Attachment

EXHIBIT #1 Regular Council Meeting of 10/22/2007 Beginning Stages

Finished Product City No. 715

Front View

$$$$$$$$$$$ •750 MCM IS USED FOR UNDERGROUND 3 PHASE ELECTRIC SERVICE •APPROXIMATELY 80 REELS (80,000’) OF 750 MCM UNDERGROUND CABLE WAS INSTALLED LAST FISCAL YEAR •ON AN AVERAGE, THERE IS A WASTE OF APPOX. 100’ OF SCRAP CABLE FOR EVERY ONE (1) REEL INSTALLED •THIS TRAILER WILL ALLOW US TO USE LARGER REELS (longer wire length), RESULTING IN A SAVINGS OF APPROX. $1,172 PER NEW REEL OF CABLE.

† The Department solicited a price for this type of trailer and received an estimated expense of $51,000. † By coordinating this project with the City’s Maintenance Shop the trailer we have today, built by Mr. Dick Miller, Fabricator, was constructed for approximately $13,600 – saving over $37,000.

EXHIBIT #2 Regular Council Meeting of 10/22/2007 2007 Results for the City of Dover

Why do a Citizen Survey? z Priority setting z Project planning z Customer satisfaction feedback z Budgeting z Benchmarking z Measuring progress

Survey responses to: z Quality of Life z Community Characteristics z Perceptions of Safety z Community Participation z Public Trust z Services Provided z Contact with Employees z Potential Problems z Rates of Growth z Public Services

Overall Quality of Life in Dover *Statistical difference from 2006- “Good” increased from 49% to 55% “Fair” decreased from 37% to 31%

Quality of Life Ratings Average rating on the 100-point scale (100=Excellent, 0=Poor) Excellent Good Fair Poor Score How do you rate Dover as a place to live? 17% 60% 20% 3% 64 How do you rate your neighborhood as a place to live? 15% 47% 31% 8% 59 How do you rate Dover as a place to raise children? 18% 51% 25% 6% 60 How do you rate Dover as a place to work? 9% 44% 33% 13% 49 How do you rate Dover as a place to retire? 26% 43% 22% 9% 59 How do you rate overall quality of life in Dover? 12% 55% 31% 2% 57

Community Characteristics z Highest rated characteristics were educational opportunities, reputation, overall appearance, shopping opportunities, and quality of new development. z Three concerns rated by the highest proportion of respondents as a “major problem” were drugs, too much growth and unsupervised youth in that order. z The rate of population growth was viewed as “too fast” by 69%↓ percent of respondents, while one percent thought it was “too slow”.

Characteristics of the Community: General Average rating on the 100-point scale (100=Excellent, 0=Poor)

Characteristics of the Community: Opportunities Average rating on the 100-point scale (100=Excellent, 0=Poor)

Characteristics of the Community: General and Opportunities Excellent Good Fair Poor Score Sense of community 8%↑ 49% 34%↓ 9% ↓ 52↑ Openness and acceptance of the community 8%↑ 45% 36% 10%↓ 51↑ towards people of diverse backgrounds Overall appearance of Dover 15%↑ 54% 27% 3% 61↑ Opportunities to attend cultural activities 10%↑ 41%↓ 33% 16%↑ 48↓ Shopping opportunities 16%↑ 44%↓ 26%↓ 14% 54↑ Recreational opportunities 5%↓ 35%↑ 38%↑ 22%↓ 41= Job opportunities 3% 28%↑ 43% 26%↓ 36= In bold = significant change; increase or decrease greater than 5% Arrows indicate increase/decrease in smaller increments

Potential Problems Percent of respondents rating as “Major problem”

Rates of Growth Population Growth

Rates of Growth Job Growth

Feelings of Safety Percent of respondents feeling “Very” or “Somewhat” safe Percentages of people feeling “very” or “somewhat” safe

Safety in Various Areas Percent of respondents feeling “Very” or “Somewhat” safe

Community Participation Participation in Parks and Library Percent of respondents engaging in various activity once or more in the past year *Statistically significant change from 2006

Community Participation Communications Percent of respondents engaging in various activity once or more in the past year

Community Participation Internet Use Percent of respondents engaging in various activity once or more in the past year

Public Trust Average rating on the 100-point scale (100=Strongly agree, 0=Strongly disagree)

Contact with City Employees Average rating on the 100-point scale (100=Excellent, 0=Poor)

Quality of Utility Service

Quality of Transportation Services Average rating on the 100-point scale (100=Excellent, 0=Poor)

Quality of Leisure Services Average rating on the 100-point scale (100=Excellent, 0=Poor)

Quality of Planning and Code Enforcement Services Average rating on the 100-point scale (100=Excellent, 0=Poor)

Overall Quality of Service Provided by Dover

Dover Police Department Policy Question #2 How would you rate the overall attitude/performance of the Dover Police Department’s employee? Excellent 42% Good 28% Fair 21% Poor 9% Total 100% (Policy Question #1 Did you or any member of household observe an officer in official duty? 47% = NO 53%= YES)

Dover Police Department Policy Question 3 In what area do you feel the Dover Police Department should make improvements? None, doing a great job 15% More patrols in neighborhood 49% More traffic enforcement 8% More training for officers 9% Don’t know 19% Total 100%

How is it reported? Report #2 – Normative Comparison { Compares Dover’s scores to other jurisdictions that had the same questions { Gives rank and percentile { Reported as “above”, “below”, or “similar to” the norm { Jurisdictions are not randomly selected

Normative Comparisons z Includes surveys conducted in over 500 jurisdictions z Responses to thousands of survey questions dealing with resident perceptions about the quality of community and services provided by local government. z Jurisdictions represent a wide geographic and population range. PERCENT OF JURISDICTION CHARACTERISTIC JURISDICTIONS West Coast 16% West 21% North Central West 12% North Central East 12% South Central 9% South 25% Northeast West 3% Northeast East 2% POPULATION less than 40,000 38% 40,000 to 74,999 21% 75,000 to 149,000 17% 150,000 or more 24%

Normative Comparisons Why have the number of questions varied over the years? Comparisons will be included when at least 5 other jurisdictions, have asked the same or similar question.

Above the Norm . . . z “I receive good value for z Ease of car travel the City of Dover taxes I pay.” z Services provided by the Federal z Dover as a place to retire Government z Overall appearance z Services provided by the State Government z Shopping opportunities z Street repair z Street cleaning z Street lighting

Below the Norm . . . Community z Dover as a place to live z Recreational opportunities z Dover as a place to raise z Overall image and children reputation z Overall quality of life in z Ease of bus travel Dover z Ease of bicycle travel z Sense of community z Ease of walking z Openness and acceptance z Amount of public parking z Services to the youth z Snow removal

Below the Norm . . . City Services Crime and Safety z Snow removal z Violent crime z Amount of public parking z Property crimes z City parks z Feel safe in neighborhood after dark z Recreation programs or classes z Safety downtown – day/night z Recreation centers/facilities z Safety in parks – day/night z Appearance/maintenance of parks z Crime prevention z Recycling z Drinking water z Services to youth

Any questions?

Thank You

EXHIBIT #3 Regular Council Meeting of 10/22/2007 Dover’s Source Water Protection Overlay Zone City Council EXHIBIT #3 October 22, 2007 Regular Council Meeting of 10/22/2007

What Is Source Water Protection? z Protection of drinking water supply – Quality and quantity – Recharge of ground-water supply – Protection of wellhead areas

Why Is This Important to Dover? z Dover is a large water supplier z Ground water is the sole source of Dover’s water z Resource management issue

What Is Our Responsibility? z Source Water Protection Act of 2001 z Dover must adopt maps which delineate: – Wellhead Protection Areas – Excellent Recharge Areas z Dover must adopt ordinances which regulate land use in these areas.

Important Details z Dover has wellhead areas that it must manage and protect. z Dover sits overtop underground aquifers that supply drinking water regionally and provide base flows for various surface waters.

Two Components z Protect the immediate areas surrounding wells z Protect the ability of the various aquifers to recharge

So…Where are the wells?

A Brief on Well Types Source: http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/PIC/23figures/Fig2.jpg

Regulating Wellhead Areas z Differentiate between wells in the ‘confined’ and ‘unconfined’ aquifers z Create protective land use policies z Preserve open space z Encourage natural stormwater runoff and redirect impervious cover runoff

How does the Aquifer recharge?

Recharge Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/5-484/fig2-1.gif

Regulating Recharge Areas z Create protective land use policies z Limit impervious cover via the 20/50 best management practice z Implement 15% impervious cover reduction rule for redevelopment z Allow for and encourage ‘green design’

The Process z Staff researched and consulted experts – Draft ordinance z August 9 - Public Workshop – Notified all affected property owners – Revised ordinance z October 9 – Park, Recreation & Community Enhancement Committee z October 15 – Public Hearing before Planning Commission – Notified all affected property owners z December 31 – Deadline for Adoption of the Ordinance

Path Forward….

EXHIBIT #4 Regular Council Meeting of 10/22/2007

EXHIBIT #5 Regular Council Meeting of 10/22/2007 Tax Appeal October 15,2007 Tax Stipulations Tax Original Original Stipulation Stipulation Value Difference Motion Approved Appeal # Name Parcel # Value $ Tax $ Value $ Tax $ Difference $ $ appr/den yes or no 2007-012 Stover Professional Park ED05-077.00-03-01.00 4,016,400.00 13,254.12 1,200,000.00 3,960.00 3,896,400.00 9,294.12 approved yes 2007-013 Stover Professional Park ED05-077.00-03-03.00 2,751,800.00 9,080.94 800,000.00 2,640.00 1,951,800.00 6,440.94 approved yes 2007-014 Stover Professional Park ED05-077.00-03-04.00 1,808,300.00 5,967.39 750,000.00 2,475.00 1,058,300.00 3,492.39 approved yes 2007-015 Stover Professional Park ED05-077.00-03-05.00 1,748,100.00 5,768.73 750,000.00 2,475.00 998,100.00 3,293.73 approved yes 2007-016 Stover Professional Park ED05-077.00-03-06.00 3,282,700.00 10,832.91 750,000.00 2,475.00 2,532,700.00 8,357.91 approved yes 2007-017 Stover Professional Park ED05-077.00-03-07.00 1,716,700.00 5,665.11 750,000.00 2,475.00 966,700.00 3,190.11 approved yes 2007-018 Stover Professional Park ED05-077.00-03-08.00 1,729,200.00 5,706.36 750,000.00 2,475.00 979,200.00 3,231.36 approved yes 2007-019 Stover Professional Park ED05-077.00-03-09.00 2,171,800.00 7,166.94 750,000.00 2,475.00 1,421,800.00 4,691.94 approved yes 2007-020 Stover Professional Park ED05-077.00-03-10.00 2,021,600.00 6,671.28 750,000.00 2,475.00 1,271,600.00 4,196.28 approved yes 2007-021 Stover Professional Park ED05-077.00-03-11.00 2,314,300.00 7,637.19 750,000.00 2,475.00 1,564,300.00 5,162.19 approved yes 2007-022 Stover Professional Park ED05-077.00-03-12.00 2,157,500.00 7,119.75 750,000.00 2,475.00 1,407,500.00 4,644.75 approved yes 2007-010 Beiser Group ED05-076.11-01-03.04 464,800.00 1,533.84 300,000.00 990.00 164,800.00 543.84 approved yes 2007-011 Beiser Group ED05-076.11-01-03.05 651,200.00 2,148.96 500,000.00 1,650.00 151,200.00 498.96 approved yes 2007-09 Beiser Group ED05-076.11-01-03.06 632,000.00 2,085.60 400,000.00 1,320.00 232,000.00 765.60 approved yes 2007-023 Everett, Franklin ED05-067.19-04-50.00 1,072,000.00 3,537.60 650,000.00 2,145.00 422,000.00 1,392.60 approved yes 2007-024 West Dover Professional Park ED05-076.15-01-03.08 1,920,000.00 6,336.00 1,420,000.00 4,686.00 500,000.00 1,650.00 approved yes Administrative First Development Group 2007-025 LLC/Clearview Meadows ED05-077.07-01-010 10,512,200.00 34,690.26 8,403,400.00 27,731.22 2,108,800.00 6,959.04 approved yes EXHIBIT #5 2007-026 M&L Ventures ED05-077.00-01-28.04 1,500,000.00 4,950.00 100,000.00 * 1,400,000.00 4,950.00 approved yes * per §102-31 not subject to taxation. Based on Chapter 102 Article II §102-31 (City of Dover Ordinance) . Total Tax Abatement $72,755.76 Regular Council Meeting of 10/22/2007 **Correction to information, subsequent to Committee on Tax Appeals Meeting. Upon further review, value was added to Report to reflect Farm value and applicable City Ordinance Chapter 102 Article II § 102-31 9