Attachment

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA OCTOBER 28, 2013 - 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 REVEREND THEODORE HENDERSON PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY MAYOR CAREY AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS * CONSENT AGENDA Those items on the Council Agenda which are considered routine and non-controversial are 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 A. Council Workshop of September 18, 2013 B. Regular Council Meeting of October 14, 2013 2. Public Hearings - Violations of the Dangerous Building Ordinance A. Property Located at 24 North New Street, Owned by Mary Bessie M. Brokenbrough (Staff Recommends: 1. Declaring This Building and All Accessory Structures on This Property Dangerous; 2. Ordering the Property Demolished Immediately by the Owner or Equity Owner at Their Own Risk; 3. Ordering the Building Inspector to Cause the Demolition of the Structure If Not Completed by the Owner by October 30, 2013; 4. Ordering the City Manager with the Assistance of the City Solicitor to Cause the Cost of Demolition to Be Charged Against the Land on Which the Building Exists as a Municipal Lien or Cause Such Cost to Be Added to the Tax Duplicate as an Assessment, or to Be Levied as a Special Tax, or to Be Recovered in a Suit at Law Against the Owner.)

Council Agenda - October 28, 2013 Page 2 2. Public Hearings - Violations of the Dangerous Building Ordinance (Continued) B. Property Located at 142 Brandywine Drive, Owned by the United States of America/VET20 (Staff Recommends: 1. Declaring This Building and All Accessory Structures on This Property Dangerous; 2. Ordering the Property Repaired or Demolished by November 28, 2013 by the Owner or Equity Owner at Their Own Risk; 3. Ordering the Building Inspector to Cause the Repair or Demolition of the Structures If Not Completed by the Owner Within 10 Days of the Date Established by City Council; 4. Ordering the City Manager with the Assistance of the City Solicitor to Cause the Cost of Repairs or Demolition to Be Charged Against the Land on Which the Building Exists as a Municipal Lien or Cause Such Cost to Be Added to the Tax Duplicate as an Assessment, or to Be Levied as a Special Tax, or to Be Recovered in a Suit at Law Against the Owner.) 3. Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee Report - October 14, 2013 A. Future Use of the Dover Park Recreation Center (Committee Recommended Assigning the Dover Park Study to the Planning Department for the Purpose Of: 1) Developing a Request for Proposals (RFP) to Address the Most Appropriate Investment of City-Wide Park Resources in Dover Park, Schutte Park, and the Parks Located in the Southwest and Southeast Corners of the City; 2) to Determine Whether the Investment of Sufficient Resources Is Necessary to Address All Outdoor Use, Indoor Use, Restroom Facilities, Security Facilities; 3) as a Part of the RFP, to Make a Recommendation on What the Best and Most Effective Expenditure of Resources Is Before a Decision Is Made to Expend Additional Resources on Any of the Park Facilities Within the City; 4) as a Part of this Review, There Should Be a Resource Inventory to Determine Whether or Not the City Has Any of the Prior Studies and to Determine If They Are Practical for Future Use; and, 5) to Gather Additional Input Not Only from the Communities on the East Side of Route 13, But Also from Communities That Have Parks in the Southern, Western, and Northern Parts of the City. This Is to Be Accomplished Before the City Commits to Expending Any Resources to Demolish Any Park Buildings or for the Purposes of Creating or Constructing Additional Park Services in the City.) (Committee Recommended That the City Re-open the Dover Park Recreation Center for Use, Noting That Anyone Wishing to Rent the Facility Can Do So by Contacting the City of Dover to Coordinate the Event as Needed; the Building Itself Will Not Be Closed for Future Use until the Recommended Dover Park Study Is Reviewed.) * B. Benchmarks Established for the Economic Development Office (Due to Time Constraints, This Item Was Deferred Until the Next Meeting) * C. Update - CDBG Program (Due to Time Constraints, This Item Was Deferred Until the Next Meeting) 4. Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report - October 14, 2013 A. Creation of Ad Hoc Financial and Operational Advisory Committee (Committee Recommended Forwarding This Matter to City Council for Discussion of a Reconfigured Composition of the Proposed Committee, with the Understanding That the Members Endorsed the Idea in Principle)

Council Agenda - October 28, 2013 Page 3 * 5. Quarterly Revenue Report (Staff Recommends Acceptance of the Report) * 6. Semi-Annual Inspection by City Manager - Robbins Hose Company (Staff Recommends Acceptance of the Report) 7. Evaluation of Bids - Bucket Truck Replacement (Electric) (Staff Recommends Purchasing the 2014 Bucket Truck from Dueco (Vendor of Terex) for the Total Cost of $241,828) * 8. Appointment of Judges - Robbins Hose Company Election - November 18, 2013 A. Jim Hurley B. Bill Hurley C. Jim Howlett (Alternate) 9. Council Members’ Announcements /tm S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS\Council-Agendas\2013\10-28-2013.wpd THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.

COUNCIL WORKSHOP A Council Workshop was held on September 18, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. with Councilwoman Williams presiding in the absence of Council President Bonar. Council members present were Mr. Dixon, Mr. Lynn (arrived at 6:42 p.m.), Mr. Perza (arrived at 6:09 p.m., departed at 6:29 p.m., and returned at 6:41 p.m.), Mr. Hare, and Mr. Hutchison. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Slavin were absent. Council staff members present were Major Bernat, Mrs. Mitchell, Mr. Koenig, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Carey was also present. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Hutchison moved for approval of the agenda as presented, seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried. OVERVIEW OF PROJECTED INCOME AND EXPENSES Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, reviewed the budget balances from the June 2013 Budget Report, noting that the Water Budget resulted in an unfavorable balance of $235,000, which was mostly attributed to the water fees being less than projected. She noted that the Wastewater Budget resulted in a favorable balance of $404,000 more than projected and the balance tracked for the treatment fees (differential from the amount paid to Kent County and what is collected from the customer) resulted in an unfavorable balance of $159,000. Referring to the deficit for the County Treatment Fees that was carried forward from the prior year, estimated at $600,000, she stated that it was projected that an estimated $700,000 would have been collected, resulting in a favorable result; however, since only $609,000 was collected, the deficit was not resolved. Netted altogether, she stated that the result was a favorable balance of $10,000. Mrs. Mitchell noted that the Electric Revenue Fund came in below budget in the amount of $325,000, all attributed to PJM charges and fees, which were $1M unfavorable; however, the favorability in other expenses covered most of those charges and fees. The Electric Revenues came in within $2,000 of what was projected. Mrs. Mitchell advised members that a budget amendment would be presented to City Council for Capital Projects in the General Fund to be carried forward from the previous fiscal year, as follows: 1) Salt Barn; 2) Garrison Oak Infrastructure Project (streets and stormsewer); 3) Streets Program; and 4) Police Parking Lot Repaving. In addition, she stated that there would be carry forward projects for Water/Wastewater, which would be presented by the City Manager later in the meeting. She noted that there would be some carry forward projects for the Electric Fund and, although there was an $880,000 favorability, the Unit 3 Project for the Turbine remained; therefore, it would be necessary to re-budget some of those monies for next year. Mrs. Mitchell reviewed a number of financial spreadsheets that were provided to members, including the General Fund Cash Receipts and Budget Report as of September 15, 2013 for Fiscal Year 2012/2013; All Funds Summary Fiscal Year 2014; Revenue Report for Fiscal Year 2014 as of August 31, 2013; Regional Library Project; Debt Financing Requirements, Schedule for State of Delaware - Office of Drinking Water; Debt Financing Requirements, Schedule for State of Delaware - Delaware Water Pollution Control; Series 2008 Electric Revenue Bonds; and the Water/Wastewater Improvements and Extension Fund - Major CIP Projects (preliminary) as of June 30, 2013 (Exhibit #1).

COUNCIL WORKSHOP OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 PAGE 2 Referring to the Unfunded Liability for the Pension Plan, Mr. Hutchison questioned what the City’s annual payment commitment is based on. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell stated that if the City were fully funding the Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) Fund, this would amount to $7M each year (based on the last actuarial evaluation) and that the Pension Funds would amount to approximately $3M each year. She noted that when the last actuarial evaluation was done, only the employees participating in the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) union were contributing 15% toward health care, and once other employees were paying the 15%, a new study should reflect that amount being reduced. Mrs. Mitchell reminded members that in accordance with the City’s Financial Policies, excess budget balances are transferred to the pension funds, which was accomplished last year and resulted in a $7M infusion of cash in the Pension Fund. As a result, she anticipated a change in the actuarial study in this regard. She stated that although the annual numbers should be reduced, she was unsure of the amount at this time. With reference to the police liability for the State’s Pension Plan, Mrs. Mitchell noted that this information was not provided since it is a State Plan; however, the City contributes slightly more than 15% of the payroll, which includes normal and liability costs. Regarding the loss of income, such as real estate transfer tax, Mr. Hutchison questioned what was being done to offset such losses. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell stated that to address the loss for transfer tax, there had been staff reductions and other steps, such as not budgeting for vehicles, street programs, and other projects. Mr. Hutchison felt that staff should educate the entire City workforce regarding the City’s financial issues, for everyone to have a better understanding of all the facts and to gain participation and cooperation in this regard. Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, advised members of the difficulty in budgeting certain projects and programs when others are involved with the decision making, such as the State Legislature relative to the Municipal Street Aid monies provided to municipalities. Mrs. Williams stated that she had conducted research and found that those municipalities that have the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) were provided much more than $300,000 and noted that some communities were provided as much as $3M to $5M. She felt that PILOT is similar to the unfunded liability and that the City should be receiving much more in the way of PILOT. Responding, Mr. Koenig felt that there should be more communication with the legislative delegation to determine how such an issue could be resolved at the State level since the City could develop a PILOT program for other properties in the State, and indicated that this was the direction in which the City was moving. As an example, he advised members that the development report for the Sheraton property plan noted the City’s expectation to develop a PILOT agreement with the Sheraton since the property would be taken off of the tax rolls if Delaware State University purchases the property, explaining that emergency services would continue to be provided for the property. Mrs. Williams encouraged staff to begin discussions with the State immediately to develop a formula that would increase each year as expenses increase.

COUNCIL WORKSHOP OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 PAGE 3 Responding to Mrs. Williams regarding revenues involving the Calpine project, Mr. Koenig stated that there would be some property tax revenue (between $20,000 and $50,000), since Calpine would be taxed only on the building since the land was being leased from the City. He stated that the biggest portion of revenue anticipated was relative to the water system, which was estimated at almost $2M. He noted that there would also be associated wastewater revenue. He explained that the actual increase in water revenue would not be realized in the budget until approximately Fiscal Year 2016. PRELIMINARY REVIEW FOR NEXT YEAR - DISCUSSION OF STAFFING LEVELS, WORKFLOW, AND PROGRAMS - PUBLIC WORKS Mr. Koenig reiterated that the presentation being provided to members was very informal, explaining that the purpose was to provide members with an idea of the focuses that the Department of Public Works had been working on to develop their department and address service levels as requested and/or expected. Mr. Koenig provided a draft Exempt Status list of Public Works Department employees (Exhibit #2). In addition, he provided members with the Fiscal Year 2014 Draft Annual Operating Budget for each General Fund division of the Public Works Department (Exhibit #3). He reviewed the details involving the development of this Draft Budget and explained that focus was on service delivery and becoming the first Public Works Department to receive accreditation in the State of Delaware (and one of the few in the northeast region). He briefly explained the handwritten notes indicating the goals and needs of each division. In reviewing the budget for Public Works - Administration (Page 2 of Exhibit #3) and in response to Mrs. Williams, Mr. Koenig stated that there was no substantial out-of-pocket expense for applying for the accreditation (application fee) and the return on receiving accreditation would be realized in the savings from implementing efficiencies as a result of conducting the internal review associated with the accreditation process. Although the efficiencies had not currently been financially quantified, the Public Works Director felt that getting employees focused on their jobs and building professionalism and dedication would result in efficiencies. Mr. Koenig noted that a major issue involving the Public Work Department was that much of staff’s time was spent “in the field.” The use of the GIS technology had continuously been pulled from the budget for the past couple of years because staff was unsure of the use of the technology, such as how it is applied, how to make the inspectors and field staff more efficient, etc. Moving forward, he stated that staff was going to try to implement technology as it becomes available. In addition, he stated that a part of this effort would meet the asset management requirements of the Finance Department, noting that a great deal of inventory, including large water, sewer, street, and storm sewer systems, as well as inventory such as ditches that are not included in an asset management system. He stated that buildings are not included in an asset management system. Instead of proactively considering the replacement of a roof, he stated that staff tends to react, which drives up the costs since these needs are not being planned; however, utilizing GIS technology as an asset management tool, staff would be able to take a proactive approach.

COUNCIL WORKSHOP OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 PAGE 4 Mr. Koenig advised members that the inclusion of training and certification for all divisions of the Public Works Department would be a constant. He explained the importance for the City to provide the opportunity for all departmental directors to attend national conferences to learn from other directors and bring information back, with the expectation that they would transfer the knowledge to other City department heads and City Council. He stated that there are certification and license requirements beginning to be implemented; therefore, there was need for training and education. He explained that the City would budget for the training and education, with the understanding that staff would participate and demonstrate that it is beneficial. Referring to the budget for Public Works - Fleet Maintenance (Page 3 of Exhibit #3), Mr. Koenig reminded members that at one time the entire division was fully privatized, subsequently all functions were brought back in-house, and currently there was a combination of privatization and in-house functions. He indicated that staff was prepared to make an offer to a Field Supervisor who would oversee both fleet and facilities employees and be responsible for adding a professional level to the Fleet Maintenance Shop. In order to maintain the details regarding the City’s fleet, which currently consists of 188 vehicles and 48 pieces of equipment, he stated that it would be necessary to utilize technology. In response to Mrs. Williams, Mr. Koenig stated that the police vehicles and Fire Department vehicles are not serviced by the City’s Fleet Maintenance staff. Clarifying, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the maintenance of the police vehicles is outsourced under the State’s contract. Mr. Koenig referred to Public Works - Facilities Management (Page 4 of Exhibit #3) and advised members that attempts were being made to make all City buildings more energy efficient and anticipated that the costs for electricity would be reduced. As employees have retired, the amount for contractual services had increased due to the City privatizing custodial services at several buildings including the Warehouse, Pitts Center, and Electric Administration, with 5 East Reed Street utilizing a combination of both in-house staff and contractual services. As more of the employees in this division retire, he stated that a decision would have to be made as to whether or not the City wishes to expand contracts for privatization of this service or hire personnel. Mr. Koenig reiterated the need for all departments to utilize asset management software. The idea would be to begin considering how to set aside funds for maintaining the City assets to avoid big “spikes” in the budget. Referring to Public Works - Grounds (Page 5 of Exhibit #3), Mr. Koenig stated that this division had gone through some transitions, explaining that some of the grass mowing services were privatized, employees had resigned, and other employees had to take medical retirement. Due to the shortage of employees, in August, the grass mowing contract was expanded; however, he stated that there had not been a full “growing” season for that contract. He advised members that there were several complaints from residents regarding their disappointment in the aesthetics of the parks related to grass mowing, particularly in regard to the trimming around trees, concrete, etc. He explained that it would take another year before the City would be able to fully evaluate the privatization of the grass cutting and that the City’s expectations should be included in such contracts in the future. Mr. Koenig stated that he was not happy with the appearance of the City parks either and felt that the City needed to figure out ways to increase the curb appeal of the City’s parks and public spaces.

COUNCIL WORKSHOP OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 PAGE 5 With regard to the gasoline expenses, he explained that as more areas are transferred to contractual services for grass mowing, the City would mow less, which should result in a decrease in gasoline expenses; however, he noted that the expenses for contractual services would increase. Mr. Koenig advised members that Mr. Bill Cooper, Grounds Superintendent, had announced that he would be retiring after 35 years of service; therefore, there would be a new supervisor coming on board. Regarding Public Works - Sanitation (Page 6 of Exhibit #3), Mr. Koenig stated that he was once an extreme advocate for sanitation being an enterprise fund; however, his accounting dissertation during the past few years had led him to the conclusion that it should serve as a service fee rather than a separate enterprise fund. He explained that the City’s sanitation service is primarily a residential service and that the system is set up best to pickup residential containers. Although the City currently provides service to numerous commercial customers, moving forward, there was a plan to reduce the number of commercial customers as sites are redeveloped. During the Development Advisory Commission (DAC) review process, when it is determined that a site exceeds the City’s ability to collect waste, the developer would be notified to design the site for private trash collection and the occupant would become a private customer rather than a City customer. He stated that a site may exceed the City’s ability for collection as a result of screening requirements, explaining that private sector collectors open dumpster enclosure doors but the City does not. Additionally, there are commercial customers whose needs are beyond what the City can provide, such as providing an eight (8) yard dumpster or a more convenient pickup time. Mr. Koenig stated that the budget for sanitation contractual services included landfill fees and the recycling contractor. He noted that the recycling contractor extended the contract for Fiscal Year 2014 with no increase; however, the contract would be rebid this year for Fiscal Year 2015, so an increase would be a possibility. As the economy rebounds, he advised members that the amount of trash put out increases. He noted staff’s concern regarding an increase in trash because the Delaware Solid Waste Authority (DSWA) contract includes an increase in the tipping fee each year for the next couple of years, which, if the tonnage stays the same as last year, would equate to a $30,000 to $40,000 increase. In regard to the expense for gasoline for the Sanitation Division, Mr. Koenig indicated that the trash trucks get only approximately four (4) miles per gallon. Although attempts would be made to minimize these expenses by increasing communication between the truck drivers and office staff and establishing more efficient routes, substantial savings were not anticipated because the City would continue to provide the expected level of customer service (e.g. responding to customer calls by sending drivers back out to pick up a container that was not put out in time for the original pick up). Responding to Mr. Hare regarding recycling, Mr. Koenig stated that the City collects approximately 15 pounds per location, per month. Although the City loses money as a result of the recycling program, he explained that the program provides a benefit to the environment and reminded members that recycling was a State mandate.

COUNCIL WORKSHOP OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 PAGE 6 Mr. Koenig advised members that staff was currently reviewing possibilities for improving ways to address yard waste. He stated that the City had been working with Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) on a pilot project regarding composting at Schutte Park, where the City takes yard waste and, under DNREC’s supervision, determines if it can be prevented from having to be dumped at the landfill. A test was scheduled for this fall and would last for a 60 day period, at the conclusion of which staff woulddetermine if it should be turned into a long-term project. Referring to Public Works - Streets (Page 7 of Exhibit #3), Mr. Koenig advised members that there were compliance issues associated with this division which would need attention. He explained that the City had not obtained the necessary permits relative to MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems) compliance. The City would be forced to improve the storm sewer program, both administratively and on the street, recording all items during the next few months. Mr. Koenig anticipated that matters would be presented to City Council in the next budget for an expense related to MS4 compliance. He stated that the issue regarding flood plain management was tied to MS4 compliance, explaining that the flood maps were becoming more tied to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reimbursements and other emergency management issues. Currently, the flood plain maps were maintained by the Planning Department; however, he anticipated that they would be made a part of the Public Works Department since they would become a part of the GIS system. Mr. Koenig indicated that although the Silver Lake Dam is a small dam, it is considered a high risk category because if the dam breaks, it could affect houses. Therefore, a five (5) year inspection is required on the dam by a third party, which would equate to a $7,000 to $10,000 expense that would be included in the budget for next fiscal year. Having an understanding that there was a desire for this workshop to provide possibilities for improving the budget, Mr. Koenig stated that it would be very difficult to cut the budget in the Department of Public Works due to numerous issues related to compliance, service delivery, and infrastructure that would make it nearly impossible to cut costs without changing the level of service. Mr. Koenig reminded members that, during the Special Council Meeting (Budget Review) of May 29, and June 5, 2013, it was estimated that the City should be spending $1M to $1.5M every year on street maintenance. He explained that Public Works was a large department with many expenses but that the amounts budgeted provide the bare level of services that help make the City of Dover the city that it is. He reminded members that the number of employees had been reduced and other budget items were eliminated or reduced as much as possible to allow the department to continue to maintain the current level of services and to achieve or maintain compliance. In response to Mr. Hutchison regarding brown water problems, Mr. Koenig noted that almost every year, the Water/Wastewater Budget included approximately $1M for water quality improvements (pipe replacement) and $1M for inflow/infiltration improvements. He advised members that no specific water quality projects were budgeted in the current fiscal year, since the City funneled a substantial amount of money into the Garrison improvements and planned to catch up on other projects that were “pushed out” during the previous fiscal year, such as the replacement of the Piney Point Well. He stated that many of the brown water complaints were related to instantaneous “hits”

COUNCIL WORKSHOP OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 PAGE 7 on the system, from the Power Plant going on and off or a fire in the system, which create flow reversal and result in a burst of brown water. In talking to engineers in other larger, older cities such as Baltimore, Wilmington, Philadelphia, etc., he stated that they have these same types of issues. He noted that there were some areas in the City that experience more of a problem than others and that the replacement of piping appeared to solve many of these types of issues. He explained that the City was conducting a project which included a combination of line replacement and water main relining, noting that relining is a complicated project but in some instances can be less expensive. He stated that in the modeling of the City’s system, it had been discovered that many pipes installed in the early 1900s were undersized and unable to carry standard fire flow. In these instances, the relining of a four (4) inch water main would not serve the City since the model indicated that a six (6) or eight (8) inch pipe was required. He assured members that this would be an ongoing project that would be included in perpetuity, with a minimum of $1M budgeted each year for the renewal and replacement of water lines. Mr. Hare advised members of a flooding problem in the Woodbrook Subdivision, explaining that every time it rains, the pond backs up and floods residents’ basements. Responding, Mr. Koenig indicated that drainage issues were beginning to mount and advised members that a lot of work for the State Conservation District was currently under contract and scheduled to begin; however, the problems with ditches and ponds would require additional monies. He reminded members that stormwater management ponds became the standard a little over 20 years ago and some that are owned by the City were beginning to fail. He stressed the need for the City to improve maintenance on ditches, ponds, etc.; however, he stated that these types of improvements are time consuming and can be costly. He warned members that when this work begins in their district, they will know because they will receive complaints from constituents due to the fact that private property must be accessed to conduct the maintenance. Mr. Hutchison stated his understanding that the improvements on Governors Avenue and near Lynnhaven Drive would have addressed most of the flooding problems from Water Street to Bayhealth. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that the improvements helped the Puncheon Run; however, they did not help flooding problems at Bayhealth. He stated that the City had applied for a planning grant at the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) to study the Tar Ditch basin. He indicated that it would cost an estimated $10M to $15M to upgrade the storm drain system, dig through the old Public Works site, remove the contamination area, and abandon and restore the old Public Works site. Mr. Koenig provided members with the Fiscal Year 2014 Draft Annual Operating Budget for each division funded by the Water/Wastewater Fund in the Public Works Department (Exhibit #4). He reviewed the details involving the development of this Draft Budget and explained the handwritten notes indicating the goals, needs, and/or desires within each division. Referring to Public Works - Water Treatment Plant (Page 2 of Exhibit #4), Mr. Koenig reminded members that when Calpine comes on line, there will be a need to expand staff, which would take place during the FY2015 Budget. He explained that the budget reflected the costs associated with running the water treatment plant on Long Point Road, the 22 wells that feed the system, and the six (6) elevated storage tanks, with an additional two (2) tanks planned for the future.

COUNCIL WORKSHOP OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 PAGE 8 With reference to Public Works - Water Management (Page 3 of Exhibit #4), Mr. Koenig stated that there are approximately 200 miles of water pipe in the system, which had been categorized by type, and that staff was attempting to determine during which years the work would be completed; however, there was a constant need to obtain information for inclusion in the asset management database. He advised members that although the City had a high-quality water system, there are issues with asbestos pipe and galvanized water services. He explained the importance of the distribution system maintenance (renewals and replacement) in order to maintain the quality of the water system. Mr. Koenig referred to Public Works - Waste Water Management (Page 4 of Exhibit #4) and advised members that when there is a heavy rainfall, a lot of effort is put forth with managing the waste water system to prevent spills, overflows, etc., which involve contractors (pumping out systems) as well as employees. He indicated that industrial sampling and lab analysis would be required to ensure the City is complying with the industrial permits associated with waste water with the County. Mr. Koenig stated that Public Works - Water Construction (page 5 of Exhibit #4) was the in-house construction unit, explaining that when there are water quality projects in residential areas, these employees perform some of the water line replacement work. He stated that staff was reviewing this division closely to ensure that such in-house work was being performed within a reasonable cost. He stated that although it was beneficial to have a crew available to do such work, it was not staff’s desire to have it accomplished at a higher cost than if the work was contracted. Referring to Public Works - Water Treatment Plant (Page 6 of Exhibit #4), Mr. Koenig reiterated that it would be necessary to have an employee dedicated to the MS4 and storm water permit in the future. His stated that a new position for either a civil engineer or environmental scientist would be requested in the next budget to address the MS4 and industrial permits, explaining that the City needed an employee that can be dedicated 40 hours per week to ensure the City was making progress toward compliance in this regard. This employee would also serve as the key person for the flood plain and Silver Lake Dam management. Mr. Koenig reviewed the Water/Wastewater Improvement and Extension Fund - Major CIP Projects (Preliminary) as of June 30, 2013 (Page 11 of Exhibit #1), stating that he was very happy with the progress that was made on these projects, especially while being short of staff. He explained that many projects had been completed; however, there were numerous projects which still needed to be completed in order to “catch up.” Going into Fiscal Year 2015, he stated that staff had discussed budgeting $1M or more for the Street Program, $1M for water quality, and $1M on Inflow and Infiltration (I & I). The current budget included funding for I & I and water quality and staff would be requesting funds for the Street Program. In regard to water and sewer, it was his opinion that the City was in a good position to maintain the capital plan and address asset management and the compliance issues, as discussed. However, he stated that the reductions to the General Fund were becoming evident to members as well as constituents, and that staff and Council would need to reevaluate and determine what level of service to maintain. In order to achieve and maintain the level of service that he would like, funds would need to be budgeted.

COUNCIL WORKSHOP OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 PAGE 9 Mrs. Mitchell advised members that the spreadsheet was dated June 30, 2013 and did not include the budget amendments approved by City Council in July for the Garrison Oak Project; therefore, it reflected the original $2M for the water rather than $4.2M, and $2M for the sewer rather than the $3.5M that was since approved. Since these amounts were increased, she reminded members that the water quality and the I & I funds were eliminated from the FY2014 Budget to make up the difference. Responding to Mrs. Williams, Mr. Koenig stated he would not be proposing any additional funding in FY15 over what was in the FY14 budget and the water and sewer model. For clarification, Mrs. Williams questioned what amount would be necessary in order for the City to maintain the infrastructure and service level. Responding, Mr. Koenig estimated that the Water/Sewer Fund was approximately $15M and explained that the majority of the revenues received are used for operations and capital for the Water/Sewer Fund, with a $500,000 transfer to the General Fund. In response to Mrs. Williams, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the Water/Sewer CIP is approximately $2M per year for water and $2M per year for sewer, explaining that more than $500,000 is attributed to the cost of equipment replacements each year. She stated that maintaing the status quo for the General Fund would require approximately $1.7M; with approximately $1M to $1.5M for the Street Program and $700,000 for the purchase of police and other vehicles. It was her opinion that combined, the General Fund and Water/Sewer Fund would need a minimum of $1.5M to $2M additional funding in order to maintain or improve the City’s current service levels and assets. In response to Mr. Hare, Mr. Koenig stated that currently, the State does not provide the City of Newark a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT). He advised members that the PILOT Program is spread out between Wilmington, Dover, and Georgetown. Mr. Hutchison stated that the City of Dover is unique because it is the Capital of the State of Delaware, and noted that there are many exempt buildings within the City. With the City receiving only $317,000 from the State of Delaware for PILOT, he suggested negotiating with the State to provide additional PILOT monies. Mrs. Williams advised members that the City of Rehoboth Beach receives funding for State maintained roads. She stressed the need for developing creative ways and means of collecting revenues for the City. Mr. Koenig explained that staff had been conscious of managing the operating budgets. He advised members that staff had been receiving feedback from citizens regarding their disappointment in the level of service that had been provided by the City recently. As a result, he stated that members of Council need to determine if the current level of service was desired or if amendments and adjustments should be made that would allow the City to get back to the level of service that was provided for many years. Mr. Koenig stated that the presentation provided included those items staff felt would be necessary to budget in order to meet compliance issues, service delivery issues, and what was interpreted as the message that had been provided by City Council. Understanding that there was a cost involved, he stated that it would take between now and May of next year to begin developing those costs.

COUNCIL WORKSHOP OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 PAGE 10 Should there be an item that had been presented by staff that members did not wish to consider, he requested that staff be advised so that they know what should be done moving forward. With reference to the $7.5M deficit in the General Fund Budget that needed to be addressed over a three (3) year period, he stated that the budget could not be cut to meet that balance and relayed concern that the budget had been cut in certain areas that had marginalized service delivery. He explained that the items included in the presentation (addition of positions and additional funds for programs) were not included in the $7.5 deficit; therefore, if those items were included in the budget, the deficit would increase. Mr. Lynn noted that the PILOT Program was a part of the Comprehensive County Seat Relief (CSR) Package. For FY2013, the projected PILOT Program for the City of Wilmington was $2.1M and their total CSR was $7.7M. He suggested that the City Solicitor’s Office be requested to review the statutory language in the CSR Act to assure that the amounts provided were computed correctly and if the City would be within their rights to request some type of meeting with the State to re-negotiate the City’s CSR. He reminded members that the State viewed the City of Wilmington as the State’s Capital and viewed the City of Dover as the Capital in name only, which had and continued to create problems. Mrs. Mitchell advised members that she had the calculations used in determining the amount provided to the City because she had questioned their calculations last year. At the request of Mr. Lynn, she offered to provide this information to members. In reviewing the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget for the City of Wilmington, Mr. Lynn noted that $2.1M was included for PILOT, $4.47M for State UCC filing fee, $300,000 for the Statutory Trust Filing fee, and approximately $850,000 for New Castle County Corporate filing fees. He stated that Wilmington’s CSR Package increased by approximately $300,000 last year, which was almost as much as the City receives in PILOT alone. Mrs. Mitchell noted that the $2.1M for PILOT was a decrease, explaining that this appropriation had been as high as $3M in the past. Responding, Mr. Lynn stated that the City of Wilmington did not lose money since the total CSR Package was over $300,000, noting that the difference was made up by the UCC filing fee. Mr. Hare advised members that the University of Delaware did provide some type of PILOT to the City of Newark. He suggested that Delaware State University provide something similar for the City of Dover. Although he agreed that something should be done in this respect, Mr. Koenig stated that the University of Delaware has a much bigger influence on the City of Newark than Delaware State University has on the City of Dover. Mrs. Williams suggested that a formula be developed that would allow for all non-profits to contribute, according to their budgets. Mr. Lynn questioned if staff could provide the ratio of land space to compare the University of Delaware with Delaware State University in this respect. Mayor Carey announced that the Police Department was currently evaluating their needs for equipment and manpower and that an update would be provided to members of City Council once a plan was finalized.

COUNCIL WORKSHOP OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 PAGE 11 Mr. Hare moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Lynn and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:51 p.m. Beverly C. Williams Acting Council President BCW/TM/jg S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS\Council-Minutes\2013\09-18-2013 Workshop.wpd Exhibits Exhibit #1 - Financial Spreadsheets Provided to Members by Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer Exhibit #2 - Draft Exempt Status List of Public Works Department Employees Exhibit #3 - Fiscal Year 2014 Draft Annual Operating Budget for each Division of the Public Works Department - General Fund Exhibit #4 - Fiscal Year 2014 Draft Annual Operating Budget for each Division of the Public Works Department - Water/Wastewater Fund

EXHIBIT #1 Council Workshop of 09/18/2013

EXHIBIT #2 Council Workshop of 09/18/2013 EXHIBIT #2 Council Workshop of 09/18/2013

EXHIBIT #3 Council Workshop of 09/18/2013

EXHIBIT #4 Council Workshop of 09/18/2013

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING The Regular Council Meeting was held on October 14, 2013 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Bonar presiding. Council members present were Mr. Dixon, Mr. Lynn, Mr. Perza, Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Williams, and Mr. Hutchison. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Hare were absent. Council staff members present were Police Chief Hosfelt, Mrs. Mitchell, Mr. Koenig, Mrs. Townshend, Fire Chief West, City Solicitor Rodriguez, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Carey was also present (departed at 7:51 p.m.). OPEN FORUM The Open Forum was held at 7:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Bonar declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council was not in official session and could not take formal action. Mr. Roy Sudler, 353 Rita Wilma Lane, as Chair of the Dover Human Relations Commission (DHRC), advised members that the DHRC recently received an enormous amount of complaints from Mr. Eshed Alston, Mr. Bobby Wilson, and Mr. Lamar Gunn. As a result of the recent ordinance amendments involving the DHRC, he stated that members are seeking guidance and instructions on how to respond to those complaints in accordance with the new decree for the DHRC. He stated that there are a list of 10 complaints that he will submit to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee, City Council, and the Mayor. He assured members that the DHRC is eager to receive instructions on how to proceed in order to respond within a reasonable time frame. Mr. Sudler stated that the DHRC is looking forward to working closer with all entities of the City of Dover to ensure a fair and higher quality of living among all segments of Dover, Delaware. The invocation was given by Bishop Thomas L. Holsey, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Bryce Bundek. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Hutchison moved for approval of the agenda as presented, seconded by Mrs. Williams and unanimously carried. Mr. Slavin moved for approval of the consent agenda as presented, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Anderson and Hare absent). ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2013 The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of September 23, 2013 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Slavin, seconded by Mr. Dixon, and bore the written approval of Mayor Carey. PROCLAMATION - NATIONAL COMMUNITY PLANNING MONTH Mayor Carey read the following Proclamation into the record: WHEREAS, in every community, change is constant and affects all of us however community planning and plans can help manage this change in a way that provides better choices for how people work and live; and

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 2 WHEREAS, community planning provides an opportunity for all residents to be involved in making choices that determine the future of their community; and WHEREAS, the full benefits of planning requires public officials and citizens who understand, support, and demand excellence in planning and plan implementation; and WHEREAS, the American Planning Association and its professional institute, the American Institute of Certified Planners, endorse National Community Planning Month as an opportunity to highlight the contributions sound planning and plan implementation make to the quality of our communities and environment; and WHEREAS, the celebration of National Community Planning Month gives us the opportunity to publicly recognize the participation and dedication of the members of the City of Dover Planning Commission and other citizen planners who have contributed their time and expertise to the improvement of the City of Dover. NOW THEREFORE, I, CARLETON E. CAREY, SR., MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE, do hereby proclaim the month of October 2013 as NATIONAL COMMUNITY PLANNING MONTH in the City of Dover, and encourage all citizens to recognize the valuable contributions made by community and regional planners and our partner agencies at the State and county level, and extend our heartfelt thanks for the continued commitment to public service by these professionals. Mayor Carey presented the Proclamation to Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, as well as Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Ms. Janelle Cornwell, and Ms. Connie Holland. Mrs. Townshend explained that Planning is very much a team effort, which includes City Staff, Planning Commission Members, members of City Council, and members of the public. She advised members that Mrs. Melson-Williams and Ms. Cornwell have been the heart of the Planning Office for the past decade. She indicated that Ms. Cornwell recently left the City for employment at Kent County and noted that Planning cannot be accomplished without the partnerships that the City has with Kent County, as well as the State of Delaware. Mrs. Townshend thanked Ms. Holland for the role she has played in Planning at both the county and state levels, and for serving as a great mentor to her over the years. Having an understanding of the importance of a good partnership, Mr. Hutchison relayed his appreciation to the City’s Planning Department, Kent County Planning, and the State of Delaware for their hard work and dedication. Council President Bonar also thanked Ms. Holland, Ms. Cornwell, Mrs. Melson-Williams, and Mrs. Townshend for what they have done for the planning process in the State, County, and City. PRESENTATIONS - 2013 MAYOR’S ARTS AWARDS Mayor Carey reminded members that, every October, the Mayor’s Arts Awards are presented to recognize those that have excelled in providing a variety of arts, entertainment, and education in Dover, making the area a better place to live and work, which is good for our community, economy,

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 3 and the City’s future. He stated that this years recipients are honored for their part in increasing the awareness of the Arts in Dover and he presented the 2013 Mayor’s Arts Awards, as follows: Jan Crumpley Mayor Carey stated that Ms. Jan Crumpley has been described as an "arts engine" by a friend. The artist, Ms. Crumpley, is receiving a Mayor's Arts Award because of her outstanding contributions to the arts in Dover as a Plein-Air artist, as a folk musician, and an arts organizer. Ms. Crumpley tirelessly promotes the arts and history of Dover. She has become a treasure to local arts organizations by donating her artistic talents, her advocacy skills, and her fundraising abilities for the arts. She is now being recognized for her lasting and profound impact on the cultural life of the Greater Dover area. The Mayor and the Greater Dover Arts Council are proud to honor Ms. Jan Crumpley with a Mayor's Arts Award. Ms. Crumpley thanked everyone for the recognition. K. M. Hammond Mayor Carey advised members that the painting, like life, is a puzzle in which all the parts eventually fit together perfectly. This declared philosophy is what the self-taught artist Ms. K. M. Hammond lives by and she is receiving a Mayor's Arts Award because of her perfectly fitting puzzle of life dedicated to the arts. Ms. Hammond has a long list of accomplishments that include participation in numerous art exhibitions and receiving many awards and honors for her art. Her award winning art is displayed throughout the City. Ms. Hammond is now recognized for her lasting and profound impact on the arts of the Greater Dover area. The Mayor and the Greater Dover Arts Council are proud to honor Ms. K. M. Hammond with a Mayor's Arts Award. Donald A. Parks Mayor Carey noted that the legacy of the arts advocacy of Dr. Donald A. Parks is well known throughout the City of Dover. His lasting impact and outstanding contributions to almost all of the visual and performing arts in Dover qualify him to receive a Mayor's Arts Award. Dr. Parks has successfully supported the arts through educating thousands of Delaware State University students, to being appointed by the Governor to the Board of Trustees at the Biggs Museum of American Art, to being a major contributor to countless arts organizations. This civic-minded individual's move to North Carolina has been a great loss to the arts in Dover. The Mayor and the Greater Dover Arts Council are proud to honor Donald A. Parks with a Mayor's Arts Award. Mayor Carey indicated that Mr. Parks was not able to attend this evening’s meeting; therefore, the actual presentation of the award will be accomplished at a later date. PRESENTATIONS - 2013 MAYOR’S YOUTH ARTS AWARDS Mayor Carey reminded members that a few years ago, the youth in the community were chosen to be recognized for their great achievements as young individuals in helping to further the arts in the City of Dover. Mayor Carey presented the 2013 Mayor’s Youth Arts Awards, as follows:

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 4 Rachel Frebert Mayor Carey stated that Miss Rachel Frebert, who is a Saint Thomas More Academy student, states that "art is more than a way of life; it is who I am, who I've become, and who I will be." He indicated that Miss Frebert is serious about art and is receiving a Mayor's Youth Arts Award because of her ability to recognize her talent and to share it with others. Recently, her artwork was displayed in the emergency wing of Kent General Hospital where her colorful pastel landscape could brighten the lives of the families who saw tragedy. The art portfolio that Miss Frebert submitted for consideration was diverse and represented a strong display of the knowledge of the elements of art and the principles of design. The Mayor and the Greater Dover Arts Council are proud to honor Miss Rachel Frebert with a Mayor's Youth Arts Award. Alicia M. Fox Mayor Carey advised members that Miss Alicia M. Fox, who is a junior at Saint Thomas More Academy, was nominated by the Academy’s art teacher without hesitation and that the drama teacher gave her wholehearted endorsement. Miss Fox is a promising artist whose artistic abilities should be commended with a Mayor's Youth Arts Award. He stated that Miss Fox describes herself as well-rounded in the arts because she is involved in drawing and painting, drama, choir, and photography. Her art demonstrates a clear command of the subject and the technique of the medium. The Mayor and the Greater Dover Arts Council are proud to honor Miss Alicia M. Fox with a Mayor's Youth Arts Award. Thomas Price Mayor Carey indicated that the Polytech High School drama teacher describes Mr. Thomas Price as the student who walks, talks, and breathes theater. He stated that this talented young man, Mr. Price, is receiving a Mayor’s Youth Arts Award because of his dedication to the performing arts through acting, directing, choreographing, and producing quality shows at high school and at The Children’s Theater. He advised members that another teacher described Mr. Price as resourceful, creative, and a solution-oriented person who is frequently able to come up with new and innovative approaches to his projects. He felt confident that this is the type of person who will succeed in the arts as an adult. The Mayor and the Greater Dover Arts Council are proud to honor Mr. Thomas Price with a Mayor’s Youth Arts Award. Mayor Carey relayed appreciation to Mr. Brian Miller, Chair of the Greater Dover Arts Council, as well as the membership for their assistance in the selection of all the 2013 Mayor’s Arts Awards. Mr. Hutchison moved for a brief recess for light refreshments, seconded by Mrs. Williams and unanimously carried. Meeting recessed at 7:51 p.m. Mr. Hutchison moved to reconvene, seconded by Mr. Dixon and unanimously carried. Meeting reconvened at 8:07 p.m.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 5 REQUEST TO WITHDRAW REZONING REQUEST (PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2013-14) - PROPERTY LOCATED AT 109 EAST DIVISION STREET A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of property located at 109 East Division Street, owned by Leg Hall, LLC (Rhett Ruggerio). The property is located on the north side of East Division Street between Pennsylvania Avenue and Maple Lane. The property is currently zoned RG-1 (General Residence) and H (Historic District) and the requested zoning is RG-O (General Residence and Office) and H (Historic District). Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, referred to a letter submitted by Mr. John W. Paradee on behalf of the property owner, Rhett Ruggerio, requesting to withdraw the rezoning application. She advised members that during the Planning Commission public hearing there were several in attendance that spoke in opposition to the rezoning application. As a result, the applicant submitted a request to withdraw the rezoning application and is working with the residents of the area on an alternative solution that may be presented at a later date. Mr. Lynn moved for approval of the request to withdraw the rezoning application for property located at 109 East Division Street, owned by Leg Hall, LLC (Rhett Ruggerio). The motion was seconded by Mr. Slavin and unanimously carried. PUBLIC HEARING ON REQUEST OF WHITE OAK/TOWNE POINT CIVIC ASSOCIATION TO LIMIT PARKING ON MILLER DRIVE TO ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE STREET During the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Meeting of August 28, 2013, members considered a request from the White Oak/Towne Point Civic Association President, Mr. Nelson Hill, to conduct a study of Miller Drive to determine if parking on both sides of the street was safe. After much discussion, members recommended that a public hearing before City Council be set for October 14, 2013 at 7:30 p.m. to consider prohibiting parking on the north side of Miller Drive. The recommendation for a public hearing was approved by City Council during their Regular Meeting of September 9, 2013, and a public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider the request of White Oak/Towne Point Civic Association to limit parking on Miller Drive to only one side of the street. Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, advised members that following the August 28, 2013 Committee Meeting, he visited the area to review the ideas put forth at the meeting. Based on the testimony at the meeting, as well as a field visit, staff recommended placing the proposed parking restriction on the north side of the road (odd-numbered side of the road), where the fire hydrants are located. Placement of the restriction on the side of the road with the fire hydrants is consistent with the parking restrictions on Boggs Drive, Buck Drive, and Carvel Drive. He stated that there is a total of six (6) “No Parking This Side” signs that will need to be installed, based on the number of street light poles on the north side of the street. The estimated total cost of the signs is $130.74. Council President Bonar declared the public hearing open. There being no one present wishing to speak, Council President Bonar declared the public hearing closed.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 6 Mr. Lynn moved for approval of staff’s recommendation to restrict parking on the north side of Miller Drive, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a roll call vote of six (6) yes (Dixon, Lynn, Slavin, Williams, Hutchison, and Bonar), one (1) no (Perza), and two (2) absent (Anderson and Hare). UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT - SEPTEMBER 23, 2013 The Utility Committee met on September 23, 2013 with Chairwoman Williams presiding. Dedication of Rights-of-Way and Public Infrastructure - Lexington Glen Phase 2 Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, advised members that Ashburn Homes, Inc., the responsible party for completing the public infrastructure within Phase 2 of the Lexington Glen Subdivision, had requested that all public infrastructure improvements related to this phase be dedicated to the City of Dover for permanent ownership and maintenance. He reviewed an outline of the public improvements associated with Phase 2 and noted that the total construction value of the public improvements was $414,222. In addition, he reviewed a map depicting the general location and configuration of the subject rights-of-way. Mr. Koenig assured members that Ashburn Homes, Inc. completed construction of the improvements within Phase 2 in accordance with City standards and specifications. After construction was completed, City staff inspected the public improvements and developed a list of repairs to be made to meet the City of Dover Standards and Specifications for Public Works Construction. Mr. Koenig noted that all work required by the Public Works Director had been completed. A one (1) year Maintenance Agreement and a Release of Liabilities would be submitted as part of the dedication process. He stated that the required as-built drawings of the infrastructure, as well as videos of the sanitary sewer mains, had been provided to staff. Staff recommended acceptance of the dedication of rights-of-way and public infrastructure in Phase 2 of the Lexington Glen Subdivision, with the dedication to include all of the referenced public improvements. The committee recommended approval of staff’s recommendation for the acceptance of the dedication of rights-of-way and public infrastructure for Lexington Glen Phase 2, to include all of the referenced public improvements. By consent agenda, Mr. Slavin moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Anderson and Hare absent). Rate Classification/Tariff Amendment for Churches Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, advised members that staff had received a request from the Presbyterian Church of Dover (the Church) to consider a change in tariff language for the C/C1 (Small Commercial) description. Specifically, he stated that the request was to have the wording “or have instrument rated metering” removed from the C/C1 classification description. He explained that for this specific example, the Church had consumption levels below the 3,500 kWh/month limit for the C/C1 designation, but their electrical service metering was of the instrument rated type, which

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 7 would prevent them from requesting a classification change from C5 to C/C1. The Church was seeking the new classification to avoid the demand charges associated with the C5 classification. Mr. Koenig explained that it appeared that, several years ago, certain churches were included in the residential tariff before commercial tariffs became customized and more sophisticated. At that time, staff sought input from the City’s power supply attorney, Mr. Kirk Betts, on this subject. Mr. Betts advised staff that many churches hold functions in the evening from 6-10 p.m., which is a part of PJM’s 16-hour peak period, as well as on weekends. Typically, the more active the church, the more likely it is to have a consumption pattern that is similar to commercial users rather than residential users. Mr. Betts advised against creating a specialized “church” or “houses or places of worship” tariff. Mr. Betts also indicated that, as a general rule for rate making, tariffs and rates are based upon cost causation; therefore, similar voltage, demands, and consumption patterns should pay similar rates. Mr. Koenig stated that, based on a review of property listings and the type of use of actual buildings (not a review of individual demands), there were as many as 24 churches that may be in the same situation as the Presbyterian Church of Dover; therefore, any change to the tariff could alter the City’s revenue projections based on the modeling of the system. Mr. Koenig reminded members that the City of Dover had spent a considerable amount of money to complete detailed rate classifications and projections based on the approved tariff language and classifications. Any modifications to the tariffs without analyzing the potential impact on the rates and revenues could degrade the integrity of the current rates. Mr. Koenig indicated that detailed modeling of the requested tariff modification would require input and analysis from the City’s rate consultant to ensure accuracy and fairness with respect to financial modeling. He explained that such effort would likely create costs for the utility. As an alternate solution, the Presbyterian Church could rework their metering configuration (at a substantial cost) to comply with the current C/C1 tariff language. Staff recommended that no action be taken on this request at this time and that the issue be evaluated during the next rate study conducted for the Electric System. Mr. Koenig stated that the Presbyterian Church had done a good deal of work on their usage and demand and had been a good customer, considering that they had made attempts to conserve energy where appropriate; however, staff was very concerned about altering the tariff language, the unintended consequences of such alteration, and how this may affect the City’s rates. Mr. Koenig noted that a review of the Church’s profile over the last year revealed that consumption was under the 3,500 kWh per month consumption limit for C/C1 and ranged from 2,100 to 2,800 kWh. As a result, he stated that they do meet the kWh criteria; however, the instrument rated metering portion was not in compliance and the concept of moving the Church from classification to classification was a concern. He advised members that the City’s rates were standard industry rates, there was no additional or special language included in the tariff, and the provision had been included for several years. He explained that staff was concerned about the effect that such a change could have on the tariffs, as well as making any adjustments in “mid-stream.” The estimated cost of changing the Church’s service to new metering was $5,000-$7,000.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 8 Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mr. Koenig stated that the Church spent $240-$350 per month; therefore, it would take approximately 2 - 2½ years to recapture the $5,000-$7,000 cost. In the interest of disclosure, Mr. Blakeman advised members that he served as a Trustee for the First Baptist Church; therefore, he would recuse himself from voting on this matter since he had a vested interest. However, he questioned who installed the meter that was presently serving the Church. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that the City owned the meter and the Church owned the meter pan, explaining that the meter was installed by the City to adjust to the Church’s meter pan. In response to Mr. Perza, Mr. Koenig stated there were many properties with meters in the C5 classification, including an estimated 24 church properties. The estimated financial impact as a result of a change for this classification would be a minimum of approximately $3,600 per year, per location. Mr. Steve Enss, Interim Electric Director, indicated that the meter was provided based on the size of the service. He explained that the meter provided for the Church had the capability to take higher voltage than an average residential meter can read and bring it down to a level that could be read with a meter. If a church requests a large service, installation of instrument transformers would be required. If a church requests a small, 200-amp, residential-type service, a C1 classification (400 amp service and below) meter would be assigned, which would not fall into the C5 classification. Mr. Enss indicated that there was potential for the Presbyterian Church to use more than 400 amps; however, the Church was currently falling under 400 amp usage, and they had the option to reduce the size of their current service. He stated that when these types of changes occur, the expense is borne by the customer. To clarify questions of Mr. Slavin, Mr. Enss stated that the meter was installed by the City based on the customer’s request and service size, explaining that a service size greater than 400 amps was requested and that the City installed an instrument transformer to meet that request. Responding to Mr. Perza, Mr. Enss indicated that every meter is installed by the City. Considering the time frame that it would take the Church to downsize and upgrade their meter, Mrs. Williams questioned the possibility of the Church being charged at the rate they are using rather than the rate of the service provided. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that staff did not have the authority to charge customers differently from tariff requirements; therefore, it was necessary to place customers within the tariff that meets the definition of their service. He stated that, to his knowledge, there had been no precedent to go beyond the tariff during the past two (2) years; however, he felt that there may have been prior instances when temporary tariffs had been put in place. At the request of Mrs. Williams, Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, confirmed that there had never been an instance where the City had gone beyond the tariff requirements. She noted that this action might be in violation of the City’s bond covenants, which require the City to charge according to the tariffs. Mr. Koenig stated that when electric demands for a facility are identified, the customer works directly with the Electric Department to size the service, as well as the meter, to meet the demand.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 9 He indicated that when commercial customers desire to downsize or consolidate their businesses, they must request a meter change, requiring an adjustment to their service size. Responding to Mr. Hutchison, Mr. Koenig indicated that it would be a couple of years before the City would conduct the next rate study, unless City Council directed staff otherwise. Mrs. Mitchell suggested that members may wish to consider having the demand data gathered for this type of classification and send this to the consultant separately to obtain his opinion in a timely manner. Council President Bonar noted that the request of the Church was received in April and felt that staff had ample time to gather the suggested information and provide it to members at this time for their review and consideration. Since the Church had been waiting since April for an answer regarding their request, he felt that members owed them an answer at this time. Mr. Gary Patterson, 41 Park Drive, stated that he served as the Secretary of the Trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Dover and the Clerk of Session and was serving as the representative of the Church in regard to this issue. He advised members that the Church was now in its 299th year in the City of Dover and, in advance of the 300th year anniversary (beginning September 2014), the 276-member congregation had committed over $300,000 in capital improvements that would be undertaken during the next 12 months, some of which had begun. He stated that some of these improvements included upgrades to the 1950's education wing (located right of the sanctuary), where electric service was not “knob and tube” but contained fuses that no longer exist and parts that could not be located; therefore, the Church had committed $20,000-$25,000 to upgrade the electrical system. He stated that, in anticipation of this improvement and other improvements to follow, the Church submitted their request to the City Manager’s Office. Mr. Patterson advised members of energy efficiencies that had been instituted at the Church, including window replacements, light bulb replacements, an A/C system (only for sanctuary), etc., explaining that the Church had taken steps to reduce the Church’s demand; however, the issue now was relative to the C5 rate classification. He indicated that the Church needed to know if they would be required to spend the $7,000 so that these funds were not spent on other capital improvements and that this was the reason for the immediacy of their request. He advised members that Mr. Ed Mulford, who conducted a five (5) year study of the Church’s electrical usage, and Mr. John Littlefield, who had a strong industrial background and a lifetime of experience in engineering, were in attendance and requested that members dialogue with them for a better understanding of the particulars regarding this issue. Mr. John Littlefield, 90 Watersedge Drive, explained that the main concern with the tariff was the difficulty understanding why a particular meter would affect a rate classification. He stated that the meters, in today’s world, measure demand, consumption, etc. and felt that there was no reason to base the rate or classification on the meter or meter type. Mr. Ed Mulford, 944 Janeka Lane, indicated that, from the Church’s perspective, the difficulty was with the reasoning behind those five (5) words in the tariff as they exist, “or have instrument rated metering,” which kept them from making the application successfully. He explained that the difficulty was that, although the Church could spend the $5,000-$7,000 required to have the metering changed and the Church’s request would then be a moot point, this would take $5,000-$7,000 away from other mission work that the Church was trying to fulfill. Regarding energy usage, he stated that

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 10 the Church’s records, over the 11 years reviewed, showed that, although air conditioning had been added to areas, overall usage had been decreased. He assured members that it was their intention to continue to take initiatives to reduce energy consumption. Mr. Mulford explained that it was the Church’s load profile, which indicated a peak on Sundays, that “punishes” the Church. He noted that, in accordance with the tariff, a peak demand as short as 15 minutes “punishes” them the other six (6) days of the week; whereas, in most commercial situations, the demand charge is distributed over a five (5) to seven (7) day usage profile. Mr. Perza suggested that staff review the remarks made and conduct a historic review to determine what action the City had taken in past situations when this had occurred, what impact such a change would have on the City’s revenue from these types of classified meters, and how many customers would be impacted by such a change. For clarification, Mr. Perza confirmed that staff’s determination would be based on a possible amendment to the tariff that would eliminate the phrase “or have instrument rated metering,” and would provide information on the impact that this would have on the City in terms of revenue or other unforeseen possibilities (effects on other non-profits, churches, commercial customers, etc.). Mr. Slavin relayed his disappointment in the manner in which this matter had been handled. He felt that it was poor customer service for staff to require an institution that had been a part of the City for nearly 300 years to wait six (6) months for the matter to be considered by the Committee for their review and recommendation to City Council and then request the Church to wait an additional 30-60 days to allow staff the opportunity to conduct further research. He stated that the Church, in addition to being a good steward to the community, had donated two (2) of their older properties to the State of Delaware and these properties were currently being used as a home for the Children’s Theater of Dover and Kent County. Noting that the Church’s congregation had given back to the City and had always treated the City well, he felt that the Church deserved to be treated well by the City; therefore, he explained his opposition to the motion. In response to the concerns relayed by Mr. Slavin, Mr. Perza indicated appreciation for the contributions made by the Church; however, as a Committee member, he explained the need for the requested information in order to make a decision. Although he felt confident that the City would be receptive to assisting the Church in this matter, he stated that the information was necessary in order to make a decision and help the Church meet their goal. Mrs. Williams requested that staff also provide information on the specific impact that the elimination of these five (5) words from the tariff (“or have instrument rated metering”) would have on the bond covenants. The committee recommended that this matter be referred back to staff to determine, if the requested change were granted, based on a possible amendment to the tariff that would eliminate the phrase “or have instrument rated metering,” what impact it would have on the City in terms of revenue or other unforeseen possibilities; how many customers would be impacted (including other non-profits, churches, commercial customers, etc.); and, historically, how similar changes had been made in the past, for a report back to the Utility Committee by no later than their meeting scheduled for October 28, 2013.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 11 By consent agenda, Mr. Slavin moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Anderson and Hare absent). By consent agenda, Mr. Slavin moved for acceptance of the Utility Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Anderson and Hare absent). LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT - SEPTEMBER 23, 2013 The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met on September 23, 2013 with Chairman Lynn presiding. Central Dover Planning Grant Donation Request Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, advised members that staff recently received a request from Mr. Joe L. Myer to offer financial support through a $10,000 donation for a project to be known as the Central Dover Planning Initiative. He explained that this project was part of the Wells Fargo Regional Foundation Grant, which was awarded in the amount of $90,000. The overall total project cost was estimated to be $120,000. He indicated that the purpose of the project was to engage the community to address the challenges that many neighborhoods throughout Delaware and the nation were facing – homes that were deteriorating, declining homeownership rates, persistent crime, and limited access to services. This effort would provide opportunity for various stakeholders to work together to make necessary improvements, organize associations, and take a holistic approach to neighborhood building, affordable housing, economic development, and social service delivery. Members were reminded that, in accordance with the current budget rules, the City Manager was not authorized to transfer funds from the 10 series of the budget without City Council approval. Mr. Koenig indicated that the request was to transfer unused salary from vacant positions to the regular operating budget in order to make the donation to the project. He explained that if Council did not authorize the transfer from the 10 series as requested, staff would need to identify another area of the budget for funding, as this was an important project for the central Dover area. Staff recommended that City Council authorize the City Manager to transfer $10,000 from the 10 series of the Planning, Code Enforcement and Inspections budget to make the requested donation to the Central Dover Planning Initiative. The committee recommended approval of staff’s recommendation. By consent agenda, Mr. Slavin moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation to authorize the City Manager to transfer $10,000 from the 10 series of the Planning, Code Enforcement and Inspections budget to make the requested donation to the Central Dover Planning Initiative. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Anderson and Hare absent). Title V Grant Application - Hot Shots (Partnership with Aid in Dover) Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, reminded members that since the fall of 2007, the City of Dover had partnered with Aid in Dover to secure funds through the Criminal Justice Council to provide programming to target at-risk youth. The first

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 12 three (3) year cycle funded a program called Girls Circle, which provided after school programming for at-risk girls in middle school to help improve their self-esteem and reinforce positive life choices. The second three (3) year cycle funded a program call GAMES (Growing up And Meeting Each Success), which provided after school programming for boys and girls between the ages of 12 and 18 to help reinforce positive life choices. The current grant request was for a one (1) year grant that consisted of a basketball program for children between the ages of 12 and 17. The program would meet one (1) evening per week for three (3) hours and offer two (2) tournaments during the course of the year. Mrs. Townshend noted that Aid in Dover had provided two (2) potential grant applications for consideration, one (1) of which would include the cost of utilizing the John W. Pitts Center as in-kind match, and the other that included paying the cost of utilizing the John W. Pitts Center out of the grant request. She summarized the two (2) scenarios for each grant proposal, as follows: 1) Scenario A, in which the City would allow the cost of the John W. Pitts Center as part of the in-kind match and the program would provide three (3), 12-week sessions, reaching a total of 50 youth; and 2) Scenario B in which the grant funds would pay for the use of the John W. Pitts Center and the program would provide three (3), 10-week sessions, reaching a total of 30 youth. Mrs. Townshend explained that the in-kind match provided by the City of Dover under the grant proposal would be as follows: 1) Finance staff hours for grant administration – 6 hours @ $37.38 per hour = $224; 2) Parks and Recreation hours for grant administration – 30 hours @ $28.75 per hour = $862; and 3) John W. Pitts Center Gym usage (Scenario A only) – 113 hours @ $75 per hour = $8,475 She indicated that staff had concerns about allowing use of the John W. Pitts Center without charge, since there were many community groups that regularly request use of the facility free of charge and there was no clear criteria for granting a fee waiver. As such, it was felt that this could create the impression of unequal or preferential treatment of one (1) group over another. Staff recommended approval of the grant application for “Scenario B,” where grant funds would pay for the use of the John W. Pitts Center. The committee recommended approval of staff’s recommendation. By consent agenda, Mr. Slavin moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation for approval of the grant application for "Scenario B," where grant funds would pay for the use of the John W. Pitts Center. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Anderson and Hare absent).

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 13 Open Forum Speaker Rules - Affirmation of the Three (3) Minute Time Limit and Establishment of a Rule Against Ceding Time to Another Person Chairman Lynn noted that it had been City Council’s past practice to allow three (3) minutes for speakers during the Open Forum segment before each City Council meeting. Recently, several individuals had requested to cede time to other individuals, which could potentially allow an individual to speak for the entire 15-minute time allotment for the Open Forum, precluding other speakers. He suggested affirmation of the three (3) minute time limit and establishment of a rule against ceding time to another person. Responding to Mr. Rushe, Mr. Lynn indicated that members would be permitted to suspend the rules to allow speakers additional time. In response to concerns of Mrs. Williams, Mr. Lynn suggested that on those occasions when the rules were suspended to provide a speaker additional time, the Chair would gauge whether there were other individuals wishing to speak and, if so, members would craft a motion to suspend the rules in a way that would not preclude other individuals from having the opportunity to speak. Mrs. Traci McDowell, City Clerk, reminded members that Council is not in official session during the Open Forum segment of the meeting; therefore, suspension of a time limit would be at the discretion of the Council President. As an alternative, Mr. Shevock suggested that if a 15-minute period were allotted and there were six (6) individuals wishing to speak, an individual who wished to go beyond their three (3) minute period could be stopped after three (3) minutes. If time remained after all speakers, members could then allow that individual an additional opportunity to speak. Responding, Mr. Lynn felt that this suggestion would fall within the purview of the Council President during the Open Forum segment. Mr. Eshed Alston, 406 Arnold Court, Dover, suggested that the time limit be increased to five (5) minutes, explaining that if several speakers were requesting additional time, this may be an indication that enough time was not initially provided to speakers. If five (5) minutes were provided, he felt that this time limit should not to be exceeded, no proxy use of time should be allowed, and if time remained at the conclusion of all speakers, an individual could then be provided additional time to speak. The committee recommended the affirmation of the three (3) minute time limit for speakers at the Open Forum segment of the Council Meetings and at the committee level and the establishment of a rule against ceding time to another person at both the committee level and Open Forum Sessions. By consent agenda, Mr. Slavin moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Anderson and Hare absent). Review of Proposed Staff Evaluation Form During their Regular Meeting of October 10, 2011, City Council requested that staff research and design a new employee performance evaluation form which would better meet the needs of both the City and employees. As directed, staff conducted research and designed an Employee Performance Evaluation, which was provided to members for their review and recommendation.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 14 Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, indicated that the proposed evaluation form would be utilized for all employees, with the exception of sworn police officers. An evaluation would be required for all employees and would be completed on the anniversary of the employee’s hire date. Mr. Koenig advised members that all department heads had reviewed the proposed evaluation form and felt that it was an improvement over what had been previously utilized. Staff recommended approval of the proposed Employee Performance Evaluation Form. Responding to Mrs. Williams, Mr. Koenig stated that the evaluation form had not been vetted through an attorney; however, to his knowledge, no evaluation form had been vetted. He stated that staff would forward the form to the City Solicitor’s Office for review prior to the Committee’s recommendation being considered by City Council. In response to Mr. Perza, Mr. Koenig confirmed that no concerns were relayed by department heads regarding the use of the proposed evaluation form; however, he stated that there were concerns regarding the evaluation date requirement such as hire date, end of the budget year, beginning of the calendar year, etc. He stated that there were a few suggestions from staff and that the evaluation form was adjusted accordingly. Council President Bonar relayed appreciation to staff for developing an evaluation form that provided unanimity among the City’s evaluation procedures. The committee recommended approval of staff’s recommendation stipulating a favorable review by the City Solicitor’s Office. (City Clerk’s Office Note: Subsequent to the legal review, Staff revised the Employee Performance Evaluation Form to include the City Solicitor’s recommendations.) During the Council Meeting, Mr. Koenig advised members that Deputy City Solicitor Pepper had suggested amending page 1, Instructions, under the paragraph “Signatures” by adding language, as follows: “The employee may be subject to discipline for refusing to sign the performance evaluation”. Staff recommended approval of the evaluation form with the amendment submitted by Deputy City Solicitor Pepper. Mr. Slavin moved for approval of staff’s recommendation to approve the Revised Employee Performance Evaluation Form (Exhibit #1), seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a roll call vote of six (6) yes (Dixon, Perza, Slavin, Williams, Hutchison, and Bonar), one (1) no (Lynn), and two (2) (Anderson and Hare). Mr. Lynn moved for acceptance of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Slavin and unanimously carried.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 15 SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE REPORT - SEPTEMBER 25, 2013 The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee met on September 25, 2013 with Chairman Hutchison presiding. Dover High School Construction Update Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, reminded members that monthly coordination meetings with the Capital School District (the District) were continuing and had been very successful, with the next meeting scheduled for September 26, 2013. The meetings had been attended by representatives of the District, City and State agencies, and recently included the engineer from the Leander Lakes subdivision project. Mrs. Townshend reviewed a map depicting the layout of the New Dover High School Project. Mrs. Townshend reminded members that concerns had been relayed by the District regarding the availability of funds and the District had indicated a possible need to re-evaluate whether they could construct the east entrance, as previously planned. She stated that last week she had attended a meeting of the Capital School Board where an update on school construction was provided by EDiS, the building contractor, and ABHA, the architect. Mrs. Townshend stated that the site plan had been approved, a request for a parking reduction had been submitted, and a public hearing had been scheduled for the Planning Commission on October 21, 2013. She indicated that the plan was to reserve areas for parking in the future rather than build the parking lots at this time. In addition, EDIS and ABHA would be providing an overview of the project similar to that provided to the Capital School Board last week. She noted that there were several issues that the District wished to present for possible revisions that would help to reduce costs, such as the number of tennis courts, seating capacity in the stadium, etc. Mrs. Townshend stated that the issue of greatest interest to the City was the east entrance to the school and she assured members that the District was aware of the City’s concerns regarding this matter. Should the District wish to eliminate the east entrance, she stated that they would be required to submit the request to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. At this time, there was no indication that the District would not move forward with construction of the east entrance. She assured members that staff would meet with the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) to discuss the functionality of the intersection and reminded members that the City had discussed the possibility of revisiting the entrance design to be reduced to “right in/right out.” Mrs. Townshend stated that all other construction on site was proceeding as planned. She stated that she would advise members of the action taken by the Planning Commission when they consider the parking request during their meeting in October. Mr. Davis noted that the east entrance was planned to accommodate bus traffic and that the west entrance was planned to accommodate vehicular traffic. According to a recent newspaper article, he stated that the road on the west entrance was augmented as a necessity by DelDOT, which is why the monies were not available for the east entrance. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated that Leander Lakes submitted the apartment complex site plan before the new high school plan was submitted; however, due to the economy, construction by Leander Lakes slowed. To her recollection, the roadway was originally planned to be a 24’ - 26’ wide City street. With the addition

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 16 of the school project, there was discussion as to how the road would be redesigned, and the initial conceptual design of the road by Leander Lakes did not meet the needs to serve both properties. As a result, the design of the roadway was widened in order to serve both properties. She noted that there were additional concerns regarding the connection to Tribbitt Street and connecting through Cannon Mill. As a result, it was decided to bring the connector road all the way through to Hazlettville Road, and, at that time, it was determined that the road would serve as a regional connector road. As such, it then became a DelDOT road which would be built to DelDOT standards. She was not aware of the cost difference between construction as a DelDOT road versus a City road. Responding to Mr. Davis, Mrs. Townshend explained that after the connector road was determined to be a DelDOT road, the District entered into an agreement which specified that the District would be responsible for designing and building the entrance and the road down to the school’s points of access, and Leander Lakes would pay for the additional section of the road. According to the agreement, construction must be complete by May 2014. The design, as prepared by Landmark Engineering, the engineers for Leander Lakes, had been submitted to DelDOT, who had submitted comments. The intent was to have the design finalized by the end of the year in order for construction to begin shortly after the first of the year. In addition, Mrs. Townshend noted that DelDOT was responsible for the design and installation of the HAWK signal and was paying for approximately $700,000 in sidewalk improvements on the north side of Route 8. Therefore, she assured members that DelDOT had a share of the responsibilities for the completion of this project. Ms. Karen Nickerson, 24 Stoney Drive, Heatherfield, requested additional information regarding the road that would travel through Cannon Mills. She relayed concerns that such a road would provide additional traffic on Route 8. Responding, Mrs. Townshend explained that the intent was for the road to improve traffic conditions. She stated that staff’s concern, and the reason that the interconnection was urged, was that there were over 900 units in both Cannon Mill and Village of Westover, with several of these units containing children who would attend the new school. She explained that it was assumed that some of these children would drive to school rather than walk, and without the interconnection it would be necessary for them to utilize Hazlettville Road, either Artis Drive or Mifflin Road, and Route 8 in order to access the school. She stated that since the road would not be a direct route through the subdivision, it was not anticipated that it would be utilized as a “pass through,” like Mifflin Road and Artis Drive. Ms. Nickerson explained her concern regarding the current difficulty in leaving the subdivision due to traffic. Residents were previously advised that the traffic signal at Mifflin Road would help; however, she stated that this had not provided relief. Responding, Mrs. Townshend noted that an additional traffic signal would be installed and, with signal timing, she felt that those concerns would be addressed. In response to Mr. Keller regarding whether current traffic information was analyzed, it was Mrs. Townshend’s recollection that DelDOT utilized information from the 2008 Route 8 Study in reviewing the traffic plan. Mr. Mark Luszcz, representative of DelDOT, stated that a report was received in 2011 from the District’s engineer which included a justification for the proposed traffic signal at the west entrance and that this report would have contained updated traffic counts.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 17 Mr. Les Blakeman, 209 Falmouth Way, Cranberry Run, questioned if the roadway extension would eventually travel to Hazlettville Road. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated that although this continued to be a part of the plan, it had not been “pushed out” by DelDOT and there was no funding associated with this project. In addition, she stated that the property owner did not necessarily want to sell the right-of-way; therefore, there were several obstacles that would need to be overcome before the extension could come to fruition. Mr. Ray Paylor, 10 Yarmouth Way, Cranberry Run, stated that his property was located directly across from the new Dover High School. He questioned if there was an estimated date for the construction of the apartment complex by Leander Lakes. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated that the City recently received comments from the Kent Conservation District relating to the stormwater review for the project. At the current pace, she estimated that construction would begin in a year. No further action was taken. Presentation on the High-Intensity Activated crossWalK (HAWK) Signal (Delaware Department of Transportation) Mr. Mark Luszcz, Chief Traffic Engineer for the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT), and Mr. Steve Brown, Project Development - Road Design for DelDOT, introduced themselves and reviewed a Presentation - Route 8 & Heatherfield Way: Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon. Mr. Luszcz explained that the traffic control device known as the HAWK, (High-intensity Activated crossWalK) is officially called a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon. He indicated that the device was not a full traffic signal nor a beacon, which would be a constant flashing yellow light or a red signal ahead when flashing, but served as a hybrid of these two (2) devices. Mr. Luszcz indicated that the HAWK is used to safely control pedestrian and vehicular traffic in locations where there is a moderate to high volume of both pedestrians and vehicles in instances where a full traffic signal is not justified. He stated that many years of research had been performed to determine when a full operating traffic signal should be utilized. He explained that when a full traffic signal is utilized but not justified (based on certain criteria), negative results occur, such as accidents, unacceptable and unnecessary delays, etc. He stated that, according to the analyses of the Capital School District (the District) and DelDOT, based on the traffic and expected pedestrian volume criteria, a full traffic signal was not warranted at the east entrance of the new Dover High School (the school) at this time; however, a full traffic signal was warranted at the west entrance. He noted that the criteria could change in the future. Mr. Luszcz explained that the HAWK signal would be installed at the intersection of Route 8 and Heatherfield Way, near the proposed east entrance of the school, which was scheduled to open in the Fall of 2014. He explained that a HAWK signal would remain normally dark for vehicular traffic and is activated when a pedestrian presses the activation button, much like at a crosswalk at a regular traffic signal. He stated that, once activated, the HAWK signal goes through stages to stop traffic long enough for the pedestrian to safely cross the street. Once the pedestrian crosses, traffic resumes as normal and the HAWK signal resets itself for future activation. Members reviewed a video depicting proper and improper use of a HAWK signal located in Newark.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 18 Referring to the video, Mr. Brett Martine, Traffic Engineer with DelDOT, suggested the possibility of placing an article in a local newspaper and including some type of narrative to the presentation to provide an explanation on proper utilization of the HAWK signal. Mr. Luszcz offered to take whatever action necessary to inform the public, indicating that DelDOT took extensive measures with public outreach in Newark when the signal was installed; however, there was no cooperation with the media, explaining that a press conference was held and no one attended, nor was there newspaper coverage of any kind regarding the information. Mr. Jeff Brown of the Dover Post offered to include a link on the newspaper’s website directing the public to DelDOT to obtain information on the HAWK signal. In response to Mr. Perza regarding whether any special legislation should be enacted in relation to the HAWK signal since there was no other such device being utilized in Delaware with the exception of Newark, Mr. Luszcz suggested that this be discussed with the Dover Police Department. If the City were to request some type of legislation to address violations in connection with the device, DelDOT could offer assistance. In addition, Mrs. Townshend suggested that the District become involved and introduce students to the device and how it functions. Ms. Ann Alexander, 15 Stoney Drive, Heatherfield, suggested the possibility of using a camera at the intersection. Responding, Mr. Luszcz stated that cameras installed for red light enforcement are placed in locations based on a very regimented, State-wide, data-driven prioritization system (based on accidents, etc.). He stated that DelDOT utilizes traffic monitoring cameras, which are not recorded, and that surveillance cameras were not installed by DelDOT. Mrs. Townshend confirmed that the City had installed surveillance cameras in the downtown area. Responding to Mr. Les Blakeman, 209 Falmouth Way, Cranberry Run, regarding concerns of out-of-town visitors, particularly during NASCAR weekend, Mr. Luszcz assured members that message boards, as well as permanent signage, would be erected to notify drivers of the new signal. Consideration would be given to erecting message boards specifically for race weekend. In response to Mr. Davis, Mr. Luszcz advised members that the portion of Route 8 adjacent to the school was not considered a “school zone;” therefore, no signage would be erected indicating such, nor would there be a reduction in speed limit. He stated that there was no evidence that drivers react to speed limit signs, explaining that traffic does not change speed based on the speed limit but rather the surrounding environment (main arterial road, rural area, vacant land, etc.). Should the area develop and traffic increase, this would adjust the speed of traffic in the area. Mr. Davis suggested that this matter be further considered by the Committee in the future, noting his opinion that this portion of Route 8 should be a designated school zone. Mr. Perza referred to other areas in the City where crossing guards control the traffic signal, allowing pedestrians to cross roadways, and questioned if the HAWK signal could be used in a similar manner. Responding, Mr. Luszcz stated opposition, explaining that DelDOT was making a concerted effort in New Castle County to eliminate the use of crossing guards for controlling traffic signals, with plans for elimination throughout the State. Noting that crossing guards “do a great job,” he indicated that they are not professionally trained and that they actually cause more safety and operational problems than they solve.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 19 Responding to Mr. Perza, Mr. Luszcz stated that the HAWK signal had been designed so that it could potentially be converted to a full traffic signal if it met that justification, based on a future traffic study. He explained that the current actions being taken were based on projected pedestrian and vehicular traffic numbers. Mr. Luszcz indicated that it would be the State’s financial responsibility to make such changes in the future. He felt confident that the school, City, and State, would be monitoring the intersections and if there were significant issues, DelDOT staff would conduct an updated traffic study. Ms. Karen Nickerson, 24 Stoney Drive, Heatherfield, relayed concern that the children living in Cranberry Run who were attending school would not walk down to Heatherfield East to cross over to the school. Responding, Mr. Luszcz stated that Route 8 should not be crossed without the assistance of a traffic signal; however, DelDOT had no control over the actions individuals would take in this regard. At the request of Mrs. Townshend, Mr. Bruce Ashby, Transportation Supervisor for the District, stated that it was anticipated that the students residing in Cranberry Run, Heatherfield, and off Route 8 down to the traffic signal at Dover-Kenton Road, such as the apartments in the area, Mallard Pond, etc. would be walking to school. It had been estimated that this would consist of approximately 100 students. Responding to Mrs. Townshend, Mr. Luszcz stated that a crosswalk at the west entrance was not currently in the plans. Noting that there were no sidewalks, Mrs. Townshend questioned if there would be more compliance with using the signals to cross Route 8, particularly for those students who reside in Cranberry Run, if they could cross at the west entrance. Mr. Ashby indicated that it would be a shorter distance for students from Cranberry Run to walk to the east intersection than the west intersection. Mr. Martine stated that, in addition to working for DelDOT, he also served as the President of the Cranberry Run Homeowners Association. He advised members that since sidewalk had not been installed all the way down to the west intersection, it was anticipated that the students would do some type of diagonal crossing. He felt that consideration of any type of connection down to the west entrance may be more accommodating than to have a “backtrack” situation. Responding, Mr. Luszcz felt that, although it would not be difficult to retrofit the west entrance to include a crosswalk, it was not currently included in the plans. Mr. Steve Brown advised members that DelDOT was currently tasked to install sidewalks only from Marsh Creek connecting to the existing sidewalk in Heatherfield and then on the west side of Stoney Drive to Cranberry Run. He stated that a five-foot (5’) sidewalk, hugging the curb, would be installed, weaving in and out for mailboxes and utility poles. He stated that DelDOT was tasked to have these sidewalks installed in order to get students safely from those developments to the HAWK signal. Mr. Blakeman referred to an “S” shaped sidewalk from Route 8 to the front door of the school, which he felt would encourage students to cross at the appropriate location. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated that this sidewalk had not yet been constructed and suggested that it be re-evaluated.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 20 Mr. Perza noted that Delaware State University had a wall erected across their facility along Route 13 and questioned the possibility of erecting a wall or fence to deter students from crossing Route 8. In response to Ms. Alexander’s concerns regarding the traffic flow in the area, Mrs. Townshend stated that the entire function of the west intersection would be evaluated. Responding to Ms. Dorothy Adams, 102 Falmouth Way, Cranberry Run, Mr. Luszcz stated that a presentation and a mock demonstration of the HAWK signal had been provided to students in Newark and he offered to do the same or similar for the students at the new High School. Ms. Adams advised members that there was not a right turn lane into Cranberry Run, noting that there was a lane present but that there was a white line which discouraged crossing. When turning into Cranberry Run, she stated that vehicles pass using the lane for oncoming traffic. She relayed concern that this may cause a bad accident and questioned the possibility of a turn lane being installed. Responding, Mr. Martine, indicated his opinion that the recent street resurfacing in front the subdivision, provided a great opportunity for the addition of a turn lane. However, he explained that the guidelines for a turn lane stipulate the accommodation for a bike lane as well, and with the additional 4 foot bike lane, the roadway in front of Cranberry Run was 1 foot, 6 inches shy of the correct layout. He stated that, after examining the matter, the only recommendation was to possibly increase the shoulder from 8.5 feet. He stated that there was a 12 foot gore area (the yellow marking in the center of the roadway), which provides a neutral space for vehicles traveling west to pass turning vehicles, but he highly recommended that all motorists use the shoulder when turning into the subdivision, to allow vehicles to pass. In response to concerns of Mr. Sam Adams, 102 Falmouth Way, Cranberry Run, Mr. Luszcz indicated that when there is a single white line, vehicles are discouraged from crossing over; however, it is permitted. He explained that when there is a double white line, vehicles are prohibited from crossing over. Mr. Ray Paylor, 10 Yarmouth Way, Cranberry Run, advised members of an incident whereby he was given a warning by a Camden Police Officer for making a right turn from the shoulder, explaining that there was a vehicle in front of him stopped to make a left and he wanted to make a right, so he went around the vehicle on the shoulder and turned. Responding, Mr. Martine could not explain the Police Officer’s position since there was only one (1) vehicle being “passed,” explaining that if more than one (1) vehicle had been passed and the shoulder was used to advance, he would better understand the situation. He assured members that, in accordance with the governing publications utilized by traffic engineers, such a movement is legal. He again encouraged the use of the shoulder for residents turning into Cranberry Run. Mrs. Townshend personally thanked Mr. Luszcz, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Jim Satterfield from DelDOT for all of their work and diligence in working with the City and the District on this project. Mr. Perza thanked everyone for their participation at this meeting. No further action was taken.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 21 By consent agenda, Mr. Slavin moved for acceptance of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Anderson and Hare absent). MONTHLY REPORTS - AUGUST 2013 By motion of Mr. Slavin, seconded by Mr. Dixon, the following monthly reports were accepted by consent agenda: Budget Report Chief of Police Report City Assessor Report City Manager's Report City Planner’s Report Economic Development ANNEXATION/REZONING REQUEST/FIRST READING (ORDINANCE #2013-16) - 508 ACORN LANE, OWNED BY RUAL M. JUAREZ A request was received for annexation and rezoning of property located at 508 Acorn Lane, consisting of two (2) parcels totaling 2.45+/- acres (Parcel No. 1: located on the westerly side of Acorn Lane, containing 1.315+/- acres; and Parcel No. 2: located on the easterly side of Acorn Lane, containing 1.135+/- acres), owned by Raul M. Juarez. The property is currently zoned RS-1 - Single Family Residence (Kent County zoning classification) and the proposed zoning is R-8 - One-Family Residence (City of Dover zoning classification). Staff recommended that the request be referred to the Utility Committee on October 28, 2013; the Planning Commission on November 18, 2013; and that a public hearing be set for December 9, 2013 at 7:30 p.m. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, advised members that the property is an enclave, surrounded by City of Dover property, and is bisected by Acorn Lane, with a house located on the east side and the west side vacant. Mrs. Williams moved for referral, as recommended, seconded by Mr. Slavin and unanimously carried. In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of proposed Ordinance, as read by the City Clerk by title only, as follows: ORDINANCE #2013-16 AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 508 ACORN LANE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 22 ANNEXATION/REZONING REQUEST/FIRST READING (ORDINANCE #2013-17) - PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF ACORN LANE, OWNED BY THE CITY OF DOVER A request was received for annexation and rezoning of property located on the westerly side of Acorn Lane, consisting of 0.075+/- acres (3,264 s.f.), owned by the City of Dover. The property is currently zoned RS-1 - Single Family Residence (Kent County zoning classification) and the proposed zoning is R-8 - One-Family Residence (City of Dover zoning classification). Staff recommended that the request be referred to the Utility Committee on October 28, 2013 and to the Planning Commission on November 18, 2013; and that a public hearing be set for December 9, 2013 at 7:30 p.m. (TAX PARCEL ED-00-068.15-01-12.00-000; PLANNING REFERENCE AX-13-03; COUNCIL DISTRICT 3). Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, advised members that the property is a very small piece of property that was identified when the annexation request for 508 Acorn Lane was received (see previous agenda item). She stated that the property is contiguous to other property owned by City of Dover that is within the City limits. In an effort to fill-in the enclaves, Staff felt that this property should also be annexed. Mr. Slavin moved for referral, as recommended, seconded by Mrs. Williams and unanimously carried. In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of proposed Ordinance, as read by the City Clerk by title only, as follows: ORDINANCE #2013-17 AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ACORN LANE. COUNCIL MEMBERS ANNOUNCEMENTS Mrs. Williams thanked the anonymous donor for the cupcakes provided for her birthday and invited anyone wishing to participate after the meeting, to join her in the Caucus Room for a cupcake. Council President Bonar wished Mrs. Williams a happy birthday (October 6th) and an early birthday wish to Mayor Carey (October 27th). By unanimous consent, the meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. TRACI A. McDOWELL CITY CLERK

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 23 All orders, ordinances, and resolutions adopted by City Council during their Regular Meeting of October 14, 2013, are hereby approved. CARLETON E. CAREY, SR. MAYOR /TM/jg S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS\Council-Minutes\2013\10-14-2013.wpd Exhibit Exhibit #1 - Employee Performance Evaluation Form, as amended

EXHIBIT #1 Employee’s Name: Regular Council Meeting of 10/14/2013 Title: Supervisor: Review Period Instructions for the Employee Performance Evaluation September 2013 • Annual reviews are required for all employees and shall be completed on the anniversary of the employee’s hire date. • Before conducting a performance evaluation, a supervisor must give an employee a reasonable time to demonstrate performance. • A supervisor shall arrange to meet with the employee to discuss the employee’s evaluation no later than 30 days after the anniversary of the employee’s hire date. COMPLETING THE EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PART 1: Core Competencies This section is to include comments on the degree and qualities of the results achieved and note any extenuating circumstances affecting the results regarding the employee’s performance. It is important to evaluate and discuss the employee’s overall job performance and provide specific details and examples of exceptional performance as well as any areas needing improvement. It is necessary to provide a development plan to improve performance if deficiencies are noted. List any specific activities the employee can accomplish within the next year as part of their professional development plan. This section of the evaluation is not scored. PART 2: Performance Competencies Each employee shall be evaluated on all the Performance Competencies in Part II with the exception of categories that do not pertain to that specific employee. That category would be scored as New/Not Applicable, (example: Question #11 will not pertain to all employees as it is directed towards a supervisor) and not count in the employee’s overall scoring. Total the scores awarded for each performance competencies. Divide the total by the number of performance competencies graded. Place the score in the Scoring Table for Part II. Review with the Employee The supervisor shall meet with the employee to discuss and review the evaluation. The supervisor shall provide a copy of the completed evaluation at a minimum of two days prior to the meeting to the employee. This will allow the employee an opportunity to review the evaluation prior to the meeting. During the review, the individual’s performance, strengths, and developmental needs are to be discussed. Signatures The employee and the supervisor are required to sign the evaluation once it has been reviewed together. The employee may be subject to discipline for refusing to sign the performance evaluation. The employee and supervisor may attach an addendum. The evaluation shall be presented to the Department Head for review and signature. The Department Head shall then forward the evaluation to the Human Resources Director. A copy of the evaluation is to be provided to the employee. The employee shall be informed that the evaluation will be placed in the employee’s personnel file maintained in the Human Resources Department. Evaluations become a permanent record in the employee’s file.

Employee’s Name: Title: Supervisor: Employee Performance Evaluation Review Period: Employee Performance Evaluation Part I Core Competencies 1. Evaluate and discuss the employee’s overall job performance during the review period. Provide specific examples. 2. Provide any examples of exceptional performance. 3. For any areas needing improvement, provide examples and develop a plan to improve performance. 4. State and discuss the expectations and goals for the upcoming review period. Goals are to be S.M.A.R.T. (specific, measurable, attainable, realistically high, and target dated). 5. List specific activities the employee can accomplish within the upcoming review period as part of their professional development plan. 2

Employee’s Name: Title: Supervisor: Employee Performance Evaluation Review Period: Part II Performance Competencies (Depending on position, some competencies may be more relevant than others) Distinguished Contributor: Effects measurable and lasting improvements in organizational performance. Performance Improver: Contributes more than effective performance of essential functions and enhances the performance Distinguished Contributor Performance Improver Improving Contributor self and others requirements. Valued Contributor Non-Contributor Valued Contributor: Performs essential functions of the job Effectively. Improving Contributor: Learning the essential functions of the job, or improving toward effective performance of all essential. Non-Contributor: Not able or willing to perform the essential functions of the job. New/Not Applicable: Not applicable or new would be a new employee or a specific task that does not apply to a particular person. Example: Displays fairness toward all subordinates. NA Example: Displays fairness toward all subordinates. 5 1. Skill and proficiency in carrying out duties and assignments Comments: 2. Possesses skills and knowledge to perform the job competently Comments: 3. Skill at planning, organizing and prioritizing workload (For self and direct reports, if applicable) Comments: 4. Holds self accountable for assigned responsibilities, sees tasks through to completion in a timely manner Comments: 5. Proficiency at improving work methods and procedures as a means toward greater efficiency Comments: 6. Communicates effectively with supervisor, coworkers, and staff Comments: 7. Ability to work independently Comments: 8. Willingness to take on additional responsibilities Comments: 9. Reliability (attendance, punctuality, meeting deadlines) Comments: 3

Employee’s Name: Title: Supervisor: Employee Performance Evaluation Review Period: Distinguished Contributor: Effects measurable and lasting improvements in organizational performance. Distinguished Contributor Performance Improver: Contributes more than effective performance of Performance Improver Valued Contributor Improving Contributor essential functions and enhances the performance Non-Contributor self and others requirements. Valued Contributor: Performs all essential functions of the job Effectively. Improving Contributor: Learning the essential functions of the job, or improving toward effective performance of all essential. Non-Contributor: Not able or willing to perform the essential functions of the job. New/Not Applicable: Not applicable or new would be a new employee or a specific task that does not apply to a particular person. 10. Proficiency at analyzing facts, problem solving, decision-making, and demonstrating good judgment Comments: 11. Displays fairness towards all subordinates Comments: 12. Assists employees with skills development or enhancement Comments: 13. Delegates responsibility where appropriate Comments: 14. Takes timely and appropriate corrective/disciplinary action with employees Comments: 15. Observes proper workplace and job site safety rules and ensures employees follow proper safety guidelines Comments: 16. Takes specific steps to create and develop the workforce and promote a team based environment Comments: 17. Displays a positive attitude toward career Comments: 18. Exercises common sense and discretion when required Comments: 19. Can be trusted with sensitive information Comments: 20. Uses critical thinking in stressful situations Comments: 4

Employee’s Name: Title: Supervisor: Employee Performance Evaluation Review Period: Scoring Table Core Competencies (Part I) are not rated. Total the points earned for questions in Part II and place scores in the appropriate column and multiply by the total number of applicable items scored. Factors Scored Total Score Per Section Part I Core Competencies, Questions 1- 5 Not Scored Part II Questions 1 - 20 Total Score in Part II/ Number of Scored Performance Competencies Performance Rating Definitions Distinguished 5 Effects measurable and lasting improvements in organizational performance. Contributor Contributes more than effective performance of essential functions and enhances the 4 Performance Improver performance of self and others. 3 Valued Contributor Performs all essential functions of the job effectively. Learning the essential functions of the job, or improving toward effective performance of 2 Improving Contributor all essential functions. 1 Non-contributor Not able or willing to perform the essential functions of the job & unacceptable. 5

Employee’s Name: Title: Supervisor: Employee Performance Evaluation Review Period: Signatures The employee and the evaluator are required to sign in the space below after they have reviewed the evaluation. The employee’s signature does not necessarily indicate agreement with the evaluation. Any written comments made by the employee must be attached. The Performance Evaluation will be placed in the employee’s official personnel file. A copy is to be provided to the employee. Employee: I have had this evaluation explained to me.  I agree with this evaluation.  I do not agree with this evaluation.  I wish to appeal this evaluation.  I have attached an addendum to this evaluation. _______________________ Signature of Employee Date Evaluator: I have explained this evaluation to the employee and attest that the information contained herein represents my best judgment of the employee’s performance.  I have attached an addendum to this evaluation. ___________________________________________________________________ _________________________ Signature of Evaluator Date ___________________________________________________________________ _________________________ Signature of Department Head Date Employee Performance Evaluation September 2013 6

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: City Council DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Planning & Inspections DATE SUBMITTED: October 21, 2013 PREPARED BY: Ann Marie Townshend, AICP, Director of Planning and Community Development SUBJECT: 24 N New Street, Dover, Delaware – Violation of Dangerous Building Ordinance REFERENCE: Chapter 22, Article XI – Dangerous Buildings, Sec. 22-385 - Hearing before Council, sec. 22-288 – Emergency Cases, and Chapter 22, Article XI - Dangerous Buildings Case # 13-3531 & 2279 RELATED PROJECT: N/A APPROVALS: N/A EXHIBITS: PowerPoint Presentation and File Photos to be presented at the Council meeting. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Preliminary estimate is $20,000 $25,000. AMOUNT BUDGETED: $150,000 Budgeted for all demolitions Citywide in the FY-2013 Budget; As of October 21, 2013 there is $21,113.50 remaining in the line item. FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): 110-1600-534-30-33. TIMETABLE: As soon as possible. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Declare this building and all accessory structures on this property dangerous. 2. Order the property demolished immediately by the owner or equity owner at their own risk. 3. Order the Building Inspector to cause the demolition of the structure if not completed by the owner by October 30, 2013. 4. Order the City Manager with the assistance of the City Solicitor to cause the cost of demolition to be charged against the land on which the building exists as a municipal lien or cause such cost to be added to the tax duplicate as an assessment, or to be levied as a special tax, or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owner. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The property is owned by the Estate of Mary Bessie Brokenbrough. The property is a two-story wood-framed single family home. The house was condemned on October 8, 2013 due to insanitary conditions within the home and to the degree of structural damage caused by numerous water leaks. The house is stacked from floor to ceiling with belongings, creating concerns about the weight on the structure and fire hazard. City crews boarded the structure and have re-boarded on several instances due to people removing the boards and accessing the house. On Friday, October 18th, City inspectors found the house unsecured and boarded the house to secure it. On Saturday, October 19th, a City contractor boarded the house and secured the windows after the Police Department apprehended suspects burglarizing the house on the evening of October 18th. Currently, there are no utilities with numerous code violations that exist on the property. Due to the chronic nature of people accessing the house and the challenges with keeping the property secure, as well as the fire hazard and structural concerns with the structure, staff is bringing this forward as an emergency case, requiring immediate action.

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: City Council DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Planning & Inspections DATE SUBMITTED: October 18, 2013 PREPARED BY: Ann Marie Townshend, AICP, Director of Planning and Community Development SUBJECT: 142 Brandywine Drive, Dover, Delaware – Violation of Dangerous Building Ordinance REFERENCE: Chapter 22, Article XI – Dangerous Buildings, Sec. 22-385 - Hearing before Council and Chapter 22, Article XI - Dangerous Buildings Case # 13-2220 & 13-2627 RELATED PROJECT: N/A APPROVALS: N/A EXHIBITS: PowerPoint Presentation and File Photos to be presented at the Council meeting. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Preliminary estimate is $15,000 - $20,000. AMOUNT BUDGETED: $150,000 Budgeted for all demolitions Citywide in the FY-2013 Budget; As of October 18, 2013, there is $25,893.50 remaining in the line item. FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): 110-1600-534-30-33. TIMETABLE: As soon as possible. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Declare this building and all accessory structures on this property dangerous. 2. Order the property repaired or demolished by November 28, 2013 by the owner or equity owner at their own risk. 3. Order the Building Inspector to cause the repair or demolition of the structures if not completed by the owner within 10 days of the date established by City Council. 4. Order the City Manager with the assistance of the City Solicitor to cause the cost of repairs or demolition to be charged against the land on which the building exists as a municipal lien or cause such cost to be added to the tax duplicate as an assessment, or to be levied as a special tax, or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owner. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The property is owned by the Veterans Administration. The property is a two-story wood-framed single family home with a full basement. The house has been vacant since April of 2010 when the electric was terminated. Since then, the basement has been flooded by water due to the sump-pump not being able to operate. This has caused the basement level to become filled with mold and mildew and is causing water damage to the floors and walls of the home. Also the pool in the rear yard is covered but has stagnant water on the tarp. There are numerous code violations that exist on the property.

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee Meeting was held on October 14, 2013, at 3:33 p.m. with Chairman Dixon presiding. Members present were Mr. Hutchison, Mr. Perza, Mr. Caldwell, and Mrs. Horsey (arrived at 3:44 p.m.). Mayor Carey was also present (arrived at 3:35 p.m.). AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS By unanimous consent, the agenda was approved as presented. Future Use of the Dover Park Recreation Center During the Committee Meeting of July 8, 2013, members recommended approval of staff’s recommendation to demolish the recreation center at Dover Park. Since that meeting, several members of the community relayed opposition to the demolition, as recommended by the Committee (Attachment #1). As a result, when the Committee’s recommendation was presented to City Council during their meeting of July 22, 2013, members of City Council referred the matter back to the Committee to allow staff time to research methodologies for funding repair or replacement or finding a public/private partnership to keep the recreation center in operation. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, reminded members that since the opening of the John W. Pitts Center in April 2008, the demand for use of the recreation center at Dover Park declined and that, while the City continued to rent the Dover Park recreation center for parties, the Pitts Center became the primary focus of the City’s recreation programming. She explained that the recreation center no longer serves the purposes of the City’s recreation programming and noted that the programs that were scheduled for the Dover Park recreation center were frequently cancelled due to low attendance. Mrs. Townshend advised members that the building was constructed in 1974 and that it needed investment to maintain functionality. She stated that the City had discontinued rental of the building and that the FY2013 budget included $30,000 in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to replace the roof of the building, explaining that the roof had routinely been patched to repair leaks. Mrs. Townshend indicated that, during FY2013, there was discussion about potentially renting the building out to a non-profit organization. Before investing funds to replace the roof and pursuing the potential of leasing the building to a non-profit organization, staff felt it was important to do a full assessment of the building to determine what other investments would be necessary to make the building functional, as all of the building's systems were dated and in need of some update. As a result, she stated that Compliance Environmental, Inc., was retained to do a Building Condition Survey. Members were provided a copy of the "Report of Findings from a Building Condition Survey" dated May 6, 2013, which included a summary of the recommended repairs, as well as cost estimates totaling $110,475. Although the Building Condition Survey did not include a structural engineering report, should City Council wish to keep the building and renovate it, staff would recommend that a structural engineering report be obtained prior to any renovations. However, based on the information contained in the Building Condition Survey, staff recommended demolition of the structure and noted that the costs associated with demolition, estimated at $20,000 for asbestos removal and $30,000 for demolition (bids would require City Council approval), were not currently budgeted.

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 2 Mrs. Townshend reviewed a Presentation - Future Use of Dover Park Recreation center (Attachment #2). Having received concerns from the community regarding the recommendation for demolition, she stated that staff’s alternative recommendation was for the City to hire a consultant to do a Parks and Recreation System Plan for the City, which would include the Dover Park. She explained that the Plan would address indoor and outdoor recreation needs and guide investment in the City’s parks to help meet system-wide needs. In addition, the Plan would make recommendations on building partnerships to meet the City’s recreation needs. As an interim plan, Mrs. Townshend recommended performing maintenance and minimal repairs to the building; making the building available for rentals and for programming; utilizing partners to provide programming; and, allowing the building to be open only for scheduled events or programming. Responding to Mr. Hutchison, Mrs. Townshend stated that the repairs indicated in Table 1 of the Executive Summary of Building Condition Survey do not include any ADA requirements and that significant renovations would be necessary to provide restrooms that are handicapped accessible. Although such requirements may not be required by Code, she felt that if the City opted to maintain the facility, it would need to be made accessible to any and everyone. She advised members that one of the main concerns relayed by the public was the accessibility of the City’s parks. It was her opinion that to include ADA Standards in the repairs recommended, the costs would be between $175,000 and $200,000. Ms. Dolores Blackman, 7 Starboard Court, questioned the security of the City’s buildings, feeling that if people felt safe, they would use the facilities more often. Responding, Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, indicated that the Police Department monitors all City parks; however, they are not provided a schedule for the use of the parks. Ms. Blackman felt it was imperative for the City to provide security and questioned the possibility of an entry gate being installed to limit individuals from accessing the area during certain hours. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that there is a gate beyond the building which limits access to the park (open space), noting that such gates are installed at all open space parks; however, he felt that a gate could also be installed closer to the roadway, prohibiting access to the building during certain times. Mr. Reuben Salters, 109 Bertrand Drive, noted that it costs the City to provide recreation on the west side of Dover and that there are also taxpayers residing on the east side of the City. It was his feeling that the City should not let monetary issues prohibit providing recreation to all resident of the City. Mr. Salters suggested that members consider the human value in this regard, particularly for the youth, and indicated confidence in the State providing funding assistance for recreational programming. He advised members that a petition opposing the demolition of the Dover Park recreation center was submitted (as on file in the Office of the City Clerk). Mr. James Fogell, 360 Nimitz Road, advised members that Manchester Square was not in existence when the Dover Park recreation center was constructed and that it was originally planned to serve senior citizens. He relayed opposition to the demolition of the building and explained the importance of the City maintaining such assets. Mr. Fogell also noted that the buildings’ availability for rent had never been advertised. He advised members that he visits the City's parks regularly and urged members not to demolish the Dover Park recreation center.

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 3 Responding to Mr. Perza, Mrs. Townshend stated that, at some point in time the City made Schutte Park the number one priority for recreation investment and, in doing so, attention was not paid to other recreation assets. She advised members that the City has been very proactive with the City-wide playground replacement program, upgrading equipment throughout the City. She noted that the City has numerous parks located throughout the City and, with the exception of replacing playground equipment, no consideration has been given to the needs of the residents in those areas. She felt that a City-wide review of all parks should be conducted to determine the needs of the community and to make the wisest investment. Mr. Perza questioned whether it would be better to invest in the building or other aspects of Dover Park. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated that staff had discussed developing a plan for Dover Park that would include the management of vegetation to improve sight lines. She noted that there are a lot of concealed spaces in the park and managing vegetation could address some of the safety concerns. If staff was requested to make Dover Park a priority and bring forward a plan to make upgrades, Mrs. Townshend stated that would include a combination of interior and exterior improvements. She reminded members that, in recent years, the City had invested in the exterior infrastructure, such as the tennis courts, which are utilized for tennis programs, but had not invested in the building. Mr. Perza noted that many of the parks throughout Dover do not have buildings and questioned whether a study had been conducted to determine whether a demand for a building at Dover Park would exist today, if it were considered as a new park. Ms. Blackman explained the importance of aesthetics, noting that it has a lot to do with an individual’s decision whether to participate or not. She suggested that the use of horseshoes, shuffleboard, and chess be considered in improving the park, explaining that individuals would not want to be there if the facility and grounds were not maintained. Mr. Salters stated that he served on City Council during when the development of Schutte Park was taking place. He felt that the east side of Dover was neglected since everyone was focused on Schutte Park. Mr. Salters suggested that the City give the east side of Dover a priority in considering recreation for the next few years. He felt confident that the City could afford to make any necessary improvements and repairs to the building at Dover Park and requested that City Council give this consideration in the preparation of the City’s budget. Mr. Roddie Byers, 606 Walker Road, advised members that it was his recollection that when the development of Schutte Park was being considered, the original plan was to provide transportation for children residing on the east side of Dover to Schutte Park. In addition, he stated that there were plans to upgrade the sidewalk system to assist in getting children to Schutte Park. Mr. Fogell advised members that there are other maintenance issues involving the City parks, such as the ballfields having ruts that need filled. Mr. Hutchison stated that he has observed residents using the park for outdoor recreation and noted that the building does not meet the recreation needs for the community. He questioned if the City should invest $110,000 into a building that doesn’t begin to meet the recreation needs of today or

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 4 whether that money should be invested into the park (that comes with the real value). Mr. Hutchison noted that there is only one (1) local facility for senior citizens, the Modern Maturity Center, which serves 20,000 members from all areas of the City. He relayed support for improving and upgrading the Park; however, he questioned if it should include the building. Mr. Carl Barnes, 43 Homberg Circle, suggested that members not only consider the monetary value but the intangibles as well. Although the park would continue to function without the structure, he questioned what message demolition of the building would send. It was his feeling that the ADA issues should have been addressed several years ago. Concurring with Mr. Fogell, Mr. Barnes stated that he was not aware that the building was available for use and felt that there may not have been enough advertising. Mr. Barnes also indicated that whether there is a building on the property or not, security will still be required at the Park. He suggested the installation of outside restrooms, especially if the building is demolished. It was his opinion that the City would need to provide something in return for the community if the building is demolished and providing outside restrooms may be such an option. Concurring, Mr. Fogell advised members that the only public restrooms available in the area are portable toilets located near the tennis courts. He suggested that the City consider additional restrooms throughout the park. Mr. Byers suggested that the City conduct a community survey to assist in determining what action should be taken related to the Dover Park recreation center. Mr. Edward Christian, 9 Pennwood Drive, Dover, felt that the City should stop doing things piecemeal and develop short-term and long-term plans instead. He reminded members that an extensive study was conducted when Schutte Park was constructed and suggested that members use such studies to help determine what action should be taken. He recommended a cost and benefit review approach, explaining that if the benefits exceed the costs, the improvements and/or repairs should be completed; however, if the costs exceed the benefits, additional consideration should be given to determine if such improvements and/or repairs should be done. He noted that, for years, there had been concerns with the lack of recreation for youth and that this concern remains in the community today. Mrs. Townshend advised members that, in 1996, when she served as the Recreation Planner for the State of Delaware, a State-Wide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan was conducted. When the survey data was gathered from 1995, Dover was over-sampled so that there was better validity because the City of Dover was in the process of conducting recreation planning at that time. In 2002, when she left that position, the State was in the process of conducting the 2002 State-Wide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan and that, at that time, there was no over-sampling, resulting in the review of the needs at the County level. Mr. Wayne Voshell, City of Dover Recreation Coordinator, advised members that, for several years, the citizens had indicated a desire for more outside activities, such as bike trails, walking trails, etc. He stated that, with the exception of basketball, the citizens had not indicated their desire for indoor recreation activities. Mr. Voshell indicated that one of the main issues with the Dover Park recreation center was the design of the building, noting difficulty hearing in the main room.

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 5 Although most leagues and activities are outdoors, he stated that girl scout and boy scout club meetings were held in the building; however, he asked members to imagine trying to hear with several boys and girls talking in the room at the same time. Mr. Voshell agreed with the concerns regarding safety, explaining that he had been at the building late in the evening and did not feel safe. Responding, Mr. Salters stated that individuals feel safer at Schutte Park because of the excessive lighting. He relayed the simplicity of installing additional lighting at the Dover Park recreation center and suggested that the ceiling could be dropped at a minimal cost (less than $20,000), which would make the room very usable. Noting the lengthy discussion, Mr. Dixon suggested the possibility of creating a committee to review this matter. He suggested a recess to allow members to tour the building and park. Mr. Dixon stated that, following the tour, members should know which direction the City should take regarding this matter. Mr. Ellis Louden, 3 Michael Court, felt that more clear walking points were necessary. In addition, he questioned if the committee to be created would include community members and whether those members would be present when the City makes their determination. He questioned if there was a real Recreation Plan for the City. Mr. Perza moved for a 15 minute recess, seconded by Mr. Hutchison and unanimously carried. Meeting recessed at 4:44 p.m. and reconvened at 4:56 p.m. Mr. Perza moved to recommend assigning the Dover Park Study to the Planning Department for the purpose of: 1) developing a Request for Proposals (RFP) to address the most appropriate investment of city-wide park resources in Dover Park, Schutte Park, and the parks located in the southwest and southeast corners of the City; 2) to determine whether the investment of sufficient resources is necessary to address all outdoor use, indoor use, restroom facilities, security facilities; 3) as a part of the RFP, to make a recommendation on what the best and most effective expenditure of resources is before a decision is made to expend additional resources on any of the park facilities within the City; 4) as a part of this review, there should be a resource inventory to determine whether or not the City has any of the prior studies and to determine if they are practical for future use; and, 5) to gather additional input not only from the communities on the east side of Route 13, but also from communities that have parks in the southern, western, and northern parts of the City. This is to be accomplished before the City commits to expending any resources to demolish any park buildings or for the purposes of creating or constructing additional park services in the City. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutchison and unanimously carried. Mr. Perza moved to defer agenda items #2 and #3 to the next Committee Meeting, seconded by Mr. Hutchison and unanimously carried.

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 6 Mr. Perza moved to recommend that the City re-open the Dover Park recreation center for use, noting that anyone wishing to rent the facility can do so by contacting the City of Dover to coordinate the event as needed; the building itself will not be closed for future use until the recommended Dover Park Study is reviewed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutchison and unanimously carried. Responding to Ms. Blackman, Mr. Dixon announced that the availability of the building will be publicized. Ms. Roxie Smiley-Carter, 320 Broadstair Place, questioned if members of the community will be included in the decision process by serving on the committee. She relayed concerns regarding the reopening of the building, explaining that there was a mold odor and that any mold and mildew issues should be resolved to assure no one gets sick. She also felt that the building needed to be cleaned and sanitized. Concurring, Mrs. Horsey, stated her surprise with the motion to re-open the building, explaining her feeling that the building was not suitable to re-open at this time. She felt that it would take a lot of work to clean the building to make it suitable for activities. It was her hope that, with the motion, it was implied that the building would be made suitable before anyone would be permitted to use it. Mrs. Townshend stated that there is a major moisture issue, which is causing the mold and mildew. She explained that unless the roof is replaced, the moisture cannot be controlled. In addition, there are issues with drainage. When the Study was completed by the Environmental Consultant, she stated that there were no findings that indicated that the building was unsafe. However, Mrs. Townshend indicated that there are certain rooms within the building that will not be opened due to mold issues caused by excessive moisture. She assured members that there would be a thorough cleaning of the building; however, she reminded them that this issue was before them because of the issues with the building, which need to be addressed if the building is going to be maintained for years. Responding to Ms. Smiley-Carter, Mrs. Townshend stated that there are roof leaks located in the back section of the building and there are issues involving rainwater flowing towards the building rather than away from the building, which causes more moisture. Unless the City invests a substantial amount of money, there will continue to be a moisture problem. Mr. Perza explained that, at this time, there was no authorization to correct the problems with the building; therefore, there would be limitations on its use and anyone wishing to use the building would do so with the understanding that it will be used as it is today. Referring to the City-wide survey conducted several years ago, Mr. Byers stated that the John W. Pitts Center at Schutte Park was not built large enough to accommodate the needs of the community. To assist in meeting those needs, he suggested that the City allocate funding for the east side of Dover, since it is known that recreation is needed in that area.

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 7 Mr. Perza explained that the reality of the City’s budget is that there are limited resources. At this time, the Planning Department staff will utilize what resources are available to benefit everyone in the City. He stated that Schutte Park seemed to be the focal point for the City’s planning during the past 15 years and that no other areas in Dover, including the east side of Route 13, have received any park amenities during these past years either. Mr. Perza stated that a recommendation not to demolish the building, but to conduct a study, did not necessarily mean that all future recreation investment would be made in Dover Park. He explained that such investment may be divided among parks located in other parts of Dover. As a representative of the Second District, Mr. Perza stated that the communities in the south side of Dover have recreation needs and expressed his belief that communities in other parts of the City also feel that their recreation needs are not being met; therefore, he reiterated that the recommended study would be City-wide. Responding, Mr. Byers felt that, with the exception of Schutte Park, the City’s more populated recreation facility is located on the east side of Dover, explaining that the parks located in other parts of the City are very small. As such, he stated that Dover Park should be the anchor park for the east side of Dover. Ms. Rebecca Gordon, 167 Westhill Drive, Camden, DE, stated her feeling that the City had planned for the demolition of the Dover Park recreation center when Schutte Park was being constructed. Mr. Koenig explained that the City has a Capital Investment Program (CIP) that is available to the public with the Budget on the City’s website. He stated that this portion of the budget outlines the capital investments that the City has planned for the park system, by park, for the next five (5) years. It was his recollection that this investment equates to several million dollars. Mr. Koenig assured members that the CIP did not mention the demolition of the building and that staff presented the idea of demolition when it was determined that there were excessive costs involved with repairing the building, including the replacement of the roof at a cost of $30,000. In previous years, he stated that the City employed staff that could have done the work in-house, which would have saved on these expenses. Prior to putting any investment into the building, staff wanted to know the condition of the building and, as a result, Compliance Environmental, Inc., was retained to do a Building Condition Survey. Upon receipt of their report (Findings from a Building Condition Survey), staff was made aware that there was a need to spend $110,000 just to bring the building up to what would be considered the existing standard. Mr. Koenig assured members that it was never staff’s intention to demolish the building. He explained that the question is whether the City should invest $200,000 in the existing building or take the $200,000 and invest it elsewhere. He reminded members that the City is facing a $7.5M budget short-fall over the next five (5) years. He stated that the reality is that recreation improvements, along with vehicles, street cleaning, parking improvements, etc., often get deferred in order to provide funding for the City’s current operations. Mr. Koenig advised members that there was no public interest in the Dover Park recreation center until the demolition of the building was presented for consideration. He requested that residents make the City aware if there is an issue that is important to the community. Mr. Koenig noted that the City has never taken action against an issue that is important to the community, explaining that if it is important to the community, the City will find the means to support them; however, this support may require an increase in property taxes.

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 8 Mr. Dixon relayed appreciation for all the participation regarding this matter. Mr. Hutchison moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Perza and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:21 p.m. Wallace R. Dixon Chairman WRD/MK/jg/dd/tm S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS\Committee-Minutes\2013\10-14-2013 PR&CE.wpd Attachments Attachment #1 - Correspondence Regarding Future Use of the Dover Park Recreation center Attachment #2 - Presentation - Future Use of Dover Park Recreation center

ATTACHMENT #1 PR&CE Committee Meeting of 10/14/2013

ATTACHMENT #2 PR&CE Committee Meeting of 10/14/2013 Ann Marie Townshend, AICP Director, Planning & Community Development, City of Dover PR&CE Committee Meeting of 10/14/2013 ATTACHMENT #2

 Constructed in 1974  Based on Building Condition Survey, update of building systems estimated at approximately $110,475.  Estimate does not include functional updates to building, including upgrades to comply with Americans with Disabilities Act.

 Before proceeding with investment to upgrade/update the building a structural evaluation is strongly recommended.

 In recent years, programming efforts have been largely unsuccessful.  Majority of classes/programs scheduled for Dover Park Recreation Center have been canceled due to low registration.  Primary function of building – staff offices and rental for baby/bridal showers and private parties.

FY05-FY12 Dover Park Recreation Center Class Totals ALL CLASSES YOUTH CLASSES Classes Classes Avg Reg Per Classes Classes Avg Reg Per Total Regs Total Regs Offered Held Class Offered Held Class FY12 5 1 17 17 5 1 17 17 FY11 11 3 7 3.5 0 0 0 0 FY10 16 5 19 3.8 0 0 0 0 FY09 3 2 30 15 0 0 0 0 FY08 24 11 93 8.5 15 10 84 8.4 FY07 28 21 206 9.8 23 19 196 10.3 FY06 26 19 146 7.7 22 15 129 8.6 FY05 31 18 110 6.1 25 15 93 6.2 TOTALS 144 80 628 7.8 90 60 519 8.6 NOTE: Opening of the John W. Pitts Center in spring 2008 reflected in FY2009 beyond.

 Concerns from the community that demolition of recreation center building diminishes recreation opportunities east of US 13.  Demolition proposal does not affect programming and other availability of opportunities to use Dover Park.

 Playground  Pavilions  Basketball Courts  Tennis Courts  Softball Fields  Multipurpose Fields

 What are the recreation demands east of US 13 that are not being met?  How can we best meet them?  Will renovation of the existing building meet the needs? Or is the need something else?  Renovating the existing building would provide a multipurpose room NOT playing courts or other sports related activity area.

 Hire a consultant to do a Parks and Recreation System Plan for the City – including Dover Park.  Plan would address indoor and outdoor recreation needs and guide investment in our parks to help meet the needs system- wide.  Plan would make recommendation on building partnerships to meet recreation needs.

 Maintenance of building and minimal repairs.  Make building available for rentals and for programming.  Utilize partners for provision of programming.  Building would be open only for scheduled events or programming.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting was held on October 14, 2013, at 6:30 p.m. with Chairman Lynn presiding. Members present were Mr. Slavin, Mr. Rushe, and Mr. Shevock. Mr. Hare was absent. Members of Council present were Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hutchison, and Council President Bonar. Mayor Carey was also present. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Shevock moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Rushe and unanimously carried. Creation of Ad Hoc Financial and Operational Advisory Committee Due to concerns for the City’s financial future, Mr. Hutchison advised members that he, along with Mrs. Williams, have requested consideration of the creation of an Ad Hoc Financial and Operational Advisory Committee to review the City in total and make recommendations for achieving efficiencies and preparing for long-range objectives. He reminded members that it is projected that there will be a $7.5M shortfall for the City over the next five (5) years. Mr. Hutchison suggested that the Committee, to be appointed by the Council President and confirmed by City Council, be comprised of himself, Councilman Lynn, Councilwoman Williams, and three (3) civilian members. The qualifications for the three (3) civilian members are recommended to be as follows: Two (2) members with an extensive financial background, preferably dealing with large budgets; must hold at least a bachelor’s degree in financial management or related field; and must have at least seven (7) years experience. One (1) member with an extensive background in operations management or business development; must hold at least a bachelor’s degree in business administration, operations management, or related field; and must have at least seven (7) years experience. Mr. Hutchison indicated an expectation that this committee would work with the City Manager and Treasurer/Controller to develop a plan and provide their recommendations to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee on January 13, 2014, with Council consideration taking place on January 27, 2014. Chairman Lynn expressed his opinion that, rather than create another committee to perform the same responsibilities as the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee, a series of Special Meetings be held by the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee to address these financial and operational concerns. Considering that certain issues may be outside of the scope or expertise of the current membership of the Committee, he suggested that two (2) additional Committee members be appointed for the purpose of serving during these Special Meetings either in a capacity as special members, advisory members, or friends, etc. Mr. Slavin advised members that during his previous term on Council, he had requested that the City Manager (Mr. DePrima) consider the Delaware Economic and Financial Advisory Council (DEFAC) revenue forecast model, used by the State of Delaware, to review the manner in which the City forecasts revenues. He stated that the revenue report which members currently receive was a result of this request. He felt that a dispassionate “set of eyes” is necessary to review the issues. He preferred that an advisory council comprised fully of citizens be created to review the revenue side

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 2 and make recommendations to City Council. The expenses could be reviewed by the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee and City Council. He noted that there is a lot of untapped brain power available to the City between the Universities, business men and women in the community, and others. If the City were to establish such a committee, Mr. Slavin questioned whether the decisions would be binding on Council, noting that DEFAC decisions were binding on the General Assembly. He relayed his support for pursuing the idea and reiterated his suggestion that such a committee serve as a fully citizen advisory committee. Mr. Shevock questioned the creation of another a committee, and suggested that it be created as an ad hoc committee with a sunset provision of three (3) or five (5) years. Council President Bonar urged members to support establishing the committee, consisting of up to seven (7) members, with recommendations to be presented to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee for their review and recommendation to City Council. It was the consensus of members that this matter not be included on the consent agenda when presented to City Council, to allow members an opportunity for discussion. Mr. Slavin moved to recommend forwarding this matter to City Council for discussion of a reconfigured composition of the proposed committee, with the understanding that the members endorsed the idea in principle. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rushe and unanimously carried. By unanimous consent, the meeting adjourned at 6:41 p.m. Sean M. Lynn Chairman SML/TM/jg/dd S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS\Committee-Minutes\2013\10-14-2013 LF&A.wpd

Prepared for: City Council CITY OF DOVER Council Workshop: Sept. 18, 2013 FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2013 TO JUNE 30, 2014 REVENUE REPORT As of September 30, 2013 25.0% FY14 YTD % BUDGET FY13 FY12 GENERAL FUND BUDGET REVENUES RECEIVED COMMENTS REVENUES REVENUES 1 Property Taxes $ 10,852,300 $ 10,708,000 98.7% Billed in July $ 10,768,800 $ 10,765,741 2 Payment In Lieu of Taxes 317,200 31,900 10.1% 357,600 284,457 3 Transfer from Electric Fund 8,000,000 2,000,000 25.0% 8,000,000 7,876,288 4 Intrafund Service Receipts Electric 3,319,400 727,700 21.9% 3,192,900 3,105,015 5 Transfer from Transfer Tax Fund 1,315,500 298,100 22.7% 1 large receipt $54K in July 1,108,000 1,373,208 6 Business Licenses 1,460,000 1,412,200 96.7% Billed in July 1,462,500 1,470,097 7 Intrafund Service Receipts Water/Wastewater 1,134,900 256,500 22.6% 1,045,500 894,186 8 Sanitation Fees 2,676,500 651,000 24.3% 2,624,900 1,903,623 9 Permits & Other Licenses 1,167,500 362,900 31.1% Rental dwelling/trailers billed in July 1,162,800 1,346,769 10 Transfer from Municipal Street Aid Fund 527,400 - 0.0% 531,100 527,042 11 Fines & Police Revenue 666,000 107,200 16.1% 612,200 681,952 12 Police Extra Duty Fees 650,000 73,600 11.3% 702,100 600,310 13 Transfer from Police Grant Funds 110,000 6,400 5.8% 170,400 600,310 14 Court of Chancery Fees 863,200 165,100 19.1% One month in arrears 917,700 863,220 15 Transfer from Water/Wastewater Fund 500,000 125,000 25.0% 500,000 424,508 16 Transfer from Civil Traffic Penalties Fund 600,000 - 0.0% 299,800 518,638 17 Library Revenues & County Reciprocal Pymt 466,600 18,100 3.9% 471,100 475,822 18 Franchise Fees 606,200 - 0.0% Quarterly receipts in arrears 618,300 568,240 19 General Fund Grant Receipts 623,500 70,000 11.2% Police Pension grant 721,600 1,010,452 20 Recreation Revenue 133,000 28,500 21.4% 144,500 112,480 21 Other Miscellaneous Receipts 213,800 31,000 14.5% 193,400 232,535 22 Interest Income 75,000 7,700 10.3% 91,800 53,175 TOTALS $ 36,278,000 $ 17,080,900 47.1% $ 35,697,000 $ 35,688,068 Final Budget $ 35,569,000 $ 35,016,778

Prepared for: City Council CITY OF DOVER Council Workshop: Sept. 18, 2013 FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2013 TO JUNE 30, 2014 REVENUE REPORT As of September 30, 2013 25.0% FY14 YTD % BUDGET FY13 FY12 WATER/WASTEWATER FUND BUDGET REVENUES RECEIVED COMMENTS REVENUES REVENUES 1 Water Fees $ 4,730,700 $ 1,249,200 26.4% $ 4,551,800 $ 4,707,918 2 Wastewater Fees 3,642,700 969,200 26.6% 3,564,600 3,722,985 3 Wastewater Adjustment Fees - County Trtmt 2,980,300 800,900 26.9% 2,926,600 3,050,127 4 Groundwater Inflow Adjustment 1,324,600 359,500 27.1% 1,314,000 1,290,968 5 Water Impact Fees 357,000 31,800 8.9% 221,500 308,700 6 Wastewater Impact Fees 323,000 28,500 8.8% 386,000 277,400 7 Water Tank Space Leasing 333,800 26,200 7.8% 300,100 313,101 8 Interest Income 23,100 1,100 4.8% 17,800 31,889 9 Other Miscellaneous Revenues 82,000 16,800 20.5% 72,400 104,634 10 Grant Receipts - - 0.0% 50,900 - TOTALS $ 13,797,200 $ 3,483,200 25.2% $ 13,405,700 $ 13,807,722 Final Budget $ 13,822,200 $ 13,819,800 25.0% FY14 YTD % BUDGET FY13 FY12 ELECTRIC REVENUE FUND BUDGET REVENUES RECEIVED COMMENTS REVENUES REVENUES 1 Sales to Customers $ 76,286,700 $ 22,423,100 29.4% $ 86,886,900 $ 99,859,602 2 Purchased Power Adjustment - - 0.0% - (2,290,989) 3 Utility Tax 1,492,200 360,100 24.1% 1,443,900 1,944,543 4 Transfer from Rate Stabilization Reserve 4,000,000 1,000,000 25.0% 5,400,000 - 5 Miscellaneous Revenue 988,800 212,600 21.5% 1,918,000 1,381,300 6 Interest Income 119,400 3,600 3.0% 154,100 12,662 7 Intrafund Service Fees - Water/Wastewater 98,500 22,700 23.0% 136,000 171,646 TOTALS $ 82,985,600 $ 24,022,100 28.9% $ 95,938,900 $ 101,078,764 Final Budget $ 95,971,700 $ 99,934,036

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council AGENDA ITEM NO.: DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Electric DATE SUBMITTED: 10/17/13 PREPARED BY: Steve Enss, Interim Electric Director SUBJECT: Vehicle purchase, Replacing Bucket truck 766 RELATED PROJECT: N/A APPROVALS: City Manager, Controller/Treasurer EXHIBITS: Vendor Quote & National Joint Powers Alliance (NJPA) Vendor contract. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $241,828.00 AMOUNT BUDGETED: $225,000 FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): Electric –Transmission & Distribution, Account Number 487-8200-562-40-23, Page 172 of the draft budget PDF. ( 2001 Freightliner ) TIME TIME TABLE: Order will be placed following Council approval. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends purchasing the 2014 bucket truck from Dueco (vendor of Terex) for the total cost of $241,828.00. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The purpose of the bucket truck purchase is to replace an ageing 2001 Freightliner bucket truck that is need of many repairs. Bucket trucks are normally replaced in 10 – 15 years depending on the condition of the vehicle. The Electric department budgeted for the basic model at $225,000. The plan was to use the trade-in value of the 2001 bucket truck to equip the new truck with recommended safety lights, decals, winches, inverter and etc.. The City has a procedure for selling used vehicles that recommends the sale of the used vehicle and discourages trade-ins. Assets have to be recorded at cost for depreciation purposes and any trade-in value will be recorded as a gain/loss on the sale of the vehicle. The City has also experienced a better return by selling used vehicles on the internet auction sites. This procedure also prevents budget variances in the estimated trade-in value. The Controller/Treasurer will monitor the budget for savings or unplanned revenue to cover the shortfall. If this can’t be accomplished, the difference of $16,828 will be covered through the beginning budget balance through a budget ordinance. The department evaluated two bucket truck manufactures and both companies (Altec and Terex) are part of the NJPA and recognized by the State of Delaware and the City of Dover‘s purchasing policy. The Terex bucket truck was found more practical and useful for overhead line work. The last few trucks were purchased through Altec and the department felt that opening an opportunity for a second vendor would be in the best interest of the City.