COUNCIL PACKET

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA SEPTEMBER 24, 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 MAYOR CHRISTIANSEN 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 SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 2. PROCLAMATIONS A. CYBER SECURITY AWARENESS MONTH B. FIRE PREVENTION WEEK C. HALLOWEEN TRICK-OR-TREAT D. NATIONAL COMMUNITY PLANNING MONTH 3. PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING OF STAFF SUBSTITUTE #1 (SS#1) TO PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2018-01 WITH PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT #1 (PC#1) THE FIRST READING OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WAS ACCOMPLISHED DURING THE COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 26, 2018 AND WAS TABLED DURING THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 9, 2018. THE ORDINANCE IS AVAILABLE AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AT WWW.CITYOFDOVER.COM UNDER "GOVERNMENT." A. AMENDING CHAPTER 66 - MANUFACTURED HOMES, MOBILE HOMES, AND LAND LEASE COMMUNITIES; APPENDIX B - ZONING, ARTICLE 3 - DISTRICT REGULATIONS, SECTION 8 - MANUFACTURED HOUSING (MH) ZONE; APPENDIX B - ZONING, ARTICLE 12 - DEFINITIONS; AND APPENDIX F - FEES AND FINES

COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 24, 2018 PAGE 2 * 4. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - JULY 11, 2018 A. DISCUSSION WITH KENT COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS AND DELAWARE HOMEBUILDERS - HOUSING TRENDS AND EXPECTATIONS FOR DOVER'S FUTURE * 5. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT - SEPTEMBER 11, 2018 A. UTILITY COMMITTEE 1. EVALUATION OF BIDS - FY18 INFLOW AND INFILTRATION RELINING PROJECT (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE LOW BID SUBMITTED BY STANDARD PIPE SERVICES, LLC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $101,665 FOR THE RELINING OF 792 LINEAR FEET OF 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN, 349 LINEAR FEET OF 12" SANITARY SEWER MAIN, AND 38 POINT REPAIRS. THE WORK WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED IN THE FOX HALL, DOWNTOWN DOVER, AND WESLEY COLLEGE AREAS.) B. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE 1. FY18 EDWARD BYRNE JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM - JOINT GRANT WITH SMYRNA POLICE DEPARTMENT AND KENT COUNTY (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE GRANT PROJECT, AS REQUESTED) 2. FY 19 GRANT - FUND TO COMBAT VIOLENT CRIME (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE GRANT AND THE INTENDED PURCHASES) * 6. APPOINTMENT OF DELAWARE MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC CORPORATION (DEMEC) ALTERNATE DIRECTOR (JAMES S. ROBINSON) * 7. APPOINTMENT RECOMMENDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT SLAVIN - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - KIM I. ADAMS (TO FILL THE EXPIRED TERM OF KISHOR C. SHETH - TERM TO EXPIRE MAY 2019) * 8. REAPPOINTMENT RECOMMENDED BY MAYOR CHRISTIANSEN - SILVER LAKE COMMISSION - JAMES A. BURCHAM - ONE-YEAR TERM TO EXPIRE MAY 2019 9. REQUEST OF MR. AND MRS. ROBERT DUNCAN FOR A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT OR SIMILAR ACTION TO ALLOW FOR A RESIDENTIAL USE WITHIN THE DUNCAN CENTER BUILDING (ZONED IO) 10. REZONING REQUEST - FIRST READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2018-10 THE FIRST READING IS OFFERED ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. IT IS RECOMMENDED FOR REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 15, 2018 AND THAT A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE CITY COUNCIL BE SET FOR NOVEMBER 13, 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. PROPERTY LOCATED AT 951 WHITE OAK ROAD, CONSISTING OF 1.1152+/- ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WHITE OAK ROAD AND EAST OF HALSEY ROAD, OWNED BY HANSEN WHITE OAK PARTNERS, LLC. THE EQUITABLE OWNER IS L&S DAVIS PROPERTIES INC. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED C-PO (COMMERCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE) AND THE PROPOSED ZONING IS IO (INSTITUTIONAL AND OFFICE) (TAX PARCEL: ED-05-068.14-05-85.00-000, THIRD COUNCIL DISTRICT; PLANNING REFERENCE: Z-18-02)

COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 24, 2018 PAGE 3 11. CITY MANAGER’S ANNOUNCEMENTS 12. COUNCIL MEMBERS’ ANNOUNCEMENTS 13. ADJOURNMENT /TM S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\COUNCIL-AGENDAS\2018\09-24-2018 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 September 10, 2018 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Slavin presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson (arrived at 7:41 p.m.), Mr. Sudler, Mr. Neil, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Cole, Mr. Polce, Mr. Hare, and Mr. Lindell. Staff members present were Deputy Police Chief Stump, Ms. Peddicord, Mrs. Mitchell, Mr. Hugg, Third Assistant Fire Chief O’Connor, City Solicitor Rodriguez, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Christiansen was also present (departed at 7:31 p.m.). OPEN FORUM The Open Forum was held at 7:00 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Slavin declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council was not in official session and could not take formal action. Ms. Sue Harris, 241 Pine Street, requested information regarding weather contingency plans for the homeless. She explained that she feeds between 30 to 40 homeless individuals every Tuesday and Saturday and, noting that a hurricane may impact the area at the end of the week, was hoping to share information with them regarding where they will be able to go for safety. Ms. Harris stated that she understood that shelters would be opened during a state of emergency for individuals who are evacuated from their homes, however, she asked where the homeless are supposed to go when people are told to stay inside and off the streets. She suggested that an emergency fund would be a good use for Council members’ discretionary funds, explaining that the funds could be used to put an established plan into action when needed. Ms. Harris stated that she thought that the City needed to take the lead regarding this matter. 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. Mr. Sudler requested that item #3-A-2 - Council Committee of the Whole Report - August 28, 2018, Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee, Presentation - Dover Park Master Plan (Whitman, Requardt and Associates LLP), be removed from the consent agenda. Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the consent agenda, as amended, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Anderson absent). ADOPTION OF MINUTES - SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2018 The Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of August 20, 2018 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Sudler, seconded by Mr. Neil and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 The Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of August 27, 2018 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Sudler, seconded by Mr. Neil and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 2 ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of August 27, 2018 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Sudler, seconded by Mr. Neil and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. STAFF SUBSTITUTE #1 (SS#1) TO PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2018-01 AMENDING CHAPTER 66 - MANUFACTURED HOMES, MOBILE HOMES, AND LAND LEASE COMMUNITIES; APPENDIX B - ZONING, ARTICLE 3 - DISTRICT REGULATIONS, SECTION 8 - MANUFACTURED HOUSING (MH) ZONE; APPENDIX B - ZONING, ARTICLE 12 - DEFINITIONS; AND APPENDIX F - FEES AND FINES During the Regular Council Meeting of April 9, 2018, this item was tabled. Staff recommended removing this item from the table and scheduling a public hearing before City Council for Monday, September 24, 2018 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Sudler moved to lift the item from the table, seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried. Mr. David Hugg III, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed a Planning Office memorandum dated August 31, 2018 regarding the status of revisions to Proposed Ordinance #2018-01 and recommendations from the Planning Commission. Mr. Hugg noted that the Planning Commission recommended Staff Substitute #1 (SS#1) and also requested a series of additional changes which staff were preparing. Mr. Neil noted that he thought that this was an extremely difficult ordinance and commended staff for working out all the details. Mr. Neil moved to schedule a public hearing before City Council for Monday, September 24, 2018 at 7:30 p.m., as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT - AUGUST 28, 2018 The Council Committee of the Whole met on August 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m., with Council President Slavin presiding (departed at 6:33 p.m. and returned at 6:34 p.m.). Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson (arrived at 6:22 p.m., departed at 8:15 p.m., and returned at 8:15 p.m.), Mr. Sudler (arrived at 6:05 p.m.), Mr. Neil, Mr. Lewis (arrived at 6:02 p.m.), Mr. Cole (departed at 6:42 p.m., returned at 6:43 p.m., and departed at 8:15 p.m.), Mr. Polce (departed at 6:33 p.m., returned at 6:35 p.m., departed at 7:23 p.m., and returned at 7:24 p.m.), and Mr. Lindell (departed at 6:33 p.m., returned at 6:35 p.m., departed at 7:45 p.m., and returned at 7:46 p.m.). Mr. Hare was absent. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Mr. Caldwell (Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement), Mrs. Doyle and Ms. Scarborough (Utility), and Mr. Garfinkel and Mr. Shelton (Safety Advisory and Transportation). Dr. Warfield (Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement) was absent.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 3 PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee met with Council President Slavin presiding in the absence of Chairman Sudler, who assumed the Chair upon his arrival at 6:05 p.m. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Semi-Annual Report Mrs. Tracey Harvey, Planner/CDBG Administrator, reviewed the CDBG Semi- Annual Report, February - July 2018. The Committee recommended acceptance of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Semi-Annual Report. By consent agenda, Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Anderson absent). Presentation - Dover Park Master Plan (Whitman, Requardt and Associates LLP) Mr. Mike Campbell, Landscape Architect, Whitman, Requardt and Associates LLP (WRA), reviewed the Draft Dover Park Master Plan, dated August 2018. He noted that, earlier in the year, WRA was selected through a competitive bid process to develop the plan for the City. Mr. Campbell reminded members that the development of the plan was paid for through a grant from the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) and matching funding from the City. Mr. Polce noted the importance of statistical sample size and the validity of statistical sizes and asked if Mr. Campbell could explain what the low participation on the survey could be attributed to. Responding, Mr. Campbell stated that he was not sure, explaining that WRA worked closely with the City. He advised that they did media blasts, used social media, and had website announcements. Mr. Campbell stated that the wikimap was made available and they tried to get as much public participation as possible. He noted that the participation that they received was very valuable, and the working group consisted of local residents and it was a very valuable process. Mr. Campbell stated that he thought that the key to getting people to attend these types of events is to provide food. Mr. Polce asked Mr. Campbell his experience outside the City of Dover and what other municipalities are doing really well to incorporate things like pop-up parks or proactive kinds of wellness lifestyle regiments to increase attendance in parks. He noted that the City has a good framework and asked how this could be enhanced with things like splash pads and new fixtures, etc. Mr. Polce asked whether, based on his experience, Mr. Campbell thought the City should focus on its core mission first, before extending into implementing some of the master plan. Responding, Mr. Campbell stated that during this project they struggled with the idea of what

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 4 comes first and whether the City should spend the money and make the improvements in the park just by adding splash pads and see what happens or base it on programming and really take a look at the overall network of the park system for the City of Dover. He explained that this was not part of the scope of their work; however, they tried to stress the programming aspect throughout the process and how it fits in with other amenities and whether activities are being held at other parks. Mr. Campbell stated that linking health initiatives with programming has been very successful in other municipalities, and while his focus is more on the design elements, he could provide additional information for members. Mr. Neil asked whether the recommendation was to repair the breaches in the fences and have visitors use the front and back entrances or whether they should make the breached locations into entrances. In response, Mr. Campbell advised that they heard that the fence served two (2) purposes: to keep people in the park and to keep people out of the park. He indicated that, in their opinion, this was not what you want with a park, explaining that you want as many users in the park as possible. Mr. Campbell stated that, through public involvement, they identified that making those locations formal entrances would invite users into the park and reduce the criminal element from thinking that they are sneaking into a park because there is a hole in the fence. He stated that formalizing those entrances, with communication with the adjacent residents, is proposed as part of the funding in this plan. Mr. Neil expressed appreciation that they had a number of alternate types of things, and a good evaluation of the current park. He asked why they chose to place the community garden over center field of the softball field. Responding, Mr. Campbell stated that Mr. Neil made a good point. He explained that for the concept development, they were looking at an overall Master Plan and basically looking at spaces and the exact location for the community garden would need to be determined during final design. Mr. Campbell noted that currently that is a space that is not utilized at all and they would like to activate and program that space, and a community garden was one opportunity to do so. Mr. Neil stated that one thing Mr. Campbell struck upon immediately were perceptions. He stated that the City deals with a lot of perceptions that are factually wrong, like the perception that the City doesn’t have any parking. Mr. Neil explained that the City does have parking; however, he indicated that having a parking garage may help the perception that the City doesn’t have parking. He noted that he thought that this was also true for policing and crime. Mr. Neil stated that he knew that there were certain areas where criminals can sneak in the park after dark and like to be active, and while the fact is that it is not a major problem, the City has the perception that it has to overcome. He stated that he strongly supports the idea of having cameras and letting people know that the City is watching and going to do the best it can to keep people that are using that park safe. Mr. Lewis asked how much community outreach was done with regard to getting feedback on the proposed Master Plan. Responding, Mr. Campbell stated that the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 5 bulk of the five (5) months was spent reaching out to the community as much as possible. He advised that they held four (4) public events, one (1) that was held at the Library, where they had the most success and the most people that provided comments, and three (3) at Maranatha Church, which is adjacent to the park and a decent number of people showed up. Mr. Campbell stated that they also had the online wikimap. Mr. Lewis asked if it was a majority of people. In response, Mr. Campbell stated that the quantity of people that showed up was included in the Master Plan. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Campbell stated that he was not aware of the Mt. Zion Social Action Commission survey. Mr. Sudler urged Mr. Campbell to review the survey, noting that City Council had approved for it to be incorporated into the comprehensive plan as input from the community. He stated that it contained valuable information, explaining that more 300 participants provided input on the survey when he and others knocked door to door in Manchester Square, Towne Point, and other areas. In response to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Campbell stated that they did not do any field surveys for this particular process; however, they had done those types of surveys on other projects. He advised members that there was a fairly limited scope for the Master Plan for this park and they worked closely with the City to develop their best effort. Mr. Campbell stated that they did do a direct mailing. Mrs. Margery Cyr, Library Director, stated that a direct mailing was sent to individual homeowners. She advised that the 2014 Mt. Zion Social Action Commission survey for Dover Park, previously conducted by Mr. Sudler, was provided as part of this process. Mr. Sudler stated that he did not want the community to be overlooked and asked that they go back and review the Mt. Zion Social Action Commission survey because he did not see any of the concerns or input from the surrounding community provided from that survey represented in the Master Plan. Mr. Anderson asked how the City would deal with the security aspect of the park if they were to open more routes into the park. In response, Mr. Campbell stated that the proposed budget included the installation of three (3) cameras in the park, which would be linked to the Police Department’s monitoring system. He advised that they would not have a camera at each entrance; however, their thought was to formalize the entrances that are currently being utilized and coordinate with the surrounding residents in those particular neighborhoods who are asking for the entrances to be formalized. Mr. Campbell explained that, from a security standpoint, activating the park will be the primary aspect that reduces the amount of criminal activity that occurs there. He stated that since the park is not currently being used during the day, that is when criminal activities are happening.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 6 Mr. Anderson asked how the park would be activated. Responding, Mr. Campbell explained that he thought that programming was needed to activate the park. He stated that the City was currently hosting traveling park events, which included Dover Park. Mr. Campbell advised that programming as well as cleaning up the park so people feel safe and will use it are the primary goals of the Master Plan. He noted that clearing vegetation, limbing up trees, and removing dead trees provides the perception that the park is maintained and is a safe place for people to go. Mr. Anderson suggested that, when it comes to programming, the Police Athletic League (PAL) and other nonprofits could utilize some of the facilities. In response, Mr. Campbell stated that he believed this was recommended in the implementation section of the Master Plan. He advised that, as part of this process, they did not formalize those communications, however, he noted that it is an important component that they found to be successful in other communities. Mr. Lindell expressed concern regarding security as well as maintenance. He noted that something needed to be done on the east side of Dover; however, he stated that he was concerned about investing in something that would deteriorate if the City did not have the staff to maintain it. Mr. Lindell asked if the City was currently understaffed in this area. Responding, Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, advised members that the City was currently understaffed, however, the current budget included three (3) new headcounts for the recreation maintenance staff. She stated that staff was currently focused on getting a building constructed at Schutte Park in which to house the grounds maintenance staff for the parks, explaining that there is no current location to house them. Mrs. Mitchell explained that the current grounds crew is trying to do as much of the maintenance as they can, but they have the whole City and there are staffing challenges with turnover in that division. She noted that one (1) person is currently injured and out of work and another just resigned earlier in the day. Mr. Lindell stated that he was not criticizing the grounds staff, and that he thinks they do an excellent job with the resources they have. Mr. Lindell noted that he experienced a similar situation when he served on the Capital School District Board of Education and they were constructing the new high school. He cautioned members that it is easy to get the funding to build something but it is much more difficult to maintain it. Mr. Lindell stated that he loved the plan, however, he thought that the maintenance investment also needed to be considered. In response, Mrs. Mitchell advised that the maintenance cost was included in the proposed budget for the Master Plan. Mr. Sudler expressed concern that the Dover Park Master Plan presentation did not mention the programs, activities, or center indicated by the participants of the 2014 Mt. Zion A.M.E. Church Social Action Commission survey, noting that 300 participants provided input. He stated that he was not confident the proposal for a new facility will accommodate the constituents in the Third District and surrounding area. He stated that he knew the survey was incorporated into the Master Plan, but asked how the information was utilized to develop new programs and activities in a facility that will accommodate the input from the survey participants. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell explained that the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 7 survey was taken into consideration and mentioned in the Master Plan. She stated that she thought that since the survey was approximately five (5) years old, most of the Master Plan was developed utilizing the most recent data; however, she would request a formal response. Mr. Sudler noted that although the survey was five (5) years old, he thought that it still had some validity and should not be disregarded. He asked, if possible, that the City determine the credibility of the survey in regard to the constituents who completed it, who were in the direct parameters of the area, such as Manchester Square and Towne Point. (City Clerk’s Office Note: Subsequent to the Regular Council Meeting of September 10, 2018, members were provided a memorandum dated September 12, 2018, from Mrs. Margie Cyr, Library Director, regarding the Proposed Dover Park Master Plan and How It Responds to SAC 2014 East-Side Assessment (Exhibit #1).) UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee met with Chairman Cole presiding. Annexation Request - 179 Mifflin Road, Owned by Steven E. Andrew Mr. David Hugg III, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed the Petition to Annex and Rezone Property located at 179 Mifflin Road, owned by Steven E. Andrew. He noted that this property is identified as a Category 1: High Priority Annexation Area in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and annexation would continue the desire to eliminate enclaves and create complete neighborhoods and boundaries for the City. Mr. Hugg advised that this property was primarily being annexed for the continuation of City trash service. He stated that the annexation request had gone through the State’s annexation review process and had also been reviewed by the appropriate City departments. Staff recommended proceeding with annexation of the subject property. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Hugg advised that the costs of any future connections of any utilities would fall to the homeowner, and the homeowner would be billed for the trash service that they receive from the City. The Committee recommended proceeding with annexation of the subject property, as recommended by staff. By consent agenda, Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Anderson absent). Evaluation of Bids - FY 2018 Street and Alley Program Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, advised members that the Department of Public Works had been busy, noting that, since June, the following projects had been approved: the DelTech Pump Station for $350,000; the North State Street water main at $163,000; the Silver Lake Pump Station for $422,000; the Walker Woods Pump Station at $525,000, and the water treatment plant improvements at $6M. She stated that members would also be considering the relining project for the wastewater

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 8 project very soon. Mrs. Mitchell stated that she was happy that they were busy and hoped that members appreciated everything they were doing. Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Evaluation of Bids for the FY 2018 Street and Alley Program. She advised that since she had not heard of Grassbusters Landscaping, Inc. before, she asked the staff to check their references, and all of their references were good. Mrs. Mitchell noted that the State had utilized this company before and did not have any problems with them. Staff recommended awarding a unit price contract, based upon Bid #18-0039PW, for the FY 2018 Street and Alley Program to Grassbusters Landscaping, Inc. based on the Prevailing Wage unit prices for each work item submitted. The estimated value of the contract is $1,032,968.00. Work will be performed in strict accordance to the Bid Specifications. The Committee recommended approval of staff’s recommendation. By consent agenda, Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Anderson absent). Mr. Cole expressed his appreciation of Mrs. Sharon Duca, Public Works Director, and the entire Public Works Department staff for the tremendous amount of work that they had done, noting that they always respond quickly to his inquiries. SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee met with Chairman Lewis presiding. 2018 Firefly Music Festival Debriefing Lieutenant Kevin Kober, Special Enforcement Unit Commander, Dover Police Department, reviewed the Executive Summary of the “2018 Dover Police Department Firefly Music Festival After Action Report.” Mr. Neil noted that he lives directly across from the Woodlands and he thought that the pedestrian traffic on Persimmon Tree was much better this year; however, he suggested that the number of people going back and forth on Persimmon Tree Lane could be eliminated by not allowing people to get back into Lot 18 via Persimmon Tree Lane. Mr. Neil stated that there were two (2) activities that caused problems for the individuals who live on Persimmon Tree Lane, the After Fly event and a party held at Persimmon Park Place, which are not part of the Firefly event. He noted that, although he did not think it was bad this year, he was not sure how many complaints the Police Department received.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 9 Responding to Lieutenant Kober, Mr. Neil explained that there is a lot of vehicle traffic on Persimmon Tree Lane and asked if it would be possible to cut down the traffic by limiting Lot 18 to be an exit only and allowing people to go north or west to get to the activities at Miles the Monster. In response, Lieutenant Kober indicated that Persimmon Tree Lane is already limited and the people who camp in Lot 18 have to have a way to get back into the lot, noting that sometimes people walk out of the front exit of Firefly and have to walk back to their campground. Lieutenant Kober advised that he did not think there was a way to reduce traffic anymore than it had already been reduced, explaining that the After Fly and Permission Park Place events Mr. Neil mentioned are along this roadway, parent drop-off is directly across from Lot 18, and there are also people who live on Persimmon Tree Lane who are provided passes to drive on the road during Firefly. Mr. Neil noted that it had been better the past two (2) years. Mr. Sudler asked what the contributing factors were to the fatality and if there was a plan to address those determinants in the near future. Responding, Lieutenant Kober stated that the results were pending toxicology from the medical examiner's office, so the Department was not commenting on that. In response to Mr. Lewis, Lieutenant Kober advised that the Department did not intend to do anything differently for Firefly next year. He stated that it was their seventh year and they had it down pretty well; however, they are open to suggestions and ideas. Lieutenant Kober explained that their initial plan would remain relatively the same unless there is a change by the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) or the promoters, or some type of change to the event or campgrounds. He stated that the status quo had proven reliable for the number of people. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Lieutenant Kober confirmed that there had only been one (1) fatality in seven (7) years of the event. Mr. David Hugg III, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed his memo dated August 17, 2018 regarding “Debriefing/Post-Mortem Report on 2018 Firefly Music Festival.” Mr. Jason Osika, Fire Marshal, reviewed a presentation entitled “Firefly 2018, Fire Marshal’s Office After Action Report.” Mr. Lewis commended the Dover Police Department and Fire Marshal’s Office for the work they do at the festival. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Osika explained that Red Frog is the organization that runs the Firefly Music Festival. He advised that a few years ago AEG became involved with Red Frog and now AEG is basically taking over the festival, so they will hear AEG in relation to the festival, in the future. In response to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Osika advised that any cooking has to be under flame retardant tents, so that the tent does not catch on fire if there is some type of flash fire. He explained that some vendors inside are part of AEG; however, some are

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 10 outsiders renting space, and they do not understand the rules and are putting up additional tents in the back and cooking under them. Mr. Osika stated that staff dealt with this issue this year as best they could and they had a meeting last week and decided that for 2019, if it’s not flame retardant, it will have to go. Mr. Sudler asked if the participants also cook underneath their tents and, if so, how it is regulated. Responding, Mr. Osika advised that it is not a concern in the camping areas, explaining that within the festival they are dealing with commercial cooking with fryers and full grills. Mr. Osika stated that while some people bring full grills into the camping areas, it is mainly smaller camping-style grills. Mr. Neil noted that the City was fortunate to have former Police Chief and City Councilman James Hosfelt as the head of the speedway security force, explaining that it is a benefit because he knows what’s going on and understands what his colleagues and the Police Department have to do. Mr. Neil indicated that each year Firefly does a property map and suggested that they could include a route to the west side, to encourage people not to use Persimmon Tree Lane. He stated that he thought that this would help reduce the pedestrian traffic on Persimmon Tree Lane, since there are vehicles that travel back and forth. Mr. Hosfelt indicated that the speedway is very fortunate to have the relationship that they do with the City. He advised that there is a year-round planning process to make Firefly happen, noting that he met with the Fire Marshal’s Office last week, and has a monthly meeting with Lieutenant Kober, DelDOT, and all of their partners. Mr. Hosfelt stated that the meetings start in earnest in September with AEG. He informed members that they could expect to see bigger and better things for the City and Kent County with AEG. Mr. Hosfelt stated that they are looking forward to a long and lasting relationship, noting that AEG made the comment that, of all of their 41 festivals worldwide, they consider Firefly to be in the top five of their portfolio. Evaluation of Proposals - Ambulance Services Contract Mr. Slavin read Chapter 30 - Standards of Ethical Conduct and Ethics Commission, Article II - Standards of Conduct, Section 30-20 - Established, Subsection (n) - Ex Parte Communication, of the Dover Code, as follows: (n) Ex parte communications. No official or employee shall encourage, make or accept any ex parte or other unilateral application or communication that excludes the interests of other parties in a matter under consideration when such application or communication is designed to influence official decision or conduct of the official or other officials, employees or agencies in order to obtain a more favored treatment or special consideration to advance the personal or private interests of himself or herself or others. The purpose of this provision is to guarantee that all interested parties to any matter shall have equal opportunity to express and represent their interests.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 11 Any written ex parte communication received by an official or employee in matters where all interested parties should have equal opportunity for a hearing shall be made part of the record by the recipient. Any oral ex parte communication received under such conditions should be written down in substance by the recipient and also made a part of the record. A communication concerning only the status of a pending matter is not regarded as an ex parte communication. Mr. Slavin reminded everyone that the Code is applicable to all City Council and Committee members. Mr. Slavin stated that he and Mr. Neil had provided the written communications that they had received regarding this matter (as on file in the Office of the City Clerk). He advised that he received two (2) phone calls, one (1) of which he did not return because he was aware of this provision. Mr. Slavin reminded everyone that the Council Committee of the Whole would make a recommendation to City Council, and Council would take final action during their Regular Meeting on September 10, 2018. He explained that evaluations of bids and proposals that are brought before the Committee and Council do not typically include presentations by the bidders or proposers because the bids and proposals have already been submitted. Mr. Slavin noted that several individuals had signed the speaker sign-in sheet, who he believed are representatives of the companies who submitted proposals, and advised that it would be unconventional and out of the City’s normal practice to all them to speak. He stated that the Committee’s options would be to ask those individuals to withdraw their interest in speaking or to formally vote to suspend the rules and allow the individuals to speak, with the understanding that doing so may jeopardize the process. Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, provided a brief overview of each of the companies that submitted a proposal. She stated that GEM Ambulance was incorporated in 1997, expanded into Delaware in 2013 and, in January of 2018, SeniorCare EMS of New York City took over the management of GEM Ambulance. SeniorCare has extensive experience running 911 contracts with the Fire Department in New York, EMS system. Currently, GEM Ambulance has operations in Cheswold, which is a transport operation in Newark. Mrs. Mitchell advised that Mid Atlantic Care had been in business for 11 years, was licensed in Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, and primarily focused in Delaware. She stated that they did not provide sufficient information in their response to the RFP and, coupled with the cost of their service, the committee chose not to consider their proposal. Mrs. Mitchell informed members that PrimeCare was established in 1997 and was a local family owned company with offices in Milford and Dover. She stated that St. Francis Healthcare had been in business over 90 years and was a member of Trinity Health, the second largest faith-based healthcare ministry in the U.S., with over 97,000 employees in several hospitals, continuing care facilities, home care, and hospice locations nationwide. Mrs. Mitchell advised that St. Francis

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 12 was established in 2008 when contracted by the City of Wilmington under the Wilmington Fire Department. Mrs. Mitchell reviewed a presentation entitled “911 EMS Transports, 2018 Ambulance RFP.” She advised members that after the original Request for Proposals (RFP) was submitted for solicitation, staff did more research and felt that it did not contain all of the requirements it should have, so the RFP was rewritten and expanded from one and a half pages to 17 pages to include more details. Mrs. Mitchell explained that the RFP was expanded to require a higher level of report and metrics, a financial audit, employee certifications and training information, hire and employment procedures, discrimination, diversity, EOC and sexual harassment policies, ambulance and equipment certifications, ambulance and equipment maintenance, and reporting requirements with state agencies for operations, vehicles, and patient care matters. Mrs. Mitchell advised that GEM Ambulance was asked to come in for further questioning and clarification because the review committee wanted to determine whether their pricing would change if they were asked to have a location in Dover. She stated that the committee also wanted to ensure that GEM Ambulance understood the market rates for Dover with that pricing. Mrs. Mitchell informed members that they answered the question satisfactorily, it did not change their pricing, and they were amenable to finding a location in central Dover. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the committee did not find the termination clause in the proposal submitted by GEM Ambulance, so they were emailed to determine whether they omitted that information or missed the question, which is permissible with an RFP. She informed members that GEM Ambulance responded that they would need 120 days if they terminated the contract. Mrs. Mitchell noted that they had included in their proposal that if they lost 20% of the transport volume, that might be subject to the termination clause. She stated that the RFP called for a 90-day termination clause and GEM Ambulance’s proposal was 30 days beyond that. Mrs. Mitchell advised that, after meeting with GEM Ambulance and discussing the current demographics of Dover, the committee did not see that as an issue and proceeded with GEM Ambulance through the process. Mrs. Mitchell advised that each proposal submitted had three (3) references and the committee received responses from two (2) of the references for each submission. She noted that several of the references were transport scheduled companies, not patient care companies; however, all three (3) references provided by GEM Ambulance were from senior care nursing home types of places. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the committee believed that all of the vendors, except PrimeCare would require a transition period in order to advertise positions, conducting interviews, check backgrounds and credentials, provide training on corporate policies and on-boarding, etc. She informed members that she thought that

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 13 all of the companies felt that there was a highly qualified population of fire and EMS people in the Dover area, so they would have a good pool for employees. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the presentation noted that PrimeCare’s costs had exceeded budget the last two years; however, she clarified that she thought that this may have been because the budget was not sufficient. She explained that she did not think this was because of PrimeCare’s cost, which was based on the contract. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the cost for FY 17 was $236,994 and the cost for FY 18 was $244,296. Mrs. Mitchell noted that the Ambulance BLS Emergency charge for St. Francis EMS was $1,882, while the other proposals were in the $500 range. She explained that this concerned the committee because this drives up the healthcare cost for the City’s residents and employees that have the City’s health insurance in Dover. Mrs. Mitchell advised that the committee was looking at what this will cost the City, as well as what it will cost the City’s residents and whether they can afford to pay these kinds of rates if their insurance doesn’t cover it. Mrs. Mitchell informed members that all of the vendors that the committee finalized with, except Mid Atlantic, had comparable scores because they all met the minimum requirements of the RFP. She stated that the committee recommended GEM Ambulance. Mrs. Mitchell advised that the City would have to negotiate a successful contract for GEM Ambulance, as well as an extension of the contract for PrimeCare, if Council agrees with the committee’s recommendation. Mr. Lewis stated that he believed this is an important matter because it deals with the safety and medical treatment of the citizens of the City. He noted that when he reviewed the information, he was looking at response times, the number of EMT’s on duty, and the housing location for emergency vehicles. In response to Mr. Lewis, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she did not have information on the amount of calls for medical care in the City of Dover versus other municipalities. Mr. Sudler asked if there was a process in place to monitor or assess whether constituents are able to bear the financial burden. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell advised that the ambulance company takes care of it; however, the City gets involved and will work with the vendor if a call or complaint is received. She stated that all of the ambulance companies have hardship policies and procedures that would be used to address the hardship. In response to Mr. Neil, Mrs. Mitchell confirmed that the City followed its procedure for the RFP and put together a committee that she was confident could do the evaluation. She informed members that one of the deciding factors for GEM Ambulance was that they received the highest marks from one of the senior care facility references, who talked about how their billing and collection capabilities and how they manage to help the people in need.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 14 Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Mitchell stated that GEM Ambulance currently does transports for the City; however, BLS calls are transferred to PrimeCare because they have a current contract with the City for BLS. She explained her understanding that the transport coverage is for people who need transport to a doctor’s office from a senior care facility or similar situations but is not for medical emergencies. Mr. Anderson asked why PrimeCare’s cost was so much higher than the other proposals, noting that they have had the contract for years and should have the infrastructure in place. In response, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she could not answer that question but suggested that the proposals were based on the cost of operations. Responding to Mr. Shelton, Mrs. Mitchell explained that PrimeCare was currently the only company fully staffed to begin because they have the current contract with the City. She advised that St. Francis stated that they would need to hire 25 people and GEM Ambulance stated that they would need a transition period of 90 days to get staff in and everything up and running. Mr. Shelton asked if Mrs. Mitchell knew where St. Francis would be hiring their people from and what the market looked like for those people. In response, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she could not answer that questions, however, it was her understanding that the Dover market has people experienced in this field that could take those jobs. Responding to Mr. Shelton, Mrs. Mitchell confirmed that there could be an opportunity for more people in our area to get jobs. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the second choice would have been PrimeCare. She stated that one of the determining factors for GEM Ambulance was that their proposal was very well organized, well written, and included all of their standard operating procedures (SOP’s). Mrs. Mitchell advised that the other factor was budgetary. Mr. Lindell asked if any of the four (4) organizations submitted data regarding some of the suggestions that were made in the report that was provided a couple years ago that the committee used to evaluate them, for example, a summary of mutual aide requests and reliability. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell explained that mutual aide and reliability were included in the RFP and was reviewed by the committee. In regard to reliability, she informed members that the committee had Kent County 911 double check some of the data. She explained that what they found is that the data does not take multiple responses or hospital delays into consideration. Mr. Colin Faulkner, RFP review committee member and Director of Kent County Emergency Services, explained that when you deliver a patient to a hospital you cannot leave them until you transfer care or you will risk a patient abandonment issue, which is a challenge for ambulances because they cannot leave and the paramedics cannot leave either. He stated that previously they would divert nonpriority patients to hospitals other than Bayhealth; however, Bayhealth recently decided that they will not do diverts anymore, so the delays have increased.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 15 Mr. Faulkner advised members that the entire system in Delaware is built around mutual aide. Mr. Anderson asked if this would be an argument for two (2) ambulances 24/7, as opposed to one (1) ambulance 16/7 and one (1) 24/7. Responding, Mr. Faulkner stated that the RFP did not ask for that. He advised that Kent County runs two (2) paramedics 24/7 and, because of staffing issues and other constraints, currently has a power unit up for 12 hours, from 7:00 to 7:00, when it should really be up from 7:00 to 11:00 or 12:00, because those are their peak response times. Mr. Faulkner stated that he would have to have a good look at the data to support Mr. Anderson’s conclusion. He explained that most ambulances in municipal governments are more busy during the daytime hours and the volume drops off in the middle of the night when most people go to sleep. Mr. Faulkner stated that Kent County is setup similarly to PrimeCare, except PrimeCare extends their hours to 11:00 for their second unit. Mr. Garfinkel noted that in 2017 there were over 1,700 calls handled by other departments, which is approximately 18% of the total. He stated that one in five calls were dropped by the City’s contractor and asked what the City pays for mutual aide. Responding, Mr. Faulkner stated that the City had indicated to him that they pay a stipend to the Cheswold and Camden fire companies for mutual aide. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the City pays approximately $13,000 to $14,000. She advised that the information Mr. Garfinkel was quoting sounded like the correspondence referred to by Mr. Slavin and that she would like time to review those numbers. Mr. Polce, noting that Bayhealth is not currently in a diversion pattern, asked if any of the proposals indicated a functionality or willingness to expand to telehealth in order to alleviate some of the burden. In response, Mr. Faulkner stated that this was not part of the RFP that the City sent out. He advised that for those who are knowledgeable and have their sight on the horizon, that is a reality but it is not something that can happen overnight. Mr. Faulkner stated that he did not expect to see telehealth within the next few years. Mayor Christiansen indicated that he is always worried about the training levels of the people that are going to be performing EMS in the City. He asked if the RFP required two (2) EMT’s per ambulance. Responding, Mr. Faulkner stated that the RFP followed State law which requires one (1) EMT and one (1) driver or rescue tech, explaining that the driver does not have to be a full EMT. He advised that State law states that you have to have one (1) nationally registered EMT on an ambulance and that is how the RFP was put out and how the committee evaluated them. Mayor Christiansen stated that this was not the level of service he would like to see, explaining that he would feel more comfortable if there were two (2) EMT’s on board and the maximum number of ambulances available on site. He stated that he runs with the Fire Department and indicated that sometimes they have to wait until they can get another ambulance. Mayor Christiansen stated that he hoped that the City might look at the qualifications of the people who are manning the ambulances.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 16 Mr. Slavin stated that he needed to resolve whether or not the three (3) individuals who signed up to speak were going to waive their opportunity to speak, or if members were going to vote to suspend the rules. In response, a member of the audience indicated that he wished to speak. Mr. Sudler moved to suspend the rules to provide an opportunity for comments from the three (3) individuals who signed up to speak. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson asked if the three (3) individuals were representatives from different companies. Responding, Mr. Slavin stated that two (2) representatives were from St. Francis Healthcare, and the third individual, Dave Scott, did not list an affiliation. In response to Mr. Slavin, Mr. Scott indicated that he did not wish to speak. The motion to suspend the rules to provide an opportunity for comments from the three (3) individuals who signed up to speak failed by a roll call vote of five (5) yes (Anderson, Sudler, Lewis, Garfinkel, and Shelton), five (5) no (Neil, Cole, Polce, Lindell, and Slavin), and one (1) absent (Hare). Mrs. Mitchell stated that she respected what Mayor Christiansen said, however, she noted that everyone knew that staff was working on the ambulance contract and no one indicated that they wanted a greater level of service. She stated that staff mirrored the setup for the EMT’s off the last contract. Mr. Sudler stated that he agreed with Mayor Christiansen in regard to the level of service and would like to hear more in regard to what the City can or cannot do to address that. Mr. Sudler moved to defer this matter until the next Council Committee of the Whole/Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Garfinkel. Mr. Slavin asked how long the proposals are valid. He also asked if the same result could be achieved by moving the matter forward to Council with no recommendation. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the proposals are valid for 90 days. Mr. Slavin asked Mr. Sudler for clarification regarding the additional information he would like and how to obtain it since this was a bid process and the bids had been submitted. In response, Mr. Sudler stated that he wanted a little bit of information in regard to what Mayor Christiansen said regarding having more than one (1) EMT on board. Mr. Lindell cautioned that, based on his previous experience on the Capital School District Board of Education, it is a slippery slope to start going beyond the processes in regard to bids. He stated that he would support Mr. Slavin’s recommendation to

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 17 forward this matter to Council with no recommendation, since there was still sufficient time within the bounds of the RFP to get the answers prior to the next Regular Council Meeting. Mr. Neil stated that he agreed with Mr. Lindell. He indicated that he was also concerned about the budget and what it would cost to delay the process. Mr. Anderson stated that he could understand the reasoning behind the motion; however, his concern was that the City was currently in an extension of a contract that he did not like. He explained that the City had an opportunity to select a vendor that has very high references and recommendations, a base in the local area, and at a cost that is less than what the City is currently paying. Mr. Anderson stated that he thought that this was an opportunity to benefit the citizens in many different ways, including providing superior service, noting that members had heard complaints for years. He stated that he was personally ready to move on and would be voting no. Mr. Sudler stated that as he has gotten older, he has realized that sometimes it is not all about money. He noted that you cannot purchase healthcare at Walmart, so sometimes it is more beneficial to take your time and make sure you make the right decision, especially when it comes to health, because health does not have a cost. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Sudler stated that, as the maker of the motion, he would not consider moving this forward to City Council on September 10, 2018, rather than bringing it back to the Council Committee of the Whole. The motion to defer this matter until the next Council Committee of the Whole/Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting failed by a roll call vote of six (6) no (Anderson, Neil, Cole, Polce, Lindell, and Slavin), four (4) yes (Sudler, Lewis, Garfinkel, and Shelton), and one (1) absent (Hare). Mr. Anderson moved to forward the matter to Council with no recommendation and that there be an attempt to find information about more than one (1) EMT in the contract between now and September 10, 2018. The motion failed for lack of a second. Mrs. Mitchell noted that the RFP was posted with one (1) EMT and asked if members wanted the review committee to go back to each vendor and ask for pricing for two (2) EMT’s. Responding, Mr. Sudler stated that he just wanted more information and was not ready to vote at this time. In response to Mr. Neil, Mrs. Mitchell stated that this would change the RFP because the City originally advertised it for one (1) EMT. She advised that she was not sure whether the City would need to re-advertise or send out the RFP again and she would need to check with the City’s purchaser. Mrs. Mitchell stated that she thought that the City would at least have to allow all of them to provide new pricing for two (2) EMT’s to avoid a legal challenge. Mr. Slavin stated that he partially agreed with

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 18 Mrs. Mitchell with one huge caveat, explaining that the whole idea behind bidding is that people don’t get a chance to see what the pricing is for other vendors and then rig their pricing against the others. He noted that he was not saying that would happen, but noted that there clearly would not be a level playing field anymore if the City were to allow this. Mr. Slavin stated that the bid went out with certain requirements and people were asked to bid against those requirements, if they did more than those requirements, he did not think the people who follow the rules should be penalized and given an advantage based on the information that was contained. Mr. Lindell stated that he thought it was a slippery slope and he was only in favor of questions within the bounds of the RFP. He noted that when you start getting out of the bounds of the RFP, it will cost the City more money in the end. Mayor Christiansen stated that, in an effort to make sure that the City has the Cadillac of service, it seemed that he had unintentionally thrown a wrench into this matter. He recalled having previously said that he was looking for the highest level of service with this RFP based on the information that he thought was included in the study that the City previously had done, although he did not remember whether he said it officially or unofficially. Mayor Christiansen indicated that he thought that it was Council’s prerogative to follow through on the maintenance of standards that the RFP had been put out as it was. He expressed his hope that the next time the City puts out the RFP, members make sure it includes what they want. The Committee forwarded this matter to City Council with no recommendation. Mrs. Mitchell reminded members that the review committee had recommended GEM Ambulance. She stated that there were some concerns regarding missed calls by GEM Ambulance, which she wanted to address, since these were a concern for the review committee as well. She explained that you cannot tell what the details are for the missed calls, unless you dive into them, noting that they could be from standby or, as Mr. Faulkner indicated during the Committee meeting, they could be the result of the wait time issue at Bayhealth. Mrs. Mitchell informed members that staff had required additional reporting requirements with the new RFP, so the review committee would be able to drill down into the details. She indicated that staff was trying to address previous issues, explaining that the entire approach for this RFP was different than in the past. Mrs. Mitchell advised that, in the past, the City had taken a passive approach to managing the ambulance contract; however, the approach that was included in this RFP is an active process to manage the contract, and will include regularly scheduled meetings with the committee to review performance and analyze the data to ensure the City is receiving good quality service. Mrs. Mitchell explained that she did not have additional information to provide since it was her understanding that the questions asked by Mr. Sudler during the Committee meeting were not approved by the Committee. Mr. Slavin stated that he thought that the RFP process was sound and fair, the responses the City received were all adequate to the task, and the City’s decision needs to be sound and fair; however,

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 19 he was having difficulty looking at the responses when some have one (1) EMT per crew and others have two (2) EMT’s per crew. He suggested referring this matter back to the Council Committee of the Whole/Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee with instructions to staff to go back to the respondents and have them each revise their proposals for a one (1) EMT crew and a two (2) EMT crew. Mr. Anderson moved to refer this matter back to the Council Committee of the Whole/Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee with instructions to staff to determine how best to request revised responses which address both the one (1) and two (2) EMT crew options and come back with revised responses from each of the respondents. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lewis commended Mr. Slavin for his proposal, noting that he wholeheartedly supported the suggestion, since he also had concerns. Mr. Sudler stated that he agreed with Mr. Lewis. He indicated that his main concern was having a cost analysis to determine the monetary variation between one (1) and two (2) EMT’s. Mr. Anderson stated that he thought Mr. Slavin’s recommendation was wise. He informed members that, since the Committee meeting, he had learned that several of the ambulance services in Delaware, including Newark’s, exceed the State mandate and have two (2) EMT’s. Mr. Anderson noted that the City is behind the curve in quality compared to some other municipalities and he thought that the City could not pass on the opportunity to increase the quality, at a lower cost than the current vendor, since it can benefit the lives of residents. Mr. Neil stated that he thought that there had been a lot of misinformation. He commended Mrs. Mitchell for bringing in a team of medical professionals in this area to evaluate and change this process. Mr. Neil indicated that he thought that referring this matter back to the committee would provide members with better information regarding the costs. Mr. Hare noted that he was absent during the Council Committee of the Whole meeting of August 28, 2018 and thought it was good that members were discussing this matter. He indicated that he thought two (2) EMT’s and two (2) ambulances for 24 hours would be better than one (1) EMT for 8, 12 or 16 hours and one (1) for 24, based on the number of runs that the current ambulance provider was averaging. Mr. Hare stated that in 2017 there was an average of 26 runs per day and each run takes an hour or more, depending on the wait time. He stated that he would encourage bidders to bid on what the City is asking for and not what they think the City needs. The motion to refer this matter back to the Council Committee of the Whole/Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee with instructions to staff to determine how best to request revised responses which address both the one (1) and two (2) EMT crew options and come back with revised responses from each of the respondents was unanimously carried. Prioritization of City of Dover State Capital Transportation Program (CTP) Projects Mr. David Hugg III, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed his memo dated August 21, 2018 regarding 2018 Transportation Priorities. He noted

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 20 that in developing the City’s 2018 Transportation Priorities, staff reviewed the Dover/Kent Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO’s) draft priority list, the Delaware Department of Transportation’s (DelDOT’s) ranking of capital projects in their Capital Transportation Program (CTP), as well as information regarding the level of development that is occurring in some of the areas, and the costs of some of the projects. Mr. Hugg advised that the biggest change is the recommendation to move the Garrison Oak Connector Road to the first priority, noting that it was the last priority last year. He indicated that in reviewing the list, staff asked themselves “What are the projects that have the greatest economic development potential, or could have the greatest impact on the City?” Mr. Hugg noted that the City is in a catch-22, explaining that there was a study a year ago that said this road isn’t needed now because there isn’t any traffic out there; however, there isn’t any traffic because there aren’t any users, and there aren’t any users because you can’t get there. He stated that the City needs to ask DelDOT and the MPO to go back and look at some alternatives and the economic development opportunity, and come up with a plan and start developing an alignment. Mr. Hugg informed members that a few other priorities changed based on the status of the projects. He stated that DelDOT had been doing more alignment work on the Crawford Carroll Avenue Extension, so staff recommended moving it up to priority 4. Mr. Hugg advised that the Loockerman Street/Forest Street Intersection had been studied since at least 1999 and keeps progressing and then stopping. He stated that staff believes that from the City and downtown development perspectives this really needs to get resolved, so it has been moved to priority 2. Mr. Hugg explained that the project for sidewalks within the walk zone of the new Dover High School was a high priority last year and remained a high priority this year; however, its ranking changed slightly. Referring to the projects prioritized 5-11, Mr. Hugg indicated that the staff prioritized these projects based on the State ranking. He stated that the Kenton Road Corridor Upgrades/ Route 8 East/West Corridor Plan Improvements, in particular, is a high priority but based on information from DelDOT, it is an extremely expensive project that probably will not get funded, so staff thought it made sense to move it down the priority list. Mr. Hugg reminded members that the City provides their input to the Secretary of Transportation and the MPO for their consideration as they develop the CTP. He noted that the City’s draft 2018 Transportation Priorities list was developed through collaboration and cooperation between departments. Staff recommended approval of the recommended priority ranking for the coming year. Mr. Anderson asked if there were any alternatives to the expensive project that could address some of the safety concerns on Kenton Road. Responding, Mr. Hugg asked Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, if this was discussed at the MPO meeting. Mrs. Mitchell advised that this matter was not discussed at the MPO meeting;

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 21 however, she stated that this had increased to a multimillion dollar project and they were concerned about that. She stated that it may still be considered but the likelihood is that it will not be. Mrs. Mitchell indicated that the MPO also thought that the College Road Corridor Upgrades (Kenton Road to McKee Road) would not make the list. She stated that one (1) of them might bump the other because of the price for each of them. Mr. Anderson stated that he thought that Mr. Lindell and Mr. Polce should be asked which project is more important. Mr. Lindell expressed concern. He indicated that even though he knows the price and that the State might not make the project a priority, he thought that the City should continue to remind the State that the City is going to grow toward the west and it is important to start looking toward the west as well. Mr. Lindell stated that, looking at the project as a whole, it’s not only a safety issue, but there is economic benefit as well, noting that it is a high priority for the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce (CDCC). He recalled that Mr. Hugg informed members last year that the letter to the Secretary of Transportation is subjective and they can completely ignore the City’s priorities if they want to. Responding, Mr. Hugg stated that Mr. Lindell was correct and noted that members would not hurt staff’s feelings if they wanted to change any of the priorities. In response to Mr. Lindell’s comments regarding the CDCC, Mr. Hugg advised that the CDCC’s concern was the creation of an east/west roadway connecting Route 8 through Dover to 301. He explained that, based on his discussions with the CDCC, they are not as concerned about the specifics of Route 8 in Dover, as they are about the fact that there is not a good connection and DelDOT is not planning for a future east/west highway. Mr. Lindell stated that he thought that, although the CDCC might have a different motive, it is still an economic motive. Mr. Lindell indicated that he thought that the City needed to tell its own story, even if the State is going to set its own priorities in the end. He stated that he thought that the west side of the City is a major priority as it continues to grow. Mr. Hugg stated that he did not disagree with Mr. Lindell; however, he noted that the investment in new roadways, particularly in urban areas, had fallen way behind the need. Mr. Polce expressed concern in seeing that the City’s priorities had shifted. He stated that he thought that College and McKee Roads should be at the top of the City’s priority list. Mr. Polce indicated that he remembered members discussing public safety in this area eight months ago and, more recent conversations regarding creating a more bicycle and pedestrian friendly environment. He stated that he thought that this was a really important priority and that when members of Council hear issues that are related to public safety, they need to start calling the next State Senator and Representative to ensure they know it is a real priority for the constituents in the City. Mr. Polce indicated that he would recommend moving the Kenton Road Corridor Upgrades/ Route 8 East/West Corridor Plan Improvements to priority 3 and combining College Road with it, noting that it would be more efficient and cost

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 22 effective to do both of the projects, since one tenth of a mile is already overlapping in the bids. Mr. Shelton concurred with Mr. Polce’s comments that the work on Kenton Road and College Road needed to be done. He noted that he was a resident of the Hidden Oaks community, located off College Road and he thought that the entire road needed to be addressed, from Kenton Road to Delaware State University. Mr. Shelton advised that the intersection of McKee and College Roads also needed work, noting that westbound traffic cannot make a right turn without waiting for the traffic to go through. Mayor Christiansen stated that he respected the work that staff had done on the City’s prioritization list and he thought the City should solidify the list and send it to the MPO. He advised that he is the Chairman of the MPO and would rather have a letter of support moving the Garrison Oak Connector Road, for economic development reasons, as well as the Kenton and College Road projects, to the top of the list, explaining that with the recommendation of the MPO, the City will get the Secretary of Transportation and DelDOT’s attention. Mayor Christiansen indicated that extra traffic is being pushed onto both Kenton and College Roads and there is a new project going on the west side of College Road that will generate more traffic, and stated that he thought that the City had the responsibility to make sure these become top priority. Mr. Sudler stated that College Road had been in need of special attention for a long time. He urged members to do exactly what Mayor Christiansen recommended and get some attention for College and McKee Roads by moving them up the prioritization list. Mr. Lindell moved to recommend that the Kenton Road Corridor Upgrades/ Route 8 East/West Corridor Plan Improvements and the College Road Corridor Upgrades (Kenton Road to McKee Road) be moved up to priorities 2 and 3, and approval of the priority list. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sudler and Mr. Lindell indicated their willingness to amend the motion to include that the other items would be renumbered accordingly. The Committee recommended that the Kenton Road Corridor Upgrades/ Route 8 East/West Corridor Plan Improvements and the College Road Corridor Upgrades (Kenton Road to McKee Road) be moved up to priorities 2 and 3, with the other items renumbered accordingly, and approval of the priority list. Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the revised priority ranking for the coming year, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 23 Mr. Sudler moved for acceptance of the Council Committee of the Whole Report, seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried. MONTHLY REPORTS - JULY 2018 By motion of Mr. Sudler, seconded by Mr. Neil, the following monthly reports were accepted by consent agenda: City Assessor’s Report City Council’s Community Enhancement Fund Report City Manager’s Report City Planner’s Report Controller/Treasurer’s Budget Report Fire Chief’s Report Police Chief’s Report RESOLUTION NO. 2018-09 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF UP TO $4,000,000 WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS OF THE CITY OF DOVER FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS AND AUTHORIZING ALL NECESSARY ACTION IN CONNECTION THEREWITH Ms. Lori Peddicord, Controller/Treasurer, advised members that Resolution No. 2018-09 authorizes the issuance and sale of up to $4,000,000 water and sewer revenue bonds, explaining that these funds will be used to pay a portion of the cost of improvements and upgrades to the City’s water treatment plant. She noted that there would be a 2% interest rate on this bond issuance. By motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Hare, Resolution No. 2018-09 was unanimously adopted, as follows: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF UP TO $4,000,000 WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS OF THE CITY OF DOVER FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS AND AUTHORIZING ALL NECESSARY ACTION IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, the City of Dover (the “City”) is authorized pursuant to Volume 52, Delaware Laws, Chapter 111, as amended by Volume 57, Delaware Laws Chapter 340, Volume 36 Delaware Laws, Chapter 158, as amended, and the City Charter (collectively the “Enabling Acts”) to issue revenue bonds for the purpose of financing the extension, reconstruction or improvements to the City’s water, sewer and electric systems; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Enabling Acts, the City adopted a Bond Resolution on February 27, 1989 (the “Bond Resolution”) providing for the issuance of water and sewer revenue bonds and pursuant to the Bond Resolution the City has issued and there remains outstanding its (a) $750,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2000, (b) $5,581,059 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2009, © $2,404,017 Water and Sewer Bonds, Series 2010, (d) $765,060 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2011, and (e) $6,125,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2013 (the “Outstanding Bonds”); and

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 24 WHEREAS, the City desires to issue additional revenue bonds pursuant to the Bond Resolution on a parity with the Outstanding Bonds; and WHEREAS, the City has approved certain capital improvements to its Water System and desires to issue its additional parity revenue bonds (the “Bonds”) pursuant to the Bond Resolution and to pay the costs of said improvements and upgrades to its water treatment plant (the “Project”). NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF DOVER HEREBY ORDAINS (AT LEAST THREE FOURTHS OF THE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL CONCURRING HEREIN): Section 1. Amount and Purpose of the Bonds. Acting pursuant to the Enabling Acts and the Bond Resolution, the City shall issue its negotiable obligations in the maximum aggregate principal amount not to exceed $4,000,000 to finance, refinance or reimburse itself for a portion of the cost of the construction and equipping of the Project, an estimate of which is appended hereto as Exhibit A. The monies raised from the sale of the Bonds (including the investment earnings thereon) after the payment of the costs of issuance, shall be expended only for the purposes authorized herein or as may otherwise be authorized by subsequent action by City Council. Authorized purposes include the costs of planning, constructing, acquiring and equipping the Project or any portion thereof; interest on the Bonds and any interim financing during the construction period and for a period of up to one year following the estimated date of completion; the costs of issuance of the Bonds and any interim financing; the repayment of temporary loans incurred with respect to the Project; and the reimbursement of authorized costs previously expended by the City from other funds. Section 2. Terms of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be sold to the Delaware Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (the “SRF Fund”) administered by the State of Delaware Department of Health and Social Services pursuant to the terms of its commitment letter dated August 6, 2018 (the “Commitment Letter”), a copy of which is appended hereto as Exhibit B, and the other terms and conditions to be contained in a Financing Agreement between the City and the SRF Fund (the “Financing Agreement”). It is anticipated that the interest rate on the Bonds will be 2.0%. Section 3. Security for the Bonds. The principal, interest and premium, if any, on the Bonds shall be payable solely from the City’s Net Operating Revenue which is hereby pledged to secure the Bonds on a parity with the Outstanding Bonds. The full faith and credit of the City shall not be pledged to pay principal and interest on the Bonds. Section 4. Rate Covenant. The City covenants that it will fix and collect rates, fees and other charges for the use of and for services furnished or to be furnished by the Water System, and will from time to time revise such rates, fees and other charges so that in each Fiscal Year the Net Operating Revenue available to pay debt service on the Bonds will equal at least the principal and interest requirements for the Bonds. If, for any reason, the revenues are insufficient to satisfy the foregoing covenant, the City shall within ninety (90) days adjust and increase its rates, fees and other charges or reduce its Operating Expenses so as to provide sufficient Net Operating Revenue to satisfy such requirement.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 25 Section 5. Details of the Bonds. The Mayor and City Treasurer are authorized to determine the details of the Bonds including the following: the date or dates of the Bonds; provisions for either serial or term bonds; sinking fund or other reserve fund requirements of the Bonds; due dates of the interest thereon; the form of the Bonds; the denominations and designations of the Bonds; registration, conversion and transfer provisions of the Bonds; provisions for the receipt, deposit and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds; provisions for the replacement of lost, stolen, mutilated or destroyed Bonds; and provisions for issuing uncertificated obligations and all procedures appropriate for the establishment of a system of issuing uncertificated debt. The Bonds shall be executed by the manual or facsimile signature of the Mayor and City Treasurer, shall contain an impression of the City Seal or a facsimile thereof and shall be attested by the manual signature of the City Clerk. Section 6. Further Action. The Mayor, the President of the City Council, the City Treasurer, the City Manager and the City Clerk are authorized and directed to take such other action on behalf of the City, as may be necessary or desirable to effect the adoption of this Resolution and the issuance and sale of the Bonds and to provide for their security and to carry out the intent of this Resolution, including the publication of notices and advertisements and the execution and delivery of customary closing certificates. Section 7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage. The City Clerk is hereby directed to publish once in a newspaper published in the City a notice in substantially the following form: “NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of The City of Dover, Delaware on September 10, 2018 pursuant to Chapter 111, Volume 52, Delaware Laws, as amended, adopted a resolution entitled as follows: “RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF UP TO $4,000,000 WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS OF THE CITY OF DOVER FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS AND AUTHORIZING ALL NECESSARY ACTION IN CONNECTION THEREWITH” The purpose of the issuance and sale of said bonds is to provide funds (approximately $4,000,000) to pay a portion of the costs of improvements and upgrades to the City’s water treatment plant. Any action or proceeding to contest the validity of said resolution or any of its provisions must be commenced within thirty (30) days after publication of this notice. After expiration of such period of limitation, no right of action or defense founded upon the invalidity of said resolution or any of its provisions shall be asserted, nor shall the validity of said resolution or any of its provisions be open to question in any court upon any ground whatsoever, except in an action or proceeding commenced within such period.” ADOPTED: SEPTEMBER 10, 2018

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 26 CITY MANAGER’S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, advised that, with Hurricane Florence headed up the coast, City crews were preparing for flooding conditions by cleaning out the storm drains and asked that residents provide assistance by ensuring the storm drains in their areas are cleaned out. Mrs. Mitchell thanked everyone who assisted with the medical emergency of one of the City’s employees on Friday, September 7, 2018. She stated that there was a tremendous effort to take care of the patient and he is doing well. COUNCIL MEMBERS’ ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Neil wished a L’Shana Tova, Happy New Year, and an easy fast on the day of atonement to the members of the Jewish faith. He noted that the year is 5778. Mr. Polce expressed concern regarding the City’s Procurement Policy. He indicated that he was interested in revising the policy to ensure that, in the future, Council, staff and potential bidders have very clear guidelines to ensure the process is streamlined and efficient. Mr. Polce stated that he thought that much of the City’s current process had been held up by some of the lack of clarification in the Procurement Policy. He advised that he had asked Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, to work with him regarding the revisions, and encouraged other interested members to review the Policy for necessary corrections, to ensure that in the future every entity involved in a potential procurement is on a level playing field. Mr. Sudler asked staff to be mindful of posting when Catholic Charities and other agencies provide financial services or assistance to City residents for their utilities, explaining that he received information in regard to a senior who had credit with Catholic Charities, however, her electric was disconnected. Mr. Anderson joined Mr. Neil in his greetings to the Jewish community. He also invited everyone to attend a rally for Project Purple and Kent County Goes Purple on Legislative Mall, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on Saturday, September 15, 2018. Mr. Anderson explained that the event would provide information, awareness and education regarding addiction, one of the biggest problems facing the community. He noted that there would be an indoor alternative in case of bad weather and updates would be available on the Vines Community Project Facebook page. Mr. Lewis moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. TRACI A. McDOWELL CITY CLERK

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 27 All ordinances, resolutions, motions, and orders adopted by City Council during their Regular Meeting of September 10, 2018, are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /TM S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Council-Minutes\2018\09-10-2018 Council Minutes .wpd Exhibits Exhibit #1 - Memorandum dated September 12, 2018, from Mrs. Margie Cyr, Library Director, regarding the Proposed Dover Park Master Plan and How It Responds to SAC 2014 East-Side Assessment

EXHIBIT #1 Regular Council Meeting of 09/10/2018 September 12, 2018 To: Donna Mitchell, Dover City Manager Fr: Margie Cyr, Director, Library and Parks & Recreation Re: Proposed Dover Park Master Plan and How It Responds to SAC 2014 East-Side Assessment At Monday night’s City Council Meeting, Councilman Sudler asked how the proposed Dover Park Master Plan responds to the needs of residents as expressed in the 2014 East Side Assessment. The purpose of the proposed Dover Park Master Plan is “to improve park and recreational resources for Dover’s East side, provide users with a safe and enjoyable park experience, and ensure that the park is an asset that contributes to the … vitality of the City of Dover.” The Master Plan provides the City with tools to “incrementally and sustainably develop Dover Park and its facilities in consideration of the priorities identified through the community-driven process.” The process of developing the draft Master Plan was very much a “community driven” process. The information gathered during the active plan development included opportunities for the public to participate in four (4) public meetings, to respond electronically to a survey, and to respond in person via one-on-one telephone interviews. Notice of these opportunities were sent to all residents in the neighboring areas via direct postcard mailings; electronic email posts; social media posts; newspaper articles; personally delivered fliers to housing centers, schools, churches and other entities at which the public gathers; and banners posted at the Park. Data collected during the 2015 Recreational Needs Assessment and the 2014 SAC East-Side Assessment were used to supplement data gathered during the active Master Plan process. Each of the three processes identified the need for a physical building in Dover Park to be used for programs and activities in the Park as well as accessible rest rooms as highly desirable. The 2015 Recreational Needs Assessment and the Dover Park Master Plan surveys revealed primarily the desire for physical and fitness-related activities such as trail system for walking/biking, tennis, football, disc golf, camps, sports leagues, indoor recreation for basketball, volleyball (for example). The 2014 East Side Assessment primarily identified programs desired by participants. Roughly, these can be divided into three categories: Recreation, Physical and fitness-related: Fitness/Zumba Gymnasium Learn to swim

Martial Arts Summer Camp Day Trips Social services: Mentors for At-Risk Youth Alcohol & Drug prevention Teen Homelessness Gang Prevention Family Counseling Restorative Support Pregnant Teen Awareness Information/Education Race Relations Study Circle Job Seeking Tips Go to School Go to College Accomplishing these programs may serve the community well. Clearly the Recreation, Physical and Fitness- related programs fall within the mission of the Parks and Recreation Department. For those that do, it should be noted that some of the programs are already being offered by the Parks and Recreation Department. Others are being offered by other community agencies. An issue that will need to be discussed is whether or not redundancy of programs is beneficial. Consideration needs to be given to whether or not the Social Services program are within the mission of the Parks and Recreation Department. Several of these programs may already be in place in other community agencies. Information/Education programs are offered by the City’s library. Some of the programs suggested are already being offered by that entity. Essentially the purpose of any master plan is to provide a frame work for the development of physical spaces which allow for the implementation of programs and activities desired by a community. And to provide a variety of options for development of spaces to support such activities. Critical to the development of such spaces is the ability to maintain them and to support them financially (operationally and with staffing). The draft Master Plan developed by Whitman, Requardt and Associates does just that. It lays out options, costs, and maintenance. It is now up to the City leadership and its staff to make decisions and to prioritize the options put forth in the Master Plan once it has been approved.

PETITION TO AMEND TEXT of Dover Code of Ordinances and Zoning Ordinance Report to the Dover City Council for September 24, 2018 Report on Recommendation Actions of Planning Commission with Staff Report and Development Advisory Committee Review Report Proposed Changes: Text Amendments to the following: • Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 66 – Manufactured Homes • Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B: Zoning (Zoning Ordinance) o Article 3 – District Regulations, Section 8 – Manufactured Housing Zone o Article 12 – Definitions • Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix F – Fees and Fines, Chapter 26 Businesses, Article II – Licenses and Chapter 66 – Manufactured Homes, Mobile Homes, and Land Lease Communities Ordinance Number: Proposed Ordinance #2018-01 Staff Substitution #1 for Proposed Ordinance #2018-01 With Planning Commission Amendment #1 File Number: MI-18-03 Summary of Amendment: This new proposed amendment is a Staff Substitution #1 for the original proposed amendment (Ordinance #2018-01) presented to the Planning Commission on March 19, 2018. Both versions of the amendment reorganize and clarify a portion of the updates to the Dover Code made in August 2016 through Ordinance #2016-16. The proposed amendment also brings the updates into compliance with provisions of the Delaware Code related to manufactured housing and rental housing. The updates affected include requirements for placing and licensing manufactured homes, standards for management and maintenance of land lease communities, taxation, and code enforcement. The Staff Substitution #1 contains further refinements as detailed in the “Differences between Staff Substitution #1 and original proposed Ordinance” in Report below. Additionally, the Planning Commission review on August 20, 2018 resulted in a number of additional revisions and clarifications known as Planning Commission Amendment #1.

MI-18-03 Text Amendments: Manufactured Housing and Land Lease Communities Report to City Council from the Planning Commission Meeting of August 20, 2018 Page 2 of 8 Planning Commission Actions and Recommendations: Following a public hearing on March 19, 2018 where one (1) member of the public spoke, the Planning Commission voted (8 members yes, 1 member recused) to table the proposed Ordinance #2018-01 until Planning Staff met with interested parties and the City Solicitor to ensure the proposed ordinance complies with State law and that it’s not over reaching. Discussion of the Planning Commission included questions on street conditions; the receipt of input from manufactured home community owners/operators and residents/tenants; permitting; responsibilities and delegation of maintenance of common areas and roadways; the establishment of office hours; the provisions for receipts for rent payments; and questions regarding the public testimony. • See the included Excerpt of the Meeting Minutes of the March 19, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. On April 16, 2018 the Planning Commission deferred action until June 2018 seeking additional information. At the June 18, 2018 Meeting, Planning Staff provided an update report on the Ordinance work and the Planning Commission deferred action until their August meeting. Discussion and Review of the Proposed Ordinance #2018-01 continued at the August 20, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting. Staff Substitute #1 for Ordinance #2018-01 was presented for consideration. Discussion of the Planning Commission included questions on the establishment of office location and for timeframes for office hours; delegation of maintenance responsibilities; business licensing procedures and annual fees; and notice regarding revocation of a Land Lease Operator’s Business License. The Planning Commission voted (7 members yes, 1 member recused, and 1 member absent) to recommend approval of Staff Substitute #1 for Ordinance #2018-01 to City Council for MI-18-03 Text Amendments: Manufactured Housing and Land Lease Communities contingent upon several items being amended (now compiled as Planning Commission Amendment #1). • Per the Planning Commission’s motion, the following items were to be amended in Staff Substitute #1. Staff has codified these items as Planning Commission Amendment #1. o Items to be Amended from Motion - The first of which the land lease community operator (office) be located in Kent County. Second, that at least five hours of those twenty hours be made available outside of the typical Monday to Friday 8AM-5PM time line. Third, if a revocation process is instituted that the lease holders are notified. Fourth, the delegation of responsibility be limited to the specific footprint lease by the homeowner but not to include the community roads or the community open space or community utilities. It supports the property owner to create a rent structure that is supportive of maintaining the community and it leaves the responsibility within the hands of someone who is more likely capable of those responsibilities. • See the included Excerpt of the DRAFT Meeting Minutes of the August 20, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. Report Contents: The following Report includes a Summary of the Ordinance development and the review process with the Planning Commission. Copies of the Staff Report and Development Advisory Committee (DAC) Report are included. There is also a series of documents attached which provide Meeting Minutes and Public Hearing testimony. And finally, the current version of the

MI-18-03 Text Amendments: Manufactured Housing and Land Lease Communities Report to City Council from the Planning Commission Meeting of August 20, 2018 Page 3 of 8 proposed Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission as Staff Substitute #1 with Planning Commission Amendment #1 is provided. Attachments: • DAC Comments: Department of Public Works, Office of the Fire Marshal and DelDOT • Excerpt of Meeting Minutes from March 19, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting o Copy of Handout Submitted during Public Hearing (Copy of Comments and Copy of Supreme Court Case Cantinca v. Fontana) • Excerpt of Draft Meeting Minutes from August 20, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting • Staff Substitution #1 with Planning Commission Amendment #1 Summary Chronology of Ordinance Development and Review Review of the Ordinance #2018-01: Manufactured Housing and Land Lease Communities began at the March 19, 2018 meeting of the Planning Commission. A Public Hearing was held on March 19, 2018 with public testimony received. This testimony along with discussion concerns and questions by the Planning Commission led them to defer action on the Ordinance seeking additional information. At their August 20, 2018 meeting, the Planning Commission continued review of the proposed Ordinance #2018-01: Manufactured Housing and Land Lease Communities. In the time between these two meetings, the Planning Office made substantial changes to the draft of the Ordinance in order to address the concerns of the Planning Commissioners as well as concerns from the public heard during the March Public Hearing. During the August 20, 2018 meeting, the Planning Commission was presented with both the original Ordinance and “Staff Substitution #1.” Because of the extent of the changes made to the draft, Planning Staff believed that a complete alternative to the original Ordinance would be more easily understood than a series of amendments. The proposed changes of Staff Substitution #1 were drafted following further research on the Delaware Code, Title 25, Chapter 70- Manufactured Homes and Manufactured Communities, and Title 24, Chapter 44- Manufactured Home Installation, plus on detailed review of written and verbal testimony given at the Public Hearing (Planning Commission Meeting of March 19, 2018). For a list of changes from the original Ordinance now contained within Staff Substitution #1 see Pages 5-6 of this Report. As a result of the August 2018 review, the Planning Commission is recommending approval of Staff Substitution #1 to City Council instead of the original Ordinance. They also requested a smaller series of additional changes which have been codified as “Planning Commission Amendment #1.” The changes requested by the Planning Commission from their August 20, 2018 Meeting are found in Planning Commission Amendment #1 and are recommended for adoption by City Council to include the following: 1. In Section 66-4 – Land lease communities, limit possible delegations of maintenance duties so that tenants cannot be held directly responsible for streets and common areas. 2. In Section 66-4 – Land lease communities, require that the community’s office be located within the City of Dover or Kent County, and not merely in an “accessible location.” 3. In Section 66-4 – Land lease communities, require that at least 5 of the 20 required office hours per week be before 8 am or after 5 pm. 4. In Section 66-6 – Enforcement and penalties, require that the City notify affected

MI-18-03 Text Amendments: Manufactured Housing and Land Lease Communities Report to City Council from the Planning Commission Meeting of August 20, 2018 Page 4 of 8 homeowners if the land lease community or manufactured home park they own property in has its business license suspended or revoked. Given the time since the Ordinance was first introduced in February 2018, in late August the Planning Office offered a recommendation for the continuation of the Review process by City Council. Following this recommendation, the City Council at their September 10, 2018 meeting lifted Ordinance #2018-01 from the table and took action scheduled the Public Hearing and Final Reading of the Ordinance for their September 24, 2018 meeting. At the September 24 meeting, City Council may then consider the Planning Commission recommendation and take final action on the Ordinance. August 2018 Planning Commission Review of Proposed Ordinance with Staff Substitute #1: The following Section consists of the Report for the August 20, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting on 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). This is the Staff Report which presents for review Staff Substitute #1 for Ordinance #2018-01 that was developed in response to the March 2018 Public Hearing and Planning Commission Review. Development of the Ordinance (Ordinance #0218-01 and Staff Substitute #1) Following the August 8, 2016 adoption of revisions to the Dover Code of Ordinances and the Zoning Ordinance reforming code provisions related to manufactured housing, several members of the manufactured housing community came forward with concerns about the adopted ordinance. In the process of evaluating these concerns, Planning Staff identified a series of further improvements that could be made to Chapter 66 to better organize the section, clarify processes and enforcement, and ensure compliance with State law. Compliance was specifically targeted toward Delaware Code, Title 25, Chapters 53, 55, 70, and 71. Staff also identified additional minor improvements in the Zoning Ordinance that would support the main series of changes in Chapter 66. These improvements were collected into proposed Ordinance #2018-01 and presented to the Planning Commission at their meeting on March 19, 2018. However, at this meeting the Planning Commission chose to table the Ordinance, citing concerns expressed during the Public Hearing as well as their own concerns with the Ordinance. The Commission was concerned that the proposed Ordinance did not adequately address maintenance agreements involving homeowners or homeowners’ associations that lacked resources to perform the required maintenance. Meanwhile, public testimony attested that the Ordinance allegedly did not meet the goal of achieving compliance with State law. The Commission asked Planning Staff to address the outstanding concerns before bringing the Ordinance back for consideration. The Commission lifted the Ordinance from the table at their April 16, 2018 meeting, in order to formally defer consideration until their June 18, 2018 meeting. The Planning Office presented an update on the ongoing revisions to the Ordinance at the June meeting, and asked for further deferral until August 20, 2018 in order to finish the revisions. This request was granted.

MI-18-03 Text Amendments: Manufactured Housing and Land Lease Communities Report to City Council from the Planning Commission Meeting of August 20, 2018 Page 5 of 8 Following further research into the sections of the Delaware Code mentioned above, plus detailed review of written and verbal testimony given at the Public Hearing, Planning Staff worked on a substantial Staff Amendment #2 to the Ordinance (Staff Amendment #1 being a smaller amendment already proposed by the time of the March 2018 meeting). Due to the complexity of this second Staff Amendment, it was ultimately recreated as a complete Staff Substitution #1 of the original proposed Ordinance. The Staff Substitution #1 in its entirety is attached to this Report [It was attached to the Report to the Planning Commission]. The Planning Commission is to review the Staff Substitution #1 to determine if it addresses all the previous concerns from the Commissioners and the public. The Planning Commission is to take action on the Staff Substitution #1 in order to provide a recommendation to City Council. The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for scheduling at a future City Council meeting to conduct a Public Hearing and take Final Action on the proposed Ordinance. Differences between Staff Substitution #1 and original proposed Ordinance #2018-01 Key differences between the original proposed Ordinance and the Staff Substitution #1 include the following: 1. In Section 66-1 – Purpose Statement, the Substitution adds a line stating that the Ordinance is intended to supplement, and not replace, the State regulations. 2. In Section 66-2 – Definitions, the Substitution changes some of the definitions so they are based on the State definitions of the same terms. The “Land Lease Community” definition clarifies that the City would consider a Manufactured Home Park a type of Land Lease Community. 3. In Section 66-3 – Manufactured and mobile homes, the Substitution clarifies that City Building Inspectors must be licensed by the State, and that installation shall be by a State-licensed installer. 4. In Section 66-4 – Land lease communities, the Substitution rewrites the provisions on Landscaping and Utilities so they are based on State requirements. 5. In Section 66-4 – Land lease communities, the Substitution clarifies the section on delegation of maintenance duties to state that this may be done through rental agreements and/or property management contracts. In order to address the issue raised by the Commissioners concerning delegates potentially being unable to follow through on their duties, the Substitution refers back to provisions of the Delaware Code stating what provisions may not legally be introduced by a community owner into an agreement. 6. In Section 66-4 – Land lease communities, the Substitution removes the implication that a community’s office must be at the site of the land home community. This is intended to reduce the burden on small communities that may not be able to support an on-site office. There must still be an office of some kind accessible to residents. 7. In Section 66-4 – Land lease communities, the Substitution replaces the term “lease record” with “homeowner record” and specifies the limited information to be collected. It clarifies that the intent of this section is to allow the City to identify homeowners for the purposes of keeping tax records, keeping license records, and facilitating code enforcement.

MI-18-03 Text Amendments: Manufactured Housing and Land Lease Communities Report to City Council from the Planning Commission Meeting of August 20, 2018 Page 6 of 8 8. In Section 66-6 – Enforcement and Penalties, the Substitution clarifies that the process for suspending or revoking the license for a land lease community, if such a step is necessary, shall be the same as that for all other businesses in the City. 9. The Substitution adds a new subsection 66-8 addressing preemption and severability. 10. The Substitution duplicates the new definitions in Chapter 66 to also be in the Zoning Ordinance, Article 12 – Definitions. Planning Review and Recommendations for August 2018: Planning Staff developed the original proposed Ordinance #2018-01 regarding Manufactured Housing and Land Lease Communities and in March recommended the adoption of the original. However, at the present time Planning Staff instead recommends adoption of Staff Substitute #1 for Ordinance #2018-01. Staff makes this new recommendation on the basis of the numerous improvements intended to further clarify the intent of the Ordinance, address the concerns of the Commissioners and the public, and ensure the goal of meeting state law is achieved. In March the Planning Office received comments from other Development Advisory Committee (DAC) members and took them under review. DAC Comments led to the formulation of Staff Amendment #1, the details of which are contained in the March 9, 2018 DAC Report for the original proposed Ordinance. Staff Amendment #1 focused on adding “stormwater facilities” to the utility listing. It is noted that Staff Substitution #1 incorporates Staff Amendment #1, and therefore, if it is adopted, separate adoption of Staff Amendment #1 is not required. Adoption of the original proposed Ordinance would require separate action regarding Staff Amendment #1. March 2018 Planning Commission Review of Proposed Ordinance: The following Section consists of the initial Development Advisory Committee Report (of March 9, 2018) on 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). This includes the City Planner’s March 2018 Report and Recommendation on the proposed Text Amendment. This information was provided to the Planning Commission for their March 19, 2018 meeting along the Development Advisory Committee agency Comments. Development of the Ordinance (#2018-01) Following the August 8, 2016 adoption of revisions to the Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 66 – Manufactured Homes, Mobile Homes, and Land Lease Communities; Appendix B, Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 Section 8 – Manufactured Housing Zone; and several other sections of the Dover Code, several members of the manufactured housing community, including homeowners and park owners, came forward with concerns about the adopted ordinance. In the process of evaluating these concerns, Planning Staff identified a series of further improvements that could be made principally to Chapter 66 to better organize the section, clarify processes and enforcement, and ensure compliance with State law. Ensuring the code’s compliance with the portions of State law related to the legal obligations of landlords and tenants (Delaware Code, Title 25, Chapters 53 and 55) and to manufactured homes and manufactured home communities (Delaware Code, Title 25, Chapters 70 and 71) in particular were meant to address the

MI-18-03 Text Amendments: Manufactured Housing and Land Lease Communities Report to City Council from the Planning Commission Meeting of August 20, 2018 Page 7 of 8 community’s concerns with the 2016 ordinance. Staff also identified potential changes in the Zoning Ordinance to support the main series of changes in Chapter 66 (see further description below). Current Proposed Ordinance Key components of proposed Ordinance #2018-01 include the following: • Reorganization of Chapter 66. The new sections of the Chapter are as follows: 66-1, Purpose Statement; 66-2, Definitions; 66-3, Manufactured and Mobile Homes; 66-4, Land Lease Communities; 66-5, Real Property Taxes; 66-6, Enforcement and Penalties; and 66-7, Exemptions. • Addition of a Purpose Statement establishing the reasons for regulating Manufactured Homes and Land Lease Communities. • New definitions for Land Lease Community Operator and Land Lease Community Owner in Chapter 66. • Detailed requirements for placement, inspection, and licensing of Manufactured Homes, as well as moving in or out of the City and use of City utilities. • Addition of a provision allowing land lease community owners to delegate maintenance responsibility over part of a community to a homeowner or other party through an appropriate legal contract. City Code Enforcement is to work with these parties to resolve maintenance issues where such contracts exist. In the 2016 version of this ordinance, the land lease community owner was held responsible for all maintenance. This contravened Title 25, Chapter 53 of the Delaware Code, which allows landlords and tenants to agree in writing that certain maintenance tasks are to be performed by tenants. • Reduction of the number of hours during which a land lease community owner is required to have office hours for the residents. • Allows land lease community owners more time in which to provide a receipt for rent payment to a resident who requests one. • No change to taxation; manufactured homes placed on permanent foundations will continue to be taxed while manufactured homes not placed on permanent foundations will continue to pay license fees in lieu of taxation. The City will not specify an approved method for a home to attain a permanent foundation. • For homeowners, detailed penalties for failing to obtain placement permits or manufactured home licenses. For community owners, detailed penalties for failing to perform required maintenance or record-keeping. • Revision of the Provisional Order to better establish that revoking the business license of a Land Lease Community is a measure of last resort, only imposed when there are cumulative unresolved violations creating a nuisance. • In Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §8, establishing that both manufactured homes and permanently placed manufactured homes are permitted, but not on the same lot. The purpose of this is to allow land lease communities composed of permanently placed, taxed homes, but prevent communities which include both permanent, taxed homes and impermanent, untaxed homes. In such a community it would be very difficult for the City’s Tax Office to track which homes are taxed and which are not.

MI-18-03 Text Amendments: Manufactured Housing and Land Lease Communities Report to City Council from the Planning Commission Meeting of August 20, 2018 Page 8 of 8 • In Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §12, adding a definition for permanently placed manufactured home. Action History (on Ordinance #2018-01) City Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee was presented with proposed Ordinance #2018-01 at its February 13, 2018 Meeting. The Committee recommended approval of the proposed Ordinance. Because text amendments are proposed to the Zoning Ordinance, a Public Hearing and Recommendation by the Planning Commission was required. The Planning Commission Public Hearing was held at their meeting of March 19, 2018, after which the Commission acted to table the proposed Ordinance. City Council is scheduled to conduct a Public Hearing and act on the proposed Ordinance #2018- 01 at their meeting of April 9, 2018. (Note: City Council tabled action on the Ordinance at the April 9, 2018 Meeting.) Planning Staff Review and Recommendations (of March 9, 2018): Planning Staff developed the proposed Ordinance #2018-01 regarding Manufactured Housing and Land Lease Communities and therefore, recommends its adoption. The Planning Office received comments from other Development Advisory Committee (DAC) members and has taken these under review. Based on the comments the Planning Office may offer revisions to the proposed Ordinance. The comments are summarized below. DAC Agency Ordinance Proposed Revision Reason/Notes Review Lines Comment Public Works 167 Add stormwater facilities to This section deals with private utilities, line 167 and currently lists water and sewer utilities among others; stormwater should also be mentioned. Fire Marshal/ N/A Possible revisions to City Staff has initiated the initial research Chief conform this update to the to begin the process to consider adoption Building 2018 International of the 2018 International Code Council Inspector Residence Code (IRC), code series. In the future, a cross-check Appendix E - Manufactured between the provisions of this ordinance Housing used as Dwellings and the new IRC will be needed to ensure there are no conflicts. Proposed Staff Amendment #1 (from March 2018) Planning Staff reviewed the current proposed ordinance and the comments received to develop a Staff Amendment to include the additional clarifications and changes based on department/agency concerns. The proposed changes presented as Staff Amendment #1 is outlined below. • Add “stormwater facilities” to sentence starting on line 167. To read as follows by inserting the text in bold, blue font: All private water, sewer, electric, and gas lines and connections and stormwater facilities intended to serve common areas or the private property of tenants within the community shall be kept in good repair at all times by the land lease community owner.

CITY OF DOVER APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY FEBRUARY 26, 2018 APPLICATION: Text Amendment Zoning Ordinance, Dover Code of Ordinances Chapter 66 and Article 3 Section 8 and Article 12 for Manufactured Housing and Land Lease Communities FILE #: MI-18-02 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 ELECTRIC 1. No objections to the proposed amendments. WATER / WASTEWATER 1. None. STORMWATER 1. Please add stormwater facilities to line 167. SANITATION / STREETS / GROUNDS 1. None. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / STREETS / SANITATION / GROUNDS / GENERAL 1. None. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC / 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 .

C F MI-18-02 I I T R CITY OF DOVER Y E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE O M F A APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY R D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 03/07/18 D S O H V A E L R APPLICATION: Text Amendments: Manufactured Housing and Land Lease Communities FILE #: MI-18-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Jason Osika, Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY, AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT: ADDITIONAL / SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN APPROVAL: 1. The Fire Marshal’s Office has no comments at this time 2. The Chief Building Inspector has the following comment: Ordinance #2018-01, Chapter 66- Manufactured Homes, Mobile Homes and Land Lease Communities, 2018 Building Code(s) inclusive of Appendix E of the 2018 IRC, The 2018 building code draft ordinance will reference “Chapter 66- Manufactured Homes, Mobil Homes and Land Lease Communities” in addition to “Appendix E Manufactured Housing used as Dwellings” within the 2018 IRC. It is unknown if cross reference has been done between “Chapter 66”, the proposed ordinance(s), “Appendix E” and or other related parts of the building code/life safety code(s) to confirm or deny continuity to those codes/ordinances and as referenced within the same. APPLICABLE CODES LISTED BELOW (NOT LIMITED TO): 2015 NFPA 1 Fire Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2015NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2013 NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2013 NFPA 13 Installation of Sprinkler Systems (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2009 IBC (International Building Code) Latest editions of all other NFPA Codes as defined by the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations City of Dover Code of Ordinances *If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person listed.

CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O D.A.C. MEETING DATE: February 28, 2018 T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Text Amendment: Manufactured Housing and Land Lease Communities FILE#: MI-18-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Joshua Schwartz PHONE#: 760-2768 =============================================================== THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY & STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: DelDOT has no comments regarding city & state code at this time. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: DelDOT has no recommendations at this time. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: • DelDOT has no comments. If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the planning department as soon as possible.

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION March 19, 2018 Excerpt from Meeting Minutes – Draft The Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, March 19, 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. Welch, Ms. Maucher and Mr. Tolbert. Staff members present were Mrs. Dawn Melson- Williams, Mr. Eddie Diaz, Mr. Julian Swierczek, Mr. Jason Lyon, and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney. 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) – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council on Text Amendments to the Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 66 - Manufactured Homes, Mobile Homes, and Lend Lease Communities; to Zoning Ordinance, Article 3, Section 8- Manufactured Housing (MH) Zone; and to Zoning Ordinance, Article 12- Definitions. The proposed ordinance reorganizes and clarifies a portion of the updates to the Dover Code made in August 2016 through Ordinance #2016-16. The proposed ordinance also brings the updates into compliance with provisions of the Delaware Code related to manufactured housing and rental housing, particularly Title 25, Chapters 53, 55, 70, and 71. The updates affected include requirements for placing and licensing manufactured homes, standards for management and maintenance of land lease communities, taxation, and code enforcement. A distinction is also made between manufactured homes and permanently placed manufactured homes in the Zoning Ordinance. • A copy of the Proposed Ordinance #2018-01 is available on the City’s website www.cityofdover.com under the Government Heading: Ordinances, Resolutions & Tributes. https://www.cityofdover.com/ordinances-and-resolutions The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee reviewed the proposed Text Amendments on February 13, 2018 and the First Reading before City Council occurred on February 26, 2018. The Public Hearing before the Planning Commission is set for March 19, 2018 and Public Hearing and Final Reading before City Council is on April 9, 2018. Representative: None Mr. Tolbert recused himself because he is resides in a manufactured home. Mr. Diaz stated that this is series of Text Amendments to the Dover Code of Ordinances. The majority are in Chapter 66 Manufactured Homes, Mobile Homes and Land Lease Communities. A few are also in the Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 Section 8 which is the Manufactured Housing Zone and the Zoning Ordinance, Article 12 Definitions. We last had a major update to the provisions of the Code dealing with manufactured housing back in August 2016. Following that update and some concerns raised by the manufactured housing community, they recognized the need for additional changes to better conform the Ordinance with State Law and then also to clarify the procedures for enforcing the Ordinance and finally to reorganize Chapter 66 so that it would be easier to navigate and present the information in it in a more straight forward manner. Some of the substantial changes of this Ordinance include adding provisions to let land lease community owners pass on maintenance responsibilities to tenants. There are also revised Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2018 Page 1 of 10

provisions for office hours and rent receipts. In the Zoning Ordinance, there are provisions establishing that homes which are taxed and homes which only pay manufactured home license fees would not be permitted on the same parcel of land in order to simplify the Tax Assessor’s tracking of what is taxed and what isn’t. We received a few comments from the Development Advisory Committee regarding the proposal. One is that stormwater facilities should be added to the list of private utilities a community owner would normally be responsible for. That has resulted in Staff Amendment #1 which can be found at the end of the DAC Report. The other major comment was that the Chief Building Inspector asked us to cross check the proposed changes with the upcoming proposed changes to the Building Code which is being updated from the 2009 version of the International Residential Code to the 2018 version. The 2018 version contains its own provisions for manufactured homes and they were asked to make sure that there would be no conflicts. Tonight, the proposed ordinance updates need either a positive or a negative recommendation from the Commission members. Staff will forward that recommendation to City Council for their approval or denial of the Ordinance. Mr. Holt stated that he noticed that some of the streets going into the trailer parks need a lot of work done. Some of them have bad holes in the streets and if you are not careful you will end up losing a wheel or something. He questioned if this Ordinance will try to correct this situation in the parks? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. Diaz stated that where the streets are the private property of the manufactured housing community, this should create some stronger provisions for enforcing that maintenance. Ms. Maucher questioned if there has been any input from the manufactured home community owner/operators or residents/tenants? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Diaz stated that input from the manufactured housing community owners was in large part of what lead to these proposed amendments during the second round. Their concern with the original amendment that passed in 2016 was that it might contradict some aspects of State private property laws. The original Ordinance didn’t contain allowances for them to by contract, assign maintenance over certain parts of their community to their tenants. For instance, the area immediately surrounding their homes and the landscaping that might be in that. That was the major concern that led to the change, but Staff believes that they have gone further than that in making the Ordinance clearer than it was before. Dr. Jones stated that her concern would be if the homeowners had benefit of reading or hearing the changes or was the complete confidence placed in Staff and others to make the revisions? She is not uncomfortable; she just senses that there was reference to the concern from the very beginning. Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Diaz stated that homeowner representation was mainly led by Councilman Neil who sponsored the Ordinance. Mr. Holden questioned if Staff could count the changes as being more or less protective of the tenants or provide us some commentary towards that end that gives them a flavor for what the changes are going to impart in the practical sense moving forward. Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr. Diaz stated that the original intent of the Ordinance updates in 2016 was definitely to be protective of the tenants by the provisions for maintenance directed at the community owners, Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2018 Page 2 of 10

adding better record keeping requirements, the requirement to post office hours where an onsite representative of the owner would be required to be at the community and things like requiring the owner to provide receipts to homeowners when they made payments for rent. With this latest Ordinance update, they have rolled that back a little bit to make things a bit easier on the community owners because their feedback was that the new provisions were too strict and didn’t allow them the flexibility they needed to work with the tenants to share maintenance and responsibilities. Mr. Holden stated that he found it a little odd that in order to move a manufactured home from its current site the owner has to get a Demolition Permit. Is it just lack of another process that it would account for? He is not sure why a Demolition Permit applies there. Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr. Diaz stated that a Demolition Permit applies because although the house itself may not be disassembled or trashed, there are still things that would have to happen to the site that would potentially be considered demolition like removing the footers of the old house, disconnecting utilities, etc. It is a sort of a misnomer for naming but that is something that has not changed since before the 2016 Ordinance. Mr. Tolbert stated that Mr. Diaz made a statement that the development owners are responsible for the streets in the communities of manufactured homes or mobile homes. Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Diaz stated that where the streets are actually on the landowner’s property and where they are private street they (the landowners) need to be responsible for the streets. Mr. Tolbert stated that why he raised that question is because the development in which he lives in, the homes are on a permanent foundation and the streets are owned by the City. The City is responsible for the streets and therefore they pay for street repair and snow removal. Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Diaz stated that Persimmon Park Place is a manufactured home community that unlike the others in the City is not also a land lease community. There is no overarching land owner who owns all of the land beneath the manufactured homes. The homes and the lots are owned by the individual homeowners and the streets in the development are owned by the City so this amendment would not apply to the streets in that particular development. Dr. Jones stated that in the 2016 version, the land lease community owner was held responsible for all of the maintenance and she thinks that she read that the responsibility was going to be split or shared. Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Diaz stated that what it does is it allows the maintenance to be split or shared. It doesn’t say that the land owner must do this or the tenant must do this; it says that the landowner must be responsible for all maintenance unless it is specifically designated to a tenant by a private contract. Dr. Jones questioned if this change was initiated to be a little easier on the community owner? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Diaz stated yes. Mr. Holden stated that to the specific point that Dr. Jones was trying to make, in Section 66- 4(a)v. Delegation of Maintenance Duties, that seems to allow under appropriate contract the responsibility of maintenance for roads or other to be transferred. The challenge is how do they ensure that that’s a process that typically the residents of land lease communities are able to understand and proceed through. It tilts the favor back towards the land lease underlying owner Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2018 Page 3 of 10

and he doesn’t necessarily know that that is bad or good but it’s a challenge that he thinks maybe some more discussion is needed on. Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr. Diaz stated that in terms of the City determining or learning who is responsible for what, it is something that Planning Staff is going to have to work closely with Code Enforcement Staff on who in turn will have to work closely with the community owners and residents. Currently, when routine Code Enforcement issues come up in a lot of the manufactured home parks, for instance, trash left out on the street our Code Enforcement Officers go to the homeowners first. For less routine things like potholes in the road, they will go to the community owners first. He foresees that under the new Ordinance, that will largely continue to be the case. In cases where a land owner or a community owner can furnish proof in the form of the contract in question that responsibility needs to go to a different party then our Code Enforcement Staff can be redirected accordingly. Mr. Holden stated that other than the correspondence you have had with the owners of these types of properties have you had other entities push for that allowed delegation of maintenance? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr. Diaz stated no. Mr. Holden questioned if currently it is the underlying owner that is responsible? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr. Diaz stated that under the current 2016 Ordinance, the letter of the Code holds the owner responsible but their allegation to Staff is that they could not be held responsible because the language of the Code that is currently in place would go against other laws. The allowance for the delegation of maintenance responsibilities to a different party comes from the Delaware Code, Title 25 Chapters 53 and 55 which is the Landlord Tenant Code. Without the addition of this particular provision, they would be going against State Law. Mr. Holden questioned if the City Solicitor offered that opinion to Staff? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr. Diaz stated yes, he believes so. Mr. Holden stated that his concern is that it is easy to pass off responsibility to an HRA or a Homeowner’s Association. He knows the wrangle that we have had in the State with getting Homeowner’s Associations to take care of their roads and their stormwater ponds and generally it’s a process that doesn’t work. His concern is that the responsibility gets passed along and then allows these facilities to fall under greater disrepair. Those HOA’s are much harder to get called to task to rectify a situation. He personally would love to challenge the City Solicitor to find us a path that can hold the underlying land owner, the person with the means to resolve a lot of these issues more responsible. At the end of the day, that cost likely gets flowed through to the residents but then they ensure as a City that these areas are going to be maintained and not have a negative drain on the City as a whole. He would seek from Staff a path to allow that time. How might the Planning Commission offer a pause to give that a closer look? Ms. Maucher questioned if there was any requirement that the entity receiving responsibility has the technical expertise or the knowledge or financial ability to carry out those responsibilities? It’s kind of vague in that regard and having dealt with failing wastewater systems, it can be unpleasant if they don’t have the expertise. Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Diaz stated that from a practical standpoint, he has a hard time foreseeing a circumstance where a land lease community owner would assign a homeowner responsibility for maintaining the whole stormwater pond behind their house. More typically, the sorts of maintenance responsibilities Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2018 Page 4 of 10

that are delegated are responsibility over the lot that the house sits on maintaining that lot free of trash or maintaining grass and whatever grass and bushes might be planted around the house. Without this provision, a homeowner could theoretically plant their own landscaping around the house and instead of taking care of it themselves; they could say it was the community owners so they should maintain it. Mr. Holden stated that there certainly seems that there should be the ability to split out maintenance on the lot which he thinks is the issue with the Landlord Tenant Code and also maintenance of the roadways and/or utilities which are ones that a single resident has no ability to impact. He thinks that we could all agree that HOA’s generally are not as adept as the underlying owner at taking care of those. He doesn’t know our path and he asks Staff how the Commission can put this back in Staff’s laps and give them some time to do what they may do with it? Do they table this action for the evening? He personally doesn’t think that putting roads and utilities in an HOA is the right path either for the residents or for the City as a whole. Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that if the Planning Commission has some concerns about a particular section they could certainly in taking their action this evening make the recommendation that certain provisions or topic areas be further addressed or evaluated by Staff to bring additional information back to the Commission. The Commission could certainly do that without making a final recommendation on the entire package. This is subject to public hearing this evening. As with all text amendments, that (notice) was published in the local newspaper so there is that opportunity as well as being posted on these various agendas and the First Reading that occurred at City Council. There is nothing in our Code that requires us to send this proposed Text Amendment to every property owner and/or tenant that it may affect. On the question about how to move forward with this package, if you have concerns about the Text Amendment and would seek additional information you could certainly defer action on it until you receive a specific list of information and it could be brought up for continued discussion at a specific future meeting of the Commission. Mr. Tolbert stated that in his experience with HOA’s they don’t seem knowledgeable enough to carry out the duties that they are supposed to carry out in being responsible for the developments that they are overseeing. Dr. Jones stated that as we possibly defer action she would suggest that there are a couple of other things, in her opinion, that need to be tightened. She is not trying to make things difficult for the community owners. On Page 5 Office Hours (line 185), in her mind this doesn’t really give a feeling of assurance to the tenants that there are going to be regular fixed office hours. Maybe she is adding a little bit too much to this and she doesn’t want to nit-pick but if this is what people have to live by then we want to make very certain that there is not a lot left for interpretation. In Section 66-4(b)ii Receipt for Lot Payment (line 194), has this not been the case in the past? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Diaz stated that there have been comments from various homeowners that they do not receive receipts for payment of rent so that was one of the things desired in the original 2016 Ordinance that is still here. Ms. Maucher questioned if the additions comport with the Landlord Tenant Code? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Diaz stated that the Landlord Tenant Code does include provisions for the provision of receipts. The feedback received on that was that those provisions don’t go far Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2018 Page 5 of 10

enough so we were asked to make our provisions for rent receipts more strict. Mr. Tolbert opened a public hearing. Mr. Michael Morton – First State Manufactured Housing Association Mr. Morton stated that he is the President of First State Manufactured Housing Association and he also represents many of the community owners in the State of Delaware. He brought with him comments that he would like included in the record (a copy was provided to the Commission). He can represent to the Commission as an attorney who has been practicing in Delaware for over 35 years that the parts of Mr. Diaz’s presentation that he heard were inconsistent with the law. This proposed Ordinance is a revision of changes that were passed roughly 18 months ago. They were stayed by agreement with the City Executive so that interest holders like himself and his clients could participate in the redrafting. They were told that they would be actively engaged in redrafting and the first notice that we got of a redraft was roughly 10 days ago that it was completed and would be heard this evening. This is quite a surprise to those of us who appeared at a prior time when the first version of this was heard. They have considerable concerns on the concept of pre-emption. He brought with him a case from the Supreme Court of Delaware that says these matters are pre-empted by State Law. That the efforts of the Dover City Council and the Planning Commission; however noble, conflict directly with the expressed provisions in the Manufactured Housing Act and are therefore unenforceable. He has gone through every single line of this Ordinance and he has highlighted roughly twenty-five specific examples where it conflicts with the Manufactured Housing Code. That is why this was stayed by agreement so that they could go through those to discuss them with the Solicitor. The Solicitor is well aware of their concerns about the constitutionality of this Ordinance and the enforceability of the Ordinance. Since he is handing out copies he will not go through every single thing. He will simply point out two very specific things and then a number of examples. The applicable Manufactured Housing Code Section 7001 very specifically says that in reference to the relationship between a landlord and a resident in a manufactured housing community, this Code regulates and determines that legal rights, remedies and obligations of all parties to a rental agreement wherever executed for a lot, a manufactured home and a manufactured home community within the State. The second provision that is in difficulty with this is the State Installation Code. It is very specific that it is the only Code governing installations of manufactured homes. The reason that he points out both of these is that multiple sections of this proposed Ordinance conflict directly with that. The Supreme Court in Cantinca vs. Montana back in 2005 referring back to a case in 1965 had made it absolutely clear that the prerogative on issues of this nature belong to the House and the Senate not to local entities like cities and counties. The purpose statement for this Ordinance itself clearly conflicts both with the purpose statement of the State Code and with the specific elements. Your purpose statement says that “this subchapter applies to rental agreements for manufactured home lots and regulates and determines legal rights and remedies.” It also references obligations for communications and other specific issues on maintenance and the like. All of these are specifically referenced in the State Code under the concept of pre-emption that determines the scope of those. This body is not authorized, empowered or cannot enforce an Ordinance that tramples on the specific language of the Manufactured Housing Code. The Manufactured Housing Code also says that sole enforcement rights of those rights and responsibilities lies with the Attorney General’s Office. From the beginning to the end, we have great concerns about this. He has written portions in his Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2018 Page 6 of 10

comments by line with specific references to the fact that even the definitions that the City has proposed to use conflict with the long term well recognized definitions in the Manufactured Housing Code. The Manufactured Housing Code which he calls in this response, sets forth extensively the maintenance requirements of land community owners such as Wild Meadows within the City of Dover. It sets forth the responsibilities and the obligations and it also sets forth the remedies for landlords and tenants in this relationship. They are extensive provisions and they distinctly define the rights and responsibilities of each party. Under the concept of pre- emption, you as a City cannot enlarge, decrease or impact of State stated rights and responsibilities however laudable your concerns might be. In the section of this proposed Ordinance, it references maintenance responsibilities. Starting with trees, there is specific contrary language in the State Code that says it does not include any responsibility to do some of the things that the City would define as being a responsibility of the community owner. Section 7006.13 of the Manufactured Housing Code very specifically references trees and that language is contrary to the language that the City is proposing. Section 7006.13L defines what a tree is and the definition is different. Section 7003.24 defines what a utility is and again it conflicts with the language contained in this proposed Ordinance. Section 66-3 of this proposed Ordinance conflicts entirely with the pre-empted language of Title 24 Delaware Code Chapter 44 which is the State Manufactured Installation Code. The reason he points that out is that even the inspectors for the City must be licensed and be certified by the State Installation Board. Even the standards are clearly State issued and State controlled that the City’s inspectors use to determine if an installation has been done properly. Therefore, the City cannot on their own determine what they think is acceptable or what should be added to the State Code. As he stated earlier, this has multiple difficulties. He would respectfully suggest that this body do what he was promised before by the Director before the current Director came into office, which is table it so that they can have a meaningful discussion as stakeholders on the conflicts so that you don’t spend unnecessary time proposing language and attempting to put it in place that will result inevitably in Court conflict. The final comment is regarding the licensing provision for the manufactured housing community he and his clients found in Subsection E – Provisional Order. This section proposes that an unresolved violation issued conceivably by the City as an instant ticket could be deemed to be a nuisance without any definition of what a nuisance is. The license that you are required to have to run the community could be revoked or impacted with no meaningful explanation in the body of this Ordinance as to the need for, the requirement of or the desire to have a deprivation hearing or due process for the community owner when they have been alleged to have had a violation. The definition itself under the provision for provisional orders conflicts directly word for word with the existing State Code. There is absolutely no reason for this to be in conflict. It’s contrary to the exclusive authority of the State for enforcement of this type of item and it leads to the impractical result of a community potentially having no license and not being able to operate as a community when they still have several hundred residents there. They checked every couple of months with the City Executive asking where this stood and the City Executive kept saying “we will get back to you.” When Mr. Hugg started working for the City, they checked with him every couple of months, specifically referencing the fact that they had a standstill agreement. No one ever denied that they had a standstill agreement and yet no one ever gave them an opportunity to give the feedback that they are giving tonight which would have been incredibly helpful in a drafting of an Ordinance within the confines of the concept of pre-emption. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2018 Page 7 of 10

Mr. Holden stated that Mr. Morton mentioned some Dover communities that would be impacted by this that he represents. Who are those communities? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr. Morton stated that he represents Wild Meadows which is an RHP community. It changed ownership a couple of months ago. They are one of the five largest ownership groups in the Country. He has a tentative agreement to represent two of the other three owners, but it’s not signed so he can’t fully disclose who they are right now. It’s certainly a concern both for those owners and for the association which represents all owners within the State of Delaware that this has to be consistent. The reason for pre-emption is so that you don’t have vastly different rules and regulations in each community. As you can imagine, his view of the hourly requirements for a manager to be present is considerably different than one that was voiced earlier tonight by one of the other members because there is nothing in the State Code that requires that. He respectfully suggests that he doesn’t see any other business where the City requires x number of hours for somebody who represents that business to be present and open and available for questions. Certainly, there is no such requirement for apartment complexes at the State level and they have exactly the same issue of pre-emption with residential apartments. Mr. Holden stated that City Council held a First Reading of this Ordinance. He asked if Mr. Morton was able to be present for that? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr. Morton stated that he wasn’t even aware that it was going on because they had been told that they would be given notice before there was even a draft. The first notice that they received was received in his office on March 1, 2018 from Mr. Hugg indicating that it has already been drafted and that it has already had a First Reading. He doesn’t think that it is fair or equitable to keep telling them that they are going to participate and then not let them participate in the meaningful discussion about the language. Mr. Holden stated that they (the Planning Commission) had a fair amount of discussion over the concern over maintenance of common areas and the roadways really being the specific one. He asked if Mr. Morton had any commentary regarding that. Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr. Morton stated that the Code (Delaware Code) has specific language in the section that he cited that extensively details what the community owner’s responsibilities are including roads which means that it’s been addressed by the Code. If you follow the logic of his comments, it would mean that that’s what you have. You can’t, and he means this in the most respectful way possible, try and impose some additional obligations. That is was pre-emption means. Mr. Tolbert asked Mr. Morton to state the name of his organization and what his organization does in respect to this type of housing. Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Morton stated that we are the exclusive industry group for manufactured housing communities in the State of Delaware. It’s called First State Manufactured Housing Association. It was founded in 1995 and has represented the communities, retailers, vendors and installers in this industry since that time. They participated in the drafting of the statewide Installation Code. It was approved by the legislature and became part of the regulations. They participated in the drafting of the Manufactured Housing Code. He drafted significant portions of that. He was also a chairperson of the committee that drafted the Residential Landlord Tenant Code. This is not a new era for him; it’s an era of specialty for his firm and for him personally. His has absolutely no reservations about the accuracy of his concerns about pre-emption. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2018 Page 8 of 10

Mr. Tolbert stated that Mr. Morton mentioned Wild Meadows and his understanding is that Wild Meadows is a land lease development. The development next door to it is a mobile home development where the homes are permanent, but it’s not land lease. Noble’s Pond is also a land lease operation. Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Morton stated that Noble’s Pond is not a manufactured housing community. The State Relocation Trust Authority has already decided that Noble’s Pond is not a manufactured housing community. Mr. Tolbert stated that Wild Meadows has asked the State to put a cap on the lease payments that they can pay and he thinks that the State refused to do that and they have had their hands full with that battle. Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Morton stated that one of the City Councilman is a long-term member of the community at Wild Meadows and has been an advocate for their issues in the legislature for many years. He would probably tell you that he was solely or significantly responsible for the imposition of rent justification in manufactured housing communities. There has been no State imposed limitation on the rent at Wild Meadows and we are half way through the required arbitration procedure for this year’s rent with the homeowner’s association for Wild Meadows tenants. They have had multiple ones of those and they have been quite successful in the court on those issues. Dr. Jones stated that Mr. Morton referenced a case. Is it in the information that was provided? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Morton stated that it is attached to the master copy and is specifically referenced and cited in the case. It is also a case that the City Solicitor is well aware of and has been since before this first version was passed eighteen months ago. Ms. Maucher questioned if there are other stakeholders that should be informed of this process aside from your association such as representing particularly tenants in these types of communities? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Morton stated that he is fairly certain that Councilman Neil has notified all tenant advocacy groups of this pending Ordinance. He can tell you that the board of the First State Manufactured Housing Association is aware and all four owners of the communities located within the City limits are aware of it. The Association itself is considering the possibility of funding any litigation if we can’t have something worked out that will benefit everyone. They want to be at the table to discuss this. That is what they thought the deal was from the very beginning. Mr. Tolbert closed the public hearing. Mr. Holden stated that he thinks they had landed at some concerns that they aren’t quite able to address without the City Solicitor’s input to understand the legality of the path forward and the legality of trying to assure that their concerns will be addressed. Further, they are faced with a legal opinion shared that contravenes what the Ordinance is trying to get done. It seems like tabling the Ordinance to allow Staff and the City Solicitor time to give these comments some thought and address them. It seems like a reasonable path forward. Ms. Maucher moved to table 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) in order to meet with the interested parties and the City Solicitor to ensure that it complies with the State Law and it’s not over reaching, seconded by Mr. Holt and Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2018 Page 9 of 10

the motion was carried 8-0 by roll call vote with Mr. Tolbert recused. Mr. Holden voting yes; due to the large number of outstanding questions. Mr. Roach voting yes. Ms. Edwards voting yes; for the reasons previously stated. Mr. Holt voting yes; to try to address all of our concerns before we tackle this problem again. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; for all of the reasons stated. Dr. Jones voting yes; for all of the reasons stated and to make sure that we are in compliance. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; due to all of the outstanding issues and in order to ensure that the issues are addressed before the application is brought back to the Planning Commission. Ms. Maucher voting yes; to ensure that there is sufficient input into the City Ordinance. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2018 Page 10 of 10

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2018 Excerpt from Meeting Minutes - Draft The Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, August 20, 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, Ms. Maucher and Mr. Tolbert. Mrs. Welsh was absent. Staff members present were Mr. Dave Hugg, Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mr. Eddie Diaz, Mr. Julian Swierczek, Mr. Jason Lyon and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney. 2) 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) – Continuation of the Review of Proposed Ordinance #2018-01 of Text Amendments to the Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 66 - Manufactured Homes, Mobile Homes, and Land Lease Communities; to Zoning Ordinance, Article 3, Section 8- Manufactured Housing (MH) Zone; and to Zoning Ordinance, Article 12- Definitions. The Public Hearing was held on March 19, 2018 and the Planning Commission tabled action. Then on April 16, 2018 the Planning Commission deferred action until June 2018 seeking additional information. At the June 18, 2018 Meeting, Staff provided an update report on the Ordinance work and the Planning Commission deferred action until their August meeting. Planning Staff is proposing Staff Substitute #1 for Proposed Ordinance #2018-01. Mr. Tolbert recused himself from discussion on this application. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Vice-Chairman Mr. Holden will take over the Chairman duties for this application. Mr. Diaz stated that this update to the Manufactured Housing Ordinance. It first came before the Commission in March 2018 and at that time, the Commission chose to defer action due to concerns that they had at the time as well as the public testimony that was heard. It was deferred in April and then also in June. Since March, Staff has been working diligently to address the different concerns. They have been doing a detailed review of the verbal and written testimony that was given at March meeting and they have a large number of proposed changes to the original Ordinance which are given in the report on what they are calling Staff Substitution Number #1. They are continuing through with the goal of ensuring that State Law is met, second that the section is better organized and third that processes for enforcement are clearer in the update than they are in the current version. Some of the changes include that they are clarifying that installation of manufactured homes have to be by installers and inspectors that are licensed by the State. They are rewriting the provisions on landscaping and utilities so that they are based on State requirements. To specifically address the Commissioner’s concerns about how homeowners and homeowners’ associations might handle their side of the maintenance contracts that can potentially be introduced by land lease communities, Staff looked at that and clarified it. They clarified that the manufactured home communities cannot impose any requirements that are already forbidden under State Law. They took a second look at the provisions for offices and loosened that requirement a bit when it comes to communities that are small enough that they might not necessarily be able to support an on-site office. They clarified the specific information Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 20, 2018 Page 1 of 8

that is being asked for with the “homeowner record” rather than the “lease record”. The intent there is to identify owners of manufactured homes within land lease communities rather than gather detailed information about their leases. They are also clarifying the process for suspending a license for a manufactured home community or a land lease community, if such a step would prove necessary it would follow the existing procedures that are in the Dover Code of Ordinances for all businesses within the City. Finally, they are updating several definitions to better match the State definitions and they will be repeating those in both the Dover Code of Ordinances and the Zoning Ordinance. Because of the very extensive changes between the version that the Commission saw in March and the version that they are introducing today, what they are doing instead of introducing a Staff Amendment like they usually do when making changes to a proposed ordinance, is introducing a Staff Substitution. It’s basically a whole alternative text to the proposed ordinance. Dr. Jones stated that the idea of where there was a revision of language concerning the office, she still has a concern. She understands the revision, but she is still concerned about the statement that “there must be an office of some kind accessible to residents.” What does “accessible” mean in this instance? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that those of you who are following along in the Staff Substitute #1, the discussion that talks about the office and office hours begins on Page 5, Line 182 in Section 66-4 that talks about land lease communities. Item B is regulations regarding reporting, record keeping and license requirements of land lease communities. Mr. Diaz stated that what would be required in this case is what’s required for all rental properties in the State of Delaware. The State regulation is Title 25 Chapter 55 that deals with the Landlord Tenant Code; the specific requirement is that there must be an office somewhere within the County; a place where the residents can go to deposit their rent checks and to communicate with the property owner. Dr. Jones stated that in the section that was just pointed out, under office hours was that qualifier put into the new language that it should be within the County? The reason that she is asking this question again is because there is a likelihood that many of the people who may be renters may not really have access to reliable transportation. So the language that Mr. Diaz just read, since it looks like we are trying to align ourselves with State Code, why are we not using the County language specifically? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Diaz stated that he supposes that it wouldn’t hurt but they don’t necessarily need to replicate the County language in every single case. Dr. Jones stated that she understands that, but she is really concerned about the residents; people who may be owners of record. Maybe she is just getting a little bit worked up about that. Ms. Maucher questioned the source of the 20 hours or is that State Code or is that something that the City selected? If the City selected it, what was the basis for 20 hours? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Diaz that the City did select that and the basis for that was simply that 24 hours a day, 7 days a week was not acceptable to the manufactured home community owners that they communicated with, so they had to pick something less than that. They thought that 20 hours a week would be something that might work. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 20, 2018 Page 2 of 8

Ms. Maucher questioned if they have heard feedback from those representatives about the 20- hour requirement? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Diaz stated that they said while they would prefer to not be required to have any hours but that would be acceptable to them. Ms. Maucher questioned if there was a similar requirement for other rental properties? There seems to be a consistency issue that she is concerned about. Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Diaz stated that there is not a requirement for office hours for rental properties in general but then again there isn’t a requirement for offices in general on-site for rental properties because they come in all shapes and sizes. Mr. Hugg stated that in terms of the typical apartment complex, it’s customary that they do have a rental office with regular hours. He questioned if Dr. Jones had some language that would make her more comfortable with the notion of “accessible”. The compromise that they are trying to reach here is that for smaller parks and parks that are pretty much developed the need to have a physical office right in that facility might be a burden but on the other hand he would hate to see a facility in Dover where the “accessible” office was located in Milford. He thinks that Dr. Jones does raise a point that there is at least the recognition that it has to be “accessible” in the sense that the people who need to use them can reasonably expect to get there and transact their business. What they are trying to avoid here is having an office that is open for 20 hours a week but it’s in New Castle, but it’s in Maryland, or some place. They don’t have a definition of accessible, but they might be able to come up with something. Responding to Mr. Hugg, Dr. Jones stated that she is thinking that they could use a mile radius or within 25 miles. She does not want to suggest that the owners of record are not capable of taking care of business, but she thinks that the fact of the matter is that there are people who may live in manufactured housing who are doing all that they can do to make ends meet and may be late making a payment thus incurring an additional fee. She would like to see something that would give the owner of record 20 miles or in Kent County or something that they can sink some teeth in. Mr. Hugg stated that the examples given by Dr. Jones would pretty much be handled by saying Kent County. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this evening there are a variety of options. The Commission is making a recommendation to City Council with the motion. If you think that the items are better addressed by Staff Substitution #1 then the motion could be to recommend that for approval noting that Staff had worked to respond to the Commission inquiries and the public testimony that was received in regards to the original Ordinance that was proposed as Ordinance #2018-01. If the Commission has any additional changes, they can certainly include them as part of a recommendation to either Ordinance. If the Commission thinks that there are still outstanding items, they do have the ability to defer giving specific tasks for Staff to take action on. At this point, it’s been waiting a good bit of time and Staff has done significant work on it so hopefully there is certainly enough information for the Commission to make a decision this evening. Mr. Holden stated that there was some discretion over the office hours and specifically whether some of those hours were going to be outside of the typically 8-5 hours. Was there a review or discussion on whether some of those hours should be before 8AM or after 5PM? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr. Diaz stated that what they have settled on for now is that the 20 hours cannot be between the hours of midnight and 7AM. Between 7-8AM and between 5PM-midnight would work but not in the middle of the night. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 20, 2018 Page 3 of 8

Mr. Holden stated that it doesn’t necessarily require the office hours to be outside of the 8AM- 5PM which he thinks was the intent of a lot of the discussion. Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr. Diaz stated no it does not. Mr. Holden stated that the other item that he wanted to bring up was related to the concern over the ability of the Homeowner’s Association or owners to maintain roads, the rights-of-way of community area landscaping and this version seems to allow the ability of the City to fine those homeowners for what typically is the community owner’s responsibility. The community owner has the resources and knowledge and how to maintain roadways specifically. He thinks back to the times where he was renting different places he certainly didn’t have the knowledge to understand what he was getting into in terms of signing an agreement much less how to take care of a paved community road. He thinks that there was some desire to ensure that the community owners were charging rent sufficient to keep that responsibility within their footprint or even if they had side agreements to place the fining and responsibility to ensure that got done within the community owner. Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr. Diaz stated that is another place where they are again relying on the State law while trying not to repeat every word. They allow maintenance responsibilities to be delegated through an appropriate legal contract such as a lease agreement or an agreement with the Homeowner’s Association, but the State actually regulates what the content of lease agreements can be and it does not allow land owners to delegate maintenance of the private roadways. It’s very limited in what maintenance of landscaping can be delegated and so forth. Mr. Holden stated that Section 66-4 to say that 1-4 (items i-iv) which includes the private roads within the community, that responsibility can be delegated to the homeowner via a rental agreement. It sounds like Mr. Diaz said that State law doesn’t allow that. Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr. Diaz stated that our Ordinance is broad in saying that the responsibilities in general can be delegated but the State would still not allow specific things to be delegated. Mr. Holden stated that the two sound to be in direct conflict with each other. Is Item i private road access not the community roads? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr. Diaz stated that it is. Mr. Holden stated that it seems like we are saying that you can delegate the responsibility of private roads through a rental agreement, but you are saying that State Law doesn’t allow us to do that. Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr. Diaz stated that if you think that is an area where more clarification is needed then Staff can look at that. It says maintenance responsibilities detailed in Sections i through iv may be delegated. That is an area where State Code would trump City Code but perhaps it would be better if City Code didn’t say it in the first place. Mr. Holden stated that his concern is that some rental homeowners don’t necessarily have the thought to do that research. We need to be cognizant of both the property owners and their ability to run businesses and communities but also be clear. If a homeowner was to go back to City Code, it seems like they can get fined for the maintenance requirement of a road for a community that they just moved into six months ago. That is a big burden and a fair amount of work to go through. Personally, he has concerns over that. He thinks their goal was to have a balanced Text Amendment that reflected the rights of both sides but didn’t unfairly burden the homeowners or Homeowner’s Associations with tasks that they really aren’t very good at. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 20, 2018 Page 4 of 8

Ms. Maucher stated that under the landscaping portion, it seems to be pretty descriptive with trees over 25 feet and a diameter of 6 inches. What is the source of that? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Diaz stated that was from the State Code. They originally had trees planted by the land lease community owner which seems to make more sense, but the State requirement is actually based on size rather than who originally planted it. Ms. Maucher questioned if the State would ask a property owner to remove a tree over twenty- five feet tall? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Diaz stated that the State would require the land lease community owner to take care of any trees over twenty-five feet tall. The Code states shall maintain, care for and if necessary remove. Mr. Holden questioned if there is language in the State Code or has there been push back from any of the communities? It seems reasonable that a lease holder should be responsible for the footprint in which they lease. That is that they need to maintain it in the state that they leased it originally and that the community owner should be responsible for community spaces and streets and such. Does that contravene State Code or does that contravene any of the guidance that you have gotten from some of the groups that you surveyed? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mr. Diaz stated no, there is no language in the State Code that deals with the necessity on the homeowner’s part to maintain a specific delineated area of land around their home. Because it is not restricted, it is something that the land lease community owner could introduce if they wanted but ultimately the homeowner owns the home and is just renting the site. It is also possible for the land lease community owner to maintain everything expect the homes themselves. Mr. Holden questioned if Staff was looking for a motion from the Commission towards Council or a motion from the Commission for specific changes? Responding to Mr. Holden, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Commission could do both. If you feel that there are particular changes, you could certainly identify those in a motion. If you think they are minor enough that Staff can work that language and move that forward along with a full recommendation on the Ordinance itself, you can do that. Basically, they become Planning Commission amendments to the Ordinance. If you feel comfortable enough with Staff putting those in language format, they can certainly do that if you clearly identify the items of concern. Two items have been noted at this point; the office location requirement of being in Kent County and making the language about the maintenance a little clearer and perhaps not including the reference to the above items which causes confusion about the road issue and who can care for that. Mr. Holden stated that the other piece that they talked about was some of those 20 hours being outside of typical Monday to Friday work day. It seems that they could look to differentiate the items or footprint that a homeowner could be made responsible for. If you rent a car you are responsible for the care of the car and you are expected to be able to drive a car and adequately care for it. For a homeowner to maintain the road or common areas is not the footprint in which they lease. Mr. Roach stated that at the March 2018 meeting, Mr. Michael Morton had a lot of concerns in regard to what we were trying to do. Did Staff have any further communication with him? Is there anything that he had to say? Did Staff work collaboratively with him to make sure that the concerns and issues that he had about this actual Code being a contradiction to the State Housing Authority Law? Responding to Mr. Roach, Mr. Diaz stated that they did have contact with Mr. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 20, 2018 Page 5 of 8

Morton and his feedback was very valuable to Staff. A number of the changes that they made with this Staff Substitution were based on his comments. They showed the comments to him at a meeting afterwards and he went through the proposed changes with Staff and gave them some further feedback. The biggest outstanding issue for him was the issue of under what circumstances it’s possible to revoke a land lease community owner’s Business License and I think the changes that they made there by making it clear that it’s the same process that would be used for other businesses in the City, should satisfy that concern. Ms. Maucher questioned if you revoke a Business License what happens? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Diaz stated that if you revoke a License then the business owner has a period of time in which they will need to fix all of the Code Enforcement issues that led to the shut down before they can open up and do business again. Ms. Maucher questioned if there had to be a notice provision to residents of the property? She is still not understanding if you do a revocation process how that impacts the people who own the homes and how they can address that. Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Diaz stated the revocation of the Business License only means that the land lease community cannot conduct business. The homeowner’s ownership of the home is not affected. While the business is not operating, they can’t collect rent and they are not required to perform maintenance, but it would be in their interest to fix the problems as soon as possible so they can get back in business. Dr. Jones stated that the owner must have a license; is it an annual license? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Diaz stated yes, the Business License to run the manufactured home park or the land lease community is an annual license similar to the business licenses for other businesses in the City. Dr. Jones questioned if the $45.00 annual fee was consistent with like businesses? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Diaz stated she is looking at the license fee for the manufactured home owners. That is not a Business License that is a separate kind of license specific to manufactured homes and it is there as a substitute for the taxes that they are not paying. Ms. Maucher questioned if manufactured homeowners pay that fee currently? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Diaz stated yes. Ms. Maucher questioned if it is paid to the community owner as part of the land rent? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Diaz stated no, it is not part of that. Ms. Maucher questioned what happens if someone does not pay that fee? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Diaz stated if a manufactured home owner isn’t paying their annual license fees then they are not entitled to City utilities. Ms. Maucher questioned if the City Solicitor has reviewed this thoroughly and is confident that if it was appealed it would withstand appeal? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Diaz stated yes. Mr. Holden stated that it seems like the Commission has highlighted a few different things and Mrs. Melson-Williams has highlighted those back for us: the proximity of the office, suggestion for Kent County, a concern over should some specific number of those twenty hours be made Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 20, 2018 Page 6 of 8

available outside of 8AM-5PM and whether they are going to support the burden of landscaping, utilities and roadways to be placed on the owner through a rental agreement. Ms. Maucher stated that she would also like to see some clarification about the revocation of the Business License and what those implications are. If the owner is responsible for providing certain services and he loses his license what happens to the people in the community that rely on these services? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Diaz stated that there is disagreement on what exactly would happen in the unlikely event that a manufactured home community would shut down. The side of the manufactured home owners says that it would be an opportunity to incorporate as an independent community that owns the land as well as the houses. The side of the manufactured home park owners and land lease community owners says that would be an occasion necessitating the eviction of everybody who lives there. It is not something that has ever happened in Dover. Ms. Maucher questioned if it has ever happened in Delaware? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Diaz stated not to his knowledge. Mr. Holden asked what Ms. Maucher would suggest including of? He doesn’t know how they would include within the text amendment for the benefit of the property owner or anyone interested, what the legal steps would be if a land lease Business License was revoked. Responding to Mr. Holden, Ms. Maucher stated that in the public utility realm, if the person responsible for the bill in a tenant situation doesn’t pay it, notice has to be given to the tenants so she thinks that some notice needs to be given to the people paying the lot rent so that they can withhold rents or take action to try to force the correction of whatever is causing the potential revocation. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the revocation for the Business License is the license for a “land lease community operator”. It is one of our business license categories and the process to revoke the Business License has a process that is laid out in Dover Code already and that is the refence to the Chapter 26 – Businesses. She believes that there is a hearing type process to that so during that hearing process you might get the details of what steps would need to be taken in order to avoid revocation or given a certain time frame to complete certain things in order to avoid revocation. The process for revoking Business Licenses is already laid out in Code. It may be somewhat unusual because of the type of license that we are talking about for a land lease community operator. It’s not like your typical retail store or other entities like that. Mr. Holden moved to recommend a conditional approval (of Staff Substitute #1) to City Council for 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) contingent upon several items being amended. The first of which the land lease community operator (office) be located in Kent County. Second, that at least five hours of those twenty hours be made available outside of the typical Monday to Friday 8AM-5PM time line. Third, if a revocation process is instituted that the lease holders are notified. Fourth, the delegation of responsibility be limited to the specific footprint lease by the homeowner but not to include the community roads or the community open space or community utilities. It supports the property owner to create a rent structure that is supportive of maintaining the community and it leaves the responsibility within the hands of someone who is more likely capable of those responsibilities. The motion was seconded by Dr. Jones and it the motion was carried 7-0 with Mrs. Welsh absent Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 20, 2018 Page 7 of 8

and Mr. Tolbert recused. Mr. Holden voting yes; for the reasons discussed. 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 given. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; for the reasons stated. Dr. Jones voting yes; for the reasons stated. Ms. Maucher voting yes; for the reasons stated. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 20, 2018 Page 8 of 8

1 Re-update of Manufactured Home Ordinance 2 Version 15.1, 9/14/2018, Staff Substitution #1 with Planning Commission Amendment #1 3 Color coding: 4 Black text: Currently adopted code language 5 Red Strikethrough: Currently adopted code language to be removed under Staff Substitution #1 6 Blue text: New language to be added under Staff Substitution #1 7 Green text: New language to be added under Planning Commission Amendment #1 8 Green Strikethrough: Language to be removed under Planning Commission Amendment #1 9 Chapter 66 - MANUFACTURED HOMES, MOBILE HOMES, AND LAND LEASE COMMUNITIES 10 Sec. 66-1. – Purpose Statement. 11 The City of Dover recognizes that manufactured homes are a unique housing type with their own 12 history of placement and ownership traditions arising from their origins as mobile homes. A 13 modern manufactured home does not resemble a vehicle, and once placed is rarely moved. 14 However, most manufactured homes are owned as if they were vehicles, separate from the land 15 they are placed on, and may theoretically be moved at any time. Because of this the city 16 recognizes that consistent standards are needed for placement, licensing, and tracking of 17 manufactured homes, in order to ensure the homes’ orderly movement into, out of, and around 18 the city. 19 The city further recognizes that land lease communities, which may give ground lease to 20 manufactured homes or other types of housing, typify a use of land which does not align perfectly 21 with either apartments or residential subdivisions. Because of this, areas of responsibility on the 22 part of residents, owners, and the city with regard to maintenance, communication, and taxation 23 can be unclear without the adoption of consistent standards governing these areas of 24 responsibility. The city recognizes that where responsibility is not clearly claimed detrimental 25 conditions can arise for residents. 26 This chapter therefore lays out consistent standards needed for manufactured homes and land 27 lease communities, while updating and consolidating earlier city regulations regarding mobile 28 homes and mobile home parks. The standards are intended to be applicable to all land lease 29 communities currently in the city or which may be established in the future. They are also 30 intended to cover both manufactured homes and permanently placed manufactured homes, and 31 the issues unique to each. They are intended to supplement, rather than replace, all state laws 32 regulating manufactured homes, including but not limited to those found in Title 25, Chapter 70, 33 and Title 24, Chapter 44 of the Delaware Code. 34 Sec. 66-1. 66-2 - Definitions. 35 The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed 36 to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: 37 Land lease community means a residential development typified by single ownership of the land within 38 the development, with the landowner retaining the rights of ownership. Home sites or individual lots within 39 the community are leased to individual homeowners, who retain customary leasehold rights. A 40 manufactured home park is considered a type, but not the only type, of land lease community. Page 1

41 Land lease community operator means any person designated by contractual arrangement 42 with the land lease community owner to supervise or maintain a land lease community and interact 43 with its residents. 44 Land lease community owner means the owner of 2 or more home sites offered for rent within 45 a land lease community. It includes a lessor, sublessor, park owner or receiver of 2 or more home 46 sites offered for rent, as well as any person, other than a lender not in possession, who directly or 47 indirectly receives rents for 2 or more home sites offered for rent and who has no obligation to 48 deliver such rents to another person. 49 Manufactured home means a factory-built housing unit designed and constructed to meet the 50 Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards of the U.S. Department of Housing and 51 Urban Development (HUD) Code. A manufactured home is built on a chassis that supports the 52 structural integrity of the home and to allow transport to the site. Factory-built units built to meet 53 the HUD Code and constructed after the code took effect on June 15, 1976 are classified as 54 "manufactured homes." 55 Mobile home means a factory-built housing unit constructed on a chassis and completed 56 before June 15, 1976. Prior to the HUD code, mobile homes were not subject to uniform construction 57 or safety standards. 58 Manufactured home means a factory-built, single-family dwelling: 59 a. Transportable in 1 or more sections, which is either 8 body feet or more in width and 40 60 body feet or more in length, or, when erected on site, has more than 400 square feet in living 61 area; and 62 b. Designed to be used as a year-round dwelling when connected to the required utilities; and 63 c. Manufactured after June 15, 1976, and built in accordance with manufactured home 64 construction requirements promulgated by the federal Department of Housing and Urban 65 Development (The HUD Code). 66 Mobile home means a factory-built, single-family dwelling: 67 a. Transportable in 1 or more sections, which is either 8 body feet or more in width and 40 68 body feet or more in length, or, when erected on site, has more than 400 square feet in living 69 area; and 70 b. Designed to be used as a year-round dwelling when connected to the required utilities; and 71 c. Manufactured before June 15, 1976, and not built in accordance with manufactured home 72 construction requirements promulgated by the federal Department of Housing and Urban 73 Development (The HUD Code). Prior to the HUD code, mobile homes were not subject to 74 uniform construction or safety standards. 75 Owner of a manufactured home or mobile home means the person designated in the vehicle title of 76 the manufactured home or mobile home, whether the title is issued by this state or by some other state. 77 Owner of a permanently placed manufactured home means the person designated in the vehicle or 78 real property title of the permanently placed manufactured home, whether the title is issued by this state or 79 by some other state. 80 Permanently placed manufactured home means a manufactured home factory-built housing unit 81 designed and constructed to meet the Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards of 82 the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Code, and that has also been placed 83 upon a permanent, unmovable foundation. 84 Utility means a service provided by a land lease community owner, the city, or others to a 85 tenant for a commodity such as water, sewer, electricity, fuel, propane, cable television or trash. Page 2

86 (Ord. of 2-23-1970, § 2; Code 1981, § 12-1; Ord. of 11-10-1986, § 1; Ord. No. 2016-16 , 8-8- 87 2016) 88 Sec. 66-2. 66-3 - Licenses. Manufactured and mobile homes. 89 (a) Placement permit. Every owner of a manufactured home shall apply for and obtain from the city 90 planner or his/her authorized agent a placement permit for such manufactured home prior to 91 placement of the home within the city. The owner of the manufactured home shall pay a fee for 92 such permit as provided for in Appendix F-Fees and Fines. No certificate of occupancy shall be 93 issued for a newly placed manufactured home that has not also been issued a placement permit. 94 (b) Inspection. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any manufactured home, the 95 home shall pass inspection by a city building inspector licensed as a manufactured home 96 inspector by the state. The owner of the manufactured home shall cause a manufactured home 97 installer licensed by the state to firmly attach the home to the ground by means of a permanent 98 foundation or anchors, and cause any open space beneath the unit to be skirted or enclosed 99 with material approved by the building inspector. 100 (c) License. The owner of any mobile home or manufactured home that is not placed on a 101 permanent foundation shall obtain an annual license for it. The owner of the mobile home or 102 manufactured home shall pay an annual fee for such license as provided for in Appendix F-Fees 103 and Fines. If such manufactured home is newly moved into the city, the owner of the 104 manufactured home shall obtain the license and shall pay the license fee within seven days of 105 issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the home. Payment of the license fee shall be prorated 106 on a quarterly basis for each fractional part of a year during which the manufactured home is in 107 the city. 108 (d) Conditions for license. No license for a new manufactured home shall be issued until the home 109 has passed inspection and received a certificate of occupancy as required by this section. 110 (e) Moving within or out of city. When the owner of a mobile home or manufactured home removes 111 the home from its current site or lot, the owner shall obtain a demolition permit for the removal. 112 (f) Use of city utilities. Owners of all types of manufactured homes shall coordinate with city 113 departments during the permitting and licensing process regarding the appropriate times to 114 transfer responsibility for utilities and activate service. 115 116 117 (a) Required fee. The owner of a mobile home or manufactured home that is not to be permanently 118 placed shall obtain an annual license for it and shall pay a fee for such license as provided for 119 in Appendix F—Fees and Fines. 120 (b) Payment; penalties . Such license shall be obtained and the license fee paid by August 1 of 121 each year and if such fee is not paid before September 1 of such year, then, in addition to any 122 penalty incurred pursuant to Appendix F—Fees and Fines, a penalty fee of ten percent per 123 month shall accrue on the unpaid balance of the license fee. 124 (c) Moving into city . Upon the moving of a manufactured home into the city, if the manufactured 125 home requires a license it shall be obtained and the license fee paid the within seven days. 126 Payment of such license fee shall be prorated on a quarterly basis for each fractional part of a 127 year during which the manufactured home is in the city. 128 (d) Required fee for landowners . The owner of any land leased out as part of a land lease 129 community shall obtain an annual land lease community operator business license under the 130 provisions of Chapter 26—Businesses. Page 3

131 (Ord. of 2-23-1970, § 2; Ord. of 5-24-1976; Ord. of 3-27-1980; Code 1981, § 12-2; Ord. of 8-8- 132 1988; Ord. of 3-22-1993; Ord. No. 2009-09, 6-22-2009; Ord. No. 2016-16 , 8-8-2016) 133 Sec. 66-3. - Real property taxes. 134 (a) A permanently placed manufactured home as defined in section 66-1, and the lot upon 135 which it is located shall be considered as being real property for purposes of valuation, 136 assessment and taxation in accordance with section 47 of the Charter. 137 (Code 1981, § 12-2.1; Ord. of 11-10-1986, § 2; Ord. No. 2016-16 , 8-8-2016) 138 Sec. 66-4. - Placement permit. 139 Every owner of a manufactured home, shall apply for and obtain from the city planner or his/her 140 authorized agent a placement permit for such manufactured home. The city planner or his/her 141 authorized agent shall issue no placement permit until the license fee required in this chapter is 142 paid in full. 143 (Ord. of 2-23-1970, §§ 3, 6; Ord. of 5-24-1976; Code 1981, § 12-3; Ord. No. 2016-16 , 8-8-2016) 144 Sec. 66-5. 66-4.- Duties of land lease community owners and operators. Land lease communities. 145 (a) The following regulations shall apply to owners and operators of all land lease communities: the 146 maintenance of land lease communities: 147 i. Private road access. It shall be the responsibility of land lease community owners and operators 148 to maintain all private streets, driveway access to such streets, access to fire hydrants, and 149 access to central mailboxes so as to be clear from obstructions, including but not limited to 150 potholes, snow piles, and debris. 151 ii. Debris clearance. It shall be the responsibility of land lease community owners and operators to 152 ensure that all facilities and common areas within the community are kept in good repair and 153 maintained in such a manner as to prevent the accumulation of materials which could cause a 154 fire hazard or would cause insect or rodent breeding and harborage. 155 iii. Landscaping. All trees, shrubbery, lawns, and other landscaping features within the 156 community shall be maintained by the land lease community operator owner to be in 157 healthy condition at all times. 158 iii. Landscaping. The land lease community owner shall keep the community free of species 159 of weeds or plant growth which are noxious or detrimental to the health of the residents. 160 In addition, the land lease community owner shall maintain, care for, and, if necessary, 161 remove any trees planted within the community that are over 25 feet in height or have a 162 main stem/trunk over 6 inches in diameter. Maintenance shall be performed per standard 163 horticultural practices in accordance with the standards as set forth by the American 164 Association of Nurserymen, and shall not require removal of any plant material normally 165 produced by the tree as part of its lifecycle. The landlord must respect the privacy of 166 tenants and not enter any rented lot to maintain, care for, and/or remove landscaping 167 without the permission of the tenant or an adult resident unless emergency circumstances 168 exist and entry is required to prevent injury to person or damage to property. 169 iv. Utilities. All water, sewer, electric, and gas lines and connections intended to serve 170 common areas or the private property of tenants within the community shall be kept in 171 good repair at all times by the land lease community operator. The land lease community 172 owner shall keep all water, electrical, plumbing, gas, septic, sewer, and other utilities they Page 4

173 provide to tenants in good working order. Stormwater management facilities shall be 174 maintained so as to be free of blockage and to prevent the accumulation of standing water that 175 does not dissipate within 48 hours, except in facilities approved for retention of water. 176 These utilities and facilities shall be repaired within 48 hours of written notification of a 177 maintenance problem, or as soon thereafter as is practicable if a repair within 48 hours is 178 not practicable. Community owners shall coordinate with the City of Dover regarding utility 179 services and equipment. 180 v. Delegation of maintenance duties. Maintenance responsibilities detailed in subsections i. 181 through iv. of Section 66-3(a) may be delegated by the land lease community owner to 182 leaseholders, a homeowner’s association, a land lease community operator, or other 183 parties, provided that the delegated party’s specific responsibilities are detailed in a rental 184 agreement, property management contract, or other contract as appropriate. All 185 maintenance responsibilities not so delegated shall be retained by the land lease 186 community owner. All maintenance services not permitted under state law to be delegated 187 to leaseholders or homeowners’ associations, due to state requirements for the contents 188 of rental agreements, shall also be retained by the land lease community owner, unless 189 delegated to a land lease community operator. The following exceptions apply: 190 (1) Maintenance responsibilities delegated to individual leaseholders shall not include 191 physical responsibility over any streets, common areas, or utilities. Community 192 owners may still require payments from leaseholders to contribute to these areas’ 193 upkeep. 194 (2) Maintenance responsibilities shall not be delegated if doing so would violate any 195 state laws regulating the content of any of the above types of contracts. 196 (3) Any maintenance responsibilities not specifically delegated shall be retained by the 197 land lease community owner. 198 (b) The following regulations shall be the reporting, record-keeping, and licensing requirements of 199 land lease communities: 200 v.i. Office hours. The land lease community operator shall be present on site at a minimum 201 during regular business hours, so as to facilitate communication between tenants of the 202 community and the owner, and a 24-hour emergency contact shall be available to 203 residents. To facilitate communication between tenants of the community and the owner, 204 the land lease community owner or operator shall be present at an office within the City of 205 Dover or Kent County, Delaware, accessible to tenants during regular, fixed hours to be 206 communicated to residents and posted at the office. The office hours shall be no less than 207 20 hours per week, and shall not be between the hours of midnight and 7am, and shall 208 include at least 5 hours before 8am or after 5pm. A 24-hour emergency contact shall also 209 be available to residents. 210 vi.ii. Receipt for lot payment. The land lease community operator or operator shall provide a written 211 receipt or electronic receipt at the time a cash payment for rent payment has been made. 212 regardless of the form of payment. If a land lease community owner accepts a form of 213 payment other than cash, the community owner shall, within 2 days, give to the tenant a 214 receipt for that payment. The community owner or operator shall, for a period of 3 years, 215 maintain a record of all cash receipts for rent. 216 iii. Homeowner Record. To assist in keeping city license records and tax records up to date, 217 and to assist in code enforcement, land lease community owners who lease land to two or 218 more persons for home sites shall maintain a record of all persons owning homes on their 219 land, specifying each home’s address, the name of the owner of each manufactured home, 220 and each homeowner’s address, if different from the home address. This record shall be 221 reported to the city planner before July 1 of each year, and shall also be open for 222 inspection by the city planner at all other reasonable times. Page 5

223 vi. Required license for landowners. The owner of any land leased out as part of a land lease 224 community shall obtain an annual land lease community operator business license under 225 the provisions of Chapter 26—Businesses, or direct the land lease community operator to 226 obtain this license. Only one business license shall be required per land lease community. 227 The fee for such license shall be based on the total number of lots or home sites in the 228 community, including both vacant and occupied lots and sites. 229 (b) The following regulations shall additionally apply to owners and operators of land lease 230 communities leasing land to manufactured homes: 231 i. Documents to manufactured home owners. Copies of this chapter and placement permit 232 application forms shall be furnished to each land lease community owner, who shall give 233 a copy of the same to every manufactured home owner who moves a manufactured home 234 into the community, before the 15th day of the next succeeding month after placement of 235 the manufactured home. 236 ii. Enforcement. It shall be the responsibility of land lease community owners and operators 237 to ensure that all mobile homes and manufactured homes placed on their land maintain a 238 current license under section 66-2. 239 iii. Lease record; report. Land lease community owners who lease land to two or more 240 persons for siting manufactured homes shall maintain a lease record, which shall be open 241 for inspection at all reasonable times by the city planner. Before June 1 of each year, the 242 land lease community owner shall report to the city planner the names and addresses of 243 all persons having manufactured homes on his land. 244 iv. Sale of home. Before a home is sold by the homeowner, home owner's estate, foreclosure, 245 eviction or other means, the City of Dover must be notified and all delinquent taxes, fees, 246 or other charges must be paid. 247 v. The land lease community owner must notify the City of Dover if the community is placed 248 for sale. 249 (c) The following shall be considered appropriate methods of redress if the duties outlined in this 250 section are not fulfilled: 251 i. Any land lease community owner found to be in violation of the provisions of this section, 252 regardless of corrective actions taken, shall be assessed a fine as provided for in 253 Appendix F—Fees and Fines. Any such fine shall be in addition to any charges imposed 254 upon the violator in accordance with subsection (c)(ii) below. 255 ii. If required, the City of Dover may perform maintenance in the owner's stead following 256 official notice, and place a lien on the property to recover costs, including a 15 percent 257 administrative charge. 258 iii. Repeated failure to perform the required duties shall be cause to take action upon an 259 owner's land lease community operator license in accordance with the provisions of 260 Chapter 26—Businesses, Article II, Section 26-59. 261 262 Sec. 66-5. - Real property taxes. 263 A permanently placed manufactured home as defined in section 66-2, and the lot upon which it is 264 located shall be considered as being real property for purposes of valuation, assessment and 265 taxation in accordance with section 47 of the Charter. Manufactured homes that are not permanently 266 placed shall not be taxed but shall pay the annual license fee required by this chapter in lieu of 267 taxes. 268 269 Sec. 66-6. – Enforcement and penalties. Page 6

270 (a) Licenses and permits. Enforcement of licensing and permitting requirements shall be as 271 follows: 272 i. Obtaining manufactured home licenses. If the owner of a mobile home or manufactured 273 home not permanently placed fails to obtain or renew the annual license required by this 274 chapter, a fine pursuant to Appendix F-Fees and Fines may be assessed on the owner of 275 the home, if the home has not been removed from the city. 276 ii. Obtaining placement permits. An owner of a manufactured home who places their home 277 without obtaining a placement permit to do so shall have the standard penalties imposed 278 for failure to obtain a building permit as outlined in Chapter 22- Buildings and Building 279 Regulations of the Dover Code. 280 iii. Obtaining land lease community operator business licenses. A land lease community 281 owner who does not obtain an annual business license as required by this chapter shall 282 have the standard penalties imposed for failure to obtain a business license as outlined in 283 Chapter 26- Businesses of the Dover Code. 284 (b) Land lease community maintenance requirements. Enforcement of community maintenance 285 requirements shall be as follows: 286 i. Any land lease community owner found to be in violation of the provisions of Section 66- 287 4(a) may be assessed a fine pursuant to Appendix F-Fees and Fines. If required, the City of 288 Dover may perform maintenance to correct the violation in the owner’s stead, and add the 289 cost of maintenance, including a 15 percent administrative charge, to the fine to be 290 assessed. 291 ii. If a land-lease community owner has via rental agreement, property management contract, 292 or other contractual agreement delegated maintenance responsibilities over the portion of 293 the property in violation to the owner of a manufactured home a leaseholder or 294 homeowners association, any fines assessed pursuant to subsections 66-6 (b)(i) and (b)(ii) 295 above shall instead be imposed on the owner of the home that party. 296 (c) Reporting and record-keeping requirements. Enforcement of reporting and record-keeping 297 requirements shall be as follows: 298 i. Provision of homeowner record. If the owner of a land-lease community fails to provide a 299 homeowner record before July 1 of the year, a fine pursuant to Appendix F-Fees and Fines 300 may be assessed on the owner of the land-lease community. 301 ii. Provision of office hours. The City of Dover may inspect the office of a land lease 302 community, and upon finding that hours are not posted, or a representative is not on site 303 during posted office hours, assess a fine pursuant to Appendix F-Fees and Fines. A finding 304 that a land lease community’s 24-hour emergency line is not functioning may also be cause 305 to assess the same fine. 306 iii. Provision of receipts. If the owner of a manufactured home a leaseholder requests a receipt 307 for payment of rent from a land lease community owner or operator and does not receive 308 one within 2 days, the owner of the manufactured home may ask the City of Dover to 309 request the same. If a receipt is not provided to the city within an additional 7 days, a fine 310 pursuant to Appendix F-Fees and Fines may be assessed on the owner of the land-lease 311 community. 312 (d) Official notice. As part of any fine assessed pursuant to Section 66-6, the City of Dover shall 313 give official notice to the violator. Policy and procedures for timing of official notices and fines 314 shall be developed by the Planning and Inspections Department. 315 (e) Action on business licenses. If violation of any city ordinance by a land lease community is of 316 a nature that the community’s business license may need to be suspended or revoked, the Page 7

317 procedures given in Chapter 26—Businesses, Article II, Sections 26-59 through 26-65 applying 318 to all city businesses shall be adhered to. Summary action on a business license shall not be 319 taken unless the conduct of the licensee, or any associated agent or employee, is so inimical to 320 the public health, safety, and general welfare as to constitute a nuisance and thus give rise to 321 an emergency. If a community’s business license is suspended or revoked, the city shall notify 322 all leaseholders in the community of the city’s action within 3 days. 323 (Ord. No. 2016-16 , 8-8-2016) 324 Editor's note— Ord. No. 2016-16 , adopted August 8, 2016, in effect repealed § 66-5 and 325 enacted a new § 66-5 as set out herein. Former § 66-5 pertained to duties of mobile home park 326 owners and derived from Ord. of 2-23-1970 and the Code of 1981. 327 Sec. 66-6. - Anchoring and skirting. 328 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any manufactured home not placed on a 329 permanent foundation, the manufactured home shall be firmly anchored to the ground and the open 330 space beneath the unit shall be skirted with approved material in accordance with the requirements 331 of the building inspector. 332 (Ord. of 9-13-1976; Code 1981, § 12-5; Ord. No. 2016-16 , 8-8-2016) 333 Sec. 66-7. - Use of city utilities. 334 The owner or occupant of any mobile home or manufactured home shall not be entitled to 335 receive city utilities until the license fee required in this chapter is paid in full, and city personnel 336 shall refuse to provide sewage, water and electricity to the mobile home or manufactured home 337 until satisfactory proof is furnished that such license fee has been paid. 338 (Ord. of 7-28-1975; Code 1981, § 12-6; Ord. No. 2016-16 , 8-8-2016) 339 Sec. 66-8. 66-7.- Exemptions. 340 This chapter shall not apply to: 341 (1) Dealers. Unoccupied manufactured homes located on a dealer's display lot; or 342 (2) Manufactured homes in transit. Unoccupied manufactured homes temporarily occupying the 343 public right-of-way prior to placement on a lot or home site. 344 Sec. 66-8. –Preemption and severability. 345 (a) In the event of any conflict between the requirements of this ordinance and the 346 requirements of the Delaware Code, Title 25, Chapter 70- Manufactured Homes and 347 Manufactured Home Communities, or Title 24, Chapter 44- Manufactured Home 348 Installation, or any other section of the Delaware Code, the requirements of the state code 349 shall prevail. 350 351 (b) Should any section or provision of this ordinance be decided by the courts to be 352 unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a 353 whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid. Page 8

354 355 (Ord. of 2-23-1970, § 8; Code 1981, § 12-7; Ord. No. 2016-16 , 8-8-2016) 356 Appendix F 357 Chapter 66. - Manufactured Homes, Mobile Homes, and Land Lease Communities Chapter 66. Manufactured Homes, Mobile Fees and Fines Homes, and Land Lease Communities Sec. 66-2. 66-3 Licenses Manufactured and mobile homes. $45.00 each license $50.00 each one-time placement Subsec. (a) Required fee from homeowner permit Subsec. (c) Required fee from homeowner $45.00 each license annually A fine of not less than $50.00 and a penalty fee of ten Subsec. (b) Payment; penalties percent per month shall accrue on the unpaid balance of the license fee Sec. 66-5. 66-6 Duties of Land Lease Community Owners and Operators Enforcement and penalties Subsec. (c)(i) Failure to perform A fine of not less than $50.00 in addition to any charges required duties Subsection (a)(i) Failure to imposed to cover cost of maintenance by the City A fine obtain manufactured home license of not less than $25.00 Subsect. (b)(i) or (b)(ii) Failure to fulfill A fine of not less than $25.00 in addition to any charges maintenance requirements imposed to cover cost of maintenance by the City $75.00 per hour for such work that must be done to Subsec. 66-5 (c)(ii) (b)(i) or (b)(ii) Cost of render the property in compliance with this article maintenance by the city Chapter 66 Sec. 66-4, plus a 15% administrative charge Page 9

A fine of not less than $25.00 and a penalty fee of ten Subsec. (c)(i) Failure to provide lease percent per month shall accrue for each month the homeowner record lease homeowner record is not provided. Subsec. (c)(ii) Failure to provide contact for A fine of not less than $25.00; the fine may be applied residents cumulatively or per violation instance A fine of not less than $25.00; the fine may be applied Subsec. (c)(iii) Failure to provide receipt cumulatively or per violation instance 358 359 360 Section 8. - Manufactured housing (MH) zone.[2] 361 8.1 Uses permitted. In a manufactured housing zone, no building or premises shall be used, and no 362 building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for 363 any uses, except the following: 364 8.11 Manufactured homes on individual lots, held in any type of ownership. 365 8.12 Multiple manufactured homes on a lot, provided that: 366 (a) The lot is operated as a condominium, including but not limited to condominiums 367 formed pursuant to 25 DelCode, Chapter 71; or 368 (b) The lot is operated as a land lease community; and 369 (c) There are at least 15 manufactured homes on the lot, or else sufficient home sites for 370 rent or sale on the lot to accommodate 15 manufactured homes. Such home sites need 371 not be expressly delineated but must be improved so as to be complete and ready for 372 occupancy by a manufactured home. There shall be no mixing of manufactured 373 homes and permanently placed manufactured homes on one lot. 374 8.13 Permanently placed manufactured homes on individual lots, provided that the home 375 and the lot are under common ownership. 376 8.14 Multiple permanently placed manufactured homes on a lot, provided that: 377 (a) The lot is operated as a condominium including but not limited to condominiums 378 formed pursuant to 25 DelCode, Chapter 71; or 379 (b) The lot is operated as a land lease community; and 380 (c) There are at least 15 permanently placed manufactured homes on the lot, or else 381 sufficient home sites for rent or sale on the lot to accommodate 15 permanently 382 placed manufactured homes. Such home sites need not be expressly delineated 383 but must be improved so as to be complete and ready for occupancy by a 384 permanently placed manufactured home. There shall be no mixing of 385 manufactured homes and permanently placed manufactured homes on one lot. 386 8.13 8.15 One-family detached homes on individual lots, held in any type of ownership. Page 10

387 8.2 Conditional uses . Conditional uses shall be consistent with those conditionally permitted in the 388 one-family residence zones. 389 8.3 Accessory uses . Accessory uses shall be consistent with those permitted in the one-family 390 residence zones, with the following additions and exceptions: 391 8.31 Management facilities. The following shall be permitted accessory to lots providing home 392 sites for multiple manufactured homes: 393 (a) Management offices with rooms for the usual office furniture and supplies, limited to 394 one per lot; 395 (b) Storage space for utility connection supplies in quantity, manufactured home 396 accessories and maintenance materials and equipment; 397 (c) Laundry facilities equipped with washing machines and dryers; 398 (d) Community building facilities, including indoor recreation areas; 399 (e) Commercial establishments consistent with uses permitted in the C-1 neighborhood 400 commercial zone, limited to one such establishment per lot; 401 (f) One-family detached homes intended for the use of a manager or caretaker, limited to 402 one such dwelling per lot. 403 8.32 Accessory home occupations. Accessory home occupations shall be permitted consistent 404 with the conditions outlined for home occupations in the one-family residence zones, with the 405 exception that no home occupation shall be permitted if not also permitted by the owner of the lot 406 on which the home is sited. 407 8.4 Uses prohibited . The following uses are specifically prohibited: 408 8.41 Mobile homes, house trailers, and recreational vehicles as principal uses on a lot. Any such 409 structures or vehicles located within the zone and being used as dwellings shall upon the effective 410 date of this ordinance be deemed non-conforming uses in accordance with article 7. 411 8.42 Any other kind of factory-built housing that does not meet the Manufactured Home 412 Construction and Safety Standards of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 413 (HUD) Code as approved June 15, 1976, unless it can be demonstrated that such housing is 414 constructed to the standards of the Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building 415 Regulations. Any such housing located within the zone and being used as dwellings shall upon 416 the effective date of this ordinance be deemed non-conforming uses in accordance with article 7. 417 8.5 Minimum occupation length . No lot or home site within the manufactured housing zone reserved 418 for occupation by a manufactured home shall be leased or occupied for residential use except for 419 periods of 30 consecutive days or more. 420 8.6 Land lease communities . The following regulations shall apply to land lease communities within 421 the MH zone: 422 8.61 The entire land area occupied by a land lease community, regardless of the number of 423 home sites or individual lots therein, shall be maintained in single ownership, or if in multiple 424 ownership, under the provisions of the laws of the state dealing with unit properties and 425 condominiums. 426 8.62 Changes to site plan. After initial site development plan approval of a land lease community, 427 reapproval for the entire community shall not be required prior to the issuance of building permits 428 for alterations to individual manufactured homes, or their accessory buildings such as storage 429 areas and patios, which, in the judgement of the city planner, do not materially alter the site 430 development plan approval by the planning commission and are requested as adjustments to the Page 11

431 individual manufactured home sites or lots leased by an individual family and designed for the 432 convenience and comfort of the individual lessee. 433 8.7 Performance Standards . All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in article 5, 434 section 8. 435 8.8 Site development plan approval . Site development plan approval in accordance with article 10, 436 section 2 hereof shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for the erection or 437 enlargement of all structures and related accessory structures. Such approval shall also be required 438 prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for a change of use. 439 8.81 For purposes of preparing a site development plan for approval by the planning 440 commission, and all subsequent improvements, alterations or additions, the applicant shall 441 conform to current submission requirements and site development standards as set forth by the 442 National Fire Protection Association publication 501A,"Standard for Fire Safety Criteria for 443 Manufactured Home Installations, Sites, and Communities." Where applicable, the approving 444 authority shall be the fire marshal's office. 445 8.82 No site development plan proposing the siting of a manufactured home outside of a land 446 lease community shall be approved unless the plan shows the manufactured home is to be 447 permanently placed, as defined in the Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 66—Manufactured 448 Homes, Mobile Homes, and Land Lease Communities. 449 8.9 Maximum density . The gross residential density in an MH zone shall not exceed six dwelling 450 units per acre. 451 8.10 Signs . Signs shall meet the regulations found in Article 5—Supplementary Regulations, Section 452 4—Supplementary Sign Regulations. 453 (Ord. No. 2016-16 , 8-8-2016) 454 Footnotes: 455 --- (2) --- 456 Editor's note— Ord. No. 2016-16 , adopted August 8, 2016, in effect, repealed § 8 and enacted a new § 457 8 as set out herein. Former § 8 pertained to similiar subject matter and derived from Ord. of 10-13-1981; 458 Ord. of 3-20-1983; Ord. of 3-24-1986; Ord. of 7-10-2000; Ord. of 2-12-2001; Ord. of 4-28-2008(2); and 459 Ord. No. 2010-29, adopted January 10, 2011. 460 ADD THE FOLLOWING DEFINITION TO ARTICLE 12 OF THE ZONING 461 ORDINANCE: 462 Permanently placed manufactured home means a manufactured home that has been placed 463 upon a permanent, unmovable foundation. 464 REPLACE THE BELOW DEFINITIONS IN ARTICLE 12 OF THE ZONING 465 ORDINANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING: 466 Manufactured home means a factory-built, single-family dwelling: 467 a. Transportable in 1 or more sections, which is either 8 body feet or more in width and 40 468 body feet or more in length, or, when erected on site, has more than 400 square feet in living 469 area; and Page 12

470 b. Designed to be used as a year-round dwelling when connected to the required utilities; and 471 c. Manufactured after June 15, 1976, and built in accordance with manufactured home 472 construction requirements promulgated by the federal Department of Housing and Urban 473 Development (The HUD Code). 474 Mobile home means a factory-built, single-family dwelling: 475 a. Transportable in 1 or more sections, which is either 8 body feet or more in width and 40 476 body feet or more in length, or, when erected on site, has more than 400 square feet in living 477 area; and 478 b. Designed to be used as a year-round dwelling when connected to the required utilities; and 479 c. Manufactured before June 15, 1976, and not built in accordance with manufactured home 480 construction requirements promulgated by the federal Department of Housing and Urban 481 Development (The HUD Code). Prior to the HUD code, mobile homes were not subject to 482 uniform construction or safety standards. 483 484 SYNOPSIS: 485 The proposed ordinance reorganizes and clarifies a portion of the updates to the Dover Code 486 made in August 2016 through Ordinance #2016-16. The proposed ordinance also brings the 487 updates into compliance with provisions of the Delaware Code related to manufactured housing 488 and rental housing, particularly Title 25, Chapters 53, 55, 70, and 71. The updates affected 489 include requirements for placing and licensing manufactured homes, standards for management 490 and maintenance of land lease communities, taxation, and code enforcement. A distinction is also 491 made between manufactured homes and permanently placed manufactured homes in the Zoning 492 Ordinance. Page 13

FINAL READING CITY OF DOVER STAFF SUBSTITUTE #1 (SS#1) TO PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2018-01 WITH PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT #1 (PC#1) Planning Commission Amendments Are Indicated in Green Text 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN 2 COUNCIL MET: 3 That Chapter 66 - Manufactured Homes, Mobile Homes, and Land Lease Communities of the Dover 4 Code be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue font and deleting the text indicated 5 in red strikout, as follows: 6 Chapter 66 - MANUFACTURED HOMES, MOBILE HOMES, AND LAND LEASE 7 COMMUNITIES 8 Sec. 66-1. - Purpose Statement. 9 The City of Dover recognizes that manufactured homes are a unique housing type with their 10 own history of placement and ownership traditions arising from their origins as mobile homes. 11 A modern manufactured home does not resemble a vehicle, and once placed is rarely moved. 12 However, most manufactured homes are owned as if they were vehicles, separate from the 13 land they are placed on, and may theoretically be moved at any time. Because of this the city 14 recognizes that consistent standards are needed for placement, licensing, and tracking of 15 manufactured homes, in order to ensure the homes' orderly movement into, out of, and around 16 the city. 17 The city further recognizes that land lease communities, which may give ground lease to 18 manufactured homes or other types of housing, typify a use of land which does not align 19 perfectly with either apartments or residential subdivisions. Because of this, areas of 20 responsibility on the part of residents, owners, and the city with regard to maintenance, 21 communication, and taxation can be unclear without the adoption of consistent standards 22 governing these areas of responsibility. The city recognizes that where responsibility is not 23 clearly claimed detrimental conditions can arise for residents. 24 This chapter therefore lays out consistent standards needed for manufactured homes and land 25 lease communities, while updating and consolidating earlier city regulations regarding mobile 26 homes and mobile home parks. The standards are intended to be applicable to all land lease 27 communities currently in the city or which may be established in the future. They are also 28 intended to cover both manufactured homes and permanently placed manufactured homes, 29 and the issues unique to each. They are intended to supplement, rather than replace, all state 30 laws regulating manufactured homes, including but not limited to those found in Title 25, 31 Chapter 70, and Title 24, Chapter 44 of the Delaware Code. 32 Sec. 66-166-2. - Definitions. 33 The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed 34 to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

Staff Substitute #1 (SS#1) to Proposed Ordinance #2018-01 with Planning Commission Page 2 Amendment #1 (PC#1) 35 Land lease community means a residential development typified by single ownership of the 36 land within the development, with the landowner retaining the rights of ownership. Home 37 sites or individual lots within the community are leased to individual homeowners, who 38 retain customary leasehold rights. A manufactured home park is considered a type, but 39 not the only type, of land lease community. 40 Land lease community operator means any person designated by contractual 41 arrangement with the land lease community owner to supervise or maintain a land 42 lease community and interact with its residents. 43 Land lease community owner means the owner of two or more home sites offered for 44 rent within a land lease community. It includes a lessor, sublessor, park owner or 45 receiver of two or more home sites offered for rent, as well as any person, other than 46 a lender not in possession, who directly or indirectly receives rents for two or more 47 home sites offered for rent and who has no obligation to deliver such rents to another 48 person. 49 Manufactured home means a factory-built housing unit designed and constructed to meet the 50 Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards of the U.S. Department of Housing 51 and Urban Development (HUD) Code. A manufactured home is built on a chassis that 52 supports the structural integrity of the home and to allow transport to the site. Factory-built 53 units built to meet the HUD Code and constructed after the code took effect on June 15, 54 1976 are classified as "manufactured homes." 55 Manufactured home means a factory-built, single-family dwelling: 56 a. Transportable in one or more sections, which is either 8 body feet or more in 57 width and 40 body feet or more in length, or, when erected on site, has more 58 than 400 square feet in living area; and 59 b. Designed to be used as a year-round dwelling when connected to the required 60 utilities; and 61 c. Manufactured after June 15, 1976, and built in accordance with manufactured 62 home construction requirements promulgated by the federal Department of 63 Housing and Urban Development (The HUD Code). 64 Mobile home means a factory-built housing unit constructed on a chassis and completed 65 before June 15, 1976. Prior to the HUD code, mobile homes were not subject to uniform 66 construction or safety standards. 67 Mobile home means a factory-built, single-family dwelling: 68 a. Transportable in one or more sections, which is either 8 body feet or more in 69 width and 40 body feet or more in length, or, when erected on site, has more 70 than 400 square feet in living area; and

Staff Substitute #1 (SS#1) to Proposed Ordinance #2018-01 with Planning Commission Page 3 Amendment #1 (PC#1) 71 b. Designed to be used as a year-round dwelling when connected to the required 72 utilities; and 73 c. Manufactured before June 15, 1976, and not built in accordance with 74 manufactured home construction requirements promulgated by the federal 75 Department of Housing and Urban Development (The HUD Code). Prior to the 76 HUD code, mobile homes were not subject to uniform construction or safety 77 standards. 78 Owner of a manufactured home or mobile home means the person designated in the vehicle 79 title of the manufactured home or mobile home, whether the title is issued by this state or 80 by some other state. 81 Owner of a permanently placed manufactured home means the person designated in the 82 vehicle or real property title of the permanently placed manufactured home, whether the title 83 is issued by this state or by some other state. 84 Permanently placed manufactured home means a factory-built housing unit designed and 85 constructed to meet the Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards of the U.S. 86 Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Code, and manufactured home 87 that has also been placed upon a permanent, unmovable foundation. 88 Utility means a service provided by a land lease community owner, the city, or others 89 to a tenant for a commodity such as water, sewer, electricity, fuel, propane, cable 90 television or trash. 91 (Ord. of 2-23-1970, § 2; Code 1981, § -1; Ord. of 11-10-1986, § 1; Ord. No. 2016-16 , 8-8-2016) 92 Sec. 66-2. - Licenses. 93 (a) Required fee . The owner of a mobile home or manufactured home that is not to be 94 permanently placed shall obtain an annual license for it and shall pay a fee for such 95 license as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines. 96 (b) Payment; penalties . Such license shall be obtained and the license fee paid by 97 August 1 of each year and if such fee is not paid before September 1 of such year, 98 then, in addition to any penalty incurred pursuant to Appendix F—Fees and Fines, 99 a penalty fee of ten percent per month shall accrue on the unpaid balance of the 100 license fee. 101 (c) Moving into city . Upon the moving of a manufactured home into the city, if the 102 manufactured home requires a license it shall be obtained and the license fee paid 103 within seven days. Payment of such license fee shall be prorated on a quarterly basis 104 for each fractional part of a year during which the manufactured home is in the city. 105 (d) Required fee for landowners . The owner of any land leased out as part of a land 106 lease community shall obtain an annual land lease community operator business 107 license under the provisions of Chapter 26—Businesses.

Staff Substitute #1 (SS#1) to Proposed Ordinance #2018-01 with Planning Commission Page 4 Amendment #1 (PC#1) 108 (Ord. of 2-23-1970, § 2; Ord. of 5-24-1976; Ord. of 3-27-1980; Code 1981, § 12-2; Ord. of 8-8- 109 1988; Ord. of 3-22-1993; Ord. No. 2009-09, 6-22-2009; Ord. No. 2016-16, 8-8-2016) 110 Sec. 66-3. - Real property taxes. MOVED TO Sec. 66-5 111 A permanently placed manufactured home as defined in section 66-1, and the lot upon which it is 112 located shall be considered as being real property for purposes of valuation, assessment and taxation 113 in accordance with section 47 of the Charter. 114 (Code 1981, § 12-2.1; Ord. of 11-10-1986, § 2; Ord. No. 2016-16, 8-8-2016) 115 Sec. 66-3. - Manufactured and mobile homes. 116 (a) Placement permit. Every owner of a manufactured home shall apply for and 117 obtain from the city planner or his/her authorized agent a placement permit for 118 such manufactured home prior to placement of the home within the city. The 119 owner of the manufactured home shall pay a fee for such permit as provided for 120 in Appendix F-Fees and Fines. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for a 121 newly placed manufactured home that has not also been issued a placement 122 permit. 123 (b) Inspection. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any 124 manufactured home, the home shall pass inspection by a city building inspector 125 licensed as a manufactured home inspector by the state. The owner of the 126 manufactured home shall cause a manufactured home installer licensed by the 127 state to firmly attach the home to the ground by means of a permanent 128 foundation or anchors, and cause any open space beneath the unit to be skirted 129 or enclosed with material approved by the building inspector. 130 (c) License. The owner of any mobile home or manufactured home that is not 131 placed on a permanent foundation shall obtain an annual license for it. The 132 owner of the mobile home or manufactured home shall pay an annual fee for 133 such license as provided for in Appendix F-Fees and Fines. If such 134 manufactured home is newly moved into the city, the owner of the 135 manufactured home shall obtain the license and shall pay the license fee within 136 seven days of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the home. Payment of the 137 license fee shall be prorated on a quarterly basis for each fractional part of a 138 year during which the manufactured home is in the city. 139 (d) Conditions for license. No license for a new manufactured home shall be issued 140 until the home has passed inspection and received a certificate of occupancy as 141 required by this section. 142 (e) Moving within or out of city. When the owner of a mobile home or manufactured 143 home removes the home from its current site or lot, the owner shall obtain a 144 demolition permit for the removal.

Staff Substitute #1 (SS#1) to Proposed Ordinance #2018-01 with Planning Commission Page 5 Amendment #1 (PC#1) 145 (f) Use of city utilities. Owners of all types of manufactured homes shall coordinate 146 with city departments during the permitting and licensing process regarding the 147 appropriate times to transfer responsibility for utilities and activate service. 148 Sec. 66-4. - Placement permit. 149 Every owner of a manufactured home, shall apply for and obtain from the city planner or his/her 150 authorized agent a placement permit for such manufactured home. The city planner or his/her 151 authorized agent shall issue no placement permit until the license fee required in this chapter is paid 152 in full. 153 (Ord. of 2-23-1970, §§ 3, 6; Ord. of 5-24-1976; Code 1981, § 12-3; Ord. No. 2016-16, 8-8-2016) 154 Sec. 66-566-4. - Duties of land lease community owners and operatorsLand lease communities. 155 (a) The following regulations shall apply to owners and operators of all the 156 maintenance of land lease communities: 157 i. Private road access. It shall be the responsibility of land lease community 158 owners and operators to maintain all private streets, driveway access to such 159 streets, access to fire hydrants, and access to central mailboxes so as to be 160 clear from obstructions, including but not limited to potholes, snow piles, and 161 debris. 162 ii. Debris clearance. It shall be the responsibility of land lease community 163 owners and operators to ensure that all facilities and common areas within 164 the community are kept in good repair and maintained in such a manner as 165 to prevent the accumulation of materials which could cause a fire hazard or 166 would cause insect or rodent breeding and harborage. 167 iii. Landscaping. All trees, shrubbery, lawns, and other landscaping features 168 within the community shall be maintained by the land lease community 169 operator to be in healthy condition at all times The land lease community 170 owner shall keep the community free of species of weeds or plant growth 171 which are noxious or detrimental to the health of the residents. In 172 addition, the land lease community owner shall maintain, care for, and, 173 if necessary, remove any trees planted within the community that are 174 over 25 feet in height or have a main stem/trunk over 6 inches in 175 diameter. Maintenance shall be performed per standard horticultural 176 practices in accordance with the standards as set forth by the American 177 Association of Nurserymen, and shall not require removal of any plant 178 material normally produced by the tree as part of its lifecycle. The 179 landlord must respect the privacy of tenants and not enter any rented lot 180 to maintain, care for, and/or remove landscaping without the permission 181 of the tenant or an adult resident unless emergency circumstances exist 182 and entry is required to prevent injury to person or damage to property.

Staff Substitute #1 (SS#1) to Proposed Ordinance #2018-01 with Planning Commission Page 6 Amendment #1 (PC#1) 183 iv. Utilities. All water, sewer, electric, and gas lines and connections intended 184 to serve common areas or the private property of tenants within the 185 community shall be kept in good repair at all times by the land lease 186 community operator The land lease community owner shall keep all 187 water, electrical, plumbing, gas, septic, sewer, and other utilities they 188 provide to tenants in good working order. Stormwater management 189 facilities shall be maintained so as to be free of blockage and to prevent the 190 accumulation of standing water that does not dissipate within 48 hours, 191 except in facilities approved for retention of water. These utilities and 192 facilities shall be repaired within 48 hours of written notification of a 193 maintenance problem, or as soon thereafter as is practicable if a repair 194 within 48 hours is not practicable. Community owners shall coordinate 195 with the City of Dover regarding utility services and equipment. 196 v. Delegation of maintenance duties. Maintenance responsibilities detailed 197 in subsections i. through iv. of Section 66-3(a) may be delegated by the 198 land lease community owner to leaseholders, a homeowner's association, 199 a land lease community operator, or other parties, provided that the 200 delegated party's specific responsibilities are detailed in a rental 201 agreement, property management contract, or other contract as 202 appropriate. All maintenance responsibilities not so delegated shall be 203 retained by the land lease community owner. All maintenance services 204 not permitted under state law to be delegated to leaseholders or 205 homeowners' associations, due to state requirements for the contents of 206 rental agreements, shall also be retained by the land lease community 207 owner, unless delegated to a land lease community operator. The 208 following exceptions apply: 209 (1) Maintenance responsibilities delegated to individual leaseholders 210 shall not include physical responsibility over any streets, common 211 areas, or utilities. Community owners may still require payments 212 from leaseholders to contribute to these areas' upkeep. 213 (2) Maintenance responsibilities shall not be delegated if doing so 214 would violate any state laws regulating the content of any of the 215 above types of contracts. 216 (3) Any maintenance responsibilities not specifically delegated shall 217 be retained by the land lease community owner. 218 (b) The following regulations shall be the reporting, record-keeping, and licensing 219 requirements of land lease communities: 220 vi. Office hours. The land lease community operator shall be present on site at 221 a minimum during regular business hours, so as to facilitate communication 222 between tenants of the community and the owner, and a 24-hour emergency 223 contact shall be available to residents. To facilitate communication 224 between tenants of the community and the owner, the land lease

Staff Substitute #1 (SS#1) to Proposed Ordinance #2018-01 with Planning Commission Page 7 Amendment #1 (PC#1) 225 community owner or operator shall be present at an office within the 226 City of Dover or Kent County, Delaware, accessible to tenants during 227 regular, fixed hours to be communicated to residents and posted at the 228 office. The office hours shall be no less than 20 hours per week, shall 229 include at least five hours before 8:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m., and shall 230 not be between the hours of midnight and 7:00 a.m. A 24-hour 231 emergency contact shall also be available to residents. 232 viii. Receipt for lot payment. The land lease community operator or owner shall 233 provide a written receipt or electronic receipt at the time a cash payment for 234 rent payment has been made, regardless of the form of payment. If a land 235 lease community owner accepts a form of payment other than cash, the 236 community owner shall, within two days, give to the tenant a receipt for 237 that payment. The community owner or operator shall, for a period of 238 three years, maintain a record of all cash receipts for rent. 239 iii. Homeowner Record. To assist in keeping city license records and tax 240 records up to date, and to assist in code enforcement, land lease 241 community owners who lease land to two or more persons for home sites 242 shall maintain a record of all persons owning homes on their land, 243 specifying each home's address, the name of the owner of each 244 manufactured home, and each homeowner's address, if different from 245 the home address. This record shall be reported to the city planner 246 before July 1 of each year, and shall also be open for inspection by the 247 city planner at all other reasonable times. 248 vi. Required license for landowners. The owner of any land leased out as 249 part of a land lease community shall obtain an annual land lease 250 community operator business license under the provisions of Chapter 251 26-Businesses, or direct the land lease community operator to obtain this 252 license. Only one business license shall be required per land lease 253 community. The fee for such license shall be based on the total number 254 of lots or home sites in the community, including both vacant and 255 occupied lots and sites, in accordance with Appendix F - Fees and Fines, 256 Chapter 26-Businesses. 257 (b) The following regulations shall additionally apply to owners and operators of land 258 lease communities leasing land to manufactured homes: 259 i. Documents to manufactured home owners. Copies of this chapter and 260 placement permit application forms shall be furnished to each land lease 261 community owner, who shall give a copy of the same to every manufactured 262 home owner who moves a manufactured home into the community, before 263 the 15th day of the next succeeding month after placement of the 264 manufactured home. 265 ii. Enforcement. It shall be the responsibility of land lease community owners 266 and operators to ensure that all mobile homes and manufactured homes

Staff Substitute #1 (SS#1) to Proposed Ordinance #2018-01 with Planning Commission Page 8 Amendment #1 (PC#1) 267 placed on their land maintain a current license under section 66-2. 268 iii. Lease record; report. Land lease community owners who lease land to two 269 or more persons for siting manufactured homes shall maintain a lease record, 270 which shall be open for inspection at all reasonable times by the city planner. 271 Before June 1 of each year, the land lease community owner shall report to 272 the city planner the names and addresses of all persons having manufactured 273 homes on his land. 274 iv. Sale of home. Before a home is sold by the homeowner, home owner's estate, 275 foreclosure, eviction or other means, the City of Dover must be notified and 276 all delinquent taxes, fees, or other charges must be paid. 277 v. The land lease community owner must notify the City of Dover if the 278 community is placed for sale. 279 (c) The following shall be considered appropriate methods of redress if the duties 280 outlined in this section are not fulfilled: 281 i. Any land lease community owner found to be in violation of the provisions 282 of this section, regardless of corrective actions taken, shall be assessed a fine 283 as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines. Any such fine shall be in 284 addition to any charges imposed upon the violator in accordance with 285 subsection (c)(ii) below. 286 ii. If required, the City of Dover may perform maintenance in the owner's stead 287 following official notice, and place a lien on the property to recover costs, 288 including a 15 percent administrative charge. 289 iii. Repeated failure to perform the required duties shall be cause to take action 290 upon an owner's land lease community operator license in accordance with 291 the provisions of Chapter 26—Businesses, Article II, Section 26-59. 292 (Ord. No. 2016-16, 8-8-2016)Editor's note— Ord. No. 2016-16, adopted August 8, 2016, in effect 293 repealed § 66-5 and enacted a new § 66-5 as set out herein. Former § 66-5 pertained to duties of 294 mobile home park owners and derived from Ord. of 2-23-1970 and the Code of 1981. 295 Sec. 66-5. - Real property taxes. MOVED FROM Sec. 66-3 296 A permanently placed manufactured home as defined in section 66-1, and the lot upon which it is 297 located shall be considered as being real property for purposes of valuation, assessment and taxation 298 in accordance with section 47 of the Charter. Manufactured homes that are not permanently 299 placed shall not be taxed but shall pay the annual license fee required by this chapter in lieu 300 of taxes. 301 (Code 1981, § 12-2.1; Ord. of 11-10-1986, § 2; Ord. No. 2016-16, 8-8-2016) 302 Editor's note- Ord. No. 2016-16 , adopted August 8, 2016, in effect repealed § 66-5 and enacted a

Staff Substitute #1 (SS#1) to Proposed Ordinance #2018-01 with Planning Commission Page 9 Amendment #1 (PC#1) 303 new § 66-5 as set out herein. Former § 66-5 pertained to duties of mobile home park owners and 304 derived from Ord. of 2-23-1970 and the Code of 1981. 305 Sec. 66-6. - Anchoring and skirting. 306 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any manufactured home not placed on a 307 permanent foundation, the manufactured home shall be firmly anchored to the ground and the open 308 space beneath the unit shall be skirted with approved material in accordance with the requirements 309 of the building inspector. 310 (Ord. of 9-13-1976; Code 1981, § 12-5; Ord. No. 2016-16, 8-8-2016) 311 Sec. 66-6. - Enforcement and penalties. 312 (a) Licenses and permits. Enforcement of licensing and permitting requirements 313 shall be as follows: 314 i. Obtaining manufactured home licenses. If the owner of a mobile home or 315 manufactured home not permanently placed fails to obtain or renew the 316 annual license required by this chapter, a fine pursuant to Appendix 317 F-Fees and Fines may be assessed on the owner of the home, if the home 318 has not been removed from the city. 319 ii. Obtaining placement permits. An owner of a manufactured home who 320 places their home without obtaining a placement permit to do so shall 321 have the standard penalties imposed for failure to obtain a building 322 permit as outlined in Chapter 22- Buildings and Building Regulations of 323 the Dover Code. 324 iii. Obtaining land lease community operator business licenses. A land lease 325 community owner who does not obtain an annual business license as 326 required by this chapter shall have the standard penalties imposed for 327 failure to obtain a business license as outlined in Chapter 26- Businesses 328 of the Dover Code. 329 (b) Land lease community maintenance requirements. Enforcement of community 330 maintenance requirements shall be as follows: 331 i. Any land lease community owner found to be in violation of the 332 provisions of Section 66-4(a) may be assessed a fine pursuant to 333 Appendix F-Fees and Fines. If required, the City of Dover may perform 334 maintenance to correct the violation in the owner's stead, and add the 335 cost of maintenance, including a 15 percent administrative charge, to the 336 fine to be assessed. 337 ii. If a land-lease community owner has via rental agreement, property 338 management contract, or other contractual agreement delegated 339 maintenance responsibilities over the portion of the property in violation

Staff Substitute #1 (SS#1) to Proposed Ordinance #2018-01 with Planning Commission Page 10 Amendment #1 (PC#1) 340 to the owner of a manufactured home a leaseholder or homeowners 341 association, any fines assessed pursuant to subsections 66-6 (b)(i) and 342 (b)(ii) above shall instead be imposed on the owner of the home that 343 party. 344 (c) Reporting and record-keeping requirements. Enforcement of reporting and 345 record-keeping requirements shall be as follows: 346 i. Provision of homeowner record. If the owner of a land-lease community 347 fails to provide a homeowner record before July 1 of the year, a fine 348 pursuant to Appendix F-Fees and Fines may be assessed on the owner 349 of the land-lease community. 350 ii. Provision of office hours. The City of Dover may inspect the office of a 351 land lease community, and upon finding that hours are not posted, or a 352 representative is not on site during posted office hours, assess a fine 353 pursuant to Appendix F-Fees and Fines. A finding that a land lease 354 community's 24-hour emergency line is not functioning may also be 355 cause to assess the same fine. 356 iii. Provision of receipts. If the owner of a manufactured home a leaseholder 357 requests a receipt for payment of rent from a land lease community 358 owner or operator and does not receive one within two days, the 359 leaseholder may ask the City of Dover to request the same. If a receipt 360 is not provided to the city within an additional 7 days, a fine pursuant to 361 Appendix F-Fees and Fines may be assessed on the owner of the 362 land-lease community. 363 (d) Official notice. As part of any fine assessed pursuant to Section 66-6, the City of 364 Dover shall give official notice to the violator. Policy and procedures for timing 365 of official notices and fines shall be developed by the Planning and Inspections 366 Department. 367 (e) Action on business licenses. If violation of any city ordinance by a land lease 368 community is of a nature that the community's business license may need to be 369 suspended or revoked, the procedures given in Chapter 26-Businesses, Article 370 II, Sections 26-59 through 26-65 applying to all city businesses shall be adhered 371 to. Summary action on a business license shall not be taken unless the conduct 372 of the licensee, or any associated agent or employee, is so inimical to the public 373 health, safety, and general welfare as to constitute a nuisance and thus give rise 374 to an emergency. If a community's business license is suspended or revoked, the 375 city shall notify all leaseholders in the community of the city's action within 376 three days. 377 Sec. 66-7. - Use of city utilities. 378 The owner or occupant of any mobile home or manufactured home shall not be entitled to receive 379 city utilities until the license fee required in this chapter is paid in full, and city personnel shall

Staff Substitute #1 (SS#1) to Proposed Ordinance #2018-01 with Planning Commission Page 11 Amendment #1 (PC#1) 380 refuse to provide sewage, water and electricity to the mobile home or manufactured home until 381 satisfactory proof is furnished that such license fee has been paid. 382 (Ord. of 7-28-1975; Code 1981, § 12-6; Ord. No. 2016-16 , 8-8-2016) 383 Sec. 66-866-7. - Exemptions. 384 This chapter shall not apply to: 385 (1) Dealers. Unoccupied manufactured homes located on a dealer's display lot; or 386 (2) Manufactured homes in transit . Unoccupied manufactured homes temporarily 387 occupying the public right-of-way prior to placement on a lot or home site. 388 (Ord. of 2-23-1970, § 8; Code 1981, § 12-7; Ord. No. 2016-16, 8-8-2016) 389 Sec. 66-8. - Preemption and severability. 390 (a) In the event of any conflict between the requirements of this ordinance and the 391 requirements of the Delaware Code, Title 25, Chapter 70- Manufactured Homes 392 and Manufactured Home Communities, or Title 24, Chapter 44- Manufactured 393 Home Installation, or any other section of the Delaware Code, the requirements 394 of the state code shall prevail. 395 (b) Should any section or provision of this ordinance be decided by the courts to be 396 unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the 397 ordinance as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be 398 unconstitutional or invalid. 399 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 400 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 8 - Manufactured housing (MH) 401 zone, be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue font and deleting the text indicated 402 in red strikeout as follows: 403 Section 8. - Manufactured housing (MH) zone.[2] 404 8.1 Uses permitted. In a manufactured housing zone, no building or premises shall be used, and 405 no building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole 406 or in part, for any uses, except the following: 407 8.11 Manufactured homes on individual lots, held in any type of ownership. 408 8.12 Multiple manufactured homes on a lot, provided that: 409 (a) The lot is operated as a condominium, including but not limited to 410 condominiums formed pursuant to 25 DelCode, Chapter 71; or

Staff Substitute #1 (SS#1) to Proposed Ordinance #2018-01 with Planning Commission Page 12 Amendment #1 (PC#1) 411 (b) The lot is operated as a land lease community; and 412 (c) There are at least 15 manufactured homes on the lot, or else sufficient home 413 sites for rent or sale on the lot to accommodate 15 manufactured homes. Such 414 home sites need not be expressly delineated but must be improved so as to 415 be complete and ready for occupancy by a manufactured home. There shall 416 be no mixing of manufactured homes and permanently placed 417 manufactured homes on one lot. 418 8.13 Permanently placed manufactured homes on individual lots, provided that the 419 home and the lot are under common ownership. 420 8.14 Multiple permanently placed manufactured homes on a lot, provided that: 421 (a) The lot is operated as a condominium including but not limited to 422 condominiums formed pursuant to 25 DelCode, Chapter 71; or 423 (b) The lot is operated as a land lease community; and 424 (c) There are at least 15 permanently placed manufactured homes on the 425 lot, or else sufficient home sites for rent or sale on the lot to 426 accommodate 15 permanently placed manufactured homes. Such home 427 sites need not be expressly delineated but must be improved so as to be 428 complete and ready for occupancy by a permanently placed 429 manufactured home. There shall be no mixing of manufactured homes 430 and permanently placed manufactured homes on one lot. 431 8.13 8.15 One-family detached homes on individual lots, held in any type of 432 ownership. 433 8.2 Conditional uses. Conditional uses shall be consistent with those conditionally permitted in 434 the one-family residence zones. 435 8.3 Accessory uses. Accessory uses shall be consistent with those permitted in the one-family 436 residence zones, with the following additions and exceptions: 437 8.31 Management facilities. The following shall be permitted accessory to lots providing 438 home sites for multiple manufactured homes: 439 (a) Management offices with rooms for the usual office furniture and supplies, 440 limited to one per lot; 441 (b) Storage space for utility connection supplies in quantity, manufactured home 442 accessories and maintenance materials and equipment; 443 (c) Laundry facilities equipped with washing machines and dryers; 444 (d) Community building facilities, including indoor recreation areas;

Staff Substitute #1 (SS#1) to Proposed Ordinance #2018-01 with Planning Commission Page 13 Amendment #1 (PC#1) 445 (e) Commercial establishments consistent with uses permitted in the C-1 446 neighborhood commercial zone, limited to one such establishment per lot; 447 (f) One-family detached homes intended for the use of a manager or caretaker, 448 limited to one such dwelling per lot. 449 8.32 Accessory home occupations. Accessory home occupations shall be permitted 450 consistent with the conditions outlined for home occupations in the one-family 451 residence zones, with the exception that no home occupation shall be permitted if not 452 also permitted by the owner of the lot on which the home is sited. 453 8.4 Uses prohibited . The following uses are specifically prohibited: 454 8.41 Mobile homes, house trailers, and recreational vehicles as principal uses on a lot. 455 Any such structures or vehicles located within the zone and being used as dwellings 456 shall upon the effective date of this ordinance be deemed non-conforming uses in 457 accordance with article 7. 458 8.42 Any other kind of factory-built housing that does not meet the Manufactured Home 459 Construction and Safety Standards of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 460 Development (HUD) Code as approved June 15, 1976, unless it can be demonstrated 461 that such housing is constructed to the standards of the Dover Code of Ordinances, 462 Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations. Any such housing located within 463 the zone and being used as dwellings shall upon the effective date of this ordinance 464 be deemed non-conforming uses in accordance with article 7. 465 8.5 Minimum occupation length. No lot or home site within the manufactured housing zone 466 reserved for occupation by a manufactured home shall be leased or occupied for residential 467 use except for periods of 30 consecutive days or more. 468 8.6 Land lease communities. The following regulations shall apply to land lease communities 469 within the MH zone: 470 8.61 The entire land area occupied by a land lease community, regardless of the number 471 of home sites or individual lots therein, shall be maintained in single ownership, or 472 if in multiple ownership, under the provisions of the laws of the state dealing with 473 unit properties and condominiums. 474 8.62 Changes to site plan. After initial site development plan approval of a land lease 475 community, reapproval for the entire community shall not be required prior to the 476 issuance of building permits for alterations to individual manufactured homes, or 477 their accessory buildings such as storage areas and patios, which, in the judgement 478 of the city planner, do not materially alter the site development plan approval by the 479 planning commission and are requested as adjustments to the individual 480 manufactured home sites or lots leased by an individual family and designed for the 481 convenience and comfort of the individual lessee.

Staff Substitute #1 (SS#1) to Proposed Ordinance #2018-01 with Planning Commission Page 14 Amendment #1 (PC#1) 482 8.7 Performance Standards. All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in article 483 5, section 8. 484 8.8 Site development plan approval. Site development plan approval in accordance with article 485 10, section 2 hereof shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for the 486 erection or enlargement of all structures and related accessory structures. Such approval shall 487 also be required prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for a change of use. 488 8.81 For purposes of preparing a site development plan for approval by the planning 489 commission, and all subsequent improvements, alterations or additions, the applicant 490 shall conform to current submission requirements and site development standards as 491 set forth by the National Fire Protection Association publication 501A,"Standard for 492 Fire Safety Criteria for Manufactured Home Installations, Sites, and Communities." 493 Where applicable, the approving authority shall be the fire marshal's office. 494 8.82 No site development plan proposing the siting of a manufactured home outside of a 495 land lease community shall be approved unless the plan shows the manufactured 496 home is to be permanently placed, as defined in the Dover Code of Ordinances, 497 Chapter 66—Manufactured Homes, Mobile Homes, and Land Lease Communities. 498 8.9 Maximum density. The gross residential density in an MH zone shall not exceed six dwelling 499 units per acre. 500 8.10 Signs. Signs shall meet the regulations found in Article 5—Supplementary Regulations, 501 Section 4—Supplementary Sign Regulations. 502 (Ord. No. 2016-16 , 8-8-2016) 503 Footnotes: 504 --- (2) --- 505 Editor's note— Ord. No. 2016-16 , adopted August 8, 2016, in effect, repealed § 8 and enacted a 506 new § 8 as set out herein. Former § 8 pertained to similiar subject matter and derived from Ord. of 507 10-13-1981; Ord. of 3-20-1983; Ord. of 3-24-1986; Ord. of 7-10-2000; Ord. of 2-12-2001; Ord. of 508 4-28-2008(2); and Ord. No. 2010-29, adopted January 10, 2011. 509 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 510 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 12 - Definitions, be amended by inserting the following 511 definition in its correct alphabetical order: 512 Permanently placed manufactured home means a manufactured home that has been placed 513 upon a permanent, unmovable foundation. 514 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 515 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 12 - Definitions, be amended by replacing the following 516 definitions with the text indicated in bold, blue font, as follows:

Staff Substitute #1 (SS#1) to Proposed Ordinance #2018-01 with Planning Commission Page 15 Amendment #1 (PC#1) 517 Manufactured home means a factory-built, single-family dwelling: 518 a. Transportable in one or more sections, which is either 8 body feet or more in 519 width and 40 body feet or more in length, or, when erected on site, has more 520 than 400 square feet in living area; and 521 b. Designed to be used as a year-round dwelling when connected to the required 522 utilities; and 523 c. Manufactured after June 15, 1976, and built in accordance with manufactured 524 home construction requirements promulgated by the federal Department of 525 Housing and Urban Development (The HUD Code). 526 Mobile home means a factory-built, single-family dwelling: 527 a. Transportable in one or more sections, which is either 8 body feet or more in 528 width and 40 body feet or more in length, or, when erected on site, has more 529 than 400 square feet in living area; and 530 b. Designed to be used as a year-round dwelling when connected to the required 531 utilities; and 532 c. Manufactured before June 15, 1976, and not built in accordance with 533 manufactured home construction requirements promulgated by the federal 534 Department of Housing and Urban Development (The HUD Code). Prior to the 535 HUD code, mobile homes were not subject to uniform construction or safety 536 standards. 537 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 538 That Appendix F - Fees and Fines, Chapter 66 - Manufactured Homes, Mobile Homes, and Land 539 Lease Communities be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue font and deleting the 540 text indicated in red strikeout, as follows: 541 Chapter 66. Manufactured Homes, Mobile Homes, and Land Lease Fees and Fines 542 Communities 543 Sec. 66-2. Licenses 544 Subsec. (a) Required fee $45.00 each license A fine of not less than $50.00 and a penalty fee of ten 545 Subsec. (b) Payment; penalties percent per month shall accrue on the unpaid balance of the license fee

Staff Substitute #1 (SS#1) to Proposed Ordinance #2018-01 with Planning Commission Page 16 Amendment #1 (PC#1) 546 Sec. 66-3. Manufactured and mobile homes $50.00 each 547 Subsec. (a) Required fee from homeowner one-time placement permit $45.00 each license 548 Subsec. (c) Required fee from homeowner annually 549 Sec. 66-5 Duties of Land Lease Community Owners and Operators A fine of not less than $50.00 in addition to any charges imposed 550 Subsec. (c)(i) Failure to perform required duties to cover cost of maintenance by the City $75.00 per hour for such work that must be done to render the 551 Subsec. 66-5 (c)(ii) Cost of maintenance by the city p r o p erty in compliance with this article, plus a 15% administrative charge 552 Sec. 66-6 Enforcement and penalties A fine of not less 553 Subsec. (a)(i) Failure to obtain manufactured home license than $25.00 A fine of not less than $25.00 in addition to any 554 Subsec. (b)(i) Failure to fulfill maintenance requirements charges imposed to cover cost of maintenance by the City $75.00 per hour for such work that must be done to render the property in 555 Subsec. (b)(ii) Cost of maintenance by the city compliance with Chapter 66 Sec. 66-4, plus a 15% administrative charge A fine of not less than $25.00 and a penalty fee of ten percent per month 556 Subsec. (c)(i) Failure to provide lease homeowner record shall accrue for each month the lease homeowner record is not provided.

Staff Substitute #1 (SS#1) to Proposed Ordinance #2018-01 with Planning Commission Page 17 Amendment #1 (PC#1) A fine of not less than $25.00; the fine 557 Subsec. (c)(ii) Failure to provide contact for residents may be applied cumulatively or per violation instance A fine of not less than $25.00; the fine 558 Subsec. (c)(iii) Failure to provide receipt may be applied cumulatively or per violation instance 559 (Ord. No. 2016-16, 8-8-2016) 560 ADOPTED: * 561 SYNOPSIS 562 The proposed ordinance reorganizes and clarifies a portion of the updates to the Dover 563 Code made in August 2016 through Ordinance #2016-16. The proposed ordinance also 564 brings the updates into compliance with provisions of the Delaware Code related to 565 manufactured housing and rental housing, particularly Title 25, Chapters 53, 55, 70, and 566 71. The updates affected include requirements for placing and licensing manufactured 567 homes, standards for management and maintenance of land lease communities, taxation, 568 and code enforcement. A distinction is also made between manufactured homes and 569 permanently placed manufactured homes in the Zoning Ordinance. 570 (Sponsors: Neil and Hugg) 571 Actions History 572 09/24/2018 - Scheduled for Public Hearing/Final Reading - City Council 573 09/10/2018 - Ordinance #2018-01 Lifted from the Table/Scheduled Public Hearing/Final Reading of Staff 574 Substitute #1 with Planning Commission Amendment #1 for September 24, 2018 – City Council 575 04/09/2018 - Tabled by City Council 576 03/19/2018 - Tabled by Planning Commission 577 02/26/2018 - First Reading - City Council 578 02/13/2018 - Introduced - Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE The Economic Development Committee met on July 11, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. with Mayor Christiansen presiding. Members present were Mrs. Mitchell, Mr. Hugg, and Ms. Evans. Mr. Hare, Mr. Cole, and Mr. Hammond were absent. Staff members present were Mr. Eddie Diaz, Mrs. Tracey Harvey, Mr. Kirby Hudson, Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, and Mr. Julian Swierczek. Councilman Neil was also present. Others present were Mr. Jim McCulley, Watershed Eco, LLC and President of the Home Builders Association of Delaware, Mr. Phil McGinnis, McGinnis Commercial Real Estate Company and Chair of the Public Policy Committee for the Kent County Association of Realtors, Mr. Beau Zebley, President of the Kent County Association of Realtors, Ms. Rebecca Rothenberg, NCALL Consultant, and Mrs. Karen Speakman, NCALL Director. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Due to the lack of a quorum, the agenda was not adopted. Mayor Christiansen stated that the meeting would be informational only and no action would be required. Mayor Christiansen announced that no Economic Development Committee meetings would be held until September and, going forward, meetings would be scheduled for the Tuesday following the second Monday of the month from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Discussion with Kent County Association of Realtors and Delaware Homebuilders - Housing Trends and Expectations for Dover's Future Mr. Dave Hugg, Director of Planning and Community Development, advised that the City is in the process of updating the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, which addresses housing at length, and he invited representatives of the Kent County Association of Realtors and Delaware Homebuilders to discuss current issues related to housing, housing affordability, the housing market, housing trends, etc., and to speculate about the five- and ten-year outlook for housing in general. He explained that staff wants to make sure that, as they go through the planning process, they reflect what statistics indicate, as well as the input from those who build and sell houses. Mr. Hugg stated that their input is important to help staff understand how the market has evolved and continues to evolve, and what that might mean in terms of future development. Mr. Hugg stated that, prior to the meeting, he had provided everyone with a list of questions (Attachment #1) to guide the discussion. Those present discussed what they see happening in the Dover and greater Dover market. Mr. Phil McGinnis reviewed a handout entitled “Kent County Residential Stats” (Attachment #2), noting that the statistics were from the Kent County multi-list system from the first quarter of 2015 through the second quarter of 2018. He noted that the data revealed that there was a decline at the end of 2017; however, it seemed to be climbing a little during the first half of 2018. Mr. McGinnis advised that the inventory represents the number of houses available for resale, not new construction. He stated that inventory is very low and the demand is high for entry level houses, which is the real

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF JULY 11, 2018 PAGE 2 crux of the problem. Mr. McGinnis stated that there is an oversupply of homes in the range of $350,000 and above, explaining that these were what was built when they were making a profit. Mr. McGinnis informed members that it is difficult for first-time home buyers because they are competing with investors who are flipping homes or just want to buy rental property. He stated that the first-time home buyers are also competing against each other for the same properties, which sell in a matter of hours if they are priced right because there just isn’t enough inventory. Ms. Evans asked if there just weren’t a lot of builders building entry level homes. Responding, Mr. McCulley noted that when he approached the executive committee, board of directors, and then the entire membership of the Home Builders Association of Delaware to try to find a builder who is building in Dover or interested in building to Dover to attend this meeting, everyone told him that they do not build in Dover and are not interested in building in Dover. In response to Mayor Christiansen, Mr. McCulley indicated that he did not know why but that he could go back and ask. Mrs. Speakman noted that Ryan Homes is building in Dover. Responding, Mr. McCulley stated that Ryan Homes is definitely the biggest builder in the state and is surpassing every other builder; however, he noted that they do not get involved in anything like this. Mr. McGinnis explained that builders do not want to build in Dover because they are not able to make a profit. He stated that credit availability is a problem, especially in Kent County and the City of Dover, and there are only new subdivisions coming through the pipelines in Sussex County. Mr. McGinnis explained that when a developer does come in and picks up 15 or 20 lots, which is the current norm, they can either pay cash or they can finance it. He stated that the bank will give them the money to build one (1) spec house and then they sell it and get money to build another spec house. Mr. McGinnis advised that the demographics and sales reports in the low $200,000 show that the margins aren’t good enough to carry the units. He stated that the home builders aren’t capable of putting in the infrastructure. Mr. McGinnis explained that once they have five (5) finished lots, they need somebody to get the approvals, fund and install the infrastructure, and then carry the finished lots, noting that carrying finished lots is completely different from carrying paper lots. Mr. Zebley stated that he represented the original owner that sold the Clearview Meadows property to Ryan Homes. He explained that Ryan Homes got quite a good deal to buy out the rest of the development because the original owner got it through foreclosure. Mr. Zebley noted that if Ryan Homes had not gotten such a good deal, they would have passed on it and the development would have continued to sit there selling one (1) or two (2) homes every six (6) months. He advised that someone has to make a profit each step along the way, and if there is no profit, there is no reason to build. He stated that it all comes down to jobs. Mr. McCulley advised that labor and regulation are the two (2) biggest concerns of the National Home Builders Association. He explained that Ryan Homes doesn't have a problem with labor because they are the biggest builder in the state and they have all the labor tied up; however, everyone else is struggling because of that. In regard to regulation, Mr. McCulley stated that a survey was done last year that revealed that more than 30% of the price of a new home is regulation

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF JULY 11, 2018 PAGE 3 and that number keeps increasing every year. He indicated that he thought that regulations and fees needed to be looked at in order to determine how to make it more affordable to purchase a lot, build a home, and sell it for a profit. Mr. McCulley noted that the difference between Ryan Homes and other builders is that Ryan Homes offers their buyers financing, so they can sell a house at zero profit because they are making their money on the financing. Mr. Neil noted that he had previously heard from builders that they are not getting people who are trained trade professions and it seemed to him that there was a disconnect with the local educational institutions. He stated that he thought that NCALL and Habitat for Humanity might be the biggest builders in the City and Kent County, through their efforts to demolish blights and build new homes in which people can become part of the community. Mrs. Speakman explained that NCALL subsidizes the cost. Mr. McCulley indicated that the Home Builders Association completed a project with St. Georges Technical High School students last year in which they built and raffled off high-end sheds. He explained that they brought together superintendents from builders in the Association, carpenters, HVAC technicians, electricians, etc. to work with the students. Mr. McCulley noted that the students had no idea that they could go into a home building type business after graduation, so this was an eye-opening experience for them. He stated that they were planning to work with St. George Technical High School and Habitat for Humanity to build homes in Middletown. Mr. McCulley advised that he thought that, from the labor side, they needed to start working with the voc-tech schools because the students need to know that there are careers available where they can make money. Ms. Evans suggested that they also work with Polytech High School. Responding to Mr. Hugg, Mr. McGinnis explained that from a cyclical standpoint the market in Kent County had been struggling since 2009 or 2010. He stated that the lack of credit availability and job growth were the main factors. Mr. McGinnis noted that if the credit availability would relax a little bit, they might see more houses being built, which would lead to more jobs, which would lead to more income. Mr. McCulley noted that he could not remember the last residential project he worked on in the City of Dover. He stated that you can get a plan approved in three (3) months in Middletown and it is booming. Mr. McCulley explained that Middletown is business friendly, and people are building places where people can work, which leads to building places for people to live, and then more places for people to work and shop and eat, etc. He suggested that the City of Dover review its approval process, whether they are perceived as being business friendly, and if there are jobs available. Mr. Neil noted that land availability is also a factor and asked how much land is available in the City of Dover. Mr. McGinnis stated that he did not know what the inventory for vacant land availability is in the City, but suggested that the City may need to look at expanding borders. Mr. Hugg noted that he thought that there was a reasonable inventory of unbuilt subdivisions, but not a lot of land for potential new subdivisions. Mr. McGinnis explained that even with “shovel ready” subdivisions, where the infrastructure is already in place and someone only needs to get a building permit, they still have to measure what the transaction activity will be before they can build,

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF JULY 11, 2018 PAGE 4 explaining that if it is a subdivision with $225,000 houses, someone can’t start building $350,000 units. Mr. Zebley explained that, whether it’s justified or not, the City has a reputation of being difficult to deal with and that is why builders say they will not build in Dover. He stated that it is important for the City to determine what is driving that perception, in order to change it. Responding, Mr. Hugg noted that the residential building permit process seemed to work pretty efficiently and quickly for Ryan Homes. He stated that he was not sure what the City could do to improve the process but was willing to take efforts to make improvements if someone would provide specific issues. Mr. Hugg asked what the demographics are for those who are buying houses in Dover and where they are coming from. Responding, Mr. Zebley stated that most of the buyers are retirees, who are no longer working and moving to Delaware to buy homes. Mr. McGinnis stated that the demographic had moved toward retirees, for whom it seemed big, expensive houses aren’t necessary. Mrs. Mitchell noted that a couple of candidates she had interviewed for jobs with the City indicated that they had retired from jobs in other states, were looking for a second career, and were interested in moving to Delaware because the cost of living, taxes, etc. are much lower. Mr. Zebley stated that everyone is competing for houses priced in the $210,000 to $215,000 range. He advised that credit is a huge issue and, based on his experience as a property manager, people are willing to pay 30% to 40% more than what the mortgage would be because they cannot buy a house. Mr. McGinnis indicated that the jobs that young people have today are not quality enough to enable them to save for the down payment and closing costs to buy a house. He stated that last session the legislators raised the transfer tax from 3% to 4% and admitted that real estate sales had declined as a result. He noted that legislators said they would decrease the transfer tax; however, they did not. Mr. McGinnis advised that most mortgages require a down payment of 10%, plus there is a 4% transfer tax, which is 40% of the equity requirement and does not include property surveys, inspections, etc. He stated that the equity cost to get into a new house with 10% down is approximately 17% to 18%. In response to Mrs. Mitchell, Mrs. Speakman advised that NCALL is not subsidizing what the owner’s equity and closing costs would have been, NCALL is able to reduce those costs. She stated that sometimes an owner will get a second mortgage for down payment assistance. Mrs. Speakman advised that NCALL had 275 closings last year for first time home buyers throughout the state, with approximately 60% in Kent County. She stated that the need is for houses between $150,000 and $200,000. Mrs. Harvey noted that she had noticed a trend for energy efficient “green” houses, that are a very simple box style design, and asked if that was going to continue. Responding, Mr. McCulley advised that Delaware was currently in negotiations to try to boost the energy code, which would make it more expensive to build a house because it would have to be more energy efficient and that would change the design. He explained that in order to meet the new energy standards, a lot of builders are going to more boxy houses with less windows. Mr. Hugg noted that one of the reasons that Ryan Homes is so successful is that they only have a few models for home buyers to choose from. He expressed concern with defaulting to a basic model for

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF JULY 11, 2018 PAGE 5 every house, explaining that, while they will all meet the current standards and codes, every house will look the same and they will lose individual character. Mr. Zebley noted that allowing mixed use, like he has seen in Middletown and Sussex County, would provide flexibility and higher density. Mr. Hugg advised that the City has the capability to do traditional neighborhoods, which encourage a mix of density and types; however, currently, there are not any builders willing to do this. Mr. McGinnis noted that approximately three (3) or four (4) years ago, the City added residential uses to the commercial districts to allow mixed use; however, he noted that builders are not interested in 10 units. In response to Mr. Zebley, Mrs. Melson-Williams explained that the approval process for a new subdivision depends on the project, noting that there are many variables, such as if it’s a City or Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) street, the infrastructure design, etc. She stated that they have had green build projects get through the Planning Commission process and ready to pull permits in less than six (6) months. Mr. Swierczek noted that he had worked for the City for a little more than one (1) year and had received calls from applicants regarding the status of a few project applications which he reviewed. He explained that in all of those cases, the applications were being held up by other agencies, like DelDOT; however, since the City is the main point of contact, applicants contact the City. Mr. Zebley asked how other communities had streamlined the DelDOT process. Mrs. Speakman noted that she thought there were more DelDOT roads within the City of Dover than other communities, like Middletown. Mayor Christiansen advised that years ago, one of the concessions that the City made, by virtue of being the capital of the state, was to concede street maintenance and construction for many of the streets to the State of Delaware. He indicated that, as a member of the Kent Economic Partnership (KEP), he knew that this problem was not isolated to the City of Dover. Mayor Christiansen stated that the KEP viewed this issue as a detriment to housing and industrial development in Kent County, and they had talked to Secretary Cohan about it and she is working to change the culture at DelDOT. Mr. McGinnis recalled a previous discussion regarding a mixed use building at the plaza with commercial spaces on the bottom and apartments above it. He stated that he loved that idea, explaining that if downtown is going to prosper, it needs people to live, work, and shop there. Mr. McGinnis noted that many places had created little town centers but he was unsure whether the City had the land for this type of development. Mr. McGinnis stated that he had talked to a number of people in the business community who commented that they love what Mr. Hugg had done in turning around his department, but he was not sure why the message that the City is open for business and willing to work with people had not spread to the development community. Mr. Hugg credited his predecessors and staff who had worked for the City for awhile, noting that he did not think that the City was ever as predisposed to saying no as people say. He stated that there had been some improvements in regard to up-front communication and working together during the last year; however, he indicated that the process cannot go faster due to Planning Commission meeting schedules and hearings that must be held. Mr. McGinnis noted that there are a lot of things that applicants have to do as part of the process; however, if they do them, they don’t have to redo them. He indicated that regulation is part of the process and during previous years when there was a lot of construction there was a long wait because of the volume of applications. Mr. McGinnis noted that as construction increased, so did regulations; however, he indicated that people didn’t feel that the regulations were always applied fairly and, as a result of those previous experiences, they don’t want to come back now.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF JULY 11, 2018 PAGE 6 Mr. Hudson asked what the City was doing to attract people to move to the City of Dover. Responding, Mr. McGinnis explained that the major employment opportunities are in New Castle County but Route 1 allowed people to move further south and still commute north. He indicated that people were attracted to Middletown and Smyrna because a $400,000 house in New Castle could be purchased for $300,000 in Middletown or $250,000 in Smyrna. Mr. Hugg noted that the meeting was scheduled to adjourn at 3:00 p.m. and asked for final comments from those in attendance. In response, Mr. McCulley stated that he thought that flexibility and density were important topics for the City to consider. He also noted that it was important for the City to review the length of time and flexibility of the approval process, as well as how much it would cost a builder to complete the process and what the certainty would be. Mr. McGinnis stated that he thought that minimizing and consolidating regulations was the most important. Mr. Zebley indicated that he agreed that the most important issues related to regulations, and suggested that the City try to minimize time frames and increase density. He stated that he thought that the City needs to make it known that Dover is open for business in order to attract employers, employees, and builders, noting that economics and development are all tied together. Ms. Rothenberg asked how the regulations in Dover differed from other area. Responding, Mr. McGinnis noted that Kent County has different building and construction codes than the City of Dover. Mr. McCulley indicated that continuous code changes cause problems for builders because it costs them money, so they would rather work in places that adopt new codes every three (3) to five (5) years, instead of every year. Mrs. Speakman suggested that the City meet with local builders, as well as local banks. She noted that, in regard to credit availability, local banks may be able to provide some deal within the City. Mrs. Speakman stated that NCALL has a loan fund of more than $30M and participates with banks all the time, and suggested that there could be a special project for affordable housing or mixed use that they could help build through their loan fund. In response to Mrs. Speakman, Mr. McGinnis noted that development loans are governed by the federal government so you have to conform to federal regulations. Mr. Hugg invited everyone to complete the survey associated with the Comprehensive Plan update, noting that approximately 300 responses had been received. He also encouraged everyone to send him any suggestions or comments in regard to improvements that can be made. Meeting adjourned at 3:06 p.m. Robin R. Christiansen Chairman RRC/DD S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Committee-Minutes\2018\07-11-2018 EDC Minutes.wpd Attachments Attachment #1 - A list of questions provided by Mr. Dave Hugg, Director of Planning and Community Development Attachment #2 - A handout entitled “Kent County Residential Stats,” provided by Mr. Phil McGinnis

ATTACHMENT #1 Economic Development Committee Meeting of 07/11/2018 MAYOR'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITIEE July 11, 2018 @ 2:00 PM REALTORSAND HOMEBUILDERS QUESTIONS FOR THE JULY 11 EDC MEETING The Dover residential market appears to be focused on apartments, townhouses and mostly entry level houses. Is this a fundamental shift in the market or simply a correction reflective of current economic conditions? Recognizing that the housing market is cyclical, how long might this phase extend? If the market is reacting to the desire or need for modestly sized and priced homes today, can opportunities for expansion and renovation be built-in, so residents can age in place - or will move up decisions lead to exodus from Dove toward the county? What will be the future ofthe already built environment as older existing properties age in place? The market seems to be driven by millennials at one end and aging boomers at the other. What will these groups want as they age over the next 5-10 years, and will that be available in Dover? What happens to the upscale very large older residences and the newer "McMansions" if current demographic trends continue? What can be done to address the needs of those residents who simply cannot afford what is being offered?

ATTACHMENT #2 KENT COUNTY RESIDENTIAL STATS Economic Development Committee Meeting of 07/11/2018 GRAPHS units listed pended 1200 700 1000 600 500 800 400 600 300 400 200 200 100 0 0 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 units sold inventory 800 1,400 700 1,200 600 1,000 500 800 400 600 300 200 400 100 200 0 0 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 PAGE 1 OF 5 PAGES 7/11/2018

KENT COUNTY RESIDENTIAL STATS GRAPHS units listed/pended/sold/inventory months supply 1,400 9 1,200 8 1,000 800 6 600 400 200 o 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 ° m m ~ ~ m m ~ ~ m m ~ ~ m m -units listed-pended -units sold -inventory 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 listed volume listed avg $300,000,000 $300,000 $250,000,000 $250,000 $200,000,000 $200,000 $150,000,000 $150,000 $100,000,000 $100,000 $50,000,000 $50,000 $0 $0 01 02 03 04 01 02 Q3 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 PAGE 2 OF 5 PAGES 7/11/2018

KENT COUNTY RESIDENTIAL STATS GRAPHS listed avg : original listed avg listed vs sold volume $300,000 $300,000,000 $250,000 $250,000,000 $200,000 $200,000,000 $150,000 $150,000,000 $100,000 $100,000,000 $50,000 $0 Q1 02 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 04 Q1 Q2 Q3 04 Q1 Q2 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 $50,000,000 $0 01 I Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 04 Q1 Q2 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 -listed avg -avg origlist II listed volume • sold volume sold volume sold avg $160,000,000 $220,000 $140,000,000 $215,000 $120,000,000 $210,000 $100,000,000 $205,000 $80,000,000 $200,000 $60,000,000 $195,000 $40,000,000 $190,000 $20,000,000 $185,000 so $180,000 Q1 Q2 Q3 04 01 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 03 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 03 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 PAGE 3 OF 5 PAGES 7/11/2018

KENT COUNTY RESIDENTIAL STATS GRAPHS sold median sold avg : sold median $220,000 $220,000 $215,000 $215,000 $210,000 $210,000 $205,000 $205,000 $200,000 $200,000 $195,000 I $195,000 $190,000 $190,000 $185,000 $180,000 $185,000 $175,000 ~. $180,000 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 $175,000 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 • sold avg 5 sold median 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 listed avg : sold avg $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 • listed avg sold avg PAGE 4 OF 5 PAGES 7/11/2018

KENT COUNTY RESIDENTIAL STATS GRAPHS avg DOM sale:list 120 98.0% 100 97.0% 80 96.0% 60 95.0% 40 940% 20 93.0% 92.0% ° m W ill ~ m W ill ~ m W ill ~ m W 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 min orig list:sold price max Iist:sold price $40,000 $3,500,000 $35,000 $3,000,000 $30,000 $2,500,000 $25,000 $2,000,000 $20,000 $1,500,000 $15,000 $1,000,000 .1 I- [ $10,000 ..... $5,000 $500,000 $0 - •.. _ _ $0 II •• m W ill ~ m W ill ~ m W ill ~ m W 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 II min ong list • min sold price max orig list • max sold price PAGE 5 OF 5 PAGES 7/11/2018

KENTCOUNTY RESIDENTIALDATA all residential start date end date qtr units listed listed volume listed avg inventory months supply Jan-15 Mar-15 Q1 2015 689 $149,005,942 $216,264 1,094 7.5 Apr-15 Jun-15 Q2 2015 895 $196,316,575 $219,348 1,213 7.9 Jul-15 Sep-15 Q3 2015 769 $165,948,866 $215,798 1,181 7.5 Oct-15 Dec-15 Q42015 730 $160,564,598 $219,952 1,086 6.8 Jan-16 Mar-16 Q1 2016 846 $187,213,576 $221,293 1,131 7.0 Apr-16 Jun-16 Q2 2016 1058 $246,516,333 $233,002 1,233 7.4 Jul-16 Sep-16 Q3 2016 1004 $228,652,912 $227J42 1,230 7.6 Oct-16 Dec-16 Q42016 731 $148,253,288 $202,809 1,094 6.4 Jan-17 Mar-17 Q12017 946 $216,375,766 $228J27 1,119 6.3 Apr-17 Jun-17 Q22017 956 $215,618,611 $225,542 1,158 6.3 Jul-17 Sep-17 Q32017 863 $188,935,009 $218,928 1,069 5.5 Oct-17 Dec-17 Q42017 633 $136,860,922 $216,210 874 4.5 Jan-18 Mar-18 Q1 2018 830 $192,883,625 $232,390 848 4.2 Apr-18 Jun-18 Q22018 914 $222,839A82 $243,807 944 4.7 PAGE1 OF 3 PAGES 7/11/2018

KENT COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DATA all residential start date pended units sold sold volume sold avg sold median avg DOM sale:list Jan-15 429 340 $66,141,924 $194,535 $190,000 80 93.9% Apr-15 509 508 $101,769,227 $200,333 $192,250 92 94.5% Jul-15 550 554 $114,637,673 $206,927 $199,910 78 95.1% Oct-15 420 495 $96,333,743 $194,614 $195,500 90 95.1% Jan-16 484 387 $76,613,232 $197,967 $193,736 102 95.0% Apr-16 601 575 $118,999,693 $206,956 $207,000 92 95.5% Jul-16 560 566 $113,103,688 $199,830 $203,000 85 95.2% Oct-16 521 594 $117,417,378 $197,672 $200,000 78 95.1% Jan-17 593 493 $98,194,681 $199,178 $199,000 88 94.3% Apr-17 662 595 $123,568,524 $207,678 $205,000 77 95.6% Jul-17 645 668 $140,294,916 $210,022 $205,000 72 95.8% Oct-17 500 615 $125,393,325 $203,892 $200,000 71 95.0% Jan-18 600 488 $99,153,805 $203,184 $196,000 72 96.3% Apr-18 657 619 $133,833,821 $216,210 $215,000 58 97.6% PAGE 2 OF 3 PAGES 7/11/2018

KENT COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DATA f:/philip/realtor files/mls stats kent 2015-2018.xlsx all residential start date min orig list max orig list avg orig list min sold price max sold price Jan-15 $19,900 $625,000 $205,644 $19,900 $505,000 Apr-15 $34,900 $625,000 $210,189 $22,500 $575,000 Jul-15 $30,000 $924,900 $216,691 $27,000 $849,000 Oct-15 $17,900 $1,600,000 $206,299 $14,000 $1,100,000 Jan-16 $1,500 $3,100,000 $210,839 $1,100 $2,365,000 Apr-16 $20,000 $924,000 $217,608 $13,000 $725,000 Jul-16 $1,500 $1,100,000 $210,622 $1,500 $725,000 Oct-16 $1,300 $1,200,000 $207,950 $1,250 $1,055,000 Jan-17 $1,100 $1,500,000 $210,798 $1,100 $1,250,000 Apr-17 $25,000 $699,000 $215,638 $22,400 $660,000 Jul-17 $15,000 $775,000 $217,847 $14,000 $670,000 Oct-17 $20,000 $759,900 $212,529 $15,000 $540,000 Jan-18 $15,000 $800,000 $210,890 $10,000 $735,000 Apr-18 $14,000 $650,000 $221,676 $24,500 $550,000 PAGE 3 OF 3 PAGES 7/11/2018

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Council Committee of the Whole met on September 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m., with Council President Slavin presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sudler, Mr. Neil, Mr. Cole, Mr. Polce, Mr. Hare, and Mr. Lindell. Mr. Lewis was absent. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Mrs. Doyle (Utility), and Mr. Shevock (Legislative, Finance, and Administration). Ms. Scarborough (Utility), and Dr. Stewart (Legislative, Finance, and Administration) were 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. Lindell and unanimously carried. Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, introduced the City’s new Electric Director, Mr. James “Jim” Robinson. Mr. Cole welcomed Mr. Robinson, and expressed his appreciation to Mrs. Mitchell and the staff involved in the hiring process. Evaluation of Bids - FY18 Inflow and Infiltration Relining Project Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the evaluation of bids for the FY18 Inflow and Infiltration Relining Project. Staff recommended approval of the low bid submitted by Standard Pipe Services, LLC in the amount of $101,665 for the relining of 792 linear feet of 8" sanitary sewer main, 349 linear feet of 12" sanitary sewer main, and 38 point repairs. The work will be accomplished in the Fox Hall, Downtown Dover, and Wesley College areas. Mr. Neil asked how long the relining process was estimated to take. In response, Mrs. Mitchell noted that the project timetable indicated that substantial completion is to be achieved within 60 calendar days, however, she would ask staff for a more definitive date. Mr. Anderson noted that he was in favor of this project and bid. He asked whether the City had looked at lining water pipes that are affected by brown water in recent years. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she would ask staff and provide members with that information. Mr. Anderson stated that he thought that it had been a few years since the City had relined water pipes and that it could be a cost-effective alternative to pipe replacement in some areas. (City Clerk’s Office Note: Subsequent to the Council Committee of the Whole/Utility meeting of September 11, 2018, members were provided an email response from Mr. Jason Lyon, P.E., Water/Wastewater Manager, Public Works Department, dated September 12, 2018, explaining that relining water mains is a valid method of rehabilitating the City’s water mains, however, a majority of the older mains are undersized. He advised that the City’s minimum requirement of water main size, in order to provide ample fire protection, is 8"; however, most of the lines that the City is

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 PAGE 2 replacing are 4", so relining a 4" main would not be an efficient / economic option. Mr. Lyon noted that, in the future, when all lines are of the proper size this would be a fantastic option.) Mr. Neil moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation of the low bid submitted by Standard Pipe Services, LLC in the amount of $101,665 for the relining of 792 linear feet of 8" sanitary sewer main, 349 linear feet of 12" sanitary sewer main, and 38 point repairs. The work will be accomplished in the Fox Hall, Downtown Dover, and Wesley College areas. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Mr. Lindell moved for adjournment of the Utility Committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Chairman Hare presiding. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Cole moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. FY18 Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program - Joint Grant with Smyrna Police Department and Kent County Police Chief Marvin Mailey, Dover Police Department, reviewed the background regarding the FY18 Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program. Staff recommended approval of the grant project, as requested. Mr. Shevock moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. FY 19 Grant - Fund to Combat Violent Crime Police Chief Marvin Mailey, Dover Police Department, reviewed the background regarding the FY19 Grant for the Fund to Combat Violent Crime Program. Staff recommended approval of the grant and the intended purchases. In response to Mr. Shevock regarding the Taser upgrade, Chief Mailey explained that Axon is phasing out the current Taser model, so the Department has been doing a rolling upgrade over the last couple of years, to stay ahead of the curve. He advised that all of the street officers have newer Tasers. Chief Mailey noted that the older model will still do the job, however, Axon will not cover the maintenance costs.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 PAGE 3 Mr. Lindell noted that Chief Mailey stated that the extra-duty foot patrols would be focused on high-crime areas and asked if this would include looking at issues as they happen, such as the vandalism and thefts that occurred in Bicentennial Village during the summer. Responding, Chief Mailey stated that the Department utilizes crime analysis to help dictate where they place the patrols; however, if they see a neighborhood that is experiencing a crisis, then they always shift manpower and patrol units to that neighborhood. He noted that they are not only driven by the data, explaining that the Department is reactive to what they see happening in the neighborhoods and the Community Policing officers attend neighborhood meetings, so they hear what’s going on and the Department tries to address the issues in realtime. In response to Mr. Polce, Chief Mailey advised that the Police Department shares a significant amount of crime trends with the Delaware Information and Analysis Center (DIAC), however, the Department’s Crime Analyst/Accreditation Manager, Retired Captain Robert Scott, analyzes the data in-house. Chief Mailey explained that the Department has biweekly crime analysis meetings with staff and supervisors to discuss what’s going on in the City and how to address it. He stated that staff is tasked with problems, they come up with solutions, and then they evaluate the results. If the results don’t pass a standard, then they revisit it and make adjustments until the desired result is achieved. Mr. Neil moved to recommend approval of the grant and the intended purchases, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Mr. Shevock moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cole and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:19 p.m. Mr. Anderson moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindell and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m. Timothy A. Slavin Council President TAS/TM/dd/jt S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Committee-Minutes\2018\09-11-2018 CCW Minutes.wpd

PETITION TO AMEND AND ZONING DISTRICT First Reading before the Dover City Council September 24, 2018 Applicants/Owners: Lands of Hansen White Oak Partners, LLC (Jeff Hansen) Equitable Owner: L&S Davis Properties, Inc. (Sylvia Davis) Addresses: 951 White Oak Road, Dover, DE Location: North side of White Oak Road and east of Halsey Road Tax Parcel: ED-05-068.14-05-85.00-000 Size: 1.1152 acres Present Use: Vacant land Proposed Use: Public Assembly Comprehensive Plan Designation: Offices Present Zoning: CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone) Proposed Zoning: IO (Institutional and Office Zone) Reason for Request: Request for Rezoning of property to allow for future development of a building for public assembly File Number: Z-18-02 Ordinance Number: 2018-10

City of Dover Application No.: Z-18-02 Department of Planning & Inspections R-8 R-8 R-8 RG-2 R-8 C-1 Site C-PO SC-2 R-7 R-7 C-4 R-7 R-7 R-7 R-7 R-7 R-7 Title: Lands of Hansen White Oak Partners, LLC Ordinance #: 2018-10 Address: 951 White Oak Road Parcel ID: ED-05-068.14-05-85.00-000 Legend Existing Zoning: C-PO Commercial and Professional Office zone 2012 Buildings Proposed Zoning: IO Institutional and Office zone Owner: Hansen White Oak Partners, LLC Zoning Date: 9/13/2018 Dover Parcels 0 100 200 400 Feet « Subject Property

FIRST READING City of Dover PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2018-10 1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY 2 OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 951 WHITE OAK 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 C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) to IO (Institutional and Office 8 Zone). 9 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 10 DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 11 1) That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning 12 Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation from 13 C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office) to IO (Institutional and Office) on that property located 14 at 951 White Oak Road, consisting of 1.1152+/- acres, owned by Hansen White Oak Partners, LLC 15 (Equitable Owner: L&S Davis Properties, Inc.) 16 (Tax Parcel: ED-05-068.14-05-85.00-000; Planning Reference: Z-18-02; Council District: Third) 17 ADOPTED: * 18 S:\ORDINANCES\2018\DRAFT\ORDINANCE #2018-10 REZONING-951 WHITE OAK ROAD\ORDINANCE #2018-10 REZONING - 951 WHITE OAK ROAD - FIRST READING.wpd 19 20 Actions History 21 09/24/2018 - Scheduled for First Reading - City Council