COUNCIL PACKET

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA JULY 22, 2019 - 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 TAYLOR ADOPTION OF AGENDA * 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 A. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 1, 2019 - VIOLATIONS OF THE DANGEROUS BUILDING ORDINANCE (VDBO) B. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 8, 2019 C. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 8, 2019 2. CERTIFICATES OF RECOGNITION - WILD MEADOWS A. JOSEPH DANNER B. ROBERT SCHMIDT 3. PRESENTATIONS A. PRESENTATION - LUTHERAN SENIOR SERVICES OF DOVER, INC. - PAYMENT-IN-LIEU OF TAXES (PILOT) B. JEFF BROWN - RETIREMENT

COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 2 4. ANNEXATION/REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2920 NORTH DUPONT HIGHWAY, OWNED BY NEWWIND PROPERTIES 2920 LLC (POSTPONED DURING THE COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 28, 2019 - RECEIVED REQUEST TO POSTPONE - RECOMMEND THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE RESCHEDULED FOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2019) A. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CLASSIFICATION PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2920 NORTH DUPONT HIGHWAY, CONSISTING OF 0.57 +/- ACRES, OWNED BY NEWWIND PROPERTIES 2920 LLC. THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED BG (GENERAL BUSINESS)(KENT COUNTY ZONING CLASSIFICATION) AND THE PROPOSED ZONING IS C-4 (HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL)(CITY OF DOVER ZONING CLASSIFICATION) (TAX PARCEL: ED-00-057.02-01-08.00-000; PLANNING REFERENCE: AX-19-01; COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3) B. ADOPTION OF ANNEXATION RESOLUTION NO. 2019-03 C. FINAL READING/ADOPTION OF REZONING ORDINANCE #2019-01 THE FIRST READING OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WAS ACCOMPLISHED DURING THE COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 14, 2019. THE ORDINANCE IS AVAILABLE AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE C OUNCIL C HAMBERS , ON THE C ITY ' S WEBSITE AT WWW.CITYOFDOVER.COM UNDER "GOVERNMENT," OR BY CONTACTING THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT 736-7008 OR CITYCLERK@DOVER.DE.US. (1) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2920 NORTH DUPONT HIGHWAY 5. PRESENTATION - 2018 ANNUAL REPORT - DOWNTOWN DOVER PARTNERSHIP 6. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT - JULY 9, 2019 * A. UTILITY COMMITTEE (1) PRESENTATION - KENT COUNTY SEWER PROJECT (COMMITTEE ACTION NOT REQUIRED) (2) DEDICATION OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE - ENERGY LANE AND STOVER BOULEVARD (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: ACCEPTANCE OF DEDICATION OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE OF ENERGY LANE AND STOVER BOULEVARD. DEDICATION IS TO INCLUDE ALL OF THE REFERENCED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.) B. PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE * (1) PRESENTATION - O PIOID COMMUNITY R ESPONSE T EAM E FFORTS (KRISTAN MCINTOSH, SENIOR CONSULTANT - HEALTH MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES) (COMMITTEE ACTION NOT REQUIRED) (2) PRESENTATION BY THE GREATER DOVER IMA SOCIAL ACTION COMMITTEE (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: THAT THE CITY EXPLORE A CHALLENGE GRANT TO THE NEWLY FORMED NONPROFIT PARTNERSHIP FOR DOVER PARK THAT MUST RECEIVE 501(C)(3) DESIGNATION FROM THE IRS IN ORDER TO RECEIVE ANY FUNDING. THE SOURCE OF CITY FUNDING IS FOUND IN SECTION 36 OF HOUSE BILL 260 OF THE 2019 LEGISLATIVE SESSION, AND THE INTENT OF THE MOTION IS SIMPLY TO HAVE THE CITY BEGIN THAT DIALOGUE ABOUT FUNDING.) * (3) PRESENTATION - SKATE PARK ADVOCATES (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: DEFERRED UNTIL AUGUST 13, 2019)

COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 3 6. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT - JULY 9, 2019 (CONTINUED) * C. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE (1) PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2019-16 AMENDING CHAPTER 102 - TAXATION OF THE DOVER CODE BY INSERTING A NEW ARTICLE VII - LODGING TAX (SEE ITEM #9-A) (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE #2019-16) * 7. QUARTERLY REVENUE REPORT AS OF JUNE 30, 2019 (STAFF RECOMMENDS ACCEPTANCE OF THE REPORT) * 8. REAPPOINTMENT RECOMMENDED BY MAYOR CHRISTIANSEN - PLANNING COMMISSION - KENNETH G. ROACH - FOURTH DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE - THREE-YEAR TERM TO EXPIRE JUNE 1, 2022 9. FIRST READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE THE FIRST READING IS OFFERED ON THE FOLLOWING PROPOSED ORDINANCE. FINAL ACTION BY COUNCIL WILL TAKE PLACE DURING THE SECOND READING ON AUGUST 12, 2019. THE ORDINANCE IS AVAILABLE AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AT WWW.CITYOFDOVER.COM UNDER “GOVERNMENT,” OR BY CONTACTING THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT 736-7008 OR CITYCLERK@DOVER.DE.US. A. #2019-16 AMENDING CHAPTER 102 - TAXATION OF THE DOVER CODE BY INSERTING A NEW ARTICLE VII - LODGING TAX (LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE) 10. CITY MANAGER’S ANNOUNCEMENTS 11. COUNCIL MEMBERS’ ANNOUNCEMENTS 12. ADJOURNMENT 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; 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 /TM S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\COUNCIL-AGENDAS\2019\07-22-2019 COUNCIL AGENDA NEW 2.WPD 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.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING A Special Council Meeting was held on July 1, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. with Council President Hare presiding. Council members present were Mr. Neil, Mr. Slavin, Mr. Cole, Mr. Polce, and Mr. Taylor. Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sudler, and Mr. Lindell were absent. Mayor Christiansen was also present (departed at 6:46 p.m.). Council staff members present were Deputy Solicitor Pepper, Mr. Hugg, Mrs. McDowell. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Taylor and unanimously carried. PUBLIC HEARING - VIOLATION OF THE DANGEROUS BUILDING ORDINANCE - PROPERTY LOCATED AT 210 WEST DIVISION STREET, OWNED BY MICHAEL-ENWAN-KENWAN / OROCK HOLDING LLC A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider a violation of the Dangerous Building Ordinance at 210 West Division Street, owned by Michael-Enwan-Kenwan / Orock Holding LLC. Mr. David Hugg, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed a presentation depicting the condition of the property (Exhibit #1). Staff recommended: 1) declaring this building and all accessory structures on this property dangerous; 2) ordering the property demolished by August 1, 2019 by the owners or equity owners at their own risk; 3) ordering the Building Inspector to cause the demolition of the structures if not completed by the owners within 10 days of the date established by City Council; and 4) ordering the City Manager, with the assistance of the City Solicitor, to cause the cost of demolition to be charged against the lands on which the buildings exist as a municipal lien or cause such costs to be added to the tax duplicate as an assessment, or to be levied as a special tax, or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owners. Mr. Tim Taraila, Code Enforcement Supervisor, advised members that Sunnyfield Contractors, Inc. applied for a demolition permit and it was approved that day. He stated that the asbestos had been removed and the property is ready for demolition; however, Sunnyfield Contractors, Inc. indicated that they are busy and it may take them 20 to 30 days to get to the site, so the owner has requested an additional 15 days to demolish the structure. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Taraila stated that there was no money owned to the City on this property, noting that all taxes and fines were paid. Council President Hare declared the public hearing open. There being no one present wishing to speak, Council President Hare declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Neil moved for approval of staff’s recommendation to 1) declare this building and all accessory structures on this property dangerous; 2) order the property demolished by August 1, 2019 by the

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 1, 2019 PAGE 2 owners or equity owners at their own risk; 3) order the Building Inspector to cause the demolition of the structures if not completed by the owners within 10 days of the date established by City Council; and 4) order the City Manager, with the assistance of the City Solicitor, to cause the cost of demolition to be charged against the lands on which the buildings exist as a municipal lien or cause such costs to be added to the tax duplicate as an assessment, or to be levied as a special tax, or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owners. The motion was seconded by Mr. Taylor. Mr. Hugg requested that the motion include the additional 15 days requested by the owner. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Taraila explained that the in the last 30 days the owner has been in compliance and been working with the City, so he thought it would be reasonable to give him an extra few days. Mr. Taraila noted that he had contacted Sunnyfield Contractors, Inc. and they told him it may take them 20 to 30 days to get to this site. Mr. Neil requested to change the motion to allow the additional time, and Mr. Taylor agreed. In response to Mr. Slavin, Mr. Taraila explained that after 30 days, staff provides 10 days for them to remove personal effects and, if they do not demolish the structure, he begins preparing for the demolition. Mr. Slavin clarified that they would have had 40 days and the change would give them 45 days. The motion to: 1) declare this building and all accessory structures on this property dangerous; 2) order the property demolished by August 1, 2019 by the owners or equity owners at their own risk; 3) order the Building Inspector to cause the demolition of the structures if not completed by the owners within 15 days of the date established by City Council; and 4) order the City Manager, with the assistance of the City Solicitor, to cause the cost of demolition to be charged against the lands on which the buildings exist as a municipal lien or cause such costs to be added to the tax duplicate as an assessment, or to be levied as a special tax, or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owners was unanimously carried. PUBLIC HEARING - VIOLATION OF THE DANGEROUS BUILDING ORDINANCE - PROPERTY LOCATED AT 316 WEST DIVISION STREET, OWNED BY JOE W. BURDEN, JR. A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider a violation of the Dangerous Building Ordinance at 316 West Division Street, owned by Joe W. Burden, Jr. Mr. Tim Taraila, Code Enforcement Supervisor, reviewed a presentation depicting the condition of the property (Exhibit #2). Staff recommended: 1) declaring this building and all accessory structures on this property dangerous; 2) ordering the property demolished by August 1, 2019 by the owner or equity owner at their own risk; 3) ordering the Building Inspector to cause the demolition of the structures if not completed by the owners within 10 days of the date established by City Council; and 4) ordering the City Manager, with the assistance of the City Solicitor, to cause the cost of demolition to be charged against the lands on which the buildings exist as a municipal lien or cause such costs to be added to

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 1, 2019 PAGE 3 the tax duplicate as an assessment, or to be levied as a special tax, or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owners. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Dave Hugg, Director of Planning and Community Development, referred to the document provided to members by Mr. Taraila listing the properties owned by Mr. Burden and the amounts owed to the City (Exhibit #3), noting that the total owed for 316 West Division Street is $640.13. Mr. Taylor noted that Mr. Burden received a stop work order for 316 West Division Street for work being done without a permit and asked if had applied for a permit since that time. In response, Mr. Taraila stated that there were no current permits for 316 West Division Street. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mr. Taraila confirmed that the list provided to members included all of the properties owned by Mr. Burden, the amounts owed to the City for each property, as well as the total amount owed to the City for all properties and there was no way of calculating the amount of staff time that had been spent on all of these issues. Council President Hare declared the public hearing open. Ms. NaKysia Lemon Williams spoke against demolishing the property, noting that they were currently working on the building at 320 West Division Street, so they had not been able to work on 316 West Division Street and were requesting more time. She noted that the amount of taxes owed to the City for 316 West Division was $640.13, which was a very low amount and they planned to pay it very soon. Ms. Lemon Williams stated that they were trying to request permits, as well as a structural engineering report because they believe the structure is damaged. She explained that the property owner owns approximately 30 properties and it is difficult to get things completed with a limited amount of workers and money. Ms. Lemon Williams noted that the owner does, however, contribute a lot to the community, explaining that he provides low income housing for families in the community, who would not otherwise have an opportunity to rent a home due to credit or other issues, like a criminal record. She stated that members were disappointing the entire community by tearing down these buildings because it would result in less homes for families to live in. Dr. Joe Burden Jr., 941 Lincoln Street, Dover, spoke against demolishing the property. He noted that he did not technically become the property owner until January 2016 because he was in probate until that time. Dr. Burden stated that his father passed away in October 2014, so when the electric was disconnected for this property in 2015, he had just moved back to Delaware and was in the process of paying the City a past due balance of $350,000 that his father had incurred for vacant building fees. He informed members that he had been proactively working to modify several houses, and had remodeled 25 homes in the past three (3) years and now have people living in those properties. Dr. Burden stated that he is very actively involved in community, he tries to help young people by providing job opportunities; however, his crew only consists of himself and two (2) other people. He noted that he just completed several projects and is currently working on these particular properties on Division Street. Dr. Burden stated that he did not believe the City had to spend a lot of time or resources on his properties. He informed members that his property taxes were all paid, explaining that if they weren’t, the Clean Hands Ordinance would be enforced and his electric would be disconnected, as was done a couple of years ago. He stated that, at that time, he was sold

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 1, 2019 PAGE 4 approximately 12 properties to Habitat for Humanity and NCALL and was able to pay the City what he owed. Dr. Burden explained that, despite the amount of money he currently owed the City, the taxes for his properties had been proactively paid since his family owned them over the past 35 years. He noted that there has been a discrepancy with the vacant building fees he was charged since 2015, explaining that Kent County PRIDE shows that was when he became the owner; however, he was in probate until January, 2016, and he has talked to Mr. Dave Hugg, Director of Planning and Community Development, about this discrepancy on several occasions and is seeking legal advice regarding this matter. Responding to Mr. Polce regarding Dr. Burden’s comments in reference to the vacant building fees he was assessed, Mr. Hugg stated that there is an exemption for vacant building fees when an individual is in probate; however, based on the legal opinion provided by Deputy Solicitor Pepper, the City has to go by what Kent County identifies as the owner of records of a certain date. He advised that, although Dr. Burden had provided more than adequate information about when his father passed and when the probate process ended, the date that Kent County has consistently carried forward as the date that the properties passed to him is the earlier date. Mr. Taylor asked Dr. Burden how much time he would need to make the roof on this structure safe. In response, Dr. Burden indicated that there were currently ladder jacks attached to the roof from where his construction team out of Philadelphia was previously working. He stated that he could have the house in tip-top shape in 90 days. Mr. Taylor stated that it would be difficult for him to agree to anything other than the demolition of the property at this point. Responding, Dr. Burden agreed that the house looks bad and is bad on the inside. He explained that they had been putting most of their emphasis on 320 West Division Street. Mr. Taylor asked why Dr. Burden does not just proceed with the demolition of 316 West Division if he wants to put all of his resources into 320 West Division Street. Responding to Mr. Hare, Dr. Burden stated that he was getting an attorney to look into the amount that the City claims he owes regarding the vacant building fees. Dr. Burden said that he would try to do the best he could to fix everything. There being no one else present wishing to speak, Council President Hare declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Polce noted that Ms. Williams commented that if this home were to be demolished, it would be a disappointment to the community. He stated that every time Council meets on these issues, one word just plays in my mind and it’s stewardship. Mr. Polce explained that stewardship for the community is why they serve, and there’s no way to shape, frame, market, or sell that a building that tearing down a building that has been unoccupied and unable to be occupied for nearly half a decade would be a bad decision and a disappointment to the community. He stated that Dr. Burden owes a total of $47,276.35 to the City and, even if the discrepancy that Dr. Burden and Mr. Hugg have discussed is more than $11,000, that alone is not stewardship. Mr. Polce stated that he did not think there was any reason for these blighted buildings to continue to drive down property values in the City’s communities or for this lack of stewardship.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 1, 2019 PAGE 5 Mr. Neil stated that empty buildings cause more problems because they attract problems. He expressed his opinion that creating a safer roof would not resolve the issues with his house. Mr. Neil indicated that this situation is bad and never gets done and there has to be a point where Council looks at what the other citizens are doing. He noted that he goes to the Habitat for Humanity buildings and he feels that they will last longer simply because the people who are buying those homes have a responsibility for what happens to their home and to the community. Mr. Polce moved for approval of staff’s recommendation to: 1) declare this building and all accessory structures on this property dangerous; 2) order the property demolished by August 1, 2019 by the owner or equity owner at their own risk; 3) order the Building Inspector to cause the demolition of the structures if not completed by the owner within 10 days of the date established by City Council; and 4) order the City Manager with the assistance of the City Solicitor to cause the cost of demolition to be charged against the land on which the building exists as a municipal lien or cause such cost to be added to the tax duplicate as an assessment, or to be levied as a special tax, or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owner. The motion was seconded by Mr. Slavin and unanimously carried. PUBLIC HEARING - VIOLATION OF THE DANGEROUS BUILDING ORDINANCE - PROPERTY LOCATED AT 320 WEST DIVISION STREET, OWNED BY JOE W. BURDEN, JR. A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider a violation of the Dangerous Building Ordinance at Property located at 320 West Division Street, owned by Joe W. Burden, Jr. Mr. Tim Taraila, Code Enforcement Supervisor, reviewed a presentation depicting the condition of the property (Exhibit #4). Staff recommended: 1) declaring this building and all accessory structures on this property dangerous; 2) ordering the property demolished by August 1, 2019 by the owner or equity owner at their own risk; 3) ordering the Building Inspector to cause the demolition of the structures if not completed by the owner within 10 days of the date established by City Council; and 4) ordering the City Manager, with the assistance of the City Solicitor, to cause the cost of demolition to be charged against the lands on which the buildings exist as a municipal lien or cause such costs to be added to the tax duplicate as an assessment, or to be levied as a special tax, or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owners. Council President Hare declared the public hearing open. Dr. Joe Burden Jr., 941 Lincoln Street, Dover, spoke against demolishing the property. He noted that he acquired the property in 2016 and the tenants living there were difficult to deal with, did not pay rent for a year and a half, and he believed they were selling drugs. Dr. Burden explained that while they were living there, a tree fell on the back of the house and damaged the roof and ceiling, which caused a leak and they did not report it to him until the ceiling began to deteriorate. He stated that whenever he experiences a situation with a tenant, he calls Mr. Taraila or his staff to come out to inspect the property, noting that he had to call City staff three (3) or four (4) times in regard to 320 West Division Street because the tenants were complaining. Dr. Burden informed members that he recommended that the house be condemned because he wanted the tenants out because they were

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 1, 2019 PAGE 6 neglecting the property. He stated that he takes pride in his properties, even though there are stereotypical perceptions about him being a slum lord, which he suggested could be attributed to the fact that he owns properties in low-income areas or because there is a strong proactive approach to gentrify the downtown area. In regard to the $11,000 owed to the City for this property, Dr. Burden stated that there are times when he has disputes with the inspectors because he feels like they target him and fine him for every little thing. He noted that the roof on the Delaware Auto Sales property across the street is rotten; however, he did not think the inspectors could see that, stating that he thinks they can only see minority-owned properties in despair. Dr. Burden stated that he understands a strong approach to gentrification, explaining that he had made the community safe and was choosing to leave his properties vacant because the people who want to rent from him are drug dealers and half of them aren’t good people and don’t want to pay their rent. He indicated that he is also leaving his properties vacant so he can work on bringing them up to par until the area gentrifies and he can attract better tenants to come to the area. Responding to Mr. Burden, Mr. Taraila stated that he received a permit to repair the roof on August 17, 2018; however, not inspections had been done and the permit had expired. Dr. Burden informed members that he received an extension on his permits for this property the previous week, which Mr. Dave Hugg, Director of Planning and Community Development, could verify. He noted that the pictures presented were not current and that the entire inside of the house had been gutted, a new roof had been installed, and siding was installed on the front. Dr. Burden stated that they were aggressively working to repair this property and guaranteed that within 60 days it would be one of the best looking properties on Division Street. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mr. Taraila explained that Dr. Burden has an active permit for a door replacement and for siding for 320 West Division; however, the roof permit expired. He stated that he thought that Dr. Burden’s intentions are good, but noted that four (4) permits had been taken out to replace roofing and all four (4) had expired without any inspections. Dr. Burden explained that he does not like to call for inspections until he has completed a project. Responding to Mr. Hare, Dr. Burden confirmed that the tenants did not pay rent for a year and a half. He explained that although he did not own the property at that time, they should have been paying him, since he was the representative for the estate. In response to Mr. Hare, Dr. Burden indicated that he would have the house 100% up to code within 60 days or the City can tear it down. Mr. Neil asked whether Dr. Burden carries insurance on his properties and, if so, what he collected from the insurance company when the tree fell on this house. Responding, Dr. Burden stated that whether or not he carries insurance on his properties is his personal business and irrelevant to the discussion regarding the demolition of this property. He noted that he was not complaining about the money, he was simply informing members that the tenants were delinquent in paying their rent and were selling drugs out of the house. There being no one else present wishing to speak, Council President Hare declared the public hearing closed.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 1, 2019 PAGE 7 Mr. Polce advised that, according to Merriam-Webster, gentrification is the process of repairing and rebuilding homes and businesses in deteriorating areas, such as urban neighborhoods, accompanied by an influx of middle-class people. Additionally, he stated that, according to the 2010 census track, Dover’s average median income is $48,338, which he believed would mean that this is outside the mission of NCALL and Habitat for Humanity. He noted that he wanted the record to accurately reflect this information, since there are claims that the City is gentrifying areas, when in fact the City is creating opportunity for individuals with fixed-incomes and low-incomes. Mr. Taylor informed members that he went to the property today and the house looked a little different from the pictures presented. He stated that there were people there cleaning the house out; however, he did not go inside because he asked for Dr. Burden specifically and was told he was not there. Mr. Slavin moved for acceptance of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Cole. Mr. Hare stated that he agreed with a lot of the comments that had been made; however, he did not want this matter to come back to Council, so he was inclined to provide Dr. Burden 60 days, and if the property is not 100% up to code and passed by the City inspectors, then it will be demolished. He explained that he had gone by the property and it did look different from the pictures presented. Mr. Hare noted that Council had given Dr. Burden the benefit of many doubts over the years, but he thought this would have a definitive ending. Mr. Slavin moved to call the question, seconded by Mr. Polce and unanimously carried. The motion to accept staff’s recommendation failed by a roll call vote of four (4) yes (Neil, Slavin, Cole, and Polce), two (2) no (Taylor, and Hare), and three (3) absent (Anderson, Sudler, and Lindell). Mr. Taylor moved to grant Mr. Burden 60 days from July 1, 2019 to bring his property into compliance with all codes and, if Mr. Burden fails to do so, all structures on the property must be demolished. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a roll call vote of five (5) yes (Neil, Slavin, Cole, Taylor, and Hare), one (1) no (Polce) and three (3) absent (Anderson, Sudler, and Lindell). Mr. Slavin moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Taylor and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. TRACI A. McDOWELL CITY CLERK

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 1, 2019 PAGE 8 All ordinances, resolutions, motions, and orders adopted by City Council during their Special Meeting of July 1, 2019, are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /TM S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Council-Minutes\2019\07-01-2019 SPECIAL COUNCIL - VDBO Minutes.wpd Exhibits Exhibit #1 - Presentation - Violation of Dangerous Building Ordinance - 210 West Division Street Exhibit #2 - Presentation - Violation of Dangerous Building Ordinance - 316 West Division Street Exhibit #3 - List of properties owned by Mr. Burden and the amounts owed to the City Exhibit #4 - Presentation - Violation of Dangerous Building Ordinance - 320 West Division Street

EXHIBIT #1 Special Council Meeting of 07/01/2019 Violation of Dangerous Building Ordinance 210 W Division St Planning & Inspections Department Dover, Delaware July 1, 2019

210 W Division Street Case History  On April 23, 2018, Staff conducted an annual housing inspection and observed 18 code violations including damage to the east side exterior wall. A structural engineers report was submitted to staff which stated repairs could be made to the dwelling. The owner has choose to demolish the structure.  The utilities were terminated on July 23, 2018.  Registered as vacant by the city on July 27, 2018.  Condemned as unfit for human occupancy on April 24, 2019.

210 W Division Street Code violations Replace door/repair holes in walls  Install window glass/light fixtures  Replace missing smoke detectors  Repair the hot water heater  Clean interior through-out  Repair the damage to east side exterior wall.

Dangerous Building Code – Chapter 22 Article XI, Sec. 22-381 (9) General Welfare. (10) Code Violations. (11) Unoccupied Buildings

Recommended Council Action  Declare this building and all accessory structures on this property dangerous.  Order the property demolished by August 1, 2019 by the owner or equity owner at their own risk.  Order the Building Inspector to cause the demolition of the structures if not completed by the owner within 10 days of the date established by City Council.  Order the City Manager with the assistance of the City Solicitor to cause the cost of demolition to be charged against the land on which the building exists as a municipal lien or cause such cost to be added to the tax duplicate as an assessment, or to be levied as a special tax, or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owner.

EXHIBIT #2 Special Council Meeting of 07/01/2019 Violation of Dangerous Building Ordinance 316 W Division St Planning & Inspections Department Dover, Delaware July 1, 2019

316 W Division Street Case History  10 code enforcement cases since 2011  Numerous code violations found during the last housing inspection which occurred on February 3, 2015.  Missing smoke detectors, faulty toilets and faucets  Weak floors, electrical hazards.  City Staff requested a structural engineers report and a electrical inspection.  The utilities were terminated April 4, 2015.  Registered as vacant by the city on April 19, 2018.  Condemned as unfit for human occupancy on February 3, 2015

iii!!!! :iii!!!....... . . i_ :i'~ ,, ....,~_,, • • ! r r

I •

\

'~, •, .i .. 1 .. r , ~ l •• • • • .. .. ..·• - •·· , ;. ., ' ·- . •....

Dangerous Building Code – Chapter 22 Article XI, Sec. 22-381 (9) General Welfare. (10) Code Violations. (11) Unoccupied Buildings

Recommended Council Action  Declare this building and all accessory structures on this property dangerous.  Order the property demolished by August 1, 2019 by the owner or equity owner at their own risk.  Order the Building Inspector to cause the demolition of the structures if not completed by the owner within 10 days of the date established by City Council.  Order the City Manager with the assistance of the City Solicitor to cause the cost of demolition to be charged against the land on which the building exists as a municipal lien or cause such cost to be added to the tax duplicate as an assessment, or to be levied as a special tax, or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owner.

EXHIBIT #3 Special Council Meeting of 07/01/2019 UPDATED II 06/25/20191I Vacant Building Fees Vacant Grass Grass Fines Vacant Open in Building Cutting Fees Open in Grass Fines Utility Owner Base Taxes+ Building on Grass Cutting Grass Fines Customer Fees Open in in Customer Customer Open in Bulk Trash Code Tampering Municipal Property Address location ID Penalties Taxes on Taxes on Taxes Service Inspections Service Service Inspections In MR Enforcement Utilities MR Billing liens Total COMMENTS 52 N Ann Ave 2120 $ 50.00 $ 501.36 $ 551.36 478 Barrister Place 13974 $ $ $ $ $ $ 81.86 $ $ $ 81.86 125 Cherry Street 7240 $ $ 28.38 $ 28.38 149 Cherry Street 2080 $ $ $ UTILITY LOC 46642 150 Cherry Street 2092 $ 2,300.00 $ 50.00 $ 150.72 $ 2,500.72 moved tampering to utlity account loc 2038 Lor 28 Cherry Street 7242 $ $ Lori 27 Cherry Street 7244 $ $ 15-17 Clarence Street 2096 $ $ 46.64 $ 46.64 Land Clarence Street 2098 $ $ 331 College Road 2040 $ 375.00 $ $ $ 296.00 $ 31.61 $ 702.61 UTILITY LOC 20986 385 College Road 2118 $ 425.00 $ 700.00 $ 1,125.00 l.SAc College Road 2058 $ $ I LT 184-185 College Settlement 2122 $ $ 145 Davis Circle 2086 $ $ 243.33 $ 243.33 5768 W Dennys Road 2108 $ 1,350.00 $ 650.00 $ 2,000.00 316 w. Division Street 2068 $ 375.00 $ 152.77 $ 112.36 $ 640.13 moved tampering to utlity account loc 2038 320 w. Division Street 2044 $ $ $ $ .. updated 6/25/19 326 W Division Street 2072 $ $ 405 w. Division Street 15920 $ 1,500.00 $ 902.98 $ 2,402.98 149 Irma Street 2112 $ 375.00 $ 93.10 $ 468.10 171 Irma Street 2094 $ $ 130.70 $ 130.70 1183 Janes Road 2100 $ 625.00 $ 25.00 $ 650.00 920 Kenton Road 2110 $ $ 14 N. Kirkwood Street 14552 $ 4,500.00 $ 4,500.00 18 N Kirkwood Street 2060 $ $ $ $ $ 349.86 $ 349.86 115 N Kirkwood Street 2056 $ 3,748.41 $ 700.00 $ 4,448.41 208 N Kirkwood Street 2114 $ 2,400.00 $ 150.00 $ 123.65 $ 2,673.65 210 N Kirkwood Street 17324 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 Land N Kirkwood Street 58148 $ $ 941 Lincoln Street 2038 $ $ 1,228.91 $ 55.39 $ 1,284.30 1410 McKee Road 2034 $ $ 1422 McKee Road 2128 $ 425.00 $ 425.00 1446 McKee Road 2130 $ $ 349.86 $ 349.86 Land McKee Road 2138 $ $ 10 Mishoe Street 2082 $ $ 900.00 $ 900.00 669 w. North Street 2076 $ $ 711 w. North Street 2140 $ 4,625.00 $ 75.00 $ 4,700.00 7-9 s. Queen Street 7966 $ 1,500.00 $ 255.78 $ 1,755.78 UTILITY LOC 19064 8 N. Queen Street 15918 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 13-15 S Queen Street 7968 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 47 s. Queen Street 7908 $ $ $ 169.08 $ 169.08 102 N Queen Street 2036 $ $ 212.39 $ 212.39 118 N. Queen Street 60552 $ 375.95 $ 375.95 128 s. Queen Street 6574 $ 375.00 $ 500.00 $ 875.00 130 N Queen Street 2106 $ $ 700.00 $ 700.00 223 N Queen Street 2104 $ $ 41.39 $ 41.39 411 W Reed Street 2046 $ 1,500.00 $ 25.00 $ $ 1,525.00 moved bulk trash to utlity account loc 2038 106 Reese Street 6534 $ $ 1,664.50 $ 1,664.50 702 Slaughter Street 2078 $ 750.00 $ 55.50 $ 805.50 711 Slaughter Street 2116 $ $ 717 Slaughter Street 61230 $ $ 719 Slaughter Street 2142 $ 125.00 $ 125.00 726-726A Slaughter Street 1246 $ $ 730-734 Slaughter Street 1244 $ $ 731 Slaughter Street 2066 $ $ 738 742 Slaughter Slaughter Street Street 2052 $ 2048 $ 750.00 $ 425.24 $ $ 1,175.24 I 748 Slaughter Street 60620 $ $ 749 Slaughter Street 2070 $ 375.00 $ 400.00 $ 775.00 753 Slaughter Street 2124 $ $ 400.00 $ 400.00 756 Slaughter Street 60618 $ $ 758 Slaughter Street 2102 $ $ 122.98 $ 122.98 763-765 Slaughter Street 2088 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 Land Slaughter Street 2054 $ $ Lot Slaughter Street 2084 $ $ 2 Washington Place 43070 $ $ 0.65 $ 0.65 Outside City Limits 74 N West Street 2134 $ $ 700.00 $ 700.00 Total $ 33,474.36 $ $ s $ $ $ $ $ 150.00 $ 25.00 $ 5,800.00 $ 6,407.67 s 303.49 $ 1,115.83 $ 47,276.35 Vacant Vacant Building Fees Vacant Grass Grass Fines Property Address location ID Penalties Building and Base Taxes+ Grass Fees on Taxes Grass Cutting on Taxes Grass Fines on Taxes Open in Service I Building Cutting Fees Customer Fees Open in In Customer Customer Inspections Service Open in Service Grass Fines Open in Inspections Bulk Trash in MR Code Enforcement Utilities Utility Tampering MR Billing Owner Municipal liens Total

EXHIBIT #4 Special Council Meeting of 07/01/2019 Violation of Dangerous Building Ordinance 320 W Division St Planning & Inspections Department Dover, Delaware July 1, 2019

320 W Division Street Case History  9 code enforcement cases since 2017  Numerous code violations found during the last housing inspection which occurred on June 23, 2017.  Missing smoke detectors, mold & mildew from water damage, loose/weak floors from water leak.  Leaking roof, damaged wall siding.  The utilities were terminated on July 10, 2017.  Registered as vacant by the city on March 20, 2018  Condemned as unfit for human occupancy on June 23, 2017.

Dangerous Building Code – Chapter 22 Article XI, Sec. 22-381 (9) General Welfare. (10) Code Violations. (11) Unoccupied Buildings

--

Recommended Council Action  Declare this building and all accessory structures on this property dangerous.  Order the property demolished by August 1, 2019 by the owner or equity owner at their own risk.  Order the Building Inspector to cause the demolition of the structures if not completed by the owner within 10 days of the date established by City Council.  Order the City Manager with the assistance of the City Solicitor to cause the cost of demolition to be charged against the land on which the building exists as a municipal lien or cause such cost to be added to the tax duplicate as an assessment, or to be levied as a special tax, or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owner.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING A Special Council Meeting was held on July 8, 2019 at 6:30 p.m. with Council President Hare presiding. Members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sudler, Mr. Neil, Mr. Cole, Mr. Polce, Mr. Taylor (arrived at 6:33 p.m.), and Mr. Lindell. Mr. Slavin was absent. Mayor Christiansen was also present (arrived at 6:31 p.m.). Council staff members present were Mrs. Mitchell, Mr. Hugg, Mr. Rodriguez, and Mrs. McDowell. Other staff members present were Matthew Harline. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Lindell and unanimously carried. Mr. Neil moved to recess into 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. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindell and unanimously carried. The Special Council Meeting recessed into Executive Session at 6:30 p.m. The Executive Session adjourned at 7:03 p.m. ACTION RESULTING FROM THE EXECUTIVE SESSION Potential Land Acquisition During their Special Council Meeting of June 24, 2019, members of Council rejected the contract for the potential land acquisition. During the executive session, Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, reviewed an alternate proposal for members’ consideration. Mr. Neil moved to authorize the City Manager to continue with negotiations. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and carried by a roll call vote of five (5) yes (Anderson, Sudler, Neil, Polce, and Hare), three (3) no (Cole, Taylor, and Lindell), and one (1) absent (Slavin). Mr. Sudler moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. The Special Council Meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. TRACI A. McDOWELL CITY CLERK

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 8, 2019 PAGE 2 All ordinances, resolutions, motions, and orders adopted by City Council during their Special Meeting of July 8, 2019 are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /TM S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Council-Minutes\2019\07-08-2019 - SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING - ES ACTION (PUBLIC) - Potential Land Acquisition current 07-15-19.wpd

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING The Regular Council Meeting was held on July 8, 2019 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Hare presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sudler, Mr. Neil, Mr. Slavin (departed at 8:06 p.m. and returned at 8:15 p.m.), Mr. Cole, Mr. Polce (departed at 7:55 p.m. and returned at 7:56 p.m.), Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Lindell. Staff members present were Major Stump, Ms. Cruz, Mrs. Mitchell, Mr. Hugg, Fire Chief Rhodes, City Solicitor Rodriguez, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Christiansen was also present (departed at 7:52 p.m.). OPEN FORUM The Open Forum was held at 7:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Hare 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. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Sudler moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Mr. Neil moved for approval of the consent agenda, seconded by Mr. Slavin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - BUDGET REVIEW OF MAY 29, 2019 The Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting - Budget Review of May 29, 2019 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Slavin and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 24, 2019 The Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of June 24, 2019 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Slavin and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 24, 2019 The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of June 24, 2019 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Slavin and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 8, 2019 PAGE 2 CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION - KIM WARFIELD - PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE (AUGUST 2017 - MAY 2019) On behalf of members of Council, Mayor Christiansen, Councilman Anderson, and Councilman Sudler presented Dr. Kim Warfield with the following Certificate of Appreciation in recognition of her service on the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee from August 2017 - May 2019: CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION presented to KIM WARFIELD Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee August 2017 - May 2019 The City of Dover extends sincere appreciation for your public service. PRESENTATION - GET ON BOARD THE U.S.S. DOVER (TONY DEPRIMA) AND RESOLUTION NO. 2019-09 REQUESTING THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY TO CONSIDER NAMING A UNITED STATES NAVAL VESSEL THE U.S.S. DOVER Mr. Tony DePrima provided a PowerPoint Presentation entitled USS Dover - Get On-Board (Exhibit #1). The City Clerk read Resolution No. 2019-09 requesting the Secretary of the Navy to consider naming a United States naval vessel the U.S.S. Dover into the record. By motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Taylor, Council, by a unanimous roll call vote, adopted Resolution No. 2019-09, as follows: A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY TO CONSIDER NAMING A UNITED STATES NAVAL VESSEL THE U.S.S. DOVER WHEREAS, Delaware has played an important role in American history, with the motto "Liberty and Independence," it was the first to ratify the United States Constitution on December 7, 1787 at the Golden Fleece Tavern located in it's capital, Dover. It was given the nickname the "First State," and for five days, it was the only “United State” of America; and WHEREAS, Dover was named the most patriotic City in the entire state in 2018 and 2019 by Insurify and has roads named after exemplary Naval Officers such as Admirals William Halsey, Jr., Chester W. Nimitz, and Raymond A. Spruance. Dover was also listed

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 8, 2019 PAGE 3 in the New York Times for their spectacular Fourth of July Fireworks demonstration dating back to 1976 in celebration of the capital’s history; and WHEREAS, Delaware was home to 18 Medal of Honor recipients dating back to the Civil War, as well as 878 Gold Star Heroes, according to Military Families United. Dover Air Force Base is also located within the capital and plays an indispensable role in the global transportation network, as well as fulfilling the nations most sacred commitment at the Air Force Port Mortuary, Charles C. Carson Center for Mortuary Affairs, ensuring dignity, honor, and respect to all of the fallen heroes of the United States military who have made the ultimate sacrifice to our country. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and Council request the Secretary of the Navy to consider naming a United States Naval Vessel, the U.S.S. Dover, in honor of Dover's rich history, the Medal of Honor recipients, and as a memorial to all who pass through Dover AFB's Port Mortuary on their final trip home. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and Council direct the City Clerk to make this resolution a part of the permanent records of the City of Dover as a lasting symbol of appreciation and gratitude to Dover’s past, present, and future service men and women. ADOPTED: JULY 8, 2019 PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2019-11 - REZONING REQUEST FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 53 NORTH WEST STREET AND 517 WEST DIVISION STREET A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider the rezoning of property located at 53 North West Street, consisting of 0.20+/- acres, and 517 West Division Street, consisting of 0.35+/- acres, owned by Harman Oil, Inc. The properties are currently zoned C-1A (Limited Commercial) and the proposed zoning is C-2A (Limited Central Commercial) (Tax Parcels: ED-05-076.08-04-02.00-000 and ED-05-076.08-04-01.00-000; Planning Reference: Z-19-05; Fourth Council District). Mr. Neil moved that the Final Reading of Proposed Ordinance #2019-11 be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Taylor and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of the ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of April 22, 2019.) Planner's Review Mr. David Hugg, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed the petition to amend the zoning district and the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission. He noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Hugg explained that the intent of the rezoning was to provide a wider array or variety of activities on the property and more liberal setbacks and building coverage requirements.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 8, 2019 PAGE 4 Mr. Sudler stated that his only concern was that there is a high density of vehicles on West Street and Division Street and that there is currently a gas station on the other side of the light and sometimes the traffic gets a little backed up. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Hugg advised that there are a lot of uses that are possible within the C-2A (Limited Central Commercial) zone, including retail stores, business and professional offices, personal services, restaurants, a variety of service establishments, places of public assembly, etc. He noted that a gas station is permitted as a conditional use to a permitted activity in the C-2A zone and that, in discussions with Harman’s, the most significant conclusion is that this area lacks any kind of basic, nearby convenience stores and general retail and they have clearly indicated that is what they propose to do. Public Hearing Council President Hare declared the public hearing open. Mr. John Paradee of Baird Mandalas and Brockstedt, LLC, representing the applicant, advised that Mr. Mark Strickland of Century Engineering and Mr. William Harman, Jr., one of the principle owners of the property, were present to answer questions. Mr. Paradee noted that the Staff report indicates that the application satisfies all of the criteria for a rezoning under section 5.3 of the Dover Code. He advised that the request is compatible with the existing uses and zones in the area, there are a number of other commercial uses in the area, this proposal was consistent with the City's efforts to improve the downtown district, there are adequate public facilities and infrastructure in place and, most importantly, the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which recommends mixed commercial uses in this area. Mr. Paradee advised that this parcel is too small to do anything substantial with and the reason that they applied for a C-2A zone as opposed to C-2 is to gain some flexibility on setbacks. He noted that the parcel technically has three (3) front yards and under C-1A they would have to have a 25-foot setback on all three of those sides, which severely compresses the permitted building envelope for the property. Mr. Paradee stated that by rezoning to C-2A, the three (3) side yards gain another 10 feet which gives them a lot more flexibility in terms of design and placement of any improvements on the property. Mr. Paradee pointed out that under the zoning ordinance there are only three (3) uses that are permitted in C-2A that are not permitted in C-1A as first permitted uses, those are hotels, places of public assembly, and drive-throughs. He noted that a gas station would require a conditional use application before the Planning Commission and advised that they re-presented to the Planning Commission, NCALL, and the neighbors that they do not intend to develop a gas station at this site. Referring to concerns that were expressed at the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Paradee advised that although the C-2A zone would permit a six-story hotel on this site and C-1A allows two (2) stories, building anything greater than two stories on this small parcel is impractical because of the parking requirements. He noted that a two-story building would require 26 parking spaces and any additional floor above two would require an additional 13 spaces or 39 for three stories and so on.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 8, 2019 PAGE 5 Mr. Paradee stated that they do not have a user for the property and that they were simply asking for the rezoning in order to give them some flexibility on setbacks and design. He provided a memo from Mr. Mark Strickland of Century Engineering that explains the C-2A zone versus the C-1 zone (Exhibit #2). There being no one else wishing to speak, Council President Hare declared the Public Hearing closed. Mr. Polce moved for approval of the rezoning request, as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and, by a unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted Ordinance #2019-11, as follows: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 53 NORTH WEST STREET AND 517 WEST DIVISION STREET. WHEREAS, the City of Dover, Delaware has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within the limits of the City of Dover; and WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted us of the properties described below from C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 1. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation from C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) on the property located at 53 North West Street, consisting of 0.20 acres (8,512 SF +/-) and on the property located at 517 West Division Street, consisting of 0.35 acres (15,278 SF +/-) (at the northeast corner of the intersection of North West Street and West Division Street), owned by Harman Oil, Inc. (Tax Parcels: ED-05-076.08-04-02.00-000 and ED-05-076.08-04-01.00- 000; Planning Reference: Z-19-05; Fourth Council District) ADOPTED: JULY 8, 2019 ADVANTECH ABATEMENT Mrs. Cheryl Bundek, City Assessor, advised that Advantech applied for an abatement of real estate taxes in April or May of 2019. After review of the application with Staff and the Deputy City Solicitor, it was determined that they did not qualify for the abatement based on the qualified employee dates of hire. It was determined that the official date of hire for the timeline would be the date of the building permit and not the date of purchase of the land from the City of Dover. Advantech believes that the date of the purchase of the land should be the date that the City would consider the dates of hire for the new employees.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 8, 2019 PAGE 6 Mrs. Bundek noted that if, however, counsel believes that the date of hire should be the building permit date, Advantech has provided an employee list from that date and they have the required 15 new hires. However, only 60% are city or county residents and the code requires 75%. She noted that the Code allows City Council to reduce the 75% to a lesser percentage but not to less than 50%. Mrs. Bundek advised that Advantech is asking Council to consider the date of the purchase of the land as their commitment to the relocation/expansion of their business or to consider reducing the 75% requirement to 60%. Responding to concerns, Mrs. Bundek noted that City Solicitor Rodriguez advised an amendment to the Code to make interpretation of this section easier. Mr. Rodriguez stated that they would not be setting a precedent by reducing the percentage of city/county residents. Mr. Anderson moved for approval of Advantech’s request to reduce the percentage of city/county resident hires from 75% to 60%. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. (City Clerk’s Office Note: Prior to discussion of this item Mr. Slavin recused himself from this issue because Advantech is under contract with the State agency that he runs and he signs both contracts and payments with them.) COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT - JUNE 25, 2019 The Council Committee of the Whole met on June 25, 2019 at 6:01 p.m., with Council President Hare presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sudler, Mr. Neil, Mr. Slavin, Mr. Cole, Mr. Polce, and Mr. Taylor. Mr. Lindell was absent. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Mr. Contant and Mr. Shevock (Legislative, Finance, and Administration). Mr. Garfinkel and Mr. Shelton (Safety Advisory and Transportation) were absent. SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee met with Chairman Taylor presiding. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Anderson moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Update - Safety Issues at the Library Mr. Slavin moved to defer the update regarding safety issues at the Library until the Council Committee of the Whole/Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting of July 23, 2019, seconded by Mr. Neil. Mr. Anderson stated that he could support the motion to defer this matter, since he thought there had been substantial efforts made by the Library staff and the City Manager to accommodate both availability and safety.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 8, 2019 PAGE 7 Mr. Neil moved to call the question, seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. The motion to defer the update regarding safety issues at the Library until the Council Committee of the Whole/Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting of July 23, 2019 was unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Slavin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Quarterly Update - Bicycle/Pedestrian Subcommittee Mr. Gerry Pennington, Bicycle/Pedestrian Subcommittee Chair, and Mr. Chris Asay Bicycle/Pedestrian Subcommittee Vice Chair, reviewed the Bicycle/Pedestrian Subcommittee Quarterly Update. Mr. Slavin expressed concerns regarding the route of the Senator Bikeway, explaining that there is an existing problem with traffic in the alley near Hazel Road and he thought it would be dangerous to have bicycle traffic in that area as well. He asked staff to encourage the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) to look at this issue, noting that he thought closing off the stub of Maryland Avenue between American Avenue and the alley to vehicle traffic would solve the problem. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, advised that the City is responsible for the maintenance of all of the delineators that will be installed along the Senator Bikeway. She noted that the Senator Bikeway project was approved by City Council and staff will have to maintain the components that result from the project. Mrs. Mitchell stated that she could provide members with the budget information regarding the maintenance costs, noting that the City is responsible for street maintenance from curb to curb. Mr. Taylor stated that he thought this was the cost of doing business, explaining that if the City wants bicycles on the roadways, then the City has to abide by the mandates set forth by DelDOT. In response to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Asay confirmed that no traffic lanes would be lost for the Senator Bikeway. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Asay advised that DelDOT was responsible for the bike lane on Route 13, and noted that there had been a fatality involving a bicyclist at the intersection of Route 13 and College Road. Mr. Pennington explained that Route 13 is considered a high stress bikeway; however, almost the entire route of the Senator Bikeway is along neighborhood streets that have very low traffic volumes, and the intention is to make the bikeway safe enough to allow a 12-year-old child to make the trip alone.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 8, 2019 PAGE 8 Mr. Taylor stated that he is a firm believer that the City should make an investment in and promote bicycle safety within the City limits. He noted that he thought that if the City wants more people to start using these pathways, they needed to promote them as a positive option, and tell people about safety, and greenhouse effect. Mr. Taylor asked if a traffic study had been completed in regard to the Senator Bikeway project. Responding, Mr. Slavin noted that the traffic studies are typically triggered by new developments that bring additional vehicles onto the road; however, if one was done, it would have been completed by DelDOT. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Council President Hare presiding in the absence of Chairman Lindell. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. Mr. Contant introduced himself, noting that he had grown up in the City, currently lives in the Village of Westover, and is excited to take part in City government. Evaluation of Bids - Property Reassessment Mrs. Cheryl Bundek, Tax Assessor, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the evaluation of bids for the property reassessment. Staff recommended awarding the proposal for revaluation services to Tyler Technologies in the amount of $104,550, plus any additional overage fees. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mrs. Bundek explained that the overage fees could be used for litigation or extra appeals that Tyler Technologies may need to be involved in. She also noted that the overage fees may be necessary if additional funds are required for the mailings, explaining that the budget was based on the actual cost five (5) years ago. In response to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Bundek stated that when the fieldwork was completed by the outside vendor 10 years ago it cost approximately $785,000. Mr. Slavin moved to recommend awarding the proposal for revaluation services to Tyler Technologies in the amount of $104,550, plus any additional overage fees, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 8, 2019 PAGE 9 By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Slavin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for acceptance of the Council Committee of the Whole Report, seconded by Mr. Slavin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. MONTHLY REPORTS - MAY 2019 By motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Slavin, the following monthly reports were accepted by consent agenda: City Assessor's Report City Council’s Community Enhancement Fund Report City Manager's Report City Planner's Report Controller/Treasurer's Budget Report Fire Chief's Report Police Chief's Report 2019/2020 ANNUAL APPOINTMENT (DEFERRED DURING THE ANNUAL MEETING OF MAY 13, 2019) - COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE SUBCOMMITTEE/SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (RECOMMENDED BY COMMITTEE CHAIR) - WILLIAM T. GARFINKEL (TERM TO EXPIRE MAY 11, 2020) Councilman Taylor, Chair of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee, requested the reappointment of William T. Garfinkel to the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee with a term to expire May 11, 2020. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the reappointment of William T. Garfinkel to the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee, as recommended by Chairman Taylor. The motion was seconded by Mr. Slavin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 8, 2019 PAGE 10 REAPPOINTMENTS - RECOMMENDED BY MAYOR CHRISTIANSEN - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - THREE-YEAR TERMS TO EXPIRE JULY 2022 Mayor Christiansen requested approval of the reappointment of Kishor C. Sheth and William A. Hufnal to the Board of Adjustment for three-year terms to expire July 2022. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the reappointment of William T. Garfinkel to the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee, as recommended by Chairman Taylor. The motion was seconded by Mr. Slavin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. CITY MANAGER'S ANNOUNCEMENTS None. COUNCIL MEMBERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Anderson announced that the Convoy of Hope was being held on Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. on Legislative Mall. He noted that services being provided include basic dental, medical screening, food and many other opportunities for bringing hope to people who feel economically distressed. Mr. Anderson stated that more information could be obtained through Facebook. Mr. Polce noted that the cost to provide some of the most critical resources possible was approximately $10 per guest and they were projecting attendance of about 3,000 people. He suggested that this was a good cause for Council members’ discretionary funds. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m. TRACI A. McDOWELL CITY CLERK All ordinances, resolutions, motions, and orders adopted by City Council during their Regular Meeting of July 8, 2019, are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /TM S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Council-Minutes\2019\07-08-2019 Council Minutes.wpd Exhibits Exhibit #1 - PowerPoint Presentation entitled USS Dover - Get On-Board Exhibit #2 - Memo from Mr. Mark Strickland of Century Engineering

EXHIBIT #1 Regular Council Meeting on 07/08/2019 USS Dover Get On-Board

USS Delaware (SSN 971)

But was there ever a USS Dover ???

* Yes, 1941 to 1945??

USS Dover IX 30 1941- 1945 Unclassified Miscellaneous Vessel Navy Reserve Training Ship Home ports Toledo, Ohio Gulfport, Mississippi

USS Dover IX 30

But it was the USS Wilmington (PG 8) from 1897 to 1941 So the USS Dover was a hand me down from our Big Brother

The Ships Bell is at the Delaware Military Academy

So How Common Is It To Name Navy Ships After Capital Cities 7

Very Common!!! 45 Capital City Ships 16 Active now 11 Submarines 4 Littoral Combat Ships 3 Fast Transport Ships

USS Raleigh (C-8) USS Raleigh (LPD -1) USS Atlanta (CL -51) Ships of the Past

Historic USS Indianapolis (CA 35)

It was this guy's ship

Historic USS Juneau (CL-52)

USS Little Rock (LCS -9) * submariens USNS Carson City (TEPF -7) Active Ships

USS Montpelier (SSN – 765) Yes ... Small Capital Cities Get Ships

So who was left out? 4 ships with capital city names but not named for them , for example the USS Lincoln

…One Missed the Boat FRA · KFOR K. E UC

… And One Never Made It To The Fleet

USS Dover should join this list' USS Montgomery (LCS-8) USNS Trenton (TEPF-5) USS Little Rock (LCS-9) USS Santa Fe (SSN -763) USS Columbus (SSN-762) USS Hartford (SSN-768) USS Providence (SSN-719) USS Topeka (SSN-754) USS Columbia (SSN-771) USS Annapolis (SSN-760) USS Montpelier (SSN-765) USS Jackson (LCS-6) USS Olympia (SSN-717) USS Jefferson City (SSN-759) USS Cheyenne (SSN-773) USNS City of Bismarck (TEPF-9) USNS Carson City (TEPF-7)

USS Indianapolis (LCS-17) Six Unnamed Littoral Combat Ships On Order

USNS City of Bismarck (TEPF-9) Two Unnamed Expeditionary Fast Transport Ships On Order

Who Names Navy Ships?? The Secretary of the Navy, under the direction of the President and in accordance with rules prescribed by Congressional Naming Conventions. Congress has influenced the naming of certain Navy ships. The Navy suggests that congressional offices wishing to express support contact the office of the Secretary of the Navy to make their support known.

What can the City of Dover Do? 1. Through a resolution make the case to the Secretary of the Navy to name a USS Dover. 2. Ask our Congressional team to support the request.

EXHIBIT #2 Regular Council Meeting on 07/08/2019 .TTTT CENTURY ENGINEERING 4134 N. Dupont Highway, Dover, DE 19901 t 302.734.9188 centuryeng.com June 3, 2019 Mr. John W. Paradee, Esq. Baird, Mandalas, Brockstedt; LLC. 6 S. State Street Dover, Delaware 19901 RE: Harman Oil, Inc. Zoning Application Z-19-05 Lands of Harman Oil, Inc. at 53 North West Street and 517 West Division Street and Ordinance #2019-11 Rezoning Memo Dear Mr. Paradee, During the May 20 th , 2019 City of Dover .Planning Commission Public Hearing, members of the public spoke in opposition of the rezoning of parcels ED-05-076.08-04-01.00 and ED-05-076.08-04-02.00 from C-1A to C-2A citing specific concerns about tb.e. potential development of the subject parcels with the proposed zoning. The primary concern expressed was that of a large hotel or apartment structure being constructed that is not consistent with the character of the nearby residential· areas. While the Owner of the parcel has no plans for the development of the parcel at this time, a concept display was developed with the purpose of demonstrating a more realistic mixed- use development of the-subject-parcels.· In the attached concept a 7,700 SF, 2-story building is shown, with the minimum required parking located on site (26 spaces). Minimal vacant space remains .on the property to accommodate,additional parking. Using the attached concept as a ·reference, ·any additional floors above the 2-story structure shown in the concept would require a minimum of an additional 13 parking spaces with C-2A zoning. This is simply not feasible given the size of the parc:el_s, nor is the comstruction of a parking structure/garage economically feasible. The additional building height, number of stories, a)'ld floor area ratio flexibility granted by the C-2A zoning designation will likely have ho impact ofthe future development of these lands. The primary bulk area benefit of,:tezQ'ning to C-2A lies in that the C-2A zoning requires only a 15' frontyard setback, compared with 25' hi C-1A. This iS! particularly important given the small size of the parcels and that the West, East, and South property lines will all be considered frontages subject to the front yard setback. On a parcel of this size, this single setback revision increased.the buildable area of the combined parcels from 10,839 SF to 14,264 SF. While this may seem like a large increase, the additional area primarily will deliver enhanced flexibility in locating the buildi~.,.as 1he size·oHhe·building itself will still be limited by the parking requirements.

CENTURY fflT ENGINEERING 4134 N. Dupont Highway, Dover, DE 19901 t 302.734.9188 centuryeng.com Additional permitted uses offered in C-2A (excluding hotels) include places of public assembly and drive- throughs. Specific examples of potential developments permitted in C-2A and not C-1A include: • Retail - Pharmacy with drive through • Retail - Fast food or deli with drive through • Small Church or Community Center (place of public assembly) Each of the permitted uses listed above would more be feasible and realistic development options than a 3+ story hotel or apartment building with the proposed zoning. Sincerely, Mark Strickland, P.E. Century Engineering, Inc. Attachments: Concept Plan

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1 _ ___ _ _ _ _ _- - - - r - - - - - - - - - , I r LEc:&eNP bl,lfl!~c.onto.r t.ll-lhJH•Jor"°"t<>w- E>c!,ti'lgE4iecf!loH __y~~ ~ll'lil~t.>'1!1Pr•~8"'1nl<t -1?E..~r.;l..!!_ ~tr1g"a1cr ..,fh~.r..t bl5t..,9Trcc-Uie Ex15ti-1gPmr Tra.:ct~ &il<f11gSctoa.-:Lilr [=::J rropouoC-o!\imlm.:c~tcru"P,ri,,,e,,tt n-gp.»caf~ 1.E.dUr.;l:Z"""'G 2.Pr"f>l'!tdZonlng :!l'r~Lac\d>,ru 10.S:,urn(l'.511t~,1 • E:..btl'lg\/H 51'1'DpCICd\/H ContenlenU~t.,:retJ.prl.n>enh 6.f'rOfOH.<f~f •1.100tf (2-St"",l~gl 1.f'..-t.r.;llcqulr"H ltp-.ceta,oa,,.:it.tpaen ~ Topo,ir~Jnfor111•tl0<>tlloomo11H,ltFl•11l110..-.:cd ko1110ell11>arc-GJ.!i. DATE av RE\1SIOIIS mT fN~~TX~Y CONSUlTING ENGINEERS-PLANNERS Hli• G,1,.,11.o,4.1<0•1w,.,,,.,a21~1• f~..,,, Ul,11Uog h, ~0.!11.2!~1 ......w.unN••·•~.COffi Concept Plan Preliminary Plan 517 W Division St •- Dover, DE 19904 PL.AN SC.ALE: r•20' 20' 4.0' ~ ISSUE OATES BASE; ~ REVIEW: ~ DRA.'I.N. BIO DESIGtlEO Pffi~tT. OECJ-ID a;· COIISTRUCT10!1 OATEOlECKED o JCCSCAL'-'<"--~1"•.a2~0"-I DRA'l,1NG: ~L--------------------------------------------------------------------------------....&.'""'-o""'---'"'----''-'..•o. . ...o•..·o. .o.,___..;1'-"o..f.al___.

From: Windham To: Devine, Denise Cc: City Clerks Office; Melson-Williams, Dawn; Diaz, Eddie; ddconstructionmanager@gmail.com Subject: RE: Amended Request for Postponement Date: Friday, July 12, 2019 4:46:52 PM I concur. Troy W. Windham From: Devine, Denise [mailto:ddevine@dover.de.us] Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 8:44 AM To: 'Windham' Cc: City Clerks Office; Melson-Williams, Dawn; Diaz, Eddie; ddconstructionmanager@gmail.com Subject: FW: Amended Request for Postponement Mr. Windham: We are in receipt of the below email and attached request to postpone consideration of your application for annexation/rezoning of property located at 2920 North DuPont Highway until September 23, 2019. As the owner of record for the property, will you please confirm your concurrence with this request to postpone? Thank you, Denise L. Devine, MMC Assistant City Clerk City of Dover e-mail: ddevine@dover.de.us (302) 736-7008 phone (302) 736-5068 fax From: Mark Natterman <mnatterman@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 1:38 PM To: Melson-Williams, Dawn <DMelson@dover.de.us>; Diaz, Eddie <ediaz@dover.de.us>; Nick Nistazos <nnistazos@aol.com> Subject: Amended Request for Postponement Dawn/Eddie, After further consideration, we would like to amend our earlier today request to reflect a hearing date at the September 2019 meeting, not the August 2019 meeting as earlier requested. We feel that this additional month may be needed to ensure that our permitting is in place for a clean transition. I apologize for the confusion. Regards,

Mark Natterman Construction Manager Dunkin Donuts/Baskin Robbins Franchise Management Services, Inc. 9919 Golf Course Rd. Ocean City, MD 21842 Cell: 302-500-3338 Office: 410-520-0176 Fax; 410-520-0199 ************************************************************* This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the addressee(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments.

~ DUNKIN• ~) DONUTS® AMERICA RUNS ON DUNKIN• Ms. Dawn Melson Mr. Eddie Diaz City of Dover Dept. Of Planning 15 Loockerman Plaza Dover, DE 19901 June 18, 2019 Re: 2920 N. Dupont Highway (Maxwell St.) Good Afternoon Dawn and Eddie, We would like to amend our earlier request dated today that the City Council defer action on our application for annexation scheduled for Monday, July 22, 2019. Circumstances surrounding permits and other matters require us to further delay this discussion. We respectfully ask that the City Council postpone hearings until the September 2019 meeting. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Regards, Mark Natterman Construction Manager Franchise Management Services, Inc. 302-500-3338 mnatterman@gmail.com Franchise Management Services, Inc. 9919 Golf Course Rd. Ocean City, MD 21842 P:410-520-0176 F:410-520-0199

PETITION TO ANNEX AND REZONE PROPERTY Public Hearing Before the City Council on March 11, 2019 Recommendation from Planning Commission Meeting of February 19, 2019 with Staff and Development Advisory Committee Review File Number: AX-19-01 Ordinance Number: 2019-01 Applicants: New Wind Properties 2920 LLC Franchise Management Services, Inc. Owner of Record: New Wind Properties 2920 LLC Property Address: 2920 North DuPont Highway, Dover DE Tax Parcel ID #: ED-00-057.02-01-08.00-000 Lot Size: 0.57 acres Present Zoning: BG (General Business Zone) Proposed Zoning: C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) Comprehensive Plan Category 1: High Priority Annexation Areas Designation: Comprehensive Plan Commercial Land Use Designation: Present Use: Vacant Commercial Building Proposed Use: Restaurant with drive-thru (Dunkin’ Donuts per proposed redevelopment plan submitted to Kent County) Utility Availability: Electric: 2920 North Dupont Highway is currently served by City of Dover Electric. Water and Sanitary Sewer: 2920 North DuPont Highway is not currently served by City of Dover Water or Sanitary Sewer. Currently, the property is served by an on-site well and septic system. Water and Sanitary Sewer are only available on the opposite side of Route 13, this property is situated on the eastern

AX-19-01 Lands of NewWind Properties 2920 LLC at 2920 N. DuPont Highway Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 19, 2019 Page 2 of 7 side of the road. Staff has discussed the utility situation with the Applicant. The developer understands that they will have to obtain DelDOT / City of Dover approval to connect the sanitary sewer on the opposite side of Route 13. This is critical as utility crossings of Route 13 are strongly discouraged by DelDOT and only approved with special approval by District Public Works. The City will allow the property to continue to operate the existing well until it fails, at that point, they will be required to connect to the City’s water distribution system. The property owner would be responsible for the costs associated with tapping the sanitary sewer and/or water mains, extending services to the property, payment of impact fees, and obtaining permits. Planning Commission Recommendation: Following a public hearing on February 19, 2019, where no members of the public spoke regarding the proposed annexation and rezoning, the Planning Commission voted in favor of the annexation with the proposed C-4 zoning with eight (8) votes in favor and no votes in opposition (one member absent). Summary This application is for the Annexation and Rezoning of the property at 2920 N. DuPont Highway, Dover. It is a parcel of land totaling 0.57 acres +/- (25,000 SF). The owner of record is NewWind Properties 2920 LLC. Tax Parcel: ED-00-057.02-01-08.00-000. Existing Property The property is located on the east side of North DuPont Highway and adjacent to the north side of Maxwell Street. The boundary of the City of Dover is currently across North DuPont Highway. This annexation will include the adjoining right-of-way of North DuPont Highway equal to the property’s frontage width to connect the property to the existing City boundary on the west side of North DuPont Highway. The property includes an existing one story building likely constructed originally as a gasoline service station. The property is currently zoned BG (General Business District) in Kent County. The building most recently was utilized as offices; however, it is currently vacant. A potential new occupant of the building has been working through the site/building renovation process in Kent County to establish a new use of the building as a drive-thru restaurant (Dunkin’ Donuts). There is a designated exit onto Route 13 and entrance/exit to Maxwell Street. There is part of a sidewalk system along the highway frontage. Surrounding Land Uses Immediately surrounding uses on this east side of North DuPont Highway (Route 13) include other commercial businesses such as offices, service establishments, and retail establishments. To the east of the parcels fronting Route 13, is a residential area consisting of single family dwellings and a mobile home/manufactured home park. These properties are in Kent County. On this east side of Route 13, the closest properties within the City limits are as follows: to the

AX-19-01 Lands of NewWind Properties 2920 LLC at 2920 N. DuPont Highway Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 19, 2019 Page 3 of 7 south the WAWA at the intersection with Rustic Lane and to the north are the property at 3074 N. DuPont Highway (Annexed in 2018) and the campus of Wilmington University. The west side of Route 13 is within the City of Dover boundaries and includes the Dover Town Center with multiple retailers, the Outback Restaurant, the Bob Evans Restaurant, a hotel, and the Delaware State University Learning & Living Commons facility. Comprehensive Plan In the 2008 Comprehensive Plan (as amended), the Potential Annexation Areas (Map 13 -1) identifies the property in the Category 1: High Priority Annexation Areas. The Growth and Annexation Plan Chapter (Chapter 13) notes that “Lands in this category are primarily enclaves of unincorporated territory mostly surrounded by the City of Dover. In all or most of these cases, the City provides these parcels with one or more essential service (sewer, water, police, fire, trash).” For Category 1: High Priority Annexation Areas, it notes in the Recommendation that “the City will not extend sewer and/or water infrastructure to Category 1 areas unless the property owners annex into the City” with consideration given for issues of health, safety and welfare. The Comprehensive Plan also sets the review criteria for the review of zoning for parcels being proposed for annexation. Chapter 13, pages 170-171 note that the Zoning Review may include: • Proposed zoning be in compliance with the land use category shown on Map 13-2 and used in conjunction with Table 12-1: Land Use and Zoning Matrix; • Character and compatibility of the surrounding land uses and properties; • The street type and capacity serving the property; • Environmental concerns and conditions that may influence land use and zoning; • Market concerns and conditions; • The compatibility with the overall goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Map 13-2: Potential Land Use for Annexation Areas identifies the Land Use for this property to be Commercial. The Land Development Plan Chapter (Chapter 12) makes the following recommendation for Commercial Land Use in this Route 13 area of the City: US Route 13/113 Corridor The US Route 13/113 corridor is dominated by highway commercial development. For the most part, the Comprehensive Land Development Plan proposes to continue US Route 13/113 as the major commercial corridor in Central Delaware. Few vacant developable parcels exist within this area. However, potential exists for the redevelopment of older retail stores and strip shopping centers. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the renovation and adaptive reuse of older structures within the highway corridor as means of restoring property value, preventing blight and demolition by neglect, and enhancing the overall image of the highway environment. In some cases the demolition of older structures may be beneficial, and should be supported, to enable redevelopment to occur within the corridor. As part of the Land Development Plan, Table 12-1: Land Use and Zoning Matrix specifies that the following zones are compatible with this land use classification of Commercial. C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) C-1A (Limited Commercial)

AX-19-01 Lands of NewWind Properties 2920 LLC at 2920 N. DuPont Highway Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 19, 2019 Page 4 of 7 C-2 (Central Commercial) C-2A (Limited Central Commercial) C-3 (Service Commercial) C-4 (Highway Commercial) SC-1 (Shopping Center Commercial) SC-2 (Shopping Center Commercial) SC-3 (Shopping Center Commercial) RC (Recreational and Commercial) RGO (General Residence and Office) CPO (Commercial/Professional Office) IO (Institutional and Office) Request for C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) The applicant has requested the zoning of C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). The types of permitted uses in the C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) are given in Article 3 §16 of the Zoning Ordinance. See the following Code excerpt: Article 3, Section 16. - Highway commercial zone (C-4). 16.1 Uses permitted. In a highway commercial zone (C-4), 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) Retail stores. (b) Business, professional or governmental offices. (c) Restaurants. (d) Personal service establishments. (e) Service establishments. (f) Hotels and motels. (g) Places of public assembly. (h) Bus terminal. (i) Wholesale, storage, warehousing, and distribution establishments. (j) Indoor or outdoor recreation and amusement establishments. (k) Hospitals and medical centers. (l) Drive-throughs. (m) Motor vehicle, boat, or farm equipment sales or service: (1) The minimum lot size for such establishments shall be 20,000 square feet, and the minimum street frontage shall be 150 feet. (2) Entrance and exit driveways shall have an unrestricted width of not less than 16 feet, shall be located not nearer than ten feet from any property line and shall be so laid out as to avoid the necessity of any vehicle leaving the property to back out across any public right -of-way or portion thereof. (3) Vehicle lifts or pits, dismantled and disabled automobiles, and all parts or supplies shall be located within a building enclosed on all sides. (4) All service or repair of motor vehicles, other than such minor servicing as change of tires or sale of gasoline or oil, shall be conducted in a building fully enclosed on all sides. This requirement shall not be construed to mean that the doors to any repair shop must be kept closed at all times. (5) The storage of gasoline or flammable oils in bulk shall be located fully underground in accordance with applicable provisions of the National Fire Protection Association Code. (6) No fuel pumps shall be located nearer than 15 feet to any street line.

AX-19-01 Lands of NewWind Properties 2920 LLC at 2920 N. DuPont Highway Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 19, 2019 Page 5 of 7 (7) Fuel pumps shall not be permitted closer than 100 feet from a property line of any school, day care, church, hospital, nursing home, or place of public assembly designed for the simultaneous use and occupancy by more than 100 persons. (n) Manufacturing, assembling, converting, altering, finishing, cleaning, or any other processing of products for sale on or off the premises, provided that not more than 25 persons shall be engaged in such activity; and provided further, that any such use shall be subject to the performance standards procedure as set forth in article 5, section 8. (o) Mini-storage facilities, subject to the following regulations: (1) No unit shall be placed within 30 feet of a residential property line. (2) No outside storage, except for recreational vehicles, boats, or personal automobiles when completely parked in specifically approved locations. Parking for these vehicles shall not count toward the required parking set forth in subsection (e) below. (3) No individual unit may be used for retail, garage sale, or any other commercial activities. (4) No storage of flammable, explosive, corrosive, or other hazardous products may occur in the individual unit. (5) Parking must be provided at a ratio of one space for each 25 rental units, plus a minimum of three spaces for an office. (p) Adult entertainment establishments, subject to the provisions stated in article 5, section 13. 16.2 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) Apartments and multi-family dwellings. (b) Crematory, subject to the following requirements: (1) The building lot line upon which a crematory is to be established shall be located at least 100 feet from any residential zone. (2) Where adjacent to residential zones, all landscape buffers shall be required. The buffer shall consist of a landscape screen no less than six and one-half feet high. All landscaping shall be properly maintained throughout the life of the use on lot. (3) Loading operations shall be conducted within a completely enclosed building. Location of loading doors shall be at the side or rear of the building. (4) The crematory shall comply with the Delaware Incinerator Regulations. A copy of the approved air pollution permit issued by the State of Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control shall accompany the application for a certificate of occupancy. 16.3 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 and outdoor sales areas approved by the city planner. 16.4 Performance standards. All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in article 5, section 8.1. 16.5 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. Recommendation of Planning Staff: Staff recommends the annexation of the property at 2920 N. DuPont Highway and its rezoning to C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) be approved as submitted. The subject property is in the City’s

AX-19-01 Lands of NewWind Properties 2920 LLC at 2920 N. DuPont Highway Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 19, 2019 Page 6 of 7 Annexation Plan of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan as Category 1: High Priority Annexation Areas with a Land Use Designation as Commercial. The C-4 zoning is consistent with the development in the area and is consistent with the Land Use Designation of Commercial. Recommendation of Planning Commission The application was represented by Mr. Brock Parker of Parker and Associates, an engineering design firm working with the project developer. Following a public hearing on February 19, 2019, where no members of the public spoke regarding the proposed annexation and rezoning, the Planning Commission voted in favor of the annexation with the proposed R-8 zoning (One Family Residence Zone) with eight (8) votes in favor and no votes in opposition (one member absent). The Development Advisory Committee Report and Comments on the Application were provided to the Planning Commission for consideration. The questions from the Planning Commission focused on the existing well on the property and the potential to connect to City water. See the included Excerpt of the DRAFT Meeting Minutes of the February 19, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. Submission of Plan of Services As required by 22 Delaware Code §101, a Plan of Services has been submitted to the Office of State Planning Coordination. A copy of the Plan of Services form and Attachment List is included. A copy of the full Plan of Services submission with all attachments is on file with the Planning Office. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT 1) From the agency comments received, it appears that ability to provide City water or sanitary sewer service to this property may be challenging due to the location of existing City infrastructure in the area. The applicant has been working with the Department of Public Works, other utility providers, DNREC, and DelDOT regarding access to sanitary sewer serv ice. 2) Upon annexation into the City of Dover, the property will be subject to the provisions of the Dover Code of Ordinances. This includes procedures such as review processes for plans and permits for construction activities, the City of Dover Business Licenses, etc. 3) Prior to establishing any use or commencing with any construction on the subject property, including within the existing building, the applicant shall contact the Planning Office so that the appropriate review process can be determined and coordinated with other reviewing entities including the Fire Marshal’s Office, Public Works/Utilities, and the Chief Building Inspector. 4) The applicant shall be aware that approval of any Annexation & Rezoning application does not represent Site Development Plan or Record Plan approval. A separate Site Development Plan must be submitted and approved if development activities are proposed to establish a use on the property. A separate Record Plan must be submitted and approved if changes to existing property lines are proposed.

AX-19-01 Lands of NewWind Properties 2920 LLC at 2920 N. DuPont Highway Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 19, 2019 Page 7 of 7 5) The applicant shall be aware that approval of any Annexation & Rezoning application does not represent a Building Permit or other construction activity permit approval. A separate application submission showing all improvements is required before issuance of permits by the City of Dover. 6) 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: • Zoning Map Exhibit AX-19-01 • Map Exhibit of Property • DAC Comments: Electric Department, Department of Public Works, Office of the Fire Marshal, DelDOT, and Kent Conservation District • Excerpt of Draft Minutes from February 19, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting • Municipal Annexation Plan of Services Form with Attachment List

City of Dover Application No.: AX-19-01 Department of Planning & Inspections Dr e ha s ar C Ce d C-4 Site C-2A Bl C-4 vd KW C-4 IO RC C ra wf o rd IO Ca Du r ro po ll A nt ve Hw Ln y Ru stic C-4 Title: Lands of NewWind Properties 2920 LLC Legend Address: 2920 North DuPont Highway Parcel ID: ED-00-057.02-01-08.00-000 D Dover Boundary Proposed Zoning: C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) Owner: New Wind Properties 2920 LLC D Zoning D Dover Parcels Date: 12/21/2018 D Kent County Parcels D Subject Property « 0 200 400 800 Feet 2012 Buildings

~ .• ,,, . MASTER LEGEND ,;•• ,., ,;• 0 IRON PIPE FOUND • ~ Ea~c Tca1 Music PROPOSED ROAD SIGN C,ys1a Dra,;on 8ob haM ~,ne Smokmp EXISTING ROAD SIGN SITE Q DE STATE PLAIN NAD 83 EXISTING INLET QA1•is C~r Ren Ml PROPOSED LANDSCAPING @ EXISTING WELL " ¢ PROPOSED LIGHT POLE • ELEV=XX' EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION f' t !Co Animal E:upp~e s ·~---ELEV=XX' SCE PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRNACE 3 8 D A N IN LA ® Jeneler'a Loupe , SITE P E T XrlNIT'I Sic~ 9 , EXISTING PROPERTY LINE A T S ~Y comcast 50 EXISTING CONTOUR EXISTING CURB LINE E D VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"=1200' Q ; 1 ; 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ; 1 EXISTING CURB LINE TO BE REMOVED • . PROPOSED CURB LINE .;, Hamoto, lr111 Oo,, er EXISTING ROAD/PARKING STRIPE \ / '¾.,,, CF Schwartz fo'f<)I• ~ ' \ / EXISTING ROAD/PARKING STRIPE "'s , ' TO BE REMOVED ) ' EXISTING HIGHWAY STRIPE PROPOSED ROAD/PARKING SllllPE ----7 . I I / / VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"=400' I N/F / I f CARL F. MCNATT / EXISTING ROAD CENTERLINE I - - - - - - - - EXISTING BUILDING SETBACK LINE I I -- 2-00-05702--01-0900--00001 / > EXISTING CENTER LINE DITCH I I L______ ZONING:GENERAL BUSSINESS _.,,,,,., GENERAL NOTES x x PROPOSED FENCE LINE RIGHT OF WAY LINE I I ------------------- -------------~---------~----- ------- 1. THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON IS: NEWWIND PROPERTIES 2920 LLC 20.08 ,..t 111111111 PROPOSED WHITE CROSSWALK/ ROAD STRIPING L-7 I EXISTING PRIVATE DRIVEWAY PROPOSED DRIVE THRU SIGN ' 435 S, DUPONT HWY DOVER, DE 19901 EXISTING SIDEWALK I· . : ·I PROPOSED WALK-IN FREEZER TO BE PURCHASED & DEVELOPED BY: I · ·.. ·· ··.ii EXISTING SIDEWALK TO BE REMOVED PROPOSED DUMPSTER ENCLOSED ON 4 SIDES FRANCHISE MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC 9919 GOLF COURSE RD R10.00' ' .00 I ·· , l PROPOSED SIDEWALK PROPOSED MENU BOARD ' ' R20 PROPOSED PARKING BUMPER (TYP.) EX. TTO BE ABANDONED EXISTING SEPTIC AREA EX. T EX. T OCEAN CITY, MD 21842 ~ EXISTING PAVEMENT TO BE REMOVED eI x I 15' PARKING, __ SETBACK }'.\ •• ,,, EX .SS EX.SS EX. T EX.SS 11.00' EX. T EX. T R2 2. LOT AREA = 25,000 sf. (0.57 acres) 33.25' 5. 40' BSL 20' BSL 00 3. PARCEL ID: 2-00-05702-01-0800-00001 II ' . EXISTING PAVEMENT EXISTING T LUMBER LIQUIDATORS EX. 4. NUMBER OF EXISTING PERMANENT MONUMENTS FOUND:1 RETAIL CENTER x EX.SS ' 5. NUMBER OF PERMANENT MONUMENTS TO BE SET:3 4' PROPOSED PAVEMENT PROPOSED STREET OVERLAY 38.69' EX.SS EX. T TO BE ADDED I 6. SITE SLOPE : 1.34% PAVEMENT I 4' =-=~=:I=-- . PROPOSED DRIVE THRU 7. PLAT REFERENCE: 2794/0090 ZONING: BG - GENERAL BUSINESS (KENT COUNTY) x I I R3.00 ' I 8. I MIN. LOT AREA: NO RESTRICTION I I 20.00' 60' BSL S EX. MAX. LOT AREA: NO RESTRICTION S I / / 8 7 6 5 4 3 I 2 1 AVERAGE LOT AREA: NOT LISTED -sf:!'\~ I\ x 12 75' BSL .00' R3 9.00' .00 MAX. SLOPE FOR PARCEL:15% ' 9' II 9. EXISTING BUILDING IS NON-CORNFORMING TO BG-GENERAL R3.00' EXISTING~I=~ - - I ~~ .2 \ x SS EX. 24 BUSINESS ZONING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. EXISTING WELL TO BE CONVERTED TO •" 0' I PROPOSED STRIPING FOR ACCESSIBLE 10. LOCATED IN KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE ; GROWTH ZONE. N/F 5.0 I LUMBER LIQUIDATORS D.L SHAHAN LLC D3488/0340 2-00-05702-01-0700-00001 x 00~--f~ VA N PARKING SPACE & LOADING ZONE LOADING ZONE R2 I I N/F WORLD TRANSMISSION T&T PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC D5474/0264 11. ACREAGE OF PROPERTY WITHIN RT.13 RIGHT OF WAY=.06 AC 12. ACREAGE OF PROPERTY WITHIN ACTIVE RECREATION AREA/OPEN SPACE=0 AC PROPOSED PICK UP ZONING: GENERAL BUSINESS PROPOSED 6' VINYL WINDOW EXISTING STRIPING TO REMAIN 17.67' II D0392/0264 13. ACREAGE OF PROPERTY WITHIN PASSIVE OPEN SPACE=0 AC 15.90' R3 .0 I 2-00-05702-01-1000-00001 FENCE BUFFER x PR 7' PROPOSED 2" ZONING: GENERAL 14. ACREAGE OF PROPERTY WITHIN STORM WATER .6'' 11 ) SAW CUT EXISTING PAVING TO BUSINESS 35.00' R20.00' SS TYPE C, PG 70-22 MANAGEMENT AREA=0 AC ' CREATE GREEN SPACE AND I 9.0 7 DEPRESSION FOR DRAINAGE PAVEMENT OVERLAY 15. PARCEL IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN ANY DELAWARE REGULATED I ' EXISTING PARKING TO x .14 TIDAL WETLANDS BOUNDARIES 20 REMAIN, BE RE-STRIPED I I PR .6'' PROPOSED GRINDER PUMP 20.28' 16. PARCEL IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN ANY DELAWARE WOODLAND SS I ,----------' R3. STATION; START OF BORE 00' PRESERVATION AREAS. 24 I 15' PARKING SETBACK .0 9.00' x 0' I 17. EXISTING USE: 1 PERMANENT STRUCTURE- RETAIL/OFFICE ~ PR .6'' R5 I 1,333 SF 20.00' S ' S 0.0 .00 PROPOSED USED: 1 PERMANENT STRUCTURE-RESTAURANT/ R10 27.2 0' 13 14 15 1:6 18 19 IL_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3.65' x 5' PR.12''SD COFFEE SHOP ~ 1,333 SF. PR 18. TOTAL LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE = 4,781 sf ≈.11 ± AC 20.00' .6'' , EX.12''S > SS D . . - PR.6''SS PR.6''SS PR.6''SS 19. EXISTING IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE≈65% > PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE≈74% 0 20 30 40 EXISTING SIDEWALK EX.1 2''SD 20. EXISTING PARKING=18 SPACES 54.69' TO EXISTING ENTRANCE R5 ' > > > PROPOSED PARKING=16 SPACES .00' -N47°09'01"W - \,1 > > ,j '-~~=~==~~=~- EX.1 2''SD 21. WATER AND SEWER TO BE PROVIDED BY EXISTING ON-SITE GRAPHIC SCALE ' 8.06' .00 20' EASEMENT DEDICATED TO THE STATE WELL AND SEPTIC. NO PUBLIC UTILITIES AVAILABLE. 1 inch = 20 feet R3 EX. OF DELAWARE FOR PUBLIC USE 22. EXISTING ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING R47 ' PROPOSED DATUMMS: .87 10.86' PROPERTY LINE 23. HORIZONTAL: NAD 83 DELAWARE SHEET 1 / VERTICAL: NAVD 88 11. ON 3/15/2018 A VARIANCE WAS GRANTED BY THE KENT ROUTE 13 "NORTH DUPONT HIGHWAY" ANNEX SITE PLAN 10.86' COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES ALLOWING INIT. KC 2 - 45 MPH POSTED SPEED LIMIT FOR A DRIVE THRU LANE TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE 15' 1111111 REVISIONS PARKING SETBACK LINE AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. 140' ROW ~ PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 12. ALL FIRE LANES, FIRE HYDRANTS AND FIRE DEPARTMENT 10.93' DATE EXISTING KENT COUNTY 24" 10.78' f - FM r-~ t--- FM ---- FORCEMAIN AT 5' DEEP FM ---- FM \_7 7 FM - FM FM FM - FM - FM FM FM - FM • I-- f --"""?" Cf) ----------------------------0--0 -----------r----7_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - --= ==-_ - , - - - _, -----t~ =---- E X , , + - - - - E X , , + - - - - EX,s+---- fY' =---- EJ<<S.- - - - EJ<<•.- - - - EX<S.- - - - ex,-,,.--- EX<S. F - - - - EX<S.F - - - - E..,__ _ _ E l < , ' F - - - - E>H--- z<( ::I UJ g ffi __________ L _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------------------------- c[~ w~ t:~ Road Name: Maxwell Street Cl) l For: Franchise Management Services EXISTING GAS LINE z Cf) 01- <- - :::J Kent County, Delaware -~==ex.o EX.G ----EX.G 1-z EXG -EXG - - - - EJ<.G ~o EXISTING WATER LINE -;; wO zz 1"=20' z- ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATION <(~ DEVELOPERS CERTIFICATION IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED THAT I AM A REGISTERED ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF :::J IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED THAT I AM THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED DELAWARE, THAT THE INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON HAS BEEN PREPARED UNDER PERVIOUS AREA = .17 acres +/- LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE = 4,980 sf ≈.11 +/- ac. AND SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. THE PLAN WAS MADE AT MY DIRECTION, AND THAT I ACKNOWLEDGE THE SAME TO BE MY ACT. IT IS MY DESIRE TO HAVE THE PLAN MY SUPERVISION AND TO MY BEST KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF REPRESENTS GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICES AS REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE LAWS OF THE STATE OF 0 DEVELOPED AS SHOWN AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS AND DELAWARE. SURVEYING FORESTRY REGULATIONS. K PARKING SUMMARY AR ER Dec 05, 2018-12:04pm CODE: RESTAURANT ____________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ P 1 SPACE PER EVERY 100 sf MIN. Franchise Management Sevices, Inc. DATE Brock E. Parker P.E., R.L.S. Date SALISBURY, 9919 Golf Course Rd 528 Riverside Drive ESTABLISHED MARYLAND 410-749-1023 PROPOSED: Ocean City, MD 21842 Salisbury, Maryland 21801 1977 DUNKIN DONUTS = 1,333 / 100 ft2 =14 Nick Nistazos 410-258-6993 (410) 749-1023 fax: (410) 749-1012 TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED = 14 SPACES MIN. & email: brock@parkerandassociates.org S TOTAL SPACES PROVIDED = 20 SPACES (1 HANDICAPPED) A E S S T CIVIL OC IA SITE ENGINEERING INC. PLANNING

CITY OF DOVER CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Electric & APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY Public Works STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: JANUARY 30, 2019 =================I Departments APPLICATION: LANDS OF NEW WIND PROPERTIES 2920 LLC AT 2920 N. DUPONT HIGHWAY FILE #: AX-19-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Electric and Public Works Departments CONTACT PERSON: Paul Waddell - Electric Jason A. Lyon, P.E. – Public Works CONTACT PHONE #: Electric - 302-736-7070 Public Works – 302-736-7025 T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ’ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS ELECTRIC / STORMWATER / SANITATION / STREETS / GROUNDS 1. Our office has no objections to the proposed annexation of tax parcel ED-00-057.02-01-08.00-000. WATER / WASTEWATER 1. Our office has no objections to the proposed annexation of tax parcel ED-00-057.02-01-08.00-000. The City of Dover Department of Public Works does not allow dog house manhole connections per our Water / Wastewater Handbook; therefore a drop connection will be required if the lateral is connected to a manhole. If the manhole is five foot (5') diameter, the drop can be inside, if the manhole is four foot (4') diameter, the drop must be outside. If the connection is not to a manhole, it must be connected to the main through a wye connection. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / SANITATION / STREETS / GROUNDS 1. None ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER 1. As per the Petition to Annex and Rezone Property, as heard by the Council Committee of the Whole, January 29, 2019, please find the following: a. 2920 North Dupont Highway is located on the east side of Route 13 and is currently served by City of Dover Electric. It is not served by City of Dover Water or Sanitary Sewer. Currently, the property is served by an on-site well and septic system. Water and Sanitary Sewer are only available on the opposite side of Route 13, this property is situated on the eastern side of the road. Staff has discussed the utility situation with the Applicant. The developer understands that they will have to obtain DelDOT / City of Dover approval to connect the sanitary sewer on the opposite side of Route 13. This is critical as utility crossings of Route 13 are strongly discouraged by DelDOT and only approved with special approval by District Public Works. The City will allow the property to continue to operate the existing well until it fails, at that point, they will be required to connect to the City’s water distribution system. The property owner would be responsible for the costs associated with tapping the sanitary sewer and/or water mains, extending services to the property, payment of impact fees, and obtaining permits. The Developer will need to obtain necessary approvals from DelDOT and DNREC prior to construction. The Office of Drinking Water will

Lands of New Wind Properties 2920 LLC at 2920 North DuPont Highway File #: AX-19-01 January 30, 2019 Page 2 of 2 need to approve the use of the well, and the applicant will need to abide by any Federal, State and Local laws for water quality. SANITATION 1. Every commercial customer shall provide such premises with a sufficient number of solid waste containers to provide adequate capacity for the solid waste placed out for collection without overloading the capacity of the containers. The City of Dover shall provide commercial customers with a maximum of two (2), 90-gallon trash containers and two (2) 90-gallon recycling containers. 2. Any commercial customer requiring more containers, or larger containers, than provided above, must utilize private service. If front loading solid waste removal is required, the customer shall utilize private service. STORMWATER / STREETS / 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 AX-19-01 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: 01/30/19 D S O H V A APPLICATION: Lands of New Wind Properties 2920 LLC at 2920 N DuPont Hwy E L - FILE #: AX-19-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Jason Osika, Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 R 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. This is an annexation and rezoning request. This office has no objections to the annexation and rezoning. The current building is vacant and would need to be registered as such with the City of Dover Code Enforcement Office. Building permits/plans submission to the Chief Building Inspector would be required. ADDITIONAL / SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS AFTER ANNEXATION AND REZONING: The following comments are being provided in reference to the proposed restaurant: 1. Proposed building is restaurant. 2. Building Access shall be no further than 50 feet from a primary entrance Where buildings are provided with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with NFPA 13, access shall be no further than 100 feet from the primary entrance. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 3) 3. Parking shall be prohibited in front of the primary entrance for a width of not less than 1.5 times the width of the door(s) or for 10 feet, whichever is greater. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 6.3.2) 4. Perimeter access shall be TBD (additional information needed, type of occupancy) and clearly shown on the plans. Perimeter Access minimum width shall be 15 feet measured from the face of the building at grade with a maximum slope of ten percent (10%). Plantings and utility services (includes condenser units, transformers, etc.) shall be permitted within the perimeter access, and shall not interfere with emergency services fire ground operations. If a physical barrier (fence, pond, steep slope, etc) prevents access, that portion of the building perimeter shall not be included in the calculation of Percent of Perimeter Access. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 3)

5. Speed Reduction Devices must be approved, please see City of Dover Ordinance Chapter 98-10 in reference to this process. 6. Fire Alarm System required per occupancy code requirements (additional information needed (occupant load) to determine if this is required). Fire alarm in place of assembly. Fire alarm required. Any new occupancy or new portion of an occupancy determined to be a place of assembly by the fire marshal, and is capable of receiving an occupant load of 75 persons or greater, shall be required to install a fire alarm in accordance with NFPA codes governing the installation of fire alarms and the National Electrical Code. Fire alarm system required. Any existing occupancy or portion of an existing occupancy determined to be a place of assembly by the fire marshal, and is undergoing renovations in excess of 50 percent of the assessed value of the building and is capable of receiving an occupant load 75 persons or greater or is being enlarged to receive an occupant load of 75 persons or greater, shall be required to install a complete fire alarm system in accordance with NFPA codes governing the installation of fire alarms and the National Electrical Code. Public mode audible requirements. To ensure that audible public mode signals are clearly heard by occupants of a structure, they shall have a sound level at least 15 decibels (dB) above the average ambient sound level or five decibels (dB) above the maximum sound level having a duration of at least 60 seconds, whichever is greater, measured five feet (1.5m) above the floor in the area required to be served by the system using the A-weighted scale dBA. In the event the stated requirement cannot be met a shunt trip relay/switches shall be the approved method of meeting the intent of this section of the Code. (City Code of Ordinances 46-171) 7. Sprinkler system required (additional information needed to determine if this is required). System is to be monitored by an approved Fire Alarm System. This chapter shall apply to all buildings, structures, marine vessels, premises, and conditions which are modified by more than 50% after the effective date of these Regulations. The 50% figure shall be calculated utilizing the gross square footage of the building, structure, marine vessel, premises and conditions as to arrive at the correct application. Any proposal that is presented to the Office of the State Fire Marshal for review and approval for a building rehabilitation as defined in the 101 Life Safety Code, for less than 50% of the gross square footage of a non-sprinklered building, may not have another such project for the same building submitted for review and approval any sooner than three (3) years after the date of the final inspection unless sprinkler projection is provided throughout the entire building. In all buildings exceeding 10,000 square feet of aggregate, gross floor area. In all buildings in excess of 40 feet in height or more than four (4) stories in height. In all buildings or areas thereof used for the storage, fabricating, assembling, manufacturing, processing, display or sale of combustible goods, wares, merchandise, products, or materials when more than two (2) stories or 25 feet in height. In all basement areas exceeding 2,500 square feet floor area. In residential occupancies when of: Type V (0,0,0) or Type III (2,0,0) construction and exceeding two (2) stories or 25 feet in height. Type V (1,1,1) and Type III (2,1,1) or Type IV (2,H,H) construction exceeding three (3) stories or 3In all residential apartment buildings storage areas except individual unit closets that are located within individual residential living units. In all buildings used as health care occupancies as defined in the Life Safety Code, NFPA 101, as adopted and/or modified by these Regulations. In all buildings or areas classified as "high

hazard" under the Life Safety Code, NFPA 101, or "extra hazard" under the Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, NFPA 13, as adopted and/or modified by these Regulations. All buildings used as dormitories, in whole or in part, to house students at a public or private school or public or private institution of higher education. (16 Del.C. Ch. 88) This applies to all such dormitories regardless if new or existing. (2015 State of Delaware fire Prevention Regulations, 702, Chapter 4) Places of assembly shall be sprinklered throughout in accordance with the most recently adopted edition of NFPA 13 when the following apply: All new indoor places of assembly with an occupant load of 150 persons or greater. Any interior renovations of 50 percent or more to an existing place of assembly with an occupant load greater than 150 persons. Any additions or increase in interior size to an existing place of assembly that would create an occupant load of 150 persons or greater. Places of assembly where alcohol is served for consumption on the premises shall be sprinklered throughout in accordance with the most recently adopted edition of NFPA 13 when the following apply: All new indoor places of assembly with an occupant load of 100 persons or greater and where alcohol will be served for consumption on the premises. Any interior renovation of 50 percent or more to an existing place of assembly with an occupant load greater than 100 persons and where alcohol will be served for consumption on the premises. Any additions or increase in interior size to an existing place of assembly which would create an occupant load of 100 persons or greater and where alcohol will be served for consumption on the premises. New educational occupancies of 5,000 square feet or greater shall be sprinklered throughout in accordance with the most recently adopted edition of NFPA 13. (City of Dover Code of Ordinances 46-162) 8. Fire Department Connection is to be a 5-inch stortz connection on a 30 degree elbow located within 50 feet of main entrance. Access to the Fire Department Connection must be clear unobstructed access as defined by the AHJ. 9. Parking and/or obstructions shall be prohibited in front of fire department connections for a distance measuring from the center line and extending four feet on both sides. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 5, 6.3.4) 10. Fire Department Connection to be located within 300 feet of fire hydrant, measured as hose would come off the fire equipment. 11. The installation of natural gas and LP gas meters, regulators, valves, and LP gas bottles shall be protected from impact damage by impact protection. Natural gas and LP gas meters, regulators, and valves located inside structures shall have impact protection, except when located in separate protected utility rooms. Dimensions of bollards. Bollards shall be a minimum of six-inch diameter filled with concrete. The bollard shall be set into the ground at a depth of at least 36 inches (three ft.) embedded in

concrete at a minimum of 18 inches surrounding the bollard. The bollards must be a least 48 inches (four ft.) in height above the finish grade elevation. Any deviation of the stated requirements must be approved by the fire marshal and/or chief building inspector. The above dimensions shall serve as the requirement for installation; however, the fire marshal and/or chief building inspector shall have the authority to require more stringent dimensions to fit the needs of devices warranting impact protection. Color of bollards. Bollards should be of the following colors; yellow, amber or orange. All colors shall be of fluorescent or have a reflective coating. Any deviation of the stated requirements must be approved by the fire marshal and/chief building inspector. (City of Dover Code of Ordinances, 46-4) 12. 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)

13. (Only required if a fire alarm system is required) A lock box (Knox) containing any and all means necessary for fire department access shall be provided at the following occupancies: any occupancy that contains a fire alarm signaling system that is monitored off-site, or any occupancy that contains an automatic sprinkler system. (2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 705, Chapter 5, 2.4) Secured key systems. When required; exemption. A secured key system shall be required for any new or existing building where a fire alarm or sprinkler system is being installed. It shall be the responsibility of the owner or occupant to keep a set of keys in the secured key box that are current to the locks of the protected occupancy. Buildings with 24-hour staffing or guard service shall be exempt from this subsection. Location. The secured key system shall be located as close to the main entrance as possible. Should the building design not allow the secured key system to be located by the main entrance, the fire marshal and fire chief shall come to an agreement as to an alternate location for the key box. A secured key system, once installed, shall not be obstructed from view or obstructed by any means that would delay the fire department access to the box. Required keys. Keys to be secured in the key box shall include keys to all points of ingress or egress, whether on the interior or exterior of the building, and keys to locked mechanical rooms, electrical rooms, elevator rooms, fire alarm and sprinkler controls and any area protected by automatic fire detection. Keys to individual residential apartment units are not required. Ordering responsibility. It shall be the responsibility of the general contractor to order the key box for new buildings. It shall be the responsibility of the owner or tenant to order the key box for existing buildings. Installation before testing. No acceptance test for sprinklers or fire alarms shall be conducted before the installation of a key box. (City Code of Ordinances 46-127) Knox Box to be mounted 6 feet above ground level. 14. All required means of egress shall have an exit discharge consisting of a non-slip surface, and leading to and terminating at a public way. 15. Project to be completed per approved Site Plan. 16. Full building and fire plan review is required. 17. Separate building permits/plans submission will be required for each building and/or tenant fit out. If the permit submission is for a “shell” a Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued. Separate plans and permits submissions will be required for each “tenant fit out” at which time a Certificate of Occupancy will be issued upon compliance/completion of each “tenant fit out”. Each “shell” will require a fire permit for sprinkler and fire alarm if applicable. Those systems (for the “shell”) must be accepted into service prior to any “tenant fit out” fire permits being issued. 18. Construction or renovations cannot be started until building plans are approved. 19. Fire alarm systems, fire suppression systems, hoods, and hood suppression systems require a fire permit from the Fire marshal’s Office. This work cannot be started until the permit is approved.

20. Building cannot be occupied by the public until a Certificate of Occupancy is obtained. 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 D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O D.A.C. MEETING DATE: January 30, 2019 T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Lands of New Wind Properties 2920 LLC FILE#: AX-19-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Joshua Schwartz PHONE#: 302-760-2768 =============================================================== THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY & STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1. No Objection to the annexation and rezoning. Property Inbound access shall be from Maxwell Street 2. The plan is currently being reviewed by DelDOT.

~ - ~"Fl("''~ h l~X T' KENT CONSERVATION DISTRICT • <:o:ss1-; n1·ATIOK ll"i Hl<:f 800 BAY ROAD SUITE 2 • DOVER, D ELAWARE • 19901 (302) 741 -2600 EXT. 3 • FAX (302) 74 1-0347 - 1 ~ CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY January 2018 APPLICATION: Lands of New Wind Properties FILE #: AX-19-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: Kent Conservation District CONTACT PERSON: Jessica L. Verchick, EIT PHONE #: 741-2600 ext.3 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: Source: 2019 Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Regulations CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Kent Conservation District has no objection to the annexation of the above referenced site. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1. If at any time expansion or earth disturbing activity (clearing, grubbing tree clearing etc.) takes place and exceeds 5000 square feet; a detailed Sediment and Stormwater Management Plan must be submitted and approved to the Kent Conversation District.

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION February 19, 2019 Excerpt from Meeting Minutes – Draft The Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 7:00 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers with Chairman Mr. Tolbert presiding. Members present were Mr. Adams, Mr. Roach, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Holt, Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones, Ms. Maucher and Mr. Tolbert. Mrs. Welsh was absent. Staff members present were Mr. Dave Hugg, Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mr. Jason Lyon, Mr. Julian Swierczek, Mr. Eddie Diaz and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney. AX-19-01 Lands of New Wind Properties 2920 LLC at 2920 N. DuPont Highway – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council of an Annexation Request and Rezoning Request for a parcel of land totaling 0.57 acres +/- (25,000 SF) located at 2920 North DuPont Highway, Dover. The property is currently zoned BG (General Business Zone) in Kent County. The proposed zoning is C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). The property is located on the east side of North DuPont Highway and adjacent to the north side of Maxwell Street. The annexation category according to Dover’s 2008 Comprehensive Plan is Category 1: High Priority Annexation Areas and the land use designation is Commercial. The owner of New Wind Properties 2920 LLC. Property Address: 2920 N. DuPont Highway. Tax Parcel: ED-00-057.02- 01-08.00-000. Proposed Council District 3. Ordinance #2019-01. The First Reading of this Annexation Request was completed on January 14, 2019. Final Reading/Public Hearing is scheduled before City Council for March 11, 2019. Representatives: Mr. Brock Parker, Parker and Associates Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is a request for Annexation. The applicants are the owner of record which is New Wind Properties 2920 LLC and also Franchise Management Services Inc. who is the potential redeveloper of the site. The property is 0.57 acres and located on the east side of North DuPont Highway and is adjacent to Maxwell Street. This is the area of the City that is up across from what was the old Dover Sheraton, the North Dover Lowes, north of Wawa and near the Dover Towne Center project that has the Outback Steakhouse Restaurant in the front. Currently, the property in the County is zoned BG (General Business Zone). They are requesting annexation into the City with a proposed zoning classification of C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). With any Annexation, we have to look to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and in there we find that this area is designated as Category 1: High Priority for Annexation and has a land use designation of Commercial. On the property, there is currently a vacant commercial building and the potential development has been working through some of the review process with Kent County to redevelop that building into a restaurant with drive-through for that site. Tonight, the Planning Commission will be making a recommendation on the Annexation and a recommendation in regards to the zoning of the property. In doing so, our Comprehensive Plan calls for our zoning to be in compliance with the land use category that is outlined in the Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting of February 19, 2019 Page 1 of 3

Comprehensive Plan. With a land use category of Commercial, the proposed zoning of C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) does comply with that. Also, to be considered should be the character and compatibility of the surrounding land uses, the adjacent street types and the general environment that the property is located in. The DAC Report does include a listing of the types of uses that are allowed in the C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). It allows for a variety of retail, office, restaurants and service type of establishments. It also allows for hotels, places of public assembly, some other service needs and some manufacturing type activities. There are also a number of conditional uses that could be reviewed in the C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). It is the recommendation of Planning Staff that the Annexation occur and that the zoning of the property be C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). Staff finds that the subject property is within the City’s Annexation Plan as a High Priority Annexation Area and that the C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) zoning is consistent with the development along the highway corridor and is also consistent with the land use category of Commercial. In the DAC Report, a number of the participating agencies have provided comments. Basically, they have no objections to the Annexation of the parcel. They do provide a series of Advisory Comments related to redevelopment of the site. Specifically, the Public Works Office has noted that water and sanitary sewer is located on the west side of North DuPont Highway and the applicant is pursuing the ability to connect to City sewer through that office. The property already is served by City of Dover Electric. Likewise, the Fire Marshal’s Office has provided some advisory information related to fire protection needs of the site and the building should it become part of the City of Dover. DelDOT and the Kent Conservation District likewise have no objection to Annexation. Mr. Parker stated that they are the Civil Engineers and Surveyors representing the developers of the property. They take no exception to any of the comments in the Staff Report. The Advisory Comments are all things that we know and things that we are prepared to overcome. As you know, the property has been through the County portion of the planning process. It was at the conclusion of that planning process that they went in to get their septic system replaced. Once they started throwing in all of their arcs from all of their adjacent wells and septics, it just got too small for their feasible use for a Dunkin Donuts Store. They approached Dover and they said that there is sewer on the other side; so, their current plan is to tie that building into the sewer that is on the other side of the highway through a small lift station force main. Mr. Diaz (Mr. Jason Lyon) and his group have been very accommodating and helpful to them in trying to get that plan work together. They have met with DelDOT and they seem agreeable to letting them get across their road. The proposed zoning that is suggested by the City does fit their needs and their ultimate use. They take no exception to any of the comments in the DAC Report. Mr. Tolbert questioned if they will continue to work cooperatively with Planning Staff regarding this application? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Parker stated yes. Mr. Tolbert opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Ms. Maucher questioned if they were planning to connect to City water immediately or wait until the well fails? Responding to Ms. Maucher, Mr. Parker stated that they are going to wait until the well fails. DNREC is now reviewing the existing well to make sure that it’s sufficient for their Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting of February 19, 2019 Page 2 of 3

use. Mr. Holt moved to recommend approval to City Council for application AX-19-01 to C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). Ms. Edwards questioned if the motion should also include the Annexation of the property? Responding to Ms. Edwards, Mr. Tolbert stated absolutely. Mr. Holt moved to recommend approval to City Council for application AX-19-01 for annexation of the property and for the zoning of C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone), seconded by Dr. Jones and the motion was carried 8-0 by roll call vote. Mr. Holt voting yes; he thinks that it’s a good extension on the City Plan and should be a good fit for Dover. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Dr. Jones voting yes. Ms. Maucher voting yes; based on Staff recommendations. Mr. Adams voting yes. Mr. Roach voting yes; you can never have too many Dunkin Donuts. Ms. Edwards voting yes. Mr. Tolbert voting yes; there are no problems with this application. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting of February 19, 2019 Page 3 of 3

Municipal Annexation Plan of Services Pursuant to Title 22, Delaware Code, §101, any city or town proposing to extend its boundaries, irrespective of any municipal charter provisions, whether such extension is proposed by action of the General Assembly or pursuant to the provisions of a home rule charter, must submit a Plan of Services to the Office of State Planning Coordination. The Plan of Services must be received by our office for review and acceptance at least 20 working days prior to the final discretionary action taken by the municipal legislative body. Please review your charter to identify the final discretionary action for your particular jurisdiction. For example, in some municipalities, the act of voting to hold a special election obligates the jurisdiction to annex the property in advance, pending the outcome of the election. For your information, provisions of the Delaware Code applicable to annexations are attached at the end of the Plan of Services. ● If you complete the form electronically, the template will expand as you type. You must also send a signed original form through the regular mail. To submit attachments electronically, place your cursor in the area indicated at the end of the document and use the Insert function on your toolbar. ● A completed Plan of Services demonstrates the ability of your municipality to provide utilities and public services to the area proposed for annexation. We welcome the inclusion of supplemental materials that illustrate the character of the site, any proposed development, and the impact the proposed annexation will have on your community. ● The form and all attachments must be fully completed at the time of submission. The Plan of Services will not be reviewed unless all attachments have been provided. You can use the list below to be sure all attachments have been included with the Plan of Services. Attachment Checklist Locator map ~ attached Annexation map from comprehensive plan ~ attached Water facilities plan • attached •~ onnotfileapplicable with OSPC Water provider letter • attached Wastewater facilities plan • attached • onnotfileapplicable with OSPC Wastewater provider letter ~ attached •~ not applicable Electric provider letter Police, Fire, EMS letters • attached ~ attached Current municipal budget ~ attached • onon filefile with OSPC Current municipal audit ~ attached •~ not applicable with OSPC Annexation agreements Planning or Annexation Committee report • attached ~ attached Signatures of Mayor and Town Engineer ~ attached NOTES: )RUWKH:DWHUIDFLOLWLHVSODQDQGWKH:DVWHZDWHUIDFLOLWLHVSODQWKH&LW\RI'RYHU'HSDUWPHQWRI 3XEOLF:RUNVFDQPDNHDYDLODEOHIRUYLHZLQJWKH:DWHU0DVWHU3ODQDQGWKH:DVWHZDWHU 0DVWHU3ODQ7KHVHGRFXPHQWVDUHXQDYDLODEOHLQDQHOHFWURQLFIRUPDWWRHPDLO&RQWDFWWKH 'HSDUWPHQWDWIRU-DVRQ/\RQ:DWHU:DVWHZDWHU0DQDJHU 1

MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION PLAN OF SERVICES 1. Property Information - 1.1 Property name/description: Lands of New Wind Properties 2920 LLC (AX-19-01) 1.2 Tax parcel identification number(s): ED-00-57.02-01-08.00-000 1.3 Address: 2920 North DuPont Highway City : Dover State: DE Zip code: 19901 1.4 Total acreage: 0.57 acres 1111~----------- 1.5 Locator map which clearly shows the parcel(s) and demonstrates contiguity attached. 1.6 Annexation map from the certified municipal comprehensive plan which clearly indicates the location of the parcel(s) attached. 1.7 Name of petitioner for annexation: New Wind Properties 2920 LLC Address: 435 S. DuPont Highway City : Dover State: DE Zip code: 19901 1.8 Municipality name: Dover Contact person: Dawn Melson-Williams Address: P.O. Box 475 City : Dover State: DE Zip code: 19903 Phone: 736-7196 E-Mail: dmelson@dover.de.us $OVR&RQWDFW'DYLG6+XJJ,,,'LUHFWRURI3ODQQLQJ ,QVSHFWLRQVGKXJJ#GRYHUGHXV 2. Planning Information 2.1 Is the property developed? 1111~--- Yes • No 5HXVHRUUHGHYHORSPHQWRIWKHH[LVWLQJEXLOGLQJPD\RFFXU 2.2 How is the property identified in the certified municipal annexation plan? Annexation area • Short-term annexation area Other (define): Category 1: High Priority Annexation Area • Long-term annexation area • 2.3 What is the land-use designation in the certified municipal annexation plan? Commerical 2.4 Current use: Commercial (Vacant Building) Current county zoning: BG (General Business) 2.5 1111 Proposed use: Restaurant w/drive-thru Proposed municipal zoning: C-4 +LJKZD\&RPPHUFLDO=RQH 2.6 Proposed density: N/A Maximum allowable density: FAR 4.0 2.7 EDUs within current municipal boundaries: Vacant acreage within current municipal boundaries: 2.8 Utility/Service: Provider: Water Existing on-site well; future by City of Dover Wastewater transmission potential City of Dover Wastewater treatment Kent County Electricity City of Dover (current customer) Police City of Dover Fire Dover Fire Department EMS Kent County Road maintenance and repair State of Delaware/DelDOT Other: 7KHZDWHUDQGVDQLWDU\VHZHULVDYDLODEOHRQWKHZHVWVLGHRI5RXWHZKLFKZRXOGUHTXLUHDXWLOLW\FURVVLQJRI5RXWH W\SLFDOO\ GLVFRXUDJHGE\'HO'27 7KHGHYHORSHULVSXUVXLQJWKHVDQLWDU\VHZHUFRQQHFWLRQWRWKH&LW\DQGLVLQGLVFXVVLRQZLWKWKH 'HSDUWPHQWRI3XEOLF:RUNVDQG'HO'27IRUGHVLJQRIWKLVVHUYLFHFRQQHFWLRQWRUHSODFHWKHH[LVWLQJRQVLWHVHSWLFV\VWHP 2

3. Abbreviated Plan of Services Indicate if any of the following conditions apply to the proposed annexation area and proceed to Section 9. If none apply, proceed to Section 4. • The property is an enclave1 of five (5) acres or less. • The property is ten (10) acres or less and more than 50% is within municipal boundaries. • The property has been subdivided and fully developed and utilities and services are currently provided by the municipality. The property has been subdivided and fully developed and utilities/services are provided by • the municipality or another public utility. The public utility must supply a letter of concurrence describing their ability to provide necessary services to the proposed annexation area. 4. Water System 4.1 Check here if the municipality will provide water to the proposed annexation area, attach relevant sections of the most recent water facilities plan and complete Items 4.2 through 4.7. If not, proceed to Item 4.8. 'HYHORSHUKRSHVWRXVHH[LVWLQJRQVLWHZHOO&LW\LVDIXWXUHSRWHQWLDOVHUYLFHSURYLGHULIZHOOIDLOV 4.2 1111 Current municipal system capacity (maximum gpd without capital expenditure): 10,500,000gpd 4.3 Average municipal water usage (gpd): 4,819,100 gpd 4.4 1111 DNREC permit #: 87-00180RAM3, 87-0018brm1, 92-00021 0 DNREC permit allocation (gpd): JSG 4.5 Estimated future water demand (gpd) within current municipal boundaries based on approved EDUs and full build-out of vacant acreage under current zoning: 3,125,000 gpd 4.6 Estimated future water demand for the proposed annexation area (gpd) based on EDUs for proposed density or maximum allowable density under the proposed zoning: unknown 4.7 If the current infrastructure cannot meet the estimated demand of the proposed annexation area, indicate how this will be addressed: Developer is responsible for all costs associated with extending DQGSURYLGLQJ 4.8 If the municipality does not provide water, attach statement(s) from the water provider indicating VHUYLFHV their ability to serve the proposed annexation area and briefly describing system capacity and capital improvements needed to support either the proposed density or maximum allowable density under the proposed zoning. The provider should detail specific phasing plans or other special arrangements needed to supply service to the annexation area. • -----~ letter attached 5. Wastewater System 5.1 Check here if the proposed annexation area will be served by a public wastewater system and complete Items 5.2 through 5.8. If not, complete Items 5.8 and 5.9. 6HHQRWHRQSDJH&LW\LVSRWHQWLDOSURYLGHU 5.2 Check here if the municipality will transmit and treat wastewater from the proposed annexation area, attach relevant sections of the wastewater facilities plan, and complete Items 5.3 through 5.8. Check here if the municipality will transmit wastewater to another treatment operator and proceed to Item 5.9. &LW\WUDQVPLWVWR.HQW&RXQW\IRUWUHDWPHQW • Check here if wastewater will be transmitted and treated by another treatment operator and proceed to Item 5.9. 5.3 Current municipal treatment capacity (daily maximum gpd without capital expenditure): 5.4 1111 Current municipal average wastewater flow (gpd): 5.5 DNREC permitted discharge (gpd): 5.6 Estimated future wastewater demand (gpd) within current municipal boundaries based on approved EDUs and full build-out of vacant acreage under current zoning: 3

5.7 Estimated future wastewater demand for proposed annexation area (gpd) based on EDUs under the proposed density or maximum allowable density under the proposed zoning: unknown 5.8 Describe any municipal or developer funded infrastructure improvements necessary to transmit and/or treat waste from the proposed annexation area. 5.9 If the municipality does not provide wastewater transmission and/or treatment, attach statement(s) from the wastewater service provider and/or treatment operator indicating their ability to serve the proposed annexation area and briefly describing system capacity and capital improvements needed to support either the proposed density or maximum allowable density under the proposed zoning. The provider should detail specific phasing plans or other special arrangements needed to supply service to the annexation area. letter attached 6. Electricity 6.1 Check here if the municipality will provide electric service to the proposed annexation area and complete Items 6.2 and 6.3. If not, proceed to Item 6.4. 3URSHUW\LVFXUUHQW&LW\(OHFWULFFXVWRPHU 6.2 Date of the most recent municipal electrical facilities plan: unknown 6.3 Describe electrical upgrades underway or planned within the next 5 years for the proposed annexation area: City-wide system upgrades explained in the Budget documents. 6.4 If electrical service is to be provided by another jurisdiction or a public utility regulated by the Delaware Public Service Commission, attach a statement from the provider indicating their ability to serve the proposed annexation area and briefly describing phasing plans or special arrangements needed to support either the proposed density or maximum allowable density under the proposed zoning. •letter attached 7. Public Safety 7.1 Public safety and other non-municipal authorities are obligated to serve their territories and are to be notified of proposed annexations. Attach copies of notification letters and any responses to and from non-municipal police, fire, EMS, county or other authorities having jurisdiction in the proposed annexation area. letters attached 8. Fiscal Information 8.1 Attach a copy of the municipality’s current fiscal year budget. /LQNWR)<%XGJHWSURYLGHG l8JI budget attached • budget on file with Office of State Planning Coordination • budget not available; the fiscal management practices of the municipality are described as follows : /LQNWR&RPSUHKHQVLYH$QQXDO)LQDQFLDO5HSRUWIRU\HDUHQGLQJ 8.2 Attach a copy of the most recent audit prepared for the municipality. ,QFOXGHVDXGLWLQIRUPDWLRQ audit attached • • audit on file with Office of State Planning Coordination audit not available 8.3 If applicable, attach copies of any annexation agreement(s) with owners, potential buyers or developers, and/or service providers pertaining to the proposed annexation area. • agreement(s) attached not applicable 8.4 If applicable, use the following table to indicate the source of funds to construct infrastructure necessary to develop the annexation area to either the proposed density or maximum allowable density under the proposed zoning. not applicable • 4

Impact Fees or Capital Other Municipal Annexation Fees from Infrastructure Improvements Water system QJ ~ Developer or Public Utility 11,d • Funds Wastewater transmission ~:,. J [1..1 Wastewater treatment 16:l L..J Electrical system ~ :I I~ Public streets • jg! 8.5 If applicable, use the following table to Indicate the source of funds to maintain the annexation area when Q loped to either the proposed density or maximum allowable density under the proposed zoning. D not applicable Homeowner Public Utility Operating or Fees or Other Municipal and Condominium Enterprise Funds Maintenance Costs Association Funds 2 Waters stem Wastewater transmission Wastewater treatment Electrical s stem Public streets 9. Certifications The undersigned certify that the information provided in this Plan of Services is complete and accurate to the r~-~xtent practicable and that all letters required from service and utility providers are attached. Place your cursor below this line and use the Insert function on your toolbar lo attach documents electronically. 5

Municipal Annexation Plan of Services Summary of Attachments City of Dover, DE Annexation of 2920 N. DuPont Highway, Dover DE Attachments: • Location map: Zoning Map Exhibit AX-19-01 • Annexation map from Comprehensive Plan: o Map 13-1 Potential Annexation Areas o Map 13-2 Potential Land Use for Annexation Areas • Wastewater provider letter: o Letter to Kent County Department of Public Works o Letter from Kent County Department of Public Works of February 27, 2019 • Email regarding Electric Service • Police, Fire, and EMS Letters: o Email Set Requesting Information o Letter to Dover Police Department and Email Response o Letter to Dover Fire Department o Letter to Kent County Emergency Medical Services • Report to Utility Committee on AX-19-01 Lands of New Wind Properties 2920 LLC at 2920 N. DuPont Highway • Development Advisory Committee (DAC) Report on AX-19-01 Lands of New Wind Properties 2920 LLC at 2920 N. DuPont Highway forwarded to Planning Commission for meeting of February 19, 2019 Other Reference Links: • City of Dover FY2018-2019 Budget https://www.cityofdover.com/public-documents • City of Dover Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for Year Ending June 30, 2018. Page 21 includes Audit information as Report of Independent Public Accountants https://www.cityofdover.com/public-documents-finance

City of Dover MAYOR AND COUNCIL PROPOSED COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2019-03 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INCLUSION OF AN AREA WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE 2 CITY OF DOVER. 3 WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Dover authorizes Council to extend the boundaries of the said City 4 in accordance with Title 22, Chapter 1, Section 101 of the Delaware Code (22 Del.C.§ 101); and 5 WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council deem it to be in the best interest of the City of Dover to include an area 6 contiguous to the present City limits, and hereinafter more particularly described, within the limits of the 7 City of Dover; and 8 WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Dover provides that if an annexation is petitioned by all owners of 9 all property considered for annexation, no election shall be required. For an annexation petition not 10 requiring an election, such petition shall be processed in accordance with procedures established for 11 amendments to the zoning map, specified in Dover Code, Appendix B - Zoning. All annexation petitions 12 shall be processed concurrently with the rezoning of the property considered for annexation and shall be 13 subject to public hearing before City Council. Public notice shall be completed in accordance with the 14 provisions of the Dover Code relating to amendment of the zoning map. 15 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, 16 IN COUNCIL MET: 17 1. That the following described area, situated in East Dover Hundred, Kent County, State of Delaware, 18 along with all adjacent paths, sidewalks, roadways, and rights-of-way in their entirety, shall be annexed to 19 and included within the limits of the City of Dover: 20 ALL those certain lot, piece or parcel of land with the improvements thereon erected situated 21 in East Dover Hundred, Kent County, and State of Delaware, lying on the northeast 22 intersection of Maxwell Street and U.S. Route #13, being bounded on the west by Route #13, 23 on the north by lands of Lee F. Slaughter, Jr. on the east by lands of Carl F. McNatt and on 24 the south by Maxwell Street and being more particularly described in accordance with a 25 survey by Earl D. Smith, Professional Land Surveyor, dated November 4, 1991, amended 26 November 15, 1991, as follows, to-wit: 27 BEGINNING at a pipe found at the intersection of the north line of Maxwell Street with the 28 east line of U.S. Route #13; thence running from said point of Beginning with the east line 29 of U.S. Route #13 North 40 deg. 00 min. West 200.00 feet to a concrete monument at a 30 comer for this lot and for lands of Lee F. Slaughter, Jr.; thence running with said lands of 31 Lee F. Slaughter, Jr. North 50 deg. 00 min. East 125.00 feet to a P.K. nail at a comer for this P.O. Box 475 ˜ Dover, Delaware ˜19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

City of Dover MAYOR AND COUNCIL 32 lot and lands of Carl F. McNatt; thence running with said lands of Carl F. McNatt South 33 40 deg. 00 min. East 200.00 feet to an electric pole in the north line of Maxwell Street; 34 thence running with said north line of Maxwell Street South 50 deg. 00 min. West 125.00 35 feet to the point and place of Beginning and containing 25,000 square feet of land be the 36 same more or less. 37 TOGETHER with all of the party of the first part’s right, title and interest, if any, in and to 38 (i) any improvements thereupon, and (ii) any rights, alleys, ways, waters, privileges, 39 appurtenances and advantages to the same, belonging or in any way appertaining 40 (collectively, the “Real Estate”). 41 The Real Estate is conveyed subject to all easements, conditions, restrictions, agreements and 42 out-conveyances of record that lawfully apply to the Real Estate or any part thereof. 43 BEING the same lands and premises which CKI, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 44 by Deed dated March 18, 2003 and recorded May 8, 2003 in the Office of the Recorder of 45 Deeds in and for Kent County, State of Delaware in Deed Book 537, Page 285, did grant and 46 convey unto Realty Income Corporation, a Maryland corporation, in fee. 47 2. That the above described property shall be annexed into the City of Dover with a zoning 48 classification as set by City Council and in accordance with the zoning map and environs then in force, 49 effective upon such lands being included within the limits of the City of Dover. 50 3. That the certified copy of this resolution of annexation, together with a plot of the area annexed, shall 51 be filed for record with the Recorder of Deeds of Kent County. 52 4. That the effective date of this resolution shall be the 23rd day of July, 2019 at 12:01 a.m. 53 ADOPTED: * 54 S:\RESOLUTIONS-PROCLAMATIONS-TRIBUTES\2019\DRAFT\RESOLUTION NO 2019-03 ANNEXATION 2920 NORTH DUPONT HIGHWAY\RESOLUTION NO 2019-03 ANNEXATION-2920 NORTH 55 DUPONT HIGHWAY 07-22-2019.wpd 56 57 ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN WILLIAM F. HARE 58 MAYOR COUNCIL PRESIDENT 59 Actions History 60 07/22/2019 - Scheduled for Introduction - City Council 61 05/28/2019 - Introduction Postponed until July 22, 2019 - City Council 62 04/22/2019 - Introduction Postponed until May 28, 2019 - City Council 63 03/11/2019 - Introduction Postponed until April 22, 2019 - City Council P.O. Box 475 ˜ Dover, Delaware ˜19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

FINAL READING CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2019-01 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 2920 NORTH DUPONT HIGHWAY 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 BG - General Business (Kent County zoning classification) to C-4 - Highway 8 Commercial (City of Dover zoning classification). 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 BG - 13 General Business (Kent County zoning classification) to C-4 - Highway Commercial (City of Dover 14 zoning classification) on that property located at 2920 North DuPont Highway (on the east side of 15 North DuPont Highway and adjacent to the north side of Maxwell Street), consisting of 0.57+/- acres 16 (25,000 S.F.), owned by NewWind Properties 2920 LLC. 17 (TAX PARCEL: ED-00-057.02-01-08.00-000; PLANNING REFERENCE: AX-19-01; COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3) 18 ADOPTED: * 19 S:\ORDINANCES\2019\DRAFT\ORDINANCE #2019-01-REZONING-ANNEXATION-2920 NORTH DUPONT HWY\Annexation-Rezoning Ordinance - Final Reading 07-22-2019.wpd 20 Actions History 21 July 22, 2019 - Scheduled for Public Hearing/Final Reading - City Council 22 May 28, 2019 - Public Hearing/Final Reading Postponed until July 22, 2019 - City Council 23 April 22, 2019 - Public Hearing/Final Reading Postponed until May 28, 2019 - City Council 24 March 11, 2019 - Public Hearing/Final Reading Postponed until April 22, 2019 - City Council 25 February 19, 2019 - Public Hearing - Planning Commission 26 January 14, 2019 - First Reading - City Council

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Council Committee of the Whole met on July 9, 2019 at 6:00 p.m., with Council President Hare presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sudler (departed at 7:37 p.m.), Mr. Neil, Mr. Slavin (departed at 7:40 p.m.), Mr. Cole, Mr. Polce, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Lindell. Mayor Christiansen was also present (departed at 7:34 p.m.). Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Mrs. Doyle and Mrs. Haass (Utility), Mr. Caldwell and Col. Dix, Retired, (Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement), and Mr. Contant and Mr. Shevock (Legislative, Finance, and Administration). Mr. Neil moved to amend the agenda to change the order of the committees, as follows: Utility Committee; Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee; and Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee. The motion was seconded by Mr. Polce and unanimously carried. UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee met with Chairman Cole presiding. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Taylor and unanimously carried. Presentation - Kent County Sewer Project Ms. Debbie Pfeil, Senior Planner, KCI, reviewed a presentation entitled “Kent County Levy Court US 13 Sewer Rehabilitation Project, City of Dover Council Committee of the Whole, July 9, 2019” (Attachment #1). Mr. Sudler asked about the closed circuit television video (CCTV) inspection process and who would review the video. Responding, Mr. Dan Strang, Senior Project Manager, KCI, stated that they are doing the CCTV inspection as a pre-inspection because there is currently a 24-inch force main that runs down the median and it is beginning to fail. He explained that instead of cutting open the concrete pipe and installing new pipe, they will inspect strategic locations of the existing pipe using CCTV to ensure the new PVC pipe will fit through. Mr. Strang noted that they are not worried about the integrity of the existing pipe as much as whether they can install the new pipe without any problems. Mr. Sudler noted his appreciation for the strategy adopted for letting the community know about this project, and stated that he thought it was a model that other organizations and agencies should adopt. Mr. Anderson asked if there were particular time frames indicated on the websites and social media to let the public know how long particular disruptions would last. In response, Ms. Pfeil stated that when they met with those affected in particular areas, they talked about the anticipated window of time that it might take, and as the project progresses and they have more information they are releasing additional information. She explained that the first notification for Garden Lane said it is through the first week of August, noting that it is anticipated to be a four-week project, weather permitting. Ms. Pfeil advised that the problem they have with releasing too much information ahead of time is losing credibility, and they don’t want people to feel that there will be a major delay in regard to the weather. Responding to Mr. Taylor regarding the new materials, Mr. Strang stated that they would be installing a new PVC pipe. He explained that they looked at different alternatives and decided not to install a flexible sleeve

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 9, 2019 PAGE 2 inside the pipe to line it because of concerns regarding the integrity of the existing pipe. Mr. Strang advised that they did not want to install a good liner in a bad pipe and have to do it again in five (5) years. He stated that the new PVC pipe is anticipated to last between 50 and 80 years and there is potential for it to last longer since it will be protected by the existing pipe. Mr. Strang noted that the selling point for the PVC was that it is brand-new infrastructure. He stated that the existing pipe is 40 years old and had a history of challenges related to the material and how it is installed, and they thought PVC piping would be less susceptible to some of the previous gas problems. Mr. Taylor asked if this project was put out for bid and why George & Lynch was selected. In response, Mr. Strang stated that this was a publicly advertised project and they received three (3) bids. He advised that one (1) of the bidders withdrew their bid because of a substantial error on their part, and George & Lynch was the lowest responsive bidder remaining. Dedication of Rights-of-Way and Public Infrastructure - Energy Lane and Stover Boulevard Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the evaluation of proposal for the dedication of rights-of-way and public infrastructure for Energy Lane and Stover Boulevard. She noted that the pylon sign at the beginning of Stover Boulevard, along with the vegetation within the island will be owned and maintained by Chesapeake Utilities, and an agreement had been provided to the City stating this fact. Staff recommended acceptance of dedication of rights-of-way and public infrastructure of Energy Lane and Stover Boulevard. Dedication is to include all of the referenced public improvements. Mr. Neil moved to recommend acceptance of staff’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Taylor and unanimously carried. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Utility Committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:21 p.m. PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee met with Chairman Anderson presiding. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Presentation - Opioid Community Response Team Efforts (Kristan McIntosh, Senior Consultant - Health Management Associates) Ms. Kristan McIntosh, Senior Consultant, Health Management Associates, reviewed a presentation entitled “Opioid Overdose Community Response Teams (CRT)” (Attachment #2). Mr. Sudler asked if, other than identifying hotspots indicated as areas with very high rates of opioid overdose deaths in 2018 and possibly talking to some of the constituents in those areas, Ms. McIntosh had found that there is a need for any additional programs or activities separate from clinical treatment. Responding,

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 9, 2019 PAGE 3 Ms. McIntosh stated that she had. She explained that clinical treatment and the need for more treatment was a theme that has come up. Ms. McIntosh stated that the whole effort is a component of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded grant project that the Division of Public Health (DPH) is working on and another component of the project was conducting community surveys and a gap analysis that focused very specifically on determining support services individuals who are living with opioid use disorder (OUD) need, other than treatment services. She noted that the services that rose to the top were peer support, stable housing for individuals with OUD in general and for individuals coming out of the criminal justice system specifically, as well as transportation. Ms. McIntosh noted that they are currently in the process of sending out another survey; however, those findings are anticipated to be released and she offered to share the results with members. Mr. Sudler stated that he would like to see the results as well as the survey questionnaire. Mr. Lindell asked whether, in regard to community involvement, local schools and school districts had been considered. In response, Ms. McIntosh stated that involving the school districts as stakeholders had come up in a lot of conversations and they are concentrating on involving them. She noted that they had recent conversations with the kids' department related to services for children and families and how to strategically include the school districts without impinging on them. Ms. McIntosh welcomed any thoughts or recommendations Mr. Lindell may have in this regard. She explained the importance of involving schools, both in terms of children and youth who have or may develop addiction issues, as well as for children and youth who are living within families that are impacted by addiction overall, to help break that cycle. Mr. Caldwell asked who would be providing the resources for the City of Dover. Responding, Ms. McIntosh explained that the DPH is leading this effort and they are working on distributing the resources, including Naloxone. She stated that they are also working to develop a resource card for distribution as well. In response to Mr. Caldwell, Ms. McIntosh stated the CRT is specifically involved in responding to a specific type of crisis, a disruption in the supply of opioids. She explained that they had spoken to the Police and Fire Departments and EMS, so individuals who would like to get involved do not necessarily have to be from a crisis group; however, if there are individuals from crisis groups that he thinks should be involved, she would welcome them. Responding to Col. Dix, Ms. McIntosh explained that fentanyl increases the potency of the substance to which it is added. She stated that some individuals seek out substances with fentanyl in them because they can use less of the substance, cut it with fentanyl and sell it at a higher potency so that they make more money. Ms. McIntosh advised that it is important for individuals to be aware of the presence of fentanyl in substances and to have resources available, because if an individual uses a substance and is not aware that it has fentanyl in it, it can increase their risk of overdose. Mr. Taylor stated that, as a retired law enforcement officer in the City, he found that one of the biggest problems was dealing with “real time,” explaining that the HIPAA laws that govern law enforcement and first responders don’t allow them to tell people immediately not to use a certain substance because they can’t bring up someone else’s case. He asked how the CRT collaboration manages that issue. In response, Ms. McIntosh explained that none of their communications will impact ongoing enforcement investigations, so the real time nature might not actually be real time. She indicated that the communications that the CRT receive will be identified and the DPH will do communications regarding mass events, such as five (5) or more individuals who have overdosed within three (3) hours. Ms. McIntosh explained that HIPAA laws and confidentiality are something that the CRT stakeholders will need to receive training regarding. She stated

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 9, 2019 PAGE 4 that DPH is very cognizant of that fact and is going to work on making sure that the communications that they share are very clearly identified and that the community response team stakeholders all know how to responsibly share that information with other stakeholders so that they can get the information without putting anyone at risk. Mayor Christiansen recognized the efforts of Lieutenant Governor Bethany Hall-Long, Councilman Polce and others who took criticism when they went out on the streets with the initial distribution of Narcan. He stated that, as a volunteer firefighter, he had responded to a number of call regarding individuals who have overdosed on heroin and he cannot believe that the state is undertaking a program to address a health and public safety crisis in regard to the opioid crisis, while at they were on the verge of authorizing a gateway drug, which they will probably do in the next session of the legislature. Mayor Christiansen stated that he finds it very unconscionable because it will unravel all of the good work that Ms. McIntosh, the Lt. Governor, and others are trying to do. Responding, Ms. McIntosh indicated that this topic came up during their planning meetings and, although it is outside of the scope of the CRT, it is certainly related. Mr. Taylor asked if consideration had been given to making this a health care crisis exclusively versus a criminal justice situation, explaining that those who are incarcerated are not getting the help they need, so when they get out, they pick up where they left off. He stated that he thought if this were made a health care issue versus a criminal justice issue, the professionals are already in place who can do what needs to be done immediately versus going through six (6) months to a year of incarceration with no rehabilitation. In response, Ms. McIntosh stated that there is a lot that goes into why it is not a standard health crisis including stigma regarding addiction; however, she noted that one of the benefits that the CRT project and the work of the Behavioral Health Consortium Addiction Action Committee is that they are under the DPH. She stated that the CRT is using a CDC public health response framework to respond to these types of events, and she thinks that people are recognizing that the status quo is not working, so the focus is moving into the health care space. Ms. McIntosh expressed her hope that it continues to move that way because having a criminal justice focus, while important in some respects, is not the way to treat people who have substance use disorders. Mr. Slavin noted that there were individuals in the audience who he believed worked and lived with this issue on a daily basis and asked if it would be okay if the Chair invited members of the public to ask questions of Ms. McIntosh. Mr. Sudler moved to suspend the rules to allow members of the audience to speak. The motion failed for lack of a second. Mr. Anderson advised that the Chair can invite members of the public to speak. Mr. Anderson stated that they had discussed overdose deaths, which are tragic and important, but one of the important things that they can do a lot about are the overdoses that don’t result in death. He explained that with medications like Naloxone at least four (4) or five (5) times more individuals are surviving than are dying. Mr. Anderson stated that this shows the real extent of the problem and asked if Ms. McIntosh could elaborate on how that fits in with the CRT project. Responding, Ms. McIntosh informed members that the data they have used is specifically related to opioid overdose deaths, in an effort to target areas that are adversely affected, but the goal is that even if an individual does experience an overdose, that it does not result in death. She stated that the goal is to work themselves out of a job, so that individuals have the

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 9, 2019 PAGE 5 resources that they need within the community to prevent an overdose if possible and to ensure that if an overdose does occur, it does not result in a fatality. In response to Mr. Anderson, Ms. McIntosh advised that OpiRescue Delaware is a free overdose rescue application available for downloading. She explained that it provides real time training, information, and community resources for substance use disorder treatment and support. Ms. McIntosh stated that it contains detailed information on how to recognize signs of an overdose, and the steps for administering Naloxone. Brother Peter-Joseph St. Mary Avitabile, CSC, Deacon, Saint Miriam Parish and Friary, stated that he is very invested in this topic because he has seen a great deal of hardship, loss and grief. He noted that he saw the word “volunteer” and asked if there would be funding coming into the community to help manage the project once it is brought to fruition. He stated that he thought faith-based organizations are the way to go because people feel more comfortable coming inside a safe environment that doesn’t say mental health services or hospitals, and there are lots of things that they can do at that first stage when individuals are seeking help. Brother Peter-Joseph St. Mary Avitabile indicated that the Vines Project was doing similar work and would like to unify and direct their attention to the funding sources, noting that there is a grant in connection with Columbia Presbyterian Hospital. Responding, Ms. McIntosh stated that the CRT is hoping to engage faith-based communities of all types in these efforts because they know that a lot of individuals who are not accessing support elsewhere and the faith-based communities have a connection to the community and the ability to communicate and distribute resources unlike other entities and treatment providers. She noted that they are currently in the infrastructure development phase and trying to find ways to build and sustain the project which will require funding. Reverend Theodore Henderson, Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance (IMA) of Dover and Vicinity (IMA) President, stated that he was glad they brought up faith-based communities, explaining that one of the topics they will discuss in the next presentation is a drug and alcohol prevention program, which he indicated is a faith-based program. He noted that when he was a kid, they locked individuals up, and he was glad they were getting away from that now that the issue was no longer just in his neighborhood. Reverend Henderson stated that there are many things that can be done to prevent individuals from getting involved with opioids and indicated that the IMA wants to establish another link. He stated that he saw his first death when he was in the fourth grade in Columbus, Ohio, in the inner city, and nobody cared, but now that it's a crisis, everybody cares, and he thinks there’s something a little bit lopsided about that. By unanimous consent, the meeting recessed at 6:59 p.m. and reconvened at 7:02 p.m. Presentation by the Greater Dover IMA Social Action Committee Reverend Rita Mishoe Paige, Social Action Chair, Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance (IMA) of Dover and Vicinity (IMA) and Reverend Theodore Henderson, IMA President, reviewed a presentation entitled “Social Action Committee of the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance (IMA) of Dover and Vicinity, Dover Park Survey Presentation for City of Dover Parks, Recreational and Community Enhancement Committee, July 9, 2019” (Attachment #3). Mr. Slavin stated that he had the misfortune of being on Council when the building at Dover Park was demolished and, before it was demolished, the City was guilty of demolition by neglect because the building was closed, mold grew, and it deteriorated to the point where the only choice Council had was to knock it down. He recalled that he and former Councilman Sean Lynn voiced their concern that if they demolished

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 9, 2019 PAGE 6 the building without a plan to replace it immediately, they would be here for years trying to replace it, and indicated that they are still trying. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Rev. Paige stated that the IMA intends for the partnership they are pulling together to be a separate nonprofit entity. Mr. Slavin stated that he thought that was a wonderful thing to have happen. He noted that he did not know whether they were aware of the action taken by the legislature this year for the $1M that Dover had appropriated for a parking garage and read Section 36 of House Bill No. 260 of the 150th General Assembly, as follows: “The Section 1 Addendum of 81 Del. Laws c. 303 appropriated $1,000,000 to the Office of Management and Budget (10-02-00) for the City of Dover – Parking Garage. Said funding may be used by the City to implement initiatives associated with the Dover Park Master Plan and the Schutte Park Master Plan, provided the initiatives are minor and/or major capital improvements for said parks.” Mr. Slavin advised that this gives the City the flexibility and authority to redirect money toward this kind of project. He stated that he would be willing to sponsor a motion to put some of that money out to the IMA’s new partnership as a challenge to then go out and leverage that money from private foundations and givers, and see if they can double that money, noting that he thought they were a lot closer now than they have ever been with access to these funds. Mr. Sudler stated that he would be willing to second the motion indicated by Mr. Slavin. He noted that he thought that he and Mr. Slavin had both had strong feelings regarding this matter and put forth a valid effort to put back what was promised. Mr. Sudler suggested that the more than 300 surveys submitted in 2014 by the Mt. Zion A.M.E. Church be included with the IMA results for comparison of the current and past data. Mr. Taylor indicated that the IMA had his support from the beginning of their presentation and that he is willing to contribute as much as possible, such as recruiting local contractors who also understand the need and are willing to give above and beyond. He stated that he thought this is a doable project and, if the City and IMA collaborate and do it in excellence, it will get done. Mr. Taylor noted that when he was a Dover Police Officer they had youth week at Dover Park and used the building that was there, and he sees the pain and hurt that are a direct result of that building no longer being there. Mr. Dix noted that when he was in high school he worked for the City of Milwaukee, WI as a floor walker in social centers and when people got disruptive, he would remove them from the facility. He indicated that when he was reading the presentation, he thought that they were describing something more like the Milwaukee, WI social center, rather than a park recreational center. Mr. Dix noted that he thought that the Capital School District was talking about abandoning certain schools on the east side of the city and suggested that the IMA try to get one of the schools, explaining that he thought it would be perfect for their use because they would have a cafeteria and meeting rooms. He stated that he thought they are required by state law to demolish the building but the IMA might be able to get one for their use. Responding, Rev. Henderson indicated that he and the IMA worked together with Mr. Taylor on the initiative to get the recent referendum passed, and it was his understanding that they are going to renovate, modernize, and innovate the schools, not tear them down. Col. Dix suggested that the IMA contact Dr. Dan Shelton, Capital School District Superintendent, to find out what the plan is because he knows they are talking about abandoning grade schools on the east side of Dover, which he thinks would fit perfectly with the IMA’s plans. Mr. Neil recalled that over the next four (4) years $500,000 is budgeted for improvements for Dover Park based on the plans designed to clean up and make that a very usable park, including the possibility of a

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 9, 2019 PAGE 7 building. He indicated his approval of the IMA moving ahead on the suggestion of Mr. Slavin, noting that he thought that they could have an even larger area because this is in the 3rd Council District and it would be wonderful for the homeowners’ associations to be able to utilize the building for their meetings which he and Mr. Cole currently attend in school buildings that aren’t really set up for that purpose. Mr. Neil stated that there is great possibility if they use the building as a social center when people can meet. He noted that their sample of 102 people is a very small amount of the 7,000 voters in the 3rd District; however, he thought it’s a worthwhile project and if it does come about he'll support it. At the request of Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, clarified that the allocation in the budget is an annual allocation to try to get some of the options included in the Master Plan implemented piecemeal over five (5) years, explaining that it was noted that the City was looking at fund-raising to get those options completed. She advised members that the Master Plan included a 1,440 sq. ft. building as one of the options and, since the park was purchased through grant funds from the U.S. Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Delaware Land and Water Conservation Trust Fund, the City is prohibited from using the land for anything other than public park land, except for where the old building was located. Mrs. Mitchell explained that, since the old building footprint can be used, she contacted the engineer to determine whether a 3,600 sq. ft. could be configured using the former building footprint and he said that with some tweaking it could be put in that space. Col. Dix suggested that they could also consider two (2) floors. Mr. Sudler stated that he thought that they serve the people, the people do not serve them, so they don’t tell the people where they need to be, the people tell them where they need them to be, and throughout the years, the people had already told them they want another building in the same location, so he thought it was a little disrespectful to try and divert attention from what the constituents had already said. He indicated that although Dover Park is located in the 3rd District, people from elsewhere use the park and members have a responsibility to be friendly and good neighbors to all the districts. Mr. Sudler noted that he thought that members needed to get back to listening to the people and serving at the will of the people, not just doing what they think needs to be done for them. He stated that unless you have actually gone out and done the footwork and talked with these people, your thoughts are really not valid in regard to a placement. Mr. Sudler explained that he and the IMA had a pulse on the people because they had been out there and he thought it was disingenuous for members to divert the attention away from what the people had already said. Rev. Paige stated that she thought that the location at Dover Park was perfect because it is right next to a public housing development, a State Housing Authority, tax credit, development, as well as low to moderate income developments. She noted, as someone who has worked in that area for more than 30 years, that people in those developments have a lot of transportation barriers, and if the center is in Dover Park, they would have easy access and be able to walk directly to the center without having to cross a highway or a street. Rev. Paige explained that her suggestion of a satellite police office in the building was based on her previously experience as the administrator for the public housing drug elimination program. She noted that the program no longer exists because the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) cut the funds; however, she used to negotiate the contracts with all of the municipal police agencies throughout Kent and Sussex Counties for extra duty protection in all of the public housing developments and some of their sites. Rev. Paige stated that they had space dedicated for police officers and just the presence of a car being there was a deterrent to crime. She noted that a lot of shootings had been taking place on the east side of

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 9, 2019 PAGE 8 Dover and at the Dover Housing Authority development next to Dover Park and, although she could not speak for the police, she suggested that a police presence would be a great thing for the east side. Mr. Hare stated that he thought there were a lot of good ideas; however, he expressed concern that there were a lot of details that had not been addressed. He suggested that this matter be brought back at a separate meeting dedicated to this topic, so members could delve into it and get more details. Mr. Slavin moved to recommend that the City explore a challenge grant to the newly formed nonprofit partnership for Dover Park that must receive 501(c)(3) designation from the IRS in order to receive any funding. The source of City funding is found in Section 36 of House Bill 260 of the 2019 legislative session, and the intent of the motion is simply to have the City begin that dialogue about funding. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend acceptance of the report, seconded by Mr. Taylor and unanimously carried. Presentation - Skate Park Advocates Col. Dix informed members that he had discovered that Mr. Dave Hugg, Director of Planning and Community Development, was instrumental in installing a skate park in Smyrna approximately 15 years ago. He stated that he was looking at the company that supplied the equipment for that park, and in thinking about the plans that were previously proposed for concrete structures, he took photos of Smyrna Skate Park for members to review (Attachment #4). Mr. Anderson noted that the gentleman scheduled to make the presentation regarding the skate park had requested a delay due to childcare issues. Mr. Lindell moved to defer this matter until the Council Committee of the Whole/Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee meeting in August. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried. Mr. Taylor moved for adjournment of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:37 p.m. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Chairman Lindell presiding. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Anderson moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 9, 2019 PAGE 9 Proposed Ordinance #2019-16 Amending Chapter 102 - Taxation of the Dover Code by Inserting a New Article VII - Lodging Tax (Sponsors: Hare and Polce) Mr. Polce reviewed Proposed Ordinance #2019-16, explaining that it proposes a suggested 3% tax rate for lodging establishments. He advised that the General Assembly vested the City the power to take this action on June 30, 2019. Mr. Polce moved to recommend adoption of Ordinance #2019-16, seconded by Mr. Slavin. Mr. Neil stated that he thought that this was long overdue, noting that he talked about it when he was first elected in 2015 and there was supposed to be some resistance from the tourism community. He advised that whatever the City uses these funds for, whether it’s strictly for infrastructure, there is no reason why visitors should not help. Mr. Anderson stated that he thought members needed to talk to Mr. Dave Hugg, Director of Planning and Community Development, because he has some ideas regarding this matter; however, he thought they could enable it and should then come back to discuss the details of how best to utilize the funds. He stated that with that caveat, it has his support, because if they don’t do it, it’s going to be done anyway and the money will not stay in the local community. Responding to Mr. Shevock, Mr. Polce explained that the lodging tax is specifically for rooms in a hotel, motel or tourist home, as defined in 30 Del. C. §6101, and does not apply to event spaces. Mr. Contant asked whether the City did an assessment regarding how the lodging tax would impact the average rates in the area, and the annual amount the City expects to receive. In response, Mr. Polce stated that the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) did a full assessment of state lodging taxes from a national perspective (Attachment #5), and even with a 3% increase by both the City and Kent County, the City is still at a marginal increase. Mr. Polce noted that an article titled “The Impact of the Hotel Room Tax: An Interrupted Time Series Approach,” published in the National Tax Journal in December 1992, (Attachment #6), when this debate first hit the national publications, clearly outlines what tax rate fear at the time was and showed that there was a non-marginal impact on both business development and rental in the demography that was outlined. He stated that an article titled “Tax Policy and US Hotel Industry Economic Impacts,” published in Oxford Economics, in November 2017 (Attachment #7) also demonstrated that a small tax, such as 3%, when dealing with consumer behavior, i.e. hotel rentals, shows a non-varied impact. In regard to the question regarding average rates in the area, Mr. Polce reviewed information from Trivago.com for the top four (4) hotel rentals, including calculations regarding the total increase to consumers with the 3% City and County lodging tax (Attachment #8), noting that it would equate to an approximate $12 increase on a room rental that was typically $198. He stated that he thought that consumers would continue to pay regardless of the marginal increase. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, stated that she did not have the research with her; however, when this matter was discussed years ago, the prior administration had researched the potential annual revenue of a lodging tax and she believed it was between $600,000 and $800,000, although she did not recall what proposed rate that was based on. Mr. Anderson stated his belief that, at that time, 2% would raise approximately $700,000 and 3% would raise close to $1M, and newer projections showed between $900,000 and $1.2M.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 9, 2019 PAGE 10 Mr. Hare noted that the City of Dover was not a pioneer in this area, explaining that four (4) other municipalities had already established lodging taxes, including the cities of Milford and Wilmington. At the request of Mr. Taylor, Mr. Polce explained that he thought Council would need to discuss where these funds will ultimately be dispensed and welcomed feedback regarding an amendment to the ordinance regarding this matter. Mr. Hare stated that he agreed with Mr. Polce, and thought that was conversation for another time, perhaps during a workshop. He asked how the City would know if it was receiving the correct amount. In response, Mr. Polce provided an article titled “Bill Silva on the downside of the lodging tax,” published in the Delaware Business Times on May 18, 2018, (Attachment #9), noting that the 149th General Assembly passed House Bill 377, which was enabling legislation to allow the state, counties, and political subcommittees, i.e. municipalities, to start collecting lodging taxes up to 3% and, as a result, there is a system in place through the Department of Finance to ensure that accounts are reconciled. Mr. Cole noted that the process is outlined in 30 Del. C. §6104 - Payment of tax, as follows: “The amount of the tax collected for each month shall be reported and paid over to the Department of Finance not later than the fifteenth day of the month following the month of collection on forms to be prescribed by the Department of Finance. Interest at the rate of 1 percent per month, or fraction thereof, shall be charged on payments made after the prescribed due date.” Mr. Neil noted that each of the counties currently receives money from the state collection for tourism, so the process should be seamless. Mr. Polce explained that this issue was brought to the attention of the General Assembly on June 30, 2019 by Representative Sean Lynn and Senator Trey Paradee in reaction to a legislative measure that was also introduced by Senator Paradee that allows the County to levy a lodging tax up to 3% with all of the funds to be diverted to DE Turf. Mr. Polce explained the significance of that is that monies that are generated in the City from individuals using City roads, infrastructure, and critical services if needed, are then diverted to DE Turf. He stated that this will give the City the ability to be on a level playing field with everyone else. Mr. Lindell stated that he concurred with Mr. Polce sentiments regarding this matter. He informed members that he had recently traveled through South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida and everywhere he stopped, he was assessed a local and state lodging tax. He explained that he did not consider not going to Charleston because he might have to pay an additional $12. Mr. Lindell indicated that he thought people would still come to the City, and this would allow the City to divert some funding to critical needs and relieve some of the burden from the taxpayers. (City Clerk Office Note: Subsequent to the meeting, Mr. Polce provided an article titled “Top 10 cities with the highest travel taxes” published in Fortune, May 2012 (Attachment #10)). The motion to recommend adoption of Ordinance #2019-16 was unanimously carried. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:59 p.m.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 9, 2019 PAGE 11 Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Taylor and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. William F. Hare Council President WFH/TM/dd S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Committee-Minutes\2019\07-09-2019 CCW Minutes.wpd Attachments Attachment #1 - Presentation entitled “Kent County Levy Court US 13 Sewer Rehabilitation Project, City of Dover Council Committee of the Whole, July 9, 2019” Attachment #2 - Presentation entitled “Opioid Overdose Community Response Teams” Attachment #3 - Presentation entitled “Social Action Committee of the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance (IMA) of Dover and Vicinity, Dover Park Survey Presentation for City of Dover Parks, Recreational and Community Enhancement Committee, July 9, 2019” Attachment #4 - Photos of Smyrna Skate Park, provided by Col. Dix Attachment #5 - National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), Table of State Lodging Taxes, dated January 28, 2019, provided by Mr. Polce Attachment #6 - An article titled “The Impact of the Hotel Room Tax: An Interrupted Time Series Approach,” published in the National Tax Journal in December 1992, provided by Mr. Polce Attachment #7 - An article titled “Tax Policy and US Hotel Industry Economic Impacts,” published in Oxford Economics, in November 2017, provided by Mr. Polce Attachment #8 - Information from Trivago.com, provided by Mr. Polce Attachment #9 - An article titled “Bill Silva on the downside of the lodging tax,” published in the Delaware Business Times on May 18, 2018, provided by Mr. Polce Attachment #10 - An article titled “Top 10 cities with the highest travel taxes” published in Fortune, May 2012, provided by Mr. Polce

ATTACHMENT #1 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 07/09/2019 Kent County Levy Court US 13 Sewer Rehabilitation Project City of Dover Council Committee of the Whole KCI July 9, 2019 ISO 9001:2015 Certified I Employee-owned Since 1988

Project Owner Kent County Levy Court Department of Public Works  Diana T. Golt, P.E. Director of Public Works  Andy Riggi, P.E. Assistant Director, Engineering

Project Team  Project Management  Construction Management and Inspection KCI TECHNOLOGIES  Community Outreach Both Companies  Project Contractor have local offices in v. ww.gcolyn.com Kent County

Project Partners Located in the City of Dover DelDOT

Project Scope  The sewer project involves installing a small carrier pipe into a larger host pipe a.k.a. “sliplining” for 15,400 linear feet  This method allows work to occur in the median with the existing pipe  Pipe Install Includes: • Cleaning of the existing pipe • Closed Circuit Television Video (CCTV) inspection • Access points for future maintenance & Inspection • Jack & Bore US 13 crossing to avoid lane closure • Testing new pipe Photo courtesy of Aegion-Underground Solutions-State Profile “Use of Fusible PVC pipe in Georgia surpasses 200 projects”

Project Scope  Anticipating a 5 month project duration (weather permitting)  No anticipated disruption of sewer service  Starting last week of June  Limited traffic disruptions, such as: • Temporary lane closures • Temporary turn lane closures

Project Scope  Restricted by Peak Time / Events / Hours: • Holidays & Fall Race Weekend • Daytime work allowed • Specific work can only be done at Nighttime

Project Area 3 Phases • Start south at Garden Lane and move north to West Denney’s Road Dover Downs Hotel & Casino Dover Mall Wilmington University Delaware State University Delaware Technical Community College

Project Area – Phase 1A T1 Garden Lane from DuPont Highway to Chatham Cove Entrance T2 Northbound Left Travel Lane near Townsend Boulevard Intersection T3 Southbound U-Turn South of Jefferic Boulevard T4 Northbound left turn at Lepore Intersection T5 Northbound U-Turn South of North State Street Intersection

Project Area – Phase 1B T6 Southbound U-Turn at McDonald’s / Yukon T7 College Road Intersection T8 Southbound Turn Lane at College Road Intersection T9 Northbound U-Turn near South Mall Road Entrance

Project Area – Phase 2A No anticipated traffic disruptions have been identified in this Phase; however, the end of Phase .J...,.. • ...l 1B (T9) and the beginning .... ' • ·r • , of Phase 2B (T10) have I • I , .U II ~t ;"'~ limited disruptions (see phasing maps). 11111 .,,, ,, ,,,

Project Area – Phase 2B T10 Southbound U-Turn across from Delaware State Police Headquarters T11 Northbound U-Turn North of Wawa and across from C.F. Schwartz Toyota T12 Northbound Left Turn into KW Boulevard (Dover Town Center, DSU Commons, Sam’s Club, etc.) T13 Cedar Chase Drive Intersection

Project Area – Phase 3 Northbound Turn Lanes at West T14 Denney’s Road Intersection West Denney’s Road from T15 DuPont Highway to Delaware Technical Community College Delaware Technical Community T16 College Entrance Road of West Denney’s Road

Project Outreach - Meetings  Kent County Levy Court Sewer Advisory Board (1)  Kent County Levy Court Commissioners Meeting (1)  City of Dover Management Meeting (1) US 13 Sewer Rehabilitation Project Community Outreach Workshop #1 June 26, 2019 -- KCI  Project Outreach Workshops (2) J\() •lllL1 I 2lll'i ( Hl1/11·1t I h11pl,,0wu .._..._,.,J 'it11rr t•>h'J, -----------------------  City of Dover Council Committee of the Whole (1)

Project Outreach - Notifications  Kent County Levy Court Press Releases  Kent County Levy Court Social Media • Facebook (2 accounts) • Twitter • Next Door  US 13 Construction Project Coordination • DelDOT Sidewalk project • City of Dover Electric light upgrade project • Capital Station commercial development project • Commercial development project (Kings Highway & Maple Parkway)

Project Outreach - Notifications  Advanced general project notices Kent Coun y Le-vy Court US 13 Sewer Reh -n.ilion Project • Door to door – hand delivered Businesses (250) Residential (150)  Direct management contact • Schools (4) • Churches (2) • Multi-Family Developments (5) • Hotels (14) • Businesses (12)

Project Outreach - Notifications  07-01-2019 Notification / Garden Lane Closure • Advanced door to door notice – hand delivered in area • Email notification subscription group • City of Dover City Manager Public Works Electric Planning and Inspections • Kent County Department of Public Safety • State of Delaware Transportation Management Center (TMC)

Project Outreach - Notifications  07-08-2019 Notification / Project Start – Temporary Traffic Disruptions Phase 1A • Email notification subscription group • Press release • City of Dover City Manager Public Works Electric Planning and Inspections • Kent County Department of Public Safety • State of Delaware Transportation Management Center (TMC)

Project Outreach - Services  County Website Information Portal • New project page created • Direct link to information http://www.co.kent.de.us/sewerproject/ • QR Code established

Project Outreach - Services  Website Project Page • Project Information • Project Area/Map • Notifications needto Up to date project notifications Press Releases Monthly Reports • DelDOT traffic camera link •• • Project Point of Contact

Project Outreach - Services  Dedicated ongoing communication services • Email subscription notifications • Project phone line: (302) 318-1139 • Project email address: project.outreach@kci.com

Questions / Comments Debbie Pfeil Outreach Project Manager Sr. Project Manager/Planning Manager (302) 318-1133 debbie.pfeil@kci.com

ATTACHMENT #2 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 07/09/2019 Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee Meeting Opioid Overdose Community Response Kristan McIntosh Teams 1

I WELCOME | Overdose Crisis Response Team Presentation • Review Opioid Overdose Crisis in Delaware • Discuss Division of Public Health Opioid Overdose System of Care • Review Opioid Overdose Crisis Response Team Structure in Kent County • WE NEED YOUR HELP! HEALTH MA TAGEME T ASSOCIATES 2

I THE OPIOID OVERDOSE MORTALITY CRISIS IN DELAWARE Rate of Opioid-Related Overdose Deaths in Delaware 30 27.7 28 26 24 22 20 .......US .......Delaware Deaths, Age Adjusted 18 16.9 16 14.8 13.9 14 12 12.6 12.8 14.8 12 13.3 Rate per 100K Persons 9.3 9.2 10 7.7 10.4 8 6 9 6 5.1 7.4 7.9 4.1 4.5 4.5 4.2 4.5 6.8 7.3 3.7 3.5 6.1 6.4 6.6 4 5.9 4.5 4.7 5 4.1 2 2.9 3 3.3 0 Source: CDC WONDER HEALTH MA AGEME T ASSOCIATES 3

I THE OPIOID OVERDOSE MORTALITY CRISIS IN DELAWARE State 2016 Rate 2017 Rate ¾ Change /0 2016 Rank 2017 Rank WV . 52 57.8 11.15% l 1 Q1H 39.,l 46.3 1841¾-o ,· 1 -· . 1 ·1 •· 2 2 PA 37.9 44.3 16.89% 5 3 DC 38.8' 44 13.4cm 4 4 KV -~-~ c; ~7 ?I 11 0,4% f; c; IDE 30. 8 37 20. 13% g 6 NH 39 37 - 513'¼ • ' . 0 3 6 MID 33.2 36.3 9.34% 7. 8 ME 28.7 34.4 19.. '86'¼ ' .. 0 11 I 9 MA 33 31.8 -3 64'¼0' • · • I .' 8 10 RI 30.8 31 0.65% 9 11 HEALTH MA AGEME T ASSOCIATES 4

I DELAWARE OPIOID OVERDOSE SYSTEM OF CARE | Overview System of Care Goals • Decrease the incidence and severity of opioid addiction. • Ensure optimal, equitable, and accessible care for all. • Prevent unnecessary deaths and disabilities. • Contain costs while enhancing efficiency. • Implement quality and performance improvement of opioid addiction care throughout the system. • Ensure designated facilities have appropriate resources to meet the needs of patients HEALTH MA TAGEME T ASSOCIATES 5

I COMMUNITY CRISIS RESPONSE TEAMS (CRT) | Overview Definition: Grassroots hyper-local community advocates who marshal resources in real-time during an opioid overdose crisis What is a crisis? A rapid increase in the number of opioid overdoses and/or a substantial disruption in the supply of illicit opioids Pre-Crisis During Crisis Build community resilience through engagement activities Implement enhanced Post Crisis Assess community resources screening that can be leveraged during a crisis Disseminate information Conduct After Action Review Meet iteratively to maintain Notify DPH of Activities CRTs Naloxone distribution HEALTH MA AGEME T ASSOCIATES 6

I COMMUNITY CRISIS RESPONSE TEAMS (CRT) | CRT Components 1. Prevention: The capabilities necessary to avoid an opioid overdose crisis. 2. Protection: The capabilities necessary to protect communities from the negative public health impact associated with an opioid overdose crisis. 3. Mitigation: The capabilities necessary to reduce loss of life and property by lessening the impact of an overdose crisis. 4. Response: The capabilities necessary to save lives, protect property and the environment, and meet basic human needs after an overdose crisis has occurred. 5. Recovery: The capabilities necessary to assist communities affected by an opioid overdose crisis to recover effectively. HEALTH MA TAGEME T ASSOCIATES 7

I KENT COUNTY | Dover Dover Local CRT Boundaries North of W. North St. South of Division St. East of Saulsbury Rd. West of State St. HEALTH MA AGEME T ASSOCIATES 8

I KENT COUNTY | Smyrna ' '\ I • Smyrna Local CRT Boundaries Northeast of Carter Rd. Southeast of Glenwood Ave. West of Dupont Blvd. • HEALTH MA AGEME T ASSOCIATES 9

I CRT INFRASTRUCTURE Lead CRTs ensure DPH has ultimate response readiness at the accountability for county-level and augments Division of Public Health the CRTs response when needed Delaware DMRC offer support Medical and community to Reserve Corps CRTs New Castle Kent County Sussex County County Hedgeville Claymont Dover Smyrna Seaford Millsboro ! Local CRTs conduct community engagement and marshal resources during a crisis HEALTH MA AGEME T ASSOCIATES 10

I CRT INFRASTRUCTURE Each entity who participates on the CRT will have a defined role that is outlined as part of the Kent County CRT Response Plan Entity Possible Role(s) DPH • Identify and validate each opioid-related sentinel event using data • Coordinate with CRT stakeholders to implement CRT Action Plan • Ensure sufficient resources are available to CRT stakeholders First • Operate under standard protocols to prevent overdose fatalities Responders • Carry additional Naloxone and resource cards during an overdose spike • Report unusual symptoms to DPH Hospital EDs • Identify staff that are responsible for educating patients who experienced an overdose at discharge • Deploy discharge protocols to expedite connections to treatment services SUD • Communicate with existing and former clients during a spike through a variety of Treatment information sharing channels Providers • If trained as a trainer in Naloxone Administration, provide Naloxone training and kits to patients and their families Community • Use existing relationships and presence in the community to share information about Groups the increased risk of overdoses and local resources • If trained as a trainer in Naloxone administration, train individuals who are at risk and their families to administer Naloxone 11

I COMMUNITY CRISIS RESPONSE TEAMS (CRT) | CRT Planning Meetings • First CRT Planning Meetings held with interested stakeholders in June • In Kent County, 21 stakeholders attended making up a diverse range of entities • Lots of key takeaways from the discussion, including: • A focus on acting immediately • Great interest in being trained to administer naloxone and/or become a train the trainer • Heavy focus on communication of opioid related sentinel events across the community HEALTH MA TAGEME T ASSOCIATES 12

WE NEED YOUR HELP DPH and HMA are seeking compassionate community- minded individuals to serve on our Local CRTs

I SEEKING CRT MEMBERS ACROSS ALL COUNTIES, Including Kent County Qualifications • Live or work in- or adjacent to the local CRT boundaries • Able to commit 8-12 hours of volunteer hours annually • Oriented or willing to be trained on the status of opioid overdoses in the community • Be a community ambassador for CRT efforts • Attend virtual and in person trainings and meetings as needed HEALTH MA TAGEME T ASSOCIATES 14

I GET INVOLVED | Contact your County Lead Contact us if you would like to join a CRT or if you have any questions! Kristan McIntosh| Senior Consultant | New York, NY • Kent County Lead, Crisis Response Team • (646) 590-0238 | kmcintosh@healthmanagement.com Liddy Garcia Bunuel | Principal | Washington, DC • Sussex County Lead, Crisis Response Team • (410) 924-9435 | lgarciabunuel@healthmanagement.com Xavior Robinson | Senior Consultant | Washington, DC • New Castle County Lead, Crisis Response Team • (202) 516-4481 | xrobinson@healthmanagement.com HEALTH MA AGEME T ASSOCIATES 15

ATTACHMENT #3 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 07/09/2019 SOCIAL ACTION COMMITTEE Of the INTERDENOMINATIONAL MINISTERIAL ALLIANCE (IMA) Of DOVER AND VICINITY DOVER PARK SURVEY PRESENTATION For CITY OF DOVER PARKS, RECREATIONAL and COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMITTEE JULY 9, 2019

The Social Action Committee of the IMA of Dover and Vicinity administered Community Surveys from February 21 – May 22, 2019 for the purpose of determining the interest of the community in having a recreational facility built as well as the programs and services desired. Four Formal Meetings Were Held in the East Dover Area: 1. February 21- White Oak-Town Point Civic Association meeting. A total of 6 surveys were completed. 2. April 11- Dover Housing Authority (Afternoon and Evening) A total of 2 meetings were held, and 12 surveys were completed. 3. May 14- Transformation AME Zion Church/A total of 6 surveys were completed.

Others Completing the Survey Surveys were also administered to people at the Dover Park, employees at Head Start Telamon Corporation-Willis Road location and the Dover Educational and Community Center. Also Completing surveys were people attending a Human Trafficking Workshop at Delaware State University, local clergy and individual residents throughout the community.

RESULTS OF 2019 Community Survey for White Oak/Dover Recreational Park and Facility A total of 102 surveys were completed and returned to the IMA SocialAction Committee. • 40 completed had East DoverAddresses. • 2 had Capital Green Addresses • 1 had a Capitol Park Address • 43 were from residents throughout Dover with 19901 and 19904 zip codes. • 2 completed with no address • 4 were residents from Camden • 1 completed with a Houston, DE address • 1 completed with a Smyrna address • 3 had Felton addresses • 1 had a Frederica address • 4 had Magnolia addresses

The Following are the Top Five Programs Those Surveyed Would Like to See Offered: Alcohol & Drug Prevention Family Counseling Open Area for Community Meetings/Events Gang Prevention Domestic Violence The Following are the Top 7 Activities Those Surveyed Would Like to See Offered: Summer Camp Fitness/Zumba Learn to Swim Day Trips Teen Night Dance Classes Gymnasium

A total of 5 of the 14 non Dover residents completing the survey were utilizing the Dover Park and the remaining 9 were at the Human Trafficking Workshop at Delaware State University. The 5 non Dover residents completing the survey in the Dover Park proves that the park services residents living in and outside of Dover.

Other Program and Activity Interests Listed Were: Basketball, Police satellite office, training for trades, cooking classes, women’s workshops, mentoring, money management, family wellness, volleyball, voter registration, Boys & Girls Club, Play Ground, College Prep Information, Military Information, Pickle ball (singles &doubles), Adult Night, Arts & Crafts, board games, Black History programs, Legal Aid, building strong men and women workshops, building strong families, reading programs, bullying workshops, mental health, swimming classes, horseback riding, tennis, social skills, hospitality skills, soccer, football, swing sets, yoga and meditation for young people, tennis, child abuse workshops, sewing classes, cultural events, emotional intelligence, restorative justice, parents night out, programs to help immigrants filling out their VISS application and other court paperwork, etiquette and personal management for youth.

Recommendations The IMA Social Action Committee recommends that a community partnership be organized by the Social Action Committee consisting of the faith based community, the City of Dover Police Department, and other appropriate representation from the City, the appropriate State of De representation, Major Rundle from the DAFB, Delaware State University and other educational institutions, young people, community residents, sororities, fraternities, the Masons, Links, other civic and community organizations and others desiring to be a part. The purpose would be to collaboratively raise money to build a facility to house many of the programs and services desired by the community residents completing the survey. We are also proposing management to be the responsibility of the partnership.

0000 9 10' -2" 15' -4 3/4" ........ I W ~ [} Commercial Kitchen I\.) q ~ ' (;) .... -..J --- (;) ~ [} • • .... I rn • <.'} (j) Lobby 0 0 .... Men's w 0 0 Bathroom ~ w 47' - 4"

Storage Stage Storage Multipurpose Room bJ:r:i:r:i::1:1::r:I::r:r:i, I I I I I I I I Compu te r .---r----.-~~~~~'Lat>r:::r:J 3600 Sq u are Feet Mult ipurpose Room 192 C h airs Rev. Rita Plan with Chairs AUTODESK. GM 1 Project number Date 7 / 1/ 20 18 A101.1 WWW .REVRJCHANDLER.COM Community Drawn by Dr. R .J . C h and ler S r . Pre limin ary Schematic Drawing s Checked bj[)r. R .J . C h and ler S r . Sca le 1" 10'- 0" 7/3/2019 4 :17:30 PM

ATTACHMENT #4 I Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 07/09/2019 '

3 w

7

7

7/9/2019 State Lodging Taxes ATTACHMENT #5 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 07/09/2019 '"\\NCSL 111111 State Lodging Taxes 1/28/2019 Specific Statewide Taxes on Lodging - By State The following table contains state lodging tax rates. Please keep in mind that these taxes are often levied in addition to local lodging and/or sales taxes. Contact: Jackson Brainerd State Lodging Tax Rates State Sales Tax Lodging Tax Total State Tax Alabama N/A 4.0% [1] 4.0% Alaska No state sales tax N/A None Arizona N/A 5.5% 5.5% Arkansas 6.5% 2.0% 8.5% California N/A N/A None Colorado 2.9% N/A 2.9% *Connecticut N/A 15.0% 15.0% *Delaware No state sales tax 8.0% 8.0% Florida 6.0% N/A 6.0% Georgia 4.0% 5$ fee per room 4.0% *Hawaii 4.0% 10.25% 14.25% www.ncsl.org/research/fiscal-policy/state-lodging-taxes.aspx 1/4

7/9/2019 State Lodging Taxes . State Sales Tax Lodging Tax Total State Tax Idaho 6.0% 2.0% 8.0% Illinois N/A 6.0% 6.0% Indiana 7.0% N/A 7.0% Iowa N/A 5.0% 5.0% Kansas 6.5% N/A [2] 6.5% Kentucky 6.0% 1.0% 7.0% Louisiana 4.45% N/A 4.45% *Maine NIA 9.0% 9.0% Maryland 6.0% N/A 6.0% Massachusetts N/A 5.7% 5.7% Michigan 6.0% 6.0% [3] 12.0% Minnesota 6.875% N/A 6.875% Mississippi 7.0% N/A 7.0% Missouri 4.225% N/A 4.225% Montana 3.0% [4] 4.0% 7.0% Nebraska 5.5% 1.0% 6.5% Nevada N/A N/A [5] None *New Hampshire No state sales ta x 9.0% 9.0% New Jersey 6.625% 5.0% 11.625% New Mexico 5.125% N/A 5.125% New York 4.0% N/A 4.0% North Carolina 4.75% N/A 4.75% North Dakota 5.0% N/A 5.0% Ohio 5.75 % N/A 5.75% Oklahoma 4.5% N/A 4.5% www.ncs l.org/research/fiscal-policy/state-lodging-taxes .aspx 2/4

7/9/201 9 State Lodging Taxes State Sales Tax Lodging Tax Tota l State Tax Oregon No state sales ta x 1.8% [6] 1.8% Pennsylvania NIA 6.0% 6.0% Rhode Island 7.0% 5.0% 12.0% South Carolina 5.0% [7] 2.0% 7.0% South Dakota 4.5% 1.5% [8] 6.0% Tennessee 7.0% NIA 7.0% Te xas NIA 6.0% 6.0% Utah 4.7% 0.32% 5.02% Vermont NIA 9.0% 9.0% Virginia 4 .3% [9] 0.0% 4.3% Washington 6.5% NIA 6.5% West Virginia 6% NIA 6% Wisconsin 5% NIA 5% Wyoming 4% NIA 4% District of Columbia NIA 14.95% 14.95% Puerto Rico NIA 9% 9% Virgin Islands NIA 12.5% 12.5% NIA= ta x not levied on accommodations * =no additional local ta x on accommodations [1] State lodging ta x rate raised to 5.0 % in mountain la kes area. [2] A state lodging ta x is only levied in special st atutory designated redevelopment districts at 5.0%. [3] State levied lodging ta x va ries. Convention hotels located within a qualified local government unit with 81 -160 room s rate is 3.0% and 6.0% fo r hotels w ith more than 160 rooms . All other hotels with 81 -160 rooms is 1.5% and 5.0% for hotels with more than 160 rooms . [4] Specific sal es ta x levied on accommodations . State ha s no general sales ta x. www.ncsl.org/research/fiscal-policy/state-lodging-taxes.aspx 3/4

7/9/2019 State Lodging Taxes [5] Counties must levy a lodging tax of 1% or 2% based on population. [6] The rate becomes 1.5% after 7/1/2020. [7] State sales tax on lodging is lowered to 5.0%. [8] Seasonal Uune-September) [9] An additional 0.7% may be included in the rate in certain planning districts. Copyright 2019 by National Conference of State Legislatures www.ncsl .org/research/fiscal-policy/state-lodging-taxes.aspx 4/4

(Uec;emtJt-H, 'f':-l�ILJ, pp q,j.:J-'P ATTACHMENT #6 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 07/09/2019 THE IMPACT OF THE HOTEL ROOM TAX: AN INTERRUPTED TIME SERIES APPROACH** CARL BONHAM, EDWIN FUJII, ERIC IM, AND JAMES MAK* ABSTRACT bus, phio from l 1.5 percent to 15.5 per­ cent. In August 1984, the average hotel Travel destinations commonly levy hotel room tax rate in 45 U.S. cities with room room taxes to finance services demanded taxes was about 7 percent (Mak 1988). A hy touri:;ts and resicknts. Evidence to d,(lfe similar survey of 242 U.S. visit�r conven­ on the effects of a hotel room tax has cen­ tion bureaus found that the average hotel tered on ex ante analyses of the incidence room tax rate in January 1990 was nearly of a hotel room tax and its effect on the 10 percent [Hiemstra and Ismail, (1990, demand for travel and vacation goods. In p. 4)J. With the enactment of a 5 percent this paper we employ interrupted time se­ hotel room tax by the State of New York ries analysis to estimate ex post the impact in June 1990, New York City currently of a hotel room tax on real net hotel rev­ has the highest hotel room occupancy tax enues by analyzing that time series before in the U.S. at 19.25 percent plus $2 on and after the imposition of the tax. We find every room priced at $100 or more.2 that the tax had a negligible effect on real The popularity of the hotel room tax lwtel revenues. �terns from t�e widely held perception that its burden 1s largely borne by tourists Introduction rather than residents, with little negative T impact on industry sales. For example, RAVEL destinations commonly levy Combs and Elledge (1979, p. 203) argued �pecial tourist taxes to finance public without empirical evidence, that the "de: services demanded by tourists and resi­ mand for lodging in a resort [is] inelastic dents. A popular tax is the ad valorem ho­ with respect to price," and concluded that tel room (transient accommodation) oc­ "a small ad valorem tax imposed on motel cupancy tax, typically assessed as a percentage of the rental price of an oc­ �ooms and other forms of temporary lodg­ cupied hotel room. In 1990, 47 out of 50 �ng would have very little impact on the industry and would generate substantial states in the U.S. levied taxes on hotel revenue for the local government." Hotel room rentals {Hiemstra and Ismail, (April operators, by contrast, generally believe 1990, p. 4)]. Alaska, California, and Or­ that a hotel room tax harms the indus­ egon do not levy state taxes on room rent­ als but permit localities to levy hotel room try.3 However, empirical studies on the taxes. impact of the hotel room tax yield contra­ I n recent �ears, �ising fiscal responsi­ dictory results. 4 . _ _ In a previous article in thisjournal, Fu­ b1hties combined with the growing reluc­ ... tance of residents to pay higher truces have Jll, Khaled and Mak (1985) estimated the induced many state and local govern­ ex ante incidence of a proposed hotel room ments to enact new truces or increase rates tax in Hawaii. 5 We are unaware of any on existing hotel room taxes. Since 1987 empirical studies that measure the ex post Atlanta raised its hotel room tax from 8 effect of the imposition of a hotel room true. The purpose of this paper is to estimate percent to 11 percent, Fort Lauderdale from 7 percent to 9 percent, Portland, Or­ the impact of the 1987 Hawaii hotel room egon from 6 percent to 9 percent, Dallas tax by comparing the real net (after tax) from 9 percent to 13 percent, and Colum- rental receipts of hotel operators before and after the imposition of the tax. A nov­ *Department of Economics, University of Hawaii at elty of this paper is the use of tax base Manoa, Honolulu, HI 96822. rather than survey data to measure hotel Carl Bonham is also a resean:her with the Social Sci�_nce Research Institute at the University of Ha­ receipts. We measure the impact of the true wau. on real net hotel rental receipts using in- 433

(LJ<)C0 /111.JOI, lil i/L) , pp. '1..1 ,J • 'I I 434 NATIONAL TAX JOURNAL [Vol. XLV terrupted time series analysis. Our em- suming demand and supply remained un- pirical results indicate that the tax re- changed, economic theory predicts that the duced real net rental receipts by about 1 room tax must always increase the (after percent. The coefficient, however, is not tax) price of hotel room rentals to con- significantly different from zero. In sum, sumers and reduce the net price received the State is able to raise substantial by hotel operators, except in cases where amounts of tax revenue from the new tax the elasticity of supply is infinite or the without imposing a significant burden on elasticity of demand is zero. Indeed, if the hotel operators. incidence of the room tax falls partly on consumers, higher after-tax prices are likely to decrease the quantity demanded Taxing Hotel Room Rentals in for lodging and the net revenues of hotel Hawaii operators. Act 340 passed by the 1986 Hawaii State Our model treats the imposition of the Legislature imposes a 5 percent "tran- new transient accommodation tax as a sien t accommodation" tax, commonly quasi-experiment and measures its effect called the hotel room tax, on proceeds from using an interrupted time series model.8 the rental of "transient accommodations" The imposition of a transient accommo- beginning January 1, 1987. 6 The tax ap• dation tax in January 1987 breaks the plies to the gross proceeds from room time series for real after-tax hotel rental rentals and includes the hotel tax "visibly receipts into two discrete segments. The passed on and collected." Thus the tax base null hypothesis is that the new tax had for the hotel room tax is equal to 1.0525 no significant effect on real net hotel rental multiplied by the rental price of the hotel receipts. We use monthly data on the nat- room. The effective tax rate is 5.25 per- ural log of real after-tax hotel rental rev- cent of the rental price of the lodging.7 enues (lnHR) constructed from the gen• With exceptions for very small hotel op- era! excise tax base data on hotel receipts.9 erators, monthly returns and payments are The data span the period from January due by the end of the month following the 1980 to March 1990 (see Figure 1). We transaction month. The new transient ac- began the series in January 1980 to ex- commodation tax is in addition to the 4 clude the potential effects of the (1979) percent sales (i.e., general excise) tax lev- second oil crisis on travel and terminated ied on the gross proceeds received by the the time series just prior to Iraq's inva• sellers for all retail transactions, includ- sion of Kuwait. ing hotel rentals. Hence, the combined An additional exogenous event was rel• tax on hotel room rentals rose from 4.16 evant to the empirical analysis. In Sep• percent to 9.41 percent. Tax collections tember 1985, the Group of Five Nations under the two taxes are displayed in (the U.S., Great Britain, France, Ger- Table 1. many, and Japan) agreed to intervene in In fiscal year 1990, the State collected foreign exchange markets to bring about $82 million from the transient accom- a depreciation of the dollar relative to modation tax, making it the third largest other currencies. The Plaza Agreement, source of state government revenues after as this intervention is referred to, at- the general excise tax and the state in- tempted to correct for the appreciation of come tax. An additional $62 million was the dollar relative to other major curren- collected from the general excise tax lev- cies over the period 1981-1985 (see Yar- ied on hotel room rentals, brough and Yarbrough, 1988, p. 437). Since demand for travel is highly sensitive to exchange rate fluctuations (see e.g., Gray The Model 1966, and Loeb 1982), the depreciation of The imposition of a hotel room tax cre- the dollar subsequent to the agreement is ates a wedge between the price of hotel expected to have a significant impact on room rentals to consumers and the after- foreign travel to Hawaii. Japanese visi- tax price received by hotel operators. As• tors, for example, comprise the second

No. 41 HOTEL ROOM TAX 435 TABLE l TAX COLl,ECTlONS FROM HOTELS AND TRANSIEN1' ACCOMMODATIONS (in thousands of dollars) Fiscal Year General Excise Tax Hotel Room Tax Total 1987 $49,919 $23,510 $73,429 1988 $56,612 $62,279 $123.951 1989 $57,608 $75,973 $133,581 1990 $61,931 $82,438 $144,369 , ource: State or Hawaii, ue1partment of Taxation, Annual Report, 1987-1988, /Yiill-198':J, and 1989-1990. Notes: The fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30. Thus for fiscal rear 1987, the t~nsient accommodation tax was in effect for only 6 months. In that year transient accommoda1ton tax collections were less than half of the general excise tax collections on hotel rentals; this is explained by the lag in getting operators to register for the new tax. As of June 19_87, there were 8,619 filers for the transient accommodation tax. In June 1988, there were 10,770 filers. largest group of Hawaii tourists. The yen/ nents in the residual series that might be dollar exchange rate fell from 237 yen per mistaken for tax effects. The attraction of dollar in August 1985 to 127 yen per dol- the time series approach is that it pro- lar three years later, cutting almost in half vides a parsimonious representation of the the yen price of vacations in Hawaii. Be- real revenue series in terms of its own past. tween 1985 and 1990 the Japanese share An alternative approach would be to of total Hawaii visit.or traffic rose from 14.5 estimate a reduced form equation for the percent to 20. 7 percent. 10 Similarly, the real revenue series with the appropriate share of total foreign visitors rose from economic explanatory variables. A dummy 29.5 percent to 36.4 percent. 11 To capture variable would then be used to capture the the separate effects of the Plaza Agree- effect of a policy change. 12 Such a model ment in 1985 and the imposition of the would, however, require deseasonalized- hotel room tax in Hawaii in 1987 we used monthly data on a long list of variables two policy dummies: one for the exchange (e.g., airfares, incomes, hotel room rates, rate adjustment and the other for the im- prices of other vacation goods, competing plementation of the hotel room tax. destination prices, exchange rates, tourist Intuitively, intervention analysis can be taxes, etc.), not all of which are readily thought of as a two-step process. First we available. identify an ARlMA noise model for the real While the time series approach does not revenue series prior to the Plaza Agree- offer a structural explanation for the be- ment and the imposition of the hotel room havior of the real revenue series, it does tax. This identified model is then reesti- allow us to identify systematic changes in mated using the full sample and the re- the stochastic process generating the rev• siduals are analyzed for systematic com- enue series before and after the imposi- ponents. If the model identified for the tion of the tax. The appropriateness of this pre-intervention sample produces random approach is illustrated by the stability of residuals when estimated over the full the empirical results reported below. The sample, there is no systematic effect from noise model identified in the pre-inter- either policy change. Note that the valid- vention period fits the data remarkably ity of this approach requires a well-spec- well before and after the imposition of the ified noise model for the preintervention tax. period to eliminate systematic compo- Our model is described as follows:

(LJ eVf.1111/lf;)t, linlt'.) , pp, '/ ,J,f·'/ 1 436 NATIONAL TAX JOURNAL [Vol. XLV lnHR.i :: N1 + ~~(IJ,tl (1) 6m<B) "' 1 - I &;B 1 (i = 1,2, ... ,m) D = {0 if the impact is permanent where lnHRi = ln(real net after tax hotel re- l if th.e impact is transitory ceipts) wh(B) = I w;B' (i = 0,1,., .,h) = the "noise" component of the k = number of periods by which the ARIMA structure initial impact lags behind the == the transfer function capturing intervention point. the effect of the discrete inter- ventions (j = 1,2) The path of f(l 1) is determined by 6m(B). j = 1: 1 since September 1985 The permanent impact converges t:o ~(1)/ (exchange rate adjust- 6m{l). The degrees of polynomials in B, m ment) and h, are empirically determined. 13 0 otherwise Empirical Results j = 2: 1 since January 1987 (hotel room tax) The model is initially fit over the pre- 0 otherwise intervention series, 1980:1-1985:8 (i.e., The pre-intervention series is driven en- before the Plaza Agreement (1985:9) and tirely by N 1 and is assumed to take the the hotel room tax (1987:1)) to identify the form of the following ARIMA model: ARIMA structure underlying the time se- ries. A series of diagnostic checks is per- N, = µ formed using the estimated aut:ocorrela• tion and partial autocorrelation functions. 0q(B) · 0Q(B") The appropriate ARIMA structure is se- +-------'-----'-----e <l>p(B) ' <l>p(B")(l - Bt 1(1 - B"t 2 t lected using the rule of parsimony. The (2) ARIMA structure identified from the pre• intervention sample is: where µ = mean of N,1 <!>p(B) = 1 - ~ <!>;B' (i = 1,2, ... ,p) <l>r(B") 1 - I <l>;.B i• (i = 1,2, ... ,P) 9q(B) 1 - I 9;B; (i = 1,2, ... ,q) 0Q(B") = 1 - I 0;.Bi• (i = 1,2, .. .,Q) are the autoregressive, seasonal autore- Parameter estimates are reported in the gressive, moving average, and seasonal first column of Table 2. 14 The Q statistic moving average polynomials in the back fails to reject the null hypothesis that e1 shift operator B of order p, P, q, and Q, is serially uncorrelated. Thus, we assume respectively. (1 •· B) and (1 - 8 1 ) are the that the identified ARIMA structure is reverse difference and seasonal difference appropriate. It is noteworthy that the two operators, respectively. The parameters ~, sets of estimated parameters of the AR- and X, 2 are binary variables. If the series IMA structure in Table 2 are not statis- is first order integrated, >., 1 = 1 and Ooth- tically different from each other pairwise, erwise; if the series is first order season- with each parameter estimate within the ally integrated, >., 2 = 1 and O otherwise. other's 95 percent confidence interval. A The innovation series e 1 is independently comparison of forecast and actual real net and identically distributed with zero mean. hotel receipts generated by the model is The transfer function for each interven- displayed in Figure 1. tion is described as: To estimate the impact of the imposi- tion of the hotel room tax, we impose the pre-identified ARIMA structure on the (3) entire sample along with transfer func• tions for the Plaza Accord and the hotel where room tax. The complete model with the

1.s-,, f (LJO~ Ortll)(:,'I , l'd'.JI.) , f)(J . 11. . 4) HOTEL ROOM TAX 437 l<'IGURE 1 REAL HOTEL REN'l'AL REVENUE lN l.OGARl'l'HMS ACTUAL FORECAST Roomw 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 ntified transfer functions has the fol- 2 percent initially, with a total long run 1ing form: increase of 28.5 percent. More importantly, our results show that {D =N t W1,o I real after-tax hotel room receipts declined •"t t (1 - 6 B) l,t-2 by approximately one percent as a result 1,1 of the imposition of the room tax in 1987. (5) However, the coefficient of the hotel tax dummy, w 2,0 , is not significantly different !'he ARIMA model estimated for the full from zero. In sum, the hotel room tax had nple with the two policy dummies in- a negligible impact on the real room re- ded is reported in the last column of ceipts of hotel operators. 16 ble 2. The ARIMA structure identified Our results suggest that the hotel room ir the pre-intervention period is very tax is almost fully shifted forward to tour- ble throughout the full sample period, ists (i.e., the price to buyers rose by the licating that the two transfer functions full amount of the tax) with no significant iquately explain the change in the time revenue loss to hotel operators. Thus, the 'ies during the post-intervention pe- demand for hotel lodging may be close to d. Our results illustrate the separate perfectly inelastic. This is further sup- i!Cts of the two dummy variables on real ported by examining data on real hotel er-tax hotel rental receipts. 16 Note that room rates displayed in Figure 2. 17 Fig- i coefficient of the Plaza Agreement, w10 ure 2 shows no sharp decline in the trend 0.021, is positive and significant (at 5 of the room rate series before and after rcent one-tail test) as expected, indi- the room tax was imposed, indicating that ;ing that the depreciation of the dollar hotel operators were able to shift vir- :>Sequent to the Plaza Agreement had a tually the entire tax on to consumers. The :nificant positive impact on travel to shifting is more extensive than predicted iwaii. Exchange rate adjustments in- by the earlier work of Fujii, Khaled, and 1ased real hotel revenues in Hawaii by Mak (1985) for Hawaii which suggested

(LJOC(;)fnO VI , JWJt:) , pp, 11,,1J .. 11 i 438 NATIONAL TAX JOURNAL l Vol. XLV TABLE 2 PARAMETER ESTIMATES Parcillleters Pre-Intervention Full Sample Samole (80: 1-85:8) (80:l - 90:3) µ 6.5961 l 6.59602 (l()C).29) (123.56) 89 -0.25125 -0.25396 (2.12) (2.86) •1 0.33921 0.24479 (3.02) (2.76) +1,2 0.59489 0.64330 (5.72) (8.91) 0)1 ,0 0.02105 (l.78) 61. 1 0.92623 (16.47) 0>2,0 -0.00944 (0.13) Q(24) 21.90 24.98 Notes: A~1ute t statistics are re >lie(J 1n enmescs ce1ow eacn coelllctent. ruft Q(24) is the Ljung-Bo,c Q statisti':'for the hypothesis that the first 24 residual autocorrelations are equal to zero. The Q statistic is distributed as a chi-squared statistic with 24-k degrees of freedom, where k is the number of estimated parameters. ex ante that about two-thirds of the tax round-trip airfare and lodging. 18 Another would be shifted to tourists with a mod- potential explanation for the absence of a erately large negative impact on hotel significant tax impact is that other travel rental receipts. The results are closer to destinations in the U.S. have also in- the predictions of Combs and Elledge creased their room truces recently. How- (1979) who argued that because the de- ever, it is difficult to imagine that vario\18 mand for lodging is likely inelastic with tax changes elsewhere, imposed in differ- respect to price, a small ad ualorem tax ent amounts and at different times and on lodging would have little effect on net places, exactly canceled out the new room after tax hotel receipts and yield substan- tax in Hawaii. tial revenue for the local jurisdiction. One plausible explanation for the lack of a significant impact is that visitors did Conclusion not know about the new tax. Since the In recent years many fiscally belea- room tax is typically paid by tourists when guered state and local governments have they check out, they may not have ade- either implemented new hotel occupancy quately anticipated or responded to the taxes or substantially increased existing higher effective price of rooms. However, hotel taxes to finance public services. The this does not apply to more than half of popularity of the tax stems from the all tourists to Hawaii who purchase pre- premise that the hotel room tax is largely paid package tours that include at least exported to non-residents with little neg-

(UOCl)m {)Of, /iJ iJL/ , /J{) '/,JJ ·•l I No. 4] HOTEL ROOM TAX 439 FIGURE 2 HOTEL RENTAL PRICE IN LOGARITHMS REAL · ,16 NOMINAL - 4.60 ·.24 440 -.32 4.20 •.40 -.48 4.00 -.56 3.80 ·.64 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 ative impact on hotel operators. equal to the ratio of the supply and demand elastic- ities for lodging. Empirical estimates suggested a Our analysis of the effects of the 1987 supply elasticity of 2 and a demand elasticity of 1, Hawaii hotel room tax indicates that the yielding the prediction that approximately two thirds tax did not have a significant negative of a hotel room tax would be passed on to visitors in impact on hotel rental receipts. Our find- the form of higher prices. This study, however, like other extant studies, predicts the incidence of the tax ing may not be entirely surprising since ex ante. a 5 percent increase in lodging expendi- 6Transient accommodations are defined as accom- tures represents less than 1.5 percent of modations that are customarily occupied by a tran- the total cost of a typical vacation in Ha- sient for less than 180 consecutive days. A transient is a person who does not have the intention of making waii inclusive of round-trip airfare. That the accommodation a permanent place of domicile. may not be true of travel to other desti- Exemptions are granted for health care facilities, school nations. Therefore it is important to per• dormitories, nonprofit corporations, military person- Corm similar analyses for other travel nel on permanent duty, and government-subsidized low-income renters. See Bock, Brilliant, and Gerding destinations. (1990). 7For example, since the tax base (BJ is inclusive of the tax charged hotel guests, to net the same room ENDNOTES revenue as before the tax, hotels must add on a tax to guests of 5.25%. That is: ..The authors are indebted to Chung H. Lee, Ken White, three anonymoua referees, and the editor for B = l .0525*R helpful comments. 1Wall Street Journal, Tax Report, March 8, 1989. After tax ( = .05*B), hotels net (l-.05)*B = .95*8 = 2See "New York's Hotel Tax Highest in the Na• .95*1 .0525*R = R. tion," The Sunday Honolulu Star Bulletin and Ad- "Time series intervention analysis was first pro- wrtiur (September 16, 1990), p. F4. posed by Campbell and Stanley (1966) and Cook and 'see, for example, Schofield (1991), p. 1. Campbell (1979) to assess the impact of a discrete in• 4See, for example, F\rjii, Khaled and Mak (1985), tervention in a social process. The methodology is de- Zuraski and Sanders (1989), and Hiemstra and Ismail scribed in McDowell, McCleary, Meidinger, and Hay (1991). (1980). It has a broad range of applications. For ex- 8This partial equilibrium model demonstrated that ample, Box and Tiao (1975) uaed it to examine the the burden of a hotel occupancy tax is approximately effectiveness of air pollution control laws. McPheters,

(UfJGOTrllJO(, l ~ ':.JI.) , l)fJ. "Lf, f-// I 440 NATIONAL TAX JOURNAL [Vol. XLV Mann, and Schlagenhauf (1984) analyzed the impact ruary (peaks and troughs are highly variable, chan,, of more severe penalties for the use of firearms on ing from year to year). Visitors to Hawaii must ne- property crime. More recently, Fomby and Hayes gotiate a wide variety of factors in planning their (1990) employed intervention analysis to examine the vacations. When are airfares lowest? When doea Golden impact of the War on Poverty on families in the low- Week or Spring Break faIJ? Note that school and m est quintile of the income distribution. holidays fluctuate from year to year as do cold spelll 9The hotel revenue series is derived by dividing the in both the East and West. Income is certainly not• general excise tax base data on hotel receipts ("'total smooth series either. The lumpiness of Japanese in- hotel rental receipts • 1.0416) by the U.S. consumer come due to significant bonll8eB in June and Decsm• price index times 1.0416. Two a<ljustments were made ber may contribute to the observed behavior of our to the series. Y.'irst, since we are modeling consump· data. Finally, the conclusions of this paper are un- tion and not tax revenues per se, the data are lagged changed when our model is estimated without the one period (e.g. January tax collections reflect De- moving average parameter. cember receipts). Therefore, the dat.a used in the em- 15:Notice that the dum111y for the Plaia Agreemeh~ pirical analysis actually begin in December 1979. Ii, is lagged one period, while the dummy for the ho- Moreover, since visitor lengths of stay can span two tel room tax, 12, is not. The lagged impact of each pol, monthly reporting periods (and average length of stay icy change is determined empirically. The tax dummy is about 10 days), we weighted current and previous is not significantly different from zero either contem· ' month receipts by 2/3 and 1/3, respectively. poraneously or with a lag. 10State of Hawaii, The 1990 State of Hawaii Data ldWe have treated the Plaza agreement as an ei• Book, (Honolulu: Department of Business, Economic ogenous policy change. An alternative would be to Development and Tourism, 1991), p. 197. specify a transfer function for the real after-tax rtV• 11 Hawaii Visitors Bureau, 1991 Annual Research enue series and extract the information in the yen/ Regort (Honolulu, 1992), p. 4. dollar exchange rate by including it as an indepen• 2See Slemrod (1982) for an example of such an ap- dent variable. Using this alternative specification, the proach used to measure the impact of the Revenue pre-interoention sample for the transfer function model Act of 1978 on the volume of stock transactions. ends immediately prior to the imposition of the hotel 13A transfer function model is a multivariate AR- room tax, not prior to the Plaza agreement. Although IMA model where causal input variables determine the sample periods are different, we find that the noiee the output variable, and the error term (capturing the model from this alternative specification is quite aim• combined effects of all other factors influencing the ilar to that reported in Table 2, and the imposition ol output series) is modeled as an ARIMA proceSB. Here, the hotel room tax had a very small negative unpacl the real revenue series is influenced by policy dummy on real hotel revenues. The hotel room tax dummy inputs. In a more general model the revenue series has a coefficient of -.0065 with a t-atatistic of 0.04 11 could be determined by inputs such as the explana- compared with a coefficient or -0.0094 with a t-statl• tory variables used in a reduced form model. The dy- tic of (.13) as reported in Table 2. Thus, in both caaee, namic response of real revenues to the policy change the imposition of the hotel room tax had a negligible is described by the general rational distributed lag, im~act on real hotel room rental receipts. IU,), called a transfer function, or an impulse re- 1 These are computed from data on average hotel sponse function. In contrast to the usual static--dummy room rates provided by the accounting firm of Pannell variable approach using a reduced form model, the Kerr Forster based on their monthly surveys or in- transfer function model allows for a dynamic re- dividual hotel properties in Hawaii. The surveys cover sponse of real hotel revenues to policy changes. The approximately two thirds of all hotel rooms and ii path of f(l 1) is determined empirically and provides subject to measurement error. Thus we use the price information on the impact, transition, and long run series only as supporting evidence. effects of the policy change. 18 Hawaii Visitors Bureau, 1990 Annual Researt/1 14 The identified noise model reported in Table 2 Report (Honolulu, 1991), p. 50. In 1990, the percent- contains a nine month moving average component in• age of Hawaii tourists purchasing package toun wu eluded to whiten the residuals by capturing the sig- 64%. nificant autocorrelation in the hotel revenue series at lag nine. While some researchers have attributed sig- nificant autocorrelations at long lags to chance and REFERENCES thus elected to ignore them (e.g. Granger and New- bold (1986), pp. 107-114), others have chosen to model Bock, R., E. Brilliant, and J. Gerding, Taxes of Ha- the observed correlation (e.g., Thompson and Tiao waii 1990. (Honolulu: Cross Roads Presa, 1990). (1971), Fackler and Krieger (1986), Koch and Rasche Box, G.E.P., and G.C. Tiao, "Intervention Ana)yli1 (1988), and Hanssens and Vanden Abeele (1987)). We With Applications to Economic and Environmental choose to model the observed correlation to eliminate Problems," Journal of the American Statistical A,- all systematic fluctuations in the residuals of the sociation. Vol. 70 (1975), pp. 70-79. preintervention model to avoid mistaking them for Campbell, D.T., and J.C. Stanley, E%perimental and systematic effects of the hotel room tax. Furthermore, Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. (Ch~ the seasonal and aseasonal behavior of the revenue cago: Rand McNally, 1966). series is complex enough to generate such correla- Combs, J.P., and B. Elledge, "Effects of a Room Tu tions. There are a wide variety of factors affecting the on Resort Hotels/Motels," Naticnal Tax Journal. Vol. seasonal pattern of the revenue series. Hotel room 32 (1979), pp. 201-207. revenues exhibit annual peaks that typically occur in Cook, T.D., and D.T. Campbell, Quaai-Experimtnlll• June and December and troughs in October and Feb- tion. (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1979)

11.111cemrw r, /"1}1 .!.J, pp 'l ,JJ· 'l t No. 4] HOTEL ROOM 'l'AX 441 Department of Taxation, Annual Report. (Honolulu: Loeb, P., "International Travel to the United States, State of Hawaii, 1987 /1988, 1988/1989, and 1989/ An Econometric Jt:valuation," Annals of Tourism 1990). Research, Vol. 9 (1982), pp. 7-20 Fackler, J.S., and S.C. Krieger, "An Application of Mak, J., "Taxing Hotel Room Rentals in the U.S.," Vector Time Series Techniques w Macroeconomic Journal of Travel Research. Vol. 27 (1988), pp. 10- Forecasting,'' Journal of Business and Economic 16. Statistics, Vol. 4 (1986). McDowell, D,, R. McCleary, E. Meidinger, and R. Hay, Fomby, T., and K. Hayes, "An Intervention Analysis Interrupted 1'ime Series Analysis. (San Francisco: of the War on Poverty," Journal of Econometrics. Sage, 1980). Vol. 43 (1990), pp. 197-212. McPheters, L., R. Mann, and D. Schlagenhauf, "Eco- ~'ujii, E., M. Khaled, and J . Mak, "The Exportability nomic Response to a Crime Deterrence Program: of Hotel Occupancy and Other Tourist Taxes," Na - Mandatory Sentencing for Robbery With a l<'ire- tional Tax Journai. Vol. 38 (U/85), pp. 169-177. arm," Economic Inquiry . Vol. 22 (1984), pp. 550- Granger, C.W.J., and P. Newbold, [,'orecasting Eco- 570. nomic Time Series, 2nd edition. (New York: Aca• "New York's Hotel Tax Highest in the Nation," The demic Press, 1986). Sunday Honolulu Star-Bulleti11 and Aduertiser. Gray, H. P., "The Demand for International Travel (September 16, 19901, p. F4. By the United States and Canada," International Schofield, G., "Bed Tax on City Council Agenda," The Economic Review Vol. 7 0966), pp. 83-92. Cairns Post, July 6, 1991 , p, 1. Hall88ens, D M., and P.M. Vanden Abeele, "A Time- Slemrod, Joel , "Stock Transactions Volume and the Series Study of the Formation and Predictive Per- 1978 Capital Gains Tax Reduction,'' Public Finance formance of EEC Production Survey Expectations," Quarterly, Vol. 10 (1982), pp. 3-16. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, Vol. 6 State of Ha wan, Department of Taxation, Annual Re - (1987). port, 1987-198/i, 1988-1989, and 1989,-1990. Hawaii Visitors Bureau, 1990 Annual Research Re- "Tax Report," Wall Streel ,lo11mal. (March 8, 1989). port (Honolulu, 1991). Thompson, H.E., and G.C. Tiao, "Analysis of tele- Hiemstra, S., and J. Ismail, Amounts and Types of phone data: a case study of forecasting seasonal time Room Taxes Levied on the Lodging Industry . Pre- series,'' Bell Journal of Economics and Manage• sented to the Hospitality, Lodging and Travel Re- ment Science, Vol. 2 (1971), pp. 616- 541. search Foundation, American Hotel and Motel As- Yarbrough, B., and R. Yarbrough, The World Econ- aocia tion. (West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University, 1990). omy: Trade and Finance. (Chicago: Dryden Press, Hiemstra, S., and J . Ismail, "Analysis of Room Taxes 1988). Levied on the Lodging Industry," Journal of Travel Zuraski, R., and H. Sanders, "Characteristics of Tour- Research, (Summer, 1992), pp. 42-49. ists and State Taxation of Tourist-Related Expen- Koch, P.O., and Robert H. Rasche, "An Examination ditures," 1989 Proceedings of the Eighty-Second of the Commerce Department Leading- Indicator Annual Conference on Taxatio,., Tax Institute of Approach," Journal of Business and Economic Sta- America, National Tax Association (1990), pp. 63- tistics, Vol. 6 (1988). 69.

ATTACHMENT #7 OXFORD Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 07/09/2019 ECONOMICS TAX POLICY AND US HOTEL INDUSTRY ECONOMIC IMPACTS NOVEMBER 2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To quantify the potential impacts of tax policy changes on the hotel industry and the industry's valuable contributions to the US economy, Oxford Economics conducted a scenario analysis for the American Hotel & Lodging Association (AHLA). The analysis highlights a five-year period beginning in 2018, and focuses on tax policy changes under tax cuts of $1.5 trillion over a ten-year period, which we believe will cause real GDP growth to accelerate to 3.0% in 2018 before gradually slowing. The results show that tax cuts provide a stimulus to the economy and are expected to generate a boost to hotel industry operations, cause additional guest spending at restaurants and stores in the travel destination, and increase hotel capital investment-all benefitting the broader national economy. Specifically, the tax cut scenario analyzed in this study would support: • $57.4 billion of additional hotel guest spending in the US (onsite at hotels and ancillary guest spending, such as at local restaurants and stores); • $131. 7 billion of additional sales at US businesses, including additional purchases by hotels of supplies and services; • $22.3 billion of additional wages and salaries for US workers, equivalent to the annual compensation of 94,700 employees for five years; and • $3.9 billion of additional state and local tax revenues. With lower personal income taxes and broad increases in employment, wages and salaries, US consumers would have more discretionary income for travel. Meanwhile, increased business activity and investment would support stronger business travel. Employee training and meetings with customers would increase as businesses respond to the stronger economy.

OXFORD ECONOMICS Tax Policy and US Hotel Industry Economic Impacts Under this tax cut scenario, direct hotel guest spending would be $57.4 billion higher over the five-year period, compared to a scenario without tax cuts. More hotel guests means more spending in local communities, including stores, restaurants, and attractions. That would also contribute to higher state and local tax revenues, including occupancy and sales taxes. This increased demand at hotels would support hiring new employees and additional shifts for existing ones, as well as additional capital investment in hotels. All told, this investment would result in an estimated $11.0 billion in additional direct wages and salaries for employees at hotels and other business serving hotel guests or involved in hotel construction or renovation. Tax Policy Assumptions This analysis is based on assumed characteristics of legislation that may be passed by Congress. In the scenario with tax policy change it is assumed that: (1) there is a reduction in personal income and corporate taxes that results in net tax cuts over ten years; (2) many, or all, of the tax cuts, sunset after ten years; and (3) the tax cuts disproportionately benefit higher-income households. Other assumptions were also made in performing the analysis. The impacts of tax policy changes were quantified using Oxford Economics' Global Economic Model. In the framework of this model, tax reductions stimulate economic activity in the short-term, but moderating factors impact the positive effects, including, but not limited to, a reduction in tax revenue, increased government debt, and higher interest rates. 3

OXFORD ECONOMICS Tax Policy and US Hotel Industry Economic Impacts 1. OVERVIEW Tax policy changes have been a central part of the political dialogue over the past year and various proposals have been put forward to simplify the tax code. These proposals have also implied reductions in both corporate and personal tax rates. To quantify the potential impacts of tax policy changes on the hotel industry and the industry's valuable contributions to the US economy, Oxford Economics conducted a scenario analysis for the American Hotel & Lodging Association (AHLA). As part of this analysis, we prepared two macroeconomic scenarios to analyze how tax policy changes would affect the broader economy: • No Tax Cut Scenario: No tax policy changes. • $1.5 Trillion Tax Cut Scenario: Tax policy changes that result in net tax cuts of $1.5 trillion over a ten-year period Based on these scenarios and previous research Oxford Economics conducted for AHLA, we analyzed the impacts to the hotel industry and its broader contribution to the US economy over a five-year period beginning in 2018 . The results show that tax policy changes that provide a stimulus to US economic activity are expected to generate a boost to hotel industry operations, as well as cause additional guest ancillary spending (e.g. at restaurants and stores in the destination) and capital investment by hotels . This boost to the hotel industry would further benefit the broader economy. In the $1.5 Trillion Tax Cut Scenario, we estimate real GDP growth would accelerate to 3.0% in 2018, before gradually slowing. Relative to the No Tax Cut Scenario (2.0% GDP growth in 2018), this short-term boost would lift personal income, employment, consumer spending and investment. These effects would result in increased hotel demand, spending by hotel guests, and hotel capital investments; thereby supporting increased earnings by hotel employees, purchases from suppliers, and indirect and induced economic impacts. As shown in Fig . 1, the economic impacts of the hotel industry in the $1.5 Trillion Tax Cut Scenario would support: • $57.4 billion of additional hotel guest spending in the US (onsite at hotels and ancillary guest spending, such as at local restaurants and retail stores) over a five-year period (all estimates reported in real, 2015 dollars) ; • $131.7 billion of additional economic output, representing sales at US businesses; • $22.3 billion of additional wages, salaries and other labor income for US workers (equivalent to the annual compensation of 94 ,700 employees for five years), including $11.0 billion of direct labor income earned by employees at hotels , other businesses serving hotel guests or involved in hotel construction or renovation (equivalent to the annual compensation of 55,300 employees for five years) ; and , 4

OXFORD ECONOMICS Tax Policy and US Hotel Industry Economic Impacts • $3.9 billion of additional state and local tax revenues (e.g. occupancy, sales and property taxes). Fig. 1 Impact summary: $1.5 Trillion Tax Cut Scenario Difference relative to No Tax Cut Scenario Cumulative impact (5-years, 2018 to 2022) Direct Total Direct hotel guest spending (onsite at hotels and $57.4 ancillary), real Output (business sales), real (billions) $61.1 $131.7 Wages, salaries and other labor income, real $11 .0 $22.3 (billions) State and local taxes, real (billions) $2.5 $3.9 Note : Total hotel industry impacts include direct impacts (hotel guest spending onsite at hotels, ancillary guest spending, and capital investment} as well as indirect and induced impacts. Monetary amounts in billions of real 2015 dollars. Wages, salaries and other labor income are also referred to as labor income. Source: Oxford Economics 5

OXFORD ECONOMICS Tax Policy and US Hotel Industry Economic Impacts 2. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 2.1 TAX POLICY ASSUMPTIONS Tax policy proposals at this stage are initial blueprints, and are expected to change in the legislative process . These proposals give early, and likely rough indications of the tax legislation that may be ultimately passed by Congress. 1 For this analysis, we have assumed the following: • In the $1 .5 Trillion Tax Cut Scenario, there is a reduction in personal income and corporate taxes that results in net tax cuts over a ten-year period. These tax cut amounts are net of government spending reductions undertaken to help offset tax revenue reductions. • No additional infrastructure spending is assumed as part of the $1.5 Trillion Tax Cut Scenario relative to the No Tax Cut Scenario. • Many or all of the tax cuts are assumed to sunset after ten years to comply with the rules of budget reconciliation . Government spending cuts partly offset tax revenue reductions, but such cuts are back-loaded in the decade. Additionally, some offsetting revenue is raised through one-time tax holidays, such as on foreign earnings and/or carried interest income. • The tax cuts disproportionately benefit higher-income households, which have a lower propensity to spend additional income. • The legislation passes in 2017, and tax cuts are implemented at the start of 2018. 2.2 ANALYZING THE TAX POLICY SCENARIO We quantified the impacts of tax policy changes within the framework of Oxford Economics' Global Economic Model. In this framework, tax reductions stimulate economic activity in the short-term because increased disposable (after-tax) income for households would increase private consumption (consumer spending); additionally, business investment and hiring would increase in anticipation of stronger economic activity and consumption growth, and higher after-tax returns on investment. Increased economic activity would support additional wages and salaries, further boosting consumption, and generating demand for additional production by domestic companies. However, these positive effects would be moderated by several factors . Higher- income households are anticipated to spend only a portion of any direct tax cuts, limiting the short-term impacts on consumer spending. Similarly, only a portion of corporate tax cuts are anticipated to be channelled to domestic investment. Separately, lower tax rates would reduce tax revenues. The net reduction in tax revenue, only partly offset by government spending cuts and stronger economic growth, would increase the Federal deficit. Government borrowing to fund the larger deficit would increase interest rates , partly crowding out private investment. 1 We conducted our macroeconomic analysis based on assumptions as of October 5, 2017 . 6

OXFORD ECONOMICS Tax Policy and US Hotel Industry Economic Impacts Also, in anticipation of the effects of fiscal stimulus, the Federal Reserve would be expected to increase interest rates more quickly to manage inflation risks. Higher interest rates would cause the US dollar to strengthen, slowing exports and increasing imports, dampening domestic production. 2.3 IMPACTS TO US ECONOMY The impacts to the US economy in the two scenarios are presented in Fig. 2 and summarized as follows. • No Tax Cut Scenario: Assumes no change to existing tax policy. GDP growth moderates to 2.0% in 2018, before gradually slowing to 1.5% by 2022. GDP growth over these five years averages 1.7%, with inflation at 1.6%. • $1.5 Trillion Tax Cut Scenario: Assumes $1.5 trillion of net tax cuts over ten years. GDP growth accelerates to 3.0% in 2018, and then slows. By 2020, GDP growth is slower than in the No Tax Cut Scenario; however, the level of GDP is higher throughout the period (0.7% higher on average relative to the No Tax Cut Scenario). On average during the five-year period, real personal disposable income in the $1.5 Trillion Tax Cut Scenario is 1.6% higher than in the No Tax Cut Scenario, and real consumer spending is 1.2% higher. We have focused on the first five years following implementation of tax policy changes as the period during which the effects of such policy changes can be most accurately analyzed. 7

OXFORD ECONOMICS Tax Policy and US Hotel Industry Economic Impacts Fig. 2 Impact to US economy: $1.5 Trillion Tax Cut Scenario 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Avera~e Growth rates GDP, real No Tax Cut 2.0% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1.5% 1.7% $1 .5 Trillion Tax Cut 3.0% 2.0% 1.2% 1.3% 1.5% 1.8% Inflation (price index growth) No Tax Cut 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7% 1.6% $1.5 Trillion Tax Cut 1.6% 1.7% 2.0% 2.2% 2.3% 2.0% Difference in levels relative to No Tax Cut Scenario GDP, real 1.0% 1.2% 0.7% 0.4% 0.4% 0.7% Personal income, 1.5% 1.9% 1.7% 1.5% 1.4% 1.6% disposable, real Consumer spending, real 1.1% 1.5% 1.4% 1.1% 0.9% 1.2% Fixed investment, real 1.8% 1.9% 0.4% -0 .2% -0.2% 0.7% Difference in level of interest rates relative to No Tax Cut Scenario (in basis points) Interest rate, 10-year gov. 56 106 91 68 65 77 bonds Interest rate, corporate 59 91 67 46 45 61 borrowing Note: Inflation is based on private consumption expenditure deflalor. Source: Oxford Economics 8

OXFORD ECONOMICS Tax Policy and US Hotel Industry Economic Impacts 3. IMPACT ON THE LODGING SECTOR Increased economic activity in the $1.5 Trillion Tax Cut Scenario would benefit hotels and the broader travel sector. Households would have more to spend on travel, not just because of lower personal income taxes, but also because of broader increases in employment, and wages and salaries, stemming from increased economic activity. As consumer spending increases, discretionary categories, such as travel, would benefit disproportionately relative to areas such as housing and utilities. In an environment of stronger economic growth, consumer and business confidence would improve. Meanwhile, increased business activity and investment would support stronger business travel, both in the transient segment and in the group segment. Many categories of business travel represent a form of business investment, such as employee training and meetings with customers, and would be expected to increase initially as businesses respond to the stronger economy. We have analyzed the potential impacts to the lodging sector in a framework that includes hotel supply, demand (occupied room nights) and price effects linked to economic drivers. To report the results in a summary format, we have focused on demand, average daily rate (ADR), and room revenue in real dollars. As shown in Fig. 3, we estimate hotel demand growth would accelerate to 3.1 % in 2018 in the $1.5 Trillion Tax Cut Scenario, supporting a 3.0% increase in ADR (in nominal dollars), and a 4.5% increase in room revenue (in real dollars). Similar to the broader economy, the impact to the pace of growth would gradually slow, but overall, room revenue in the $1.5 Trillion Tax Cut Scenario would average 2.1 % higher than in the No Tax Cut Scenario. 9

OXFORD ECONOM ICS Tax Policy and US Hotel Industry Economic Impacts Fig. 3 Impact to US lodging industry: $1.5 Trillion Tax Cut Scenario 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Average Lodging industry, growth rates Demand No Tax Cut 1.7% 1.9% 2.1% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% $1.5 Trillion Tax Cut 3.1% 2.2% 1.5% 1.5% 1.8% 2.0% ADR, nominal No Tax Cut 2.3% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.1% 2.2% $1 .5 Trillion Tax Cut 3.0% 3.0% 2.4% 2.5% 2.6% 2.7% Room revenue, real No Tax Cut 2.4% 2.5% 2.7% 2.5% 2.2% 2.5% $1 .5 Trillion Tax Cut 4.5% 3.5% 1.9% 1.7% 2.1% 2.7% Lodging industry, difference in levels relative to No Tax Cut Scenario Demand 1.5% 1.8% 1.2% 0.8% 0.7% 1.2% ADR, nominal 0.7% 1.4% 1.6% 1.9% 2.5% 1.6% Room revenue, real 2.1% 3.1% 2.3% 1.6% 1.4% 2 .1% Source: Oxford Economics Increased demand at hotels would support hiring of new employees, and additional shifts for existing hourly employees. This would expand the wages and salaries paid by hotels. As a result, hotels and hotel employees would tend to pay_higher levels of state and local taxes, including income and sales taxes. Also, increased volumes of hotel guests would generate increased spending in local communities, such as at local stores, restaurants, and attractions. Stronger demand would also tend to support moderate ADR increases in the short term , given the lags inherent in constructing new hotels. This would also contribute to higher occupancy tax revenues, as well as other local tax revenue, such as sales tax receipts . Direct hotel industry impacts in the $1 .5 Trillion Tax Cut Scenario are summarized in Fig. 4. We have provided two sections for direct spending . • Hotel guest spending: represents the majority of the direct spending impact, and includes spending onsite at hotels as well as ancillary spending, such as at restaurants, retail stores and transportation providers. • Direct spending: represents direct hotel guest spending plus capital investment in hotels, such as renovations and construction of new hotels. Overall, in the $1 .5 Trillion Tax Cut Scenario, cumulative direct hotel guest spending would be $57.4 billion higher than in the No Tax Cut Scenario over the five-year period . Direct wages, salaries and other labor income at hotels, the businesses benefiting from guest spending , and construction-sector firms , would be $11.0 billion higher than in the No Tax Cut Scenario over the five-year period. The wage, salary and other labor income impact, which would represent additional earnings by existing employees , as well as new hires, would be equivalent to the annual compensation of 55,300 employees for five years. Direct state and local 10

OXFORD ECONOMICS Tax Policy and US Hotel Industry Economic Impacts taxes would be $2.5 billion higher than in the No Tax Cut Scenario over the five- year period. Fig. 4 Direct hotel industry economic impacts: $1.5 Trillion Tax Cut Scenario Monetary amounts in billions of real 2015 dollars 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Average Cumulative Direct impacts, difference relative to No Tax Cut Scenario Hotel guest spending $11.0 $16.7 $12.6 $8.8 $8.3 $11.5 $57.4 (onsite at hotels and ancillary), real Direct spending (hotel guest $11.7 $17.8 $13.4 $9.4 $8.8 $12.2 $61.1 spending and capital investment in hotels), real Wages, salaries and other $2.1 $3.2 $2.4 $1 .7 $1 .6 $2.2 $11 .0 labor income, real State and local taxes, real $0.5 $0.7 $0.6 $0.4 $0.4 $0.5 $2 .5 Note: Direct spending is also referred to as direct output (business sales). Direct wages, salaries and other income is also referrred to as direct labor income . Source: Oxford Economics Increased hotel guest spending and capital investment in hotels would support broader indirect and induced economic impacts (Fig. 5), such as through spending by hotel employees, and through purchases by hotels of inputs from suppliers. Overall, in the $1.5 Trillion Tax Cut Scenario, the increased total economic impacts of the hotel industry relative to the No Tax Cut Scenario would include $22 .3 billion of cumulative labor income over the five-year period (equivalent to the annual compensation of 94,700 employees for five years), and $3.9 billion of additional state and local tax revenues. Fig. 5 Total hotel industry economic impacts: $1.5 Trillion Tax Cut Scenario Monetary amounts in billions of real 2015 dollars Total hotel industry impacts include direct impacts (hotel operations, guest ancillary spending, and capital investment) as well as indirect and induced impacts 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Average Cumulative Total industry impacts, difference relative to No Tax Cut Scenario Output (business sales), $25.2 $38.4 $28.8 $20.2 $19.1 $26.3 $131 .7 real Wages, salaries and other $4.3 $6.5 $4.9 $3.4 $3.2 $4.5 $22 .3 labor income, real State and local taxes, real $0.7 $1.1 $0.8 $0.6 $0.6 $0 .8 $3 .9 Note: Total wages, salaries and other income is also referrred to as total labor income. Source: Oxford Economics 11

OXFORD ECONOMICS Tax Policy and US Hotel Industry Economic Impacts The total impact to labor income in the $1.5 Trillion Tax Cut Scenario by year is shown graphically in Fig. 6. The peak impact is anticipated in 2019, with $6 .5 billion of additional labor income. Fig. 6 Total hotel industry labor income impact relative to No Tax Cut Scenario In billions of real, 2015 dollars $7 $6 $1.5 Trillion Tax Cut Scenario $5 $4 $3 $2 $1 $0 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Source: Oxford Economics 12

.. 0,[COMOMICS FORD Tax Policy and US Hotel Industry Economic Impacts Updated November 9, 2017 All data shown in tables and charts are Oxford Economics· own data, except where otherwise stated and cited in footnotes, and are copyright© Oxford Economics Ltd. This report is confidential to American Hotel & Lodging Association and may not be published or distributed without its prior written permission. The modelling and results presented here are based on information provided by third parties, upon which Oxford Economics has relied in producing its report and forecasts in good faith. Any subsequent revision or update of those data will affect the assessments and projections shown. For further information : Adam Sacks adam.sacks@oxfordeconomics.com Aran Ryan aran.ryan@oxfordeconomics .com Oxford Economics 303 W. Lancaster Ave. Suite 2E. Wayne, PA 19087 Tel: + 1 610-995-9600

7/9/2019 Hotel Dover Downs Hotel & Casino, Dover - trivago.com ATTACHMENT #8 tr. G Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 07/09/2019 :N • Sign in to trivago.com with Google X Dover Downs Hotel & Casino Tanner Polee tanner.polce@gmail.com 1 Check in �oor Fri, 07/26/19 COf\JTINUE AS TANNER J i ise ... 1 To create your account, Google will share your name, email address, and profile picture with trivago.com. By continuing, Price / night $600+ Accommoda. you agree to trivago.com's orivacy_P,ollcy and terms of service. 0 '- All types V All V Dover Do ... v Select V f +I Our recommendations jo/ Dover Downs Hotel & Casino Hotel Ci-t 0 @..3) -- S· 1'1 c, ~ ;Jo3. 'I 'I 8.6 Excellent (1079 reviews)v [~c---ij@J, S' ft/ e:,r 7'0-/o,I ~ QCI'} .'6'1 tt: Casino · Hot tubs For more relevant matches, adjust your price settings. $1B@6+ Price / night max. $600+ 0 Comfort Suites Dover Hotel 6 " ) Q 3'':l> , 3. J 'l Sf' 1st Most Popular 3-Star Hotel in Dovey_�r.s..<? 3� � '3· l'l, ,,, .,. o{Jq] (_,.,. C-- -•o (:"' .¼} 7.3 (1350 reviews)v Excellent location · Good facilities r-1� ''�j Comfort Suites Hotels $106 2 nights for $212 Free breakfast I view ... j lovevacations � Holiday Inn Dover-Downtown Hotel https://www.trivago.com/?aDateRange%5Barr%5D=2019-07-26&aDateRange%5Bdep%5D=2019-07 -28&aPriceRange%5Bfrom%5O =0&aPriceRange... 1 /8

7/9/2019 Hotel Dover Downs Hotel & Casino, Dover - trivago.com 7.4 (802 reviews)v Excellent location · Very ci G Sign in to trivago.com with Google X lovevacations ~ • Tanner Polee tanner.polce@gmail.com CONTINUE AS TANNER To create your account, Google will share your name, email address, and profile picture with trivago.com. By continuing, you agree to trivago.com's Qrivacy_QolicY. and terms of service. Hotel (619 reviews)v Very good location · Good breakfast nights - for $190 Free breakfast IVie ... I For rth)re relevant rnatches, adjust your pricH settings. $18@6+ Price / night max. $600+ 0 l ~ i,, , , • $144 -~ ---_ - --""- - 2 nights for G~~ )~ - 'j•J':l ,.,. (j ✓ lo/"8' 3~ $287 Free breakfast e,()~""~J 3~ - <t 3;;. ;v /01oJ /seJ· ~,; EJ Hotel Sleep Inn & Suites Dover Hotel 8.5 Excellent (1679 reviews) Excellent location · Excellent food - Sleep Inn Hotels $153 2 nights https://www.trivago.com/?a Date Range%5Barr%5D=2019-07-26&aDateRange%5Bdep%5D=2019-07-28&a PriceRange%5Bfrom%5D=0&aPriceRange . . 2/8

7/9/2019 Hotel Dover Downs Hotel & Casino, Dover - trivago.com for $306 Free G Sign in to trivago.com with Google X brea kfast Holiday Inn Express & S1 8.6 Hotel Excellent (967 reviews • Tanner Polee tanner.polce@gmail.com CONTINUE AS TANNEH Excellent location · Extrerr To create your account, Google will share your name, email address, and profile picture with trivago.com. By continuing, Holiday you agree to trivago.com's P.rivacy_P.olfcy_and terms of se.rvice. Inn Express $163 2 nights for $326 Free breakfasl jview ... j Comfort Inn & Suites Dover Hotel ??' 1st Most Popular 2-Star Hotel in Dover For more relevant matches, adjust your price settings. $61@6+ Price / night max. $600+ 0 $287 Free breakfast EJ Hotel Microtel Inn and Suites Dover Hotel 8.i Very good (1534 reviews)v Extremely clean · Excellent value for money Hotel... $150 2 nights for $300 Free breakfast EJ https://www.trivago .com/?aDateRange%5Barr%5D=2019-07-26&aDateRange%5Bdep%5D=2019-07 -28&aPriceRange%5Bfrom%5D=0&a PriceRange .. . 3/8

7/9/20 1 9 Bill Silva o n the downside of the lodging tax - Delawa re Busi ness Times ATTACHMENT #9 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting S t ay i nformed of more loca.1 ancl region al business news. Jo111 our newsletter list n ow ofX 07/09/2019 0. BUSINESS TIMES STU FF Suhseri ht• D1J.!it al Ed i t ton ·m,tvn1t•r Scrvil't' lluy t llf' Book of List.s EVENTS SPECIAL EDITIONS LISTS DIGITAL EDITION INNOVATION STUFF NEWS BUSINESS LEADS DBT4@ NOMINATE A LEADER UNDER 40! av�,.��·t,.A[ �r.H e..ERS & 1Nl"lfNATCFS UtJ[ER 40 ewo..·iltWSNlSST'MlSMhi.S NOMI NATE HERE YOU ARE HERE: I l1wu• _, Bill Silva on the dow nsulc of the J,,dgmg t.:1x ( > Bill Silva on the downside of the lodging tax I N NOVATION & Alf':-. VHor.olo 0 Mav 18, l018 � Bill SilvJ, C1.1unty Lodging Ta�, Dl'lawJre I lot(•l Jnd Lorlginj,! Associat ion, �fat l hC\\ Meyer The hotel indus try in New Castle Conmy is facing a direct - DELAWARE 20 1 9 Edition challenge, driven by New Castle County Executive Matthew Meyer's si ngl ing out. our industry for a 38 percent tax increase. MOST POPULAR ARTICLES House Bill 377 is legislation that would allow cou nties to levy a lodging tax of 3 percent on top of t he exi sting 8 percent in most of ESPN's Stephen A. Smith accepts role as HBCU New Castle County, except for Wil m i n gton, where the tax is 10 ambassador p�rcent. The members Delawa re Hotel and Lodging Association oppose Developer to build 2 million square-foot th is bill for the following business reasons: logistics park in New Castle 1. The 38 percent increase in the County Lodging Tax will impact the competitiveness of the hotel indust ry and cost much-needed hotel business, as the tax will be higher than Huge multi-use project underway at Claymont surrounding areas. Guests have a l ready asked about t h is proposed extre me tax. steel-mill site 2. Loss of tourism business will impact our ability to create an<l mai ntain jobs, many at entry level positions, in hotels Plans for vertical farm take root in NE and related tourism ve nues. Hotels already pay our fair share of property t axes, school taxes and other employment taxes. Wilmington 3. New hotel development will slow down, meaning fewer new jobs a nd less property taxes for the county and Concord Mall Barnes & Noble moving to possibility our state. Anti-business legislation is never for the good of our com m u n i ty. Concord Square 'prototype store' this July 4. Meyer and the New Castle County Council are pushing for the maximum tax increase of 3 percent, with no mention of any allocation for t ourism market ing. In the more progressive counties, the lodging tax increases are allocated to add marketing dollars to tourism. New Castle County is taking all the money. 5. There is no mention of addressing AirBnB, the ope rator of illegal hotels i n Delawa re, which pay zero lodging tax, and take hotel business and johs. Legislat ion should be passed to tax them like we tax our hotels. .,;>JP'll�� Travel Insurance: Always Question Your Purchase 6. Last year, the state of Delaware was about to take all the tourism marketing dollars for the three counties, desµite by Aiste Fore man existing law. The lodging ind ustry needs assurance that will never happen again. Only at the last minute was that funding restored. It would have seriously impcde<l our ability to compete. 7. An overall lack of trust of the word of government has really hurt our relations in the state , and now County When to Use New Technologies in Execut ive and Council. Marketing by Jason Trojanow ski Hotels currently pay the 8 percent l odging tax with 5 of that 8 percent going to the State of Del aware general fu nd, I of the 8 percent to beach replenishment in Sussex CoL111ty, I of the 8 percent t o fund the State Tourism Office and µrorated share of th(, last I percent to support the ma rketing of the county via the Greater Wilmington Convent ion and Visitors Does your business have too much Bureau. cash? by Joe Giordano The ind ustry is urging all hoteliers, associates, tourism i ndustry partners and the public to oppose this tax, and reach out th e chair of the House Administration Commit tee, Rep. Valerie Longhurst , to express opposi tion . Bill Silut1 is Choinn,m of the Board oJ the Delaware Hotel a11d Lodgi119 Association. Share This Post w f 3• in 9 Q https ://www.delawarebusi nesstimes .com/viewpoint-the-case-agai nst-the-lodgi ng-tax/ 1 /3

7/9/2019 Top 1 0 cities with the highest travel taxes I Fortune ATTACHMENT #10 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 07/09/2019 Tourists take pictures in Boston's Beacon Hill neighborhood. Photograph by Getty Images Don't look now, but taxes on travel are rising. In some cities, visitors shoulder tax burdens that can add 30% to the cost of a trip, and the number is expected to continue to rise, according to a new study by the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). Although many states have anti-tax sentiment, taxes on travel - including hotel occupancy and rental car fees - are an increasingly popular way to add to state coffers. Mississippj just passed legislation will allow cities to increase their occupancy and rental car taxes. And Georgia ado ted a law to assess a $5 a night room tax.to pay for repairing crumbling ' infrastructure, it noted. "States and cities raise travel taxes because they are looking for more revenue without raising the taxes that the local electorates hate - sales taxes and property taxes," says NCPA Senior Fellow Pam Villarreal. "It is much easier to tax out-of-towners that are not using city and state services year round and don't have as much skin in the game." Top city for travel taxes https://fortune .com/2015/08/03/travel-taxes-summer-vacation/ 2/12

7/9/2019 Top 10 cities with the highest travel taxes I Fortune ot Koses pays $2:l a day in taxes, the research tound . it's closely tallowed by Hoston ($19) and Indiana polis ($18). And the lowest areas? That would be Burbank, Calif. ($2), Orange County, Calif. ($3), and Ontario, Calif. ($4). Fees tacked on to airport car rentals and hotels are the main culprits, says Jacob Kohlhepp, a research associate with NCPA. "Renting cars and hotel rooms near the airport is expensive due to extra fees levied by the airport authority," he says. "Travelers should consider renting a car at a location farther away from the airport." Specifically: • About 22 states levy a specifi statewide tax on lodging, ranging from as low as 3% to as high as 13% of he price of a night's stay at a hotel or motel. • At las count, 38 states levied a car rental tax. But the tax burden is often higher when the car is rented at an airport, where a sureharge is added by the local airport authority. • Taken together, airline taxes can amount to a 30% surcharge on some domestic flights. They include a 7.5% excise tax on every ticket purchased, a segment tax of $3. 70 charged per takeoff and landing, and a "September 11 Security Fee," which last year doubled from $2.50 to $5.60 per leg of each flight. SHOP THIS NOW 5ltm0MER, https://fortun e.com/20 15/08/03/travel-taxes-summer-vacation/ 3/ 12

7/9/2019 Top 10 cities with the highest travel taxes I Fortune Cities like New York and Washington are easily explained, says Kohlhepp. "No other place in the continental United States has the same monuments and history as Washington, D.C., and no other city has the same iconic attractions as New York," he says. "New York City and D.C. are centers of business and politics. Due to this competitive advantage, they can tax tourists more without fear that tourism will decline so much as to offset the hoped-for increase in revenue." Others, not so much. In Portland, travelers have o deal with steep hotel occupancy taxes that are charged by both the city (6 percent) and the county (5.5 percent). These, plus a 2 percent tax paid by the hotels themselves, means that hotels and travelers share 3.5 percent effective tax rate, according to the study. Rental car taxes are also 17 percent. "The only saving grace of the city is the lack of a sales tax," says Kohlhepp. https://fortune.com/2015/08/03/travel-taxes-summer-vacation/ 4/12

7/9/2019 Top 10 cities with the highest travel taxes I Fortune The cities with low travel taxes benefit The study doesn't cite reasons for the low taxes, but there are obvious benefits. Burbank, for example, is a favorite Southern California airport for frequent travelers, and its numbers have been on the rise, thanks in part to lower travel taxes. Four Florida destinations - Tampa, Fort Lauderdale, Fort Myers and West Palm Beach - also made the low-tax list, which may explain why they're so attractive to travelers, says Kohlhepp. The National Center for Policy Analysis study echoes a 2013 study by the GBTA Foundation, the education and research arm of the Global Business Travel Association which, not surprisingly, found that travel taxes were out of control. High travel taxes remain a huge concern for large corporations and specifically the executives who manage their travel _] _ _ _ _ _ _ .._ ___ __ _ a.,_ - -- .l __ , ___ --- - _.._: __ --- hllps ://fortune .com/2015/08/03/lravel-taxes-summer-vacation/ 5/12

CITY OF DOVER City Council Meeting Jul 22, 2019 FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2018 TO JUNE 30, 2019 1 of 2 QUARTERLY REVENUE REPORT As of June 30, 2019 - PRELIMINARY FY19 100.0% FY19 REVISED YTD % BUDGET FY18 FY17 GENERAL FUND BUDGET BUDGET REVENUES RECEIVED COMMENTS REVENUES REVENUES 1 Property Taxes $ 12,822,100 $ 12,915,300 $ 12,923,000 100.1% $ 12,714,400 $ 12,524,200 2 Payment In Lieu of Taxes 452,300 525,000 525,000 100.0% 350,700 371,400 3 Transfer from Electric Fund 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 100.0% 10,000,000 10,000,000 4 Intrafund Service Receipts Electric 3,875,500 3,875,500 3,441,500 88.8% 3,539,600 3,425,000 5 Transfer from Transfer Tax Fund 1,459,300 1,586,700 1,638,400 103.3% 2,023,100 1,633,600 6 Business Licenses 1,470,000 1,440,000 1,437,500 99.8% 1,473,300 1,462,400 7 Intrafund Service Receipts Water/Wastewater 1,764,600 1,764,600 1,695,100 96.1% 1,672,900 1,583,000 8 Sanitation Fees 3,095,400 3,064,600 3,068,400 100.1% 3,133,400 2,514,600 9 Permits & Other Licenses 1,969,000 1,630,400 1,442,200 88.5% 2,255,300 2,069,700 10 Transfer from Municipal Street Aid Fund 665,300 803,700 806,000 100.3% 666,100 673,400 11 Fines & Police Revenue 751,600 578,800 570,200 98.5% 613,100 679,100 12 Police Extra Duty Fees 510,000 539,100 579,900 107.6% 517,800 497,200 13 Transfer from Police Grant Funds 90,000 60,000 33,600 56.0% Does not include June Receipts 123,100 239,800 14 Court of Chancery Fees 1,439,500 1,526,000 1,445,600 94.7% Does not include June Receipts 1,496,500 1,343,000 15 Transfer from Water/Wastewater Fund 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 100.0% 900,000 875,000 16 Transfer from Civil Traffic Penalties Fund 497,000 532,900 424,800 79.7% Does not include June Receipts 508,000 463,600 17 Library Revenues & County Reciprocal Pymt 400,000 399,100 410,200 102.8% 392,100 380,500 18 Franchise Fees 685,600 637,200 477,800 75.0% Does not include last qtr-Verizon & Comcast 656,300 690,800 19 General Fund Grant Receipts 589,500 564,500 626,600 111.0% 584,800 556,000 20 Recreation Revenue 150,000 144,500 141,400 97.9% 137,900 169,000 21 Other Miscellaneous Receipts 154,900 160,500 144,400 90.0% 181,200 212,900 22 Interest Income 137,900 119,300 301,700 252.9% 202,000 154,500 TOTALS $ 43,979,500 $ 43,867,700 $ 43,133,300 98.1% $ 44,141,600 $ 42,518,700 Final Budget $ 42,974,800 $ 42,304,100

CITY OF DOVER City Council Meeting Jul 22, 2019 FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2018 TO JUNE 30, 2019 2 of 2 QUARTERLY REVENUE REPORT As of June 30, 2019 - PRELIMINARY FY19 100.0% FY19 REVISED YTD % BUDGET FY18 FY17 WATER/WASTEWATER FUND BUDGET BUDGET REVENUES RECEIVED COMMENTS REVENUES REVENUES 1 Water Fees $ 5,897,400 $ 5,463,000 $ 5,682,000 104.0% $ 5,584,500 $ 5,776,100 2 Wastewater Fees 3,620,600 3,794,600 3,720,800 98.1% 3,612,200 3,718,700 3 Wastewater Adjustment Fees - County Trtmt 2,819,300 2,970,000 2,902,900 97.7% 2,813,900 2,912,700 4 Groundwater Inflow Adjustment 1,813,100 1,901,200 1,858,200 97.7% 1,800,200 1,863,200 5 Water Impact Fees 450,000 620,600 757,400 122.0% 1,069,700 672,100 6 Wastewater Impact Fees 420,000 574,200 691,900 120.5% 962,700 611,800 7 Water Tank Space Leasing 400,600 400,600 360,500 90.0% 390,600 376,200 8 Interest Income 15,200 30,000 55,000 183.3% 38,600 15,700 9 Other Miscellaneous Revenues 54,400 12,700 12,700 100.0% 45,800 86,100 TOTALS $ 15,490,600 $ 15,766,900 $ 16,041,400 103.6% $ 16,318,200 $ 16,032,600 Final Budget $ 15,439,000 $ 15,467,200 FY19 100.0% FY19 REVISED YTD % BUDGET FY18 FY17 ELECTRIC REVENUE FUND BUDGET BUDGET REVENUES RECEIVED COMMENTS REVENUES REVENUES 1 Sales to Customers $ 81,192,600 $ 82,607,300 $ 80,706,600 97.7% $ 81,494,300 $ 80,624,300 2 Distribution of Earnings (2,877,400) (2,989,900) (2,839,700) 95.0% (6,337,100) (1,845,900) 3 Utility Tax 1,299,100 1,320,700 1,270,300 96.2% 1,255,100 1,322,000 4 Miscellaneous Revenue 756,200 758,800 1,281,400 168.9% 780,000 922,100 5 Interest Income 195,000 195,000 286,600 147.0% 218,700 218,000 TOTALS $ 80,565,500 $ 81,891,900 $ 80,705,200 100.2% $ 77,411,000 $ 81,240,500 Final Budget $ 75,697,500 $ 79,428,600

FIRST READING CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2019-16 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN 2 COUNCIL MET: 3 That Chapter 102 - Taxation of the Dover Code be amended by inserting a new Article VII - Lodging 4 Tax, as follows: 5 ARTICLE VII - Local Lodging Tax 6 7 Sec. 102-190. - Local lodging tax. 8 (a) A local lodging tax is hereby levied of 3% of the cost of the rent, in addition to the amount 9 imposed by the State and the County, for any room or rooms in a hotel, motel or tourist 10 home, as defined in 30 Del. C. §6101, within the boundaries of the City of Dover. 11 (b) The local lodging tax, pursuant to this ordinance, is the responsibility of the occupant of the 12 room and shall be collected at the time the rental is paid. Operators of the hotel, motel or 13 tourist home are responsible for the collection of the local lodging tax and the remittance of 14 the taxes to the City of Dover within 20 days after the end of each calendar month, in 15 accordance with procedures established by the City Manager and using forms designated by 16 the City Finance Department. The tax imposed shall be shown on the billing to the occupant 17 as a separate and distinct item. 18 (c) No local lodging tax pursuant to this ordinance shall be collected for reservations or contracts 19 for lodging executed or completed before *(date of adoption). 20 ADOPTED: * 21 S:\ORDINANCES\2019\DRAFT\ORDINANCE #2019-16-LODGING TAX\ORDINANCE #2019-16 - LODGING TAX-FIRST READING.wpd 22 SYNOPSIS 23 The amendment imposes a local lodging tax of 3% of the cost of the rent, in addition 24 to the amount imposed by the State and the County, for any room or rooms in a hotel, 25 motel or tourist home, as defined in 30 Del. C. §6101, within the boundaries of the 26 City of Dover. 27 (SPONSORS: HARE AND POLCE) 28 Actions History 29 07/22/2019 - Scheduled for First Reading - City Council 30 07/09/2019 - Introduced - Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee