Attachment

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA OCTOBER 22, 2012 - 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 CHAPLAIN WALLACE DIXON PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN PERZA 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 - Regular Council Meeting of October 8, 2012 2. Resolution No. 2012-15 - Recognition of Service - Francis Nichols - Planning Commission - May 28, 2002 through September 17, 2012 3. Proclamation - Extra Mile Day * 4. Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee Report - October 8, 2012 A. Review of Active Recreation Area Plan - Leander Lakes Apartments (Committee Recommended Approval of the Active Recreation Area Plan for Leander Lakes Apartments as Presented, Including Staff's Comments and Recommendations, with the Exception of the Requirement for Bike Racks in the Playground Area) B. Updates (Committee Action Not Required)

Council Agenda - October 22, 2012 Page 2 * 5. Utility Committee Report - October 8, 2012 A. Unit 1 Turbine Steam Seal Repair - McKee Run Generating Station (Committee Recommended Approval of the Unit 1 Turbine Steam Seal Repair as a New Capital Investment Plan (CIP) Project and Expenditure of Funds for the Project in FY 2013) B. Updates (Committee Action Not Required) * 6. Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report - October 8, 2012 A. Authorization to Purchase Downtown Security Cameras (Committee Recommended that Staff Be Authorized to Sign a Contract with Advantech Incorporated for the Purchase and Installation of 16 Additional Security Cameras at an Estimated Cost of $135,400 Using $102,400 of General Fund Street Program Carry Forward Balance and $33,000 That Was Approved in the Mayor's Budget) B. Revision to Fee Policy - Library Meeting Room Fees (Committee Recommended Approval of Staff's Recommendation to Endorse and Adopt the Fees for the Meeting Rooms in the New Dover Public Library) C. Proposal to Develop Pocket Park at 301 South Governors Avenue (Southeast Corner of South Governors Avenue and North Street) (Committee Recommended that a Pocket Park Be Established on the Property Located at 301 South Governors Avenue (On the Southeast Corner of South Governors Avenue and North Street) Once the City Holds the Title to the Property) D. Proposed Ordinance #2012-22 Amending Chapter 114 - Vegetation, Article II - Weeds (Collection of Grass Cutting Fees) (See Item #12-A) (Committee Recommended Amending Line #29 of Proposed Ordinance #2012-22 by Replacing the Words "Owner, Occupant, Tenant or Other Agent Caring for or in Charge of the Premises" with "Owner of Record") (Committee Recommended Adoption of the Ordinance as Amended) E. Fund to Combat Violent Crimes - New Grant Program Initiative (Committee Recommended Approval for the Police Department to Use its Allocation from the Fund to Combat Violent Crime Program) 7. Quarterly Revenue Report * 8. Semi-Annual Inspection by City Manager - Robbins Hose Company 9. Evaluation of Bids A. NRG Sanitary Sewer Upgrade B. Radio System Narrow Banding Project 10. Attorney Services for Labor Negotiations (Presented During the Executive Session Held Prior to the Council Meeting) * 11. Appointment of Judges - Robbins Hose Company Election - November 19, 2012 A. James Howlett B. James Hurley, Jr. C. William Hurley IV (Alternate)

Council Agenda - October 22, 2012 Page 3 12. First Reading - Proposed Ordinances The First Reading is offered on the following proposed ordinance. Final action by Council will take place during the Second Reading of the ordinance on November 13, 2012. Copies of all proposed ordinances are available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or can be obtained from the City Clerk's Office. A. Proposed Ordinance #2012-22 Amending Chapter 114 - Vegetation, Article II - Weeds (Collection of Grass Cutting Fees) (Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee) 13. Council Members Announcements /tm S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS\Council-Agendas\2012\10-22-2012.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.

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING The Regular Council Meeting was held on October 8, 2012 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Leary presiding (departed at 10:49 p.m. and returned at 10:56 p.m.). Council members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Lynn, Mr. Perza (departed at 8:33 p.m. and returned at 8:37 p.m.), Mr. Bonar, Mrs. Williams, Mr. Hare, and Mr. Hutchison. Council staff members present were Police Chief Hosfelt, Mrs. Mitchell, Mr. Koenig, Mrs. Townshend, Deputy Fire Chief West, City Solicitor Rodriguez, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Carey was also present. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum was held at 7:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Leary declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council was not in official session and could not take formal action. There was no one wishing to speak during the Open Forum. The invocation was given by Chaplain Dixon, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Bonar moved for approval of the agenda as presented, seconded by Mr. Hutchison and carried, with Mr. Anderson voting no. Council President Leary requested that Item #8B - Update on Changes to the Economic Development Office, be considered on the consent agenda. Council President Leary indicated that it would be necessary for him to recuse himself during the consideration of Item #8A - Financing Proposal - Garrison Oak Park Street and Storm Sewer Infrastructure; therefore, Councilwoman Williams would chair the meeting during consideration of this item. Mr. Bonar moved for approval of the consent agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Hutchison and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2012 The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of September 24, 2012 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Bonar, seconded by Mr. Hutchison, and bore the written approval of Mayor Carey. PROCLAMATION - HALLOWEEN TRICK-OR-TREAT The City Clerk read the following Proclamation into the record: WHEREAS, the children of the City of Dover enjoy the fun and festivities associated with the observance of the Halloween Trick-or-Treat custom of traveling with friends and family going from door to door in their neighborhood, displaying their costumes, and gathering treats; and WHEREAS, parents are urged to join in the festivities by accompanying their children throughout their journeys in celebrating Halloween Trick-or-Treat; and

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 2 WHEREAS, residents are requested to indicate their willingness to welcome children by keeping their porch or exterior lights on and that youngsters call only on homes so lighted; and WHEREAS, the Mayor of the City of Dover has deemed it advisable to observe the celebration of Halloween Trick-or-Treat on Wednesday, October 31, 2012 between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Carleton E. Carey, Sr., MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE, do hereby proclaim that the Halloween Trick-or-Treat observance be held on the 31st day of October 2012, between the hours of 6:00 P.M. and 8:00 P.M. in the City of Dover and urge all residents, both young and old, to make this a happy and safe occasion for our children. PRESENTATION - FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY Mayor Carey introduced Mr. N. C. Vasuki, Friends of the Dover Public Library, who presented Ms. Marjorie Cyr, Library Director, a check for the Dover Library Foundation in the amount of $67,360.66, which completed the Friends of the Library’s commitment for funding the new Dover Library. He reminded members that this organization committed to provide $210,000 for the construction of the new Library. Mayor Carey relayed appreciation to the Friends of the Dover Public Library for the many contributions they have made throughout the years. PRESENTATION - MAYOR’S ARTS AWARDS Mayor Carey and representatives of the Greater Dover Arts Council presented Dr. Basilio Bautista with a Mayor’s Arts Award in recognition of his lasting and profound impact on the artistic and cultural life in the Greater Dover area. Mayor Carey explained that Dr. Bautista had made outstanding contributions to the arts as a performer, a dancer, an artist, and a music composer and had been a supporter of the arts through his work with numerous local arts organizations. Mayor Carey noted that Dr. Bautista had been acknowledged in the past by the naming of an art gallery in his honor at the Schwartz Center for the Arts. Mayor Carey and representatives of the Greater Dover Arts Council presented Ms. Linda Danko, Mr. Ryan Grover, Ms. Jennifer Kemske, and Ms. Rebecca Cooper, representing the Biggs Museum of American Art, with a Mayor’s Arts Award. He advised members that in its second decade as a fine and decorative arts museum, the Biggs Museum of American Art had made outstanding contributions to the culture of the citizens of Dover through exceptional permanent collections, diverse temporary exhibits, creative programming, and inspiring children’s programs and that nearly 20,000 individuals visited the Biggs Museum last year, breaking attendance records. Ms. Danko relayed appreciation for the recognition, advising members that a great deal of hard work was being done to bring art to each and every member of the greater Dover community and beyond the State of Delaware.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2012-13 - COUNCILWOMAN SOPHIA R. RUSSELL The City Clerk read Resolution No. 2012-13 into the record, as follows: WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the City of Dover have been greatly saddened by the death of their fellow Council Member, Sophia R. Russell, who passed away on October 6, 2012; and WHEREAS, Sophie R. Russell was sworn into office as Councilwoman of the Fourth Council District of the City of Dover on December 20, 2005 and served with distinction in that position for nearly seven years, serving as Chair of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee; Co-Chair of the Services to Seniors Committee; and member of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee, Youth Advisory Committee, Downtown Dover Partnership Steering Committee, Downtown Dover Development Corporation, Kent County Tourism, Consolidated Plan Advisory Group, Haggerty & Haggerty Ad Hoc Review Committee, and Tax Appeals Committee; and WHEREAS, throughout her tenure, Sophia R. Russell served as a voice for the constituents of the Fourth District and spoke with empathy, passion, and candor on their behalf; and WHEREAS, Sophia R. Russell dedicated her time and talents to furthering the interests of young people in the City of Dover and was instrumental in re-establishing a Youth Advisory Committee to promote youth involvement in government; and WHEREAS, Sophia R. Russell served as an outspoken advocate for the rights of the underprivileged in our community, especially children, senior citizens, and the homeless, and worked tirelessly to address their needs; and WHEREAS, the City of Dover has sustained a great loss in the death of Sophia R. Russell. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and Council express their regret for the loss of Sophia R. Russell and extend their deepest sympathy to the members of her family and hope that they will be consoled by the memories of her exemplary life and commendable achievements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and Council direct the City Clerk to place this Resolution in the permanent records of the City of Dover in recognition of the many contributions graciously given to the community by Councilwoman Sophia R. Russell. ADOPTED: OCTOBER 8, 2012 Mayor Carey presented the Resolution to Ms. Kay Dietz-Sass, Public Affairs Officer, and Emergency Management Coordinator, on behalf of Mrs. Russell’s family. He noted that Mrs. Russell would be sorely missed and thanked her family for sharing her with the City throughout the years. Mr. Hutchison moved for the adoption of Resolution No. 2012-13, seconded by Mrs. Williams and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 4 PUBLIC HEARING - VIOLATION OF THE DANGEROUS BUILDING ORDINANCE - PROPERTY LOCATED AT 209 NORTH NEW STREET, OWNED BY JAMES W. AND LINDA A. CACCAMO A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider a violation of the Dangerous Building Ordinance at 209 North New Street, owned by James W. and Linda A. Caccamo. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, advised members that the property consisted of a two (2) story, wood-framed, single-family home with a detached one (1) car garage at the rear of the property. The dwelling was condemned as unfit for human habitation on January 30, 2012 due to vacancy, lack of utilities, and a number of broken windows and unsecured doors. The property was boarded by City staff and the City hired a contractor to cut the grass and remove overgrowth on the property. The property has been vacant with no active utility service since May 2011. Prior mailings to the property owners were returned unclaimed. The structure was vacant, with no active utility services and in a serious state of disrepair. Mrs. Townshend provided a chronological history and a presentation on the condition of the property (Exhibit #1). Staff recommended that City Council: 1) declare this building and all accessory structures on this property dangerous; 2) order the property repaired or demolished by November 8, 2012 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. Council President Leary declared the public hearing open. There being no one present wishing to speak during the public hearing, Council President Leary declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Bonar moved that the structures located at 209 North New Street be declared dangerous buildings and subject to demolition, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutchison and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. PUBLIC HEARING - RENAMING OF DIVISION STREET WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AS MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. BOULEVARD A public hearing was set for this time and place to consider the renaming of Division Street “from City limit to City limit” to Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. Members were reminded that during their Regular Meeting of September 24, 2012, City Council approved the recommendation of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee to set a public hearing regarding the renaming of Division Street as Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. Members reviewed a map depicting the Route 8 corridor and a history of street names, which indicated that action of Town (City) Council to number the houses in 1880 established State Street as a dividing line for the west and east segments of streets and established Division Street to serve as the dividing line for the north and south segments of streets (now referenced in Dover Code of Ordinances, Article VIII, Section 98-342).

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 5 It was noted that the proposal for this street renaming would bypass the normal procedures for street name changes. The specific procedure for street name changes is outlined in the Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 98, Article II, Section 98-45 Street Name Change Procedure. As outlined in Code, the normal procedure for street name changes requires a formal petition of request from a majority of abutting property owners to the street, review and comments by the Development Advisory Committee (DAC), review by the Planning Commission, review by the Utility Committee, and then a public hearing and consideration by City Council. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, advised members that the Planning Office referred the matter to the Development Advisory Committee (DAC) agencies for their review. To assist them in compiling information and providing comments about specific areas of the Route 8 corridor in the City of Dover, segments of the roadway were identified (as indicated on an overall map as well as maps of each segment). She noted that there were a total of 373 properties abutting Route 8, 63 of which were in unincorporated Kent County and outside of City of Dover limits. There were approximately 580 addresses, 226 residential properties, 136 non-residential properties, and 11 City-owned properties along the Route 8 corridor. Mrs. Townshend reviewed the various implications, such as readdressing properties, mapping, awareness, code amendments, costs, etc. She explained that the street right-of-way for the Route 8 corridor was owned and maintained by the State of Delaware; however, the Department of Transportation (DelDOT) indicated that they would not be responsible for any costs associated with the change. Mrs. Townshend advised members that the comments received from Kent County through the 911 addressing indicated that Kent County currently has a moratorium on road name changes and that some of the properties that would be affected were in Kent County's jurisdiction; therefore, it would be necessary to determine how such a change would impact Kent County and what their role would be in addressing those parcels. Members were provided staff recommendations and DAC comments, as follows: 1) The Planning Office notes that portions of Route 8 between the City’s east and west boundaries lie outside of the City in unincorporated Kent County. To avoid confusion, City Council may want to consider reducing the portion of the road where the name would be changed to encompass the area bounded on the west by Saulsbury Road and on the east by U.S. Route 13 (Segments B and C noted on the Exhibit Map), as these segments do not include properties in unincorporated Kent County and therefore would not lead to confusion over jurisdiction between the City of Dover and Kent County. 2) Staff recommended that if the street name change is approved by City Council, that an effective date of January 1, 2013 be set. This will give the affected agencies time to make the necessary operational changes and for notification of property owners. 3) As part of the Development Advisory Committee process, a series of City, County, and State agencies were notified of the street name change request. Any comments received regarding the request were provided to members as an attachment to the report submitted.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 6 4) Upon approval of the street name change, notification of appropriate City, County, and State agencies will be completed by the City of Dover. 5) Upon approval of the street name change, a public outreach effort (in various media) is recommended to alert residents, customers, visitors, etc. of the change and its implementation. A key contact point should be established for questions. 6) Upon approval of the street name change, the installation of updated street name blades and other associated street signage will need to be completed by the City of Dover. 7) Upon approval of the street name and assignment of a street number, it is the responsibility of the individual property owner to bear the cost of and take action to repost address number and update appropriate mailing address on documents. In response to Mrs. Williams, Mrs. Townshend stated that property owners and businesses were not notified of the proposed street name change since it was brought forward by the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee and did not go through the normal process, as specified in Section 98-45 of the Dover Code. Noting that she was the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a business that was owned and operated along Division Street, Mrs. Williams suggested that the matter be referred as specified within the Dover Code. Noting that staff had requested ample time to make necessary operational changes, etc., if the name change were approved, Mr. Anderson suggested that a date near August 23, 2013 be selected since it would be the 50th Anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. Mr. Hutchison noted that, in accordance with the procedure for the consideration of a street name change (Section 98-45 of the Dover Code), in order to initiate the procedure for changing the name of an existing street, a petition or formal request must be received from a majority of the property owners. Responding, Council President Leary reminded members that an email was provided by the City Solicitor indicating that City Council had the right to take the action without such a request. Elaborating, City Solicitor Rodriguez stated that the question posed to him was whether City Council had the legislative power to rename streets without following the Code. After researching the matter, it was determined that City Council had such a right. He indicated that there were two (2) actions that could be considered by City Council regarding this matter: 1) exercise their legislative power and rename the street, or 2) go through the process as outlined in the Dover Code. In response to Mr. Perza regarding the Code requirement for an affirmative vote of two-thirds of Council for approval of a street name change, City Solicitor Rodriguez stated that there was no indication by Council’s approval of the Legislative, Finance, and Committee’s recommendation whether to consider the matter in accordance with the Dover Code or to exercise Council’s legislative rights. He opined that an affirmative vote of two-thirds of Council would not be required if Council considered the matter through exercising their legislative rights.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 7 Mrs. Williams moved to remand the matter back to the proper process in accordance with the Dover Code to assure that all property owners and business owners are notified, and that there be no deviation from the procedure as outlined in Section 98-45 of the Dover Code. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutchison. On a point of order, Mr. Lynn indicated that the motion was procedurally improper, explaining that the decision to bypass Section 98-45 of the Dover Code was implicit in the actions of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee and was ratified by City Council during their meeting of September 24, 2012. He stated that in order to change the process at this time, it would be necessary for Council to approve a motion to rescind Council’s previous action. He noted that members of Council had already made the decision not to follow the Dover Code in considering the street name change by setting it for public hearing tonight. City Solicitor Rodriguez concurred that a motion to rescind would be required and, according to Roberts Rules of Order, a vote of two-thirds of those elected to Council would be required for its passage. Had notice been provided of the motion to rescind, only a majority of Council would have been required. Mrs. Williams moved to amend her previous motion and to rescind the actions taken by City Council regarding this matter during their meeting of September 24, 2012, seconded by Mr. Hutchison. Noting that there were several individuals in the audience present who wished to speak during the Public Hearing regarding this matter, Mr. Lynn explained that if the motion were approved, it would terminate a public hearing from being held; therefore, their attendance would have been in vain. The matter would then be presented to Council only if a petition were circulated among the businesses and property owners along Division Street. He also relayed concern with the precedent that would be set by the City whereby the City would be limited in its power to change the name of its own streets. Disagreeing, Mr. Perza explained that the City had an ordinance that addressed the procedure for renaming streets. If members of Council wished to change the procedure, they would simply be required to approve an ordinance amendment. He also felt that Council could use the procedure already put in place and would theoretically have the authority to hold the public hearing tonight. Mr. Perza suggested that Council hold the public hearing in order to gain knowledge of the positions of individuals present, learn what issues were involved, and then make a decision. At the request of Mr. Bonar, it was determined that approximately 50 individuals were present who either lived, owned property, or owned a business along Division Street that would be directly affected by the proposed street name change. It was Mr. Bonar’s feeling that the public had a right to be heard regarding the issue; however, he explained that there were procedures that must be followed and reminded members of the impact that such a change would have on the affected individuals and businesses. He felt that there may be an opportunity to honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in a bigger and better way.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 8 Mr. Bonar moved to table the matter to be brought back at a later time after proper review, seconded by Mr. Hare. The motion failed by a roll call vote of four (4) yes and four (4) no (Anderson, Lynn, Perza, and Leary). Quoting Dr. King in his letter from Birmingham Jail, Mr. Lynn stated that “wait usually means never.” He referred to an article written by Derek Alderman, dated January 2008 (Exhibit #2), regarding street name changes to honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. After reading excerpts of the article, Mr. Lynn stated that this matter was something that should be addressed now and should have been addressed 40 years ago. Since everyone was in attendance, he suggested that members hold the public hearing as set. Mr. Hare advised members that he had the privilege of going with his grandfather to hear Dr. King speak during the 1960s and that Dr. King stated that “the rights of one are the rights of all.” It was his feeling that if Dr. King were here today he would not want his rights to supercede the rights of others. He suggested that, since there were individuals present wishing to speak, members of Council should hear them. Mr. Perza explained the importance of a decision being made in unity and relayed his concerns regarding making any decision that is “fissured” down the line, and he affirmed the importance of obtaining a unanimous vote. He felt that the question was how best to recognize Dr. King and expressed his desire to hear from those who made an effort to attend the meeting this evening, without promising that action would definitely be taken by City Council. Concurring, Mr. Hutchison felt that members should hear the comments of those present wishing to speak; however, he felt that members would take action to refer the matter back for further consideration with a recommendation to be made within 30, 60, or 90 days. In response to Mrs. Williams, City Solicitor Rodriguez stated that the motion to rescind the actions of City Council during their meeting of September 24, 2012 would dispense with the public hearing for this evening. Mrs. Williams withdrew the motion to rescind, as did the seconder, Mr. Hutchison. Responding to Mr. Hare’s request that Council provide all individuals wishing to speak the opportunity to do so, Council President Leary indicated that the sign-in sheet reflected approximately 60 individuals wishing to speak. For purposes of conserving time, Mr. Bonar suggested that individuals refrain from redundancy and that when possible, one (1) individual be chosen to speak on behalf of several. Mr. Anderson noted the importance of numbers; therefore, he suggested that if individuals agreed with another speaker, this should be relayed to members so that individuals would not feel they needed to speak if their position regarding the matter had already been conveyed.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 9 Council President Leary announced that a sign-up sheet had been made available and that he would call on those who had signed up first. In order to allow sufficient time for opposing views to be heard, he stated that he would alternate between speakers in favor of the proposal and those opposed. Each speaker would be given three (3) minutes to comment. He requested that speakers avoid repetitive comments and that large groups or organizations select a representative to speak on their behalf. He noted that yielding of one’s time to another would not be permitted. As was customary, he requested that everyone please be respectful of the opinions of others. Council President Leary noted the receipt of several pieces of correspondence regarding this matter and indicated that they would be entered into the official record (Exhibit #3). Council President Leary declared the public hearing open. Mr. Edward T. Christian, Jr., 9 Pennwood Drive, gave thanks to the Creator of heaven and earth. He stated that had a quirk about certain things being correct, more so than being right or conforming to what everyone else is doing or saying. Mr. Christian said he trusted that due diligence research regarding the correct and proper renaming of Division Street or a suitable replacement for Division Street had been performed. He advised members that Dr. King’s proper name was Martin Luther King, Jr. and that he was known as Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., or Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and that there are many variations in the ways that cities have designated streets in honor of Dr. King, including MLK Boulevard, Martin Luther King Boulevard, MLK, Jr. Boulevard, or Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. He stated that Dover could follow the lead of other cities or establish its own lead in this regard, whichever was correct and proper. Mr. Christian said he believed that this was an overdue symbolic designation that he hoped would have some useful purposes. He felt [a change in] our behavior, our habits, and our practices, which were not in alignment with the beliefs, principals, and dreams of the iconic Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was also long overdue. Ms. Judy Diogo, Executive Director, Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce (CDCC), 435 North DuPont Highway, thanked everyone for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the business community and asked that it be noted that the CDCC was not at all opposed to the name change; however, the Chamber would like Council to provide enough time to the business community to utilize the investments they have made in marketing and advertising before the name change became effective. Ms. Diogo stated that she liked Councilman Anderson’s suggestion to allow a full year to provide time for businesses to make the necessary changes. Rev. Rita Paige, 355 Rita Wilma Road, stated that the renaming of Division Street was an opportunity to write a new chapter in the history of Dover streets. She pointed out these streets have been torn up and redone to preserve historic downtown and suggested that the City continue to preserve history by renaming Division Street as proposed. Rev. Paige noted that because of Martin Luther King, Jr., people can choose where they want to go to school; all races of people can be educated, eat, marry interracially, ride the same bus or airplane, and vote together; and men and women are entitled to equal pay, etc. She indicated that members currently serving on City Council would not have been able to do so if not for Dr. King. She expressed her opinion that changes may

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 10 take some time; however, people should be willing to make these changes to honor a man who gave his life fighting for justice for all, equal rights for all, and a better America. Rev. Paige felt that alternative suggestions to rename the library or new bypass in Dr. King’s honor would be “taking the easy way out.” She indicated that hearing that people were not willing to make small sacrifices and changes to rename Division Street reminded her of those who fought against public housing in certain areas by saying “not in my backyard,” only now people were saying “not in my yard.” Rev. Paige stated her belief that Division Street was one of the major arteries in the City which feeds and unites every element of our diverse community, from the wealthiest to the homeless, the oldest to the newest of residents, and persons of every racial and ethnic group, and encompasses views of the Governors mansion and the [Elizabeth W.] Murphey home and school (that was originally for orphans of the State), as well as Dover’s formerly segregated all black and all white public schools and businesses. She felt it was the best public location in Dover to honor and promote Dr. King’s vision. Mr. Vernon Ingram, 402 Greenhill Road and owner of a business located at 319 West Division Street, stated that he grew up on Division Street and continued to work there in his father’s business which was begun in 1929. He assured members that he was not a racist and this was not a racist issue. He felt that all could agree that Dr. King was an outstanding American, that we are justified and proud to honor him, and we should all attempt to continue his high standards of peaceful coexistence; however, Mr. Ingram was confident that “self-emulation” was not part of Dr. King’s dream for us, and that if he were here tonight, he would be concerned with the high cost this change would bring to everyone. Mr. Ingram indicated that Rev. John Moore [who spoke on this matter during the Open Forum prior to the City Council meeting held on September 24, 2012] was well aware of the financial cost to the City, businesses, and residences affected by this change, as Rev. Moore had stated that the cost would be worth the investment when all was said and done. Mr. Ingram informed members that Dr. King was well aware of the high cost of change and paid the ultimate cost. Acknowledging the effects of current difficult economic times and the importance of investing in our community’s future, he questioned if renaming Division Street was the best way to invest people’s money. He noted that Rev. Moore mentioned some of the factors involved but felt that the Reverend did not realize how many there were and the age of those who would have to make changes. Mr. Ingram felt that our forefathers named Division Street wisely, as it serves as the north/south boundary of the City, and that the dollar cost involved in making this change should be known by all before any action is taken. Rev. John Moore, Youth Pastor at Calvary Baptist Church, 410 Fulton Street, stated that he was honored to speak and thankful to the Mayor, Council, and the spirit of Councilwoman Sophie Russell. He stated that he is a businessman and the Vice-President of Resource Development and Strategic Partnerships, which is the largest non-profit organization in the State and is responsible for raising over $20M in revenue to support those in Delaware whose needs are greatest. Rev. Moore advised members that he holds an MBA from Delaware State University and is very sensitive to the business community. He felt that those not living on the affected street are impacted by it and noted that he has three (3) business connections with the street, as he has served as Youth Pastor at Calvary Baptist Church for over 13 years, is a former board member of the Modern Maturity Center, and is “the voice” for Bennie Smith Funeral Home. Rev. Moore explained that he is passionate about

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 11 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and goes to prisons, schools, churches and organizations to share his message and his dream because as a young man, who came from the city of Philadelphia with no dreams because of the poverty he grew up in, he heard the great Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s voice and now obligates himself to go wherever he can to share this dream and make a difference in the lives of young people. For this reason, he also felt it important to serve on a joint task force, along with the Chief of Police, focusing on the heart of the situation in downtown Dover in areas like Queen Street, New Street, and Kirkwood Street, where the need of hope is greater than anywhere else in the City and, therefore, the right area in which to accomplish the renaming. Rev. Moore advised members that he had the opportunity to share a powerful message about communication at St. John’s Lutheran School last week under the guidance of the 2006 [Dover Post] Great Person of the Year for Dover, Dr. Dina Vendetti, based on Dr. King’s dream. There he challenged first and second greaters to understand what it is to be a sender, a receiver, and to use action. Following his message, he asked the children 10 questions about Dr. King and they scored a perfect 100 percent. Rev. Moore felt that this was not a Republican, Democratic, Independent, Green, or Tea Party issue, etc., this was about a community of unity coming together about a great man that could tremendously change the complexion of this City. He believed that we have the opportunity to make the change and make Dr. King’s dream become a reality. Mr. Kenny Shelton, 1539 Forrest Avenue, and a small business owner since 1989, stated that he felt that those proposing the renaming of Division Street did not realize that it would affect him “tremendously.” He said that he recently bought business checks for two (2) checking accounts that would have to be discarded and re-purchased and, in addition, he would have to change business insurances, credit cards, and re-letter his work truck at a cost close to $2,000, and “a lot of aggravation” would be created. Mr. Shelton suggested naming a new street Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard to avoid these issues and informed members that his neighbors, many of whom were elderly, felt the same way. Mr. Shelton said this was a financial issue rather than a religious one and that it was a lot to ask “the little guy” to put out extra money during the current financial times because it was decided to rename a street. Ms. Carla Benson-Green, Evangelist, John Wesley AME Church, 217 W. Division Street, stated that she read in Sunday’s Delaware State News that the question was posed “Why now?” with regard to renaming Division Street as Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard and, in response, she asked, “Why not now?” She felt that Division Street had no historical ties but recently had proven to own up to its definition by dividing and separating the local community. Ms. Green recognized that renaming Division Street would not come without an expense, indicating that she did not know the hard figures for the purchase and installation of the street signs for the approximate 1.5 mile portion of Division Street extending from Route 13 and ending at Saulsbury Road. As a member of a church that owns two (2) properties on that street, she informed members that the church understood that they would need to change mailing addresses, vendors, utilities, banking, insurance companies, letterhead, website information, as mentioned by others and in previous meetings. While she acknowledged that the changes would be necessary, important, and require money, she felt that, with a transition period, the cost factors appeared to be minimal barriers compared to the monumental effort and cause. She reminded members that Dr. King’s vision impacted everyone in the room individually, collectively, and nationally and that we are true testaments of the fruits of what

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 12 Dr. King stood, fought, and died for in an effort to bring about justice, equality, and unity in the nation. She stated that Dr. King was responsible for our ability to live, eat in the same restaurants, and be educated together; have courageous conversations like the one being held in this room tonight together; and to deal with the challenges and the social ills of this community that our Police Department and our neighborhoods face every day together. Ms. Benson-Green suggested, “Let’s do what’s good and what’s right, but let’s do it together” and asked Council to consider a vote of “yay” for the renaming of the corridor of Division Street extending from Route 13 and Division Street west to the corner of Forrest Avenue and Salisbury Road to Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Sections B and C [as designated on the Summary Report on Proposal for Renaming of Division Street (Route 8)]. Council President Leary called upon Ms. Helen McCusker to speak, at which time a gentleman from the audience interjected, stating that he had arrived at the meeting at 6 p.m., was the first person on the list, and had yet to be allowed the opportunity to speak. Council President Leary apologized and advised him that a list had been circulating through the Clerk’s Office for approximately one (1) week and that he would be called upon eventually. Ms. Helen McCusker, owner of Merle Norman Studios, 1030 Forrest Avenue, Suite 113 Gateway West Shopping Center, stated that her primary issue was that there were procedures in place and a City Code and she questioned how many of those who were pushing for the change actually lived or had a business on Route 8. She felt that it was easy to ask that someone else do or change something when there was no expense or sweat equity involved with you. Ms. McCusker noted that memorials honoring fallen police officers and Vietnam veterans had been planned and erected by the private sector in the community, and numerous organizations are in town that help the homeless, at risk youth, working mothers, and others in need, all done by the private sector. She felt that this was another avenue that could be explored to honor Rev. Dr. King. She requested that the Dover City Council, at the very least, table the proposal and (with all due respect to the City Solicitor and Council) affirmed that “just because something is legal doesn’t make it right.” Mr. Gregory Bunkley, 1418 S. Fairview Drive stated that the Committee’s vision was to promote Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s vision and end the division in the City of Dover, the State’s capital, second largest city in State, and the County Seat. He noted that he had heard people asking “Why Division Street?” and indicated that, as stated by Mr. Lynn, the way that Dover handles the renaming of “Division” Street (which he stated means a boundary that serves to divide or separate), after an icon who stood for the unity of all, may very well indicate to the rest of the State and nation how relations in this city will be perceived in the future. Mr. Bunkley said he had heard it said that Martin Luther King, Jr. is of the past; however, he felt it was important to his own father that yesterday should be a landmark for today. He wished to see Dover reflected as a city of all the people and, just as other streets were named for leaders such as Carvel, Boggs, Bacon and Buckson, he would like to see a street named after someone who gave his life in the pursuit of equal rights and privileges for all and who had a hand in the direction of our community. Mr. Bunkley asked the citizens to set aside their differences and embrace the notion of renaming Division Street after Dr. King as this was an appropriate and respectful way to honor him and unite diverse neighborhoods where all ages, races, and economic levels could come together and be linked as equals.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 13 Mr. Bunkley acknowledged that the undertaking may be expensive and require much change for those residing and doing business in the affected area; however, he felt there should be a commitment to move forward with the renaming and suggested that it could be done in phases. Mr. Bunkley proposed that the original proposal (Section B) be implemented by January 2013, Phase 2 by 2014, and Phase 3 by 2015. Mr. David Moses, 46 Delaware Avenue and owner of two (2) businesses located at 1238 Forrest Avenue, stated that he understood the historical significance of Dr. King, in part because he himself was a second generation holocaust survivor. He explained that that his mother, Sarah Moses, survived two (2) Nazi concentration camps, including Bergen-Belsen, and he had scores of relatives he would never have the opportunity to know because they were not judged by the content of their character. Mr. Moses said, however, that this is a time of economic struggle and, although he had been a business owner in the City of Dover for twenty years, he was now working twice as hard to make half the money that he earned not long ago. Mr. Moses agreed that the honoring of Dr. King should have occurred generations ago; however, he stated that from a business standpoint, he could not afford to lose one (1) customer. He explained that beyond the clerical cost and the cost related to a change of address, there were additional costs involved in changing a business location, noting that with today’s technology, customers must have the ability find a retail location. Mr. Moses said he did not wish to be selfish; however, he had seen many establishments go out of business in this economy and many that are hanging by a thread, and at times he felt that this was the case with his business. He stated that a decision to extend the renaming to Artis Drive on Forrest Avenue would affect many business. Mr. Moses advised members that changing his home residence address would not be an issue for him; however, this was something that could make or break many businesses in this area. Pastor Michael Rogers, 118 Springfield Way and President of the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance (IMA) of Dover and Vicinity, stated that he was thankful for the opportunity to represent 14 area churches, pastors, and ministers who come together to honor Dr. King in the City. Pastor Rogers applauded the Mayor and Council and urged them to give full consideration to this effort to lift and honor Dr. King for all that he had done over the many years and for those things that we are now benefitting from by virtue of his life. Pastor Rogers stated that he prayed that this body would come to an agreement with regard to honoring Dr. King in the City of Dover, one of the few capital cities in this country that had no recognition for Martin Luther King, Jr. He asked that Council please move forward, address the issue, and bring it to completion in the near future. Mr. David Louie,1684 North Little Creek Road, and owner of a business on Govenors Avenue, read the following statement: In 1982, I built my house and was given a mailing address with East Division Street, all my personal documents reflected this address. Twenty years later, the street name was changed to North Little Creek Road and it took over two years and money to change all my personal information. Mainly it took that long because I had just ordered 200 checks and I figured I’d just let them run out before I changed anything. The postal employee told me, If I don't notify

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 14 all interested parties of the address change, he would not deliver my mail unless it reflected the new address. Since it took so long to change all my personal documents and information, there were problems when I tried to pay bills where my bank checks had one address and my I.D.'s had another address. My drivers license, all my vehicles registrations, all my personal I.D.'s (which cost money to change), credit cards, banks, utilities, County records, insurance companies (life, health, auto), all my medical information from doctors to pharmacies had to be notified and I had to notify all interested business companies since my credit card statements are sent to my house instead of my business. All businesses will have to change their business license, bank information, business cards and stationary, checks and everything associated with their business accounts. If it were not for the cost, the time waiting at Motor Vehicle or the hassle of writing to all parties, (if I can remember them all) concerning the change of street name and frustration this involves...I would not mind. But I am not the only person who will go through the out of personal pocket expense and wasted time to change over all personal information, there will be hundreds who also must do this who live or have a business on this street. Remember, the distance of the proposed street change goes from Long Point Road on the East of City of Dover to Artis Drive on the West of Dover, which is 7.3 miles. I am sure a majority of people behind this change of street name don't even live on the proposed street, so there is no expense or time wasted for them...they only see one goal...to put Dr. Martin Luther King's name in the public eye in Dover. I am sure Dr. King would be proud to have a new library named after him where young and old can say they have benefitted in knowledge, instead of having a street change it's name, where it is causing stress and anguish through wasted money and time for all the residents and business people on the proposed street. I also just heard of an excellent idea from [Kent County Levy Court Commissioner] Jody Sweeney, naming the new western connector proposed for west Dover after Dr. King instead of this costly measure. Ms. Jane D. Wingfield, 1012 Ravens Court, Wyoming, Delaware, thanked Council for the opportunity to speak and advised members that, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the meaning of “division” is the process of dividing or separating and, as a fairly new resident of Delaware, she wondered about the reason for a “Division” Street. She questioned if it was to divide the rich from the poor or the black people from the white. Ms. Wingfield said that she felt it would be an honor for the capital city of Delaware to honor Dr. King by naming Division Street, Forrest Avenue, and part of Route 8 the Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard from Route 13 to far as it could go, as it would then be one street with one name. Ms. Wingfield acknowledged there would be a cost to the merchants and taxpayers but asked that everyone think about the cost Dr. King paid to

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 15 promote his dream of equality, freedom, and justice for all people, regardless of the color of their skin, as it cost him his life. Ms. Wingfield stated that she would gladly pay to help bring it all about and offered one dollar as the first dollar contributed to accomplish this. Mr. John Welgan, 1082 Forrest Avenue, stated his belief that many of the points that Ms. Wingfield made were very correct. He explained that he is a small business owner and had been in business 18 years. He stated that life was very good for a long time; however, when the housing market crashed, so did his business, which is now hanging by a thread and has been for some time. Mr. Welgan said that many of those who like this proposal do not live on Forrest Avenue or own a business there and are not trying to make a living there. He noted that tonight’s speakers were very eloquent and very nice and he loved what they said, but they were not in his shoes. Mr. Welgan requested that if the road had to be renamed, to provide him a year or a year-and-a-half notice to adjust accordingly. Rev. Frances Benson, representing John Wesley African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church, 217 W. Division Street thanked members for the opportunity to come and to stand in support of the renaming of Division Street to Dr. Martin Luther King Boulevard. She stated that she had come tonight to stand on behalf of the church to offer support in renaming Division Street to Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. She explained that during the last 11½ years she had watched with great interest and admiration at what the city has done, watching project after project. She indicated that she saw it going on right now in Downtown Dover and I have admired the effort that had been given to make the City something fresh and new. Rev. Bacon stated that the sidewalks and lighting on Division Street, as well as on others streets, have done more than Council realized to promote the people on that street. She felt that there was no better time to continue with the renaming of the street. She advised members that she was aware that there would be costs involved and her church would have those same costs. Rev. Bacon stated that she was in sympathy because she would want someone else to be in sympathy with the church as they strived to get the licenses, directions, etc., changed. However, she felt it was important to make a special effort now. She acknowledged that it would cost, it would hurt, but it would be worth all the effort if we stay the course and do what is right. Ms. Joyce Bordley, 1542 N. Little Creek Road, stated that she had been in Dover since 1988, and that after hearing all of the voices that have spoken this evening, she felt as though she was being very selfish. She was not in opposition to honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, but she protested the proposed location because the change would have an adverse effect on many residential property owners as well as numerous business owners. She noted that many of those residents, including herself, are retired senior citizens and making major address changes would create untold problems. Ms. Bordley suggested renaming the Green, located in front Legislative Hall, to Martin Luther King, Jr. Plaza, since no residents would have to endure the numerous changes of address and the City Council could feel that they had done something positive to keep the voters happy. She suggested that Council members implement some much needed proposals, such as prohibiting left turns on Loockerman Street during business hours (8 a.m. to 6 p.m). Ms. Bordley questioned how many Council members would be affected by the renaming of Division Street.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 16 Former City Councilman William Daisy (Second District), 215 Pine Street, expressed appreciation for the opportunity to speak. He stated that many forget that the legacy of Dr. King was relevant not only to minorities but to everyone, noting many were not old enough to remember the situation this country was in when he was a young person. Mr. Daisy said that the concern currently being discussed related to Division Street; however, had it not been for Dr. King’s efforts, as well those of others, there might not have even been a Division Street to argue about. He referred to Councilman Lynn’s statement that there are over 900 streets that have been named after Dr. King, stating that this was no accident. He believed that the people affected by those changes went through the same things that Dover is going through; they survived and no one went out of business. As far as the cost of stationary, etc., that had been mentioned, Mr. Daisy stated that the Chamber of Commerce had a reasonable suggestion to give the businesses enough time to change their business materials. He suggested that we not delay and that we get the job done and honor Dr. King’s memory. He noted that Delaware was the first state in the Union and it should not be the last state to name a major street after Dr. King. Regarding a previous comment that Division Street is an old street [Mr. Daisy indicated that this may have been said in the newspaper], he stated that there were a lot of old streets in Dover, and that was not a reason not to move forward. Mr. Daisy felt that naming a street after Dr. King would cause individuals to feel a sense of belonging and that Dover needed to be more united. He believed that this was not just about renaming a street, but about the meaning behind it, and noted that the deep south had more streets named after Dr. King than the north. He urged the Mayor and Council to support the renaming of Division Street. Mr. Richard Heisler, 1598 Forrest Avenue, stated that those who were asking for the renaming of Division Street would not be affected by it and felt those who would be affected should have a lot of input because it would cost them a lot of money. He referred to the gentleman who claimed that no one went out of business in other areas where the streets were renamed and questioned if this were correct. Mr. Heisler said that the street renaming would not cause him to go out of business or file bankruptcy; however, it would a huge inconvenience. He questioned the positives and negatives of renaming Division Street to Martin Luther King Jr., Boulevard, indicating that he understood the benefits of naming a street or plaza after Dr. King but suggested naming something that was not already named to avoid inconvenience. Mr. Tolano Anderson, 630 West Division Street, stated that he was speaking on behalf of Crossroad Christian Church and Pastor Anthony Wallace as well as for himself as a business owner on Division Street, where he has two (2) companies. Mr. Anderson noted he owns a 20,000 square foot building which houses nine (9) tenants, three (3) residential properties, and two (2) commercial businesses that are leased to other people on Division Street. Mr. Anderson noted that everyone on both sides had good arguments. Regarding the inconveniences imposed, Mr. Anderson said he understood them since he would have to endure them, along with the increased expenses, some of which would be significant for signage, business cards, etc. However, he felt that it was well worth overcoming these concerns to remember Dr. Marin Luther King, Jr. and what he represented because this what allowed him the opportunity to stand here today. Mr. Anderson stated that he thought the costs that would be incurred paled in comparison to what Dr. King represented and ultimately gave his life for. Mr. Anderson acknowledged the difficult that job that Council had before them; however, he felt the application should be supported and noted that all of the other arguments were well made.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 17 Mr. Robert Tudor, Former City Council Member (Second and Third Districts), 706 E. Division Street, stated that he went to the City Clerk’s Office earlier this morning regarding the proposed renaming, specifically to determine what the term “boulevard” was in the City’s eyes. The information he received indicated that roads that run north and south should be designated as streets and roads that run east and west should be avenues. Mr. Tudor commented that other designations, such as drives, were also listed, however boulevard was not. He said the very last section of the material provided referenced “arterial” streets, noting that they shall be designated as boulevards. Mr. Tudor stated that he was aware of only one (1) place north of Dover that is named boulevard and that the City would not have had the crowd that was present tonight if the roads were named according to the original standards. Mr. Tudor said based on the information provided to him by the City, Division Street would not fit the criteria to be named boulevard. He suggested that Council hold off renaming Division Street and select a place by the hospital or a place that had yet to be built. Ms. Roxie Smiley-Carter, P.O. Box 282, felt that, in keeping with the times, Division Street should be named after the man who gave his time and life for a cause that represents the people as a whole: civil rights for all people. She believed that in Delaware, the First State in the United States, change had not happened. She questioned why this had not occurred and if we were united. Ms. Florene LeCompte, 1110 E. Division Street, stated she had resided at this address with her husband, Jack, for 41½ years. She expressed her respect for all of the comments that were made this evening. She indicated that she wished to honor Dr. Martin Luther King and had no objection to that; however, she did object to renaming a street that had been named since the 1700's. She acknowledged that the street divides, noting that it separates the north of the City from the south of the City, and felt that this was the only division that it makes. She questioned how many people who live on this seven (7) mile section of road knew of the proposed name change before seeing it in the Delaware State News or before flyers were put in their doors by a concerned citizen. Ms. LeCompte indicated that she was appalled that the people who were elected to represent citizens would forego the six (6) step process for a street name change and use their legislative power so that the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance (IMA) would not have to get property owners’ signatures to approve their plan to change the street name. She observed that, according to the headlines in the Delaware State News, many favor the name change; however, she questioned how many of those people live or have a business on this stretch of road and if the Committee had considered this or the cost of the change. It was her belief that they wanted this done and sealed before the people could express their feelings. Mrs. LeCompte stated that this would be a very expensive and time-consuming venture for the people, the City, and the County to take on at a time when money was short for everyone. She noted that there is a national holiday to honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and she was not opposed, nor did she think that anyone else was, if people in Dover thought that Delaware needed more. She felt that dedicating the new public library in Dr. King’s honor would be an easy fix and one that would make the family of Dr. King proud for generations to come since he was an educator. Ms. Linda Hackett, 1117 Charles Drive, stated that it was an honor to stand before Council in an effort to have Division Street named Martin Luther King Boulevard. She felt that, as a city, this could be one thing that everyone could pull together for. She noted that problems with crime, etc.,

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 18 were occurring on parts of this street. In her opinion, this would be one positive thing that people living in the area would see the City do that was for them. Ms. Hacket stated that everyone had their own opinion as to what should be done. She felt that Martin Luther King told us to do things that pull us together rather than dividing us and that this had little to do with the expense because if people were like-minded, it would be better for everyone. Mrs. Hackett stated that sometimes people do not feel safe on Division Street and that renaming the street would make that part of the City a place where people wouldn’t mind doing business because they felt safe there, and everyone would prosper as a result. Mrs. Hackett indicated that it was a time for healing. She acknowledged some of the negative things going on in the City and she felt that this was one thing that could be done together in a positive manner that would set the tone for more positive things to happen. Mr. Jonathan Patz, 430 Kings Highway, reiterated a previous comment that “just because it’s legal, doesn’t make it right.” He stated that there was a procedure in the City Code to accomplish a street name change that provided a six (6) step process. He advised members of City Council that they work for him and every other citizen of the City and that when the procedures of this government are short-circuited as laid out by the Code, they “shaft” some of the taxpayers for whom they work. He directed members to go back to the procedure in the Code and if they failed to do so, he suggested that the name of City Hall be changed to the City of Dover Railway Station, because Council would be “railroading” something that many were not in favor of. Pastor Theodore A. Henderson, 506 Wyoming Avenue, Pastor at Dover Christian Church, read a statement on behalf of Senator Brian Bushweller, as follows: I am sorry I cannot join you tonight as you consider whether to rename Division Street to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. I spent this day out of town attending to some minor medical issues and am unable to make it in time to the meeting. I do appreciate the opportunity to have this statement read into the record. I support the renaming of Division Street for Dr. King. I spent a great deal of time considering this matter and I have talked to many people to get their views. While some have expressed concerns over certain aspects, I believe that the concerns are outweighed by the simple fact that the capital of the First State, Dover, should have a significant street in the central part of the City close to the historic area named after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. King was a pivotal figure in American history because of his creative use of non-violence and disobedience, and through sheer force of his intellect and dedication, millions of people who previously languished in the shadows of democracy are welcomed into the outstretched arms of the American family. Dover is no exception, and today our wonderful city thrives as a shining example of racial and ethnic diversity, with all the attendant vitality and enthusiasm that that entails. Dr. King changed America for the better. It is right and fitting that we, the people of Dover, recognize that in honor of him. Some people have suggested that Division Street is not the best street to choose for this purpose but, given the significance of Dr. King, I believe the street we choose should itself be a significant street in a central part of Dover, in the heart of the City, and close to its historical area. Division Street meets all these criteria. I understand the current

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 19 proposal is to rename all Route 8 from city limit to limit. Perhaps an appropriate amendment would be rename only the portion of Route 8 with the side of Route 13 that is actually called Division Street, that is from Route 13 to Forest Street. Others have mentioned that the cost of signage or inconvenience of changing the addresses argue against proposed changes. While we are sensitive to all of these things, they should not be allowed to outweigh the essential positive nature of making the proposed change. There are some steps we can take to mitigate concerns, such as delaying final implementation for one year and seeking an alternative means to pay for the signage, such as Community Transportation Funds. I appreciate the opportunity to express my views. The Honorable Brian Bushweller Speaking on his own behalf, Pastor Henderson stated that many people had mentioned the inconvenience and cost, but he urged everyone to remember that Dr. King himself was an advocate of proposing a boycott that seriously disrupted the city, and that this involved finances beyond what we could think of. He noted that renaming the street would reflect the people’s character and that financing was where ideology meets asphalt. He urged members, “Let’s get it done.” Ms. Paula Kinsey, 224 N. State Street, stated that she purchased a house five (5) years ago on State Street which recently had become a tea house. She noted that she had worked with the City previously, which took time and patience on both parts, and thanked Mr. Bonar for his support in getting her establishment ready. She stated that she spoke “with a nervous voice and a southern accent” and that there were many Martin Luther King Boulevards where she came from in Virginia, where she lived for approximately 50 years. Ms. Kinsey noted that she was born in Woodside, Delaware, where her parents’ family owned the building that was now the post office. She wanted to be in Delaware, returned, and was very happy; however, she advised members that had “fright night” quite often where she resides. Each night she takes in everything from her porch that she can lift and places it in the house until the next day. She has had numerous items stolen from her porch and has seen accidents, as many as five (5) in the last year, including rollovers of cars due to the influence of drinking and speed. Mrs. Kinsey thought that when someone comes onto your property, tells you to get off, and strips down, there is something lacking. She understood that the police could not be everywhere at every minute; however, she did not think that there was a person present who would be willing to take her things in for her every night, plug up their ears when they hear one gunshot after another, see the people who are in accidents in the middle of the night, listen to the cursing of the people up and down the streets, and tell her that it is more important to put a sign up above than attend to the health and well-being of citizens. She stated she was told that the City has a police force of approximately 90 and should have approximately 125. Mrs. Kinsey indicated that she respected Dr. Martin Luther King and the people; however, she respected her life and body first. She suggested that members name the library after Martin Luther King, Jr. Mr. Joe Burden, 1422 McKee Road, stated that he supported changing the name of Division Street to Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. He noted that he owned approximately nine (9) rental properties on Division Street and 60-70 houses in town. He indicated that if it weren’t for Martin

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 20 Luther King, he would not be where he is today. Dr. King inspired him to help poor people who do not have houses to live in. He stated that he was the only landlord in this country that tries to help poor people to the point of allowing people to get $30,000 behind in their rent. Mr. Charles Mundorf, 1954 Forrest Avenue, stated he objected to changing to the street name. He advised members that he had been a resident and a business owner on Division Street for 42 years and making the change in the economy today would affect him to a point that he thought was unfair. He believed that someone started this process without giving due consideration to every resident and business owner on the street and what it would cost them. He had no objection to renaming a street for Martin Luther King, Jr.; however, he objected to being forced in the manner proposed. Mr. Mundorf felt that Mr. Lynn had expressed a good point previously and noted that Mr. Lynn was a young man who was not around when Martin Luther King was giving his speeches. Mr. Mundorf stated that he could not believe for one minute that Dr. King would want this to happen and affect so many people. He stated that he was in Section A (Forrest Avenue to Artis Drive), which had both Kent County and City residents, complicating the change. He acknowledged that Mr. Rodriguez had indicated that it was legal for Council to make the change, but reiterated “legal doesn’t make it right.” He stated that he had to hear about this matter through the newspaper and a piece of literature in his mailbox and did not feel it right and fair for a citizen who had been here for so long to be advised in that way. Ms. Yvonne Hall, 228 N. State Street, thanked members for the opportunity to speak. She agreed with Mrs. Kinsey’s statement, noting that she lived next door to Mrs. Kinsey and was experiencing the same problems, stating that she could not even leave pumpkins on her step for her grandchildren and that more costly things must be brought in at night. She informed members that language heard at her address every day is horrific, as is the trash that is thrown on her street. (She picks up a bag of trash every morning.) Ms. Hall felt that Dover should honor Dr. Martin Luther King; however, she did not feel that it had to be Division Street and that the new, unnamed segment of Saulsbury Road to the U.S. 13 bypass would be a perfect option as it has not been named and would not cost extra for signage or labor to erect. Ms. Hall acknowledged that many think that it should not be a matter of cost, but it would be a cost to taxpayers in the City of Dover and she pays dearly for taxes. She reminded members that at the last meeting she suggested that the decision needed further budget analysis and to this point none had been provided. She questioned what the actual cost would be to the taxpayers to make this change. She felt it was a bad economic time for everyone and did not think that money should be spent for this purpose at this time when more police officers were needed in the City. Ms. Hall believed that additional expenses would result, as well as a need to raise additional revenues from property owners, and that a thorough accounting of expenses should be provided. She was sure Council understood that this would not be the only cost to property owners along the proposed corridor. Referring to recent submissions to the Delaware State News on this topic, Ms. Hall stated she felt that Mr. Ingram had done a good job of listing the many changes that would be required of property owners if the street were renamed and that she believed that Council was aware of other notices in the newspaper cataloging the additional expenses that would result to each individual person in the City who was affected by the proposed name change. Mr. Don Blakey, 956 Bison Road, Delaware State Representative, 34th District, stated that he was present to support the name change of Division Street to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. He

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 21 noted that some have suggested that the costs associated with the name change and the disruption of life to those affected dictate that another location be chosen; however, he felt that this was not so. He believed that there was a larger payback to be considered: solidarity, pride, and progress. He stressed that symbolism outweighs the physical cost and the burden of the name change. Rep. Blakey stated that the word division denotes (symbolically and actually) a time in our State when people were forcibly separated, black from white, schools were created based on division, communities were built based upon division, and every aspect of Delaware life was based on division. He felt that the word division was “loaded, crippling and subconsciously divisive.” In regard to the enabling power that a name change could produce, he explained that a name change had made a significant difference in the Dover community and indicated that Capitol Theater was once a bastian of segregation where Negros had to sit in the balcony while there were no people sitting in the orchestra seats, yet now on Saturdays, people of all persuasions come to the Schwartz Center for the Arts [former Capitol Theater] to enjoy wonderful presentations and are seated together. Rep. Blakey felt that a name change helped to accomplish this. He encouraged Council members “to pull off the scab of division and let the healing continue.” Stating that he understood political pressure very well, he urged members to make the tough decision and do the right thing for our fair City and State. Ms. Nancy Gardner, 213 N. State Street, stated that she had lived here for almost 50 years and on the street for 40 years. She noted that she was confronted every day by change and was getting old, but if there were no change she felt that she would be even older and sadder. She indicated that she did not like living between two (2) virtually slum-run houses; however, stated that this was not what the evening was about. Ms. Gardner informed members that when she first heard of the proposed change to Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, she thought it was not enough. She noted that she was not a big fan of this terribly mixed length of street; however, she felt if more streets were named for men like [former City Council Members] Bill Daisy or John Pitts, [State Representative] Don Blakey, or people that live their lives here every day, that we could reach out and touch, she would be a lot happier because she would feel they were close to her. She felt that Martin Luther King was about a movement of millions of people and the very least that we could do is to pay some honor in our own town, on our own streets, with signs that have not been “made in China.” Ms. Gardner freely admitted that there would be no direct cost to her; however, felt that if anyone wanted to continue to honor Martin Luther King in the movement for diversity, they need only to go to their school or local library and ask “What books can I buy for this library?” She noted that Dr. King was about struggle, future, and change and that if this City could not be about an organized and responsible change, then we will have lost a good part of what 50 years in this town should represent to every one of us. Mr. Joseph McDaniel, 54 The Green, stated that he was present to discuss the Elizabeth W. Murphey School at 42 Kings Highway East. He noted that the easternmost part of Division Street was called Kings Highway East. He acknowledged that on one hand there were wonderful ideas about Dr. King; on the other hand, practical ideas about how much the change would cost. He noted that those at the Murphey School felt that Dr. King should be honored; however, he informed members that if he had not read the Delaware State News he would not have known about the discussion tonight and was unhappy with the way that Council had gone about the name change. Mr. McDaniel

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 22 advised members that the Murphey School had approximately 18 acres on Division Street/Kings Highway East, four (4) buildings on Kings Highway East, and four (4) buildings on Kent Street (which extends to Central Middle School). The school serves 34 children, has a population that changes frequently, and must maintain all of the records that go with these children. In addition, the school has 52 employees and eight (8) vehicles; therefore, dealing with the name change would be “no small feat.” He advised members that the school had been at this location for 90 years and this would be “a big deal”; therefore he was opposed to the name change. Mr. Edwin Baker, Jr., (City of Dover retiree), 1526 Forrest Avenue, stated that he had lived at this address for over 45 years, this would be his third address change, and changing it would involve “quite a bit.” He felt that Dr. King should be honored but did not feel that a street was good enough. He questioned if anyone present knew why Saulsbury Road, Clara Street, Mary Street, and Fulton Street were named as such and reminded members Pat Lynn Drive was named to honor a man who was a good principal; however, the school was now being relocated. Mr. Baker felt that the City could do better than renaming Division Street for Dr. King. He noted that buildings or bridges are typically named to commemorate famous people, for example, the George Washington Bridge, the Washington Monument, and the Lincoln Memorial, and that streets seem to go by the wayside eventually. Mr. Baker reminded those present that the City building was named after Mayor Crawford Carroll. He suggested that a committee be formed to give the City an opportunity to come up with a better venue and that those who wished to rename the street should “take a step back” to allow a course of action that would be “a little different and bigger.” Mr. Baker indicated that he did not wish to go through the process of changing his driver’s license, insurance, and titles and, as a resident of Kent County (rather than the City), he felt that he was not represented. Ms. Caroll Lisa Malone, 1559 Forrest Avenue stated that she was curious about Mayor Carey’s input, noting that he lived a only a few doors down from her and the proposal would affect him as well. She informed members that her husband was older than her, they were on a fixed income, and this would impact them greatly. Having been a former Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employee, she understood that businesses could recoup a lot of loss through Schedule C on their income tax returns. She noted this would not help a business while experiencing the trouble, but losses could be recouped in the end; however, private citizens would not have that option. Ms. Malone explained that she came to Dover from Philadelphia approximately 11 years ago and felt that Dover was a very progressive City and Delaware a progressive state. She had seen a lot more interracial relationships (noting that there were some in her house) and a lot more intersexual relationships. Having come from Philadelphia and having seen racial tension and fights, she felt that it was difficult to understand comments that Dover was “behind.” Mrs. Malone indicated that she did not like finding out about the proposal through last-minute notice, supported Councilwoman Williams’ statement that this was not done right, and stated that the City was “back door on this one.” Since Dr. King was an educator, she felt that naming an educational facility after him would be the best way to honor him and reminded members that a new high school was being built in the City and a new library had been built. She felt that naming either of these facilities after Dr. King would be “great.” Ms. Tricia Arndt, 11 Pennsylvania, read the following statement into the record:

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 23 I am in support of honoring the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. within the city limits of Dover. However, I am NOT in support of the current proposal to rename Division Street. I feel that the notion is well-intentioned, but misplaced. It creates an unnecessary burden to residents, businesses and property owners. Further, it infringes on the intent of the designated historic district that is a prominent feature of our town, which attracts visitors and is a source of pride to residents. The City's Code of Ordinances - Appendix B, Article 3, Section 21.1 states that "the purpose of the historic district regulation is to preserve and enhance that unique character and value of the old portion of Dover as an area of special charm and interest." Section 21.4 directs that "the city council shall not take any action to amend, supplement, or repeal the historic district...without a report by the historic district commission ... " This proposal is certainly an action which alters the historic district. I ask that the commission be consulted as their role is to advise the council on such matters. My neighbor had to seek approval to ensure that his replacement windows were true to the time period and character of his historic home. Surely the Council should have similar hoops to jump through to rename the entire street on which my neighbor's house sits. Further, portions of Division Street are actually part of Kings Highway. Kings Highway is surely of historical significance - the Governor's Mansion is on the National Register of Historic Places. As a suggestion, the council could consider dedicating the yet to be constructed Dover connector road in honor of Dr. King or constructing a monument on the Green. Either option would honor his accomplishments as well as or better than the current proposal. Former City Councilman Mr. Reuben Salters (Fourth District), 109 Bertrand Drive, stated his appreciation for being afforded the opportunity to speak. He noted that this was a wrenching task and that there were pros and cons, but reminded those present that nothing that is good comes easy. He felt that it would take the thoughts of Council and staff to come up with a perfect solution. Mr. Salters stated that costs had been mentioned; however, he felt that costs were not everything. He indicated that one of the legislators had alluded to the fact that costs could be shared and that there were funds available to help defray them. He acknowledged that there would be inconvenience, but questioned how Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. felt when he was arrested many times, beaten, and finally murdered. He noted that Dr. King was God’s child, as we are, and that we have an obligation to not stand still but to make the changes necessary. Mr. Salters felt that a street naming, a library naming, or a park naming would be good beginning. He expressed his opinion that this should be accomplished by a few people, not everyone, since everyone had individual ideas about how it should be done. He felt that the necessary time should be taken and he supported the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 24 idea of “chilling down a bit” and doing this in a righteous manner that would be beneficial to all of us and bring pride to our Council, our citizens, our State, and our nation. There being no objections, Council President Leary declared a brief recess. Meeting recessed at 10:19 p.m. and reconvened at 10:31 p.m. In response to Mr. Anderson, City Solicitor Rodriguez indicated that members could take action regarding the renaming of Division Street as Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard by voting on the matter this evening or by choosing to follow the Dover Code. He confirmed that the matter could also be referred back to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee for further review. Mr. Bonar moved to refer the matter back to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee with the stipulation that the Committee provide a recommendation to City Council within 120 days and that the procedure be followed as set forth in the Dover Code. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Williams. Mr. Anderson felt that members should return to the original proposal to rename Division Street from Route 13 to Salisbury Road as Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. Referring to the public testimony provided this evening, he noted that there was very little controversy on this aspect and that those who would be affected by this change actually support the recommendation. He suggested that members allow the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee to determine if Council should follow the procedure or amend it to Segments B and C. If the matter were referred back to the Committee, he stated that the Committee should conduct the necessary study and submit a proposal for Council’s consideration. Mr. Anderson moved to amend the motion by striking “and that the procedure be followed as set forth in the Dover Code.” The motion failed for a lack of a second. Mr. Lynn explained his opinion that it would be necessary for City Council to rescind their previous action to not follow Section 98-45 of the Dover Code. In addition, he reminded members that if Council chose to follow the prescribed procedure, Subsection 6 requires a public hearing before City Council. Mr. Lynn felt that Council had “tainted the well” since a public hearing had already taken place. He also questioned the point of following the procedure at this time, feeling that it would be a waste of resources, economy, etc. Responding to Mr. Lynn, City Solicitor Rodriguez indicated that, based on the information he had been provided, he did not believe that a decision was made by the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee not to follow the Code. After reading the minutes of the Committee meeting, he felt that the option the Code was still open and he believed that this was the intent of the motion tonight.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 25 Mrs. Williams explained that her previous motion to rescind was due to the City Solicitor’s concurrence with Mr. Lynn that this was the proper procedure. She stated that since the street renaming process was not followed, property owners were not notified. Those in attendance this evening were notified as a result of a flyer that was circulated and an article that ran in the Delaware State News. [Council President Leary noted that the City also advertised the public hearing.] Mrs. Williams reminded members that ordinances are not created to be ignored and that the Council should follow the procedure as set forth in Section 98-45 of the Dover Code. Mr. Hutchison suggested that the information and knowledge provided to members during the public hearing be utilized and that the Committee work with the community and submit a recommendation, following the City’s procedure for street name changes, that would allow City Council to take action that would satisfy everyone. Mr. Lynn reminded members that the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee was implicit in their mandate that Section 98-45 of the Dover Code not be followed, otherwise a public hearing could not have been set before City Council. If Section 98-45 of the Dover Code were followed, there is a six (6) step process, and the public hearing before City Council is the last step in the process; therefore, by setting a public hearing for October 8, 2012, it was implied that Section 98-45 of the Dover Code would not be followed. Council President Leary suggested that if the procedure were being followed, the request would be reviewed by the Utility Committee rather than the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee. Since the motion referred the matter back to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee, which was not following the procedure, he suggested that "and that the procedure be followed as set forth in the Dover Code” be removed from the motion. Mr. Bonar indicated no objections to the corrected motion, as did the seconder, Mr. Hutchison. Responding to Mr. Hare, City Solicitor Rodriguez stated that his interpretation of the action taken would not prohibit members from following the procedure as outlined in Section 98-45 of the Dover Code. It was his feeling that the reason for the public hearing tonight was the result of Council’s acting on advice he initially provided that Council had authority to change a street name without following procedure; however, he did not feel that action regarding his advice had been taken by members of Council or the Committee. As a result, he felt that members of Council had the option to follow Section 98-45 of the Dover Code at this time. Referring to the email received from the City Solicitor, Mr. Hare felt that the public hearing tonight would be similar to hearing summations at a trial before evidence was presented. As a result, he stated that the issue regarding the public hearing being held should have no relevance and suggested that members not use that as an excuse in regard to making a decision as to the action that should be taken next. In response to concerns of Mrs. Williams, City Solicitor Rodriguez indicated that members of Council could take action at this time to follow the procedure as outlined in Section 98-45 of the Dover Code. It was his feeling that the public hearing held earlier provided the public an opportunity

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 26 to indicate their desires. He reiterated his opinion that there had never been a decision made, either by Council or the Committee, not to follow the Dover Code. Noting that the procedure required the support of a majority of the adjacent property owners affected by a street name change, he concurred that the public testimony provided earlier indicated that the concerns of the adjacent property owners were that they were not provided the opportunity for their input prior to the matter being presented to City Council for consideration. By referring the matter back to the Committee, City Solicitor Rodriguez stated that it could be recommended that the Dover Code be followed regarding the matter. At the suggestion of Council President Leary, the motion maker, Mr. Bonar, agreed to amend the motion to require that public notification be provided to all affected parties, as did the seconder, Mr. Hutchison. Mr. Hutchison stated his desire for the Committee to consider options beyond the street name change proposed for Division Street, including some of the other alternatives provided during the public hearing. On a call for the question by Mr. Bonar, the motion to refer the matter back to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee with the stipulation that the Committee provide a recommendation to City Council within 120 days and that public notification be provided to all affected parties, was carried by a roll call vote of five (5) yes, and three (3) no (Lynn, Perza, and Williams). UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT - SEPTEMBER 24, 2012 The Utility Committee met on September 24, 2012 with Chairman Bonar presiding. Annexation Request - 110 and 136 Rustic Lane, owned by Taililou, LLC Members were provided with the Petition to Annex and Zone Property, as amended, for properties located at 110 and 136 Rustic Lane, owned by Taililou, LLC. 110 Rustic Lane (ED00-057.02-02-38.00-000) consists of 1.118+/- acres and is currently zoned BG - General Business (Kent County). 136 Rustic Lane (ED00-057.02-02-40.00-000) consists of 0.56986+/- acres and is currently zoned RMH - Residential Manufactured Home District (Kent County). The proposed zoning classification for both parcels is C-2A - Limited Central Commercial (City of Dover). Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, stated that the properties proposed for annexation have a Comprehensive Plan Designation of Category 1 - High Priority Annexation Areas, and he reviewed information regarding utility availability, as follows: Water: • There is currently an eight-inch (8”) water main that terminates at 58 E. Rustic Lane. To receive water service, the developer/owner of the subject properties must extend the water main to the easternmost property line of 136 East Rustic Lane. Infrastructure must be installed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Dover Water/Wastewater Handbook and DelDOT.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 27 • The subject parcels are currently located within Tidewater Utilities Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN). The property owner must follow the appropriate guidelines to allow for transference to the City of Dover’s CPCN. Wastewater: • Currently, there is no City of Dover gravity sanitary sewer service on East Rustic Lane. The closest City of Dover gravity sanitary sewer main is roughly 770 linear feet south of the intersection of East Rustic Lane and Route 13. There is also a one and one quarter inch (1-1/4”) force main located on the east side of Route 13, utilized by WaWa and Sonic, which is now a maintenance responsibility of the City of Dover. • Providing sanitary sewer service to this area has been a long term goal of the Department of Public Works and will continue to be pursued through an out year capital improvement project as options become available to provide sanitary sewer service to the community as a whole. • Until such time as gravity sanitary sewer service becomes available to the community, the options for service are limited. The owner/developer of the subject properties could perform the following, in accordance with the Water/Wastewater Handbook: < Install approximately 1,531 linear feet of sanitary sewer main (provided gravity flow can be obtained). This option has limited viability as it would be cost-prohibitive to any project and would not be approved by DelDOT for at least five (5) years, as Route 13 was recently repaved. < Utilize grinder pumps and install a force main connection to Route 13. This would become a long term maintenance responsibility for the City of Dover, which is discouraged unless there is a community benefit, as East Rustic Lane is a State road. In addition, the existing force main referenced may be unable to receive any additional contribution and connection in Route 13 would not be approved as noted above. The properties would be required to connect to gravity sanitary sewer when it became available. < The subject properties could continue to use a septic system. This option would only be viable for residential use if also approved by DNREC and adequate space was available. The property would be required to connect to public sewer when it became available. • Due to the information above regarding the wastewater utility, future uses of the subject properties would therefore be limited.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 28 Electric: • The subject properties are both located in the City of Dover Electric service territory and have power available across the street. Any new service must meet the requirements of the Electric Service Handbook. Mr. Koenig clarified that water, sanitary sewer, and electric service are available at a relatively high cost but that this cost would be borne by the applicant. Responding to Mr. Blakeman, Mr. Koenig confirmed that the properties were currently being served by the City of Dover electric utility. The Committee recommended adoption of Resolution No. 2012-12, setting the annexation referendum for properties located at 110 and 136 Rustic Lane consisting of 1.118+/- acres (110) and 0.56986+/- acres (136), owned by Taililou, LLC. By consent agenda, Mr. Bonar moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Hutchison and by a unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted Resolution No. 2012-12, as follows: A RESOLUTION PROPOSING THE INCLUSION OF AN AREA WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF DOVER AND CALLING FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE SAID AREA. WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Dover authorizes Council to extend the boundaries of the said City after a special election of the qualified voters and real estate owners of the territory proposed to be annexed, and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the City of Dover deem it in the best interest of the City of Dover to include areas located at 110 and 136 Rustic Lane, which are contiguous to the present City limits, into the limits of the City of Dover and within a zoning classification as recommended by the City of Dover Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 1. That a special election be held for areas located at 110 and 136 Rustic Lane situated in East Dover Hundred, Kent County, State of Delaware. 2. That the election be held on the 15th day of November, 2012 commencing at the hour of 11:00 a.m. in the City Hall Annex, 15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware, for the purpose of submitting the question of annexation of the above areas to those persons entitled to vote thereon.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 29 3. That the election be held and conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Charter of the City of Dover as amended. 4. That this resolution be published in accordance with the City of Dover Charter. ADOPTED: OCTOBER 8, 2012 Review of Utility Related Capital Investment Plan (CIP) (July) (Electric and Water/Wastewater) Members reviewed a Project Tracking Report, as of July 31, 2012, for the Utility (Electric and Water/Wastewater) Related Capital Investment Plan. Responding to Mrs. Williams, Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, noted that the negative balance reflected for funding of the new library in FY11 was due to the timing of receipts for the project. She explained that $1.2M was included in the budget with the expectation that the building would be sold and that the building was not being depreciated or appreciated at this time. In response to Mrs. Williams, Mrs. Mitchell explained that $1,606,700 of remaining Community Transportation grant funds were transferred to the City’s Street Program, which was an appropriate use for these funds and would facilitate accounting. In response to Mr. Blakeman, Mrs. Mitchell explained that the Unapplied CT Projects line was included in the report as a placeholder in anticipation of the receipt of State grant funds. Responding to Mrs. Williams, Mr. Koenig advised members that the West Dover Pump Station project was on hold due to staffing limitations and was scheduled for design later in the year. In response to Mr. Perza, Mr. Koenig noted that an easement for the Tar Ditch Interceptor Upgrade had been requested and this project was scheduled for the Fall of 2012. Referring to Page 5 of the report, Mrs. Mitchell informed members that the Revised Fiscal Year Budget Column reflected carry forward amounts and that staff was working to make sure that funds would be available. She anticipated that a budget amendment would be brought forward in October 2012 which would provide a more visible picture of CIP funding. UPDATES Members were provided with the following updates: Garrison Oak Technical Park Project Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, reminded members that during the City Council meeting held on August 13, 2012, Council authorized revisions to the engineering services agreements to finish design of the sewer system and other items related to land planning. He noted that during the meeting scheduled for later in the evening, Council would consider authorizing engineering design agreements for wastewater facilities and an elevated water storage tank.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 30 Mr. Koenig stated that air permitting was moving forward and that negotiations were ongoing between White Oak Solar Energy and Calpine. He noted that a filing was submitted in Superior Court on behalf of White Oak Solar Energy against the City of Dover Planning Commission regarding the potential for dust to affect the long-term performance of the solar array. Based on conversations between Mr. Koenig and Mr. Nathan Hanson, LS Power Development, LLC on September 24, 2012, it was expected that this issue would be resolved between White Oak Solar Energy and Calpine. Responding to Mr. Blakeman, Mr. Koenig stated his belief that negotiations were continuing with PJM regarding access to the grid and that he expected a final document would be issued in the Fall of 2012. He noted that the building permit must be issued in January 2013 in order to meet the auction deadline; therefore, this dispute must be resolved. Sun Park Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, reviewed the Dover Sun Park - Budget vs. Actual Report which provided information on costs and revenues for July and August 2012. Responding to Mrs. Williams, Mr. Koenig noted that the City planned to budget approximately $300,000 extra each year until the cost of fossil fuel increases to the point where solar energy savings would be realized. Responding to Mr. Snaman, Mrs. Mitchell clarified that $300,000 per year would be allocated for solar energy in addition to the $1.7M currently budgeted. Mr. Koenig noted that the cost of solar panels has decreased rapidly and construction costs have also reduced; therefore, the City was currently paying a premium over fossil fuel and more green energy credits must be purchased to meet requirements. Mrs. Williams requested that members be provided additional information in the subsequent meeting packet including a breakdown of the sources and projections through 2030. Concurring, Mr. Blakeman requested that the graph entitled “City of Dover Electric Fund - Monthly Activity - Sun Park - FY13” be expanded in the future to incorporate specific additional parameters. In response to Mr. Hare, Mr. Koenig explained that the City of Dover purchases all solar power produced by the facility, which typically does not exceed 10 megawatts. By consent agenda, Mr. Bonar moved for acceptance of the Utility Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Hutchison and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT - SEPTEMBER 24, 2012 The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met on September 24, 2012 with Chairman Lynn presiding.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 31 Financing Proposal - Garrison Oak Park Street and Storm Sewer Infrastructure Members were reminded that on February 27, 2012, City Council approved up to $6M of in-kind contributions for the Garrison Farm infrastructure and the related Calpine project. These projects were built into the FY13 Capital Improvement Plan. Staff is working on these projects and will need to have the financing in place when the projects begin. The agenda for the City Council meeting scheduled for later in the evening includes consideration of the approval of related engineering services. The City has approved two (2) major projects for the Garrison Tract that are meeting or will meet future power supply needs for mandated renewable energy requirements and new generation in the City of Dover (and on the Peninsula). In light of these two (2) projects, it was staff’s recommendation to finance the street and storm sewer infrastructure with $2M from the Future Capacity Reserve. Staff suggested that $4M for water/sewer projects be financed with revenue bonds to be paid by the revenues of the Water/Wastewater Fund. In order to minimize cost and required time, staff recommended using a negotiated bid rather than a competitive bid for the revenue bonds. Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, advised members that she was not yet ready to move forward with the financing; however, she was requesting approval for the proposed method of financing. She stated that, since the future power supply needs for mandated renewable energy requirements will be met with the use of solar energy and there is a likelihood of having a Purchase Power Agreement (PPA) with the Calpine facility for future power supply needs, the Future Capacity Reserve could be utilized rather than issuing $2M dollars of general obligation debt; however, she felt that the water/sewer portion of the project should be financed with revenue bonds. A competitive sale would still be an option; however, Mrs. Mitchell stated she would like authorization to complete a negotiated sale to save time and fees if this were the best approach and the market was favorable. Responding to Mr. Shevock, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she was unsure of the revenue interest rate which would be paid; however, she estimated that rates would be in the 3% - 4% range. She stated that the bonds would be sold as tax exempt. Mr. Anderson inquired if the $2M taken from the Future Capacity Reserve would have to be repaid within three (3) years. Mrs. Mitchell indicated that this would not be required if the funds were used for the growth and future of the utility since the Future Capacity Reserve was in the Electric Utility budget. She further clarified that existing capital would be used to make the improvements in lieu of a bond, which would have to be repaid with interest. Staff recommended that the Garrison Farm improvements be financed using $2M from the Future Capacity Reserve and $4M from negotiated revenue bond financing, with the assistance of the City’s financial advisory firm, Public Financial Management, with the amount borrowed to include the cost of borrowing.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 32 The Committee recommended approval of staff’s recommendation. Mr. Anderson stated that he was undecided on this issue, as he felt further study was needed. Council President Leary noted that he must recuse himself and requested Mrs. Williams to preside. Mr. Bonar moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation authorizing the Garrison Farm improvements to be financed using $2M from the Future Capacity Reserve and $4M from negotiated revenue bond financing, with the assistance of the City's financial advisory firm, Public Financial Management, with the amount borrowed to include the cost of borrowing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mrs. Mitchell confirmed that in order to complete the infrastructure for the Calpine Project, approval of the recommendation, which outlines the method of financing, would be required. Confirming that the monies would not be spent until the City received the final contract and approval for Calpine to move forward with the project, she noted that there may be expenses for engineering designs, etc. Although the bonds would not be issued, she indicated that there may be some expenses up front for those projects before the financing is finalized. In response to Mr. Hare regarding the pending law suit between Calpine and the Dover Planning Commission, Mr. Koenig explained that although monies would not be spent on the actual infrastructure, the City was spending money on design at this time. He assured members that the designs would most likely be required regardless of the Calpine project. As mentioned by Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Mitchell indicated that the Future Capacity funds are for the infrastructure (streets and storm sewer) and the Water/Sewer Fund Bonds are for the design of the water tower, the sewer lines, and the water distribution system. The motion to approve the Committee’s recommendation authorizing the Garrison Farm improvements to be financed using $2M from the Future Capacity Reserve and $4M from negotiated revenue bond financing, with the assistance of the City's financial advisory firm, Public Financial Management, with the amount borrowed to include the cost of borrowing was carried by a roll call vote of six (6) yes, one (1) no (Lynn), and one (1) absent (Leary). Council President Leary returned to the Chambers and resumed presiding as Chair. Update on Changes to the Economic Development Office Mayor Carey advised members that changes had been made since the reassignment of the Economic Development Office (EDO) to the Mayor’s Office on July 1, 2012. He provided members with and reviewed a Company Visitation Schedule and Summary of EDO Staff Responsibilities. Responding to Mr. Hutchison regarding the need for the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP) and the Mayor’s Office to meet with Chief Executive Officers of large companies to conduct open dialogue regarding the City, Mayor Carey advised members that the DDP planned to have its own Executive Director in place by November 1, 2012, which would allow a greater focus on such activities. He noted that the DDP had advertised this position.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 33 Noting that he serves as a member of the DDP Board of Directors, Mr. Bonar stated that it has been made abundantly clear to the DDP that the $180,000 provided for FY 2012/2013 would not be forthcoming in the future; therefore, the DDP must ensure that they have the financial wherewithal to handle the increased administrative costs that would occur over the next year. He cautioned members that it was important that the City not lose sight of the importance of economic development to the City’s future. The Committee recommended acceptance of the report. By consent agenda, Mr. Bonar moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Hutchison and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Bonar moved for acceptance of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Lynn and unanimously carried. MONTHLY REPORTS - AUGUST 2012 By motion of Mr. Bonar, seconded by Mr. Hutchison, the following monthly reports were accepted by consent agenda: Budget Chief of Police City Assessor City Manager City Planner Dover Fire Department Economic Development APPOINTMENT RECOMMENDED BY MAYOR CAREY - PLANNING COMMISSION - DR. BOBBY JONES (TO FILL UNEXPIRED TERM OF FRANCIS NICHOLS - TERM TO EXPIRE JUNE 2014) Mayor Carey recommended the appointment of Dr. Bobby Jones to serve on the Planning Commission for a term to expire June 2014 (to fill the unexpired term of Francis Nichols). By consent agenda, Mr. Bonar moved for approval of the appointment of Dr. Bobby Jones, as recommended by Mayor Carey. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutchison and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. APPOINTMENT RECOMMENDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT LEARY - KENT ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP - MAYOR CARLETON E. CAREY, SR. (TO FILL UNEXPIRED TERM OF JAMES L. HUTCHISON, SR. - TERM TO EXPIRE MAY 13, 2013) Council President Leary recommended the appointment of Mayor Carleton E. Carey, Sr. to serve on the Kent Economic Partnership for a term to expire May 13, 2013 (to fill the unexpired term of James L. Hutchison, Sr.).

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 34 By consent agenda, Mr. Bonar moved for approval of the appointment of Mayor Carleton E. Carey, Sr., as recommended by Council President Leary. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutchison and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. SETTING OF DATES FOR SPECIAL ELECTION Mrs. Traci McDowell, City Clerk, advised members that in accordance with Section 13 of the City Charter, a Special Election must be held to fill the vacancy created by the death of Councilwoman Sophia R. Russell since the vacancy is in excess of six (6) months in duration. It was noted that this position is for a Fourth (4th) District Council seat with a term that expires on May 11, 2015. Staff recommended the following dates for consideration regarding the Special Election: Date of Election - Tuesday, November 27, 2012 The earliest the election can be held is November 6, 2012 and the latest it can be held is December 5, 2012. Filing Petitions - October 9, 2012 through October 31, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. This time frame allows three (3) weeks for filing of petitions and almost four (4) weeks for campaigning and absentee voting. Voter Registration Close - November 9, 2012 Voter registration (for the Special Election) shall close on November 9, 2012 and reopen on January 1, 2013. The State will continue to accept voter registration applications during this time. Oath of Office - Regular City Council Meeting of December 10, 2012 December 6, 2012 is the soonest that the Oath of Office can be administered. Mr. Bonar moved for approval of the dates for the Special Election as submitted by staff, seconded by Mr. Perza. Mr. Lynn requested that the City Clerk’s Office assure that the dates were well advertised. Mr. Anderson noted the quickness in having to consider such action and indicated that it was not the intention to be insensitive to the death of Councilwoman Russell. He relayed sadness and regret for Council having to move so quickly. Concurring, Council President Leary noted that there are State laws that address municipal elections that dictate the timeframe for filling the position. The motion to approve the dates for the Special Election as submitted by staff was unanimously carried.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 35 COUNCIL MEMBERS ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Hare advised members that he recently attended the Marcus L. Ware Foundation Dinner honoring Ms. Diane Glenn and Officer David Spicer of the Police Department, and discovered that these individuals truly go above and beyond in carrying out their duties and responsibilities. Referring to the illness and recent passing of Councilwoman Russell, Mr. Lynn stated that he appreciated the efforts of certain City employees and the love and compassion shown to Councilwoman Russell during the time she suffered with her illness. He indicated that he had never observed anyone go above and beyond to the extraordinary level that Ms. Kay Dietz-Sass and Mrs. Traci McDowell did during this time. It was his feeling that these efforts made the last moments of Councilwoman Russell’s life somewhat bearable and that these actions were demonstrative of the City of Dover staff. Mr. Lynn stated that this was the reason why it was such a pleasure to work with staff and relayed appreciation for their efforts. Council President Leary announced that Councilwoman Russell’s visitation services would be held at Pippin Funeral Home in Camden, on Friday, October 12th, from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Funeral services were scheduled for 11:00 a.m. on Saturday, October 13th, at Calvary Baptist Church on Route 8 and Victory Chapel Road. Burial will commence immediately following at Barretts Chapel Cemetery in Frederica and friends may return to Calvary Baptist Church after burial for a repast. By unanimous consent, the meeting was adjourned at 11:02 P.M. TRACI A. McDOWELL CITY CLERK All orders, ordinances, and resolutions adopted by City Council during their Regular Meeting of October 8, 2012, are hereby approved. CARLETON E. CAREY, SR. MAYOR /TM/jg S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS\Council-Minutes\2012\10-08-2012 COUNCIL.wpd Exhibits Exhibit #1 - Presentation - Violation of Dangerous Building Ordinance - 209 North New Street Exhibit #2 - Article Written by Derek Alderman Regarding Street Name Changes to Honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., dated January 2008 Exhibit #3 - Correspondence Received - Renaming of Division Street Within the City Limits as Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard

EXHIBIT #1 Regular Council Meeting of 10/08/2012 Violation of Dangerous Building Ordinance 209 North New Street Planning & Inspections Department Dover, Delaware October 8, 2012

209 North New Street Case History  History of code violations since 2000 (17 cases) – Interior and exterior violations – Tall grass and weeds – Failure to schedule re-inspection  Rental permit suspended August 24, 2011  Condemned as unfit for human habitation January 2012  Boarded by City staff  City contractor has cut grass and removed overgrowth  Property owner has been unresponsive

Dangerous Building Code – Chapter 22 Article XI, Sec. 22-381  (5) Unfit for habitation  (9) General welfare  (10) Code violations  (12) Unoccupied buildings

Recommended Council Action  Declare this building and accessory structure dangerous.  Order the property repaired or demolished.  Order the Building Inspector to cause the repair or demolition of the structures if not completed by the owner by November 8, 2012.  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.

EXHIBIT #2 Regular Council Meeting of 10/08/2012

EXHIBIT #3 Regular Council Meeting of 10/08/2012

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee Meeting was held on October 8, 2012, at 5:00 p.m. with Acting Chairman Bonar presiding. Members present were Mr. Anderson (arrived at 5:04 p.m.), Mrs. Horsey, and Mr. Lewis. Council President Leary (arrived at 5:06 p.m.) and Mayor Carey (arrived at 5:09 p.m.) were also present. Noting the passing of Councilwoman Sophia R. Russell on October 6, 2012, Mr. Bonar expressed his sadness and requested a moment of silence in commemoration of Mrs. Russell. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS By unanimous consent, the agenda was accepted as presented. Review of Active Recreation Area Plan - Leander Lakes Apartments Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, advised members that as part of the Site Plan review process for Leander Lakes Apartments, the applicant prepared a Conceptual Recreation Plan illustrating how the development would provide recreation amenities in accordance with the design specifications described in Article 5, Section 10 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Townshend reviewed the Active Recreation Plan and stated that the proposal must be reviewed by the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee for a recommendation prior to consideration of the Site Plan by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Townshend advised members that the road labeled on the plans as Rinnier Row, which separates Leander Lakes from the new Dover High School site, would be relabeled Dover High Drive. She explained that the applicant was required to provide 66,000 s.f. of Active Recreation Area and the submitted plan included 84,241 s.f. The recreational facilities would be located throughout the site and include a clubhouse and swimming pool, playground equipment, a dog park, and three (3) walking paths around stormwater ponds. Mrs. Townshend reminded members that the Committee was charged with determining if the amenities were accessible and age-oriented to the development. She noted that staff provided a number of additional recommendations to the developer, as detailed on the Data Sheet for Recreation Plan Review. Responding to Mrs. Horsey, Mr. Jeff Anderson, Landscape Architect, Rodney Robinson Landscape Architects, Inc., stated that the dog park would have a series of rules and regulations, including specifications regarding the collection of droppings. He noted that a waste receptacle would be provided and trash would be collected on a regular basis (weekly or bi-weekly). Mr. Keith Cooker, Landmark Engineering, stated that he was unsure whether a lifeguard would be available on the site, although he assumed this would be the case since the developer had another similar facility in Salisbury, MD which had a lifeguard and stated that he could determine this from the owner if required. He indicated that the pool would be fenced and access would be limited to residents of the complex.

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 2 Mr. Jeff Anderson confirmed that there would be a fence around the decking of the pool with access gates which would be locked unless a guard or someone in charge was present. Responding to Councilman Anderson, Mr. Cooker confirmed that there were no objections to staff’s recommendations; however, he suggested that bike racks may not be necessary in the playground area since it was unlikely that children would store their bikes there. The developer concurred that bike racks should be provided in the pool area. In response to Councilman Anderson, Mrs. Townshend confirmed that staff agreed to remove the requirement for bike racks in the playground area and could make note of this when the plan was presented to the Planning Commission. Mrs. Horsey moved to recommend approval of the Active Recreation Area Plan for Leander Lakes Apartments as presented, with the inclusion of staff’s comments and recommendations, with the exception of the requirement for bike racks in the playground area. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried. UPDATES The following updates were provided to members: Planning and Funding for New Library Ms. Margery Cyr, Library Director, advised members that $1,705,078 had been raised through the Capital Campaign for the new library in donations and pledges as of October 8, 2012. Memorial brick pavers were still being sold and naming opportunities were also available. The Grand Opening of the library was celebrated on September 20, 2012 with many attendees and the Library was in its 18th day of operation. She informed members that a punch list of items to be finished was still being addressed, including interior directional signage, and the Reading Garden was well on its way to completion. Staff was also waiting on some carpeting, shelving, and a small amount of furniture. Staff was heavily involved in training to learn how to use all of the systems in the building. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Cyr stated that the name of the facility was the Dover Public Library. Mr. Anderson congratulated Ms. Cyr on a beautiful building and a wonderful job in bringing it to fruition. Mr. Bonar stated that Ms. Cyr had done a marvelous job with the dedication ceremony and the library itself and expressed his thanks to her. He noted that his only concern regarding the library was the future cost of running the facility. In response to Mr. Bonar, Ms. Cyr stated that the fundraising goal for the project had been exceeded and that additional contributions received would be “good for the City.”

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 3 CDBG Program Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed the Status of FY-12 Program Funds Spent - Fiscal Year 7/1/12 - 6/30/13. She noted that the Funds Expended Column reflected $0; however, agreements had been executed with applicants on October 5, 2012, and it was expected that the expenditure of funds would begin soon. Noting that the City had moved to a three (3) year process for block grants and that two (2) of the projects were one-time undertakings (Serenity Place and Elizabeth W. Murphey School); Mr. Anderson questioned if additional applications would be taken for remaining portions of these funds for next year. Responding, Mrs. Townshend explained that the program was structured to approve each applicant (rather than each project) for a three (3) year period; therefore, the current applicants could apply for funding for additional projects after completion of the initial projects. She noted that staff allowed for the possibility of an exception to be made (with the review of the Committee) if an unexpected circumstance arose where a non-profit or other qualified agency was in need of funds. In response to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Townshend stated that, theoretically, funds could be opened up if any of the applicants did not have an additional project that qualified or if a project were completed at a lower dollar amount. She did not believe that a grant cycle would occur in which all funds were not allocated. Mrs. Townshend stated that if this occurred, staff would issue a proposal indicating that pre-screened applicants could submit applications. She noted that the City of Dover could also put forward projects and that funding of police extra duty hours or other needs had been handled in this way in the past. Mr. Anderson stated his pleasure in the progress of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) as reflected in the Status of FY-12 CDBG Projects. By unanimous consent, the meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m. David L. Bonar Acting Chairman DLB/DD/js/mk/tm S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS\Committee-Minutes\2012\10-08-2012 PR&CE.wpd

UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee Meeting was held on October 8, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. with Chairman Bonar presiding. Members present were Mr. Perza (arrived at 5:34 p.m.), Mr. Blakeman, and Mr. Snaman. Mrs. Williams was absent. Members of Council present were Council President Leary, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Lynn (arrived at 5:35 p.m.), and Mr. Hutchison (arrived at 5:38 p.m.). Mayor Carey (arrived at 5:35) was also present. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Blakeman requested the addition of the TEA/NAES (The Energy Authority and North American Energy Services) Report to the agenda. Mr. Bonar stated that this matter would be included as Agenda Item #3. By unanimous consent, the agenda was accepted as amended. Unit 1 Turbine Steam Seal Repair - McKee Run Generating Station Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, advised members that the McKee Run Unit 1 steam turbine developed a steam leak on the governor end of the machine. This leak has progressively gotten worse to the point that it is affecting the operation of the #1 bearing on this unit. When operating, this bearing is now running at elevated temperatures when the unit is at full load. This is an undesirable condition which could lead to damage to the bearing (if it is not already damaged), and possibly result in a forced outage. This Unit is not likely to operate until the Spring of 2013; however, repairs need to be made as soon as possible to avoid further damage to the unit. To address the problem, NAES will replace the governor end outer gland seals and inspect the #1 bearing for damage. This will require: • Removing the outer gland housing and seals. • Sending seals to the OEM for refurbishment. • Reinstalling the seals and gland housing and aligning the housing to the turbine shell. • Removing the governor table to access the #1 bearing. • Removing the bearing and inspecting/repairing as necessary, reassembling the bearing. If work on the bearing is required, an alignment check will have to be performed. • Reassembly of the governor table. • Operationally testing the unit. The cost to perform this work is $65,000, assuming no damage is found to the #1 bearing. The work can easily be accomplished in the fall outage timeframe. However, this work was not included in the original 2013 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) budget nor in the 2013 Capital Investment Plan (CIP) budget. Staff recommended approval of the Unit 1 Turbine Steam Seal Repair as a new Capital Investment Plan (CIP) project and the expenditure of funds for the project in FY 2013.

UTILITY COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 2 Responding to Mr. Blakeman, Mr. Koenig stated that he was unsure when the steam leak was first noticed but estimated that this occurred approximately one (1) to two (2) months ago. Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, stated her belief that it had been detected over three (3) months ago and had gotten worse since that time. In response to Mr. Blakeman regarding the cost of a second alignment for the bearing (if required), Mr. Koenig stated that this would be included in the cost of the repair of the bearing; however, authorization was being requested only for the initial inspection of the bearing at this time. The cost of repairing the bearing (if damaged) and the timeframe required had not been discussed; however, he noted that NAES was planning to be online for calls coming in during the Spring of 2013. Mrs. Mitchell explained that if it were discovered that the bearing had significant damage, a revised estimate would be provided to the City. She stated that if the cost was substantial, it was probable that this matter would be brought back to the Utility Committee. Responding to Mr. Blakeman, Mr. Koenig stated that no estimate had been received regarding the cost or availability of a new bearing, nor information regarding the type of damage that could result if the bearing failed while the unit was operating. In response to Mr. Bonar, Mr. Koenig projected that failure to repair the steam seal could result in a forced outage involving Unit 1. Mr. Blakeman moved to recommend approval of the Unit 1 Turbine Steam Seal Repair as a new Capital Investment Plan (CIP) project and expenditure of funds for the project in FY 2013, as recommended by staff, seconded by Mr. Snaman and unanimously carried. UPDATES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Permit Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, conveyed her thanks to Wesley College for continuing to work with staff on the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Permit. She advised members that Mr. Nicholas DiPasquale, former Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) and current Director of the Chesapeake Bay Program for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), would be speaking at the new Dover Public Library on October 16, 2012 regarding what could be learned about the City’s watersheds from the Chesapeake Bay experience. Garrison Oak Technical Park Project Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, stated that the Garrison Oak Technical Park project was progressing. Staff met with the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) on October 8, 2012 to discuss the entrance permits. He noted that applications from Calpine were progressing through City and State-level review processes and Calpine was currently working on air permitting. Staff was working with Calpine on site plan approval as well as approvals of the overall Garrison Technology Park. He informed members that at recent Council meetings, approvals were

UTILITY COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 3 granted for engineering service agreements for the design of a 1.5M gallon water tower and a pump station to serve the Garrison Farm and outlying areas of the City. The most recent discussions with Calpine indicated their hope to achieve a building permit in approximately January or February. Mr. Koenig stated that he was originally told that improvements to the PJM grid would be required in the Wilmington and southern Pennsylvania areas; however, he had learned during the previous week that, because of changes in the grid, it appeared that those improvements would not be required for Unit 1 at this time. He noted that this was not the case for Unit 2. He indicated that improvements made would involve obtaining a 230 KV line from the Calpine plant to the City’s Cartanza Substation. Responding to Mr. Snaman regarding the status of a filing for pipeline by Chesapeake Utilities, Mr. Koenig stated his understanding that a related hearing had been scheduled approximately one and one-half weeks prior at the Delaware Public Service Commission. Mr. Bonar indicated that this workshop meeting (to discuss the southern Delaware expansion being requested by Chesapeake Utilities and the expansion in the size of transmission to 16 inches for central Delaware) had been postponed. In response to Mr. Snaman, Mr. Bonar stated that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) would have to be notified of the increase in the size of Chesapeake’s transmission; however, the only hearing process would be through the Delaware Public Service Commission. TEA/NAES (The Energy Authority and North American Energy Services) Report Mr. Blakeman noted that members had not received the TEA/NAES monthly report since the October 12, 2011 report that was reviewed during the meeting held on January 12, 2012. Mrs. Mitchell explained her understanding that Mr. Bonar had requested staff to discontinue sending the report. Mr. Bonar clarified that his request was that the report not be formally presented but be submitted electronically. Mrs. Mitchell apologized for her misunderstanding. Mr. Bonar stated that reports had been reviewed previously on an agenda in a public fashion; however, since they could be submitted electronically there was no need to review them on a monthly basis unless a member of the Committee or Council had a specific question. In response to Mr. Blakeman, Mrs. Mitchell offered to send the year-end report for Fiscal Year 2012, which would include the month of June and year-to-date, and to again provide the report monthly. By unanimous consent, the meeting adjourned at 5:44 P.M. David L. Bonar Chairman DLB/DD/js/mk/tm S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS\Committee-Minutes\2012\10-08-2012 UTILITY.wpd

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting was held on October 8, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. with Chairman Lynn presiding. Members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Hare, Mr. Rushe, and Mr. Shevock. Members of Council present were Council President Leary, Mr. Perza, Mr. Bonar, and Mr. Hutchison. Mayor Carey was also present. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Shevock moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Rushe and unanimously carried. Authorization to Purchase Downtown Security Cameras Members were advised that Mayor Carey had proposed the purchase and installation of 16 additional outdoor security cameras in the downtown area to expand the existing camera network. The proposed locations and details were as follows: Expansion #1: $51,675 - Five (5) Cameras - Installation Quote from Advantech for New Street & Reed Street, S. Governors Avenue & Reed Street, Loockerman Street & S. Bradford Street, S. Bradford Street & Reed Street. Expansion #2: $24,905 - Four (4) Cameras - Installation Quote from Advantech for S. Governors Avenue & North Street and S. New Street & North Street. Expansion #3: $21,480 - Three (3) Cameras - Installation Quote from Advantech for Reed Street & S. Kirkwood Street, Loockerman Street & Slaughter Street, North Street & Slaughter Street/Jerusalem Way. Expansion #4: $29,720 - Four (4) Cameras - Installation Quote from Advantech for Division Street & Governors Avenue, Division Street & New Street, Division Street & Queen Street Fiber Installation is estimated to cost $7,620 by City of Dover and Goldhorn Electrical. Total Equipment Cost of Proposed Project is $135,400. (No incremental operating cost, other than the maintenance will be incurred.) Fiscal Note: The limited warranty for products and installation would be effective for one (1) year from the date of the Advantech invoice for the installation. The service plan for this equipment would commence one (1) year after systems are installed for $9,300 per year. The City would be responsible for any liability incurred on City premises. Members were advised that there were two (2) options available to fund this project, as follows: Option A - Staff requested that the City pay for the cameras using $102,400 of General Fund street program carry forward balance and $33,000 that was approved

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 2 in the Mayor’s budget. This recommendation was made based on the forward movement of the General Fund. Option B - The Mayor recommended that $135,400 of Community Transportation Funds, which are restricted to non-public safety public works projects, be “swapped out” with General Fund monies and allocated for the project. He suggested that the total project be funded using $135,400 of the General Fund Street Program carry forward balance and that the Mayor’s budgeted money be used later for additional cameras and maintenance not included in this quote. It was noted that the Community Transportation Funds would be used for the Street Program. Mayor Carey explained that he had been working with State legislators and staff since late March or early April to obtain the funding needed to accomplish this project. He noted that a representative from Advantech Incorporated, was present to provide additional information and answer questions. Mr. Ryan Kelly, Advantech Incorporated, reviewed a presentation entitled, “City of Dover Wireless Camera Expansion Project,” that included details regarding the proposed project. Responding to Mr. Lynn, Mr. Kelly stated that camera footage for the City’s 14 existing cameras was currently being stored for approximately four (4) months. In response to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Kelly stated that all expansions were wireless and footage would be relayed to a wireless access point at the Fire Department and then be transmitted to the Police Department via fiber. Responding to Mr. Shevock, Mr. Kelly stated that, based on storage limitations, the maximum number of cameras that could be installed in the system would be 50, and the addition of cameras as proposed would bring the City’s total to 30. He explained that although more cameras could be added, this would reduce the storage capacity. Mr. Kelly explained that the storage capacity for up to 50 cameras would be approximately 30 days and estimated that continuous use of 30 cameras would allow for 45 days of storage. If the total number of cameras were to exceed 50, settings could be adjusted to record on motion only, etc., to achieve the timeframe needed. Mayor Carey explained a fifth expansion of the system had been requested by State legislators in conjunction with the North Street project and was included in State grant funding for that project. This expansion would be incorporated in the City system. In response to Mr. Lynn, Mr. Kelly informed members that in the event of an incident, the video would be saved to a thumb drive or CD and stored as a clip. Information would be written to a hard drive on a “first in, first out” basis; therefore, non-pertinent information would not be available after 30 days. Responding to Mr. Lynn, Chief Hosfelt indicated that the Police Department had not experienced a situation where there was a need for information to be stored for longer than 30 days.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 3 In response to Mr. Bonar, Mr. Kelly stated that the expected life span of the cameras was approximately seven (7) to ten (10) years and the resolution of the footage was “as good as it is going to get.” Mr. Bonar reminded members and residents that should grant funds for this project run out, the City would be obligated for maintenance costs and this would be an ongoing expense; however, it would eliminate the need to place a police officer on a particular corner. Responding to Mr. Perza, Mr. Kelly advised members that the response time for attending to equipment problems was typically within 24 hours of reporting the problem. He noted that this was part of the maintenance agreement that the City has with the existing system and this is provided under a one (1) year warranty for new equipment. If the City were to switch security providers in the future, the City would own the cameras and pay for parts and labor, and the maintenance contract with Advantech Incorporated would simply expire. He assured members that the equipment proposed for purchase was at the beginning of its technological age. Responding to Mr. Anderson regarding the intentions of legislators in dedicating funds, Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, explained that the State legislators were interested in the project but could not fund the camera purchase with Community Transportation Funds; therefore, they requested that the City “swap” funding. He advised members that a number of street projects came in slightly under budget, and in some cases legislators contributed more money than was originally anticipated for these projects. For this reason, the City had General Fund street money that could be reallocated to the camera project and legislators had agreed to “backfill” that funding with new Community Transportation agreements. Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, and Mr. Koenig made the recommendation to hold the total camera project at $135,400 because, as the Mayor indicated, the original draft budget had no camera purchases in it because the City was facing a deficit. Mr. Koenig noted that there were still deficits going forward in the General Fund and, since this was a General Fund expense, it was staff’s recommendation to take the $33,000 that Council allocated toward cameras and add $102,000 of unrestricted street financing to make the purchase. The State legislators would then backfill the $102,000 (and probably backfill more than the $102,000, as they have done in the past for streets within their legislative districts). Mr. Koenig stated it was staff’s position that the security cameras were nice things to have in the budget and would be cheaper than a police officer; however, expenditure of these funds was not anticipated when the budget was being built. The concern going forward was that the $9,300 maintenance contract expense would become a baseline cost in the Police Department budget for as long as the cameras are used. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Koenig stated that the General Fund budget for the Police Department was between $10M and $11M. He acknowledged that this was not a great deal of money in the overall budget; however, he felt that expenses add up. In response to Mr. Perza regarding the potential to relocate the cameras in the future if necessary, Mr. Kelly stated there is capability to move them as long they are in range of the wireless radio, provided that power and a line of sight were available at the new location, and moving the cameras would not be difficult.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 4 Responding to Mr. Shevock regarding the possibility of adding new cameras in the future, Mr. Kelly stated that most IP-based systems come with firmware updates; therefore, new technology could be implemented into the system without hindering the system or having to incur cost for another upgrade. Mr. Hare moved to recommend that staff be authorized to sign a contract with Advantech Incorporated for the purchase and installation of 16 additional security cameras at an estimated cost of $135,400 using $102,400 of General Fund street program carry forward balance and $33,000 that was approved in the Mayor’s budget, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. Revision to Fee Policy - Library Meeting Room Fees Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, advised members that the new Dover Public Library was dedicated on September 20, 2012. The new building includes a significant increase in the number of meeting spaces compared to the old building. The Dover Public Library has for many years charged a fee of $15.00 for the use of the meeting rooms and use of the meeting rooms has been limited to non-profit and governmental agencies. With the opening of the new library, the size and number of the meeting rooms has increased. In addition, the quality of the meeting rooms has been substantially improved; therefore, staff requested consideration of increasing the room rental fees. The Dover Public Library Advisory Commission reviewed the fee proposal on September 18, 2012 and endorsed the proposal put forth by staff. The recommended fees were as follows: 1st Floor – Large Meeting Room: $100.00 per use 1st Floor – ½ of the Large Meeting Room: $50.00 per use 2nd Floor Conference Room: $15.00 per use Use of the rooms would remain limited to non-profit and governmental agencies. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Margery Cyr, Library Director, stated that the proposed fees would include the use of all equipment in the room but would not include set-up of the room; therefore, those agencies using the room would be responsible for setting up and taking down the tables and chairs. The large meeting room can be divided into two (2) smaller rooms, each of which has a screen, projector, and wireless access. In response to Mr. Shevock, Ms. Cyr informed members that the second floor conference room seats 10 people. Since the conference room is limited to 10 people, staff anticipated that the room would mostly be used for meetings of relatively short duration. The large meeting room as a whole seats 150 people; when the partition is pulled closed, one (1) side of the room seats 50 and the other seats 75. It was felt that meetings held in this room might be of longer duration and involve many more people; therefore, the usage and wear and tear on the large room would be greater than the conference room.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 5 In response to Mr. Perza, Ms. Cyr stated that use of the rooms would be limited to any organization that provides proof that they are an official non-profit entity. Responding to Mr. Bonar regarding potential use of the facility by the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP), Ms. Cyr stated that typically the Dover Public Library does not charge library or City partners for the use of meeting rooms. Mr. Hare moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation to endorse and adopt the fees for the meeting rooms in the new Dover Public Library as recommended by staff, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. Proposal to Develop Pocket Park at 301 South Governors Avenue (Southeast Corner of South Governors Avenue and North Street) Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, advised members that several years ago the City demolished the dangerous building formerly located at 301 South Governors Avenue. The demolition charges were placed as a lien against the property in accordance with the Dover Code of Ordinances. Recently, the property was sold at a sheriff sale due to City tax delinquency, and the City was the successful bidder and acquired the property. Mr. Koenig reminded members that the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP) received $3M from the State of Delaware for North Street improvements between South State Street and South Governors Avenue, including the development of a plaza on the former Collegian site, various streetscape improvements, the repaving of North Street, and the consolidation of several parking lots between The Green and North Street. This project was currently underway and was expected to be completed under the $3M budget due to a favorable bidding climate. The DDP proposed developing a pocket park on the property located at 301 South Governors Avenue with some of the funds remaining from the State of Delaware funding. The development of a park in this location is consistent with the Downtown Plan that was the result of the 2010 Transit Center Neighborhood Charette. Mr. Koenig stated that staff supported the development of a passive pocket park in this location as it would enhance the downtown environment and, due to the size and location of the lot, future commercial or residential development of the subject property would present a number of challenges. The City had been incurring costs associated with cutting the grass and cleaning up the property as it routinely becomes overgrown and accumulates litter. Mr. Koenig noted that if the staff recommendation were accepted, the City would need to write off the demolition and other associated costs for the property which total approximately $35,996.08. The outstanding receivable would be written off to the uncollectible reserve, which currently had a balance of $150,000. The proposed construction cost of the new park was estimated at $68,196.45 and would be covered by the overall project budget of $3M for the downtown streetscape project. Once completed, the City would be responsible for the ownership and maintenance of the park in perpetuity and estimated annual maintenance costs were $2,000 - $3,000 per year. Mr. Koenig reviewed a rendering of what the proposed park would look like.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 6 Staff recommended that the park be established on the subject property once the City holds title to the property. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mr. Koenig stated that the amount the City paid for the property was included in the $35,996.08 previously cited. He was unsure if there were other bidders and advised members that Mr. William Pepper, Deputy City Solicitor, handles all such sales for the City. Mr. Rushe stated that, based on his own experience with sheriff’s sales, it was likely that the City obtained the property for the amount that was owed to the City on the property. Mr. Anderson inquired if, in view of the new parking lot being constructed on North Street, this park would be vital for safe access from North Street through Loockerman Street for college students and those who patronize the Schwartz Center. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated his opinion that this was a great opportunity to take advantage of State funding and a piece of property that would be a potential liability for the City in the future if it were not developed as a park because the City would have to maintain it in some fashion. As a pocket park, he felt it would be well used, the rendering was inviting, and the City would be very happy with the project once completed. Mr. Anderson moved to recommend that a pocket park be established on the property located at 301 South Governors Avenue (on the southeast corner of South Governors Avenue and North Street) once the City holds the title to the property, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rushe and unanimously carried. Proposed Ordinance #2012-22 Amending Chapter 114 - Vegetation, Article II - Weeds (Collection of Grass Cutting Fees) Mr. Perza advised members that Proposed Ordinance #2012-22 was a modification of an existing ordinance which allows the City to collect grass-cutting fees by tacking them on as a lien on the municipal lien docket at Kent County. The process typically requires the City to record the lien in the hope that the City would be repaid at some point in the future. He noted that the process has a cap, explaining that once a lien is recorded it is only good for three (3) years, regardless of whether or not it is paid. The proposed ordinance would permit the City to collect fees assessed by the City for cutting the grass for property owners who are cited for tall grass by adding grass-cutting fees to the annual tax bill. Mr. Perza stated that the assumption being made was that as property owners receive their bills, they would pay the cost of cutting the grass along with their taxes; therefore, it would not be necessary for the City to wait five (5), six (6), or seven (7) years to be reimbursed for these expenses. Mr. Perza expressed his feeling that the ordinance would benefit all residents and that collecting reimbursement within a reasonable amount of time would help defray the costs of grass-cutting. He emphasized that this was not deemed to be an additional tax as this would involve funds that are already owed by property owners after the City performs services. Responding to Mr. Lynn, Mr. Perza confirmed that the purpose of the ordinance was to provide the City a better opportunity to collect these debts within a reasonable period of time.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 7 In response to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Perza stated that tax bills paid by escrow would not be affected because banks would receive property tax bills, pay the taxes, and bill the property owner for any shortfalls. For example, if a $500 tax bill were owed and a $50 grass-cutting fee were added to it, but there was only $500 in escrow, the bank would pay the $500 and a supplemental invoice would be sent to the property owner by the bank for the additional amount owed. Mrs. Townshend informed members that there are significant out-of-pocket expenses for cutting property owners’ grass amounting to approximately $12,000 to $15,000 per year. She stated that if the City does not recover the costs, they are being paid by the taxpayers as a whole. Responding to Mr. Hare regarding the possibility of “coat-tailing” other fines levied on the City to this ordinance, Mr. Perza stated that he did not feel that other fees could be tacked on to Section 114 of the Municipal Code, which was specifically designed to allow the City to recoup grass-cutting fees. He felt that the City would have to amend other portions of the Code, to permit collection of additional fees generated from violations of other ordinances, in this manner. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, stated that the ordinance was drafted to allow the City to recover out-of-pocket costs (including attorney’s fees) and fines for grass violations. She concurred with Mr. Perza that fees in other sections of the Code would have to be addressed by additional amendment(s); however, she stated that such amendment(s) could be developed. Mr. Perza stated that it would require manpower to perform the research to find every section of the City Code to which such an amendment would apply. Mr. Hare suggested that an additional ordinance be brought forward to speed up other processes and Mrs. Townshend agreed. Mr. Rushe expressed his opinion that the ordinance was “a great idea;” however, he questioned the provision in Line #29 that “In the event that the owner, occupant, tenant or other agent caring for or in charge of the premises” and suggested that this be changed to the “owner of record.” He stated his feeling that this would eliminate the possibility of a notice being sent to a tenant without a landlord’s knowledge. Mr. Perza concurred with amending the ordinance to address the owner of record. Mr. Bonar stated that he also thought the proposed ordinance was “a great idea” and congratulated Councilman Perza for his efforts. He suggested that rather than changing the Code piece by piece, perhaps one (1) comprehensive change could be made that would take care of all sections of Code, saving staff and Council a considerable amount of time. Mr. Perza stated that, alternatively, this ordinance could be passed as a test case to see if any problems arise before amending the entire Code.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2012 PAGE 8 Mr. Hare moved to recommend amending Line #29 of Proposed Ordinance #2012-22 by replacing the words “owner, occupant, tenant or other agent caring for or in charge of the premises” with “owner of record”. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rushe and unanimously carried. Mr. Hare moved to recommend adoption of the ordinance as amended (Attachment #1). The motion was seconded by Mr. Rushe and unanimously carried. Fund to Combat Violent Crimes - New Grant Program Initiative Members were advised that the Fund to Combat Violent Crime Program was a new grant program managed by the Department of Safety and Homeland Security for use by local law enforcement agencies in connection with initiatives to combat violent felonies pursuant to Section 4201(c) of Title 11 of the Delaware Code. Police Chief James Hosfelt advised members that the Police Department was requesting approval to use its grant allocation from this program. He explained that about half of the funds ($22,500) would be used to purchase replacement sniper rifles and an insert for an existing cargo van in the police fleet. The vehicle insert would enable the department to transport a group of prisoners safely at one time. The remaining portion of the funds ($24,285.34) would be used to target violent crime throughout the city with extra duty overtime patrols and provide education to citizens on measures they can take to avoid or cope with violent crime related activities. Chief Hosfelt informed members that this was the first year of this new, ongoing, State-funded grant resulting from an assessment that was placed on all criminal traffic arrests in the State of Delaware and that each law enforcement agency throughout the State would receive a share. He indicated that a significant portion of the City’s allocation would be spent for overtime hours to employ police officers in off-duty hours. This would allow them to fight violent crime in areas where the need arose and to provide the impression that the City has more police officers than it does. Mr. Lynn indicated that he attended a Greater Dover Committee meeting the previous week where Chief Hosfelt received many kudos for his efforts to combat crime in downtown Dover. He expressed his appreciation for the Chief’s continued efforts downtown and to obtain grant funding. Mr. Hare moved to recommend approval for the Police Department to use its allocation from the Fund to Combat Violent Crime Program, as recommended by staff, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. By unanimous consent, the meeting adjourned at 6:48 P.M. Sean M. Lynn Chairman SML/DD/js/mk/tm S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS\Committee-Minutes\2012\10-08-2012 LF&A.wpd Attachment Attachment #1 - Proposed Ordinance #2012-22 with LF&A #1

ATTACHMENT #1 LF&A Meeting of 10/08/2012 FIRST READING CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2012-22 WITH LF&A #1 (LF&A Amendment Indicated in Bold, Black, Underlined Italics (additions) and Strikeout (deletions)) 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL 2 MET: 3 That Chapter 114 - Vegetation, Article II - Weeds, Section 114-33 - Failure to Maintain Proper Height; 4 Abatement by City; Costs and Lien, be amended by deleting the text indicated in red, bold, strikeout and 5 inserting the text indicated in bold, blue, italics as follows: 6 Sec. 114-33. - Failure to maintain proper height; abatement by city; costs and lien. 7 (a) Summons; action by city. In the event that any owner, occupant or tenant of any premises within the 8 city, or any agent caring for or in charge of the premises, shall permit any grass, weeds, underbrush, 9 deleterious or unhealthful growths or other noxious matter to grow to a height of eight inches or 10 more as prohibited by this article, then the health inspector code enforcement officer or fire 11 marshal or his authorized agents shall issue a summons showing a violation of section 114-32, said 12 summons to be served personally or by certified mail mail evidenced by certificate of mailing upon 13 the owner, occupant, or tenant of the premises, or any agent caring for or in charge of the premises. 14 The summons shall cite the violation of this article and shall be accompanied by a letter or a copy 15 of the relevant provisions of this article stating what corrective action must be taken and shall state 16 the consequences for failure to take such corrective action. If the violation is not corrected within 17 three days from the date of personal service of the summons or within seven days from the date of 18 mailing of the summons by certified mail evidenced by certificate of mailing, then the city, at the 19 direction of the health inspector code enforcement officer or the fire marshal, may remove the 20 weeds, grass, underbrush, deleterious or other unhealthful growths or other noxious matter growing 21 to a height in excess of eight inches or more in violation of section 114-32 and charge the 22 responsible person as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines for such work that must be done 23 to render the property in compliance with this article. When the owner, occupant, or tenant of any 24 premises, or any agent caring for or in charge of the premises, has received summonses, or been 25 issued a summons evidenced by certificate of mailing, and fails to take corrective action, and the 26 city has corrected the violation in accordance with this subsection, then no further notification shall 27 be necessary for the city to take any further corrective action on any subsequent violations within the 28 following 12-month period starting from the date of the first corrective action by the city. 29 (b) Failure to pay charges. In the event that the owner, occupant, tenant or other agent caring for 30 or in charge of the premises owner of record is deemed to be in violation of section 114-32, and 31 in the event that the violation is corrected in compliance with subsection (a) of this section, and if 32 the charges assessed by the city for correcting said deficiency are not paid, then the city, after having 33 corrected the deficiency and violation, shall place its charges and expenses as specified in the 34 municipal lien docket as a lien against said property, and add the charges and expenses as specified 35 to the tax duplicate for the tax year said services were provided by the city and invoiced as part 36 of the annual property tax bill for said property and collected as part of the city property tax

Proposed Ordinance #2012-22 - Chapter 114 - Vegetation, Article II - Weeds Page 2 37 collection process. In addition to the methods directed herein, the city solicitor shall be directed 38 to enforce said lien or to collect the charges imposed by the city by any other means that he may 39 deem desirable and most advantageous to the city. The violator shall be responsible for all 40 collection costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. 41 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT Section 114-34 - Fines, be amended by deleting the text indicated 42 in red, bold, strikeout and inserting the text indicated in bold, blue, italics as follows: 43 Sec. 114-34. - Fines. 44 (a) Generally. Any person convicted of a violation of section 114-32, regardless of corrective actions 45 taken, shall be punished for that violation by a fine as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines. 46 Any such fine shall be in addition to any charges or assessments imposed upon the violator pursuant 47 to section 114-33(a). All fines imposed shall be in accordance with the minimum fine schedule set 48 out in subsection (c) herein. 49 (b) Each day. Every day that a violation of section 114-32 continues shall be considered a separate 50 offense, for which the violator may be tried and convicted without necessity of further notice. 51 (c) Minimums. 52 (1) Any fine assessed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall be no less than the minimum 53 amount as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines. 54 (2) In determining the applicable minimum fine, an offense shall be considered a recurring offense 55 only if the defendant has previously pleaded, or been found guilty of causing or permitting the 56 same nuisance at the same location within the past 18 months, or for every day that the violation 57 of section 114-32 continues as per subsection (b) of this section. 58 (d) Lien. Any fines imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section which remain unpaid shall: 59 (1) be added to the tax duplicate for the tax year said services were provided by the city and 60 invoiced as part of the annual property tax bill for said property and collected as part of 61 the city property tax collection process, and 62 (2) be placed by the city as specified in the municipal lien docket as a lien against the property 63 on which the violation occurred, and the procedures for enforcement or collection of said lien 64 shall be as set out in section 114-33(b). 65 (e) When not paid. Fines not paid within 14 days of the day the fine was issued, including the day the 66 fine was issued, shall be automatically doubled in amount. 67 ADOPTED: * 68 S:\ORDINANCES\2012\Draft\2012-22 - Chapter 114 - Vegetation w LF&A-1 First Reading.wpd

Proposed Ordinance #2012-22 - Chapter 114 - Vegetation, Article II - Weeds Page 3 69 SYNOPSIS 70 The proposed ordinance amendment adds unpaid fines for grass cutting to the tax 71 duplicate to be invoiced as part of the annual property tax bill and collected as part 72 of the city property tax collection process and holds the violator responsible for 73 collection costs and attorney’s fees. 74 (SPONSORS: PERZA, BONAR, LYNN) 75 Actions History 76 10/22/2012 - Scheduled for First Reading at Council 77 10/08/2012 - Introduced at Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee

Prepared for: Regular Council Meeting October 22, 2012 CITY OF DOVER FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2012 TO JUNE 30, 2013 REVENUE FORECAST As of September 30, 2012 SEPT 25.0% Unaudited FY13 YTD % BUDGET FY12 FY11 GENERAL FUND BUDGET REVENUES RECEIVED COMMENTS RECEIPTS RECEIPTS 1 Property Taxes $ 10,767,600 $ 10,685,569 99.2% $ 10,765,741 $ 10,647,362 2 Payment In Lieu of Taxes 281,400 14,400 5.1% Rec'd State $297K - 10/12 284,457 257,547 3 Transfer from Electric Fund 8,000,000 4,000,000 50.0% 7,876,288 8,856,000 4 Intrafund Service Receipts Electric 3,224,500 759,028 23.5% 3,100,980 3,150,761 5 Transfer Tax 1,370,000 164,017 12.0% 1,373,208 1,462,154 6 Business Licenses 1,455,000 1,410,966 97.0% 1,460,612 1,467,382 7 Intrafund Service Receipts Water/Wastewater 1,104,600 243,107 22.0% 893,293 892,538 8 Sanitation Fees 2,690,200 657,596 24.4% 1,903,623 2,173,433 9 Permits & Other Licenses 1,053,300 180,673 17.2% 1,452,030 949,982 10 Transfer from Municipal Street Aid Fund 527,400 - 0.0% 1st Qtr. Rec'd 10/5 527,042 527,226 11 Fines & Police Revenue 668,000 106,446 15.9% 684,012 698,522 12 Court of Chancery Fees 753,800 142,060 18.8% 863,220 766,340 13 Transfer from Water/Wastewater Fund 500,000 500,000 100.0% 424,508 - 14 Transfer from Civil Traffic Penalties Fund 750,000 - 0.0% Waiting on DEL DOT 518,637 967,020 15 Library Revenues & County Reciprocal Pymt. 472,100 7,855 1.7% 475,822 444,455 16 Police Extra Duty Fees 494,400 334,316 67.6% Being researched 539,761 334,023 17 Franchise Fees 550,000 - 0.0% 568,240 549,353 18 Grants 708,500 103,329 14.6% 698,485 963,152 19 Recreation Revenue 130,000 21,131 16.3% 112,480 144,114 20 Other Miscellaneous Receipts 128,500 47,775 37.2% Inspection fees - correction 173,110 312,836 21 Interest Income 75,000 29,337 39.1% 66,994 49,779 TOTALS $ 35,704,300 $ 19,407,605 54.4% $ 34,762,543 $ 35,613,979 Final Budget $ 35,016,778 $ 35,641,080 SEPT 25.0% Unaudited FY13 YTD % BUDGET FY12 FY11 WATER/WASTEWATER FUND BUDGET REVENUES RECEIVED COMMENTS REVENUES REVENUES 1 Water Fees $ 4,730,700 $ 1,426,300 30.1% $ 4,707,918 $ 4,945,385 2 Wastewater Fees 3,834,600 1,012,326 26.4% 3,722,985 3,694,020 3 Wastewater Adjustment Fees - County Trtmt 3,090,800 837,410 27.1% 3,050,127 3,058,656 4 Groundwater Inflow Adjustment 1,257,600 375,871 29.9% 1,290,968 1,171,376 5 Wastewater Impact Fees 317,000 92,200 29.1% 277,400 354,825 6 Water Impact Fees 350,000 99,820 28.5% 310,800 393,750 7 Water Tank Space Leasing 313,500 8,554 2.7% 313,101 300,137 8 Interest Income 25,800 3,710 14.4% 31,985 9,808 9 Other Miscellaneous Revenues 77,000 16,212 21.1% 104,634 83,056 TOTALS $ 13,997,000 $ 3,872,403 27.7% $ 13,809,918 $ 14,011,013 Final Budget $ 13,819,800 $ 13,707,200 SEPT 25.0% Unaudited FY13 YTD % BUDGET FY12 FY11 ELECTRIC REVENUE FUND BUDGET REVENUES RECEIVED COMMENTS REVENUES REVENUES 1 Sales to Customers $ 85,071,400 $ 26,402,393 31.0% $ 96,483,054 $ 99,859,602 2 Purchased Power Adjustment - - 0.0% (6,083,282) (2,290,989) 3 Utility Tax 1,595,200 421,933 26.5% 1,548,209 1,944,543 4 Transfer from Rate Stabilization Reserve 5,400,000 - 0.0% 1,000,000 - 5 Miscellaneous Revenue 1,204,700 399,101 33.1% 1,463,117 1,381,300 6 Interest Income 107,800 38,715 35.9% 141,529 12,662 7 Intrafund Service Fees - Water/Wastewater 130,800 30,287 23.2% 140,570 171,646 TOTALS $ 93,509,900 $ 27,292,429 29.2% $ 94,693,197 $ 101,078,764 Final Budget $ 93,958,400 $ 99,934,036

Transfer Taxes ‐ Annual Receipts $4,000,000 Through September 30, 2012 $3,515,422 $3,500,000 $3,048,064 $3,009,539 $3,000,000 $2,379,548 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,461,982 $1,373,103 $1,500,000 $1,197,425 $867,692 $1,000,000 $500,000 $164,017 $0 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Avg. Receipt $ $2,616 $2,768 $2,970 $3,074 $2,777 $2,033 $2,238 $1,838 $1,631 Transfer Taxes ‐ Annual Applications Through September 30, 2012 1,000 866 863 803 800 654 600 366 382 400 304 294 200 85 ‐ FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 Transfer Taxes ‐ Annual Receipts Excluding Large Receipts (Properties Valued over $1 million) $4,000,000 Through September 30, 2012 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,262,548 $2,375,301 $2,369,772 $1,982,631 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,010,656 $1,000,000 $770,462 $662,374 $522,123 $500,000 $137,017 $0 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13

Memorandum Office of the City Manager PO Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Phone: (302) 736-7005 Fax: (302) 736-7002 E-mail: skoenig@dover.de.us To: Mayor and City Council From: Scott D. Koenig, P.E. City Manager Date: October 12, 2012 Subject: Semi Annual Inspection – Robbins Hose Company In accordance with Section 46-43 of the City Code, I performed the required semi-annual inspection of the Dover Fire Department on Friday, October 12, 2012 with Chief Jack Fortney. Chief Fortney and I met at Station #1 and discussed a variety of current issues. As I mentioned previously, Chief Fortney has completed a review of their fleet and he expects to request the replacement of Engine #7 in the upcoming budgets. Staff will be requesting documented costs and equipment/vehicle evaluations to support the request. Truck purchases of this nature have a direct impact on the City’s General Fund. Chief Fortney also indicated that all of the problems with the voice recording system and the server that supports this system have been resolved. The facilities are in excellent condition; however, a recent roof leak has resulted in damage to the meeting room floor. This damage is currently being repaired by a contractor. As of this date, there are two (2) vacant Fire Dispatcher positions. Recruitments for these positions have been authorized. The Chief indicated that membership has remained strong. The Robbins Hose Company continues to provide and outstanding level of service to the City of Dover. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. cc: Fire Chief Jack Fortney SDK/yml P.O. Box 475, Dover, DE 19903-0475 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council AGENDA ITEM NO.: DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Public Works - Wastewater DATE SUBMITTED: 10/12/12 PREPARED BY: Sharon Duca, P.E., Interim Public Works Director / City Engineer SUBJECT: Evaluation of Bids - NRG Sanitary Sewer Upgrade REFERENCE: N/A RELATED PROJECT: Inflow / Infiltration Removal APPROVALS: City Manager and Controller EXHIBITS: Attachment A EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $105,500 AMOUNT BUDGETED: $175,000 FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): Wastewater Management, Inflow / Infiltration Removal, CIP Account Number 417-6900-569.40-31, Project #II1305. This is one component of the tasks proposed within this project. TIMETABLE: Notice to Proceed to be issued within 30 days of Council approval. Substantial completion to be achieved within 60 calendar days. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of low bid, submitted by Tri-State Grouting, LLC, in the amount of $105,500. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The FY-2013 budget for the Department of Public Works, Wastewater Management Division, included a capital project to remove inflow and infiltration from our wastewater distribution system. One location that is in need of repair is at 1280 West North Street, which is the location of NRG Energy, Inc. Staff identified a significant sink hole directly above the sanitary sewer interceptor. Staff performed video investigation of the interceptor to evaluate the condition of the sewer. The video indicated that multiple cracks are allowing groundwater and sediment to enter the interceptor, thus causing the sink hole above the sewer main. This infiltration is being treated at the Kent County Wastewater Treatment Plant, which costs the City of Dover significant amounts of money. The bid package was advertised to the public as an Invitation to Bid in accordance with the City’s purchasing policy by the City’s Purchasing Agent under Bid #13-0006WW. Bids were opened on October 4, 2012. This bid included engineering specifications prepared by Pennoni Associates, Inc. with two viable bid options: one to replace the infrastructure and a second to rehabilitate the infrastructure, specifically relining. It is important to note that the contractor was not required to bid on both options, only one (1) bid is required. The following two (2) contractors submitted bids for the proposed project. Contractor Location Amount of Bid Option A Amount of Bid Option B Teal Construction, INc. Dover, DE $225,300 $213,400 Tri-State Grouting, LLC Bear, DE n/a $105,500 City staff reviewed the Tri-State Grouting, LLC bid package and found it free of math errors and/or discrepancies. In addition, staff has reviewed the contractor’s qualification information which included a list of recently completed projects similar in scope to the NRG Sanitary Sewer Upgrade project, their financial statement and found all information to be adequate. In conclusion staff recommends awarding a construction contract to Tri-State Grouting, LLC, in the amount of $105,500.00 for the construction of the NRG Sanitary Sewer Upgrade.

ATTACHMENT A 1280 West North Street NRG Sanitary Sewer Upgrade 100 195 W North St 1260 Sanitary Sewer to be Rehabilitated 1250 1310 1300 1280 1340 0 50 100 Feet Legend Pipe to Be Rehabilitated Sewer Line 20" 36" Date Printed: October 12, 2012 10" 21" 4" File: m:\gis_data\projects\tech_mxds Pump Station \attachment_a_1280_w_north_st Manholes 12" 24" 6" Department: Public Works GIS Force Main 15" 27" 8" City of Dover, Delaware 16" 30" Dover Parcels 18" 35"

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: City Council DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: City Manager DATE SUBMITTED: 10/12/2012 PREPARED BY: Scott D. Koenig, P.E., City Manager SUBJECT: Radio System Narrowbanding Project REFERENCE: RELATED PROJECT: N/A REVIEWED BY: City Manager and Controller EXHIBITS: N/A EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $120,000.00 AMOUNT BUDGETED: $150,000 from FY-2012 FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): $120,000 from multiple divisions TIMETABLE: Complete purchase and installation of all units by December 31, 2012. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize staff to purchase the below referenced radio units and work with the State of Delaware and/or the private vendor on the state contract to complete the radio installation. The total project budget will not exceed $120,000.00. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The Federal Communications Committee (FCC) has issued a mandate that requires those wireless radio systems operating on frequencies below 512 MHz (on UHF and VHF channels) to reduce their broadcast bandwidth from 25 kHz to 12.5 kHz by January 1, 2013. By this date, the City has to migrate from 25 kHz (wideband) to 12.5 MHz (narrowband) channel bandwidth or a technology that achieves equivalent efficiency. The required migration entails the replacement of a majority of our radios used for daily operations. Staff has completed a review of our inventory as well as future use of this system. Based on this review, the City must replace one hundred and eleven (111) mobile radios and fifteen (15) portable radios. The estimated cost to complete this project is as follows: Replace 111 Mobile XPR 4550 Radio Units: 111 ea. @ $ 706.00 = $ 78,366.00 Replace 15 Portable XPR 6550 Radio Units: 15 ea. @ $ 815.00 = $ 12,225.00 Remote Receivers & Programming: Lump Sum @ $ 3,874.00 = $ 3,874.00 Mobile Unit Removal & Installation (State): 111 ea. @ $ 50.00 = $ 5,550.00 Mobile Unit Removal & Installation (Contractor): 111 ea. @ $ 180.00 = $ 19,980.00 Based upon the above referenced pricing components, the total project cost is estimated to be between $100,015 - $114,445. The removal and installation of the mobile units may also require the purchase of some additional small parts; therefore staff is requesting a budget authorization of up to $120,000 to complete this project. Originally, this project was budgeted for in Fiscal Year 2012 in the amount of $150,000; however, the project was delayed due to concerns regarding the actual inventory of radios as well as the initial cost proposal submitted by the vendor. Funds from the carry forward balance will be used to cover the costs of this project.

FIRST READING CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2012-22 WITH LF&A #1 (LF&A Amendment Indicated in Bold, Black, Underlined Italics (additions) and Strikeout (deletions)) 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL 2 MET: 3 That Chapter 114 - Vegetation, Article II - Weeds, Section 114-33 - Failure to Maintain Proper Height; 4 Abatement by City; Costs and Lien, be amended by deleting the text indicated in red, bold, strikeout and 5 inserting the text indicated in bold, blue, italics as follows: 6 Sec. 114-33. - Failure to maintain proper height; abatement by city; costs and lien. 7 (a) Summons; action by city. In the event that any owner, occupant or tenant of any premises within the 8 city, or any agent caring for or in charge of the premises, shall permit any grass, weeds, underbrush, 9 deleterious or unhealthful growths or other noxious matter to grow to a height of eight inches or 10 more as prohibited by this article, then the health inspector code enforcement officer or fire 11 marshal or his authorized agents shall issue a summons showing a violation of section 114-32, said 12 summons to be served personally or by certified mail mail evidenced by certificate of mailing upon 13 the owner, occupant, or tenant of the premises, or any agent caring for or in charge of the premises. 14 The summons shall cite the violation of this article and shall be accompanied by a letter or a copy 15 of the relevant provisions of this article stating what corrective action must be taken and shall state 16 the consequences for failure to take such corrective action. If the violation is not corrected within 17 three days from the date of personal service of the summons or within seven days from the date of 18 mailing of the summons by certified mail evidenced by certificate of mailing, then the city, at the 19 direction of the health inspector code enforcement officer or the fire marshal, may remove the 20 weeds, grass, underbrush, deleterious or other unhealthful growths or other noxious matter growing 21 to a height in excess of eight inches or more in violation of section 114-32 and charge the 22 responsible person as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines for such work that must be done 23 to render the property in compliance with this article. When the owner, occupant, or tenant of any 24 premises, or any agent caring for or in charge of the premises, has received summonses, or been 25 issued a summons evidenced by certificate of mailing, and fails to take corrective action, and the 26 city has corrected the violation in accordance with this subsection, then no further notification shall 27 be necessary for the city to take any further corrective action on any subsequent violations within the 28 following 12-month period starting from the date of the first corrective action by the city. 29 (b) Failure to pay charges. In the event that the owner, occupant, tenant or other agent caring for 30 or in charge of the premises owner of record is deemed to be in violation of section 114-32, and 31 in the event that the violation is corrected in compliance with subsection (a) of this section, and if 32 the charges assessed by the city for correcting said deficiency are not paid, then the city, after having 33 corrected the deficiency and violation, shall place its charges and expenses as specified in the 34 municipal lien docket as a lien against said property, and add the charges and expenses as specified 35 to the tax duplicate for the tax year said services were provided by the city and invoiced as part 36 of the annual property tax bill for said property and collected as part of the city property tax

Proposed Ordinance #2012-22 - Chapter 114 - Vegetation, Article II - Weeds Page 2 37 collection process. In addition to the methods directed herein, the city solicitor shall be directed 38 to enforce said lien or to collect the charges imposed by the city by any other means that he may 39 deem desirable and most advantageous to the city. The violator shall be responsible for all 40 collection costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. 41 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT Section 114-34 - Fines, be amended by deleting the text indicated 42 in red, bold, strikeout and inserting the text indicated in bold, blue, italics as follows: 43 Sec. 114-34. - Fines. 44 (a) Generally. Any person convicted of a violation of section 114-32, regardless of corrective actions 45 taken, shall be punished for that violation by a fine as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines. 46 Any such fine shall be in addition to any charges or assessments imposed upon the violator pursuant 47 to section 114-33(a). All fines imposed shall be in accordance with the minimum fine schedule set 48 out in subsection (c) herein. 49 (b) Each day. Every day that a violation of section 114-32 continues shall be considered a separate 50 offense, for which the violator may be tried and convicted without necessity of further notice. 51 (c) Minimums. 52 (1) Any fine assessed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall be no less than the minimum 53 amount as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines. 54 (2) In determining the applicable minimum fine, an offense shall be considered a recurring offense 55 only if the defendant has previously pleaded, or been found guilty of causing or permitting the 56 same nuisance at the same location within the past 18 months, or for every day that the violation 57 of section 114-32 continues as per subsection (b) of this section. 58 (d) Lien. Any fines imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section which remain unpaid shall: 59 (1) be added to the tax duplicate for the tax year said services were provided by the city and 60 invoiced as part of the annual property tax bill for said property and collected as part of 61 the city property tax collection process, and 62 (2) be placed by the city as specified in the municipal lien docket as a lien against the property 63 on which the violation occurred, and the procedures for enforcement or collection of said lien 64 shall be as set out in section 114-33(b). 65 (e) When not paid. Fines not paid within 14 days of the day the fine was issued, including the day the 66 fine was issued, shall be automatically doubled in amount. 67 ADOPTED: * 68 S:\ORDINANCES\2012\Draft\2012-22 - Chapter 114 - Vegetation w LF&A-1 First Reading.wpd

Proposed Ordinance #2012-22 - Chapter 114 - Vegetation, Article II - Weeds Page 3 69 SYNOPSIS 70 The proposed ordinance amendment adds unpaid fines for grass cutting to the tax 71 duplicate to be invoiced as part of the annual property tax bill and collected as part 72 of the city property tax collection process and holds the violator responsible for 73 collection costs and attorney’s fees. 74 (SPONSORS: PERZA, BONAR, LYNN) 75 Actions History 76 10/22/2012 - Scheduled for First Reading at Council 77 10/08/2012 - Introduced at Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee