COUNCIL PACKET

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA NOVEMBER 13, 2018 - 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 BISHOP THOMAS L. HOLSEY PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN SUDLER 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 OCTOBER 22, 2018 2. PROCLAMATION - GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS) DAY AND GEOGRAPHY AWARENESS WEEK 3. REZONING REQUEST - PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2018-10 (PETITION RECEIVED) THE FIRST READING OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WAS ACCOMPLISHED DURING THE COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2018. THE ORDINANCE IS AVAILABLE AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AT WWW.CITYOFDOVER.COM UNDER "GOVERNMENT." A. PROPERTY LOCATED AT 951 WHITE OAK ROAD, CONSISTING OF 1.1152+/- ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WHITE OAK ROAD AND EAST OF HALSEY ROAD, OWNED BY HANSEN WHITE OAK PARTNERS, LLC. THE EQUITABLE OWNER IS L&S DAVIS PROPERTIES INC. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED C-PO (COMMERCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE) AND THE PROPOSED ZONING IS IO (INSTITUTIONAL AND OFFICE) (TAX PARCEL: ED-05-068.14-05-85.00-000, THIRD COUNCIL DISTRICT; PLANNING REFERENCE: Z-18-02)

COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 13, 2018 PAGE 2 4. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT - OCTOBER 23, 2018 * A. UTILITY COMMITTEE (1) SMALL CELL WIRELESS ACTION PLAN (COMMITTEE ACTION NOT REQUIRED) B. SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (1) AMBULANCE SERVICES - REQUESTED LEVEL OF SERVICE (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT THE CITY INCORPORATE TWO (2) DEDICATED 24/7 BLS UNITS MANNED BY TWO (2) EMT-B NATIONALLY-CERTIFIED PERSONNEL IN AN ADDENDUM TO THE ORIGINAL RFP #19-0001CM) * (2) PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2018-12 AMENDING CHAPTER 70 - OFFENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS, SECTION - 70-5 AGGRESSIVE PANHANDLING AND APPENDIX F - FEES AND FINES (SPONSORS: HARE AND POLCE) (COMMITTEE DEFERRED THIS ITEM) * 5. SPECIAL COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT - NOVEMBER 5, 2018 A. UTILITY COMMITTEE (1) EVALUATION OF BIDS - FY18 INFLOW AND INFILTRATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE LOW BID SUBMITTED BY GATEWAY CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $435,980 FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING 8" AND 12" DIAMETER SANITARY SEWER MAIN AND REPLACEMENT OF SANITARY SEWER LATERALS. THE WORK WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED IN COLLEGE ROAD, OVERLOOK / EAST LAKE GARDEN, THE WESLEY COLLEGE AREA, AND RODNEY VILLAGE.) B. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE (1) PERMISSION TO RECRUIT - SANITATION SUPERVISOR (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE PERMISSION TO RECRUIT FOR THE POSITION OF SANITATION FIELD SUPERVISOR II) (2) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO FINANCIAL POLICY - EXPENDITURE POLICY #5 USE OF APPROPRIATIONS (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS) * 6. MONTHLY REPORTS - SEPTEMBER 2018 A. CITY ASSESSOR’S REPORT B. CITY COUNCIL’S COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT FUND REPORT C. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT D. CITY PLANNER’S REPORT E. CONTROLLER/TREASURER’S BUDGET REPORT F. FIRE CHIEF’S REPORT G. POLICE CHIEF’S REPORT * 7. QUARTERLY REVIEW - CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN (CIP) (JULY, AUGUST, AND SEPTEMBER) (STAFF RECOMMENDS ACCEPTANCE OF THE REPORT) 8. COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS - HOLIDAY SCHEDULE (CANCELLATION OF NOVEMBER 26 AND DECEMBER 24, 2018 CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND NOVEMBER 27 AND DECEMBER 26, 2018 COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS. CONSIDERATION MAY ALSO BE GIVEN TO DECLARING DECEMBER 24, 2018 AS A SPECIAL HOLIDAY.)

COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 13, 2018 PAGE 3 9. CITY MANAGER’S ANNOUNCEMENTS 10. COUNCIL MEMBERS’ ANNOUNCEMENTS 11. ADJOURNMENT /TM S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\COUNCIL-AGENDAS\2018\11-13-2018 COUNCIL AGENDA.WPD EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO: 29 DEL. C. §10004(B)(2) - PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS ON SITE ACQUISITIONS FOR ANY PUBLICLY FUNDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, OR SALES OR LEASES OF REAL PROPERTY; 29 DEL. C. §10004(B)(4) - STRATEGY SESSIONS, INCLUDING THOSE INVOLVING LEGAL ADVICE OR OPINION FROM AN ATTORNEY-AT-LAW, WITH RESPECT TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION, BUT ONLY WHEN AN OPEN MEETING WOULD HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE BARGAINING OR LITIGATION POSITION OF THE PUBLIC BODY; 29 DEL. C. §10004(B)(6) - DISCUSSION OF THE CONTENT OF DOCUMENTS, EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF "PUBLIC RECORD" IN §10002 OF THIS TITLE WHERE SUCH DISCUSSION MAY DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS OF SUCH DOCUMENTS; AND 29 DEL. C. §10004(B)(9) - PERSONNEL MATTERS IN WHICH THE NAMES, COMPETENCY AND ABILITIES OF INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES ARE DISCUSSED, UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE REQUESTS THAT SUCH A MEETING BE OPEN THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. PURSUANT TO 29 DEL. C. §10004(E)(2), THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, WHICH ARISE AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING.

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING The Regular Council Meeting was held on October 22, 2018 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Slavin presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sudler, Mr. Neil, Mr. Cole, Mr. Polce, Mr. Hare, and Mr. Lindell. Mr. Lewis was absent. Staff members present were Major Stump, Ms. Peddicord, Mrs. Mitchell, Mr. Hugg, Fire Chief Carey, City Solicitor Rodriguez, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Christiansen was also present (departed at 7:45 p.m.). OPEN FORUM The Open Forum was held at 7:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Slavin 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 Bishop Thomas L. Holsey, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Mr. Hare moved for approval of the consent agenda, seconded by Mr. Lindell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Lewis absent). ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2018 The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of October 8, 2018 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Hare, seconded by Mr. Lindell and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION AND CONGRATULATIONS - GREGORY M. PARSELL The City Clerk read the following Certificate of Appreciation and Congratulations into the record: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Be It Hereby Known To All That The Mayor and Council Commend GREGORY M. PARSELL for Dedicated Service to the City of Dover May 1994 - October 2018 24 Years of Service The Mayor and Council Extend Sincere Appreciation and Congratulations

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2018 PAGE 2 On behalf of the Mayor and Council, Mayor Christiansen presented the Certificate, City Plaque, and Dover Cup in appreciation of the years of service provided by Mr. Parsell. TRIBUTE NO. 2018-02 - ROBERT M. SADUSKY A TRIBUTE EXPRESSING SYMPATHY AND CONDOLENCES UPON THE PASSING OF ROBERT M. SADUSKY. WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the City of Dover have been greatly saddened by the death of Robert M. Sadusky, former Councilman and member of the City of Dover Planning Commission, who passed away on August 23, 2018; and WHEREAS, Robert M. Sadusky served on the Planning Commission as the Second District Representative from August 11, 1997 until being sworn in as Councilman of the Second District on May 10, 2004. He served with distinction as Councilman until May 8, 2006 and, during his tenure, served as Chair of the Consolidated Plan Advisory Group, and Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee and as a member of the Assessment Appeals Committee, Construction Code Board of Appeals, and Utility Committee; and WHEREAS, Robert M. Sadusky served with gentle sincerity and contributed greatly to the betterment of the City and its residents. During a period of rapid growth, he demonstrated a commitment to assure that a high quality of life would be preserved for future generations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and Council extend their deepest sympathy and condolences to the family and friends of Robert M. Sadusky and hope that they will be consoled by the memories of his exemplary life and commendable achievements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and Council direct the City Clerk to place this Tribute in the permanent records of the City of Dover and that a copy of this Tribute be provided to the family of Robert M. Sadusky. ADOPTED: OCTOBER 22, 2018 On behalf of the Mayor and Council, Mayor Christiansen presented the Tribute and a City of Dover flag to the Sadusky family. Mr. Hare moved for adoption of Tribute No. 2018-02, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. TRIBUTE NO. 2018-03 - JOHN "JACK" E. RICHTER A TRIBUTE EXPRESSING SYMPATHY AND CONDOLENCES UPON THE PASSING OF JOHN “JACK” E. RICHTER. WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the City of Dover have been greatly saddened by the death of John “Jack” E. Richter, former Mayor and Councilman, who passed away on September 25, 2018; and

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2018 PAGE 3 WHEREAS, John E. Richter was sworn into office as Councilman of the First District on June 23, 1980 and served with distinction until May 9, 1988. During his tenure as Councilman, he served as Vice-Mayor, Chair of the Utility Committee and as a member of the Chamber of Commerce and County Government Committee, Constitution Place Advisory Committee, Legislative and Finance Committee, Long Range Planning Committee, and Tax Appeals Committee. Following his eight years of service as a Councilman, John E. Richter was sworn into office as the Mayor of the City of Dover on May 9, 1988 and served with distinction until May 11, 1992. During his tenure as Mayor, he served as a member of the Delmarva Advisory Council Program Committee and Downtown Dover Development Corporation; and WHEREAS, during his many years of service, John E. Richter demonstrated devotion to the City of Dover and served his fellow citizens tirelessly. During his time in office, he established the Dover Arts Council, Kirkwood Street Improvement and Downtown Dover Programs, initiated the Parenting Center and St. Jones River Greenway, and supported the Police Department in its pro-active force for community improvement and crime prevention. John E. Richter’s contributions to the community extended well beyond his service to the City of Dover and, as President and a longtime member of the Friends of Old Dover, he worked diligently to preserve the rapidly disappearing history of our hometown. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and Council extend their deepest sympathy and condolences to the family and friends of “Jack” Richter, and hope that they will be consoled by the memories of his exemplary life and commendable achievements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and Council direct the City Clerk to place this Tribute in the permanent records of the City of Dover and that a copy of this Tribute be provided to the family of John “Jack” E. Richter. ADOPTED: OCTOBER 22, 2018 Mayor Christiansen advised that he presented the Tribute to the Richter family earlier in the day at the memorial service. Mr. Hare moved for adoption of Tribute No. 2018-03, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT - OCTOBER 9, 2018 The Council Committee of the Whole met on October 9, 2018 at 6:00 p.m., with Council President Slavin presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sudler, Mr. Neil, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Cole, Mr. Polce, Mr. Hare, and Mr. Lindell (arrived at 6:02 p.m.). Mayor Christiansen was also present. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Mrs. Doyle (Utility). Ms. Scarborough (Utility), and Mr. Shevock and Dr. Stewart (Legislative, Finance, and Administration) were absent.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2018 PAGE 4 UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee met with Chairman Cole presiding. Evaluation of Bids - Lakewood Place Water Main Replacement Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, reviewed the background and analysis for the evaluation of bids for the Lakewood Place Water Main Replacement. Staff recommended awarding the contract to Teal Construction, Inc., for the City of Dover, Lakewood Place Water Main Replacement Project, Bid #19-0005PW, for the amount of $164,094.00. The Committee recommended approval of staff’s recommendation. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Lindell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Lewis absent). LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Chairman Hare presiding. Proposed Amendments to the Purchasing Policy and Procedures Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, reviewed the proposed amendments to the Purchasing Policy and Procedures. She advised members that some of the amendments were related to the new ERP system the City is implementing. Mrs. Mitchell noted that there were also major changes proposed to Section 2 - Ethics in Purchasing, and Chapter 30 - Standards of Ethical Conduct and Ethics Commission was added as Appendix A. She explained that the cover letter for all bids that go out will include a link to the City’s Purchasing Policy and reference Appendix A, and vendors will be required to make sure that they are aware of the provisions of the Policy. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the amendment includes new language that “Vendors participating in the City procurement will be disqualified from the procurement if the employee, official or vendor is found to be in violation of the City’s ethical standards and a referral of the matter will be presented to the Ethics Commission. Failure to familiarize oneself with the provisions of this policy and appendices will not be accepted.” Mrs. Mitchell advised that she was recommending an amendment to Section 3.10 - Change Orders. She explained that she thought that giving someone authority to make a change order for 25% of the original purchase price was a lot, and she thought it should be 15% across the board.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2018 PAGE 5 Mrs. Mitchell, referring to page 13, advised that she had recommended striking Section 6.7 - Minority Owned Vendor Preference, and Section 6.8 - Local Vendor Preference, from the Policy. She stated that it was her understanding from the City’s Purchaser, that a lot of entities in the State had gone away from this because they were not getting the competitiveness out of the bid process. Mrs. Mitchell explained that those entities were not getting the number of bids that they would expect for certain contracts since they do not have the minority or local vendors in those areas. She stated that she was not strongly recommending this change, however, she wanted members to be aware and discuss it. Mr. Anderson expressed concern regarding the amendment to the minority and local vendor preferences. He stated that he did not know how this worked for the State but that it did work for the City because the City seemed to get more bidders. Mr. Anderson advised that before the City had enticement for local businesses, there were projects that were tens of millions of dollars and no local contractors or subcontractors. He noted that the preference rarely comes into play where it affects the outcome of a bid, however, it has increased the competition in the City’s bidding process and seems to have increased local involvement from minority businesses over the last six (6) to seven (7) years. Mr. Anderson stated that he hoped that this was something that the City would keep. Mr. Polce thanked Mrs. Mitchell for taking on this task that he had requested, explaining that his objective was to provide clarification regarding ethical guidelines and standards for when requests for proposals go out to bid and come back to the Committee and Council for comment. He stated that Mr. Anderson had made very valid points regarding the minority and local vendor preferences and asked if Mrs. Mitchell would leave those items in the Policy since she did not have a strong objection. Mr. Polce stated that he thought that the amendments had captured the overall objective and indicated that he thought that the revised Policy would bring some ease moving forward, especially in regard to some of the larger projects that the City is hoping to tackle. Mr. Neil stated that he thought even if minority and local preferences are not working in other areas, he believed the City should set the standard. He indicated that even if the City does not get those types of bid submissions, he would prefer to keep the preferences in the Policy to provide the incentive for people to participate. Mr. Lindell stated that he concurred with Mr. Anderson and Mr. Neil regarding the vendor preferences, noting that he thought it was important for the City to consider local businesses. Referring to Section 2 - Ethics in Purchasing, he asked if the proposed amendment pertaining to disqualifying vendors from the procurement would cause any undue delay in looking at the various bids. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she did not think that there would be any delay because the intention is that staff would disqualify the vendors, refer the matter to the Ethics Commission, and move forward with the remaining qualified bids.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2018 PAGE 6 Mr. Sudler stated that he concurred with his Council colleagues. He expressed his hope that there may be more incentives to attract some of the minority contractors in the future, noting that he had heard from a lot of them that it is difficult to get a contract from the City. Mr. Sudler stated that, as a contractor, he had never bid for any City jobs and he does not know the validity of the concerns that had been relayed to him; however, he hoped to look into this with Mrs. Mitchell in the near future. Mayor Christiansen stated that he concurred with members’ comments regarding the vendor preferences, noting that although the State had done away with these preferences, he thought that the City should set the standard. He stated that he thought there should also be a provision for female-owned companies or gender specific companies. Responding, Mr. Anderson indicated that a provision was previously included for women under the Minority Owned Vendor Preference. Mr. Lewis moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the Purchasing Policy and Procedures, with the changes recommended by Mr. Anderson to keep Section 6.7 - Minority Owned Vendor Preference and Section 6.8 - Local Vendor Preference. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil. Mayor Christiansen, referring to Section 6.7 - Minority Owned Vendor Preference, asked if the State still maintained the Office of Minority and Women Business Enterprises and whether the certification directory for minority ownership was still subject to their oversight. In response, Mr. Polce stated that he believed the Department of Human Resources, which is a separate entity, now had oversight but asked Mrs. Mitchell to check that information. The Committee recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the Purchasing Policy and Procedures, with the changes recommended by Mr. Anderson to keep Section 6.7 - Minority Owned Vendor Preference and Section 6.8 - Local Vendor Preference. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the proposed amendments to the Purchasing Policy and Procedures (Exhibit #1). The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Lewis absent). Review of Pension Benefits - Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) (2018 Budget Hearing) During their Regular Meeting of August 27, 2018, City Council accepted the Committee's action to table this matter for consideration at a future date when Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, has gathered the appropriate data, and that it be communicated to Mr. Lester Blakeman and the retirees in advance so they can be a part of the discussion. Mrs. Mitchell reviewed the FY17 funding liability, percentages of payroll, and FY18 medical premium expense related to General and Police Pension and Other Post- Employment Benefits (OPEB), as well as the Government Finance Officers

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2018 PAGE 7 Association (GFOA) Advisory regarding “Responsible Management and Design Practices for Defined Benefit Pension Plans.” She noted that the GFOA recommends not doing ad hoc cost of living increases. Mrs. Mitchell reminded members that her recommendation during the Council Committee of the Whole meeting of July 24, 2018 was that future ad hoc cost of living increases for the participants of the Defined Benefit Plan be taken under consideration in years where the Pension Plan is fully funded; however, as a compromise, she would recommend Council review future ad hoc cost of living increases for the participants of the Defined Benefit Plan every five (5) years. She explained that, as the City Manager, she sees this from a different perspective because she sees the financial liabilities as well as the physical assets, the liabilities in the infrastructure, and all of the things that the City needs to make improvements to. Mrs. Mitchell advised that some of these affect the City’s employees, some affect the citizens, and some affect both. She stated that she thought that it seemed cumbersome to address this every year. Staff recommended that future ad hoc cost of living increases for the participants of the Defined Benefit Plan be taken under consideration in years where the pension plan is fully funded or every five (5) years. Mr. Anderson stated that he thought that Mrs. Mitchell’s compromise to review this matter every five (5) years had a lot of wisdom. He noted that prior to 2018, Council had not approved a COLA since 2006 and he was concerned with not looking at it. Mr. Neil stated that he receives a pension, Social Security, and a state pension from the State of Maryland. He advised that the State of Maryland had decided that retirees will no longer receive a benefit from a subsidized insurance plan for prescriptions and now have to utilize Medicare Part D, which will increase the cost of medication for those retirees. Mr. Neil explained that one of the things that attracted employees to those State jobs was that they were guaranteed to have medical, dental, and prescription insurance and, although they were not going to be paid top dollar, those benefits would be important as employees got older because the cost would go up if they were independent. He noted that the benefits become extremely important in order to get and keep employees. Mr. Neil stated that he thinks it’s fate on the City’s part to maintain those benefits for those people who have retired. He advised that the principle insurance for retirees is Social Security and the additional insurance comes from pension, and while some retirees may be able to live on Social Security, others might not and retirees will certainly not have as good a life if they do not have both. Mr. Neil advised that retirees also deal with inflation and although there is currently a period of very low inflation, when it increases all of a sudden it puts a lot of burden on the retirees. He stated that he would really like to make sure that the City’s retirees are going to be looked after and let them know that the City cares about them and the service that they have provided.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2018 PAGE 8 Mr. Slavin noted that there are 210 non-police members in the Defined Benefit Plan and asked what the age range was of those members. In response, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she did not know the ages; however, she informed members that there are both spouses and retirees in the Plan and she thought that some of the spouses were probably older than the retirees. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Mitchell confirmed that this is not a liability, it is an expense that the City has to plan for over many years. She noted that because the City has had a lot of baby boomers retiring, she thought the average age of Plan members had gone down. Mr. Slavin stated that when the City does a cost of living adjustment (COLA) of 2%, which previously cost $88,000, which at the end of the budget process could be found in that budget; however, he noted that the cost would continue as an incremental adjustment in the budget every year until the last person in the Plan is alive. He asked if the City has the ability to give a one-time stipend, that would not go to the base rate of the retiree, in a year where the City may find an additional amount of cash. He noted that this would not increase the City’s liability; however, it would put cash in the hands of the retiree. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she thought that the City could do a one-time stipend because it would be reported on the retirees 1099 and would not be considered part of the base that grows every year. Mr. Slavin asked if this would be an option that the City could explore in off years if the Plan is not fully funded and the City is concerned about the liability growing. Mrs. Mitchell stated that it would be better if this came out of the General Fund and utility monies rather than the Pension Fund. Mr. Sudler thanked Mrs. Mitchell for her insight and acknowledging the complexities that she and members of Council are facing. Mr. Polce asked if any City retirees currently had step or fixed increases. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell advised that the old Police Pension Plan has an automatic 2% COLA and the City is reimbursed by the State Pension Office for the COLA increase each year from State grant money. She indicated that the new State Police Pension Plan does not have an automatic increase. In response to Mr. Polce, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she thought that the old Police Pension Plan had less than 50 members now. She confirmed that the City sends the State an affidavit of the cost and they subsidize it. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the State does an actuarial study and sends it to the City. Mr. Lester Blakeman, Sr., 209 Falmouth Way, reviewed information he compiled and provided to members regarding the civilian pension plan, including pages from Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR’s), and spreadsheets that he created depicting revenue sources for the pension plan, and payments from the pension plan. Mr. Blakeman also provided a notebook of additional information he compiled related to the civilian pension plan. He noted that the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) pages that he provided were from 2003 through 2017, and he started with 2003 for consistency because there was a change in the way the information was reported beginning in 2003. Referring to his spreadsheet

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2018 PAGE 9 regarding the revenue sources for the pension plan, Mr. Blakeman noted that it had taken five (5) years to increase the fund by $2,000,000 and with an unfunded liability of $20,000,000, it would take 45 years to fully fund the plan at that rate. He expressed concern that the unfunded balance would increase since payments are made from the fund and staff had recommended that COLA’s be considered once the plan is fully funded. Mr. Blakeman stated that there are essentially three (3) pension plans, the police plan, the civilian plan, and the Defined Contribution Plan. He noted that the police plan receives a 2% COLA every year. Mr. Blakeman stated that it was his understanding the employees in the Defined Contribution Plan contribute a percentage of their annual salary and receive a matching contribution from the City up to a certain percentage. He explained that he thought that these employees were getting a pension increase as well, since the pension contributions continually increase as the employees receive pay increases. In response, Mrs. Mitchell advised that if employees get a pay raise, their percentage of pension contribution will increase as well, noting that this is the same for employees in the Defined Benefit Plan as it is for those in the 401 Plan. She explained that the City employees in the 401 receive whatever contributions were invested over their lifetime plus their earnings; whereas, the payments for those in the Defined Benefit Plan are based on their last three (3) highest year earnings. Mr. Blakeman noted that there is a trust fund for the Defined Benefit Plan; however, it is not really a trust fund because it is used to make pension payments. He explained that when the Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) Trust Fund was created there was a restriction that the money in the Fund could not be used to pay current expenses. He stated that he would like a restriction to be added to the Defined Benefit Plan trust fund so the money cannot be used to pay current pensions, explaining that when you draw it down, the unfunded liability goes up. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell explained that the City contributions are not intended to equal the pension payments. She stated that employee contributions and investment earnings are supposed to cover the payments and create a surplus for future retirees. Mrs. Mitchell advised that the OPEB Trust was developed like a legal document through the City Solicitor for a Trust Fund. She stated that the pension trusts were done years ago and are ordinances; however, they are trust funds in all aspects. She explained that the pension payments for retirees come out of the pension trust fund and the OPEB payments, for retiree medical benefits, come out of the OPEB trust. Mrs. Mitchell advised that the City has two (2) bank accounts, an investment account with Wells Fargo and a cash account with M&T Bank, and staff transfers the City’s appropriation toward retirees’ medical benefits to the checking account because the premiums are paid out of the checking account. She explained that it would not make sense to transfer the money to the investment account and then transfer it back to the checking account to pay the premiums, so you never see the monies go through the Wells Fargo account but it is budgeted for in the operating funds and comes out of the OPEB trust fund.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2018 PAGE 10 Mr. Sudler thanked Mr. Blakeman for his initiative and trying to help the City. Mr. Neil moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation that future ad hoc cost of living increases for the participants of the Defined Benefit Plan be taken under consideration in years where the pension plan is fully funded, seconded by Mr. Slavin. Mr. Polce stated that he thought that Mrs. Mitchell’s suggestion regarding a five-year review had a lot of merit; however, it was his understanding that the motion was to recommend that future ad hoc cost of living increases for the participants of the Defined Benefit Plan be taken under consideration in years where the pension plan is fully funded, which is undefined. Mr. Polce encouraged members to define the recommendation to five (5) years. Responding, Mr. Slavin stated that he would be amenable to changing the wording of the motion. Mr. Hare suggested the possibility of reviewing this matter every three (3) years and, if the pension plan is not fully funded in the first three (3) years, members could consider making a stipend payment, and then review the matter three (3) years later and, if it’s fully funded, possibly provide an increase at that time. In response, Mrs. Mitchell advised that she would not recommend scheduling ad hoc COLA’s, noting that, because of the GASB pronouncements, the City would run into all kinds of problems with unfunded liabilities. She stated that the best approach would be for members to make a decision when they review it. Mr. Hare suggested reviewing this matter every three (3) years, noting that he liked Mr. Slavin’s suggestion regarding a stipend. Mr. Neil stated that he agreed with Mr. Hare and was not sure what the procedure would be to include the stipend suggested by Mr. Slavin in the motion. Mr. Neil and Mr. Slavin withdrew the motion to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation that future ad hoc cost of living increases for the participants of the Defined Benefit Plan be taken under consideration in years where the pension plan is fully funded. Mr. Slavin moved to recommend that future ad hoc cost of living increases for the participants of the Defined Benefit Plan be taken under consideration every three (3) years, seconded by Mr. Lindell. Mr. Anderson asked if the three-year review would include stipend considerations. Responding, Mr. Slavin stated that it would include any options that are available. Mr. Cole stated that he thought that the stipend could be discussed during the three- year review, noting that he did not think members should have anything set for what they plan to do.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2018 PAGE 11 The Committee recommended that future ad hoc cost of living increases for the participants of the Defined Benefit Plan be taken under consideration every three (3) years. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Lindell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Lewis absent). By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for acceptance of the Council Committee of the Whole Report, seconded by Mr. Lindell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Lewis absent). QUARTERLY REVENUE REPORT Members were provided the Quarterly Revenue Report as of September 30, 2018. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for acceptance of the Quarterly Revenue Report as of September 30, 2018. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Lewis absent). SEMI-ANNUAL INSPECTION BY CITY MANAGER - ROBBINS HOSE COMPANY In accordance with Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection, Article II - Fire Department, Division 1 - Generally, Section 46-43 - Semiannual Inspections, of the City Code, the City Manager, Mrs. Donna S. Mitchell, met with the Fire Chief to discuss fire company issues. Mrs. Mitchell submitted a memorandum outlining the items discussed. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for acceptance of the report of the Semi-Annual Robbins Hose Company Inspection, as submitted by the City Manager. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Lewis absent). APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES - ROBBINS HOSE COMPANY ELECTION The Robbins Hose Company election is scheduled for November 19, 2018. The following persons were recommended to serve as judges for the election: 1. James Howlett 2. James Hurley 3. Woodrow Postle By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the appointment of judges for the Robbins Hose Company election as recommended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Lewis absent). REZONING REQUEST - FIRST READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2018-11 A request was received to rezone properties located at 971, 975, 983, 987, and 991 Forest Street, 21 and 27 Saulsbury Road, and 20 and 30 Carver Road, consisting of nine (9) parcels of land totaling 2.32 +/- acres, owned by Faithwork LLC and Paul Davis and Justine J. Davis (Paul and Justine Davis Revocable Trust). The properties are currently zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone), C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone), and C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) and the proposed zoning is C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone).

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2018 PAGE 12 Prior to amending the zoning ordinances and zoning map of the City of Dover, a public hearing is required. Mr. Neil moved to refer the request to the Planning Commission on November 19, 2018 and set a public hearing before City Council for December 10, 2018 at 7:30 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindell and unanimously carried. In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of Proposed Ordinance #2018-11 as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 971, 975, 983, 987, AND 991 FOREST STREET, 21 AND 27 SAULSBURY ROAD, AND 20 AND 30 CARVER ROAD CITY MANAGER'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, announced the following: 1) Flushing began October 7th and was scheduled to conclude on October 26th; 2) The Silver Lake drawdown concluded on October 19th; 3) Leaf collection began on October 15th and was scheduled to conclude on January 11, 2019; 4) The police department and FOP Lodge 15 will be participating in No Shave November. Each officer participating will donate $30 to benefit the Delaware Prostate Cancer Coalition; and 5) Friday from 6:00 - 8:00 p.m., the Dover Police Department and DDP will be having the annual Trunk or Treat on Legislative Mall with over 70 vendors, businesses, and organizations. No costume is necessary for kids 13 and under. COUNCIL MEMBERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS At the request of Mr. Anderson, Reverend Carol E. Harris, coordinator for the Vines Community Project, thanked City Council for its support of the Vines Community Project and Kent Goes Purple, which ran from September 9th through September 22nd. She invited members to the official launch of Kent Goes Purple on November 1st. Reverend Harris advised that Lieutenant Governor Bethany Hall-Long would be their keynote speaker and Mayor Christiansen has committed to giving remarks as well. Mr. Sudler moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:52 p.m. TRACI A. McDOWELL CITY CLERK

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2018 PAGE 13 All ordinances, resolutions, motions, and orders adopted by City Council during their Regular Meeting of October 22, 2018, are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR TM/jt S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Council-Minutes\2018\10-22-2018 Council Minutes.wpd Exhibits Exhibit #1 - Purchasing Policy and Procedures

EXHIBIT #1 Regular Council Meeting of 10/22/2018 CITY OF DOVER PURCHASING POLICY & PROCEDURES ISSUED BY: FINANCE & CENTRAL SERVICES AMENDED OCTOBER 22, 2018

Purchasing Policy & Procedures Table of Contents Section Title Page # Purchasing Flow Chart ............................................................................... 3 1 The Purpose ................................................................................................ 4 2 Ethics in Purchasing ................................................................................... 4 3 Purchasing Limits & Authority .................................................................. 4 3.1 General Guidelines...................................................................................... 4 3.2 Subdividing Purchases ............................................................................... 5 3.3 Fleet Vehicles & Associated Equipment ................................................... 5 3.4 Equipment Purchases $25,000 - $199,999 ................................................ 5 3.5 Purchasing Threshold Table ...................................................................... 6 3.6 Cooperative Purchasing ............................................................................. 7 3.7 Standard Forms .......................................................................................... 7 3.8 Inspection and Full Payment ...................................................................... 7 3.9 Warranties .................................................................................................. 7 3.10 Authorized Personnel ................................................................................. 7 3.11 Change Orders ........................................................................................... 7 4 Professional Services Guidelines ............................................................... 8 4.1 Request for Proposals ................................................................................ 8 4.2 Total Cost Up to $7,500 ............................................................................. 8 4.3 Total Cost Between $7,500 and $25,000 ................................................... 9 4.4 Total Cost Greater Than $25,000 .............................................................. 9 4.5 Subdividing the Purchases of Services ...................................................... 9 4.6 Documentation ........................................................................................... 9 4.7 Change Orders ........................................................................................... 9 5 Public Works & Utility Type Contracts & Certain Professional Services. 9 6 Exceptions .................................................................................................. 11 6.1 Sole Source Procurement ........................................................................... 11 6.2 Warehouse Stock ....................................................................................... 11 6.3 Negotiations ............................................................................................... 11 6.4 Used Materials and Equipment .................................................................. 11 6.5 Continuity of Service ................................................................................. 11 6.6 Emergency ................................................................................................. 11 6.7 Minority Owned Vendor Preference ......................................................... 12 6.8 Local Vendor Preference ........................................................................... 12 7 Receiving ................................................................................................... 12 8 Credit Card Purchases ................................................................................ 13 9 Invoices and Payments ............................................................................... 13 10 Green Procurement .................................................................................... 14 11 Debarment of Vendors for Consideration of Awards ................................ 15 12 Committees/Commissions ......................................................................... 16 Appendix A Standards of Ethical Conduct and Ethics Commission .............................. 17 Appendix B Invitation to Bid and Request for Proposal Procedures ............................. 28 Appendix C Sample Bid Bond ....................................................................................... 31 Appendix D Sample Performance Bond ........................................................................ 32 Appendix E Glossary ..................................................................................................... 34 Appendix F Quotation Worksheet (for Purchases between $5,000 and $24,999) ......... 39 2

Purchasing Flow Chart Less Than Yes Department Process Invoice $5,000 Stamp, Code, Signature and Key into Munis Quotes Optional) No $5,000 to (See Legend 3 Written Department Yes $24,999 Below) Quotes Process P.O. P.O. Required and Key into Munis CM & Forward quotes & No Treasurer support to Central Approve Services P.O. $25,000 & Sealed Pre-Solicitation Meeting Over Yes Bid or with Procurement Manager Final Bid or P.O. Required RFP – 3 Discuss Procedures & RFP Vendors Specifications CAF Review – Bid Bid Opening Public City Manager& Award Advertising Controller/Treasurer Committee/Council Approval Central Service Process CM & Treasurer (See Legend Below) P. O. Approve P.O. Lowest & Best Bid LEGEND: Requires Council Approval if: Sole Source Procurement Not low bid Bids that exceed amount budgeted Projects $200,000 and greater Vehicles/Equipment $200,000 and greater Professional Services $25,000 and greater (non-Public Works & Utilities) Professional Services $50,000 and greater (Public Works & Utilities) 3

CITY OF DOVER PURCHASING POLICY SECTION 1 - THE PURPOSE The purpose of the adoption of a purchasing policy is to establish the authority, limits and procedures relating to the purchasing of materials, supplies, equipment, construction, Public Works type contracts, and professional services. SECTION 2 - ETHICS IN PURCHASING Public employees and elected officials must discharge their duties impartially to assure competitive access to governmental procurement by responsible contractors. Moreover, they should conduct themselves in such a manner as to foster public confidence in the integrity of City procurement. Dover Code Article II Section 30 (Appendix A), establishes standards of ethical conduct among public officials and employees. Vendors participating in the City procurement will be disqualified from the procurement if the employee, official or vendor is found to be in violation of the City’s ethical standards and a referral of the matter will be presented to the Ethics Commission. Failure to familiarize oneself with the provisions of this policy and appendices will not be accepted. SECTION 3 - PURCHASING LIMITS & AUTHORITY 3.1 GENERAL GUIDELINES This section outlines the purchasing limits and guidelines for materials and supplies based on the purchase amount. No department or employee shall commit the expenditure of City funds until the procedures of this section have been complied. No employee or official shall have purchases shipped directly to their home. For this policy, the purchase amount is considered the purchase order total. Warehouse stock must be reduced to the item’s reorder level prior to using open market purchases as authorized by this policy. While purchasing goods and services for the City, the procedures and guidelines which are described in this purchasing policy are to be strictly followed. All purchasing related records must be kept in the Central Services Department for the period prescribed in the State Bureau of Archives Retention Schedule. These records may include, but are not limited to, request for proposals, vendor proposals, analysis of proposals, change orders and a copy of the purchase order(s). The Information Technology Department is to provide a technical review of all specifications for computer software and hardware purchases regardless of cost. The applicable Information Technology personnel should be consulted on all bid evaluations for computer hardware, software, or other related equipment. No agreement or contract shall be entered into, nor expense incurred by any division, which will result in an obligation more than the appropriation made to the division. It is the division’s responsibility to see that funds are in the proper accounts before obligating or 4

expending funds. If the funds are not in the proper account, the transaction will not be processed. The department must request a transfer of funds through the City Manager’s Office and Finance Department. Override of funds availability must be approved by the Controller/Treasurer and the City Manager. 3.2 SUBDIVIDING PURCHASES: Multiple purchase orders issued by a department for the same items during the same time frame in an attempt to negate the purchasing policy restrictions will be considered a clear violation of the purchasing policy; also considered subdividing purchases. 3.3 FLEET VEHICLES & ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT: Purchases of fleet vehicles and associated equipment shall not require Council approval when the purchases have been approved in the budget for the then current fiscal year. However, no vehicle designated as a replacement for any vehicle then currently owned by the City of Dover shall be purchased or ordered for purchase unless and until the then currently City-owned vehicle has been mechanically evaluated and determined by Fleet Maintenance to be no longer reliable for use in its then current capacity. All items within the amount budgeted must have a vehicle/equipment replacement request completed and forwarded to the City Manager for approval. Council approval is always required when the purchase is from sole source procurement, when the vendor is not the low bidder, or when the purchase price is higher than the budgeted amount for that vehicle and the overage cannot be made up through savings on other vehicles and equipment. To qualify as low bidder, the bid must meet the bid specifications. The City Purchasing Agent is authorized to purchase vehicles through the State of Delaware contract when in the best interest of the City. 3.4 EQUIPMENT PURCHASES $25,000 - $199,999: Budgeted equipment specifically identified in the Capital Improvement Plan does not need Council approval unless the purchase is sole vendor, sole source procurement, or not low bid. The purchase does not require construction or ancillary services. Equipment purchases $200,000 or greater requires Council approval. 5

3.5 PURCHASING THRESHOLD TABLE PURCHASING THRESHOLDS Less than $5,000 $5,000 to $24,999 $25,000 & Over Open market; Department Head Department Head solicit no less than Formal Invitation to Bid (ITB) or Request for discretion to obtain quotes; three (3) written quotations; If fewer Proposal (RFP/RFQ); No less than three (3) than three (3) quotations, justification potential vendors supplied to Central Services; must be included; Purchases will be made by Quotations and support Pre-Solicitation Meeting required of the designated personnel; documentation to be maintained in respective Department & Procurement Central Services files as public record; Manager to discuss appropriate procedures and Use the quotation worksheet in specifications; Appendix F. Approved invoices sent to Requires requisition and purchase Public sealed bid or sealed proposal procedures Accounts Payable for payment. order through the financial system; as outlined in Appendix B; Purchases under existing City All purchases will be made by Central Public Advertising at least once a week for two contracts shall be made in Services or the Police Department (2) consecutive weeks in publication with accordance with the terms of such Purchase Coordinator by Purchase circulation in each county of the State; contract. Order or Contract, Additional advertising discretionary; Supplies available from City stock Award shall be made to the lowest Lowest and/or most responsive bid will be should not be procured from third and the best quotation; Vendor accepted; Vendor references may be checked to party vendors. references may be checked; verify ability to meet contract requirements; Item numbers, quantities, unit Item numbers, quantities, unit cost, Public Bid/Proposal Opening; Time and date of cost, and extension must be and extension must be completed on public bid opening shall be stated in the notice completed on every purchase every purchase order for materials or for bids; Delivered to Central Services, 710 order for materials or paying for paying for contracted labor at hourly William Street, Dover, DE 19904 contracted labor at hourly rates; rates; Approval assigned at Department Fax and email quotations are Bid Bond or certified check in the amount Head Level acceptable; equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the bid amount for items/contracts over $25,000; Can be waived by Purchasing Agent and Department Head; Departmental approval assigned by Performance Bond required for construction Department Head; Electronic work; Approval – Asst. City Manager, City Manager & Controller/Treasurer Purchase Order to include: Faxed bid is not acceptable for this category; Unit Cost $; Account number; project Sealed bids may be emailed to number if applicable; Brief description bids@dover.de.us or as agreed to with the of item or service when not identifiable; Department Head; Quotes from each vendor in comments; Purchases exceeding $25,000 shall require NOTE – Changes to Purchase Orders Council approval for sole source procurement, are to be completed through the greater than budget and not low bidder; financial systems. Purchase Orders Committee/Council Action Forms to include: received with manual changes to Budget $, P. O. $ or Unit Cost $; Account amounts/unit cost will not be number; project number; page number in budget; processed by the Finance Department. Bid/RFP number if applicable. If unit cost bid includes cost comparison. If blanket bid or proposal is for recurring services, provide average annual cost for past three years for the service. Description and recommended action. 6

3.6 COOPERATIVE PURCHASING: The City of Dover is permitted to use state, county, municipal, and other government contracts to purchase material once it has been determined that the procedures outlined within this policy will not be violated. To use cooperative purchasing the quantities and timing of the materials must be coordinated with the partnering entity to insure cost savings through economies of scale. Any deviation from this policy for cooperative purchasing must be approved by the City Manger and Treasurer prior to entering into any purchase agreement. Cooperative Purchasing will not be permitted for any vehicles or equipment valued over $200,000. Sealed bids will be required. 3.7 STANDARD FORMS: All purchasing related forms and bid documents are developed and standardized for the City of Dover by Central Services. No substitutions of the City of Dover purchase order form or other standardized forms will be permitted. Where applicable, unit(s) of measure and unit cost must be included in the purchase order. Purchase orders with the quantity of one (1) will not be accepted unless the quantity is truly one (1). 3.8 INSPECTION AND FULL PAYMENT: Upon receiving materials and equipment and upon completion of construction, the City of Dover shall cause a detailed inspection. Full payments for the purchases will be made only upon the department head's complete satisfaction as to the fulfillment of all the conditions of the contract. The department will notify Central Services that the purchase order may be released for payment. 3.9 WARRANTIES: The department requesting the material or service shall monitor and maintain all warranties. 3.10 AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL: Only authorized personnel can purchase goods for the City of Dover. The authorized signature must appear on the purchase order and invoices. The original Authorized Signature Form must be kept in the Finance Office – Accounts Payable. This form must be updated if a new employee will be signing invoices and purchase orders. The Form can be found in Public Docs. 3.11 CHANGE ORDERS: If, after a purchase contract is awarded, it becomes necessary to add items/work because of unforeseen findings or a scheduled change, a change order can be issued without Council approval as follows: A) For purchases at $5,000 - $24,999 the Procurement Manager is authorized to sign purchase order changes up to and including 15% of the original purchase amount when the total dollar value of the purchase does not exceed $25,000 and the amount of the item is still within the amount budgeted for that item. 7

B) For purchases at $25,000 or greater, the City Manager and Controller/Treasurer are authorized to approve change orders as follows: 15% of the original purchase amount when the purchase is made on a unit cost basis, the purchase is within the approved (project) budget and/or the approved Council Action Form. SECTION 4 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GUIDELINES Professional Services are normally solicited by use of a Request for Proposal. This section provides the guidelines and procedures for the procurement of professional services that are not covered by Section 5 – Public Works & Utility Type Contracts and Certain Professional Services. Examples of the professional services covered under this section are consulting for rate studies; audit services, financial services, and computer related consulting. These are only examples, and the scope of the provisions of this section is not limited to these examples. 4.1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Evaluation of proposals must adhere to the following guidelines: 1. Determine what proposals are acceptable and unacceptable 2. A determination that a proposal is unacceptable shall be in writing, state the basis for the determination and be retained in the procurement file 3. The offeror shall not be afforded an opportunity to modify its offer Negotiation with individual offerors: 1. The department can negotiate with individual offerors after their proposals are opened. 2. The department shall develop formalized procedures to be consistently applied to each offer 3. Disclosure of one offerors price to another is prohibited 4. The department must send a written request for best and final offers setting forth the date, time, and place for submission of best and final offers 5. The department must inform the offerors that if they do not submit a notice of withdrawal or a best and final offer, their immediate previous offer will be construed as their best and final Final Award: 1. The contract shall be awarded within 90 days of the closing date. 2. The department shall award a contract to the offeror whose proposal is determined in writing to be most advantageous to the City 3. The determination shall explain the basis of the award 4. Central Services shall notify each unsuccessful offeror in writing of the award 4.2 TOTAL COST UP TO $7,500: Professional services covered under this section may be obtained using open market prices. It is the Department Head’s discretion to require written proposals from the service providers. The decision to award the contract for professional service shall be based on performance track records, fees, time schedule and known quality of work. Fax and email proposals are acceptable for this category. 8

4.3 TOTAL COST BETWEEN $7,500 AND $25,000: For procuring professional services covered under this section, the department shall use the "Request for Proposal" method and in conjunction with the Central Services Manager or authorized purchaser send requests for proposals to available service providers. The request for proposal will clearly include the following: 1. scope of work 2. schedule for work 3. request to provide fees, expenses and payment schedules; 4. last date for submitting the proposal 5. evaluation method 6. address, contact person and phone number. The services procured under this provision must have the approval of the department head. A purchase order must be issued to include, but not limited to the above, for the total amount, providing details and a reference of the professional services agreement number, if any, and the location. Fax and email proposals are acceptable for this category. 4.4 TOTAL COST GREATER THAN $25,000: For professional services with fees and expenses totaling more than $25,000, the City Council's approval is required. The requirements of 4.3 shall be applicable as a solicitation basis. Email proposals are acceptable for this category. 4.5 SUBDIVIDING THE PURCHASES OF SERVICES: The City of Dover departments shall NOT subdivide the purchase or the contract for professional services to avoid the requirements of this purchasing policy. 4.6 DOCUMENTATION: If a firm/consultant under contract to the City of Dover issues a bid/proposal as part of their contract, the original documents must be provided to the City. The final determination for all awards shall rest with the City. 4.7 CHANGE ORDERS: The same procedures as outlined in paragraph 3.10 will apply to professional services regarding change orders. SECTION 5 - PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITY TYPE CONTRACTS AND CERTAIN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES "Public Works Contract" means any contract for the construction, reconstruction, alteration or repair of any public building, road, street, highway, water utility, wastewater utility, electric utility or other public improvement, the cost of which will be paid with public funds. Any project materials and supplies purchased by the City, and not a Contractor or Service Provider, are to be procured under Section 3 of this policy. "Certain Professional Services" means those services within the scope of the practice of architecture, professional engineering, professional land surveying, landscape architecture and geology. 9

All Public Works and Utility contracts entered for less than $200,000 that are specifically identified in the Capital Improvement Plan does not need Council approval unless the purchase is sole vendor, sole source procurement, or not low bid. Procurement $200,000 or greater requires Council approval. Public Works & Utilities Less than $25,000 $25,000 - $199,999 $200,000 & Over Open market Solicit three (3) written quotations – Formal Bidding – Purchaser MANDATORY $0 - $10,000 quotations optional Letters Bids/Contract Admin. Public Advertising discretionary $10,001 - $25,000; Solicit three (3) Specifications and/or plans Specifications and/or plans phone quotes (attach to purchase discretionary order) Specifications and/or plans Bid bond discretionary Bid Bond discretionary discretionary Record quotations on quotation Public Opening discretionary Public Opening summary form (attach to purchase order) Formal Contract discretionary Formal Contract Performance Bond discretionary Performance Bond Purchase Order to include: Unit Cost $; Account number; project number if applicable; Brief description of item or service when not identifiable; Quotes from each vendor in comments Committee/Council Action Forms to include: Budget $, P. O. $ or Unit Cost $; Account number; project number; page number in budget; Bid/RFP number if applicable. If unit cost bid includes cost comparison. If blanket bid or proposal is for recurring services, provide average annual cost for past three years for the service. Description and recommended action. Footnote – When a project is partially or wholly funded by the State of Delaware: prevailing wage rates apply to projects over $15,000 for repairs, alterations, rehabs, demolition, or reconstruction or $100,000 for new construction. Public Works & Utilities – Certain Professional Services Less than $50,000 $50,000 & Over Open Market Formal RFP Process Use same procedure as Section 4.2 Public Advertising; use same procedure as Section 4.4 Professional Services for Public Works & Utilities includes services within the scope of practice of architectural, professional engineering, professional land surveying, landscape architectural services and geology. PRE-QUALIFICATION OF BIDDERS Prequalification of Bidders is permitted to screen potential vendors in which such factors as financial capability, reputation and management are considered to develop a list of qualified vendors. The vendors should provide background information on their company, implementation methods, and references. Once the list of qualified vendors is established a Request for Proposal will be developed to include clear specifications, expectations and clearly outlined evaluation criteria. A price range may be requested but is not necessary. Detailed information will be provided during the RFP process. 10

SECTION 6 - EXCEPTIONS 6.1 SOLE SOURCE PROCUREMENT: Sole source procurement is not permissible unless a requirement is available from only a single supplier/manufacturer. A requirement for a propriety item does not justify sole source procurement if there is more than one potential bidder or offeror for that item. The following are examples of circumstances which could necessitate sole source procurement:  Where the compatibility of equipment, accessories, or replacement parts is the paramount consideration; items of comparable quality and equal function are not to be considered under sole source procurement.  Where the sole supplier’s item is needed for trial use or testing; If the purchase is over $25,000 however, it must be presented to Council for approval. Sole suppliers/manufacturers must be justified in writing by the Department Director and the justification must accompany the procurement request to Central Services and approved by the City Manager. 6.2 WAREHOUSE STOCK: Items placed on annual or multi-year contracts for warehouse stock shall not be subject to Council approval as these items are purchased as individual units and not in blocks. Procurement of items specifically procured for projects through non-stock contracts shall be approved by the City Manager and Treasurer. Increases in unit prices greater than 15% shall be communicated to the respective Department Heads, the City Manager and Controller/Treasurer. 6.3 NEGOTIATIONS: Negotiations are authorized during the Request for Proposal evaluation process, when sole source has been pre-approved or when a material specification or scope of work change occurs after the award of a competitively bid contract. 6.4 USED MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT: For the purchase of used or surplus materials or equipment, the provisions of this policy may not apply. Purchases of $25,000 or greater must be presented to Council for their approval. 6.5 CONTINUITY OF SERVICE: When there is an abrupt discontinuation of service due to breakdown, accident, or other similar event and it is necessary to obtain materials or equipment to continue service to the citizens, the provisions of this policy may be waived by the City Manager. For no other reason should a purchase order be issued for this exception. 6.6 EMERGENCY: An emergency condition is a situation which creates a threat to public health, welfare, or safety such as may arise. The existence of such condition creates an immediate and serious need for supplies, services, or construction that cannot be met through normal procurement methods and the lack of which would seriously threaten: 1. The functioning of the City government. 2. The preservation or protection of property; or 3. The health or safety of any person. 11

Emergency procurement shall be limited to those supplies, services, or construction items necessary to meet the emergency. The Mayor or City Manager will be responsible for deciding as to the existence of the emergency. 6.7 MINORITY OWNED VENDOR PREFERENCE: Minority owned vendor preference shall be three percent (3%) of the value of the award. The vendor must identify qualification and claim to the preference on the submitted bid documents. The vendor must provide authoritative proof of minority ownership such as identification in the certification directory maintained by the State of Delaware, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Supplier Diversity to qualify for this preference. This preference is to be considered as a stand alone and cannot be added to any other preference that may be allowed. This preference shall not apply to sub-contractors. 6.8 LOCAL VENDOR PREFERENCE: Local vendor preference shall be considered for materials, equipment, construction contracts, and utility contracts. Local vendor preference shall be three percent (3%) of the value of the award. A local vendor is a vendor with a “remit to” address or physical store location in the local area as identified below. The term local vendor is defined as a gradually increasing range with preference assigned as follows: Rule 1: Vendor located within the city limits of the City of Dover. Rule 2: Vendor located within Kent County (if no vendor qualifies under Rule 1) Rule 3: Vendor located within the State of Delaware (if no vendor qualifies under Rules 1 & 2) If no vendor qualifies under rules 1, 2, or 3 no local vendor preference shall be awarded. The vendor must identify qualification and claim to the preference on the submitted bid documents. This preference shall not apply to sub-contractors. SECTION 7 - RECEIVING 7.1 No employee shall pick up or receive goods without his or her supervisor's authorization. In the case of a special project, deliveries may be made to the job site, but should be coordinated through Central Services. Central Services will take charge of the delivery ticket for file and paying of the invoice. Packing slips (proof of receipt) when appropriate are to be attached to the invoice or payment will not be disbursed until these conditions are met. If only an invoice is provided by the vendor, then the employee receiving the item shall sign the invoice as proof of receipt. Proof of receipt must have who receive item and the date item was received. 7.2 While taking delivery of items the individual accepting the item will sign any one of these documents: Receiving/payment copy of the purchase order, vendor's invoice, delivery slip or packing ticket. The person receiving the goods and signing the receipt document must verify the quantity and item description/part number with the purchase order or any other document and must check the condition of the items/packages to make reasonably sure that there are no problems with the delivery. If the problems are observed, the notes must be made on the receiving documents or the delivery must be returned. Partial delivery is acceptable. The original receipt of all documents must be forwarded to Central Services. 12

7.3 No City employee will sign for any item or service, which is not received. 7.4 Payment for the goods will be made only to the extent the goods are received by the City. SECTION 8 - CREDIT CARD PURCHASES 8.1 The City does not encourage credit card purchases. 8.2 The City has a very limited number of credit cards for stores where the purchases are more easily made with a credit card or where vendors do not bill the City and credit cards are necessary. 8.3 The employee using a store credit card must make sure of the purchase price, quantity, quality and the necessity of the item. The person must sign as required and turn in the purchaser's copy of the credit card receipt slip to their department for processing and send to Accounts Payable immediately. 8.4 The credit card must be used only by authorized personnel and cannot be used for personal business. 8.5 All credit cards shall be handled through the Finance Department as outlined in Procedure F346. 8.6 The City does not encourage use of personal credit cards for business purchases. Where use of a personal credit card is necessary to complete City of Dover business in a timely and/or efficient manner, the employee is not authorized to approve their own reimbursement request. The reimbursement request must be approved by other authorized personnel. SECTION 9 - INVOICES AND PAYMENTS 9.1 For payment purposes, the original invoices must carry the following: approval stamp, authorized signature, G/L# and date. All employee travel expenditures are to be processed with a purchase order including other reimbursements. Purchases over $5,000 must also include a purchase order. Each department will be entering their own Invoices and Purchase Orders into Tyler-Hub (Munis). Batches will be released and/or approve by departments before Accounts Payable can review and process payments to vendors. When processing invoices/requisitions/purchase orders, do not enter at the last minute, as this will delay payment to vendors. Invoices/Purchase Orders and other documentation related to payments must be upload to Munis in Invoice/Purchase Order Entry. Do not forward vendors to the Finance office to look for payment or pickup checks. Departments are responsible for corresponding with vendors when there are discrepancies in past due invoices and payment status. 9.2 Invoices for vendors not loaded in Munis (Tyler) must be accompanied by the City of Dover new vendor form and a completed IRS form W-9, both of which are in public documents. Department and Vendors must use the Munis Self Service - Vendor Self Service Portal to upload W-9 or other vendor related documents. One-time vendor payment must be less than $600.00 for the calendar year and does not require a W9. 9.3 The purchaser/authorized personnel must note that it is the City's policy to take all discounts and therefore the payment documents must be submitted to Accounts Payable immediately. 13

In other cases, it is the City's policy to pay the invoices on time and, therefore, the payment documents must be submitted to Accounts Payable as soon as possible. SECTION 10 – GREEN PROCUREMENT 10.1 The City of Dover is committed to using and purchasing energy efficient/environmentally preferable products in the most cost effective and environmentally responsible manner possible. Purchasing energy efficient products reduces energy costs without compromising quality. Purchases should be based on: 1. Consideration on the impact to the environment, economy, and human health and well-being. 2. Consideration of specification compliance, delivery time and price. 3. Preference given to environmentally preferable materials when they perform satisfactorily and can be obtained at a reasonable price. 10.2 The US Government in Executive Order 12873 defined environmentally preferable products as “products or services that have a lesser or reduced effect on human health and the environment when compared with competing products or services that serve the same purpose.” This should include items that are energy efficient, conserve water, reduces toxins, conserves natural resources, has recycled content and minimizes waste. 10.3 The Procurement Manager shall establish a price preference of up to ten percent (10%) for recycled and other environmentally preferable products. This price preference must be established in advance of any bid and must be included in the bid specifications, cover letter or evaluation criteria. This percentage may be modified from time to time at the discretion of the Procurement Manager with the objective of maximizing the City’s purchase of environmentally preferable products. 10.4 LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS The requesting department shall perform lifecycle costing analysis on equipment that has the potential to reduce operating, maintenance or energy costs over the useful life of the equipment. Based on said analysis, the contracting agency shall incorporate specifications in the contract for equipment that has the lowest total cost of ownership and operation over the useful life of the equipment. The use of lifecycle costing analysis may be waived by the department head, in writing, if the equipment is not appropriate for lifecycle costing analysis. Appendix E contains a sample form for life cycle cost analysis. 10.5 ENERGY EFFICIENT PRODUCTS A) The City shall purchase Energy Star products, as designated by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, when such products are available. The department may include non-Energy Star rated equipment as an alternate in the bid documents to enable lifecycle costing analysis to be performed as part of the analysis of responsive bids. The department shall be required to award a contract that includes the procurement of Energy Star rated equipment unless they can demonstrate, in writing, to the satisfaction of the City Manager, that the interests of the city would be better served by procuring non-Energy Star rated equipment. B) Prior to initiating a request for procurement of any product, the department shall 14

review the specifications for such product to determine whether an Energy Star product is available. If an Energy Star product is available, the department is required to include in its bid specifications the requirement that the product be an Energy Star product unless it can be demonstrated, in writing, to the satisfaction of the department head, that a product with an Energy Star rating meets at least 1 of the following criteria: 1. The product is not available competitively, 2. The product is not available within a reasonable time frame, or 3. The product does not meet appropriate performance standards. SECTION 11 – DEBARMENT OF VENDORS FOR CONSIDERATION OF AWARDS 11.1 Any vendor who fails to perform a contract or complete a project within the time established within the contract or invitation to bid may be subject for suspension or debarment. Once a problem with a vendor/contractor is discovered, the Department responsible for the contract will document the problem and all attempts at resolution. The vendor/contractor will be held in breach of contract. The responsible Department must submit a recommendation of debarment to the City Manager and the Procurement Manager. If enough cause is determined, the City Manager (with advice from the City Solicitor, if necessary) and/or the Procurement Manager will provide reasonable notice to the Vendor and allow a reasonable time for that vendor to be heard. The City Manager shall have the authority to debar a vendor/contractor for cause from consideration for award of contracts. The debarment shall not be for a period of more than three years. 11.2 The causes for debarment include: A) Conviction of or civil judgment for commission of a fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining or attempting to obtain or performing a public or private contract or subcontract; B) Conviction under state or federal statutes of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, receiving stolen property, or any other offense indicating a lack of business integrity or business honesty; C) Conviction under state or federal antitrust statutes arising out of the submission of bids or proposals; D) Violation of contract provisions, as set forth below, of a character which is regarded by the City Manager to be so serious as to justify debarment action: i. Deliberate failure without good cause to perform in accordance with the specifications or within the time limit provided in the contract; or ii. A recent record of failure to perform or of unsatisfactory performance in accordance with the terms of one (1) or more contracts; if failure to perform or unsatisfactory performance caused by acts beyond the control of the contractor shall not be a basis for debarment; E) Any other cause the City Manager determines to be as serious and compelling as to affect responsibility as a City contractor, including debarment by another governmental entity for any cause listed in this article; and F) For violation of the ethical standards set forth in Section 2 of this policy or Dover Code, Chapter 30. 15

11.3 The City Manager is authorized to suspend a person from consideration for award of contracts pending his/her decision if there is probable cause to believe that the person has engaged in any activity which might lead to debarment. The suspension shall continue until the debarment decision has been made. The City Manager shall notify the person to be debarred in writing and set forth the basis for the action. A copy of the notification shall be sent to the Mayor and Council. The written notification shall be delivered to the person to be suspended either in person or by certified mail. The decision shall state the basis for the action taken. 11.4 Before the award of any contracts utilizing federal funds, the user must exclude any vendors listed on the Federal Government’s Excluded Parties Listing located at www.epls.gov. SECTION 12 - COMMITTEES/COMMISSIONS 12.1 All City of Dover appointed Committees and Commissions are required to follow the City of Dover purchasing policy, unless otherwise directed by City Council. 12.2 The Committee Chair or designated City staff member is authorized to purchase materials. 12.3 A list of the names of the individuals authorized to make purchases along with each authorized individuals’ signature are to be submitted to the Finance Department. 12.4 A proposed work plan or budget will be required prior to disbursement of funds. 12.5 The Central Services and Finance Departments will give each Committee Chairperson a purchasing orientation. A copy of the Purchasing Policy will be provided. EFFECTIVE DATE Adopted by City Council December 8, 2008 Amended by City Council February 28, 2011 Amended by City Council October 22, 2018 16

APPENDIX A STANDARDS OF ETHICAL CONDUCT AND ETHICS COMMISSION ARTICLE II – STANDARDS OF ETHICAL CONDUCT Chapter 30, Section 30-20. - Established. High ethical standards among public officials and employees are essential to gain and maintain the confidence of the people, because such confidence is essential to the conduct of free government. Public officials and employees are agents of the people and hold office for the benefit of the public. They are bound to observe in their official acts the highest standards of morality and to discharge faithfully and impartially the duties of their offices, regardless of personal considerations, recognizing that the public interest must be their primary concern. Their conduct in both their official and private affairs should be above reproach. These standards of ethical conduct are adopted in order to secure this desired high level of public trust, ensure the impartiality of public officials and employees, and impose standards of accountability. (a) General responsibilities of officials and employees. (1) Officials and employees have the common obligation of serving the public. In performing their duties, they shall treat the public and each other with respect, concern, and responsiveness, recognizing that their common goal of exceptional public service can only be achieved by working together. Disputes that arise among public servants shall be resolved at the lowest possible level; keeping in mind that public money spent on resolving these disputes is money not spent on important public needs. (2) Officials and employees shall treat their position as a public trust, with a fiduciary duty to use the powers and resources of public office only to advance the public interest and not to obtain personal benefits or pursue private interests. (3) Officials and employees shall conduct themselves in a manner that justifies the confidence placed in them by the people, at all times maintaining the integrity and discharging ethically the high responsibilities of public service. (4) Full disclosure of real or potential conflicts of interest shall be a guiding principle for determining appropriate conduct. At all times, reasonable efforts shall be made to avoid undue influence and abuse of office in public service. (5) No official or employee may request or receive, and no person may offer any money, thing of value or promise thereof, other than any city pay received, that is conditioned upon or given in exchange for promised performance of an official act. (b) Appearance of violation. Each city employee and official shall endeavor to pursue a course of conduct which will not raise suspicion among the public that he is engaging in acts which are in violation of his public trust and which will not reflect unfavorably upon the city and its government. (c) Private interest; gifts. No city employee or official shall have any interest in any private enterprise, nor shall he incur any obligation of any nature which is in substantial conflict with the proper performance of his duties in the public interest. No city 17

employee or official shall accept other employment, any compensation, gift, payment of expenses or any other thing of monetary value under circumstances in which such acceptance may result in any of the following: (1) Impairment of independence of judgment in the exercise of official duties; (2) An undertaking to give preferential treatment to any person; (3) The making of a governmental decision outside official channels; or (4) Any adverse effect on the confidence of the public in the integrity of the government of the city. (d) Interest in private enterprise. No city employee or official shall acquire a financial interest in any private enterprise which he has reason to believe may be directly involved in decisions to be made by him in an official capacity on behalf of the city. (e) Prohibitions relating to conflicts of interest. No councilman or other official or employee, whether paid or unpaid, shall engage in any business or transaction or shall have a financial or other personal interest, direct or indirect, which is incompatible with the proper discharge of his official duties in the public interest or would tend to impair his independence of judgment or action in the performance of his official duties. Personal as distinguished from financial interest includes an interest arising from blood or marriage relationships or close business or political association provided, that upon request from any person with official responsibility with respect to the matter, any such person who has such a personal or private interest may nevertheless respond to questions concerning any such matter. (1) Restrictions on exercise of official authority. a. Prohibited participation. No city employee or official may participate on behalf of the city in the review or disposition of any matter pending before the city in which he has a personal or private interest, provided that, upon request from any person with official responsibility with respect to the matter, any such person who has such a personal or private interest may nevertheless respond to questions concerning any such matter. A personal or private interest in a matter is an interest which tends to impair a person's independence of judgment in the performance of his duties with respect to that matter. b. Impairment of judgment. A person has an interest which tends to impair his independence of judgment in the performance of his duties with respect to any matter when: i. Any action or inaction with respect to the matter would result in a financial benefit or detriment to accrue to the person or a close relative to a greater extent than such benefit or detriment would accrue to others who are members of the same class or group of persons; or ii. The person or a close relative has a financial interest in a private enterprise which enterprise or interest would be affected by any action or inaction on a matter to a lesser or greater extent than like enterprises or other interests in the same enterprise. c. Statutory responsibility. In any case where a person has a statutory responsibility with respect to action or inaction on any matter where he has a 18

personal or private interest and there is no provision for the delegation of such responsibility to another person, the person may exercise responsibility with respect to such matter, provided that, promptly after becoming aware of such conflict of interest, he files a written statement with the ethics commission, fully disclosing the personal or private interest and explaining why it is not possible to delegate responsibility for the matter to another person. (2) Restrictions on representing another's interest before the city. a. Prohibited. No city employee or official may represent or otherwise assist any private enterprise with respect to any matter before the city. b. Exception. This subsection shall not preclude any city employee or official from appearing before the city or otherwise assisting any private enterprise with respect to any matter in the exercise of his official duties. (3) Restriction on contracting with the city. a. Prohibited. No city employee or official shall benefit from any contract with the city, nor solicit any contract, and shall not enter into any contract with the city (other than an employment contract). b. Ownership of enterprise. No private enterprise in which a city employee or official has a legal or equitable ownership of more than ten percent (more than one percent in the case of a corporation the stock of which is regularly traded on an established securities market) shall enter into any contract with the city (other than an employment contract) unless such contract was made or let after public notice and competitive bidding. (f) Postemployment restrictions. No person who has served as a city employee or official shall represent or otherwise assist any private enterprise on any matter involving the city, for a period of two years after termination of his employment or elected or appointed status with the city, if he gave an opinion, conducted an investigation or otherwise was directly and materially responsible for such matter in the course of his official duties as a city employee or official, nor shall any former city employee or official disclose confidential information gained by reason of his public position, nor shall he otherwise use such information for personal gain or benefit. (g) Unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. No person shall disclose any information required to be maintained confidential by the ethics commission under section 30-3(b), 30-73 or 30-74. (h) Abuse of office. (1) Political contributions. No elected city official shall agree to sponsor legislation, or to influence in any manner the formulation or passage of legislation, in exchange for political contributions or promises thereof. (2) Substantial interest. No elected city official shall vote for, or promote in any manner whatsoever, legislation affecting any subject matter in which he has a substantial interest. Any such interest shall be disclosed by said elected official prior to a vote on any such legislation, and said elected official shall vote "abstain" when called upon to vote. 19

(3) Use of city property. No city official or employee shall request or permit the use of city-owned vehicles, equipment, materials, or property for personal convenience or profit, except when such services are available to the public generally or are provided for the use of such official or employee in the conduct of official business as a matter of municipal policy. (4) Personal gain. No city official or employee shall utilize the influence of his office or position for personal pecuniary gain, or to avoid the legal consequences of his personal conduct. (i) Criminal sanctions. (1) Penalties. Any person who knowingly or willfully violates any provision of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable for each such violation by imprisonment of not more than one year and by a fine as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines. (2) Time limitations. A prosecution for a violation of this section shall be subject to the time limitations of 11 Del. C. § 205. (j) Contracts voidable by court action. In addition to any other penalty provided by law, any contract entered into by any city agency in violation of this chapter shall be voidable by the city agency; provided that in determining whether any court action should be taken to void such a contract pursuant to this subsection, the city agency shall consider the interests of innocent third parties who may be damaged thereby. Any court action to void any transaction must be initiated within 30 days after the city agency involved has, or should have, knowledge of such violation. (k) Private gain. No city employee or official shall use his public office to secure unwarranted privileges, private advancement or gain. (l) Confidential information; prohibited activity. No city employee or official shall engage in any activity beyond the scope of his public position which might reasonably be expected to require or induce him to disclose confidential information acquired by him by reason of his public position. (m) Disclosure of information. No city employee or official shall, beyond the scope of his public position, disclose confidential information gained by reason of his public position, nor shall he otherwise use such information for personal gain or benefit (n) Ex parte communications . No official or employee shall encourage, make or accept any ex parte or other unilateral application or communication that excludes the interests of other parties in a matter under consideration when such application or communication is designed to influence official decision or conduct of the official or other officials, employees or agencies in order to obtain a more favored treatment or special consideration to advance the personal or private interests of himself or herself or others. The purpose of this provision is to guarantee that all interested parties to any matter shall have equal opportunity to express and represent their interests. Any written ex parte communication received by an official or employee in matters where all interested parties should have equal opportunity for a hearing shall be made part of the record by the recipient. 20

Any oral ex parte communication received under such conditions should be written down in substance by the recipient and also made a part of the record. A communication concerning only the status of a pending matter is not regarded as an ex parte communication. (o) Sexual favors. No city employee or official, in the course of his public responsibilities, shall use the granting of sexual favors as a condition, either explicit or implicit, for an individual's favorable treatment by that person or a city agency. ARTICLE III. - ETHICS COMMISSION Sec. 30-71. - Established; composition; removal; terms of office; vacancies; chairperson; quorum; compensation; legal counsel. (a) Established; composition; removal. The city ethics commission is hereby established to administer and implement this chapter. The ethics commission shall consist of five members appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the city council. No member of the commission shall hold any elected or appointed office under the government of the United States or the state, county, or city. Members of the ethics commission may be removed by the mayor, with the concurrence of the city council, for substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office or a violation of this chapter. (b) Terms of office; vacancies. A member of the ethics commission shall be appointed for a term of office of five years and until his successor has been appointed and has qualified. The members shall be appointed for staggered terms of office, and until their successors have been appointed. When a vacancy occurs in the membership of the ethics commission, it shall be filled by appointment for the unexpired portion of the term in the same manner as the original appointment. (c) Chairperson; quorum. The ethics commission shall elect a chairperson from among its membership. Three members of the ethics commission shall constitute a quorum and, if a quorum is present, a vacancy on the ethics commission shall not impair the right of the remaining members to exercise all the powers of the ethics commission. Disciplinary hearings may be conducted and sanctions may be imposed only by the affirmative action of at least three members; otherwise, the ethics commission may delegate authority to the chairperson to act for the ethics commission between meetings. (d) Compensation. Members of the ethics commission shall receive no compensation. (e) Legal counsel. The city solicitor shall provide legal counsel to the ethics commission and shall be the legal representative of the ethics commission in connection with its duties hereunder, on a case-by-case basis, or determine that outside counsel is needed and obtain such outside counsel for a particular matter. Sec. 30-72. - Powers and duties. (a) The powers and duties of the ethics commission shall be: (1) Standards of ethical conduct. To recommend to the mayor and council, from time to time, such rules of conduct for public employees and officials as it shall deem appropriate. 21

(2) Advisory opinions. To issue written advisory opinions, upon the request of any city employee or official, as to the applicability of this chapter to any particular factual situation. (3) Referrals to solicitor. To refer to the city solicitor for investigation any alleged violation of this chapter and, after notice and hearing, to recommend such disciplinary action as it may deem appropriate to such appropriate official or agency as the ethics commission shall determine, or to take such other disciplinary action as authorized by section 30-73(o) or other provisions of the city Charter or this Code. The ethics commission may dismiss, without reference to the city solicitor, any complaint which the ethics commission determines is frivolous or fails to state a violation. (4) Report of crimes. To report to the appropriate federal, state or city authorities any substantial evidence of a violation of any criminal law which may come to its attention in connection with any proceeding, whether advisory or disciplinary. (5) Records. To maintain a file of its proceedings, waiver decisions and advisory opinions with a view toward achieving consistency of opinions and recommendations subject to the confidentiality requirements of sections 30-74 and 30-73(s). (6) Procedures. To follow the procedural rules specified in section 30-73 and to establish such other procedural rules as shall be consistent with the rules prescribed therein. (7) Witnesses, evidence. To subpoena witnesses, compel their attendance and testimony, administer oaths and affirmations, take evidence and require, by subpoena, the production of books, papers, records or other evidence needed for the performance of the ethics commission's duties or exercise of its powers. (8) Assistance to city personnel. To provide assistance to any city employee, official or agency in administering the provisions of this chapter. (9) Provide information. To prepare any necessary reports and studies to advance the purpose of this chapter, to provide any necessary materials explaining the duties of individuals covered by this chapter, and to supply instructions and public information materials to facilitate compliance with, and enforcement of, this chapter. (10) Request city agencies for assistance. To request appropriate city agencies to provide such professional assistance as it may require in the discharge of its duties. Sec. 30-73. - Rules of procedure; complaints; hearings; dispositions. (a) Any person, either personally or on behalf of an organization or governmental body, may file a sworn complaint for the ethics commission with the city clerk. The complaint must be in writing, be signed, and show the address of the person who submitted it. The complaint must state that, to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable reflection, the information in the complaint is true. The complaint must describe the facts that constitute the violation of the standards of ethical conduct in sufficient detail so that the ethics commission and the person who is the subject of the complaint can reasonably be expected to understand the nature of any offense that is being alleged. The commission may request any additional information 22

deemed necessary to screen the complaint or to render a decision. No complaints shall be accepted or considered which relate to actions that took place more than one year prior to the date of filing. The individual filing the sworn complaint has 60 days from the date that the issue is brought to his or her attention to file a complaint. (b) After the sworn complaint has been filed, none of the parties or their representatives may communicate on an ex parte basis with any commission members pertaining to the complaint. All communications pertaining to the complaint shall be submitted to the city clerk. (c) Within seven days of receiving a sworn complaint the city clerk shall send copies of the complaint to each member of the ethics commission, the city solicitor, and the official or officials against whom such complaint has been filed. Hereinafter, the complaining party shall be referred to as the "complainant" and the official against whom a complaint has been lodged shall be referred to as the "respondent." (d) The commission recognizes that distribution to the public of a sworn complaint prior to screening by the commission as required below could harm the reputation of an innocent person and is contrary to the public interest; therefore, the public release of the complaint is prohibited until the screening process has been completed. The commission shall consult in confidence to screen the complaint within 14 days of receiving the complaint. The commission may immediately dismiss a complaint if: (1) It has no jurisdiction; or (2) The alleged violation, if true, would not constitute a violation of the standards of ethical conduct; or (3) The alleged violation is a minor or de minimis violation; or (4) The complaint is, on its face, frivolous, groundless, or brought for purposes of harassment; or (5) The matter has become moot because the person who is the subject of the complaint is no longer an officer, official or employee; or (6) The respondent had obtained an advisory opinion under section 30-74(c) permitting the conduct; or (7) The appointing authority of the respondent has already taken action as a result of finding a violation and the commission believes the action was appropriate. (e) In issues regarding standards of ethical conduct violations, the enforcement process is intended to be corrective rather than remedial unless the violation is a repeated offense. In the event the ethics commission determines a standards of ethical conduct violation has occurred, and it is minor in nature, with the concurrence of the complainant and the subject of the sworn complaint, the commission may dispense with the hearing process and conduct a more informal mediation process in lieu of a hearing. (f) If the sworn complaint is not dismissed or otherwise resolved pursuant to subsection 30-73(d), the city clerk shall promptly contact the members of the ethics commission, the city solicitor, the complainant, and the respondent in order to ascertain a date and time when a hearing can be convened on such complaint. As soon as a date and time have been agreed upon for a hearing before the ethics commission, the city clerk shall send written notice of such scheduling and a copy of the rules of procedure to the 23

complainant and to the respondent. No copies of the complaint shall be provided to any other parties before the respondent receives the complaint. The city solicitor shall be the prosecuting attorney in all disciplinary proceedings before the ethics commission. In any such investigation or proceeding, a defendant shall be given an opportunity to be heard after notice, to be advised and assisted by legal counsel, to produce witnesses and offer evidence, and to cross examine witnesses. A transcript of any such proceeding shall be made and retained, subject to the confidentiality requirements of this chapter. (g) The commission may dismiss a complaint if the complainant does not appear at the hearing and if, in the opinion of the commission, it would be unfair to the respondent not to have the opportunity to examine the complainant. (h) As promptly as possible after the close of the hearing, the commission shall deliberate to determine if the allegations have been proven by clear and convincing evidence. Only ethics commission members who have been present for the hearing may participate in the deliberations, and any findings and recommendations must be adopted by a majority of the commission. The commission may consider, when making findings and recommendations, the severity of the offense, the presence or absence of any intention to conceal, deceive, or mislead, whether the violation was deliberate, negligent or inadvertent, and whether the incident was isolated or part of a pattern. (i) Within seven days of the conclusion of deliberations, the commission shall issue an order setting forth its findings and recommendations. In the alternative, the commission where it deems it appropriate, may issue an advisory opinion in lieu of making findings and recommendations. (j) If the respondent is an employee, the commission may, if it determines corrective action is necessary, notify the city manager or the council president and recommend that action be taken, including discipline. (k) If the respondent is a city official, the commission may propose actions to the city council that are appropriate to the finding as specified in section 30-73(o). (l) The commission shall send a written copy of its findings and recommendations to the respondent and the complainant. (m) Proceeding relating to member. A member of the ethics commission shall be ineligible to participate, as a member of the ethics commission, in any ethics commission proceeding relating to his conduct. A member of the ethics commission who has been found by the ethics commission to have violated this chapter shall be ineligible to serve again as a member of the ethics commission. (n) Self-disqualification. A member of the ethics commission may disqualify himself from participating in any investigation of the conduct of any person upon submission, in writing and under oath, of an affidavit or disqualification stating that he cannot render an impartial and unbiased decision in the case in which he seeks to disqualify himself. (o) Actions by ethics commission. With respect to any violation with which a person has been charged and which the ethics commission has determined as proved, the ethics commission may take any one or more of the following actions: (1) Reprimand. Issue a written reprimand or censure of that person's conduct. 24

(2) Discipline. With respect to a city employee, remove, suspend, demote or take other appropriate disciplinary action with respect to that person, without regard to any limits imposed by this chapter, but within the limits of the constitution, the laws of the state, the Charter of the city, and ordinances and existing collective bargaining agreements. (3) Recommend removal. With respect to an appointed official, recommend that appropriate action be taken to remove the official from the appointed position. (4) Recommend fine. With respect to an elected city official, recommend that such official be fined in an amount recommended by the ethics commission. (p) Rights of person charged. In any proceeding before the ethics commission, upon the request of any person charged with a violation of this chapter, such person shall be permitted to inspect, copy or photograph books, papers, documents, photographs or other tangible objects which will be used as evidence against that person in a disciplinary hearing and which are material to the preparation of his defense. (q) Exculpatory information. In any proceeding before the ethics commission, if the city solicitor or ethics commission at any time receives any exculpatory information concerning an alleged violation against any person, it shall forthwith make such information available to such person. (r) Subpoenas. Any person charged with a violation of this chapter may apply to the ethics commission for the issuance of subpoenas for the appearance of witnesses and for the production of documents on his behalf. The application shall be granted upon a concise showing by such person that the proposed testimony or evidence is relevant (or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence) and is not otherwise available. The application shall be denied if not made at a reasonable time or if the testimony or evidence would be merely cumulative. (s) Confidentiality of proceedings. (1) City employee. All proceedings before the ethics commission relating to a violation of this chapter by a city employee shall be maintained confidential by the ethics commission, unless: a. Public disclosure is requested, in writing, by the person charged; or b. The ethics commission determines after a hearing that a violation has occurred. (2) City official. All proceedings before the ethics commission relating to a violation of this chapter by a city official, appointed or elected, shall be maintained confidential by the ethics commission, unless: a. Public disclosure is requested, in writing, by the person charged; or b. The ethics commission determines after a hearing that a violation has occurred. (t) Appeals; public inspection. Notwithstanding the confidentiality requirements of subsections (s)(1) and (2) of this section, the ethics commission shall make available for public inspection the record of all proceedings relating to any decision of the ethics commission which is appealed to the superior court and the ethics commission shall 25

report to appropriate federal, state and/or city authorities any substantial evidence of a violation of any criminal law which comes to its attention in connection with any proceeding under this chapter. (u) Confidentiality procedures. The chairperson of the ethics commission shall, with the approval of the ethics commission, establish such procedures as, in the chairperson's judgment, may be necessary to prevent the disclosure of any record of any proceedings or other information received by the ethics commission, except as permitted by this chapter. Sec. 30-74. - Waivers of restrictions and advisory opinions. (a) Authority of ethics commission. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 30-20, upon the written request of any city agency or of any individual who is or was a city employee or city official, the ethics commission may grant a waiver to the specific prohibitions contained therein if the ethics commission determines that the literal application of such prohibition in a particular case is not necessary to achieve the public purposes of this chapter or would result in an undue hardship on any employee or official. Any such waiver may be granted only by written decision of the ethics commission. Any person who acts in good faith reliance upon any such waiver decision shall not be subject to discipline or other sanction hereunder with respect to the matters covered by the waiver decision, provided there was a full disclosure to the ethics commission of all material facts necessary for the waiver decision. (b) Waiver information confidential; exceptions. Any application for a waiver, any proceeding and any decision with respect thereto shall be maintained confidential by the ethics commission, provided that: (1) Applicant's request. Public disclosure shall be made by the ethics commission upon the written request of the applicant; (2) Violations. The ethics commission may make such public disclosure as it determines is required in connection with the prosecution of any violation of this chapter; (3) Evidence of crime. The ethics commission shall report to appropriate federal, state and/or city authorities substantial evidence of any criminal violation which may come to its attention; and (4) Public record. In the event that a waiver is granted, the waiver decision and the record of all proceedings relating thereto shall be open to public inspection. (c) Advisory opinion authorized. Upon the written request of any city employee or official, the ethics commission may issue an advisory opinion as to the applicability of this chapter to any particular fact or situation. Any person who acts in good faith reliance upon any such advisory opinion shall not be subject to discipline or other sanction hereunder with respect to the matters covered by the advisory opinion, provided there was a full disclosure to the ethics commission of all material facts necessary for the advisory opinion. (d) Advisory opinion confidential; exceptions. Any application for an advisory opinion, any proceeding and any decision with respect thereto shall be maintained confidential by the ethics commission, provided that: 26

(1) Applicant's request. Public disclosure shall be made by the ethics commission upon the written request of the applicant; (2) Violations. The ethics commission may make such public disclosure as it determines is required in connection with the prosecution of any violation of this article; and (3) Evidence of crime. The ethics commission shall report to appropriate federal, state and/or city authorities substantial evidence of any criminal violation which may come to its attention. Sec. 30-75. - Judicial review. In the event that the ethics commission finds that any person has violated any provision of this chapter, said person shall have a right of appeal to the superior court of any such finding, and of any sanctions imposed with respect thereto, by filing a notice of appeal with the superior court within 30 days of the final action by the ethics commission in a particular case. The appeal shall be on the record without a trial de novo. If the court determines that the record is insufficient for its review, it shall remand the case to the ethics commission for further proceedings on the record. The court's review, in the absence of actual fraud, shall be limited to a determination of whether the ethics commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence on the record. The burden of proof in any such appeal shall be on the appellant. (Ord. No. 2017-14 , 12-11-2017) 27

APPENDIX B INVITATION TO BID AND REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL PROCEDURES Departments will use the chart below to determine the appropriate sealed bid method. Advance coordination with the Purchaser is required. Competitive Sealed Bids VS Competitive Sealed Proposals Activity Description Competitive Sealed Bids Competitive Sealed Proposals Specifications Specific as to End results oriented by Scope of Work. performance/design Proposer must develop and provide solution. Opening Public – all data available to Public – only names of proposers are read; other bidders and the public no pricing or other data made available Evaluation Based strictly on Technical Based on quality with multi-member Criteria Specifications – NO material Evaluation Committee assigning weighted changes allowed values to various parts of each proposal Discussion None Individual discussions with each proposer to determine understanding of proposal requirements Changes None Each proposer can re-submit a Best and Final Offer that might change the solution and the price Award Lowest Responsive and Best Value Proposal – not necessarily the Responsible Bidder lowest price I. COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDS A. Preparing Specifications  The department requesting the purchases through Central Services will prepare the complete specifications, with the assistance of the Purchaser (if requested) and submit them to Central Services.  All specifications shall be written in such a manner as to describe the requirements to be met, without having the effect of exclusively requiring a proprietary supply, service, or construction item, or procurement from a sole source, unless no other manner of description will suffice.  Where a brand name or equal specification is used in a solicitation, the solicitation shall contain explanatory language that the use of a brand name is for describing the standard of quality, performance, and characteristics desired and is not intended to limit or restrict competition.  It is the general policy of the City to procure standard commercial products whenever practicable. In developing specifications, accepted commercial standards shall be used and unique requirements shall be avoided, to the extent practicable. 28

B. If only one responsive bid is received in response to an invitation to bid or request for proposal, an award may be made to the single bidder if the Department Director having operational authority over the funds to be expended determines that the price submitted is fair and reasonable, and that either other prospective bidders had reasonable opportunity to respond, or there is not adequate time for resolicitiation. Otherwise the bid/proposal may be rejected and new bids or offers may be solicited or the proposed procurement may be cancelled. C. Bids are to be delivered to the Central Services, 710 William Street, Dover, Delaware 19904. They will be opened in the presence of the Purchaser or her/his designee. All bids shall become public record and shall be available for public inspection after it has been determined that there is no proprietary information within the bids. Copies of bids will not be provided to competing vendors. The documents related to the bids and award of the contracts shall be retained for a minimum of three years for unaccepted bids and five years for accepted bids by the Central Service Department. After this period, they may be destroyed by the Central Services Department following the internal guidelines in place by the City Clerk’s Office and the State Bureau of Archives Retention Schedule. D. For materials, supplies, equipment, and construction work, the department requesting the quotations will supply Central Services with clear bid specifications. Such specifications should rigorously meet the need of the City of Dover, but not be so all inclusive as to effectively eliminate all but one vendor. E. The City reserves the right to pre-qualify bidders. This pre-qualification does not prohibit the City from determining, in its sole opinion, the most suitable bid for the product or projects. F. For purchases $25,000 and greater, vendor references may be checked. This will be done to verify the bidder's ability to perform the contract requirements, the quality of work and the ability to meet obligations in case of non-fulfillment of the contract. G. The bid notice prepared by Central Services shall provide the specifications or details of how vendors can obtain specifications. The bid notice shall also specify the closing date, time and place for receiving the bids, opening of the bids, where potential bidders may obtain contract documents, and the fee for each contract. A fee in an amount capable of recovering the cost of preparation of the specifications may be charged when specifications are picked up by the vendor. H. A bid bond or certified check in the amount equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the bid amount should be required with each bid for construction work, materials, supplies, or equipment over $25,000. The requirement for a bid bond may be waived by the Central Services Purchaser and Department Head when the bid is for items being purchased for stock. A bid bond may be required by the requesting department regardless of the dollar value of the bid. Acceptable bid security shall be limited to a bid bond in a form satisfactory to the City underwritten by a company licensed to issue bid bonds in this state or a bank certified check. If a bid does not comply with security requirements, it shall be rejected as being non-responsive. The required bid bond shall be in substantially the format as identified in APPENDIX C. The check or bid bond of the bidder to whom the contract is awarded will be forfeited to the City of Dover as liquidated damages in case the contract and performance bond are not executed within fifteen days after receiving official notification of award. 29

J. A performance bond shall be required from the successful bidder for a construction contract. Such a bond shall be for the full amount of the contract. If the contractor fails to provide such a bond or a binder within fifteen days of the award of the contract, the award of the contract or the contract shall be void. The required performance bond shall be in substantially the format as identified in APPENDIX D. Other insurance or bonds as required by State and/or Federal laws shall be furnished by the contractor. The amounts and the types of the bonds and insurance required shall be disclosed in the bid specifications. The bond shall be released by the City of Dover upon successful completion of the contract and upon a detailed inspection of the contracted work. K. The City of Dover shall have the right to reject any or all bids if deemed to be in the best interest of the City. L. All bids submitted to the City of Dover shall be such as to comply with the applicable local, state and federal requirements. II. COMPETITIVE SEALED PROPOSALS Evaluation of proposals must adhere to the following guidelines: a. Determine what proposals are acceptable and unacceptable b. A determination that a proposal is unacceptable shall be in writing, state the basis for the determination and be retained in the procurement file c. The offeror shall not be afforded an opportunity to modify its offer Negotiation with individual offerors a. The department can negotiate with individual offerors after their proposals are opened. b. Formalized procedures should be established and consistently applied to each offer c. Disclosure of one offerors price to another is prohibited d. The department must send a written request for best and final offers setting forth the date, time, and place for submission of best and final offers e. The department must inform the offerors that if they do not submit a notice of withdrawal or a best and final offer, their immediate previous offer will be construed as their best and final Final Award a. The contract shall be awarded within 90 days of the closing date b. The department shall award a contract to the offeror whose proposal is determined in writing to be most advantageous to the City c. The determination shall explain the basis of the award d. Central Services shall notify each unsuccessful offeror in writing of the award 30

APPENDIX C SAMPLE BID BOND Bond No. _________________ KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that we, as Principal, hereinafter called the Principal and [Bonding Company] (hereinafter called the "Surety"), a corporation duly authorized to transact business in and having its principal office at _______________________, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Dover, for the sum of _____________Dollars ($ ), for payment of which sum well and truly to be made, the said Principal and said Surety bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. WHEREAS, the Principal has submitted a bid for [Identify project by number and brief description]. NOW, THEREFORE, if the City of Dover shall accept the bid of the Principal and the Principal shall enter into a Contract with the City of Dover in accordance with the terms of such bid, and give such bond or bonds as may be specified in the bidding or Contract Documents with good and sufficient surety for the faithful performance of such Contract and for the prompt payment of labor and material furnished in the prosecution thereof, or in the event of the failure of the Principal to enter such Contract and give such bond or bonds, if the Principal shall pay to the City of Dover the difference not to exceed the penalty hereof between the amount specified in said bid and such larger amount for which the City of Dover may in good faith contract with another party to perform work covered by said bid or an appropriate liquidated amount as specified in the Invitation for Bids then this obligation shall be null and void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect Signed and sealed this _________ day of ____________________, 20 _______. Witness of Attest: (Witness) By: (Principal) By: (Surety) IMPORTANT: Surety Companies executing BONDS must appear on the Treasury Department's most current list (Circular 570 as amended) and be authorized to transact business in the state where the project is located. 31

APPENDIX D SAMPLE PERFORMANCE BOND Bond No. _________________ KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that [Here insert the full name and address or legal title of the contractor] as Principal, hereinafter called Contractor, and [Bonding Company] (hereinafter called the "Surety"), a corporation duly authorized to transact business in and having its principal office at _______________________, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Dover, as Obligee, in the amount of [Here insert a sum equal to the total amount of the contract price] Dollars ($ ), for the payment whereof Contractor and Surety bind themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. WHEREAS, Contractor has by written agreement dated ___________________, 20 _____, entered into a contract with the City of Dover for [Describe project and insert project number] in accordance with drawings and specifications prepared by [Here insert full name and address or legal title of Architect] which contract is by reference made a part hereof, and is hereinafter referred to as the Contract. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such that, if the Contractor shall promptly and faithfully perform said Contract then this obligation shall be null and void; otherwise it shall remain in full force and effect. The Surety hereby waives notice of any alteration or extension of time made by the City of Dover and its obligation is not affected by any such alteration or extension provided the same is within the scope of the contract. Whenever the Contractor shall be, and is declared by the City of Dover to be in default under the Contract, the City of Dover having performed the City of Dover’s obligations thereunder, the Surety may promptly remedy the default or shall promptly: 1) Complete the Contract in accordance with its terms and conditions; or 2) Obtain a bid or bids for completing the Contract in accordance with its terms and conditions, and upon determination by the City of Dover and the Surety jointly of the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, arrange for a contract between such bidder and the City of Dover, and make available as work progresses sufficient funds to pay the cost of completion less the balance of the contract price; but not exceeding, including other costs and damages for which the Surety may be liable hereunder the amount set forth in the first paragraph hereof. The term “balance of the contract price,” as used in this paragraph, shall mean the total amount payable by the City of 32

Dover to the Contractor under the Contract and any amendments thereto, less the amount properly paid by the City of Dover to the Contractor. No right of action shall accrue on this bond to or for the use of any person or corporation other than the City of Dover or successors of the City of Dover. Signed and sealed this _________ day of ____________________, 20 _______. Witness of Attest: (Witness) By: (Principal) By: __ (Surety) IMPORTANT: Surety Companies executing BONDS must appear on the Treasury Department's most current list (Circular 570 as amended) and be authorized to transact business in the state where the project is located. 33

APPENDIX E GLOSSARY “Addendum” An addition or supplement to a document, for example, items or information added to a procurement document. “Award” The presentation, after careful consideration, of a purchase agreement or contract to the selected bidder or offeror. “Best and Final Offer” In competitive negotiation, the final proposal submitted after negotiations are completed that contains the vendor’s most favorable terms for price and services or products to be delivered. “Best Value” An assessment of the return that can be achieved based on the total Life Cycle Cost of the item; can include an assessment of the functionality of the item; can use cost/benefit analysis to define the best combinations of quality, services, time, and cost considerations over the useful life of the acquired item. “Bid” An offer submitted by a prospective vendor in response to an invitation to bid issued by a purchasing authority; becomes a contract upon acceptance by the buyer. “Bid Bond” An insurance agreement, accompanied by a monetary commitment, by which a third party (the Surety) accepts liability and guarantees that the bidder will not withdraw the bid, the bidder will furnish bonds as required, and if the contract is awarded to the bonded (insured) bidder, the bidder will accept the contract as bid, or else the surety will pay a specific amount. “Bid Protest” A formal complaint made against the methods employed or decisions made by a procurement authority in the process leading to the award of a contract. “Brand Name or Equal Specification” A specification using one or more manufacturers’ brand names, with identifying model numbers, to describe the standards of quality, performance or other characteristics needed to meet the requirements of a solicitation, and which invites bids for equivalent products from any manufacturer. “Brand Name Specification” A specification using one or more manufacturers’ brand names, with identifying model numbers, to describe the acceptable items; all other items will be excluded. “Buyer” 1: A purchaser can refer to the buying agency or government. 2: A worker in a procurement office who is appointed to purchase a specific range of goods or services on a routine basis, usually under the supervision of a section head or purchasing manager. “Capital Asset” An asset with a life of more than one year, either tangible or intangible, with a value above a certain minimum amount set by the jurisdiction. For the City, this amount is $4,999. 34

“Certain Professional Services” means those services within the scope of the practice of architecture, professional engineering, professional land surveying, landscape architecture and geology. “Change Order” A written alteration to a contract or purchase order, signed by the purchasing authority. “Clarification” A communication with an offeror for the sole purpose of eliminating minor irregularities or apparent clerical mistakes in a proposal; may be initiated by either offeror or purchaser; does not give the offeror an opportunity to revise or modify its proposal, except to the extent the correction of apparent clerical mistakes results in revision. “Combination Specification” Has the features of both design specifications and performance specifications. “Commodity” Any moveable, tangible article of trade or commerce. “Commodity Code” A system of words or numbers designed to identify and list commodities or services by classes or sub-classes. For the City, the commodity code is the first three numbers of stock code and the sub-commodity is the second three numbers of the stock code. A list can be printed from HTE. “Competitive Sealed Bidding” Preferred method of acquiring goods, services, and construction for public use in which the award is made to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, based solely on the response to the criteria set forth in the invitation to bid; does not include discussions or negotiations with bidders. Also called formal bid and formal advertised bid. “Contract” 1: A legally binding promise, enforceable by law. 2: An agreement between parties, with binding legal and moral force, usually exchanging goods or services for money or other consideration. 3: All types of agreements, regardless of what they may be called, for the procurement or disposal of supplies, services, or construction. “Contract Modification” Any written alteration in specifications, delivery point, rate of delivery, period of performance, price, quantity, or other provision of any contract, accomplished by mutual action of parties to the contract. “Depreciation” 1: A decrease in value because of use, time, deterioration, inadequacy or obsolescence. 2: An accounting recognition of loss of value of a fixed asset. “Designee” A duly authorized representative. “Design Specification” A specification establishing the characteristics an item must possess, including enough detail to show how it is to be manufactured. “Economic Order Quantity (EOQ)” A quantity providing the lowest acquisition, inventory costs at a minimum cost per unit. 35

“Emergency Purchase” A purchase made to alleviate a situation in which there is a threat to health, welfare, or safety under certain conditions defined as an emergency by the jurisdiction, that does not allow time for normal, competitive purchasing procedures. “F.O.B. Destination” Title changes hands from vendor to purchaser at the destination of the shipment; Vendor owns goods in transit and files any claims. Payment of freight charges is determined by contract terms. “Functional Specification” A specification setting forth the results required from the supply or service. “Indemnify” 1: To protect against hurt or loss, to exempt from incurred penalties or liabilities. 2: To compensate or pay for damage. “Informal Bid” A competitive bid or price quotation for supplies or services that is conveyed by letter, telephone, or other means and does not require a sealed bid, public opening, or public reading of the bids. See request for quotation. “Invitation to Bid” A formal request to prospective vendors soliciting price quotations or bids; contains, or incorporates by reference, the specifications or scope of work and all contractual terms and conditions. “May” Denotes the permissive in a contract clause or specification. “Non-responsible Bid” A bid from a vendor who does not have the capability to perform fully the contract requirements, or who does not have the integrity and reliability to assure performance. “Non-responsive Bid” A bid that does not conform to the mandatory or essential requirements of the invitation to bid. “Open Market Purchase” A purchase, usually of a limited monetary amount, from any available source. “Performance Bond” A bond executed after award by a successful bidder, to protect the buyer from loss due to the bidder’s inability to complete the contract as agreed; Secures the fulfillment of all contract requirements. “Performance Specification” A specification setting forth the capabilities and performance characteristics the article must satisfy. “Pre-bid Conference” A meeting held with prospective bidders prior to solicitation of bids, to clarify any ambiguities, answer bidder questions, and ensure all bidders have a common basis of understanding regarding the supplies or services required. “Pre-proposal Conference” Same as a pre-bid conference, but for competitive proposals. 36

“Prequalification of Bidders” The screening of potential vendors in which such factors as financial capability, reputation, and management are considered to develop a list of qualified vendors. “Procurement” 1: Purchasing, renting, leasing, or otherwise acquiring any supplies, services, or construction; includes all functions that pertain to the acquisition, including description of requirements, selection and solicitation of sources, preparation and award of contract, and all phases of contract administration. 2: The combined functions of purchasing, inventory control, traffic and transportation, receiving, receiving inspection, storekeeping, and salvage and disposal operations. “Professional Services” Services rendered by members of a recognized profession or possessing a special skill. Such services are generally acquired to obtain information, advice, training, or direct assistance (i.e. architectural & engineering services). “Public Works and Utilities Contract” means any contract for the construction, reconstruction, alteration or repair of any public building, road, street, highway, utility system or other public improvement, the cost of which will be paid with public funds. “Reasonable Cost” A cost that by its nature or amount does not exceed what would normally be incurred by an ordinarily prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. “Request for Proposal” All documents, whether attached or incorporated by reference, utilized for soliciting competitive proposals. “Request for Quotation” An informal solicitation or request for information, where oral or written quotes are obtained from vendors, without formal advertising or receipt of sealed bids. Used only where statutes do not require formal sealed bids, such as small or emergency purchases, but price competition is desired. “Responsible Bidder or Offeror” A bidder or offeror who has the capability in all respects to perform fully the contract requirements, and the experience, integrity, perseverance, reliability, capacity, facilities, equipment, and credit which will assure good faith performance. “Responsive Bidder or Offeror” A bidder or offeror who has submitted a bid which conforms in all material respects to the requirements stated in the Invitation to Bid. “Restrictive Specification” Specification that unnecessarily limits competition by eliminating items capable of satisfactorily meeting actual needs, often by requiring features which exceed the minimum acceptable characteristics required for satisfactory performance. “Shall” Denotes an imperative in contract clauses or specifications. “Small Purchase” Any procurement not exceeding a given upper monetary limit, as established by law or regulation. 37

“Single Source Procurement” A contract for the purchase of goods and services entered after soliciting and negotiating only with one source, usually because of the technology required or uniqueness of the service provided. “Sole Source Procurement” Only one vendor/manufacturer possesses the unique and singularly available capability to meet the requirement of the solicitation, such as technical qualifications, ability to deliver at a time, or services from a public utility. “Specification” A description of the physical or functional characteristics, or the nature of a supply, service, or construction item; the requirements to be satisfied by a product, material, or process indicating, if appropriate, the procedures to determine whether the requirements are satisfied. See Brand Name Specification, Brand Name or Equal Specification, Combination Specification, Design Specification, Performance Specification, Restrictive Specification, Standard Specification. “Standard Specification” A specification that is to be used for all or most purchases of an item; describes all required physical and functional characteristics of a good, service or construction. “Statement of Work” A detailed description of the work which the purchasing jurisdiction wants the contractor to perform. “Term Contract” A contract in which a source of supply is established for a specified period for specified services or supplies; Usually characterized by an estimated or definite minimum quantity, with the possibility of additional requirements beyond the minimum, all at a predetermined unit price. Source of Definitions: Dictionary of Purchasing Terms published by the National Institute of Governmental Purchasing. 38

APPENDIX F CITY OF DOVER QUOTATION WORKSHEET (To be used for purchases between $5,000.00 and $24,999.99) Department: ___________________________ Division: _________________________ Department Contact (Name & number): _______________________________________ Item/Service: ____________________________________________________________ Estimated Dollar Value: ___________________________________________________ Account Code: _________________________________ Project Code: ______________ Vendors (At least three vendors must be used. Include at least one minority or women owned vendor, if available. Use of more than one minority or women owned vendor is encouraged): 1. Go to https://gss.omb.delaware.gov/osd/index.shtml. 2. Click on “Directory of Certified Businesses” button. 3. Select “Minority Business Enterprise” and/or “Women Business Enterprise” links. 4. Search by keyword i.e. Electrician, Construction, Furniture List keyword(s) used: ______________________________________________ 5. Each company displayed will have its assigned NAICS code listed. List NAICS Code(s) used: __________________________________________ 6. Refine search by NAICS Code if necessary. 7. Were Vendors Found: YES NO If so, how many: __________________ Vendor 1: _______________________________________________________Minority Vendor 2: _______________________________________________________Minority Vendor 3: _______________________________________________________Minority If more than three vendors are used, list them on the reverse of this form. Date sent out for quotes: __________________________ Date due back: _________________________ Date of award: _____________________ Vendor receiving the award: ________________________________________________ Was the 3% minority vendor preference applied in the evaluation? YES NO Was this a minority vendor? YES NO Total dollar amount of purchase or estimated total contract value: $_________________ Purchase Order produced: YES NO PO Number: ________________________ 39

Additional vendors used for this purchase Vendor 4: _______________________________________________________Minority Vendor 5: _______________________________________________________Minority Vendor 6: _______________________________________________________Minority Vendor 7: _______________________________________________________Minority Vendor 8: _______________________________________________________Minority Vendor 9: _______________________________________________________Minority Vendor 10: ______________________________________________________Minority Send completed form to the Procurement Office in Central Services. 40

PETITION TO AMEND ZONING DISTRICT Public Hearing before the Dover City Council November 13, 2018 Recommendation from Planning Commission Meeting of October 15, 2018 with Staff and Development Advisory Committee Review Applicants/Owners: Lands of Hansen White Oak Partners, LLC (Jeff Hansen) Equitable Owner: L&S Davis Properties, Inc. (Sylvia Davis) Address: 951 White Oak Road, Dover, DE Location: North side of White Oak Road and east of Halsey Road Tax Parcel: ED-05-068.14-05-85.00-000 Size: 1.1152 acres Present Use: Vacant land Proposed Use: Public Assembly Comprehensive Plan Designation: Office and Office Parks Present Zoning: CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone) Proposed Zoning: IO (Institutional and Office Zone) Reason for Request: Request for Rezoning of property to allow for future development of a building for public assembly File Number: Z-18-02 Ordinance Number: 2018-10 Planning Commission Recommendation: In a public hearing on October 15, 2018, four members of the public spoke regarding the application and a Petition of Opposition was submitted. The Application Rezoning request was represented by a Realtor and the equitable owner. Regarding the motion to recommend approval of the rezoning from CPO to IO, the

Z-18-02 Lands of Hansen White Oak Partners, LLC at 951 White Oak Road Recommendation Report to City Council: Planning Commission of October 15, 2018 Page 2 Planning Commission to voted 3-4 (three in favor and four opposed with two members absent); thus, the motion failed. (Draft Meeting Minutes attached.) Overview This rezoning application consists of one parcel of land totaling 1.125 +/- acres located on the north side of White Oak Road and east of Halsey Road. The property area is zoned CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone). The proposed zoning is IO (Institutional and Office Zone). The owner of record is Hansen White Oak Partners, LLC; the equitable owner is L&S Davis Properties Inc. Property Address: 951 White Oak Road. Tax Parcel: ED-05-068.14-05- 85.00-000. Existing Property: The subject property area consists a vacant parcel of land with frontage on White Oak Road and adjacent to Halsey Road Ext. The applicant is seeking rezoning to allow for future development of the property. The redevelopment of the site will be subject to a separate application submission. Surrounding Land Uses: The land adjacent to the site to the east is a neighborhood of single-family detached homes, zoned R-8 (One-Family Residence Zone) in the White Oak Farms subdivision. Just north of the site on Halsey Road is a condominium complex (apartment style-units) known as the White Oak Condominiums, zoned RG-2 (General Residence Zone). West of Halsey Road Ext. is a shopping center known as the Centre at Dover consisting of several multi-tenant buildings of various retailers; it is zoned SC-2 (Community Shopping Center Development Zone). Previous Application Previously, Rezoning Application Z-06-09 Lands of Leon & Dorothy Hansen to rezone the property at 951 White Oak Road from CPO (Commercial Professional Office) to IO (Institutional and Office Zone) was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on August 21, 2006 with the final approval of the rezoning from C-PO to IO by the City Council on September 11, 2006. At the time, the Zoning Ordinance including provisions related to reconsideration of Rezoning applications if no development activity occurred. With Z-06-09, the request for extension of the rezoning approval was denied by City Council on September 24, 2007; therefore, consideration of the rezoning back to the previous zoning classification had to occur. At the Planning Commission meeting of June 16, 2008, they recommended approval to revert the zoning of the property at 951 White Oak Road back to CPO from IO. Then the City Council held public hearing on Monday, July 14, 2008 to consider this rezoning and as a result City Council approved the zoning for the property back to CPO. Comprehensive Plan: The 2008 Comprehensive Plan depicts the subject area with the Office and Office Parks land use classification on Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map. Table 12-1: Land Use and Zoning Matrix specifies that the following zones are compatible with this land use classification: - C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office) - IO (Institutional and Office)

Z-18-02 Lands of Hansen White Oak Partners, LLC at 951 White Oak Road Recommendation Report to City Council: Planning Commission of October 15, 2018 Page 3 - IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing) - RGO (General Residence and Office) Request for IO (Institutional and Office Zone) The types of permitted uses in the IO Zone are given Article 3 §10 of the Zoning Ordinance. The permitted uses include the following: Article 3 Section 10. - Institutional and office zone (IO). 10.1 Uses permitted. In an institutional and office zone (IO), 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: (a) Business, professional, or governmental offices. (b) Banks. (c) Research, design, and development laboratories. (d) Public and institutional uses including hospitals, medical clinics, libraries, police stations, courthouses, transit centers, schools, colleges, universities, places of public assembly, philanthropic and charitable institutions, parks, playgrounds, public indoor recreation centers, athletic fields. (e) Public utility rights-of-way and structures necessary to serve areas within the city. (f) 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. (g) Emergency shelters and transitional housing. 10.2 Conditional uses. 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. 10.3 Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory to other permitted uses on a lot. (a) Clinics, cafeterias, and recreational facilities. (b) Motor vehicle storage and repair facilities accessory to a public or institutional use. (c) Restaurants that are on a campus and intended to support users of the campus. 10.4 Uses prohibited. The following uses are prohibited: (a) Landfills, dumps. 10.5 Enclosed buildings. All permitted uses and all storage accessory thereto, other than offstreet parking, shall be carried on in buildings fully enclosed on all sides, except for outdoor eating areas associated with restaurants approved by the city planner. 10.6 Performance standards. All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in article 5, section 8.1. 10.7 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 of certificates of occupancy for any change of use.

Z-18-02 Lands of Hansen White Oak Partners, LLC at 951 White Oak Road Recommendation Report to City Council: Planning Commission of October 15, 2018 Page 4 Recommendation of the Planning Staff: This request is to rezone land from C-PO (Commercial/Professional Office Zone) to IO (Institutional and Office Zone). The primary difference in uses permitted is that the IO (Institutional and Office Zone) allows for public and institutional uses and there are additional uses that can be considered through a Conditional Use process. Additionally, the C-PO (Commercial/Professional Office Zone) allows for a maximum building height of 3 stories or 45 feet and a floor area ratio of 2.0 and a maximum lot coverage of 75%, while the IO (Institutional and Office Zone) allows for a building height of 10 stories or 150 feet and a floor area ratio of 4.0 and a maximum lot coverage of 85%. While there may be some concerns about the height allowances in the IO (Institutional and Office Zone), the floor area ratio and lot coverage maximums should preclude a structure from being erected that would be so large as to be out of character with the surrounding area. Additionally, the Zoning Ordinance contains provisions for buffering including landscaping when non-residential uses are adjacent to residential uses. Staff recommends that the rezoning for IO (Institutional and Office Zone) be granted as requested, as the proposed zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the Office and Office Parks land use classification. Recommendation of the Planning Commission: At the Planning Commission Meeting of October 15, 2018, the application was represented by Mr. Phil McGinnis of McGinnis Commercial Real Estate Company and Ms. Sylvia Davis of L&S Davis Properties. During the Public Hearing, four members of the public spoke regarding the proposed rezoning and a Petition of Opposition was submitted. The Petition of Opposition included 64 signatures; see Analysis of Petition for more information. Regarding the motion to recommend approval of the rezoning from CPO to IO, the Planning Commission voted 3-4 (three in favor of rezoning and four opposed with two members absent); thus, the motion failed. See Motion and vote details below: Mr. Holden moved to recommend approval to City Council for Z-18-02 Lands of Hansen White Oak Partners, LLC at 951 White Oak Road, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion failed by a 3-4 by roll call vote. Mr. Holden voting yes; due to Staff comments and compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Edwards voting no; due to the outpouring of the residential concern. Mr. Holt voting yes; and throw the ball back to City Council to see what happens. Mr. Baldwin voting no. Dr. Jones voting no. Ms. Maucher voting no; this is a permanent zoning change and as expressed that should this project not go forward something else could come in. Mr. Tolbert voting yes; he agrees with the motion as it was stated. The only thing that they are dealing with here is the rezoning. Even if it’s not rezoned, they have no guarantee that something won’t go up in that area that may hinder traffic and all of that as it stands now. The issue is not over; it has to go before City Council and there are issues with DelDOT regarding traffic concerns. There is a lot to be done and voting for the motion is not a problem at this time for him. See also the included excerpt of the DRAFT Meeting Minutes of the October 15, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. The comments received from the other member agencies of the Development Advisory Committee (D.A.C.) are also provided.

Z-18-02 Lands of Hansen White Oak Partners, LLC at 951 White Oak Road Recommendation Report to City Council: Planning Commission of October 15, 2018 Page 5 ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1) The applicant shall be aware that approval of any rezoning application does not represent Site Development Plan or Record Plan approval. A separate Site Development Plan must be submitted and approved if redevelopment activities are proposed on the property. 2) The applicant shall be aware that approval of any rezoning application does not represent a Building Permit or other construction activity permit approval. A separate application submission is required before issuance of permits by the City of Dover. 3) All businesses operating in the City of Dover are required to obtain a City of Dover Business Licenses from the Licensing and Permitting Division located in City Hall. Certain types of uses also require a Public Occupancy permit. Attachments: • Excerpt from DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2018 o Handout from Public Testimony: Letter with Map of October 1, 2018 regarding North Halsey Road • Development Advisory Committee Comments from City of Dover Electric & Public Works Departments and City Office of the Fire Marshal • Application Submission Plan Sheet • Zoning Map Exhibit • Analysis of Petition of Opposition o Memorandum on Petition o Z-18-02 Signed Petition o Z-18-02 Petition Exhibit Map o Z-18-02 Petition Summary Analysis Table

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION October 15, 2018 Excerpt from Meeting Minutes – Draft The Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, September 17, 2018 at 7:00 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers with Chairman Mr. Tolbert presiding. Members present were Mr. Holden, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Holt, Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones, Ms. Maucher and Mr. Tolbert. Mr. Roach and Mrs. Welsh were absent. Staff members present were Mr. Dave Hugg, Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mr. Eddie Diaz, Mr. Julian Swierczek, Mr. Jason Lyon and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney. Z-18-02 Lands of Hansen White Oak Partners, LLC at 951 White Oak Road – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council on a rezoning of a parcel of land totaling 1.125 +/- acres located on the north side of White Oak Road and east of Halsey Road. The property area is zoned CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone). The proposed zoning is IO (Institutional and Office Zone). The owner of record is Hansen White Oak Partners, LLC; the equitable owner is L&S Davis Properties Inc. Property Address: 951 White Oak Road. Tax Parcel: ED-05-068.14-05-85.00-000. Council District 3. Ordinance #2018-10. For this zoning map amendment, the First Reading was held at the City Council Meeting of September 24, 2018. The Final Reading/Public Hearing is scheduled for November 13, 2018 before City Council. Representatives: Ms. Sylvia Davis, L&S Davis Properties; Mr. Phil McGinnis, McGinnis Commercial Real Estate Company Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is a Rezoning application for the property that is located at 951 White Oak Road. The current property owners are Hansen White Oak Partners, LLC. There is an equitable owner L&S Davis Properties Inc that is a party to the application as well. The property is just over 1 acre in size; specifically, 1.1152 acres. It is currently vacant land. It is currently zoned CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone). The proposed zoning is IO (Institutional and Office Zone). The reason for their request for the rezoning of the property is to allow for future development of a building for public assembly on the parcel of land. This is a property that is adjacent to White Oak Road having frontage on that road. To its west is a private drive that is named Halsey Road Ext. The surrounding land uses are the White Oak Farms single family detached housing to its east; to the north is the White Oak Condominiums which is an apartment style complex, and then to the west is the Center at Dover which is a multi-tenant shopping center with multiple buildings. Previously, there was a Rezoning application back in 2006 for this property to rezone it from CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone) to IO (Institutional and Office Zone). That application at that time was successful; however, with no action taken at that time to develop the property it had to go through a process that reverted the zoning back to CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone). Tonight, this is a totally new application for consideration. The Comprehensive Plan for the City identifies this as a land use category of Office and Office Parks. There are a number of zoning districts that comply with that including CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone) as what it is currently zoned and IO (Institutional and Office Zone) their requested zoning classification and several others. The IO Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting of October 15, 2018 Page 1 of 8

(Institutional and Office Zone) allows for a number of uses and rezoning to IO (Institutional and Office Zone) makes them eligible to establish any of the uses that are listed in the IO (Institutional and Office Zone) subject to future development application processes. Staff is recommending that the request to rezone from CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone) to IO (Institutional and Office Zone) be approved. The primary difference between IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone) is that the IO (Institutional and Office Zone) allows for a number of public and institutional type uses and some other things that can be considered through a Conditional Use process. There are some differences in what they call the bulk standards for CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone) versus IO (Institutional and Office Zone). Those are the bulk standards related to the number of building stories, the overall height and things related to maximum lot coverage (how much of the property can be covered by building and parking and other hard surfaces). The Planning Staff also notes that the Zoning Ordinance does include when it comes to development, the requirements for parking, requirements additionally for buffering and landscape requirements but all of those are considered as part of the Site Development Plan application. This evening, we are focusing on a Rezoning application. She specifically notes that any concerns relating to site development are subject to a separate application, review and hearing process. That is not what is being considered tonight. Tonight is the application for Rezoning from CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone) to IO (Institutional and Office Zone). The members of the Development Advisory Committee have provided comments in regards to this Rezoning application. The City’s Public Works Office and Electric Departments have no objection to the Rezoning. They have provided some advisory comments about planning for utility services should the property move forward through a development process. Likewise, the Fire Marshal’s Office has very similar comments, again noting that it is currently a vacant lot and they have no objections to the Rezoning but offer some advisory comments about future development. Tonight, the Planning Commission is considering a Rezoning. They are making a recommendation to City Council which will conduct their own Public Hearing and take final action on the Rezoning request. Ms. Davis stated that she agrees and will cooperate with Staff in this matter. Mr. McGinnis stated that he represents both the owner of the property, Hansen White Oak Partners, LLC and Ms. Davis who would like to acquire the property in order to build a church. They are talking about a small neighborhood church. As Staff noted in their positive recommendation, it’s a 1.15 acre lot which has its own constraints on how big a building you could build. The parking issues are Site Plan issues but they would be constrained by the four dimensions of the property. He also wants to point out that there is a fence that separates the White Oak Condominiums and also White Oak Farms on the east; and of course, there will be buffering and landscape requirements. The issue here is to build a church as he mentioned. The existing zoning permits an office which creates traffic 8AM-5PM five days a week and sometimes on the weekend. A church has traffic only on weekends. They are not talking about a mega church, they are talking about a small neighborhood church as you find commonly throughout Downtown Dover. He wants to reiterate that the property was once zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) so this application is not as far reaching as you may be lead to believe. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting of October 15, 2018 Page 2 of 8

Mr. Tolbert opened a public hearing. Mr. Osman Sammander – 151 Lake Drive Smyrna, DE 19977 Mr. Sammander stated that he is President of the White Oak Condo Association. He and Mr. James Munson, Vice President of the White Oak Condo Association are here on behalf of the Condominiums to submit some paperwork before they start talking about it. (Mr. Sammander and Mr. Munson handed out paperwork to the Commissioners and Staff. These handouts included a letter dated October 1, 2018 regarding the status of Halsey Road Ext and an accompanying map.) Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Chairman was also handed a Petition that states “We the undersigned residents of the surrounding area of lot 951 White Oak Road, Dover DE are opposing the proposed rezoning of the above lot from CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone) to IO (Institutional and Office Zone). As they are speaking she will go through and count so that we have a sense of how many people signed this petition. Mr. Sammander stated that he has a letter (provided as the handout) from the City of Dover stating that the White Oak Condominiums is responsible for the extension of North Halsey Road. Two of their Board members are going to speak regarding this. Ms. Marie Hudson – 566 Gobbler Lane Milford, DE 19963 Ms. Hudson stated that she owns a couple of the units in White Oak Condominiums. Their biggest problem with the property being rezoned from CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone) to IO (Institutional and Office Zone) mean public assembly. Public assembly means a lot of people. The lot out front is not that big. According to the City, it is west of North Halsey Road. That is not a City road; its their road and they (White Oak Condos) maintain it. If there is a church there, hopefully a church is going to grow. It’s going to outgrow the spot that they are in and they are going to overflow into their driveway. The people on White Oak Road and Halsey Road, they are coming before the Commission because the lot is just not big enough for public assembly. They are also talking about a six-story building versus a three-story building. Mr. Tolbert stated that at this point they are only talking about the zoning. They are going to have to come back the Commission for anything else. Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Ms. Hudson stated that she has no problem with a church but if you change the zoning and the church decides not to go there, the zoning won’t go back to CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone). They are going to leave it IO (Institutional and Office Zone). There is already going to be a building there and someone else can come in and do what they want. Mr. Tolbert stated that whatever they want to do later on, they are going to have to come before the Commission. She will be notified if she is within the area and he suggests that she come back at that time too to make a statement. Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Ms. Hudson stated that they will be. Ms. Ayesha Sammander – 151 Lake Drive Smyrna, DE 19977 Ms. Sammander stated that she is here on behalf of the residents of the White Oak Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting of October 15, 2018 Page 3 of 8

Condominiums and also the residents of the surrounding area of the 951 White Oak Road. They are here to express their opposition to the rezoning of the lot from CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone) to IO (Institutional and Office Zone). The Commission had a copy of the petition of all the residents that includes the White Oak Road and North Halsey Road and also the residents of White Oak Condominiums. As they talked to each individual household, they were really furious and frustrated with the traffic and speeding that there already is. They wanted her to tell the Commission that this neighborhood used to be a really safe and quiet environment. They said that it isn’t anymore. The traffic is so heavy on North Halsey Road. They are saying that they used to be able to walk across the street and talk to a neighbor or check on a neighbor. They used to be able to sit on a porch and enjoy the weather but not anymore. The traffic is so bad right now but changing the zoning and giving allowance to this application is going to generate even more problems with parking and everything else. On the other side of White Oak Condos there are eighty-four units, so each unit at least has about two cars plus visitors. We are talking about two hundred plus cars are coming out of White Oak Condominiums on a daily basis. Four doors down there is a church. The day that the church is meeting, they are parking all over both sides of White Oak Road. The shopping center behind the church is packed. Even people on North Halsey Road say they are being impacted by the parking when they meet. It is going to be a huge problem with parking and traffic. White Oak Road is not that wide. Down the street there is another community. The traffic from Towne Point is coming into White Oak Road. There is another community called Baytree Apartments and they are coming into White Oak Road. This is going to generate more chaos on White Oak Road. She is here to say that the bottom line is that what you are doing is creating a problem for this community that is going to create so much traffic and chaos that it is going to cause accidents and bring tragedy to the neighborhood. The bottom line is that this community is going to suffer as a result of rezoning. Please consider the concerns and the voices of the residents from White Oak Condominiums, from the surrounding neighbors and consider voting “no” to this proposed rezoning. They are the people who have to deal with this. They are the people who are being affected in their everyday life. It’s easy to say that it’s not going to affect anything, but the residents are really frustrated as it already is. Mr. Tolbert questioned if they had talked to DelDOT about the traffic problem in that area? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Ms. Sammander stated that she personally did not, but she believes the people as she has talked to numerous people. The way they reacted as soon as we said that there was going to be a church they said they are not against a church but there is a problem. This road has become like a highway with traffic speeding. She believes that they are telling the truth and no, she has not spoken to DelDOT. Mr. Tolbert questioned if she was speaking for the whole community? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Ms. Sammander stated yes, all of these people in the audience plus the people who couldn’t come but signed the petition. Mr. Osman Sammander – 151 Lake Dr Smyrna, DE 19977 Mr. Sammander stated that the two lots across from 951 White Oak Road are two houses. They signed the petition and they were supposed to come but unfortunately, they called him at 6PM tonight stating that their son was sick and they couldn’t make it. The residents on North Halsey Road are more affected than any other place because the road is so small. When they were going Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting of October 15, 2018 Page 4 of 8

to the houses to speak with the residents, people were speeding so much that you would have thought that you were on Route 13. The two houses on the left side of North Halsey Road, said that they had a problem with neighborhood people parking there in the afternoons and they don’t have enough parking. Almost seventy people signed the petition that was given to the Commission tonight. Some of them are from the residential areas around the lot and some of them are from the condominiums. He had two extra sheets signed but he couldn’t pull it together to get it to the Commission. They have a problem with homeless people coming to sleep on the road. They call the Police and when the Police come they say that it is not their road and they can’t do anything about it. There was a homeless person who parked their car on North Halsey Road two years ago. They came to one of the White Oak Condo buildings and slept in the laundry room (which whoever opened the door burned up the building). They already have problems with their own residents and the parking. Imagine if we have an extra building. He doesn’t know where they are going to get their entrance and exit. White Oak Road wouldn’t be a good idea because it is already crowded. He heard that before it was approved for this proposal but that was for residential housing; it wasn’t for any type of public gathering. If they can’t build a church, they could build a halfway house. He knows Mr. Lott because he used to own a house on New Street and he sold it to Mr. Lott. He is familiar with drug rehab programs and he doesn’t want a drug rehab place built there. He doesn’t mind a church but there is a church down the street in walking distance. A church is going to expand. It may be a small congregation now but, in a year, or two it could be 200, 300 or 500 people. They are going to park on North Halsey Road Ext. They are going to park all over the place and they are going to have accidents and problems. Right now, they are paving North Halsey Road Ext and the letter that was given to the Commission tonight came from the City. They have been fighting the City for almost a year and a half until they got that letter. We have to have some kind of monitoring system. We have to hire somebody to stop people from parking there. The only funding that we have is our condo fees; they don’t have enough money to hire a security guard or something to block people from parking on North Halsey Road. Ms. Nancy Watson – 2364 Pearsons Corner Road Dover, DE 19904 Ms. Watson stated that she works closely with Ms. Davis and Mr. McGinnis. She has lived in Dover for about fifteen years and she lived and walked on White Oak Road. She is very familiar with Dover. Their church is on Pearsons Corner Road. They are a small congregation and she has listened to the remarks from the White Oak Condominiums. In their congregation, they do have some members that do live in that area in those condominiums and they also live in that area, so she is very familiar with the area. She does understand Dover and she does understand the concern about the parking. They would appreciate if the Commission would accept the zoning. One of the plans that she doesn’t mind sharing is that their parking will be closed within that unit. It is a small church; it will not proceed on the outside. They have also taken the consideration and looked at what DelDOT had to say in their proposal and what they presented to us. They also take in great consideration what the Fire Marshal had stated. They will take those statements and put them together with our architect to ensure that within the community it would not violate anyone that lives in the area. The zoning was there before and they ask that it be done again. They can provide to the community and they want to help the community. Having a small church can provide that spiritual guidance for that homeless man. It can provide the spiritual guidance and the help of the community to enhance what Dover already has. It has great value in Dover, from being a resident herself and having a church here and being in Delaware for Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting of October 15, 2018 Page 5 of 8

a very long time. They can provide for and enhance the community. She understands the concern and she would be concerned as well. She can assure them that they have went to through the Fire Marshal and DelDOT comments and they will have everything that they have confined into that property. For the parking space that is allotted there, they have considered it and it will be on that property, not on the outside. There is nowhere that they see in the planning where it should interfere. If anything, it will help the residents or members that go to the church will be able to walk instead of driving. Mr. Tolbert stated that he wants to make it clear that all the Commissioners are doing at this point is voting on a recommendation, pro or con to City Council. What goes on beyond this is going to require your attention at City Council and the attention of DelDOT and a lot of other things. Mr. Osman Sammander – 151 Lake Dr Smyrna, DE 19977 Mr. Sammander stated that imagine if they are not successful for whatever reason. Suppose that they are not passed by the Fire Marshal, but the property has already been rezoned. They sell it to somebody else and they are going to come and build a halfway house or some other place that they don’t want there. He is not against a halfway house; he used to work at a prison for twenty- seven years. He used to work at the drug rehab for the prison. If the association and the residents that are complaining about it, then obviously there must be a problem. He has a lot of problems with North Halsey Road. He doesn’t know where they are going to have their entrance and exit because they are not allowed to use North Halsey Road because it is a private road. We already have a problem with parking and he knows that once the zoning is passed you can’t go back to it. When it was approved for IO (Institutional & Office Zone) before, it was for a housing complex. He assumed that it would be like White Oak Condominiums. The reason that it wasn’t approved was because they wouldn’t accept Section 8 people. This is a good example; they couldn’t do it so they sold it to somebody else. How do they know that they are going to do what they say they are going to do? They are not against a church but they are afraid that if something happens and they cannot build the church. Mr. Tolbert stated that they are only dealing with rezoning. They are not dealing with what might go on at that parcel of land. They can’t go through all of the issues. Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Sammander said that all of the people in the back of the audience are against it and so are all of the people who signed the petition. Mr. Tolbert stated that they are only dealing with the rezoning. All of the problems that you anticipate are going to come up at another time. You and all of the people that agree with you should go to City Council when the issue is heard before City Council. You should be in contact with DelDOT. There are a lot of things that you need to do besides address us here. They are limited and are only going to deal with the rezoning. What goes up on that lot is another ball game. A church doesn’t necessarily have to go there. Mr. Tolbert closed the public hearing. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Petition has names and signatures for a total of 64 individuals. A quick look through the addresses shows three categories that the addresses could be grouped in. Those addresses are on North Halsey Road which is the area to the south side of Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting of October 15, 2018 Page 6 of 8

White Oak Road. There are about a dozen signatures from that area. The second address collection is for addresses specifically in White Oak Condominiums and there are around thirty signatures. There are about twenty addresses that are other than Halsey Road or White Oak Road. Some of them are out of the City. They may be owners of individual condo units that don’t physically reside in the condo unit itself. Mr. Holden stated that anything that happens on the parcel tonight relative to access either has to come off of the public right-of-way or they have to gain the approval and a cross access easement from a neighboring parcel. They can’t, by their own choosing, provide themselves an entrance onto the condominium road of North Halsey Road Ext. That would have to be done with the joint agreement of both parties. A lot of the vehicle concerns that they heard raised can be raised with City Council and DelDOT. To the extent that they can benefit, they would be the ones to address those concerns too. Those concerns sound like they exist today regardless of what happens here on the parcel. There were some comments from Mr. McGinnis relative to the potential implications for traffic other than from the current zoning use relative to what could be done under the proposed zoning use. That’s tough because it’s a bit of a crystal ball to understand what could happen there in the future. He is certainly emphatic to the issues that you face there in that footprint. He has seen those issues crop up as growth has occurred across Dover and areas get more dense with population and they are challenges that they face similarly across the City as a whole. Dr. Jones stated that as she is reading the application, the zoning was initially CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone) then to IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and then back to CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone) over a period of time. There was this reversal. What was going on? Nothing was going on with the application at that time? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there was a rezoning application from 2006 that was to rezone the property from CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone) to IO (Institutional and Office Zone). She is not familiar enough to know what the proposed development was at that time. However, at the time there were provisions in the Zoning Ordinance that looked at all rezoning applications to see if development moved forward. You could not do speculative rezoning meaning rezone it and hope something comes. That’s what happened with the previous rezoning application for this property. It was rezoned. They had a specific time frame to move forward with establishing or making an application to develop the property and that did not occur so there was a process to reverse the zoning from IO (Institutional & Office Zone) back to CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone). It was a provision in the Zoning Ordinance at the time but that provision is no longer part of our Code. Dr. Jones questioned if they were talking about the same owners? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she is not sure that she can answer that but she doesn’t quite think so. She doesn’t think that the (current) equitable owner was involved in the earlier one but it may be a question that Mr. McGinnis can answer. Mr. McGinnis stated that at some point Mr. Leon Hansen purchased the property in 2004 or 2005. He has since passed away as has his wife so his son and two daughters are now the owners of the property. It’s the same family ownership and he thinks that they owned it during the first rezoning stage. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting of October 15, 2018 Page 7 of 8

Mr. Holden stated that he thinks the concerns that the public has raised are very valid relative to issues that it sounds like everybody feels are pretty consistent within the neighborhood. He doesn’t personally know that the proposed zoning is going to result in a better or worse outcome than the current zoning for you. Mr. Holden moved to recommend approval to City Council for Z-18-02 Lands of Hansen White Oak Partners, LLC at 951 White Oak Road, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion failed by a 3-4 by roll call vote. Mr. Holden voting yes; due to Staff comments and compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Edwards voting no; due to the outpouring of the residential concern. Mr. Holt voting yes; and throw the ball back to City Council to see what happens. Mr. Baldwin voting no. Dr. Jones voting no. Ms. Maucher voting no; this is a permanent zoning change and as expressed that should this project not go forward something else could come in. Mr. Tolbert voting yes; he agrees with the motion as it was stated. The only thing that they are dealing with here is the rezoning. Even if it’s not rezoned, they have no guarantee that something won’t go up in that area that may hinder traffic and all of that as it stands now. The issue is not over; it has to go before City Council and there are issues with DelDOT regarding traffic concerns. There is a lot to be done and voting for the motion is not a problem at this time for him. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting of October 15, 2018 Page 8 of 8

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2018 APPLICATION: LANDS OF HANSEN WHITE OAK PARTNERS, LLC AT 951 WHITE OAK ROAD FILE #: Z-18-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover CONTACT PERSON: Paul Waddell - Electric Jason A. Lyon, P.E. – Public Works CONTACT PHONE #: ELECTRIC - 302-736-7072 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 Our office has no objection to the rezoning of: ED-05-068.14-05-85.00-000 RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER / SANITATION / STORMWATER / STREETS / 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 and or change of use 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. Additional impact fees may apply for future development. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / STREETS / SANITATION / GROUNDS 1. None. 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 .

C F Z-18-02 I I T R CITY OF DOVER Y E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE O M F A APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY R D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 10/03/18 D S O H V A E L R APPLICATION: Lands of Hansen White Oak Partners LLC at 951 White Oak Rd FILE #: Z-18-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Jason Osika, Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 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 ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Proposed project is a vacant lot. 2. Every house, building or structure used or intended for use as living quarters or as a place for conducting business, and having any wall facing or abutting any public or private street or alley, shall have displayed on that wall, in legible, easily read characters which are of contrasting color to the background, the proper street number for such house, building, or structure in accordance with the following: One-family and two-family residential structures, height, the number shall measure a minimum of four inches in height, location, the number shall be placed on the house above or to the left or right of the front entrance, color, the number shall be contrasting to the background color, Arabic numerals, all numbers shall be Arabic numerals. Multiple-family dwellings, measurements, the number shall measure a minimum of six inches when identifying individual apartments with exterior doors, and 12 inches when identifying buildings with apartment complexes where there are two or more buildings not assigned street addresses. Individual buildings with street addresses shall have numbers measuring six inches, location, numbers shall be placed either in the center of the building or on the street end of the building so as to be visible from either the public or private street or from the parking lot, color, numbers shall be contrasting to the background color, Arabic numerals, all numbers used shall be Arabic numerals. Commercial, industrial and office buildings, height, the numbers shall measure a minimum of 12 inches in height, location generally, numbers shall be placed either in the center of the building or on the

street end of the building so as to be visible from either the public or private street or from the parking lot, property line or driveway, should the building be located far enough from a public or private road so that the numbers are not clearly visible from the street, then the street address shall also be posted on the property at or near the property line or driveway to said building, color; each building, numbers shall be contrasting to the background color and shall be placed on each building in the complex, Arabic numerals, all numbers used shall be Arabic numerals, Shopping centers. Shopping centers consisting of two or more stores shall have a tenant or suite number affixed to the front of the tenant space and on the outside of the rear door which corresponds with that tenant space. Numbers shall measure six inches in height. (City of Dover Code of Ordinances, 98-344) 3. Project to be completed per approved Site Plan. ADDITIONAL / SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN APPROVAL: 1. This is for rezoning only. This office has no objections. APPLICABLE CODES LISTED BELOW (NOT LIMITED TO): 2015 NFPA 1 Fire Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2015 NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2013 NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2013 NFPA 13 Installation of Sprinkler Systems (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2009 IBC (International Building Code) Latest editions of all other NFPA Codes as defined by the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations City of Dover Code of Ordinances *If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person listed.

City of Dover Application No.: Z-18-02 Department of Planning & Inspections R-8 R-8 R-8 RG-2 R-8 C-1 Site C-PO SC-2 R-7 R-7 C-4 R-7 R-7 R-7 R-7 R-7 R-7 Title: Lands of Hansen White Oak Partners, LLC Ordinance #: 2018-10 Address: 951 White Oak Road Parcel ID: ED-05-068.14-05-85.00-000 Legend Existing Zoning: C-PO Commercial and Professional Office zone 2012 Buildings Proposed Zoning: IO Institutional and Office zone Owner: Hansen White Oak Partners, LLC Zoning Date: 9/13/2018 Dover Parcels 0 100 200 400 Feet « Subject Property

MEMORANDUM Department of Planning & Inspections P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Phone: (302) 736-7196 Fax (302) 736-4217 DATE: October 29, 2018 TO: City Council FROM: Planning Office SUBJECT: Z-18-02 Petition of Opposition objecting to the Rezoning of 951 White Oak Road A Petition of Opposition was received during the Planning Commission Public Hearing on October 15, 2018 regarding Rezoning Application Z-18-02 Lands of Hansen White Oak Partners, LLC: Rezoning CPO to IO. The Petition from area property owners and residents of the White Oak Road/North Halsey Road area contained a petition with 64 signatures from numerous properties in the area and others objecting to the proposed rezoning of 951 White Oak Road, Dover. Title 22 §305 of Delaware Code outlines the criteria for determining the viability of a petition opposing a rezoning request and how a legislative body of a municipality is to proceed in processing the petition. Delaware Code requires that when 20% of eligible lots participate in a petition, the legislative body for the municipality must achieve a three-fourths favorable decision to proceed with the rezoning of the property. Staff evaluated the Petition along with available property records to determine the adjacency of the signatories’ lots/properties to 951 White Oak Road as it relates to the requirements of Delaware Code 22 §305. The Petition is evaluated based upon the presence (or lack thereof) of signatures from the 16 eligible surrounding properties. The attached Petition Exhibit Map and Zoning Petition Summary Analysis Spreadsheet shows information from the analysis. • The Petition Exhibit Map shows the subject at 951 White Oak Road in yellow. The Eligible Properties shown in blue are those lots within 100 feet (Red Line) of the subject property and those lots within 100 feet of the street frontage (Orange Line) of the subject property. The Stars indicate petitioners (with Dover address) and Circle-X indicated petitioners owning condo units (with out-of-City address). • The Petition Summary Analysis Spreadsheet lists the property owners of the 16 Eligible Properties and indicates those that signed the Petition (marked with yes and highlighted). It also lists the other signatories (with address provided) on the Petition. Planning Staff notes the following from our analysis: • The signers of the Petition and their associated provided address generally indicate locations in White Oak Condominiums, properties along White Oak Road and North Halsey Road, and out-of-City addresses. The signers are property owners, tenants, or other interested parties. In some cases, multiple individuals signed at one address/location.

Z-18-02 Memorandum on Petition of Opposition Page 2 of 2 • The subject property is adjacent to the lot containing White Oak Condominiums. White Oak Condominiums consists of 84 units in apartment style buildings. For purposes of the Petition evaluation, the lot was counted as one Eligible Property. Planning Staff notes that from our analysis at least 38 petition signers are associated with the White Oak Condominiums representing at least 23 condo units. In Summary, the results of the Petition Analysis are as follows: • 3 out of 16 Eligible Property Owners signed the Petition. • The total number of eligible and verifiable petitioners is 3. • 3/16 eligible and verifiable petitioners equates to 18.75%. The Petition is not valid as per Del. Code 22 §305. Any action to approve the Rezoning does not require a three-fourths majority of City Council.

City of Dover Z-18-02 Petition Exhibit Department of Planning & Inspections 347 231 358 236 230 R-8 1261 341 223 215 350 224 1255 333 R-8 230 213 ley R ad 1245 344 216 Br 325 208 277 336 209 d ^^ 1231 1254 319 ^ r Dr R-8 ! ? 330 1225 Dr 1248 299 ^^ ^ 324 307 en 205 ri s on 1240 ^ ^! ?^ 316 Frea rD r ho w e 229 1211 1217 r Ha 1234 ^? ^ ! Eis 1205 R-8 1226 ^^^ 310 1218 261 RG-2 ^^^^ 1001 ^ 304 1212 1206 234 1204 C-1 SC-2 ^^ ! ?^ ^ 226 1202 196 ^^ ^^ ^ R-8 218 1105 ^! ?! ? 1101 1160 165 ^ ^ ce uan 163 S pr 1017 C-1 ^ C-PO 1100 R-7 Rd 951 263 195 257 nt e 1018 193 Ce ra ^ 1016 tD ov er ^ 1014 RG-3 Rd 1012 181 255 ak 170 O ite ^ 175 h 164 W 926 173 163 160 Mi ts R-7 R-7 157 154 R 170 ch er 251 C-4 912 918 ^ 153 149 148 d 144 255 904 162 158 ^^ 143 137 140 153 245 828 R-7 150 ^ 134 151 822 163 146 ^^ Halse 135 128 R-7 149 R-7 131 124 812 157 136 yR 129 164 118 Hwy 804 ^ d ont R-7 lan 151 126 ^ Up 125 Dup 112 ^ Petitioners with Dover addresses: 45 out of 64 243 728 159 156 dA ve 145 ^ 120 91 106 155 e 152 139 114 ? Out-of-city petitioners owning R-7 condos 151 Av 89 142 712 hill ill 146 on eligible property: 6 out of 64160 ge nh 133 108 Ed ee 87 C- 708 Gr 147 140 C-4 154 129 4 Properties eligible 206 for 180 petition represented: Ave 150 143 134 121 102 ^ 85 90 191 179 137 83 86 3 out in g sH wy of 16 (18.75%) 146 133 130 126 R-7 117 96 90 R-7 81 K Title: Lands of Hansen White Oak Partners Legend Address: 951 White Oak Road 100 ft. from opposite Parcel ID: ED-05-068.14-05-85.00-000 street line Existing Zoning: CPO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) 100 ft. from property Proposed Zoning: IO (Institutional and Office Zone) Zoning Owner: Hansen White Oak Partners LLC Date: 10/29/2018 Subject Property Eligibile Properties « 0 135 270 540 Feet Dover Parcels 2012 Buildings

Rezoning Petition Summary Analysis 10-29-2018 Lands of Hansen White Oak Partners LLC (Z-18-02) 951 White Oak Road Eligible Petitioners, Del. Code Title 22 c. 3 §305 Is Petitioner Owner Name Street # Street Owner Address 1 Owner Address 2 Owner City O. State Owner Zip No FEDERAL NATIONAL MORT ASSOC 1004 WHITE OAK RD PO BOX 650043 DALLAS TX 75265 No WILLIAMS,SCOTTIE & TAMEKA 226 FREAR DR 226 FREAR DR DOVER DE 19901 No DEVITA,ROSALINA O (LTR) & 1014 WHITE OAK RD DEVITA,WILLIAM V & OTHERS 1014 WHITE OAK RD DOVER DE 19901 No MOORE,WENDY LEE 304 FREAR DR 65 WISTERIA DR MILFORD DE 19963 No HANDY,JEANETTE B 926 WHITE OAK RD 926 WHITE OAK RD DOVER DE 19901 No AUSTIN,ROBERT ALLEN JR & 1018 WHITE OAK RD AUSTIN,BARBARA JEAN 1402 MUD MILL RD MARYDEL DE 19964 No RODRIGUEZ,HIRAM ALFONSO 1017 WHITE OAK RD 1017 WHITE OAK RD DOVER DE 19901 No HANSEN WHITE OAK PARTNERS LLC 951 WHITE OAK RD 91 TRILLIUM DR MAGNOLIA DE 19962 No WILSON,WILLIAM E & 1101 WHITE OAK RD SIMS-WILSON,MARTHA L & SIMS,CARRYE M DOVER DE 19901 Yes SAMMANDER,OSMAN M & AYESHA 1001 WHITE OAK RD APT F21 151 LAKE DR SMYRNA DE 19977 No BLAKE,ANDREW C & MOGIBOLA 218 FREAR DR 218 FREAR DR DOVER DE 19901 No 257 N DUPONT HWY LLC 257 N DUPONT HWY 230 N DUPONT HWY NEW CASTLE DE 19720 Yes BURRIS,SHEILA H 173 N HALSEY RD 173 N HALSEY RD DOVER DE 19901 Yes BROOKS,ANN N 1012 WHITE OAK RD 1012 WHITEOAK RD DOVER DE 19901 No HAMMER,SANDRA 234 FREAR DR 234 FREAR DR DOVER DE 19904 No WATKINS,DANIELLE M 1016 WHITE OAK RD 1016 WHITE OAK RD DOVER DE 19901 Other Petitioners Petitioner Name Petitioner Role Street # Street Apartment # at 1001 White Oak Rd (if applicable) City State Zip Code Robert D. Balling property owner 126 North Halsey Rd Dover DE 19901 Edith Romero other resident 137 North Halsey Rd Dover DE 19901 Sheralyn Rubinson other resident 129 North Halsey Rd Dover DE 19901 Luis Nieves property owner 137 North Halsey Rd Dover DE 19901 Adam S. Rosado property owner 102 North Halsey Rd Dover DE 19901 Kathy Meyer property owner 157 North Halsey Rd Dover DE 19901 Thomas Plummer property owner 149 North Halsey Rd Dover DE 19901 Lorrie Plummer property owner 149 North Halsey Rd Dover DE 19901 Michael McDaniel property owner 143 North Halsey Rd Dover DE 19901 John W. Holland property owner 120 North Halsey Rd Dover DE 19901 Alita A. Nitt other resident 1012 White Oak Rd Dover DE 19901 George A. Dean Jr. leaseholder 1001 White Oak Rd Apt. F-11 Dover DE 19901 Franklin Earvase leaseholder 1001 White Oak Rd Apt. K-12 Dover DE 19901 Christopher McGourn leaseholder 1001 White Oak Rd Apt. M-11 Dover DE 19901 Carlene Loper leaseholder 1001 White Oak Rd Apt. L-31 Dover DE 19901 Alexes C. Sauwgeus leaseholder 1001 White Oak Rd Apt. H-22 Dover DE 19901 Crystal Chapman leaseholder 1001 White Oak Rd Apt. F-22 Dover DE 19901 Ivy Wright leaseholder 1001 White Oak Rd Apt. F-32 Dover DE 19901 Taisha Cameron leaseholder 1001 White Oak Rd Apt. H-12 Dover DE 19901 Ternikka Jarret leaseholder 1001 White Oak Rd Apt. L-22 Dover DE 19901 John O. Mitcholl leaseholder 1001 White Oak Rd Apt. I-12 Dover DE 19901 Reginald Blocker leaseholder 1001 White Oak Rd Apt. M-21 Dover DE 19901

Other Petitioners Petitioner Petitioner Role Street # Street Apartment # at 1001 White Oak Rd (if applicable) City State Zip Code Kenny Jones leaseholder 1001 White Oak Rd Apt. M-21 Dover DE 19901 Charles General Darden other resident 1001 White Oak Rd Apt. J-12 Dover DE 19901 Kathryn Darden other resident 1001 White Oak Rd N/A Dover DE 19901 Valerie Cook other resident 1001 White Oak Rd N/A Dover DE 19901 Ronetta Watson other resident 1001 White Oak Rd Apt. A-12 Dover DE 19901 Darlene Walker leaseholder 1001 White Oak Rd Apt. F-31 Dover DE 19901 Ellia Lloyd leaseholder 1001 White Oak Rd Apt. F-31 Dover DE 19901 Ruth Riddick other resident 1001 White Oak Rd N/A Dover DE 19901 Marshall L. Pounds Jr other resident 1001 White Oak Rd N/A Dover DE 19901 Rosaline Bemiet other resident 1001 White Oak Rd Apt. J-22 Dover DE 19901 Lynette Peeler other resident 1001 White Oak Rd Apt. J-22 Dover DE 19901 Jal D. Benner other resident 1001 White Oak Rd Apt. J-32 Dover DE 19901 Alex B. Fuente other resident 1001 White Oak Rd Apt. D-11 Dover DE 19901 William Cooper other resident 1001 White Oak Rd Apt. D-11 Dover DE 19901 Yolanda Edwards leaseholder 1001 White Oak Rd Apt. I-22 Dover DE 19901 Edward Prettyman other resident 1001 White Oak Rd Apt. B-12 Dover DE 19901 Fran Maynard property owner 1001 White Oak Rd Apt. B-12 Dover DE 19901 Ken Schrader leaseholder 1001 White Oak Rd Apt. C-21 Dover DE 19901 Kim Y. Derson leaseholder 1001 White Oak Rd Apt. C-11 Dover DE 19901 Sean Wright property owner 1001 White Oak Rd Apt. K-11 Dover DE 19901 Michael Miller leaseholder 1001 White Oak Rd Apt. G-21 Dover DE 19901 Sunita Anvari possible local property owner 743 Dorchester Ct Smyrna DE 19977 Fariba Sammander possible local property owner 523 South Carter Rd Smyrna DE 19977 Ahmad Sammander confirmed local condo owner 523 South Carter Rd Apt. J-32 Smyrna DE 19977 Asha Sammander possible local property owner 61 Wicksfield Blvd Smyrna DE 19977 Liya Haji Ghulam Yahya possible local property owner 523 South Carter Rd Smyrna DE 19977 Jonathan McIhrain possible local property owner P.O. Box 635 Frederica DE 19946 Megan McIhrain possible local property owner P.O. Box 635 Frederica DE 19946 Marie Hudson confirmed local condo owner P.O. Box 515 Apt. M-21, Apt. F-31 Frederica DE 19946 Dennis Hudson confirmed local condo owner P.O. Box 515 Apt. M-21 Frederica DE 19946 Shabana Amiri possible local property owner 50 Lake Dr Smyrna DE 19977 Abdul Raziq Sammander possible local property owner 50 E. Pembrook Dr Smyrna DE 19977 Nasir Baqi possible local property owner 341 Hamilton Way Smyrna DE 19977 Domen Enneh possible local property owner 151 Lake Dr Smyrna DE 19977 Maria Sammander confirmed local condo owner 225 Sunnyside Rd Apt. I-12 Smyrna DE 19977 Hared Anvari possible local property owner 743 Dorchester Ct Smyrna DE 19977 Laila Omaid possible local property owner 631 Widener Lane Smyrna DE 19977 Shafiq Samander possible local property owner 20 E Abbey Dr Townsend DE 19734 Mahmood Omaid confirmed local condo owner 631 Widener Lane Apt. I-12 Smyrna DE 19977 SUMMARY Lots Eligible to Petition 16 Eligible Petitioners (num.) 3 Eligible Petitioners (percent) 18.75%

FINAL READING City of Dover PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2018-10 1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY 2 OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 951 WHITE OAK ROAD 4 WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within the 5 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 property 7 described below from C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) to IO (Institutional and Office 8 Zone). 9 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 10 DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 11 1) That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning 12 Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation from 13 C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office) to IO (Institutional and Office) on that property located 14 at 951 White Oak Road, consisting of 1.1152+/- acres, owned by Hansen White Oak Partners, LLC 15 (Equitable Owner: L&S Davis Properties, Inc.) 16 (Tax Parcel: ED-05-068.14-05-85.00-000; Planning Reference: Z-18-02; Council District: Third) 17 ADOPTED: * 18 S:\ORDINANCES\2018\DRAFT\ORDINANCE #2018-10 REZONING-951 WHITE OAK ROAD\ORDINANCE #2018-10 REZONING - 951 WHITE OAK ROAD - FINAL READING.wpd 19 20 Actions History 21 11/13/2018 - Scheduled for Public Hearing/Final Reading - City Council 22 10/15/2018 - Public Hearing - Planning Commission 23 09/24/2018 - First Reading - City Council

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Council Committee of the Whole met on October 23, 2018 at 6:00 p.m., with Councilman Hare presiding in the absence of Council President Slavin presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson (arrived at 6:27 p.m.), Mr. Sudler, Mr. Neil, Mr. Cole, Mr. Polce, and Mr. Lindell. Mr. Lewis and Mayor Christiansen were absent. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Mr. Garfinkel and Mr. Shelton (Safety Advisory and Transportation), and Mrs. Doyle and Ms. Scarborough (Utility). By unanimous consent the Committee amended the agenda to change the order of the committees, as follows: Utility Committee and Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee. UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee met with Chairman Cole presiding. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS By unanimous consent, the agenda was approved as presented. Small Cell Wireless Action Plan Mr. Jim Robinson, Electric Director, reviewed a presentation entitled “City of Dover Electric Department, Small Cell Wireless Action Plan.” Mr. Sudler asked what the expected life span is for this new product, and what one (1) negative aspect would be in regard to this topic. Responding, Mr. Robinson stated that it is difficult to say what the life span is of certain equipment, explaining that as it evolves, it will be changed out. He informed members that the devices that would be installed first would be a small cell version of the current 4G devices, since the 5G devices are still under evolution. Mr. Robinson stated that staff’s current task is to ensure that if the installation of one (1) device is approved, entities do not install multiple devices on the same pole without the City’s permission. He explained that due to rapid changes in technology, staff is going to make sure that the City’s ordinances cover any issues associated with moving equipment in the future. He indicated that staff would not want rate-payers or the City to be responsible for taking abandoned equipment off poles in the future. Mr. Robinson stated that he thinks that there are a lot of pros associated with doing this and it is inevitable. He advised that potential public perception could be a negative aspect, explaining that if the City is not proactive in advertising or communicating to the public there could be some resistance when people begin to notice new devices on the poles. Mr. Robinson noted that it may make sense to have an open house in the future to provide an opportunity for the public to share their thoughts and concerns. Mr. Robinson advised that staff did not believe there were any potential safety issues regarding these devices, since they will be installed on existing poles. Mr. Neil stated that he saw this as an economic opportunity for companies that could utilize this type of small cell wireless service and for them to know that the City is doing this would be very positive. Mr. Neil asked if the City or those entities applying to install devices would be responsible for the

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 2018 PAGE 2 cost of installation and any costs associated with changes that may occur with the installation. In response, Mr. Robinson stated that all incremental costs will be borne by the requestor. He explained that the requestor would also be responsible for paying for any make-ready work the City has to perform, for example if staff has to modify an existing pole or put in a long power pole. Mr. Neil noted that he understood there would be an application fee and asked if the City could also charge an annual fee for the use of the poles. Responding, Mr. Robinson advised that there is a two-part structure: 1) the application fee and 2) an ongoing annual fee for the use of the City’s poles. He explained that the annual fee is consistent with what the City currently charges entities, such as Verizon and Comcast, for utilizing the City’s poles. Mr. Robinson noted that it is too expensive and complicated to put a meter on each device; however, staff will be able to determine the annual electricity usage the same way they determine the cost of operating a streetlight, and that cost will be built into the annual fee. Mr. Polce stated that he was really excited when the Advanced Wireless Infrastructure Investment Act was signed by the General Assembly over a year ago and is really excited about this opportunity for the City of Dover. He advised that he thought that the City now needed to think about what’s in the City’s best interest and how to be good stewards of the City’s infrastructure. Mr. Polce stated that he thought that it would be wise to move aggressively on this matter, especially as members think about the ideals of what a smart city would look like. He explained that he thought that this is a tremendous opportunity for the City to incorporate the demands of new technology which will provide the ability to leverage economic development. Mr. Polce indicated that the Town of Fenwick Island had already adopted an ordinance regarding this matter, which was a lot less controversial than the City of Newark’s ordinance, and he suggested that it would be beneficial for staff to review both ordinances. Mr. Polce noted that he was optimistic and, quoting John F. Kennedy, stated “be bold and do what the ordinary fear.” Mr. Lindell stated that he appreciated staff being proactive regarding this matter and that he agreed with the sentiments of Mr. Polce about the City being at the forefront of the latest technological advancements. Referring to Mr. Robinson’s presentation, Mr. Lindell asked if Mr. Robinson mentioned that other cities were trying to stall this process through ordinances because they are opposed to it. Responding, Mr. Robinson clarified that it is not the municipalities. Mr. Lindell stated that he thought that the City should move aggressively on this matter and suggested that the ordinances be designed to protect the City interests and encourage growth in a responsible way. Mr. Robinson, noting that the carriers are far ahead on these issues, advised that staff would be very careful in developing the ordinance language and was consulting appropriate legal counsel. He stated that staff had also reviewed master license agreements for two (2) of the entities which was helpful. Mr. Robinson advised members that it was important to consider how to begin and also how to protect the City over the long-term, explaining that there could be hundreds of these devices within City limits within several years. He noted that, in the future, the City could receive 100 applications at a time and will have to turn them around within a specific amount of time. Mr. Lindell stated that he agreed with Mr. Robinson’s comments and he thought that the City should protect its interests without creating unnecessary delays. Mr. Cole thanked staff for their efforts regarding this matter.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 2018 PAGE 3 Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Utility Committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:32 p.m. SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee met with Councilman Hare presiding in the absence of Chairman Lewis. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Polce requested that consideration of item #2 - Proposed Ordinance #2018-12 Amending Chapter 70 - Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions, Section - 70-5 Aggressive Panhandling and Appendix F - Fees and Fines (Sponsors: Hare and Polce) be deferred. By unanimous consent, the agenda was approved as amended. Ambulance Services - Requested Level of Service Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Ambulance Services - Requested Level of Service. She advised that this matter was brought back to the Council Committee of the Whole/Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee so that members could provide staff with direction regarding what they would like to see in the RFP when it is resubmitted to the proposers. Mrs. Mitchell stated that Council discussed giving the proposers two (2) options: (A) the level of service requested in the original RFP, and a second option (B), so she wanted to ask members what the desired level of service is for option B. Mrs. Mitchell noted that Mayor Christiansen had submitted correspondence dated October 23, 2018, as well as a copy of the Ambulance Services - Requested Level of Service Action Form with the Desired Level of Service (B) section completed, indicating his preference for the level of service (Attachment #1). Mrs. Mitchell noted that the contract start date would be April 1, 2019. She stated that PrimeCare’s contract had been extended to April 1 to provide enough time to complete the process for this proposal. Mrs. Mitchell explained that this would also give the contractor time to get ready to start on April 1, 2019 without providing a transition period. Staff recommended establishing the level of emergency medical services (EMS) desired by the Committee and recommending the same to City Council for inclusion in an addendum to the original RFP #19-0001CM. Mr. Hare noted that Mayor Christiansen’s desired level of service was two (2) units 24/7 with two (2) EMT-Bs on each unit and a floating unit with two (2) EMT-Bs as needed, and that there should be two (2) EMT-Bs for all units.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 2018 PAGE 4 Mr. Sudler stated that he was in agreement with recommending and incorporating the two (2) dedicated 24/7 BLS units manned by two (2) EMT-Bs as recommended by Mayor Christiansen. Mr. Anderson stated that he agreed with Mr. Sudler, noting if Cheswold has two (2) EMT’s, it doesn’t make sense for Dover not to. Mr. Polce noted that the City’s annual budgeted amount is approximately $200,000 and asked what the average annual cost was for the proposals submitted for one (1) BLS. In response, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the lowest price vendor was $150,000 for one (1) year; however she explained that she would need to go back to review the prices for years two (2) and three (3). Mr. Polce asked if Mrs. Mitchell thought that the proposals for two (2) BLS units 24/7 would exceed the City’s annual budget. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she could not say for certain. She explained that the original RFP included the number of calls, and the proposers will have to run the numbers to determine what they think the number of transports will be, the differential, and what they can afford to do. Mr. Polce asked if the RFP Committee had provided any additional recommendations, suggestions or feedback to their initial scope. In response, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she did not consult the members of the RFP Committee, explaining that since this seemed to be a desire of Council and the Committee, she just brought it back to determine what members want as the second alternative level of service. Mr. Lindell expressed his frustration that Council did not handle this prior to the original RFP being issued. He stated that he thought, in the future, members of Council needed to do a better job of discussing their wishes with staff regarding RFP’s. Mr. Lindell noted that he agreed with Mayor Christiansen’s recommendations; however, he felt members should have expressed their wishes six (6) months ago before the RFP was issued. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mrs. Mitchell confirmed that the City used the State’s standard in the original RFP and it was the standard previously used as well. Mr. Neil expressed concern that those providing mutual assistance may not operate at this proposed level of service. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend that the City incorporate two (2) dedicated 24/7 BLS units manned by two (2) EMT-B nationally-certified personnel in an addendum to the original RFP #19-0001CM, seconded by Mr. Lindell. Mr. Hare emphasized that when the RFP is sent out, those responding should submit proposals based on the City’s request, not what they think the City should have. He stated that he thought that this situation could probably have been avoided if the City originally received proposals based on what was requested. The motion to recommend that the City incorporate two (2) dedicated 24/7 BLS units manned by two (2) EMT-B nationally-certified personnel in an addendum to the original RFP #19-0001CM carried with Mr. Neil voting no.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 2018 PAGE 5 Proposed Ordinance #2018-12 Amending Chapter 70 - Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions, Section - 70-5 Aggressive Panhandling and Appendix F - Fees and Fines (Sponsors: Hare and Polce) The Committee deferred consideration of this item, at the request of Mr. Polce. Mr. Sudler moved for adjournment of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Cole and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:42 p.m. Mr. Sudler moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cole and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:42 p.m. William F. Hare Acting Chair TAS/TM/dd/jt S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Committee-Minutes\2018\10-23-2018 CCW Minutes.wpd Attachments Attachment #1 - Correspondence provided by Mayor Christiansen dated October 23, 2018, as well as a copy of the Ambulance Services - Requested Level of Service Action Form with the Desired Level of Service (B) section completed, indicating his preference for the level of service

ATTACHMENT #1 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 10/23/2018 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR October 23,2018 Council President Tim Slavin P.O. Box 475 15 The Plaza Dover, DE 19901 Dear Mr. President: I apologize for my absence from the meeting of the Council Committee of the Whole. I am entertaining a trade group from our sister city in Miyagi Japan. I would like to add my personal comments to the discussion of item number 1 of the Safety Advisory Committee: The Ambulance Contract Level of Service. I, as a former EMT and current active firefighter for the Dover Fire Department, believe that I can offer some incite to what I see as staffing levels for our ambulance service contract to better serve our growing community with the highest level of EMS service. I believe that the City and our citizens would be best served by two dedicated 2417 BLS units manned by two EMT-B nationally certified personnel. I further believe that an additional floating unit should be considered. The times for this unit would be to supplement the two dedicated units during peak hours of need based on call analysis and statistical information. It is my feeling that such an arrangement would adequately accommodate our population which fluctuates from 38,000 (night time) to an estimated 60,000+ (daytime) which includes citizens, visitors, commuters and employees of our many offices and businesses. Those units would provide needed coverage for our growing senior population as well as increasing incidents for opioid and other types of calls for help. Thank you for your time and consideration for the above to be part of a contract for service for the best protection for our citizens. lly Yours for a Better Dover, ~. ----- Robin R. Christiansen Mayor, City of Dover Cc: Members of City Council Donna S. Mitchell, City Manager p.o. Box 475, Dover, DE 19903-0475 Community Exellellce Through Quality Service

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council Committee of the Whole - Safety, Advisory, & Transportation DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: City Manager's Office DATE SUBMITIED: 10-16-18 PREPAREDBY: Donna Mitchell, City Manager SUBJECT: Ambulance Services - Requested Level of Service REFERENCE:RFPNumber #19-0001CM EXPENDITUREREQUIRED: ANNUAL BUDGET: FY19 $245,000 FUNDING SOURCE(Dept'/Page in CIP & Budget): FY19 Budget TIME TABLE: Effective April 1, 2019 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Establish level of EMS Service desired by the Committee and recommend the same to City Council for inclusion in an addendum to the original RFP#19-0001CM. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The Ambulance Service RFP #19-0001CM recommendation was presented to CCW - Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee on August 28, 2018. During its meeting of the Committee discussed the level of service for Ambulance Services since two of the proposals submitted included a higher level of service than was requested in the Request for Proposal (RFP). No action was taken by the Committee on this item. At its meeting of September 10, 2018, City Council continued the ambulance level of service discussion. Council referred this matter back to the CCW- Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee with instructions to staff to determine how best to request revised responses from each of the respondents which address both the one (1) and two (2) EMT crew options and come back with revised responses from each of the respondents. Staff recommends that an addendum be added to the Request for Proposal for an Alternate Service level as desired by the Committee and Council. The original proposals cannot be adjusted from their original form except for the Addendum response and pricing of both levels of service (A & B). The current level of service as budgeted is as follows- RFPRequested Level of Service (A) Desired Level of Service (B) First unit 24 hours, 7 days per week t ",(Jut! ),1/1 (2.].emr~f f Second unit 16 hours, 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. F/~ltizS 1./J/YIf 8s liS n(t. ~ t I- ~i f> I" a,J I UflJ~ Staffing - 1EMT 1 EMR with EVOC Since the time of the above discussion, the Dover Fire Department voted not to permit any use of their facilities for Ambulance Services. Staff is agreeable to accept a change in the Saint Francis proposal for a mutually agreed to location provision that was included in the Request for Proposal. The City will also be including a contract re-opener provision to partner with the vendor when bidding on other services in Dover's EMS territory. The contract start date will be April 1, 2019 ~~.

SPECIAL COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Council Committee of the Whole met on November 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m., with Councilman Hare presiding in the absence of Council President Slavin. Members of Council present were Mr. Sudler, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Cole, Mr. Polce, and Mr. Lindell. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Neil were absent. Mayor Christiansen was also absent. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Mrs. Doyle (Utility), and Mr. Shevock (Legislative, Finance, and Administration). Ms. Scarborough (Utility) was absent. UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee met with Chairman Cole presiding. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Lewis moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Lindell and unanimously carried. Evaluation of Bids - FY18 Inflow and Infiltration Replacement Project Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the evaluation of bids for the FY18 Inflow and Infiltration Replacement Project. Staff recommended approval of the low bid submitted by Gateway Construction, Inc. in the amount of $435,980 for the replacement of existing 8" and 12" diameter sanitary sewer main and replacement of sanitary sewer laterals. The work will be accomplished in College Road, Overlook/East Lake Garden, the Wesley College Area, and Rodney Village. In response to Mrs. Doyle, Mrs. Mitchell explained that the bid documents would have been sent out prior to the October 19, 2018 bid opening and there would probably have been 60 days provided for contractors to review all of the documents and submit bids. Mrs. Mitchell, referring to the I & I Location Maps labeled Exhibit A-D, explained that the light blue lines depicted the lines being replaced, not the dark blue lines. Mr. Polce moved to recommend approval of the low bid submitted by Gateway Construction, Inc. in the amount of $435,980 for the replacement of existing 8" and 12" diameter sanitary sewer main and replacement of sanitary sewer laterals, as recommended by staff. The work will be accomplished in College Road, Overlook/East Lake Garden, the Wesley College Area, and Rodney Village. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindell and unanimously carried. Mr. Lindell moved for adjournment of the Utility Committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:03 p.m.

SPECIAL COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2018 PAGE 2 LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Chairman Hare presiding. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Lewis moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Lindell and unanimously carried. Permission to Recruit - Sanitation Supervisor Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, reviewed the permission to recruit request and hiring justification outline for the Sanitation Field Supervisor II position. She noted that Mr. Mike Hamlett was previously supervising the Facilities, Sanitation, and Fleet Divisions and he was not able to do any one of the jobs very well because he was spread among the three (3) different divisions and was often on a sanitation truck due to vacancies. Mrs. Mitchell stated that she saw a need to provide guidance and direction to the facilities maintenance staff, so she moved Mr. Hamlett over the Fleet and Facilities Divisions. She advised members that she received an email from Mr. Hamlett on October 5, 2018, extending his appreciation to all the department heads because the fleet division was able to complete 100% of the monthly preventative maintenance (PMs) for vehicles for the first time in five (5) years. She noted that prior to this, they had averaged from 10% to 50%. Mrs. Mitchell stated that having someone dedicated to guide and supervisor the fleet employees has made a big difference. She explained that she was requesting permission to recruit a Sanitation Supervisor to allow Mr. Hamlett to focus on the Fleet and Facilities Division. Mrs. Mitchell advised members that this position was not approved in this fiscal year’s budget, however, there is money in the budget to cover it this year. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend approval of the permission to recruit for the position of Sanitation Field Supervisor II. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried. Proposed Amendments to Financial Policy - Expenditure Policy #5 Use of Appropriations Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, reviewed the proposed amendments to the Financial Policy - Expenditure Policy #5 Use of Appropriations. She explained that the amendment would allow staff to use personnel expense savings for capital investment purposes rather than to fund the unfunded liabilities when bringing forward the carry-forward balances for the prior year’s budget. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the unfunded liabilities will continue to be funded based on the actuarial recommended percentages of payroll. Staff recommended approval of the proposed amendments. Mr. Cole moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendments, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. Mr. Lewis moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cole and unanimously carried.

SPECIAL COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2018 PAGE 3 Meeting adjourned at 6:06 p.m. Mr. Cole moved for adjournment of the Special Council Committee of the Whole meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindell and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:07 p.m. William F. Hare Acting Chair WFH/TM/dd/jt S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Committee-Minutes\2018\11-05-2018 CCW Minutes.wpd

Monthly Report September 2018 Office of City Assessor

ASSESSOR’S REPORT Number of Deeds Stamped for Transfer Tax Dollar Amount for the Month of Sep. 2017/2018 the Month of Sep. 2017/2018 43 $200 50 Thousands 40 32 $109 26 24 $84 $34 30 19 15 $100 20 $26 10 0 3 5 4 2017 $0 $23 $4 $4 2017 0 $0 2018 2018 First Time Buyer for the Month Sep. 2017/2018 Realty Property of Sep. 2017/2018 Sales in Dollars Received Prior to Recording 50 43 $7 40 32 $8 $6 26 Res. Non‐First $5 $3 Millions $6 30 19 Time Buyers $4 $2 $0 $0 $0 2017 $2 20 Res. First Time $0 10 Buyers 2018 0 2017 2018 Major Updates July ‐ 18 Aug ‐ 18 Sept‐ 18 Assessment Change $1,491,700 $5,693,200 $1,372,800 Residential Sales Ratio Report Sales in Study Total Assessed Total Sale Price Ratio PRD Value 31 $5,136,100 $6,304,430 0.81 1.01 1

ASSESSOR’S REPORT 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. 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 being scanned and indexed into Fortis. 2

OCT 23, 2018 CITY OF DOVER PAGE: 1 10:44 AM SALES RATIO REPORT CA324 PARID NBHD LUC ADDRESS UNITS STYLE YRBLT STORIES SFLA GRADE CDU TOTAL APPR SALE DT PRICE ASR ED05-056.20-01-01.00 18 R10 102 MAPLE GLEN DR 1 1 2009 2 1790 B AV 187,000 21-SEP-18 220,000 ED05-066.16-02-08.00 3 R10 34 LOST TREE CT 1 8 1987 2 2160 B- AV 185,100 20-SEP-18 220,000 ED05-066.16-02-24.00 3 R10 36 MAPLE DALE RD 1 5 2000 2 3957 A- AV 390,500 26-SEP-18 320,000 ED05-067.00-02-36.00 10 R20 650 COLLEGE RD 2 8 1972 1 2076 C AV 150,200 14-SEP-18 232,500 ED05-067.09-02-05.00 3 R10 282 TROON RD 1 5 1987 2 3522 B+ AV 327,400 14-SEP-18 420,000 ED05-067.15-05-21.00 10 R10 842 WOODCREST TRN 1 13 1984 2 1360 C AV 115,000 13-SEP-18 137,900 ED05-067.16-02-30.00 10 R10 215 COLUMBIA AVE 1 1 1934 2 1878 C+ AV 166,900 28-SEP-18 198,000 ED05-067.17-04-20.00 3 R10 136 SWEETGUM DR 1 6 1994 2 2164 B- AV 188,200 11-SEP-18 241,000 ED05-068.17-02-45.00 8 R10 212 N STATE ST 1 1 1884 1.5 3359 B AV 212,200 21-SEP-18 240,000 ED05-068.18-02-81.00 7 R10 42 N HALSEY RD 1 3 1951 1 1411 C GD 137,700 17-SEP-18 190,000 ED05-076.03-01-78.00 14 R10 169 W SHELDRAKE CIR 1 13 2009 2 1855 C+ AV 138,400 05-SEP-18 180,000 ED05-076.03-02-29.00 14 R10 392 PARADEE DR 1 13 2009 2 1760 C+ AV 130,600 28-SEP-18 155,000 ED05-076.05-03-45.00 14 R10 127 STONEY DR 1 8 1988 2 1763 C+ AV 139,000 24-SEP-18 180,000 ED05-076.05-06-17.00 14 R10 107 MATTHEW CT 1 5 1994 2 2250 C+ AV 164,100 21-SEP-18 220,000 ED05-076.06-02-01.00- 103 R50 6 ESSEX HALL 1 20 1973 1 794 B GD 56,800 11-SEP-18 55,000

OCT 23, 2018 CITY OF DOVER PAGE: 2 10:44 AM SALES RATIO REPORT CA324 PARID NBHD LUC ADDRESS UNITS STYLE YRBLT STORIES SFLA GRADE CDU TOTAL APPR SALE DT PRICE ASR 521 ED05-076.10-02-17.00 16 R10 15 MIFFLIN RD 1 14 1991 1 1524 C+ AV 141,800 14-SEP-18 192,610 ED05-076.10-02-32.00 16 R10 1514 FAWN ST 1 5 1989 2 2044 C+ AV 157,900 20-SEP-18 229,900 ED05-076.10-02-49.00 16 R10 1529 FAWN ST 1 5 1990 2 1293 C+ AV 129,100 21-SEP-18 209,000 ED05-076.12-02-64.00 9 R10 432 W REED ST 13 2017 2 1302 C+ AV 102,800 18-SEP-18 129,000 ED05-076.20-04-15.00 5 R10 961 SHANK RD 1 14 1991 1 1428 C AV 148,300 13-SEP-18 194,500 ED05-077.07-06-82.00 6 R10 356 NOB HILL RD 1 2018 2 1560 B- AV 183,600 14-SEP-18 213,490 ED05-077.07-06-83.00 6 R10 350 NOB HILL RD 14 2018 1 1352 B- AV 182,100 18-SEP-18 234,260 ED05-077.07-08-06.00 6 R10 339 BLUECOAT ST 14 2018 1 1352 B- AV 183,500 18-SEP-18 228,970 ED05-077.07-08-08.00 6 R10 335 BLUECOAT ST 1 2018 2 1920 B- AV 191,500 25-SEP-18 248,000 ED05-077.11-02-52.00 6 R10 604 ROBERTA AVE 1 16 1967 1 1345 C FR 109,800 27-SEP-18 187,500 ED05-077.18-02-48.00 4 R10 180 EVERGREEN DR 1 14 1952 1 1254 C FR 91,500 13-SEP-18 155,900 ED05-085.06-01-09.00 11 R10 35 RIVERSIDE RD 1 5 2005 2 2052 B AV 219,800 21-SEP-18 236,900 ED05-085.08-01-44.00 12 R10 17 STEWART CT 1 14 1962 1 1716 C GD 182,200 07-SEP-18 100,000 ED05-085.08-02-20.00 12 R10 495 FIDDLERS GRN 1 5 1964 2 1787 C+ AV 153,800 07-SEP-18 195,000 ED05-085.08-03-68.00 12 R10 317 FIDDLERS GRN 1 16 1966 1 1678 C+ AV 137,200 06-SEP-18 160,000 ED05-085.12-02-40.00 12 R10 301 MOCKINGBIRD AVE 1 16 1965 1 1800 C+ AV 132,100 28-SEP-18 180,000

CITY COUNCIL - FY 18/19 Page 1 of 3 CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT FUND JULY 1, 2018 - OCTOBER 29, 2018 110-1200-512.30-37 Current Balance - $19,992.22 COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT FUND - $2,500 FOR EACH COUNCIL MEMBER PER DISTRICT AND $5,000 FOR THE AT-LARGE COUNCIL MEMBER. THE PURPOSE OF THE BUDGETED AMOUNT $25,000.00 FUND IS TO ALLOW MEMBERS TO CONTRIBUTE FUNDS TO A SMALL PROJECT OR COMMUNITY NEEDS IN EACH DISTRICT. TOTAL $25,000.00 COUNCIL P.O. #/ TOTAL YEAR TO DATE SPONSOR VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE # CHARGES DATE BALANCE 07/20/18 Hare Downtown Councilman Hare authorized $100.00 of his Email dated $100.00 $100.00 $24,900.00 Dover community enhancement funds for the 07/19/2018 Partnership Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP) Captial City from W illiam (DDP) Farmers Market - Meet Me at the Market Hare to Traci Thermal Bag McDowell and Invoice from DDP 07/23/18 Anderson Destiny Councilman Anderson authorized $500.00 of his Email dated $500.00 $600.00 $24,400.00 Christian Church community enhancement funds for the Destiny 07/19/2018 Christian Church for the Book Bag Drive for Low from David Income Youth Anderson to the City Clerk's Office and letter from Pastor Jay Mast dated 07/23/2018 07/24/18 Anderson Inner City Councilman Anderson authorized $1,260.00 of Email dated $1,260.00 $1,860.00 $23,140.00 Cultural League his community enhancement funds for the Inner 06/23/2018 City Cultural League - Summer Youth Programs from David Anderson to Janella Tauchus and letter from Reuben Salters dated 07/24/2018 07/26/18 Slavin Inner City Councilman Slavin authorized $1000.00 of his Email dated $1,000.00 $2,860.00 $22,140.00 Cultural League community enhancement funds for the Inner 07/26/2018 City Cultural League - All City Music from Timothy Group/Program Slavin to Traci McDowell and letter from Reuben Salters dated 07/12/2018 10/29/18 S:\BUDGETS\Coun-19.qpw

CITY COUNCIL - FY 18/19 Page 2 of 3 08/07/18 Lewis Delaware Councilman Lewis authorized the designation of Letter from $211.94 $3,071.94 $21,928.06 Multicultural and $211.94 of his community enhancement DEMCO dated Civic funds to Delaware Multicultural and Civic 04/12/18 and Organization Organization (DEMCO, Inc.) for the remaining an email dated (DEMCO, Inc.) balance of the original requsted amount of 08/07/2018 $711.94 for Zeny Heat Press Machine Pro 6 in 1 from Brian in the amount of $264.99 or Lego Mindstorms Lewis to Traci Education EV3 Core Set in the amount of McDowell $411.95 or RCA Voyager 7" 16GB Tablet Android 6.0 in the amount of $35.00 ($500 was issued from FY 2017/18 Budget) 08/10/18 Polce Connections Councilman Polce authorized the designation of Email dated $1,435.84 $4,507.78 $20,492.22 Community $1435.84 of his community enhancement funds 08/06/18 from Support to Connections Community Support Programs Tanner Polce Programs, Inc. and Health Management Associates for their and Traci Healthy Neighborhoods Paramedicine Project. McDowell and an email dated 08/03/18 from Cheryl Heiks director of Health and Policy and Advocacy to Tanner Polce 10/11/18 Hare Modern Maturity Councilman Hare authorized the designation of Email dated $500.00 $5,007.78 $19,992.22 Center $500.00 of his community enhancement funds 10/11/18 from to Modern Maturity Center to be used for the W illiam Hare remodeling of the showers for their pool to make to Janella them safer for their clients Tauchus and a letter dated 10/05/18 from Carolyn Fredricks, President and CEO of the Modern Maturity Center to W illiam Hare $5,007.78 $19,992.22 $5,007.78 $19,992.22 $5,007.78 $19,992.22 $5,007.78 $19,992.22 10/29/18 S:\BUDGETS\Coun-19.qpw

CITY COUNCIL - FY 18/19 Page 3 of 3 Budgeted District Council YTD Expenditures Balance Amount Sponsor $5,000.00 At-Large Slavin $1,000.00 $4,000.00 $2,500.00 1st District Lindell $2,500.00 $2,500.00 1st District Polce $1,435.84 $1,064.16 $2,500.00 2nd District Hare $600.00 $1,900.00 $2,500.00 2nd District Lewis $211.94 $2,288.06 $2,500.00 3rd District Cole $2,500.00 $2,500.00 3rd District Neil $2,500.00 $2,500.00 4th District Anderson $1,760.00 $740.00 $2,500.00 4th District Sudler $2,500.00 TOTAL $5,007.78 $19,992.22 10/29/18 S:\BUDGETS\Coun-19.qpw

CITY MANAGER’S MONTHLY REPORT SEPTEMBER 2018

Average Disconnects 87 55 53 51 51 52 50 52 50 51 52 45 46 43 44 42 38 36 33 32 36 39 25 21 24 23 SEP-17 OCT-17 NOV-17 DEC-17 JAN-18 FEB-18 MAR-18 APR-18 MAY-18 JUN-18 JUL-18 AUG-18 SEP-18 Average Accounts Cut Per Day Average Accounts Available to Cut Per Day

Work Orders Processed 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 SEP-17 OCT-17 NOV-17 DEC-17 JAN-18 FEB-18 MAR-18 APR-18 MAY-18 JUN-18 JUL-18 AUG-18 SEP-18 Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 Series1 1,811 1,820 1,664 1,439 1,730 1,567 1,676 1,738 1,580 1,795 1,962 2,116 1,539 Payment Agreements / Extensions 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 Series1 525 554 455 448 688 740 522 441 452 410 483 562 465 CUSTOMER PAYMENT USAGE 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Drive-Thru Over the Mail, Drop Credit Cards Bank Drafts Window Counter Box 2019 YTD 6,024 13,039 56,599 733 5,481 2018 YTD 6,862 14,040 54,913 662 5,580

ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT Electric Divisions System Peak Total System Load Number of New Month outages customers Jan 17 63,172 Services Jan 17 113.04 Feb 17 54,811 Oct 16 8 224 Oct 16 27 Feb 17 106.4 Mar 17 60,690 Nov 16 6 4293 Nov 16 41 Mar 17 108.2 Dec 16 5 207 Dec 16 37 Apr 17 107.03 Apr 17 54,062 Jan 17 3 12 Jan 17 40 May 17 133.93 May 17 57,823 Feb 17 1 2 Feb 17 31 June 17 155.81 June 17 70,081 Mar 17 4 160 Mar 17 15 July 17 162.88 July 17 79,883 Apr 17 4 114 Apr 17 58 Aug 17 157.18 Aug 17 74,534 May 17 5 148 May 17 58 Sept 17 64,235 June 17 7 3084 June 17 25 Sept 17 137.01 July 17 19 2556 July 17 90 Oct 17 129.11 Oct 17 59,890 Aug 17 8 1466 Aug 17 24 Nov 17 98.13 Nov 17 56,552 Sept 17 2 1094 Sept 17 31 Dec 17 108.57 Dec 17 62,992 Oct 17 5 2311 Oct 17 83 Jan 18 67,204 Nov 17 7 176 Nov 17 41 Jan 18 116.70 Dec 17 2 261 Dec 17 25 Feb 18 106.55 Feb 18 55,759 Jan 18 4 263 Jan 18 17 Mar 18 101.78 Mar 18 61,286 Feb 18 1 32 Feb 18 89 Apr 18 100.68 Apr 18 55,574 Mar 18 29 3635 Mar 18 52 May 18 63,188 Apr 18 6 521 Apr 18 48 May 18 127.43 May 18 5 301 May 18 46 June 18 146.76 June 18 68,290 June 18 9 315 June 18 18 July 18 160.51 July 18 78,686 July 18 3 972 July 18 34 Aug 18 82,843 Aug 18 4 87 Aug 18 81 Aug 18 165.16 Sep 18 5 1331 Sep 18 43 Sep 18 160.41 Sep 18 70,142 Electric Monthly Outage Report The annual outage goal will be less than 295 minutes per customer, which is a Delaware Standard. This will be measured by calculating the System Average Interruption Duration Index. FY 19 YTD FY 18 FY 17 48.34 43.97 21.24 Outages Average Response Time Goal is less than 30 minutes Month Year-to-date Month Year-to-date 5 11 29.6 Minutes 35.53 Minutes PROGRAM UPDATES SEP 18 SEP 17 FY19 YTD Tree Trimming 270 114 945 Number of Oil Releases 1 1 1 Lost Time Accidents – All Electric Utility Divisions 1 0 1 New Services 43 31 115

Fleet & Facilities Management Monthly Report SEPTEMBER 2018 Fleet Maintenance PM Work Orders Completed: 50 Number of Tire Repairs: 11 Number of Road Repairs: 5 Other Work Orders: 57 Repair Hours: 179.6 Road Repair Hours: 4 Total Work Orders: 107 Fabrication Hours: 1 Misc. Hours: 46.9 PM Hours: 132 # Of Scheduled PM’s: 29 # Of Scheduled PM’s: Completed: 29 Major Program Updates SEPTEMBER SEPTEMBER MEASURE 2018 2017 DIFFERENCE Fleet Maintenance - Scheduled Preventative 29 out of 29 9 out of 31 Maintenance appointments +70.97 % 100 % 29.03 % being kept (Quantity and Percentage) Facilities Maintenance Facilities - Routine work orders 21 out of 21 17 out of 17 completed within 5 days 0% 100 % 100 % (Quantity and Percentage) Facilities - Emergency work 4 out of 4 orders completed within 2 1 out of 1 100 % 0% days (Quantity and 100 % Percentage)

HUMAN RESOURCES September 2018 Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Total Category 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 Caucasian* 291 288 285 285 288 290 293 293 292 291 287 291 293 n/a Minorities* 77 74 75 75 76 77 77 77 77 76 76 77 80 n/a Hired 8 1 1 3 5 3 5 1 2 1 1 6 10 47 Terminated/Resigned/ 6 6 3 3 1 0 5 2 3 1 5 1 3 39 Retired/Other Transferred/Promoted 1 3 1 4 6 0 4 2 1 0 2 0 0 24 Jobs Posted 2 4 3 2 6 3 3 3 6 3 1 3 2 41 Workers Comp. Injuries 6 3 2 3 3 3 4 2 1 3 2 1 4 37 Workers Comp. Hours 173 202 227 352 106 75 199 261 153 250 199 11 61 2269 *343 Full-time Employees: Part-time Employees: 30 (3 Pitts Center, 1 Recreation, 17 Library, 1 Customer Service, 8 Police Department) -Numbers do not reflect, temporary, seasonal, relief fire dispatchers, committee or council members. Position Hired: Storekeeper/Buyer, Human Resource Coordinator, Assistant Controller/Treasurer, Librarian (PT), Electric Director, 4 Police Officers, Library Page (PT) Position Terminated/Resigned/Retired: Gardener I, Library Page (PT), Human Resource Coordinator Positions on Terminal Leave: Assistant to Director of Council Affairs and Constituent Services – November Recruitment Information (September) Position Total Female Male Unknown Black White Hispanic Asian/Pacific American Two Or Unknown In Out Islander Indian/Alaskan More Dover Dover Native MEO I-Streets 10 2 7 1 2 6 - - 1 - 1 8 2 MEO II-Sanitation 11 0 8 3 2 5 - - 1 - 3 7 4 Open or Currently Recruiting* Open or Currently Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Recruiting by Dept. 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 Electric 8 8 9 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 Public Works 13 13 12 14 11 9 6 6 6 6 8 8 10 Police .5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 3 3 3.5 4.5 6.5 4 0.5 All Other Departments 8 10.5 11.5 9.5 8 6.5 7 7 6.5 6.5 7 8 10.5 Totals 29.5 35 36 34 30.5 27 23 23 24 25 29.5 28 29 *Not used for Budgeting Purposes Electric: Substation Technician I, Linecrew Superintendent; System Operator I, Lineman 1st Class, Lineman 2nd class, Groundworker, Electric Meter Technician Crew Leader Public Works: Civil Engineer, Motor Equipment Operator I (Streets); Motor Equipment Operator II, (Sanitation); Motor Equipment Operator I, (Sanitation), 2 Utility Maintenance Mechanic I (Wastewater), Water Treatment Plant Operator I, Supervisor of Sanitation Division, Arborist, Gardener Police: 1 Cadet All Other Departments: Parks and Recreation Director, Inspector I, Central Service Director, Contract & Procurement Manager, (2) Laborer II-Parks, Mechanic I, Accountant II, Customer Service Clerk I (part-time); Library Page (PT), Building Supervisor (PT), (2) Library Assistant (PT)

HUMAN RESOURCES (Continued) Turnover Statistics 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total Turnover % 5.57 6.75 11.00 10.91 6.02 12.05 8.68 15.36 7.07 Termination Turnover % 0.27 1.08 0.29 1.47 .57 .28 .54 1.92 .54 Resignation Turnover % 2.12 4.05 5.21 5.01 2.29 7.56 6.24 7.41 4.08 Retirement Turnover % 3.18 1.62 5.50 4.42 3.15 4.20 1.90 4.39 1.90 Other - - - - - - - 1.65 .27 2012 Healthcare cost sharing implemented; 2013 Healthcare cost sharing implemented for DOE 2016 RIF in Economic Development; 2018 RIF in Electric Average Employees 2010 2011 2012* 2013* 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total Number of Employees 21 25 38 37 21 42 32 56 26 Separating from Service Average Number of Full-time 362 356 333 325 331 333 340 337 341 Employees Average Number of Part-time 16 15 12 14 18 24 28 28 27 Employees * Healthcare cost sharing implemented Workers Compensation Cost CY 2018 $6 Department $13 $2 $41 $5 $4 $2 $241 $70 $41 $25 Total Cost (In thousands) $450,000

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES Service Requests Resolved 60 55 47 50 41 38 36 40 31 27 29 29 30 26 23 22 21 20 10 0 Sep-17 Oct-17 Nov-17 Dec-17 Jan-18 Feb-18 Mar-18 Apr-18 May-18 Jun-18 Jul-18 Aug-18 Sep-18 Programming Requests Completed 50 46 41 40 34 34 34 32 29 29 31 30 24 19 20 21 20 10 0 Sep-17 Oct-17 Nov-17 Dec-17 Jan-18 Feb-18 Mar-18 Apr-18 May-18 Jun-18 Jul-18 Aug-18 Sep-18 Page Views - City of Dover Web Page 30,000 25,000 20,000 Pages Viewed 26,767 28,232 27,108 27,702 27,304 15,000 23,269 25,155 24,783 20,417 22,554 19,913 19,305 17,293 10,000 5,000 0 Sep-17 Oct-17 Nov-17 Dec-17 Jan-18 Feb-18 Mar-18 Apr-18 May-18 Jun-18 Jul-18 Aug-18 Sep-18 Noteworty: Continuing Tyler ERP training to end and power users. Conducted User Acceptance Testing for Phase 1. Identified some issues with software. Conducted Train the Trainer sessions. Tyler ERP Phase 2 is in full swing and on schedule.

September 2018 Monthly Report Highlighted Special Events & Attendance: History Book Club 15 Celebrate The Arts:Lenape Heritage Celebration 52 Fabulous Friday: The Pretty Crazies 27 "In Harmony....": Magdaliz & Her Trio Crisol 37 Total Items Checked Out: 22,048 Programs: Offered Attended E-books: 3,072 Adult 67 666 New Library Cards: 420 Teens 31 186 Children 35 530 Library Card Holders: 32,195 Job Center 30 578 Service Area Population: 62,527 Library Visitors: 24,047 Meeting Rooms Usage: 1,317 Computer Users: 4,119 Wireless Users: 1,703 Items Loaned to/Received from Other Libraries: 6,793 Passport Services 140

Parks & Recreation September 2018 Monthly Report Parks & RecreaƟon Highlights  Spring & Summer Performing Arts on The Green. Our final performance, Bad Juju scheduled for September 6 was a great finale. Be sure to thank Eden Hill Medical Center for this year’s financial sponsorship and join us on next season star ng in May.  Master Planning for Dover Park. Staff is ready to move forward with implementa on. Priori es this fiscal year are vegeta on management for safety; park entrance enhancements at the White Oak and South entrances; resurfacing of the basketball courts; replacing basketball hoops; and repairing or replacing fencing around the tennis courts.  SchuƩe Park Master Plan. Duffield Associates is working on the grading design plan. We an cipate their final report in the near future.  Delaware Bicycle Council Grant. Representa ves from the Bike Council have reached out to see if the city could fund the project presented if a par al grant was to be awarded. Staff is mee ng with the City Manager to discuss funding op ons with only a par al grant awarded. Final grant award announcements will be made October 4.  Veteran’s Stand Down. Schu e Park and the John W. Pi s Recrea on Center hosted the 2018 Veteran’s Stand Down event. This event drew in several hundred veterans that received a variety of services including clothing assistance, employment opportuni es health screenings, dental care and more. This was a great event. We look forward to hos ng again in 2019.  Soccer League. Fall youth soccer got off to a great start with 270 children registered. This ever‐popular league is enhanced by our partnership with Holy Cross and YMCA of Dover, which brought in another 15 teams to our league. Bicycle/Pedestrian SubcommiƩee - Mee ng on September 11, the subcommi ee heard updates from DelDOT on various bike/pedestrian related projects. Pedestrian issues for overgrowth of shrubbery/bushes that are blocking sidewalk were discussed. They are scheduled to meet again October 6. Silver Lake Commission - Mee ng on September 19, the commission elected Trish Arndt to replace Dean Holden as chair. The commission heard an update on Public Works projects from Jason Lyon. The Silver Lake Clean Up event was scheduled for October 13.

Recreation Revenue Breakdown September 2018 General Recrea on $581.00 Sports 0 Trips $360.00 Leagues $3,765.00 Building & Field Rentals $1,050.00 Camps 0 Youth Connec ons/CSW $727.00 September 2017 General Recrea on $1,197.50 Sports $265.00 Trips $259.00 Leagues $7,400.00 Building & Field Rentals $800.00 Camps 0 Youth Connec ons/CSW $2,068.00 September September Facility Use Facility Usage By The Hour FYTD 19 FYTD 18 2018 2017 Open Gym 369.5 786.5 402 722.5 Fitness Classes 18.5 38.5 13 84 Leagues 47 160 70 282 Camps 0 808 0 925 Sports Classes 0 0 0 0 Meetings & Rentals 114 175 76 106 Enrichment Classes 2 10 0 0 Total Facility Usage Hours 551 1,978 561 2,119.5 Program AƩendance September September Program Attendance** FYTD 19 FYTD 18 2018 2017 Total 4,096 10,595 3,424 12,786 Open Gym 200 561 232 610 Fitness Classes 29 108 67 322 Leagues 1,064 5,208 1,565 8,832 Camps 0 771 0 1,022 Sports Classes 0 0 0 0 Meetings & Rentals 2,803 3,947 1,560 2,000 Enrichment Classes 0 0 0 0

PUBLIC WORKS Construction Inspection Subdivisions Site Development The following required inspection services The following required inspection services Seskinore Court The Grande, Building 4 Chestnut Grove Chesapeake Utilities Dover Campus Clearview Meadows Eden Hill medical Center Eden Hill Century Engineering Building Nottingham Meadows Leander Lakes Patriot Village Eden Hill Commercial Center Tall Pines Islamic Society of Central Delaware The Arbors Blue Hen Apartments Enterprise Business Park Dover Christian Church Modern Maturity Center MRMS Building Capital Station The Truck Store Sanitation Sanitation SEPTEMBER 18 FYTD 19 SEPTEMBER 17 FYTD 18 Trips to DSWA Sandtown Landfill 186 630 239 650 Total Tonnage to DSWA 1,080 3,491 1,308 3,663 90-Gallon Containers Delivered 22 126 89 261 300-Gallon Containers Delivered 30 30 0 0 Total Man Hours-containers Delivered 42 180 23 71

CURBSIDE RECYCLING STATS TOTAL # OF TOTAL # OF HOUSEHOLDS ACCOUNTS WEIGHT/LBS. AVE. LBS. COLLECTED September 2018 19,060 9,530 250,480 13.14 Streets SEPTEMBER 18 FYTD 19 SEPTEMBER 17 FYTD 18 Signed Installed 0 21 6 30 Signs Repaired 28 57 11 24 Curbs Painted Yellow (feet) 0 243 23 279 New Post Installed 5 18 6 18 Storm Catch Basins Repaired 1 11 3 5 Storm Catch Basin Repairing (Hrs.) 1 49 22 23 Storm Catch Basins Cleaned (LF) 2 230 18 38 Storm Catch Basins Cleaning (Hrs.) 1 9 21 36 Hot Mix Patching (Tons) 0 0 0 8 Hot Mix Patching (Hrs.) 0 0 0 8 Cold Mix Patching Hrs.) 8 28 9 28 Concrete Work (Hrs) 46 161 47 150 Concrete Patching (Cubic Yards) 9 21 6 23 Ditch Work (Hrs). 0 0 0 2 Street and Alley Maintenance (Hrs) 3 10 1 35 Street Sweeping (Miles) 1,439 4,590 1,601 4,870 Street Sweeping (Cubic Yards) 128 283 124 326 Leaves Collected (Cubic Yards) 16 16 144 144 Leaf Collection (Miles) 6 6 163 163 GROUNDS Work Orders Total Work Orders = 2 General = 1 Arborist = 1 Arborist Crew SEPTEMBER 18 SEPTEMBER 17 Trees Trimmed 42 45 Trees Removed 11 2 Stumps Removed 0 2 Trees Planted 0 0 Root Pruning 52 4 Mowing Crew Continued mowing the mow routes. Spraying of weeds to control vegetation. Litter Removal Litter is being picked up on City properties as per the weekly schedule. Litter person has been diligent in the reporting of destruction in City parks Miscellaneous Assisted Street Department with root pruning for new sidewalk locations. Tree crew started Christmas light removal on The Plaza. Removed hanging baskets from Loockerman Street Removed 3 bees nest from City Parks and 4 from City streets.

GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS) Public Works DSWA Billing detail update. Had to rework the entire procedure due to DSWA not providing the bill in excel format anymore. Public Works Created a Flood Hazard map of Bay Tree Development based on revised FEMA data. Public Works Created Water, Storm Water, and Sanitary Sewer plan maps for MISS Utility Tickets. Public Works Updated the Parcels, Rentals, and Active AHIs layers for the month. Public Works Prepared and formatted multiple layers for distribution to the ESRI Community Basemap Public Works Created a spreadsheet and shapefile of sign assets with the street they are on. Public Works KCI MS4 Deliverable QC Public Works Put floodplains on Public Works app and configured it to display information requested by engineering. Public Works Added new data points to the LCR Sample Points map. Printed a 30"x40" copy for the requester. Public Works Converted Street painting points to linework. Got the linear mileage of the street and curb painting. Exported concreted swales data. Sent to requester. Water/Wastewater Divisions Aug 17 Sept 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Total Water Prod. 183,352,000 172,501,000 172,453,000 134,533,000 140,498,000 150,207,000 135,361,000 Billed Consumpt. 169,521,000 169,521,000 159,271,000 136,701,000 132,513,000 127,083,000 134,942,000 Total Flow To County 178,219,000 139,090,000 153,736,000 120,538,000 109,877,000 137,422,000 123,368,000 City Readings 167,858,838 144,462,028 168,885,523 123,758,466 121,387,764 143,955,874 132,879,690 March 18 April 18 May 18 June 18 July 18 Aug 18 Sept 18 Total Water Prod. 146,460,000 138,387,000 129,854,000 133,475,000 164,472,000 199,107,000 176,819,000 Billed Consumpt. 123,994,000 138,221,000 110,219,000 115,304,000 115,304,000 166,399,000 186,664,000 Total Flow To County 157,050,000 143,889,000 186,816,000 170,623,000 171,703,000 138,711,000 156,820,000 City Readings 143,858,810 140,530,063 178,798,232 178,748,559 150,646,638 146,729,718 149,355,651 ENGINEERING SUMMARY Major Program Updates SEPTEMBER 18 SEPTEMBER 17 DIFF FY19 YTD FY18 YTD State and Federal Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Water Quality Complaints 12 14 -2 37 23 Plan Review Completed Within 30 days of Submission 5 8 -3 26 26

OPERATIONAL SUMMARY Task SEPTEMBER 18 SEPTEMBER 17 CURRENT FY Water Production - Daily Average 5,893,967 5,750,033 2,556,868,000 Average Field Response Time (goal is <30 minutes) 19 17 20 Water Mains Repaired 1 0 4 Water Service Lines Repaired 2 0 9 Wastewater Mains Repaired 0 0 0 Wastewater Service Lines Repaired 1 2 2 Sewer Lines Flushed - linear feet 42,861 89,289 249,355 Sewer Mains Videoed -linear feet 0 1,361 1,587 Sewer Manholes Cleaned 219 442 1,267 Total Fire Hydrants in Service 1,839 1,839 1,839 Total Water Meters in City Distribution System 13,458 12,612 13,458

City Planner’s Monthly Report Department of Planning & Inspections SEPTEMBER 2018 Planning & Inspections Highlights Some Items to Call to Your Attention Activity Remains at High Levels in 2018 The 2019 Comprehensive Plan project activities continue to domi- nate work of the Department with on-going data collection, research and related efforts and drafting of key components of the plan docu- ment continuing to take up much of the available resources in the Planning Office. Outreach initiatives with key stakeholder groups continues. Staff has completed Preliminary Drafts of the 2019 Plan Goals and Recommendations, the Land Development Plan Map, and the Annexation Plan Map and proposed future land uses. Outreach has been made to neighboring jurisdictions and the County to ad- dress the intergovernmental coordination element of the plan. Ordinances relating to manufactured housing, industrial zones ad- dressing potential uses in the Kent County Aeropark and at the Civil Air Terminal, and vehicle signage were approved by City Council. Ordinance changes relating to Dangerous Buildings are under re- view. A marketing strategies including renaming of the Garrison Oak Technical Park are being developed.. Construction activity remains strong with major apartment projects, new single family residences, tenant fit-outs of new buildings, and sitework and permits for large commercial projects taking place.

PROGRESS IN PICTURES CREEKSTONE—1198B SOUTH GOVERNORS AVENUE

PROGRESS IN PICTURES ABC Learning Academy at 822 S. State Street “Johnstone Supply” 890 New Burton Road

PROGRESS IN PICTURES Clearview Meadow 337 Bluecoat St. Clearview Meadow 339 Bluecoat St.

Planning & Inspection Revenues FY2019 Actual Revenue Stream FY2019 Budget (YTD) September % of Budget Business License $1,470,000 $ 1,361,978 93% MH/Trailer License $19,000 $ 11,174 59% Building Permits $800,000 $ 125,374 16% Cert. of Occupancy $16,000 $ 3,275 20% Public Occupancy $25,000 $ 925 4% Lodging House $14,000 $ 28 0% Plumbing/Heating/ Air $115,000 $ 46,218 40% Rental Inspection Fee $437,000 $ 1,997 0% Miscellaneous $30,000 $ 6,690 22% Fire Protection Fees $70,000 $ 15,882 23% Code Enforcement Fines $35,000 $ 12,425 36% Vacant Building Reg. $250,000 $ 54,875 22% Total P&I Revenue $3,281,000 $1,640,841 50% 30-Sep-18 PERSONNEL AND TRAINING  Dawn Melson-Williams (Principal Planner) attended a workshop entitled “NFIP Training for Floodplain Administrators” on September 12, 2018.  Matthew Brown received the 5-year service award with the City of Dover in September. 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 Occupan- cy permits. For September 2018, Planning Staff was involved with review of 68 Permits and 17 Certificates of Occupancy permits. This results in a 2018 calendar year-to-date total of 852 Permits and Certificates of Occupancy (2017 calendar year-to-date total of 860 Permits and COs compared to 846 for 2016). Staff also reviews new applications for Business Licenses and Rental Dwelling Permits.

2019 Comprehensive Plan The Planning Office continues the planning and research necessary for the update of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Project information and Preliminary Draft Maps are available on the Comprehensive Plan website: https://www.cityofdover.com/2019-comprehensive-plan Planning Staff continues to conduct data gathering meetings with various City Departments, agencies, and stakeholders and has begun the drafting of the plan text. On September 27 th, Planning Staff presented information on the Comprehensive Plan and held a discussion with students and guests at a Wesley College class (Dr. Tony DePrima’s Land Use & the Environ- ment class). Construction Activity • Construction activities continue at several multi-family residential projects including Le- ander Lakes Apartments (S-12-18), Phase 2 of the Blue Hen Apartment Complex (S- 15-12), and the reconstruction of Liberty Court Apartments (S-16-22). • There is residential construction activity continuing with permits issued this month in Clearview Meadows PND and the Downtown Development District area. • Certificates of Occupancy were issued to an apartment building at Blue Hen Apartment Phase 2, seven (7) one-family detached dwelling units, and one manufactured home. • Building Permits were issued for a building addition to the Child Day Center at 868 South State Street; renovations to the Brandywine Valley SPCA property at 1757 Horsepond Road; a parking lot expansion at 270 Beiser Boulevard (S-18-05); and other projects. • Building Permits were issued for the Clubhouse Building at 90 Saulsbury Road associat- ed with The Grande Apartment Complex PND-SCHO (C-16-04); the DGKP Office & Warehouse Building Project at 1351 West North Street (S-18-01); • A series of Certificates of Occupancy were issued for renovation projects at 890 New Bur- ton Road, for warehouse units on Cassidy Drive, and for the tenant fit-out of 822 South State Street for a Child Day Care Center. September 2018) FY19 TOTAL FOR FY19 New Home Permits Issued 5 21 Value of Commercial Projects $2,613,888.00 $9,263,194.00 Downtown Incentives (Fees $229.00 $4,149.50 Waived)

BOARD AND COMMISSION ACTIVITY Planning Commission The Planning Commission met on September 17, 2018. The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for October 15, 2018. The following applications were considered: • S-16-18 Loockerman Way Redevelopment Master Plan: Two Mixed Use Buildings at 126 West Loockerman Street -The Planning Commission moved to approve a one-year extension for S-16-18 Loockerman Way Redevelopment Master Plan. • Z-18-01 Lands of the Clyde Corporation at 127, 129, 133 and 135 Roosevelt Avenue – The Planning Commission moved to recommend approval to City Council for Z-18-01 Lands of the Clyde Corporation at 127, 129, 133 and 135 Roosevelt Avenue (for Re- zoning to RG-2) due to its compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and its similar growth opportunities to near properties. • AX-18-02 Lands of Steven E. Andrew at 179 Mifflin Road—The Planning Commis- sion moved to recommend approval of the annexation application for the parcel ad- dressed as 179 Mifflin Road and to recommend approval of the rezoning of the proper- ty from the Kent County zoning classification of RS-1 to the City of Dover zoning classification of R-8 (One Family Residence Zone). • C-18-04 Little Kids Swagg Learning Center LLC at 631 Ridgley Street: Child Day Care Center -The Planning Commission moved to grant conditional approval for the conversion of an existing 7,800 S.F. one-story building into a Child Day Care Center to serve up to 100 children with conditions of approval outlined in the Development Ad- visory Committee (D.A.C.) Report dated September 5, 2018. • SB-18-03: Lands of Larlham Construction LLC at 35 & 39 North New Street -The Planning Commission moved to grant conditional approval of the Minor Subdivision Plan to re-subdivide the existing two (2) parcels of land at 35 & 39 North New Street into three (3) parcels of 5,174 SF, 1,650 SF, and 2,988 SF totaling 9,822 SF (0.22 acres), and reorient them away from having a North New Street frontage, to having in- stead a Fulton Street frontage. This is for development of the lots with townhouse units. • SB-18-04 Minor Subdivision Plan Bay Road Office Park at 550 Bay Road –The Plan- ning Commission moved to grant conditional approval of the Minor Subdivision Plan to combine the current Lots 1 and 2 into one single parcel, while subdividing the sec- tions of Lot 1 currently planned to contain the two smaller office buildings into their own lots as the new Lot 2 and Lot 3. The new Lot 1 would be 4.16 +/- acres, Lot 2 would be 1.20 +/- acres, and Lot 3 would be 1.10 +/- acres.

Board of Adjustment The Board of Adjustment met on September 19, 2018. The next Board of Adjustment meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2018. Applicant #V-18-06—The Board of Adjustment moved to grant the variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §20.54 and Article 4 §4.16 pertaining to the maximum lot coverage of parcels in the IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing) Zone. Specifically, the applicant proposes to add 24 parking spaces, increasing the impervious lot coverage on the site from 64.44% to 66.03%. The maximum lot coverage for the IPM zone is 65%. Applicant #V-18-07 – The Board of Adjustment considered the Withdrawal Request and moved to grant the withdrawal of the sign variance application requested from the re- quirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §4.7 pertaining to the maximum size of permitted signs. Specifically, the applicant was seeking to permit one (1) wall sign at a size between 352 SF and 424 SF, in lieu of the maximum 32 SF permitted. Historic District Commission The Historic District Commission met on September 20, 2018. The next Historic District Commission meeting is scheduled for October 18, 2018. The Commission heard updates on permit activity in the Historic District Area. Staff also provided an update on the 2019 Comprehensive Plan project activities. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Planning Staff continues to focus on the various implementation items identified in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan as amended. • The Planning Office continues to be involved in the Restoring Central Dover Com- munity Plan implementation. • Planning Staff continues Dover’s Downtown Development District program manage- ment. • Planning Staff attended the Delaware Population Consortium’s September meeting where additional data on the next set of statewide population projections was present- ed; the next set of population projects will be issued later this fall. • Development of Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance on the following: • On September 24, 2018 City Council adopted Ordinance #2018-01 (including Staff Substitute #1 with Planning Commission Amendments #1) consisting of Text Amendments to the Manufactured Housing and Land Lease Communities sections of Dover Code and Zoning Ordinance. (MI-18-03).

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM CDBG FY18 Projects Homeownership Assistance Program CDBG funds will be used to provide homeownership assistance to first-time homebuyers who purchase affordable housing in the City of Dover. Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing CDBG funds will be used to provide operations cost for the shelter. Connections Community Support Program CDBG funds will be used to provide rapid re-housing/rental assis- tance services for homeless households within the City. Milford Housing Homeowner Rehabilitation/Emergency Home Repair Programs CDBG funds will be used to rehabilitate existing owner-occupied housing in the City that is in violation of the City’s Housing Code and complete emergency home repairs to eliminate housing conditions that threaten the health and safety of low income homeowners. Habitat for Humanity CDBG funds will be used to complete exterior renovations to existing owner-occupied homes in the Restoring Central Dover Revitalization area.

Code Enforcement Activity—SEPTEMBER Case Type # cases current # cases % staff initiated % staff initiated month YTD (July current month YTD 2018 to June 2019) No valid Rental Permit 0 6 0% 67% No valid Building Permit 1 14 100% 76% Tall grass and weeds 64 184 42% 60% Unregistered vehicle 8 18 25% 70% Abandoned vehicle 1 7 100% 55% Annual Housing Inspection 16 74 75% 68% Property Maintenance – 9 65 88% 66% Exterior Electric Termination 6 30 100% 95% Dover Code of Ordinances 2 38 0% 45% Zoning 1 4 0% 78% Total Cases Opened 108 440 Total # of Inspections For 313 Month

Dangerous Buildings, Vacant Buildings & Demolitions  954 Lincoln Street—The property was condemned and taken forward to City Council as a dangerous building on November 7, 2016. Council ordered the owner to demolish the structure by December 7, 2016. The asbestos survey and abatement have been completed. The mortgage company has requested time to make renovations. No repairs have been made as of December. A renovation permit has been approved and work has been ongo- ing.  526 Fulton Street—The dwelling has been demolished.  113 Davis Circle— The dwelling has been demolished.  350 Martin Street—Lien search requested. This property is condemned as unfit for hu- man occupancy.  437 S. Governors Avenue—Lien search requested. This property is condemned as unfit for human occupancy.  Vacant Buildings—During the month of September sixteen (16) additional buildings were registered as vacant, and $9,750.00 in vacant building registration fees were collected. DANGEROUS BUILDING— 437 S. GOVERNORS AVENUE

Building Inspections & Licensing Summary September 2017— Sept. 2018– Current July 2019 September 2017 June 2018 PERMITTING AND LICENSING Permits Issued SEPT (2018) SEPT (2017) FY 19 FYTD 19 FY18 FYTD 18 Administrative Permit 7 13 4 11 Building Addition/Renovation Permits 15 96 24 103 Building Permits 27 74 21 94 Demolition Permits 2 8 3 9 Fence Permits 15 37 8 33 Fire Prevention Permits 9 25 2 45 Mechanical Permits 68 162 38 152 Plumbing Permits 30 186 115 255 Sign Permits 25 49 19 52 Swimming Pool Permits 1 4 0 2 Subtotal 654 756 Business Licenses 135 1808 142 1865 Merchant Licenses 26 312 29 315 Contractor Licenses 106 1005 84 1012 Subtotal 3125 3192 Lodging House Licenses 0 0 0 0 Public Occupancy 14 38 11 26 Rental Dwelling 10 50 12 46 Subtotal 88 72 Manufactured Homes 53 241 40 253 BUILDING INSPECTIONS Inspections SEPT (2018) SEPT (2017) FY 19 FYTD 19 FY18 FYTD 18 Building (Inspections/CBI/Site Meetings) 793 1448 412 1464 Plumbing/Mechanical 550 1495 641 1768 Certificate of Occupancy 17 54 16 62

Fire Marshal’s Office—At a Glance The Fire Marshal’s Office investigated six (6) incidents during the month of September to in- clude a major fire loss at Dover Hall in English Village. We also were assisted by the Dover Po- lice Department who arrested an individual for an incendiary fire. We are finishing up hotel and motel inspections and will be starting apartments next. Month Year to Date Previous Year to Date Annual Fire & Life Safety Inspections 24 42 44 Deficiencies From the Above Inspections 49 183 289 Fire Code Violations/Deficiencies/Complaints 43 106 61 C/O & Fire Equipment Acceptance Tests 9 31 43 Meetings & Walk Through 25 51 56 Fire Plan Review & DAC 13 36 61 Month Year to Date Previous Year to Date Accidental 1 totaling $25,000 6 totaling $25,750 12 totaling $162,500 Undetermined 1 totaling $80,000 1 totaling $80,000 1 totaling $7,500 Incendiary 4 totaling $600 4 totaling $600 15 totaling $21,502 Arrest Made with DPD 1 1 0 Investigation Time 16 hours 25 hours 42 hours Injuries 0 0 0 Deaths 0 0 0 Please feel free to contact our office at any time with any questions or concerns. Thank you!

PLEASE NOTE – THIS REPORT PROVIDES TOP LINE INFORMATION ON THE OPERATING FUNDS. IF YOU WOULD LIKE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

Finance Department & Procurement and Inventory Monthly Report September 2018 CITY OF DOVER ACTIVITY REPORTS SEPTEMBER 2018 FINANCE DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY LEVELS FY18 YTD FY19 YTD BANK TRENDS Number of Deposits Made (Hand, ACH & Wire, Lockbox) 1,660 1,862 Total Amount of All Deposits $ 44,361,087 $ 45,741,422 Other Activity Number of Pay Periods 7 7 Number of Payroll Checks & Direct Deposits Issued 2,765 2,765 Number of Pension Checks Issued 762 770 Total Pension Benefits Paid - Defined Benefit Plan $ 1,355,991 $ 1,375,604 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Number of Check Vouchers 1,555 1,684 Number of EFT Vouchers 608 700 Vouchers Dollar Amount Disbursed $ 18,701,215 $ 20,563,855 FY18 YTD Wages FY19 YTD Wages $67,738 $67,473 $46,502 $38,888 $144,355 $130,452 $208,914 $76,621 $162,143 $149,787 $476,997 $421,604 $377,313 $430,284 $4,523,984 $4,554,948 Regular All over time Regular All over time Vacation Sick Vacation Sick Terminal Leave - Retiree Vacation/Sick Payout Personal Terminal Leave - Retiree Vacation/Sick Payout Personal Other Comp Time Comp Time Other Page 2

Finance Department & Procurement and Inventory Monthly Report September 2018 City of Dover General Fund Summary Fiscal Year to Date (September 2018) Revenues Budget Actual % Property & Transfer Taxes $ 14,733,700 $ 13,563,149 92% Program Revenues 10,947,800 3,062,171 28% Utility Transfers 11,000,000 2,749,990 25% Grants 679,500 24,483 4% Interfund Services 5,640,100 1,285,006 23% All Other* 978,400 70,276 7% $ 43,979,500 $ 20,755,075 47% *Includes: Franchise Fees, Miscellaneous Revenues, Garrison Farm Rent, Verizon Grant and Other Reserves Expenditures Budget Actual % Program Expenditures $ 27,552,700 $ 6,154,808 22% Interfund Services 9,988,300 2,276,024 23% Debt Service 500,000 117,833 24% Post Retirement Benefits 1,894,900 473,730 25% Pension Fund Contributions 1,051,000 146,250 14% Capital Project Transfers 3,013,800 753,450 25% All Other* 1,818,000 252,565 14% $ 45,818,700 $ 10,174,660 22% *Includes: DDP Contribution, Misc. Grant Exp., Bank and CC Fees, Street Lights Expense, transfer to Electric I&E, Other Employment Expense & Uncollectibles: Trash and Other. Page 3

Finance Department & Procurement and Inventory Monthly Report September 2018 General Fund Revenues 16,000,000 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 - Property & Transfer Program Revenues Utility Transfers Grants Interfund Services All Other* Taxes Budget Actual General Fund Expenditures 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 - Budget Actual Page 4

Finance Department & Procurement and Inventory Monthly Report September 2018 City of Dover Water/Wastewater Fund Summary Fiscal Year to Date (September 2018) Revenues Budget Actual % Customer Sales $ 14,150,400 $ 3,922,056 28% Impact Fees 870,000 534,792 61% Rents 400,600 11,329 3% Miscellaneous 69,600 21,795 31% $ 15,490,600 $ 4,489,972 29% Expenditures Budget Actual % Program Expenses $ 4,044,400 $ 859,887 21% Kent County Treatment Fee 3,750,000 1,024,555 27% Interfund Services 1,764,600 414,335 23% Debt Service 1,131,700 235,658 21% Post Retirement Benefits 256,900 53,800 21% Capital Project Transfers 3,600,000 900,000 25% Electric I&E Transfer 298,000 - 0% General Fund Transfer 1,000,000 250,020 25% All Other* 98,000 7,421 8% $ 15,943,600 $ 3,745,676 23% *Includes: Bank & CC Fees, Bond Issuance Cost, Other Employment Expenses Page 5

Finance Department & Procurement and Inventory Monthly Report September 2018 Water/Wastewater Revenues 16,000,000 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 - Customer Sales Impact Fees Rents Miscellaneous Budget Actual Water/Wastewater Expenses 4,500,000 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 - Program Kent County Interfund Debt Service Post Capital Project Electric I&E General Fund All Other* Expenses Treatment Fee Services Retirement Transfers Transfer Transfer Benefits Budget Actual Page 6

Finance Department & Procurement and Inventory Monthly Report September 2018 City of Dover Electric Fund Summary Fiscal Year to Date (September 2018) Revenues Budget Actual % Customer Sales $ 82,491,700 $ 24,535,285 30% Distribution of Earnings (2,877,400) (864,162) 30% All Other* 951,200 332,073 35% $ 80,565,500 $ 24,003,196 30% *Includes: Weyandt Hall Rents, Miscellaneous Revenue, Interest Earnings Expenditures Budget Actual % Power Supply & Generation $ 48,600,100 $ 12,590,519 26% Electric Operating Division Exp. 6,614,900 1,309,818 20% Interfund Services 3,875,500 870,671 22% Debt Service 1,584,700 391,586 25% Post Retirement Benefits 721,400 180,360 25% Capital Project Transfers 6,400,000 1,600,000 25% General Fund Transfer 10,000,000 2,499,990 25% Depreciation Reserve 2,500,000 - 0% All Other* 2,184,800 502,661 23% $ 82,481,400 $ 19,945,605 24% *Includes: Bank & CC Fees, Utility Tax, Interest on Deposit, Legal Exp., Green Energy, A/R Write-offs, Other Employment Expenses Megawatt Hours Sold & Purchased Rev. Budget Actual Sales to Customers MWh (excl. Street Light MWh) 741,430 225,367 Sales per MWh $105.63 $103.40 Purchased/Generated MWh 772,323- 237,817- All In MWh Supply & Generation $62.93 $52.94 Page 7

Finance Department & Procurement and Inventory Monthly Report September 2018 Electric Fund - Revenues Millions $(10) $- $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 Budget Actual Customer Sales Distribution of Earnings All Other* Electric Fund - Expenditures 55,000,000 50,000,000 45,000,000 40,000,000 35,000,000 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 - Electric Post Power Supply Interfund Capital Project General Fund Depreciation Operating Debt Service Retirement All Other* & Generation Services Transfers Transfer Reserve Division Exp. Benefits Budget $48,600,100 6,614,900 3,875,500 1,584,700 721,400 6,400,000 10,000,000 2,500,000 2,184,800 Actual $12,590,519 1,309,818 870,671 391,586 180,360 1,600,000 2,499,990 - 502,661 Budget Actual Page 8

Finance Department & Procurement and Inventory Monthly Report September 2018 City of Dover Division Expense Summary (General Fund) Fiscal Year to Date (September 2018) Budget Actual % General Fund Divisions % of Budget City Clerk $ 442,500 $ 112,860 26% Council 144,800 26,325 18% Mayor Tax Assessor 244,500 63,680 26% Human Resources Fire 789,800 185,747 24% Customer Services Grounds 1,195,000 277,692 23% Vehicle Maintenance Library 1,767,400 429,157 24% Procurement & Inventory Recreation 1,000,600 174,566 17% Engineering Life Safety 504,200 127,114 25% Code Enforcement 610,500 104,249 17% Facilities Management Planning 568,200 138,868 24% Pub. Services Administration Public Inspections 568,100 156,310 28% Finance Police 16,737,500 3,867,874 23% Information Technology Police Extra Duty 600,000 89,197 15% City Manager Streets 1,409,100 215,228 15% Sanitation Sanitation 2,475,200 544,824 22% City Manager 1,005,200 185,014 18% Streets Information Technology 731,000 250,212 34% Police Extra Duty Finance 946,200 182,334 19% Police Pub. Services Administration 720,800 168,606 23% Public Inspections Facilities Management 657,900 147,641 22% Planning Engineering 277,600 57,994 21% Procurement & Inventory 721,000 147,793 20% Code Enforcement Vehicle Maintenance 832,500 219,795 26% Life Safety Customer Services 1,197,100 262,834 22% Recreation Human Resources 485,600 102,522 21% Library Mayor 173,700 18,161 10% Grounds $ 36,806,000 $ 8,256,597 Fire Tax Assessor Council City Clerk 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Page 9

Finance Department & Procurement and Inventory Monthly Report September 2018 City of Dover Utilities Summary Fiscal Year to Date (September 2018) Water/Wastewater Divison Expenses Budget Actual % Engineering & Inspection $ 502,400 $ 103,071 21% Water Department 750,000 138,395 18% Water Treatment Plant 1,805,800 394,653 22% Wastewater Department 986,200 223,768 23% $ 4,044,400 $ 859,887 Electric Division Expenses Budget Actual % Transmission/Distribution $ 3,673,500 $ 767,544 21% Electrical Engineering 1,223,500 227,441 19% Administration 625,400 66,409 11% Meter Reading 401,800 97,920 24% Systems Operations 690,700 150,504 22% $ 6,614,900 $ 1,309,818 Water/Wastewater Division % of Budget Wastewater Department Water Treatment Plant Water Department Engineering & Inspection 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Electric Division % of Budget Systems Operations Meter Reading Administration Electrical Engineering Transmission/Distribution 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Page 10

Finance Department & Procurement and Inventory Monthly Report September 2018 City of Dover Capital Outlay Summary (All Funds) Fiscal Year to Date (September 2018) General Fund Budget Actual % Fire $ 222,500 $ 158,559 71% Grounds Maintenance 188,000 8,700 5% Recreation 536,100 23,670 4% Police 512,000 46,118 9% Sanitation 34,400 - 0% Streets 2,215,000 1,620 0% Information Technology 57,600 12,264 21% Facilities Management 28,800 - 0% General Fund Capital Projects $ 3,794,400 $ 250,931 7% Water/Wastewater Fund Water $ 515,300 $ 27,602 5% Wastewater 2,505,200 103,649 4% Water Treatment Plant 4,000,000 9,254 0% Water/Wastewater Capital Projects $ 7,020,500 $ 140,505 2% Electric Fund Electric Generation $ 1,546,000 $ 93,221 6% Transmission/Distribution 1,383,000 131,853 10% Electrical Engineering 2,245,500 73,382 3% Electric Administration 1,175,200 - 0% ERP System 548,000 86,060 16% Electric Capital Projects $ 6,897,700 $ 384,516 6% Total Capital Projects $ 17,712,600 $ 775,952 4% Page 11

Finance Department & Procurement and Inventory Monthly Report September 2018 Capital Outlay - All Divisions 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 - Budget Actual Capital Outlay - By Fund 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 - Budget Actual General Fund Capital Projects Water/Wastewater Capital Projects Electric Capital Projects Page 12

Finance Department & Procurement and Inventory Monthly Report September 2018 Procurement & Inventory Report Measure FY 2019 FY 2018 DIFFERENCE Issue Effectiveness – How often the FY 2019 (To date) FY 2018 (Total) warehouse has what the departments [667/(667+45)]*100 [4,471/(4,471+168)]*100 -2.70% need when it’s needed. 93.68% 96.38 % [issues / (issues + back orders)] * 100 Turn Over Rate – Indicates that the material stocked is the material being 0.89 Turnovers per year 0.84 Turnovers per year +0.05 Turnovers per year used. (2018-2019 Goal 1 per year) WITHOUT TRANSFORMERS REQUESTING BID NUMBER TERM COMMODITY DEPARTMENT STATUS as of October 4, 2018 Ambulance Services 19-0001CM Three Year City Manager Forwarded to Kay Sass on 7/30/2018. Diversity & Inclusion 19-0002HR One Time Human Resources Forwarded to H/R on 9/14/2018. FY 18 I&I Relining Project 19-0003PW One Time Public Works Forwarded to Public Works on 8/14/2018. Underground Utility Locating Services 19-0004COD Three Year P/W & Electric Forwarded to Electric/Public Works on 8/23/2018 Lakewood Place Water Main 19-0005PW One Time Public Works Forwarded to Public Works on 9/19/2018 Replacement Joint Transformer Bid 02-2018 Two Year Procurement Bid opening scheduled for October 4, 2018 @ 7:00 pm Real Estate 19-0006CM One Time City Manager Bid opening scheduled for October 30, 2018 @ 2:00 pm Transformers for Stock 19-0007CS One Time Procurement Forwarded to Electric on 10/3/2018 FY18 Inflow and Inflitration Replacement Project 19-0008PW One Time Public Works Bid opening scheduled for October 19, 2018 @ 2:00 pm Joint Enclosure and Fiberglass Pad Bid 03-2018 Two Year Procurement Bid opening scheduled for October 10, 2018 @ 7:00 pm Joint Lighting Bid 4-2018 One Year Procurement Bid opening scheduled for October 17, 2018 @ 7:00 pm FUEL USE FY 2019 TO DATE FY 2018 TO DATE STOCK WITH OVER 60 MONTH SUPPLY (5 YEARS) Unleaded: 34,652.7 gallons 33,474.0 gallons Electric: $ 401,713.15 310 Line Items Diesel: 18,264.3 gallons 18,343.6 gallons Water: $ 20,911.57 55 Line Items Dollars Spent: $39,979.23 $84,902.44 General: $ 41,609.15 146 Line Items Total: $ 464,233.87 511 Line Items Purchase Orders for Stock by Fund Issues from Stock by Fund FY 2019 TO DATE FY 2018 TO DATE FY 2019 TO DATE FY 2018 TO DATE Electric: $177,225.89 $566,888.31 Electric: $ 272,176.61 $ 281,405.04 Water: $ 39,020.90 $ 40,861.93 Water: $ 40,006.85 $ 38,278.53 General: $ 34,741.44 $ 36,162.28 General: $ 29,490.92 $ 38,241.32 Total: $250,988.23 $643,912.52 *Total: $352,159.00 $ 357,978.15 Warehouse Stock Money Spent for Postage/Postal Services FY 2019 FY 2018 FY 2019 TO DATE FY 2018 TO DATE Total Dollar Value: $ 2,054,096.01 $ 2,238,286.07 $ 36,197.60 $ 36,645.40 Total Line Items: 1,292 1,304  Total of Issues from Stock by Fund includes Issues from Sale from Stock (SS) and Electric Returns (ER).

MONTHLY REPORT SEPTEMBER 2018

Date Range: From 09/01/2018 to 09/30/2018 Incident Run Log Fixed Property: Dover Fire Department Company: All Companies Sorted by: Not selected Date FDID Incident# Alarm ### Address Suite Type Lgth 09/01/2018 30046 2018-000865 11:20 1710 N DUPONT HWY Gasoline or other flammable liquid spill 0.5 09/01/2018 30046 2018-000866 13:30 617 E LOOCKERMAN ST Good intent call, other 0.3 09/01/2018 30046 2018-000867 20:05 DELAWARE TECH DR Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional 0.1 09/02/2018 30046 2018-000868 05:46 211 DELAWARE AVE HazMat release investigation w/no HazMat 0.5 09/02/2018 30046 2018-000869 11:45 150 LAKEVIEW DR CO detector activation due to malfunction 0.4 09/02/2018 30046 2018-000870 12:44 1200 N DUPONT HWY System malfunction, other 0.3 09/02/2018 30046 2018-000871 14:00 N STATE ST Watercraft rescue 0.5 09/02/2018 30046 2018-000872 18:05 615 ARTIS DR Motor vehicle accident with injuries 0.6 09/02/2018 30046 2018-000873 18:39 1200 N DUPONT HWY System malfunction, other 0.3 09/02/2018 30046 2018-000874 19:33 1200 N DUPONT HWY Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 0.1 09/02/2018 30046 2018-000875 19:53 1200 N DUPONT HWY Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 0.2 09/03/2018 30046 2018-000876 09:16 1200 N DUPONT HWY Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 0.3 09/03/2018 30046 2018-000877 11:11 631 S STATE ST Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 0.4 09/03/2018 30046 2018-000878 19:03 41 S EDGEHILL AVE Good intent call, other 0.4 09/03/2018 30046 2018-000879 20:38 1200 N DUPONT HWY Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 0.3 09/04/2018 30046 2018-000880 08:30 1110 FORREST AVE 103 Dispatched & canceled en route 4.6 09/04/2018 30046 2018-000881 12:29 34 STARLIFTER AVE Overheated motor 1.1 09/04/2018 30046 2018-000882 12:58 631 S STATE ST Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 0.3 09/04/2018 30046 2018-000883 14:33 612 PEAR ST Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.3 09/04/2018 30046 2018-000884 21:34 941 WALNUT SHADE ROAD Dispatched & canceled en route 0.3 09/04/2018 30046 2018-000885 21:42 E REED ST & S STATE ST Motor vehicle accident with injuries 0.3 09/05/2018 30046 2018-000886 00:51 2978 KENTON RD Assist invalid 2.7 09/05/2018 30046 2018-000887 07:00 2978 KENTON RD Assist invalid 1.4 09/05/2018 30046 2018-000888 14:48 1450 FORREST AVE Service Call, other 0.6 09/05/2018 30046 2018-000889 15:36 1001 N DUPONT HWY 13 Oil or other combustible liquid spill 1.1 09/05/2018 30046 2018-000890 21:48 146 TURNER DR Building fire 1.4 09/05/2018 30046 2018-000891 23:30 300 BANNING ST Removal of victim(s) from stalled elevator 0.5 09/06/2018 30046 2018-000892 02:43 101 BABB DR Detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.4 09/06/2018 30046 2018-000893 05:23 820 CARVEL DR F Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.4 09/06/2018 30046 2018-000894 06:09 226 N GOVERNORS AVE CO detector activation due to malfunction 0.2 09/06/2018 30046 2018-000895 08:46 107 KEVIN CT Unintentional transmission of alarm, other 0.6 09/06/2018 30046 2018-000896 10:35 625 BAY RD HazMat release investigation w/no HazMat 0.3 09/06/2018 30046 2018-000897 11:05 1568 N DUPONT HWY Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional 0.5 09/06/2018 30046 2018-000898 11:45 DELAWARE TECH DR Public service 0.7 09/06/2018 30046 2018-000899 13:34 73 GREENTREE DR Good intent call, other 0.4 09/06/2018 30046 2018-000900 22:49 129 HOLMES ST Cooking fire, confined to container 0.2 09/06/2018 30046 2018-000901 23:45 561 N DUPONT HWY Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 0.4 09/07/2018 30046 2018-000902 03:31 561 N DUPONT HWY Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 0.2 09/07/2018 30046 2018-000903 08:09 1001 WALKER RD System malfunction, other 0.4 09/07/2018 30046 2018-000904 09:49 391 UNITED WAY High-angle rescue 3.9 09/07/2018 30046 2018-000906 19:43 118 HOLMES ST Detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.4 09/07/2018 30046 2018-000905 17:22 416 N BRADFORD ST Severe weather or natural disaster, other 0.2 09/08/2018 30046 2018-000907 00:35 1700 N DUPONT HWY BLDG I CO detector activation due to malfunction 0.7 09/08/2018 30046 2018-000908 07:07 1351 W NORTH ST No incident found on arrival at dispatch address 0.3 09/08/2018 30046 2018-000909 08:26 11 N STATE ST System malfunction, other 0.2 09/08/2018 30046 2018-000910 08:30 516 JEFFERIC BLVD A Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 0.4 09/09/2018 30046 2018-000911 10:32 S DUPONT HWY Motor vehicle accident with injuries 0.4 09/09/2018 30046 2018-000912 12:36 820 CARVEL DR G Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.3 09/09/2018 30046 2018-000913 13:49 245 N DUPONT HWY System malfunction, other 0.4 09/09/2018 30046 2018-000914 14:30 320 BILLY MITCHELL LN Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.6 09/09/2018 30046 2018-000915 17:41 756 S LITTLE CREEK RD Building or structure weakened or collapsed 0.8 09/09/2018 30046 2018-000916 19:05 820 CARVEL DR C Cooking fire, confined to container 0.3 09/09/2018 30046 2018-000917 22:04 1200 N DUPONT HWY Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.3 09/10/2018 30046 2018-000918 10:33 11 N DUPONT HWY Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.2 09/10/2018 30046 2018-000919 15:55 11 N STATE ST Malicious, mischievous false call, other 0.5 09/10/2018 30046 2018-000920 16:34 1570 N DUPONT HWY Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.4 09/10/2018 30046 2018-000921 18:00 310 NORTHDOWN DR Hazardous condition, other 0.4 09/10/2018 30046 2018-000922 23:45 110 HAMAN DR Dumpster or other outside trash receptacle fire 0.4 09/11/2018 30046 2018-000923 00:35 100 HAMAN DR Dumpster or other outside trash receptacle fire 0.3 Date: 10/05/2018 Page: 1 Time:11:44

Date FDID Incident# Alarm ### Address Suite Type Lgth 09/11/2018 30046 2018-000924 08:32 104 STATE ROUTE 1 Smoke scare, odor of smoke 0.5 09/11/2018 30046 2018-000925 09:38 506 E LOOCKERMAN ST Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.3 09/11/2018 30046 2018-000926 12:21 631 S STATE ST Heat detector activation due to malfunction 1.1 09/11/2018 30046 2018-000927 15:52 36 COURTSIDE DR A Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 0.4 09/11/2018 30046 2018-000928 20:16 500 PERSIMMON TREE LA 8 Smoke scare, odor of smoke 0.5 09/11/2018 30046 2018-000929 21:56 479 RIVER RD Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 0.4 09/12/2018 30046 2018-000930 09:08 1200 N DUPONT HWY Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 0.3 09/12/2018 30046 2018-000931 10:14 19 N GOVERNORS AVE Good intent call, other 0.3 09/12/2018 30046 2018-000932 12:46 429 S NEW ST Cooking fire, confined to container 0.2 09/12/2018 30046 2018-000933 16:43 1180 S LITTLE CREEK RD Authorized controlled burning 0.3 09/12/2018 30046 2018-000934 17:57 51 WEBBS LN K Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) 0.6 09/12/2018 30046 2018-000935 23:36 320 BILLY MITCHELL LN Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.4 09/13/2018 30046 2018-000936 09:51 1200 N DUPONT HWY False alarm or false call, other 0.0 09/13/2018 30046 2018-000937 10:20 605 BAY RD False alarm or false call, other 0.0 09/13/2018 30046 2018-000938 22:01 130 HAMAN DR Dumpster or other outside trash receptacle fire 0.6 09/14/2018 30046 2018-000939 09:29 COLLEGE RD Motor vehicle/pedestrian accident (MV Ped) 0.5 09/14/2018 30046 2018-000940 11:11 COLLEGE RD Assist police or other governmental agency 0.5 09/14/2018 30046 2018-000942 14:24 864 S STATE ST Unintentional transmission of alarm, other 0.2 09/14/2018 30046 2018-000943 21:42 BARRISTER PLACE Hazardous condition, other 0.4 09/15/2018 30046 2018-000944 01:01 561 N DUPONT HWY Malicious, mischievous false call, other 0.5 09/15/2018 30046 2018-000945 08:05 637 S governors ave. Passenger vehicle fire 0.5 09/15/2018 30046 2018-000946 11:18 1200 N DUPONT HWY False alarm or false call, other 0.4 09/15/2018 30046 2018-000947 14:03 209 S STATE ST Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 0.3 09/15/2018 30046 2018-000948 14:38 200 PLAZA DRIVE Good intent call, other 0.3 09/15/2018 30046 2018-000949 22:28 111 W LOOCKERMAN ST Cooking fire, confined to container 0.4 09/16/2018 30046 2018-000950 05:21 1200 N DUPONT HWY Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 0.4 09/16/2018 30046 2018-000951 19:56 233 N CAROLINE PL System malfunction, other 1.5 09/16/2018 30046 2018-000952 23:42 1125 FORREST AVE 101 Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 0.5 09/17/2018 30046 2018-000953 02:46 51 WEBBS LN E Fire, other 0.8 09/17/2018 30046 2018-000954 05:56 21 N STATE ST Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.2 09/17/2018 30046 2018-000955 11:11 414 S STATE ST Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.1 09/17/2018 30046 2018-000956 12:11 OAKMONT DR Good intent call, other 0.1 09/17/2018 30046 2018-000957 14:09 3226 W DENNEYS RD Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) 0.7 09/17/2018 30046 2018-000958 20:56 55 STEVENSON DR Carbon monoxide detector activation, no CO 0.3 09/18/2018 30046 2018-000959 00:51 550 OTIS DR Unintentional transmission of alarm, other 0.4 09/18/2018 30046 2018-000960 13:48 1200 N DUPONT HWY Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 0.4 09/18/2018 30046 2018-000961 13:54 425 WEBBS LN Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.2 09/18/2018 30046 2018-000962 19:49 11 N DUPONT HWY Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) 0.3 09/18/2018 30046 2018-000963 20:08 112 FULTON ST Trash or rubbish fire, contained 0.5 09/19/2018 30046 2018-000964 07:04 120 N STATE ST Detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.2 09/19/2018 30046 2018-000965 10:34 1570 N DUPONT HWY Removal of victim(s) from stalled elevator 0.3 09/19/2018 30046 2018-000966 14:50 213 N BRADFORD ST Heat detector activation due to malfunction 0.2 09/19/2018 30046 2018-000967 18:10 1655 KENTON RD Removal of victim(s) from stalled elevator 0.7 09/19/2018 30046 2018-000968 18:50 9 E LOOCKERMAN ST Accident, potential accident, other 0.1 09/19/2018 30046 2018-000969 18:55 400 ISABELLE ISLE Hazardous condition, other 1.1 09/20/2018 30046 2018-000970 00:23 1200 N DUPONT HWY Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.2 09/20/2018 30046 2018-000971 10:06 198 COMMERCE WAY Detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.4 09/20/2018 30046 2018-000972 15:39 455 E WATER ST Dispatched & canceled en route 0.0 09/20/2018 30046 2018-000973 17:45 1300 S FARMVIEW DR C Cooking fire, confined to container 0.6 09/21/2018 30046 2018-000974 00:53 COLLEGE RD Motor vehicle accident with injuries 0.5 09/21/2018 30046 2018-000975 19:33 21 S LITTLE CREEK RD Steam, other gas mistaken for smoke, other 0.3 09/21/2018 30046 2018-000976 20:04 100 LAKEVIEW DR Cooking fire, confined to container 0.5 09/22/2018 30046 2018-000977 03:10 1570 N DUPONT HWY Local alarm system, malicious false alarm 0.6 09/22/2018 30046 2018-000978 03:12 998 CARVEL DR Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 0.5 09/22/2018 30046 2018-000979 13:01 255 WEBBS LN D Detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.5 09/22/2018 30046 2018-000980 18:35 998 CARVEL DRIVE Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 0.2 09/22/2018 30046 2018-000981 19:37 1700 N DUPONT HWY BLDG G Public service assistance, other 0.3 09/23/2018 30046 2018-000982 02:23 DOVER HALL, ENGLISH VILLAGE 2 Building fire 3.4 09/23/2018 30046 2018-000983 06:41 150 LAKEVIEW DR Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.5 09/23/2018 30046 2018-000984 09:36 1245 HARRISON DR Detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.2 09/23/2018 30046 2018-000985 11:03 51 WEBBS LN B Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional 0.3 09/23/2018 30046 2018-000986 14:43 1175 MCKEE RD Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.3 09/23/2018 30046 2018-000987 15:16 1325 GARFIELD DR Extrication, rescue, other 0.3 Date: 10/05/2018 Page: 2 Time:11:44

Date FDID Incident# Alarm ### Address Suite Type Lgth 09/23/2018 30046 2018-000988 16:37 459 TOPAZ CIR Cooking fire, confined to container 0.7 09/23/2018 30046 2018-000989 18:54 1200 N DUPONT HWY Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.1 09/23/2018 30046 2018-000990 19:37 12 KINGS HWY Steam, other gas mistaken for smoke, other 0.3 09/23/2018 30046 2018-000991 23:07 644 S QUEEN ST 105 Water or steam leak 0.4 09/24/2018 30046 2018-000992 14:30 206 FOX ROAD Good intent call, other 0.2 09/24/2018 30046 2018-000993 23:43 1061 S LITTLE CREEK RD Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional 0.4 09/25/2018 30046 2018-000994 03:13 308 N QUEEN ST System malfunction, other 0.4 09/25/2018 30046 2018-000995 17:17 200 BEECHWOOD AVE Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) 0.7 09/25/2018 30046 2018-000996 19:31 W. NORTH STREET Extrication of victim(s) from vehicle 0.3 09/25/2018 30046 2018-000997 20:08 150 LAKEVIEW DR Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.4 09/25/2018 30046 2018-000998 23:15 1200 N DUPONT HWY Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.3 09/26/2018 30046 2018-000999 14:28 1284 MCD DR Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.3 09/26/2018 30046 2018-001000 16:31 1200 N DUPONT HWY Detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.2 09/26/2018 30046 2018-001001 18:59 164 N WILSON AVENUE Outside rubbish fire, other 0.4 09/26/2018 30046 2018-001002 20:09 237 MIFFLIN RD Medical assist, assist EMS crew 1.0 09/27/2018 30046 2018-001003 01:48 308 N QUEEN ST Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 3.0 09/27/2018 30046 2018-001004 04:45 101 N CAROLINE PL 101 Malicious, mischievous false call, other 0.4 09/27/2018 30046 2018-001005 15:28 298 S DUPONT WHY Assist police or other governmental agency 0.3 09/27/2018 30046 2018-001006 16:38 51 WEBBS LN R Heat from short circuit (wiring), defective/worn 0.4 09/27/2018 30046 2018-001007 18:44 244 GRINDING WHEEL DR Toxic condition, other 2.2 09/27/2018 30046 2018-001008 22:28 538 N BRADFORD ST Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.3 09/28/2018 30046 2018-001009 20:27 20 N BRADFORD ST Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.6 09/29/2018 30046 2018-001010 02:31 1200 N DUPONT HWY Detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.4 09/29/2018 30046 2018-001011 08:20 1700 N DUPONT HWY BLDG F Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional 0.5 09/29/2018 30046 2018-001012 11:58 255 WEBBS LN E Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional 0.2 09/29/2018 30046 2018-001013 12:38 1700 N DUPONT HWY Police matter 2.6 09/29/2018 30046 2018-001014 13:59 209 S STATE ST Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional 0.3 09/29/2018 30046 2018-001015 15:12 835 BAY RD Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional 0.4 09/29/2018 30046 2018-001016 16:21 740 S NEW ST Unintentional transmission of alarm, other 0.2 09/29/2018 30046 2018-001017 17:26 1570 N DUPONT HWY Detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.3 09/29/2018 30046 2018-001018 19:21 121 PARK DR Cooking fire, confined to container 0.3 09/29/2018 30046 2018-001019 22:16 42 LOST TREE CT Carbon monoxide incident 1.7 09/30/2018 30046 2018-001020 12:29 1450 N DUPONT HWY 0587 Unintentional transmission of alarm, other 0.1 09/14/2018 30046 2018-000941 11:18 1200 N DUPONT HWY Dispatched & canceled en route 0.0 Total Number of Incidents: 156 Total Length of Incidents: 84.4 Hours

DEPARTMENT OF POLICE Marvin C. Mailey 400 South Queen Street Chief of Police Dover, Delaware 19904 302-736-7111 Fax: 302-672-1842 November 13, 2018 Honorable Robin Christiansen, Mayor Member of Dover City Council City Hall Dover, DE 19901 Mayor Christiansen and Council Members: The following is the monthly report for Dover Police Department activities for the month of September 2018: COMPLAINTS Total complaints received through September 30, 2018, numbered 32,958 this is an increase of 947 complaints over the same period last year. 40,000 33,065 32,011 32,958 29,006 30,000 26,481 20,000 10,000 0 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS 8 7 6 6 5 4 4 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burglary Robbery Rape Homicide Sudden Death Cases Reported in September Cases Cleared In September Cases Cleared from Previous Months 1|Page

DRUGS, VICE, & ORGANIZED CRIME (DVOC) AND STREET CRIMES SECTION SEIZURES Along with the drug seizures below, the units also recovered $20,456.27 USD during the month of September. 3,000.00 1,919.71 2,000.00 1,000.00 449.3 30.4 1 57.356 0.00 Marijuana Cocaine Ecstasy (Doses) Prescription Heroin Pills (Doses) GRAMS/DOSES FIREARM SEIZURES/INSIDE CITY LIMITS 6 5 5 4 3 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CI DVOC/STREET CRIMES PATROL SEU HANDGUN RIFLE SHOTGUN COMMUNITY POLICING COMMUNITY POLICING CONTACTS ABANDONED VEHICLES 2 ALCOHOL VIOLATIONS/DUI’S 0 CADETS CONTACTS ASSIST OTHER 73 DCO’S 91 WARRANTS ON FILE 0 PARKING 64 CRIMINAL ARRESTS 1 SMOKING 4 PARKING DCO’S 25 OPEN CONTAINER 15 LOUD MUSIC 0 LOUD NOISE 0 MISCELLANEOUS DCO’S 0 OTHER DCO’s 8 PARKING COMPLAINTS 0 PROPERTY CHECKS 72 PEDDLER 0 BUSINESS CONTACTS 223 COMMUNITY OUTREACH 82 LIBRARY CHECKS 123 CRIME PREVENTION CHECK 0 COMPLAINTS ASSIGNED 22 TRAFFIC ARRESTS 8 SPECIAL EVENT 7 BIKE PATROL 0 TOTAL CONTACTS 629 PROPERTY CHECKS 69 WARNINGS 1 TOTAL CONTACTS 261 2|Page

STREET CRIMES STREET CRIMES ENFORCEMENT CONTACTS ABANDONED VEHICLES 0 ALCOHOL VIOLATIONS/DUI'S 0 ASSIST OTHER 9 WARRANTS ON FILE 0 CITY PARK VIOLATIONS 0 CRIMINAL ARRESTS 35 DRUG RELATED ARRESTS 36 LOUD MUSIC 0 MISCELLANEOUS VIOLATIONS 0 PARKING VIOLATIONS 0 PEDDLER 0 MEETINGS 0 CURFEW CHECKS 125 CRIME PREVENTION CHECKS 0 TRAFFIC ARRESTS 24 WARNINGS 56 FUGITIVES 3 DCO'S 8 PROSTITUTION 0 TOTAL CONTACTS 296 TRAFFIC ARRESTS The department issued 6,684 traffic citations through this reporting period; this is a decrease of 2,190 citations over the number issued during the same period last year. 14,000 12,252 12,607 12,000 9,782 10,000 8,874 8,000 6,684 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 3|Page

TRAFFIC CRASHES Through September 30, 2018, the Dover Police investigated 1,318 traffic crashes, a decrease of 42 crashes investigated during the same period last year. 1,420 1,405 1,412 1,400 1,380 1,360 1,360 1,340 1,318 1,315 1,320 1,300 1,280 1,260 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 911 Center During the month of September, the Dover Police Department handled 7,600 calls averaging 253 calls per day. Dispatchers handled 2,214 on the 911 wireless lines, 512 on the 911 landlines, and 223 on the Voice over Internet Protocol lines, the remaining 4,651 were administrative calls. 29% 61% 7% 3% 911 Wireless 911 Landline VoIP Administrative CITY ORDINANCE SUMMONS Through September 30 2018, we issued 3,826 city ordinance summons, a decrease of 703 summonses for the same period last year. Note: Of those summonses issued in September, 4 DCO’s were issued for handicapped parking violations and 9 for fire lane parking violations, 136 for false alarms 89 for 1-2 alarms, 25 for 3-5 alarms, 14 for 6-9 alarms, 8 for 10-15 alarms, and 0 for 16 or more alarms) and 8 for noise violations 2 for vehicle violations and 6 for residence violations). 7,000 5,747 6,000 5,369 4,742 4,529 5,000 4,137 3,826 4,000 2,755 2,833 3,000 2,423 1,816 2,000 1,000 0 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 ISSUED 5,747 4,742 5,369 4,529 3,826 PAID 4,137 2,755 2,833 2,423 1,816 4|Page

SEX OFFENDER STATISTICS/SEPTEMBER MONTHLY NON COMPLIANT VERIFICATIONS NOTIFICATIONS REVERIFICATIONS WARRANTS TIER 1 0 0 0 0 TIER 2 25 2,325 42 2 TIER 3 12 1,666 33 1 ACTIVE SEX OFFENDERS THAT RESIDE IN THE CITY OF DOVER (please note, Tier 1 offenders are not contacted by Dover Police Sex Offender Agents). 250 207 212 200 150 100 89 91 50 0 AUGUST SEPTEMBER TIER 2 207 212 TIER 3 89 91 (Please note, Tier 1 offenders are not contacted by Dover Police Sex Offender Agents). Please visit our website at www.doverpolice.org for up to date information on crimes and activities in the City of Dover. Respectfully Submitted, Marvin C. Mailey Chief of Police 5|Page

City of Dover Capital Investment Plan Project Tracking Report Quarterly Report as of September 30, 2018 Points to Remember - * Original Project Budget = Original Total Project Budget initially included in approved annual budget. * Latest Project Budget = Revised Total Project Budget included in most recent approved annual budget or one of the following: bond resolution, revolving fund loan agreement, Council approved budget amendment, or City Manager approved amendment as per the Budget Amendment Procedure. * Current Fiscal Year - Revised Fiscal Year Budget = Current Year approved project budgets plus carry forward balances of unspent budgets in the prior fiscal year. Project Carry Forward balances will be submitted to City Council for amendment in January 2019. Can also be amended with City Manager approval per the Budget Amendment Procedure. * Water Quality, Inflow/Infiltration, Distribution Upgrades and New Development projects are budgeted as a blanket project and once individual projects are identified and estimated they are created using an allocation of the overall budgeted amount. * Status and Comments provided by City Manager. Community Water & Total Current Year Budget Funding Sources General Transportation Wastewater Electric CIP Budget Balance $ 1,404,000 $ 179,900 $ 1,387,000 $ 1,258,000 $ 4,228,900 General Billings for Reimbursement of Expense - - - 450,000 450,000 State Community Transportation Funds - 500,000 - - 500,000 Wastewater Loan Proceeds - - 1,033,900 - 1,033,900 Water Loan Proceeds - - 4,000,000 - 4,000,000 Transfer from WW Impact Fee Reserve - - 421,100 - 421,100 Transfer from Water Impact Fee Reserve - - 40,400 - 40,400 Transfer from Water/Wastewater - - - 298,000 298,000 Transfer from General Fund 3,013,800 - - 200,000 3,213,800 Transfer from Operating Funds - - 3,600,000 6,400,000 10,000,000 Transfer from Parkland Reserve 80,000 - - - 80,000 Transfer from Capital Asset Reserve 388,800 - - - 388,800 Interest Income - - 90,000 109,800 199,800 Total Funding Sources (Unaudited) $ 4,886,600 $ 679,900 $ 10,572,400 $ 8,715,800 $ 24,854,700

City of Dover General Fund - Major CIP Projects Quarterly Report as of September 30, 2018 TOTAL PROJECT - PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Project % Original Revised Fiscal % Project Project Project To Date Budget Budget Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget of Code Type Description Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Expenses Balance Completion Status Comments 1 FY 2015 & Prior 2 PR1402 M Schutte Park Land Improvements $ 100,000 $ 315,000 $ 60,798 $ 254,202 19.3% $ 70,000 $ 257,700 $ 3,543 $ 254,158 25.0% In Process Reviewed 50% plan submittal 3 ST1504 Old PW2 Site Improvements 535,000 678,300 634,558 43,742 93.6% - 45,300 1,620 43,680 0.0% In Process Design work ongoing for the VCP 4 Totals - FY 2015 $ 635,000 $ 993,300 $ 695,356 $ 297,944 70.0% $ 70,000 $ 303,000 $ 5,163 $ 297,838 5 6 FY 2017 7 PR1701 G Dover Park - Master Plan $ 50,000 $ 200,000 $ 48,106 $ 151,894 24.1% $ 140,000 $ 158,700 $ 6,880 $ 151,820 15.0% In Process Beginning implementation of plan 8 Totals - FY 2017 $ 50,000 $ 200,000 $ 48,106 $ 151,894 24.1% $ 140,000 $ 158,700 $ 6,880 $ 151,820 9 10 FY 2018 11 PD1800 Police Station Roof Repair $ 53,100 $ 38,300 $ 37,992 $ 308 99.2% $ - $ 38,300 $ 37,992 $ 308 100.0% Complete 12 PD1801 Police Station Impound Lot 51,000 125,000 7,150 117,850 5.7% 74,000 118,600 750 117,850 15.0% In Process Awaiting agency approvals 13 PD1802 Condenser Replacement in Comp Room - 14,800 14,752 48 99.7% - 7,400 7,376 24 100.0% Complete 14 PR1800 G Park and Playground Improvement Prog 66,000 66,000 26,175 39,825 39.7% - 13,100 13,041 59 100.0% Complete 15 PR1801 R Small Park Improvements 15,000 48,000 207 47,794 0.4% 48,000 48,000 207 47,794 25.0% In Process Started 16 ST1801 FY18 Street and Alley Program 950,000 649,500 - 649,500 0.0% - 649,500 - 649,500 0.0% Not Started Street program to begin end of Oct 17 ST1806 Bradford St Streetscape Improvement 200,000 200,000 - 200,000 0.0% 200,000 200,000 - 200,000 0.0% In Process Work underway by State Consultant 18 Totals - FY 2018 $ 1,335,100 $ 1,141,600 $ 86,276 $ 1,055,324 7.6% $ 322,000 $ 1,074,900 $ 59,366 $ 1,015,534 19 20 FY 2019 21 --- Vehicles & Equipment $ 998,900 $ 1,086,500 $ 8,700 $ 1,077,800 0.8% $ 998,900 $ 1,086,500 $ 8,700 $ 1,077,800 0.0% In Process 22 FR1900 R Annual Contribution for Ladder 1 145,700 145,700 145,614 86 99.9% 145,700 145,700 145,614 86 100.0% Complete 23 FR1901 Engine 7 76,800 76,800 12,945 63,855 16.9% 76,800 76,800 12,945 63,855 17.0% In Process 24 IT1900 Server Replacement 16,000 16,000 - 16,000 0.0% 16,000 16,000 - 16,000 0.0% Not Started 25 IT1901 Server Room UPS Replacement 20,000 20,000 - 20,000 0.0% 20,000 20,000 - 20,000 0.0% Not Started 26 IT1902 R Network Infrastructure 21,600 21,600 12,264 9,336 56.8% 21,600 21,600 12,264 9,336 50.0% In Process Ongoing 27 PD1901 Evidence Room Asbestos Abatement 20,000 20,000 - 20,000 0.0% 20,000 20,000 - 20,000 0.0% Not Started 28 PD1903 Phone System Replacement 40,400 40,400 - 40,400 0.0% 40,400 40,400 - 40,400 0.0% In Process Working on purchase order 29 PR1900 Park Maintenance Facility 260,000 260,000 - 260,000 0.0% 260,000 260,000 - 260,000 10.0% In Process In Public Works awaiting draft RFP 30 ST1902 Misc Emergency Storm Sewer Repair 73,000 73,000 - 73,000 0.0% 73,000 73,000 - 73,000 0.0% Not Started 31 ST1904 Meeting House Branch Improvement 1,100,000 1,100,000 - 1,100,000 0.0% 1,100,000 1,100,000 - 1,100,000 0.0% Not Started 32 ST1905 Operations Yard Relocation and Improv 445,000 445,000 - 445,000 0.0% 445,000 445,000 - 445,000 0.0% Not Started 33 ST1907 Brine Manufacturing System 45,000 45,000 - 45,000 0.0% 45,000 45,000 - 45,000 0.0% Not Started 34 Totals - FY 2019 $ 3,262,400 $ 3,350,000 $ 179,523 $ 3,170,477 5.4% $ 3,262,400 $ 3,350,000 $ 179,523 $ 3,170,477 35 36 Grand Totals $ 5,282,500 $ 5,684,900 $ 1,009,260 $ 4,675,640 17.8% $ 3,794,400 $ 4,886,600 $ 250,931 $ 4,635,669 Legend M = Multi-year project - a project with a specific schedule to occur over multiple years. R = Recurring project - a project that begins and ends each fiscal year and is re-budgeted to start over each fiscal year. G = Grant funded project B/L = To be financed through bonds or commercial loan.

City of Dover Community Transportation - Major CIP Projects Quarterly Report as of September 30, 2018 TOTAL PROJECT - PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Project % Original Revised Fiscal % Project Project Project To Date Budget Budget Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget of Code Type Description Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Expenses Balance Completion Status Comments 1 FY 2014 & Prior 2 TE0601 Lincoln Park Center $ 900,000 $ 602,400 $ 523,277 $ 79,123 86.9% $ - $ 79,100 $ - $ 79,100 100.0% Complete Determining where to send money back 3 Totals - FY 2014 & Prior $ 900,000 $ 602,400 $ 523,277 $ 79,123 86.9% $ - $ 79,100 $ - $ 79,100 4 5 FY 2018 6 CT1829 Mobile Radar Signs $ 12,200 $ 12,200 $ - $ 12,200 0.0% $ - $ 12,200 $ - $ 12,200 0.0% In Process Signs received, awaiting asembly by distributor 7 CT1833 Paving-Hope St from Governors Ave to S State St 89,000 88,600 - 88,600 0.0% - 88,600 - 88,600 0.0% Not Started To begin end of October 8 Totals - FY 2016 $ 101,200 $ 100,800 $ - $ 100,800 0.0% $ - $ 100,800 $ - $ 100,800 9 10 FY 2019 11 CT1896 Paving Project - Reese St from Lincoln to Simon Circle $ 11,200 $ 11,200 $ - $ 11,200 0.0% $ 11,200 $ 11,200 $ - $ 11,200 0.0% Not Started To begin end of October 12 CT1904 Paving Project - Bertrand and Reese Streets 300,000 300,000 - 300,000 0.0% 300,000 300,000 - 300,000 0.0% Not Started To begin end of October 13 ST1908 FY18 Street and Alley Bond Bill 500,000 500,000 - 500,000 0.0% 500,000 500,000 - 500,000 0.0% Not Started To begin end of October 14 CTxxxx Unapplied CT Projects (placeholder) 500,000 (311,200) - (311,200) 0.0% (311,200) (311,200) - (311,200) 15 Totals - FY 2017 $ 1,311,200 $ 500,000 $ - $ 488,800 0.0% $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ 500,000 16 17 Grand Totals $ 2,312,400 $ 1,203,200 $ 523,277 $ 668,723 43.5% $ 500,000 $ 679,900 $ - $ 679,900 Legend M = Multi-year project - a project with a specific schedule to occur over multiple years. R = Recurring project - a project that begins and ends each fiscal year and is re-budgeted to start over each fiscal year. C = Project funded by combination of CT Funds and General Fund B/L = To be financed through bonds or commercial loan.

City of Dover Water/Wastewater Improvement & Extension Fund - Major CIP Projects Quarterly Report as of September 30, 2018 TOTAL PROJECT - PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Project % Original Revised Fiscal % Project Project Project To Date Budget Budget Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget of Code Type Description Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Expenses Balance Completion Status Comments 1 FY 2016 2 WD1609 M WTP Process Improvements $ 1,200,000 $ 6,468,200 $ 347,523 $ 6,120,677 5.4% $ 4,000,000 $ 6,468,200 $ 9,254 $ 6,458,947 5.0% In Process Submittal phase of project, reviewing products 3 Totals - FY 2016 $ 1,200,000 $ 6,468,200 $ 347,523 $ 6,120,677 5.4% $ 4,000,000 $ 6,468,200 $ 9,254 $ 6,458,947 4 5 FY 2018 6 WQ1804 N State St Water Main Replacement $ - $ 94,000 $ 4,000 $ 90,000 4.3% $ - $ 90,000 $ - $ 90,000 98.0% In Process Proj completed in mid Oct, awaiting closeout docs 7 WW1806 Puncheon Run PS Improvements 320,000 320,000 6,825 313,175 2.1% - 70,000 6,825 63,175 85.0% In Process Final plans to be delivered in early November 8 WW1807 PS #7 Emergency Clean Up - 320,400 320,395 5 100.0% - 43,400 43,389 11 100.0% Complete 9 II1801 College Road 43,400 43,400 - 43,400 0.0% - 43,400 - 43,400 0.0% In Process Awaiting relining/replacement, November Root control complete, awaiting relining/replacemnet, 10 II1802 Overlook Eastlake Garden 35,500 33,500 3,603 29,897 0.0% - 33,500 3,603 29,897 0.0% In Process November Root control complete, awaiting relining/replacemnet, 11 II1803 Fox Hall 44,600 16,500 191 16,309 0.0% - 16,500 191 16,309 0.0% In Process November Root control complete, awaiting relining/replacemnet, 12 II1804 Downtown Dover 116,900 61,700 2,091 59,609 0.0% - 61,700 2,091 59,609 0.0% In Process November Root control complete, awaiting relining/replacemnet, 13 II1805 Wesley College Area 132,200 93,000 1,150 91,850 0.0% - 93,000 1,150 91,850 0.0% In Process November Root control complete, awaiting relining/replacemnet, 14 II1806 Rodney Village 539,600 471,400 15,296 456,104 0.0% - 471,400 15,296 456,104 0.0% In Process November 15 Totals - FY 2017 $ 1,232,200 $ 1,453,900 $ 353,550 $ 1,100,350 24.3% $ - $ 922,900 $ 72,544 $ 850,356 16 17 FY 2019 18 --- R Vehicles & Equipment $ - $ 160,800 $ - $ 160,800 0.0% $ - $ 160,800 $ - $ 160,800 0.0% In Process 19 --- Economic Development Program 25,000 25,000 - 25,000 0.0% 25,000 25,000 - 25,000 0.0% 20 WD1901 R Wellhead Redevelopment 90,000 90,000 - 90,000 0.0% 90,000 90,000 - 90,000 0.0% In Process Contract initiated, awaiting mobilization from contractor 21 WD1903 Bulk Water Station 42,400 42,400 - 42,400 0.0% 42,400 42,400 - 42,400 0.0% Not Started Bid creation to begin in November 22 WQ1901 Water Quality Improvement - Lakewood 294,900 294,900 - 294,900 0.0% 294,900 294,900 - 294,900 0.0% In Process Council approved in Oct, awaiting contract 23 WQ1902 R Misc Emergency Water Repairs 88,000 88,000 27,603 60,398 31.4% 88,000 88,000 27,603 60,398 31.0% In Process 24 WW1902 R Misc Emerg Sanitary Sewer Repairs 155,000 155,000 31,767 123,233 20.5% 155,000 155,000 31,767 123,233 20.0% In Process 25 WW1903 Delaware Tech PS Replacement 402,300 402,300 - 402,300 0.0% 402,300 402,300 - 402,300 0.0% In Process Submittal phase of project, reviewing products 26 WW1904 Silver Lake PS Replacement 489,500 489,500 - 489,500 0.0% 489,500 489,500 - 489,500 0.0% In Process Submittal phase of project, reviewing products 27 WW1905 Walker Woods PS Replacement 563,200 563,200 - 563,200 0.0% 563,200 563,200 - 563,200 0.0% In Process Submittal phase of project, reviewing products 28 WW1906 Meeting House Branch Sewer Rplc 250,000 250,000 2,400 247,600 1.0% 250,000 250,000 2,400 247,600 0.0% In Process Awaiting owner review of appraisal of land 29 II1900 Inflow/Infiltration Removal 620,200 620,200 - 620,200 0.0% 620,200 620,200 - 620,200 0.0% Not Started Bid creation to begin in November 30 Totals - FY 2018 $ 3,020,500 $ 3,181,300 $ 61,770 $ 3,119,530 1.9% $ 3,020,500 $ 3,181,300 $ 61,770 $ 3,119,530 31 32 Grand Totals $ 5,452,700 $ 11,103,400 $ 850,671 $ 10,252,729 7.7% $ 7,020,500 $ 10,572,400 $ 143,567 $ 10,428,833 Legend M = Multi-year project - a project with a specific schedule to occur over multiple years. R = Recurring project - a project that begins and ends each fiscal year and is budgeted to start over each fiscal year. No carry forward. SL = State Loan Project - construction phase is financed I = Impact Fee (partially) financed project T = Transfer from blanket WQ or I&I original budget

City of Dover Electric Improvement & Extension Fund - Major CIP Projects Quarterly Report as of September 30, 2018 TOTAL PROJECT - PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Project % Current Revised Fiscal % Project Project Project To Date Budget Budget Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget of Code Type Description Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Expenses Balance Completion Status Comments 1 FY 2015 2 EE1513 M Town Point/White Oak Distribution Feeders $ 1,650,000 $ 2,085,000 $ 1,298,516 $ 786,484 62.3% $ 507,000 $ 507,000 $ 48,513 $ 458,487 10.0% On Hold Determing path forward on boring 3 Totals - FY 2015 $ 1,650,000 $ 2,085,000 $ 1,298,516 $ 786,484 62.3% $ 507,000 $ 507,000 $ 48,513 $ 458,487 4 5 FY 2016 6 EE1605 69 kV Cable Replacement - North St $ - $ 100,000 $ - $ 100,000 0.0% $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ - $ 100,000 0.0% In Process Waiting on terminator 7 Totals - FY 2016 $ - $ 100,000 $ - $ 100,000 0.0% $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ - $ 100,000 8 9 FY 2017 10 EE1709 Substation Relay Upgrade $ 350,000 $ 125,000 $ 4,882 $ 120,118 3.9% $ - $ 120,100 $ - $ 120,100 0.0% In Process Working as able Atomizing air compressor on site, install mid 11 EG1701 VanSant Unit 11 Major Overhaul 2,098,000 1,878,800 1,873,968 4,832 99.7% - 82,000 77,176 4,824 90.0% In Process November 12 Totals - FY 2017 $ 2,448,000 $ 2,003,800 $ 1,878,850 $ 124,950 93.8% $ - $ 202,100 $ 77,176 $ 124,924 13 14 FY 2018 15 EE1807 McKee Run Plant Alternate Power $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 22,941 $ 77,059 22.9% $ - $ 77,000 $ - $ 77,000 70.0% In Process Dismantling slowly, disposing of equipment Awaiting resolution from vendor and Fire Marshal on 16 EG1803 VanSant Fire Suppression System Upgrade 30,000 30,000 - 30,000 0.0% - 30,000 - 30,000 0.0% In Process requirements for the dampers on the system 17 Totals - FY 2018 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 22,941 $ 107,059 17.6% $ - $ 107,000 $ - $ 107,000 18 19 FY 2019 20 --- R Vehicles & Equipment $ 541,000 $ 541,000 $ - $ 541,000 0.0% $ 541,000 $ 541,000 $ - $ 541,000 21 --- Economic Development Program 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 0.0% 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 22 EE1918 R New Developments 850,000 850,000 408,620 441,380 48.1% 850,000 850,000 131,853 718,147 16.0% In Process 43 EE1819 Reed St HVAC Major Overhaul 1,175,200 1,175,200 - 1,175,200 0.0% 1,175,200 1,175,200 - 1,175,200 0.0% Not Started 44 EE1900 R Fault Indicators 10,000 10,000 - 10,000 0.0% 10,000 10,000 - 10,000 0.0% In Process Evaluating locations 45 EE1903 Garrison Oak/Sun Park Substation 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 0.0% 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 0.0% In Process Working with Engineering firm for scope 46 EE1910 Bayside Dr Distribution Upgrade 25,000 25,000 24,869 131 99.5% 25,000 25,000 24,869 131 100.0% Complete 47 EE1912 MLK Lighting Upgrade 28,000 28,000 - 28,000 0.0% 28,000 28,000 - 28,000 0.0% In Process Waiting on permit 48 EE1913 R Distribution Cap & Control 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 0.0% 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 0.0% In Process Evaluating locations 49 EE1916 Ted Harvey Underground 10,000 10,000 - 10,000 0.0% 10,000 10,000 - 10,000 0.0% In Process Waiting on permit 50 EE1917 R Transmission Line Maintenance Program 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 0.0% 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 0.0% In Process Ongoing 51 EE1919 R Lighting Project and Rehabilitation 1,350,000 1,350,000 - 1,350,000 0.0% 1,350,000 1,350,000 - 1,350,000 0.0% In Process Waiting on final plan 52 EE1930 Substation Battery Replacement 7,500 7,500 - 7,500 0.0% 7,500 7,500 - 7,500 0.0% In Process Preparing to order VS and main bldgs at McKee complete. Will address 53 EG1901 R Preservation of Structures 75,000 75,000 16,045 58,955 21.4% 75,000 75,000 16,045 58,955 30.0% In Process other bldgs as weather and manpower allow 54 EG1902 Unit #3 Turbine Intercept Valve 438,000 438,000 - 438,000 0.0% 438,000 438,000 - 438,000 0.0% Not Started Scheduled for Spring 2019 outage 55 EG1904 R Plant Syst Safety & Compl Improvements 132,000 132,000 - 132,000 0.0% 132,000 132,000 - 132,000 0.0% In Process Equipment on order 56 EG1905 R McKee Run Unit #3 Boiler Systems 515,000 515,000 - 515,000 0.0% 515,000 515,000 - 515,000 0.0% In Process Work to be done during Spring 2019 outage Computer Replacement on Turbine Control 57 EG1906 System 125,000 125,000 - 125,000 0.0% 125,000 125,000 - 125,000 0.0% Not Started Need to provide info on operating system/platform 58 EG1907 R McKee Run Auxiliary Syst Components 261,000 261,000 - 261,000 0.0% 261,000 261,000 - 261,000 0.0% In Process Equipment on order 59 M Purchase of ERP System 2,606,000 3,547,700 1,076,943 2,470,757 30.4% 548,000 2,057,000 86,060 1,970,940 4.0% In Process Approaching Phase I go live "Financials" 61 Totals - FY 2019 $ 8,348,700 $ 9,290,400 $ 1,526,477 $ 7,763,923 16.4% $ 6,290,700 $ 7,799,700 $ 258,827 $ 7,540,873 62 63 Grand Totals $ 12,576,700 $ 13,609,200 $ 4,726,784 $ 8,882,416 34.7% $ 6,897,700 $ 8,715,800 $ 384,516 $ 8,331,284 Legend M = Multi-year project - a project with a specific schedule to occur over multiple years. B = Bonded Project R = Recurring project - a project that begins and ends each fiscal year and is re-budgeted to start over each fiscal year. S = State fully or partially reimbursed project

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: City Council DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: City Council PREPARED BY: Traci A. McDowell, City Clerk, on behalf of Council President Slavin SUBJECT: Council and Committee Meetings - Holiday Schedule DATE SUBMITTED: 11-02-2018 RELATED PROJECT: N/A APPROVALS: N/A EXHIBITS: N/A EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A AMOUNT BUDGETED: $ N/A FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): N/A TIMETABLE: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION: Cancellation of November 26 and December 24, 2018 City Council Meetings and November 27 and December 26, 2018 Council Committee of the Whole Meetings. Consideration may also be given to declaring December 24, 2018 as a special holiday. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS As we have done in the past, due to the holiday season, it is recommended that the City Council Meetings scheduled for November 26th and December 24th and the Council Committee of the Whole Meetings scheduled for November 27th and December 26th be cancelled. Please keep in mind that if the need arises, Special Meetings will be called. Additionally, Christmas falls on a Tuesday this year and it is recommended that consideration be given to recognizing Monday, December 24th as a special holiday declared by City Council for City employees. TAS/tm/jt S:\CAFS\Holiday Schedule 11-13-2018.wpd