Attachment

EXHIBIT #1 Regular Council Meeting of 03/10/2008 EXHIBIT #1 Regular Council Meeting of 03/10/2008

EXHIBIT #2 Regular Council Meeting of 03/10/2008 PETITION TO AMEND ZONING DISTRICT Before the Dover City Council March 10, 2008 Plan Title: Lands Of Delaware State University Plan Type: Rezoning Property Location: 255 College Rd Tax Parcel # ED-05-067.00-02-470.000-000 Owner Name: Delaware State University Applicant: Delaware State University Engineer: Amakor, Inc Site Area: 1.31 acres Existing Use: Vacant Building Proposed Use: Offices/Practice Gymnasium Present Zoning Classification: C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) Requested Zoning Classification: IO (Institutional and Office Zone) Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial Planning Commission Recommendation: Following a public hearing on February 19, 2008, in which no members of the public spoke either in favor or in opposition to the application, Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning. File Number: Z-08-02

This zoning change is being requested by Delaware State University. The application includes a 17.84-acre portion of the larger parcel which houses Delaware State University. The subject parcel is currently zoned C-3 (Service Commercial Zone). The applicant is requesting IO (Institutional and Office Zone) zoning. The owner of record is the Delaware State University 255 College Rd Tax Parcel ED-05-067.00-02-470.000-000 . Existing Property: The property is situated on College Road adjacent to the railroad tracks. It is the site of the former Capital Diesel. Surrounding Land Uses: The subject parcel is immediately east of the railroad tracks. The adjacent parcel to the east is zoned IG in Kent County. The property to the north is zoned M (Manufacturing Zone) in the City of Dover. To the south across College Road is land that is zoned R-20 (One Family Residence Zone) in the City of Dover. Comprehensive Plan: In the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Update, as amended May 2005, September 2006, and March 2007, the Land Development Plan recommends that this property be used for Commercial Use. It was previously zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and was rezoned in 2005 by the City of Dover as part of the comprehensive rezoning. The requested zoning is also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the University use and the previous zoning classification. Request for IO (Institutional and Office Zone) Article 3, Section 10 permits the following uses in the IO (Institutional and Office Zone): 10.11 Business, professional, or governmental offices, and research, design and development laboratories, located entirely within a building on the same lot therewith, including incidental clinics, cafeterias and recreational facilities for the exclusive use of company employees. 10.12 Public and institutional uses including hospitals, sanitariums for general medical care, medical clinics, libraries, police stations, courthouses, transit centers, motor vehicle storage and repair facilities accessory to a public or institutional use, schools, colleges and universities, places of worship, philanthropic and eleemosynary institutions, parks, playgrounds, public indoor recreation centers, civic centers, athletic fields and public utility rights-of-way and structures necessary to serve areas within the city. 10.13 Restaurants accessory to permitted uses located on the same lot. 10.14 Signs shall meet the regulations found in article 5, section 4, supplementary sign regulations. 10.15 Day care centers, provided they are established in accordance with all applicable state regulations pertaining to child care and provided that they are established and maintained in accordance with article 5, section 14 of this ordinance. 10.16 The following uses are permitted, conditional upon the approval of the planning commission in accordance with the procedures and subject to the general conditions set forth in article 10, section 1: (a) Firearm ranges, prisons and correctional facilities. (b) Public incinerators.

(c) Hotels and restaurants. Recommendation of the Planning Staff and Planning Commission: The zoning requested is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and it is compatible with the surrounding land uses and zoning classifications. For this reason, staff supports the rezoning request. While the City proactively rezoned this land in 2005 in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan’s Commercial designation, staff believes that this decision to rezone the property was primarily based on the property’s former use as Capital Diesel, which would not be a permitted use in the IO (Institutional and Office Zone). The proposed use of the property, as athletic offices and facilities for Delaware State University, is not permitted under the current C-3 (Service Commercial Zone), but would be permitted under the IO (Institutional and Office Zone). The Planning Staff recommendation was made prior to public hearing. Following a public hearing before the Planning Commission on February 19, 2008, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning application.

City of Dover Application No.: Z-08-02 Department of Planning & Inspections M IO IO RG-5 M R-20 JA M IS H SO ST RM-2 N R OE ST EE E T RE M T IO R-20 CPO E AR C-3 U Site SQ E EG R-20 LL O C R-20 IO R-20 R-20 R-8 CPO RG-5 M R-8 M C-2A CK IPM EE IO RO AD C-2A Plan Title: Lands of State of Delaware: Delaware State University Sports Annex Legend Locations: 255 College Road Dover Parcels Plan Type: Rezoing Dover Boundary Current Zoning: C-3 Zoning Proposed Zoning: IO Kent County Parcels Owner: Delaware State University Date: 2-6-08 « 0 250 500 1,000 Feet

Z-08-02 The Lands of the State of Delaware Delaware State University Sports Annex 255 College Road M H MIS N O ASO E RG-5 J RM-2 M RM-2 RM-2 IO C-3 SITE CPO E EG LL CO R-20 ¯ Legend RG-5 R-20 IO Dover_Parcels Kent County Parcels 0 110 220 440 Feet City of Dover Department of Planning Z-08-02 The Lands of the State of Delaware Parcel ID: ED-05-067.00-02-47.00-000 Acres: 1.31 +/- Total The material is for reference purposes only, Council District 4 and the City makes no warranty, representation, or guaranty as to the accuracy of the material. Current Zoning: C-3 (Service Commercial) The material is in the public domain and may be Proposed Zoning: IO (Institutional/Office) copied without permission.

EXHIBIT #3 Regular Council Meeting of 03/10/2008 DRAFT FOR REVIEW February 26, 2008 CITY OF DOVER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM PROGRAM GUIDELINES I. GENERAL A. Scope and Applicability These Program Guidelines describe the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program for the City of Dover. Funds for this program, when appropriated by the U. S. Congress, are provided in a block grant to the city by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) pursuant to Section 106 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended by the Housing and Community Act of 1992, and in accordance with HUD rules, regulations and program memoranda B. Administration The Community Development Manager administers the CDBG Program for the city. The purpose for this grant is to provide affordable, decent, safe, and sanitary housing to low and moderate income persons. C. Program Design and National Objectives The CDBG Program has been designed to: 1. to give maximum feasibility priority to activities which will benefit low and moderate income families; and 2. to aid in the prevention of slums and/or blight; and 3. to meet other community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community and where other financial resources are not available to meet such needs; Each CDBG activity must be an eligible activity, and it must comply with one of the above three national objectives. Subgrantees shall ensure that the following records are maintained and kept up to date: 1.) records demonstrating that the activity undertaken meets one of the national objectives: and 2.) a full description of each activity carried out (or being carried out) in whole or in part with CDBG funds including the nature and the purpose of the activity, its location and the amount of CDBG funds budgeted, obligated and expended for the activity.

D. Low and Moderate–Income Definition 1. Low and moderate income persons are those persons whose incomes do not exceed the income limits for lower income families pursuant to Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 as amended and provided to the State of Delaware by HUD in a table of income limits and set forth by dollar amount and family size. (These income limits are periodically revised by HUD and are made available by the City of Dover to all units of local government and counties in Delaware eligible for this program. See Attachment A for the most recent figures dated 3/20/07). 2. Low and moderate income households are all persons occupying the same housing unit, regardless of their relationship to each other, whose combined incomes do not exceed the income limits described in the paragraph above. E. Documentation of National Objectives and Low/ Mod Income Benefit Eligible Activities Housing rehabilitation and direct homeownership activities are direct benefit activities which require subgrantees to document individual household incomes at 100% low to moderate income. Public facilities and improvements, demolition, public service and economic development activities are considered activities that benefit an area or a limited clientele and will require subgrantees to document that at least 51% of the area or the limited clientele that will be served is low to moderate income. Public Service activities cannot exceed 15% of the total grant allocation including program income. See Attachment B for a comprehensive listing of eligible activities F. Program Outcome Performance Measurements On June 10, 2005, HUD published in the Federal Register a “Notice of Draft Outcome Performance Measurements System for Community Planning and Development Formula Grant Programs.” This Notice, or a forthcoming “Final” Notice on Performance Measurements is to be followed in establishing and reporting outcome performance measures for each activity for future program years. Subgrantees are required to provide proposed outcome /objective statements for each activity in their CDBG applications, and actual outcome/objective statements with indicators in their monthly and closeout reports. 2

G. Consolidated Plan The City of Dover develops a Consolidated Plan which is updated every five years through a public process that involves the residents of the community. The Consolidated Plan is submitted to the Department of Housing and Urban Development and guides the use of CDBG funds within the City. The current Consolidated Plan is the 2005-2010 Consolidated Plan. In order to be included in the annual Community Development Action Plan, a funding proposal must be consistent with the Consolidated Plan. The annual Action Plan must be submitted to HUD by May 15th of each calendar year. II. General Information for Applicants A. Eligible Applicants Eligible applicants for CDBG funds fall in the following three categories: 1. City Departments and Programs – These include any departments of City government. In order for a City project to be eligible, the service area for the project must include at least 51% low to moderate income persons. The exception to this is ADA improvements to public facilities. 2. Subrecipients – These include other public or non-profit entities. Actives funded in these categories must also service at least 51% low to moderate income persons to be eligible for funds. 3. Private Property Owners and For-Profit Corporations – In order for these entities to be eligible, the activity must also service at least 51% low to moderate income persons. An example of this activity would be the rehabilitation of privately-owned rental housing that would be limited to low to moderate income tenants. B. Program Performance Period 1. All applications for current year funds shall be to finance CDBG eligible activities that shall be initiated no sooner than July1st and completed no later than June 30th of each fiscal year. 2. The following is an approximate timeline for the typical program year: January o Documentation of allocation received from HUD. o City opens application process to the public. Applications are mailed and a legal ad is published. February o Application deadline. Staff reviews application. March 3

o Parks, Recreation & Community Enhancement Committee meeting to discuss applications. Committee ranks applications and makes recommendation on projects that will be funded along with the funding levels. April o Community Development Action Plan is available for public review. Staff holds a public hearing. May o Council endorses Action Plan. o Action Plan is submitted to HUD. July o Funding is available for projects within the Action Plan. C. Number and Type of Applications Each non-city eligible applicant may make only one application for funds in each program year. A subgrantee awarded funds from the previous program year where at least fifty percent of program funds have not been expended by the application period will not be eligible to apply for a new grant. Subrecipients will be required to expend 25% of the grant for each quarter from the initial date of their signed contract. All subrecipients will be required to submit monthly reports documenting the status of their projects. Program activities must be located in the boundaries of the City of Dover. Personnel of the City of Dover that manage city programs will also be required to complete a grant application. III Application Submission a. Submission Date Applications for the city’s CDBG Program must be received each fiscal year by the deadline and must be received by 5:00 PM on the closing date to the City of Dover’s Community Development Office. Applicants will be given 30 days to complete their applications. Interested Parties will be notified via email and a Request for Proposals will be advertised in the Delaware State News each fiscal year the City of Dover will be accepting grant applications for the CDBG Program. One signed original and seven copies of the application must be submitted. b. Application Content and Format Applications for CDBG funds must be made on such forms and in accordance with such instructions as are prescribed by the city, and include all forms and questionnaires as may be applicable to the specific proposed activity. (See Attachment C - application and addendum). 4

IV. Application Review A. City of Dover Staff 1. The Community Development Manager will review all applications for completeness and determine whether the applications meet the minimum threshold requirements for all applications. 2. If the assessment by the Community Development Manager indicates that an application fails to meet any of the applicable threshold requirements, and the applicant has not provided the requested information to make the application complete, the Community Development Manager will prepare a report on each such application and submit it to the Director of Planning and Inspections. If the Director of Planning and Inspections agrees with the assessment by the Community Development Manager, the application will be considered unresponsive. Such applications will not be forwarded to the review panel referred to below, but will be returned to the applicant with a reason for the rejection. 3. Staff Reports The Community Development Manager shall provide the review panel with a separate staff report on each application including projects managed by the city that will at a minimum include the following: a. Certification that the application/applicant has met all applicable threshold requirements, including evaluation of low and moderate income benefit. b. Certification that the proposed budget represents a realistic/ reasonable budget which confirms to all applicable instructions and policies. c. The conformance of the proposed activities to the goals and objectives of the City of Dover Consolidated Plan. d. An evaluation of the applicant’s capacity, and past performance under the CDBG Program. B. Review Panel 1. The review panel is composed of members of the Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee. Each proposed activity will be based on the criteria listed below. A maximum total of 100 points may be received by a subgrantee and city program applications. See 5

Attachment D for grant application review sheet. Any applicant scoring below 70 points will not be considered for a CDBG grant. Description and Demonstrated Need for Proposed Program (10 points possible) - Provide an adequate description of the scope of activities proposed and how it will benefit low to moderate income persons. - Explain the type of service deficiency your project will fulfill and the population that has been affected by this deficiency. - Does the proposed activity directly address the community need identified? Management Capacity (25 points possible) Each applicant’s management capacity for each of the activities proposed will be evaluated on the basis of the most recent monitoring report, current or proposed staff qualifications, progress achieved in completing its current CDBG Program (if applicable), and most recent audit reports(s) (if applicable). Cost Effectiveness (15 points possible) Is the cost per person served or the area being served reasonable for the project? Work Plan (20 points possible) Will the applicants proposed scope of work be completed within the next fiscal year? Does the applicant effectively outline in the application the completion of milestones of the activity? Goals and Objectives (15 points possible) - Are the goals and objectives of this project consistent with the goals and objectives outlined in the 2005 Consolidated Plan ? - What steps will be utilized to implement your program (the process for reaching program goals)? Performance Measurements (15 points possible) - Does the project effectively describe the outcome? - Is the project consistent with the objective? An oral presentation by the applicant and city personnel to the review panel will supplement the application scores and serves as a factor in the panel’s final decision. 2. Review Panel Recommendations The Community Development Manager will prepare a summary evaluation of all the applications received and a descriptive summary of the review panel’s 6

recommended priorities for funding which will be available at the Public Hearing that will be scheduled before the submission of the Action Plan to HUD. C. City Council City Council will make the final decisions on allocating CDBG funds, based upon the review panel recommendations and any other additional relevant information obtained subsequent to those recommendations. Such additional information will only be considered if it reflects a substantive change in the application review criteria. D. Waivers of Policy The Director of Planning and Inspections may waive requirement of these policies not required by Federal/State law, Federal regulation, or City ordinance, whenever it is determined that undue hardship will result from applying the requirement or where application of the requirement would adversely affect the purposes of the City of Dover CDBG Program. Waivers shall be made in writing, citing the policy provision to be waived, the authority for the waiver, and be supported by documentation of the pertinent facts. Where only a portion of the policy provision is to be waived, the waiver must expressively limit itself to that portion. Waivers granted by the Director may not contradict any approvals or requirements imposed by City Council and will be reported to the Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee during monthly program updates. 7

ATTACHMENT A TO THE CITY OF DOVER CDBG PROGRAM GUIDELINES REVISED INCOME LIMITS (EFFECTIVE 3-20-07) KENT COUNTY LOW MODERATE 1 PERSON $20,550.00 $32,850.00 2 PERSON $23,500.00 $37,550.00 3 PERSON $26,400.00 $42,250.00 4 PERSON $29,350.00 $46,950.00 5 PERSON $31,700.00 $50,700.00 6 PERSON $34,050.00 $54,450.00 7 PERSON $36,400.00 $58,200.00 8 PERSON $38,750.00 $61,950.00 Higher income limits apply to failure with more than eight persons, although they are not included in the printed state lists because of space limitations. The lower income limits for families larger than eight persons are determined by adding 6.25 percent of the four-person income limit base to the eight-person limit for each person in excess of eight. For very low- income limits, 8 percent of the four-person base is added to the eight- person limit for each person in excess of eight (e.g., the nine-person very low limit equals 1.4 (1.32 + .08) times the four-person limit). The limits developed by the use of these factors are to be rounded to the nearest $50. saved:cdbg/forms/revised income limits2007

Attachment B 1. Public Facilities and Improvements: Construction, rehabilitation, installations: ____Senior Centers ______Handicapped Centers ____Homeless Facilities ______Youth Centers ____Neighborhood Facilities ______Parks, Recreational Facilities ____Parking Facilities ______Solid Waste Disposal Improvements ____Flood Drain Improvements ______Water/Sewer Improvements ____Street Improvements ______Sidewalks ____Child Care Centers ______Tree Planting ____Fire Stations/Equipment ______Health Facilities ____Asbestos Removal ______Abused and Neglected Children ____Facilities for AIDS Patients ______Facilities 2.___ Clearance activities, including demolition and removal of buildings. 3. Public Services: ____Senior Services ______Handicapped Centers ____Legal Services ______Youth Services ____Transportation ______Substance Abuse ____Battered and Abused Spouses ______Employment Training ____Crime Awareness ______Fair Housing Activities ____Tenant / Landlord Counseling ______Child Care Services ____Health Services ______Abused & Neglected Children ____Mental Health Services ______Screening for Lead Based Paint / Hazards ____Subsistence Payment ______Homeowner Assistance ____Rental Housing Subsidies ______Security Deposits 4. Rehabilitation Activities - Residential and Commercial: ____Single –family residential for owner occupancy ____Multi-family rental housing ____Code enforcement in areas undergoing other public improvements ____Historic preservation ____Lead-based paint / hazards ____Energy efficiency improvements ____Acquisition of property for housing ____Rehabilitation to publicly or privately owned commercial or industrial buildings (limited to exterior and code violation) saved: cdbg/forms/eligible cdbg activities 2007

5. Micro enterprise assistance: ____Funding for the establishment, stabilization and expansion of micro enterprises ____Technical assistance, advice and business support services to persons owning or developing micro enterprises. 6. Special economic development activities by public, private or non-profit organizations: ____Acquisition, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation or installation of commercial or industrial buildings ____Provision of assistance to a private for – profit business ____Marketing or outreach services in connection with above activities 7. ____Direct homeownership assistance designed to facilitate and expand homeownership 8. Homeless assistance: ____Renovations, conversions or rehabilitation of buildings for use as homeless shelters ____Provision of essential services, such as case management ____Payment of maintenance, operation, insurance, utilities, and furnishings ____Homeless prevention activities, such as short term rent or utility subsidies or landlord – tenant mediation 9. Other____________________________________________________________________

Attachment C CITY OF DOVER FY08 CDBG GRANT APPLICATION FORM 1. General Applicant Information A. Name, address and phone number of sub-recipient ____________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ B. Name, position and signature of person submitting application: _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ Name and position of authorizing official: _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ C. Name, address and phone number of Contact Person: (If different from B above) _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ Activity: ______________________ Amount Requested: $ ______________________ List Source of Cash Matching Funds $ ______________________

1. Low/Moderate-Income Benefit: LOW/MODERATE - INCOME BENEFIT TABLE - Instructions The amount of benefit to low- and moderate-income persons must be calculated for each activity, as described below: 1. In column 1, list the activity. 2. In column 2, show the total number of persons that the activity will serve. 3. In column 3, show the number of low- and moderate-income persons that the activity will serve. 4. In column 4, divide column 3 by column 2 to show the percent of low- and moderate- income persons that the activity will serve. 5. In column 5, show the amount of funds requested for the activity. 6. In column 6, multiply column 4 by column 5 to show the amount of those funds that will be used to benefit low- and moderate-income persons. 7. List the sources of data used to calculate benefit in the space provided at the bottom of this page. LOW/MODERATE-INCOME BENEFIT TABLE 2. Total 3. L/M 4. % L/M 5. Amount 6. Amount Persons Persons Persons Requested L/M Activity will Activity will Activity will for Activity Benefit Serve Serve Serve

Source of Date: 2. Management Capacity A. List the person(s) to be responsible for administering the CDBG Project: Sub-Recipient Personnel Title(s) B. Attach resumes or other supporting documentation for the personnel of new applicants, which establishes the capacity of the personnel above to effectively manage a CDBG sub- recipient project. 4. Application Work Plan Each proposed program activity must address each of the following areas. Attach a mission statement and purpose of your organization. A. Each program activity must be addressed separately. Program activities must be listed in order of priority with the program activity of highest priority first. This order of priority for program activities must be followed on all forms contained in this application. B. Each program activity must be fully described. For rehabilitation programs, this description must include the number of units to be rehabilitated, rental properties to be rehabilitated, any special population groups the rehabilitation program will address, the target area, and the need for the rehabilitation activity. C. Provide a timetable showing monthly milestones for completion of each activity. D. Attach drawings, plans or other documentation necessary to describe program activities. E. Describe each activity’s conformance with the goals and objectives of the City’s Consolidated Plan.

F. Describe the extent to which the proposed project(s) will address one or more significant priorities identified by the City’s Consolidated Plan. G. Describe the extent to which the project builds upon previous work or supplements other work that will be funded from other sources. H. Describe source and amount of any funds used to leverage the City’s portion of the project. Indicate when these funds will be available. Attach documentation of any match. 5. Each application should also describe the following: A. Describe any efforts to coordinate with businesses regarding the development of the community as it affects low/moderate-income residents of the area. 6. Have you received a sub-recipient grant from the previous funding year? If yes give the total amount $ .

ADDENDUM 2008 CDBG SUB-RECIPIENT APPLICATION FORM Please choose the best option that describes the purpose of your activity from the three objectives. Suitable Living Environment ______ Decent Housing ______ Economic Opportunity ______ Discuss your project in terms of the below listed outcome criteria: Availability/Accessibility _______ Affordability _______ Sustainability _______ ____________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Please provide a proposed outcome based on the information below that applies to your activity. Number of persons, households, units, or beds assisted as appropriate _______ Income level of persons or households by: Very Low ______ % Low ______ % Moderate ______ % If your activity benefits a target area, please show the number of persons served and the percentage of low/mod persons served. Your close out report will require you to provide breakdowns of those served by race, ethnicity and disability.

Attachment D 2008 CDBG GRANT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Applicant/Agency: Amount Requested: Amount Awarded: The following factors will be considered in determining funding levels awarded to applicants meeting the request for proposals requirements. Please rate each category according to the maximum points available. ____ Description and Demonstrated Need for Proposed Program (10 points possible) ____ Management Capacity (25 points possible) ____ Cost Effectiveness (15 points possible) ____ Work Plan (20 points possible) ____ Goals and Objectives (15 points possible) ____ Performance Measurements (15 points possible) ____ TOTAL (100 Maximum Possible Total Rating) Reviewer Signature___________________________________________________ CDBG/forms

EXHIBIT #4 Regular Council Meeting of 03/10/2008

EXHIBIT #5 Regular Council Meeting of 03/10/2008 “You can’t have a first class town without a first class downtown” HyettPalma EXHIBIT #5 Regular Council Meeting of 03/10/2008 “A single, unified Downtown that appeals to, welcomes, and respects people of all ages and cultures” HyettPalma

HYETTPALMA RECOMMENDS ¾ Consolidation of DDDC, Main Street, and Parking Authority into Downtown Dover Partnership ¾Hire Economic Development Leader ¾Invest in a professional Marketing Strategy

Voted and Approved By ¾ Greater Dover Committee ¾Main Street ¾DDDC ¾Parking Authority

WILL LEAD TO… 1. Economic Development 2. Revitalization, Redevelopment for Central Core 3. Better Communication 4. Strong Unified Leadership 5. Maintain our Architectural Cultural Heritage

Board of Directors Partnership Director Design Marketing/ Economic Parking Organization Development Committee Committee Promotion Committee Revitalization Committee Committee

BOARD OF DIRECTORS Six (6) Individuals from Government: Appointed by the Mayor and Approved by Council • City Manager • City Planner • Three (3) Council Members • State Government Representative Nine (9) Members Appointed by Mayor and Approved by Council • Downtown Business Owner • Resident of Downtown or Resident from a Neighborhood Adjacent to Downtown • President of Wesley College or Designee • CEO of Bayhealth or Designee • Downtown Retail Merchant • Real Estate Professional • Financial Services Professional • Discretionary Appointment (appointed by Board of Directors and approved by Council?) • Discretionary Appointment (appointed by Board of Directors and approved by Council?)

IMPLEMENTATION STEPS 1. Bylaws 2. Code and Ordinance Revisions 3. Budget

CONSOLIDATED BUDGET Current Consolidated $150,000 First Year Second Year Salary $132,500(1) $178,150 Operations $129,000(2) $131,000 Total $261,500 $309,150 (1) Salary – Adds Economic Development Professional 50% in year one! Market/Administration Assistant 75% in year one! (2) Operation includes a $50,000 Market Study paid over 2 years.

We will have a “First Class” town because we will have A “First Class” Downtown.

EXHIBIT #6 Regular Council Meeting of 03/10/2008

EXHIBIT #7 Regular Council Meeting of 03/10/2008 Gigi Windley’s comments at Council – Downtown Partnership item From: Georgeanna Windley [mailto:gwindley@msn.com] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 6:03 PM To: tmcdowell-klh Subject: Please vote no on partnership Dear Ken, Please vote no tonight on the Dover Partnership. Rationale: 1) The City wishes to establish an economic development office through this partnership. But... the bylaws eliminate the following board positions that were required in the bylaws of Main Street Dover, Inc. and or the Dover Downtown Development Corporation. 1) Historic Preservation Professional 2) Tourism Professional 3) Legal Counsel 4) Economic Development Professional Why would you establish a structure that eliminates those who have the expertise in these areas? 2) One of the Guiding Principles and requirements for the Main Street Program is to have BROAD BASED Community Support. This means the organization should be designed to facilitate this. The proposed design cuts off the operational level links to other organizations that were so critical in building to building support. Why would you want to break the well-established links to your partner organizations? 3) You'll notice that the Historic Preservation part of the mission statement has been eliminated. Why is this? The Main Street Program is a program of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Our Historic District is an economic asset. This move does not endear the City to future funding and support from the State Main Street Program of other programs associated with the National Trust. (Note: Until Dover can show that it is working within the guiding principles of the program it will not receive the official Main Street Community designation from the National Trust. The loss of this designation means a loss of business and positive publicity for the City.) A letter is forth coming from the DEDO notifying Dover that it is temporarily loosing it's National Certification. This should never have been allowed to happen. Why not emphasize this more in the mission statement.

4) It would be irresponsible of Council to approve anything without answering the following questions: a) How will the new group members be selected initially? Who should the State Representative be? b) What is the proposed impact on the jobs of City Employees and the existing employee of Main Street, Dover. What will the division of labor look like? Who will be responsible for what? Who do the employees work for and how will they be paid? What about benefits! c) The question of how the funds of the organization should be used is an important. The simple answer is: to execute the activities that are spelled out in the organization’s business/ operational plans. So, after two years of meetings by the partnership leaders no work plans, have been presented or linked to the proposed budget. How can council possibly buy into this until it knows specifically what programs/projects it will be investing in? d) What techniques will be used to evaluate programs. Accountability is the bottom line. When marketing/ economic development programs are the basis for the purpose of the organization, traceable results are necessary to ensure that programs are operating efficiently. The “return on the investment” aspect is also important so the public can see that the funds are being put to good use. Nothing related to program evaluation has been proposed. It should be before anyone is hired. As you know the Board of Main Street Dover endorsed the concept of the partnership with the following suggestions that were relayed to Greg Moore in a letter from Paul Lakeman dated October 11th 2007: "I believe the largest and most difficult issue will be the matter of funding the partnership. The feeling of the board is that the partnership has no financial engine to drive it in a manner consistent with what we view as the mission. If the mission is to revitalize the central core or BID District with new businesses, there are no funds identified to accomplish this. Ms. Townshend indicated she had had conversations with Mr. DePrima stating that taking on the additional duties of economic development would require additional people and additional funds. While the BID tax would cover Ed Perez’s salary, there did not appear to be any other funds committed for the remainder of the function, i.e. creating a downtown vision for developers/businesses to buy into, developing a business recruitment function and creating a business development function to maintain business once they get there. We feel that the funding mechanism should be identified before the new partnership is created. Without that assurance of available funds, we fear nothing will be accomplished. While one could argue that the very nature of the partnership is to develop that funding plan, it seems to us that some level of financial commitment is needed prior to creation to insure its success. A second issue relates to the nature of the board itself. Will it be an independent board, or a board answering to the city council? It seems unlikely that the CEO of either Bayhealth or Wesley would want to be beholden

to the city council given what they represent economically to the community. I can see instances where conflicts could arise putting them in awkward situations if the board was not independent. Finally, the issue of work flow was discussed. It is the hope of the Main Street board that each committee would be staffed by a member of the Planning Department. It is the belief of the board and borne out I think by the Newark Partnership experience, that volunteers are nice to have but this is far too critical a juncture in the city’s economic development to have its success rely on volunteers. This, I suppose, brings us right back to the first issue which is the funding of the project. The bottom line is that the Main Street board would feel much more comfortable with the whole concept if there was a resource plan in place prior to our or anyone’s agreement on this." I would like you to know that I voted no on the partnership simply because I felt that more work needed to be done. Possible Solution: You will notice in the October minutes of the Main Street Board Meeting that I suggested that a joint strategic planning process including the members of all existing organizations would be the most beneficial in answering the above mentioned issues. Why not use all of the expertise that is currently available within these organizations, answer the above mentioned questions and than move forward. Then, and only then, can you have the broad-based community support that is required to keep your Main Street designation and to adhere to responsible tourism and economic development principles. Regards, Gigi Windley, Certified Tourism Professional Founding Member Main Street Dover, Inc Delaware Main Street Program Start-Up Program Director (former) Board Member of Main Street Dover (Please note that I am not representing the views of every member of the organization) 725 Bicentennial Blvd Dover, DE 19904