-line readership has created media coverage with an equivalent value of $12 K of paid advertising along with the 8 press pieces that were written from the FAM Tour . The new Kent County/ Greater Dover Tourism website has had 129,477 total visits. What this all means is that we have had an infusion of cash flowing through our community that would not be there unless our Tourism team continues to works at it. The outfit that was hired to survey and recommend a program for the Kent County Tourism may be coming to downtown Dover. On Thursday, July 26th, 9 a.m. to 11 a.m., at the Dover Library, you are invited to hear about the potential Streetsense program can offer. Should that occur, the Streetsense program would bring a new group of investors to downtown Dover. This is one of the reasons I try to connect the dots between Tourism and the DDP. The more vibrant the downtown becomes, the greater the benefit to Dover as a whole." Mr. Anderson announced that there would be a public safety town hall meeting for Governors Avenue and surrounding areas on Thursday, July 26, at 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers. He noted that there have been some concerns expressed and there are some positive things happening and they would like to have a two-way dialogue. Mr. Anderson thanked the Dover Police, Code Enforcement, and his colleagues, Councilman Sudler and Councilman Lewis, Chairman of Public Safety, for their participation. Mr. Hare reminded everyone that the farmer’s market would be open on Wednesday on Loockerman Street and there would be a special visitor for the little ones from noon to about 1:15 p.m. for Christmas in July. Mr. Sudler moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:58 p.m. TRACI A. McDOWELL CITY CLERK

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 23, 2018 PAGE 14 All ordinances, resolutions, motions, and orders adopted by City Council during their Regular Meeting of July 23, 2018, are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /TM S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Council-Minutes\2018\07-23-2018 Council Minutes .wpd

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 outs tanding 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 applaudedfor their commitment and remarkable achievement. The City of Dover extends its sincere congratulations. August 27, 2018 ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN TIMOTHY A. SLA VIN MAYOR COUNCIL PRESIDENT BRIAN E. LEWIS COUNCILMAN - 2ND DISTRICT

City of Dover MAYOR AND COUNCIL 1 2 PROPOSED COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2018-08 3 4 5 A RESOLUTION PROPOSING INCLUSION OF HIDDEN CREEK INTO THE KENT 6 COUNTY STORM WATER MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 7 8 WHEREAS, pursuant to 9 Del. C. §5202 et.seq. and Chapter 187 §90.4E(1) of the Kent County 9 Code, a Petition to extend the stormwater maintenance district for the area known as Hidden Creek was 10 submitted by a majority of the real property owners within the proposed district; and 11 12 WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 187 §90.4.E(2) of the Kent County Code, the Kent 13 Conservation District inspected the stormwater management facilities for the proposed stormwater 14 maintenance district, identified required repairs, and developed an operation and maintenance plan; and 15 16 WHEREAS, the property owners of Hidden Creek requested Kent Conservation District 17 complete the required repairs to be paid in full prior to joining the Stormwater Maintenance District; and 18 19 WHEREAS, Chapter 187 §90.4.E.(7) of the Kent County Code requires that for subdivisions 20 and land developments located within incorporated areas, the petition shall be accompanied by evidence 21 of concurrence of the local governing body. 22 23 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 24 25 1. That the proposed stormwater maintenance district expansion is adequate and 26 appropriate; and 27 28 2. That all of the property owners within the district are benefitted directly or indirectly 29 thereby; and 30 31 3. That it is in the public interest to extend the stormwater maintenance district in the 32 manner proposed; and 33 34 4. That the stormwater maintenance infrastructure within Hidden Creek, exclusive of that 35 within Delaware Department of Transportation/City of Dover right-of-way, shall be 36 maintained in accordance with the Operation and Maintenance Plan and that 37 maintenance shall include regular minor and major maintenance as well as emergency 38 repairs as needed, as defined by Chapter 187 §90.4.B of the Kent County Code; and 39 40 5. That the inclusion of Hidden Creek within the Stormwater Maintenance District and the 41 resulting infrastructure maintenance managed by the County shall take precedence over P.O. Box 475 ❖ Dover, Delaware ❖19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

Council Resolution No. 2018-08 Proposing Inclusion of Hidden Creek into the Kent County Storm Water Maintenance District Page 2 42 any homeowner obligation for stormwater management included in declarations of 43 restrictions or similar development agreements. Any common open space or 44 infrastructure within a community not maintained as part of a stormwater maintenance 45 district shall remain the responsibility of the homeowners; and 46 47 6. Inclusion of Hidden Creek with the Stormwater Maintenance District shall not exempt lot 48 owners within the subdivision from participation in a stormwater utility should one be 49 established by the City of Dover; and 50 51 7. That the City of Dover Council concurs with the extension of the Stormwater 52 Maintenance District – Hidden Creek. 53 54 55 ADOPTED: * 56 S:\RESOLUTIONS-PROCLAMATIONS-TRIBUTES\2018\RESOLUTION NO. 2018-08 INCLUSION OF HIDDEN CREEK-KC SW MAINTENANCE DISTRICT\Resolution No. 2018-08 Inclusion of 57 Hidden Creek into Kent County Stormwater Maintenance District.doc 58 59 ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN TIMOTHY A. SLAVIN MAYOR COUNCIL PRESIDENT Actions History (Most recent first) 08-27-2018 - Scheduled for Introduction - City Council

PETITION TO AMEND TEXT of Dover Zoning Ordinance Report to the Dover City Council for August 27, 2018 Report on Recommendation of Planning Commission from July 16, 2018 with Development Advisory Committee Review Report Proposed Changes: Text Amendments to the following: • Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B: Zoning (Zoning Ordinance) o Article 3 – District Regulations, Section 20 – Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone o Article 4 – Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations, Section 4.16 – M, IPM Zones o Article 5 – Supplementary Regulations, Section 8 – Performance Standards Summary of Amendments: The proposed Text Amendments add a new zoning classification, IPM3 (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone - Industrial Aviation and Aeronautics Center), which is intended primarily to permit businesses in aviation and aeronautics-related industries. The Amendments also create bulk standards for the new zone and makes minor changes to the performance standards to ensure uses in the IPM3 Zone are covered under them. Ordinance Number: Proposed Ordinance #2018-06 File Number: MI-18-05 Planning Commission Action: Following a Public Hearing on July 16, 2018 where no members of the public spoke, the Planning Commission voted (9-0) to recommend approval of the proposed Text Amendment to create the IPM3 Zone. Discussion of the Planning Commission included questions on the process for development of the Ordinance to create a new zoning district. See the included Excerpt of the Meeting Minutes of the July 16, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. Attachments: • DAC Comments: Department of Public Works and DNREC – Groundwater Discharges Section • Proposed Text Amendment: Creation of IPM3 zone (Industrial Park Manufacturing – Industrial Aviation and Aeronautics Center) • Excerpt of Draft Minutes from July 16, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting • Ordinance #2018-06 (Combination of the 3 Text Amendments on topics of IPM3 zone, parking, and vehicle signs)

MI-18-05 Text Amendments: IPM3 Zone Planning Commission Recommendation Report to City Council for August 27, 2018 Page 2 of 4 The following Report was prepared regarding MI-18-05 Text Amendments: Addition of IPM3 Zone. This includes the City Planner’s Report and comments received on the proposed Text Amendment. This information was provided to the Planning Commission for their July 16, 2018 meeting. MI-18-05 Development of the Text Amendments The Civil Air Terminal (CAT) is located within the city limits of Dover at the end of Horsepond Road (K348), east of Starlifter Avenue and adjacent to the Dover Air Force Base (DAFB). The site has a physical connection to the DAFB runways and taxiways and operates under a joint use agreement with DAFB, which permits private air traffic to use these facilities to access the CAT site. The CAT site is also adjacent to several undeveloped parcels owned by the Kent County Levy Court within the Kent County Aeropark (KCA), an industrial park on Horsepond Road. A group of stakeholders invested in the CAT and the KCA have been working to identify challenges to development of the industrial park. These stakeholders include the Kent County Economic Partnership, DelDOT, the Delaware River and Bay Authority, and Kent County. The stakeholders have long recognized that the industrial park’s proximity to the CAT provides a unique opportunity for businesses that may benefit from a direct connection to the terminal. However, the stakeholders have also identified several key restraints on development, including uncertainty about what kind of development would be allowed on the site by zoning. It is anticipated that the site use will be dependent on the aircraft industry or will utilize aircraft as a major component of the business model. However, most of the potential aviation and aeronautics uses are not explicitly allowed under current City of Dover Zoning Ordinance, and/or conflict with other development standards contained within the Code. The site stakeholders worked with the Planning Office to determine the most effective means of addressing the Code conflicts, and the result is this proposal for a new Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone, the IPM3 (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone- Industrial Aviation and Aeronautics Center). Like the existing IPM2 Zone, this is a specialized zoning classification that is intended to apply to a limited part of the City, in this case only near the CAT and the KCA. The IPM3 is proposed to permit a wide range of uses directly related to aviation, defined as the flying and operating of aircraft, and aeronautics, defined as the science and engineering of aircraft. The IPM3 is also proposed to relax some standards that if enforced could impede aircraft operation and testing, such as tree planting standards. The Planning Office and the stakeholder group believe adopting these changes will spur economic development of the KCA and ultimately related industry in the wider Dover area. Should adoption of these Text Amendments be successful, no parcels will immediately be zoned IPM3. Planning Staff will bring a Comprehensive Rezoning Project before the Planning Commission and City Council to establish the zoning district’s boundaries. This process for comprehensive zoning map amendments is outlined in the Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 5 – Amendments. It will take the form of an ordinance that rezones multiple properties to the IPM3 Zone at once. A Comprehensive Rezoning will save property owners the trouble of having to apply to the City themselves to get their properties under the new zoning classification. At present there is not yet a list of specific properties under consideration for Comprehensive Rezoning to IPM3; Planning Staff expects to continue working with stakeholders to identify appropriate properties near the Civil Air Terminal.

MI-18-05 Text Amendments: IPM3 Zone Planning Commission Recommendation Report to City Council for August 27, 2018 Page 3 of 4 Current Proposed Text Amendments Key components of the proposed Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance include the following: • Article 3 Section 20B - This is a new section, containing the permitted, conditional, and prohibited uses in the IPM3, as well as exemptions from provisions elsewhere in the Zoning Ordinance related to trees, storage trailers, and fences. The section establishes that there are no exemptions from the City’s Performance Standards, nor any from the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone), which governs permitted uses near the Dover Air Force Base based on noise generated by the Base and aircraft accident risk. • Article 3 Section 24 - Changes to this section establish that the new IPM3 Zone (as well as the IPM and IPM2 Zones) are not an appropriate place to locate a Planned Neighborhood Development- Senior Citizen Housing Option. • Article 4 Section 4.16 - Changes to this section establish bulk standards for the IPM3 Zone, including minimum lot size, setbacks, and parking, and maximum building height, floor area ratio, and lot coverage. • Article 5 Section 8 - Changes to the City’s performance standards establish that uses in the IPM3 Zone are subject to performance standards, as well as in some cases to the City’s performance standards review procedure. In addition, changes establish that only transportation facilities open to the public are exempt from the City’s noise standards. Fully private transportation facilities developed in the IPM3 Zone will be subject to the City’s noise standards. City Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee was presented with the proposed Text Amendments at their June 12, 2018 Meeting. The Committee recommended approval of the proposed Text Amendments. Because several sets of Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are proposed for adoption at the same time, these Text Amendments share an Ordinance number, #2018-06, with two other sets of Amendments. See the DAC Reports for MI-18-06 and MI-18-07 for details on these other proposed amendments. The Committee recommended approval of the whole proposed Ordinance. The Ordinance received a First Reading at the June 25, 2018 City Council meeting. Because text amendments are proposed to the Zoning Ordinance, a Public Hearing and Recommendation by the Planning Commission are required. City Council will conduct a Public Hearing and take Final Action on proposed Ordinance #2018-06 at their meeting of August 27, 2018. At that meeting City Council may act to adopt the whole Ordinance, to adopt part of the Ordinance, and/or to make other amendments to the proposed text. Planning Review and Recommendations: Planning Staff developed the proposed Text Amendments for the IPM3 Zone and therefore, recommend their adoption. The Planning Office gave opportunity to Development Advisory Committee (DAC) members to comment on the proposed Text Amendments. However, none of the reviewing agencies gave substantive comments; only submissions received from Department of Public Works and DNREC- Groundwater Discharges Section.

MI-18-05 Text Amendments: IPM3 Zone Planning Commission Recommendation Report to City Council for August 27, 2018 Page 4 of 4 Planning Commission Review and Action Following a Public Hearing on July 16, 2018 where no members of the public spoke, the Planning Commission voted (9-0) to recommend approval of the proposed Text Amendment to create the IPM3 Zone. Discussion of the Planning Commission included questions on the process for development of the Ordinance to create a new zoning district. See the included Excerpt of the Meeting Minutes of the July 16, 2018 Planning Commission meeting.

CITY OF DOVER APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY JUNE 29, 2018 APPLICATION: Text Amendments: Addition of IPM3 Zone FILE #: MI-18-05 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Electric and Public Works Departments CONTACT PERSON: Jason A. Lyon, P.E. – Public Works CONTACT PHONE #: 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 WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / SANITATION / STREETS / GROUNDS 1. Our office has no objections to the proposed text amendments. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / STREETS / SANITATION / GROUNDS / GENERAL 1. None. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / SANITATION / STREETS / 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 .

From: Purnell, Maretta To: Melson-Williams, Dawn Subject: FW: City of Dover Ordinance Changes Date: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 10:03:06 AM From: Hayes, John G. (DNREC) <John.Hayes@state.de.us> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 9:21 AM To: Purnell, Maretta <MPurnell@dover.de.us> Cc: Tholstrup, Michael S. (DNREC) <Michael.Tholstrup@state.de.us> Subject: City of Dover Ordinance Changes Maretta, Good morning, I have reviewed the ordinance changes for the City of Dover and the Groundwater Discharges Section has no comments. Thank you. Jack John G. “Jack” Hayes, Jr. Environmental Program Manager Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Groundwater Discharges Section 89 Kings Highway Dover, DE 19901 John.hayes@state.de.us (302) 739-9327 (302) 739-7764 Fax

1 MI-18-05: Text Amendment: Creation of IPM3 Zone (Industrial Park Manufacturing- Industrial Aviation 2 and Aeronautics Center) 3 6/7/2018- Version 2.3 4 Article 3 Section 20B. - Industrial park manufacturing zone— Industrial Aviation and Aeronautics 5 Center (IPM3). 6 20B.1 Uses permitted. In an IPM3 zone, no building or premises shall be used and no 7 building or part of a building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended or designed to be 8 used, in whole or in part, for any purpose, except the following, and in accordance with 9 performance standards review procedure as set forth in article 5 sections 8.2 and 8.6, and 10 subject to site development plan approval as set forth in article 10, section 2: 11 20B.11 Airports, spaceports, and related facilities, including passenger terminals, cargo 12 facilities, hangars, refueling operations, parking facilities and other uses integral to 13 airport or spaceport operations. 14 20B.12 Commercial or industrial uses that are related to aviation or aeronautics and/or 15 require direct access to an airport, spaceport, or aviation/aeronautics services, including 16 assembly or sale of aircraft or spacecraft, air frames, aircraft or spacecraft engines, 17 associated parts and components, radios or navigational equipment, and similar 18 products or services. 19 20B.13 Public and institutional uses that support the aviation or aeronautics industries 20 such as aviation or aeronautics technical schools, security services, and inspection 21 facilities. 22 20B.14 Bulk storage of fuel, lubricants, fire suppression and other materials integral to 23 design, construction, testing, maintenance, or operation of aircraft or spacecraft. 24 20B.15 Printing, publishing, binding, packaging, storage, warehousing, and 25 transshipment and distribution. 26 20B.16 Business, professional, or administrative offices. 27 20B.17 Radio or television broadcasting towers, telecommunications towers, antenna 28 arrays, and receiving satellite dishes that support aviation, aeronautics, or related 29 operations. 30 20B.2 Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted, conditional upon the approval of 31 the planning commission in accordance with the procedures and subject to the general 32 conditions set forth in article 10, section 1: Service establishments such as auto rental and 33 travel agencies, commercial parking lots and garages, automobile service stations, car 34 washes, banks, gift shops, newsstands, bookstores, restaurants, bars, medical offices, postal 35 facilities, laundry services, and similar facilities available to airport or spaceport users and 36 employees. The application for conditional use shall clearly demonstrate the relationship of 37 the proposed use to an existing or proposed airport or spaceport. 38 20B.3 Uses prohibited. The following uses are specifically prohibited: 39 20B.31 Residences. 40 20B.32 Manufacturing uses involving primary production of the following products from 41 raw materials: Asphalt, cement, charcoal, and fuel briquettes; chemicals: aniline dyes, 42 ammonia, carbide, caustic soda, cellulose, chlorine, and carbon black and bone black,

43 creosote, hydrogen and oxygen, industrial alcohol, nitrates (manufactured and natural) 44 of an explosive nature, potash, and synthetic resins, pyroxylin, rayon yarn, and 45 hydrochloric, nitric, phosphoric, picric, and sulphuric acids; coal, coke, and tar products, 46 including gas manufacturing; explosives, fertilizers, glue, and size (animal); linoleum and 47 oil cloth; matches; paint, varnishes, and turpentine; rubber (natural or synthetic); [and] 48 soaps, including fat rendering. 49 20B.33 The following processes: nitrating of cotton or other materials; magnesium 50 foundry; reduction, refining, smelting, and alloying of metal or metal ores; refining 51 secondary aluminum; refining petroleum products, such as gasoline, kerosene, naphtha, 52 [and] lubricating oil; distillation of wood or bones; [and] reduction and processing of 53 wood pulp and fiber, including papermill operations. 54 20B.34 Operations involving stock yards, slaughter houses, and slag piles. 55 20B.35 Storage of explosives. 56 20B.36 Landfills. 57 20B.37 Quarries, stone crushers, screening plants, and storage of quarry screenings 58 accessory to such uses, except for temporary construction activities supporting a 59 specific construction project in the IPM-3 zone or the adjoining air facility, and lasting 60 only the duration of that construction project. 61 20B.38 Junkyards, automobile dismantling plants or storage of used parts of 62 automobiles or other machines or vehicles or of dismantled or junked automobiles. 63 20B.39 Public assembly facilities, including, but not limited to, churches, libraries, 64 sports fields, theaters, and amphitheaters. 65 20B.4 Tree planting requirements in the IPM3 zone. 66 20.B41 No new trees shall be planted within 120 feet of any pavement area taxied by 67 operational aircraft or spacecraft. For the purpose of fulfilling the tree density 68 requirements of Article 5, Section 16- Tree planting and preservation, the area of this 69 pavement plus the area of the 120-foot wide buffer around it shall be excluded from the 70 required development area for the property as defined in that section. 71 20.B42 All new trees shall be of a species that does not typically exceed 50 feet in 72 height at maturity. 73 20B.5 Site development plan approval. Site development plan approval, in accordance with 74 article 10, section 2 hereof, shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for the 75 erection or enlargement of all structures and prior to the issuance of certificates of 76 occupancy for any change of use. 77 20B.6 Performance standards. All uses in the IPM3 zone are subject to performance 78 standards as set forth in article 5, section 8, including any uses not subject to the 79 performance standards review procedure. 80 20B.7 Exemptions. Uses in the IPM3 zone are exempt from the following provisions of the 81 City of Dover Code of Ordinances: 82 20B.71 Outdoor storage trailers. Appendix B, Article 5, Section 7.4, where the use of 83 outdoor trailers for storage or distribution is a primary use of the site. 84 20B.72 Fences. Appendix B, Article 5, Section 7.5, where

85 a. Dover Air Force Base requires a more robust fence, in which case the fence 86 shall be constructed per Dover Air Force Base Standards; or 87 b. it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission that a 88 more robust fence is required for site safety and security reasons. In approving 89 a waiver for such a fence, the Commission shall consider the following factors: 90 i. The design of the proposed fence, including material and opacity. 91 ii. Whether there are residential land uses adjacent to or across the street 92 from the proposed fence. 93 iii. The proposed setback of the fence from the property line. 94 iv. Whether a berm or vegetated screen could feasibly be included in the 95 setback to screen the fence from view, without compromising the security 96 function of the fence or introducing vegetation hazardous to aircraft or 97 spacecraft operations. 98 20.B8 Compliance with AEOZ. Properties in the IPM3 zone shall not be exempt from the 99 requirements of Appendix B, Article 3 Section 22- Airport environs overlay zone (AEOZ). If the 100 proposed use of a property is permitted in the IPM3 zone but prohibited based on the 101 property’s location within an accident potential zone (APZ I and II), clear zone (CZ) or noise 102 zone, the use shall be prohibited on that property. 103 104 Article 3, Section 24. - Planned neighborhood design option [(PND)]. 105 24.1 General[ly]. 106 (a) Planned neighborhoods. In order to encourage superior residential environments through a unified 107 planning process, the planned neighborhood design option shall be permitted in R-20, R-15, R-10, R-8, 108 RM-1 and RM-2 zones as a conditional use subject to the provisions of article 10 of this ordinance and 109 after a determination by the planning commission that the proposed planned neighborhood design 110 presents a superior community design than would be possible under the conventional zone and is in 111 accordance with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. The minimum size required for a 112 planned residential development shall be 20 acres. 113 (b) Senior citizen housing option. In order to encourage the development of high quality housing 114 opportunities designed to accommodate the particular needs of senior citizens, the senior citizen housing 115 option shall be permitted in all zones as a conditional use, except in the M, IMP IPM, IPM2, IPM3, and C- 116 4 zones within which this option shall not be applicable. Preference shall be given to those projects which 117 are within close proximity to public transit services and which are situated within one-quarter mile of a 118 grocery store, pharmacy, restaurant, physician office, senior center or similar convenience service 119 establishment. 120 [rest of section omitted] 121 122 Article 4, Section 4.16. - M, IPM zones.

123 Bulk and parking regulations for industrial zones in M and IPM [districts are as follows]: IPM3 IPM IPM2 IPM (Planned For All Permitted Uses M (Conventional (Technology Industrial Park) Planned) Center) 2½ acres average; ½ Lot area 2½ acres 60,000 sq. ft. 10 acres acre 1 acre 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 a 50 100 100 100 50 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 the 1 1 1½ 1 1 requirement under the floor area calculation) Maximum permitted: Building height Stories 2 Not limit 2 Not limit Not limit Feet 35 Equal to 35 Equal to 75* distance to distance to

nearest lot nearest lot line line Floor area ratio 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lot coverage 85% 124 125 *Building height shall comply with all applicable Federal Aviation Administration, Department of 126 Defense, and Unified Facilities Criteria height restrictions and obstruction marking and lighting 127 standards. 128 129 Section 8. - Performance standards. 130 8.1 Dangerous and objectionable elements. No land or building in any zone shall be used or occupied 131 in any manner so as to cause any one or more of the following conditions to exist and to be 132 dangerous, injurious, noxious or offensive beyond the boundaries of such premises in such a 133 manner or in such amount as to adversely affect the reasonable use of the surrounding area or 134 adjoining premises: Fire, explosive or other hazard; noise, or vibration; smoke, dust, odor or other 135 form of air pollution; heat, cold, dampness or electromagnetic disturbance; glare, liquid or solid 136 refuse or waste; traffic congestion causing roadways or intersections in the surrounding highway 137 network to fall below acceptable levels of comfort and convenience; or other substance, condition or 138 element (referred to hereinafter as "dangerous or objectionable elements"), provided that any use 139 permitted or not expressly prohibited by this ordinance may be undertaken and maintained if it 140 conforms to the regulations of this section limiting dangerous and objectionable elements at the point 141 of the determination of their existence. 142 8.2 Uses requiring performance standards review procedure. Those uses in the C-3, IPM, IPM2, IPM3 143 and M zones and uses accessory thereto, which are specified as being subject to performance 144 standards review procedure, are subject to the procedure specified in article 5, section 8.6 in 145 obtaining a site plan approval. The city planner may require other uses, whether existing or proposed 146 and regardless of the particular zoning district, to submit to the performance standards review 147 procedure when there exists reasonable grounds to believe that a proposed use is in violation, or is 148 likely to violate, the performance standards, in which event, the property owner shall comply with 149 [the] performance standards review procedure. 150 8.3 Enforcement provisions applicable to other uses. Even though compliance with the performance 151 standards procedure in obtaining a site plan approval is not required for some proposed uses, initial 152 and continuing compliance with the performance standards themselves is required of every use, and 153 provisions for enforcement to ensure continued compliance with the performance standards shall be 154 invoked by the city planner against the property owner, tenant, or other responsible party if there are 155 reasonable grounds to believe that performance standards are being violated by a particular activity 156 or use. 157 8.4 Nonconforming uses. Certain uses established before the effective date of this ordinance and 158 nonconforming as to performance standards shall be given a reasonable time in which to conform 159 therewith, as provided in article 7, section 1.53.

160 8.5 Performance standards regulations. Where the following regulations overlap regulations of the 161 Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control or other state or local 162 agencies, the more restrictive regulations shall apply in case of a conflict: 163 8.51 Fire and explosion hazards. All activities involving, and all storage of, inflammable and 164 explosive materials shall be provided at any point with adequate safety devices against the hazard of 165 fire and explosion and adequate firefighting and fire suppression equipment and devices standard in 166 the industry. Burning of waste materials in open fires is prohibited at any point. The relevant 167 provisions of the state and local laws and regulations shall also apply. 168 8.52 Radioactivity or electromagnetic disturbance. No activities shall be permitted which emit 169 dangerous radioactivity at any point, or electromagnetic disturbance adversely affecting the 170 operation at any point of any equipment other than that of the creator of such disturbance. 171 8.53 Noise. The maximum sound pressure level radiated by any use or facility (other than 172 transportation facilities open to the public) at the property line shall not exceed the values in the 173 designated octave bands given in [the following] table I, after applying the corrections shown in [the 174 following] table II. The sound pressure level shall be measured with a sound level meter and 175 associated octave band analyzer conforming to standards prescribed by the American Standards 176 Association (American Standard Sound Level Meters for Measurement of Noise and Other Sounds, 177 Z243-1944, American Standards Association, Inc., New York, N.Y., and American Standard 178 Specification for an Octave Band Filter Set for the Analysis of Noise and Other Sounds, Z24.10- 179 1953, American Standards Association, Inc., New York, N.Y., shall be used). 180 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 30 181 182 If the noise is not smooth and continuous and is not radiated between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 183 a.m., one or more of the corrections in table II shall be applied to the decibel levels given in table I. 184 Table II Type of Location of Operation Correction in or Character of Noise Decibels 1. Daytime operation only

2. Noise source operates less than* a. 20 percent of any one-hour period 5 b. 05 percent [sic] of any one-hour period 10 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 within 500 feet of 5. any residential district*: a. Central commercial C-2 zone 5 Service commercial C-3 zone b. 10 Manufacturing M zone 6. Property is located in industrial park manufacturing zone IPM, IPM2, or IPM3 10 185 186 *Apply one of these corrections only. 187 8.54 [ Vibration. ] No vibration shall be permitted which is discernible without instruments at the 188 property line. 189 8.55 Smoke. No emission shall be permitted at any point, from any chimney or otherwise, of visible 190 grey smoke of a shade equal to or darker than No. 2 on the Power's Micro-Ringlemann Chart, 191 published by McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, Inc., and copyrighted 1954 (being a direct facsimile 192 reduction of the standard Ringlemann chart as issued by the United States Bureau of Mines), except 193 that visible grey smoke of a shade equal to No. 2 on said chart may be emitted for four minutes in 194 any 30 minutes. These provisions applicable to visible grey smoke shall also apply to visible smoke 195 of a different color, but with an apparently equivalent opacity. Any emission shall be in conformance 196 with air pollution regulations of the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental 197 Control. 198 8.56 Odors. No emission shall be permitted of odorous gases or other offensive odorous matter in 199 such quantities as to be readily detectable when diluted in the ratio of one volume of odorous air 200 emitted to four volumes of clean air. Any process which may involve the creation or emission of any 201 offensive odors shall be provided with a secondary safeguard system, so that control will be 202 maintained if the primary safeguard system should fail. There is hereby established as a guide in 203 determining such quantities of offensive odors Table III, Odor Thresholds, in chapter 5, "Air Pollution 204 Abatement Manual," copyright 1951 by Manufacturing Chemists' Association, Inc., Washington D.C., 205 and said manual and/or table as subsequently amended.

206 8.57 Fly ash, dust, fumes, vapors, gases, and other forms of air pollution. No emission shall be 207 permitted which can cause any damage to health, to animals, vegetation, or other forms of property, 208 or which can cause any excessive soiling, at any point, and/or which does not conform to air 209 pollution regulations of the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, 210 and, in no event, any emission, from any chimney or otherwise, of any solid or liquid particles in 211 concentrations exceeding 0.3 grain per cu. ft. of the conveying gas resulting from combustion. 212 Standard corrections shall be applied to a stack temperature of 500 degrees Fahrenheit and 50 213 percent excess air. 214 8.58 [ Glare. ] No direct or sky-reflected glare, whether from floodlights or from high-temperature 215 processes such as combustion or welding or otherwise, shall be permitted. This restriction shall not 216 apply to signs otherwise permitted by the provisions of this ordinance. 217 8.59 Liquid or solid wastes. No discharge shall be permitted at any point into any public sewer, 218 private sewage disposal system or stream, or into the ground, except in accord with standards 219 approved by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, of any 220 materials of such nature or temperature as can contaminate any water supply or otherwise cause the 221 emission of dangerous or offensive elements. 222 8.60 Traffic congestion. When, in the surrounding highway network, operating conditions are at or 223 near the design capacity level beyond which would result in functional failure of the surrounding 224 highway network. All speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform value. Freedom to 225 maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely difficult, and it is generally accomplished by forcing a 226 vehicle or pedestrian to "give way" to accommodate such maneuvers. Comfort and convenience 227 levels are extremely poor, and driver or pedestrian frustration is generally high. Operations at this 228 level are usually unstable, because small increases in flow or minor perturbations within the traffic 229 stream will cause functional failures beyond acceptable levels. (The conditions described in this 230 [sub]section are also used to describe "level of service E" as defined by the highway capacity 231 manual developed by the transportation research board, dated 1985.) 232 8.6 Performance standard procedure. 233 8.61 Application. An application for a site plan approval shall be accompanied with a performance 234 standard review application when a use or occupancy is required, and shall be referred by the 235 building inspector city planner to the planning commission. The applicant shall also submit, in an 236 amount equal to the required number of site plan submissions, a plan of the proposed construction 237 or development, including a description of the proposed machinery, operations, and products, and 238 specifications for the mechanisms and techniques to be used in restricting the emission of 239 dangerous and objectional elements referred to in article 5, section 8.1, in accordance with rules 240 prescribed by the planning commission specifying the type of information required in such plans and 241 specifications, and an affidavit by the applicant acknowledging his understanding of the applicable 242 performance standards and agreement to conform with same at all times. 243 No applicant will be required to reveal any secret processes, and any information submitted will be 244 treated as confidential if requested. The fee for such application shall include the cost of the special 245 reports required to process it, described below. 246 8.62 Report by expert consultants. The planning commission, if there is any reasonable doubt as to 247 the likelihood of conformance, shall refer the application for investigation and report to one or more 248 expert consultants qualified to advise as to whether a proposed use will conform to the applicable 249 performance standards specified herein. Such consultant or consultants shall make such report 250 within 30 days after his or their receipt of such application. A copy of such report shall be promptly 251 furnished to the applicant. 252 8.63 Decision of the planning commission. At the next regular meeting of the planning commission, 253 but in no event more than 30 days after the board has received the aforesaid report, or within such 254 further period as agreed to by the applicant, the board shall decide whether the proposed use will 255 conform to the applicable performance standards and, on such basis, shall authorize or refuse to

256 authorize the issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy, or require a modification of 257 the proposed plan of construction. Such decision of the commission shall be in the form of a written 258 report. Any building permit or certificate of occupancy so authorized and issued shall be conditioned 259 on, among other things: 260 (i) The applicant's completed buildings and installations in operation conforming to the 261 applicable performance standards, and 262 (ii) The applicant's paying the fees for services of the expert consultant or consultants 263 deemed reasonable and necessary by the planning commission for advice as to whether or 264 not the applicant's completed buildings and installations will, in operation, conform to the 265 applicable performance standards. 266 (Ord. of 4-25-1994; Ord. of 4-28-2008(2)) 267 REVISE THE FOLLOWING DEFINITION IN ARTICLE 12- DEFINITIONS: 268 Nonresidential zones: C-1, C-1A, C-2, C-2A, C-3, C-4, C-PO, RC, IO, M, IPM, IPM2, IPM3, SC-2, [or] SC- 269 3 [zone]. 270 271 SYNOPSIS: 272 The proposed ordinance adds a new zoning classification, IPM3 (Industrial Park Manufacturing 273 Zone- Industrial Aviation and Aeronautics Center), which is intended primarily to permit 274 businesses in aviation and aeronautics-related industries. The ordinance also creates bulk 275 standards for the new zone and makes minor changes to the performance standards to ensure 276 uses in the IPM-3 zone are covered under them. 277 278

PETITION TO AMEND TEXT of Dover Zoning Ordinance Report to the Dover City Council for August 27, 2018 Report on Recommendation of Planning Commission from July 16, 2018 with Development Advisory Committee Review Report Proposed Changes: Text Amendments to the following: • Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B: Zoning (Zoning Ordinance) o Article 6 – Off-Street Parking, Driveways, and Loading Facilities, Section 3 – Required Off-Street Parking Spaces o Article 4 – Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations, Section 4.15 – C-3, C-4, RC, IO Zones o Article 4 – Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations, Section 4.16 – M, IPM Zones Summary of Amendments: The proposed Text Amendments remove the maximum parking space limitation given in Article 6 of the Zoning Ordinance and replace it with new maximum lot coverage limitations for several zones where excessive parking lot size is of concern. The affected zones include the C-3, C-4, RC, IPM, IPM2, and M Zones. The Amendments will limit the amount of impervious surface allowed on properties in these zones. Ordinance Number: Proposed Ordinance #2018-06 File Number: MI-18-06 Planning Commission Action: Following a Public Hearing on July 16, 2018 where no members of the public spoke, the Planning Commission voted (8-1) to recommend approval of the proposed Text Amendment to replace the maximum parking requirement with new impervious cover (lot coverage) limitations. Discussion of the Planning Commission included questions on how to determine parking requirements, the definition of impervious surface coverage, the process for development of the lot coverage percentages proposed, selection of the method to regulate parking (number of spaces percentage rate vs. lot coverage rates), and the possible impacts on existing businesses and proposed development. See the included Excerpt of the Meeting Minutes of the July 16, 2018 Planning Commission meeting.

MI-18-06 Text Amendments: Replacement of Maximum Parking Standard Planning Commission Recommendation Report to City Council for August 27, 2018 Page 2 of 3 Attachments: • DAC Comments: Department of Public Works and DNREC – Groundwater Discharges Section • Proposed Text Amendment: Replacement of Maximum Parking Requirement • Excerpt of Draft Minutes from July 16, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting • Ordinance #2018-06 (Combination of the 3 Text Amendments on topics of IPM3 zone, parking, and vehicle signs) The following Report was prepared regarding MI-18-06 Text Amendments: Replacement of Maximum Parking Requirement. This includes the City Planner’s Report and comments received on the proposed Text Amendment. This information was provided to the Planning Commission for their July 16, 2018 meeting. MI-18-06 Development of the Text Amendments In 2009, the City adopted a Text Amendment to the parking regulations of the Zoning Ordinance establishing a maximum parking requirement (Ordinance #2009-12). Under this Amendment, the maximum number of parking spaces allowable for any use is set at 25% over the minimum parking spaces required. For instance, if by Code a new use is required to have at least 100 parking spaces, then they are also not permitted to have any more than 125 parking spaces. The intent of the amendment was to protect the City from projects proposing to build excessive amounts of parking. Businesses with much more parking than they need pose potential environmental risks (due to flooding from large amounts of stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces), potential safety risks (due to difficulty of monitoring large lots) and otherwise take up large amounts of space they rarely use. Though the 2009 Amendment was well intended, implementation has proved problematic. The percentage-based maximum severely limits small projects’ flexibility in terms of how much parking they can build. For instance, if by Code a new use is required to have at least 10 parking spaces, it can only build an additional 2 parking spaces before hitting the maximum. The maximum parking requirement is also problematic for specific kinds of uses with small buildings but large customer turnover, such as doctors’ offices and restaurants. Because the Amendment did not include any provisions for a waiver, relief from the maximum parking requirement has been a recurring variance request at the Board of Adjustment. The present proposed Text Amendments aim to preserve the intent of the 2009 Amendment while addressing its shortcomings. Rather than enacting an explicit maximum parking requirement, the new amendment limits parking by proxy, by establishing maximum impervious surface requirements for several zoning classifications that did not previously have any. These zones are the ones most prone to development of businesses with large parking lots. Limiting impervious surface coverage means that parking lot sizes are kept in check, because they must start sharing limited space with buildings and other impervious surfaces such as sidewalks. Developers are free to decide on an appropriate balance between the space given to parking, buildings, and other areas based on the needs of future businesses. The zones affected are the C-3 (Service Commercial Zone), C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone), RC (Recreational and Commercial Zone), M (Manufacturing Zone), IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone), and IPM2 (Industrial Park Manufacturing- Technology Center Zone). It is

MI-18-06 Text Amendments: Replacement of Maximum Parking Standard Planning Commission Recommendation Report to City Council for August 27, 2018 Page 3 of 3 noted that the IPM3 (Industrial Park Manufacturing - Industrial Aviation and Aeronautics Center) Zone proposed in a separate set of Text Amendments (MI-18-05) also would have a maximum impervious surface coverage established as part of its consideration. Current Proposed Text Amendments Key components of the proposed Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance include the following: • Article 4 Section 4.15 - Changes to this section set maximum impervious surface coverages for the C-3, C-4, and RC Zones at 80%, 75%, and 85% respectively. • Article 4 Section 4.16 - Changes to this section set maximum impervious surface coverages for the M, IPM (conventionally planned), IPM (planned industrial park) and IPM2 Zones at 85%, 75%, 65%, and 65% respectively. • Article 6 Section 3.11 - The text of the 2009 amendment is proposed to be removed entirely. City Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee was presented with the proposed Text Amendments at their June 12, 2018 Meeting. The Committee recommended approval of the proposed Text Amendments. Because several sets of Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are proposed for adoption at the same time, these Text Amendments share an Ordinance number, #2018-06, with two other sets of Amendments. See the DAC Reports for MI-18-05 and MI-18-07 for details on these other proposed amendments. The Committee recommended approval of the whole proposed Ordinance. The Ordinance received a First Reading at the June 25, 2018 City Council Meeting. Because text amendments are proposed to the Zoning Ordinance, a Public Hearing and Recommendation by the Planning Commission are required. City Council will conduct a Public Hearing and take Final Action on proposed Ordinance #2018-06 at their meeting of August 27, 2018. At that meeting City Council may act to adopt the whole Ordinance, to adopt part of the Ordinance, and/or to make other amendments to the proposed text. Planning Review and Recommendations: Planning Staff developed the proposed Text Amendments for replacement of the Maximum Parking Standard, and therefore, recommend their adoption. The Planning Office gave opportunity to Development Advisory Committee (DAC) members to comment on the proposed Text Amendments. However, none of the reviewing agencies gave substantive comments. Planning Commission Review and Action Following a Public Hearing on July 16, 2018 where no members of the public spoke, the Planning Commission voted (8-1) to recommend approval of the proposed Text Amendment to replace the maximum parking requirement with new impervious cover (lot coverage) limitations. Discussion of the Planning Commission included questions on how to determine parking requirements, the definition of impervious surface coverage, the process for development of the lot coverage percentages proposed, selection of the method to regulate parking (number of spaces percentage rate vs. lot coverage rates), and the possible impacts on existing businesses and proposed development. See the included Excerpt of the Meeting Minutes of the July 16, 2018 Planning Commission meeting.

CITY OF DOVER APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY JUNE 29, 2018 APPLICATION: Text Amendments: Replacement of Maximum Parking Requirement FILE #: MI-18-06 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Electric and Public Works Departments CONTACT PERSON: Jason A. Lyon, P.E. – Public Works CONTACT PHONE #: 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 WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / SANITATION / STREETS / GROUNDS 1. Our office has no objections to the proposed text amendments. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / STREETS / SANITATION / GROUNDS / GENERAL 1. None. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / SANITATION / STREETS / 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 .

From: Purnell, Maretta To: Melson-Williams, Dawn Subject: FW: City of Dover Ordinance Changes Date: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 10:03:06 AM From: Hayes, John G. (DNREC) <John.Hayes@state.de.us> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 9:21 AM To: Purnell, Maretta <MPurnell@dover.de.us> Cc: Tholstrup, Michael S. (DNREC) <Michael.Tholstrup@state.de.us> Subject: City of Dover Ordinance Changes Maretta, Good morning, I have reviewed the ordinance changes for the City of Dover and the Groundwater Discharges Section has no comments. Thank you. Jack John G. “Jack” Hayes, Jr. Environmental Program Manager Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Groundwater Discharges Section 89 Kings Highway Dover, DE 19901 John.hayes@state.de.us (302) 739-9327 (302) 739-7764 Fax

MI-18-06: Text Amendment: Replacement of Maximum Parking Requirement 7/6/18 Proposed additions are in blue text. Proposed deletions are in red strikethrough. Article 4, 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: 5 10,000 sq. 5,000 sq. Lot area acres ft. 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 to bldg. Rear yard (ft.) 10 50 15 15 height Side or rear yards which adjoin a 30 30 100 30 25 residence zone (ft.) Off-street parking Per 300 sq. ft. floor area or 1 1 1 1 1 Per employee (whichever is greater) 1 1 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 4-25-1994; Ord. No. 2008-33, 8-25-2008; Ord. No. 2014-08, 7-14-2014 ) Article 4, Section 4.16. - M, IPM zones. Bulk and parking regulations for industrial zones in M and IPM [districts zones are as follows]: IPM IPM2 IPM (Planned For All Permitted Uses M (Conventional (Technology Industrial Park) Planned) Center) 2½ acres ½ Lot area 2½ acres average; 60,000 10 acres acre sq. ft. minimum Lot width (ft.) 100 200 150 100 Lot depth (ft.) 150 300 250 100 Front yard (ft.) 40 60 60 60 Side yard (ft.) 20 40 40 40 Rear yard (ft.) 20 40 40 40 Side or rear yard which adjoins a 50 100 100 100 residential zone (ft.) Off-street parking space: Per 800 sq. ft. of floor area 1 1 1 1

Per employee, per largest working shift (if greater than the 1 1 1½ 1 requirement under the floor area calculation) Maximum permitted: Building height Stories 2 Not limit 2 Not limit Equal to distance Equal to distance Feet 35 35 to nearest lot line to nearest lot line Floor area ratio 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lot Coverage 85% 75% 65% 65% (Ord. of 3-24-1986; Ord. of 7-12-1993, § 1; Ord. of 8-23-1999; Ord. No. 2009-18, 10-12-2009) Article 6, Section 3. - Required off-street parking spaces. [Beginning of section omitted] 3.11 Maximum number of parking spaces. The maximum number of parking spaces shall not exceed 25 percent over the number of parking spaces required by the code. (Ord. of 12-14-1992(2); Ord. of 4-25-1994; Ord. of 9-13-1999; Ord. of 4-23-2007(4) ; Ord. No. 2009-12, 9-14-2009; Ord. No. 2009-30, 3-8-2010; Ord. No. 2011-29, 1-9-2012; Ord. No. 2011- 29, 1-9-2012; Ord. No. 2017-12 , 10-9-2017)

PETITION TO AMEND TEXT of Dover Zoning Ordinance Report to the Dover City Council for August 27, 2018 Report on Recommendation of Planning Commission from July 16, 2018 with Development Advisory Committee Review Report Proposed Changes: Text Amendments to the following: • Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B: Zoning (Zoning Ordinance) o Article 5 – Supplementary Regulations, Section 4 – Supplementary Sign Regulations Summary of Amendments: The proposed Text Amendments would give the City Planner guidance on whether or not a vehicle sign is permitted. Under current code, vehicle signs are always permitted except where the vehicle is inoperable or being used for the sole purpose of signage. The ordinance provides a list of criteria which the City Planner may use to determine if a vehicle is being used for the sole purpose of signage. Ordinance Number: Proposed Ordinance #2018-06 Staff Amendment #1/Planning Commission Amendment #1 • (Staff Amendment was recommended for approval by Planning Commission) File Number: MI-18-07 Planning Commission Action: Following a Public Hearing on July 16, 2018 where no members of the public spoke, the Planning Commission voted (9-0) to recommend approval of the proposed Text Amendment including Staff Amendment #1 to clarify Vehicle Signs. Planning Commission recommended approval of Staff Amendment #1. (Also titled as Planning Commission Amendment #1) Discussion of the Planning Commission included questions on the parking in identified striped parking spaces, parking at corner locations, frequency of deliveries/delivery vehicle parking, method of enforcement, and purpose of ordinance to establish criteria for determination if vehicle is being used a sign. See the included Excerpt of the Meeting Minutes of the July 16, 2018 Planning Commission meeting.

MI-18-07 Text Amendments: Vehicle Signs Planning Commission Recommendation Report to City Council for August 27, 2018 Page 2 of 4 Attachments: • DAC Comments: Department of Public Works and DNREC – Groundwater Discharges Section • Proposed Text Amendment: Vehicle Signs • Comparison of Original Text Amendment and Staff Amendment #1 • Excerpt of Draft Minutes from July 16, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting • Ordinance #2018-06 (Combination of the 3 Text Amendments on topics of IPM3 zone, parking, and vehicle signs) The following Report was prepared regarding MI-18-07 Text Amendments: Vehicle Signs. This includes the City Planner’s Report and comments received on the proposed Text Amendment. This information was provided to the Planning Commission for their July 16, 2018 meeting. MI-18-07 Development of the Text Amendments The City’s Sign Code was last updated to address vehicle signs in 2012. At that time the current wording of Zoning Ordinance, Article 5, Section 4.6(E) was put in place, prohibiting vehicle signs attached to vehicles that are inoperable or have the “sole purpose of being used as signage.” The current Code does not include any details on how the City should determine whether a vehicle is being used solely as signage. Because of this City Code Enforcement has had difficulty enforcing this rule, and several vehicles potentially in violation may be found with only a cursory drive around the City. The present amendments propose to establish a list of criteria with which the City can more effectively enforce its rule against vehicles being used solely as signage. Among the criteria are whether the sign is temporarily or permanently attached, whether the vehicle ever moves during normal business hours, whether the vehicle could be parked in a different location on the site, and others. A full list is available in the proposed Text Amendments (Article 5, Section 4.9(H)). According to the proposed Amendments, the City Planner would be the one to make a final determination on whether a sign is in violation. Current Proposed Text Amendments Key components of the proposed Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance include the following: • Article 5 Section 4.3 - The definition of “vehicle sign” has been modified slightly to include signs attached to utility trailers as well as motor vehicles. • Article 5 Section 4.5(Q) - With this change, vehicle signs are framed as a permitted use subject to conditions rather than a prohibited use. • Article 5 Section 4.6(E) - Vehicle signs are removed from the list of prohibited types of signs in favor of making them a permitted sign type subject to conditions (see above). • Article 5 Section 4.9(H) - This is a new subsection greatly expanding on considerations

MI-18-07 Text Amendments: Vehicle Signs Planning Commission Recommendation Report to City Council for August 27, 2018 Page 3 of 4 for vehicle signs. It establishes that vehicle signs in most cases do not need permits, but also prohibits vehicles from being used for the sole purpose of signage, and lists criteria by which the City Planner may determine that this is the case. It also maintains the prohibition against inoperable vehicles being used as signage. City Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee was presented with the proposed Text Amendments at their June 12, 2018 Meeting. The Committee recommended approval of the proposed Text Amendments after some discussion. Because several sets of Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are proposed for adoption at the same time, these Text Amendments share an Ordinance number, #2018-06, with two other sets of Amendments. See the DAC Reports for MI-18-05 and MI-18-06 for details on these other proposed amendments. The Committee recommended approval of the whole proposed Ordinance. The Ordinance received a First Reading at the June 25, 2018 City Council meeting. Because text amendments are proposed to the Zoning Ordinance, a Public Hearing and Recommendation by the Planning Commission are required. City Council will conduct a Public Hearing and take Final Action on proposed Ordinance #2018-06 at their meeting of August 27, 2018. At that meeting City Council may act to adopt the whole Ordinance, to adopt part of the Ordinance, and/or to make other amendments to the proposed text. Planning Review and Recommendations: Planning Staff developed the proposed Text Amendments for Vehicle Signs, and therefore, recommend their adoption. The Planning Office gave opportunity to Development Advisory Committee (DAC) members to comment on the proposed Text Amendments. However, none of the reviewing agencies gave substantive comments. Staff Amendment #1 Planning Staff heard concerns from Committee members at the June 12, 2018 meeting that the proposed Text Amendments still do not clearly indicate when a vehicle sign is in violation. Members were concerned that the Amendments may instead result in overreaching or arbitrary enforcement of the vehicle sign regulations. In response, the Planning Office developed Staff Amendment #1, which makes substantial changes to the proposal for the new Article 5, Section 4.9(H) subsection. The intentions of Staff Amendment #1 are the following: • Clarify that the City Planner must use the given criteria, rather than simply is able to use them. • Clearly indicate which condition in each criterion is the undesirable one indicating a vehicle is likely solely being used as signage. • Consolidate the list of criteria by joining together related ones and removing ones that are unlikely to have bearing on whether a vehicle is solely being used as signage. • Establish that no one criterion is sufficient by itself to say a vehicle is solely being used as signage. A vehicle being inoperable remains one of the criteria, so in such case only one other criterion would be needed. Article 5, Section 4.9(H) would read as follows under Staff Amendment #1: 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 and/or being used for the sole purpose of displaying signage.

MI-18-07 Text Amendments: Vehicle Signs Planning Commission Recommendation Report to City Council for August 27, 2018 Page 4 of 4 Vehicles shall be moved to a location not visible from the public right-of-way, or, if no such location is available at the business, 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. A direct comparison between the original version of Article 5, Section 4.9(H) and the version proposed by Staff Amendment #1 can be found in the attachments to this Report. Planning Commission Review and Action: Following a Public Hearing on July 16, 2018 where no members of the public spoke, the Planning Commission voted (9-0) to recommend approval of the proposed Text Amendment including Staff Amendment #1 to clarify Vehicle Signs. Planning Commission recommended approval of Staff Amendment #1. (Also titled as Planning Commission Amendment #1) Discussion of the Planning Commission included questions on the parking in identified striped parking spaces, parking at corner locations, frequency of deliveries/delivery vehicle parking, method of enforcement, and purpose of ordinance to establish criteria for determination if vehicle is being used a sign. See the included Excerpt of the Meeting Minutes of the July 16, 2018 Planning Commission meeting.

CITY OF DOVER APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY JUNE 29, 2018 APPLICATION: Text Amendments: Vehicle Signs FILE #: MI-18-07 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Electric and Public Works Departments CONTACT PERSON: Jason A. Lyon, P.E. – Public Works CONTACT PHONE #: 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 WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / SANITATION / STREETS / GROUNDS 1. Our office has no objections to the proposed text amendments. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / STREETS / SANITATION / GROUNDS / GENERAL 1. None. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / SANITATION / STREETS / 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 .

From: Purnell, Maretta To: Melson-Williams, Dawn Subject: FW: City of Dover Ordinance Changes Date: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 10:03:06 AM From: Hayes, John G. (DNREC) <John.Hayes@state.de.us> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 9:21 AM To: Purnell, Maretta <MPurnell@dover.de.us> Cc: Tholstrup, Michael S. (DNREC) <Michael.Tholstrup@state.de.us> Subject: City of Dover Ordinance Changes Maretta, Good morning, I have reviewed the ordinance changes for the City of Dover and the Groundwater Discharges Section has no comments. Thank you. Jack John G. “Jack” Hayes, Jr. Environmental Program Manager Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Groundwater Discharges Section 89 Kings Highway Dover, DE 19901 John.hayes@state.de.us (302) 739-9327 (302) 739-7764 Fax

MI-18-07: Text Amendment: Vehicle Signs 7/6/18 Proposed additions are in blue text. Proposed deletions are in red strikethrough. Article 5, Section 4. - Supplementary sign regulations. [Beginning of Section omitted] 4.3 Sign definitions. [Unchanged definitions omitted] 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. [Subsection 4.4 omitted] 4.5 Signs permitted in all districts and not requiring permits. A. Signs advertising the sale, lease, or rental of the premises upon which the sign is located, which sign shall not exceed six and one-fourth square feet in residential districts and 32 square feet in all other districts, and shall comply with setback regulations. One such sign shall be permitted for each 200 linear feet of street frontage for the parcel. B. Signs designating the name and address of the occupants, hours of operation, security notices, and business policy statements, and may not exceed four square feet. C. Signs denoting the architect, engineer, developer, or contractor placed on premises where construction, repair, or renovation is in progress, which signs shall not exceed 32 square feet in area. No more than two signs of any type are permitted for any one property or building project. Signs shall be 50 feet from other signs on the site, except where it is not physically possible, then the signs shall be as far away from the other sign as much as possible. D. Directional signs limited in area to no more than five square feet per sign, plus one square foot for each additional tenant. A permit is required for directional signs identifying the entrance or exit of a site if over five square feet in sign area. The sign area for these larger directional signs shall not exceed eight square feet and shall not be over four feet in height. E. Public signs. F. Historical and memorial signs. G. Any sign located in an internal location on a site, campus, or complex and that cannot be seen from any public right-of-way or adjacent property. H. People wearing costumes of the logo or character associated with the company as long as they are located on the business location. I. Political signs shall not be over six square feet in sign area in all Residential Zones and Districts and all other zoning districts shall comply with the size regulations in subsection 4.7 Permitted Signs, of this section. All election signs shall be removed no later than seven days after the election. J. Signs noting a tenant, store, building, etc. is "coming soon", which sign shall not exceed 32 square feet and only one sign is permitted on the site. The sign shall be 50 feet from other signs. The sign shall not be placed on the site for more than six months. After six months the sign shall be removed even if the tenant, store, building, etc. has not opened or been constructed.

K. Portable signs designed to be transported, including, but not limited to, A-frames, sandwich boards, and umbrellas. These types of signs shall not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular access. No more than one sign is permitted per business, and shall not exceed four feet in height.] L. Signs required by federal or state law or by a municipal authority. M. Signs carved into a building or raised in integral relief on a building. N. Flags on flag poles. O. Public art. P. "Open" signs for business not to exceed two per business. Q. Vehicle signs subject to the provisions of subsection 4.9-supplementary sign regulations, H., of this section. 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. Vehicle signs, including changeable signs, attached to or painted on vehicles for the sole purpose of being used as signage; or attached to or painted on inoperable vehicles. 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. 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. [Subsections 4.7 and 4.8 omitted] 4.9 Supplementary sign provisions. A. Window signs. 1. Three window signs shall be permitted as additional signage on walls fronting on the public right-of-way. 2. Window signs shall not cover more than 50 percent of any window exclusive of window and/or door frame.

3. Windows principally viewed from drive aisles and parking lots and not prominently visible from the public right-of-way shall be exempt from restrictions on the number of signs, and may be approved by the city planner for a window coverage area greater than 50 percent when the business elects to have less window signage than permitted on the windows fronting on, or prominently visible from, the public right-of-way. 4. Window signs shall be permitted on windows on the first floor of a building only. 5. The city planner may waive the provisions of this subsection when it has been demonstrated that the proposed window signs are of a unique or superior quality and style, and are intended to compliment the architectural design of the building, or when the business elects to use less wall signs than permitted for the purpose of complimenting the architectural design of the building. Signs granted this waiver are not exempt from the requirement to obtain a sign permit. B. Historic district signs. 1. All signs in the historic district must meet the standards laid out in the Design Standards and Guidelines for the City of Dover Historic District Zone. Any and all standards found elsewhere in this section may be waived as part of the architectural review approval when proposed signs are determined to contribute to or improve the historic context of the building. C. Gas station signage. 1. Canopy signs. (a) Canopy sign height shall not exceed 30 feet. (b) Canopy sign copy shall be directed toward a public street. (c) Canopy sign area shall be limited to no greater than 20 percent of the area of the canopy face to which the sign is applied. 2. Exempt signs. (a) State or federal required price per gallon signage shall not count towards overall sign area for the site, unless they exceed 32 square feet in size. (b) Price per gallon signs not exceeding two square feet, located on the pump itself. D. Temporary signs. 1. Temporary signs. Temporary signs for special events including inflatable signs with a surface area of less than 100 square feet and not more than 25 feet tall, may be erected on the premises of any establishment conducting a special event, provided that such signs do not exceed a total of two signs with a total of 100 square feet in sign area.. Temporary signage shall be displayed no longer than 90 days per calendar year. For grand openings, the maximum number, sign type, and allowable area may be waived by the city planner. Permits for such signs are required and shall be accompanied by a fee as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines. The city planner may waive the time period, not to exceed an additional 30 days, if they determine that there are extenuating circumstances requiring further time for a temporary sign. 2. Race weekend signs. During any seven-day period prior to the Saturday or Sunday that auto racing is occurring, temporary signs may be erected without a permit and with no restrictions on the number or size of the signs. 3. Inflatable signs. Permits for such signs are required and shall be accompanied by a fee as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines. (a) Inflatable signs with a surface area equal to or less than 100 square feet and not more than 25 feet tall are permitted in subsection 4.9—Supplementary Sign provisions, D.1., of this section and shall meet the following requirements:

i. The inflatable sign shall be setback from the edge of the right-of-way a minimum of 25 feet. ii. The inflatable sign shall be securely anchored to the building or ground. (b) Inflatable signs with a surface area over 100 square feet and not more than 25 feet tall are permitted only during grand opening events, community festivals, and during race weekends in accordance with subsection 4.9 Supplementary Sign provisions, D.1. and D.2., of this section and shall meet the following requirements: i. The inflatable sign shall be setback from the edge of the right-of-way a minimum of 25 feet. ii. A plot plan/survey is required showing the placement of the inflatable sign in respect to utility lines and traffic. iii. The inflatable sign shall be securely anchored to the building or ground. E. Motor vehicle sales lots. This subsection allows motor vehicle sales lots to compensate for their likelihood to be mistaken for ordinary parking lots unless additional signs or other attention getting devices are placed in the sales area. It has also been demonstrated that these businesses tend to have smaller buildings relative to their land area diminishing their ability to effectively use wall signs. 1. Banners are permitted on motor vehicle sales lots with a permit. Such banners may be permitted at a rate not to exceed one banner for each ten motor vehicle parking/storage spaces on the premises, and any such banner shall not be situated closer than 50 feet of any other banner on the premises. Parking spaces required for employees, customers, and service department uses shall not be counted to calculate the number of banners. The term "banner" does not include pennants, streamers, balloons, or other temporary or permanent signs. 2. Banners shall not exceed a width of three feet. 3. All banners must be securely attached to light standards, poles, or other substantial mounting hardware. Except for temporary signs permitted under the provisions of subsection 4.9— Supplementary sign provisions, D., of this section, all banners must be constructed of a permanent, weather resistant material. F. Shared freestanding signs. 1. For adjoining nonresidential properties, a freestanding sign structure may be shared among adjoining property owners or businesses solely for the purpose of identification of the adjoining premises or businesses. 2. Where multiple property owners have agreed to share a freestanding sign as referenced in subsection 4.4—Design requirements, of this section, the shared freestanding sign shall be entitled to a combined sign area bonus of not more than 50 percent over the freestanding sign area otherwise permitted for the property on which the shared freestanding sign would be placed. 3. The permit application for a shared freestanding sign shall be accompanied by a binding legal agreement between the multiple adjoining property owners and/or businesses which describes the ownership and maintenance obligations for such shared sign. G. Single buildings with multiple commercial tenant spaces or facades. 1. Structures, such as shopping centers, which contain multiple commercial tenant spaces, are permitted to have at least one wall sign on each unit. This provision shall only apply to units on the first floor of the structure. 2. When a structure is designed so that there are distinctly different facades or sections of the building along a single frontage, at least one wall sign is permitted on each facade or section of the building.

3. Multi story office buildings with multiple tenants are permitted one wall sign per tenant. Signs shall not be located above the second story. H. Vehicle and utility trailer signs. Vehicles or utility trailers driving in the public right-of-way, or temporarily parked in an approved parking area, 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 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 may use the following criteria; it is not necessary that any one of or all the listed criteria be present to determine that the vehicle is inoperable or being used for the sole purpose of displaying signage. 1. Whether the sign is painted upon or applied in a permanent manner directly to an integral part of the vehicle or utility trailer or merely temporarily attached to the vehicle or utility trailer. 2. Whether, during the normal business hours of operation of the business, the vehicle or utility trailer is moved or remains in a stationary location. 3. Whether the vehicle or utility trailer is regularly parked in a location or manner to be prominently displayed to the public. 4. Whether other nearby signage for the business is provided by a free-standing sign or wall sign. 5. Whether the vehicle or utility trailer is suitable for and actively used in the daily function of the business to which such signs relate. 6. Whether the sign includes directional copy or symbols that would only be applicable if parked near the use. 7. Whether there is available parking in another location on the site. 8. Whether the vehicle sign is being used to advertise the sale of the vehicle or utility trailer, or other nearby vehicles or utility trailers. 9. Vehicles and utility trailers shall be deemed inoperable if they are not properly and currently registered and tagged; if they are damaged or disabled as to not immediately be movable; if they are raised off the ground in any way; if they cannot be started and moved off their location; or if they are missing required equipment enabling them to travel on a public roadway. [End of section omitted] (Ord. of 2-12-2001; Ord. No. 2009-09, 6-22-2009; Ord. No. 2009-19, 10-12-2009; Ord. No. 2012-13, 8-13-2012)

Comparison of new subsection Article 5 Section 4.9(H), original proposal vs. Staff Amendment #1 Blue text is wording of the original proposed Text Amendment. Blue Strikethrough is wording of the original proposed Text Amendment proposed to be removed under Staff Amendment #1. Green Text is wording proposed to be added under Staff Amendment #1. H. Vehicle and utility trailer signs. Vehicles or utility trailers driving in the public right-of-way, or temporarily parked in an approved parking area, 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 and/or being used for the sole purpose of displaying signage. Vehicles shall be moved to a location not visible from the public right-of-way, or, if no such location is available at the business, as far away from the public right-of-way as possible. In making the determination, the city planner may shall use the following criteria; it is not necessary that any specific combination, or all of, the listed criteria be present to determine that the vehicle is inoperable or being used for the sole purpose of displaying signage. at least two criteria shall be met before this section requires moving a vehicle: • Whether the sign is painted upon or applied in a permanent manner directly to an integral part of the vehicle or utility trailer or merely temporarily attached to the vehicle or utility trailer. The sign is temporarily attached to the vehicle or utility trailer, rather than painted on or applied in a permanent manner. • 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. • Whether, during the normal business hours of operation of the business, the vehicle or utility trailer is moved or remains in a stationary location. The vehicle or utility trailer does not move during the normal business hours of operation of the business. • Whether the vehicle or utility trailer is regularly parked in a location or manner to be prominently displayed to the public. 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. • Whether other nearby signage for the business is provided by a free-standing sign or wall sign. • Whether the vehicle or utility trailer is suitable for and actively used in the daily function of the business to which such signs relate. • Whether the sign includes directional copy or symbols that would only be applicable if parked near the use. • Whether there is available parking in another location on the site. • Whether the vehicle sign is being used to advertise the sale of the vehicle or utility trailer, or other nearby vehicles or utility trailers. • Vehicles and utility trailers shall be deemed inoperable if they are not properly and currently registered and tagged; if they are damaged or disabled as to not immediately be movable; if they are raised off the ground in any way; if they cannot be started and moved off their location; or if they are missing required equipment enabling them to travel on a public roadway. 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.

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 2018 Excerpt from Meeting Minutes The Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, July 16, 2018 at 7:00 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers with Chairman Mr. Tolbert presiding. Members present were Mr. Holden, Mr. Roach, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Holt, Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones, Mrs. Welsh, Ms. Maucher and Mr. Tolbert. Staff members present were Mr. Dave Hugg, Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mr. Eddie Diaz and Mr. Julian Swierczek. 2) Series of Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance: The three sets of Text Amendments are grouped into Proposed Ordinance #2018-06. They are available on the City’s website www.cityofdover.com under the Government Heading: Ordinances, Resolutions & Tributes. https://www.cityofdover.com/ordinances-and-resolutions. The Planning Commission will conduct a Public Hearing on each Text Amendment for recommendation to City Council. The Final Reading/Public Hearing at City Council is scheduled for Monday, August 27, 2018 at 7:30pm. a. MI-18-05 Text Amendments: Addition of IPM3 Zone (Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §20 & 24, Article 4 §4.16, Article 5 §8, and Article 12) – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council of Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, principally Article 3 §20 - Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone. The proposed ordinance adds a new subsection 20B for the IPM3 Zone (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone- Industrial Aviation and Aeronautics Center). The new zone is an industrial zone focused on permitting businesses in aviation and aeronautics- related industries. Changes are also made to the City’s Bulk Standards and Performance Standards to ensure the new uses will be covered under those standards. Representative: None Mr. Diaz stated that there are three sets of proposed text amendments. They are all going to be part of the same Ordinance update to the Zoning Ordinance if recommended, when they go to City Council next month. The first amendment is the proposed addition of an IPM3 Zone to the Zoning Ordinance. This designation would be similar to the existing IPM and IPM2 zones and that would be a zoning primarily focused on industrial parks. It would be different in that this is titled to be the Industrial Aviation and Aeronautics Zone which would be a zone focused mainly on aircraft and aviation related uses. The reason for adding this zone to the Zoning Ordinance was concerns by the runners of the Civil Air Terminal in Dover and hoping to do some development of the Kent County Aero Park that is next to them to build industry in that area. If this zone designation is successfully added to the Zoning Ordinance, they would follow up this process with a Comprehensive Rezoning to rezone some properties in that area to the new zoning designation in order to ultimately develop that industrial park with aviation and aeronautics related uses. The zoning designation includes a number of provisions designed to basically make it easier for developments of that type to be in the zone; things like a reduction in the typical tree planting requirement because trees can attract birds and other wildlife that may interfere with aviation uses. The Text Amendment contains a full list of the changes that are proposed for that zone. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 16, 2018 Page 1 of 9

Mr. Tolbert opened the public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Ms. Maucher questioned if it would have been possible to amend an existing ordinance rather than creating a new one or was the detail that was required so sufficient to require a new ordinance? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Diaz stated that during the discussions that they had with the representatives of the Kent County Aero Park, there were a number of options that were discussed at the beginning. One of them was amending the existing Industrial Park zones to allow aviation related uses but in the end they thought that they don’t want to open the other industrial parks in the City to these types of uses because they are really supposed to benefit from proximity to the Civil Air Terminal and the Air Force Base itself. That is why they thought that a new zoning district would be the most appropriate course of action. Dr. Jones moved to recommend approval to City Council for MI-18-05 Text Amendments: Addition of IPM3 Zone (Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §20 & 24, Article 4 §4.16, Article 5 §8, and Article 12), seconded by Mrs. Welsh and the motion was carried 9-0 by roll call vote. Mr. Holden voting yes; due to Staff comments and he thinks the potential economic benefit for our regional footprint is impactful. Mr. Roach voting yes. Ms. Edwards voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mr. Holt voting yes; due to Staff comments and the work that they put into it. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Dr. Jones voting yes; for the reasons previously stated. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; for the reasons previously stated. Ms. Maucher voting yes; for the reasons previously stated. Mr. Tolbert voting yes; for all of the reasons stated and this change is absolutely needed. b. MI-18-06 Text Amendments: Replacement of Maximum Parking Requirement (Zoning Ordinance, Article 4 §4.15 & §4.16, and Article 6 §3) – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council of Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance in Article 4 and Article 6 to remove the existing maximum parking standard and replace it with new impervious cover (lot coverage) limitations where excessive parking lot size is of particular concern in commercial and industrial zones. The existing standard sets maximum parking for any use at 125% of the minimum required. Under these Text Amendments, this standard would be replaced with lot coverage limitations for the C-3, C-4, RC, IPM, IPM2, and M Zones, all of which currently lack any such limitations. Representative: None Mr. Diaz stated that this text amendment is intended to address a provision in the Zoning Ordinance that has been a frequent concern of developers and also a frequent request of relief at the Board of Adjustment. The current Zoning Ordinance has a maximum parking requirement. The Zoning Ordinance sets for pretty much all uses, a minimum parking requirement that is based on things like square footage or number of employees or apartment units. It is a greatly varying list of possible things determining what that number is but there is also a maximum parking requirement that is set at a uniform 25% over the minimum. While this amendment has been intended to combat the proliferation of extremely large parking lots that often are not filled to capacity, the Ordinance has caused problems especially for very small businesses that have greatly reduced flexibility due to the 25% over limit. For instance, if you have a business that requires ten parking spaces they are only allowed to build an additional two spaces before hitting the maximum. Because this Ordinance has not been really functioning as intended, they propose Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 16, 2018 Page 2 of 9

to replace it with a new way to control the size of very large parking lots and that is to institute a maximum impervious surface coverage for a number of the zones in the City. Particularly, it is for the more intensive commercial zones where such an impervious surface coverage requirement did not previously exist. It is different for each of the zones but it would be in the 65% to 85% maximum lot coverage for the zones that do not previously have this designation. They believe that this will work towards controlling the parking lot size problem. Ms. Edwards questioned how we currently determine the amount of impervious surface and if we remove that and replace it with a maximum lot coverage, what would the new calculation look like? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mr. Diaz stated that the current lot coverage is determined by adding up the total square footage of all impervious surfaces on the property; so it includes the buildings, the parking lot and any sidewalks. For residential properties, it includes driveways, patios, etc. It does include gravel areas if the property is legally able to have those. The intent is that by putting a limit on maximum lot coverage for these zones that did not previously have any that the developers will have to basically make a balance between the building, the parking lot and other impervious surface areas. If they wanted to have a bigger parking lot, then they may need to have a smaller building. Those considerations previously, often did not come into play when developing the intensive commercial zones and industrial zones such as the C-3, C-4 and the IPM Zones. Ms. Edwards further questioned how we now determine the number of parking spaces? Is it based on square footage of the building? Is it based on the number of people who are going to occupy the building or the number go businesses that occupy a building? How do we determine that now? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mr. Diaz stated to determine the minimum parking that is required, there are a variety of ways that are used. In most cases, it is based on the square footage of the building or the number of employees who are employed in the building; whichever is greater. There are also a number of specific uses that are listed in Article 6 of the Zoning Ordinance that have their own parking requirements that are specific to that use. Ms. Edwards questioned how we would determine the new amount of parking space? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mr. Diaz stated that the way to calculate the minimum number of parking spaces would not change under this Ordinance. Mr. Holden questioned if this creates new and/or increase in the allowable lot coverage ratios? Are we bumping up numbers that were previously a less percentage of maximum allowable lot coverage? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr. Diaz stated that this Ordinance is introducing maximum lot coverages for zones that did not previously have any maximum lot coverages. For instance, for the C-4 Zone the previous maximum lot coverage was not specified. By specifying a specific lot coverage, they can assume to be reducing the maximum lot coverages from previously allowed 100%. Mr. Holden stated that the IO and CPO Zones did have previous maximum lot coverages. Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr. Diaz stated that is correct. Mr. Holden stated that as he understands this, the maximum allowable parking spaces now is really just limited by how much of that lot coverage percentage an applicant wants to utilize for parking. Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr. Diaz stated yes, that is correct. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 16, 2018 Page 3 of 9

Mr. Holden stated that he thinks the maximum parking spot limitation was driven in some part to protect against a big box store or others from creating a sea of parking that might be desired to create easy parking and easy access to a store where from an aesthetic or other standpoint; we don’t necessarily want seas of parking in the City. His concern here is that you can get around any of that by just buying more land and putting a sea of parking around it. Did we consider an approach to take the 125% to 150%? It makes him a little uncomfortable in his view to remove a maximum for any extent practical purpose. Is there another approach that was considered? Why go this route? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr. Diaz stated that when they first started having this discussion, they did talk about increasing the maximum allowed parking from that 25% ratio to a higher one or potentially introducing a tiered system, for instance, if your business requires a very small amount of parking spaces it would be a higher allowed maximum. For instance, the ten spaces that he previously mentioned could go up to 200% and then when you get to like twenty-five spaces it could go down to 150%. The problem with that was that it created sort of pinch points in the tiers where if you were required just one parking space more or one parking space less than the maximum you allowed would be drastically different. For that reason, they thought that it would be best to scrap the maximum all together and look for a different solution. Mr. Holden stated that it is a challenge but he thinks that he would really much prefer to find if we had a tiered approach or a simple equation that related the parcel size or development size to account for those smaller lots. That 150% addition is only an additional half parking spot. If an application with a big box store wants a sea of parking, they just need to buy a parcel big enough to build a sea of parking and accommodate their store. How does this approach guard against that concern? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr. Diaz stated that there is only so much developable land in Dover. The big open areas where one could potentially build a parking lot, there aren’t as many as their used to be. If an applicant wants to buy land and demolish buildings specifically to build just parking; he is talking about removing productive uses specifically so that they can add to their parking area is going to be a business consideration that they are going to make. He doesn’t know if that makes Mr. Holden more comfortable or not but he doesn’t think that it’s likely that they would do that. Mr. Holden stated that there are large lots left. The lot on the south side of Home Depot for example, that’s a big area. Those maximums were created at some point to guard against applicants that they had and the perception of some of the commercial businesses and the paving areas that we do have within those. He thinks that the reality is there that are some businesses may push there. He would like a tool that allows them some purview over that and he doesn’t see a need why that can’t be at the Planning Commission. At times, they have had applicants come and provide information from other stores that supports that their specific use really demands a specific amount of parking. He thinks that this group has been very open to those discussions. Increasing that ratio whether via tiered or via a simple equation that doesn’t create those tier pinch points, gives us that ability without having to send the applicant to the Board of Adjustment which he thinks is negatively impactful for economic growth when you have that uncertainty. He thinks that the Planning Commission is typically very open to working with the applicant. He would really rather see this reworked in that fashion. Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr. Hugg stated that when they first considered this approach, one of the analysis that Staff did was to actually look at majority of the larger development projects that have occurred in Dover in the last four or five years and also the number of variances to the parking requirements that have come before the City for approval. These numbers were not picked out of the air; they were sort of tied back to what they are actually seeing applicants ask for variances to actually develop. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 16, 2018 Page 4 of 9

The difficulty that we have is rather is 125, 150 or 160 or whatever the number is, it’s an extremely arbitrary number that as soon as you set it you have an exception that has to be granted because it creates that particular use difficulty. It seemed to them that there were really kind of two objectives here. The first one was to address this issue of if you have a doctor’s office and the Code says you have to have ten spaces and the maximum that you can have is 12.5 then you probably still don’t have enough parking. Doctor’s offices and those kinds of uses have sort of peaks and valleys and high turnover and may very well need twenty-five parking spaces. A bakery may not need that kind of turnover. Coming up with a standard or set of percentages or maximums seemed to be pretty much unworkable. The other objective was to put some of the decision making burden back on the developer and say you’ve got a choice now. You can’t exceed 65% coverage so you figure out what makes the most economic sense. As Mr. Diaz said, that puts the choice of do they go for a lot of parking and end up with a much smaller building or do they go with a bigger building and modify the parking. Those kinds of decisions belong in the hands of the developers and the people who are doing the development. He doesn’t think that it belongs in the hands of Staff to say that it says a certain number. This is one of the half a dozen or so major obstacles that he heard fourteen months ago when he came on board from the development community. They said that Staff was trying to put a box around some of these decisions that either didn’t fit and made them come back here and ask for a waiver for their parking or just created some difficulties that didn’t seem to aid in economic development. It’s always a challenge to figure out what kind of approach works best. Starting with what has been the actual experience over the last five years with a variety of development projects is how they came up with these 65% and 75% limitations. It’s probably the realistic approach to making these kinds of decisions rather than saying you can’t have more than 125% of something. Ms. Edwards questioned how this amendment affect existing businesses? In Mr. Hugg’s example of the doctor’s office who may need twenty-five spaces but only has twelve. How does this amendment effect existing businesses or is this just strictly for new construction? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mr. Hugg stated that this would be proactive. If an existing business is already under that limitation like any other they come back and go through the approval process again and modify their plan. For new businesses, this would give them that flexibility. There is just a handful of these that really create issues because they have doctor’s offices, restaurants and certain kinds of businesses have very high parking peaks. At 3PM in the afternoon there is nobody parked there, from 5-9PM there are people parked everywhere and at 9PM there is no need for parking so that standard just doesn’t work well as an absolute. Ms. Maucher questioned if Staff had reviewed this with the development community and do they seem satisfied that these percentages would work for them to avoid issues going forward? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Hugg stated that this proposal has been shared with a number of the developers and the people that were involved in the group that he put together when he first came on board to look out how to solve this problem in an effective and efficient manner. He thinks that some of the engineering community generally feels much better working with figuring out 65% impervious cover because they can manipulate how they use the lot and how they deal with stormwater and other things as opposed to trying to fight to get to an artificial number or come in with a variance. Mr. Tolbert stated that if this amendment is approved it will give the Planning Office more flexibility in parking requirements. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 16, 2018 Page 5 of 9

Mr. Tolbert opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Ms. Maucher moved to recommend approval to City Council for MI-18-06 Text Amendments: Replacement of Maximum Parking Requirement (Zoning Ordinance, Article 4 §4.15 & §4.16, and Article 6 §3) to give more flexibility in the maximum number of parking spaces, seconded by Mrs. Welsh and the motion was carried by 8-1 roll call vote. Mr. Holden voting no; he thinks that they can accomplish the same thing via a method that does provide some maximums but with greater certainty to the development community. Mr. Roach voting yes; to give the Planning Staff the flexibility and the Commission is still able to vote on it when it comes to them. Ms. Edwards voting yes; she presumes that if it’s determined at some point in time in the future that this does not work as amended then they would take a look at it at that point. Mr. Holt voting yes. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Dr. Jones voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Ms. Maucher voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mr. Tolbert voting yes; it does provide some flexibility and if at some point in time they need to change it then it can come back before the Commission. c. MI-18-07 Text Amendments: Vehicle Signs (Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §4) – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council of Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §4 intended to clarify what qualifies as a vehicle being used for the sole purpose of signage. Under the current Ordinance, vehicles are not permitted to be used for the sole purpose of signage. The Text Amendments would provide a list of criteria the City Planner can use to make a determination that this provision has been violated. It also specifies that vehicles in violation are to be moved to an area of the property where they are not visible or less visible. Representative: None Mr. Diaz stated that this amendment regards signs that are placed on vehicles. He is sure everyone here has seen a vehicle that has a sign on it, whether it’s a Domino’s Pizza truck or a Comcast truck or a truck that has a banner saying please come this way to our business. There is currently in our Ordinance a provision that says that vehicles cannot be used for the sole purpose of signage; however, the Inspections Office has had trouble enforcing this provision in the past because there isn’t a clear definition of what “used solely for the purpose of signage” really means. If you drive around the City today you can see a number of vehicles that move rarely or not at all that have logos belonging to nearby businesses on them. But it has not been easy to determine for certain that all of these vehicles are in fact being used for the “sole purpose of signage.” The purpose of this Ordinance amendment is to give the Planning and Inspections Office some clarity and criteria on how to actually apply this requirement so that moving forward into the future they can make sure that they are able to enforce the Ordinance. The major part of it gives a list of criteria that the Planning Office can use to make determinations. There is also a Staff amendment on the table that has done some work to consolidate those criteria into a few more concise ones. It also clarified the number of criteria that would need to be met before a determination could be made. The Ordinance can be either recommended as it stands tonight or recommended with inclusion of the Staff Amendment. Ms. Maucher questioned if Staff could give them an idea of what problem this is meant to cure? Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 16, 2018 Page 6 of 9

Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Hugg stated like that Thai Restaurant van parked in the parking lot with a one-way directional arrow on it saying “Thai Restaurant”. That is clearly a vehicle being used for sign purposes; it never moves and it would make no sense if it were turned around in the other direction. When the mulch guy was on DuPont Highway near the Indian restaurant, there was a big van truck out there that said “Mr. Mulch”. That vehicle never moved and it was clearly an advertising sign. The Cold Stone Ice Cream place had a van parked for a long period of time that never moved and was clearly being used as advertising. The former La Tolteca had a van box truck backed in at an angle clearly taking advantage of that issue. When he did a survey earlier in the year looking at this issue which was actually brought to his attention by a member of City Council, he thinks that there were 12 or 13 potential violations. They were really questions of is this vehicle being used solely for the purposes of a sign because they didn’t have any real criteria. That said, does it go home at night, is it backed away from the highway at night time, is it moved around or do they make deliveries in it? It was very difficult to bring any kind of enforcement action. The desire was to provide some criteria so that there would be some basis for making that kind of determination; being equitable to other people who aren’t allowed to have trucks with signs on them and have to meet sign requirements; and to avoid the proliferation of these kinds of vehicles up and down the highway. He does want to make the point for the record too that the Staff Amendment is a result of the discussions that took place at the Council Committee of the Whole Workshop. They received important input from that meeting to make sure that they were achieving the desire that they were hoping to receive but not penalizing people who had vehicles that had signs on them that were used in the regular course of business. Staff recommends the Amendment which is the version of the Ordinance that was recommended from the Council Committee of the Whole for consideration by the Planning Commission. Mr. Holden stated that he appreciates this potential opportunity to address some of those issues that were just described. He wonders if they have thought of if the vehicles are parked in an identified parking spot. He can think of a few of these potential uses of a vehicle really kind of a sign first and only where they park a vehicle on a corner. He thinks is a safety concern but also isn’t really an identified parking spot although it is within a lot where there is specified striping. Is there an avenue to or has there been some consideration of including a criteria item that would identify vehicles that are routinely parked in areas that are not specified striped parking spots? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr. Hugg stated that where people are parking vehicles generally is subject to a number of provisions already in the Code that relate to where vehicles are parked. This particular issue has to do primarily with the question of business signage and the use of vehicles as a sign for a business. It is a much stricter focus. Mr. Holden stated that he thinks of the staffing agency that is next to the deli on Governors Avenue just a couple businesses down from the Becker Morgan Group. They typically park the van with signage on it cattycorner right on the corner so that it’s almost on top of the sidewalk. It’s right on the backside of the historical Green and there certainly doesn’t seem to be a striped parking spot there. Within the specific attempt to address vehicles being used as signs inappropriately, has there been discussion over adding criteria that would allow you to address those if they were not parked in identified striped parking spots or is that not needed because of the other parking criteria within the City? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr. Diaz stated that one of the criteria is that if a vehicle is parked so that its signage is currently displayed to the public when a more discrete parking space is available on-site, they would consider that pointing to that vehicle being solely used as signage. In the case that Mr. Holden mentioned with the vehicle Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 16, 2018 Page 7 of 9

cattycornered, it sounds like it is parked in a location specifically to be very prominently displayed to the public. Since there are parking spaces available on the lot that it could use then it should be using those instead of the cattycorner under this criteria. Mr. Holden stated that he would suggest maybe adding a criteria that allows Planning Staff the discretion that if it meets one of the other criteria and is also parking itself in an area that is not an identified striped parking spot then it would give an additional criteria tool to address the issue that he thinks they are trying to address here. Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr. Hugg stated that he thinks that he understands what Mr. Holden is suggesting. That would not be a provision that would be in the vehicle sign provisions which is what this particular amendment solely addresses. There are existing requirements and Staff can certainly go back if some of them need to be addressed as well. He knows that you can’t park in a manner that blocks the line of sight at an intersection and you can’t park a vehicle on the grass. There is a whole series of parking related issues that perhaps they should take another look at but this particular issue was intended to deal solely with the applicability of the sign provisions and vehicles. He is not sure that this is the right section of the Ordinance to address some of those provisions of someone parking in a non-designated area or parking in a manner that blocks sight or creates a traffic hazard. Mr. Holden stated that he thought it’s another manner to reflect a vehicle being used specifically to be a sign and it would help if we are looking for tools or criteria that make that clear. Ms. Maucher questioned if this is going to create problems for the small business that might have a vehicle for deliveries and they only deliver two or three times a day and the car doesn’t go home, it stays at the place of business? In the Cold Stone example, they might do deliveries but not that frequently but when they do they want their signage on their vehicle. Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Hugg stated that he thinks it actually does the opposite. He thinks that it clarifies the conditions under which those kinds of activities occur. One of the criteria is, does the vehicle move at all during normal business hours? There are numerous vehicles with business signs on them that are used for those types of purposes that are moved during the day and that clearly have a signage value but they are not being used solely for a sign. By having a criteria regarding if the vehicle moves during normal business hours, the operation of the business needs to reflect the fact that they are trying to separate out those vehicles that are backed into a space or backed up next to the highway and sit there. Clearly in some cases, they can become inoperable which there are other Code provisions to deal with that. Mr. Holt questioned if there anything that you would give somebody that objected some of the things in this Ordinance? Maybe they have some reason for that sign on that vehicle. Is there an opportunity for them to come before the City or this group and express their concerns on why they feel that their sign is necessary? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. Hugg stated that the administration of this Ordinance would fall under the Code Enforcement section and if someone was cited then there are appeal mechanisms for seeking recourse to that situation. He doesn’t think that we need to specify that here since it is already provided for elsewhere in the Ordinance. Clearly, the idea here is that Code Enforcement Staff now has the opportunity to not have to make a hard judgment call on whether the vehicle is being solely used for signs or not. Mr. Tolbert stated that all businesses pretty much have their names on their vehicles. He is thinking of one business in particular; the businesses that rent furniture. They have several vehicles and there are always vehicles parked near their facility. Even if they have vehicles Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 16, 2018 Page 8 of 9

moving, there are always vehicles parked near their facility and you would have to make a determination whether it’s being used solely as a sign. When you have more than one vehicle there is always going to be vehicles parked near the facility. There are a number of businesses that have more than one vehicle that are parked near their business. You would have to make a determination whether it was a sign or an operable vehicle and that may be problematical at times. Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Hugg stated that is the intent of this modification to this Ordinance is to provide some criteria to help make that decision. There are businesses where the vehicles don’t necessarily move everyday like people who do catering and things of that nature. A vehicle may sit for 3 or 4 days until the weekend when they have a catering job. Right now, there is no real criteria to help make a decision and what they are trying to do is provide some guidance for addressing those issues. Mr. Tolbert stated that the way this amendment is written, will it help alleviate the problem? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Hugg stated that they believe that it will because they believe that it will allow them to identify and address those vehicles that are clearly being used for signs without imposing an additional burden on others. Mr. Tolbert opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Mr. Holden moved to recommend approval to City Council for MI-18-07 Text Amendments: Vehicle Signs (Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §4) inclusive of Staff Amendment Number 1, seconded by Mrs. Welsh and the motion was carried 9-0 by roll call vote. Mr. Holden voting yes; due to Staff comments. Mr. Roach voting yes; for the reasons previously stated. Ms. Edwards voting yes; for the reasons previously stated. Mr. Holt voting yes; for the reasons previously stated. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Dr. Jones voting yes; for the reasons previously stated. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; per the discussions tonight. Ms. Maucher voting yes; for the reasons previously stated. Mr. Tolbert voting yes; Staff gave them a thorough understanding of what this amendment is intending to do. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 16, 2018 Page 9 of 9

FINAL READING CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2018-06 WITH SA#1/PC#1 (Staff/Planning Commission Amendments Indicated in Orange Highlight) Routine corrections are indicated in light grey highlight Amendments Related to the Creation of the IPM3 Zone (other than the addition of Article 3, Section 20B) and routine corrections are indicated in yellow highlight Amendments Related to the Replacement of Maximum Parking Requirement are indicated in green highlight Amendments Related to Vehicle Signs are indicated in blue highlight 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN 2 COUNCIL MET: 3 That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 3 – District Regulations, be amended by inserting a new Section 4 20B – Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone – Industrial Aviation and Aeronautics Center (IPM3), 5 as indicated in bold, blue font, as follows: 6 Article 3 Section 20B. - Industrial park manufacturing zone- Industrial Aviation and 7 Aeronautics Center (IPM3). 8 20B.1 Uses permitted. In an IPM3 zone, no building or premises shall be used and no 9 building or part of a building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended or designed to 10 be used, in whole or in part, for any purpose, except the following, and in accordance with 11 performance standards review procedure as set forth in article 5 sections 8.2 and 8.6, and 12 subject to site development plan approval as set forth in article 10, section 2: 13 20B.11 Airports, spaceports, and related facilities, including passenger terminals, 14 cargo facilities, hangars, refueling operations, parking facilities and other uses integral 15 to airport or spaceport operations. 16 20B.12 Commercial or industrial uses that are related to aviation or aeronautics 17 and/or require direct access to an airport, spaceport, or aviation/aeronautics services, 18 including assembly or sale of aircraft or spacecraft, air frames, aircraft or spacecraft 19 engines, associated parts and components, radios or navigational equipment, and 20 similar products or services. 21 20B.13 Public and institutional uses that support the aviation or aeronautics 22 industries such as aviation or aeronautics technical schools, security services, and 23 inspection facilities.

Proposed Ordinance #2018-06 - Amending Appendix B - Zoning Page 2 24 20B.14 Bulk storage of fuel, lubricants, fire suppression and other materials integral 25 to design, construction, testing, maintenance, or operation of aircraft or spacecraft. 26 20B.15 Printing, publishing, binding, packaging, storage, warehousing, and 27 transshipment and distribution. 28 20B.16 Business, professional, or administrative offices. 29 20B.17 Radio or television broadcasting towers, telecommunications towers, antenna 30 arrays, and receiving satellite dishes that support aviation, aeronautics, or related 31 operations. 32 20B.2 Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted, conditional upon the approval of 33 the planning commission in accordance with the procedures and subject to the general 34 conditions set forth in article 10, section 1: Service establishments such as auto rental and 35 travel agencies, commercial parking lots and garages, automobile service stations, car washes, 36 banks, gift shops, newsstands, bookstores, restaurants, bars, medical offices, postal facilities, 37 laundry services, and similar facilities available to airport or spaceport users and employees. 38 The application for conditional use shall clearly demonstrate the relationship of the proposed 39 use to an existing or proposed airport or spaceport. 40 20B.3 Uses prohibited. The following uses are specifically prohibited: 41 20B.31 Residences. 42 20B.32 Manufacturing uses involving primary production of the following products 43 from raw materials: Asphalt, cement, charcoal, and fuel briquettes; chemicals: aniline 44 dyes, ammonia, carbide, caustic soda, cellulose, chlorine, and carbon black and bone 45 black, creosote, hydrogen and oxygen, industrial alcohol, nitrates (manufactured and 46 natural) of an explosive nature, potash, and synthetic resins, pyroxylin, rayon yarn, and 47 hydrochloric, nitric, phosphoric, picric, and sulphuric acids; coal, coke, and tar 48 products, including gas manufacturing; explosives, fertilizers, glue, and size (animal); 49 linoleum and oil cloth; matches; paint, varnishes, and turpentine; rubber (natural or 50 synthetic); [and] soaps, including fat rendering. 51 20B.33 The following processes: nitrating of cotton or other materials; magnesium 52 foundry; reduction, refining, smelting, and alloying of metal or metal ores; refining 53 secondary aluminum; refining petroleum products, such as gasoline, kerosene, 54 naphtha, [and] lubricating oil; distillation of wood or bones; [and] reduction and 55 processing of wood pulp and fiber, including papermill operations. 56 20B.34 Operations involving stock yards, slaughter houses, and slag piles. 57 20B.35 Storage of explosives. 58 20B.36 Landfills.

Proposed Ordinance #2018-06 - Amending Appendix B - Zoning Page 3 59 20B.37 Quarries, stone crushers, screening plants, and storage of quarry screenings 60 accessory to such uses, except for temporary construction activities supporting a 61 specific construction project in the IPM3 zone or the adjoining air facility, and lasting 62 only the duration of that construction project. 63 20B.38 Junkyards, automobile dismantling plants or storage of used parts of 64 automobiles or other machines or vehicles or of dismantled or junked automobiles. 65 20B.39 Public assembly facilities, including, but not limited to, churches, libraries, 66 sports fields, theaters, and amphitheaters. 67 20B.4 Tree planting requirements in the IPM3 zone. 68 20.B41 No new trees shall be planted within 120 feet of any pavement area taxied by 69 operational aircraft or spacecraft. For the purpose of fulfilling the tree density 70 requirements of Article 5, Section 16- Tree planting and preservation, the area of this 71 pavement plus the area of the 120-foot wide buffer around it shall be excluded from the 72 required development area for the property as defined in that section. 73 20.B42 All new trees shall be of a species that does not typically exceed 50 feet in 74 height at maturity. 75 20B.5 Site development plan approval. Site development plan approval, in accordance with 76 article 10, section 2 hereof, shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for the 77 erection or enlargement of all structures and prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy 78 for any change of use. 79 20B.6 Performance standards. All uses in the IPM3 zone are subject to performance standards 80 as set forth in article 5, section 8, including any uses not subject to the performance standards 81 review procedure. 82 20B.7 Exemptions. Uses in the IPM3 zone are exempt from the following provisions of the City 83 of Dover Code of Ordinances: 84 20B.71 Outdoor storage trailers. Appendix B, Article 5, Section 7.4, where the use of 85 outdoor trailers for storage or distribution is a primary use of the site. 86 20B.72 Fences. Appendix B, Article 5, Section 7.5, where 87 a. Dover Air Force Base requires a more robust fence, in which case the 88 fence shall be constructed per Dover Air Force Base Standards; or 89 b. it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission that 90 a more robust fence is required for site safety and security reasons. In 91 approving a waiver for such a fence, the Commission shall consider the 92 following factors:

Proposed Ordinance #2018-06 - Amending Appendix B - Zoning Page 4 93 i. The design of the proposed fence, including material and opacity. 94 ii. Whether there are residential land uses adjacent to or across the street 95 from the proposed fence. 96 iii. The proposed setback of the fence from the property line. 97 iv. Whether a berm or vegetated screen could feasibly be included in the 98 setback to screen the fence from view, without compromising the 99 security function of the fence or introducing vegetation hazardous to 100 aircraft or spacecraft operations. 101 20.B.8 Compliance with AEOZ. Properties in the IPM3 zone shall not be exempt from the 102 requirements of Appendix B, Article 3 Section 22- Airport environs overlay zone (AEOZ). If 103 the proposed use of a property is permitted in the IPM3 zone but prohibited based on the 104 property's location within an accident potential zone (APZ I and II), clear zone (CZ) or noise 105 zone, the use shall be prohibited on that property. 106 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 107 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 24 - Planned Neighborhood 108 Design Option (PND), Subsection 24.1 - Generally, be amended by inserting the text indicated in 109 bold, blue font and deleting the text indicated in red strikeout as follows: 110 Section 24. - Planned neighborhood design option [(PND)]. 111 24.1 General[ly]. 112 (a) Planned neighborhoods. In order to encourage superior residential environments 113 through a unified planning process, the planned neighborhood design option shall be 114 permitted in R-20, R-15, R-1O, R-8, RM-1 and RM-2 zones as a conditional use 115 subject to the provisions of article 10 of this ordinance and after a determination by 116 the planning commission that the proposed planned neighborhood design presents 117 a superior community design than would be possible under the conventional zone 118 and is in accordance with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. The 119 minimum size required for a planned residential development shall be 20 acres. 120 (b) Senior citizen housing option. In order to encourage the development of high quality 121 housing opportunities designed to accommodate the particular needs of senior 122 citizens, the senior citizen housing option shall be permitted in all zones as a 123 conditional use, except in the M, IMP, IPM, IPM2, IPM3, and C-4 zones within 124 which this option shall not be applicable. Preference shall be given to those projects 125 which are within close proximity to public transit services and which are situated 126 within one-quarter mile of a grocery store, pharmacy, restaurant, physician office, 127 senior center or similar convenience service establishment.

Proposed Ordinance #2018-06 - Amending Appendix B - Zoning Page 5 128 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 129 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 4 - Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations, Section 4.15 - C-3, 130 C-4, R-C, IO zones, be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue font and deleting the 131 text indicated in red strikeout as follows: 132 Section 4.15. - [C-3, C-4, R-C, IO, and CPO zones.] 133 Bulk and parking regulations for service commercial (C-3), highway commercial (C-4), recreation 134 and commercial (R-C), institutional and office (IO), and commercial and professional office (C-PO) 135 zones are as follows: C-3 C-4 RC IO C-PO 136 Minimum required: 137 Lot area 5 acres 10,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. 138 Lot width (ft.) 100 150 250 100 50 139 Lot depth (ft.) 100 150 400 100 100 140 Front yard (ft.) 20 20 30 10 10 141 Side yard (ft.) 15 15 50 10 5 10 or equal 142 Rear yard (ft.) 10 to bldg. 50 15 15 height 143 Side or rear yards which 30 30 100 30 25 144 adjoin a residence zone (ft.) 145 Off-street parking 146 Per 300 sq. ft. floor area or 1 1 1 1 1 147 Per employee (whichever is 1 1 148 greater) 149 Maximum permitted: 150 Building height 151 Stories 6 6 10 10 3 152 Feet 75 75 130 150 45 153 Floor area ratio 4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 2.0 154 Lot coverage 80% 75% 85% 85% 75% 155 (Ord. of 9-13-1999; Ord. No. 2014-08, 7-14-2014 ) 156 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 157 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 4 - Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations, Section 4.16 - M, IPM 158 Zones, be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue font and deleting the text indicated 159 in red strikeout as follows:

Proposed Ordinance #2018-06 - Amending Appendix B - Zoning Page 6 160 Section 4.16. - M, IPM zones. 161 Bulk and parking regulations for industrial zones in M and IPM [districts zones are as follows]: IPM3 IPM IPM IPM2 (Aviation (Conventi (Planned (Technolo 162 For All Permitted Uses M and onal Industrial gy Aeronautic Planned) Park) Center) s 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) 163 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% 164 *Building height shall comply with all applicable Federal Aviation Administration, 165 Department of Defense, and Unified Facilities Criteria height restrictions and obstruction 166 marking and lighting standards. 167 (Ord. of 3-24-1986; Ord. of 7-12-1993, § 1; Ord. of 8-23-1999; Ord. No. 2009-18, 10-12-2009)

Proposed Ordinance #2018-06 - Amending Appendix B - Zoning Page 7 168 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 169 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Section 4 - Supplementary Sign 170 Regulations, Section 4.3 - Sign Definitions, be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue 171 font and deleting the text indicated in red strikeout for the definition of "Vehicle Sign”, as follows: 172 Vehicle sign: A sign displaying a name or names, logo types, graphics, commercial messages 173 or any combination thereof, which is attached to, painted on, or otherwise applied to a motor 174 vehicle or utility trailer. 175 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 176 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Section 4 - Supplementary Sign 177 Regulations, Section 4.5 - Sign Permitted in All Districts and Not Requiring Permits, be amended 178 by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue font, as follows: 179 Q. Vehicle signs subject to the provisions of subsection 4.9-supplementary sign 180 regulations, H., of this section. 181 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 182 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Section 4 - Supplementary Sign 183 Regulations, Section 4.6 - Sign prohibited in all districts, be amended by inserting the text indicated 184 in bold, blue font and deleting the text indicated in red strikeout, as follows: 185 4.6 Sign prohibited in all districts. 186 A. Signs which emit audible sound, vapor, smoke, odor, particles or gaseous matter. 187 B. Any sign which competes for attention with, or may be mistaken for, traffic signals. 188 Also, any sign that is determined by the city planner to constitute a traffic hazard by 189 reason of size, location, content, color, or type of illumination. 190 C. Off-premises signs of any type (billboards, temporary signs, directional signs for 191 developments, etc.), except for shared freestanding signs as provided in subsection 192 4.4—Design requirements, A.5., and subsection 4.9—Supplementary sign provisions, 193 F., of this section. 194 D. Inflatable signs, except as specifically permitted in subsection 4.9—Supplementary sign 195 provisions, D.3., of this section. 196 E. Vehicle signs, including changeable signs, attached to or painted on vehicles for the 197 sole purpose of being used as signage; or attached to or painted on inoperable 198 vehicles. Reserved.

Proposed Ordinance #2018-06 - Amending Appendix B - Zoning Page 8 199 F. Signs painted on or attached to trees, fence posts, natural features, or telephone or utility 200 poles. 201 G. Signs that are flashing, rotating, or that give the appearance of movement, or are 202 illuminated by flashing or intermittent lights, or lights of changing degrees or intensity, 203 except as permitted under subsection 4.4—Design requirements, of this section. 204 H. Temporary signs made of cardboard, paper, canvas or similar impermanent material, 205 except those permitted in subsection 4.9—Supplementary sign provisions, of this section. 206 I. Window signs covering more than 50 percent of a window or a door, or mounted above 207 the first floor, except those permitted in subsection 4.9—Supplementary sign regulations, 208 A.5., of this section. 209 J. Pennants, balloons, streamers, flags, etc. except when permitted in subsection 4.5—Signs 210 permitted in all districts and not requiring permits and in subsection 4.9—Supplementary 211 sign regulations, D.1., of this section. 212 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 213 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Section 4 - Supplementary Sign 214 Regulations, Section 4.9 - Supplementary Sign Provisions, be amended by inserting a new Section 215 H - Vehicle and Utility Trailer Signs, as follows: 216 H. Vehicle and utility trailer signs. Vehicles or utility trailers driving in the public 217 right-of-way, or temporarily parked in an approved parking area, shall be permitted to have 218 vehicle signs attached to or painted on them, with no sign permit required. However, 219 the city planner may require any vehicle or utility trailer with a vehicle sign to be 220 moved if he/she determines that the vehicle is inoperable or being used for the sole 221 purpose of displaying signage. Vehicles and utility trailers shall be moved to a location 222 not visible from the public right-of-way, or, if no such location is available, as far away 223 from the public right-of-way as possible. In making the determination, the city planner 224 may shall use the following criteria; It is not necessary that any specific combination, or 225 all of, the listed criteria be present to determine that the vehicle or utility trailer is inoperable 226 or is being used for the sole purpose of displaying signage at least two criteria shall be met 227 before this section requires moving a vehicle:. 228 1. Whether the sign is painted upon or applied in a permanent manner directly to an integral 229 part of the vehicle or utility trailer or merely temporarily attached to the vehicle or utility 230 trailer The sign is temporarily attached to the vehicle or utility trailer, rather than 231 painted on or applied in a permanent manner. 232 2. The sign includes directional copy or symbols that only function correctly when the 233 vehicle or utility trailer is parked in one or more specific locations.

Proposed Ordinance #2018-06 - Amending Appendix B - Zoning Page 9 234 3. Whether, during the normal business hours of operation of the business, the vehicle or 235 utility trailer is moved or remains in a stationary location The vehicle or utility trailer 236 does not move during the normal business hours of operation of the business. 237 4. Whether the vehicle or utility trailer is regularly parked in a location or manner to be 238 prominently displayed to the public. The vehicle or utility trailer is regularly parked 239 in a location or manner to be prominently displayed to the public, even though a 240 more discrete parking area is available at the business location. 241 5. Whether other nearby signage for the business is provided by a free-standing sign or wall 242 sign. 243 6. Whether the vehicle or utility trailer is suitable for and actively used in the daily function 244 of the business to which such signs relate. 245 7. Whether the sign includes directional copy or symbols that would only be applicable if 246 parked near the use. 247 8. Whether there is available parking in another location on the site. 248 9. Whether the vehicle sign is being used to advertise the sale of the vehicle or utility 249 trailer, or other nearby vehicles or utility trailers. 250 5. Vehicles and utility trailers shall be deemed inoperable if they are not properly and 251 currently registered and tagged; if they are damaged or disabled as to not immediately 252 be movable; if they are raised off the ground in any way; if they cannot be started and 253 moved off their location; or if they are missing required equipment enabling them to 254 travel on a public roadway. The vehicle or utility trailer is inoperable, meaning it is 255 not properly and currently registered and tagged; is damaged or disabled as to not 256 immediately be movable; is raised off the ground; is missing required equipment 257 enabling it to travel on a public roadway; is parked in a location where it cannot 258 access a public roadway; or cannot be started and moved off its location. 259 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 260 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Section 8 - Performance 261 Standards, be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue font and deleting the text 262 indicated in red strikeout as follows: 263 Section 8. - Performance standards. 264 8.1 Dangerous and objectionable elements. No land or building in any zone shall be used or 265 occupied in any manner so as to cause any one or more of the following conditions to exist 266 and to be dangerous, injurious, noxious or offensive beyond the boundaries of such 267 premises in such a manner or in such amount as to adversely affect the reasonable use of 268 the surrounding area or adjoining premises: Fire, explosive or other hazard; noise, or

Proposed Ordinance #2018-06 - Amending Appendix B - Zoning Page 10 269 vibration; smoke, dust, odor or other form of air pollution; heat, cold, dampness or 270 electromagnetic disturbance; glare, liquid or solid refuse or waste; traffic congestion 271 causing roadways or intersections in the surrounding highway network to fall below 272 acceptable levels of comfort and convenience; or other substance, condition or element 273 (referred to hereinafter as "dangerous or objectionable elements"), provided that any use 274 permitted or not expressly prohibited by this ordinance may be undertaken and maintained 275 if it conforms to the regulations of this section limiting dangerous and objectionable 276 elements at the point of the determination of their existence. 277 8.2 Uses requiring performance standards review procedure. Those uses in the C-3, IPM, 278 IPM2, IPM3, and M zones and uses accessory thereto, which are specified as being 279 subject to performance standards review procedure, are subject to the procedure specified 280 in article 5, section 8.6 in obtaining a site plan approval. The city planner may require 281 other uses, whether existing or proposed and regardless of the particular zoning district, 282 to submit to the performance standards review procedure when there exists reasonable 283 grounds to believe that a proposed use is in violation, or is likely to violate, the 284 performance standards, in which event, the property owner shall comply with [the] 285 performance standards review procedure. 286 8.3 Enforcement provisions applicable to other uses. Even though compliance with the 287 performance standards procedure in obtaining a site plan approval is not required for some 288 proposed uses, initial and continuing compliance with the performance standards 289 themselves is required of every use, and provisions for enforcement to ensure continued 290 compliance with the performance standards shall be invoked by the city planner against 291 the property owner, tenant, or other responsible party if there are reasonable grounds to 292 believe that performance standards are being violated by a particular activity or use. 293 294 8.4 Nonconforming uses. Certain uses established before the effective date of this ordinance 295 and nonconforming as to performance standards shall be given a reasonable time in which 296 to conform therewith, as provided in article 7, section 1.53. 297 8.5 Performance standards regulations. Where the following regulations overlap regulations 298 of the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control or other 299 state or local agencies, the more restrictive regulations shall apply in case of a conflict: 300 8.51 Fire and explosion hazards. All activities involving, and all storage of, inflammable 301 and explosive materials shall be provided at any point with adequate safety devices 302 against the hazard of fire and explosion and adequate firefighting and fire 303 suppression equipment and devices standard in the industry. Burning of waste 304 materials in open fires is prohibited at any point. The relevant provisions of the state 305 and local laws and regulations shall also apply. 306 8.52 Radioactivity or electromagnetic disturbance. No activities shall be permitted which 307 emit dangerous radioactivity at any point, or electromagnetic disturbance adversely 308 affecting the operation at any point of any equipment other than that of the creator 309 of such disturbance.

Proposed Ordinance #2018-06 - Amending Appendix B - Zoning Page 11 310 8.53 Noise. The maximum sound pressure level radiated by any use or facility (other than 311 transportation facilities open to the public) at the property line shall not exceed the 312 values in the designated octave bands given in [the following] table I, after applying 313 the corrections shown in [the following] table II. The sound pressure level shall be 314 measured with a sound level meter and associated octave band analyzer conforming 315 to standards prescribed by the American Standards Association (American Standard 316 Sound Level Meters for Measurement of Noise and Other Sounds, Z243-1944, 317 American Standards Association, Inc., New York, N.Y., and American Standard 318 Specification for an Octave Band Filter Set for the Analysis of Noise and Other 319 Sounds, Z24.10-1953, American Standards Association, Inc., New York, N.Y., shall 320 be used). 321 Table I 322 Octave Band Sound Pressure 323 Range In Level in Decibels 324 Cycles re 0.0002 325 per Second dyne/cm 2 326 30— 300 60 327 301—2,400 40 328 Above 2,400 30 329 If the noise is not smooth and continuous and is not radiated between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 330 7:00 a.m., one or more of the corrections in table II shall be applied to the decibel levels given in 331 table I. 332 Table II Type of Location of Operation Correction in Decibels or Character of Noise 333 1. Daytime operation only 334 2. Noise source operates less than* a. 20 percent of any one-hour period 5 b. 05 percent [sic] of any one-hour period 10 335 3. Noise of impulsive character (hammering, etc.) -5 336 4. Noise of periodic character (hum, screech, etc.) -5 Property is located in one of the following zones and is not 337 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, 338 6. 10 IPM2, or IPM3 339 *Apply one of these corrections only. 340 8.54 [ Vibration. ] No vibration shall be permitted which is discernible without instruments at 341 the property line.

Proposed Ordinance #2018-06 - Amending Appendix B - Zoning Page 12 342 8.55 Smoke. No emission shall be permitted at any point, from any chimney or otherwise, of 343 visible grey smoke of a shade equal to or darker than No. 2 on the Power's Micro-Ringlemann 344 Chart, published by McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, Inc., and copyrighted 1954 (being a 345 direct facsimile reduction of the standard Ringlemann chart as issued by the United States 346 Bureau of Mines), except that visible grey smoke of a shade equal to No. 2 on said chart may 347 be emitted for four minutes in any 30 minutes. These provisions applicable to visible grey smoke 348 shall also apply to visible smoke of a different color, but with an apparently equivalent opacity. 349 Any emission shall be in conformance with air pollution regulations of the Delaware Department 350 of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 351 8.56 Odors. No emission shall be permitted of odorous gases or other offensive odorous matter 352 in such quantities as to be readily detectable when diluted in the ratio of one volume of odorous 353 air emitted to four volumes of clean air. Any process which may involve the creation or emission 354 of any offensive odors shall be provided with a secondary safeguard system, so that control will 355 be maintained if the primary safeguard system should fail. There is hereby established as a guide 356 in determining such quantities of offensive odors Table III, Odor Thresholds, in chapter 5, "Air 357 Pollution Abatement Manual," copyright 1951 by Manufacturing Chemists' Association, Inc., 358 Washington D.C., and said manual and/or table as subsequently amended. 359 8.57 Fly ash, dust, fumes, vapors, gases, and other forms of air pollution. No emission shall be 360 permitted which can cause any damage to health, to animals, vegetation, or other forms of 361 property, or which can cause any excessive soiling, at any point, and/or which does not conform 362 to air pollution regulations of the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental 363 Control, and, in no event, any emission, from any chimney or otherwise, of any solid or liquid 364 particles in concentrations exceeding 0.3 grain per cu. ft. of the conveying gas resulting from 365 combustion. Standard corrections shall be applied to a stack temperature of 500 degrees 366 Fahrenheit and 50 percent excess air. 367 8.58 [ Glare. ] No direct or sky-reflected glare, whether from floodlights or from high- 368 temperature processes such as combustion or welding or otherwise, shall be permitted. This 369 restriction shall not apply to signs otherwise permitted by the provisions of this ordinance. 370 8.59 Liquid or solid wastes. No discharge shall be permitted at any point into any public sewer, 371 private sewage disposal system or stream, or into the ground, except in accord with standards 372 approved by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, of any 373 materials of such nature or temperature as can contaminate any water supply or otherwise cause 374 the emission of dangerous or offensive elements. 375 8.60 Traffic congestion. When, in the surrounding highway network, operating conditions are 376 at or near the design capacity level beyond which would result in functional failure of the 377 surrounding highway network. All speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform value. 378 Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely difficult, and it is generally 379 accomplished by forcing a vehicle or pedestrian to "give way" to accommodate such maneuvers. 380 Comfort and convenience levels are extremely poor, and driver or pedestrian frustration is 381 generally high. Operations at this level are usually unstable, because small increases in flow or 382 minor perturbations within the traffic stream will cause functional failures beyond acceptable

Proposed Ordinance #2018-06 - Amending Appendix B - Zoning Page 13 383 levels. (The conditions described in this [sub]section are also used to describe "level of service 384 E" as defined by the highway capacity manual developed by the transportation research board, 385 dated 1985.) 386 8.6 Performance standard procedure. 387 8.61 Application. An application for a site plan approval shall be accompanied with a 388 performance standard review application when a use or occupancy is required, and shall be 389 referred by the building inspector city planner to the planning commission. The applicant 390 shall also submit, in an amount equal to the required number of site plan submissions, a plan 391 of the proposed construction or development, including a description of the proposed 392 machinery, operations, and products, and specifications for the mechanisms and techniques 393 to be used in restricting the emission of dangerous and objectional elements referred to in 394 article 5, section 8.1, in accordance with rules prescribed by the planning commission 395 specifying the type of information required in such plans and specifications, and an affidavit 396 by the applicant acknowledging his understanding of the applicable performance standards 397 and agreement to conform with same at all times. 398 No applicant will be required to reveal any secret processes, and any information submitted 399 will be treated as confidential if requested. The fee for such application shall include the cost 400 of the special reports required to process it, described below. 401 402 8.62 Report by expert consultants. The planning commission, if there is any reasonable 403 doubt as to the likelihood of conformance, shall refer the application for investigation and 404 report to one or more expert consultants qualified to advise as to whether a proposed use will 405 conform to the applicable performance standards specified herein. Such consultant or 406 consultants shall make such report within 30 days after his or their receipt of such 407 application. A copy of such report shall be promptly furnished to the applicant. 408 8.63 Decision of the planning commission. At the next regular meeting of the planning 409 commission, but in no event more than 30 days after the board has received the aforesaid 410 report, or within such further period as agreed to by the applicant, the board shall decide 411 whether the proposed use will conform to the applicable performance standards and, on such 412 basis, shall authorize or refuse to authorize the issuance of a building permit or certificate 413 of occupancy, or require a modification of the proposed plan of construction. Such decision 414 of the commission shall be in the form of a written report. Any building permit or certificate 415 of occupancy so authorized and issued shall be conditioned on, among other things: 416 (i) The applicant's completed buildings and installations in operation conforming to the 417 applicable performance standards, and 418 (ii) The applicant's paying the fees for services of the expert consultant or consultants 419 deemed reasonable and necessary by the planning commission for advice as to 420 whether or not the applicant's completed buildings and installations will, in 421 operation, conform to the applicable performance standards.

Proposed Ordinance #2018-06 - Amending Appendix B - Zoning Page 14 422 (Ord. of 4-25-1994; Ord. of 4-28-2008(2)) 423 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 424 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 6 - Off-street Parking, Driveways and Loading Facilities, Section 425 3 - Required Off-street Parking Spaces, be amended by striking Section 3.11 - Maximum Number 426 of Parking Spaces, as follows: 427 3.11 Maximum number of parking spaces. The maximum number of parking spaces shall 428 not exceed 25 percent over the number of parking spaces required by the code. 429 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 430 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 12 - Definitions, be amended by inserting the text indicated in 431 bold, blue font and deleting the text indicated in red strikeout for the definition of “Nonresidential 432 zones”, as follows: 433 Nonresidential zones: C-1, C-1A, C-2, C-2A, C-3, C-4, C-PO, RC, IO, M, IPM, IPM2, IPM3, SC-1, 434 SC-2, [or] SC-3 [zone]. 435 ADOPTED: * 436 SYNOPSIS 437 The proposed ordinance adds a new zoning classification, IPM3 (Industrial Park Manufacturing 438 Zone- Industrial Aviation and Aeronautics Center), which is intended primarily to permit businesses 439 in aviation and aeronautics-related industries. The ordinance also creates bulk standards for the new 440 zone and makes minor changes to the performance standards to ensure uses in the IPM-3 zone are 441 covered under them. 442 The proposed ordinance removes the maximum parking space limitation given in Article 6 of the 443 Zoning Ordinance, and replaces it with new maximum lot coverage limitations for several zones 444 where excessive parking lot size is of particular concern, including the C-3, C-4, RC, IPM, IPM-2, 445 and M Zones. This will limit the amount of impervious surface on the property. 446 The proposed ordinance would give the city planner guidance on whether or not a vehicle sign is 447 permitted. Under current code, vehicle signs are always permitted except where the vehicle is 448 inoperable or being used for the sole purpose of signage. The ordinance provides a list of criteria 449 which the city planner may use to determine if a vehicle is being used for the sole purpose of 450 signage. 451 Actions History 452 06/25/2018 - First Reading - City Council 453 07/16/2018 - Public Hearing - Planning Commission 454 08/27/2018 - Scheduled for Public Hearing/Final Reading - City Council 455 S:\ORDINANCES\2018\DRAFT\ORDINANCE #2018-06 APP B-ARTS 3, 4, 5, AND 6-AVIATION (IPM-3), PARKING, AND VEH SIGNS\ORDINANCE #2018-06 APP B-ARTS 3, 4, 5, AND 456 6-AVIATION (IPM-3), PARKING, AND VEH SIGNS-Final Rdg.wpd

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 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. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Hare moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. 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. Mr. Hare moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. 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 (Attachment #1). Staff recommended adoption of the revised policy. Mr. Hare moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Mr. Sudler moved for adjournment of the Utility Committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 24, 2018 PAGE 2 LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Chairman Hare presiding. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Shevock moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. 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. 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

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 24, 2018 PAGE 3 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 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 motion 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, was unanimously carried. 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

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 24, 2018 PAGE 4 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. 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.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 24, 2018 PAGE 5 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 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.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 24, 2018 PAGE 6 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 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 (Attachment #2). 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.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 24, 2018 PAGE 7 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, 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.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 24, 2018 PAGE 8 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. 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

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 24, 2018 PAGE 9 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. 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. Mr. Slavin moved to lay this matter on the table and have it 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. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. Mr. Sudler moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:49 p.m. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:49 p.m. Timothy A. Slavin Council President TAS/TM/dd S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Committee-Minutes\2018\07-24-2018 CCW Minutes JT.wpd Attachments Attachment #1 - Proposed Amendments to the Governing Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management Attachment #2 - Information regarding the civilian pension plan compiled by Mr. Lester Blakeman, Sr.

ATTACHMENT #1 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 07/24/2018 City of Dover, Delaware Governing Policy For Energy Commodity Risk Management Effective: August 28, 2017 TBD Formatted: Strikethrough Approved by: City of Dover Council (Last Revision August 28, 2017)

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 ...........................................................................................................17 C. Hedge Effectiveness Reporting ..................................................................................17 2

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS ............................................................................17 POLICY DISTRIBUTION AND COUNSEL ...............................................................................18 A. Distribution Outside The City ....................................................................................18 B. Designated Counsel .....................................................................................................18 APPENDIX A – Approved Products .............................................................................................19 APPENDIX B – Approved Counterparties and Threshold Tables ................................................20 APPENDIX C – Business Risks ....................................................................................................25 APPENDIX D – Glossary ..............................................................................................................26 APPENDIX E – Swap Transaction Representative .......................................................................28 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. TEA has completed a historical analysis to measures the effective monthly average unit cost paid for Dover’s PJM Wholesale Load Responsibility (WLR) was calculated for each month since July 2013. From this analysis, TEA recommends using the post-Garrison results as a proxy for future estimates of the WLR and As an interim measure due to lack of necessary Formatted: Font color: Text 1, Strikethrough 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 For the historical payment analysis, an effective monthly average unit cost paid for Dover’s Formatted: Underline, Font color: Red PJM Wholesale Load Responsibility (WLR) was calculated for each month since July 2013. This effective unit cost was constructed using Dover’s monthly PJM load payment (Dover Budget line item: PJM – Energy, Congestion & Losses), adding back the West Hub hedging credits, and dividing by the WLR. The values pre-Garrison-online and post- Garrison-online were compared with both straight and WLR-weighted averages. This effective LMP therefore includes the effects of intra-month load variations, contributions of both the DALMP and RTLMP, and the additional PJM charge types reflected in the monthly Dover Budget line item: PJM – Energy, Congestion & Losses. Pre-Garrison (July 16

2013 – May 2015) weighted average monthly load costs were $3.02, while the average post-Garrison cost (Jun 2015 – Apr 2018) has been $2.60. o 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 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. 17

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. 18

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). 19

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 20

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 21

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 22

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 23

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 24

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 25

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. 26

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. 27

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. 28

ATTACHMENT #2 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 07/24/2018 POINTS TO POUNDER CIVILAN PENSION PLAN l>Average Pension Payments (2017 CAFR) Plan Police G.E. 2017 Payments $1,528,191 $3,746,045 Members 47 205 Average Pension $32,515 $18,273 Delaware Minimum wage 2017 $8.25/hour = $17,160 a year 2> Chang in plans for the last 12 years (cumulative) Police G.E. 24% 2% 3> G. E. Pension payments - last published list January 2008 G. E. Members less than $1,000 a month ($12.000 a year) 74 G. E. Members $1,000 - $1,999 a month ($23,988 a year) 62 G. E. Members $2,000 - $2,999 a month ($35,988 a year) 33 G. E. Members $3,090 a month ($37,089 a year) 1 G. E. Members $4,212 a month ($50,544 a year) 1 G. E. Members $4,551 a month ($54662 a year) 1 4> G. E. Pension plan Audit Full Audit of the General Pension Plan (not the limited review in the CAFR)

The goal of fulling funding the Defined Benefit Plan should be a high priority, it would be very reassuring to the members of the plan to know what that value is and when will be reached. In 2003 the pension payment was $2,073,202 with a fund balance of $14,446,848 in 2017 the pension payment was $3,746,045with a fund balance of $39,365,436. The fund balance went up $24,918,588 while the annual payment went up $1,672,843 At a Council Workshop November 3, 2008 a plan was presented to Amortize a $24,4518,821 Unfunded Liability for the Civilian Pension Plan totaling $41,890,827 - Increasing plan or $39,757,357for a Level plan. In January 24, 2017 a report by nyhart listed the unfunded liability for July 2014 as $25,452,793 and the July 2016 as $22,060,391. I would like to make two request: City Council be provided with a listing of all current retirees without names - listed in order of monthly payment lowest to highest, with status SS or GE, age and date of retirement. This would provide an understanding of the people involved. The current amount of the unfunded liability and the plan to fund it.

09 L66' ~~$ 08666$ I lil;'\ 96"v5L' ~,$ 856L6$ £L 8C:"05L'~~$ 6,"6L6$ U OO"LOO'~,$ 5(;"n6$ ,L (;£ (;176'0,$ 98 •• 6$ OL 9L"60L'0,$ 817"(;68$ 69 9v059'O~$ 175"L99$ 99 WV(;9'0,$ L£ 588$ L9 09",£17'0,$ 0£"698$ 99 08178£'0,$ 017598$ 59 9S6S~'0,$ £9"9178$ 179 9, '880'0,$ 89'0178$ £9 (;,"L8v'£(;$ 9(; L56',$ (;~'V68'6$ ,517(;8$ I (;9')") (;6'9178'(;(;$ ~6 £06' ,$ 017'809'6$ 0L"008$ ,9 817L£L'C;C;$ 6L"V68' ,$ 80',LS'6$ 6S L6L$ 09 89vL5'C:(;$ vn88',$ 9n£v'6$ 86S8L$ 65 80'V£S'(;(;$ VBLL8'~$ 96'VS£'6$ 8S'6LL$ 8S 9L 8LV' (;(;$ £(; £L9' ,$ 017'(;££'6$ OLLLL$ L5 17(;08£'(;(;$ (;O'S98' ,$ 80'£S(;'6$ 60 ~LL$ 95 8v'9(;£'C;C;$ VS'098',$ (;,6£0'6$ 9(;'£SL$ 55 VC;99~'(;(;$ c;o'6v9' ,$ 99'6~0'6$ V9,5L$ 175 09'8176',(;$ SO 6(;8' ~$ US(;6'8$ ,8'£VL$ £S 9£ (;6L' ,(;$ £0'9,8' ,$ 9L£L8'8$ 8176£L$ (;S 8(;'OW,(;$ 69'98L' ,$ (;,'898'9$ ,O'6£L$ ,S 170'9(;0',(;$ L, (;SL'~$ 96'vU'8$ 80 LU$ OS 8(;17£8'0(;$ 6, '9£L' ,$ (;6£(;9'8$ 998,L$ 617 W6LL'0(;$ (;9 ,£L'~$ 80-.sS'8$ 60'S,L$ 817 89'0,17'0(;$ 68'OOL' ,$ 8(;'86v'8$ 6, '80L$ Lv 80' ,0, '0(;$ 60'SL9',$ 960(;(;'8$ 80'S89$ 917 9,568'6,$ £6'L59',$ 006,L'L$ 5(;'£V9$ Sv 88'098'6,$ VL959',$ 9Lv(;v'L$ £L"8,9$ 1717 89'LVL'6,$ V9'SV9',$ 88 LO£'L$ 66'809$ £17 (;6917(;'6,$ ,6 £09' ~$ 89 LO(;'L$ 179'009$ (;17 1791756'8,$ L56L5',$ 8V'L£,'L$ 6L"v65$ ,17 0(;U6'8,$ 0,9L5',$ 08'L80'L$ S9'06S$ 017 889VL'8,$ VC;(;9S',$ 805LO'L$ 65685$ 6£ 00'OU'8,$ 00095' ,$ 8nVO'L$ 6L"985$ 8£ 009£9'8,$ 00 £55',$ 89'(;68'9$ 6£ vL5$ L£ 90L,'8,$ 8(;'17,5' ,$ 0(;'86S'9$ S86VS$ 9£ 9,'996'L,$ 8,'L6V',$ 09"S(;(;'9$ 08'8,S$ S£ 8V,U'L,$ 6L"9LV',$ 9LU,'9$ 8V'£,5$ 17£ (;585S'9(;$ ,(;£ ,(;'(;$ 0(; LOL'L,$ 09"5LV' ,$ (;6',(;,'9$ 9, 'O,S$ ,~£) (;S9VS'9(;$ ,(;'(;,(;'(;$ 89'99S'L,$ 68'£917',$ (;,960'9$ ,080S$ £ (;5'V£S'9(;$ ,(;, ,(;'(;$ 9,'v(;£'L,$ 89 £1717' ,$ OvLLO'9$ 517'905$ ,£ (;S(;(;5'9(;$ ,(;0,(;'(;$ 00'S£9'9,$ 5(;'98£' ,$ 0(;9LL'S$ 50817$ O£ (;5 0~S'9(;$ ,(;'60(;'(;$ 8V'8VS'9,$ vO'6L£',$ 9(;U5'5$ vV"6Sv$ 6(; (;58617'9(;$ ,(;80(;'(;$ 9£'5175'9,$ 8L8L£' ,$ vC:'9L£'S$ (;081717$ 8(; (;S'98V'9(;$ ,(;'LO(;'(;$ 9S9(;V'9,$ 88'89£',$ 9nv,'S$ 8178(;17$ Lc: (;SVLv'9(;$ ,(;'90(;'(;$ 0968£'9,$ 0859£',$ 9S'L£,'S$ £,8(;17$ 9(; (;5'(;9v'9(;$ ,(;SO(;'(;$ 00'L6,'9,$ 5L6v£',$ 00'9£,'S$ 00'8(;17$ S(; (;S'OSv'9(;$ ,(;'VOa$ W6L6'5,$ (;9' ,££' ,$ OO',(;,'S$ SL"9(;V$ 17(; (;S'8£V'9(;$ ,(;'£Oa$ 178',65'5,$ (;£'66(;' ,$ (;,',OO'S$ 9L9,v$ £(; (;S9(;V'9(;$ ,(;'c;o(;'(;$ 0889S'S,$ OV'L6(;' ,$ 00 85L'V$ OS'96£$ (;(; (;S 17,17'9(;$ ,nO(;'(;$ 89'89(;'5,$ 6£'U(;',$ 88aV'V$ 6689£$ ,(; (;S'(;OV'9(;$ ,(;00(;'(;$ 178',O(;'S,$ (;8'99(;' ,$ 89L.v'v$ 17,'89£$ 0(; (;5'06£'9(;$ ,(;66,'(;$ 179'099'17,$ U,(;(;',$ U£L,'V$ ,8 Lv£$ 6, (;S 8L£'9(;$ ,(;86,'(;$ 09'58£'17,$ 08"86,' ,$ 8171786'£$ 170'(;££$ 8~ (;S'99£'9(;$ ,(; L6,'(;$ g~ g90'v,$ 8,U,',$ (;Svv6'£$ ,L9(;£$ L, (;SVS£'9(;$ ~(:96, '(:$ 9U66'£,$ £v'gg,',$ 1:~1:S8'£$ ,0 .1:£$ g. (;S'(;V£'9(;$ ,(;'56, '(;$ 178LV6'£,$ (;£'(;9,',$ 817LLL'£$ 6Lv,£$ 5, (;5'O££'g(;$ ,(;"176,'(;$ VV'£V8'£,$ (;9"£5 ~',$ U9,5'£$ 90"£6(;$ 17, (;5"8,£'9(;$ ,(;£6~ '(;$ (;£ 68L'£ ~$ •• 617,',$ (;S"V,£'£$ ,(;9L(;$ £, (;S'90£'9(;$ ,(;(;6~'(;$ 8v'O~L'£,$ 175"(;17,'~$ 01769(;'£$ 5VU(;$ (;, (;S'V6(;'9(;$ ,n6,'(;$ 80S85'£,$ 60'(;£, ',$ (;£",17(;'£$ "'Oa$ (;5(;8(;'9(;$ ,(; 06, '(;$ 0(; L95'£,$ 090£,\$ W9,L'(;$ L£9C:(;$ 0," (;S"Oa'9(;$ ,(;"68, '(;$ 8(;'£9v'£,$ 176",(;,',$ (;6"0,L'(;$ ,65(;(;$ 6 (;S'8S(;'9(;$ ,(;'88, '(;$ Og'(;££'£,$ 50' •• ,',$ 80"999'(;$ 178£(;(;$ 8 (;5'9v(;'g(;$ ,(;L8,'(;$ 00'9L8'(;,$ OO'£LO',$ 80'''9'(;$ 6S'n(;$ L (;S'V£(;'g(;$ ~(;98, '(;$ (;£ 66L'(;,$ ,9'990' ,$ 80' •• 9'(;$ 6S L,(;$ 9 (;5'(;(;(;'g(;$ ,(;'58,'(;$ 96'999'(;,$ 8S SSO',$ 80',,9'(;$ 6S L,(;$ 5 (;50,(;'9(;$ ~(;'V8, '(;$ 968,9'(;f$ 8S ,50' ,$ 80 »9'(;$ 6SD(;$ 17 (;S'86 ,'9(;$ ,(;'£8 ~'(;$ 9LD£'(;,$ 8179(;0',$ 80»9'(;$ 6SD(;$ £ W(;(;9'V5$ L8,55'v$ (;5'98,'9(;$ ,(;'(;8,'(;$ OV'(;90'(;,$ 0(; SOO',$ 80'»9'(;$ 6SD(;$ (; 1:SvvS'OS$ 170(;.(;'17$ 9£'680'L£$ 8L060'£$ (;S'VL,'9(;$ ,(;-.s, '(;$ UVC;O'(;,$ 90'(;00',$ 000017'(;$ 00"00(;$ , JeaA 4luoifli JeaA 4luoifli JeaA 4luoifli JeaA 4luoifli JeaA 4lUOifli 666'\7$ 666'£$ 666'1:$ 666',$ 666$ 000'\7$ 000'£$ 000'1:$ 000' ,$ ueld uorsuad uell!II!::> (eOO(;'Sf Alenuer!O se luawAed aaJlla~) SlN3If11A'VdNOISN3d AlHINOIfII:lO NMOO>i'V3~8

01'-IHL'V9$ OC:'f;~'S$ ~~/O~/90 vn'SLS' ~SS; l6'L6Z't$ v~/vOHO ZS'SV9'Lt$ ~WZ96'E$ £~IV~IZO C:£'£VS'Zt$ ~9'aLS'E$ n/so/~o U'Z99'Ot$ gs'aat'E$ v~1901H ""'Sl£'6£$ Z~'LLZ'E$ S~/9~1H ClQ'vo£'a£$ SO'Z6~'E$ Z~/9~19O OO'VOOtot$ tot'ove Z$ Z~/LOHO ZS'CZS'~£$ ~6'9Z9'Z$ Z~/90/VO 9Z'6WO£$ VS'Vts'Z$ £~/£ZlZO GG'H9'eZ$ v~'a9V'Z$ S~IH/sO VO'600'6Z$ lv'L~v'Z$ O~/IHIH 09 'Z9 ~'aC:$ SS'9Vt'Z$ v~/vOILO 9V'LVV'LZ$ SZ'L9z'Z$ O~/LZI£O OO'L£6'9Z$ SL'''''Z'Z$ mHO/VO 9~'9£6'9Z$ gg'vvz'Z$ !WLZI90 pg'6ve'9Z$ Lv'L£z'Z$ O~Jc:O/SO 09'9~S'9Z$ 06'60Z'Z$ 60/9ztSO 09'69V'9Z$ 09'SOz'Z$ SO/6zt90 OO'LatsZ$ SC:'LorZ$ O~Jc:OHO OZ'LV~'SZ$ 09'S60'Z$ £~/SztSO 9~'09S'VZ$ GG'9VO'Z$ 60/90/S0 9~'69t'vZ$ £V'Z£O'Z$ £~/6~HO SO'Qcz'vZ$ V8'S~O'Z$ SO/6zttO 9£'S96'£Z$ 9[966 ~$ t~Ht/SO snvL'tZ$ W9L6'~$ 90HOlZO OZ'SS9'tZ$ 09'vL6'~$ eomm VZ'OSZ'£Z$ ZS'Lt6'~$ 60H0I90 U'LOO'tZ$ ~n~6'~$ C:~I9Z1~O 9Z'Lt9'C:C:$ W999'~$ Z~IHM 08't6t'Zl$ S~'999'~$ Z~/O£/sO pg'tSZ'Zl$ Lt'vse'~$ O~/SZl90 90'Z9~'Zl$ ve'm'~$ Z~IZZISO ""'vSQ'Zl$ LlrL£S'~$ nlvzt90 9Z'09£'~l$ 69'~9L'~$ m/9zt~O OO'L££'~Z$ 6O'9LL'~$ Z~/O£/90 OZ'OLO'~l$ S9'SSL'~$ Z~/tOHO 9£'~LS'Ol$ 9Z'v~L'~$ v~/90/0~ GG'ZOv'S~$ se'9~9'~$ £~/SZlSO U'96Z'6~$ 9O'909'~$ 60Hzt~~ ""'LSO'S~$ Z~'90S'~$ l~/Szt60 ZS'ZSS'L~$ ~L'Z9V'~$ £~I9~/SO 08'O09'9~$ Ot'£et'~$ 601901L0 V8'VVO'9~$ LO'L£t'~$ nIH/so 9L'S8£'S~$ 8t'Z8t~$ O~/8(;.1S0 OZ'.lLt'v~$ o~'eS~'~$ 60HOM IOR'09l'v~$ Ov'SSn$ SO/S~/SO 9Z'OSL U$ el'6LS$ 90f£O/~0 tZ'I3~9'O~$ Zn06$ £~m/so ZS'S9L'm$ 9H68$ Z~/0£/90 VV'099'6$ Lt'tlS$ lHS~IZO OO'V9Q'6$ 00'ZZ9$ t~HO/VO Zt'n6'a$ ~9'C:VL$ nH£I90 ZS'~Ol'9$ 9V'£99$ IV~/OZl9o 9V'~£O'9$ 6C:'699$ z~mm gs'~orS$ t~'Slt$ I S~/v~ILO) ~u9WABd lU9WABd uo p&J!l9~ IBnUU\1 ~4~uo~ - 900C: tS!I UO!SU9d

vt>"S~£'6£$ ~nLt£$ 17 S~/9~n~ 9S 9nO~'S$ £ ~'SG'v$ S ~IV ~/LO SS 9~'9£6'9G'$ B9'vvG"~$ S~/a/90 VS B9'H9'6~$ 17~'B9V'G'$ S~/H/SO £S G'L'~99' 017$ 9S'BB£'£$ S v~/90m G'S 9£' ~LS'O~$ BG"v~n$ v~/90/0 ~ ~S 09'G'B ~'BG'$ SS'Bv£'G'$ v~/VOILO OS ~S' ~O~'B$ 9v'£B9$ v~/0~/90 617 vO'SLS' ~S$ G'6'Lst17$ v~/vono Bv 9£'SBS'£G'$ BLBS6' ~$ O~ £~H£/SO Lv onv ~'SG'$ 09'SSO'G'$ £ ~/SG'/SO 9v B9'G'Ov'S~$ SB'9~9' ~$ £ ~/SG'/SO SV ZS'ZSS'H$ ~L'Z9v' ~$ £ ~/B ~/SO tv VB'17vO'9~$ LO'L££' ~$ £~H~/SO £17 vG"B~B'O~$ G'S'~OS$ £~M/SO G'17 BZ'S~V'O£$ VS'v£S'G'$ £ ~/£Z/G'O ~17 G'!rSvS'L17$ 9V'G'9S'£$ £ ~/v ~/ZO OV 00'v9B'S$ OO'Z~B$ £~/~OlvO S£ 9~'SB£'vZ$ £17'(.'£O'Z$ £~/6~no B£ BZ'L£9'ZG'$ W9BB'~$ £~ Z~/H/n L£ BH£O'B$ 6G"S99$ UMm 9£ WL60'B~$ U'BOS'~$ G'~/SZ/SO S£ BO'L££' ~Z$ SO'BLL' ~$ Z~/0£/90 17£ ZS'S9L'0~$ 9n6B$ Z~/0£/90 ££ 09'17O£'B£$ SO'~6~'£$ (.'~/9~/90 Z£ 09'£6£'ZZ$ S ~'99B' ~$ (.'~/O£/SO ~£ BO'Z9 ~'ZG'$ vB'9vB' ~$ Z~/G'Z/SO O£ ZS'G'ZS' ~£$ ~S'9G'9'Z$ Z~/901V0 SZ WOBB'S$ L£'£ZB$ Z~/B ~/ZO BZ U'LOO'£Z$ ~£D6' ~$ U/BWO Ll BO'vBO'v£$ v£'OvB'Z$ G'~/LOHO 9Z OZ'OLO' ~~$ SB'SSL' ~$ Z~/£OHO SZ Zn~S'B$ ~9'ZvL$ 17 UH£/BO VZ Z£'£vS'Zv$ ~9'BLS'£$ ~~/60HO £Z OV'B~L'v9$ OZ'£S£'S$ ~~/O~/90 ZG' vV'vSO'G'G'$ LB'L£B'~$ ~~/vG'/90 ~Z vO'600'SZ$ ZvDV'Z$ B O~/B~m OZ v9'£SZ'G'Z$ H"vSB'~$ 0~/SZ/90 S~ 9L'SB£'S~$ Bv'ZBt ~$ O~/BG'/SO B~ v9'SvB'9Z$ LV'L£Z'Z$ O~/ZO/SO H 00'L£6'9Z$ SL'vvG"G'$ O~HOlvO 9~ Bv'Lt'v'LG'$ 6G"LBZ'Z$ o~/al£o S~ BZ'OB£' ~Z$ S9' ~BL' ~$ O~/BZ/~O v~ OO'LBZ'SZ$ Sl'LO~'Z$ O~/G'OHO £~ OZ'LL£'v~$ o ~'B6~' ~$ S 60HO/H G'~ ZL'96(."6~$ 90'909' ~$ sOlwn ~~ OZ'S69'£Z$ 09'vL6' ~$ 60H~/0~ O~ OlrB~S'9Z$ OS'SO(."l$ 60/91160 6 OB'09G"v~$ Ov'BB~' ~$ 60/6~/60 B 09'69V'9Z$ O!rsoG"Z$ 60/6G'/BO L 9~'09S'VG'$ B9'9vO'G'$ SO/90/BO 9 VZ' OSG"£G'$ zn£6' ~$ 60/~0/SO S OIr009'9~$ W£B£'~$ 60/BOILO v BO'9G'G"vZ$ VB'B ~O'G'$ £ BO/6G'/£0 £ BnvL'£Z$ WSL6' ~$ BonO/ZO G' BG"OSL' ~~$ 6~'6L6$ BO/£ono ~ ~uaWAed ~uawAed uo paJ!~a~ lenuuv Alll~UOVII S~/9~m - BOOl IS!I UO!suad

2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report jar the City oj Dover, Delaware Financial Section - Report of Independent Public Accountants - Part A fJ) QiftonLarsonAllen LL P CLAconnect.com CliftonLarsonAllen INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council of Dover, Delaware Dover, Delaware Report on the Financial Statements We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the business- type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Dover, Delaware (the City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2017, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents. Management's Responsibility for the Financial Statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. Auditors' Responsibility Our responsibility is to express opInions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditors' judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the City's preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions. 16

2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the City of Dover, Delaware Financial Section - Report of Independent Public Accountants - Part A The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council of Dover, Delaware Opinions In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City as of June 30, 2017, and the respective changes in financial position and, where applicable, cash flows thereof for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Emphasis of Matter Change in Accounting Principle During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017, the City adopted GASB Statement No. 74, Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefit Plans Other Than Pension and GASS Statement No. 75, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefits Other Than Pensions. As a result of implementation, the City disclosed information and reported a restatement related to its Net Other Postemployment Benefits Liability as disclosed in Note 8 and 16. Our auditors' opinion was not modified with respect to the restatement. Other Matters Required Supplementary Information Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the management's discussion and analysis, the General fund-schedule of revenues, expenditures, and cbanges in fund balance-budget and actual; the scbedules of changes in-net...pension liability, related rcatiosfOf the.opolice pensio pia Ad he general employee pension plan; the schedule of employer contribution to he police pensio plan and he ge~al employee pension plan, the schedul of the City of Dove' .[oportionat sh of the net pension liability for the county and municipal polic and firefighters pension plan; the schedule of the City of E>over's-contributionsfOF the county and municipal police and fi~ighteI§j)~on plan; andxthe schedule of changes in net OPES liability, related ratios for fffe OPEB plan~ndrschedule of City Contributions for the other post-employment plan be presented to supplement the basic financia~ statements. uch information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essentia part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropr'ate operational, economic, or historical context. We hav pplied certain limited procedures to the requi ed upplementa!y information in accordal1ce wiffi auCiifing standards generally accepted in the United Stj3tes of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the 'nformation and comparing the inform '0 for. GOnsistency with management's responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statemenJs. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance. Other Information Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opInions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements. The introductory section, combining and individual fund schedules, budgetary comparison schedules and statistical section are presented for purposes of additional analySis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements. The combining and individual fund schedules and budgetary comparison schedules are the responsibility of management and were derived from and relate directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting 17 ?I

2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the City of Dover, Delaware Financial Section - Report of Independent Public Accountams - Part A The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council of Dover, Delaware and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the combining and individual fund schedules and budgetary comparison schedules is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole. The introductory and statistical has not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements, and accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on it. CliftonLarsonAllen LLP Baltimore, Maryland January 31, 2018 18 32

6~O~ O£ das >6~0~ O£ unr 6~0~ ~£ Je11'II 9~0~ ~£ oaa 9~O~ O£ das >9~O~ O£ unr %~OO~ 6L9'v~v$ UL'699'~v$ 9~0~ ~£ Je11'II %~9°£ 9v~'61.9'~$ £69'v L~' ~v$ no~ ~£ oaa %vOOO- ~60'9L$- LV9'99L'6£$ no~ das O£ %O6°~~ ~OO'O£~'v$ %O£Ov £96'L£9' ~$ 6£L' ~LL '6£$ >no~ unr O£ %UOv ~9£'O~9' ~$ 99L'££ L'9£$ no~ Je11'II ~£ %O~OO- 9v9'vL$- 96£'£G9'9£$ 9WG oaa L£ %9Go£ £09'99L'L$ Lvt969'9£$ 9~OG O£ das %£9°0 £OG'LG~$ %99°9 Ive:o'696' L$ 9£L'Lv9'9£$ > 9LOe: O£ unr %££°0- £L6'~LL$- vLL'e:L9'££$ 9~0e: L£ Je11'II %L6°L 6LO'099$ LG9'v99'££$ 9~O~ ~£ oaa %Lv09- L86'S8~'~$- 8VS'V£O'££$ SLO~ O£ das %69°Z £~~{L69$ %£9°L L9~'£09'Z$ 9£S'OG£'9£$ > SLOZ O£ unr %S6°V- 68L'LOL'L$- V8£'L L9'~£$ 9LO~ L£ Je11'II %vOO£ L09'6LO'L$ £L ~'SG9 '17£$ vLOZ oaa L£ %99°~- 9v9'£~6$- 99£'909'££$ v~OZ O£ das %LLO£L 690'99L'V$ %L6°v 8Z9'LL9'L$ Z L6'8Gt;.'t;.£$ unr > vLO~ O£ %LLOO 9179'99$ v8£'L L9'Z£$ vLOe: L£ Je11'II %66°S 989'098' L$ 6£L' L9L'~£$ £L6e: L£ oaa %17LO~ OO~'9v9$ £90' L~6'O£$ £L6~ O£ das %99°L£ OO£'6LG'9$ %99°L~ L90'89£'9$ £SS'Z9tO£$ >£L6Z unr O£ %S~OL ££9'£9Z$ 98L'v6S'vZ$ £LOZ L£ Je11'II %9vOL- 888'99£$- £SL'L~9'vZ$ ~~Oe: L£ oaa %(;9°£~ 98v'£66 '(;$ L17O'LL6'v(;$ (;LO(; O£ das %9LOO- £ L£'v£$- £S9'£96' LZ$ > ZLOZ O£ unr 999'L ~O'Z(;$ Z~O~ L£ Je11'II % a6ue48 a6ue48% a6ue48 JO S8 aouelea Jea" Aea ol1'II lenuuy lenuuy °3leJaua8 uew!II!1I'II - JOllu0lI'IIlUawls9J\ul AIJ9lJeno

0$ LL9'H$- 1796'(;99'17$ 6LL'09£'v$ 9L~ '(;0(;$ 99£'699$- 9VO'9VL'£$ L99'9L9'(;$ 0$ L99'9L9'(;$ HO(; 9~ 0$ OVO'9~$- ~Lv'(;90'~$ ~£~'099$ 017£'(;0(;$ 9~9'9(;9$- 9(;(;'9 ~L'£$ 6W690'£$ 00L'(;v9$ 60L'9v(;'(;$ 9~0(; v~ 0$ (;6L'9~$- 9£v'v9~H 696'1796$ 9W60(;$ 0££'09(;$- (;VB'669'£$ (;~9'6W£$ 000'8179$ (;~9'9L9'(;$ 9~0(; 8~ 9L£'0(;$- 96(;'9~$- 0~9'OOC'V$ 096'9v~'v$ 099'~~(;$ (;90'~9~$- 9~9'889'8$ 9EL'(;Lv '8$ 00L'V6~ '8$ OCO'9a$ V~O(; (;~ £~9'09$- 09(;'~(;$- Ovn96'~$ 8v(;'~9D$ L60'88(;$ (;06'~8£'9$ ~99'99v'£$ 89v'99L'6$ 009'LLv'6$ 896'0~8$ £~O(; ~~ v9£'60~$- 6v~'9~$- ~O~'va$ ~66'v$- (;60'6L(;$ VV6'90~$- 9L9'6v<::'8$ v86'£v~ '8$ 006'69L'(;$ 1780'1798$ (;~O(; O~ vL£'O~$- OL9'9(;$- 0(;<::'~L9$ VL9'LL8$ 9179'86(;$ ~99'69(;$ LL9'LLO'8$ 9z:L'Lv£'8$ 9917'(;86'(;$ 8L<::'9~v$ ~~O(; 6 996'98$- L9£'9(;$- 90£'99(;'(;$ 60L'896'~$ 669'176(;$ 99L'~99$- 99£'(;86'(;$ £(;9'OL(;'(;$ 0$ 8(;9'OL(;'(;$ O~O(; 9 H9'68$- £176'(;(;$- 99(;'£99' ~$- 89v'(;H'(;$- 96~'608$ 69£'9(;(;$- (;9L'9~L'(;$ 868' ~6v'(;$ 0$ 868'~6v'(;$ 600(; L 808'9~$- 60~'(;(;$- 99v'OL9$- vOn9 ~'~ $- 9~9'99(;$ Lv9'L(;(;$ 889'099'(;$ 090'906'(;$ 000'9(;9$ 090'89£'(;$ 900(; 9 609'9(;$- OLO'(;(;$- 699'996'(;$ ~99'999'(;$ 9~L'L9(;$ 909'9~v$ 08L'098 '(;$ 989'9LL'(;$ (;17(;'899$ 86<::'860'(;$ LOO(; 9 9~(;'09$- 009'6~$- 8(;6'889'~$ 96v'vL9' ~$ av'69(;$ 999'696$- OL9'969'(;$ (;99'98n$ 0$ (;99'98D$ 900(; 17 (;6V'9~$- 0£9'6~$- OL9'L~0'~$ ~9v'(;9L$ 60(;'99(;$ £86'99L$- 9LL"V98 '(;$ 9v9'999'~$ 0$ 9179'999' ~$ 900(; 8 088'9$- 9(;~'9~$- 6~L'9W~$ 669'96~'~$ 0(;9'617(;$ 69n9~'~$- 69<::'8(;<::'(;$ OLv'~vO'~$ 0$ OLv'~vo'~$ 1700(; (; (;917'9$- v6v'9~$- 900'99$- vL8'(;(;8$- 998"L8(;$ (;6nH'~$- (;0<::'8LO'(;$ 0~6' ~v6$ 000'0£8$ 0~6' ~~9$ £00(; ~ luawlsaAul awooul uOllnqujuo8 N011n81~lN08 18j01 wnsdwnl paseq 1I0JAed spun!a~ ·!WPV + aAoldw3 jUaWjSaAUI jaN aaAoldw3 AlI813N paAed UO!suad uO!lnquluoo Al!8 uO!jnqujuoo Aj!8 uOljnqpjuoo Aj!8

0 £- 9- 9- ~~- l- ll- O~- ~~ 6~ -- 09- ~££ ~££ ~££ O~£ ~£ LS£ 6S£ ~g£ ~6£ 09£ ~9£ 1'11'101 ---- 0 ~ 0 ~- l 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 9 6~ 6~ S~ S~ 9~ ~~ ~~ £~ £~ £~ U pelssl'I pSJJSjSa L- g- 6- O~- g~- g~- 9~- l~- ~ 9l S6- g~ £l ~£ OV OS gg £B 66 ~~~ OU ~e palset\-uoN - ssaAoldwe a)\110'l L ~ £ L g- £~- U L- 0 6- l ~6 vB £B oe £L ~g ~6 lB 69 69 96 paJsat\ Ann.::! • sasAoldws SI'I110'1 0 0 0 l- £~ 9l 6~· 6 O~ ~ Ll SOl SOl 90l 90l LOl v6~ B9~ LB~ 9H B9~ L9~ sJ~suaq f:lU!I'I!90aJAJluaJJnosa!Je!O~susq pue peJ!l9H HOl HOl 9~Ol g~OZ ~~Ol £~Ol UOl nOl O~Ol 600l BOOl LOOZ OJ (d)600l -_ a6uel!O 'lI0£ eunr )jeaa lunoO d!l!SJaqw91/1JUO!SU9d

I V~"B9S' ~S$ OO'Ooo'OvZ$ I J vv'e9S' ~6G$ OO'OOO'Z~$ %9B"G BLZv£$ £L~Bv'H$ Ol OO'OOO'l~$ %OB'2: 90'9££$ SS'B£~Jn$ S~ OO'OOO'Z~$ %SL'c LV'Sl£$ OS'lOB'9~$ B~ OO'OOO'G~$ %S9'(;, ~O'£l£$ £V'£LvJ9~$ L~ OO'OOO'l~$ %v~r(;' L9'9~£$ lv'OS~J9~$ OO'OOO'l~$ m %SS'2: LV'O~£$ SL'££B'9~$ g~ OO'OOO'l~$ %VS-z B£'vO£$ Bl'£c9'g~$ v~ OO'OOO'G~$ %SVG ~v'BSG$ OS'B~tS~$ £~ OO'OOO'l~$ %1717'2: gg'lSl$ 6v'Ol6'v~$ U OO'OOO'l~$ %6£'2: lB'9Bl$ £6'Ll9'v~$ ~~ OO'OOO'Z~$ %V£.(;' Ol'~Bl$ ~~'~V£'V~$ O~ OO'OOO'l~$ %O£'Z eg'ga$ ~6'690'v~$ 6 OO'OOO'l~$ %SZ'Z Bl'OLl$ £z'veL'£~$ e OO'OOO'Z~$ %~l'Z BS'v9l$ , SS'£~S'£~$ L OO'ooO'G~$ 1%9~'l BL'SSl$ LS'BVl'£~$ 9 'OO'OOO'l~$ I I%l~'l 69'V9l$ S~'SB6'G~$ S 00 OOO'l~$ %BO'Z OL'Svl$ OS'V£L'l~$ 17 OO'ooO'l~$ %vO'Z OB'vvl$ Oe'VBv'U$ £ OO'ooO'l~$ i%OO'l OO'Ovl$ OO'OVG'G~$ G OO'OOO'G~$ I . OO'OOO'U$ ~ I [ l , , I I aseaJOU! Qui aseaJOU! %1 eseaJOU! %Z!

COLA History January 1,1983 less than 3 years 0% 3 to 15 years 5.7% more than 15 years 10.5% -; Julyl, 1986 all retirees 2% L_ July 1, 1988 all retirees prior to 6/30/88 5% t July 1, 1989 all retirees prior to 6/30/89 2% ~ 1993 $60/year - max $600 0% based on years of service ;J' July 1, 1996 years of service & pension amount - minimum $100 L.t' July 1, 2000 all retirees $20 per month _ increase minimum monthly amount to $200 .2 July 1, 2002 all retirees prior to 2% December 31, 2000 I July 1, 2003 all retirees 1.5% ~ July 1, 2005 all retirees prior to 2% December 31, 2004 I June 26, 2006 all retirees prior to 1% Janual)' 1, 2006 I July 2007 None - $75,00 set aside for July 2008 I)_ 2. 0 i '8. :J. /16 ~J

The goal of fulling funding the Defined Benefit Plan should be a high priority, it would be very reassuring to the members of the plan to know what that value is and when will be reached. In 2003 the pension payment was $2,073,202 with a fund balance of $14,446,848 in 2017 the pension payment was $3,746,045with a fund balance of $39,365,436. The fund balance went up $24,918,588 while the annual payment went up $1,672,843 At a Council Workshop November 3, 2008 a plan was presented to Amortize a $24,4518,821 Unfunded Liability for the Civilian Pension Plan totaling $41,890,827 - Increasing plan or $39,757,357for a Level plan. In January 24, 2017 a report by nyhart listed the unfunded liability for July 2014 as $25,452,793 and the July 2016 as $22,060,391. I would like to make two request: City Council be provided with a listing of all current retirees without names - listed in order of monthly payment lowest to highest, with status SS or GE, age and date of retirement. This would provide an understanding of the people involved. The current amount of the unfunded liability and the plan to fund it.

· " ~ I\) ~ ~ ~ ei OD -.j Ol <11 WI\) ~ z 0 '";0 0 ""m z i ~ if 9} ~ ~ ~ :f :3 ~ ~~ !!!. ::J !!!. '!:!. ~B II> ill !!! !.ar 2-::J 0 Q. ;a> 0 '" '" t5II> ~ 'Qj 88 II> II> ! "'0 ~ aa f :=~:3 II> ,r ..,So 0. C) ~. 6: !!46: ~ 5. 3- !i I ::J ~ II> '"3 '" 8. ""cr ::J 0 rTs;;. 30. CD _. m, So (I) tr 0 ::J !l ::r III Ii c)" ::Jao () Q. .z ::J Q) il cj" l~ ~ o ::J -0 ~G> 3' :i" •• ::J a ~ ~. 0 6' ::J I t5 ~ ~ III ::J ." m, z s 1...., §iil c:...(I) ~. [ II> § 0 !a- c)" c 3 c ii1 .5 (I) ~ ::J ::J 3'<'" <II ~ - 5' Z s: "D a !!. <T ~ Ii i l:!~ 3 •• I~~. ~ 0 lit [ ::J ::J ~. Q) ~ :l ~ ~ <! ~ ~ <11 I\) .N ~ ••• ••• .:. "" i\J OD ••• W '£ j ~ j ~OD ~ ,~ ~ ~~ f:l !::! w -.j I~ ti J>. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •.. f•.. §* .•. J~~ II'> .N I\) •.. N •.. ~ !: "" "" •.....• ~ ,w ~ """ i... w m ~ ~& 1ll ~ ~ ~ -:r. ~ :::! ~ ~ ;:j -.j ~ ~ ~ m I~ ~I;;' 18 ~ ~, •.. !: '" .~ .z. •.. •.. .N •.. I\) •.. .N •.. !: •.. ~ ~CD ~ U) ~ OJ ~ ! ~ in -:r. ~ 8! ~ I\) ,-~ .~ ~ '" ~ ,Ie <11 ~ ~ '"!ll 111 ,~ ,!C ~ §'tol !: ~ •.. •.. •.. UI A •.. ,I\) I\) W ~ ~ in -.j :::l ~ •.. I\) -.." !!l ,ID (1) §! ~ 18 ,~ N N '<11 "" - ~~ ~ ~ iD i ,;:; g 113 ~ ",g: 0 ~ §J>. •.. ••• I\) i•.. <11 •..cD ~ '"w .N ••• .N ••• .N••• § ~ (1) ~ w ~ ••• f:Jl •••I::l ~ j (:) ~ ~ } ~ §l ~ ~ 12! ~ I~ ::t ,~If ~ ~<11 '''' ••• !: , I\) I\) cD CD ••• .N ••• ••• ••• ~ ~,I\) tl :::! ••• ~ ,<11 :::J (1) •.. ,I::l•.. iii ~ ~ •••.z. ~ tl1~ ai -,J ~ a. W ~Ol ~ ! I~ ! ~ .[ ~ n~ ~ ;» §i ~ ~ ••• I\) •.. /n I\) m cD .:.!'l ~ ••• •.. ••• ~ ::t ••• '"~, ~ ~ § ~ fZ I::l Ol ~ ~ ~ ,-.) :f'" i::l ~ ~ -.." :... :... J>. ~ ~ :::l I\) ...." I~ II:!! &! ~ ~'~ ~ ~-.j ~ ~ ~ ••• ••• ~ ,~ ,N N r j1 ••• ••• ~ ~ ~ 1§ ~ f:Jl ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'iii ~ ~ ~ lit! ~ I'~ OOD ~-.j •••A •••W ••• ...." ••• ••• ,I\)r ~ •••W ,w :... ~ :::l ~ ~ "8 ..•.. ..• .•••0 .Ill••• ...." ~~ .1\)91 0> to) -.j i m ";:t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ "'ID '" ; l m~ ••• •••w ••• ,I\) ••• •..I::l •..I::l ••• ~ ••• .~ ••• '" ~ '~ ~ -.j "& ~ ~ g ~~ ~ a. -.j '~ •.. ~ 18 ~ ~'~ ;:; len ~ 01) I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ '~..." ~ ••• •.. •••W ••• ~ ~ I::l ••• to •••W ~ ,ID ••• -:r. ••• AW ~ ~A ~ § •••~ ~ ~ W :::lei ~ i ~ •.. ~~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ W ...~ ~ I~ ~~ ~ W'" ~ ~ J>. ••• ••• 5" •••W •.. -.j ••• 5" ••• ••• ,J>. ~ ••• ~ ••• -til <11 ~to ~Rl 2! ~w 0> ~ ~ ~Q) & g '~ ! '~~ t::! ~ Iil! OJ ~ IcD I~ § ~ ~;;J •.. ••• ••• III ~ •.. •••w t:: ,A '~ ~ ~ •.. E~ ••• ~ ~ .01 ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ t::! '" ~ § .. to) ~ lIB ,~ ~ -.j §I~ ~ ..... (IIW , tl ~ <11 ... W It:\ r i ... ••• -.." !: ~ :... ••• •.. j ~ ~ ~ a> (1) ~ 1\)8; 2 i~ in ~ t::! .§ ~ ai ~ !~ ~ ~I~ ~ I;:; ~ *

.•.. W N :::::: a to Ol -,J m ()1 ~ WI\) ..• z () :;0 (j') i !ll. ::J" ~ (D lD ~ at m Q~ z -i ;;, ::J ~ 3 ~ 2 III Dl ~ t:' (D (1) [ "tl (II IA ..::l 10 ::l ~ 0' -<""" :;r !a (D 0 Q. ;;!! 8 9 -<TO ~ ;;; (/I ~ ~ ""tD :::I 2- t: .,Ii a .,E1. 1ll? (D =t ::l, :l' C. I ~ "0 tD 3 ~ 0 i7[ [~IE.., a. co IJ 0 ::J 3~ ::J 8 ~~ ~I ::l S' m 0 3- 3: 0' ia g. e.G) m !i ::1 e. 01 U> '"0' 6: g ::l -::1 s' :or TO '"0'::J j[ ~g OJ I I ~. ~ 10 Z '"::1 0 0 ::r. -"0 8'" ~' ! 0 a '" !ll. 'l' •• t: III 3 ~E1. ;;, ., 3 ~ ::J 3'"' m iil "C Z "C 0 !ll. 6' C f '" 0' t: = » (II 5- ;;; 3 Q) ~~.0 III :::l ::J '" l ~ !!.l ltl W •••w •••W •••'" I if> .1\) ••• J>, ••• ~ -...., !l! O!~ -:,.. 0> 3 ffi m ~ '" m ~ .0> 01 ~ -,J ~ t:l I ~ .1\) m -.•.. -", -", ~ a I~ I-~ I\) '" ~ ~ I\) •••0 -,J ~I~ a ~ -,J'" ~..• ! Ul ~ () ::T 01 :::I co (D S' if> if> fA ~ ~ •••0 I~ I~ I~ 0 I~ 0 0 I~ I~ I!t' I!t' m l •. , :::I r5. :::I I I\) •... if> ••• fA fA ~ 0 •••0 •••0 0 0 0 •••0 00 0 ~w .,. ••• ~ '"0 .,. ••• if> •... 0 0 0 •••0 •••0 •••0 •••0 •••0 •••0 ~~ 0 ~ .•.. jt! •... ~ I~ .~ ~ ~ '"0 0 •••0 ••• 0 I~ ~ I~ ~OI ~ •... •... .,. ~ co 0 .,. •... ••• 0 0 0 0 ••• •••0 0 0 •••0 00 •••••• •••0 ~m m ~ 0 I~ •••0 •... 0 •••0 .,. 0 I~ I~ •••0 ~I!t' I!t' §I- I\) •... 0 0 ••• ~ ~ •••0 :t ~ li! •... ~O> ~ ~~ 0 I ~ ts ts ts ts ts ts ~ ~ ~ tl~ ~ b!"" ~ ~ I~ ~ •... 0 I~ ~ .~ I~ I~ I~ ~I~ '"0 I\) 0 1\) ••• .,. 0 ••• 0 •.. 0 ••• 0 •••0 ••• 0 ~ ••• 0 ••• 0 •••••• 00 •••0 -,J'" ••• ••• ••• ....•.• fA I\) ~ ~ 0 •••0 0 0 •••0 •••0 ••• 0 00 0 I~~ ..• I~ I~ Ij!!! I~ ••• a Ij!!' ~ ~ 11tl Ijt! 1Il ~ I~ :;:'; •.. ••• ••• a 0 a ••• 0 .... 0 ••• 0 .... 0 ••• 0 00 •••••• ••• 0 I~.•....• '"0

City of Dover Council Workshop November 3, 2008 - 7:30 p.m. - AGENDA Defined Benefit Pension Plan

City of Dover Pension Plan Presentation November 3, 2008 Existing Plans Defined Benefit Plan or 401a Money Purchase Plan Yes Close Defined No Pros Cons Yes No Pros Cons Cost 2

City of Dover Civilian Pension Plans Features General Employee Pension Plan Inception Date: July 1,1967 Type: Defined Benefit Plan Ownership: City of Dover - Pension Trust Fund Cost of Living Adjustments: Not provided for in Pension Ordinance; There is a history of prior COLA recommendations by Board of Trustees and approval by Council; Motion to discuss Ad Hoc COLA each January; Investment Management: Pension Board of Trustees and Asset Management Advisor Investment & Non-Investment Risk: City of Dover Employee Contributions Required: Yes, Effective 7/1/83 Employee Contribution Percentage: 3 ~ % of gross salary, exclusive of unscheduled overtime City Contribution: Actuarially Determined; 4.12% Normal Cost & 22.92% Unfunded Liability Vesting Requirement: Yes, 10 years Participation: Active Employees - 199 Retired/Disabled Employees -172 Vested - 13 Retirement Eligibility: Prior to May 1, 1994 Age 65 with 10 years of continuous service Age 50 with 20 years of continuous service Any age with 25 years of continuous service On or After May 1, 1994 Age 65 with 10 years of continuous service Age 55 & years of continuous service is equal to or greater than 80 Reduced benefit Age 55 with 10 years of continuous service Accounting Requirements: Actuarial Analysis and Recognition of Unfunded Liabilities Money Purchase Plan -Internal Revenue Code 401a Inception Date: July 1, 2000 Type: IRC401a Plan Ownership: Employee or Retiree Investment Management: Employee and Asset Management Advisor Investment & Non-Investment Risk: Employee or Retiree Employee Contributions Required: Yes Employee Contribution Percentage: 3% of gross salary, exclusive of unscheduled overtime City Contribution: 3% of gross salary, exclusive of unscheduled overtime Additional City Contribution: If the employee contributes to the 457 Deferred Compensation Plan, the City will also provide an additional match up to 3%; bringing the total contribution up to 6% Vesting Requirement: None Partici pation: Active Employees - 80 Retired Employees - 3 Retirement Eligibility: Same as General Pension Plan Accounting Requirements: None; Employee Owned 3

City of Dover Defined Benefit Plan Actuary Analysis Accounting rules require that each owner of a Defined Benefit Pension Plan conduct an actuarial analysis no less than every two years to determine the funding level needed to provide all participants in the pension plan the benefits promised over their lifetime. This applies to active and retired employees. In order to conduct the analysis, the Actuary makes certain assumptions as follows: Assumptions - Valuation Date: Each analysis is as of a point in time - July 1 each year Employee Contribution: 3 Y2% Employer Contribution: Percentage provided in last actuarial analysis Inflation rate: 3 Y2% Projected salary increases: 4 Y2% Investment rate of return: 7 Y2% Mortality Table: 1993 Group Annuity Mortality Table Retirement Years: Takes into consideration hire date and retirement eligibility for each employee based on plan provisions After the liability calculation is completed, the Actuary then compares the amount to value of the investments held by the Pension Trust. The difference between the value of the investments and the Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) is the Unfunded Liability. This is summarized below for 7/1/08. Actuarial Accrued Liability $43,800,212 Market Value of Assets $18,325,764 Deferred Loss (Gain) 1,055,627 (see Note 1) Adjusted Market Value of Assets $19,381,391 Unfunded Actuarial Liability $24,418,821 Funding Ratio 41.84% (see Note 2) Note 1- The accounting standards permit you to spread gains greater than the actuarial assumption (7.5%) or losses over a five year period. This past year resulted in investment losses and the Deferred Loss (Gain) includes one fifth of the loss. Note 2 - The Funding ratio is the Market Value of the Assets divided by the Actuarial Accrued Liability. 100% is a fully funded plan. This plan is less than 50% funded. In order for the City to '\ keep its promise to plan participants it should strive to get the plan fully funded. 4

City of Dover Civilian Pension Plans Pros and Cons of Cost of Living Increases PROS );;> Inflationary adjustment to current benefit );;> Retiree morale and goodwill CONS );;> Ability to fully fund a Pension COLA in the budget o City Actuary recommends if COLA's continue they be fully funded due to the size of the unfunded liability; Current estimate for a 2% COLA is $595,000, however the calculation is based on meeting the assumptions each year; );;> Unfunded liability will increase if the actuarial assumptions are not met each year );;> Concern of lack of fairness to participants in the 401a Plan as COLA's are not a feature of their plan; Expectation to provide COLA to the 401a Plan participants; Pros and Cons of Closing Defined Benefit Plan PROS );;> Reduce investment risk o If we don't meet the 7.5% rate of return investment assumption, the City's cost and unfunded liability increases );;> Reduce non-investment risk o Higher than assumed pay increases o Mortality - participants living longer than mortality tables o Retirement's sooner than assumed );;> Eventual elimination of unfunded liability and annual amortization of the unfunded liability }i;> Annual budget requirements for the unfunded liability would no longer be necessary, once the plan is fully funded. Current Budget Requirement $1,969,580 for unfunded liability. );;> Reduction of liability would enhance bond ratings CONS );;> Employer normal cost contribution up to 6% for 401a Plan versus 4.12% for Defined Benefit Plan }i;> Recruitment; Defined Benefit Plans are traditionally governmental plans );;> No vesting requirement may lead to higher turnover );;> The liability has to be spread evenly over the amortization period for a closed plan. An open plan allows the City to increase the cost by 3 Yz % each year. The City's cost will increase the first 8 years and decrease in Year 9 and forward. (Details on following page) 5

9 9I 51 t1 n Z1 11 01 6 8 L 9 5 17 f 7_ 1 , _L -'- - 0$ 000'005$ OOO'OOO'TS 000'00')'1$ ~lI!Sl:'aJ_)lIl - OOO'OOO'<:S OOO'OOO'~$ OOO'OO,)'f$ 000'000'17$ Lg£'LgL'6£$ Ll8'068' ~V$ 18l01. g£8'v8v'l$ gOg'gv£'£$ vlOl g~ g£8'v8v'l$ g£v'££l'£$ £lOl g~ g£8'v8v'l$ ~60'vl~'£$ llOl v~ g£8'v8v'l$ gvv'8~O'£$ ~lOl £~ g£8'v8v'l$ £L£'9~6'l$ OlOl l~ g£8'v8v'l$ ~gL'L~8'l$ 6~Ol ~~ g£8'v8v'l$ ggv'llL'l$ 8~Ol O~ g£8'v8v'l$ ~Ov'O£9'l$ L~Ol 6 g£8'v8v'l$ Ogv'~vg'l$ 9~Ol 8 g£8'v8v'l$ 80g'ggv'l$ g~Ol L g£8'v8v'l$ ~Lv'lL£'l$ v~Ol 9 g£8'v8v'l$ £vl'l6l'l$ £~Ol g g£8'v8v'l$ LlL'v~l'l$ l~Ol v g£8'v8v'l$ SS8'6S~'l$ ~~Ol £ g£8'v8v'l$ ~Lv'L9O'l$ O~Ol l gS8'v8v'l$ Lgg'L66' ~$ 600l ~ uOllezrl-JOW" uOIJezll,lOW" unr-o£ JeliOa 6u!seaJ:>ul 6u!PU3 laJ\al JeaA Al!l!qen papunjU ~Z8'8~t'tZ$ az!l,IOw" OJsluawAed lenuu" ------ Aoot sueld UO!sUad UemA!) JaAOa JO A~!)

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY City of Dover, Delaware General Employee and Police Pension Plans

; Certification This report was prepared for the City of Dover to summarize the results of the 7/1/2016 funding valuations and the GASB67 & 68 accounting reports as of June 30, 2016, and may not be appropriate for other uses. Please contact Nyhart prior to disclosing this report to any other party or relying on its content for any purpose other than the intended use. Except where indicated otherwise, the funding results included in this report are based on the same data, assumptions, methods, and plan provisions as the 7/1/2016 funding valuations. As a result, these sections of the 2016 funding reports dated 12/30/2016 should be considered part of this report. Accounting results are based on the same data, assumptions, methods and plan provisions as described in the 6/30/2016 GASB67 & 68 reports. As a result, these sections of the GASB67 & 68 report dated 10/4/2016 and 9/23/2016 should be considered part of this report. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted actuarial principles and practice. The undersigned are compliant with the continuing education requirements of the Qualification Standards for Actuaries Issuing Statements of Actuarial Opinion in the United States. ~Cl./lJ~ Carter M. Angell, FSA, EA, MAAA Elizabeth A. Wiley, ASA 2

New actuary A lot of changes Audit of previous results for funding and accounting Fresh look at where things are and where they are going

Transition to Nyhart JoO ~ General Employees ,,'.,"', , .. ";Measurements as of 7/1/2014 Prior Actuary Nyhart $ Difference % Difference ~" ., ,." "'I.' • Actuarial Accrued Liability $58,278,646 $57,854,095 ($424,551) (0.7%) Employer Normal Cost $253,709 $237,390 ($16,319) (6.4%) Employee Normal Cost $199,958 $203,725 $3,767 1.9% PYE2016 Contribution $2,983,776 $2,914,643 ($69,133) (2.3%) • Nyhart was able to match key measurements within a reasonable range, and did not identify any pension plan provisions which were not captured or were valued inappropriately. • For the conversion, Nyhart reviewed data, plan provisions, & assumptions summarized by the prior actuary in the 7/1/2014 valuation report. 4

Valuation Results Recommended Contribution V') 4,000 "'0 c ~ 3,000 $188 :::l $172 o ~ 2,000 $2,542 $2,420 1,000 o --$2.~-- -~-~232.---.. 7/1/2014 7/1/2016 • ER Normal Cost • Amortization Interest 7'"1/20:16 Accrued Liability $58,278,646 $58,851,782 Actuarial Value of 36,791,391 J~/(ytf) 73~ 32,825,853 Assets Unfunded Liability 25,452,793 22,060,391 Funded Percentage 56.3% 62.5% Recommended $2,983,776 $2,824,098 Contribution 5

( ; GASB 67, 68 Accounting Results - General Employees 6/30/2016 Total pension liability (TPL) 58,673,000 58,807,821 Plan fiduciary net position (35,290,922) (35,698,537) Net pension liability 23,382,078 23,109,284 Ratio of plan fiduciary net position to TPL 60.15% 60.70% • The net pension liability decreased from 201Sto 2016. • $1,43S,000 expected decrease • $267,000 decrease due to demographic gains • $1,429,000 increase due to asset underperformance (Le. return of 2.4%vs. expectation of 6.S0%) 6

~ GASB 67, 68 Accounting Results - General Employees Service Cost $458,969 $401,218 Interest on TPL 3,861,154 3,718,982 Projected earnings on investments (2,406,707) (2,279,528) Employee contributions (209,446) (202,340) Administrative expense 18,792 16,040 Recognition of deferred outflows/{inflows)* $716,377 935,467 Pension Expense $2,439,139 $2,589,839 The expense was $219,000 higher than anticipated. The increase was largely due to the $1.4 million loss on asset performance, which ACTUARY'S caused a $286,000 increase in expense (as the loss is amortized over 5 years). This loss was offset by demographic gains which lowered COMMENT expense by $67,000. * The recognition of deferred outflows/(inflows) includes charges due to differences between expected and actual experience in measurement of the TPL, changes of assumptions, and differences between projected and actual earnings on pension plan investments 7

Monthly Report June 2018 Office of City Assessor

Number of Deeds Stamped for Transfer Tax Dollar Amount for the Month of June 2017/2018 the Month of June 2017/2018 32 35 34 35 $100 $70 $81 Thousands 30 21 25 19 25 14 $35 20 $50 $26$32 $16 15 $3 10 2 0 3 2017 $0 2017 5 $0 0 2018 2018 First Time Buyer for the Month June 2017/2018 Realty of June 2017/2018 Property Sales in Dollars Received Prior to Recording 32 35 40 $5 $5 $6 $4 25 Res. Non‐First $3 Millions 30 21 $4 $2 $1 Time Buyers $2 $0 $0 20 2017 Res. First Time $0 10 Buyers 2018 0 2017 2018 Major Updates April ‐ 18 May ‐ 18 June ‐ 18 Assessment Change $3,094,300 ‐$3,479,500 $8,922,900 Residential Sales Ratio Report Sales in Study Total Assessed Total Sale Price Ratio PRD Value 37 $5,539,700 $6,393,475 0.87 1.02 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 ‐ Preparing for Fiscal Year 2019 tax billing.

JUL 11, 2018 CITY OF DOVER PAGE: 1 08:20 AM SALES RATIO REPORT CA324 PARID NBHD LUC ADDRESS UNITS STYLE YRBLT STORIES SFLA GRADE CDU TOTAL APPR SALE DT PRICE ASR ED05-067.01-02-09.00 18 R10 15 GEMSTONE BLVD 1 1 2013 2 1941 B AV 220,200 29-JUN-18 239,900 ED05-067.05-02-22.00 18 R10 208 MEADOW DR 1 5 1994 2 2792 A- AV 260,600 11-JUN-18 289,900 ED05-067.14-04-38.00 18 R10 24 PIN OAK DR 1 5 2002 2 2468 B- GD 258,400 18-JUN-18 260,000 ED05-067.15-01-35.00 2 R10 67 VILLAGE DR 1 13 1974 2 1450 C- AV 102,300 18-JUN-18 105,000 ED05-067.15-05-19.00 10 R10 838 WOODCREST TRN 1 13 1984 2 1400 C AV 111,800 15-JUN-18 120,000 ED05-067.18-03-08.00 17 R10 17 FREEDOM PL 1 5 1982 2 2168 B AV 191,100 01-JUN-18 215,000 ED05-067.19-03-10.00 17 R10 719 BICENTENNIAL BLVD 1 5 1987 2 2348 B AV 217,300 25-JUN-18 229,000 ED05-067.19-03-54.00 17 R10 30 PATRIOT DR 1 3 1990 1 1797 C AV 160,600 11-JUN-18 222,900 ED05-067.20-02-06.00 10 R10 533 CAROL ST 1 14 1954 1 1120 C GD 123,000 08-JUN-18 141,700 ED05-068.09-01-61.00 8 R10 668 VISTA AVE 1 8 2006 2 2150 B AV 203,800 21-JUN-18 219,000 ED05-068.13-01-04.26 100 R50 51 CHATHAM CT 1 13 1984 2 2118 B- AV 130,200 12-JUN-18 140,000 ED05-068.18-05-68.00 7 R10 52 UPLAND AVE 1 3 1950 1.5 1881 C AV 144,500 22-JUN-18 176,000 ED05-068.19-02-66.00 6 R10 28 ACACIA PL 1 8 1997 2 1640 C AV 138,600 27-JUN-18 162,000 ED05-076.03-01-65.00 14 R10 203 E SHELDRAKE CIR 1 13 2006 2 1855 C+ AV 125,900 15-JUN-18 156,000 ED05-076.03-04-42.00 11 R10 332 GILLIBROOK LN 1 14 2008 1 1568 B+ AV 214,400 05-JUN-18 265,000 ED05-076.06-02-01.00- 103 R50 10 CHASE HALL 1 20 1973 1 1730 B GD 101,100 13-JUN-18 115,000

JUL 11, 2018 CITY OF DOVER PAGE: 2 08:20 AM SALES RATIO REPORT CA324 PARID NBHD LUC ADDRESS UNITS STYLE YRBLT STORIES SFLA GRADE CDU TOTAL APPR SALE DT PRICE ASR 331 ED05-076.06-08-15.00 14 R10 211 N CAROLINE PL 1 5 1992 2 1864 B- AV 164,300 26-JUN-18 190,000 ED05-076.09-03-27.00 14 R10 364 NORTHDOWN DR 1 5 2008 2 1915 C+ AV 190,900 08-JUN-18 225,000 ED05-076.09-03-66.00 14 R10 436 NORTHDOWN DR 1 6 2009 2 2305 C AV 146,400 28-JUN-18 219,900 ED05-076.10-03-41.00 16 R10 1403 WOODMILL DR 1 8 1990 2 1445 C+ AV 127,100 01-JUN-18 152,900 ED05-076.13-03-14.00 14 R10 307 CHARRING CROSS DR 1 13 1997 2 1848 C+ AV 120,200 20-JUN-18 149,500 ED05-077.07-06-71.00 6 R10 425 NOB HILL RD 1 2018 2 1920 B- AV 191,900 12-JUN-18 251,470 ED05-077.07-07-40.00 6 R10 223 LADY BUG DR 13 2018 2 1220 B- AV 115,900 04-JUN-18 131,380 ED05-077.07-07-76.00 6 R10 210 NOB HILL RD 13 2018 2 1220 B- AV 136,800 04-JUN-18 171,790 ED05-077.07-07-77.00 6 R10 208 NOB HILL RD 13 2018 2 1220 B- AV 134,700 12-JUN-18 149,385 ED05-077.07-07-78.00 6 R10 206 NOB HILL RD 13 2018 2 1220 B- AV 134,700 04-JUN-18 146,990 ED05-077.07-07-79.00 6 R10 204 NOB HILL RD 13 2018 2 1220 B- AV 134,700 12-JUN-18 151,990 ED05-077.07-07-80.00 6 R10 202 NOB HILL RD 13 2018 2 1220 B- AV 134,700 29-JUN-18 149,990 ED05-077.07-08-23.00 6 R10 305 BLUECOAT ST 1 2018 2 1920 B- AV 190,800 12-JUN-18 239,780 ED05-077.13-02-41.00 4 R10 807 S STATE ST 1 1 1925 2 2088 C AV 153,200 04-JUN-18 219,000 ED05-077.18-02-37.00 4 R10 141 EVERGREEN DR 1 14 1954 1 1064 C AV 88,800 26-JUN-18 123,000 ED05-085.11-01-61.00 12 R10 163 TURNER DR 1 16 1968 2 2632 C+ AV 169,500 01-JUN-18 147,000 ED05-085.12-02-25.00 12 R10 342 KESSELRING AVE 1 5 1969 2 1928 C+ AV 152,900 08-JUN-18 194,000 ED05-085.12-03-21.00 12 R10 315 MIMOSA AVE 1 5 1971 2 1728 C+ AV 142,200 08-JUN-18 155,000 LC05-058.14-01-01.520 1 R10 520 WEAVER DR 1 14 2004 1 1728 C- GD 90,300 14-JUN-18 62,000 LC05-058.14-01-01.606 1 R10 606 AUDREY DR 1 14 2003 1 1620 C- GD 80,300 12-JUN-18 58,000 LC05-068.08-01-19.00 3A R0 112 MOURNING DOVE LN 35,600 07-JUN-18 49,000

CITY COUNCIL - FY 18/19 Page 1 of 3 CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT FUND JULY 1, 2018 - AUGUST 13, 2018 110-1200-512.30-37 Current Balance - $20,492.22 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 07/20/18 Hare Downtown Councilman Hare authorized $100.00 of his Email dated $100.00 $100.00 $24,900.00 Dover community enhancement funds for the 07/19/2018 Partnership Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP) Captial from W illiam (DDP) City Farmers Market - Meet Me at the Market Hare to Traci Thermal Bag McDowell and Invoice from DDP 07/23/18 Anderson Destiny Councilman Anderson authorized $500.00 of his Email dated $500.00 $600.00 $24,400.00 Christian Church community enhancement funds for the Destiny 07/19/2018 Christian Church for the Book Bag Drive for Low from David Income Youth Anderson to the City Clerk's Office and letter from Pastor Jay Mast dated 07/23/2018 07/24/18 Anderson Inner City Councilman Anderson authorized $1,260.00 of Email dated $1,260.00 $1,860.00 $23,140.00 Cultural League his community enhancement funds for the Inner 06/23/2018 City Cultural League - Summer Youth Programs from David Anderson to Janella Tauchus and letter from Reuben Salters dated 07/24/2018 08/13/18 S:\BUDGETS\Coun-19.qpw

CITY COUNCIL - FY 18/19 Page 2 of 3 07/26/18 Slavin Inner City Councilman Slavin authorized $1000.00 of his Email dated $1,000.00 $2,860.00 $22,140.00 Cultural League community enhancement funds for the Inner 07/26/2018 City Cultural League - All City Music from Timothy Group/Program Slavin to Traci McDowell and letter from Reuben Salters dated 07/12/2018 08/07/18 Lewis Delaware Councilman Lewis authorized the designation of Letter from $211.94 $3,071.94 $21,928.06 Multicultural and $211.94 of his community enhancement DEMCO dated Civic funds to Delaware Multicultural and Civic 04/12/18 and Organization Organization (DEMCO, Inc.) for the remaining an email dated (DEMCO, Inc.) balance of the original requsted amount of 08/07/2018 $711.94 for Zeny Heat Press Machine Pro 6 in from Brian 1 in the amount of $264.99 or Lego Mindstorms Lewis to Traci Education EV3 Core Set in the amount of McDowell $411.95 or RCA Voyager 7" 16GB Tablet Android 6.0 in the amount of $35.00 ($500 was issued from FY 2017/18 Budget) 08/10/18 Polce Connections Councilman Polce authorized the designation of Email dated $1,435.84 $4,507.78 $20,492.22 Community $1435.84 of his community enhancement funds 08/06/18 from Support to Connections Community Support Programs Tanner Polce Programs, Inc. and Health Management Associates for their and Traci Healthy Neighborhoods Paramedicine Project. McDowell and an email dated 08/03/18 from Cheryl Heiks director of Health and Policy and Advocacy to Tanner Polce $4,507.78 $20,492.22 $4,507.78 $20,492.22 $4,507.78 $20,492.22 08/13/18 S:\BUDGETS\Coun-19.qpw

CITY COUNCIL - FY 18/19 Page 3 of 3 Budgeted District Council YTD Expenditures Balance Amount Sponsor $5,000.00 At-Large Slavin $1,000.00 $4,000.00 $2,500.00 1st District Lindell $2,500.00 $2,500.00 1st District Polce $1,435.84 $1,064.16 $2,500.00 2nd District Hare $100.00 $2,400.00 $2,500.00 2nd District Lewis $211.94 $2,288.06 $2,500.00 3rd District Cole $2,500.00 $2,500.00 3rd District Neil $2,500.00 $2,500.00 4th District Anderson $1,760.00 $740.00 $2,500.00 4th District Sudler $2,500.00 TOTAL $4,507.78 $20,492.22 08/13/18 S:\BUDGETS\Coun-19.qpw

CITY MANAGER’S MONTHLY REPORT JUNE 2018

Average Disconnects 87 58 60 55 53 51 51 48 50 47 51 45 46 43 44 42 38 36 33 32 36 39 25 21 24 23 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 JUN-17 JUL-17 AUG-17 SEP-17 OCT-17 NOV-17 DEC-17 JAN-18 FEB-18 MAR-18 APR-18 MAY-18 JUN-18 Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 Series1 1,996 1,955 2,132 1,811 1,820 1,664 1,439 1,730 1,567 1,676 1,738 1,580 1,795 Payment Agreements / Extensions 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 Series1 436 501 695 525 554 455 448 688 740 522 441 452 410 CUSTOMER PAYMENT USAGE 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Drive-Thru Over the Mail, Drop Credit Cards Bank Drafts Window Counter Box 2018 YTD 22,384 52,216 194,532 2,446 22,473 2017 YTD 23,656 43,554 153,376 1,795 18,880

ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT Electric Divisions System Peak Total System Load Number of New Month outages customers Oct 16 57,707 Services Oct 16 116.94 Nov 16 54,812 July 16 9 307 July 16 13 Nov 16 98.27 Dec 16 60,179 Aug 16 9 214 Aug 16 13 Dec 16 101.04 Sept 16 7 915 Sept 16 35 Jan 17 113.04 Jan 17 63,172 Oct 16 8 224 Oct 16 27 Feb 17 106.4 Feb 17 54,811 Nov 16 6 4293 Nov 16 41 Mar 17 108.2 Mar 17 60,690 Dec 16 5 207 Dec 16 37 Apr 17 107.03 Apr 17 54,062 Jan 17 3 12 Jan 17 40 May 17 133.93 May 17 57,823 Feb 17 1 2 Feb 17 31 June 17 70,081 Mar 17 4 160 Mar 17 15 June 17 155.81 Apr 17 4 114 Apr 17 58 July 17 162.88 July 17 79,883 May 17 5 148 May 17 58 Aug 17 157.18 Aug 17 74,534 June 17 7 3084 June 17 25 Sept 17 137.01 Sept 17 64,235 July 17 19 2556 July 17 90 Oct 17 59,890 Aug 17 8 1466 Aug 17 24 Oct 17 129.11 Sept 17 2 1094 Sept 17 31 Nov 17 98.13 Nov 17 56,552 Oct 17 5 2311 Oct 17 83 Dec 17 108.57 Dec 17 62,992 Nov 17 7 176 Nov 17 41 Jan 18 116.70 Jan 18 67,204 Dec 17 2 261 Dec 17 25 Feb 18 55,759 Jan 18 4 263 Jan 18 17 Feb 18 106.55 Feb 18 1 32 Feb 18 89 Mar 18 101.78 Mar 18 61,286 Mar 18 29 3635 Mar 18 52 Apr 18 100.68 Apr 18 55,574 Apr 18 6 521 Apr 18 48 May 18 63,188 May 18 5 301 May 18 46 May 18 127.43 June 18 9 315 June 18 18 June 18 146.76 June 18 68,290 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 42.07 29.59 24.98 Outages Average Response Time Goal is less than 30 minutes Month Year-to-date Month Year-to-date 9 38 34.62 Minutes 31.39 Minutes PROGRAM UPDATES JUNE 18 JUNE 17 FY18 YTD Tree Trimming 527 376 4076 Number of Oil Releases 1 1 3 Lost Time Accidents – All Electric Utility Divisions 0 0 1 New Services 18 25 564

HUMAN RESOURCES June 2018 June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June Total Category 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 Caucasian* 291 292 290 291 288 285 285 288 290 293 293 292 291 n/a Minorities* 74 79 76 77 74 75 75 76 77 77 77 77 76 n/a Hired 3 9 1 8 1 1 3 5 3 5 1 2 1 43 Terminated/Resigned/ 3 3 6 6 6 3 3 1 0 5 2 3 1 42 Retired/Other Transferred/Promoted 0 3 1 1 3 1 4 6 0 4 2 1 0 26 Jobs Posted 1 7 1 2 4 3 2 6 3 3 3 6 3 44 Workers Comp. Injuries 3 1 0 6 3 2 3 3 3 4 2 1 3 34 Workers Comp. Hours 475 417 396 173 202 227 352 106 75 199 261 153 250 3286 *343 Full-time Employees: Part-time Employees: 24 (3 Pitts Center, 1 Recreation, 15 Library, 1 Customer Service, 4 Police Department) -Numbers do not reflect, temporary, seasonal, relief fire dispatchers, committee or council members. Position Hired: Motor Equipment Operator II, (Streets) Position Terminated/Resigned/Retired: Motor Equipment Operator I(Sanitation); Police Officer; Electric Generation Superintendent Positions on Terminal Leave: Police Officer – July; Water Treatment Plant Operator I – July; Procurement Manager – August; Assistant to Director of Council Affairs and Constituent Services - November Recruitment Information (June) Position Total Female Male Unknown Black White Hispanic Asian/Pacific American Two Or Unknown In Out Islander Indian/Alaskan More Dover Dover Native Assistant to Director of 9 - 9 - 2 7 - - - - - 1 8 Council Affairs/ Const. Services Mechanic I 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - Motor Equipment 5 - 5 - 1 4 - - - - - 2 3 Operator I (Sanitation) Open or Currently Recruiting* Open or Currently June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June Recruiting by Dept. 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 Electric 5 7 7 8 8 9 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 Public Works 7 8 11 13 13 12 14 11 9 6 6 6 6 Police 8 6.5 6.5 .5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 3 3 3.5 4.5 All Other Departments 9 7.5 7.5 8 10.5 11.5 9.5 8 6.5 7 7 6.5 6.5 Totals 29 29 32 29.5 35 36 34 30.5 27 23 23 24 25 *Not used for Budgeting Purposes  The following has been updated to reflect the Fiscal 2017-18 Budget Electric: Lineman 1st Class, Lineman 2nd class, Electric Director, Substation Technician, Groundworker, Electric Meter Technician Crew Leader, Linecrew Superintendent; System Operator II Public Works: Motor Equipment Operator I (Water/wastewater); Civil Engineer, Lead Laborer, Mechanic; Motor Equipment Operator III, (Sanitation); Motor Equipment Operator I, (Sanitation) Police: (5) Cadet; (2) Police Officer All Other Departments: Assistant Controller/Treasurer; Accountant II; Parks and Recreation Director; Building Supervisor (Parks and Recreation – part- time); Customer Service Clerk I (full-time); Customer Service Clerk I (part-time); Librarian I (part-time); Library Assistant (part-time); Library Page (part- time);

HUMAN RESOURCES (Continued) Turnover Statistics 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total Turnover % 5.57 6.75 11.00 10.91 6.02 12.05 8.68 15.36 4.08 Termination Turnover % 0.27 1.08 0.29 1.47 .57 .28 .54 1.92 .27 Resignation Turnover % 2.12 4.05 5.21 5.01 2.29 7.56 6.24 7.41 2.45 Retirement Turnover % 3.18 1.62 5.50 4.42 3.15 4.20 1.90 4.39 1.09 Other - - - - - - - 1.65 .27 2012 Healthcare cost sharing implemented; 2013 Healthcare cost sharing implemented for DOE 2016 RIF in Economic Development; 2018 RIF in Electric Average Employees 2010 2011 2012* 2013* 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total Number of Employees 21 25 38 37 21 42 32 56 15 Separating from Service Average Number of Full-time 362 356 333 325 331 333 340 337 342 Employees Average Number of Part-time 16 15 12 14 18 24 28 28 26 Employees * Healthcare cost sharing implemented Workers Compensation Cost CY 2018 $4 $3 $1 $32 Department $4 $4 $158 $69 $33 $24 Total Cost (In thousands) Total $332,000

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES Service Requests Resolved 60 55 47 50 38 40 31 31 27 27 29 30 26 22 23 22 21 20 10 0 Jun-17 Jul-17 Aug-17 Sep-17 Oct-17 Nov-17 Dec-17 Jan-18 Feb-18 Mar-18 Apr-18 May-18 Jun-18 Programming Requests Completed 40 34 34 34 29 29 31 28 30 24 23 21 19 20 20 17 10 0 Jun-17 Jul-17 Aug-17 Sep-17 Oct-17 Nov-17 Dec-17 Jan-18 Feb-18 Mar-18 Apr-18 May-18 Jun-18 Page Views - City of Dover Web Page 30,000 25,000 Pages Viewed 20,000 26,767 28,232 27,108 25,344 25,155 15,000 22,895 24,034 23,269 22,554 20,417 19,913 19,305 17,293 10,000 5,000 0 Jun-17 Jul-17 Aug-17 Sep-17 Oct-17 Nov-17 Dec-17 Jan-18 Feb-18 Mar-18 Apr-18 May-18 Jun-18 Noteworty: Continuing Tyler ERP training to end and power users. Ready for ADP upgrade on July 3rd Preparing for Tyler / Munis system upgrade in July Joe Halfpenny and Alex Hassman continue cross training between Dover IT and Dover PD

June 2018 Monthly Report Highlighted Special Events & Attendance: In Harmony Concert Series: Hoochi Coochi 163 Open House For Legislators 100 Tuesday Talks: An Evening with Chef Dennis Coker 21 Manga Drawing with Christy Shaffer 27 Total Items Checked Out: 31,938 Programs: Offered Attended E-books: 3,055 Adult 61 732 New Library Cards: 411 Teens 30 224 Children 33 1,201 Library Card Holders: 32,256 Job Center 40 180 Service Area Population: 62,527 Library Visitors: 22,867 Meeting Rooms Usage: 1,328 Computer Users: 4,200 Wireless Users: 1,856 Items Loaned to/Received from Other Libraries: 6,531

Parks & Recreation June 2018 Monthly Report Highlights  Our summer camp season is underway! Our weekly Super Summer Playground camp hosted 72 kids, while soccer and girls basketball camps hosted 26 kids. Our Camp Small Wonder program is being hosted at Towne Point Elementary with 70 kids getting their summer off to a great start. Next month, we have additional basketball, volleyball, and soccer camps on the schedule.  Spring & Summer Performing Arts on The Green hosted four exceptional Thursday nights of entertain- ment! So far, we have estimated an approximate 800 patrons in June. Be sure to thank Eden Hill Medical Center for this year’s financial sponsorship and join us on Thursday evenings at 7:00 PM.  Master Planning for Dover Park. Whitman, Requardt & Associates completed the three-day Charette to gather public input. The draft of a Master Plan concept is under staff review and will be ready for Council review at the August Council Committee of the Whole meeting.  Schutte Park Master Plan. The bidding window for field re-grading has closed; and we are waiting for Council approval of the contract so that work may begin.  NCALL hosted their second Open Streets program on June 30. Parks & Recreation staff assisted with the organized activities and a bike rodeo. Dover Elks Lodge and the Bicycle/Pedestrian Subcommittee part- nered with Dover Police to offer a Bike Rodeo and Bike Give-a-Way for Camp Small Wonder. Dover Police and DelDOT gave bicycle and pedestrian safety talks, with a bicycle obstacle course and pizza party to follow. 14 bikes equipped with lights, locks, and helmets were given out and a pizza lunch were provided by the Dover Elks Lodge 1903.  Tuesday in the Park began on June 19 at Mallard Pond Park with music & activities with Silly Joe. More than 60 young people and their caregivers attended. This was followed on June 26 with Mad Science at Dover New Street Park with 35 attending. We thank the Dover Public Library for funding the performance by Silly Joe.  Playground equipment for the Hamlet Park is scheduled for installation in July. Bicycle/Pedestrian Subcommittee - The Subcommittee met on June 19. Delaware Bicycle Council’s Innovation Grant, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan updates were the focus of this meeting. Their next regularly scheduled meeting will be held August 7. Silver Lake Commission - The commission meets August 1, 2018. Enrollment Summary Enrollment Summary 800 Category FY18 FY17 600 400 General Recreation 159 262 200 0 Sports 75 9 General Sports Leagues Camps Leagues 543 600 Recreation Camps 349 328 FY18 FY17

Recreation Revenue Breakdown June 2018 June 2018 General Recreation $ 369.00 Leagues $22,083.00 Building & Field Rentals $ 500.00 General Recreation Leagues Building & Field Rentals Camps Camps $ 1,865.50 Youth Connections/CSW Youth Connections/CSW $ 3,396.50 June 2017 June 2017 General Recreation $ 903.00 Leagues $20,995.00 Building & Field Rentals $ 1,000.00 General Recreation Leagues Camps $ 515.00 Building & Field Rentals Camps Youth Connections/CSW Youth Connections/CSW $ 1,993.00 John W. Pitts Recreation Center Facility Usage 5,000 Facility Usage June 18 FYTD 18 June 17 FYT17 4,000 3,000 248 2,000 Open Gym 4,417 229 4,239 hours 1,000 0 Fitness Classes 18 hours 224 40 391 Leagues 89 hours 1,332 124 1,328 396 Camps 1,328 430 1,442 hours FYTD 18 FYTD 17 Meetings & Rentals 18 hours 2290 18 198 Enrichment Classes 3 hours 15 2 12 Program Attendance Total Facility 772 60,000 7,718 843 7,754 50,000 Usage hours 40,000 30,000 June 20,000 Program Attendance June 18 FYTD 18 FYTD17 17 10,000 0 Open Gym 209 3,620 243 4,407 Fitness Classes 38 840 119 1,505 Leagues 2,241 49,569 2,879 47,155 Camps 461 1,504 538 1,848 FYTD 18 FYTD 17 Meetings & Rent- 45 3,493 36 1,508 als Enrichment Clas- 10 161 10 60 ses Total 3,004 60,943 3,825 58,730

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 Patriot Village Eden Hill Commercial Center Tall Pines Islamic Society of Central Delaware The Arbors Blue Hen Apartments Enterprise Business Park Dover Christian Church Modern Maturity Center The Grande, Building 4 MRMS Building Century Engineering Building Sanitation

JUNE 18 FYTD 18 JUNE 17 FYTD 17 Trips to DSWA Sandtown Landfill 182 2,411 192 2,109 Total Tonnage to DSWA 1,124 13,259 1,113.00 11,875 90-Gallon Containers Delivered 55 671 72 833 300-Gallon Containers Delivered 0 0 0 0 Total Man Hours-containers Delivered 20 257 30 354 CURBSIDE RECYCLING STATS TOTAL # OF TOTAL # OF HOUSEHOLDS ACCOUNTS WEIGHT/LBS. AVE. LBS. COLLECTED June 2018 20,008 9,605 279,300 13.96 Streets JUNE 18 FYTD 18 JUNE 17 FYTD 17 Signed Installed 3 94 9 345 Signs Repaired 7 128 16 150 Curbs Painted Yellow (feet) 3,109 21,939 141 24,783 New Post Installed 4 66 12 164 Storm Catch Basins Repaired 3 32 1 11 Storm Catch Basin Repairing (Hrs.) 14 144 8 29 Storm Catch Basins Cleaned (LF) 537 777 4 80 Storm Catch Basins Cleaning (Hrs.) 7 56 0.25 2,294 Hot Mix Patching (Tons) 0 19 4.00 10 Hot Mix Patching (Hrs.) 0 20 7 15 Cold Mix Patching Hrs.) 19 150 4.0 130 Concrete Work (Hrs) 74 330 43.0 119 Concrete Patching (Cubic Yards) 13 47 7.00 13 Ditch Work (Hrs). 0 2 0 16 Street and Alley Maintenance (Hrs) 0 58 54.0 163 Street Sweeping (Miles) 1,564 13,858 1,426 14,766 Street Sweeping (Cubic Yards) 76 1,024 86 1,241 Leaves Collected (Cubic Yards) 0 11,948 0.0 12,654 Leaf Collection (Miles) 0 6,288 0 8,067 GROUNDS Work Orders Total Work Orders = 9 General = 5 Arborist = 4 Arborist Crew JUNE 2018 JUNE 2017 Trees Trimmed 12 0 Trees Removed 0 0 Stumps Removed 2 0 Trees Planted 0 0 Root Pruning 0 0

Beautification Crew Weeded and sprayed Library and City Hall. Started planting beds. Watered baskets and pots on Loockerman Street. Mowing Crew Continued mowing grass routes. Spraying vegetation at mowing locations. Litter Removal Litter is being picked up on City properties as per the weekly schedule. Litter person has been diligent in the reporting of destruction in City parks. Delivered 20 trash cans to legislative mall for African American Festival. Miscellaneous Loaded and hauled street sweepings to landfill. Loaded dumpers with leaf compost and brush. Set up stage for Thursday Concerts on The Green. Completed Ethics Training. Completed Storm water training. Removed 3 grills from Mallard Pond per Parks and Recreation. Completed yard repair on Mifflin Road GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS) Other Updated Dover PD Viewer according to the 911 Managers request. Planning & Inspections Created a permit feature class for the Fire Marshal Firefly apps. Also added data to the feature class. Planning & Inspections Geocoded addresses for the Help Initiative for Jeremy to make a map. Planning & Inspections Worked on the Census LUCA update. Finished and submitted the updates. Planning & Inspections Updated the Comp Plan map and printed one 24"x36" copy. Planning & Inspections Updated the Non-Profit Owned Homes map for a meeting between Planning and several non profits. Public Works Help engineers with InfoWater licensing issues. Public Works Review 2017 Building Footprints layer and post to SDE. Public Works Created Water, Storm Water, and Sanitary Sewer plan maps for MISS Utility Tickets. Public Works Created a 30"x40" map of the downtown lights project. Public Works Created a map of the parcels adjacent to Silver Lake and the St Jones River south to Mirror Lake. Provided PDF. Public Works Updated the Parcels, Rentals, and Active AHIs layers for the month. Public Works Monthly Recycling Update. It's taking a little longer than usual due to all the removes.

FLEET AND FACILITIES MANAGEMENT Fleet Maintenance PM Work Orders Completed: 11 Number of Tire Repairs: 5 Number of Road Repairs: 3 Other Work Orders: 31 Repair Hours: 89 Road Repair Hours: 2.5 Total Work Orders: 42 Fabrication Hours: 0 Misc. Hours: 128.9 PM Hours: 34 # Of Scheduled PM’s: 26 # Of Scheduled PM’s: Completed: 0 Major Program Updates June June MEASURE 2018 2017 DIFFERENCE Fleet Maintenance - Scheduled Preventative 0 out of 26 0 out of 26 Maintenance appointments 0- % 0% 0% being kept (Quantity and Percentage) Facilities Maintenance Facilities - Routine work orders 27 out of 28 26 out of 26 completed within 5 days -3.57 % 96.43% 100 % (Quantity and Percentage) Facilities - Emergency work orders completed within 2 5 out of 5 3 out of 3 0% days (Quantity and 100 % 100 % Percentage) Water/Wastewater Divisions May 17 June 17 July 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Total Water Prod. 171,797,000 183,692,000 195,693,000 183,352,000 172,501,000 172,453,000 134,533,000 Billed Consumpt. 127,958,009 161,418,000 179,460,000 169,521,000 169,521,000 159,271,000 136,701,000 Total Flow to County 170,213,000 136,745,000 125,926,000 178,219,000 139,090,000 153,736,000 120,538,000 168,499,897 141,349,551 138,366,768 167,858,838 144,462,028 168,885,523 123,758,466 City Readings Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 March 18 MAY 18 May 18 June 18 Total Water Prod. 140,498,000 150,207,000 135,361.000 146,460,000 138,387,000 129,854,000 133,475,000 Billed Consumpt. 132,513,000 127,083,000 134,942,000 123,994,000 138,221,000 110,219,000 115,304,000 Total Flow to County 109,877,000 137,422,000 123,368,000 157,050,000 143,889,000 186,816,000 170,623,000 City Readings 121,387,764 143,955,874 132,879,690 143,858,810 140,530,063 178,798,232 178,748,559

ENGINEERING SUMMARY Major Program Updates JUNE 18 JUNE 17 DIFF FY18 YTD FY17 YTD State and Federal Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Water Quality Complaints 6 18 -12 100 111 Plan Review Completed Within 30 days of Submission 6 8 -2 96 73 OPERATIONAL SUMMARY Task JUNE 18 JUNE 17 CURRENT FY Water Production - Daily Average 4,449,167 6,123,067 2,016,470,000 Average Field Response Time (goal is <30 minutes) 15 22.00 33 Water Mains Repaired 0 2 8 Water Service Lines Repaired 2 2 16 Wastewater Mains Repaired 0 5 2 Wastewater Service Lines Repaired 0 1 6 Sewer Lines Flushed - linear feet 57,441 102,500 365,259 Sewer Mains Videoed -linear feet 2,163 0 9,437 Sewer Manholes Cleaned 249 544 1,410 Total Fire Hydrants in Service 1,839 1,839 1,839 Total Water Meters in City Distribution System 13,421 14,638 13,421  Note total water meters reduced to match HTE

City Planner’s Monthly Report Department of Planning & Inspections JUNE 2018 Planning & Inspections Highlights Some Items to Call to Your Attention Activity Remains at High Levels in 2018 As can be seen from the information in this report, construction activity in 2018 in the residential and commercial sectors continues strong as projects move through approval and construction processes. Dover does seem to be enjoying a continuing period of solid economic growth. As reported last month, in addition to monitoring and assisting economic develop- ment activities, the Department‘s focus is increasingly on the required update of the Comprehensive Plan, entailing citizen outreach, research and data updating, and assessing progress and changes since the 2008 Comprehensive Plan was com- pleted. We are working to better understand and describe changes in the way we live, work, shop and recreate that may impact on the pattern future development and land uses. A survey modeled after the ones done for the 2003 and 2008 plans was released on June 13 at an Economic Development Symposium held at Wil- mington University. The survey will run until the end of July and we anticipate good response. The survey is available online and in hardcopy at major City facili- ties. Spring begins the “grass violation” season with increased enforcement actions re- quired. It is also the ramping up of the construction season with new projects and previously approved developments being initiated. Staff continues to meet these challenges as well as work to remove blighted conditions, respond to citizen con- cerns, and assist businesses with regulatory and other matters. Summer brings us the NASCAR/Dover Downs races, the Firefly Music Festival held June 13-17, 2018 and the return of the Capital City Farmers Market on Wednesdays at Loockerman Way in Downtown Dover,—all adding to the necessity to ensure that our visitors are safe and have an enjoyable experience in Dover.

PROGRESS IN PICTURES Dover Christian Church 1738 Forrest Avenue 1005 N. State Street

PROGRESS IN PICTURES Modern Maturity Center New Kitchen Addition 1121 Forrest Ave Blue Hen Apartments 401 Shrewsbury Ct. Townhouse at 206 Nob Hill Road, Clearview Meadows

Planning & Inspection Revenues Revenue Stream FY '18 Budget FY ' 18 Actual % of Budget (YTD) June Business License $1,467,000 $ 1,473,259 100% Trailer License $19,000 $ 17,715 93% Building Permits $800,000 $ 1,144,367 143% Cert. of Occupancy $13,000 $ 24,835 191% Public Occupancy $23,000 $ 24,473 106% Lodging House $14,000 $ 13,622 97% Plumbing/Heating/Air $115,000 $ 197,897 172% Rental Inspection Fee $437,000 $ 401,993 92% Miscellaneous $27,000 $ 13,307 49% Fire Protection Fees $65,000 $ 91,573 141% Code Enforcement Fines $35,000 $ 27,950 80% Vacant Building Reg. $250,000 $ 208,575 83% Total P&I Revenue $3,265,000 $ 3,639,566 111% 30-Jun-18 PERSONNEL AND TRAINING Department-wide Staff began attending the Ethics Training sessions that began on May 23, 2018; this is an annual requirement. The last session was held on June 26, 2018. 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 Oc- cupancy permits. For June 2018, Planning Staff was involved with review of 86 Permits and 26 Certificates of Occupancy permits. This results in a 2018 calen- dar year-to-date total of 586 Permits and Certificates of Occupancy (2017 calen- dar year-to-date total of 564 Permits and COs compared to 554 for 2016). Staff also reviews new applications for Business Licenses and Rental Dwelling Per- mits.

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 Restoring Central Dover Community Plan implementation • Planning Staff continues Dover’s Downtown Development District program management and prepared the Annual Report of DDD activities for submission in June. • Several text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance on the following: creation of IPM3 zone, parking limitations, and vehicle signs began the formal review process in June. 2019 Comprehensive Plan The Planning Office continues the planning and research necessary for the update of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Staff is gathering an evaluation of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Goals & Recommendations from the Planning Commission, Historic District Commission, and City Council. The Questionnaire/Survey was issued in early June in on-line and paper copy for- mats. Staff presented a Project Update on the 2019 Comprehensive Plan to City Council and its Committees on June 12th. The next event was “An Economist’s Vision of Dover: Dover Economic Development Forum” hosted by Wilmington University on June 13 th. A discussion on “Housing Trends and Expectations” is scheduled for the Economic Development Commit- tee on July 11, 2018. Construction Activity • Construction activities continue at several multi-family residential projects including Leander Lakes Apartments (S-12-18), Phase 2 of the Blue Hen Apartment Complex (S-15-12), and the reconstruction of Liberty Court Apartments (S-16-22). • There is residential construction activity continues with permit issued this month in Clearview Meadows PND, Lexington Glen, Patriot Village, and Village of Westover. • Certificates of Occupancy were issued to ten (10) one-family detached dwelling units, and six (6) townhouse units. Certificates of Occupancy were issued to three apartment buildings and Tempo- rary Certificates of Occupancy were issued to two other apartment buildings at the Blue Hen Apartments. • Building Permits were issued for renovation activities at the WAWA at 1450 Forrest Avenue and Safeway on John Hunn Brown Road. • A Certificate of Occupancy was issued for Dover Christian Church at 1738 Forrest Avenue (C- 13-11). June (2018) FY18 TOTAL FOR FY18 New Home Permits Issued 20 174 Value of Commercial Projects $605,881.00 $88,171,809.00 Downtown Incentives (Fees $310.00 $16,361.80 Waived)

BOARD AND COMMISSION ACTIVITY Planning Commission The Planning Commission met on June 18, 2018. The next Planning Commission meet- ing is scheduled for July 16, 2018. NEW APPLICATIONS MI-18-03 Text Amendments: Manufactured Housing and Land Lease Communities (Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 66 and Zoning Ordinance, Article 3, Section 8 and Article 12) – The Planning Commission granted approval to allow Planning Staff to con- tinue working on this Text Amendment and to bring an update to the August 2018 Plan- ning Commission meeting. AX-18-01 Lands of Jesse L. Allen at 3074 N. DuPont Highway – The Planning Commis- sion recommended approval to City Council for annexation of AX-18-01 Lands of Jesse L. Allen at 3074 North DuPont Highway, to include the zoning classification change from BG (General Business District) to C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone), C-18-03 Kidz Business Day Care Center at 65 North DuPont Highway – The Planning Commission granted conditional approval for a Child Day Care Center inclusive of the recommendations suggested as conditions by the DAC Staff dealing with the sidewalks and to restripe the parking areas. MI-18-10 Eden Hill Farm TND Residential District: Architecture Concept The Planning Commission requested that Planning Staff meet with Ryan Homes prior to the next Plan- ning Commission meeting to discuss project and with the consideration on the matter of the alleys. Board of Adjustment The Board of Adjustment met on June 20, 2018. The next Board of Adjustment meeting is scheduled for July 18, 2018. The following application was considered: V-18-03 Project at 500 West Loockerman Street— The Board moved to deny the vari- ance to continue the use of a part of the basement as an apartment for an in-residence caretaker. Historic District Commission The Historic District Commission did not met on June 21, 2018. The next Historic Dis- trict Commission meeting is scheduled for July 19, 2018.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM CDBG FY17 Projects Homeownership Assistance Program CDBG funds will be used to provide homeownership assistance to first-time homebuyers who purchase affordable housing in the City of Dover. Five (5) families have purchased affordable housing in the City of Dover. This project is complete. Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing CDBG funds will be used to provide operations cost for the shelter. This project is un- derway and 80% complete Connections Community Support Program CDBG funds will be used to provide rapid re-housing/rental assistance services for homeless households within the City. Three (3) families have been provided rental assis- tance for affordable housing and one (1) motel voucher has been issued for emergency housing for one family. Milford Housing Homeowner Rehabilitation/Emergency Home Repair Programs CDBG funds will be used to rehabilitate existing owner occupied housing in the City that is in violation of the City’s Housing Code and complete emergency home repairs to elim- inate housing conditions that threaten the health and safety of low income homeowners. Seven (7) families have received emergency home repairs, and one (1) single family home will be fully renovated. Habitat for Humanity CDBG funds will be used to complete exterior renovations to existing owner-occupied homes in the Restoring Central Dover Revitalization area. This project is underway. NSP Program The City provided $58,000 in NSP grant funds to Diamond State Community Land Trust to assist in acquiring a foreclosed property in the City of Dover. This property has been fully renovated and will be sold to a low to moderate income family. This property is a townhouse located in the Village of Westover and was sold on June 15 th .

Code Enforcement Activity—JUNE Case Type # cases current # cases % staff initiated % staff initiated month YTD (July current month YTD to June) No valid Rental Permit 4 241 92% 95% No valid Building Permit 11 94 73% 83% Tall grass and weeds 65 486 70% 64% Unregistered vehicle 2 115 50% 65% Abandoned vehicle 2 44 50% 66% Annual Housing Inspection 23 297 91% 84% Property Maintenance – 39 357 33% 43% Exterior Electric Termination 13 121 95% 95% Dover Code of Ordinances 23 371 65% 57% Zoning 2 25 50% 65% Total Cases Opened 184 2151 Total # of Inspections For 314 Month

Dangerous Buildings, Vacant Buildings & Demolitions  954 Lincoln Street—The property was condemned and taken forward to City Council as a dangerous building on November 7, 2016. Council ordered the owner to demolish the structure by December 7, 2016. The asbestos survey and abatement have been completed. The mortgage company has requested time to make renovations. No repairs have been made as of December. A renovation permit has been approved and work has been ongo- ing.  526 Fulton Street—The dwelling is condemned and a lien search has been requested. At the Council meeting on January 2, 2018, City Council approved staff’s recommendation for demolition of the structure. Notice was sent to all lien holders to make repairs to the dwelling by February 2, 2018, or the City Staff would have the structure demolished. The asbestos survey has been completed and bids are being taking for the asbestos abatement. All work prior to the demolition of the structure has been completed and demolitions bids are being requested for a demolition date of July 2018.  113 Davis Circle— The dwelling is condemned and a lien search has been requested. At the council meeting on January 2, 2018, City Council approved staff’s recommendation for the demolition of the structure. Notice was sent to all lien holders to make repairs to the dwelling by February 2, 2018, or City Staff would have the structure demolished. The asbestos survey has been completed and bids are being taking for the asbestos abatement. All work prior to the demolition of the structure has been completed and the demolition bids are being requested for a demolition date of July 2018.  Vacant Buildings—During the month of June nineteen (19) additional buildings were reg- istered as vacant, and $9,000.00 in vacant building registration fees were collected.

Building Inspections & Licensing Summary July 2016— July 2017– Current June 2018 June 2017 June 2017 PERMITTING AND LICENSING Permits Issued June (2018) June (2017) FY 18 FYTD 18 FY17 FYTD 17 Administrative Permit 4 43 2 58 Building Addition/Renovation Permits 31 332 29 384 Building Permits 38 342 45 353 Demolition Permits 3 42 20 55 Fence Permits 18 134 12 114 Fire Prevention Permits 8 128 1 97 Mechanical Permits 99 713 75 545 Plumbing Permits 44 624 71 528 Sign Permits 8 158 4 162 Swimming Pool Permits 5 12 3 124 Subtotal 2528 2420 Business Licenses 48 2309 81 2300 Merchant Licenses 3 388 4 373 Contractor Licenses 27 1276 31 247 Subtotal 3973 2920 Lodging House Licenses 1 52 0 66 Public Occupancy 16 475 15 473 Rental Dwelling 29 3328 23 3260 Subtotal 3855 3799 Manufactured Homes 2 372 1 398 BUILDING INSPECTIONS Inspections JUNE (2018) JUNE (2017) FY 18 FYTD 18 FY17 FYTD 17 Building (Inspections/CBI/Site Meetings) 421 5726 442 4873 Plumbing/Mechanical 687 7402 643 6189 Certificate of Occupancy 26 305 17 204

Fire Marshal’s Office—At a Glance The Fire Marshal’s Office investigated one (1) incident during the month of June. Staff attended a class in Harrington on basic electricity and arc mapping. Staff put in 241 hours during the Firefly music festival. We will be conducting school inspections in the near future. Month Year to Date Previous Year to Date Annual Fire & Life Safety Inspections 15 226 271 Deficiencies From the Above Inspections 61 865 903 Fire Code Violations/Deficiencies/Complaints 21 310 357 C/O & Fire Equipment Acceptance Tests 9 153 180 Meetings & Walk Through 16 240 266 Fire Plan Review & DAC 2 168 143 Month Year to Date Previous Year to Date Accidental 1 totaling $5,000 28 totaling $234,800 $712,004 Undetermined 0 7 totaling $2,548,510 $805,501 Incendiary 0 20 totaling $309,002 $552,600 Arrest Made with DPD 0 2 4 Investigation Time 3 hours 159 hours - Injuries 0 3 7 Deaths 0 0 0 Please feel free to contact our office at any time with any questions or concerns. Thank you!

PLEASE NOTE – THIS REPORT PROVIDES TOP LINE INFORMATION ON THE OPERATING FUNDS. IF YOU WOULD LIKE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

CITY OF DOVER ACTIVITY REPORTS JUNE 2018 PRELIMINARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY LEVELS FY17 YTD FY18 YTD BANK TRENDS Number of Deposits Made (Hand, ACH & Wire, Lockbox) 7,104 6,868 Total Amount of All Deposits $ 129,588,504 $ 129,700,350 Other Activity Number of Pay Periods 26 26 Number of Payroll Checks & Direct Deposits Issued 10,357 10,136 Number of Pension Checks Issued 3,023 3,068 Total Pension Benefits Paid - Defined Benefit Plan $ 5,251,339 $ 5,485,165 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Number of Check Vouchers 6,191 6,556 Number of EFT Vouchers 2,718 2,630 Vouchers Dollar Amount Disbursed $ 70,397,072 $ 75,494,617 FY17 YTD Wages FY18 YTD Wages $195,955 $261,402 $840,373 $216,171 $209,035 $920,801 $798,685 $721,626 $522,680 $615,137 $1,203,458 $1,163,394 $1,599,984 $1,489,699 $16,983,961 $16,838,716 Regular All over time Regular All over time Vacation Sick Vacation Sick Terminal Leave - Retiree Vacation/Sick Payout Personal Terminal Leave - Retiree Vacation/Sick Payout Personal Other Comp Time Comp Time Other Page 2

City of Dover General Fund Summary Fiscal Year to Date (June 2018) PRELIMINARY Revenues Budget Revised Budget Actual % Property & Transfer Taxes $ 14,234,900 $ 14,234,900 $ 15,088,241 106% Program Revenues 10,834,900 10,838,700 11,054,616 102% Utility Transfers 10,900,000 10,900,000 10,900,000 100% Grants 605,000 645,000 680,211 105% Interfund Services 5,376,200 5,376,200 5,078,812 94% All Other* 980,000 980,000 882,034 90% $ 42,931,000 $ 42,974,800 $ 43,683,914 102% *Includes: Franchise Fees, Miscellaneous Revenues, Garrison Farm Rent, Verizon Grant and Other Reserves Expenditures Budget Revised Budget Actual % Program Expenditures $ 26,724,500 $ 27,188,400 $ 26,033,136 96% Interfund Services 9,553,300 9,735,600 9,089,482 93% Debt Service 443,100 443,100 460,810 104% Post Retirement Benefits 2,063,000 2,063,000 2,063,000 100% Pension Fund Contributions 1,224,900 1,845,500 1,912,340 104% Capital Project Transfers 1,368,700 1,368,700 1,368,700 100% All Other* 1,483,500 1,330,700 1,299,562 98% $ 42,861,000 $ 43,975,000 $ 42,227,030 96% *Includes: DDP Contribution, Misc. Grant Exp., Bank and CC Fees, Street Lights Expense, Inventory write-offs, transfer to Capital Asset Reserve & Uncollectibles: Trash and Other, Other Employment Exp. Page 3

General Fund Revenues $16,000,000 $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $- Property & Transfer Taxes Program Revenues Utility Transfers Grants Interfund Services All Other* Budget Revised Budget Actual General Fund Expenditures $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $- Budget Revised Budget Actual Page 4

City of Dover Water/Wastewater Fund Summary Fiscal Year to Date (June 2018) PRELIMINARY Revenues Budget Revised Budget Actual % Customer Sales $ 14,535,200 $ 14,535,200 $ 13,810,691 95% Impact Fees 440,000 440,000 2,032,357 462% Rents 391,400 391,400 363,535 93% Miscellaneous 72,400 72,400 84,991 117% $ 15,439,000 $ 15,439,000 $ 16,291,574 106% Expenditures Budget Revised Budget Actual % Program Expenses $ 3,896,800 $ 3,965,700 $ 3,716,524 94% Kent County Treatment Fee 3,926,500 3,926,500 3,985,933 102% Interfund Services 1,716,100 1,716,100 1,628,171 95% Debt Service 1,137,400 1,137,400 1,137,435 100% Post Retirement Benefits 249,700 394,500 394,500 100% Capital Project Transfers 3,200,000 3,153,000 3,153,000 100% General Fund Transfer 900,000 900,000 900,000 100% All Other* 91,900 70,000 1,505,020 2150% $ 15,118,400 $ 15,263,200 $ 16,420,583 108% *Includes: Bank & CC Fees, Bond Issuance Cost, Other Employment Expenses, Impact Fee Reserve Transfer Page 5

Water/Wastewater Revenues $16,000,000 $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $- Customer Sales Impact Fees Rents Miscellaneous Budget Revised Budget Actual Water/Wastewater Expenses $4,500,000 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $- Program Expenses Kent County Interfund Services Debt Service Post Retirement Capital Project General Fund All Other* Treatment Fee Benefits Transfers Transfer Budget Revised Budget Actual Page 6

City of Dover Electric Fund Summary Fiscal Year to Date (June 2018) PRELIMINARY Revenues Budget Revised Budget Actual % Customer Sales $ 80,892,200 $ 80,892,200 $ 82,749,450 102% Distribution of Earnings (6,176,700) (6,176,700) (6,337,115) 103% All Other* 982,000 982,000 998,614 102% $ 75,697,500 $ 75,697,500 $ 77,410,949 102% *Includes: Weyandt Hall Rents, Miscellaneous Revenue, Interest Earnings Expenditures Budget Revised Budget Actual % Power Supply & Generation $ 49,075,100 $ 48,825,100 $ 48,147,500 99% Electric Operating Division Exp. 6,660,200 6,765,400 6,110,853 90% Interfund Services 3,660,100 3,660,100 3,450,641 94% Debt Service 1,605,500 1,605,500 1,613,204 100% Post Retirement Benefits 1,820,300 1,820,300 1,820,300 100% Pension Unfunded Liability 1,000,000 1,234,500 1,234,500 100% Capital Project Transfers 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 100% General Fund Transfer 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 100% Rate Stabilization Reserve 5,200,000 5,200,000 5,200,000 100% All Other* 2,162,400 2,307,200 2,224,434 96% $ 86,183,600 $ 86,418,100 $ 84,801,432 98% *Includes: Bank & CC Fees, Utility Tax, Interest on Deposit, Legal Exp., Green Energy, A/R Write-offs, Contractual Services, Other Employment Expenses Megawatt Hours Sold & Purchased Budget Rev. Budget Actual Sales to Customers MWh (excl. Street Light MWh) 746,260 746,260 742,239 Sales per MWh $98.46 $98.46 $101.26 Purchased/Generated MWh 776,902- 776,902- 775,661- All In MWh Supply & Generation $63.17 $62.85 $62.07 Electric Fund - Revenues Page 7

Electric Fund - Revenues Millions $(20) $(10) $- $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 Budget Revised Budget Actual Customer Sales Distribution of Earnings All Other* Electric Fund - Expenditures $55,000,000 $50,000,000 $45,000,000 $40,000,000 $35,000,000 $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $- Electric Pension Rate Power Supply & Interfund Post Retirement Capital Project General Fund Operating Debt Service Unfunded Stabilization All Other* Generation Services Benefits Transfers Transfer Division Exp. Liability Reserve Budget $49,075,100 6,660,200 3,660,100 1,605,500 1,820,300 1,000,000 5,000,000 10,000,000 5,200,000 2,162,400 Revised Budget $48,825,100 6,765,400 3,660,100 1,605,500 1,820,300 1,234,500 5,000,000 10,000,000 5,200,000 2,307,200 Actual $48,147,500 6,110,853 3,450,641 1,613,204 1,820,300 1,234,500 5,000,000 10,000,000 5,200,000 2,224,434 Page 8 Budget Revised Budget Actual

City of Dover Division Expense Summary (General Fund) Fiscal Year to Date (June 2018) PRELIMINARY Budget Revised Budget Actual % General Fund Divisions % of Budget City Clerk $ 436,700 $ 440,700 $ 383,402 87% Council 155,100 145,100 112,166 77% Mayor Tax Assessor 238,500 241,200 239,122 99% Human Resources Fire 774,900 774,900 771,156 100% Customer Services Grounds 1,142,000 1,101,600 1,017,957 92% Vehicle Maintenance Library 1,708,300 1,715,800 1,695,597 99% Procurement & Inventory Recreation 764,200 811,500 752,468 93% Engineering Life Safety 499,600 500,900 465,049 93% Code Enforcement 449,700 452,100 419,368 93% Facilities Management Planning 563,400 568,000 543,174 96% Pub. Services Administration Public Inspections 721,000 724,800 598,975 83% Finance Police 16,483,900 16,784,400 16,349,149 97% Information Technology Police Extra Duty 560,000 600,000 552,061 92% City Manager Streets 1,119,400 1,217,000 1,011,419 83% Sanitation Sanitation 2,563,900 2,519,000 2,368,067 94% City Manager 751,500 821,600 765,145 93% Streets Information Technology 777,400 781,200 729,597 93% Police Extra Duty Finance 1,038,900 1,041,400 951,261 91% Police Pub. Services Administration 718,300 720,100 723,758 101% Public Inspections Facilities Management 629,700 640,500 644,338 101% Planning Engineering 277,700 278,800 267,531 96% Procurement & Inventory 605,100 610,600 616,895 101% Code Enforcement Vehicle Maintenance 838,200 865,200 846,223 98% Life Safety Customer Services 1,169,500 1,174,700 1,040,918 89% Recreation Human Resources 436,600 538,600 439,515 82% Library Mayor 119,300 119,300 113,746 95% Grounds $ 35,542,800 $ 36,189,000 $ 34,418,057 Fire Tax Assessor Council City Clerk 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Page 9

City of Dover Utilities Summary Fiscal Year to Date (June 2018) PRELIMINARY Water/Wastewater Divison Expenses Budget Revised Budget Actual % Engineering & Inspection $ 517,800 $ 523,300 $ 426,798 82% Water Department 635,700 660,300 543,114 82% Water Treatment Plant 1,780,500 1,791,100 1,758,736 98% Wastewater Department 962,800 991,000 987,876 100% $ 3,896,800 $ 3,965,700 $ 3,716,524 Electric Division Expenses Budget Revised Budget Actual % Transmission/Distribution $ 3,599,600 $ 3,690,300 $ 3,424,497 93% Electrical Engineering 1,226,400 1,249,900 1,095,161 88% Administration 797,000 775,000 516,422 67% Meter Reading 392,500 393,500 397,335 101% Systems Operations 644,700 656,700 677,438 103% $ 6,660,200 $ 6,765,400 $ 6,110,853 Water/Wastewater Division % of Budget Wastewater Department Water Treatment Plant Water Department Engineering & Inspection 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Electric Division % of Budget Systems Operations Meter Reading Administration Electrical Engineering Transmission/Distribution 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Page 10

City of Dover Capital Outlay Summary (All Funds) Fiscal Year to Date (June 2018) PRELIMINARY General Fund Budget Revised Budget Actual % City Clerk $ - $ 156,200 $ 156,188 100% Fire 145,700 145,700 145,614 100% Grounds Maintenance 62,500 62,500 - 0% Recreation 271,000 331,800 73,593 22% Police 379,900 379,900 313,323 82% Sanitation - 40,000 39,994 100% Streets 1,070,000 1,949,900 1,227,773 63% Information Technology 36,600 63,600 56,404 89% Facilities Management 25,100 54,200 28,993 53% Transfer to Parkland Reserve - 25,800 32,848 127% General Fund Capital Projects $ 1,990,800 $ 3,209,600 $ 2,074,729 65% Water/Wastewater Fund Water $ 1,608,400 $ 1,652,000 $ 700,072 42% Wastewater 1,543,000 2,624,300 1,376,981 52% Water Treatment Plant - 2,483,400 15,113 1% Water/Wastewater Capital Projects $ 3,151,400 $ 6,759,700 $ 2,092,165 31% Electric Fund Electric Generation $ 2,328,000 $ 2,816,600 $ 2,150,352 76% Transmission/Distribution 1,725,500 1,597,800 956,760 60% Electrical Engineering 1,315,000 1,612,800 655,508 41% Metering - 36,000 35,986 100% Electric Administration 8,500 8,500 - 0% ERP System 1,500,000 2,441,700 932,631 38% Electric Capital Projects $ 6,877,000 $ 8,513,400 $ 4,731,238 56% Total Capital Projects $ 12,019,200 $ 18,482,700 $ 8,898,133 48% Page 11

Capital Outlay - All Divisions 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 - Budget Revised Budget Actual Capital Outlay - By Fund $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $- Budget Revised Budget Actual General Fund Capital Projects Water/Wastewater Capital Projects Electric Capital Projects Page 12

June 2018 Procurement & Inventory Report Measure FY 2018 FY 2017 DIFFERENCE Issue Effectiveness – How often the FY 2018 (To date) FY 2017 (Total) warehouse has what the departments [4,471/(4,471+168)]*100 [4,581/(4,581+119)]*100 - 1.23% need when it’s needed. 96.38% 97.47 % [issues / (issues + back orders)] * 100 Turn Over Rate – Indicates that the material stocked is the material being June 2018 June 2017 +0.03 Turnovers per year used. (2016-2017 Goal 1 per year) 0.76 Turnovers per year 0.73 Turnovers per year WITHOUT TRANSFORMERS REQUESTING BID NUMBER TERM COMMODITY DEPARTMENT STATUS as of July 9, 2018 Water Treatment Plant Process Bids forwarded to Public Works on 12/26/2017. 18-0014PW One time Public Works Improvements Submitting to CCW for June 12, 2018 meeting. Construction Support Services for the Forwarded to Public Works on 2/7/2018. Submitting 18-0018PW One time Public Works Water Treatment Plant Project to CCW for June 12, 2018 meeting. Puncheon Run Wastewater Pump Station Forwarded to Public Works on 3/14/2018. 18-0023PW One time Public Works Improvements Engineering Design Support Submitting to CCW for June 12, 2018 meeting. Delaware Tech Pump Station Forwarded to Public Works on 4/18/2018. 18-0025PW One Time Public Works Replacement Submitting to CCW for June 12, 2018 meeting. Forwarded to Public Works on 4/18/2018. Silver Lake Pump Station Replacement 18-0026PW One Time Public Works Submitting to CCW for June 12, 2018 meeting. Walker Woods Pump Station Forwarded to Public Works on 4/18/2018. 18-0027PW One Time Public Works Replacement Submitting to CCW for June 12, 2018 meeting. Forwarded to Public Works on 4/26/2018. North Street Water Main Replacement 18-0028PW One Time Public Works Submitting to CCW for June 12, 2018 meeting. Forwarded to Public Works on 5/3/2018. Submitting Wellhead Redevelopment Program 18-0029PW Three Years Public Works to CCW for July 10, 2018 meeting. Schutte Park Grading Plan Engineering Forwarded to Public Works on 5/16/ 2018. 18-0031PW One time Public Works Design Support Submitting to CCW for July 10, 2018 meeting. Electric Distribution Transformer Disposal 18-0032EL Three Years Electric Forwarded to Electric on 5/25/2018 Water Meter Term Contract 18-0033CS Three Years Public Works Forwarded to Public Works on 5/29/2018 FY 2018 Street & Alley Program 18-0039PW One time Public Works Bid opening scheduled for July 17, 2018 @ 2:00 pm Shirts & Hats Term Contract 18-0040CS Three Years Procurement RFQ's due July 11, 2018 FUEL USE FY 2018 TO DATE FY 2017 TO DATE STOCK WITH OVER 60 MONTH SUPPLY (5 YEARS) Unleaded: 133,4989.8 gallons 134,200.5 gallons Electric: $ 410,546.79 315 Line Items Diesel: 75,734 gallons 78,257.2 gallons Water: $ 20,690.37 54 Line Items Dollars Spent: $395,134.38 $347,849.14 General: $ 42,215.08 140 Line Items Total: $ 473,452.24 509 Line Items Purchase Orders for Stock by Fund Issues from Stock by Fund FY 2018 TO DATE FY 2017 TO DATE FY 2018 TO DATE FY 2017 TO DATE Electric: $1,231,918.81 $ 1,184,037.48 Electric: $1,325,627.93 $ 1,308,758.38 Water: $ 148,603.20 $ 248,824.64 Water: $ 150,902.12 $ 319,821.96 General: $ 128,398.60 $ 111,856.87 General: $ 128,757.46 $ 129,561.29 Total: $ 1,508,920.61 $ 1,544,718.99 *Total: $1,613,903.26 $ 1,758,276.03 Warehouse Stock Money Spent for Postage/Postal Services FY 2018 FY 2017 FY 2018 TO DATE FY 2017 TO DATE Total Dollar Value: $ 2,133,382.50 $ 2,200,372.78 $ 132,508.94 $ 133,623.27 Total Line Items: 1,292 1,304  Total of Issues from Stock by Fund includes Issues from Sale from Stock (SS) and Electric Returns (ER). Page 13

MONTHLY REPORT June 2018

Date Range: From 06/01/2018 to 06/30/2018 Incident Run Log Fixed Property: Dover Fire Department Company: All Companies Sorted by: Not selected Date FDID Incident# Alarm ### Address Suite Type Lgth 06/01/2018 30046 2018-000541 20:33 1200 N DUPONT HWY Dispatched & canceled en route 0.1 06/02/2018 30046 2018-000542 04:01 51 WEBBS LN H Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional 0.3 06/02/2018 30046 2018-000543 10:02 655 N DUPONT HWY Dispatched & canceled en route 0.0 06/02/2018 30046 2018-000544 10:10 406 E WATER ST Good intent call, other 0.3 06/02/2018 30046 2018-000545 12:41 1665 KENTON RD Central station, malicious false alarm 0.4 06/02/2018 30046 2018-000546 19:05 2559 WHITEOAK RD Good intent call, other 0.3 06/03/2018 30046 2018-000547 04:48 3411 FORREST AVE Medical assist, assist EMS crew 0.5 06/03/2018 30046 2018-000548 12:23 800 BAY RD System malfunction, other 0.4 06/03/2018 30046 2018-000549 15:29 299 N DUPONT HWY Malicious, mischievous false call, other 0.4 06/04/2018 30046 2018-000550 07:17 298 S DUPONT WHY Service Call, other 0.3 06/04/2018 30046 2018-000551 07:49 35 COMMERCE WAY SUITE Service Call, other 1.1 06/04/2018 30046 2018-000552 10:16 RT 1 Passenger vehicle fire 0.6 06/04/2018 30046 2018-000553 11:49 1075 SILVER LAKE BLVD Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional 0.3 06/04/2018 30046 2018-000554 18:41 30 S NEW ST Malicious, mischievous false call, other 0.3 06/04/2018 30046 2018-000555 18:42 717 BICENTENNIAL BLVD Extrication, rescue, other 0.2 06/04/2018 30046 2018-000556 22:13 1250 SOUTH GOVERNORS AVE Extrication, rescue, other 1.0 06/05/2018 30046 2018-000557 18:37 1200 N DUPONT HWY Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 0.5 06/05/2018 30046 2018-000558 22:32 1001 WALKER RD Alarm system sounded due to malfunction 0.3 06/06/2018 30046 2018-000559 08:26 303 TRANSPORTATION CIRCLE Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.5 06/06/2018 30046 2018-000560 18:13 COLLEGE RD Passenger vehicle fire 0.7 06/06/2018 30046 2018-000561 19:48 1700 N DUPONT HWY BLDG F Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.4 06/06/2018 30046 2018-000562 20:49 1200 N DUPONT HWY Unintentional transmission of alarm, other 0.4 06/07/2018 30046 2018-000563 09:37 821 SILVER LAKE BLVD Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.3 06/07/2018 30046 2018-000564 15:07 RT 1 Extrication of victim(s) from vehicle 0.4 06/07/2018 30046 2018-000565 17:14 2898 ARTHURSVILLE RD Dispatched & canceled en route 0.0 06/07/2018 30046 2018-000566 22:02 77 SAULSBURY RD System malfunction, other 0.5 06/08/2018 30046 2018-000567 06:44 1700 N DUPONT HWY BLDG F Cooking fire, confined to container 0.5 06/08/2018 30046 2018-000568 14:43 N DUPONT HWY Oil or other combustible liquid spill 23.5 06/08/2018 30046 2018-000569 15:51 800 BAY RD System malfunction, other 0.5 06/09/2018 30046 2018-000570 14:10 2030 GENERALS WAY B Cooking fire, confined to container 0.7 06/09/2018 30046 2018-000571 14:36 1200 N DUPONT HWY Municipal alarm system, malicious false alarm 0.4 06/09/2018 30046 2018-000572 15:52 430 COLLEGE RD 100 Malicious, mischievous false call, other 0.4 06/09/2018 30046 2018-000573 16:00 W DIVISION ST Good intent call, other 0.2 06/09/2018 30046 2018-000574 16:33 1525 MCKEE RD Alarm system sounded due to malfunction 0.2 06/09/2018 30046 2018-000575 16:45 293 S SAULSBURY RD Gasoline or other flammable liquid spill 0.1 06/09/2018 30046 2018-000576 16:52 NEW ST Service Call, other 0.3 06/10/2018 30046 2018-000577 07:29 521 LAKEWOOD PL Cooking fire, confined to container 0.2 06/10/2018 30046 2018-000578 09:06 213 N BRADFORD ST Malicious, mischievous false call, other 0.1 06/10/2018 30046 2018-000579 15:51 1700 N DUPONT HWY BLDG F Cooking fire, confined to container 0.4 06/10/2018 30046 2018-000580 19:46 1200 N DUPONT HWY Detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.4 06/10/2018 30046 2018-000581 23:24 226 CHELSEA WAY Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 0.4 06/11/2018 30046 2018-000582 07:39 20 E DIVISION ST Removal of victim(s) from stalled elevator 0.5 06/11/2018 30046 2018-000583 10:33 360 WEBBS LN Removal of victim(s) from stalled elevator 0.1 06/11/2018 30046 2018-000584 19:30 761 BACON AVE Overheated motor 0.8 06/12/2018 30046 2018-000585 02:54 119 PERSIMMON CIR EAST Good intent call, other 0.5 06/12/2018 30046 2018-000586 06:04 55 PEYTON ST Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.3 06/12/2018 30046 2018-000587 17:20 851 CARVEL DR Emergency medical service incident, other 0.3 06/13/2018 30046 2018-000588 09:21 1131 N DUPONT HWY Medical assist, assist EMS crew 0.0 06/13/2018 30046 2018-000589 12:28 1700 N DUPONT HWY BLDG K Good intent call, other 0.3 06/13/2018 30046 2018-000590 18:03 1131 N DUPONT HWY Overpressure rupture, explosion, overheat other 0.2 06/13/2018 30046 2018-000591 18:53 118 HOLMES ST Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.3 06/13/2018 30046 2018-000592 21:19 213 N BRADFORD ST Unintentional transmission of alarm, other 0.2 06/14/2018 30046 2018-000593 13:21 88 HIGHVIEW AVE Power line down 0.8 06/14/2018 30046 2018-000594 14:06 1030 FORREST AVE 106 Good intent call, other 0.3 06/14/2018 30046 2018-000595 19:38 400 N DUPONT HWY G Cooking fire, confined to container 0.4 06/15/2018 30046 2018-000596 09:21 285 BEISER BLVD Removal of victim(s) from stalled elevator 0.9 06/15/2018 30046 2018-000597 14:11 329 N GOVERNORS AVE Building fire 1.0 06/15/2018 30046 2018-000598 18:18 500 PERSIMMON TREE LA 3 Unauthorized burning 0.0 06/15/2018 30046 2018-000599 22:05 51 WEBBS LN H Heat from short circuit (wiring), defective/worn 0.4 Date: 07/24/2018 Page: 1 Time:11:05

Date FDID Incident# Alarm ### Address Suite Type Lgth 06/16/2018 30046 2018-000600 11:05 515 N DUPONT HWY Smoke or odor removal 0.4 06/16/2018 30046 2018-000601 13:57 120 N STATE ST Outside rubbish, trash or waste fire 0.1 06/16/2018 30046 2018-000602 17:51 1131 N DUPONT HWY Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) 0.0 06/16/2018 30046 2018-000603 17:52 1131 N DUPONT HWY Medical assist, assist EMS crew 0.0 06/16/2018 30046 2018-000604 17:54 1131 N DUPONT HWY Medical assist, assist EMS crew 0.0 06/16/2018 30046 2018-000605 17:55 1131 N DUPONT HWY Medical assist, assist EMS crew 0.0 06/16/2018 30046 2018-000606 20:48 1131 N DUPONT HWY Medical assist, assist EMS crew 0.0 06/16/2018 30046 2018-000607 21:25 518 BAY RD Good intent call, other 0.5 06/16/2018 30046 2018-000608 22:08 1300 S FARMVIEW DR E Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.4 06/17/2018 30046 2018-000609 01:51 654 N DUPONT HWY Extrication, rescue, other 1.2 06/17/2018 30046 2018-000610 08:33 122 OVERLOOK PL Unintentional transmission of alarm, other 0.2 06/18/2018 30046 2018-000611 13:14 299 N DUPONT HWY Service Call, other 0.4 06/18/2018 30046 2018-000612 14:15 S STATE ST Extrication of victim(s) from vehicle 0.7 06/18/2018 30046 2018-000613 15:18 MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD Extrication of victim(s) from vehicle 0.5 06/18/2018 30046 2018-000614 17:18 LONG POINT RD Dispatched & canceled en route 0.0 06/18/2018 30046 2018-000615 17:41 KENTON RD Vicinity alarm (incident in other location) 0.3 06/18/2018 30046 2018-000616 19:27 208 N BRADFORD ST Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.3 06/19/2018 30046 2018-000617 22:18 30 CARPENTER ST Heat from short circuit (wiring), defective/worn 1.0 06/20/2018 30046 2018-000618 06:07 515 N DUPONT HWY Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) 0.5 06/20/2018 30046 2018-000619 14:26 121 SPRUANCE RD Cooking fire, confined to container 0.3 06/21/2018 30046 2018-000620 18:37 400 N DUPONT HWY C Good intent call, other 0.3 06/21/2018 30046 2018-000621 22:40 120 N STATE ST Good intent call, other 0.3 06/22/2018 30046 2018-000622 16:20 46 WAYNE DR Assist police or other governmental agency 0.6 06/22/2018 30046 2018-000623 22:36 1365 N DUPONT HWY 5000 Dispatched & canceled en route 0.1 06/22/2018 30046 2018-000624 23:54 1289 WALKER RD BUILD I Assist police or other governmental agency 0.4 06/23/2018 30046 2018-000625 09:16 190 JOHN HUNN BROWN RD Animal rescue 0.3 06/23/2018 30046 2018-000626 16:39 1171 BAY RD Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 0.5 06/24/2018 30046 2018-000627 04:48 3411 FORREST AVE Medical assist, assist EMS crew 0.6 06/24/2018 30046 2018-000628 09:09 1 RIVER CHASE DR Smoke or odor removal 0.8 06/24/2018 30046 2018-000629 15:08 51 WEBBS LN J Cooking fire, confined to container 0.4 06/24/2018 30046 2018-000630 15:42 1131 N DUPONT HWY Smoke or odor removal 0.1 06/24/2018 30046 2018-000631 15:47 298 COLLEGE RD Electrical wiring/equipment problem, other 0.1 06/24/2018 30046 2018-000632 15:56 1300 S FARMVIEW DR M Arcing, shorted electrical equipment 0.4 06/25/2018 30046 2018-000633 09:11 102 ORCHARD AVE Service Call, other 0.4 06/25/2018 30046 2018-000634 13:44 120 N STATE ST Unintentional transmission of alarm, other 0.2 06/25/2018 30046 2018-000635 13:45 350 PEAR ST Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.3 06/26/2018 30046 2018-000636 08:51 1312 S DUPONT HWY Good intent call, other 0.3 06/26/2018 30046 2018-000637 18:08 911 MCDOWELL DR Arcing, shorted electrical equipment 0.3 06/27/2018 30046 2018-000638 08:30 1155 WALKER RD Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional 0.1 06/27/2018 30046 2018-000639 13:40 1574 N DUPONT HWY Lock-in (if lock out , use 511 ) 0.4 06/27/2018 30046 2018-000640 23:46 21 S LITTLE CREEK RD Alarm system sounded due to malfunction 0.5 06/28/2018 30046 2018-000641 10:10 190 JOHN HUNN BROWN RD Gasoline or other flammable liquid spill 0.5 06/28/2018 30046 2018-000642 18:29 21 N STATE ST Malicious, mischievous false call, other 0.2 06/28/2018 30046 2018-000643 18:41 911 KENTON RD Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) 0.3 06/28/2018 30046 2018-000644 21:51 21 N STATE ST Malicious, mischievous false call, other 0.3 06/29/2018 30046 2018-000645 18:18 1 IVY HALL Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional 0.4 06/30/2018 30046 2018-000646 08:18 125 SPRINGFIELD WAY Unintentional transmission of alarm, other 0.3 06/30/2018 30046 2018-000647 18:46 128 N GOVERNORS BLVD Cooking fire, confined to container 0.4 Total Number of Incidents: 501 Total Length of Incidents: 276.2 Hours

DEPARTMENT OF POLICE Marvin C. Mailey 400 South Queen Street Chief of Police Dover, Delaware 19904 302-736-7111 Fax: 302-672-1842 August 13, 2018 Honorable Robin Christiansen, Mayor Member of Dover City Council City Hall Dover, DE 19901 Mayor Christiansen and Council Members: The following is the monthly report for Dover Police Department activities for the month of June 2018: COMPLAINTS Total complaints received through June 30th 2018, numbered 21,732 this is an increase of 780 complaints over the same period last year. 25,000 21,942 20,952 21,732 20,000 18,397 16,884 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS 15 11 10 7 7 5 5 2 3 2 2 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 Burglary Robbery Rape Homicide Sudden Death Cases Reported in June Cases Cleared In June Cases Cleared from Previous Months 1|Page

DRUGS, VICE, & ORGANIZED CRIME (DVOC) AND STREET CRIMES SECTION SEIZURES Along with the drug seizures below, the units also recovered 262 grams and/or doses of miscellaneous other drugs and $5,553.00 USD during the month of June. 1,500.00 1,416.20 1,000.00 500.00 153.3 54.5 73 3.63 0.00 Marijuana Cocaine Ecstasy (Doses) Prescription Heroin Pills (Doses) GRAMS/DOSES FIREARM SEIZURES/INSIDE CITY LIMITS 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CI DVOC/STREET CRIMES PATROL SEU HANDGUN RIFLE SHOTGUN COMMUNITY POLICING COMMUNITY POLICING CONTACTS ABANDONED VEHICLES 2 ALCOHOL VIOLATIONS/DUI’S 0 ASSIST OTHER 34 WARRANTS ON FILE 0 CRIMINAL ARRESTS 0 PARKING DCO’S 20 CADETS CONTACTS LOUD MUSIC 0 DCO’S 40 MISCELLANEOUS DCO’S 2 PARKING 33 PARKING COMPLAINTS 1 SMOKING 0 PEDDLER 0 OPEN CONTAINER 5 COMMUNITY OUTREACH 87 LOUD NOISE 0 CRIME PREVENTION CHECK 0 OTHER DCO’s 2 TRAFFIC ARRESTS 19 PROPERTY CHECKS 38 BIKE PATROL 3 BUSINESS CONTACTS 79 PROPERTY CHECKS 43 LIBRARY CHECKS 65 WARNINGS 0 COMPLAINTS ASSIGNED 21 TOTAL CONTACTS 211 SPECIAL EVENT 4 TOTAL CONTACTS 287 2|Page

STREET CRIMES STREET CRIMES ENFORCEMENT CONTACTS ABANDONED VEHICLES 0 ALCOHOL VIOLATIONS/DUI'S 0 ASSIST OTHER 16 WARRANTS ON FILE 0 CITY PARK VIOLATIONS 0 CRIMINAL ARRESTS 18 DRUG RELATED ARRESTS 39 LOUD MUSIC 0 MISCELLANEOUS VIOLATIONS 0 PARKING VIOLATIONS 0 PEDDLER 0 MEETINGS 0 CURFEW CHECKS 107 CRIME PREVENTION CHECKS 3 TRAFFIC ARRESTS 12 WARNINGS 30 FUGITIVES 12 DCO'S 1 PROSTITUTION 0 TOTAL CONTACTS 238 TRAFFIC ARRESTS The department issued 4,701traffic citations through this reporting period; this is a decrease of 1,507 citations over the number issued during the same period last year. 9,000 8,401 8,045 8,000 7,000 6,631 6,208 6,000 4,701 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 3|Page

TRAFFIC CRASHES Through June 30th, 2018, the Dover Police investigated 739 traffic crashes, a decrease of 2 crashes investigated during the same period last year. 900 842 850 800 751 729 737 739 750 700 650 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 911 Center During the month of May, the Dover Police Department handled 8,058 calls averaging 260 calls per day. Dispatchers handled 2,412 on the 911 wireless lines, 476 on the 911 landlines, and 187 on the Voice over Internet Protocol lines, the remaining 4,983 were administrative calls. 30% 62% 6% 2% 911 Wireless 911 Landline VoIP Administrative During the month of June, the Dover Police Department handled 9,055 calls averaging 302 calls per day. Dispatchers handled 2,334 on the 911 wireless lines, 437 on the 911 landlines, and 234 on the Voice over Internet Protocol lines, the remaining 6,050 were administrative calls. 26% 67% 5% 2% 911 Wireless 911 Landline VoIP Administrative 4|Page

CITY ORDINANCE SUMMONS Through June 30, 2018, we issued 2,534 city ordinance summons, a decrease of 429 summonses for the same period last year. Note: Of those summonses issued in June, 6 DCO’s were issued for handicapped parking violations and 4 for fire lane parking violations, 156 for false alarms 96 for 1-2 alarms, 45 for 3- 5 alarms, 11 for 6-9 alarms, 2 for 10-15 alarms, and 2 for 16 or more alarms) and 0 for noise violations 0 for vehicle violations and 0 for residence violations). 4,000 3,521 3,493 3,500 3,134 2,963 3,000 2,507 2,534 2,500 1,866 1,742 2,000 1,494 1,500 1,081 1,000 500 0 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 ISSUED 3,521 3,134 3,493 2,963 1,081 PAID 2,507 1,866 1,742 1,494 2,534 SEX OFFENDER STATISTICS/JUNE MONTHLY NON COMPLIANT VERIFICATIONS NOTIFICATIONS REVERIFICATIONS WARRANTS TIER 1 0 0 0 0 TIER 2 22 2,046 36 1 TIER 3 19 1,767 38 1 ACTIVE SEX OFFENDERS THAT RESIDE IN THE CITY OF DOVER (please note, Tier 1 offenders are not contacted by Dover Police Sex Offender Agents). 250 201 200 184 150 100 93 84 50 0 MAY JUNE TIER 2 184 201 TIER 3 84 93 5|Page

(Please note, Tier 1 offenders are not contacted by Dover Police Sex Offender Agents). Please visit our website at www.doverpolice.org for up to date information on crimes and activities in the City of Dover. Respectfully Submitted, Marvin C. Mailey Chief of Police 6|Page

City of Dover Capital Investment Plan Project Tracking Report Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2018 PRELIMINARY Points to Remember - * Original Project Budget = Original Total Project Budget initially included in approved annual budget. * Latest Project Budget = Revised Total Project Budget included in most recent approved annual budget or one of the following: bond resolution, revolving fund loan agreement, Council approved budget amendment, or City Manager approved amendment as per the Budget Amendment Procedure. * Current Fiscal Year - Revised Fiscal Year Budget = Current Year approved project budgets plus carry forward balances of unspent budgets in the prior fiscal year. Project Carry Forward balances will be submitted to City Council for amendment in January 2010. Can also be amended with City Manager approval per the Budget Amendment Procedure. * Water Quality, Inflow/Infiltration, Distribution Upgrades and New Development projects are budgeted as a blanket project and once individual projects are identified and estimated they are created using an allocation of the overall budgeted amount. * Status and Comments provided by City Manager. Community Water & Total Current Year Budget Funding Sources General Transportation Wastewater Electric CIP Budget Balance $ 1,089,700 $ - $ 3,481,100 $ 3,033,600 $ 7,604,400 General Billings for Reimbursement of Expense - - - 370,000 370,000 State Grants 63,000 - - - 63,000 Misc Receipts - 32,400 32,400 State Community Transportation Funds - 500,000 - - 500,000 Transfer from General Fund 1,368,700 - - - 1,368,700 Transfer from Operating Funds - - 3,153,000 5,000,000 8,153,000 Transfer from Parkland Reserve 235,800 - - - 235,800 Transfer from Capital Asset Reserve 418,300 - - - 418,300 Interest Income 8,300 - 93,200 109,800 211,300 Total Funding Sources (Unaudited) $ 3,183,800 $ 500,000 $ 6,759,700 $ 8,513,400 $ 18,956,900

City of Dover General Fund - Major CIP Projects Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2018 PRELIMINARY TOTAL PROJECT - PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Project % Original Revised Fiscal % Project Project Project To Date Budget Budget Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget of Code Type Description Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Expenses Balance Completion Status Comments 1 FY 2015 & Prior 2 PR1402 M Schutte Park Land Improvements $ 100,000 $ 245,000 $ 57,255 $ 187,745 23.4% $ 190,000 $ 190,000 $ 2,259 $ 187,741 80.0% In Process Finalizing plan for re-grading of fields 3 ST1504 Old PW2 Site Improvements 535,000 678,300 632,938 45,362 93.3% - 77,900 32,537 45,363 70.0% In Process Design work ongoing for the VCP 4 ST1304 Garrison Farm Street Improvement - - - - 0.0% - - 2,530 (2,530) 100.0% Complete Prior year exp not accrued <$5K 5 Totals - FY 2015 $ 635,000 $ 923,300 $ 690,193 $ 233,107 74.8% $ 190,000 $ 267,900 $ 37,326 $ 230,574 6 7 FY 2017 8 --- Video Broadcasting Equipment $ 164,100 $ 164,100 $ 164,929 $ (829) 100.5% $ - $ 156,200 $ 156,188 $ 12 100.0% Complete Budget C/F FY2017 9 ST1701 FY17 Street and Alley Program 900,000 859,400 799,799 59,601 93.1% - 740,200 680,644 59,556 99.0% Complete Awaiting final invoice & paperwork 10 ST1703 Silver Lake Dam Improvements 126,000 269,000 268,965 35 100.0% - 254,500 254,415 85 100.0% Complete Final plan will be presented to Council 11 PR1701 G Dover Park - Master Plan 50,000 60,000 41,226 18,774 68.7% - 60,000 41,226 18,774 90.0% In Process by end of Summer 12 Totals - FY 2017 $ 1,240,100 $ 1,352,500 $ 1,274,918 $ 77,582 94.3% $ - $ 1,210,900 $ 1,132,472 $ 78,428 13 14 FY 2018 15 --- Vehicles & Equipment $ 363,400 $ 443,800 $ 379,748 $ 64,052 85.6% $ 363,400 $ 443,800 $ 379,748 $ 64,052 In Process 16 FR1800 R Annual Contribution for Ladder 1 145,700 145,700 145,614 86 99.9% 145,700 145,700 145,614 86 100.0% Complete 17 IT1800 Back Up & Recovery Syst with Software 15,000 15,000 11,895 3,105 79.3% 15,000 15,000 11,895 3,105 100.0% Complete 18 IT1801 Network Infrastructure 21,600 48,600 44,509 4,091 91.6% 21,600 48,600 44,509 4,091 100.0% Complete Hamlet Playground, waiting on 19 PR1800 G Park and Playground Improvement Prog 66,000 66,000 13,134 52,866 19.9% 66,000 66,000 13,134 52,866 50.0% In Process installation 20 PR1801 R Small Park Improvements 15,000 15,800 16,974 (1,174) 107.4% 15,000 15,800 16,974 (1,174) 100.0% Complete 21 PD1800 Police Station Roof Repair 53,100 38,300 - 38,300 0.0% 53,100 38,300 - 38,300 0.0% In Process Work to begin July 24, 2018 Received Planning Comm approval, working with agencies to receive final 22 PD1801 R Police Station Impound Lot 51,000 51,000 6,400 44,600 12.5% 51,000 51,000 6,400 44,600 65.0% In Process approval 23 PD1802 Condenser Replacement in Comp Room - 14,800 7,376 7,424 49.8% - 14,800 7,376 7,424 0.0% In Process Work to begin July 24, 2018 24 ST1801 FY18 Street and Alley Program 950,000 649,500 - 649,500 0.0% 950,000 649,500 - 649,500 0.0% In Process Bids due July 17, 2018 25 ST1802 Misc Emergency Stormwater Repairs 70,000 216,500 216,432 68 100.0% 70,000 216,500 216,432 68 100.0% Complete 26 ST1805 Dover Library Conveyance Syst Improv 50,000 - - - 0.0% 50,000 - - - 0.0% On Hold Project to be re-programmed 27 ST1806 Bradford St Streetscape Improvement - - 30,000 (30,000) 0.0% - - 30,000 (30,000) 100.0% Complete Design work complete 28 Totals - FY 2018 $ 1,800,800 $ 1,705,000 $ 842,082 $ 832,918 49.4% $ 1,800,800 $ 1,705,000 $ 872,082 $ 832,918 29 30 Grand Totals $ 3,675,900 $ 3,980,800 $ 2,807,193 $ 1,143,607 70.5% $ 1,990,800 $ 3,183,800 $ 2,041,880 $ 1,141,920 Legend M = Multi-year project - a project with a specific schedule to occur over multiple years. R = Recurring project - a project that begins and ends each fiscal year and is re-budgeted to start over each fiscal year. G = Grant funded project B/L = To be financed through bonds or commercial loan.

City of Dover Community Transportation - Major CIP Projects Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2018 PRELIMINARY TOTAL PROJECT - PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Project % Original Revised Fiscal % Project Project Project To Date Budget Budget Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget of Code Type Description Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Expenses Balance Completion Status Comments 1 FY 2014 & Prior 2 TE0601 Lincoln Park Center $ 900,000 $ 602,400 $ 523,277 $ 79,123 86.9% $ - $ 79,100 $ - $ 79,100 On-going On-going maintenance of hazmat area 3 Totals - FY 2014 & Prior $ 900,000 $ 602,400 $ 523,277 $ 79,123 86.9% $ - $ 79,100 $ - $ 79,100 4 5 FY 2016 6 CT1627 FY16 Paving Projects - Boggs Drive $ 247,400 $ 247,400 $ 247,586 $ (186) 100.1% $ - $ 44,600 $ 44,829 $ (229) 100.0% Complete 7 Totals - FY 2016 $ 247,400 $ 247,400 $ 247,586 $ (186) 100.1% $ - $ 44,600 $ 44,829 $ (229) 8 9 FY 2017 Work is complete, awaiting retainage invoice at CT1703 10 Paving Project - Wyoming Avenue $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 199,047 $ 953 99.5% $ - $ 169,900 $ 168,941 $ 959 99.0% Complete the end of FY17 street project Work is complete, awaiting retainage invoice at CT1714 11 Paving Project - Paper Alley 15,000 15,000 5,481 9,519 36.5% - 15,000 5,481 9,519 99.0% Complete the end of FY17 street project 12 CT1826 Mobile Speed Feedback Sign 8,500 8,900 8,899 1 100.0% 8,500 8,900 8,899 1 100.0% Complete 13 CT1829 Mobile Radar Signs 12,200 12,200 - 12,200 0.0% 12,200 12,200 - 12,200 0.0% In Process Signs to be delivered in August To be completed with FY18 street program, bids CT1833 14 Paving-Hope St from Governors Ave to S State St 89,000 88,600 - 88,600 0.0% 89,000 88,600 - 88,600 0.0% In Process due July 17, 2018 15 CT1833 Paving-Crawford Carroll Ave from Rustic Ave to Kw Blvd 11,000 11,000 8,787 2,213 79.9% 11,000 11,000 8,787 2,213 100.0% Complete 16 CTxxxx Unapplied CT Projects (placeholder) 500,000 179,200 - 179,200 0.0% 379,300 70,700 - 70,700 17 Totals - FY 2017 $ 835,700 $ 514,900 $ 222,214 $ 291,733 43.2% $ 500,000 $ 376,300 $ 192,108 $ 184,192 18 19 Grand Totals $ 1,983,100 $ 1,364,700 $ 993,077 $ 370,670 72.8% $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 236,937 $ 263,063 Legend M = Multi-year project - a project with a specific schedule to occur over multiple years. R = Recurring project - a project that begins and ends each fiscal year and is re-budgeted to start over each fiscal year. C = Project funded by combination of CT Funds and General Fund B/L = To be financed through bonds or commercial loan.

City of Dover Water/Wastewater Improvement & Extension Fund - Major CIP Projects Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2018 PRELIMINARY TOTAL PROJECT - PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Project % Original Revised Fiscal % Project Project Project To Date Budget Budget Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget of Code Type Description Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Expenses Balance Completion Status Comments 1 FY 2013 2 WW1303 Westover PS $ 768,800 $ 1,405,400 $ 1,271,176 $ 134,225 90.4% $ - $ 519,400 $ 385,145 $ 134,255 99.0% Complete Awaiting final invoice & paperwork 3 Totals - FY 2013 $ 768,800 $ 1,405,400 $ 1,271,176 $ 134,225 90.4% $ - $ 519,400 $ 385,145 $ 134,255 4 5 FY 2016 6 WW1603 Rolling Acres PS Replacement $ 424,000 $ 531,400 $ 500,404 $ 30,996 94.2% $ - $ 492,200 $ 461,231 $ 30,969 100.0% Complete 7 WD1609 WTP Process Improvements 1,200,000 2,407,500 338,270 2,069,230 14.1% - 2,475,700 7,410 2,468,290 0.0% In Process Project to get underway in August 8 Totals - FY 2016 $ 1,624,000 $ 2,938,900 $ 838,674 $ 2,100,226 28.5% $ - $ 2,967,900 $ 468,641 $ 2,499,259 9 10 FY 2017 11 WD1705 R Future Well Installation $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 72,709 $ 27,291 72.7% $ - $ 71,600 $ 44,279 $ 27,321 95.0% In Process Design complete, project to be constructed in FY20 12 WW1704 Delaware Tech PS Replacement 52,000 52,000 43,840 8,160 84.3% - 33,000 24,834 8,166 100.0% Complete 13 WW1705 Silver Lake PS Replacement 52,000 52,000 49,637 2,363 95.5% - 20,200 17,828 2,372 100.0% Complete 14 WW1706 Walker Woods PS Replacement 52,000 52,000 50,964 1,036 98.0% - 17,400 16,354 1,046 100.0% Complete 15 Totals - FY 2017 $ 256,000 $ 256,000 $ 217,149 $ 38,851 84.8% $ - $ 142,200 $ 103,295 $ 38,905 16 17 FY 2018 18 --- R Vehicles & Equipment $ 156,300 $ 177,700 $ 21,256 $ 156,444 12.0% $ 156,300 $ 177,700 $ 21,256 $ 156,444 In Process 19 --- Economic Development Program 100,000 100,000 12,800 87,200 12.8% 100,000 100,000 12,800 87,200 100.0% Complete 20 --- Emergency Repair to WTP HVAC - 7,700 7,703 (3) 100.0% - 7,700 7,703 (3) 100.0% Complete WD1800/ 21 WW1800 R Meter Replacement Project 432,200 385,200 - 385,200 0.0% 432,200 385,200 - 385,200 On Hold 22 WD1801 R Wellhead Redevelopment 55,000 55,000 54,637 363 99.3% 55,000 55,000 54,637 363 100.0% Complete 23 WQ1801 Water Quality Improvement - Bradford 425,000 323,500 228,336 95,164 70.6% 425,000 323,500 228,336 95,164 99.0% Complete Awaiting final invoice & paperwork 24 WQ1802 Water Quality Improvement - William 621,000 621,000 351,232 269,768 56.6% 621,000 621,000 351,232 269,768 99.0% Complete Awaiting final invoice & paperwork 25 WQ1803 R Misc Emergency Water Repairs 85,000 77,300 6,959 70,341 9.0% 85,000 77,300 6,959 70,341 100.0% Complete 26 WQ1804 N State St Water Main Replacement - 94,000 4,000 90,000 4.3% - 94,000 4,000 90,000 15.0% In Process Project tentatively scheduled to start early August 27 WW1802 R Misc Emergency Sewer Repairs 100,000 78,900 79,268 (368) 100.5% 100,000 78,900 79,268 (368) 100.0% Complete 28 WW1803 Lincoln St Gravity Sewer Repair - 27,200 27,186 14 99.9% - 27,200 27,186 14 100.0% Complete 29 WW1804 US 13 East PS #7 Upgrades - 64,800 64,700 100 99.8% - 64,800 64,700 100 100.0% Complete 30 WW1805 SCADA Equip Technology Upgrade 35,000 35,000 - 35,000 0.0% 35,000 35,000 - 35,000 0.0% In Process Staff awaiting report on operational impacts 31 WW1806 Puncheon Run PS Improvements 320,000 320,000 - 320,000 0.0% 70,000 70,000 - 70,000 0.0% In Process Design work to start in July Pump station stabilized. Awaiting final 2 of 6 motors to 37 WW1807 PS #7 Emergency Clean Up - 11,500 277,006 (265,506) 2408.7% - 11,500 277,006 (265,506) 75.0% In Process be delivered 38 Root control aspect of project awarded, August start II1800 R Inflow/Infiltration Removal 1,071,900 1,001,400 - 1,001,400 0.0% 1,071,900 1,001,400 - 1,001,400 0.0% In Process anticipated. Relining portion of project out to bid 39 Totals - FY 2018 $ 3,401,400 $ 3,380,200 $ 1,135,084 $ 2,245,116 33.6% $ 3,151,400 $ 3,130,200 $ 1,135,084 $ 1,995,116 40 41 Grand Totals $ 5,794,200 $ 7,724,500 $ 3,332,761 $ 4,391,739 43.1% $ 3,151,400 $ 6,759,700 $ 2,092,165 $ 4,667,535 Legend M = Multi-year project - a project with a specific schedule to occur over multiple years. R = Recurring project - a project that begins and ends each fiscal year and is budgeted to start over each fiscal year. No carry forward. SL = State Loan Project - construction phase is financed I = Impact Fee (partially) financed project T = Transfer from blanket WQ or I&I original budget

City of Dover Electric Improvement & Extension Fund - Major CIP Projects Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2018 PRELIMINARY TOTAL PROJECT - PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Project % Current Revised Fiscal % Project Project Project To Date Budget Budget Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget of Code Type Description Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Expenses Balance Completion Status Comments 1 FY 2015 2 EE1513 M Town Point/White Oak Distribution Feeders $ 1,650,000 $ 2,816,000 $ 1,250,003 $ 1,565,997 44.4% $ 350,000 $ 816,000 $ 474,089 $ 341,911 90.0% In Process 3rd phase complete, starting phase 4 3 Totals - FY 2015 $ 1,650,000 $ 2,816,000 $ 1,250,003 $ 1,565,997 44.4% $ 350,000 $ 816,000 $ 474,089 $ 341,911 4 5 FY 2016 6 EE1605 69 kV Cable Replacement - North St $ - $ 127,700 $ - $ 127,700 0.0% $ - $ 127,700 $ - $ 127,700 0.0% In Process Ordering terminators 7 EE1617 Oak Grove Trailer Park - Dist Upgrade 78,500 78,500 55,621 22,879 70.9% - 31,700 8,745 22,955 100.0% Complete 8 EE1627 Dover East Estates - Dist Upgrade 130,000 130,000 119,505 10,495 91.9% - 12,800 2,312 10,488 100.0% Complete 9 EE1631 North Street OH to UG 170,000 170,000 164,489 5,511 96.8% - 5,500 - 5,500 95.0% In Process Pulling wire 7/24, schedule shutdown for splice 10 Totals - FY 2016 $ 378,500 $ 506,200 $ 339,615 $ 166,585 67.1% $ - $ 177,700 $ 11,058 $ 166,642 11 12 FY 2017 13 EE1709 Substation Relay Upgrade $ 350,000 $ 125,000 $ 4,882 $ 120,118 3.9% $ - $ 120,100 $ - $ 120,100 5.0% In Process Waiting to upgrade Mayfair substation 14 EG1701 VanSant Unit 11 Major Overhaul 2,098,000 2,098,000 1,796,793 301,207 85.6% 1,548,000 1,942,200 1,790,953 151,247 90.0% In Process Atomizing air compressor ordered, to install in fall 15 EG1703 McKee Run Building Equip Replacement 59,000 26,000 25,928 72 99.7% - 700 622 78 100.0% Complete 16 EG1704 Unit #3 Hydrogen Analyzer 96,000 82,400 78,460 3,940 95.2% - 82,400 78,460 3,940 60.0% In Process Hydrogen analyzer on site, to be installed 17 EG1711 R Preservation of Structures 131,000 14,400 15,158 (758) 105.3% - 7,000 7,744 (744) 100.0% Complete 18 EG1712 Remote Start Capability at VanSant 10,800 43,900 44,440 (540) 101.2% - 12,000 12,547 (547) 100.0% Complete 19 Totals - FY 2017 $ 2,744,800 $ 2,389,700 $ 1,965,660 $ 424,040 82.3% $ 1,548,000 $ 2,164,400 $ 1,890,325 $ 274,075 20 21 FY 2018 22 --- R Vehicles & Equipment $ 335,500 $ 243,800 $ 35,986 $ 207,814 14.8% $ 335,500 $ 243,800 $ 35,986 $ 207,814 In Process 23 --- Economic Development Program 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 0.0% 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 0.0% 24 EE1813 R New Developments 850,000 914,000 691,854 222,146 75.7% 850,000 914,000 543,781 370,220 94.0% In Process 26 EE1802 Garrison Oak/Sun Park Substation 50,000 - - - 0.0% 50,000 - - - 0.0% On Hold 27 EE1803 Beechwood Avenue Underground Upgrade 83,000 - - - 0.0% 83,000 - - - 0.0% Cancelled Funds to be used for EE1513 per City Manager 28 EE1804 Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) 150,000 - - - 0.0% 150,000 - - - 0.0% On Hold Project on hold 29 EE1805 Manor Drive Upgrades 51,000 51,000 31,257 19,743 61.3% 51,000 51,000 31,257 19,743 100.0% Complete 30 EE1806 Hirsch Industries Upgrades 59,000 59,000 17,303 41,697 29.3% 59,000 59,000 17,303 41,697 100.0% Complete 31 EE1807 McKee Run Plant Alternate Power 100,000 100,000 22,941 77,059 22.9% 100,000 100,000 22,941 77,059 90.0% In Process Backup feed complete, working demo & disposal 32 EE1808 North Street Substation Sewer Repair 50,000 50,000 24,800 25,200 49.6% 50,000 50,000 24,800 25,200 100.0% Complete Awaiting final invoice (May) 33 EE1809 Fiber Mapping 69,000 69,000 39,035 29,965 56.6% 69,000 69,000 39,035 29,965 100.0% Complete 34 EE1810 R Fault Indicators 10,000 10,000 9,960 40 99.6% 10,000 10,000 9,960 40 100.0% Complete 35 EE1811 Meter Test Bench Replacement 40,000 40,000 39,145 855 97.9% 40,000 40,000 39,145 855 100.0% Complete 36 EE1812 ABB Switchgear Replacement 450,000 386,000 373,835 12,165 96.8% 450,000 386,000 373,835 12,165 100.0% Complete 37 EE1814 R Transmission Line Maintenance Program 50,000 - - - 0.0% 50,000 - - - 0.0% In Process 38 EE1815 R Lighting Project 100,000 100,000 25,066 74,934 25.1% 100,000 100,000 25,066 74,934 100.0% Complete Phase 1 Pilot program complete 39 EE1816 R Distribution Cap & Control 35,000 35,000 - 35,000 0.0% 35,000 35,000 - 35,000 25.0% In Process 40 EE1817 R Ampacity Standardization 25,000 25,000 - 25,000 0.0% 25,000 25,000 - 25,000 0.0% On Hold 41 EE1818 Piping/Wire - Heat Pumps 8,500 8,500 - 8,500 0.0% 8,500 8,500 - 8,500 0.0% 42 EE1820 Ann Avenue Underground Upgrade 133,000 - - - 0.0% 133,000 - - - 0.0% Cancelled Funds to be used for EE1513 per City Manager 43 EG1800 R McKee Run Building Equip Replacement 20,000 19,300 - 19,300 0.0% 20,000 19,300 - 19,300 0.0% In Process Equipment delivery expected in early August VS access & remote breaker racking device. 44 EG1801 R Plant Syst Safety & Compl Improvements 70,000 70,000 14,932 55,068 21.3% 70,000 70,000 14,932 55,068 10.0% In Process Awaiting proposal for security camera equipment Work to continue at McKee Run as weather and 45 EG1802 R Preservation of Structures 55,000 48,000 35,769 12,231 74.5% 55,000 48,000 35,769 12,231 75.0% In Process manpower allows. 46 EG1803 VanSant Fire Suppression Syst Upgrade 235,000 235,000 105,862 129,138 45.0% 235,000 235,000 105,862 129,138 80.0% In Process Awaiting damper operations decision from vendor 47 EG1804 Unit #3 Fast Start Upgrade 200,000 200,000 - 200,000 0.0% 200,000 200,000 - 200,000 10.0% In Process Project on hold per City Manager 48 EG1805 R McKee Run Unit 3 Boiler Systems 100,000 100,000 20,776 79,224 20.8% 100,000 100,000 20,776 79,224 30.0% In Process Installatin during fall 2018 Unit 3 maint outage 49 EG1806 R McKee Run Auxiliary System Components 100,000 100,000 82,688 17,312 82.7% 100,000 100,000 82,688 17,312 80.0% In Process Installation of service water pumps in fall 2018 Analysis & configuration trainings. Vendors 50 M Purchase of ERP System 2,606,000 3,547,700 990,883 2,556,817 27.9% 1,500,000 2,441,700 932,631 1,509,069 45.0% In Process conversion 52 Totals - FY 2017 $ 6,085,000 $ 6,461,300 $ 2,562,092 $ 3,899,208 39.7% $ 4,979,000 $ 5,355,300 $ 2,355,766 $ 2,999,534 53 54 Grand Totals $ 10,858,300 $ 12,173,200 $ 6,117,370 $ 6,055,830 50.3% $ 6,877,000 $ 8,513,400 $ 4,731,238 $ 3,782,162 Legend M = Multi-year project - a project with a specific schedule to occur over multiple years. B = Bonded Project R = Recurring project - a project that begins and ends each fiscal year and is re-budgeted to start over each fiscal year. S = State fully or partially reimbursed project

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: City Council DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Library DATE SUBMITTED: 7/31/18 PREPARED BY: Margie Cyr SUBJECT: Passport Acceptance Facility REFERENCE: RELATED PROJECT: REVIEWED BY: Donna Mitchell, City Manager EXHIBITS: PDF of Annual Report EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: 0 AMOUNT BUDGETED: FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): TIMETABLE: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends making a permanent service. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS In the fall of 2016, the Dover City Council authorized implementation of a Passport Acceptance Facility at the Dover Public Library for a period of one year on a trial basis. This Passport Service Acceptance Facility was required by the US Passport Service to have a minimum of two certified Passport Clerks. The Council approved the hiring of two part-time Passport Clerks with a priority for Veterans. Following normal City of Dover hiring procedures, two clerks, one an Air Force Veteran and the other an Army Veteran, were hired on March 15, 2017. The two clerks immediately began training towards certification and the process of setting up an office to provide the service. The Friends of the Dover Library generously funded a modular office space for Passport Services in the Library’s lobby. On May 8, 2017, the Dover Library Passport Acceptance Office began service at five days per week. On May 15, 2017, operating hours were expanded to six days per week (Su, M, T, W, Th, Sat). And in 2018, operating hours were further expanded to seven days per week without increasing personnel costs. In the fiscal year 2017-2018, the Passport Acceptance facility assisted 1,822 Passport customers and processed 1,455 Passports. This earned $25,119 for the City after expenses for the year. Staff recommends that City Council continue this service and turn it into a permanent service offered by the City of Dover located at the Dover Public Library.

PASSPORT SERVICES Annual Report, August 2018 In the fall of 2016, the Dover City Council authorized the implementation of a Passport Acceptance Facility at the Dover Public Library for a period of one year on a trial basis. This Passport Service Acceptance Facility was required by the US Passport Service to have a minimum of two certified Passport Clerks. The Council approved the hiring of two part-time Passport Clerks with a priority for Veterans. Following normal City of Dover hiring procedures, two clerks, one an Air Force Veteran and the other an Army Veteran, were hired on March 15, 2017. The two clerks immediately began training towards certification and the process of setting up an office to provide the service. The Friends of the Dover Library generously funded a modular office space for Passport Services in the Library’s lobby. On May 8, 2017, the Dover Library Passport Acceptance Office began service at five days per week. On May 15, 2017, operating hours were expanded to six days per week (Su, M, T, W, Th, Sat). First Weeks (May 2017 –June 2017): Activity Report # Week Days Library Costs (Staff # Week of Reporting Customers Passports Open Received Hourly + FICA) Net Earnings 1 May 8-May 13, 2017 45 37 5 $ 1,390.00 $ (564.00) $ 826.00 2 May 15-May 21, 2017 28 26 6 $ 1,025.00 $ (564.00) $ 461.00 3 May 22-May 27, 2017 28 26 6 $ 890.00 $ (564.00) $ 326.00 4 May 30-June 4, 2017 44 32 5 $ 1,135.00 $ (564.00) $ 571.00 5 June 5-June 11, 2017 35 28 6 $ 1,060.00 $ (564.00) $ 496.00 6 June 12-June 18,2017 32 30 6 $ 990.00 $ (564.00) $ 426.00 7 June 19-June 25,2017 22 22 4 $ 865.00 $ (564.00) $ 301.00 8 June 26-July 2, 2017 44 40 6 $ 1,435.00 $ (564.00) $ 871.00 278 241 $ 8,790.00 $ (4,512.00) $ 4,278.00

Start Up Budget, FY 2016-2017 Start Up Budget Amt: $ 7,500.00 Start Up Expenses: ($6,309.00) through 6/30/2017 Unspent: $ 1,191.00 In September, 2017, the US Passport Office made an official Compliance Inspection at the Library’s Passport Office. The Summary of that report reads: The agents demonstrated a solid knowledge of the acceptance process; they access the PARG for guidance, especially every Hand-Carry application; and they always secure personally identifiable information. AFO found no discrepancies during this inspection, and looks forward to returning here in the future. Through the end of calendar year 2017, the Passport business remained steady. In January, 2018, due to customer suggestions, Passport Service was opened on Fridays. The expansion of hours was accomplished without expanding weekly staff hours by rearranging the work schedule of both the Passport Clerks. Passport Service is offered next door at the Post Office. However, it is by appointment-only through 3:30 PM. The Library’s Passport Office is open: Mondays-Fridays, 3:30 – 7:30 PM Saturdays, 12:00-4:00 PM Sundays, 1:00-4:30 PM These hours were strategically chosen to not compete with service next door. Service can be obtained by either making an appointment or walking in without an appointment. In April, 2018, the Passport fee maintained by the acceptance facility was increased from $25 to $30 by the US Passport Service. Additionally, the Passport clerks have implemented fees for photos, envelope sales, and copying as a way to increase the funds raised by the service. The Dover Public Library was the first library in Delaware to open a Passport Acceptance Facility. There is now a facility at the Laurel Public Library in Sussex County.

Annual Report 07/01/2017-06/29/18 Passport Services Library Costs (Staff Quarter Dates Customers Passports Received Hourly + FICA) Net Earnings #1 07/01/17-10/22/2017 347 275 $ 10,500.55 $ (6,634.00) $ 3,866.55 #2 10/23/17-1/12/18 272 209 $ 7,951.90 $ (6,328.00) $ 1,623.90 #3 01/13/18-04/06/18 637 523 $ 19,899.40 $ (6,900.00) $ 12,999.40 #4 04/07/18-06/29/18 566 448 $ 21,942.25 $ (6,900.00) $ 15,042.25 Total for Year (4 quarters) 1822 1455 $ 60,294.10 $ (26,762.00) $ 33,532.10 Quarter Item Amount #1 USPS Priority Envelopes, Brochure $ (333.19) #2 Signage, Photo Paper, USPS Priority Envelopes $ (2,385.91) #3 USPS Priority Envelopes, Address Labels, Brochure $ (1,842.03) #4 USPS Priority Envelopes, Signage, Photo Paper $ (3,851.99) Total Expenses for Year Net Earnings Minus Expenses $ 25,118.98 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Service by Days of Week 38 49 52 53 52 126 450 49 47 49 25 29 9 73 400 106 82 77 90 78 66 137 350 54 79 92 75 78 68 92 300 247 257 270 243 237 143 428 250 200 150 100 50 0 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

PETITION TO AMEND AND ZONING DISTRICT First Reading before the Dover City Council August 27, 2018 Applicants/Owners: Lands of Clyde Corporation (David L. Bowen) Equitable Owner: Miller Investments, LLC (David Miller) Addresses: 127, 129, 133 and 135 Roosevelt Avenue, Dover, DE (133 and 135 Roosevelt Avenue are located on same parcel) Location: North side of Roosevelt Avenue east of South DuPont Highway Tax Parcels: ED-05-077.18-02-71.00-000 ED-05-077.18-02-72.00-000 ED-05-077.18-02-73.00-000 Size: 0.828 acres Present Use: Residential: Two Single Family Detached Dwellings and Two Buildings of Apartment Units (6-units and 2-units) Proposed Use: Residential: Garden Apartment Building (proposed new construction) Comprehensive Plan Designation: Residential Medium Density Present Zoning: R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) Proposed Zoning: RG-2 (General Residence Zone) Reason for Request: Request for Rezoning of three properties for the future development of a Garden Apartment Building File Number: Z-18-01 Ordinance Number: 2018-08

City of Dover Application No.: Z-18-01 Department of Planning & Inspections C-4 C-4 EV ER GR T PO N E EN DU MH R-8 C-4 C-1 Site R-8 ROOSEVELT R-8 C-4 RG-2 Title: Lands of Clyde Coporation Ordinance #: 2018-08 Address: 127, 129, 133, and 135 Roosevelt Avenue Parcel IDs: ED-05-077.18-02-71.00-000 Legend ED-05-077.18-02-72.00-000 2012 Buildings ED-05-077.18-02-73.00-000 Existing Zoning: R-8 One-Family Residence Zone Zoning Proposed Zoning: RG-2 General Residence Zone Dover Parcels « Owner: Clyde Corporation Date: 8/14/2018 Subject Property 0 75 150 300 Feet

FIRST READING City of Dover PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2018-08 1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY 2 OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 3 127, 129, 133, AND 135 ROOSEVELT AVENUE 4 5 WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within the 6 limits of the City of Dover; and 7 WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of property 8 described below from R-8 (One-Family Residence) to RG-2 (General Residence). 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 13 R-8 (One-Family Residence) to RG-2 (General Residence) on those properties located at 127, 129, 14 133, and 135 Roosevelt Avenue (133 and 135 Roosevelt Avenue share one parcel), consisting of 15 0.83+/- acres, owned by The Clyde Corporation. 16 (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 17 Reference: Z-18-01, 2nd Council District) 18 19 ADOPTED: * 20 S:\ORDINANCES\2018\DRAFT\ORDINANCE #2018-08\ORDINANCE #2018-08 REZONING - ROOSEVELT AVE.wpd 21 Actions History 22 August 27, 2018 - Scheduled for First Reading - City Council

PETITION TO ANNEX AND REZONE PROPERTY First Reading Before the Dover City Council August 27, 2018 File Number: AX-18-02 Ordinance Number: 2018-09 Applicant: Steven E. Andrew Owner of Record: Steven E. Andrew Property Address: 179 Mifflin Road Tax Parcel ID #: ED-00-076.10-01-32.00-000 Lot Size: 1.37 acres Present Zoning: RS-1 (Single Family Residential Zone) Proposed Zoning: R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) Comprehensive Plan Category 1: High Priority Annexation Areas Designation: Comprehensive Plan Low Density Residential Land Use Designation: Present Use: Single Family Detached Dwelling Proposed Use: Single Family Detached Dwelling (same)

City of Dover Application No.: AX-18-02 Department of Planning & Inspections Farmview Dr R-8 R-8 R-8 Faw n St RG-2 RG-2 ill Dr Woodm RG-2 R-8 Site R-8 ROS R-8 RM-1 ar Dr Trafalg ifflin M RM-1 Rd R-8 R-8 Title: Steven E. Andrew Legend Address: 179 Mifflin Road Dover Boundary Parcel ID: ED-00-076.10-01-32.00-000 Proposed Zoning: R-8 (One-Family Residence Zone) Zoning Owner: Steven E. Andrew Dover Parcels Date: 8/14/2018 Kent County Parcels Subject Property « 0 125 250 500 Feet 2012 Buildings

FIRST READING CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2018-09 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 3 179 MIFFLIN ROAD 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 RS-1 - Single Family Residential (Kent County zoning classification) to R-8 - One 8 Family Residence (City of Dover zoning classification). 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 13 RS-1 - Single Family Residential (Kent County zoning classification) to R-8 - One Family Residence 14 (City of Dover zoning classification) on that property located at 179 Mifflin Road, consisting of 15 1.37+/- acres, owned by Steven E. Andrew. 16 (TAX PARCEL: ED-00-076.10-01-32.00-000; PLANNING REFERENCE: AX-18-02; 1ST COUNCIL DISTRICT) 17 ADOPTED: * 18 S:\ORDINANCES\2018\DRAFT\ORDINANCE #2018-09 REZONING-ANNEXATION 179 MIFFLIN ROAD\ORDINANCE #2018-09 179 MIFFLIN RD - FIRST READING.wpd 19 Actions History 20 August 27, 2018 - Scheduled for First Reading - City Council

FINAL READING CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2018-07 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL 2 MET: 3 That Chapter 106 - Traffic and Vehicles, Article III - Stopping, Standing and Parking, Division 1 - 4 Generally, Section 106-130 - Wrecked, Nonoperating, or Improperly Parked or Equipped Vehicles of the 5 Dover Code be amended by deleting the text indicated in red strikeout and inserting the bold, blue text, as 6 follows: 7 Sec. 106-130. - Wrecked, nonoperating, or improperly parked or equipped vehicles. 8 (a) Prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to park any vehicle or permit any vehicle to 9 remain parked on the streets of the city when that vehicle is wrecked, nonoperating or 10 improperly equipped to such an extent that it would be unlawful to drive the vehicle upon the 11 streets of the city in its condition. 12 (b) Leaving vehicles on property. 13 (1b) Leaving vehicles on property. It shall be unlawful for any person in charge or in 14 control of any property within the city, whether as owner, tenant, occupant, lessee 15 or otherwise, to: 16 a. allow any vehicle partially dismantled, stripped, nonoperating or in such 17 disrepair repair as to render it unable to operate legally on a public street, 18 or a wrecked, junked or discarded vehicle to remain on the property for more 19 longer than five days; or, in the case of operating unregistered or 20 uninspected vehicles, to remain on the property for more than 90 days. 21 No person shall leave such vehicle on any property within the city for a 22 time longer than five days or 90 days in the case of operating 23 unregistered or uninspected vehicles. 24 b. allow any operable unregistered or uninspected vehicle to remain on the 25 property for more than 90 days. 26 (2) This subsection shall not apply with regard to a vehicle in an enclosed building or 27 enclosed area designed and approved for such purposes, a vehicle on the premises 28 of a business enterprise licensed and approved for vehicle storage or salvage or 29 repair, or a vehicle in an appropriate storage place or depository maintained in a 30 lawful place and manner as approved by the city. 31 (3) Unregistered or uninspected vehicles whose owners have properly parked and locked 32 secured them and who have notified the department of planning and inspections may 33 be granted extensions of the 90-day limit on the keeping of unregistered or 34 uninspected vehicles by the department of planning and inspections for reasons 35 including but not limited to out-of-state military service, illness, extended travel or 36 such other reasons acceptable to as approved by the department of planning and 37 inspections.

Proposed Ordinance #2018-07 - Ch 106 - Traffic and Vehicles, Art III - Stopping, Standing and Parking, Div 1 - Generally, Sec 106-130 - Wrecked, Nonoperating, or Improperly Parked or Equipped Vehicles Page 2 38 (c) Parking in grass. Vehicles shall not be permitted to be parked in front, side, or rear yards 39 required by appendix B pertaining to zoning, except in approved driveways, garages, carports, 40 or parking pads. 41 (Code 1968, § 31-81; Code 1981, § 13-37; Ord. of 11-12-1996) 42 State Law reference - Driving of hazardous vehicles prohibited, 21 Del. C. § 4335. 43 ADOPTED: * 44 S:\ORDINANCES\2018\DRAFT\ORDINANCE #2018-07 CH 106-TRAFFIC & VEHICLES-ART III-DIV 1-SEC 106-130-IMPROPERLY PARKED VEH\ORDINANCE #2018-07 CH 106-TRAFFIC & 45 VEHICLES-ART III-DIV 1-SEC 106-130-IMPROPERLY PARKED VEH-FINAL READING.wpd 46 SYNOPSIS 47 The proposed ordinance clarifies the provisions limiting the leaving of vehicles on property. 48 Depending on the condition of the vehicle, the timeframe may be limited to 5 days or 90 49 days with provisions for extension of the time limit subject to certain criteria. 50 (SPONSORS: HUGG AND ANDERSON) 51 Actions History 52 08/27/2018 - Scheduled for Final Reading - City Council 53 07/23/2018 - First Reading - City Council 54 07/10/2018 - Introduced - Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee