Attachment

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA SEPTEMBER 10, 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 ANDERSON AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS * CONSENT AGENDA Those items on the Council Agenda which are considered routine and non-controversial shall be marked with an asterisk (*) and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of Council so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered a separate item. * 1. Adoption of Minutes - Regular Council Meeting of August 27, 2012 2. Rezoning Request - Public Hearing/Final Reading of Proposed Ordinance #2012-19 The First Reading of the following proposed ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of July 23, 2012. Copies of the proposed ordinance are available at the entrance of the Council Chambers A. Property located at 870-872 Forest Street (on the south side of Forest Street east of Gibbs Drive), consisting of 0.747+/- acres, owned by Bennie Smith. This property is currently zoned C-PO (Commercial/Professional Office Development District) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) and the proposed zoning is C-1A (Limited Commercial) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) (TAX PARCEL: ED-05-076.12-01-08.00-000, FOURTH COUNCIL DISTRICT; PLANNING REFERENCE: Z-12-02) 3. Public Hearing - Violation of the Dangerous Building Ordinance - 126 N. Ann Avenue, Owned by Jesse L. Workmon

Council Agenda - September 10, 2012 Page 2 * 4. Utility Committee Report - August 27, 2012 A. Annual Review and Approval of Governing Policy For Energy Commodity Risk Management (Committee Recommended Approval of the Governing Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management, as Presented) B. Updates (Committee Action Not Required) * 5. Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report - August 27, 2012 A. Auditor's Responsibility for Communicating with Audit Committee - Fiscal Year 2012 Audit Program (Committee Recommended Acceptance of the Presentation) B. Civilian Pension Board Recommendation - Adjustment to the Minimum Payment for Pension (Committee Recommended Retaining the Actuary to Determine the Cost of Providing a Minimum Payment of $300, $400, and $500 to All Retirees or Their Surviving Spouses, and That Staff Determine How an Adjustment Would Be Funded) C. Salary and Benefits Compensation Comparison Committee Report (Committee Recommended Acceptance of the Salary and Benefits Compensation Comparison Committee Report as Presented) 6. Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Report - August 29, 2012 * A. Proposed Ordinance #2012-05 Amending Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection (See Item #11-A) (Committee Recommended Adoption of the Ordinance) * B. Prioritization of City of Dover State Capital Transportation Program (CTP) Projects (Committee Recommended Approval of the 2012 Transportation Prioritization List) C. Update - Dover High School Construction (Committee Action Not Required) * D. Briefing on Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) Projects (Committee Action Not Required) * E. Briefing on Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Projects (Committee Action Not Required) 7. Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report - September 10, 2012 (Except for the Following Time Sensitive Issue, the LF&A Committee Report from September 10, 2012 Will Be Presented to Council During Their Regular Meeting of September 24, 2012 for Review and Consideration) A. Purchase of Police Department Parking Enforcement System * 8. Monthly Reports - July 2012 A. Chief of Police D. City Planner B. City Assessor E. Dover Fire Department C. City Manager F. Economic Development 9. Reconsideration of Evaluation of Proposals - Electric Utility Valuation Services

Council Agenda - September 10, 2012 Page 3 10. Annexation/Rezoning Request - First Reading of Proposed Ordinance #2012-21 The Request is Recommended for Referral to the Utility Committee on September 24, 2012, the Planning Commission on October 15, 2012, and that a Public Hearing Be Set for November 26, 2012 at 7:30 P.M. A. 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). (THIRD COUNCIL DISTRICT; PLANNING REFERENCE: AX-12-01) 11. First Reading - Proposed Ordinance 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 September 24, 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. Ordinance #2012-05 Amending Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection (Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee) 12. Council Members Announcements /tm S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS\Council-Agendas\2012\09-10-2012.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 August 27, 2012 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Leary presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Lynn, Mr. Perza, Mr. Bonar, and Mr. Hutchison. Mrs. Russell, Mrs. Williams, and Mr. Hare were absent. Council staff members present were Police Chief Hosfelt, Mrs. Teal, Mrs. Townshend, Deputy Fire Chief West, Mr. Koenig, Deputy City Solicitor Pepper, 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 present 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 unanimously carried. Mr. Lynn moved to include Item #8A, Request for Proposals - Banking Services, on the Consent Agenda, seconded by Mr. Bonar and unanimously carried. Mr. Bonar moved for approval of the consent agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Hutchison and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mrs. Russell, Mrs. Williams, and Mr. Hare absent). ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 13, 2012 The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of August 13, 2012 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Bonar, seconded by Mr. Hutchison, and bore the written approval of Mayor Carey. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 13, 2012 The Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of August 13, 2012 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Bonar, seconded by Mr. Hutchison, and bore the written approval of Mayor Carey. PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - ORDINANCE #2012-20 - REAPPORTIONMENT OF COUNCIL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Council President Leary reminded the public that copies of Proposed Ordinance #2012-20, Reapportionment of Council District Boundaries, were available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or could be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office. He reminded members that a public hearing and the First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance took place during the Regular Council Meeting of August 13, 2012 and that a public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider approval of the proposed reapportionment of Council district boundaries.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 2 Mr. Bonar moved that the Final Reading of Proposed Ordinance #2012-20 be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Hutchison and unanimously carried. Ms. Janelle Cornwell, Planner II, reminded members that the intent of the redistricting was to create four (4) voting districts with an evenly distributed population and that met the requirements of the 1988 Consent Decree between the Central Delaware Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)/Cecil Wilson and the City of Dover. She advised members that the 2010 U.S. Census total population for the City of Dover was 36,047 and that, equally divided, the target number for each district would be 9,012 people. Ms. Cornwell stated that the proposed redistricting would distribute the population as follows: District 1 - 8,933 (24.8% of the total population); District 2 - 9,138 (25.3% of the total population); District 3 - 9,076 (25.2% of the total population); and District 4 - 8,900 (24.7% of the total population). She noted that the percentage of population in all four (4) districts would vary by less than 1%. The Consent Decree requires that the City have a minority district with a 65% African American population, a majority of which is of voting age. As presented, Ms. Cornwell stated that District 4 would have an African American population of 70.6%, with 54.5% of voting age, and that both of these percentages exceeded the requirements of the Consent Decree. Council President Leary declared the public hearing open. Ms. Roxie Smiley-Carter, resident of Towne Point and President of the Local Chapter of the NAACP, read a statement from Central Delaware Branch #2028 of the NAACP into the record (Exhibit #1). There being no one else wishing to speak, Council President Leary declared the hearing closed. Mr. Bonar moved for the adoption of the proposed ordinance, seconded by Mr. Hutchison, and by a unanimous roll call vote (Mrs. Russell, Mrs. Williams, and Mr. Hare absent), Council adopted Ordinance #2012-20, as follows: BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: That Chapter 2 - Administration, Article II - City Council, Division 1 - Generally, of the Dover Code be amended by striking Section 2-31 - District Boundaries in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof a new Section 2-31 to read as follows: Sec. 2-31. - District boundaries. In order that the members of the council shall be distributed over the city, the city shall be divided into four representative districts and two members of the council shall be residents of each district. Such districts are to be distributed as follows: (1) District 1. District 1 is defined as the area within the corporate limits of the city contained within the following boundaries:

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 3 Beginning at the boundary line of the corporate limits of the city, at a point in the centerline of McKee Road; then running in a westerly direction following the boundary line of the corporate limits of the city to its intersection with the centerline of Hazletville Road; then running in an easterly direction with said line of Hazletville Road to the to its intersection with the centerline of Saulsbury Road; then in a northerly direction with said line of Saulsbury Road to its intersection with the centerline of Walker Road; then in a westerly direction with said line of Walker Road to its intersection with Kenton Road; then in a northerly direction with said centerline of Kenton Road to its intersection with the centerline of College Road; then running in a northeasterly direction with said line of College Road to its intersection with McKee Road; then in a northwesterly direction with said line of McKee Road to the point of beginning, excluding within these given boundaries any areas not within the corporate limits of the city. (2) District 2. District 2 is defined as the area within the corporate limits of the city contained within the following boundaries: Beginning at the boundary line of the corporate limits of the city, at a point in the centerline of Hazletville Road; then running in an easterly direction with said line of Hazletville Road which becomes North Street, to its intersection with the centerline of West Street; then running in a southerly direction with said line of West Street to its intersection with the centerline of Queen Street; then running in a southwesterly direction with said line of Queen Street to the intersection of the centerline of Westview Terrace; then running in a southeasterly direction with said line of Westview Terrace to its intersection with the centerline of Dover Street; then running in a easterly direction with said line of Dover Street to its intersection with the centerline of New Street; then running in a northerly direction with said line of New Street to its intersection with the centerline of South Street; then running in a easterly direction with said line of South Street to its intersection with the centerline of State Street; then running north with said line of State Street to its intersection of the centerline of Water Street; then running in an easterly direction with said line of Water Street to its intersection with the south west side of Legislative Avenue; then running southerly with said intersection of Water Street and the west line of Legislative Avenue to its intersection with the southeast corner of parcel number ED-05-077.09-05-56.00; then running with said east property line of said parcel to the intersection of the centerline of the Saint Jones River; then running in a southerly direction with said line of the Saint Jones River to its intersection with the centerline of State Route 13; then running northeasterly with said line of State Route 13 to its intersection with the centerline of Court Street; then running in a westerly direction with said line of Court Street to its intersection of the centerline of the Saint Jones River; then running northwest with said line of the Saint Jones River to its intersection with Loockerman Street; then running westerly

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 4 with said line of Loockerman Street to its intersection of the centerline of Governors Avenue; then running in a northerly direction with said line of Governors Avenue to its intersection of the centerline of Reed Street; then running in an easterly direction with said line of Reed Street to its intersection of the centerline of State Street; then running in a northerly direction with said line of South State Street to its intersection of the centerline of Division Street; then running in a easterly direction with said line of Division Street to its intersection of the centerline of Kings Highway; then running in a northerly and northeasterly direction with said line of Kings Highway to its intersection of the centerline of White Oak Road; then running in a northeasterly direction with said line of White Oak Road to its intersection of the Willis Road; then running in a southerly direction with said line of Willis Road to its intersection of the centerline of Division Street which becomes North Little Creek Road; then running in an easterly direction with said line of North Little Creek Road to the eastern corporate limits of the city; then running in an easterly and southerly direction with said corporate limits of the city to the place of beginning, excluding within these given boundaries any areas not within the corporate limits of the city. (3) District 3. District 3 is defined as the area within the corporate limits of the city lying within the following boundaries: Beginning at the boundary line of the corporate limits of the city, at a point in the centerline of North Little Creek Road; then running in a westerly direction with said line of North Little Creek Road which becomes Division Street to its intersection with the centerline of Willis Road; then running in a northerly direction with said line of Willis Road to its intersection with the centerline of White Oak Road; then running in a westerly direction with said line of White Oak Road to its intersection with the centerline of Kings Highway; then running in a southerly direction with said line of Kings Highway to its intersection with the centerline of Division Street; then in a westerly direction with said line of Division Street to its intersection with the centerline of State Street; then running in a southerly direction with said line of State Street to its intersection with the centerline of Reed Street; then running in a westerly direction with said centerline of Reed Street to its intersection with the centerline of Governors Avenue; then running in a northerly direction with said line of Governors Avenue to its intersection with the centerline of Mary Street; then running westerly with the said line of Mary Street to the western edge of the railroad tracks; then running a northwesterly direction with the western edge of the railroad tracks to the intersection of the centerline with Walker Road; then running in a easterly direction with said line of Walker Road to the intersection of State Street; the running in a north easterly direction with the said line of State Street to the centerline of State Route 13; the running in a northwesterly direction with said line of State Route 13 to the southeastern portion of parcel

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 5 ED-05-057.01-02-01.00; then running south 57 degrees 05 minutes west 620 feet to the corner of said parcel; then running north 27 degrees 12 minutes west 201.0 feet; then continuing north 27 degrees 12 minutes west to the intersection of the centerline of Scarborough Road; then running southwesterly with said line of Scarborough Road to the intersection of the centerline of McKee Road; then running northerly with said line of McKee Road to the corporate limits of the city; then continuing east and south with the corporate limits of the city to the place of beginning, excluding within these given boundaries any areas not within the corporate limits of the city. (4) District 4. District 4 is defined as the area within the corporate limits of the city lying within the following boundaries: Beginning at a point in the west edge of State Route 13 and the southeast corner of parcel ED-05-057.01-02-01.00; then running south 57 degrees 05 minutes west 620 feet to the corner of said parcel; then running north 27 degrees 12 minutes west 201.0 feet; then continuing north 27 degrees 12 minutes west to the intersection of the centerline of Scarborough Road; then running southwesterly with said line of Scarborough Road to the intersection of the centerline of McKee Road; then running southerly with said line of McKee Road to the intersection of the centerline of College Road; then running westerly with said line of College Road to the intersection of the centerline of Kenton Road; then running southerly with said line of Kenton Road to the intersection of the centerline of Walker Road; then running north easterly with said line of Walker Road to the intersection of the centerline of Saulsbury Road; then running southerly with said line of Saulsbury Road to the intersection of North Street; then running easterly with said line of North Street to the intersection of West Street; then then running in a southerly direction with said line of West Street to its intersection with the centerline of Queen Street; then running in a south westerly direction with said line of Queen Street to the intersection of the centerline of Westview Terrace; then running in a south easterly direction with said centerline of Westview Terrace to its intersection with the centerline of Dover Street; then running in a easterly direction with said centerline of Dover Street to its intersection with the centerline of Monroe Terrace; the running in a northerly direction with said line of Monroe Terrace to its intersection with South Street; then running in an easterly direction with said centerline of South Street to its intersection with the centerline of State Street; then running in a northerly direction with said centerline of South State Street to its intersection with the centerline of Water Street; then running in an easterly direction with said line of Water Street to its intersection with the west side of Legislative Avenue; then running southerly with said intersection of Water Street and the west line of Legislative Avenue to its intersection with the southeast corner of parcel number ED-05-077.09-05-56.00; then running with said east property line of said parcel to the intersection of the centerline of the Saint Jones River; then

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 6 running in a southerly direction with said line of Saint Jones River to its intersection with the centerline of State Route 13; then running northeasterly with said line of State Route 13 to the intersection with the centerline of Court Street; then running in a northwesterly direction with said line of Court Street to the intersection of the Saint Jones River; then running northwest with said line of the Saint Jones River to the intersection with Loockerman Street; then running westerly with said line of Loockerman Street to the intersection of the centerline of Governors Avenue; then running northerly with said line of Governors Avenue to the intersection of the centerline of Mary Street; then running westerly with said line of Mary Street to the western edge of the railroad tracks; then running northwesterly with said western edge of the railroad tracts to the intersection of the centerline with Walker Road; then running in a easterly direction with said line of Walker Road to the intersection of State Street; the running in a north easterly direction with said line of State Street to the centerline of State Route 13; then running in a northwesterly direction with said line of State Route 13 to the beginning point, excluding within these given boundaries any areas not within the corporate limits of the city. ADOPTED: AUGUST 27, 2012 Several members of Council relayed appreciation to staff for their hard work on this project, noting the difficulty of the redistricting process. VIOLATION OF DANGEROUS BUILDING ORDINANCE (EMERGENCY CASE) - PROPERTY LOCATED AT 39 PRIMROSE DRIVE, OWNED BY BARBARA PIERCE, WALLACE ZIMMERMAN, DAVID ZIMMERMAN, ROXANNE HORSEMAN, AND JOHN P. ZIMMERMAN In accordance with Article XI - Dangerous Buildings, Sec. 22-388 - Emergency cases, of the Dover Code, in cases where it reasonably appears that there is an immediate danger to the life or safety of any person, unless a dangerous building is immediately repaired, vacated and closed, or demolished, the building inspector shall report such facts to the Council, which may cause the immediate repair, vacation, or demolition of such dangerous building. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, provided a chronological history and presentation on the conditions of the house located at 39 Primrose Drive (Exhibit #2). She noted that the property is a one (1) story, double-wide manufactured home. The dwelling was condemned as unfit for human habitation on June 28, 2012 due to having no utilities and to the state of disrepair. She advised members that a previous resident of the home had been returning to the structure and removing parts of the structure to sell at a recycling center. Staff had all the windows and doors to the property boarded on July 2, 2012. Since that time, someone was gaining entry to the home through the crawl space entrance and up through the floor by a duct opening. As a result, staff returned to the property and secured the crawl space entrance. Mrs. Townshend stated that the structure remained vacant, with no utilities, and was in a serious state of disrepair, and indicated that there continued to be concerns that people had been gaining access to the property.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 7 Staff recommended that City Council: 1) declare this building on this property dangerous; 2) order the property repaired or demolished by September 27, 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; and 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. Ms. Susan Krs, 106 Susan Place, advised members that she serves as the President of the Persimmon Park Place Condominium Council and Homeowners Association. She relayed support for the demolition, noting that the property, as it currently exists, was a hazard to the community, and served as a dangerous eyesore. She advised members that the owners were responsible for unpaid assessments in the amount of $2,297.81, plus attorney and court fees for JP Court 16. In order to protect the community and its residents, she requested that Council approve staff’s recommendation. Responding to Ms. Krs, Mrs. Townshend stated that although the City would incur the costs associated with the demolition, the owners would be billed for these costs and a lien would be placed on the property so that the costs could be recovered at the time of a sale. There being no one else wishing to speak, Council President Leary declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Bonar moved to declare the property located at 39 Primrose Drive a dangerous building and subject to demolition, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutchison and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mrs. Russell, Mrs. Williams, and Mr. Hare absent). Mr. Bonar announced that the City was aware of the issues occurring in the Persimmon Park Place development and was taking proper steps to assure that it did not become another area similar to what Capital Park became over the last several years, noting that Capital Park was “ just now starting to “turn around.” He relayed a warning to those individuals who are creating such problems throughout the entire City that efforts will be made to locate them. VIOLATION OF THE DANGEROUS BUILDING ORDINANCE - 38 SOUTH NEW STREET - OWNED BY HOUSE OF PRIDE, INC. Council President Leary reminded members that a public hearing was held on February 27, 2012 to consider a violation of the Dangerous Building Ordinance at 38 South New Street, owned by House of Pride. At that time, Council tabled the matter to allow staff the opportunity to review the possibility of amending the Clean Hands Ordinance to allow exceptions. Mr. Anderson moved to remove the matter from the table, seconded by Mr. Bonar and unanimously carried.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 8 Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, reminded members that during the public hearing, Ms. Sandra Dean testified on behalf of House of Pride and objected, not to the dangerous building declaration, but to the recommendation to demolish the structure. Mrs. Townshend explained that the City of Dover had demolition liens on two (2) House of Pride properties, and the provisions of the City’s Clean Hands ordinance prohibited the City from issuing building permits for House of Pride to make the repairs at the property located at 38 South New Street. Mrs. Townshend provided a chronological history and presentation on the conditions of the property since February 2012 (Exhibit #3). She advised members that on August 20, 2012, House of Pride obtained a building permit and that the organization had received funds from the insurance company to make the necessary repairs to the property. 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 27, 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; and 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. Mr. Bonar moved that the structure located at 38 South New Street be declared a dangerous building and subject to demolition, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutchison and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mrs. Russell, Mrs. Williams, and Mr. Hare absent). PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF NOTICE TO VACATE - 110 SOUTH NEW STREET, OWNED BY HOUSE OF PRIDE Members were provided details regarding an appeal of notice to vacate issued for property located at 110 South New Street, owned by House of Pride. Mr. Anderson advised members that a meeting had been scheduled for later in the week for the Planning Office, Fire Marshal, and the House of Pride Board and staff to discuss options regarding the property located at 110 South New Street. Mr. Anderson moved to postpone, until the next Regular Council Meeting scheduled for September 10, 2012, the public hearing on the appeal of notice to vacate the property located at 110 South New Street, owned by House of Pride. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutchison and failed by a roll call vote of four (4) no, two (2) yes (Mr. Anderson and Mr. Hutchison), and three (3) absent (Mrs. Russell, Mrs. Williams, and Mr. Hare). Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, advised members that on July 12, 2012, inspectors from the City Code Enforcement Division and Fire Marshal’s Office conducted an inspection of 110 South New Street. During this inspection, numerous life safety code violations were found, many of which had been chronic violations in recent years. Due to the high occupancy of the structure and the repeated lack of compliance with basic life safety

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 9 requirements, the Department of Planning and Inspections ordered the building to be vacated and closed on July 19, 2012. Mrs. Townshend explained that this action was taken in accordance with Dover Code, Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Article XI - Dangerous Buildings, Section 22-382(2). House of Pride appealed this order to City Council in accordance with Dover Code Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Article XI - Dangerous Buildings, Section 22-384(5)(d). Mrs. Townshend provided a chronological history and presentation regarding the property located at 110 South New Street (Exhibit #4). She noted that one (1) item not listed in the violations was a door that was padlocked from the outside on an apartment located on the third floor, which she stated was a serious concern from a fire code standpoint, explaining that it could prevent someone from escaping in the event of a fire. Staff recommended that City Council uphold the action of the Department of Planning and Inspections to order the property at 110 South New Street to be vacated and closed. Responding to Mr. Bonar, Deputy City Solicitor Pepper explained that the terminology “morals,” as included in Chapter 22, Article XI, Sec. 22-381 - Definitions. (5), Unfit for habitation, would relate to properties being used as a brothel, crack house, gambling facility, etc. Mrs. Townshend indicated that the matter was being brought forward due to safety and general welfare issues. Bishop Marion Lott, 218 Reed Street, addressed members as a House of Pride Board Member, relaying concurrence that, during the inspection, the violations existed and the building was dangerous; however, he noted that the violations were such that they could be repaired. He explained that House of Pride is run by volunteers and that some improvements have been made that should enable them to make the necessary repairs to bring the property up to Code and meet the requirements of the City. Responding to Mr. Lynn regarding elements of the usage of the building that were “grandfathered,” Mr. Dave Truax, Fire Marshal, explained that the first floor of the property was office space, which is a business occupancy. The second floor was originally used as apartments but had been transitioned into residential board and care, which would require a sprinkler/fire alarm. If the facility were not being used as residential board and care, it would be considered lodging and rooming, which would also involve a sprinkler/fire alarm, if it were new construction. He stated that these issues had been “grandfathered;” however, in 1993, the State of Delaware required all apartment and multi-residential buildings to have a fire alarm system retrofitted by July 1996, which was accomplished. Mr. Truax indicated his concern that House of Pride had no one on staff who was capable of maintaining requirements, explaining that steps had not been taken to address several of the Fire Marshal’s concerns prior to an inspection, even when staff knew that an inspection was to occur. In addition, he stated that no emergency plan or rules had been in place and noted that the Fire Marshal’s Office could assist in this matter. At the request of Mr. Lynn, Mr. Truax confirmed that if Council approved staff’s recommendation, House of Pride would be required to re-apply for a certificate of occupancy and would be required to install a sprinkler system in the facility; however, advances in technology would allow various

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 10 options to meet this requirement without utilizing City water, such as the use of tanks. He stated that the cost of installing a sprinkler system could range from $10,000 to $20,000; however, he stated that installing a sprinkler system would create cost savings in other areas since some improvements, such as opening of stairways, removal of walls, etc., would not be required. In response to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Truax explained the importance of not allowing individuals to return to the building until safety measures were taken. He confirmed that during the upcoming meeting scheduled with representative of House of Pride, options would be discussed regarding the measures that must be taken in order to return to the building, obtain financing, etc. Mr. Anderson noted that, if the appeal were laid on the table by City Council, the current order to vacate would stand until addressed by City Council; therefore, since the building could not be re-occupied, it would not cause people to be in danger. Mr. Lynn relayed his disappointment in the inaction of House of Pride, explaining that not only had they put their residents at risk of serious injury or death but, if a fire were to occur, they would also be placing adjoining land owners at risk, as well as volunteers of the Fire Department who would respond to a preventable fire. He felt that failure to take action was an indication of House of Pride’s recklessness and negligence. However, he understood the significant property right that would be lost by having to reapply for a certificate of occupancy and being required to spend between $10,000 to $20,000 for a sprinkler system. Mr. Lynn moved to table the matter to allow for the meeting with the Planning Office, Fire Marshal, and House of Pride Board and staff to be held to discuss options regarding the property located at 110 South New Street, seconded by Mr. Anderson and failed by a roll call vote of four (4) no, two (2) yes (Mr. Anderson and Mr. Lynn), and three (3) absent (Mrs. Russell, Mrs. Williams, and Mr. Hare). Mr. Anderson moved to uphold the action of the Department of Planning and Inspections to order the property at 110 South New Street to be vacated and closed, seconded by Mr. Bonar. Mr. Anderson indicated his belief that House of Pride would not want any harm to come to anyone, just as he would not, and felt confident that House of Pride would not allow anyone to re-enter the building without the violations being addressed. He suggested that if members of Council did not uphold the appeal, the appropriate actions would take place within the next few days and the safety of the residents would be upheld. The motion to uphold the action of the Department of Planning and Inspections to order the property at 110 South New Street to be vacated and closed failed by a roll call vote of four (4) yes, two (2) no (Mr. Anderson and Mr. Lynn), and three (3) absent (Mrs. Russell, Mrs. Williams, and Mr. Hare). Since this matter was not tabled, Deputy City Solicitor Pepper explained that the usually rule is that when the appellant panel fails to reach a definitive conclusion, the judgement below is upheld; therefore, the order of the Building Inspector was upheld.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 11 PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - AUGUST 13, 2012 The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee met on August 13, 2012 with Acting Chairman Bonar presiding. Presentation - Affordable Housing Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, and Mrs. Tracey Harvey, Planner I, reviewed a presentation entitled “Affordable Housing in the City of Dover”. In regard to fair housing, Mrs. Townshend advised members that the Delaware Human Relations Commission would be providing training regarding fair housing to the Planning Commission at the next quarterly workshop scheduled for August 21, 2012 at 4:00 p.m. Responding to Mr. Bonar, Mrs. Harvey explained that the average time spent on the waiting list to obtain Section 8 vouchers varies depending upon the applicant; however, she estimated a wait time of approximately two (2) to three (3) years. She stated that Section 8 housing is offered through the private market and that the Delaware State Housing Authority has a list of landlords who provide this type of housing. Mrs. Harvey advised members that the State is developing a website to be launched in September that will provide an easier way for individuals/families to determine if they would qualify for Section 8 housing and access a list of participating landlords and houses for consideration. Mrs. Townshend suggested that the library staff be made aware of the website to assist City residents. Mr. Bonar requested that staff ensure that a link to this website is placed on the City’s website. Referring to the Housing Balance issue, Mr. Anderson expressed his concerns regarding zoning designations in the City. He stated that when the Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) designation was developed 10 years ago, he was concerned that it would not be used beyond the Eden Hill development since there was a flaw in its design related to economic viability. He noted that other developments have a 25% threshold for open space; however, the TND has a 35% threshold, and he felt that this threshold was the reason that several projects have not come to fruition. Mr. Anderson also felt that there were too many sub-zones. He suggested that staff review the TND zoning and other policies included in the Comprehensive Plan for possible amendment. Mrs. Townshend advised members that staff has made it a priority to meet with the business and real estate communities to review the commercial, office, and industrial zones. She noted the need for a review of the residential zones as well. In response to Mr. Bonar, Mrs. Townshend stated that the next Comprehensive Plan will be completed by 2013. She noted that shelters are permitted in the Institutional Zone; however, this is not explicitly stated. Mrs. Townshend explained that transitional housing is absent from the Zoning Ordinance and this has created a problem in determining the difference between transitional homes and boarding houses. Staff has had to put non-profit transitional homes through the conditional use process. Mrs. Townshend advised members that she has been working with the Deputy City Solicitor on developing definitions and provisions to address the continuum of housing and hoped to present recommendations to the Committee by October 2012.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 12 When developing rules for transitional housing, Mr. Anderson cautioned staff not to allow them to get in the way of natural transitional housing and suggested that staff ensure that a level of fairness is maintained. Responding to Mr. Bonar, Mrs. Harvey stated that according to the 2000 Census, the vacancy rate for rental housing was 6½%. Since there continues to be a demand for rental housing, she felt confident that the 2010 Census would reflect a similar percentage. She assured members that she would obtain this information and forward it to them. Mr. Anderson requested that staff provide members with a breakdown of the average rent versus the average wage to obtain affordable housing parameters for the target area. In response to Mr. Lewis regarding substandard homes, Mrs. Townshend stated that when staff conducts rental inspections, a list of repairs that are necessary to meet Code requirements is developed. Typically, homeowners are provided 30 days to make any necessary repairs; however, she stated that if there are critical issues, such as no running water or working smoke detectors, a much shorter response time is granted. If repairs are not made within 30 days and no progress is being made, the rental permit is suspended and tenants are given 30 days to relocate. The homeowner would then be charged $100 to reinstate the rental permit. No further action was taken by the Committee regarding this matter. Operational Procedures for Altering the Water Level at Silver Lake As requested during the Open Forum Segment of the Regular Council Meeting on July 23, 2012, Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, provided an update regarding the lowering of the water level at Silver Lake. He advised members that during previous years, the operation of the valve in the Silver Lake Dam has been a cooperative effort between the Parks and Recreation Department and the Grounds Division of the Public Works Department. The City does not have a prescriptive written procedure regarding the operation of the valve. Mr. Koenig reminded members that relatively high temperatures and low rainfall had been experienced since June. He stated that Grounds Division staff visits the park and spillway area daily for trash removal and weekly for landscaping or grass mowing and noticed a significant decline in the amount of water coming over the spillway due to the drought. In years past, Grounds Division staff would work with the Parks and Recreation Department to address such concerns. He advised members that Grounds Division staff visited the lake on Friday, July 6, 2012 and found only a small amount of water coming over the fish ladder and the timber area associated with the spillway. As a result, staff removed one of the boards that are in place to adjust the flow of water to allow water to come over the spillway to oxygenate an area of water below the spillway for the fish. On Monday, July 9th, staff noticed that there were numerous gizzard shad coming to the top of the water below the spillway. Staff felt that there was not enough water flowing to support fish life just below the spillway; therefore, they opened the valve slightly. By Wednesday, July 11th, staff observed mature carp coming to the top of the water, which they felt was an indication that there was an oxygen problem below the spillway. Mr. Koenig stated that by Monday, July 16th, the valve remained halfway open and the level of the lake had dropped significantly over that time period. Staff reduced

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 13 the valve to approximately five (5) inches open and then closed it upon direction from the City Manager’s Office and Public Works Department on Tuesday, July 17th. He advised members that on July 18th there was a large fish kill; therefore, it was believed that the efforts to oxygenate the fish area below the dam had delayed the fish kill in the area. The City contacted Environmental Compliance to assist in the removal of approximately 3.2 tons of fish, which were taken to the landfill. According to a press release issued by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), 1,300 to 1,900 fish were killed. On Friday, July 20th, there was a smaller fish kill (200-300 fish), after which the oxygen level appeared to stabilize; however, the level of the lake had been reduced. Mr. Koenig stated that, since these occurrences, it has been made clear that the City engineers and City Manager’s Office need to be involved with the opening/closing of the valve on Silver Lake and that this should be a coordinated effort with DNREC. Mr. Koenig indicated that the level of Silver Lake dropped approximately three (3) feet; however, it appeared that the lake was rebounding. Water was coming over the board section of the spillway and fish were no longer at the top of the water. He stated that the Silver Lake Commission suggested providing low-cost aeration just below the spillway over the long term so that the valve would not have to be opened. He noted that other recommendations made by various biologists with the State of Delaware included the possibility of an on/off working of the valve. Mr. Koenig stated that he had been in contact with several adjacent property owners who expressed concern regarding the lack of notification about the lowering of the lake. He assured members that these procedures would be refined. Mr. Bonar reminded members that Silver Lake was manmade and that sediment has washed into the lake for over a century, it has never been cleaned, and is in horrible need of expensive remediation, at an estimated cost of approximately $8M. He suggested that staff attempt to find funding from foundations and environmental protection organizations to assist the City. Mr. Bonar also noted that there was an aerator at the City Warehouse that has not been used in over two (2) years and felt that it would be beneficial to put it to use, although he noted that, in the past, sediment quickly filled the trap in the aerator, causing it to stop running. He suggested that the City explore a means of remediating not only the St. Jones Watershed but Silver Lake itself. He felt that the citizens deserve a pristine body of water that could be utilized to its fullest extent. Mr. Koenig advised members that DNREC and the City have worked cooperatively on several projects in the spillway area and downstream and would soon be working on a project involving Mirror Lake. He confirmed that the problems with Silver Lake extend to areas beyond the City’s control, including farmland outside City limits. No further action was taken by the Committee regarding this matter. Benchmarks Established for the Economic Development Office Mr. William Neaton, Economic Development Director, reviewed the benchmarks and results that were established for the Economic Development Office, which included the Downtown Dover

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 14 Partnership (DDP). With regard to events for which the DDP served as the lead organizer or partner, he noted that the benchmark was for 10 events to be held and 21 events were held. He stated that the DDP continues to work toward their fundraising goal of $25,000 and is becoming proactive and progressive with fundraising activities. Mr. Neaton stated that the DDP continues to monitor downtown merchant satisfaction and felt that this continuously improves. He advised members that the City of Dover Police Department has done an excellent job providing walking security in the downtown area, which has resulted in an increase in merchant satisfaction. At the request of Mr. Anderson, Mr. Neaton indicated that he would provide members with a copy of the merchant survey and results. Mr. Neaton stated that the DDP has been working on developing a recruitment strategy to attract new businesses in the downtown area. He stated that staff maintains a list of vacant and available properties for those looking for a place to do business. He stated that a meeting was held recently with ING Direct, who considered the downtown area and assisted the City in identifying areas that are considered highly distressed properties and can use new market tax credits. The DDP met with two (2) developers to discuss properties that are owned by the DDP and have the potential to use new market tax credits to enhance these properties. Mr. Neaton advised members that EDiS previously had a contract on one (1) of the DDP’s properties and requested an extension while conducting due diligence. Although EDiS remained interested in the property, based on the short-term extension offered by the DDP, they elected not to continue with the contract. However, he stated that another developer was interested in the property. In response to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Neaton indicated that EDiS would still be interested in pursuing the property if the DDP had granted the 180-day extension they requested. The DDP Board offered a 60-day extension. Responding to comments of Mr. Bonar, Mr. Neaton advised members that several downtown projects will be coming to fruition by the end of the year and, by that time, the downtown area will be a completely different area. These projects include the new Library, Bayard Plaza, North Street Parking, renovation of North Street for burying communication cables, the Loockerman Way Plaza, the Wesley College Connector and Walkable Campus, etc. Mr. Neaton noted that one (1) of the benchmarks for City-wide economic development includes the Garrison Tract and that work on this project was continuing. He advised members that the City has attracted a second tenant and recently completed negotiating the ground lease with Calpine. He relayed appreciation to members of City Council for their approval of the infrastructure at the Garrison Tract. Mr. Neaton advised members that a partnership has been established with Delaware State University for the development of a marketing plan for the Garrison Tract. However, he relayed the importance of completing the infrastructure in order to move forward with attracting new businesses to the site. No further action was taken by the Committee.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 15 Semi-Annual Review - Statistics Regarding Jobs and Businesses Gained and Lost in the City of Dover Mr. William Neaton, Economic Development Director, reviewed the semi-annual report of employment statistics for the 14 largest employers in the Dover area and reminded members that this information was updated and presented to the committee on a semi-annual basis. He advised members that he and the Mayor have been meeting with several of the larger businesses. He indicated his impression that the economic climate is changing and that the individuals he has been meeting with now relay a sense of confidence. Mr. Neaton explained that he and Mayor Carey understood the importance of small and mid-size businesses; therefore, they will begin visiting with these smaller businesses in September and information regarding this will be provided to members in the future. The Committee recommended acceptance of the Semi-Annual Review of Statistics Regarding Jobs and Businesses Gained and Lost in the City of Dover. 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 (Mrs. Russell, Mrs. Williams, and Mr. Hare absent). UPDATES The following updates were provided to members: Planning and Funding for New Library Ms. Margery Cyr, Library Director, reminded members that the library received a $100,000 donation with a matching challenge pledge and that this challenge pledge had been met, resulting in a total of $200,000. She reiterated that the family who donated the $100,000 requested to remain anonymous at this time. Ms. Cyr stated that the capital campaign has been successful and that their fundraising goals have been met. She stated that the Dover Library Foundation will remain in existence and, once all bills have been paid for the new library, an endowment fund will be created to provide operational support for the library in the future. Responding to Mr. Bonar, Ms. Cyr stated that the public meeting room will perform various functions, explaining that as a single room, it can seat 150 people. A divider wall will provide for two (2) separate rooms that will occupy one-third and two-thirds of the total room. The City Manager had recording equipment installed in the room which will allow for City Council to hold meetings that can accommodate more attendees. With regard to video conferencing, Ms. Cyr stated that the State Library received a $3M federal stimulus grant three (3) years ago, and part of that funding was to provide video conferencing for the five (5) anchor libraries in the State; therefore, the library will become a video conferencing center for central Delaware. Ms. Cyr stated that the library located at 45 South State Street will close to the public on Friday, August 24, 2012. During the period between the closing of the current library and opening of the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 16 new library, the Kent County Bookmobile will be parked at either the current or new location on Fridays to allow individuals the opportunity to return materials and/or check them out. Ms. Cyr stated that the new Library will be opening on Thursday, September 20, 2012, and that the ribbon cutting for the event is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, advised members that expanded library hours would be offered on Friday nights from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and that Ms. Cyr was working on programming. Elaborating, Ms. Cyr stated that the additional hours would be referred to as “Fabulous Fridays.” She explained that this concept began a few years ago when the “In Harmony” Concert Series was held on the first Friday evenings in an effort to support the work of the Downtown Dover Partnership with their “First Friday” program to encourage people to stay in the downtown area after 7:00 p.m. when the “First Friday” program ended. She stated that an event or activity would be planned for every Friday night at the Library year round. The Committee recommended acceptance of the Update on the Planning and Funding for the New Library. 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 (Mrs. Russell, Mrs. Williams, and Mr. Hare absent). CDBG Program Mrs. Tracey Harvey, Planner I, reviewed the Status of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Projects for FY 2011/2012 and monthly statistics for August 2012. Housing and Recovery Act of 2008 Funds (Neighborhood Stabilization Fund) Mrs. Tracey Harvey, Planner I, reviewed the Update on the Housing and Recovery Act of 2008 Funds (Neighborhood Stabilization Program) for Fiscal Year July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012. Dover Youth Advisory Committee There was no update provided for the Dover Youth Advisory Committee. By consent agenda, Mr. Bonar moved for acceptance of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Hutchison and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mrs. Russell, Mrs. Williams, and Mr. Hare absent). UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT - AUGUST 13, 2012 The Utility Committee met on August 13, 2012 with Chairman Bonar presiding. Dedication of Rights-of-Way and Public Infrastructure - Clearview Meadow Subdivision, Phase I Members were advised that the Knollwood Development Corporation, responsible party for completing the public infrastructure within Phase I of the Clearview Meadow Subdivision, has requested that all public infrastructure improvements related to this phase be dedicated to the City

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 17 of Dover for permanent ownership and maintenance. Members reviewed a map depicting the general location and configuration of the subject rights-of-way. The Knollwood Development Corporation completed construction of the improvements within Phase I in accordance with City standards and specifications. After construction was completed, staff inspected the public improvements and developed a list of repairs to be made to meet the City of Dover Standards and Specifications for Public Works Construction. As of this date, all work required has been completed. A one (1) year Maintenance Agreement and associated Bond will be submitted as part of the dedication process. All other requirements of dedication have already been provided to staff. Staff recommended acceptance of the dedication of rights-of-way and public infrastructure in Phase I of the Clearview Meadow Subdivision, with dedication to include all of the referenced public improvements, as follows: Sewer Utility Infrastructure (Construction Value = $166,221): 12” SDR-35 PVC Sanitary Sewer Main - 252 l.f. 8” SDR-35 PVC Sanitary Sewer Main - 2,094 l.f. 6” PVC Sanitary Sewer Laterals - 2,483 l.f. (75 laterals) 4’ Diameter Sanitary Sewer Manholes - 10 ea. Water Utility Infrastructure (Construction Value = $180,016): 10”Ductile Iron (Class 52 Cement Lined) Water Main - 940 l.f. 8” Ductile Iron (Class 52 Cement Lined) Water Main - 2,363l.f. 6” Ductile Iron (Class 52 Cement Lined) Water Main - 75 l.f. 1” Type K Copper Water Services - 2,483 l.f. (75 services) 10” Gate Valves - 7 ea. 8” Gate Valves - 9 ea. Fire Hydrants - 5 ea. Storm Water Infrastructure (Construction Value = $85,697): Catch Basins Type J - 18 ea. Catch Basins Type JJ - 2 ea. 18” Type III Reinforced Concrete Pipe - 379 l.f. 15” Type III Reinforced Concrete Pipe - 958 l.f. Street Infrastructure (0.7685 miles) (Construction Value = $559,912): John Hunn Brown Boulevard Station 0+00 to Station 12+14 1,214 l.f. Mer Way Station 0+00 to Station 7+97 797 l.f. Lady Bug Drive Station 0+00 to Station 6+60 660 l.f. Nob Hill Road Station 28+00 to Station 33+50 550 l.f. Babb Drive Station 2+50 to Station 5+35 285 l.f. Nob Hill Road South Alley Babb Drive to JH Brown Blvd. 560 l.f. Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, advised members that the total construction value of the public improvements was $991,846. The Committee recommended approval of staff’s recommendation for the acceptance of the dedication of rights-of-way and public infrastructure for the Clearview Meadow Subdivision Phase I, to include all of the referenced public improvements.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 18 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 (Mrs. Russell, Mrs. Williams, and Mr. Hare absent). Annual Review and Approval of Governing Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management Members reviewed the Governing Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management. Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, reminded members that during their meeting of July 23, 2012, Mr. Jamie Mahne, Chief Client Officer for The Energy Authority (TEA), gave a presentation regarding Dover Risk Policy Modifications. As the City’s Energy Manager, TEA had recommendations for modifications to the City’s Energy Risk Policy. Mr. Koenig indicated that the Governing Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management was inadvertently omitted from the material presented for consideration during that meeting. Mr. Koenig advised members that, in accordance with the policy, the Utility Committee must conduct an annual review and approval of the Governing Policy For Energy Commodity Risk Management. He stated that in the future staff would present the policy for review and approval in April or May of each year to coincide with the annual budget process. In response to Mr. Blakeman regarding minutes of the Executive Risk Management Committee (ERMC), as indicated on Page 5, Mr. Koenig stated that although the minutes are not automatically forwarded to the Utility Committee, they are available upon request. Mr. Bonar requested that he be provided copies of the minutes as well as any presentations. Mr. Koenig indicated that two (2) separate types of meetings are held: 1) Management Committee meetings with North American Energy Services (NAES), TEA, and City staff, and 2) ERMC meetings with City staff and TEA. Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, explained that the ERMC meetings are not public since counterparties, hedges, etc., are discussed; however, the Management Committee meetings have always been public. She stated that, although minutes are maintained for both committees, the ERMC minutes are not public. Referring to Page 13, Mr. Blakeman questioned if the limit of $60M was a total limit or applied to each company. Mrs. Mitchell confirmed that the policy mandates that at no time will the City incur a credit exposure with any one (1) counterparty greater than $60M; therefore, the City’s credit exposure could be much higher than $60M. However, she explained that the City diversifies the portfolio and tries to obtain more counterparties. She assured members that the City’s limit was never that high with any one (1) counterparty and noted that the City did not need that many hedges for its load; therefore, it would never reach the maximum allowed. She stated that the City’s credit exposure has never exceeded $10M to $15M for any counterparty. Mr. Blakeman suggested the possibility of revising the limit to a total of $60M (or other amount recommended). Mrs. Mitchell explained that this matter was negotiated individually by PACE with each counterparty in accordance with the countparties’ requirements, so each counterparty may desire a different threshold. She noted that they might not all accept a certain limit.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 19 Responding to Mr. Snaman regarding the cost of producing solar energy, Mr. Koenig stated that members had been provided a spreadsheet that reflected the cost of SunPark activity. Mr. Snaman noted that the data reflected only what the City was charged. He explained that if the Sun Park was being subsidized by the Federal Government and if that subsidy ends, the City would be exposed. He requested that staff determine the City’s exposure. For clarification, Mr. Bonar indicated that staff should provide members with the cost of producing one (1) kilowatt of solar energy versus the amount being reimbursed from the Federal Government. Mrs. Mitchell explained that the solar energy issues are separate from the Policy, since the Policy regulates the City’s hedge program and solar is a separate Purchased Power Agreement (PPA). Mr. Snaman moved to recommend approval of the Governing Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management. The motion failed for the lack of a second. In response to Mrs. Williams’ concerns, Mr. Koenig indicated that no additional information had been requested that was related to consideration of the Policy, explaining that solar energy was a separate issue. He stated that, as previously explained by Mrs. Mitchell, there is a $60M risk per party; however, since the City needs to purchase only $60M of power per year, the City’s risk is only $60M annually. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the exposure, by counterparty, is included in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) in the financial disclosure notes. Mr. Bonar requested that staff respond to the questions and concerns of members during their next meeting scheduled for August 27, 2012. Review of Utility Related Capital Investment Plan (CIP) (Electric and Water/Wastewater) Members reviewed a Project Tracking Report, as of June 30, 2012 (preliminary), for the Utility (Electric and Water/Wastewater) Related Capital Investment Plan (CIP). Responding to Mrs. Williams regarding the Troon Road Pump Station, Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, stated that the project was complete, the grass had not grown due to dry weather and would be re-seeded in September, and repaving of the roadway would be a part of a street program. In response to Mr. Anderson regarding the Lincoln Park Center, Mr. Koenig explained that the project was funded through a planning and transportation grant from the Federal Government. The preliminary engineering phases were complete and the project was now entering the final engineering phase. A report was submitted to the Federal Highway Administration and the City was waiting for a finding of no significant impact so that the City could move on to the final design phase and begin purchasing rights-of-way. No further action was taken by the Committee.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 20 Update - National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Permit Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, stated that the Director of Planning and Community Development indicated that an intern had been working for the City on the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Permit, to help keep the City permit compliant. He stated that once the new library opens, a lecture and presentation are planned for an informational meeting on the MS4 Permit. In addition, he stated that there were several projects taking place in the watershed related to the MS4, including Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) projects and actions being taken by the City to reach compliance. He noted that the City does not have an active permit and is waiting for DNREC to respond to the City’s application for a new permit. Update - Garrison Oak Technical Park Project Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, stated that an air permit hearing was held regarding the Calpine Project and the record has been closed. He advised members that Calpine received comments from the Federal Government as well as LS Power. He noted that during the Council Meeting scheduled for later in the evening, members would be considering revisions to the Engineering Services Agreement to finish design of the sewer system and other land planning related items that were not definitively known at the time the original contract was signed. Mr. Koenig advised members that Calpine was moving ahead with their project and the City was working on finalizing the City’s issues with the project in order to begin construction on or about the same time the Calpine project moves forward. In response to Mrs. Williams, Mr. Koenig stated that he had spoken with residents of Wild Meadows recently and that the Garrison Oak Technical Park Project was not mentioned. He felt that the majority of the residents were now relatively satisfied with the project and noted that Calpine had made tremendous efforts to interact with the residents and consider their concerns with the project. To his knowledge, Calpine had cleared all of their federal requirements and were working with the Federal Emergency Regulatory Commission (FERC) on the gas line extension. Mr. Koenig stated that, to the best of his recollection, there would be a certificate or document in approximately October that would solidify what Calpine will need to do for the PJM, which would be their final hurdle. During the air permit hearing, he stated that there was no public testimony against the project; however, LS Power submitted a letter relaying concerns related to the construction of the power plant, dust, water vapors, “film” buildup on solar array, etc. He noted that these concerns were being worked out between LS Power and Calpine. Responding to Mr. Hutchison, Mr. Koenig stated that Calpine was hoping that all permitting would be completed and planned to obtain a City building permit in January 2013. It was their desire to begin testing in February or March 2015, with full operation to the PJM Grid in June 2015 since that is the auction for which they have bid.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 21 Update - Dover Sun Park Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, noted that members received a summary of Dover Sun Park activity for Fiscal Year 2012 and offered to respond to any questions. As indicated, he stated that the Sun Park cost the City approximately $367,000 more than if the power were purchased off the grid. Responding to Mrs. Williams, Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, stated that $1.6M was budgeted for purchased power in FY2012, which netted out to be a $366,850 cost for the City. She stated that she would provide members with the budget details. Mr. Blakeman requested that staff provide members with the cost per kilowatt or megawatt hour for what the City is paying and also the costs for kilowatt or megawatt hour that is being bought off the grid each month. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell indicated that she would forward the requested information to members. 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 (Mrs. Russell, Mrs. Williams, and Mr. Hare absent). LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT - AUGUST 13, 2012 The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met on August 13, 2012 with Chairman Lynn presiding. Request for Proposals - Banking Services Members were advised that the City solicited proposals for bank services and received proposals from four (4) banks. The proposals were evaluated by a team selected from the Finance, Administrative Services, and Information Technology Departments. A considerable amount of information was requested in the Request for Proposals (RFP) and additional information was submitted to the City in response to three (3) addendums. The RFP required each bank to submit their current audited financial statement, including footnotes and the auditor’s opinion. It also required each bank to submit their current Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10K or Form 10Q. The submission and review of these statements are imperative to the City of Dover’s due diligence to ensure the security of the City’s assets. The RFP requested a copy of each bank’s SAS 70 [Statement on Auditing Standards No. 70]. This statement is prepared by independent auditors and attests to the bank’s internal controls in regard to their online banking tools, which will be utilized by the City of Dover. This last piece of due diligence ensures the City of Dover’s funds are safeguarded while being transferred using the bank’s online software. A mix of responses were received in regard to the City’s requirement to submit the above reports, and were reflected in a Summary Scoring Sheet. In today’s economy, especially with all of the changes occurring in the banking industry, it is critical the City of Dover perform as much due diligence as possible before selecting a bank. Each bank was also given the opportunity to meet with the City’s banking RFP selection team to present their proposal. This provided each potential bank the opportunity to share additional

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 22 information that could be helpful in the analysis process. It also gave the team an opportunity to finalize any outstanding questions. All of the proposals were scored on several factors that included quality, reputation, location of branches, ability to meet the City’s cash management requirements, completeness of the proposal, record of performance, technology, future enhancements, government banking experience, and the qualifications of the team assigned to the City of Dover. The pricing score was based on a calculation that included the proposed net earnings using each bank’s net service fees and interest rates applied to Calendar Year 2011’s average balance and transaction activity. All four (4) banks provided earnings credits or interest, but only one (1) bank guaranteed the interest rate over the life of the contract. One (1) of the banks agreed to waive all monthly bank service fees except for the lockbox fee. Two (2) ratios taken from each bank’s 2011 Annual Report, Tier 1 Capital Ratio and Total Risk Based Capital Ratio were also included. Risk-based capital requirements exist to protect the bank, their investors and customers, and the economy as a whole. Placement of risk-based capital requirements ensures that each financial institution has enough capital to sustain operating losses while maintaining a safe and efficient market. References were checked for the recommended bank, with good results. The Finance Department recommended selecting WSFS Bank as the City’s banking services provider. In response to Mr. Shevock, Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Finance Director/Comptroller, stated that the institution selected would replace the City’s current provider, Citizens Bank. She indicated the RFP was prompted by receipt of notification from Citizens Bank that they were getting out of government banking services. Mrs. Mitchell explained that all of the banks that submitted proposals charge lockbox fees and offer earnings credit or interest. Based on the City’s average balances, WSFS Bank would waive all fees (other than lockbox fees) and still offer an earnings credit. She stated that when the earnings credit was netted against the fees, including the lockbox fees, the rates were as follows: Citizens Bank - $63,641; M & T Bank - $101,861; Wells Fargo - $488,297; WSFS - $4,201. She explained that the waiver of fees and earnings credit offered by WSFS helped to reduce the lockbox fees. The Committee recommended acceptance of staff’s recommendation to select WSFS Bank as the City’s banking services provider. 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 (Mrs. Russell, Mrs. Williams, and Mr. Hare absent). By consent agenda, Mr. Bonar moved for acceptance of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Hutchison and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mrs. Russell, Mrs. Williams, and Mr. Hare absent).

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 23 EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS - ELECTRIC UTILITY VALUATION SERVICES Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, advised members that in October 2011, City Council authorized staff to oversee the preparation of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Cost of Service Study to determine the valuation of the entire City of Dover Electric System. Due to the technical and legal complexity of the RFP process for this type of request, staff utilized the services of Mr. Kirk Betts, the City’s power supply attorney, to develop and prepare the RFP, as well as to review submissions from the consultants who expressed interest in the project. Mr. Koenig indicated that on June 18, 2012, the City of Dover issued an RFP seeking proposals from qualified independent consultants to provide an opinion and study regarding the value of the City’s electric utility system and four (4) proposals were received in response. He explained that the proposal evaluation process included two (2) components: the technical component process, which included compliance with the form and content requirements of the RFP, expertise and experience, valuation approach, comprehensiveness of the work plan and adequacy of analytical procedures; and the second component, which was related to pricing evaluation. Mr. Koenig stated that Betts & Holt, LLP, ranked the proposals as follows: 1) GAI Team; 2) Burns; 3) AERCA Team; and 4) MRV. Based upon the ranking and the recommendation of Betts & Holt, LLP, staff recommended that the City of Dover award the contract for Electric Utility System Valuation Services to GAI Consultants in the amount of $117,500. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Koenig stated that when Council authorized staff to proceed, it was indicated that staff would be authorized to spend up to $150,000 for the study. The funding was included in the budget for this year and would be paid from the Electric Fund. Mr. Bonar moved to award the contract for Electric Utility System Valuation Services to GAI Consultants in the amount of $117,500, as recommended by staff, seconded by Mr. Hutchison. Mr. Bonar stated that this action would result in a professional, complete, and thorough evaluation of the value of the City’s Electric Department and all of its appurtenances being conducted for the first time in the history of the City. He noted that the City had depended on electric revenues to balance the budget; however, he felt that there may be a time in the future that this would not be possible or rational. It was Mr. Lynn’s opinion that this valuation service was just the first step toward the road of possibly selling the electric utility, which he adamantly opposed. He noted that during the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Meeting held earlier in the evening, members were discussing the need to do what is fair and equitable and until the City takes care of former City of Dover employees, he could not, in good conscience, vote to spend $117,500 to value the City’s electric utility. Although he respected Mr. Bonar’s opinion on the matter, he felt this action would be frivolous. Mr. Anderson advised members that, other than crime and economic development, this issue had been the most talked about within his Council District. He stated that his constituents questioned

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 24 why the City would want to spend this much money during the current economic climate and indicated that the vast majority (85%) of these individuals were adamant that they did not want the power plant sold. So, although he agreed with staff’s recommendation, as a representative of the Fourth District, he could not vote in favor of the motion. For clarification, Mr. Koenig read the Scope of Work associated with the project, as follows: “A. Scope of Work The consultant retained by Dover as a result of this RFP ("Consultant") must prepare and deliver to Dover an opinion and comprehensive study that will estimate the value of the Electric System under various scenarios. The Consultant must also analyze how Dover's loss of control of the Electric System (that is, sale of the Electric System) would affect Dover and its citizens. At a minimum, the study must establish the Electric System's value utilizing a book value approach, a replacement value of assets depreciated approach, and a comparable Electric System asset sales approach. In addition, the study must consider the following factors: • Net book value of the Electric System's generation, transmission, and distribution assets and infrastructure; • Replacement cost new depreciated value (RCND) of the Electric System; • Valuation of the Electric System (revenue analysis) as an on-going enterprise to determine range of values over book value; • Net proceeds that Dover would realize from a sale of the Electric System after subtracting funds for refunding of outstanding debt and other expenses; • Comparison of the Electric System's rates with the rates of other retail electric utilities serving customers in Delaware; • Analysis of the replacement cost of electricity for municipal facilities; • Possible tax revenues (i.e., property taxes and franchise fees) that may be realized by sale of the Electric System; • Impact of loss of Electric System revenue on Dover's General Fund; • Impact of long-term solar energy power supply contract and forward energy positions on valuation; • Dover staffing and payroll changes that are likely to result if the Electric System is no longer a Dover responsibility; and, • Other potential values lost or gained, such as economic development, if the Electric System is sold.” In response to Mr. Hutchison, Mr. Bonar reiterated that the research he had conducted indicated that such a study had never been done in the history of the City. He stated that the City’s electric utility was worth a great deal of money and that the valuation would not only reveal its worth but also enable the City to determine what its attendant business may be worth in terms of adjusting rates. It was his opinion that, although $117,500 would be spent, it would make sense for the City to proceed with the study and noted that the expenditure in the amount of up to $150,000 (approved by Council in 2011), would come from the electric reserve funds. He felt that the information would

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 25 allow the City to determine how it could either better serve or receive benefit from the Electric Department. Responding to Council President Leary, Mr. Koenig estimated that the valuation would take three (3) to six (6) months to complete and stated that he would provide members with a firm time frame. Mr. Bonar estimated that it would take closer to one (1) year. Mr. Perza questioned if the valuation would be useful only for the year it was accomplished or if it would have value in five (5) or ten years and questioned if it would be better to defer action until the City was ready to make a decision regarding the electric utility. Responding, Mr. Koenig indicated that the valuation would be a “snap shot” based on the year the appraisal was accomplished and if the valuation were reviewed in five (5) years, it would be necessary to consider depreciated values. He stated that this issue had been pushed because of the differential of rates (between the City of Dover and other providers in the area). He reminded members that the City had worked very hard during the past couple of years and, as a result, the cost of power supply had decreased through the City’s long-term power purchases, and rates had decreased in the past year; therefore, the differential between the City and other providers had been reduced over time. In response to Mr. Bonar, Mr. Koenig indicated that the City had approximately 23,000 metered connections. Mr. Bonar stated that by approving staff’s recommendation, the City would be requesting the 23,000 customers to share in the expense of $117,500, which would equate to approximately $6-$7 per customer. Noting that such a study had never been completed, Mr. Lynn questioned what ill had come on the utility as a result of not having such a study done. Responding, Mr. Koenig felt that the only ill would possibly be rate contention. Council President Leary noted that this issue had a political component and an economic component. He indicated his concurrence with Mr. Anderson’s experience on a political level. However, he felt that knowledge was powerful and that spending a relatively small amount of money to determine the worth of the electric utility could prove beneficial. It was his opinion that, since the electric utility serves as the City’s “golden goose,” the City should find out how much the “golden goose” is worth. Mr. Bonar reminded members that just because the City has had something for a hundred years which appeared to have worked well, this does not mean that it cannot work better, which he felt was the purpose of the valuation. On a call for the question by Mr. Bonar, the motion to award the contract for Electric Utility System Valuation Services to GAI Consultants in the amount of $117,500, as recommended by staff, failed by a roll call vote of four (4) yes, two (2) no (Mr. Anderson and Mr. Lynn), and three (3) absent (Mrs. Russell, Mrs. Williams, and Mr. Hare). Mr. Anderson moved for reconsideration and to have this entered on the minutes for the next Council Meeting, expressing his hope that this issue was important enough to be considered again when the full Council was present. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bonar.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 26 In response to Deputy City Solicitor Pepper’s response to a point of order called by Mr. Lynn, Mr. Anderson questioned if the example mentioned was for the “reconsideration” or “reconsideration and have it entered on the minutes,” which would have a different effect. There being no objections, Council President Leary called for a brief recess. Meeting recessed at 8:54 p.m. and reconvened at 8:58 p.m. After review of Roberts Rules of Order, Deputy City Solicitor Pepper confirmed that Mr. Anderson’s motion for “reconsideration and have it entered on the minutes” was in order. The motion for reconsideration and to have it entered on the minutes for the next Council Meeting was carried by a roll call vote of five (5) yes, one (1) no (Mr. Lynn), and three (3) absent (Mrs. Russell, Mrs. Williams, and Mr. Hare). RESCINDING ACTION TAKEN ON FEBRUARY 27, 2012 - CANCELLATION OF COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE MEETINS FALLING IN THE WEEK OF THE FOURTH MONDAY OF EVERY THIRD MONTH (MARCH, JUNE, SEPTEMBER, AND DECEMBER) During their meeting of February 27, 2012, members approved the Council President’s suggestion for the cancellation of the Utility Committee, Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee, and City Council meetings falling in the week of the fourth Monday of every third month (March, June, September, and December) and moving the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meetings falling in those months to the week of the second Monday of that same month. Council President Leary noted that there was a period of time when there were very short Council and Committee meetings and it was felt that it may be a good idea to attempt to truncate the workload and cancel some meetings every quarter; however, recent history had proven that this was an imprudent move and advised members that there was extra work facing members of Council that would require these meetings. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Council President Leary stated that action regarding the second meetings scheduled for December would be taken by Council as the date approaches. Mr. Anderson moved to rescind the action taken on February 27, 2012 which cancelled the Council and Committee meetings falling on the fourth Monday of every third month (March, June, September, and December) and moved the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meetings falling in those months to the week of the second Monday of that same month, seconded by Mr. Lynn and unanimously carried. COUNCIL MEMBERS ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Hutchison advised members that he had the opportunity to spend time on a “ride-along” with City Inspectors and had observed in excess of 450 units that were in some type of declining status. He relayed appreciation to these employees for their work and noted the outstanding database that includes up-to-date information necessary to address these types of issues. He requested that

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 27 members of Council be reminded that areas such as New Street and Queen Street were built and designed for single family dwelling residence. The City converted some of those properties to apartments, and the result was that there were more people residing there, which he felt was one of the reasons for the current conditions in these areas. He suggested that members be sensitive to these types of issues. Council President Leary announced that the Dover Fire Department would hold its Second Annual “Getting Hosed” 5K Run and Walk on September 22, 2012 at Buffalo Wild Wings at 9:00 a.m. He noted that this was a fund raising event and that registration information could be obtained from www.trisportsevents.com or by calling Mrs. Rebecca Rollison at 302-736-4242. There being no objections, Council President Leary declared the meeting adjourned. Meeting Adjourned at 9:04 P.M. TRACI A. McDOWELL CITY CLERK All orders, ordinances, and resolutions adopted by City Council during their Regular Meeting of August 27, 2012, are hereby approved. CARLETON E. CAREY, SR. MAYOR /TM/jg S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS\Council-Minutes\2012\08-27-2012 COUNCIL.wpd Exhibits Exhibit #1 - Statement from Central Delaware Branch #2028 of the NAACP Exhibit #2 - Presentation - Violation of Dangerous Building Ordinance - 39 Primrose Drive (Attached to Original Minutes) Exhibit #3 - Presentation - Violation of Dangerous Building Ordinance - 38 South New Street (Attached to Original Minutes) Exhibit #4 - Presentation - Appeal of Notice to Vacate - 110 South New Street (Attached to Original Minutes)

EXHIBIT #1 Regular Council Meeting of 8/27/2012

PETITION TO AMEND AND ZONING DISTRICT Public Hearing before the Dover City Council September 10, 2012 Applicants/Owners: Bennie L. Smith Address: 870-872 Forest Street Location: South Side of Forest Street east of Gibbs Drive Tax Parcel ID #: ED05-076.12-01-08.00-000 Size: 32,552 +/- Square Feet Present Use: Commercial (Vacant & Day Care Center) Proposed Use: Commercial (Retail & Day Care Center) Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial Present Zoning: CPO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone)/COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) Proposed Zoning: C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone)/COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) Planning Commission Recommendation: Following a public hearing held on August 20, 2012, where no members of the public spoke with regards to the rezoning request, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (8-0 with one member absent) to recommend in favor of the rezoning requested. File Number: Z-12-02 Ordinance Number: 2012-19

Z-12-02 Lands of Bennie Smith at 870-872 Forest Street Report to City Council – September 10, 2012 Page 2 This rezoning application consists of for one parcel of land totaling of 0.747 acres (32,532 S.F.) of area. The property is currently zoned CPO (Commercial/Professional Office Development District Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The proposed zoning classification is C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The property known as 870-872 Forrest Street is situated on the south side of Forest Street and east of Gibbs Drive. The owner of record is Bennie Smith. Tax Parcel: ED-05-076.12-01- 08.00-000. Previous Applications: On September 22, 2003, this property at 870 Forest Street was approved for rezoning by City Council from RG-1 (General Residence Zone) to CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone) with the property also subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone 1). Application Z-03-03. Redevelopment of this parcel of land was then reviewed under Site Plan S-04-01and approved by the Planning Commission on January 20, 2004. The Site Plan proposed that the two existing buildings be utilized as office buildings and include site improvements for parking and landscaping. On November 15, 2004, a Conditional Use Site Plan C-04-08 was reviewed and granted conditional approval by the Planning Commission to permit the use of the existing Building #2 (rear building addressed as 872 Forest Street) on the property as a Day Care Center. As part of the motion, the Planning Commission set the maximum number of children for this Day Care Center at sixty (60) children. The lessee proposing the daycare center was William Schick and Jennifer. Conditional Use Site Plan (C-04-08) was granted Final Plan approval on June 8, 2005. Construction activities were began to renovate the buildings and complete the site work. During the implementation of the plan a discrepancy between the approved Site Plan and the approved Landscape Plan was identified related to the opaque barrier requirements and as a result the Planning Commission considered and approved a waiver request for the opaque barrier requirements on September 19, 2005. Existing Property: The subject property consists of one parcel of land and includes two (2) existing buildings. The front building at 870 Forest Street is registered as a Vacant Building under the provisions of the Vacant Building Ordinance. The rear building at 872 Forest Street currently houses a Day Care Center known as Cindy’s Bright Star Learning. Surrounding Land Uses: The surrounding uses vary. Immediately surrounding this property are residential properties zoned RG-1 (General Residence Zone) and with properties zoned R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) further to the south. This area of single family dwellings is known as Lincoln Park. To the north of the subject property across Forrest Street (Route 8) is zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and is the location of an elementary and middle school. To the northeast of this parcel at the intersection of Forrest Street and Division Street is a mix of zoning including C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone), and C-3 (Service Commercial Zone). The commercial uses in this area include a laundromat, car wash, and retail store. Further east on Forest Street are two parcels zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Zone).

Z-12-02 Lands of Bennie Smith at 870-872 Forest Street Report to City Council – September 10, 2012 Page 3 Those properties fronting on Forest Street are within the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) which requires enhanced design requirements for development activities such as landscaping, setbacks, building placement, parking, buffering, etc. to promote superior urban design. Comprehensive Plan: In the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, the Land Development Plan (Map 12-1 as amended, dated March 2012) recommends that this property be used for Mixed Use. Specifically, regarding mixed use in the downtown area, the Comprehensive Plan identifies the following goal: Enhance the role of Downtown Dover as a major employment, residential and commercial center as well as the symbolic and cultural heart of the community, and recognize its unique heritage and historic resources. Provide for mixed use development allowing greatest variation of uses. The rezoning request is consistent with this Land Use Classification and the stated goal. Request for C-1A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) The types of permitted uses in the C-1A Zone are given Article 3 §12 of the Zoning Ordinance and the referenced Article 3 §11 for uses of the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Zone). The permitted uses include the following: Section 12. - Limited commercial zone (C-1A). 12.1 Uses permitted. No building or premises shall be used, and no building or part of a building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended, or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any purpose, except the following: 12.11 All uses permitted in the neighborhood commercial C-1 zone, with no limitation on size of establishments. 12.12 Residences conforming to the regulations set forth in article 3, section 2. 12.13 Banks or businesses, professional or governmental offices. 12.14 Other retail and service establishments, but excluding: 12.141 Gasoline filling stations and motor vehicle storage, repair, or service, except that gasoline pumps shall be permitted as an accessory use, subject to conditional use approval by the planning commission pursuant to article 10, section 1. 12.142 Wholesaling, warehousing or storage. 12.143 The manufacturing, printing, assembling, converting, altering, finishing, cleaning or any other processing of goods on the premises, except as permitted in the C-1 zone. 12.144 Excessive traffic generating uses, such as theaters, drive-ins, bowling alleys and other commercial, recreation, restaurants, etc. 12.15 Signs shall meet the regulations found in article 5, section 4, supplementary sign regulations. 12.2 [Enclosed buildings.] All permitted uses and all storage accessory thereto, other than off-street parking, shall be carried on in buildings fully enclosed on all sides.

Z-12-02 Lands of Bennie Smith at 870-872 Forest Street Report to City Council – September 10, 2012 Page 4 12.3 Performance standards. All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in article 5, section 8.1. 12.4 Site development plan approval. Site development plan approval in accordance with article 10, section 2 hereof shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for the erection or enlargement of all structures and prior to the issuance or certificates of occupancy for any change of use. Section 11. - Neighborhood commercial zone (C-1). 11.1 Uses permitted. In a neighborhood commercial zone (C-1), no building or premises shall be used, and no building or part of a building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended, or signed to be used, in whole or in part, for any purpose, except the following, which shall be permitted, conditional upon approval as to use by the planning commission in accordance with the procedures and subject to the general conditions set forth in article 10, section 1 of this ordinance: 11.11 Convenience retail stores such as drug stores, grocery stores, luncheonettes, variety stores or combinations thereof. 11.12 Personal service stores such as, but not limited to, barbershops, beauty parlors, and tailors, provided that where steam pressure is used in clothes pressing, it shall not exceed 60 pounds per square inch. 11.13 Service establishments furnishings services other than of a personal nature, but excluding gasoline filling stations and motor vehicle storage, repair, or service. 11.14 Signs shall meet the regulations found in article 5, section 4, supplementary sign regulations. 11.2 [Enclosed buildings.] All permitted uses and all storage accessory thereto, other than off-street parking, shall be carried on in buildings fully enclosed on all sides. 11.3 [Floor space.] The total floor space in any one retail or service store or establishment shall not exceed 2,000 square feet. 11.4 Uses prohibited. The following uses are prohibited: Residences, other than living quarters for not more than one family, incidental to each permitted building on each lot, for the use of the owner or caretaker of such building or of the owner or caretaker of the permitted use or uses housed in such building. Recommendation of the Planning Staff and Planning Commission: Staff recommends that the rezoning be granted as requested, as the proposed zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the surrounding area. Staff recommends that the properties remain subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) due to their frontage on to Forest Street. The purposes of the COZ-1 are to promote superior urban corridor development; to foster coordination and linkage among corridor properties; to preserve functionality and efficiency of the roadway for traffic movement; and to achieve a visually balanced streetscape environment friendly to the pedestrian and motorist. (Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §27)

Z-12-02 Lands of Bennie Smith at 870-872 Forest Street Report to City Council – September 10, 2012 Page 5 The staff recommendation was made prior to the opportunity for public comment on the proposed rezoning. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 20, 2012, where no members of the public spoke with regards to the rezoning request. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (8-0 with one member absent) to recommend in favor of the rezoning requested. Excerpt from DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes of August 20, 2012 Z-12-02 Lands of Bennie Smith at 870-872 Forest Street: Rezoning from CPO to C-1A – Public Hearing and Review and Recommendation for a rezoning application for one parcel of land consisting of 0.747 acres (32,532 S.F.) of area. The property is currently zoned CPO (Commercial/Professional Office Development District Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The proposed zoning classification is C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The property known as 870-872 Forrest Street is situated on the south side of Forest Street and east of Gibbs Drive. The owner of record is Bennie Smith. Tax Parcel: ED-05-076.12-01-08.00-000. Council District 4. Representative: Mr. Phillip McGinnis, McGinnis Commercial Real Estate Company, representing Mr. Bennie Smith. Mrs. Townshend stated that the purpose of the rezoning application is to allow retail on this site. Their property is currently in the CPO zone and retail is not a permitted use. When Staff looked at the existing property, there are two (2) buildings on the property. The building to the rear is a daycare facility that is still in the licensing process and is not currently open. The daycare has operated on and off at this site for a number of years. Mrs. Townshend further stated that the surrounding zoning in the immediate surroundings is RG- 1; however, there is also I/O, C-1 and C-1A in the general vicinity. What the applicant is looking to do is take the vacant property (building) located at the front and be able to use it for retail. The rezoning request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in looking at the surrounding zoning Staff believes that it is compatible with the surrounding zoning and would therefore recommend in favor of the rezoning. Other agencies have provided their comments regarding a zoning application and they are advisory only comments. Colonel Welsh opened the public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak closed the public hearing. Mr. Holt questioned what type of retail was planned for the site? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. McGinnis stated that across the street is the funeral home that has photographers and a florist in that building. He would be able to move those over into this building and get better use of his funeral home space and they would be open to the public. Mr. Tolbert moved to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of Z-12-02 Lands of Bennie Smith at 870-872 Forest Street: (Rezoning from CPO to C-1A and subject to the COZ-1), seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion was unanimously carried 8-0 with Mr. Nichols absent.

City of Dover Application No.: Z-12-02 Department of Planning & Inspections IPM RIDG M EE C-3 STR ELY IO T C-3 M CARV ER ROAD C-2A TO WES CPO N DR ET IVE TRE I ON S DIVIS FOREST STREET C-3 C-1A CPO CPO Site RG-1 RG-1 C-1 CPO E GIBBS DRIV BEDFOR D DRIVE RG-1 RG-1 RG-1 RG-1 BERTRAND DRIVE ET LINCOLN STRE R-8 R-8 CHERRY DRIVE RG-1 RG-1 CHERRY STRE R-8 REECE STREET RG-3 R-8 RG-1 RG-1 RG-1 T PAUL STREE JAWD DRIVE RG-1 ET RG-1 IRMA STR EE RG-1 RG-1 RG-1 RG-1 T Plan Title: Lands of Bennie Smith Location: 870-872 Forest Street Plan Type: Rezoning Legend Tax Parcel: ED-05-076.12-01-08.00-000 Current Zoning: CPO, COZ-1 Zoning Proposed Zoning: C-1A, COZ-1 Dover Parcels Owner: Bennie Smith Date: 7-13-12 Corridor Overlay Zone Dover Boundary 0 150 300 600 Feet

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: AUGUST 1, 2012 APPLICATION: LANDS OF BENNIE SMITH AT 870-872 FOREST STREET FILE #: Z-12-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover CONTACT PERSON: Steve Enss - Electric Jason A. Lyon – Public Works CONTACT PHONE #: ELECTRIC - 302-736-7070 PUBLIC WORKS – 302-736-7025 T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ’ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / STREETS / SANITATION / GROUNDS 1. Our office has no objection to the rezoning of the following tax parcel numbers: ED05-076.12-01-08.00-000. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / STREETS / SANITATION / GROUNDS 1. None. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / STREETS / SANITATION / GROUNDS 1. Should this site be redeveloped, which includes modifications to the use, the applicant / developer will be responsible for all costs associated with providing the appropriate meter / service / main to this site based upon the use including any necessary system upgrades or extensions. The appropriateness and adequacy of electric, water and sewer services and meters will be assessed at that time. (Please note that each water meter registered with the City of Dover must have a separate service line.) Should the existing water and sanitary sewer services no longer be required based upon the proposed use, they must be properly abandoned at the mains in accordance with all City of Dover Department of Public Works standards and specifications. 2. Any redevelopment shall adhere to the City of Dover Water/Wastewater Handbook, the Specifications, Standards & Procedures for City of Dover Public Works requirements, and the City of Dover’s Electric Service Handbook. 3. Please note that renovations projects must ensure that the water and wastewater service is brought up to current requirements. This may include relocating the water meter outside or changing service line sizes. Please ensure you schedule a meeting with the Department of Public Works during the planning phase for this site. I F Y OU H AVE A NY Q UESTIONS OR N EED TO D ISCUSS ANY OF THE A BOVE C OMMENTS , P LEASE C ALL THE A BOVE C ONTACT P ERSON AND THE P LANNING D EPARTMENT AS S OON AS P OSSIBLE .

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY AUGUST 2012 APPLICATION: Lands of Bennie Smith FILE #: Z-12-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: Kent Conservation District CONTACT PERSON: David C. Cahill PHONE #: 741-2600 ext.3 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Kent Conservation District has no objection to re-zoning plan for the above referenced site. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: The Following comments are advisory and apply to the development of a detailed site plan for this project. 1. If at any time expansion or earth disturbing activity (clearing, grubbing tree clearing etc.) takes place and exceeds 5000 square feet; a detailed Sediment and Stormwater Management Plan must be submitted and approved to the Kent Conversation District.

CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O D.A.C. MEETING DATE: August 1, 2012 T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Lands of Bernie Smith at 870-872 Forrest Street: Rezoning From CPO to C-1A FILE#: Z-12-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Julio F. Seneus PHONE#: 760-2145 =============================================================== THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY & STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. The Department has no comments. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: • A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) will be required if the proposed new development exceeds 50 VPH (vehicle per Peak Hour) or 400 VPD (vehicle per day). When the study is completed, DelDOT will review it and send recommendations of the improvements to the City. The improvements contained in the study will be implemented by the developer per DelDOT's discretion. Please, contact Mr. Troy Brestel at (302) 760-2167 or e-mail: Troy.Brestel@state.de.us to set up a scoping meeting for this project. • A pre-submittal meeting with the applicant will be required, if the proposed development generates 200 vehicles per day (VPD). • The department requires the applicant to provide proper forms, fees, and plans in order to re-evaluate and issue an entrance permit. If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the planning department as soon as possible.

FINAL READING CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2012-19 1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE 2 CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED 3 AT 870-872 FOREST STREET 4 WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within 5 the limits of the City of Dover; and 6 WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of 7 property described below from C-PO (Commercial/Professional Office Development District) and 8 subject to COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) to C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and subject to 9 COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). 10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 11 DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 12 1. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning 13 Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation from 14 C-PO (Commercial/Professional Office Development District) and subject to COZ-1 15 (Corridor Overlay Zone) to C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and subject to COZ-1 16 (Corridor Overlay Zone) on that property located at 870-872 Forest Street (on the south side 17 of Forest Street east of Gibbs Drive), consisting of 0.747+/- acres, owned by Bennie L. Smith. 18 (Tax Parcel: ED-05-076.12-01-08.00-000; Planning Reference Z-12-02; Council District 4) 19 ADOPTED: * 20 S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS\Council-Packets\2012\09-10-2012\3. Rezoning Request - Public Hearing-Final Reading of Proposed Ordinance #2012-19.wpd 21 Actions History 22 September 10, 2012 - Scheduled for Public Hearing/Final Reading by Council 23 August 20, 2012 - Considered by Planning Commission 24 July 23, 2012 - First Reading/Referral by Council

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: City Council DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Planning & Inspections DATE SUBMITTED: August 30, 2012 PREPARED BY: Tim Taraila, Code Enforcement Supervisor; Ann Marie Townshend, AICP, Director of Planning and Community Development SUBJECT: 126 N Ann Ave, Dover, Delaware – Violation of Dangerous Building Ordinance REFERENCE: Chapter 22, Article XI – Dangerous Buildings, Sec. 22-385 - Hearing before Council and Chapter 22, Article XI - Dangerous Buildings Case # 11-1430 RELATED PROJECT: N/A APPROVALS: N/A EXHIBITS: PowerPoint Presentation and File Photos to be presented at the Council meeting. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Preliminary estimate is $10,000-15,000. AMOUNT BUDGETED: $150,000 Budgeted for all demolitions Citywide in the FY-2013 Budget FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): 110-1600-534-30-33. TIMETABLE: As soon as possible. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Declare this building and all accessory structures on this property dangerous. 2. Order the property repaired or demolished by October 10, 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. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The property is owned by Jesse L. Workmon. The property is a one story wood framed single family home. The dwelling was condemned as unfit for human habitation on 4/4/2012 due to the degree of damage to the structure from a fire that occurred on the night of 10/5/2010. Since the fire, numerous windows to the structure have been broken causing the owner to have all windows and doors boarded. Currently the structure is still vacant, with no active utilitie services and in a serious state of disrepair.

UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee Meeting was held on August 27, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. with Chairman Bonar presiding. Members present were Mr. Blakeman, and Mr. Snaman. Mr. Perza and Mrs. Williams were absent. Members of Council present were Mr. Lynn and Mr. Hutchison. Mayor Carey was also present. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS By unanimous consent, the agenda was approved as presented. Annual Review and Approval of Governing Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management (Deferred by Committee on August 13, 2012 Pending Further Information) During their meeting of August 13, 2012, members reviewed the Governing Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management. Due to questions and concerns of members, this matter was deferred to allow staff the opportunity to respond. Members reviewed the following documents: 1) Two (2) pages from the 2011 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the City of Dover; 2) Counterparty Credit Risk as of 6/29/2012; 3) Dover Monthly Credit Report for August 2012; and 4) Governing Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management (provided at the August 13, 2012 Utility meeting and included again in this meeting packet). Referring to Page 13 of the Governing Policy, Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, noted the statement, “At no time will the City incur a credit exposure with any counterparty greater than $60,000,000.” He explained that the City now has several counterparties (approximately 11) and that the $60M limit was based on having only a few counterparties. He also advised members that in order to obtain a $60M credit limit, a triple A bond rating would be required. As detailed on the information provided regarding the Counterparty Credit Risk, he noted that if those individual amounts were totaled, the City’s exposure would be significant. He stated that the amount of power (power hedges) that the City purchased last year totaled approximately $40M and that in years past, the City has purchased as much as $70M-$80M. It was his feeling that since the cost of power was decreasing, the City’s exposure on the hedges was coming down, and the per counterparty exposure was decreasing (due to the City developing several counterparty agreements). Mr. Koenig requested that the $60M limitation remain in the Governing Policy for this year and that the matter be reviewed again in the next year. He anticipated this issue being considered again in April or May of 2013 to prepare for Fiscal Year 2014. He explained that the amounts included in the Governing Policy were based on the risk associated with the counterparty. Mr. Koenig stated that the City’s liability per counterparty must be reflected in the CAFR and felt that this was being reported very transparently. He reiterated that staff would review this matter over the next 12 months and would specifically ask The Energy Authority (TEA) if the number should be adjusted in the Policy at that time. Mr. Blakeman moved to recommend approval of the Governing Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management (Attachment #1), as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Snaman and unanimously carried.

UTILITY COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 2 Update - Green Energy Funding and Programming Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, reviewed an update on the Green Energy Funding and Programming. He stated that $802,265.68 had been collected since the City developed the Green Energy component of the bill. He advised members that the program involves an application process, an approval process, and a reimbursement process, and reimbursement often takes a significant amount of time. Mr. Koenig advised members that some applications from 2011 had not been completely paid off. Due to this backlog, the City has not accepted any new grant applications and is waiting for the funding stream to catch up, when grants will be opened to interested parties. Responding to Mr. Bonar, Mr. Koenig stated that it was his recollection that the waiting list for reimbursement under the program was “a couple of years” and stated that he would obtain the exact timeframe. Mr. Koenig explained that the second component of the program involved a large sum of money reserved by the City for reimbursement for green energy improvements to the Library. He stated that the City would be making application to the fund. He reminded members that the City made application last fall in the amount of $48,267; half of these funds were available for others who applied for a grant, and the remaining half was reserved (as authorized by the City) for City of Dover projects. Update - Garrison Oak Technical Park Project Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, stated that the Performance Standards Review Application for the Garrison Energy Center (Calpine Project) was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting held on August 21, 2012 and that, to his knowledge, the project was moving forward. He indicated that there was an ongoing issue between White Oak Solar Energy and the Calpine Project and, although there had not been resolution, meetings had been held regularly and he had heard no statements that related discussions have been negative; therefore, he was hopeful that they were moving toward conclusion. As previously reported, Mr. Koenig reminded members that the Calpine Project went before the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) for air permitting. An objection was filed by White Oak Solar Energy and comments were filed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It appeared that Calpine was taking action to obtain the necessary permits and design approval so that the project could be delivered to the grid in June 2015. In response to Mr. Blakeman, Mr. Koenig confirmed that PJM had identified a list of improvements. It was his understanding that meetings were held with PJM and the required improvements had been negotiated. He stated that discussions were held at those meetings and that a final letter would be issued in the Fall (October) that would give Calpine details regarding access to the grid. Responding to Mr. Hutchison with regard to gas lines, Mr. Koenig stated that, to his knowledge, Eastern Shore Natural Gas was working on alignments with Calpine and that there had been no negative comments regarding the pipeline being delivered in time.

UTILITY COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 3 Mr. Blakeman moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Snaman and unanimously carried. Meeting Adjourned at 5:45 P.M. David L. Bonar Chairman DLB/TM/jg/js/dd S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS\Committee-Minutes\2012\08-27-2012 UTILITY.wpd Attachment Attachment #1 - Governing Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management

ATTACHMENT #1 Utility Committee Meeting of 08/27/2012 City of Dover, Delaware Governing Policy For Energy Commodity Risk Management Effective: Approved by: Date:

TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE OF THE RISK MANAGEMENT POLICY ..................................................................3 A. Introduction ....................................................................................................................3 B. Scope of Policy ................................................................................................................3 C. Objectives and Risk Philosophy ...................................................................................4 D. Policy Administration....................................................................................................4 MANAGEMENT AND CONTROLS .............................................................................................4 A. Utility Committee of The City Council .......................................................................5 B. Executive Risk Management Committee ....................................................................5 1. City Manager .............................................................................................................................. 6 2. Director of the Utility................................................................................................................. 7 3. Controller .................................................................................................................................... 7 4. TEA Member Services Manager .............................................................................................. 7 DISCUSSION OF RISKS ...............................................................................................................8 MARKETING AND TRADING PRACTICES ..............................................................................9 A. Standards of Conduct ....................................................................................................9 B. Products, Activities and Limitations ...........................................................................9 C. Contract Documentation and Confirmations...........................................................10 D. Training..........................................................................................................................10 E. New Product Protocol .................................................................................................10 RISK LIMITS AND RISK MEASUREMENTS ...........................................................................11 A. Limits..............................................................................................................................11 1. Volume/Maturity/Value Limits ........................................................................................... 11 B. Stress Testing and Back Testing .................................................................................12 C. Instances of Exceeding Risk Limits............................................................................12 CREDIT POLICY ..........................................................................................................................12 A. Measuring Credit Risk .................................................................................................12 B. Analysis and Extension of Credit Limits ..................................................................13 C. Instances of Exceeding Credit Limits ........................................................................13 REPORTING .................................................................................................................................14 A. Risk Reporting ..............................................................................................................14 B. Credit Reporting ...........................................................................................................15 C. Hedge Effectiveness Reporting ..................................................................................15 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS ............................................................................15 POLICY DISTRIBUTION AND COUNSEL ...............................................................................16 A. Distribution Outside The City ....................................................................................16 B. Designated Counsel .....................................................................................................16 APPENDIX A – Approved Products .............................................................................................16 APPENDIX B – Approved Counterparties and Threshold Tables ................................................17 APPENDIX C – Business Risks ....................................................................................................21 APPENDIX D – Glossary ............................................................................................................21 2

PURPOSE OF THE RISK MANAGEMENT POLICY A. Introduction The City of Dover (“City”) and its customers are routinely exposed to energy price risk, volume variability risk, basis risk and credit risk – herein referred to collectively as energy commodity risk - in the normal conduct of serving its electric load requirements. Volatility of energy commodity prices and volumetric uncertainty (either supply/generation or load obligations) impose a substantial and direct risk to the City’s financial and operating performance. By authority of its charter, the City has responsibility for overseeing the City’s electricity operations, including the management of its cost of serving Dover’s customers. By agreement dated May 6, 2011 and approved by the City (the “EMA”), the City has engaged The Energy Authority, Inc. (“TEA”) to assist the City with Asset Management and Strategic Planning Services, Risk Management Services, and Energy Management Services. This Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management (“Policy”) is established the explicit understanding that the City has retained and delegated responsibilities to TEA to provide Risk Management Services. Additionally, the City has issued this Policy for dealing with the philosophy, framework and delegation of responsibilities necessary to govern activities related to Dover’s energy commodity risk management. As set forth herein, the City has established an organizational structure, delegated responsibility and established internal controls and procedures to ensure that all transactional and oversight activities are conducted in compliance with this Policy and in accordance with the City’s normal reporting, legal, financing and regulatory requirements relating to energy assets and transactions. B. Scope of Policy This Policy covers all transactions entered into the by the City of Dover designed to meet the City’s electric load requirement and the management of risk related to these transactions. In the event of conflict between this Policy and the EMA, the Policy shall control. This Policy is separate and distinct from enterprise risk management policies and procedures addressing the City’s safe operation of its generating stations and energy infrastructure, insurance requirements, permit compliance, employee matters regulatory compliance with laws and regulations of the State of Delaware and Federal 3

Agencies such as EPA, FERC, NERC and CFTC or other potential risks to the City beyond the purchase and sale of fuel and electric power and its ancillary products. C. Objectives and Risk Philosophy The objectives of the Policy are to identify energy commodity price and credit risk exposures and give the City a framework for the quantification and management of these exposures. The Policy will identify the reports needed to convey how the identified risk exposures can potentially impact the City’s overall cost of providing electricity service to its customers and report on the risk management of the transactions associated with City’s electric load requirements. Under the Policy, risk management activities will be conducted consistent with the City’s overall objective of appropriate risk mitigation. There are several objectives of the Policy which, when taken and executed together, serve to manage the City’s energy commodity price exposures. Specifically, the Policy: • Establishes framework for developing credit limits for counterparties and quantifies and manages the credit exposures related to potential counterparty abrogation • Quantifies the impact of the above exposures on City’s financial results • Manages the impact of the above exposures in line with the City’s identified level of risk tolerance • Provides clear delineation of responsibilities and authority, outline a separation of duties, and ensure reporting of risk is timely and accurate. • Ensures that the impact of any action affecting the City’s position is consistently quantified, monitored and authorized. The City’s risk management activities will be conducted consistent with its overall objective of appropriate risk mitigation and never for purposes of speculation. D. Policy Administration This Policy has been approved by the Executive Risk Management Committee and The Utility Committee of the Dover City Council. The Utility Committee must approve modifications to the Policy with the exception of the appendix information which can be modified with the approval of the Executive Risk Management Committee. MANAGEMENT AND CONTROLS This Policy articulates the management and organization of the City and TEA to serve as a control framework outlining delegation of duties and responsibilities. 4

A. Utility Committee of The City Council The Utility Committee of The City Council (The Committee) has a responsibility to provide approval of this Policy. With this approval, The Committee also assumes additional duties. They will understand the risks the City is and could be exposed to due to their energy commodity risk management activities. In this role, the Committee will have a responsibility to also understand the City’s policies and procedures, internal controls and systems which are used to help manage the City’s energy commodity risks. The Committee will approve any amendments to the Policy or limits within. The Executive Risk Management Committee will update the Committee periodically regarding the Policy and its functions. It will be the Committee’s responsibility to: • Discuss guidelines and strategic policies that govern the process by which the Energy Risk Management Committee assesses and manages risks • Review and approve the risk policy at least annually • Approve new members of the Executive Risk Management Committee • Acknowledge the risk inherent in transactions covered under this Policy B. Executive Risk Management Committee An Executive Risk Management Committee (“ERMC”) has been formed to provide executive management oversight for the City’s energy commodity risk management activities. The ERMC is charged with the creation, amendment and administration of this Policy, including acquiring any approvals required by the Utility Committee, and will ensure that all energy commodity risk management activities of the City are performed consistent with this Policy. The ERMC will meet at least monthly to review compliance and conduct its business as described in this Policy. The ERMC shall be comprised of the following voting members: The City Manager, The Director of Utility, The City’s Controller and TEA’s Member Service Manager. The City’s ERMC will make decisions following the process outlined in this Policy. TEA’s Member Services Manager may include representatives from other areas within TEA in the monthly ERMC meetings who will attend in person or by conference call as non-voting advisors. Other City employees and TEA staff may also be asked to attend meetings from time-to-time, as the ERMC deems necessary. The responsibilities of the ERMC shall include: • Establish scope and frequency for management reporting to the Utility Committee. • No less than annually, review the City’s Energy Commodity Policies and Procedures for correctness and completeness. 5

• Review and approve any new risk report or change to an existing risk report provided by TEA to monitor risks outlined in this Policy. • Understand and approve any models, methodologies, and assumptions used for measuring risks such as volume risk, process risk, counterparty risk and commodity risk. • Monitor the City’s risks and ensure they are within the limits and are being managed according to what is indicated within the City’s Policy and associated procedures • Understand the City’s risk management objectives and risk tolerances. • Review and approve the risk management and trading strategy programs and associated risk. Each program should be reviewed to ensure alignment with Policy objectives and compliance with risk limits within this Policy. • Periodically review any risk management program approved in light of recent market changes, and ensure continued compliance with its established guidelines • Review and approve new products, markets, trading counterparties and credit limits • Review all violations and exceptions to this Policy and report such to the Committee. • Approve the individuals or companies that engage in the City’s commodity transactions and are subject to the limits within this Policy. • Ensure that the individuals or companies authorized to transact on behalf of the City as well as manage its risks, are appropriately trained and qualified. • Ensure independence and segregation of duties between front, middle and back office at TEA. Recommend changes to this Policy to the City’s Utility Committee for approval and ensure the Utility Committee understands the City’s overall compliance with this Policy and associated procedures The ERMC will meet at least monthly to review risks identified and reported on by the Policy, this meeting shall be chaired by The City Manager. Minutes of each meeting of the ERMC shall be recorded and reflect any decisions and follow-up action items to be performed. These minutes will be reviewed and approved by the members of the ERMC in a timely manner. Each member of the ERMC has a unique role as defined below: 1. City Manager The City Manager is independent of all commercial functions and carries the responsibility of establishment and maintenance of risk management for the City. The City Manager will be a voting member of the ERMC and act as a chair of the ERMC. Other responsibilities include: • Ensure this Policy is maintained. 6

• Oversee reviews of the City’s energy commodity risks, limits, risk measurement methodologies and models, and programs and recommend changes to the ERMC. • Ensure potential transactions and their impacts on the City’s risks and limits defined within this Policy. • Develop and monitor the implementation of the Policy, and oversee other risk management processes and procedures established by this Policy or otherwise by the ERMC. 2. Director of the Utility The Director of the Utility is responsible for all trading, hedging, pricing, structuring, and market and operational risk management activities associated with the City. The Director of the Utility will be a voting member of the ERMC. Other responsibilities include: • Review the effectiveness of transaction processing systems and procedures relating to risk measurement. • Recommend operational risk and business risk assessment guidelines. 3. Controller The Controller is independent of all commercial functions and carries the responsibility of the City’s accounting practices. The Controller will be a voting member on the ERMC. Other responsibilities include: • Perform financial accounting including accounting for hedging and derivatives activities. • Comply with tax rules and make appropriate tax elections. • Record realized and unrealized gains and losses. • Reconcile general ledger, cash transactions and margin accounts. • Implement tax-hedge accounting policies and other regulatory tax requirements. • Develop and maintain documentation outlining standard procedures for conducting business. • Invoice counterparties and resolve billing disputes. • Perform daily/weekly/monthly transaction checkout with counterparties. • Develop and maintain documentation outlining standard procedures for conducting business. 4. TEA Member Services Manager The TEA Member Service Manager roles and responsibilities are defined exhibit B of the EMA between the City and TEA. The TEA Member Service Manager will be a voting member on the ERMC. Other responsibilities include: 7

• Monitor risk reports between ERMC meetings. • Report to the Committee and the ERMC on the City’s adherence to all limits and functions within this policy. • Engage the ERMC in discussions regarding events or developments that could expose the company to potential losses. • Recommend to the ERMC specific risk limits consistent with the City’s risk management objectives, risk tolerance, and risk management policy. • Coordinate and distribute independent market fundamental analysis. • Provide advisory support and recommendations as specified in Article 5 of the EMA. DISCUSSION OF RISKS This Policy covers the management of all material energy market risks faced by the City. A comprehensive list of risks that are or could be relevant to City is shown in Appendix C of the Policy. Among the most critical of these risks are commodity risk, counterparty risk, process risk, volume risk, and budget risk. These risks are measured by the limit structure and controls outlined in the Policy. Commodity risk represents the potential adverse impacts to the value of the City’s portfolio due to changes in the market. Commodity risk encompasses volatility risk, forward price risk, basis risk, correlation risk and liquidity risk. Counterparty risk represents the potential losses the City could incur due to delivery risk and receivable risk. Delivery risk stems from a supplier or trading counterparty that is unable or unwilling to perform on its commitments including but not limited to delivery or receipt of commodities. Receivable Risk includes the City’s risk associated with a counterparty’s timeliness of payment for services rendered. Process risks represents the risks associated with process problems including, but not limited to, inaccurate data capture, untimely trade execution or settlement problems. Controls over process risks are embedded in the organizational structure of TEA through the design processes and operating procedures. Volume Risk represents the potential for unforeseen changes from projections of excess or shortfall of capacity or energy from the actual needs. When variances are large coupled with large costs to transact and adverse moves in market prices this risk could be realized. In management of this risk, the City must be aware of the fact that unexpected variations in volume are often highly correlated with price movements. 8

Budget Risk represents the potential to deviate outside of tolerable bounds of the City’s budget. Deviations from budget can be caused by forecast error or unforeseeable adverse changes in market prices. MARKETING AND TRADING PRACTICES A. Standards of Conduct Individuals authorized to transact for the City shall not misrepresent, conceal or withhold information regarding energy commodity trading and risk management transactions to any person responsible for the accurate recording and/or reporting of such transactions; participate in any such transaction or similar activity for the benefit of any party other than the City; or hold or be a beneficiary of any financial interest in any entity with which the employee is engaged in trading or other business activity (other than ownership of an interest in a mutual fund managed by another party). Further, no employee authorized to place or execute such transactions may engage in trading power or energy commodities derivative instruments for his or her personal account. B. Products, Activities and Limitations Pursuant to achieving the City’s core objectives for the purpose of energy commodity risk management, the following limitations shall apply. • Permissible instruments will be restricted to the products and instruments specified in Appendix A – Approved Products of the Policy; o All physical forward transactions shall be governed by the Edison Electrical Institutive (EEI), North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB), or similar agreements with counterparties approved by the City. o The City reserves the right to enter into financial hedge transactions to effectuate Policy objectives, but does not authorize TEA to enter into financial hedge transactions on its behalf. Any such financial transactions that the City may enter into shall be governed by ISDA agreements with counterparties as approved by the City. • The maturity for each permissible instrument will be restricted to the maturity limits specified in the risk limits section of the Policy. • Transaction volumes for each risk management transaction will be restricted to the amounts specified in the Risk Limits section of the Policy. • Risk management transactions will be outlined in the City of Dover Hedge Program which will be approved by the ERMC. Risk management transactions may include the following: o Hedging the forward price of purchased power for delivery to the City as needed to meet its electric load requirements. 9

o Hedging the forward price of natural gas and fuels as needed to generate power to meet the City’s electric load requirements. o Unwinding of hedges to accommodate changes in expected load requirements, or for economic reasons subject to explicit constraints set by the ERMC. C. Contract Documentation and Confirmations No over-the-counter transaction may be executed until an EEI, NAESB, or similar agreement has been authorized by the City, approved by the ERMC and fully executed by the parties. Written confirmations will be required from counterparties, as defined in the Master Service Agreement between the City and counterparty, within one business day or such longer time as required by the contract in question for all risk management transactions. Contemporaneous with any commitments and prior to receipt of written confirmations, verbal commitments shall be memorialized internally as to instrument structure, quantity, relevant time horizon, price and any other relevant terms; such internal documentation shall be time stamped and correlated to the ultimate written confirmation to or from the counterparty. Both the internal documentation as well as the written confirmation from the counterparty shall be provided to TEA’s Risk Control Group immediately upon receipt for verification. In the event that there is a material failure to provide timely documentation or confirmations, then at the City Manager’s sole discretion, the offending individual’s authorization may be suspended. Similarly, if the failure to provide timely documentation or confirmations is due to the failure of counterparty, then at the discretion of the City Manager, a moratorium may be imposed on transactions with that counterparty. In such cases, the City Manager shall notify the ERMC of the issues leading to the suspension or moratorium shall. Nothing herein shall inhibit the City Manager from bringing control issues to the TEA’s Member Services Manager prior to a decision on materiality or the imposition of a suspension of trading privileges or counterparty moratorium. D. Training The ERMC will ensure that all City employees and/or TEA Staff that will execute transactions on behalf of the City will have appropriate training in the markets in which the transactions occur. E. New Product Protocol 10

As required to manage the City’s energy commodity risk the ERMC shall approve new products provided the requirements of the New Product Approval Procedure are met. RISK LIMITS AND RISK MEASUREMENTS A. Limits The limit structure is designed to quantify the types of risk in City’s energy commodity portfolio. The City will manage and report on its energy commodity market risk using Volume/Maturity/Value Limits, a Cost of Service Limit and a Hedge Loss Limit. 1. Volume/Maturity/Value Limits Transaction limits for the Individuals Authorized to execute transactions and the maturity limits for each permissible instrument are listed below. Transactions for amounts in excess of those listed may be executed only upon approval of the ERMC. This limit, maturity and value structure is not intended for use when transacting day- ahead and real time in the PJM market. Maximum Daily Notional Limits Volume/Maturity/Value Limits Volume Value ($000) Balance of the Month through 12 Months 50 20,000 Power Between 13 Months and 24 Months 50 20,000 (MW) Between 25 Months and 36 Months 25 10,000 Hourly Limit Between 37 Months and 48 Months 25 10,000 Between 49 Months and 60 Months 25 10,000 Balance of the Month through 12 Months 30,000 400 Natural Gas Between 13 Months and 24 Months 30,000 400 (MMBtu) Between 25 Months and 36 Months 10,000 200 Monthly Limit Between 37 Months and 48 Months 10,000 200 Between 49 Months and 60 Months 10,000 200 Balance of the Month through 12 Months 6,000 400 #2/#6 Fuel Oil Between 13 Months and 24 Months 6,000 400 (Bbl) Between 25 Months and 36 Months 3,000 200 Monthly Limit Between 37 Months and 48 Months 3,000 200 Between 49 Months and 60 Months 3,000 200 The amounts in the table above refer to the maximum volume of orders that can be placed in any one day the individuals authorized to conduct trades for the specified time period. On any one day the maximum transaction volume placed can be for up to 50 MegaWatts per hour for every hour during a single calendar month (including both on-peak and off-peak hours), OR 25,000 MMBtu per month for all months pertinent to the natural gas transaction, OR 6,000 Bbl per month for all months pertinent to the oil transaction. 11

For no reason should a transaction be executed that exceeds the City’s electric load requirements. If there is an adjustment to the City’s electric load requirements and the existing transactions greater than 100% of the adjusted electric load requirements the ERMC will review and approve the offsetting strategy deployed in sufficient proportion to mitigate the encroachment. B. Stress Testing and Back Testing The City’s positions shall be periodically stress tested and models shall be back tested. The processes around these tests are outlined in the Stress Testing and Back Testing Procedure. C. Instances of Exceeding Risk Limits Should the City or TEA enter into a transaction that causes the portfolio to exceed any above mentioned limits the Director of the Utility shall, in addition to notifying the ERMC, also notify the Chair of The Committee as soon as practicable and shall provide periodic reports to the Chair on the status the transactions for as long as the City is exceeding its limits. The ERMC will review and determine whether any liquidation or offsetting of transactions is warranted. The incident will be documented as a Policy Exception by the Director of the Utility. CREDIT POLICY Credit Risk is the risk due to the uncertainty in a counterparty’s ability to meet its contractual obligations. The primary objective of this credit policy is to mitigate, to the extent commercially reasonable, the credit risks associated with transactions covered in this Policy while still allowing the City to achieve its objectives. A. Measuring Credit Risk The status of credit risk will be measured and reported through reports provided by TEA. The current credit exposure will be reported at the agreement level via a Counterparty Credit Report provided by TEA. This information will be made available in real time to TEA trading personnel so that it can be checked prior to executing transactions for the City. Those responsible for risk oversight at the City and TEA will have access to this information no less frequently than once per day. The ERMC will monitor overall credit utilization and any credit exceptions at least monthly. When measuring the current credit risk, netting will be applied to the exposure if the City’s contract with a counterparty includes provisions for netting. 12

B. Analysis and Extension of Credit Limits Physical and financial commodity transactions will be executed with counterparties approved by the ERMC with credit available to support the transactions. The creditworthiness of a counterparty will be determined by both qualitative and quantitative factors. Factors shall include, but not limited to: • A company’s debt credit ratings provided by the rating agencies. • Financial data such as an analysis of the income statement, balance sheet, and cash flow, as well as liquidity and capital structure. • Subjective factors such as company’s fuel diversity, overall size, risk management policy and internal controls, geographic diversity, and market intelligence. A credit limit is the amount of unsecured credit granted to a counterparty. Unsecured credit exposure includes amounts owed by the counterparty, whether billed or not, and the mark-to-market differences in value of any collateral which the counterparty has provided the City. Any net exposure above the collateral threshold will require the posting of collateral by a counterparty. Further information on the City’s procedure for establishing credit is contained in the Counterparty & Credit Review Process. Collateral thresholds, term limitations and credit exposure limits will be subject to the maximums indicated in Appendix B, based upon the lower of the S&P and Moody’s credit ratings. At no time will the City incur a credit exposure with any counterparty greater than $60,000,000. C. Instances of Exceeding Credit Limits The City and TEA are restricted by the credit limits approved by the ERMC. The ERMC can suspend trading with a counterparty, if that counterparty’s credit limit has been reached or exceeded. The City or TEA traders shall not exceed the Counterparty Credit Limit by executing transactions with any counterparty without approval of the ERMC. The ERMC will determine when it’s appropriate to require additional collateral if a counterparty’s credit exposure exceeds its credit limit. Collateral includes standing letter of credit, cash, and prepayments. All credit exceptions will be documented and reported to the ERMC and the Committee as Policy Exceptions. 13

REPORTING A. Risk Reporting Preparation of timely reports is critical to monitoring risk. TEA will furnish the required reports on a regular frequency for the City in a format acceptable to the ERMC. In addition, the ERMC and its designees will be provided access to the City’s risk reports as updated daily via TEA’s secure Web Portal. Reports required on a monthly basis and for periodic meetings of the ERMC include the following: • Profit and Loss Report The Profit and Loss (P&L) Report shows the daily realization of transactions at either the transaction price or the market price as transaction roll from unrealized to realized. This report should show volumes, transaction prices and market prices of realized physical and financial power and fuel transactions. • Mark to Market Report The Mark to Market (“MTM”) Report conveys the potential transaction exposure if the energy commodity portfolio was liquidated at the most recent market settlement prices. This report should show volumes, transaction prices and market prices of unrealized physical and financial power and fuel transactions. • Activity Report The Activity Report presents a summary of all energy commodity risk management activities undertaken, including new transactions taken, existing transactions settled/liquidated, and any transactions unwound. • Cost of Service Report The City’s exposure to energy price risk shall be monitored and reported on a Cost-of- Service basis. All calculations are at the wholesale level. The Cost-of-Service recognizes all prior (expired) months within the Power Year on the basis of actual (incurred) costs, and recognizes all forward (pending) months within the Power Year on the basis of expected forward power and fuel prices and expected forward load-following risks. As defined below, the Cost-of-Service is an aggregation of Forward Energy Commodity Portfolio Cost, the Load Following Cost Expectation and the City’s Budget Target for Purchase Power Expense. o The Net Purchased Power Cost shows the net cost of all physical and financial transactions related to the City’s anticipated commodity requirements for power and fuel and is based on the price of all hedge transactions plus the forward market price of all unhedged transactions valued at current forward prices for 14

energy commodities, customer-level cost per MWH of all physical and financial transactions related to Dover’s actual plus anticipated energy. o The expected fixed costs defined as load-serving entity (LSE) capacity costs, transmission costs and TEA management fees. o The Expected Load-Following Cost for a specified power year is defined as the expected cost (or revenue) associated with intra-month load variations due to weather or other events affecting demand. As an interim measure due to lack of necessary market information and the rapid evolution of the PJM RTO market, the ERMC has specified $2.50 per MWH as an estimate of the Load Following Cost to be used for estimating the City’s Forward Cost-of-Service Report. The ERMC will update the Expected Load Following estimate while lack of necessary market information persists no less than annually. o The Budget Target for Purchase Power Expense represents the City’s view of expected purchase power expense. B. Credit Reporting • Counterparty Credit Report The Counterparty Credit Report conveys the exposure to all counterparties with which the City has credit exposure resulting from its energy commodity risk management activities. C. Hedge Effectiveness Reporting If the City’s transactions require a hedge effectiveness test, those testing results will be reported to the ERMC no later than one month after the end of the financial reporting period. The report will include a summary of testing methodology, assumptions of the testing and the outcome of results with a pass or fail by transaction. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS Since information systems play a vital role in The City’s trading abilities, the City shall ensure that the information systems and technology used to store all transaction information is maintained and secure. The City’s transactions will be stored in TEA’s enterprise trading and risk management system. TEA uses the TriplePoint Commodity XL (CXL) system, integrated with Commodity XL for Credit Risk (Credit Risk). TEA has assigned a Database Administrator (DBA) that is charged with the database security and maintenance for the transaction database, CXL. The following safeguards for data security and backup will be installed: • Transaction data stored in the system of record will be replicated daily to ensure data redundancy; 15

• The CXL database will be backed up at least daily after the close of business. POLICY DISTRIBUTION AND COUNSEL A. Distribution Outside The City The City’s Policy is restricted to the use of the City and TEA organizations. It shall not be distributed outside these organizations without the consent the ERMC. B. Designated Counsel Questions about the interpretation of any matters of this Policy should be referred to ERMC. The ERMC will provide clarification and explanation on any updates to this Policy. All legal matters stemming from this Policy will be referred to the City’s Legal Counsel. APPENDIX A – Approved Products The following shall constitute a list of approved forward hedge products to be utilized by TEA to manage the City’s energy commodity portfolio: • Forward Physical Power Peak • Forward Physical Power Off-Peak • Forward Physical Power All Hours • Forward Physical Natural Gas Delivered Dover via Eastern Shore Pipeline • Forward Physical Residual Fuel Oil (#6) Delivered Dover • Forward Physical Residual Fuel Oil (#2) Delivered Dover • Capacity • Forward Financial Power Peak • Forward Financial Power Off-Peak • Forward Financial Power All Hours • Financial Call Option • Financial Put Option The above instruments can be executed by TEA on behalf of the City of Dover for the current and next two successive Power Years (July to June). 16

APPENDIX B – Approved Counterparties and Threshold Tables This Appendix establishes approved counterparties and their Collateral thresholds. Collateral thresholds, term limitations and credit exposure limits that are subject to the following maximums based upon the lower of the S&P and Moody’s credit ratings: Credit Thresholds from Dover Extended to the Counterparty Constellation Energy Threshold S&P Moody's $ 60,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 50,000,000 AA- to AA+ Aa3 to Aa1 $ 50,000,000 A- to A+ A3 to A1 $ 40,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 30,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ 20,000,000 BBB- Baa3 $ - Below BBB- Below Baa3 Integrys Threshold S&P Moody's $ 20,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA- to AA+ Aa3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A- to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ 1,000,000 BBB- Baa3 $ - Below BBB- Below Baa3 Sempra Energy Threshold S&P Moody's $ 20,000,000 A or above A2 or above $ 20,000,000 A- to A+ A3 $ 15,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 10,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ - BBB- or lower Baa3 or lower Conectiv Threshold S&P Moody's Unspecified * Above BBB+ Above Baa3 $ - Below BBB- Below Baa3 * Conectiv does not have a defined credit threshold, so for planning purposes, a $10,000,000 threshold is imposed as a conservative limit 17

Macquarie Cook Power Threshold S&P Moody's $ 25,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA- to AA+ Aa3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A- to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ - BBB- or below Baa3 or below FPL Energy Threshold S&P Moody's $ 30,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 25,000,000 AA- to AA+ Aa3 to Aa1 $ 20,000,000 A- to A+ A3 to A1 $ 15,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 10,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ - BBB- or below Baa3 or below Deutsche Bank Threshold S&P Moody's $ 25,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA- to AA+ Aa3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A- to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ - BBB- or below Baa3 or below Barclays Bank Threshold S&P Moody's $ 25,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA- to AA+ Aa3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A- to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ - BBB- or below Baa3 or below 18

Credit Thresholds from the Counterparty Extended to Dover Constellation Energy Threshold Fitch Moody's $ 40,000,000 AA- or Above Aa3 or above $ 30,000,000 A+ A1 $ 20,000,000 A A2 $ 10,000,000 A- A3 $ - BBB or below Baa1 or below Integrys Threshold Fitch Moody's $ 20,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA- to AA+ Aa3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A- to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ 1,000,000 BBB- Baa3 $ - Below BBB- Below Baa3 Sempra Energy Threshold Fitch Moody's $ 27,000,000 A- or above A3 or above $ 5,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 1,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ - BBB- or lower Baa3 or lower Conectiv Threshold Fitch Moody's Unspecified * Above BBB+ Above Baa3 $ - Below BBB- Below Baa3 *Conectiv does not have a defined credit threshold, so for planning purposes, a $10,000,000 threshold is imposed as a conservative limit 19

Macquarie Cook Power Threshold Fitch Moody's $ 25,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA- to AA+ AA3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A- to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ - BBB- or below Baa3 or below FPL Energy Threshold Fitch Moody's $ 23,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 18,000,000 AA- to AA+ AA3 to Aa1 $ 13,000,000 A- to A+ A3 to A1 $ 8,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 3,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ - BBB- or below Baa3 or below Deutsche Bank Threshold Fitch Moody's $ 25,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA- to AA+ AA3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A- to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ - BBB- or below Baa3 or below Barclays Bank Threshold Fitch Moody's $ 25,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA- to AA+ AA3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A- to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ - BBB- or below Baa3 or below 20

APPENDIX C – Business Risks APPENDIX D – Glossary 21

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting was held on August 27, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. with Chairman Lynn presiding. Members present were Mr. Anderson (arrived at 6:15 p.m.), Mr. Rushe, and Mr. Shevock. Mr. Hare was absent. Members of Council present were Council President Leary, Mr. Bonar, Mr. Hutchison, and Mr. Perza. Mayor Carey was also present. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Shevock moved for approval of the agenda as presented, seconded by Mr. Rushe and unanimously carried. Auditor’s Responsibility for Communicating with Audit Committee - Fiscal Year 2012 Audit Program Mrs. Peggy Teal, Assistant Finance Director, reviewed a presentation entitled Auditor’s Responsibility for Communicating with Audit Committee. She reminded members that City Council decided that the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee would also serve as the City’s Audit Committee. Mr. Shevock moved to recommend acceptance of the presentation, as reviewed by staff, seconded by Mr. Rushe and unanimously carried. Civilian Pension Board Recommendation - Adjustment to the Minimum Payment for Pension During the Civilian Pension Board Meeting of August 15, 2012, members considered an adjustment to the minimum payment for pension and recommended approval of Option #1 (Attachment #1), as outlined in the information provided by Mr. Les Blakeman in reference to the Discussion - Adjustment to the Minimum Payment for Pension (Attachment #2), increasing the minimum payment for pension to $500 per month, at the next scheduled City Council meeting, and to order an actuarial study based on $500 per month. (City Clerk’s Office Note: Recommendations of the Civilian Pension Board are forwarded to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee for their review and recommendation to be forwarded to City Council for final action.) Mr. Les Blakeman, 209 Falmouth Way, addressed members as an elected member of the Civilian Pension Board and reviewed information related to the discussion regarding an adjustment to the minimum payment for pension including three (3) proposals, along with historical information. Responding to Mr. Shevock regarding the effect the recommendation would have on the total pension fund, Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, stated that a request was submitted to the actuary and read a portion of an email received, as follows: “On the funding aspect, we would recommend that the entire increase be paid immediately. The funded percentage of the plan is about 40% as of the last study in total, and was only 60% for retirees alone.” He explained that the actuary indicated that there were enough assets at present to cover only 60% of the benefits promised to current retirees and no remaining assets for other members. As a result, he stated that the actuary recommended that if the City wished to approve the proposal, it should be paid all at once, since the plan was underfunded at this time. While the calculated cost was $64,000, Mr. Koenig was unsure of the amount that this would translate to for the actuary.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 2 In response to Mr. Shevock regarding the amount of Social Security benefits paid to pensioners, Mr. Blakeman indicated that it was not possible to obtain specific information; however, he suggested that it could be assumed that these individuals were not receiving very much in the way of Social Security based on the fact that they were not receiving much of a pension. Responding to Mr. Shevock, Mr. Koenig stated that the source of funds required to pay for the proposed increase would have to be determined by City Council and debated by the Committee. He stated that the Treasurer/Controller had suggested that the increase should be paid by adjusting the pension contributions of current employees. At the request of Mr. Lynn, Mr. Koenig stated that a copy of the email received from Mr. Scott Porter, the actuary, would be provided for inclusion in the record (Attachment #3). It was his understanding that the actuary would provide the cost to conduct a study to accommodate the recommendation and that no costs had been incurred to date as a result of the Civilian Pension Board’s recommendation. Mr. Anderson suggested that some pensioners have income from sources other than Social Security and questioned the demographics of the pensioners. Responding, Mr. Blakeman stated his feeling that such information would be impossible to determine. In response to Mr. Bonar, Mr. Koenig stated that current employees of the General Pension Plan pay 3.5% of their salary into the Plan and employees of the Police Pension Plan pay 7% of their salary into the Police Pension Plan. Noting that the City’s Pension Plans are one of its biggest liabilities, Mr. Bonar felt that the time had come for the City to request employees to contribute a larger share to their pension. He suggested that the civilian employees also be required to contribute 7% of their salary to the General Pension Plan. He indicated the importance of the City developing a means of getting the Pension Plans under control, and expressed his feeling that the City could only ask so much of their citizens and that employees should have a role in this regard. Responding to Mr. Perza, Mr. Koenig stated that staff had no objections to requesting an actuarial study to determine costs and that his personal preference would be to request the members of the General Pension Plan to vote in favor of paying for any increase. He explained the delicacy of this matter as an employer. Staff recommended that the actuarial study be performed to be presented to the Committee for their review and consideration of how an increase would be funded. Council President Leary noted that the Pension Plan and its benefits were codified many years ago and that the life expectancy of its members had increased since that time, which created a problem with the unfunded pension liability. He felt that any action taken by the City affecting taxpayers would only increase this liability. In response to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Peggy Teal, Assistant Finance Director, indicated that the City Manager had already requested details regarding all pensioners, such as years of service (10, 20, 25, etc.). She indicated that although staff had begun to work on this information, it was not yet

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 3 complete. She stated that the cost of an actuarial study should be minimal since the actuary already had specific records. Since he was scheduled to conduct an update on the unfunded and funded liabilities this year, he would be “piggy backing” the requested actuarial study. Referring to the 60% unfunded liability, Mr. Hutchison questioned if the City would be required to increase its funding each year to reduce this liability under new regulations. Responding, Mrs. Teal stated that the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) recently released new information that was currently being reviewed by staff to determine what, if any, impact it would have on the City. Council President Leary indicated that staff had suggested the possibility of a workshop being held with members of City Council to review the extensive new regulations. In response to Mr. Bonar, Mrs. Teal stated that the 60% unfunded pension liability equated to approximately $40M. Mr. Koenig reiterated the awkwardness of staff’s position in this matter with former employees, noting that they served the City well and that the City would like to take care of them during their retirement years. However, he felt it important that members understood that the information provided did not distinguish between those employees who served 10, 20, or 25 years. He also noted that some employees who worked 10 years, became vested, and then left the City’s employment were not on the list, since they had not reached 65 years of age; therefore, the list of retirees was not comprehensive. He explained the importance of obtaining all information prior to making any final decision in this matter. Referring to the Pension Board’s recommendation, he requested that the Committee authorize an actuarial study of all three (3) options originally presented to the Board by Mr. Blakeman, or at least obtain the cost to conduct all three (3) options rather than just one (1). Mr. Koenig stated that if it was Council’s desire to consider providing an increase in the minimum payment for pensioners, that members should consider the possibility of requesting pension members to pay for the costs involved so that there would be no effect on the City’s budget. He reminded members that the General Pension Plan is a closed plan and that there were employees in the Defined Contribution Pension Plan (401(a) Plan) who were not receiving such consideration. Mr. Koenig stated the need to conduct an actuarial study to determine if the City could afford to fund the proposed increase and what would be the best method with the least impact on the public. Mr. Shevock moved to recommend that the matter be tabled to allow staff to determine how an adjustment would be funded, seconded by Mr. Rushe. Mr. Lynn reminded members that Council’s authorization would be required for an actuarial study; therefore, if the study were not authorized, staff would not be able to obtain the necessary information to determine the costs of such an adjustment or how the adjustment would be funded. Mr. Shevock moved to amend the motion to recommend retaining the actuary to determine the cost of providing a minimum payment of $300, $400, and $500 to all retirees or their surviving spouses, and that staff determine how an adjustment would be funded, seconded by Mr. Rushe and unanimously carried.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 4 Salary and Benefits Compensation Comparison Committee Report Members were provided a Salary and Benefits Compensation Comparison Committee Summary Report - June 2012. As Chairman of the Salary and Benefits Compensation Comparison Committee, Mr. Perza reminded members that City Council established the Committee, consisting of citizens, to compare City of Dover municipal employee salary and benefit packages to the salaries and employee benefits provided by the State of Delaware and other local governments. He explained that the municipalities under review were limited to Delaware, and subgroups within the Committee were provided flexibility to seek out those municipalities most comparable to their assigned employee classifications. He stated that it was the Committee’s general observation that the combined salary and benefit compensation packages paid to City of Dover employees compared favorably to other municipalities in Delaware. Mr. Lynn reminded members that he had argued against the formation of the Salary and Benefits Compensation Comparison Committee from its inception. With no disrespect, he stated his belief that it was flawed not only in its application, but in its poor mandate. Mr. Lynn noted that, as stated by Mr. Perza, the Committee determined that there was no municipality comparable to the City of Dover in the State of Delaware, with the possible exception of the City of Newark; therefore, the mandate given to the Committee by City Council was flawed from its inception. Rather than looking at municipalities which fall within the City’s Consumer Price Index (CPI) region, the Committee focused on comparing municipalities within the State of Delaware, none of which are comparable to Dover. In addition, he stated that it was flawed in its application because the Committee solely considered job titles rather than job responsibilities or qualifications. In addition, Mr. Lynn noted that old and/or outdated data (older than two (2) years) was utilized by the Committee to reach its conclusions; therefore, any information provided to members by the Committee (through no fault of their own) was not reliable and should not be given any weight. As a result, Mr. Lynn suggested the rejection of the report. Mr. Anderson moved to recommend acceptance of the report and thanked the Committee for their work, recognizing there were limitations and, if taken into account, he felt that the information provided was extraordinarily useful. The motion failed due to the lack of a second. Responding to comments of Mr. Lynn, Mr. Perza stated that the concerns regarding the comparability of Dover to other municipalities in Delaware was addressed by members of the Committee to the best of their ability by removing cities that did not apply, such as those that did not have an electric department. Members discussed the CPI early in the process and this was rejected since members were not concerned with employees leaving the City of Dover to go to municipalities outside of the State of Delaware (such as Annapolis or New Jersey). The Committee’s concern was with employees leaving for employment with another municipality within the State of Delaware. Mr. Perza stated that several members actually spoke directly with employees of other municipalities about job titles and felt that it was an overly broad statement to indicate that the research consisted only of a job title comparison. Responding to Mr. Lynn, Mr. Perza confirmed that there was difficulty in assessing non-bargaining employees, since there was a wide array of duties and responsibilities of the positions.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2012 PAGE 5 Mr. Bonar suggested that members accept the report and if desired, members of Council could request the Committee to consider some of the suggestions made by Mr. Lynn and request the Committee to conduct another salary and benefits comparison of other cities of similar size in the region. Mr. Anderson moved to recommend acceptance of the Salary and Benefits Compensation Comparison Committee Report as presented, seconded by Mr. Rushe and carried, with Mr. Lynn voting no. Mr. Shevock moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:05 P.M. Sean M. Lynn Chairman SML/TM/jg/js/dd S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS\Committee-Minutes\2012\08-27-2012 LF&A.wpd Attachments Attachment #1 - An Excerpt from the Minutes of the Civilian Pension Board Meeting of August 15, 2012 Attachment #2 - Information Provided by Mr. Blakeman in Reference to the Discussion - Adjustment to the Minimum Payment for Pension (Attachment #1 to the Civilian Pension Board Minutes of August 15, 2012) Attachment #3 - Email Dated August 18, 2012 From Mr. Scott Porter

ATTACHMENT #1 LF&A Committee Meeting of August 27, 2012 An Excerpt from the Minutes of the Civilian Pension Board Meeting of August 15, 2012: DISCUSSION - ADJUSTMENT TO THE MINIMUM PAYMENT FOR PENSION On behalf of the elected members of the Pension Board, Mr. Blakeman reviewed information relating to the discussion regarding an adjustment to the minimum payment for pension including three (3) proposals, along with historical information. Considering the current financial condition of the City, Mr. Blakeman suggested that members consider approving Proposal #2, which would increase the minimum pension payment to $400 per month. Responding to Mrs. Mitchell regarding spouse coverage (periodic death benefits), Mr. Blakeman stated that the intent was that the minimum monthly payment would apply regardless of the type of benefit received (retiree or spouse). Mr. Koenig noted that the material provided did not reflect a distinction between those who retired at age 50 with 20 years of service, those with 25 years of service, or those at age 65 with 10 years of service. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell stated that these distinctions could be provided and that she could also look into the date provided for periodic death benefits to determine whether this was the date of the employee’s retirement or when the spouse benefit began. In response to Mr. Koenig’s concerns, Mrs. Mitchell explained that the actuary would consider the life expectancy table and age to determine the actuarial costs involved. She also confirmed that the actuary would determine not only the true budgetary costs each year, but also how this change would affect the actuarial liability. Mr. Bonar suggested that staff forward the information, including the three (3) proposals, to the actuary for a report by the next quarterly Board meeting, which would provide staff enough time to include it in the City’s budget. Mrs. Mitchell felt that Proposals #2 and #3, when broken down by fund, would not have such a financial impact on the budget that action should be delayed. Mrs. Hettinger questioned why an actuarial review would be required, noting that a fee would be incurred for conducting such a review and considering that there would only be a minor impact on the budget. Mrs. Mitchell suggested that just one (1) of the options be chosen and sent to the actuary. Mrs. Hettinger stated that she preferred Proposal #1. Mr. Koenig explained his reluctance to support the recommendation, noting that due to the City’s current financial situation, he had requested active employees to contribute to their healthcare premiums. Mr. Lynn moved to recommend adoption of Option #1 (as outlined in the information provided by Mr. Blakeman in reference to the Discussion - Adjustments to the Minimum Payment for Pension) (Attachment #1), increasing the minimum payment for pension to $500 -1-

per month, at the next scheduled City Council meeting, and to order an actuarial study based on this amount for Council’s consideration, seconded by Mr. Blakeman. In response to Mr. Koenig, although Mrs. Hettinger felt that the Board’s recommendation should be forwarded to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee for their review and recommendation to City Council, Mr. Bonar and Mr. Blakeman indicated that the Board’s recommendation would be forwarded directly to City Council. Responding to Mr. Koenig, Mr. Lynn stated that if the actuarial study were not completed by the time the Board’s recommendation was presented to City Council, which would occur during their Regular Meeting of August 27, 2012, City Council could table action until the actuarial study was completed. The motion to adopt Option #1 (as outlined in the information provided by Mr. Les Blakeman in reference to the Discussion - Adjustments to the Minimum Payment for Pension), increasing the minimum payment for pension to $500 per month, at the next scheduled City Council meeting, and to order an actuarial study based on $500 per month, was carried, with Mr. Koenig, Mrs. Mitchell, and Mr. Bonar voting no. -2-

ATTACHMENT #2 LF&A Committee Meeting of August 27, 2012 NOTICE The following information relates to Agenda Item #6, Discussion - Adjustment to the Minimum Payment for Pension, and was provided to the Clerk’s Office by Mr. Les Blakeman on August 7, 2012. - City Clerk’s Office

ATTACHMENT #3 LF&A Committee Meeting of August 27, 2012

SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Meeting was held on August 29, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. with Chairman Hutchison presiding. Members present were Mr. Davis and Mr. Keller. Mr. Perza and Mrs. Russell were absent. Councilman Lynn (arrived at 5:13 p.m.) and Mayor Carey (arrived at 5:15) were also present. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Davis moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Keller and unanimously carried. Proposed Ordinance #2012-05 Amending Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection Mr. Dave Truax, Fire Marshal, advised members that Proposed Ordinance #2012-05 would amend Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection and Appendix F - Fees and Fines to clarify existing language and create new subsections which would make it unlawful for any person to tamper with or impair any fire protection system from operating as designed; specify the authority of the Fire Marshal; prohibit open burning, commercial barbecuing, and unattended outdoor fireplaces at any time and authorize the Fire Marshal, code official, fire officer, or police to order the open burning extinguished; and remove the requirement for fire alarm installation reports. It would also create new sections to address fire hydrants and Fire Department connections; reporting of fires and spreading of alarms; unlawful regulations or orders; maintaining records for inspections; and marking rated walls. Mr. Truax explained that staff met with representatives of the Kent County Association of Realtors and the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce to receive input on the proposed ordinance. Staff recommended that the Committee forward Proposed Ordinance #2012-05 to City Council with a recommendation for adoption. In response to Mr. Davis regarding Lines 250 - 252 of the proposed ordinance, Mr. Truax explained that in some cases building managers have issued verbal advisories or posted written orders that instruct residents to delay notification of the Fire Department when an alarm sounds, stating that the establishment’s staff would make sure there was a fire and then notify the Fire Department. Mr. Truax stated that such orders would defeat the purpose of a fire alarm. He also noted that repeated soundings of a fire alarm can alert the Fire Marshal’s Office that an alarm system is not being maintained properly. Responding to Mr. Hutchison in regard to community education about the ordinance, Mr. Truax stated that the ordinance would be posted to the City’s website and that the press often publicizes such ordinances. He explained that typically when new provisions are implemented, such as the requirement to keep a log of all fire inspections, staff would not issue a summons or fine for violations during the first year but would use these opportunities to educate those affected regarding the new provisions. Mr. Hutchison suggested that a summary of the changes be prepared and distributed to larger apartment complexes and day care centers in the City. Mr. Truax stated that the information would be posted on the City’s website and that staff would do whatever must be done to get the information out to the public.

SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 29, 2012 PAGE 2 Mr. Keller moved to recommend adoption of Proposed Ordinance #2012-05 Amending Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection, as recommended by staff, seconded by Mr. Davis and unanimously carried. Prioritization of City of Dover State Capital Transportation Program (CTP) Projects Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, advised members that the City develops a list of transportation project priorities and submits them in the form of a letter to the Secretary of Transportation annually. She noted that she and Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, reviewed the priorities submitted last year and, in light of more recent discussions and issues, reordered them and included additional projects. Mrs. Townshend reviewed the 2012 Transportation Prioritization List, noting that Project #1, the West Dover Connector, was on track and moving forward. She indicated that Project #2, Sidewalks on Route 8 in the Vicinity of the New Dover High School, had been added to the list for 2012 and that this project should be given very high priority. She stated that she has been very outspoken about concerns regarding the need for signalization and pedestrian access during regular coordination meetings held in connection with the construction of the school. Mrs. Townshend noted that the Route 8/Hazlettville Road Connector project had been placed as Priority #3 and that the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) had postponed this project, with design now planned to begin in 2017. She expressed concern that traffic problems would occur if this project was not moved forward, since the new high school was scheduled to open in 2014. Mrs. Townshend stated that the Garrison Oak Connector Road was listed as Project #4 and Project #11, Kings Highway/Route 13 Intersection Improvements, was added to the 2012 list. She explained that the cost of transportation improvements needed at the intersection had hindered potential development projects, in particular at the former Playtex site at the southwest side of the intersection. She indicated that this intersection had been assigned a DelDOT Level of Service (LOS) grade of F, which would require improvements for large or small projects at that location. Mrs. Townshend stated that discussions had been held with DelDOT regarding the adoption of a resolution by City Council that would establish the intersection as a study area for transportation planning. She anticipated that the City would be working with DelDOT to bring forward what the County terms a “Transportation Improvement District” (TID), whereby a defined area would be studied and developers would pay into a fund for associated improvements, rather than bearing the entire cost of improvements. She noted that staff felt it important to get this project on the “radar screen.” Mr. James Galvin, Principal Planner, Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), noted that DelDOT was in the process of creating its own TID model and it was anticipated that this would be available by the end of 2012. He stated that the State would begin by working with TIDs developed by the County. In response to Mr. Hutchison regarding the number of failing intersections (are rated LOS F on the DelDOT grading system) in the City that connect with Route 13, Mr. Koenig advised members that some intersections fail only during rush hour and others fail throughout the day. He stated that the Kings Highway/Route 13 intersection fails “a couple of times per day.” Mr. Koenig explained that there are a number of small properties at that location (Dunkin Donuts, Capital Cleaners, and Rita’s

SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 29, 2012 PAGE 3 Water Ice) and that expansion of the intersection (except at the Rite Aid property) would involve not only acquiring the right-of-way but buying and relocating the businesses. Mr. Koenig stated that it would not be possible to upgrade many of the Route 13 intersections to LOS A, B, or C because of area restrictions and the fact that large intersections are not desirable there (if not needed) because they create difficulty in crossing the highway. He felt that some intersections that were identified as either failing or almost failing would necessarily be present as part of the transportation system and that a balance must be found between the function and the level of service required. It was his recollection that the City had determined to accept a LOS D for intersections in the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Townshend concurred; however, she noted that this intersection was rated below LOS D. Mr. Koenig noted that additional information was needed to determine if only certain aspects of the intersection were failing, such as the turning angles. Mr. Hutchison noted the importance of economic development at the intersection of Kings Highway and Route 13 and felt that options should be explored. Mrs. Townshend stated that the other projects included on the 2012 Transportation Prioritization List had been in the queue for a number of years and noted that there were more projects than funds available; however, she felt it important that they remain “on the radar screen.” Responding to Mr. Davis, Mrs. Townshend stated that improvements could be made to the Kings Highway/Route 13 intersection prior to knowing the exact type of development that would occur because some assumptions could be made regarding the type of development expected based on the zoning and the market, and work could begin within those parameters. She noted that since the intersection was constrained, the area could be improved only to a certain point. Priorities would include making the intersection run straight across Route 13 and providing two (2) turn lanes to allow a smoother flow of traffic. She noted that the City could also consider improving Maple Parkway, which is a City street; however, she felt that most businesses at that location would want direct access to Kings Highway and Route 13. Mr. Davis moved to recommend approval of the 2012 Transportation Prioritization List (Attachment #1), as recommended by staff, seconded by Mr. Keller and unanimously carried. Update - Dover High School Construction Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, advised members that she recently attended a Dover High School construction coordination meeting and that the remaining concerns related primarily to signalization and pedestrian access at the school. She reminded members that on June 27, 2012 the Committee recommended that City Council send a letter to the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) regarding these issues and that this letter was sent on July 9, 2012. She stated that the Secretary of Transportation responded on August 7, 2012, stating that DelDOT could not support the signalization and the sidewalk was not

SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 29, 2012 PAGE 4 in their capital program; however, a cost estimate could be developed. Mrs. Townshend provided members with correspondence from Natalie Barnhart, Chief Engineer, Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) dated August 29, 2012 (Attachment #2) which included a cost estimate of $600,500. Mrs. Townshend stated that staff would work with the Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to prepare a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) amendment, explaining that the project must be included in the MPO TIP before it can be submitted to the State Capital Transportation Plan (CTP). She felt that the City should work concurrently with legislators, possibly through the Transportation Enhancement Program, to see if the project could be addressed outside the CTP process, which would likely take at least two (2) years to obtain funding. Mr. James Galvin, Principal Planner, Dover/Kent County MPO, stated that the Transportation Enhancement Program (TEP) has been discontinued under new federal highway legislation and that projects that previously competed only with other TEP submissions would now compete with all road projects. Mrs. Townshend stated that the City would continue to bring this issue up and that other sources of funding could be explored, such as the Nemours Foundation. Mr. Hutchison stated that student safety should be given the highest priority and that this should be emphasized with DelDOT. Mrs. Townshend stated that if safe pedestrian access were not provided, more parents would be driving their children, requiring more cars on the road. She understood that traffic engineering models dictate how things work; however, she felt that the City must stay on the record stating this must be done correctly because this project differs from other projects in that it is a school and is built around the needs of children. In response to Mr. Hutchison, Mrs. Townshend was unsure how many children would be walking to school; however, noted bus transportation would not be provided for students residing within two (2) miles of the school. In response to Mr. John Gaines, Project Manager, Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT), Mrs. Townshend stated that high schools were ineligible for DelDOT’s Safe Routes to School Program. Mr. Davis noted that a Certificate of Occupancy would be denied to a restaurant with unsafe conditions and inquired if this were a possible course of action for the new high school. Responding to Mr. Davis regarding the position of the Capital School District, Mr. Koenig stated that the District had a study performed which indicated that a light was not needed immediately at the east entrance of the school, and the DelDOT engineer who reviewed the project specified the amount of sidewalk that was required and the District had complied. The sidewalk being discussed

SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 29, 2012 PAGE 5 was beyond the limits of the District’s property and was, therefore, an offsite improvement. He indicated that members of the Capital School District have maintained that the new school is a community facility and if the infrastructure around the facility must be expanded to accommodate it, this was not their financial responsibility. Mr. Koenig stated that District members did not consider the District to be a developer and they felt that the District’s community mission was to build a school and support the function of the school, not the transportation network. Mr. Hutchison expressed his opinion that the City’s function was to review and make recommendations to DelDOT, who is ultimately responsible. He noted that the City’s primary concern was the safety of the students in the school and the traffic pattern. Mr. Lynn stated his belief that, in Delaware, developers are responsible for the causative effects of projects on the surrounding community. He noted that several heavily litigated ordinances had been set forth by Kent County Levy Court and it was determined that developers are responsible for the effect they have on their surrounding community. He felt that the Capital School District was a developer and had a responsibility to the area infrastructure. Responding to Mr. Lynn regarding the measures that the City could take to pursue this issue, Mrs. Townshend indicated that the City should begin to appeal to the Capital School Board, maintaining that they are a developer, they have a responsibility in this matter, and these are their students that the City is attempting to get safely to their facility. She felt that the City should work with the School District to “get them vocal” on the issue and to determine if they have funds that could be brought to the table. Mrs. Townshend indicated that the five (5) years that may be required to get the project through the CTP process would be too late. She felt that the District was willing to put the signal in, so the City could not hold them responsible because DelDOT would not allow signalization. Regarding the sidewalk, she suggested that the School District may be able to assist in obtaining funding from legislators. In response to Mr. Lynn, Mrs. Townshend stated that the project plans submitted did not indicate the light; however, all discussions included two (2) signalized intersections. Staff realized early in the project that because of the location and the scale of the project, this would be one of the most important projects that they would deal with, and the Planning Commission and the Capital School Board held a joint meeting before the application was submitted and specifically discussed signalization at that time. While staff was aware that the warrants were required, staff received the sense that this was almost a formality and was given no impression from DelDOT that there was a low likelihood that the signal would be approved. Mr. Lynn inquired if the City could require DelDOT to install the light or shut the project down. Mr. Koenig stated that the City would not want to withhold inspections because a massive lawsuit for damages would likely be received from the individual contractors associated with the project; however, the City did have authority to withhold a Certificate of Occupancy. In addition, he noted that there are unusual occurrences of traffic lights within the City, for example, at Gibbs Drive and

SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 29, 2012 PAGE 6 Route 8,which has little sidestreet traffic. He questioned why this light met the warrants but the area in question did not. He felt that the City should advise the Capital School District about the possibility of not being able to open because of this concern. Mr. Hutchison suggested reaching out to the President of the Capital School District Board of Education and the District Superintendent to ask them to attend next month’s meeting to determine their position on this issue. Mr. Koenig noted that the new Dover High School was a huge project that would instantaneously change that area of the City on the day that it opens. Mr. Hutchison requested that staff obtain information from the School District regarding the number of students expected to be walking to the new high school. Mr. Hutchison requested and members agreed that the President of the Capital School District Board of Education and the District Superintendent be asked to attend the next meeting to discuss signalization and sidewalks on Route 8 in the vicinity of the new Dover High School. Briefing on Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) Projects Mr. John Gaines, Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT), provided members a briefing on DelDOT Projects, as follows: DelDOT Repaving Project The Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) Repaving Project encompasses seven (7) locations. The first two (2) projects, College Road and Walker Road, are complete. The method of construction involves three (3) steps, including: 1) concrete work (such as islands, sidewalks, American Disabilities Act (ADA) curbs, and curb ramps); 2) any necessary intersection improvements; and 3) milling, paving, and striping. The first two (2) steps of the Forrest Avenue and Governors Avenue projects are complete, so milling of Forrest Avenue will start the first week of September (depending on weather), followed by paving during the second week, and milling on Governors Avenue will begin during the second week of September, followed by paving. He stated that, ideally, Forrest Avenue and Governors Avenue should be complete in September and DelDOT would then move forward with the remaining three (3) projects. West Dover Connector Semi-final right-of-way and construction plans for the West Dover Connector were submitted two (2) weeks ago, which Mr. Gaines stated was a major milestone. The next major milestone would be finalization of the right-of-way plans, which was scheduled for November. Once the final right-of-way is complete, he estimated that it would take DelDOT’s real estate acquisition section approximately two (2) years to acquire properties on Charles Polk Road to clear the right-of-way. He advised members that appraisals had already been performed on these properties. Mr. Gaines stated that the project was funded for construction in FY 2015-2017 and indicated that there would be no additional update information before the semi-final and final right-of-way phases were concluded.

SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 29, 2012 PAGE 7 Route 8/Hazlettville Road Connector Mr. Gaines stated that the Route 8/Hazlettville Road Connector project was “pushed out” and was funded for preliminary engineering in 2017. Mr. Gaines stated that this project was included in the Community Transportation Plan; however, due to a breakdown in the procedure, the environmental process was never conducted. He stated that the major landowner who would be affected by the project was not in favor of it, and without an environmental document to support acquisitions, the project could not be approved. He stated his belief that this project may have been postponed in order to work on this step of the process. Responding to Mr. Hutchison, Mr. Gaines stated that he did not expect to attend future Committee meetings on a regular basis but was asked by DelDOT to provide an update since he was knowledgeable about the projects being discussed. Briefing on Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Mr. James Galvin, Principal Planner, Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), stated that the Dover Pedestrian Bike Path planned for the downtown area was originally planned to extend along the St. Jones down to Public Safety Boulevard using funding identified by the Governor for bicycle routes. He indicated that the portion of the project behind Legislative Hall from the St. Jones, down Court Street to Route 13, and along Route 13 to the traffic light at the intersection of Public Safety Boulevard had been funded. This section was currently in the design phase, which should be complete by January 2013, and it was hoped that construction would begin in the Spring of 2013. He indicated that a meeting had been arranged with the City to discuss this first phase. Mr. Galvin advised members that future phases of the project would include the area along Park Drive to Legislative Hall and Court Street (behind the Delaware Public Archives) and a connection from Court Street to the former sewage treatment plant and continuing along the river as far as possible and ultimately connecting with Pine Street. In addition, Mr. Galvin advised members that the Dover/Kent County MPO was in the process of amending the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and one (1) of the items included was approval of additional funding for extending Clarence Street from North Street to Forest Street. He reviewed a plan for the project that was developed by Century Engineering, approved by DelDOT, and was presented through public workshops (Attachment #2). An additional $1.4M was being sought which would cover final design into the right-of-way phase, although it would not allow for acquiring all of the necessary right-of-way or for construction of the project. He noted that the route runs through a tar ditch, goes around an industrial warehouse and buildings that are accessible from Lincoln Street, and runs through two (2) houses on Forest Street, and the net real affect would be on these two (2) houses. Mr. Galvin stated that additional funding was being sought in the TIP to pay for the project to move forward within the next year. Mr. Keller moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Davis and unanimously carried.

SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 29, 2012 PAGE 8 Meeting Adjourned at 5:57 P.M. James L. Hutchison Chairman JLH/JS/dd/tm S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS\Committee-Minutes\2012\08-29-2012 SA&T.wpd Attachment Attachment #1 - 2012 Transportation Prioritization List Attachment #2 - Correspondence from Natalie Barnhart, DelDOT, dated August 29, 2012 Attachment #3 - Plan - Clarence Street Extension

ATTACHMENT #1 SA&T Committee Meeting of August 29, 2012 MEMORANDUM City of Dover P.O. Box 475 Dover, Delaware 19903 Phone: 302.736.7010 Fax: 302.736.4217 Date: August 20, 2012 To: Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee From: Ann Marie Townshend, AICP, Director of Planning & Community Development Scott D. Koenig, P.E., City Manager RE: 2012 Transportation Prioritization Each year, the City Council develops a list of transportation priorities and shares these priorities with the Secretary of Transportation for consideration as the Department of Transportation develops the State’s Capital Transportation Plan. We have reviewed the priorities approved in September 2011 by City Council, and we recommend the following priority ranking for the coming year. 1. West Dover Connector 2. Sidewalks on Route 8 in Vicinity of New Dover High School (new) 3. Route 8/Hazlettville Road Connector 4. Garrison Oak Connector Road 5. US Route 13 Sidewalk Construction 6. Loockerman Street/Forest Street Improvements 7. Dover Transit Hub – Public/Private Partnership for Building 8. US Route 13 Service Road Corridor 9. Kenton Road Corridor Upgrades 10. College Road Corridor Upgrades 11. Kings Highway/Route 13 Intersection Improvements (new) 12. Crawford Carroll Avenue Extension We look forward to discussing this prioritization with the Committee on August 29th.

ATTACHMENT #2 SA&T Committee Meeting of August 29, 2012

ATTACHMENT #3 SA&T Committee Meeting of August 29, 2012 ATTACHMENT #3 SA&T Committee Meeting of August 29, 2012

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: City Council AGENDA ITEM NO.: DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Police DATE SUBMITTED: 8/21/12 PREPARED BY: Captain Robert Scott / Administrative Division Commander SUBJECT: Purchase of Police Department Parking Enforcement System REFERENCE: Grant Funding RELATED PROJECT: N/A APPROVALS: City Manager, Controller/Treasurer EXHIBITS: None EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $50,000.00 PROJECT BUDGET: $50,000.00 FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): Justice Assistance Grant & SALLE Grant TIMETABLE: Upon receipt of council approval, the system hardware & software will be ordered. The Legislative and Finance Committee approve the purchase and RECOMMENDED ACTION: recommend approval by the Council. BACKGROUND This Committee/Council action form is submitted to obtain approval for the sole vendor purchase of a new parking enforcement system for the Police Department from Cardinal Tracking, Inc. The system currently in use is obsolete and cannot be updated to include the features needed to implement the recent changes incorporated by the city. Data cannot be queried to allow retrieval of necessary information to support scofflaw (repeat/habitual offenders) reporting which is vital to implementing the city’s new Vehicle Immobilization law. The limitations of the old system do not permit the effective collection of unpaid debts. The new system allows for customized queries, enabling our agency to retrieve data in almost any form. The old system does not have this capability. The new parking enforcement system will also update both the hardware and software components and eliminate the need for employing an outside collections agency. The new handheld computer units feature integrated cameras, eliminating the need for enforcement personnel to carry digital cameras, and the images will automatically flow with the violation data. A point-of-sale component in the Records Unit will allow for the immediate posting of payments to accounts. The cost also includes the conversion of current data, as well as on-site system set-up, installation and training. FUNDING The purchase will be funded by the US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program ($47,125.00) and State Aid to Local Law Enforcement (SALLE) Grant funds ($2,875.00). ACTION REQUESTED The Legislative and Finance Committee approve the purchase and recommend approval by the Council.

Dover Police Department Monthly Report To Mayor and City Council “To Protect and Serve” July 2012

August 15, 2012 Honorable Carleton E. Carey, Sr., Mayor Members of Dover City Council City Hall Dover, DE 19901 Mayor Carey and Council Members: The following is the monthly report for Dover Police Department activities for the month of July 2012: COMPLAINTS Total complaints received through July 30th numbered 20,832. This is an increase of 1,444 complaints over the same time period for last year. 24,000 19,289 19,388 20,832 17,546 16,181 18,000 12,000 6,000 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS 20 Cases Reported in July 16 11 12 Cases Cleared in July 8 4 3 3 Cases Cleared 4 2 2 2 2 from Previous 0 Months 0 Burglary Robbery Rape

Report to Mayor and Council July 2012 Page 2 COMMUNITY POLICE SECTION ENFORCEMENT ACTION ARRESTS ABANDONED VEHICLES 0 ALCOHOL VIOLATIONS/DUI’S 1 ASSIST OTHER 0 WARRANTS ON FILE 0 BIKE ON SIDEWALK 2 CITY PARK VIOLATIONS 1 CRIMINAL ARRESTS 14 DRUG RELATED ARRESTS 5 LOUD MUSIC 1 MISCELLANEOUS VIOLATIONS 2 PARKING VIOLATIONS 2 PEDDLER 0 MEETINGS 22 PROSTITUTION 0 COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT 9 DCO’S WANTED CHECKS/CPC’S 20 TRAFFIC ARRESTS 36 WARNINGS 20 FUGITIVE 4 TOTAL ARRESTS 139 TRAFFIC ARRESTS 16,000 The department issued 9,717 traffic citations 10,855 12,247 12,160 12,017 through this reporting period. This is a decrease 12,000 9,717 of 2,300 citations over the number issued during the same period last year. 8,000 4,000 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 TRAFFIC CRASHES Through July 31st, Dover Police investigated 1,083 traffic crashes. This is an increase of 85 crashes investigated during the same period last year. 1,600 1,120 1,104 1,054 1,083 1,200 998 800 400 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Report to Mayor and Council July 2012 Page 3 2% 911 CENTER 7% During the month of July, our 911 Center handled a total of 10,257 calls averaging 331 calls per day. Dispatchers handled 2,674 calls on the 911 VoIP wireless lines, an average of 87 calls per day, 731 26% 911 Landline calls on the 911 landlines, an average of 24 calls 911 Wireless per day, and 174 calls on the Voice Over Internet 65% Administrative Protocol lines an average of 6 calls per day. CITY ORDINANCE SUMMONS Through July 31st, we issued 4,271 city 8,000 ordinance summons, a decrease of 963 summons over July of last year. *Note: of 6,000 5,316 4,818 5,234 those summonses issued in July, 110 4,812 4,271 were issued for handicapped parking 3,855 3,291 3,657 violations, 47 for fire lane parking 4,000 3,224 3,239 violations, 277 for false alarms (203 for 3-5 alarms, 58 for 6-9 alarms, 15 for 10-15 2,000 alarms, and 0 for 16 or more alarms) and 109 for noise violations (66 for vehicle violations and 43 for residence violations). 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 ISSUED PAID Listed below are the major crimes and activities that occurred during the month of July:  The Criminal Investigations Unit is currently investigating a burglary to a residence in the unit block of Vondaway Drive. The burglary occurred on Monday, July 9, 2012 between 0930 hours and 1215 hours. The unknown subject entered the residence through a rear door. Once inside, the subject removed a firearm, ammunition and money before fleeing. On July 15, 2012, the Delaware State Police apprehended the subject, a white male 45, of Smyrna, after an attempted robbery in Hartly, DE. The subject had active warrants with the Dover Police and was later arrested for the burglary which occurred at Vondaway Drive and other related charges. He was committed to James T. Vaughn Correctional Center.  The Criminal Investigations Unit is currently investigating a burglary to a residence in the 1100 block of Long Point Road. The burglary occurred on Wednesday, July 11, 2012 between 1015 hours and 1421 hours. The unknown subject entered the residence after damaging the rear door. Once inside, the subject removed miscellaneous jewelry before fleeing.  On Thursday July 12, 2012, at approximately 0515 hours, Dover Officers responded to a reported home invasion in the unit block of Village Drive in the Hamlet Subdivision. Upon arrival, officers located the victim whom had been assaulted. Dover Police Detectives responded and learned that the subjects had entered the victim's residence through a rear door and assaulted him as he was sleeping on his sofa. He was struck numerous times in the face. The subjects then removed money from the victim and fled the residence on foot. The victim refused treatment for his facial injuries. The subjects were described as three black males.

Report to Mayor and Council July 2012 Page 4  On July 7, 2012, at approximately 1230 hours, Dover Officers responded to a complaint of a shooting that occurred in the 100 block of South New Street. The officers located a 27 year old male and it was determined that while seated in his vehicle with his three children, he was approached by a black male subject. The subject displayed a handgun and struck the victim several times in the face with the gun causing numerous lacerations. During the assault, the subject fired one round into the vehicle where the children were seated. He then fled the area with the handgun. Minutes later, the subject’s brother was contacted by officers and found to be in possession of two handguns, one of which was used during the altercation. The brother was arrested for Tampering with Physical Evidence and two counts of Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited and was committed to James T. Vaughn Correctional Center. Warrants have been placed on file for the subject for Assault 2nd, Possession of a Firearm During Commission of a Felony, Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited, Reckless Endangering 1st, Aggravated Menacing, and Tampering with Physical Evidence. The victim was treated and released at Bay Health. The victim's children were uninjured and no one was shot.  On July 18, 2012 at approximately 1000 hours, Dover Officers and the United States Marshals arrested a subject in the 500 block of Fulton Street. The subject was charged with Fugitive From Another State as she was wanted by the Wicomico County Sheriff’s Office for a Criminal Indictment on the charge of Attempted Murder. The subject waived extradition and was transported to Maryland by the U.S. Marshals.  The Criminal Investigations Unit is currently investigating a burglary to a residence in the 300 block of North New Street. The burglary occurred between 1200 hours on Tuesday, July 3, 2012 and 1900 hours on Thursday, July 19, 2012. The unknown subject entered the residence after damaging the front door. Once inside, the subject removed electronic equipment before fleeing.  On July 24, 2012 at approximately 0100 hours, a subject entered a residence of an acquaintance in the 2400 block of White Oak Road in Dover. Once inside, the subject produced a handgun and demanded the numerous firearms which he knew to be in the victim’s residence. The subject then removed 19 firearms from inside the residence and fled in a vehicle with three other subjects. Dover Officers observed the vehicle moments later in Simon Circle, attempting a traffic stop, when the vehicle fled. The vehicle crashed into a ditch and the two occupants fled. The original subject and another subject were apprehended after a brief foot chase. Fourteen of the nineteen firearms were recovered inside of the car. Two other subjects, who were at the scene, had obviously vacated the vehicle prior to the vehicle stop and are believed to be in possession of the 5 remaining firearms: (2) AR-15’s, (2) rifles and a shotgun. Both subjects were charged with numerous felonies resulting from the home invasion and were committed to James T. Vaughn Correctional Center. Respectfully Submitted, James E. Hosfelt, Jr. Chief of Police JEH:sbf

Monthly Report July 2012 Office of City Assessor

Assessor’s Report Number of Deeds Stamped for Transfer Tax Dollar Amount for the Month of July 2011/2012 the Month of July 2011/2012 $ 400 $326 40 33 Thousands 30 18 20 12 13 $ 200 $32 20 $35 $5 $16 $28 $0 $5 5 10 2 2 0 2 2011 2011 0 $0 2012 2012 First Time Buyer for Month of July 2011/2012 Realty Property July 2011/2012 Sales in Dollars Received Prior to Recording 18 20 13 Res. Non‐First $22 12 $30 15 Millions Time Buyers $20 $2 $2 $1$2 $3 $0 $0 10 Res. First Time $10 5 2011 Buyers $0 5 2012 0 2011 2012 Major Updates May ‐ 12 June ‐ 12 July – 12 Assessment Change $4,303,000 ‐$3,410,800 ‐$97,000 Residential Sales Ratio Report Sales in Study Total Assessed Value Total Sale Pric e Ratio PRD 15 $2,343,800 $2,072,000 1.13 1.05 Ratio – Assessed Value divided by Sale Price. PRD – Mean – A PRD above 1.03 tends to indicate assessment regressivity – high valued properties are under appraised relative to low valued properties. A PRD below .98 tends to indicate assessment progressivity – high valued properties are relatively over appraised. 1

Assessor’s Report Points of Interest Scanning & Filing ‐ All new deeds are being scanned and attached to the CAMA software for easy retrieval. ‐ All appeal documents and correspondence are being scanned and attached to the CAMA software for easy retrieval. ‐All old property record cards are scanned and indexed into Fortis. Assessor’s Office Data Corrections for 2012 billing: ‐ LCI should have been receiving an abatement for $97,000 ‐ Dover Gas & Light Co. Distribution System from $0 to $5,000,000 Data Correction for 2013 billing: ‐ Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company 350 S Queen St. from $2,944,300 to $794,900 2

AUG 28, 2012 CITY OF DOVER PAGE: 1 03:23 PM SALES RATIO REPORT CA324 PARID NBHD LUC ADDRESS UNITS STYLE YRBLT STORIES SFLA GRADE CDU TOTAL APPR SALE DT PRICE ASR ED05-067.13-01-80.00 20 R10 18 BALTUSROL RD 1 14 1973 1 1732 C AV 200,900 21-JUL-12 163,000 1.23 ED05-067.14-02-38.00 17B R10 57 FOREST CREEK DR 1 13 1974 2 1321 C- GD 115,800 14-JUL-12 86,500 1.34 ED05-067.14-04-17.00 18 R10 39 PIN OAK DR 1 5 1993 2 2718 B- GD 198,300 23-JUL-12 242,000 .82 ED05-067.16-02-37.00 11A R10 222 ROSS ST 1 3 1936 1 1338 C+ AV 148,300 25-JUL-12 162,000 .92 ED05-067.20-03-74.00 11B R20 406 N BRADFORD ST 2 1 1920 2 2358 B GD 215,500 06-JUL-12 225,000 .96 ED05-068.13-01-17.00 10 R10 518 N SUNSET DR 1 14 1959 1 1570 C AV 159,800 27-JUL-12 119,000 1.34 ED05-068.14-02-31.00 13 R10 305 MACARTHUR DR 1 5 1965 2 1524 C+ GD 151,100 10-JUL-12 138,000 1.09 ED05-068.14-02-59.00 13 R10 359 NIMITZ RD 1 5 1965 2 1524 C+ AV 149,700 25-JUL-12 110,000 1.36 ED05-076.04-06-18.00 16M R10 511 ANN MOORE ST 13 2012 2 1760 B- AV 182,500 07-JUL-12 177,900 1.03 ED05-076.06-06-39.00 17B R10 172 HAMPTON DR 1 13 1984 2 1200 C- AV 115,500 09-JUL-12 83,000 1.39 ED05-076.06-08-33.00 17A R10 131 PERIWINKLE DR 1 13 1994 2 1260 C+ AV 130,300 13-JUL-12 118,000 1.10 ED05-076.13-05-27.00 25 R10 259 NORTHDOWN DR 1 13 2001 2 1848 C+ AV 144,000 17-JUL-12 119,900 1.20 ED05-076.20-01-42.00 5 R10 935 WOODFORD DR 1 16 1960 1 1626 C+ AV 153,900 27-JUL-12 140,700 1.09 ED05-077.07-01-32.00 16I R10 63 MORIARTY ST 1 13 2005 2 1554 C AV 136,600 31-JUL-12 95,000 1.44 ED05-077.17-05-12.00 34 R10 123 MORRIS DR 1 14 1951 1 1112 C AV 141,600 26-JUL-12 92,000 1.54

CITY MANAGER’S MONTHLY REPORT JULY 2012 City Manager’s Monthly Report, July 2012

Customer Services  In the month of July we processed 2021 payments.  City of Dover property taxes were due July 31, 2012. As of July 31, 2012 the delinquent property taxes total 1,895,646.48 for all tax years. Our collection efforts include sending a delinquent statement, making phone calls, and enforcing the Clean Hands Act. The Inspection and Planning Departments have been providing assistance in collecting these outstanding debts. In November the properties over one year delinquent will be selected to process for the monition sale. Human Resources  Continued contract negotiations with DOE & IBEW bargaining units. Library  960 children attended 30 children’s programs & 80 teens attended 12 teen programs.  Job Center noted 236 participants this month.  66 attended 14 adult programs. Public Works  Working on CIP and additional funding for future street program and other projects. 2 City Manager’s Monthly Report, July 2012

CUSTOMER SERVICES WORK ORDERS PROCESSED EXTENSIONS OF CREDIT 3,000 1,000 908 2,500 1,9852,042 800 1,920 2,000 1,804 1,7831,836 1,6231,583 1,6581,6581,7301,576 1,447 600 547 1,500 1,000 400 303 223 248 500 200 Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 CUSTOMER PAYMENT USAGE CUTS FOR NON PAYMENT 80,000 $2,000,000 60,000 $1,600,000 40,000 $1,200,000 18,785 20,000 5,825 12,648 $800,000 2,443 5,394 1,526 2,793 9 10 1,899 0 $400,000 $186,375 $186,375 Drive-Thru Over t he Mai l, Drop Box Credit Cards Bank Drafts $67,157 $67,157 Window Counter $- 2013 YTD 2012YTD July 2012 July 2011 FYTD13 FYTD12 FY 2013 FY 2012 Major Program Updates Jul 2012 Jul 2011 Difference Year-to-Date Year-to-Date Number of Customers Served 29,744 31,413 (1,669) 29,744 31,413 Final Bills 744 679 65 744 679 Estimated Bills 148 149 (1) 148 149 Penalties Posted $ 14,174 $ 7,618 6,556 $ 14,174 $ 7,618 Extensions of Credit - Amount Extended $ 66,887 $ 213,853 (146,966) $ 66,887 $ 213,853 Balance Transfers $ 636 $ 1,203 (566) $ 636 $ 1,203 Utility Collections $ 27,426 $ 33,654 (6,228) $ 27,426 $ 33,654 Special Assessments $ 110 $ - 110 $ 110 $ - Miscellaneous Billings $ - $ 93,927 (93,927) $ - $ 93,927 CNP through Disconnect Collars $ 30 $ 5 25 30 5 Court Cases - - - - - Tamperings 3 4 (1) 3 4 Taxes Levied $ 10,901,726 $ 10,948,800 (47,074) $ 10,901,726 $ 10,948,800 Billing Adjustments $ 535 $ 1,169 (634) $ 535 $ 1,169 Total Taxes Collected $ 9,006,615 $ 8,264,856 741,759 $ 9,006,615 $ 8,264,856 Taxes Outstanding $ 1,895,646 $ 2,682,775 (787,129) $ 1,895,646 $ 2,682,775 Payments in Lieu $ - $ - - $ - $ - Billing Accuracy (on schedule billings) 99.0% 99.0% - 99.0% 99.0% Bills Published on Schedule 99.0% 99.0% - 99.9% 99.9% Meters Read on Schedule 99.9% 99.9% - 99.9% 99.9% Customer Satisfaction Rating 99.9% 99.9% - 99.7% 99.7% Delinquent Accounts Collected 99.7% 99.7% - 99.7% 99.7% City Manager’s Monthly Report, July 2012 3

HUMAN RESOURCES July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Category Total 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 2012 Caucasian* 310 306 302 299 299 299 295 294* 291 289 290 285 285 N/A Minorities* 63 63 63 62 61 59 59 59* 57 56 57 58 58 N/A Hired - - 1 - 1 - - 2 - - 2 6 - 14 Terminated/Resigned/ 3 4 5 4 2 2 4 3 5 3 2 5 - 44 Retired/Other Transferred/Promoted - - - - 2 - - - - - 1 1 - 4 Jobs Posted - 1 - - - - - - 3 4 2 2 - 12 Workers Comp. Injuries 4 7 4 2 9 4 3 3 6 2 2 1 4 51 Workers Comp. Hours 63 135 263 565 369 418 315 222 55 195 112 139 164 2,897 Insurance Claims 3 10 1 2 1 2 1 2 4 3 6 2 3 40 Full-time Employees: 343 Part-time Employees: 12 (4 Pitts Center, 1 Recreation, 7 Library) -Numbers do not reflect, temporary, seasonal, relief fire dispatchers, committee or council members. * Correction to February 2012 Recruitment Information Asian/ American Indi- In Out Position Total Female Male Black White Hispanic Pacific Is- an/Alaskan Na- Unknown Dover Dover lander tive Central Mailroom 2 - 2 - 2 - - - - 1 1 Clerk (in house) Utility Maintenance 23 - 23 7 16 - - - - 12 11 Mechanic Motor Equipment 26 1 25 8 15 3 - - - 17 9 Operator Unfilled/Open Positions by Department* Unfilled/Open Positions July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July By Department 11 11 11 11 11 11 12** 12 12 12 12 12 12² Electric 2 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 1 Public Works 1 1 3 3 5 5 9 11 13 13 15 16 9 Police 4 4 4 5 3 3 3 1 2 3 2 4 3 All Other Departments 5 6.5 8.5 12 10.5 12.5 11.5 12 13 15 14 15 8 Totals 12 14.5 19.5 22.5 23.5 25.5 28.5 29 33 36 34 38 21 *Not used for Budgeting Purposes **Organization Change The following has been updated to reflected the Fiscal 2012-13 Budget Electric: Electric Director Public Works: Utility Maintenance Mechanic I/ Wastewater, Motor Equipment Operator I/Water, Motor Equipment Operator II/Water, Motor Equipment Operator II/Sanitation, Public Works Director, Vehicle Maintenance -Mechanic I, Water Treatment Plant Operator I, Utility Maintenance Mechanic II/Wastewater, Operations -Construction Manager Police: Police Officer, Police Clerk, Communications Operator All Other Departments: Administrative Assistant - IT, Human Resources & Safety Coordinator, (4) Library Page (PT), Administrative Assistant - Clerk’s Office, Fire Dispatcher 4 City Manager’s Monthly Report, July 2012

HUMAN RESOURCES continued Bonus Programs by Month July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Bonus Program Category Total 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Stop Program-Sensibly Tak- ing Off Pounds(weigh-ins) 15 4 5 22 5 8 - 13 4 8 24 23 9 140 Caught Doing it Right- Promotes employees productivity & creativity - 1 1 1 - - - 2 - - - - - 5 (submissions) Breathe Program-Rewards for ending tobacco use - 1 1 - 1 - 1 - - - - - - 4 (submissions) Ducs in a Row-Doing Useful Community Service - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (submissions) Workers Comp Injuries 20 15 10 5 0 Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb-* Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Electric Public Works Police Others * Organization Change Electric: 1 Public Works: 0 Police: 1 All Other Depts.: 2 * * Organization Change Electric: 40 Public Works: 118.5 Police: 0 All Other Depts.: 5.5 City Manager’s Monthly Report, July 2012 5

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Service Requests Resolved Citizen Action Center - Customers w/ New Issues 250 233 216 221 150 202 206 168 192 200 180 186 171 130 81 114 86 162 165 162 86 144 110 57 100 150 90 70 100 70 63 60 44 48 50 50 31 30 0 10 Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Programming Requests Completed Page Views - City of Dover Web Page 30 25,000 24 25 21 21 20,000 20 Pages Viewed 16 16 17 15 15 15 15,000 14 14 22,347 22,051 22,828 15 20,942 12 20,460 19,853 19,936 20,685 11 18,965 17,995 17,542 16,470 17,120 10,000 10 5 5,000 0 0 Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Current Performance Indicators Last Month Same Month Month Last Year iSeries Availability 100% 100% 100% Server Availability 100% 100% 100% AS/400 Connections (concurrent/authorized users) N/A N/A N/A PCs Supported 358 352 336 Scheduled PCs Replaced - - - Servers Supported 13 13 16 People Trained 12 8 6 Availability Statistics based on 7:00 AM until 5:00 PM Monday—Friday 6 City Manager’s Monthly Report, July 2012

LIBRARY Adult Services Childrens Services 1000 1000 500 500 0 0 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Reference Reader's Advisory Outreach Electronic Assistance Reference Reader's Advisory Outreach Electronic Assistance Reference – 260; Reader’s Advisory – 195 Reference - 106; Reader’s Advisory – 73 Electronic Assistance – 273; Outreach—0 Electronic Assistance – 12; Outreach – 0 ****We have amended our Electronic Assistance, Reader's Advisory & Reference transactions to more accurately represent the actual statistics.*** Circulation July 12 FYTD 13 July 11 FYTD 12 Dover residents 20,004 20,004 18,113 18,113 Ebooks (began 12/2011) 820 820 Kent residents* 16,212 16,212 16,357 16,357 Non-county residents 2,782 2,782 1,844 1,844 Registrations Dover residents 245 245 211 211 Kent residents* 67 67 101 101 Non-county residents 1 1 12 12 Other Visiting Patrons 33,186 33,186 31,170 31,170 Meeting Room Usage** 20 20 0 0 Photocopier Usage 1,498 1,498 1,521 1,521 Dial-A-Story 1,313 1,313 954 954 Computer Usage 3,604 3,604 4,288 4,288 Holds (Total) 7,265 7,265 7,693 7,693 *Breakout of Kent County Residential Statistics Circulation Registrations Harrington: 198 Harrington: 0 Smyrna: 1,225 Smyrna: 7 Milford: 197 Milford: 0 Outside City Limits: 14,592 Outside City Limits: 60 Total Registered Users: (Card Holders) City: 18,452 Kent County: 13,170 Outside Kent County: 1,094 Other Points of Interest: Inter/Interlibrary***: 35 items loaned out Technical services: 788 items added 23 items borrowed 1,905items deleted Volunteers: 562 hours of service completed ** Meeting Room Usage The meeting room is no longer available for rental as it has become the designated location of the Job Center. City Manager’s Monthly Report, July 2012 7

PUBLIC WORKS Administration Administrative review and inspection services continued on all residential and commercial developments. The following residential subdivisions are in various phases of construction: Oak Shadows Emerald Pointe Lexington Glenn Village of Westover (Phase VI) Farthing Woods Eden Hill (Residential) Patriot Village Clearview Meadows Village of Cannon Mill Sanitation Monthly Total Refuse (Tons) Sanitation Hours 1,500 1200 998 940 1000 832 1,000 845 887 864 812 804 826 826 762 710 769 800 576 572 595 600 439 427 500 412 400 169 202 162 129 157 144 148 143 155 150 131 75 99 200 53 50 - 0 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Bulk Collection Mechanized Hand Trash Container 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Collection Collection Repair/Delivery Bulk Automated Jul 12 Jul 12 JULY 12 FYTD 13 JULY 11 FYTD 12 Trips to DSWA Sandtown Landfill 173 173 184 184 Total Tonnage to DSWA 995.48 995.48 1,013.83 1,013.83 90-Gallon Containers Delivered 20 20 24 24 300-Gallon Containers Delivered 4 4 2 2 Total Man Hours-containers Delivered 53 53 50 50 CURBSIDE RECYCLING TOTAL # OF TOTAL # OF STATS HOUSEHOLDS ACCOUNTS WEIGHT/ AVE. LBS. COLLECTED LBS. July 2012 18,016 8,615 274,500 15.24 8 City Manager’s Monthly Report, July 2012

Streets JULY 12 FYTD 13 JULY 11 FYTD 12 Signed Installed 23 23 14 14 Signs Repaired 13 13 9 9 Curbs Painted Yellow (feet) 31 31 61 61 New Post Installed 5 5 9 9 Storm Catch Basins Repaired 1 1 26 26 Storm Catch Basin Repairing (Hrs.) 1 1 10 10 Storm Catch Basins Cleaned 23 23 8 8 Storm Catch Basins Cleaning (Hrs.) 48 48 4 4 Hot Mix Patching (Tons) 28 28 27 27 Hot Mix Patching (Hrs.) 96 96 244 244 Cold Mix Patching Hrs.) 72 72 85 85 Concrete Work (Hrs) 75 75 166 166 Concrete Patching (Cubic Yards) 4 4 1 1 Street and Alley Maintenance (Hrs) 168 168 160 160 Ditch Work (Hrs). 0 0 16 16 Street Sweeping (Miles) 997 997 1,031 1,031 Street Sweeping (Cubic Yards) 248 248 196 196 Grounds Arborist Crew JULY 2012 JULY 2011 Trees Trimmed 87 140 Trees Removed 22 38  Cleaned up from storm damaged trees on two occasions, July 2 and July 18, 2012.  Cleaned up debris in the corner of Silver Lake by the boat ramp including leaves and trash. Hauled six pick up loads of debris.  Assisted with fish kill clean up.  Extensive watering of young trees planted along the streets as well as trees and shrubs planted along the St. Jones River during the drought. Beautification Crew  Continued watering the hanging baskets and all flower beds that do not have irrigation.  Completed planting all annual/perennial beds. Replaced dead plants in beds and fertilized all the beds.  Put up the Petunia Tree on The Plaza.  Assisted with large tree removal on North State Street by flagging traffic. Mowing Crew  Mowing all areas 280 acres, including parks, around City facilities, ditches and right-of-ways.  Mowed the McKee Run Tax Ditch. Submitted time and equipment hours for reimbursement billing.  Mowed all ditches at Fox Hall, The Hamlet, and Mallard Pond. Also mowed growth along Jason Street off of State College Road.  Assisted with cleanup of major fish kill in the St. Jones River just below the spillway. Set up two water pumps to get more oxygen in the water. Also removed some rocks below the foot bridge to give fish and escape route when the water level get low during drought conditions. City Manager’s Monthly Report, July 2012 9

Geographic Information Systems (GIS)  Modified water system web application  Updated grass maintenance feature class  Printed multiple posters for Downtown Dover Development Office.  Council District maps for City Clerk’s office  Crated maps for Firefly Musical Festival  Created Clearview Meadows Phase 1 street dedication map Fleet and Facilities Management Fleet Maintenance Work Orders: 62 Major Program Updates Measure JULY 12 JULY 11 DIFFERENCE Fleet Maintenance Scheduled Preventative Maintenance appoint- 14 out of 30 14 out of 26 -7.18% ments being kept (Quantity and Percentage) 46.67% 53.85% Facilities Management Routine work orders completed within 5 days 27 out of 30 34 out of 35 -7.14% (Quantity and Percentage) 90.0% 97.14% Emergency work orders completed within 2 8 out of 8 3 out of 3 0% days (Quantity and Percentage) 100% 100% 10 City Manager’s Monthly Report, July 2012

Water/Wastewater Water Production/Billed Consumption/Flow to Kent County 255,000,000 205,000,000 155,000,000 105,000,000 55,000,000 5,000,000 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Total Water Prod. Billed Consumpt. ENGINEERING SUMMARY Major Program Updates JULY 12 JULY 11 DIFF FY13 YTD FY12 State and Federal Violations 0 violations 0 violations - - - Water Quality Complaints 5 17 -12 5 17 Plan Review Completed Within 30 days of Sub- 7 plans 8 100% 100% mission 100% 100% -1 plan Field Inspection Response within 48 hours of 22 20 +2 95.65% 100% Request OPERATIONAL SUMMARY JULY 12 JULY 11 Current FY Task Water Production – Daily Average 5,813,419 6,100,419 5,813,419 Average Field Response Time (goal is < 30 minutes) 14.33 19.20 14.33 Water Mains Repaired 1 1 1 Water Service Lines Repaired 1 1 1 Wastewater Mains Repaired 1 1 1 Wastewater Service Lines Repaired 0 1 0 Sewer Lines Flushed – Linear Feet 98,726 82,083 98,726 Sewer Mains Videoed – Linear Feet 9,553 1,246 9,553 Total Fire Hydrants in Service 1,789 1,778 1,789 City Manager’s Monthly Report, July 2012 11

PUBLIC UTILITIES Electric System Peak Total System Load 172.6 171.1 200 100,000 81,797 81,930 153.8 158.5 74,068 139.3 143.7 65,231 66,593 80,000 60,425 60,085 150 56,161 57,142 55,238 54,951 55,553 101.8 106.13 109.3 53,525 99.6 60,000 98.5 97.3 94.5 100 40,000 50 20,000 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Outages Customers of Gained/Lost 35 6,000 25 23 30 5,000 25 20 18 4,000 16 Outages Customers 20 13 3,000 15 15 9 10 2,000 10 8 10 6 6 5 5 1,000 5 2 2 2 0 0 0 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Outages Customers Outages: 9 Customers: 2,641 Electric Monthly Outage Report The annual outage goal will be less than 295 Controllable Outages Average Response Time minutes per customer, which is a Delaware Annual goal is less than 40 Goal is less than 30 minutes Standard. This will be measured by calculating the System Average Interruption Duration Index. Month Year-to-date Month Year-to-date FY 13 YTD FY 12 FY 11 5 5 27.25 Minutes 27.25 Minutes 60.2 39.44 63.78 JULY 12 JULY 11 FY12 YTD PROGRAM UPDATES Tree Trimming 248 202 248 Number of Oil Releases 0 0 0 Lost Time Accidents – All Electric Utility Divisions 1 0 1 New Services 18 Major Goals Completed in the Past Two Months N/A 12 City Manager’s Monthly Report, July 2012

CITY PLANNER’S MONTHLY REPORT 15 Loockerman Plaza P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Phone: (302) 736-7196 Fax (302) 736-4217 July 2012 PERSONNEL On July 20th, 21st, and 22nd the Fire Marshal’s Office assisted Red Frog Events and Dover Downs with the Firefly Music Festival which was held in Lot #10 on Dover Downs property. On July 24, 2012 Diane Metsch, Janelle Cornwell and the Fire Marshal’s Office conducted training in the Wesley College Dormitories to simulate a fire in the dorms and students who would need to be housed. An overview on setting up the Incident Response trailer was also provided. PLANNING OFFICE The Planning Office is part of the review process for certain types of construction activity permits (Building Permits, Sign Permits, etc.) and Certificate of Occupancy permits. Planning Staff also reviews new applications for Business Licenses and Rental Dwelling Permits. More detailed information on these permits and licenses is reported later in this document. For July 2012, Planning Staff was involved with review of 74 Permits and 7 Certificates of Occupancy permits (2012 Year to Date total of 518 Permits and COs compared to 576 year-to- date in 2011). EDEN HILL FARM TND Construction of the dwelling units in Phase 1 of the Residential District of Eden Hill Farm Traditional Neighborhood Design is complete for a total of 77 dwelling units. Construction of the first dwelling units in Phase 1 began in the Summer of 2008. Construction activity continues on a set of six townhouse dwelling units located at 512-522 Ann Moore Street within Phase 2A of the Residential District. City Staff allowed the issuance of these permits in June 2012 as infrastructure items were already in place for this block segment of Ann Moore Street. Prior to continuing with additional development in Phase 2, the site developer will need to address infrastructure dedication, bonding, street lighting payments for installation, tree planting requirements, and other infrastructure items. There was no activity associated with the Professional Office, Medical & Financial District. There was no activity associated with the Neighborhood Commercial District. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Planning Staff continues to focus efforts on the implementation items identified in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan as amended. Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing and took action to recommend approval the revisions to the sign regulations of Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 Section 4. The Final Reading and Action on Ordinance #2012-13 was scheduled for the City Council meeting of August 13, 2012 (MI-12-15). NEW DOVER HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT (C-10-05/S-11-18) Construction activities related to utilities, site improvements like parking lots, and the building construction activities continue at the site. Planning Staff and Public Works Staff continue to work with the district’s design

professionals and DelDOT staff on project details. A monthly coordination meeting was not held in July. Review of the plans for transportation elements such as the east entrance and multi-use path associated with the school project continue. City Staff continues focus on the concerns regarding traffic and pedestrian access for the east entrance. A letter addressed to City Council regarding this matter was received in July from Secretary of Transportation Shailen Bhatt. The construction has begun on the signalized west entrance (Dover High Drive) and Route 8 improvements. NPDES – MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM PERMIT Working under the partnership between Wesley College’s Environmental Sciences Department and the City of Dover Planning Office, Melissa Savin, the Wesley College intern who has been working with the Planning Office, continued to manage the required documentation and develop outreach activities associated with the permit. During the month of July, the City provided the planned environmental education for Camp Small Wonder over the course of two days. The first day of the City’s participation focused on wetland education for the 40 children ages 6-12 enrolled in the camp. A Wetland Outreach Specialist from DNREC was a guest speaker who took the children on a nature hike explaining the importance of wetlands by highlighting the retention pond and trail at Delaware State University. On the second day, the camp took a field trip to Silver Lake Park where the Wesley College interns provided the environmental education programming. The children rotated around stations at the park explaining the importance of water quality and watershed health. The children were able to take water quality measurements from Silver Lake, learn from an Enviroscape Model, and play games developed by the Wesley students and faculty about urbanization and water pollution as well as the water cycle. The students had lunch at the park and were given time to play outside in nature instead of being in the classroom all day. The students and staff appreciated the experience and learned more about their local environment and water quality. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS REPORTS Board of Adjustment: The Board of Adjustment held a meeting on July 18, 2012 and took the following actions. The next regular scheduled meeting of the Board of Adjustment is scheduled for August 15, 2012. 1. Applicant #V-12-06 - 1008 South Governors Avenue, Governors Avenue Realty, LLC – Moved to approve variance to allow the opaque barrier landscaping to be erected and maintained on the commercial side of the property as opposed to the outside or directly adjacent to the residential property. 2. Applicant #V-12-07 - 142 Red Oak Drive, Barbara Kepner – Moved to approve a variance of a setback as an exceptional practical difficulty is created because of the twenty foot easement located at the rear of the property. The edge of the pool is allowed to be within fifteen (15) feet of the property line and the decking to be within five (5) feet of the property line. 3. Applicant #V-12-08 - 307 North Governors Avenue, Ashley and Patricia Gibbon - Moved to approve variance allowing the reestablishment of a nonconforming use of the existing building as two apartment units. Historic District Commission: The Historic District Commission met on July 19, 2012 and took the following actions. The next Historic District Commission meeting is scheduled for August 16, 2012. 1. HI-12-04 Court Street Gateway Project – Presentation of design concepts for Phase 1: Court Street Gateway of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements Project. (It did not require formal action.) 2. HI-12-05 Building Permit #12-816 for Renovations for ADA Accessibility at Supreme Court Building, 55 The Green - Commission moved to endorse project activities of Building Permit #12-816 for ADA accessibility improvements thus finding project consistent with Design Standard and

Guidelines and issuing the Architectural Review Certification. 3. Enhancements to the East Edge of The Green & Court Street Promenade Project - Informational presentation on site improvements to right-of-way of The Green and Court Street (unopened segment). It did not require formal action Planning Commission The Planning Commission met on July 16, 2012 and took the actions summarized listed below. The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for August 20, 2012. Nomination and Election of Officers for Chairman and Vice-Chairman was held. Colonel Welsh will continue to serve as Chairman with Fred Tolbert as Vice-Chairman. 1. C-12-05 Transitional Housing for Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing, Inc. at 319 West Water Street – Moved to approve Conditional Use to establish a transitional house within an existing single family residence. 2. MI-12-13 Text Amendment: Revisions to Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 Section 23 Agricultural Zone - Moved to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of text amendment. The new Ordinance would permit the sale of agricultural supplies and products accessory to principal agricultural use on a property. 3. MI-12-14 Text Amendment: Revisions to Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 Section 9 General Residence and Office Zoning (RG-O) - Moved to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of text amendment to City Council. The new Ordinance would remove the prohibition of the sale of alcohol within restaurants that are located within the RG-O Zoning District 4. MI-12-15 Text Amendment: Revisions to Zoning Ordinance, Article 4 Section 5 Supplementary Sign Regulations - Moved to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of a series of text amendments to revise and update the sign regulations. CODE ENFORCEMENT Case Type # cases current # cases % staff initiated % staff initiated month YTD current month YTD No valid rental permit 1 115 100% 97% No valid building permit 2 23 100% 96% Tall grass and weeds 116 332 87% 62% Unregistered vehicle 2 18 0% 72% Abandoned vehicle 18 74 67% 55% Annual Housing Inspection 47 427 87% 73% Property Maintenance – 79 262 66% 56% Exterior Electric Termination 14 187 93% 95% Dover Code of Ordinances 61 174 67% 64% Zoning 7 44 57% 55% Total Cases 347 1656 Total # of Inspections 481 DANGEROUS BUILDINGS/DEMOLITION STATUS The following buildings were declared dangerous by City Council: 123 Blue Beach Drive – Bi-weekly inspections occurred in May, property is improving, and pool is in compliance. 14 South Queen Street – Owner sent notice to demolish structure by July 15, 2012 or the City will have the structure demolished.

118 N Ann Avenue – Owner sent notice to demolish structure by July 15, 2012 or the City will have the structure demolished. 171 Orchard Avenue – Owner sent notice to demolish structure by August 1, 2012 or the City will have the structure demolished. 488 North East Avenue – City Council granted on June 25th to allow the bank an additional 90 days to make repairs to the structure. 827 Townsend Boulevard – Pool came into compliance: no further code violations. During the month of July, staff registered an additional 12 structures as vacant buildings bringing the total number of active vacant buildings within the City to 433. Staff also collected in July $2,750.00 in registration fees for a total of $17,500 for 2012. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT U CDBG FY11 PROJECTS Homeownership Assistance Program Eight (8) families have purchased homes using the Dover First Start Program. Homeowner Rehabilitation Program Three (3) homes have been completed. Dover Interfaith Mission to the Homeless CDBG funds have been utilized to cover the operations cost for the shelter. Emergency Home Repair Project Emergency repairs have been completed on nine (9) properties in the City of Dover. Connections Community Support Program Motel vouchers have been provided to 17 homeless persons in the City of Dover. Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) The City was awarded $1,426,740 for the acquisition and rehab of foreclosed properties to be sold to qualifying families. A total of $1,257,292 has been expended on the acquisition and renovations for 8 properties. One property has been purchased with program income and is for sale. The remaining balance of $169,447 will be utilized for renovations and acquisition. Five properties have been sold, three are for sale, one is a lease purchase and one is a rental that serves persons with disabilities. Habitat for Humanity has purchased a property and is currently under renovation. 218 Ann Avenue (sold) 337 N. Governors Avenue (sold) 343 Mimosa Avenue (sold) 254 Green Blade Drive (sold) 907 Woodcrest Avenue (lease purchase) 302 Stonebrook Place (for sale) 1430 S. Hancock (group home rental) 11 Westover Drive (sold) 1415 S. Hancock (for sale) 110 Thames Drive (under renovation) FIRE MARSHAL’S OFFICE BUILIDNG INSPECTIONS AND LICENSING LIFE SAFETY Inspections JULY 12 FYTD 13 JULY 11 FYTD 12 Fire Protection Inspections (new & existing) 22 22 33 33 Fire Code Inspections 101 101 55 55 Inspection Deficiencies 16 16 60 60 Certificate of Occupancy 2 2 3 3

Office 79.5 79.5 112 112 Meetings 26 26 28 28 Plan Review 22.5 22.5 29 29 Training 0 0 0 0 Fire Investigations 6 6 7 7 Accidental $0.00 $0.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 Incendiary $0.00 $0.00 $300.00 $300.00 Undetermined $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $40,500.00 $40,500.00 PERMITTING AND LICENSING Permits Issued JULY 12 FYTD 13 JULY 11 FYTD 12 Administrative Permit 4 4 2 2 Building Addition/Renovation Permits 40 40 29 39 Building Permits 16 16 27 37 Demolition Permits 3 3 1 1 Fence Permits 10 10 11 11 Fire Prevention Permits 10 10 3 3 Mechanical Permits 63 63 15 15 Plumbing Permits 28 28 23 23 Sign Permits 14 14 19 19 Swimming Pool Permits 8 8 6 6 Business Licenses 426 426 746 746 Merchant Licenses 166 166 155 155 Contractor Licenses 325 325 394 394 Lodging House Licenses 0 0 0 0 Mobile Homes 77 77 96 96 Public Occupancy 7 7 6 6 Rental Dwelling 28 28 18 18 BUILDING INSPECTIONS JULY 12 FYTD 13 JULY 11 FYTD 12 Building 256 256 284 284 Plumbing/Mechanical 422 422 329 329 Certificate of Occupancy 7 7 12 12 PARKS AND RECREATION As of July 1, 2012, Parks and Recreation became a Division of the Department of Planning and Inspections and reports to Ann Marie Townshend (City Planner). The following information is provided on their activities and programming. Staff worked with Step by Step Soccer Academy to offer FREE soccer clinics on July 28 & 29. Youth 8 – 18 years targeted for this soccer program. WARE Foundation Partnership: The WARE Foundation is an organization that offers free & confidential help to youth survivors of homicide victims, families & friends. Currently, a tennis program to be hosted at Dover Park for the WARE program youth is being set up for early next spring.

Recreation Revenue 17,726 Recreation Revenue Breakdown 15,552 20,000 $30,000.00 13,726 18,000 16,000 $25,000.00 9,670.50 14,000 9,606 $20,000.00 8,372 7,890 12,000 10,000 7,269 7,548 7,776 7,427 7,488 $15,000.00 8,000 6,000 3,242 $10,000.00 4,000 $5,000.00 2,000 0 $0.00 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July July Aug Sept Oc t 11 Nov Dec Jan 12 Feb Mar Apr 12 May Jun 12 Jul 12 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 Year To Date Revenue Comparison General – $668 Rental Payments – $1,385 FY12 $8,372 vs FY13: $7,488 Sports – $435 Leagues – $000 Trips – $0 Rentals JULY12 FYTD 13 JULY11 FYTD 12 Baseball/Softball Field Rentals* 38 38 38 38 Dover Park Pavilions (2) 21 21 20 20 Multipurpose/Field Hockey Field Rentals* 10 10 19 19 Recreation Center – Dover Park 27 27 26 26 Silver Lake Pavilions (2) / Schutte (1) 9 9 6 6 Soccer Field Rentals* 0 0 0 0 Stage – Mobile Platform 5 5 5 5 *These numbers reflect groups that utilized our facilities during July. Dover Park Program Attendance* JULY12 FYTD 13 JULY11 FYTD 12 Step by Step Soccer Clinics 17 17 Not previously offered *This number reflects activities that took place in July. (Not included on the JWP report.) John W. Pitts Recreation Center Total Program Attendance Facility Usage By The Hour 14,000 700 12,000 600 10,000 500 8,000 400 6,000 300 4,000 200 2,000 100 0 0 July 11 Aug 11 Sept 11 Oct 11 Nov 11 Dec 11 Jan 12 Feb 12 Mar 12 Apr 12 May 12 June 12 July 12 July 11 Aug 11 Sept 11 Oct 11 Nov 11 Dec 11 Jan 12 Feb 12 Mar 12 Apr 12 May 12 June 12 July 12

Facility Usage By The Hour JULY 12 FYTD 13 JULY 11 FYTD 12 Open Gym 385 385 371 371 Fitness Classes 29 29 50.5 50.5 Leagues 32 32 26 26 Camps 37 37 24 24 Sports Classes 16 16 18.5 18.5 Meetings & Rentals 33 33 32 32 Enrichment Classes 0 0 6.5 6.5 Total Facility Usage Hours 532 532 528.5 528.5 **Program Attendance figures includes participants, parents and spectators in the facility. Program Attendance** JULY 12 FYTD 13 JULY 11 FYTD 12 Total 1,993 1,993 2,006 2,006 Open Gym 580 580 460 460 Fitness Classes 184 184 303 303 Leagues 790 790 670 670 Camps 206 206 313 313 Sports Classes 134 134 182 182 Meetings & Rentals 94 94 54 54 Enrichment Classes 5 5 24 24 In July, we closed the Pitts Center gym for 33.5 hours (portions of 6 days) due to the inside gym heat index. Since our opening in late April 2008, we have had 221,741 guests at the John W. Pitts Recreation Center. We are issuing FREE Recreation Center ID Cards to track facility usage during Public Open Gym Periods. The statistics listed below reflect those that have completed the registration. Open Gym Registrations: Total ID cards issued: 5,081 City Residents: 2,245 (44%) Non-City Residents: 2,836 (56%) Kent County Residents: 2,341 (46%) Sussex County Residents: 165 (3%) New Castle County Residents: 109 (2%) Out of State Residents: 223 (4%) Submitted by: Ann Marie Townshend, AICP Planning & Community Development Director

Date Range: From 07/01/2012 to 07/31/2012 Incident Type Report (Summary) Dover Fire Department Count Pct of Total Est Total Est Incident Type Incidents Loss Loss 1 Fire 100 Fire, other 2 2.38% $0 0.00% 111 Building fire 1 1.19% $0 0.00% 113 Cooking fire, confined to container 3 3.57% $0 0.00% 121 Fire in mobile home used as fixed residence 1 1.19% $0 0.00% 131 Passenger vehicle fire 3 3.57% $0 0.00% 142 Brush or brush-and-grass mixture fire 2 2.38% $0 0.00% 143 Grass fire 1 1.19% $0 0.00% 150 Outside rubbish fire, other 7 8.33% $0 0.00% 151 Outside rubbish, trash or waste fire 4 4.76% $0 0.00% 154 Dumpster or other outside trash receptacle fire 1 1.19% $0 0.00% 170 Cultivated vegetation, crop fire, other 1 1.19% $0 0.00% Totals 26 30.95% $0 0.00% 2 Overpressure Rupture, Explosion, Overheat(no fire) Totals 0 0.00% $0 0.00% 3 Rescue & Emergency Medical Service Incident 311 Medical assist, assist EMS crew 2 2.38% $0 0.00% 352 Extrication of victim(s) from vehicle 1 1.19% $0 0.00% Totals 3 3.57% $0 0.00% 4 Hazardous Condition (No Fire) 411 Gasoline or other flammable liquid spill 3 3.57% $0 0.00% 413 Oil or other combustible liquid spill 1 1.19% $0 0.00% 424 Carbon monoxide incident 1 1.19% $0 0.00% 440 Electrical wiring/equipment problem, other 1 1.19% $0 0.00% Totals 6 7.14% $0 0.00% 5 Service Call 500 Service Call, other 1 1.19% $0 0.00% 511 Lock-out 1 1.19% $0 0.00% 521 Water evacuation 1 1.19% $0 0.00% 531 Smoke or odor removal 4 4.76% $0 0.00% 550 Public service assistance, other 1 1.19% $0 0.00% 551 Assist police or other governmental agency 1 1.19% $0 0.00% 571 Cover assignment, standby, moveup 4 4.76% $0 0.00% Totals 13 15.48% $0 0.00% 6 Good Intent Call 600 Good intent call, other 4 4.76% $0 0.00% 611 Dispatched & canceled en route 1 1.19% $0 0.00% 631 Authorized controlled burning 1 1.19% $0 0.00% Totals 6 7.14% $0 0.00% 7 False Alarm & False Call 700 False alarm or false call, other 11 13.10% $0 0.00% 715 Local alarm system, malicious false alarm 1 1.19% $0 0.00% 730 System malfunction, other 3 3.57% $0 0.00% 733 Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 4 4.76% $0 0.00% 735 Alarm system sounded due to malfunction 5 5.95% $0 0.00% 740 Unintentional transmission of alarm, other 1 1.19% $0 0.00% Date: 08/28/2012 Page: 1

Date Range: From 07/01/2012 to 07/31/2012 Incident Type Report (Summary) Dover Fire Department Count Pct of Total Est Total Est Incident Type Incidents Loss Loss 743 Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 2 2.38% $0 0.00% 745 Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional 1 1.19% $0 0.00% Totals 28 33.33% $0 0.00% 8 Severe Weather & Natural Disaster Totals 0 0.00% $0 0.00% 9 Special Incident Type 900 Special type of incident, other 2 2.38% $0 0.00% Totals 2 2.38% $0 0.00% Totals 84 $0 Date: 08/28/2012 Page: 2

Date Range: From 07/01/2012 to 07/31/2012 Manpower Hours by Sitation Found Dover Fire Department Num ber of Hours by Situation Found Sum of # Attending X Incident Length Fire 177 Fire 0 Overpressure Rupture, Exp 13 Rescue & Emergency Medica 8 Hazardous Condition (No F Overpressure Rupture, Exp 108 Service Call Rescue & Emergency Medica 4 Good Intent Call 121 False Alarm & False Call Hazardous Condition (No F 0 Severe Weather & Natural 14 Special Incident Type Special Incident Type Severe Weather & Natural Service Call False Alarm & False Call Good Intent Call Date: 08/28/2012 Page: 1

Date Range: From 01/01/2012 to 07/31/2012 Alarms by Month of Year Dover Fire Department 105 98 100 95 89 90 83 84 80 85 78 80 72 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Jan-2012 Feb-2012 Mar-2012 Apr-2012 May-2012 Jun-2012 Jul-2012 Date: 08/28/2012 Page: 1

Date Range: From 07/01/2012 to 07/31/2012 Incident Run Log Company: All Companies Dover Fire Department Sorted by: Incident Number Date FDID Incident# Alarm ### Address Suite Type 07/01/2012 30046 2012-000502 04:42 135 HAMAN DR False alarm or false call, other DFD responded to the above location in reference to an alarm activation. Crews checked the bulding and met with negative results. 07/01/2012 30046 2012-000503 19:25 GENERALS WAY Passenger vehicle fire Engine 6 responded to the above location in reference to a possible vehicle fire. On arrival, observed a small compact vehicle with smoke coming from the trunk. An unknown female gave writer the keys to the vehicle and once the trunk was open the small fire was extinguished. It appeared the vehicle owner repaired the rear tail lights and didn't propery secure same back into place. The bulb fell and caught clothing and other misc items on fire. No further action taken. 07/02/2012 30046 2012-000504 20:01 16 S NEW ST Good intent call, other Dover 16 responded to the above address in reference to a subject cooking with a grill on his roof. On location, 16 advised the home owner to remove same and he complied. No further action taken. 07/02/2012 30046 2012-000505 21:11 858 WOODCREST DR BLDG D Smoke or odor removal Engine 6 responded to the above location in reference to an odor of gasoline. Crews checked the area and located a mini motorcycle in apartment 2 causing the odor. The occupants were instructed to remove same from the building. No further action taken. 07/03/2012 30046 2012-000506 04:40 758 N DUPONT HWY False alarm or false call, other DFD responded to the TD bank in reference to an alarm activation. Crews checked the building and met with negative results. No further action taken. 07/03/2012 30046 2012-000507 09:57 261 N DUPONT HWY 1 Outside rubbish, trash or waste fire DFD responded to the above location in reference to a dumpster fire in front of the business. On arrival, the small trash can fire had been extinguished by bystanders. Crew from Engine 6 used a booster line to wet the area down then turned the scene over to FM 4. 07/03/2012 30046 2012-000508 11:29 164 SADDLEBROOK DR Cover assignment, standby, moveup DFD responded with Engine 6 and Ladder 2 for a Truck company assist for station 41 at the above location. Crews assisted with fire control and overhaul. 07/03/2012 30046 2012-000509 19:40 898 WOODCREST DR Smoke or odor removal DFD responded to the above location for a smell of smoke in the area. Engine 6 arrived and located a very small mulch fire that had been previously extinguished. No action taken. 07/04/2012 30046 2012-000510 09:58 100 LADY BUG DR Grass fire Brush 9 responded to the above area in reference to a smoke investigation. On arrival, a small grass fire (30' x 30') was located and extinguished. No further action taken. 07/04/2012 30046 2012-000511 18:08 702 LAKEWOOD PL Medical assist, assist EMS crew ASSIST EMS ON SCENE. 07/04/2012 30046 2012-000512 22:04 1289 WALKER RD BUILD G Outside rubbish, trash or waste fire L1 responded for a dumpster fire. Fire had been extinguished. Scene turned over to FM-2 07/04/2012 30046 2012-000513 22:04 115 MORRIS DR Authorized controlled burning E2 responded for unauthorized burning . Scene placed under control. Turned over to City FM. 07/04/2012 30046 2012-000514 22:32 51 WEBBS LN H Lock-out 17 responded for child locked in auto. Car was opened and child was okay. 07/05/2012 30046 2012-000515 20:21 21 S LITTLE CREEK RD Alarm system sounded due to malfunction Responded to Ihop for a AFA. E 2 arrived on location and did walk through with negative results. Scene was placed under control and all units returned. 07/06/2012 30046 2012-000516 12:22 GREENTREE DR Outside rubbish fire, other Mulch fire, out prior to arrival. 07/06/2012 30046 2012-000517 16:28 200 E CAMDEN WYOMING AVE Cover assignment, standby, moveup Stand By Station 41. 07/06/2012 30046 2012-000518 17:15 1001 WHITEOAK RD BLDG A Good intent call, other FM 2 responded to the above area in reference to a pinic bench on fire. FM 2 arrived and located nothing. 07/07/2012 30046 2012-000519 13:26 97 COMMERCE WAY 101 Outside rubbish fire, other Mulch fire, extinguished prior to arrival. 07/07/2012 30046 2012-000520 18:06 559 ARTIS DR Fire, other DFD responded to the above address in reference to a barbeque grill on fire. On arrival the grill was actively burning by the propane tank. Crews used a dry chemical extinguisher and extinguished same. No further action taken. 07/08/2012 30046 2012-000521 14:53 51 WEBBS LN E False alarm or false call, other DFD responded to the above location in reference to an alarm activation. On arrival, crews determined the alarm system was activated by a resident cleaning the oven. No further action taken. 07/09/2012 30046 2012-000522 11:30 121 S STATE ST Unintentional transmission of alarm, other Dispatched to the above location for an AFA. Upon arrival, crews investigated the interior to discover the alarm had been reset by personnel inside before our arrival. Members inside related they had cooked something in the microwave and believed that was the cause of the alarm. No members evacuated the building at any point. A complete walk through of the building was conducted including the attic. No fire or smoke conditions were noted. FM-2 was notified and was on scene prior to our departure. Date: 08/28/2012 Page: 1 Time:09:09

Date FDID Incident# Alarm ### Address Suite Type User: O'Connor, Jr., Michael 07/09/2012 11:59:27 07/10/2012 30046 2012-000523 10:39 110 FIREHOUSE LA Cover assignment, standby, moveup One engine cover station 56 on a working house fire. 07/11/2012 30046 2012-000524 02:49 1710 N DUPONT HWY Gasoline or other flammable liquid spill Responded to the address for a report of a fuel spill. Arrived on location with E2 to find about 10 gallons of gasoline on the road. E 2 crew spread stay dry and scene was placed under control and E 2 returned. 07/11/2012 30046 2012-000525 12:57 WOLFCREEK BLVD Outside rubbish fire, other Bushes and mulch on fire. 07/11/2012 30046 2012-000526 15:46 2898 ARTHURSVILLE RD Cover assignment, standby, moveup E3 responded to Station 51 while they worked on a trailer fire. 07/11/2012 30046 2012-000527 18:46 1481 N DUPONT HWY Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional Alarm for building. Determined to be an outlet in the wall. Power isolated by crews. 07/12/2012 30046 2012-000528 06:50 40 SAULSBURY RD Water evacuation General alarm for report of waterflow activation from above. Crews found a malfunction in the system and it was turned over to the company maintenance for further . Building placed on firewatch 07/12/2012 30046 2012-000529 11:31 1365 N DUPONT HWY 3054 Cultivated vegetation, crop fire, other Mulch Fire area of Macys. Extinguished using approx 10 gallons of water. 07/12/2012 30046 2012-000530 22:16 COLLEGE RD Oil or other combustible liquid spill E2 responded to above for a washdown due to accident. Stay Dri was put down and scene turned over to DPD. 07/12/2012 30046 2012-000531 23:42 1001 FORREST AVE Electrical wiring/equipment problem, other Transformer reported to be on fire at the above location. Writer found no arching upon arrival and City crew was notified of same. 07/13/2012 30046 2012-000532 05:50 411 S QUEEN ST Public service assistance, other Washdown 07/13/2012 30046 2012-000533 06:40 1368 ROSE VALLEY SCHOOL RD Outside rubbish fire, other E3 and writer responded to above for report of woods on fire. Area was checked and nothing could be located. 07/13/2012 30046 2012-000534 06:40 39 KENTWOOD DR System malfunction, other E4 responded to above for report of alarm sounding . Found to be faulty detector. 07/13/2012 30046 2012-000535 12:48 1200 N DUPONT HWY Smoke detector activation due to malfunction Warren Franklin Hall AGAIN. Smoke detector in the first floor lounge 07/15/2012 30046 2012-000536 00:42 1200 N DUPONT HWY Special type of incident, other Assist Dover PD with lights for a search. 07/16/2012 30046 2012-000537 07:49 14 FAIR WIND PL Medical assist, assist EMS crew Dispatched to assist EMS. Upon arrival, crews assisted EMS in bringing a large pt down from the second story via stair chair. Transferred the pt to the cot and then to the ambulance. BLS initiated transport and Rescue 1 returned. User: O'Connor, Jr., Michael 07/16/2012 08:38:19 07/16/2012 30046 2012-000538 18:58 KESSELRING AVE & NEW BURTON RD Brush or brush-and-grass mixture fire Dispatched to a brush fire. Upon arrival, B9 found a shrub next to the building on fire. Heat from same melted the soffit on the adjacent building. Crews extinguished the fire and requested a ladder company assist to inspect the roof line. Upon the ladders arrival, the main was placed in service and several pieces of melted soffit were pulled down. No extension was noted. The City FMO was contacted. FM-1 responded and was given suspect information by Dover PD. Cleared the scene. User: O'Connor, Jr., Michael 07/16/2012 19:46:29 07/17/2012 30046 2012-000539 14:13 918 ROSE VALLEY SCHOOL Outside rubbish fire, other On arrival owner and a DSP officer had extinguished a debris fire along the roadway on Rose Valley School Rd. B9 went under control and returned all units. FM-28 and DNREC made a response. 07/17/2012 30046 2012-000540 18:07 439 PHOENIX DR Passenger vehicle fire Responded to 439 Phoenix dr for a report of a vehicle fire. Arrived on location to find no fire showing. Crew investigated to find a small fire had started in the dash of the drivers seat and burnt itself out. The battery was disconnected and scene was placed under control and Engine 2 returned. 07/17/2012 30046 2012-000541 22:38 69 QUAIL HOLLOW DR Outside rubbish fire, other A small wood pile was on fire next to the fence at the above address. One panel was burned away and serval other panels were damaged. The realtor was contacted of the adjoining property to advise them of the damage as well. E7's crew used approx 100 gallons of water to extinguish the blaze. Units cleared and the scene was turned over to FM1 07/18/2012 30046 2012-000542 04:50 868 WOODCREST DR BLDG G False alarm or false call, other Pull station was knocked off the wall causing the alarm to sound. Maintenance advised he believed the tenants in apartment G3 may have done it. 07/18/2012 30046 2012-000543 09:42 990 WYOMING MILL RD Special type of incident, other Dover 17 dispatched to an MVC Wyoming Mill Road. Station 41 was previously dispatched by Kent Center while en route entrapment was confirmed by DPD. Dover 17 assisted Station 41 with the extrication. The MVC occurred in Station 41's district. Date: 08/28/2012 Page: 2 Time:09:09

Date FDID Incident# Alarm ### Address Suite Type 07/18/2012 30046 2012-000544 13:35 62 KENTWOOD DR Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional Detector set off by steam from the shower. 07/18/2012 30046 2012-000545 18:39 SR1 SR1 AND DAFB MAIN GATE EXIT Brush or brush-and-grass mixture fire 07/18/2012 30046 2012-000546 19:00 800 OTIS DR False alarm or false call, other Dispatched to an AFA. Upon arrival, entered the building via the knox box. A complete walk through of the structure was completed with no findings. Cleared the scene after securing the building User: O'Connor, Jr., Michael 07/20/2012 10:28:41 07/18/2012 30046 2012-000547 19:04 880 BUTTNER PLACE Fire, other Dover Fire apparatus were dispatched for a report of a unknown fire at the power plant. Dover Ladder 1(responding with Dover 16/writer) arrived on location to find a 6 story medium size industrial structure with an unknown flammable gas fire visible from pipes/stacks on the rooftop of the structure. At this time Dover 16 established fire ground command. A representative from the power advised writer and crews that there was a lightning strike to the structure and that the venting pipe was ignited in the process. This individual was not aware what the exact material was venting and burning at that time. Crews from Dover Ladder 1 as well as Dover Engines 4 and 6 made their way up the elevator and stair ladders to the rooftop. Once on the roof Captain Carey along with Asst. Chief O'Connor were advised by a plant supervisor that the lightning strike to the structure had ignited a propane pipe that had been venting since some time Monday. Carey and O'Connor were advised that there was no way to shut the venting gas off and that extinguishment was the only way to control the fire. The supervisor advised them that the venting gas would disperse naturally after extinguished. Crews used dry chemical extinguishers and the fire was contained. Carey and O'Connor determined situation to be under control and information was relayed to writer. Command placed the situation under control and held units on scene. 07/19/2012 30046 2012-000548 13:17 FEDERAL ST Gasoline or other flammable liquid spill gasoline from a GOA vehicle 07/19/2012 30046 2012-000549 18:50 101 BABB DR Cooking fire, confined to container Dispatched to above address for a fire alarm. Upon arrival had E6 crew investigate. E4 crew found someone had put hotdogs in the micro wave and overcooked them. No need for ventilation. Alarm unable to be silenced. Maintenance not on scene prior to returning. Cleared. 07/19/2012 30046 2012-000550 19:45 360 WEBBS LN Assist police or other governmental agency Dover PD requested Ladder 2 at the above address so they could get on the roof and check for any possible damages because of 4 trespassers. I arrived on location with ladder 2 and was canceled. 07/19/2012 30046 2012-000551 21:33 255 WEBBS LN G System malfunction, other Dispatched to above address for a AFA. Upon arrival E6 crew found that the alarm system had activated. Residence of the bldg related that he had activated a week ago also. Maintenance on scene and had them reset the system. Cleared. 07/19/2012 30046 2012-000552 22:02 1080 SILVER LAKE BLVD Smoke detector activation due to malfunction Crews completed a walk through of the building and found detector M1-37 malfunctioning. Units cleared and placed the building on fire watch. 07/20/2012 30046 2012-000553 02:41 22 THE GREEN System malfunction, other Dispatched to above address for a AFA. upon arrival had the alarm inside the bldg sounding. Maintensnce on scene L1 crew did a walk thru and found nothing. Had the alarm reset. Alarm activated due to thunder storm. Cleared. 07/20/2012 30046 2012-000554 02:43 501 S STATE ST False alarm or false call, other Responded to the above address for a AFA under the command of FF Eric Carey. Engine 3 arrived on location conducting a complete walk through with negative results. Alarm was storm related. 07/20/2012 30046 2012-000555 02:43 800 OTIS DR False alarm or false call, other Responded to the above address for a AFA. Engine 2 arrived on location with a complete walk through with negative results. Alarm was storm related. 07/20/2012 30046 2012-000556 09:56 281 SHEFFIELD DR Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional Dispatched to above address for a fire alarm . Upon arrival fire personnel were met by the home owner relating that his wife and burnt something on the stove and there was no fire. E6 crew went inside to check. Under control. Cleared. 07/20/2012 30046 2012-000557 17:08 243 KENTWOOD DR Fire in mobile home used as fixed residence Dover Fire units arrived on scene to a 14x70 mobile fixed mobile home and found a small extinguished fire in a front bedroom. Fire was contained to a tv on a dresser. Crews opened windows and ventilated the structure. FM notified. UNits on scene Dover E6 ,7 ,3, and 43-2. Dover 16 and A-63 07/20/2012 30046 2012-000558 20:27 1131 N DUPONT HWY Dispatched & canceled en route Was advised of odor of propane in area of the VIP footbridge. Foot Patrol 2 cleared incident with good intent. 07/21/2012 30046 2012-000559 15:53 400 N DUPONT HWY A Extrication of victim(s) from vehicle 22, E2, and R1 responded for an MVC reported subject trapped. Writer arrived and found one car with the driver pinned. Writer advised E2 to perform a door pop in order to extricate the victim. 21 was placed in charge of extrication. KM-7 and A63 performed patient care while E2s crew performed extication on the vehicle. Patient was exticated and transported to KGH for evaluation. Scene was turned over to Dover PD. 07/21/2012 30046 2012-000560 20:58 1131 N DUPONT HWY Dumpster or other outside trash receptacle fire Dispatched to above address for a possible fire in porta poty. They were cleaning them with steam, no fire. Cleared. 07/21/2012 30046 2012-000561 23:16 2038 WHITEOAK RD Outside rubbish fire, other Date: 08/28/2012 Page: 3 Time:09:09

Date FDID Incident# Alarm ### Address Suite Type Engine 6 responded to the above address in reference to a small outside fire. On arrival, I located a small pile of brush burning. The booster line was utilized to extinguish same. No further action taken. 07/22/2012 30046 2012-000562 04:19 1300 S FARMVIEW DR C Smoke detector activation due to malfunction On arrival Engine 2 crew found an a smoke detector activated on the 3rd floor. Detector A31. Building checked with negative results. 07/22/2012 30046 2012-000563 13:37 121 S STATE ST Alarm system sounded due to malfunction Alarm sounded due to malfunction 07/22/2012 30046 2012-000564 18:41 10 FAIRWAY LAKES DR F Local alarm system, malicious false alarm Responded to the above address for a report of the alarm sounding in the building. Engine 2 investigated to find a pull station had been pulled on the charlie division 2. Scene was placed under control and units returned. 07/24/2012 30046 2012-000565 14:31 1358 FORREST AVE Gasoline or other flammable liquid spill Apporx. 10 gallons of fuel spilled in the gas pump area of the above address. Crews put stay dry down over the effected areas and cleared. 07/24/2012 30046 2012-000566 16:31 244 MOOR FARM LN Outside rubbish, trash or waste fire Grass clippings pile on fire. 20 x 30 pile 07/26/2012 30046 2012-000567 08:09 1536 N DUPONT HWY False alarm or false call, other E2 and E3 responded for automatic fire alarm at above. E3's crew found it to be a faulty detector in the warehouse area. 07/26/2012 30046 2012-000568 16:18 303 W DIVISION ST Outside rubbish, trash or waste fire Writer and E7 responded for a debris pile on fire at rear of residence. E7s crew wet it down and scene was turned over to FM-2 07/26/2012 30046 2012-000569 23:51 1200 N DUPONT HWY Smoke detector activation due to malfunction Smoke detector activation from water in the ceiling. 07/27/2012 30046 2012-000570 01:28 109 WILLIS RD Service Call, other Writer responded for a CO alarm activation w/o injuries at above. Writer used the meter out of Car 2 to walk thru the residence. It was found to be a faulty battery . No readings were found. 07/27/2012 30046 2012-000571 01:50 430 COLLEGE RD 600 Building fire At the above time writer was notified of automatic fire alarm sounding at the above address. Writer arrived on scene along with DSU PD. The alarm panel was indicating a zone z waterflow alarm. No zone book could be located. Writer began going door to door to see if any smoke or heat could be felt. Writer noticed apartment 617 had light smoke coming from around the door. Security had a key card and Writer opened the apartment. A heavy smoke condition was encountered as well as sprinkler activation in the apartment. Writer donned gear and SCBA and notified Dover to alert Station 2 for an Engine. E2 arrived and their crew searched the rest of the apartment as well as secure the sprinkler system. Fire was contained to the kitchen area due to the sprinkler suppression system in the building. Writer secured the stove. Meter to the apartment as well as the apartment below were pulled and City Electric was notified. Scene was tuend over to FM-2. 07/27/2012 30046 2012-000572 08:38 102 W WATER ST Good intent call, other Dispatched to above addres for a subject stuck in the elevator. RP called back to advise that the subject had been removed from the elevator. Call ws cancelled prior to response. 07/27/2012 30046 2012-000573 09:32 1200 N DUPONT HWY Alarm system sounded due to malfunction Price Hall DSU activation. Security did a walk through with negative results. 07/27/2012 30046 2012-000574 14:56 S QUEEN ST Good intent call, other REPORTED MULCH FIRE. NOTHING FOUND GOOD INTENT CALL. 07/27/2012 30046 2012-000575 23:14 561 N DUPONT HWY Passenger vehicle fire Motorcycle on fire in the middle of the highway. 07/28/2012 30046 2012-000576 00:22 1200 N DUPONT HWY Alarm system sounded due to malfunction Village 2 system activation. DSU PD did walk through several times and found a system malfunction 07/28/2012 30046 2012-000577 11:35 245 S DUPONT HWY False alarm or false call, other DFD responded to the above location in reference to a general fire alarm. On arrival, occupants advised they were testing the system and failed to notify the alarm company. No action taken. 07/29/2012 30046 2012-000578 00:05 435 SUSSEX AVE Carbon monoxide incident CO detector activation in a residence. Upon investigation, found readings of 16 to 18 PPM in the basement of residence. Also found readings of 6 to 10 PPM in the first and second floor. No complaints of any injuries. Resident was advised to turn off HVAC unit and open all windows and to contact landlord. 07/29/2012 30046 2012-000579 00:34 820 CARVEL DR A Cooking fire, confined to container Cooking fire contained. 07/30/2012 30046 2012-000580 08:32 9 PAR HAVEN DR C Alarm system sounded due to malfunction Dispatched to an AFA at the above location. Upon arrival, crews investigated and found an activated detector on division 3. No smoke or fire conditions present. The building was placed on fire watch and turned over to mx. User: O'Connor, Jr., Michael 07/30/2012 09:02:57 07/30/2012 30046 2012-000581 11:59 2056 GENERALS WAY False alarm or false call, other Car 2 (17) responded to the above address in referenc to an alarm activation. On arrrival, Dover 17 determined the scene under control. No action taken. 07/30/2012 30046 2012-000582 21:40 655 BAY RD False alarm or false call, other L1, E2, E3, L2 responded to above for report of waterflow alarm coming from the Dover Furniture Warehouse located at the above address. Crews investigated and found no problems. Date: 08/28/2012 Page: 4 Time:09:09

Date FDID Incident# Alarm ### Address Suite Type 07/31/2012 30046 2012-000583 19:04 3002 GENERALS WAY Smoke or odor removal DFD responded to the above address in reference to a dishwasher smoking. On arrival, crews sercured the power to the unit and advised the resident to contact their maintenance person. No further action taken. 07/31/2012 30046 2012-000584 20:34 445 PHOENIX DR Smoke or odor removal DFD responded to the above address in reference to smell of smoke in the residence. On arrival, crews deteremined the T.V. had over heated and caused an odor. The power was secured to the T.V. No further action taken. 07/31/2012 30046 2012-000585 22:01 1016 WHITEOAK RD Cooking fire, confined to container Oven fire contained. No fire upon arrival Total Incidents: 84

FY 12-13 City Funded Account Balance Sheet ACCOUNT BUDGET SPENT BALANCE Apparatus Repairs & Maintenance $ 67,000.00 $ - $ 67,000.00 Building Maintenace Supplies $ 1,650.00 $ - $ 1,650.00 Contractual Services $ 16,587.00 $ - $ 16,587.00 Electricity $ 51,820.00 $ - $ 51,820.00 Gasoline $ 19,050.00 $ - $ 19,050.00 Heating Expenses- Gas $ 20,000.00 $ - $ 20,000.00 Medical Supplies $ 700.00 $ - $ 700.00 Office Supplies $ 2,500.00 $ - $ 2,500.00 Other Equipment Repairs $ 4,000.00 $ - $ 4,000.00 Program Expenses $ 36,630.00 $ - $ 36,630.00 Radio Repairs $ 2,000.00 $ - $ 2,000.00 Safety & Security $ 2,150.00 $ - $ 2,150.00 Small Tools $ 4,800.00 $ - $ 4,800.00 Telephone $ 13,340.00 $ - $ 13,340.00 Training & Travel $ 8,815.00 $ - $ 8,815.00 Uniforms & Firefighting Gear $ 27,100.00 $ - $ 27,100.00 Water/ Sewer $ 3,150.00 $ - $ 3,150.00 Balance as of: 07/31/12

5:00 PM Robbins Hose Company # 1, Inc. 08/26/12 Accrual Basis Profit & Loss Detail July 2012 Type Date Num Name Memo Clr Split Amount Balance Ordinary Income/Expense Income City Quarterly Deposit Deposit 07/30/2012 0223412 1st Quarter Deposit City Fund Account 70,325.00 70,325.00 Total City Quarterly Deposit 70,325.00 70,325.00 Total Income 70,325.00 70,325.00 Net Ordinary Income 70,325.00 70,325.00 Net Income 70,325.00 70,325.00 Page 1 of 1

Monthly Report July 2012 Economic Development Office

Economic Development /DDP Update July 2012  Met with DDP Organization Committee to discuss Annual Report and Annual Reception, Rick Hill from Hill Design Group was selected to design the Annual Report  Met with DDP Parking Committee and selected the vendor for the Parking Meters to be installed on Bradford Street and Loockerman Way.  Met with stakeholders to discuss next steps for the Wells Fargo Grant which is now called the Central Dover Neighborhood Planning Grant  Met with Charlie Rodriguez to discuss a number of commercial properties that are available and the future tenants that will be occupying those commercial spaces  Gregg Moore and Bill Neaton met with executives from Buccini Pollin, Michael Hare and Boris Kaplan, to discuss potential for downtown development by Buccini Pollin  Gregg Moore and Bill Neaton met with DelDot officials to determine priority of the three Transportation Enhancement Grant applications submitted by the Downtown Dover Partnership, improvements of infrastructure on North Street from Governors Avenue to Queen Street was deemed the highest priority  Met with Bill Grow and Bill Goodwin from NRG to discuss the status of the current expansion of their power plant in Dover and the possibility of providing additional power to commercial sites in Dover  Met with Tony DePrima and representatives of the Dover Interfaith Mission to determine the next steps for the Drop-In Center located at the Interfaith Mission  Met with new plant manager and leadership team at Energizer to provide update on Economic Development projects in City of Dover. Also discussed potential energy savings for FY13  Attended Grand Openings for Frankfurt Bakery and Tea for Two  Conference call with Calpine to discuss next steps for approval of water allocation from Delaware River Basin Commission  Participated in the Kent Economic Impact Conference sponsored by Kent County Tourism

Measures: 1. Maintain an unemployment rate for the City of Dover that is lower than national and state averages. 2010-2011 Actual 2011-2012 Actual 2012 - 2013 Projected Results <10% unemployment rate in <10% unemployment rate in <10% unemployment rate in July 2011 July 2012 July 2013 9.2 % - U.S. Rate 8.2% - U.S. Rate 8.3% - U.S. Rate 8.0 % - DE Rate 6.8 % - DE Rate 6.8 % - DE Rate 9.9% - City of Dover Rate 8.6% - City of Dover Rate 9.0% - City of Dover Rate June 2011 – Actual June 2012 – Actual July 2012 – Actual 2. Monitor number of contacts with small businesses and with out-of-town companies interested in locating in Dover. 2010-2011 Actual 2011-2012 Actual 2012 - 2013 Projected Results ≥20 contacts with potential >20 contacts with potential >20 contacts with potential small businesses; small businesses; small businesses; 12 contacts YTD 10 Contacts YTD 6 Contacts YTD ≥15 contacts with out-of-town 11 contacts with out-of-town 11 contacts with out-of-town companies interested in companies interested in companies interested in locating in Dover. locating in Dover locating in Dover 10 contacts YTD 9 Contacts YTD 3 Contacts YTD Downtown Dover Partnership Update July 2012  Continued to work with the thirteen (13) prospective businesses received technical assistance in June – seven (7) for business plan development; four (4) for location; and three (3) for loan referrals.  Provided continuing technical assistance to eleven (11) downtown merchants.  Ed Perez is working with the planning committee for the Capital Holiday Celebration on November 28, 2012.  Awarded a Facade Improvement Grant for exterior improvements at 207 W Loockerman  Attended grand openings at Frankfort Bakery and Tea for Two  Worked with Wesley College Student Affairs staff on planning for Clean-up Project  Worked with Delaware State Students to identify a community service project  Partnered with Dover Public Library to provide entertainment for children during the July First Friday

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: City Council DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: City Manager’s Office DATE SUBMITTED: 08-16-2012 PREPARED BY: Scott D. Koenig, P.E., City Manager SUBJECT: Evaluation of Proposals for Electric Utility Valuation Services REFERENCE: RELATED PROJECT: N/A REVIEWED BY: Donna Mitchell, Controller EXHIBITS: TIME TIMETABLE: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award the contract for Electric Utility System Valuation Services to GAI Consultants in the amount of $117,500 based on the recommendation provided by Betts & Holt LLP. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS In October 2011, the Dover City Council authorized staff to oversee the preparation of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Cost of Service Study to determine the valuation of the entire City of Dover Electric System. Due to the technical and legal complexity of the RFP process for this type of request, staff utilized the services of our power supply attorney, Mr. Kirk Betts, to develop and prepare the RFP as well as review the submissions from the various consultants who expressed interest in the project. On June 18, 2012, the City of Dover issued a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) seeking proposals from qualified independent consultants to provide an opinion and study regarding the value of the City’s electric utility system. Four (4) proposals were received in response to this RFP. The proposal evaluation process included two (2) components. First, the technical component of the evaluation process included compliance with the form and content requirements of the RFP, expertise and experience, valuation approach, comprehensiveness of the work plan and adequacy of analytical procedures. The second component related to pricing evaluation. Betts & Holt LLP ranked the proposals as follows: 1. GAI Team 2. Burns 3. AERCA Team 4. MRV Based upon the ranking, Betts & Holt LLP recommends that the City of Dover award the contract for Electric Utility System Valuation Services to GAI Consultants in the amount of $117,500.

PETITION TO ANNEX AND REZONE PROPERTY First Reading before the Dover City Council September 10, 2012 Applicants/Owners: Taililou, LLC Property Address: 136 Rustic Lane Tax Parcel ID #: ED00-057.02-02-40.00-000 Size: 0.56986 +/- acres Present Use: Residential Proposed Use: Commercial Comprehensive Plan Designation: Category 1 – Lands Identified for Annexation Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Mixed Use Present Zoning: RMH (Residential Manufactured Home District) Proposed Zoning: C-2A (Limited Central Commercial) Property Address: 110 Rustic Lane Tax Parcel ID #: ED00-057.02-02-38.00-000 Size: 1.118 +/- acres Present Use: Residential Proposed Use: Commercial Comprehensive Plan Designation: Category 1 – Lands Identified for Annexation Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Mixed Use Present Zoning: BG (General Business) Proposed Zoning: C-2A (Limited Central Commercial) File Number: AX-12-01

City of Dover Application No.: AX-12-01 Department of Planning & Inspections SC-3 136 Site 110 C-4 RC C-4 C-4 IO LA NE DU PO STIC NT HI RU G C-4 H W AY C-4 Plan Title: Lands of Taililou, LLC Location: 110 and 136 Rustic Lane Legend Plan Type: Annexation Tax Parcels: ED-00-057.02-02-38.00 and ED-00-057-02-02-40.00 Zoning Proposed Zoning: C-2A Proposed Land Use Classification: Mixed Use Dover Parcels Annexation Classification: Category 1 Priority Kent County Parcels Owner: Taililou, LLC Date: 8-31-12 Dover Boundary 0 150 300 600 Feet

FIRST READING CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2012-21 1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE 2 CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTIES LOCATED 3 AT 110 AND 136 RUSTIC LANE 4 WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within 5 the limits of the City of Dover; and 6 WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of 7 property described below from BG - General Business (110) (ED00-057.02-02-38.00-000) and 8 RMH - Residential Manufactured Home District (136) (ED00-057.02-02-40.00-000) (Kent County 9 zoning classifications) to C-2A - Limited Central Commercial (City of Dover zoning classification). 10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 11 DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 12 1. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning 13 Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designations from 14 BG - General Business (110) and RMH - Residential Manufactured Home District (136) (Kent 15 County zoning classifications) to C-2A - Limited Central Commercial (City of Dover zoning 16 classification) on those properties located at 110 and 136 Rustic Lane, owned by Taililou, LLC. 17 (T H IR D C O U N CIL D ISTRIC T ; P LAN N IN G R EFEREN CE : AX-12-01) 18 ADOPTED: * 19 S:\ANNEXATIONS\Annex-2012\110 and 136 Rustic Lane\Ordinance #2012-21 Rezoning of 110 & 136 Rustic Ln - First Reading.wpd 20 Actions History 21 September 10, 2012 - Scheduled for First Reading/Referral

FIRST READING CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2012-05 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN 2 COUNCIL MET: 3 That Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection, Article I - In General, Section 46-3 - Impairment of 4 Fire Protection Equipment, be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue, italics and deleting 5 the text indicated in red strikeout as follows: 6 Sec. 46-3. - Impairment of fire protection equipment. 7 (a) Prohibited. It shall be a violation of this chapter for any owner, renter, lessor, or contractor, after 8 having been notified, in writing, by the fire marshal or code enforcement officer of any 9 impairment to fire protection equipment, including but not limited to fire hydrants, fire alarm 10 systems, sprinkler systems, commercial cooking ventilation and fire suppression systems, 11 standpipes, and smoke removal or pressurization systems, to allow it to remain impaired for any 12 time beyond that allowed by the fire marshal for repair. For the purposes of this section, the term 13 "impairment" means any effective lessening of the equipment to operate as designed, including 14 times of maintenance and annual testing. 15 (b) Impairment of fire protection systems. All fire protection systems, devices, units, and service 16 equipment shall be maintained in an operational condition at all times, and it shall be 17 unlawful for any person owning, controlling, or otherwise having charge of any fire 18 protection system to willfully or knowingly tamper with or impair the system from operating 19 as designed without proper approval. An approval form may be obtained from the fire 20 marshal’s office. Approvals will not be required for temporary impairments caused by periodic 21 testing and inspection. Any impairment which will render the system non-operational or out 22 of service for more than eight hours for testing and inspection purposes must be approved 23 prior to the start of work. 24 (bc) Notification required. The owner, tenant, or contractor shall notify the Robbins Hose Company 25 of the city of any impaired fire protection equipment, and shall renotify the Robbins Hose 26 Company when the fire protection equipment has been restored to normal service. Certification 27 from the repairing contractor shall be required to verify that the system has been fixed and is 28 functioning as designed. 29 (cd) Fire watch required. When any impairment would cause a sprinkler system not to operate or a 30 fire alarm system not to detect and signal a fire, and if the building is to remain occupied, a fire 31 watch shall be established in that building or that portion of a building affected. It shall be the 32 responsibility of the owner or tenant to set up the fire watch. The fire watch shall consist of an 33 hourly check of the building or portion of the building affected, and a log kept, there stating the 34 date, time of the checks, and who was making the checks. This log shall be accessible for 35 immediate inspection by the fire chief, fire marshal, or code enforcement officer. 36 (e) Authority of fire marshal. The fire marshal or his/her designee is authorized to close any 37 such building or property where fire protection equipment is found to be impaired or non- 38 operational to ensure the life safety of the occupants.

Proposed Ordinance #2012-05 - Chpt 46 - Fire Prevention & Protection Page 2 39 (df) Fines. Any owner, occupant, contractor or body corporate found to be in violation of this section 40 shall be issued a summons as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines. 41 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT 42 Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection, Article I - In General, Section 46-5 - Open burning, 43 Paragraph (f) - Prohibited, be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue, italics and deleting 44 the text indicated in red strikeout as follows: 45 Sec. 46-5. - Open burning 46 (a) Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the 47 meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different 48 meaning: 49 Barbecuing - Commercial. The preparation and cooking of food by way of gas grill, charcoal 50 grill, or other apparatus used for the cooking of food by way of flame produced through wood, charcoal, 51 or gas for the purpose of cooking food for the sale to and/or consumption by the general public. 52 Barbecuing—Recreational. The preparation and cooking of food by way of gas grill, charcoal 53 grill, or other apparatus used for the cooking of food by way of flame produced through wood, charcoal, 54 or gas for the purpose of cooking food for the consumption by a family and/or guests or by the 55 membership of a private organization or church congregation. 56 Open burning. The burning of materials wherein products of combustion are emitted directly into 57 the ambient air without passing through a stack or chimney from an enclosed chamber. 58 Outdoor fireplace. Any homemade or commercially produced fireplace, fire pit, or fire ring used 59 for the kindling of wood. 60 (b) Permit required. Open burning of structures, brush, or bonfires shall not be permitted without 61 a permit obtained from the fire marshal. 62 (c) Fire dimensions. Open burning, when permitted, shall be kindled in such a manner as not to be 63 a danger to other campers, recreational vehicles, tents, or structures and shall not be of a size 64 greater than 18 inches by 18 inches by 18 inches. Height of the fire shall be measured from the 65 ground or from the bottom of the inside of the container being used to kindle the fire. Open 66 burning shall not be kindled directly on the ground unless contained in a fire ring. 67 (d) Fire clearances and time restrictions. Outdoor fireplaces shall have 36 inches clearance from 68 all combustibles when in use. Portable fireplaces, fire pits, or fire rings shall be extinguished in 69 a residential area between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 8:00 a.m. 70 (e) Commercial barbecuing. Commercial barbecuing shall be permitted under the following 71 conditions: 72 (1) The location has been approved by city licensing and inspections and the fire marshal and 73 an outdoor public gathering permit has been obtained.

Proposed Ordinance #2012-05 - Chpt 46 - Fire Prevention & Protection Page 3 74 (2) One fire extinguisher of not less than five pounds ABC is to be located within ten feet of the 75 cooking area. Cooking area and cooking fuels shall be secured from public access. 76 (3) Approval from the board of public health has been obtained. 77 (4) The operator shall make all reasonable attempts to avoid causing a nuisance to nearby 78 property owners with smoke, fumes, or sparks. 79 (5) All compressed flammable gas containers used for cooking shall be secured in such a way 80 as to prevent them from being knocked, tipped, or blown over. 81 Any commercial barbecuing operations which are a continual nuisance because of smoke, fumes, 82 or sparks shall be terminated by the code official or fire marshal and the outdoor public gathering permit 83 revoked until such time as the director of licensing and inspections is satisfied that the problem has been 84 corrected. 85 Barbecuing of any kind shall not be kindled within 200 feet of any fuel pump or storage tank fill. 86 Cooking grease shall not be disposed of by placing it directly on the ground or in storm water drains. 87 (f) Prohibited.—Multifamily residential dwelling units. In apartment buildings, 88 condominiums, or any other multifamily residential dwelling of three or more units by any 89 other name, the storage of propane tanks inside units or on balconies is prohibited. 90 Recreational barbecuing shall be prohibited on any balcony or under any overhanging 91 portion or within 15 feet of any structure, except that the use of electrical ranges or 92 electrical grills shall be permitted. The use of outdoor fireplaces on balconies is prohibited. 93 (1) Multifamily residential dwelling units. In apartment buildings, condominiums, or any 94 other multifamily residential dwelling of three or more units by any other name, the 95 storage of propane tanks inside units or on balconies is prohibited. Recreational 96 barbecuing shall be prohibited on any balcony or under any overhanging portion or 97 within 15 feet of any structure, except that the use of electrical ranges or electrical grills 98 shall be permitted. The use of outdoor fireplaces on balconies is prohibited. 99 (2) Unattended burning. It shall be prohibited for open burning, commercial barbecuing, and 100 outdoor fireplaces to be unattended at any time. In the event that any open burning, 101 commercial barbecuing, or outdoor fireplaces are found to be unattended, the fire 102 marshal, code official, fire officer, or police shall order the open burning extinguished. 103 (g) Fines. Any owner, occupant, contractor, or body corporate found to be in violation of this section 104 shall be issued a summons as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines. 105 (h) Authority of the fire marshal. The fire marshal is authorized to impose a ban on open burning 106 if weather conditions do not safely permit open burning. The fire marshal or fire officer shall 107 order any fire extinguished that is deemed unsafe or not in compliance with this section of the 108 Dover Code.

Proposed Ordinance #2012-05 - Chpt 46 - Fire Prevention & Protection Page 4 109 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT 110 Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection, Article I - In General, Section 46-7 - Preventable and 111 Malfunctioning Alarms to the Fire Company, be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue, 112 italics and deleting the text indicated in red strikeout as follows: 113 Sec. 46-7. - Preventable and malfunctioning alarms to the fire company. 114 (a) Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have the 115 meanings ascribed to them in this subsection, except where the context clearly indicates a 116 different meaning: 117 Automatic telephone dialing device and digital alarm communicator system mean an alarm 118 system which automatically sends a prerecorded voice message or coded signal over regular telephone 119 lines, by direct connection or otherwise, indicating the existence of the emergency situation that the 120 alarm system is designed to detect. 121 Fee Fine means the assessment of a monetary charge, payable to the city, authorized pursuant 122 to this section, to defray the expenses of responding to a preventable alarm or alarm malfunction. 123 Fire alarm installation report means a report, in a form approved by the fire marshal, with the 124 following minimum information: 125 (1) The name, address, business and home telephone number of the owner, lessee, operator, 126 manager or person in possession of the premises wherein the alarm system is installed. 127 (2) The name, address, and telephone number of a minimum of two persons who can be notified 128 by the Robbins Hose Company in the event of the activation of the alarm system, who shall 129 be capable of responding to the premises within 30 minutes, and who is are authorized to 130 enter the premises to ascertain the status thereof. 131 Fire alarm malfunction means the activation of any alarm, which results in the response of the 132 fire department, caused by mechanical failure, malfunction, improper installation, or lack of proper 133 maintenance. 134 Fire alarm system means any mechanical, electrical or radio-controlled device which is designed 135 to emit a sound or transmit a signal or message when activated or any such device which emits a sound 136 and transmits a signal or message when activated because of smoke, heat or fire. Without limiting the 137 generality of the foregoing, the term "fire alarm system" shall be deemed to include audible alarms at 138 the site of the installation of the detection device, proprietor alarms and automatic telephone direct dial 139 devices or digital alarm communicator systems. A single station alarm device shall not be deemed to be 140 an alarm system under this section. 141 Fire alarm technician means any person who inspects, installs, repairs or performs maintenance 142 on fire alarm systems and is licensed by the state or works under a state licensed alarm contractor. 143 Operative alarm system means an alarm system which the owner of a premises is required to 144 maintain in an operative condition pursuant to statute, law, ordinance, rule or regulation of the state or 145 the city.

Proposed Ordinance #2012-05 - Chpt 46 - Fire Prevention & Protection Page 5 146 Owner means any person who owns the premises in which an alarm system is installed or the 147 person or persons who lease, operate, occupy or manage the premises. 148 Premises means any building or structure, or combination of buildings and structures, which 149 serve as dwelling units, single-family or multifamily, or any other area within a building or structure, 150 or combination thereof, which is used for any purpose, other than residential, wherein an alarm system 151 is installed. 152 Preventible Preventable alarm means the activation of any alarm, which results in the response 153 of the fire department, caused by the negligence or intentional misuse of the system by the owner or 154 his/her employees, servants or agents; or any other activation not caused by heat, smoke or fire, 155 exclusive of a "fire alarm malfunction" as defined in this section. An alarm is not considered a 156 preventible preventable alarm if the alarm is activated due to malicious causes beyond the control of 157 the owner. 158 Serve means hand-delivery, by a representative of either the fire department or police department, 159 to the owner or authorized representative who responded to the premises. In the event the owner or 160 authorized representative fails to respond to the premises within 30 minutes, the term "serve" shall mean 161 placing the form or other matter in the United States mail, addressed to the owner or authorized 162 representative. 163 Single-station alarm device means an assembly incorporating the detector, control equipment 164 and alarm-sounding device in one unit, operated from a power supply either in the unit, or obtained at 165 the point of installation. 166 (b) Fire alarm installation report. 167 (1) Required. Every person who installs, owns, leases, possesses or operates any fire alarm 168 system within the city shall notify the office of the fire marshal of the alarm system and 169 necessary information about the system through a fire alarm installation report, which 170 shall be completed and forwarded to the office of the fire marshal. When any of the 171 information required has changed, it shall be reported by the owner within 15 days of 172 such change. 173 (2) Test. No fire alarm system acceptance test shall be performed until the fire alarm 174 installation report is complete. It shall be the duty of the fire alarm installation 175 company to provide the owner with a current copy of the fire alarm installation report. 176 (cb) Responsibility for malfunctioning and preventible preventable alarms, owner response, and 177 corrective action. 178 (1) Generally. The responsibility for a preventable or malfunctioning alarm shall be that of the 179 owner of the premises in which the fire alarm system is installed. A response to a preventable 180 or malfunctioning alarm shall result when any fire marshal or member of the fire department 181 shall be dispatched to the premises where the alarm has been activated or learns of the 182 activation of the alarm system, by any means whatsoever, and responds thereto by traveling 183 to that premises. After responding to a malfunctioning or preventable alarm, the responding 184 official shall notify the owner or his/her authorized representative and such person shall 185 thereupon travel to the premises to ascertain the status thereof. Should the person notified

Proposed Ordinance #2012-05 - Chpt 46 - Fire Prevention & Protection Page 6 186 fail to appear at said premises within 30 minutes after being notified to do so, the city may 187 charge fire marshal may issue the owner of the premises a fee fine as provided for in 188 Appendix F—Fees and Fines. The official or member of the fire department who responded 189 to said premises shall forward a fire alarm activation report to notify the fire marshal's 190 office. 191 (2) Malfunction. In the event of a fire alarm deemed by the responding official to be the result 192 of a fire alarm malfunction, the owner will be served a fire alarm activation report notice 193 of violation form, indicating that the activation was deemed to be the result of a fire alarm 194 malfunction, and requiring the owner to return a completed affidavit of service/repair 195 within 15 days of said alarm activation, which can verify provide documentation that the 196 fire alarm component that caused the fire alarm malfunction has been corrected, to the 197 satisfaction of the fire marshal, and that the fire alarm system in question has actually been 198 examined by a fire alarm technician and that a bona fide attempt has been made to identify 199 and correct any defect of design, installation or operation of the fire alarm system which was 200 identifiable as the cause of the fire alarm malfunction. Failure to return an affidavit 201 documentation of service/repair within said 15-day period, the period of time stated on the 202 notice of violation, which is satisfactory to the fire marshal, will result in assessment against 203 the owner of a fee fine for the fire alarm malfunction as provided for in Appendix F—Fees 204 and Fines. 205 (dc) Fee Fine charges; multiple fire alarm malfunctions or preventible preventable alarms. 206 (1) Amount of fee fine. A fee fine may be assessed for the third and subsequent malfunctioning 207 or preventable alarms at the same premises responded to by the fire department within the 208 prior 12-month period. Thereafter, the fees fines, as provided for in Appendix F - Fees and 209 Fines, shall be paid by the owner for each preventable or malfunctioning fire alarm 210 responded to by the fire department at the same premises during a 12-month period 211 beginning with the date of the first alarm. 212 (2) Panel reset. Once a preventable alarm or fire alarm malfunction has been responded to by 213 the fire department, it shall be unlawful for the alarm panel to be reset by any person until 214 the authorization of the fire department has been obtained. A fee fine as provided for in 215 Appendix F—Fees and Fines may be assessed to the owner of a premises where the fire 216 alarm has been reset before the fire department or assisting fire department arrives. 217 (3) Insufficient alarms. When any premises are protected by a fire alarm system that, in the 218 opinion of the fire marshal or his/her deputy(ies), will not safely alarm the occupants of a 219 fire, the fire marshal or his/her deputy(ies) may close said building, or a portion of said 220 building, to human occupancy until the problem with the fire alarm is corrected and a written 221 report from a licensed fire alarm company is submitted to the fire marshal. 222 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT 223 Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection, Article I - In General, be amended by inserting a new 224 Section 46-9 - Fire Hydrants and Fire Department Connections, to read as follows: 225 Sec. 46-9. - Fire hydrants and fire department connections.

Proposed Ordinance #2012-05 - Chpt 46 - Fire Prevention & Protection Page 7 226 (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to park, place, or keep any vehicle or object within ten feet 227 of a fire hydrant or fire department connection on any city street or public property. 228 (b) Fire hydrants public and private shall have their tops painted with the appropriate color to 229 indicate flow, and the remainder of the hydrant shall not be painted any color other than red 230 unless approved by the fire marshal and public works department. 231 (c) It shall be unlawful to knowingly impair or tamper with a fire hydrant or fire department 232 connection so as to make it non-operational when needed. 233 (d) It shall be unlawful for any person other than members of a fire department engaged in the 234 performance of their duties, any person in the event of an emergency endangering life or 235 property, or any city department for authorized purposes to open, use or take water from any 236 fire hydrant. 237 (e) During times of inclement weather, snow shall not be plowed or piled as to obstruct the use 238 of fire hydrants on private property. 239 (f) Fire hydrants shall be installed per the requirements of City of Dover Public Utilities 240 Water/Wastewater Handbook, NFPA requirements, and Delaware State Fire Prevention 241 Regulations. 242 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT 243 Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection, Article I - In General, be amended by inserting a new 244 Section 46-10 - Notifying the Fire Department, to read as follows: 245 Sec. 46-10. - Report of fires required; spreading of alarm. 246 It shall be the duty of the owner, manager, occupant, responsible person or any person in 247 direct control of any building or premises of any kind, upon discovery of a fire or evidence of there 248 having been a fire even though it has apparently been extinguished, or upon receiving information 249 that there is or was a fire on the premises, to immediately and with all reasonable dispatch and 250 diligence call or otherwise notify the fire department of the existence, circumstances, and location 251 of such fire and to spread an alarm to all occupants of the building. This requirement shall not be 252 construed to forbid any person to use all diligence necessary to extinguish such fire prior to the 253 arrival of the fire department. 254 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT 255 Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection, Article I - In General, be amended by inserting a new 256 Section 46-11 - Unlawful Regulation or Order, to read as follows: 257 Sec. 46-11. - Unlawful regulation or order. 258 No person shall make, issue, post, or maintain any regulation or order, written or verbal, that 259 would require any person to take any unnecessary delaying action prior to reporting a fire to the fire 260 department.

Proposed Ordinance #2012-05 - Chpt 46 - Fire Prevention & Protection Page 8 261 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT 262 Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection, Article I - In General, be amended by inserting a new 263 Section 46-12 - Maintaining Records for Inspections, to read as follows: 264 Sec. 46-12. - Maintaining records for inspections. 265 The building or property owner or manager of any occupancy required to have an annual 266 fire/life safety inspection conducted by the fire marshal’s office shall maintain a fire inspection log 267 with the documentation pertinent to that occupancy for the preceding three years, as follows: 268 (a) Annual fire alarm system certificate of inspections 269 (b) Annual fire suppression system certificate of inspections 270 (c) Annual hood suppression system certificate of inspections 271 (d) Annual elevator certification of inspection 272 (e) Annual fire extinguisher inspection paperwork 273 (f) Six-month steam cleaning paperwork for hood suppression system 274 (g) Two year boiler inspection paperwork 275 (h) Three or five year electrical inspection paperwork 276 (i) Current respondent information 277 (j) Monthly fire extinguishers visual check 278 (k) Monthly exit lights test 279 (l) Monthly emergency lighting test. 280 (m) Monthly generator run 281 (n) Self-closing fire door & exit hardware 282 (o) Fire drills 283 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT 284 Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection, Article III - Fire Codes, Section 46-124 - Fire Marshal, be 285 amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue, italics as follows: 286 Sec. 46-124. - Fire marshal. 287 (a) Selection. There shall be a fire marshal, who shall be selected by the city council at its annual 288 meeting. 289 (b) Fire prevention. The fire marshal or his/her authorized agent shall enforce this article and any 290 other fire prevention provisions of this Code and any other fire prevention regulations applicable 291 to the city. 292 (c) Investigation of fires. The fire marshal or his/her deputies shall be responsible for the 293 investigation of the origins and causes of fires and explosions within the corporate limits of the 294 city, which involve the loss of life or injury or cause destruction or damage to property. Such 295 investigation shall be initiated immediately upon the occurrence of such fire or explosion. Upon 296 request of the fire marshal, the city police shall be authorized to assist the fire marshal in the 297 performance of his/her duties. When any fire or explosion is found to be suspicious or criminal 298 in nature or causes serious injury or death, the fire marshal or his/her deputies shall contact the 299 city police and, per the agreement of the fire marshal and chief of police, conduct a joint 300 investigation into the origin and cause of the fire or explosion.

Proposed Ordinance #2012-05 - Chpt 46 - Fire Prevention & Protection Page 9 301 (d) Hazardous conditions. When, in the opinion of the fire marshal or code official, a fire or life 302 safety hazard is of imminent danger to occupants of a building, structure or outdoor event, the 303 fire marshal or code official may order the unsafe condition removed, said building or structure 304 evacuated or outdoor event terminated. 305 (e) Right of entry. The fire marshal or his/her designee is authorized at all reasonable times to 306 enter and examine any building, marine vessel, vehicle, or premises for the purposes of 307 making fire safety inspections. Before entering a private building or dwelling, the fire marshal 308 or his/her designee shall obtain the consent of the occupant thereof or obtain a search 309 warrant authorizing his/her entry for the purpose of inspection, except in those instances 310 where an emergency exists. As used in this section, "emergency" means circumstances which 311 the fire marshal or his/her designee knows or has reason to believe exist, and which 312 reasonably may constitute immediate and grave danger to life or property. 313 (f) Implied consent. Application for, or acceptance of, any license or permit requested or issued 314 pursuant to City Code constitutes agreement and consent by the person making the 315 application or accepting the license or permit to allow the fire marshal or his/her designee to 316 enter the premises at any reasonable time to conduct such inspections as required by this code 317 or deemed necessary by the fire marshal or his/her designee to determine compliance with the 318 requirements for such license or permit. 319 (g) The fire marshal or code official may placard any building damaged by fire or explosion as 320 being a health hazard and unsafe to enter. No one shall enter any building having been 321 placarded by the fire marshal or code official as being a health hazard and unsafe without 322 first contacting the fire marshal. 323 (h) It shall be unlawful to enter any premise, structure, building, or vehicle which has been 324 damaged by fire or explosion for the purpose of removing, altering or tampering with any part 325 of the structure, appliance, or object identified and tagged by the fire marshal as being a 326 possible ignition source or cause of the fire or explosion, without approval of the fire marshal, 327 until the conclusion of the investigation. 328 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT 329 Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection, Article III - Fire Codes, be amended by inserting a new 330 Section 46-128 - Marking Rated Walls, to read as follows: 331 Sec. 46-128. - Marking Rated Walls 332 (a) Fire walls, fire barriers, shaft enclosures, fire partitions, and smoke barriers shall be labeled 333 with their rating. Markings shall be red in color, located on both sides of the separation wall, 334 a minimum of four inches in height, and no more than fifteen feet apart for the length of the 335 wall. Markings shall be visible when ceiling tiles are removed for inspection. 336 (b) Ratings are to be marked as follows: 337 One hour separation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1HR 338 Two hour separation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2HR 339 Three hour separation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3HR 340 Four hour separation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4HR 341 Smoke Barriers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SB

Proposed Ordinance #2012-05 - Chpt 46 - Fire Prevention & Protection Page 10 342 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT 343 Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection, Article IV - Public Occupancies, Section 46-168 - Reinspection 344 Fee, be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue, italics and deleting the text indicated in bold, 345 red, strikeout as follows: 346 Sec. 46-168. - Reinspection fee. 347 (a) Amount. There is hereby created a reinspection fee as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines 348 that shall be charged for any repeated violation cited by the fire marshal, determined to be a violation 349 and which requires a follow up inspection to confirm the correction of the violation. 350 (b) Sending of bill. Reinspections for the above referenced violations shall cause the fire marshal 351 to direct a bill to be sent to the operator having had such violations. Fee attached. A fee may 352 be attached to any summons written for any violation found to still be uncorrected upon 353 reinspection. 354 (c) Failure to pay. Failure to pay the reinspection fee within ten days from the receipt of such bill 355 may permit the city's fire marshal to suspend, without warning, notice or hearing, any permit 356 to operate a public occupancy for noncompliance with the requirement of this section. 357 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT 358 Appendix F - Fees and Fines, be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue, italics, as follows: 359 Sec. 46-3 Impairment of Fire Protection Equipment Subsec. (d)(f) Fines ..... $50.00 first offense; $100.00 second and subsequent offenses 360 Sec. 46-7 Preventable and malfunctioning alarms to the fire company Subsec. Responsibility for malfunctioning and Should the person (c)(b)(1) preventable alarms, owner response, and notified fail to corrective action; Generally ..... appear at said premises within 30 minutes after being notified to do so, the city may charge the owner of the premises a fee fine of $75.00 Subsec. (c)(b) Responsibility for malfunctioning and Failure to return an (2) preventable alarms, owner response, and affidavit corrective action; Malfunction ..... documentation of service/repair within said 15-day period,

Proposed Ordinance #2012-05 - Chpt 46 - Fire Prevention & Protection Page 11 the period of time stated on the notice of violation, which is satisfactory to the fire marshal, will result in assessment against the owner of a fee fine for the fire alarm malfunction Subsec. (d)(c) Fee Fine charges; multiple fire alarm malfunctions or preventable (d)(1) alarms; Amount of fee fine Number of preventable or malfunctioning Fee Fine per fire alarms ..... preventable or malfunctioning fire alarm Third ..... $75.00 Fourth ..... $100.00 Fifth ..... $200.00 All over fifth, each ..... $250.00 Subsec. Fee Fine charges; multiple fire alarm A $25.00 fee fine (d)(c)(2) malfunctions or preventable alarms; may be assessed to Panel reset ..... the owner of a premises where the fire alarm has been reset before the fire department or assisting fire department arrives 361 Sec. 46-168 Reinspection Fee Subsec. (a) Amount $25.00 for any repeated violation cited by the fire marshal, determined to be a violation and which requires a followup inspection to confirm the correction of the violation

Proposed Ordinance #2012-05 - Chpt 46 - Fire Prevention & Protection Page 12 Subsec. (b) Fee Attached A fee may be attached to any summons written for any violation found to be uncorrected upon reinspection. 362 ADOPTED: * 363 S:\ORDINANCES\2012\Draft\2012-05 - Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection-1st Rdg.wpd 364 SYNOPSIS 365 This proposed ordinance would amend Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection 366 and Appendix F - Fees and Fines to clarify existing language and create new 367 subsections which would make it unlawful for any person to tamper with or impair 368 any fire protection system from operating as designed; specify the authority of the fire 369 marshal; prohibit open burning, commercial barbecuing, and outdoor fireplaces to be 370 unattended at any time and authorize the fire marshal, code official, fire officer, or 371 police to order the open burning extinguished; and remove the requirement for fire 372 alarm installation reports. It would also create new sections to address fire hydrants 373 and fire department connections; the report of a fire and spreading of alarm; unlawful 374 regulations or orders; maintaining records for inspections; and marking rated walls. 375 (SPONSORS: STAFF) 376 Actions History 377 September 10, 2012 - Scheduled for Public Hearing/First Reading by City Council 378 August 29, 2012 - Considered by the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee