CCW Minutes and Attachments 1-5

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Council Committee of the Whole met on April 24, 2018 at 6:00 p.m., with Council President Slavin presiding (departed at 6:15 p.m. and returned at 6:17 p.m.). Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sudler, Mr. Neil, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Polce (departed at 6:50 p.m., returned at 6:51 p.m., departed at 7:38 p.m. and returned at 7:40 p.m.), and Mr. Lindell (departed at 6:50 p.m.). Mr. Cole and Mr. Hare were absent. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Mr. Shevock and Dr. Stewart (Legislative, Finance, and Administration), and Mr. Garfinkel and Mr. Shelton (Safety Advisory and Transportation). LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Chairman Hare presiding. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Neil moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. Downtown Dover Business Improvement District (BID) Budget and Assessment (Tax) Rates for Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, reviewed the Business District Improvement (BID) Assessment (Tax) Rates for Fiscal Year 2018-2019. She advised that the recommendation was to keep the bid tax rate at zero (0), as it had been for the past three (3) years. Staff recommended approval of the proposed budget and assessment (tax) rates for Fiscal Year 2018-19, as presented. Mr. Anderson moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Mr. Shevock moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindell and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:02 p.m. SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee met with Chairman Lewis presiding. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS By unanimous consent, the agenda was amended to consider item #4 - Update - Safety Issues at the Library (Mr. Lindell) first. Mr. Neil moved for approval of the agenda as amended, seconde d by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2018 PAGE 2 Update - Safety Issues at the Library (Mr. Lindell) This item was deferred during the meeting of March 27, 2018 due to time constraints. Mr. Lindell reminded members that they had discussed safety concerns at the library during the City Council Workshop of January 22, 2018. He stated that he had asked for an update because he had heard about issues that should not be occurring in any public building and that no parent should have to explain to a child who could witness these events. Mr. Lindell advised that he understood it is hard to do something about these instances when they are not reported; however, this did not excuse the fact that they still occur. He stated that he was not looking to be adversarial; however, the first thing in dealing with a problem is to identify that there is a problem, and then come up with solutions. Mr. Lindell noted that he did not want to just complain, but there were a lot of smart people in the room and suggested thinking of common sense solutions to try to address some of the issues. Mr. Lindell stated that it was not his intention to indict the homeless, noting that he had not mentioned anything about the homeless one way or the other. He stated that his position is that lewd behavior is lewd behavior, and it does not matter where you live or how much money you have. Mr. Lindell advised that the bottom line is that if you are not using the library for its intended purposes and are detracting from other people’s experiences there, the issue needs to be dealt with. He advised that he was looking for an update or a way to proceed in restoring the confidence of a majority of the citizenry in going to the library and feeling safe. Mr. Lindell noted that just because the public is not talking about the issue doesn’t mean that there’s not a safety issue. He stated that some of those he had talked to were fed up that nothing had changed and had questioned the point of bringing it up. Mr. Lindell expressed his hope that members, with the help of library staff, could do something about this issue. Mrs. Margie Cyr, Library Director, stated that she had been thinking about this issue for several weeks and explained that the library takes great pride in its services, staff, and facility. She advised that the library does not want to have a perception in the community that it is unsafe for anyone, and noted that the facility is not unsafe. Mrs. Cyr indicated that there are occasionally people who behave badly, both inside the building and outside on its grounds. She stated that, since moving into the building in 2012, specific physical changes had been made to address layout issues that presented challenges to behavior management. Mrs. Cyr noted that they had removed the snack vending machines, tables, and chairs from the lobby; installed office space in the lobby; rearranged the tables and chairs on all three (3) floors; and enclosed the small theater in the back of the building in order to be able to secure the space when not being used for its intended purpose. Mrs. Cyr advised that the library has an acceptable behavior policy, which is enforced by staff and cadets, and if anyone violates this policy, they are removed from the building for the day. She explained that if the misbehavior is repeated, library use privileges are revoked for a period of time, such as a week, a month, six (6) months, or longer, depending upon the offense. Mrs. Cyr stated that in approximately 2007, the library contracted with a private firm to provide security services during hours of operation. She noted that when the Dover Police Department began its cadet program, the library canceled the contract with the private firm and agreed to have cadets provide security, and this program had been a great improvement and a big help. Mrs. Cyr advised that many of the issues that were experienced when the building first opened in 2012 are no longer problems, or certainly not to the extent that they were at that time. She explained that three (3) cadets

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2018 PAGE 3 were specifically assigned to the library at that time and now there is a regular schedule for cadets in the library. Mrs. Cyr noted that the Police Department provides backup for the hours when a cadet is not in the building. She advised that the library is open 66 hours per week and even if all three (3) cadets, at 19 hours each week, worked 100% of their hours in the library, there would not be enough coverage for all the library’s hours of operation. Mrs. Cyr stated that they have successfully put in place a list of cadet duties with a schedule for their movement around the interior and on the library’s grounds. She noted that staff is present and proactive on all three (3) floors of the building, and the cadets are stationed with views of the lobby and the first floor when they are not on their rounds. Mrs. Cyr stated that staff is faced with some challenges, and the first of them is the providing of food outside the library. She noted that it is not illegal for people to give food out on city sidewalks, and people do this because they have absolutely the best intentions and the biggest hearts. Mrs. Cyr explained that this creates a problem for the library, because the people who receive the food bring the food into parts of the library where they are not allowed to have food, and if they are caught eating they are asked to leave the building. She advised that this results in trash in the building, a problem for the custodians, and a problem for staff trying to manage it. Mrs. Cyr stated that there are other appropriate places in the City where food can be and is already distributed to people that are hungry, but part of the problem and the challenge that staff has is that the people who are giving out the food are getting different messages. She advised that when she engages in conversations with people who ask if it is it okay if they pass out food in the library, she takes the opportunity to tell them that it’s really not okay because it presents a problem for staff, custodians, and cadets. Mrs. Cyr stated that she explains that people who bring food into the library knowing that they are not allowed to do so create a problem for staff. She stated that people who wish to feed the hungry could think about the big issue and about the fact that there are better, more appropriate places for feeding that wouldn’t present a problem for this public facility and might be helpful to everyone. Mrs. Cyr indicated that this message is not always given out to people, and sometimes the message is, “You can give the food out on the sidewalk.” She stated that she realizes that legally people can do this, but it presents a problem because they come to her and say, “I was told we can give food out on the sidewalks.” Mrs. Cyr advised that it is about the message, the consistency, the big picture, and the fact that everyone is not engaging in the conversation with people in the community in the same way. She noted that the other problem is that there is no other place for people to go in the community when it is too hot or too cold and they do not have a home. Mrs. Cyr advised that the library would benefit from more cadet hours, but this would require a larger cadet force, and that has an impact on the City budget. Mr. Sudler asked how the duties assigned to cadets by the library are assessed. Responding, Mrs. Cyr stated that the cadets enforce the acceptable behavior policy that everyone who uses the library is expected to follow. She noted that people are not allowed to behave in ways that prevent others from using the library, such as loud raucous behavior, using foul language, engaging in physical altercations with people, being disruptive, or damaging furniture or furnishings. Mrs. Cyr advised that these are basic rules of conduct that one would expect in any facility, public or not. Mr. Sudler asked if Mrs. Cyr meets with cadets each Monday to go over expectations or the progress of the ascribed rules. In response, Mrs. Cyr explained that supervision of the cadets is the responsibility of the Police Department.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2018 PAGE 4 Mr. Garfinkel asked how those who repeatedly do the same things are tracked. Responding, Mrs. Cyr stated that staff has an incident file where they keep track of what the incident was, who the person was, what the dates were, and what action was taken. She stated that when they have a recidivist they look at their offense and how often it’s been repeated and take away their library usage privileges and ban them for a period of time. In response to Mr. Garfinkel regarding the penalty for first, second, and third offenses, she explained that it depends upon what the offense is. She noted that if kids are running around on the floors, they are asked to leave for the day, and if they come back and do it again, they are told that they have to leave until they can bring their parents back to talk with staff about the children’s behavior. Mrs. Cyr advised that if a person is caught doing something inappropriate in one of the spaces and the police are called, resulting in charges, they are banned, sometimes for a year, sometimes for six (6) months, and sometimes permanently. Responding, to Mr. Garfinkel, Mrs. Cyr stated that progressive penalties are memorialized in her files. Mr. Garfinkel asked if there is a policy book that states what will happen for a second offense so that everyone gets the same punishment. In response, Mrs. Cyr stated that they are very consistent with their application of punishments. She explained that they keep a file, there is a binder at the adult services desk, she has a binder, the Police Department keeps records, and the City Manager receives copies. Mr. Sudler suggested, moving forward, that Mrs. Cyr meet with the City Manager and Police Chief to orchestrate sound guidelines so that it would not become an issue if someone stated that another person was given more opportunity than they had. Mr. Lewis asked if library staff is trained annually on how to address situations or issues that may occur at the library. Responding, Mrs. Cyr explained that, because a lot of their staff are part-time, they have a monthly staff meeting in the morning and repeat the same meeting in the afternoon so that everyone has the opportunity to participate. She stated that staff goes through training, all types of issues, and discussions at each of these meetings. In response to Mr. Lewis, Mrs. Cyr stated that she did not know the number of cameras installed in the library; however, she thought there were approximately 25 cameras. She offered to get the exact number of cameras. Mrs. Cyr advised that there were no cameras outside on the exterior of the building but she believed that there should be. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mrs. Cyr stated that no one monitors the screens. She informed members that when there is an incident the police and staff review the recorded tapes, and the City’s IT Department can also review them. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Cyr stated that there was probably more recividous behavior with adults than with teens. She noted that staff believes that everyone deserves a second chance but it is not their policy to believe people deserve much more than that. Mrs. Cyr advised that if people don’t behave and have proved that they’re just simply breaking the laws, staff has them leave, because this is disruptive and not fair to library users. Police Chief Marvin Mailey stated that Mr. Lindell had recently asked him about a lewdness complaint. Chief Mailey advised that this complaint occurred in the fall of 2017 and was reported approximately 24 hours after it occurred. He stated that library staff contacted the Police Department,

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2018 PAGE 5 who dispatched a detective to look into it; however, they were unable to identify the suspect, and the case remains under investigation. Responding to Mr. Lindell, Chief Mailey stated that he would have to speak to the detective to determine if the reason that he could not identify the individual was because of the quality of the camera system. He advised that typically staff has good video and asks for the community’s help in identifying people. Mrs. Cyr stated that the video was of good quality and the person could be seen, but apparently he was not known to the Police Department. Chief Mailey informed members that cadet duties were agreed to by Mrs. Cyr and the Dover Police Department staff, specifically Lieutenant Kober. He noted that Lieutenant Kober, Sergeant Hopkins, Master Corporal Lynch, and the Department’s Special Enforcement Unit had worked diligently with Mrs. Cyr since the problem about the safety of the library surfaced. He explained that the Police Department is authorized to have nine (9) cadets and currently has four (4). Chief Mailey advised that the library is allocated three (3) cadets out of its payroll, so all of the cadets are principally at the library during the specific hours that Mrs. Cyr and the Police Department have agreed to, because they are high frequency hours. He noted that the only hours when there is not a cadet at the library are on Sunday, when the Police Department’s patrol unit tries to make checks, unless they are busy and not able to do so. Chief Mailey stated that if library staff needs the Police Department, they call the non-emergency number or 911 and the Department provides police services. Chief Mailey advised that cadets perform a foot patrol in the library every hour to check the first floor, second floor, and the bathrooms, and they do an exterior patrol of the library. He stated that during this patrol they enforce any City ordinances or violations identified by Mrs. Cyr or by City of Dover ordinance. Chief Mailey informed members that when cadets are not performing their foot patrols, they are to be present in the front lobby and observe people actively entering and exiting the library. He noted that there is strict enforcement on any foul language, cursing, or acting disorderly, which constitute removal from the library. Chief Mailey noted that cadets are not police officers, and they approach people and ask them to leave the library. He stated that if people don’t leave, a patrol officer is called to ask them to leave, and they are arrested for trespassing if they do not do so. Chief Mailey stated that cadets enforce no eating at the library. Chief Mailey explained that removals and bans are at the discretion of Mrs. Cyr, and the Police Department defers to her on this, noting that she is in charge of the building and this is not atypical of many other properties or establishments. He indicated that if the library bans someone, the Police Department receives notification and enforces the ban, and anyone in violation of the ban would be arrested for criminal trespass. Chief Mailey noted that there is no panhandling or sleeping in the libraries, and Mrs. Cyr has informed them of a specific breakdown that she would like followed as far as warnings and eviction. Chief Mailey informed members that the cadets have been briefed on all of this information, they are in contact with Mrs. Cyr and her staff on a daily basis, and they are supervised by the Police Department because they are employees of the Police Department. He noted that Sergeant Hopkins provided him with some numbers indicating that they had about 215 total complaints in the library over the last calendar year, from April to April, 78 of which were property checks. Chief Mailey explained that a property check is when a cadet makes a physical check of the premises while walking around. He noted that if a cadet works a six-hour shift, there should be six (6) property checks per

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2018 PAGE 6 shift; however, he noted that the math doesn’t add up because the cadets were asked recently to start taking complaint numbers for their checks. Chief Mailey stated that there had been nine (9) community outreach complaints, which are when staff goes out and engages the public for things handled by community policing. He indicated that there were eight (8) complaints when a physical arrest was made, two (2) complaints of a sexual nature, and 12 fugitives wanted on local fugitive arrest warrants, etc., were apprehended at the library. Mr. Neil stated that he did not want to leave the impression that the City was not concerned with the safety of the people at the library or the perception of some people that they would walk in the library and be concerned. He indicated that he was a big fan of the library for a number of reasons, noting that the movie Lady Bird was shown earlier in the day and a Winston Churchill biopic would be shown for free on Friday evening, both of which were up for Oscar awards. Mr. Neil stated that the list of the library’s programs is absolutely marvelous, and the library staff that he had enccountered had been terrific. He stated that the library is first class and a tremendous asset when trying to bring business in. Mr. Neil stated that people had been providing free food for those who need it in front of the library and if there is a place to put them, this may solve some of the problems. He thought that outside cameras would be a great safety item. Mr. Neil congratulated Mrs. Cyr for the wonderful programs and staff. He stated the desire to look at the problem areas and see what can be done to make it feel and be safer. Mr. Neil stated the need to face the dangers of every public building, be alert, and resolve the issues, whether in Dover or in any other community in the United States. Mr. Lindell stated that he shared Mr. Neil’s sentiments in regard to the programs of the library, and did not want or intend to put down staff; however, the issue still exists. He noted that there are people like Mr. Neil who enjoy and take advantage of the library’s great programs, but he asked members to imagine how many others could be reached that have lost faith because they have had a negative experience with the safety issues. Mr. Lindell stated that there is a large part of the tax-paying population in Dover that have turned away from programs because they don’t feel confident about safety. He advised that he had heard that the safety issues were being dealt with; however, one (1) lewd act is too many. Mr. Lindell stated that he knows that you can’t read people’s minds and know what they’re going to do in the library, but there has to be a way to restore the confidence of the citizenry of Dover. He noted that he would not bring this up if it were just one (1) or two (2) people, but he had heard comments, even when the referendum was going through for the library to be built, that it was going to be a homeless shelter, and from people who have said that it is a homeless shelter. Mr. Lindell stated that Mr. Neil was correct and that perception is reality when it comes to the issues involved with some of the events going on at the library. Mr. Lindell stated that it does not matter who is doing it, this does not excuse the fact that things are still happening. He advised that people were finding alcohol bottles, etc., in the aisles, noting that it is a large area. Mr. Lindell explained that he wants to try to find a way to push forward and address the issues. He advised that the City has a great library and staff and he was not critical of anyone at the library; however, taxpayers were paying for it, and he stated the desire to figure out how to get more people involved and what could be done. Responding to Mr. Shelton, Chief Mailey stated that the Police Department is budgeted for nine (9) cadets and has only four (4). He explained that the Department was actively recruiting, and the problem is that the cadet program is a success. Chief Mailey advised that a lot of young people with good backgrounds are looking to get into law enforcement, typically going through some kind of

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2018 PAGE 7 criminal justice program to obtain their bachelor’s degree, and are hired. He noted that the Dover Police Department hired two (2) cadets from its program that are now in the Police Academy, so the Department is trying to recruit more. Chief Mailey stated that recruiting is hard and noted that not a lot of people want to get into law enforcement because of constant criticism and the disbelief in law enforcement that many people have. In response to Mr. Shelton, Chief Mailey stated that once more cadets are brought on, the Department would be able to add cadets to the library and get back to the more normal schedule that they had at the onset. He stated that he thought that they would have two (2) shifts of cadets coming in to fill more of the working hours, rather than just trying to focus on the peak hours. Mr. Shelton stated that he did not know what the rounds are but suggested that, if they are just patrolling the inside and giving a little time to the outside, another cadet may be able to help with this to resolve some of the issues with the library. Chief Mailey advised that people need to report things to the library staff when they see them, or call the Police Department, so that they can take action, rather than reporting them to the Chief of Police two (2) weeks later. He explained that receiving information two (2) weeks or 24 hours later does not help them to do their jobs, and they need the information in real time when the act is occurring. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Chief Mailey advised that they advertise for cadets on social media and have partnerships with the local colleges. He noted that Delaware State University, Delaware Technical and Community College, Wilmington University, and Wesley College are aware of the Police Department’s program, and several people have come to the cadet program over the years from these schools. Chief Mailey explained that they go to job fairs and advertise; however, young people don’t want to get into law enforcement anymore, and this is being seen in the police hiring process. He stated that the number of people who show up had decreased from 500 to 300, because no one wants to be in law enforcement because there is so much criticism thrust upon the police for doing their jobs. Mr. Sudler stated that, in addition, there are sometimes behaviors that deter people from wanting to be law enforcement officers, noting that one cannot deny or turn a blind eye to this. He advised that Chief Mailey was doing a great job and thanked him for his service. In response to Mr. Lindell, Chief Mailey stated that people can make anonymous reports to the Police Department. Mrs. Cyr advised that if someone sees something or has a problem in the library, they need to report it to staff, who is very proactive, always out and about on the floor, and always takes immediate action as soon as they know that there’s a problem. Mrs. Cyr stated that if somebody calls her a week later saying that they saw someone smoking a cigarette in the bathroom a week ago, there is nothing that she can do, other than to say that she is sorry they had that problem at the library. She stated that if they come to staff right away, they can help and take care of the problem. Mr. Neil concurred with Chief Mailey and Mrs. Cyr, stating that elected officials cannot be everyplace. He stated that he had worked as a news reporter, reporters need the public to tell them what is happening, and this is why Mr. Lindell had brought this subject up. Mr. Neil suggested having someone monitor the cameras and immediately report when they see something happening, noting that this may require better or different equipment. He also suggested having volunteer walkers observe, go through the library, and report these things, noting that they may have something to show that they

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2018 PAGE 8 are part of the staff. Mr. Neil advised that observation and reporting are what is needed to change the perception that there is a big problem there, and action could be taken immediately. Mr. Anderson stated that Mr. Neil’s suggestion was brilliant. He suggested reaching out to groups like Integrated Services, or others that work with the disabled, to get some volunteers. Mr. Anderson stated that these individuals may be able to do something on a limited basis, noting that they may not be able to walk around but have the ability to observe, help, and report to the staff or the cadets if they see something happening. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Cyr stated that the library already works with the Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP). Mr. Anderson suggested expanding RSVP’s work and seeing what the City can do to get more people. He indicated that there are a lot of people in the community who would help. In response to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Cyr stated that the library has a little fewer than 1,000 people using the building per day. Mr. Anderson noted that, with traffic of 350,000 plus people, there had been eight (8) disorderly conducts and two (2) incidents of lewd behavior in one (1) year. He noted that several years ago there had been problems with assaults and fights, and the nature and frequency of the problems in the library had decreased to the point that he wished his neighborhood was as safe as the library, with only occasional disorderly conduct. Mrs. Cyr stated that the problems had decreased and expressed her belief that this was solely because of the addition of the cadets to the building. Mr. Anderson noted that the recommendations that members would be looking into would be to try to obtain someone to monitor cameras on occasion, putting a call out to the community for volunteers, getting outside cameras, and trying to rebuild the cadet corps, who are being hired away by Dover and other towns across the State because they are quality individuals. Mr. Anderson asked Mrs. Cyr if she had any additional recommendations. Responding, Mrs. Cyr stated that library staff struggles with this issue every day, because they are very committed and love what they do and the service that they provide for the community. She stated that they do not want a building that is unsafe and that people don’t feel comfortable using, so they talk about this issue a lot. Mrs. Cyr explained that this is an evolving conversation for staff, and they did not have specific complaints. She noted that they had done a lot of relocation in the building and staff is up and around all the time. Mrs. Cyr advised that she loved the idea of using volunteer walkers and thought this could be easily implemented, noting that they would pursue this. She indicated that they were open to other suggestions. Mr. Lindell stated that he disagreed with Mr. Anderson, noting that there had been two (2) lewd acts and a number of issues. He questioned if members would be saying that it was a good year if there were two (2) lewd acts in City Hall in a year. Mr. Lindell advised that one (1) such act was too many, noting that taxpayers are paying for the library and want to go in and use it for the appropriate use. Mr. Anderson stated that solutions were being offered to reduce the problems, but it was also being recognized that the library had gone from fights and violence to a situation where there was less than a problem per month. He expressed the desire to recognize this because there is a need to let people know, rather than creating a situation where people are afraid to have their children in the library because of a false image. Mr. Anderson advised that he wanted accuracy, which means honestly

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2018 PAGE 9 admitting and dealing with the problems that exist but not exaggerating the problems and creating fear that is not warranted by the statistics. He noted that the Dover Public Library is safer than many of the neighborhoods and places in the City. Mayor Christiansen commended Mr. Lindell for bringing this issue before the Committee, noting that he was sure that all elected officials as well as City staff had heard complaints and concerns about this issue. He commended Mrs. Cyr and her staff for the vigilance in the efforts that they put into making the Dover Public Library a place that’s attractive to all citizens and noted that everyone had invested a lot of time, effort, energy, and money into the library. Mayor Christiansen also commended Chief Mailey and the cadets that had served in the library. He stated that he believed that one (1) aggressive act is an act too many, as Mr. Lindell had stated, but also concurred with Mr. Anderson that because of the Dover Police Department’s presence, professionalism and cooperation with the staff and library patrons, the library continues to be a safer place than it was when it started out and the private security firm was used. Mayor Christiansen indicated that answers would come out of this discussion that would make the library a safer and more inviting place. Mr. Anderson moved to recommend that Mrs. Margie Cyr, Library Director, submit a statement or memorandum to Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, in regard to looking into outside cameras, for possible inclusion in the next fiscal budget. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mrs. Cyr stated that everyone could agree on the three (3) C’s: Cooperation, Collaboration, and Communication. Mr. Lewis asked Mrs. Cyr to keep members abreast of what is going on at the library. Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) Project Updates Senator Bikeway Mr. Jeff Niezgoda, Assistant Director, Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT), reviewed a map, entitled “City of Dover Bicycle Facilities” (Attachment #1), and provided members with an update regarding DelDOT’s five (5) active construction projects in the area. He stated that DelDOT has a lot of bicycle network improvements going on, including a project on West Street which extends behind the Dover Police Department from the DART facility and connects to North Street. Mr. Niezgoda advised that they were converting the current sidewalk in this area to a 10-foot wide pathway that will connect to the trail network that runs in front of Eden Hill down to Schutte Park. He stated that construction was underway and was expected to be complete by the end of May, noting that the project required a lot of coordination regarding utilities. Mr. Niezgoda stated that DelDOT has a streetscape enhancement project that affects his travel to work on North Street. He explained that the project extends from Queen Street to Governors Avenue, and the area between Queen and New Streets is currently under construction. Mr. Niezgoda indicated that there was a delay in project construction, noting that when the original contract was awarded, DelDOT was supposed to maintain traffic through the area; however, this was not possible because traffic was backing up tremendously, and there was a need to go through the process of road closure. He explained that there would be improvements within that block on both sides and they will then open up this section and move to the New Street and Governors Avenue section, which will be closed

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2018 PAGE 10 down for a period of time. Mr. Niezgoda advised that he thought there were approximately 100 more days on that contract, which was for approximately $1.4M worth of work. Mr. Niezgoda explained that three (3) existing trail resurfacing contracts were underway, noting that the trail on North Street that leads to Schutte Park is about 21 years old, it had served beyond its life expectancy, most of it had been milled and resurfaced, and it looked very good. He stated that a lot of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) modifications had been made. Mr. Niezgoda advised that the second trail resurfacing contract will be probably be starting in a month-and-a-half and will extend from the Forrest Avenue/Saulsbury Road intersection in a northerly direction to College Road. Mr. Niezgoda stated that this project would probably be done in about 40 days. He noted that the third trail surfacing location will extend from the Forrest Avenue/Saulsbury Road intersection to a point west of Mifflin Road. Mr. Niezgoda indicated that this is part of an existing trail that runs in front of Greentree Shopping Center and is very heavily used by pedestrians and bicyclists. He stated that DelDOT would also be installing trail counters and infrared lighting, which will be downloaded into a computer network system and provide data regarding how many people are using these facilities on a daily and hourly basis, when peak hours are, etc. Mr. Niezgoda advised that they started using this equipment a couple of years ago at the C & D Canal, and the trail had over half a million users after being open two-and-a-half years. He stated that when these types of facilities are built correctly, people really want to use them recreationally. Mr. Niezgoda noted that DelDOT looks at trails as a transportation system that will help people to move around safely, while reducing congestion and improving air quality. During the Regular Council Meeting of July 11, 2016, Council considered a Review of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Subcommittee Recommendations - Senator Bikeway Design Concept. Members approved the Council Committee of the Whole/Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee’s recommendation to accept the Bicycle Pedestrian Subcommittee’s recommendations and move forward with the Senator Bikeway Design Concept. Mr. Niezgoda stated that the Senator Bikeway originated from the City and was the City’s number one (1) priority project, and the MPO evaluated it through a planning study and initiated the design. He noted they had originally planned to go up Fulton Street to State Street but ran into a problem where Fulton Street runs into State Street, and the pathway would have had to jog to the right. Mr. Niezgoda explained that the cost to fix that location would have been more than $0.5M and a lot of historical houses and property issues would have been impacted; therefore, they looked at another option using Cecil Street to State Street, utilizing the alleyway to Washington Street, and connecting to the trail network at Silver Lake Park. He stated that they worked with site plans for new development along Route 13, which would give them a connection to the eastern side of Route 13 across and down White Oak Road. Mr. Niezgoda stated that the use of Cecil Street is the best, safest, and lowest stress component and is much safer than it would be at Fulton Street. Mr. John Hermes, Century Engineering, informed members that they had been hired by DelDOT to work on the trail plans and the projects. Referring to the map entitled “City of Dover Bicycle Facilities,” he explained that it showed all the projects that they have within the City of Dover, noting that the pink line is a 14-mile loop that DelDOT is working on connecting. Mr. Hermes explained that most of the loop is already in place, some segments are currently in planning or design, and the Senator Bikeway is an important connection. He noted that the City had ranked this project as its number one (1) priority on its 2015 Bicycle Plan.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2018 PAGE 11 Mr. Niezgoda, Mr. Hermes, and Mr. Anthony Aglio, Planner Coordinator, DelDOT reviewed a presentation, entitled “Senator Bikeway Improvements” (Attachment #2). Mr. Slavin expressed thanks for the work on the project and stated that he agreed with Mr. Niezgoda that the amount of people who will use the trails when they are built will be astounding, and this had been seen in New Castle and Sussex Counties. He stated his opinion that Kent County had been shorted on this and he was glad to see that this is starting to take hold here. Mr. Slavin noted that the new path would connect on Cecil Street to North State Street and that one (1) portion of Cecil Street goes through the Wesley College Campus. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mr. Hermes stated that they had worked with Wesley College previously when the alignment was along Fulton Street, and they were scheduled to approach Wesley College for the new alignment that was just approved by the bike committee. He noted that the new alignment was a better fit for Wesley College because it is not as much of a main promenade. Mr. Niezgoda advised that the pathway on Cecil Street would just consist of signs and markings. Mr. Slavin asked how they would make the crossing over North State Street safe, noting that it is a troubling road with a lot of traffic and that traffic that is headed northbound seems to come out of the congested areas and accelerate all the way down. He advised that, thanks to DelDOT’s help, some nice measures had been taken to help calm traffic, but this is a tough spot. Mr. Slavin stated that he thought parking would have to be restricted at the ends of this area. Responding, Mr. Hermes stated that, unlike the crossing to the south, the North State Street crossing has the advantage of a straight alignment and good sight distance without the bike rider having to jog one way or the other. Mr. Hermes stated that stop signs would be placed at that intersection to make sure that bicyclists have to come to a stop and recognize that there is an intersection. He noted that a point comes where bicyclists have to recognize that they have to yield to traffic. Mr. Slavin expressed concern about bicyclists’ line of vision left and right as they stop, noting that with on-street parking that tight, they will have to be halfway out in the road to see if a car is coming. Mr. Hermes stated that they would take a look at parking to see if they have to take a spot or two (2) on either corner to make sure that the sight triangle for cars is visible. Mr. Aglio advised that there will be additional signage and markings and they would be evaluating the sight triangles. He stated that if additional traffic control is needed, they could look at something like a pedestrian rapid flash beacon. Mr. Aglio advised that there would be warnings upstream and downstream to notify cyclists that a crossing is coming up and noted that they had not taken the project to DelDOT’s traffic department. He advised that they were currently working on installing a beacon on Loockerman Street where the trail crosses, and will also have beacons on College Road by the Delaware State University campus and on the West Dover Connector, where the trail pathway crosses from the east to the west. Mr. Slavin noted that bicyclists would cross over North State Street and turn left into the North State Street Alley on the east side and stated that he owns a house on that alley and has constituents with residences there. He advised that, from his experience, there is a lot of vehicular traffic in that alley, which is used as a major cut through for anyone traveling westbound on Route 8 who wants to get to Silver Lake Park, to the point where they had to have speed enforcement in the alley. Mr. Slavin suggested that a solution would be to remove an unnecessary extension of Maryland Avenue that exists between American Avenue and the alley, noting that this might help if people understood that there is

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2018 PAGE 12 not a quick connection through that neighborhood. He asked that this suggestion be looked at, since it is a tight alley and all the homeowners on North State Street use the alleys as their parking areas. Mr. Slavin stated the need to calculate that cars are coming and going using that alley as their only means of egress, because people typically don't park on the street there. Mr. Slavin asked if property owners who have dogs that bark at bicyclists would be fined. He noted that his dogs would bark at every bicyclist that goes up and down this area, although he had tried to stop this. In response, Mr. Aglio stated that, as the bikeway evolves, it is good for people to see each other face-to-face, know where the dogs and neighbors are, and get to know the community, and Mr. Slavin stated that he agreed. Mr. Slavin advised that more traffic in the alley may make it safer and slow speeds down a little. He asked the presenters to let him know if they want to walk the alley because there is a little elevation in the block from Hazel Road to Washington Street, and where it hits Washington Street it is particularly dangerous. Mr. Sudler asked if problems had been seen in the past with off-road vehicles, such as ATVs, on such paths and what could be done to prevent or prepare for that. Responding, Mr. Aglio stated that they had not seen this much in Delaware. He explained that they sometimes see cars parked on a path that is required for development because it doesn’t really connect, or a utility company may park in such a location to access their utilities. Mr. Aglio advised that there will be bollards where cars may ingress and egress from the trail. He noted that he, personally, does not like bollards because bicyclists sometimes get distracted and strike them; however, this would be done if there was a problem. Mr. Sudler clarified that he was talking about ATVs, four-wheelers, three-wheelers, two-wheelers, motorcycles, etc. Responding, Mr. Niezgoda advised that there is more ATV activity at the C & D Canal, which is a more isolated location. He stated that this type of use would require enforcement action by the City. Mr. Niezgoda stated that he had not had this problem over his 16-18 years of experience, nor had Mr. Aglio, who had been doing this type of work longer. In response to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Niezgoda stated that they had not received inquiries regarding trails for ATVs or four-wheelers. He explained that the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) is a better agency to handle that type of facility interaction. Mr. Niezgoda advised that some off-road facilities are provided in New Castle and Sussex Counties, but he did not think there were any parks located in Kent County. Mr. Neil stated that the plan is very futuristic and something that the City would be proud of for a long time in the future. He advised that he thought motorists are going to have to get used to the bikeway, but the bicyclists are going to love it. Mr. Neil stated that, looking to the future and what is going to be happening in this country, it is magnificent. Mr. Anderson asked what type of outreach had been given to those in residential neighborhoods and if they had gotten feedback from neighborhood watches and associations. Responding, Mr. Hermes advised that overall they had not gone to specific neighborhoods; however, the Senator Bikeway had been presented at two (2) different public workshops within the City. He stated that they had been continually going to the Bicycle/Pedestrian Subcommittee, whose members had been doing outreach informally with the neighborhoods, and he noted that several members live within the neighborhood and had given ideas and support. Mr. Hermes stated that they had also hosted a lot of workshops

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2018 PAGE 13 where the projects and plans had been shown. He advised that they had not gone to a specific person in each community but had been promoting these types of projects through grassroots outreach. In response to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Hermes stated that they were not proposing to subtract any parking from residential neighborhoods. He indicated that the industrial site on West Street would be more affected. Mr. Hermes explained that there are two (2) businesses along the railroad tracks and they would be requesting no parking on the west side of West Street. He indicated that there was no reduction of parking within the neighborhoods, with the possible exception of North State Street if a car spot must be taken. Mr. Aglio stated that he agreed, and reminded members that the path was recently shifted from Fulton Street to Cecil Street. Mr. Aglio stated that this summer would be a great opportunity to go to the neighborhoods and work with the councilmen from that district and see what the neighborhood says. Mr. Hermes advised that statistically, when bike paths are researched for safety and improvements, they show that “eyes on the street” are a big component. He stated that a lot of people are worried about what a bike path brings to neighborhoods; however, it has been found through research that a bike path actually reduces crime and offers a benefit as people use it, become aware of things that happen, and are able to report them. In response to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Niezgoda stated that after everything in the original construction is put in place, the City would be responsible for maintaining the amenities that are installed on City-owned streets, such as the tubular delineator along West Street and the pavement markings along the street network. He advised that if a delineator was knocked down by a snow plow on a City-owned street, which would only be on West Street, the City would have to replace it. Mr. Niezgoda stated that DelDOT would be responsible for approximately 600 delineators on Division Street and would buy different types of snow plow equipment that is able to plow the lane behind the delineator, between the face of the curb and the delineator. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Niezgoda stated that the project does not have any bicycle rack facilities and noted that this could be discussed with the Delaware Bike Council, which has a budget for things like that. He advised that bike racks had been provided to the City in the past. Bradford Street Streetscape During the Regular Council Meeting of April 11, 2016, Council considered South Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements (Division Street to Loockerman Street) - Transportation Enhancement Program Agreement. At that time, members approved the Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee’s recommendation to authorize execution of the agreement to initiate the design for the South Bradford Street Streetscape Improvement Project, as recommended by Staff. Mr. Jeff Niezgoda, Assistant Director, Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT), reviewed a presentation, entitled “Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements” (Attachment #3). He explained that the project limits are along Bradford Street from Loockerman Street to Division Street. Mr. Niezgoda stated that, through the public comment soliciting process, it was determined that a six-foot concrete sidewalk with a brick band on the outside was the preferred option, and this will be placed through the commercial areas. He advised that the residential areas will continue to be maintained as a landscape area for grass or trees.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2018 PAGE 14 Mr. Niezgoda stated that workshops were held with the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP) Board, City of Dover Historic District Commission, and the public in 2015 or early 2016. He advised that he had provided Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner, a copy of the executed agreement and an invoice prior to the meeting. Mr. Niezgoda explained that DelDOT manages the funds, noting that 80% of the project costs come from the federal government and 20% from the City of Dover as the prospective sponsor. He stated that they would now be moving into the design phase, at a cost of approximately $150,000, $30,000 of which would be the City’s commitment. Mr. Niezgoda advised that a project of this magnitude would be expected to take 16 to 18 months; however, they would try to expedite and get it done in 12 months. Mr. Niezgoda stated that they would continue to have public workshops and work with local residents to make sure that everybody is on board with the project. He explained that the projected construction cost was about $860,000. Mr. Niezgoda advised that the City’s match would be approximately $172,000, and the City would receive a $900,000 or $1M project for this investment due to the federal funds received for this statewide program. Presentation by the Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) - Dover Capital Gateway Plan and Design Book Mr. James Galvin, Principal Planner, Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), advised members that the MPO and the City met in the fall of 2015 and decided that there was a need to look at the City’s gateway from the west coming into downtown, including both Forest and Division Streets, and made the decision to hire Whitman, Requardt and Associates to come up with a plan. Ms. Andrea Trabelsi, Project Manager, Whitman, Requardt and Associates, stated that they undertook this process in the fall of 2015, and the purpose was to develop a shared vision for the western entrance to the capital that would guide redevelopment and any improvements that were desired going forward, based on the vision that the planning process would develop. She explained that the study area covered the western end of the City, including Division Street from Saulsbury Road eastward, through the split of Forest Street to where Forest will terminate at the Duncan Center, and Division Street heading eastward to State Street. Ms. Trebalsi stated that the process was pretty condensed and they used the charette approach, which is a compressed time frame where all stakeholders and the public are engaged, and in this case there was a week-long process with some advanced planning work. Ms. Trabelsi reviewed a presentation, entitled “Division Street - Capital Gateway Plan” (Attachment #4). Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Galvin advised that the City would estimate how long construction activity will take if the project were to happen, and the next step would be to have the engineers review the project and provide an estimate. Ms. Trabelsi stated that the study is wide ranging and visionary and went beyond the engineering things within the right-of-way. She expressed the desire to make sure, as redevelopment and projects like the Senator Bikeway come through and pavement and other things are replaced, that they achieve the vision that the community wants over the long term. Mr. Anderson expressed concern about two (2) or three (3) years of construction on the busiest arteries in the City. He stated that there was some value to the project, although he was not a big fan

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2018 PAGE 15 of the three-story limit concept, noting that he thought this would be going in the opposite direction for economic development. Mr. David Hugg, Director of Planning and Community Development, advised that he had asked for Mr. Galvin and Ms. Trabelsi to be on the agenda. He explained that the Planning Department had plans going back to at least 2000 and maybe a few years before that, and a study of the same area was done in August 2000 that addressed the Clarence Street extension and some of the same kinds of things. Mr. Hugg informed members that this matter is really relevant because the Department will be updating the City of Dover Comprehensive Plan this year, and one (1) of the tasks they are looking at is taking the various and sundry plans, such as the Gateway Plan, the transit area plan, and the bike plan, and seeing how they integrate, which will drive a lot of the transportation planning. He stated that it is important that these documents do not just get done, put on a shelf, and ignored. Mr. Hugg indicated that, whether or not people like roundabouts, there is a need to start making some of these decisions and invest both City and State money, particularly State money since the roads involved are primarily State roads, to get the gateways and some of these things addressed in the City. He stated that it was important for Council to hear about these projects and understand them because they would see them again when staff returns with some of the proposals for the Comprehensive Plan. In response to Mr. Neil, Mr. Hugg stated that the State requires the City to update the Comprehensive Plan and have it certified by roughly this time next year. He explained that staff had begun the process, and in the June or July time frame members would start seeing draft plan proposals and recommendations coming forward. Mr. Hugg explained that this information would first go to the Planning Commission, who was already working on a homework assignment to look at the old plan and figure out what was done well, what was not done, and what the City might want to do in the future. He stated that there would be some workshops with Council, probably in early summer, to lay out some of the concepts and ideas. Mr. Hugg advised that Dover’s 2008 Comprehensive Plan was a very good, well-written plan, and staff was taking the strengths of that plan and incorporating them, as opposed to starting all over, because that would be a waste of time. He explained that they were doing a scorecard on which parts of the plan were implemented, which were not, and why. Mr. Neil asked if members would be able to look at the plan. Responding, Mr. Hugg advised that the Capital Gateway Plan and Design Book is available on the MPO website. He noted that copies were available for members to peruse following the meeting and that they could talk to Planning Department staff, MPO staff, or the consultant. Request for Letter - Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Support for a Service Road to the Garrison Technology Park and Adequate a Full Connection with Route 1 (Mr. Anderson) During the Council Committee of the Whole/Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting of March 27, 2018, members considered a Briefing on Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Projects, and Mr. James Galvin, Principal Planner, Dover/Kent County MPO, stated that he had not seen anything to indicate that the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) was looking at an interchange off Route 1 for the Garrison Oak Technology Park (GOTP). He suggested making sure that DelDOT knows that the City is interested in an interchange, if this is the case.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2018 PAGE 16 Mr. Anderson stated that, approximately four (4) years ago, a major institution was looking at bringing in approximately 400 jobs to the GOTP but had concerns about power, internet, and Route 1. He explained that Dover had been very much in the running for this project, according to a representative of the group that he had spoken with, but the lack of a connector was a major issue. Mr. Anderson explained that there were other concerns with vehicles because White Oak Road is not exactly conducive to major truck traffic. He noted that, in speaking with the Mayor, he became aware that there appeared to be other concerns as well. Referring to the Garrison Oak Traffic Study - Technical Memorandum from T. Y. Lin International dated June 14, 2017, Mr. Anderson advised that the study was based only on commuter traffic, mostly on current projects, and not on projections based upon a major employer, truck traffic, or traffic of a commercial nature. He stated that the connector may have been abandoned because, in his view, they were looking at the wrong things in the study. Mr. Anderson stated that the City was looking at the potential for economic growth, and this would not happen if there is not connection to a major highway facility. He explained that when he looked at similar facilities in different states, smaller towns, China, and even in Ethiopia, there was one (1) commonality with the successful ones, and that was an easy connection to a highway facility, which is missing at Garrison Oak. Mr. Anderson stated that a connector was set up at Route 8, which is a bigger road and can take traffic more easily; however, there has to be some sort of service road that will keep commercial traffic out of the residential neighborhoods, make an easy connection to Route 1, and also allow potential expansion in the future. He advised that a connector would also hopefully keep some roads, like Acorn Lane, from becoming even more dangerous, noting that studies and visits to Acorn Lane indicate that it has a lot of traffic on it, which it was not built for. Mr. Anderson indicated that White Oak Road is a very busy road and if more traffic is put on it to merge with the traffic closer to Route13, it would be helpful to have a corridor connection to Route 1 planned for future growth. He stated that a connector would be easy and doable and, in his view, is as important as the connector with Dover Downs and the mall. Mr. Anderson noted that a connector had been discussed but, as members had heard during their meeting of March 27, 2018, the City must request it because it was not known that the City is interested in making this vital economic development effort happen. Mayor Christiansen advised that he is the Chair of the MPO. He stated that the MPO was able to do a little research on this, and the subject of a connector was broached briefly as the GOTP progressed. Mayor Christiansen noted that Route 1 was intended from its outset to have limited access, and they fought hard for consideration of numerous exits to the City. Mayor Christiansen stated that they had to battle with the State regarding Puncheon Run and the exit at Route 8 because, according to federal plans, Route 1 was supposed to have very limited access, with the major exits to the city at Scarborough Road and the exit blending back into Route 1 heading toward the beach. He indicated that consideration probably should have been given as the GOTP came about, noting that he was told that the amount of car traffic in the traffic studies at that point in time didn’t justify further study of a bonafide exit there. Mayor Christiansen concurred that the City should probably proceed with sending a letter to the MPO to request looking into a connector. He noted that the MPO has technical staff on board, such as Mr. Galvin, who can assist the City with where to start on this.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2018 PAGE 17 Mr. Neil moved to recommend drafting a letter to the Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in support of a connection to Route 1 in the area of the Garrison Tract on White Oak Road (Attachment #5). The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Official Request for Comparison Analysis of Nature and Status Update: 2015, 2016 and 2017 Community Complaints against Dover Police Officers (Mr. Sudler) Mr. Sudler stated that he felt it is important, in monitoring community and police relations, to review and incorporate citizens’ concerns and the nature of complaints submitted to the Police Chief or Dover Police Department’s Internal Affairs Unit in the Police Chief’s annual report. Police Chief Marvin Mailey reviewed the Dover Police Department Internal Affairs Citizen Complaint Statistical Summary 2015-2016-2017. He stated that this document was generated by Lieutenant Christopher Hermance of the Internal Affairs Unit and included a sum total of citizen complaints made against police officers. Chief Mailey explained that citizen complaints come primarily through face-to-face contact with an on-duty supervisor, and when a citizen has a complaint against an officer’s actions, they come to the Police Department, contact the on-duty supervisor, and ask to file a complaint. He advised that typically these complaints can be fielded and addressed by the supervisor and a resolution can be made at that time. Chief Mailey noted that if the complainant is not happy, they are given and execute a citizen’s complaint form, which goes through Major Tim Stump, Deputy Chief of Police, who reviews the matter and then passes it on to the Internal Affairs Unit. He advised that complaints can also be filed electronically on the Police Department’s website, doverpolice.org, by filling out a form, which is submitted directly to Lieutenant Hermance and then goes to Major Stump. Chief Mailey explained that the Police Department received 14 complaints against officers in 2015, which were investigated in each and every case. He stated that some of these complaints dealt with unlawful execution of a search warrant, where the person alleged that the police had no right to enter the premises; harassment by a police officer; unlawful entry into a citizen’s residence; misconduct on the part of an officer; unnecessary force by an officer for a juvenile that was in custody; unprofessional behavior during a traffic stop; and police profiling. Chief Mailey informed members that when a complaint is received by the Police Department, they conduct a full investigation, contact and speak with the complainant, and bring them in for an interview. He noted that the Department has a policy that governs how they do this, so that it is not done differently on each occasion. Chief Mailey advised that the complainant is met and interviewed by the investigator and a statement is taken. He stated that, at that time, they try to obtain any information, such as any witnesses; video; the location, time, and date; and the other people who were present. Chief Mailey explained that they then conduct the investigation; obtain information; contact the people and get independent statements from them and see what they saw and what happened. He stated that finally the officer is brought in and is given the opportunity to have representation with them, because it is an Internal Affairs investigation. Chief Mailey noted that, under the rules of Garrity, officers are not allowed to lie, and if an officer lies during an investigation they can be terminated on the spot. Chief Mailey advised that there is no wiggle room where this is concerned, and if he is conducting an investigation and an officer is less than truthful, they can be up for termination and they are fired.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2018 PAGE 18 Chief Mailey advised that, in 2015, 14 complaints were fielded by the Department and when the investigations were completed, none of the complaints were sustained and none of the officers were found to be at fault. He indicated that there are varying degrees of involvement for officers, as follows: 1) exonerated, which means that the officer was there and his or her actions were deemed to be within policy and the law and above board; 2) not involved, which is when an officer alleged to be involved in an incident was, in fact, not there; 3) not sustained, which means the officer took action but there was no harm on the part of a violation or the law; and 4) sustained, which means that the officer was found at fault. Chief Mailey stated that the Department received five (5) complaints in 2016, completed five (5) investigations, and none of the officers were at fault and no charges were sustained. He explained that the complaints included an allegation that an officer had failed to protect a subject’s private property after that person had been arrested at a residence where they were staying; a dispute over the charges that officers placed against a person that was arrested; an allegation that an officer was rude during a vehicle stop and the Police Department had videotape evidence that proved the officer was not rude and their actions were within policy standards; and an allegation that an officer submitted false evidence during a criminal case. Chief Mailey advised that in 2017 they had 19 complaints, some regarding a subject who complained that he was detained at gunpoint; an unlawful search; a dispute over a Dover Code citation that was issued; a person who alleged their daughter was harassed by a police officer; three (3) counts of rudeness by three (3) different victims and three (3) different officers; one (1) count of excessive force alleged on an officer; failure to conduct a follow-up investigation on a complaint; another excessive force; rudeness; profiling; stop without cause; one (1) person who complained that the officer would not fill out a crime report on what the person was alleging; alleged false arrest; alleged harassment by police; another incident where excessive force was alleged; another failure to investigate; and false information on a police report. Chief Mailey advised that the 19 complaints for 2017 were investigated and no officers were found to be at fault, for a total of 38 complaints over the last three (3) years. Chief Mailey stated that after the investigation is conducted, the findings are submitted to the complainant, so the complainant does receive feedback from the Police Department from their allegations. He noted that if an officer is found at fault, the Police Department cannot tell the complainant if the officer received discipline, under the Law Enforcement Officer’s Bill of Rights, 11 Del. C. §9200, which spells out certain rights the officer has under Internal Affairs investigations. Chief Mailey informed members that the Department receives a lot of complaints, noting that the Mayor had called him several times about people who were not happy with police services and a lot of the time they are able to settle those complaints in the Mayor’s Office. He stated that he follows up and gets back to those with complaints. Chief Mailey advised that the Department receives complaints by several methods, and each and every time they take out a complaint number through Internal Affairs. He explained that they do not put this information in their annual report because this is a confidentiality issue, noting that he had left the names of the officers and complainants out of the information that he had provided. Chief Mailey stated that other police officers do not even know that an officer is being investigated. He advised that when they launch an investigation and bring an officer in, the officer is sworn to secrecy and is not supposed to talk about the investigation or contact the complainant during the course of the investigation, unless the Police Department is trying to facilitate

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2018 PAGE 19 some kind of dialogue between the complainant and the officer, which had been done in the past and turned out well. Mayor Christiansen thanked Chief Mailey for reminding everybody that they try to resolve a lot of the issues in the Mayor’s Office, and he noted that they self-police the Department and investigate and take a long hard look at their own. He asked what recourse a person who files a complaint has to go above and beyond and make sure their issue has been properly addressed. Responding, Chief Mailey explained that the Department of Justice has an Office of Civil Rights and Public Trust that was started a little over a year ago. He noted that two (2) young ladies work with this Office in Dover and can receive complaints about police departments. Chief Mailey stated, for example, that if he made a complaint against the Mayor because he thought the Mayor stopped him for speeding because he is black, and the Police Department did an investigation and said that the Mayor operated within his powers as a police officer and did not find that he did anything wrong, Chief Mailey could go to the Attorney General’s Office of Civil Rights and Public Trust and file a complaint about the Police Department. He advised that this Office would launch an investigation, do interviews, collect statements, and come to a conclusion at the end of their investigation about how the Police Department operated. Chief Mailey explained that if the Police Department was cleared by the Attorney General’s Office, the complainant could contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which investigates police departments all the time for profiling, excessive force, and things of that nature. He advised that police departments come under a level of oversight which is called a consent decree if they are found to be operating not in the public’s best trust, and the federal government comes in and basically takes over the police department and runs it for the agency. Chief Mailey stated that the federal government looks through the police department’s records to see at what rate they are stopping people, what they are arresting people for, what kind of force they are using, if the officers are being properly trained, what supervision they are receiving, what complaints are being received from the community, and how those complaints are being entertained. Chief Mailey noted that the Dover Police Department has been accredited by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) seven (7) times, most recently just last year, and CALEA comes in and looks at documentation for all of their arrests, traffic stops, policies, procedures, and training principles. He stated that if the Department is not in compliance, they do not receive re-accreditation as a CALEA agency. Mr. Sudler stated that, moving forward, he was still interested in having an annual report, such as the Dover Police Department Internal Affairs Citizen Complaint Statistical Summary. He advised that he respected what Chief Mailey was saying and noted that no names had been mentioned. Mr. Sudler expressed his belief that it is very important to show all aspects of community relations, and that this was a big part of transparency and showed that members know that there are concerns, noting that when there is a complaint they will have done their due diligence. He stated that he was satisfied with how Chief Mailey had presented this information and that if Chief Mailey felt it was too detailed they could dummy it down. Mr. Sudler advised that he was looking forward to having something of this nature incorporated into the Police Department’s annual report so that everyone can work together. He stated that he did not want Chief Mailey to feel uncomfortable and that the Police Department was doing a great job. Mr. Sudler noted that no one, including himself, is perfect, but working on imperfections will make things perfect or a lot better in the City, the community, and police relations. He advised that he was trying to strengthen community relations in the Fourth District, which would reflect on the whole City of Dover.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2018 PAGE 20 Chief Mailey stated that he agreed with Mr. Sudler regarding transparency, noting that in 2015 or 2016 the Department had published their annual report from Internal Affairs on their website, and he planned to do this with the Dover Police Department Internal Affairs Citizen Complaint Statistical Summary 2015-2016-2017. He advised that the report did not have too much information in it to put out there, although he did not want to go into specific details regarding each incident because he thought that too intrusive. Chief Mailey stated that he is all about transparency, as he and Mr. Sudler had shared previously, and he did not think the Police Department was doing anything wrong and did not have a problem with anyone looking. He advised that the Department would put this report on their website so that everybody could understand how many complaints they have fielded, the nature of those complaints, and how they were resolved. Mr. Polce asked how the Dover Police Department compared to other policing agencies in Kent County, statewide, or nationally. Responding, Chief Mailey stated that traditionally internal affairs reports are not published, displayed, or put out for public consumption, noting that they could be requested through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and he did not know how the Department compares to other agencies. He explained that larger police departments have internal affairs units and, in the past, the Dover Police Department had conducted internal affairs investigations for other agencies. Chief Mailey advised that complaints on officers are not the only complaints that they look at, explaining that they also investigate officers internally without receiving a complaint. Chief Mailey stated that the Department looks at every use of force, and when an officer fills out a use of force report, this goes through the chain of command to a sergeant, a lieutenant, a captain, and to the major. He noted that the major reviews it and makes sure that the use of force is within policy. Chief Mailey explained, for instance, that if an officer tases someone, a use of force report is filled out, there should be supporting evidence as far as pictures of any injuries where the probes entered the suspect, and if there is any photographic evidence a photograph is taken. He stated that an incident report is filled out every time an officer uses force. Chief Mailey advised that a firearms discharge report is filled out every time an officer uses his handgun, it doesn’t matter if they are doing it to kill an injured deer or a rabid animal, and the report goes through the same chain to make sure how the firearm is used, that its use is appropriate, and that everything is in the report. He stated that he did not know how the Dover Police Department compares to other agencies because this is not openly shared and is not something that chiefs talk about. Chief Mailey indicated that they always know when an officer went over the line because it typically takes place in the media and they hear about it by that means. Chief Mailey noted that, as the Mayor had stated, the Department polices its own. Chief Mailey advised that there are a lot of times when citizens don’t make complaints and the Department is aware of violations and unfortunately has to arrest and discharge its officers. He stated that they do not want a culture in a police department of lawless behavior, unethical behavior, or misconduct. In response to Mr. Polce, Chief Mailey advised that he was not aware of a national, state, or county database with the percentage of substantiated claims versus those that are not, but could look and report back on this. He stated that he had gone to several Internal Affairs conferences and was not aware of any national database, like the FBI maintains that involve shootings, etc. Chief Mailey stated that the size of the Dover Police Department is approximately 100, although he does not have 100 officers working right now because of various issues. He advised that it was not

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2018 PAGE 21 bad to have 19 as the highest number of complaints in a year, looking at the size of the agency, the number of complaints received each year from citizens, and keeping in mind that throughout the day there are several hundred contacts between the community and police officers. Mr. Polce stated that he had been planning to apply this logic and that this was a minute percentage. He advised that he thought 14, five (5), and 19 claims per year, all of which were unsubstantiated, was tremendous work. He stated that he agreed with Mr. Sudler that this should be done in a transparent fashion and that an annual and private report would be beneficial. He asked Chief Mailey to continue his great work and to tell his officers to do so. Mr. Anderson thanked Chief Mailey, and Mr. Sudler for bringing up the issue. He also thanked the Department for making it easier and more accessible for complaints to be filed, which can be done through the Department’s website and social media. Mr. Anderson advised that people used to call him and say that they wanted to file a complaint and did not know how, and he never gets those calls now. He stated that a small rise in complaints may be a measure of success because this is more accessible and people feel comfortable that they can make complaints and not be retaliated against. Mr. Anderson advised that he saw this as part of transparency and opening up and that it is a good thing that everyone is willing to talk about complaints, investigate them appropriately, and get the appropriate result. Chief Mailey informed members that, within the Department’s policies, officers have to provide people with their full name and badge number if the person requests it and do not have the option to refuse, so that a proper investigation can be conducted. By unanimous consent, the Committee recommended acceptance of the report. Dover Police Cadet Program - Discussion of Official Cadet Duties Required Under the Grant (Mr. Sudler) Mr. Sudler stated that members had recently had a variety of presentations pertaining to parking lot construction and economic growth and development; however, a repetitive issue was safety concerns downtown, especially in the Fourth District. He stated that, as a Fourth District Councilman, he thought that patrol officers or cadets were needed on New, Queen, Fulton, or Kirkwood Streets, noting that he was sure Mr. Anderson would concur. He asked if this was doable and, if not, what was needed to make it doable, and what the scope is of the concentrated area that the cadets patrol. In response, Police Chief Marvin Mailey explained that when the cadet program was first reborn, cadets were kept strictly on Loockerman Street as a visible presence to move up and down and enforce City ordinance violations only. He noted that cadets do not have powers of arrest because they are not police officers and are not trained to make arrests. Chief Mailey advised that cadets have protective gear on them in case they are assaulted, and they are there to observe, report, and take limited enforcement action, issuing citations for City ordinance violations for open container, panhandling, and things of that nature. He stated that the cadets are young people who are not trained in law enforcement, so the Police Department tries to keep their activities to Loockerman Street; events in Dover much like Comic-Con, with which they assist; and directing traffic for parades. Chief Mailey advised that the cadets perform extra duty for Firefly or NASCAR races, but the Department does not put the cadets in neighborhoods where there is high crime.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2018 PAGE 22 Chief Mailey stated that Mr. Garfinkel had made the same request as Mr. Sudler, and that the Department could do the same thing for the Fourth District that they did for Mr. Garfinkel’s neighborhood. He explained that the Police Department has an abundance of grant money for foot patrols and had been assigning extra foot patrols to officers in neighborhoods. Chief Mailey advised that their approach to fighting crime is to move about the City, doing enforcement in various areas with various units to drive the crime rate down. Chief Mailey stated that the Fourth District encompasses one (1) of the sectors or districts that receives a steady diet of law enforcement by different departments. He advised that one (1) day the motorcycle unit might be there, the next day the patrol unit, and the next day the drug unit. Chief Mailey indicated that the cadets are not equipped and experienced enough to be in some of these neighborhoods, not because the neighborhoods are bad, but sometimes crimes occur there. He noted that shootings, fights, and things of this nature happen in Towne Point, Capitol Green, Simon Circle, Manchester, and all over the City. Chief Mailey explained that cadets are not put in those arenas because they’re not equipped to deal with that level of criminal activity. He advised that officers are assigned to foot patrol those areas and that when he was a rookie they used to walk what was called Dover Project, which was a walking patrol downtown. Chief Mailey stated that two-man units used to walk up and down the streets, speak to people, and be a presence in the neighborhood. He stated that this is what the Department was planning to do, noting that they have to spend the grant money by June or July, so there would be a lot of police out doing extra duty and working, and the funds would not be coming out of the Department’s overtime budget. Chief Mailey asked to be informed of specific neighborhoods of concern and focused times when having officers in these areas would be more beneficial, and the Department would provide the opportunity for officers to sign up for extra duty. He noted that they cannot mandate officers to work extra duty and officers work it as they want to on their time off. Chief Mailey stated that officers like to be paid overtime, so someone would sign up and patrol the neighborhoods. Mr. Sudler stated that he had three (3) main areas of concern, and the first was in the area of the liquor store near 33 West behind Wells Fargo at the parking lot and alley. Chief Mailey noted that this is State Street Alley. Mr. Sudler advised that he has a friend who works and lives in the area with her six-year-old daughter, and they are often approached by panhandlers. He stated that a more severe concern was at the Fulton Street Deli, noting that he had seen tremendous work there and the area had been cleaned up a lot; however, he still sees a little activity there that could be addressed, which would help keep trash and debris from being thrown there. Mr. Sudler noted that he thought this area had improved 75% to 80% from a year and a half ago, when he started to complain about it. He advised that he was still getting a lot of calls about New Street, especially in the summertime, regarding individuals standing or loitering in front of their homes or near porch areas. Mr. Sudler stated that this had calmed down, noting that he rides through there occasionally and stops to see what’s going on. He advised that he gets applause and appreciation from his community about this area and can see a big difference, and he thanked Chief Mailey. Chief Mailey stated that all of the areas Mr. Sudler mentioned are on the Department’s radar screen, noting that Loockerman Street, State Street Alley, and South Bradford Street are all patrol zones for the cadets. He advised that Mr. Sudler’s concerns would be passed on and that Sergeant Hopkins supervises the cadets and was currently in the corner of the room providing security during the meeting. Chief Mailey stated that the police know what is going on at Fulton Street and patrol that area heavily because they get a lot of calls. He advised that he rides through New Street all the time,

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2018 PAGE 23 it is getting better, and it is not what it was five (5) or ten years ago. Chief Mailey stated that the police walk a fine line there because they do not want to be so heavy handed that they feel they are harassing people for just standing there. He explained that the police know that people like to stand and talk, etc., and they don’t want people to feel like they can’t do this, but they have to be very smart about enforcement. Chief Mailey noted that the police don’t want it to seem like they are picking on a certain group of people just because they’re in that area. He stated that some people stop there just to talk and some stop there for criminal activity, and it is the Department’s job to figure out which one it is and that is what they are doing. Mr. Polce asked if the Department had been able to use the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE) Program at Delaware State University (DSU) for the cadet program. Responding, Chief Mailey advised that the Department has one (1) young man who is part of the NOBLE Program, is a cadet, and is one (1) of their hopeful police applicants for the future. He stated that he is a member of NOBLE himself, so he gets a chance to meet all the young people at DSU that are part of this program. Chief Mailey advised that he would be participating in a town hall meeting next Thursday at 7:00 p.m. at DSU, and members of DSU’s criminal justice program would be in attendance. Mr. Slavin noted that the cadet program was having retention issues, which were not necessarily bad issues but showed that the City was putting quality people through the program. He stated that he would be interested in having a conversation with the Mayor and Chief Mailey about how to restructure the program to incentivize people to stay on for a longer period of time and had some ideas. Responding, Chief Mailey stated that he would be open to anything, noting that they have four (4) cadets out of nine (9) positions, and three (3) are dedicated to the library. He stated that they try to balance the Loockerman Street area and the library, which is their primary assignment. Mr. Lewis stated that clarification was needed with respect to what the cadets can and can’t do under federal grant guidelines. In response, Chief Mailey advised that the cadet program was restarted with $558,000 from the Neighborhood Building Block Grant Fund in 2014 or 2015. He stated that, in 2015, the Police Department received State Joint Finance Committee (JFC) funds which were used to continue the program and there were no guidelines pertaining that funding. Chief Mailey stated that the Police Department was no longer receiving any form of federal money or subsidy for the cadet program and it was being funded by the City of Dover. In response to Mr. Lewis, Chief Mailey stated that there was a possibility that cadets could patrol some of the City parks when the Department gets up to full capacity with cadets. He advised that when the program was previously fully staffed, the Department was trying to add parks to patrol assignments. Chief Mailey noted that the cadets are trained to ride police mountain bikes, and they will be seen patrolling on those bikes in the summertime at Silver Lake and White Oak Parks. Chief Mailey advised that he just wanted to get nine (9) good cadets out there. Mr. Sudler thanked Chief Mailey for being amenable and professional in all of the presentations he had provided for members. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2018 PAGE 24 Meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m. Timothy A. Slavin Council President TAS/TM/js/dd S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Committee-Minutes\2018\04-24-2018 CCW Minutes.wpd Attachments Attachment #1 - A map, entitled “City of Dover Bicycle Facilities,” provided by Mr. Jeff Niezgoda Attachment #2 - A presentation, entitled “Senator Bikeway Improvements,” provided by Mr. Jeff Niezgo da, Mr. John Hermes, and Mr. Anthony Aglio Attachment #3 - A presentation, entitled “Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements,” provided by Mr. Jeff Niezgoda Attachment #4 - A presentation, entitled “Division Street - Capital Gateway Plan,” provided by Ms. Andrea Trabelsi Attachment #5 - Draft letter in support of a connection to Route 1 in the area of the Garrison Tract on White Oak Road

ATTACHMENT #1 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 04/24/2018

ATTACHMENT #2 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 04/24/2018

ATTACHMENT #3 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 04/24/2018 Contract No. T201620004 Century Engineering, Inc. 4134 N. DuPont Highway, Dover, DE 19901

Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements Contract No. T201620004 March 2016 Prepared for: Division of Planning 800 Bay Road PO Box 778 Dover, Delaware 19903 Prepared by: 4134 N. Dupont Highway Dover, Delaware 19901

Transportation Alternatives Program Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements March 2016 Table of Contents Location Maps………………………………………………………………………… Section 1 Project Narrative...…………………………………………………………………. Section 2 Concept Plans……………………….………………………………………………... Section 3 Concept Renderings…………………………..…………………………………... Section 4 Project Photographs………………………………………………………………. Section 5 CTP Estimate………………………………………………………………………….. Section 6 Public Involvement Summary………………………………………………… Section 7 City of Dover Existing Infrastructure & Tree Inventory…………..Section 8 Table of Contents

Transportation Alternatives Program Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements March 2016 Section 1

Transportation Alternatives Program Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements March 2016 Section 2

Transportation Alternatives Program Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements March 2016 Project Need Bradford Street is located in the downtown Dover area, running parallel to and located in between Governors Avenue and State Street. The portion of Bradford Street included in this project is bounded on the north by Division Street and the south by Loockerman Street. This portion of Bradford Street has a high volume of pedestrian and bicycle traffic due to the close proximity of Wesley College, the downtown Dover area and the surrounding community. The intersecting roads are currently non-signalized and are used by a variety of vehicles, including tractor trailer delivery trucks. Pedestrians and bicyclists do not have a dedicated, ADA compliant facility that is safe to travel upon through the project area. There is a need to improve pedestrian circulation and safety while also providing a gateway for students and the community to the surrounding downtown area. Project Description and Purpose The Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements project involves the construction of pedestrian facilities along a 1200’ ± (0.23 mile) section of Bradford Street between Loockerman Street (K23) and Division Street (K51). This will provide a continuous travel route for pedestrians between Wesley College and the downtown area. To be consistent with the surrounding downtown area while maintaining the historic feel of the area, the preferred sidewalk section of 6’ wide concrete sidewalk with brick edging on both sides will be used. The existing sidewalk and buffer area between the sidewalk and curb will be replaced to provide an adequate ADA- compliant route and to maintain consistency through the corridor. The existing curb will be replaced with curb and gutter to help with the flow of stormwater. Additional decorative pedestrian lighting will be installed between Reed Street and Division Street to increase pedestrian safety and aesthetics. Crosswalk striping will also be installed at the intersection of Bradford Street and Reed Street to increase pedestrian safety. ADA-compliant curb ramps will be installed. Page 1

Transportation Alternatives Program Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements March 2016 Existing Conditions Bradford Street is a two-lane road that begins at the intersection with Loockerman Street and runs north, with the project limits ending at the intersection with Division Street. Bradford Street intersects with Reed Street along the way. All intersections are un-signalized with stop conditions on Bradford Street at each location. Loockerman Street and Division Street are “Minor Arterials” with Bradford Street and Reed Street being “Local” roads, according to the 2005 DelDOT Kent County Functional Classification Map. Bradford Street is a two-lane roadway with approximately 11’ ± lanes and 8’ shoulders, including on-street parking. The existing pedestrian facilities are comprised of a 5’-6’ ± wide brick and/or concrete sidewalk on both sides of Bradford Street. There is a variable width buffer area between the back of the curb and the edge of the sidewalk that consists of brick, block pavers, concrete and/or grass. The Bradford Street and Loockerman Street T-intersection is currently a one-way stop condition, allowing Loockerman Street as the through movement. This intersection currently has a pedestrian crosswalk and newly installed curb ramps along Loockerman Street. The Bradford Street and Reed Street intersection is currently a two-way stop condition, allowing Reed Street as the through movement. This intersection currently does not have any pedestrian crosswalks and the curb ramps do not meet ADA standards. The Bradford Street and Division Street intersection is currently a two-way stop condition, allowing Division Street as the through movement. This intersection currently has pedestrian crosswalks in all directions and newly installed curb ramps. The curb ramps and pedestrian crosswalk traversing Bradford Street on the south side of the intersection need to be replaced due to their poor condition and not meeting ADA standards. The right-of-way along Loockerman, Bradford, Reed and Division Streets is approximately 60’ wide based on preliminary plan research. The existing utilities on the project include underground and aerial electric, telephone, cable, gas, sewer, water, heating fuel and stormwater. There is currently decorative lighting along Bradford Street, between Loockerman Street and Reed Street and street lighting along Bradford Street, between Reed Street and Division Street. The intersection of Bradford Street and Reed Street has standing water after rainfall events. There are four drainage inlets at this intersection that drain the stormwater run-off from Bradford Street. There are two drainage inlets north of Loockerman Street that drain the stormwater run-off from Bradford Street in this area. There are no wetlands or historic structures within the project limits per initial coordination with DelDOT Environmental section. The project is within the City of Dover’s Historic District. Page 2

Transportation Alternatives Program Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements March 2016 Proposed Improvements The proposed improvements include the construction of a new 6’ wide concrete sidewalk with brick edging on both sides, from Loockerman Street to Division Street on both sides of Bradford Street (1200’ each side, 2400’ total). Through the Commercial areas and in front of The People’s Church of Dover, the 4’ buffer area between the curb and sidewalk will consist of brick. This will provide a visual distinction of where the walkway is while also maintaining the historic feel. Through the Residential areas, the 4’ buffer area between the curb and sidewalk will consist of grass. This will reduce impacts to utilities, trees, landscaping, and other permanent structures that are costly to remove or relocate. Crosswalks will be provided at the intersection of Bradford Street and Reed Street and also on the south side of Division Street. All curb ramps within the project limits will be constructed to meet ADA-compliance. Temporary easements will be necessary throughout the project limits. The concrete sidewalk with brick edging on both sides is the City’s preferred sidewalk section. Another alternative that was considered was brick sidewalk with the buffer area between the curb and sidewalk consisting of brick, concrete and/or grass. The City’s Historic District Commission was strongly in favor of the brick alternative. However, when considering the cost of installation, cost of maintenance and the potential long term ADA accessibility issues of using concrete versus brick, the City decided to use concrete. To try to compromise with the Historic District Commission, the City decided to use the brick edging on both sides of the concrete sidewalk. The preferred sidewalk section has been used elsewhere within the City and has all of the benefits of using concrete sidewalk while providing the historic feel of the surrounding area. Type 3 curb and gutter (6” in height) will be placed throughout the entire project limits to direct stormwater to drainage facilities and to delineate the edge of roadway. There are no tax ditches, jurisdictional waterways, or wetland impacts anticipated with this project. The Type 3 curb and gutter (8” in height) is the City’s standard. A height waiver from the City Manager is needed for the use of the proposed 6” high curb and gutter. The utility poles are not anticipated to be relocated. The decorative lighting between Loockerman Street and Reed Street is to remain. Decorative lighting between Reed Street and Division Street will be installed in addition to the street lighting that is to remain. There is underground gas, water, sewer and electric within the project limits. The accessories (test valves, valves) to the service lines have the potential of being impacted with these improvements. The existing trees within the project limits have been evaluated by the City. The City has determined what trees will remain, will be removed and where new trees can be installed. The City is also inventorying the locations of the existing utility features as part of an internal Public Works project. Under this Public Works project, the City will be updating the sewer and water Page 3

Transportation Alternatives Program Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements March 2016 lines where necessary. The City will also be repaving the streets within the project limits after the sewer and water infrastructure work is complete. Existing parking will not be impacted. Sharrows will be installed within the project limits. The potential to install bike racks will be evaluated within the project limits. Other amenities, such as trash receptacles and benches, are not proposed. Stormwater Management It is anticipated that this project will comply with all requirements of the current Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Regulations (DSSR) for the Standard Plan under Section 3.01.1.10.1 Sidewalk, Trail or Other Linear Impervious Surfaces of the Sediment and Stormwater Technical Document. The requirements specify that the proposed limit of disturbance (LOD) for the project is to be less than 5 acres and no more than 1 acre shall be disturbed at any one time. Furthermore, no area within the project limits is classified as wooded based upon 2007 Delaware Land Use/Land Cover data and that no new impervious area is proposed as a result of the construction. For this project, the total anticipated LOD is approximately 0.80 acres and the proposed improvements result in approximately 0.01 acres decrease in impervious cover. In addition, the 2007 Delaware Land Use/Land Cover consists of Institutional/Governmental and Mixed Urban or Built-up Land. Since this project is expected to comply under the aforementioned Standard Plan requirements and it reduces the overall impervious area, no stormwater facilities or modifications to increase the capacity of the existing storm drain system are proposed. Environmental Permits and Agency Coordination The following is a list of permits and agency coordination that will be necessary in order to construct this project:  No detailed SHPO coordination was conducted. The project was presented to the City’s Historic Commission. Continued coordination with DelDOT’s Environmental Section will be performed during the next phase.  There are no regulatory waters or wetlands within the project and therefore there are no environmental permits.  Coordination with the City of Dover to ensure this project is consistent with their standards and planned projects.  No utility test holes were performed.  No hazardous material work was considered. Page 4

Transportation Alternatives Program Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements March 2016 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions The following assumptions and limiting conditions were considered in the preparation of this conceptual plan package:  Easement requirements will be donated from the property owners.  Sidewalk pavement section assumed as: o 6” Portland Cement Concrete o 6” GABC  Brick border section assumed as: o Brick Paver o 1” Dry Mortar Mix Setting Bed o 6” Portland Cement Concrete o 4” GABC  Curb Ramp and Driveway pavement section assumed as: o 6” Portland Cement Concrete o 6” GABC  Pavement patch section assumed as: o 2” WMA, Superpave, Type C o 5” WMA, Superpave, Type B o 8” GABC  No subsurface investigation was performed. Subbase materials are assumed to be adequate. Soil borings will be performed in the next phase as required.  Limits of existing right of way are based on preliminary historic plan review, current owner research of public records and field research. Additional research and survey is required to confirm the location of the right-of-way, easements and property lines.  Topographic and property survey was not performed. Information contained herein regarding topographic features was obtained by site visit observation. Page 5

January 25, 2016 Re: Bradford Street—Streetscape Enhancements To Whom It May Concern, Century Engineering, Inc. (Century) was retained by the Delaware Department of Transportation and completed a waters of the U.S. investigation on January 20, 2016 in accordance with the Corps of Engineers’ Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), as well as the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2012) to identify those areas that are most likely within the regulatory purview of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In addition to Federal Regulations, wetlands and waterways investigations were conducted in accordance with Delaware’s “Wetland Act” (1973) and subsequent regulations adopted three (3) years later, as well as the Subaqueous Lands Act (1969). The Bradford Street—Streetscape Enhancements Project is located in central Kent County, Delaware in the area known as Dover. The project largely follows existing roadway shoulders through urban development. Based on the onsite field investigation Century has identified no potentially jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. or waters jurisdictional to the State of Delaware. Sincerely, TJ Austin Environmental Scientist Century Engineering, Inc. 302-734-9188

Transportation Alternatives Program Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements March 2016 Section 3

N ST. REED ST AN LOOCKER . CHEVEUX SA M CHAPEL LON OF THE 4’ HOLY BRICK BUFFER DVFA SPIRIT 5’ 5’ 5’ CONCRETE CONCRETE CONCRETE SIDEWALK 4’ SIDEWALK 4’ SIDEWALK NE SHEET 2 M ATCHLI W/ BRICK BRICK W/ BRICK GRASS W/ BRICK EDGING BUFFER EDGING BUFFER EDGING VENT VENT WV D.I. D.I. D.I. S. BRADFORD ST. D.I. WV WV VENT WV WV VENT WV VENT WV FUEL WV WV G:\PROJECTS\155002.00 (Del DOT Agm t. 1730 TAP)\155002.08 (Task 8, Bradford Street Concept)\CADD FI LES\Base\cp01_BS.dgn 33 WEST 5’ 4’ 5’ 4’ 5’ CONCRETE BRICK CONCRETE GRASS CONCRETE SIDEWALK BUFFER SIDEWALK BUFFER SIDEWALK W/ BRICK W/ BRICK W/ BRICK EDGING EDGING EDGING WELLS 4’ FARGO GRASS BUFFER LEGEND PROPOSED BRICK PROPOSED CONCRETE PROPOSED PATCHING PROPOSED CURB PROPOSED GRASS AREA EXISTING TREES EXISTING DECORATIVE LIGHTING PROPOSED DECORATIVE LIGHTING ADDENDUMS / REVISIONS CONTRACT SHEET NO. SCALE BRIDGE NO. X PM DELAWARE BRADFORD STREET T201620004 1 3/17/2016 0 30 60 90 DESIGNED BY: MBR CONCEPT PLAN 1:52:27 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEET STREETSCAPE ENHANCEMENTS COUNTY TOTAL SHTS. KENT CHECKED BY: 2

N ST. THE DI VISI ON PEOPLE’S CHURCH OF DOVER 5’ 5’ CONCRETE CONCRETE SIDEWALK 4’ SIDEWALK 4’ NE SHEET 1 M ATCHLI W/ BRICK BRICK W/ BRICK GRASS EDGING BUFFER EDGING BUFFER WV WV WV S. BRADFORD ST. WV WV WV WV WV G:\PROJECTS\155002.00 (Del DOT Agm t. 1730 TAP)\155002.08 (Task 8, Bradford Street Concept)\CADD FI LES\Base\cp02_BS.dgn 5’ 4’ 5’ 4’ CONCRETE GRASS CONCRETE GRASS SIDEWALK BUFFER SIDEWALK BUFFER W/ BRICK W/ BRICK EDGING EDGING LEGEND PROPOSED BRICK PROPOSED CONCRETE PROPOSED PATCHING PROPOSED CURB PROPOSED GRASS AREA EXISTING TREES EXISTING DECORATIVE LIGHTING PROPOSED DECORATIVE LIGHTING ADDENDUMS / REVISIONS CONTRACT SHEET NO. SCALE BRIDGE NO. X DELAWARE 1:53:20 PM BRADFORD STREET T201620004 2 3/17/2016 0 30 60 90 DESIGNED BY: MBR CONCEPT PLAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEET STREETSCAPE ENHANCEMENTS COUNTY TOTAL SHTS. KENT CHECKED BY: 2

Transportation Alternatives Program Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements March 2016 Section 4

Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements Bradford Street (looking north) at Loockerman Street EXISTING CONDITIONS PROPOSED RENDERING Rendering—1

Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements Bradford Street (looking south) toward Reed Street EXISTING CONDITIONS PROPOSED RENDERING Rendering—2

Transportation Alternatives Program Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements March 2016 Section 5

Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements Bradford Street (facing north) from Loockerman Street Bradford Street (facing north) toward Reed Street Project Photographs—1

Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements Bradford Street (facing north) from Reed Street Bradford Street (facing north) toward Division Street Project Photographs—2

Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements Bradford Street (facing south) from Division Street Bradford Street (facing south) toward Reed Street Project Photographs—3

Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements Bradford Street (facing south) from Reed St: Ponding at curb ramp Bradford Street (facing south) Project Photographs—4

Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements Bradford Street (facing south) toward Loockerman Street Bradford Street (facing south) toward Loockerman Street Project Photographs—5

Transportation Alternatives Program Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements March 2016 Section 6

CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECT COST ESTIMATE 1. NAME OF PROJECT Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements Kent Subdivision or Road Name County 2. LIMITS Street Name or Road Number From To Length Bradford Street Loockerman Street Division Street ~1200' 3. ESTIMATE REQUESTED BY: Jeff Niezgoda for (check one) Project initiation Name Estimate only Section or Legis. Dist. 4. DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT: The project will construct new concrete sidewalks with brick edging on both sides, from Loockerman Street to Division Street on both sides of Bradford Street. Improvements include pedestrian street lighting, ADA compliant facilities and new curb and gutter. 4. PROJECT IN C.I.P. Yes No If "Yes", indicate year F.Y. 5. TYPICAL SECTION Sidewalk: Concrete: 6" PCC over 6" GABC Brick Border: Brick Paver over 1" Dry Mortar Mix Setting Bed over 6" PCC over 4" GABC Roadway Patch: 2" Type C WMA over 5" Type B WMA over 8" GABC 6. STATE MAINTAINED CITY MAINTAINED PRIVATE OTHER (specify) 7. COST ESTIMATE: from C.I.P. Estimate prepared Date: estimate form by: a. Location and Environmental Studies $0 Part I Century Engineering, I 03/17/16 (Part I to be included only for class "I" and "III" projects) b. Preliminary Engineering $125,000 Part II Century Engineering, I 03/17/16 c. Real Estate $0 Part III Century Engineering, I 03/17/16 d. Construction * $856,635 Part IV Century Engineering, I 03/17/16 e. TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $981,635 * Includes Utilities, Traffic, and C.E. APPROVED Valid thru Date Assistant Director, M&O/Transportation Solutions/Planning Date Delaware Department of Transportation CIP Estimate Last Modified: 3/17/2016

CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECT COST ESTIMATE (Current Dollars) Part I of V Contract No. T201620004 Project Title: Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements PART I - LOCATION & ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES (N/A) (Part I to be included only for class "I" & "III" projects) A. ENGINEERING E. HISTORIC $0 (Includes NEPA) B. ARCHAEOLOGY $0 1. Phase 1 (study) 1. Phase I (study) 2. Phase 2 (study) 2. Phase 2 (study) 3. Mitigation (by loc./env.) 3. Phase 3 (mitigation) 4. Mitigation (by design) yes no C. WETLANDS $0 F. NOISE $0 1. Delineation (study) 1. Studies 2. Permit preparation 2. Mitigation (by design) yes no 3. Mitigation (design) G. OTHER $0 D. HAZARDOUS MATERIAL $0 1. 1. Phase 1 (study) 2. 2. Phase 2 (study) 3. Phase 3 (remediation) TOTAL COSTS FOR PART I (A thru G) ROUNDED $0 CONTINGENCY COSTS 10% $0 (normally 5% for large projects and 10% for small projects - to be approved by section head) (% used) TOTAL LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES COSTS $0 (also total for Construction Project Estimate form line 7a) Estimator: Century Engineering, Inc. (MBR) Date: 03/17/16 Delaware Department of Transportation CIP Estimate Last Modified: 3/17/2016

CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECT COST ESTIMATE (Current Dollars) Part II of V Contract No. T201620004 Project Title: Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements PART II - PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING A. SURVEYS $25,000 8. Subdivision $0 a. Inhouse 1. Inhouse b. Consultant 2. Consultant $25,000 c. Railroad P.E. B. DESIGN ENGINEERING $100,000 9. Other (specify) $0 a. 1. Design $100,000 b. a. Inhouse b. Consultant $100,000 C. ENVIRON. ASSESSMENT $0 (use for class "II" projects only) 2. Traffic $0 a. Inhouse 1. Wetlands $0 b. Consultant 2. Hazardous Materials 3. Noise 3. Real Estate Plan Preparation $0 4. Historic a. Inhouse 5. Archaeology b. Consultant 6. Other a. 4. Utilities $0 b. a. Inhouse b. Consultant Loc/Environ c. Test Holes Estimator: Date: d. Utility Company D. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION 5. Materials & Research Cont/Admin 6. Borings Estimator: Date: 7. Pile Load Tests TOTAL COSTS FOR PART II (A thru D) ROUNDED $125,000 CONTINGENCY COSTS $0 (normally 5% for large projects and 10% for small projects - to be approved by section head) (% used) TOTAL PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING $125,000 (also total for Construction Project Estimate form line 7b) Estimator: Century Engineering, Inc. (MBR) Date: 03/17/16 Delaware Department of Transportation CIP Estimate Last Modified: 3/17/2016

CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECT COST ESTIMATE (Current Dollars) Part III of V Contract No. T201620004 Project Title: Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements PART III - REAL ESTATE A. REAL PROPERTY $0 C. ASBESTOS PROGRAM $0 1. Total acquisitions 1. Testing 2. Partial acquisitions 2. Abatement 3. Permanent easements D. DEMOLITION 4. Temporary easements E. APPRAISAL FEES 5. Wetland mitigation F. STAFF Other (specify) 6. G. SETTLEMENT 7. H. REAL ESTATE ENG. $0 B. RELOCATION $0 1. Consultant survey 1. Residential 2. As acquired plans 2. Business I. CONDEMNATION Other (specify) 3. J. OTHER (specify) $0 4. 1. 2. TOTAL COSTS FOR PART III (A thru J) ROUNDED $0 CONTINGENCY COSTS $0 (normally 5% for large projects and 10% for small projects - to be approved by section head) (% used) TOTAL REAL ESTATE COSTS $0 (also total for Construction Project Estimate form line 7c) Estimator: Century Engineering, Inc. (MBR) Date: 03/17/16 Delaware Department of Transportation CIP Estimate Last Modified: 3/17/2016

CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECT COST ESTIMATE (Current Dollars) Part IV-A of V Contract No. T201620004 Project Title Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements PART IV -CONSTRUCTION A. ROADWAY/APPROACH B. STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION $573,000 CONSTRUCTION $0 1. Grading a. Excavation 1. New Bridge (includes SWM pond) b. Borrow a. Type 2. Drainage b. Size 3. Pavement c. $/s.f. a. Surface 2. Old Structure Rem. b. Base a. Type c. Subbase b. Size 4. Erosion/Sed. Cont. c. $/c.y. 5. Miscellaneous a. Curb/Gutter 3. Retaining Wall b. Sidewalk a. Type c. Guardrail b. Size d. C.P.M. Schedule c. $/c.y. e. Clear/Grubb 4. Box Culvert f. Field Office a. Type Other (specify) g. b. Size h. See Concept Estimate $573,000 c. $/s.f. i. C. LANDSCAPING $0 j. 1. Beautification k. 2. Noise Mitigation l. 3. Visual Mitigation m. 4. Tree Mitigation D. MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC (refer to Capital Improvement Project form, Part IV - Continued) Delaware Department of Transportation CIP Estimate Last Modified: 3/17/2016

CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECT COST ESTIMATE (Current Dollars) Part IV-B of V Contract No. T201620004 Project Title Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements PART IV -CONSTRUCTION (CONTINUED) E. PROJECT TRAFFIC ITEMS $0 P. REIMBURSABLE UTILITY $0 RELOCATIONS BY OTHERS 1. Signing Structures (Enter on PNR funding line 7) a. Overhead Bridges 1. Water b. Cantilever Supports 2. Sanitary Sewer 2. Roadway Lighting 3. Electric 3. Pavement Markings 4. Telephone Other (specify) 4. 5. Gas F. WETLAND MITIGATION 6. CATV Other (specify) G. UTILITY RELOC. IN CONTRACT $0 7. 1. Water 8. 2. Sanitary Sewer Utilities Other (specify) Estimator: Date: 3. Q. TRAFFIC SECTION ITEMS $0 H. SUBTOTAL (A thru G) ROUNDED $573,000 (Enter on PNR funding line 6) 1. Signing I. MISC. ITEMS $57,300 (15% of H for large projects and 20% for small) 2. Signals (At SF submission use 10% and 5%) 10% 3. Detour Signing (% used) J. CONTRACTOR'S CONST. ENG. $28,650 4. DelTrac (normally 5% of H) 5% Other (specify) (% used) 5. K. INITIAL EXPENSE $28,650 Traffic (normally 5% of H) 5% Estimator: Date: (% used) L. CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY $57,300 (normally 10% of H) 10% (% used) M. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS (H thru L) $744,900 (Enter on PNR funding line 5) N. CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (normally 15% of construction costs) 15% $111,735 (Enter on PNR funding line 4) (% used) O. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS (Construction Costs + Construction Engineering) $856,635 (use this total + Q + P for Construction Project Estimate from line 7d) Estimator: Century Engineering, Inc. (MBR) Date: 03/17/16 Delaware Department of Transportation CIP Estimate Last Modified: 3/17/2016

CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECT COST ESTIMATE (Current Dollars) Part V of V Contract No. T201620004 Project Title: Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements SUMMARY PART I - LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES $0 (Part I to be included only for class "I" and "III" projects) PART II - PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING $125,000 PART III - REAL ESTATE $0 PART IV - CONSTRUCTION $856,635 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS $981,635 (also total for Construction Project Estimate from line 7c) Date: Project Manager REVIEWED & CONCURRED IN: Date: Section Head NOTE: Concurring section heads are to forward the original estimate copy to the Director of Transportation Solutions with one estimate copy each to the Assistant Director of Project Development, Assistant Director of Design Support, and the Cost Estimate Engineer. Delaware Department of Transportation CIP Estimate Last Modified: 3/17/2016

BRADFORD STREET STREETSCAPE ENHANCEMENTS Contract # T201620004 Preferred Alternative - March 14, 2016 ESTIMATE UNIT ITEM # TITLE UNIT TOTAL COST QUANTITY 201000 CLEARING AND GRUBBING LS $0.00 1 $0.00 202000 EXCAVATION AND EMBANKMENT CY $11.00 390 $4,290.00 209006 BORROW, TYPE F CY $7.00 349 $2,443.00 302007 GRADED AGGREGATE BASE COURSE, TYPE B CY $29.00 423 $12,267.00 302008 GRADED AGGREGATE BASE COURSE, TYPE B, PATCHING CY $40.00 $138.00 $5,520.00 401821 WMA, SUPERPAVE, TYPE C, 160 GYRATIONS, PG 64-22,PATCHING TON $100.00 71 $7,100.00 401822 WMA, SUPERPAVE, TYPE B, 160 GYRATIONS, PG 64-22,PATCHING TON $85.00 176 $14,960.00 701023 INTEGRAL PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE 3-6 LF $20.00 2,350 $47,000.00 705002 P.C.C. SIDEWALK, 6" SF $7.50 16,953 $127,147.50 705007 SIDEWALK SURFACE DETECTABLE WARNING SYSTEM SF $30.00 224 $6,720.00 705504 BRICK AND/OR BL0CK SIDEWALK SF $14.00 6,062 $84,868.00 737523 PLANTING LS $0.00 1 $0.00 743000 MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC LS $64,600.00 1 $64,600.00 743051 FLAGGER, KENT COUNTY, STATE HOUR $50.00 1,200 $60,000.00 743063 FLAGGER, KENT COUNTY, STATE, OVERTIME HOUR $60.00 300 $18,000.00 745604 FURNISH & INSTALL UP TO 4" GALVANIZED STEEL CONDUIT (TRENCH) LF $20.00 1,175 $23,500.00 746659 DECORATIVE LIGHT STANDARD AND FIXTURE, SINGLE EACH $3,000.00 11 $33,000.00 746852 POLE BASE, TYPE 6 EACH $1,000.00 11 $11,000.00 748015 PERMANENT PAVEMENT STRIPING, SYMBOL/LEGEND ALKYD-THERMOPLASTIC SF $6.00 634 $3,804.00 748530 REMOVAL OF PAVEMENT STRIPING SF $3.00 167 $501.00 748548 PERMANENT PAVEMENT STRIPING, EPOXY RESIN PAINT, WHITE/YELLOW, 5" LF $0.70 2,350 $1,645.00 750000 ADJUST WATER VALVE BOXES EACH $275.00 10 $2,750.00 758000 REMOVAL OF EXISTING PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT, CURB,SIDEWALK, ETC. SY $12.00 2,489 $29,868.00 762001 SAW CUTTING, HOT MIX LF $1.60 2,596 $4,153.60 762002 SAW CUTTING, CONCRETE, FULL DEPTH LF $4.15 566 $2,348.90 905005 INLET SEDIMENT CONTROL, CURB INLET EACH $100.00 4 $400.00 908010 TOPSOILING, 6" DEPTH SY $2.25 1,112 $2,502.00 908014 PERMANENT GRASS SEEDING, DRY GROUND SY $2.15 1,112 $2,390.80 Subtotal $573,000.00 MISC ITEMS 10% 1 $57,300.00 763000 Initial Expense 5% 1 $28,650.00 763501 Construction Engineering 5% 1 $28,650.00 CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY 10% 1 $57,300.00 Subtotal $744,900.00 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING - (INSPECTION, CCR, CE, MISC CONSTRUCTION ITEMS, ETC.) 15% $111,735.00 TOTAL FOR BASE CONSTRUCTION COST $856,635.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $856,635.00

Transportation Alternatives Program Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements March 2016 Section 7

Transportation Alternatives Program Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements March 2016 Public Involvement Summary This project has been presented at the following Dover workshops or meetings. These meetings are open to the public. Meeting: Date: Downtown Dover Partnership Board December 2, 2015 Torbert Funeral Chapels (Property owner) December 9, 2015 City’s Historic Commission December 17, 2015 Dolly and Vernon Ingram (Property owner) December 18, 2015 Public Workshop January 12, 2016 The public workshop was held on January 12, 2016 in the City of Dover’s large conference room at City Hall. The meeting notice was posted by DelDOT, the City of Dover and direct mailings were sent to all affected property owners. Attendance at the public workshop was good. Generally, the comments were mixed. The residents were supportive of the improvements overall, but had mixed preferences on the sidewalk material to be used. The City of Dover has been reaching out to property owners within the project limits to discuss the project. However, additional meetings may be required to meet individually with property owners, after delivery of this concept package, to address individual questions and concerns during the design phase. Page 1

Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements Transportation Alternatives Program Project Downtown Dover Partnership Board Meeting Date: December 2, 2015 NOTES OF MEETING DATE: December 2, 2015 PROJECT: Contract No. T201620004 Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements ATTENDEES: Ann Marie Townshend City of Dover Board of Directors Downtown Dover Partnership Jon Hermes Century Engineering Meghan Richardson Century Engineering PREPARED BY: Century Engineering This meeting was held to review the proposed alternatives and schedule for the Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements Transportation Alternatives Program Project. The following is a summary of the discussion. Discussion  The project background and details were presented to the board, including project limits, preferred sidewalk sections, funding and project timeline.  There was mixed discussion about material use (brick vs concrete) for the sidewalk section throughout the limits of the project. Century will send the board members the renderings of all of the sidewalk section alternatives, via Ann Marie.  The City and some members noted the high cost of maintaining brick while others said this corridor is a gateway between Wesley College and downtown and should have brick to highlight the corridor.  The group supported lighting along the project limits.  Construction timing with regards to the Christmas shopping season and maintaining access was important to the stakeholders.  Century will follow up with the DDP board during the design phase to provide them updates on the project. These notes represent the author’s best recollection of the discussion. If there are any revisions, please notify the author in writing within seven days of receipt of these notes. cc. attendees Jeff Niezgoda, DelDOT Sarah Coakley, DelDOT Bill Conway, Century Engineering

Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements Transportation Alternatives Program Project Torbert Funeral Chapels Meeting Date: December 9, 2015 NOTES OF MEETING DATE: December 9, 2015 PROJECT: Contract No. T201620004 Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements ATTENDEES: Gary Wallick Torbert Funeral Chapels Jon Hermes Century Engineering Meghan Richardson Century Engineering PREPARED BY: Century Engineering This meeting was held to discuss the proposed improvements and schedule for the Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements Transportation Alternatives Program Project. The following is a summary of the discussion. Discussion  The project details were presented to the property owner, including project limits, preferred sidewalk sections and project timeline.  Mr. Wallick was agreeable with the project and the use of concrete for the sidewalk.  Mr. Wallick has no preference on whether it is a grass strip or concrete in the buffer area between the curb and sidewalk. He did note that there is no need for the concrete pad in front of the funeral home so that can be removed.  Mr. Wallick expressed the desire to have some treatment other than grass between the sidewalk and the face of the building (no preference between concrete and brick). He is willing to remove the steps on the second property north of Reed Street for ease of construction and uniformity.  Mr. Wallick was agreeable with the need for a temporary construction easement for these improvements.  Mr. Wallick was agreeable with the installation of new lights and also the replacement of the curb with curb and gutter. He requested to have the granite curb if the City of Dover does not want it. He also mentioned he wants to keep the granite slab at the front of the funeral home.  Mr. Wallick also mentioned that during heavy rain events, the drainage inlets back up and flood the area around the intersection of Bradford Street and Reed Street. These notes represent the author’s best recollection of the discussion. cc. Sharon Duca, City of Dover Ann Marie Townshend, City of Dover Jeff Niezgoda, DelDOT Anthony Aglio, DelDOT Sarah Coakley, DelDOT Bill Conway, Century Engineering

Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements Transportation Alternatives Program Project Historic District Commission Meeting Date: December 17, 2015 NOTES OF MEETING DATE: December 17, 2015 PROJECT: Contract No. T201620004 Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements ATTENDEES: Ann Marie Townshend City of Dover Commission Members City of Dover Historic District Commission Jon Hermes Century Engineering Meghan Richardson Century Engineering PREPARED BY: Century Engineering This meeting was held to discuss the proposed improvements and schedule for the Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements Transportation Alternatives Program Project. The following is a summary of the discussion. Discussion  The project background and details were presented to the commission, including project limits, preferred sidewalk sections, funding and project timeline.  There was mixed discussion about material use (brick vs concrete) for the sidewalk section throughout the limits of the project. The commission put the material use to a vote. They unanimously voted in favor of the use of brick.  Century will follow up with the Historic District Commission during the design phase to provide them updates on the project. These notes represent the author’s best recollection of the discussion. cc. Sharon Duca, City of Dover Ann Marie Townshend, City of Dover Jeff Niezgoda, DelDOT Anthony Aglio, DelDOT Sarah Coakley, DelDOT Bill Conway, Century Engineering

Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements Transportation Alternatives Program Project Ingram Meeting Date: December 18, 2015 NOTES OF MEETING DATE: December 18, 2015 PROJECT: Contract No. T201620004 Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements ATTENDEES: Dolly Ingram Vernon Ingram Jon Hermes Century Engineering Meghan Richardson Century Engineering PREPARED BY: Century Engineering This meeting was held to discuss the proposed improvements and schedule for the Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements Transportation Alternatives Program Project. The following is a summary of the discussion. Discussion  The project details were presented to the property owner, including project limits, preferred sidewalk sections and project timeline.  The Ingrams were agreeable with the project and the use of concrete for the sidewalk.  The Ingrams prefer to have brick or concrete in the buffer area between the curb and sidewalk.  The Ingrams prefer to have brick between the sidewalk and the faces of the buildings. They would like the grass and landscaping areas removed and there to be one continuous area of brick. In front of the Church, they were agreeable to replacing the brick walkway with a concrete step with brick edging. They were agreeable to remove the awning in front of the Church during construction.  The Ingrams were agreeable with the need for a temporary construction easement for these improvements.  The Ingrams were agreeable with the installation of new lights and also the replacement of the curb with curb and gutter.  The Ingrams dislike the cut-through path on their property that leads to the Fire Hall parking lot. Need to look into alternatives in the design phase to deter this cut-through area (landscaping, decorative fence, etc.). These notes represent the author’s best recollection of the discussion. cc. Sharon Duca, City of Dover Ann Marie Townshend, City of Dover Jeff Niezgoda, DelDOT Anthony Aglio, DelDOT Sarah Coakley, DelDOT Bill Conway, Century Engineering

Delaware Department of Transportation Jennifer Cohan, Secretary Public Workshop Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements Conference Room – City of Dover City Hall 15 Loockerman Plaza Dover, DE 19903 Tuesday, January 12, 2016 6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m. The Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT), in conjunction with the City of Dover, invites the public to attend a public workshop to review and comment on proposed pedestrian improvements to Bradford Street between Loockerman Street and Division Street. This Transportation Alternatives project will include new sidewalks, upgrades to curb ramps, crosswalks, curb replacement and pedestrian lighting. This workshop will also provide an update on the project’s schedule. The Public Workshop will be held on January 12, 2016 at the City of Dover City Hall in the Conference Room at 6:00 p.m. Interested persons are invited to express their views in writing, giving reasons for, or in opposition to, the proposed project. Comments will be received during the workshop or can be mailed to DelDOT Public Relations, P.O. Box 778, Dover, DE 19903 or sent via email to dotpr@state.de.us. This location is accessible to persons having disabilities. Any person having special needs or requiring special aid, such as an interpreter for the hearing impaired, is requested to contact DelDOT by phone or mail one week in advance. For further information contact Public Relations at 1-800-652-5600 (in DE) or 302-760-2080 or write to the above address. PUBLIC NOTICE

DelDOT Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) The Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), established through federal legislation, is intended to encourage development of a more balanced multi-modal approach to mobility and accessibility. Proposed Improvements • Replace existing deteriorated brick sidewalk with proposed concrete sidewalk with brick edging along both sides of Bradford Street, from Loockerman Street to Division Street. • In Commercial areas, replace existing brick, pavers and/or concrete with new brick in the buffer area between the curb and sidewalk. • In Residential areas, remove existing brick and/or concrete and establish grass in the buffer area between the curb and sidewalk. • Replace existing curb with new curb and gutter within the project limits. • Upgrade existing curb ramps to meet current ADA requirements. • Provide new pedestrian lighting between Reed Street and Division Street, on both sides of Bradford Street. Install new delineated crosswalks at the Bradford Street and Reed Street intersection. This will allow for safer pedestrian circulation. • Assess existing landscaping and install new landscaping where feasible. Schedule January 2016 – Complete Concept Plan and Report Fall 2016 – Begin Design of Proposed Improvements Design & Construction to be phased based on available funding January 12, 2016

Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements Existing Conditions and Proposed Renderings Existing Preferred – Concrete with Brick Alternative– All Brick Bradford Street (west side, looking north) at Loockerman Street Existing Preferred – Concrete with Brick Alternative– All Brick Bradford Street (east side, looking south) toward Reed Street Concrete Sidewalk Brick Sidewalk Benefits: Benefits: • Creates a smooth surface meeting ADA requirements • Aesthetically pleasing – decorative & distinctive • Easily repaired during future maintenance including utility work • Consistent with historic buildings & sidewalks • Installation & maintenance costs are lower compared to brick pavers • Allows some rainwater to seep into the ground (concrete does not) • Can stabilize soft paving base materials • More flexible Cons: Cons: • Not historically significant • Can be an uneven & rough surface for wheelchairs & disabled users • Not aesthetically appealing • Can require additional maintenance due to roots & grass • Rigid surface that can crack • Flexibility of pavers can cause gaps that create non ADA compliant walkways • Installation cost is higher compared to concrete due to more intensive labor • With age, bricks become more slippery when wet compared to concrete • Future maintenance cost is higher • Shoveling snow can be more difficult January 12, 2016

Transportation Alternatives Program Bradford Street Streetscape Enhancements March 2016 Section 8

SHEET NO.: PROJECT NAME: DIVISION STREET SHEET NAME: 16" DIP WATER MAIN LANDS Nof LANDS Nof 8" DIP WATER MAIN LANDS Nof A TAILAP LLC PARCEL #: ED05-077.05-04-01.00 LAMBERTSON, SAXTON C D&S INVESTMENT CO, LLC 1 S. BRADFORD ST PARCEL #: ED05-077.05-03-63.00 PARCEL #: ED05-077.05-03-64.00 A 108 W. DIVISION ST 2 S. BRADFORD ST REVISIONS: LANDS Nof B HOPKINS, CHRISTINE C PARCEL #: ED05-077.05-04-02.00 3 S. BRADFORD ST B LANDS Nof MAYBEE, JOSEPH WHITMORE B PARCEL #: ED05-077.05-03-65.00 10 S. BRADFORD ST LANDS Nof ENGELGAU, JUDITH K & PETER M PARCEL #: ED05-077.05-04-03.00 B B 15 S BRADFORD ST 4" UCIP WATER MAIN B LANDS Nof COOKE, MARY L PARCEL #: ED05-077.05-04-04.00 LANDS Nof 25 S BRADFORD ST CULLEN BROTHERS PROPERTIES LLC PARCEL #: ED05-077.05-03-66.00 B 14 S. BRADFORD ST B LANDS Nof COOKE, MARY L PARCEL #: ED05-077.05-04-05.00 27 S BRADFORD ST LANDS Nof MAYBEE, ANDREA & FREUD, TIMOTHY CITY OF DOVER PARCEL #: ED05-077.05-04-06.00 29 S BRADFORD ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS LANDS Nof B D&S INVESTMENT CO, LLC PARCEL #: ED05-077.05-03-67.00 24 S. BRADFORD ST LANDS Nof KOCH, DANIEL & KATHLEEN W B PARCEL #: ED05-077.05-04-07.00 31 S BRADFORD ST PO BOX 475 A B LANDS Nof DILLARD, RICHARD T & DARLENE M PARCEL #: ED05-077.05-04-08.00 LANDS Nof 33 S BRADFORD ST D&S INVESTMENT CO, LLC PARCEL #: ED05-077.05-03-68.00 DOVER, DE 19903 34 S. BRADFORD ST LANDS Nof DILLARD, RICHARD TAYLOR &PARCEL #: A ED05-077.05-04-08.01 35 S BRADFORD ST LANDS Nof B MOTLEY, WALTER R PARCEL #: ED05-077.05-03-69.00 38 S. BRADFORD ST LANDS Nof SALAS, XAN Y A PARCEL #: ED05-077.05-04-09.00 LANDS Nof 39 S BRADFORD ST FORTY S BRADFORD STREET, LLC \\Dover_1\public works\Shared Data\Public Works Logo\Public Works Logo 2.png PARCEL #: ED05-077.05-03-70.00 40 S. BRADFORD ST A LANDS Nof PETITDEMANGE, MICHAEL J& PARCEL #: ED05-077.05-04-10.00 45 S BRADFORD ST LANDS Nof B KING, ROBERT A & PARCEL #: ED05-077.05-04-11.00 49 S BRADFORD ST B LANDS Nof RICH, JOHN D JR & ERIN E PARCEL #: ED05-077.05-04-14.00 LANDS Nof 53 S BRADFORD ST PEOPLES CONGREGATION CHURCH B 'PARCEL #: ED05-077.05-03-71.00 46 S. BRADFORD ST SEAL: LANDS Nof B TORBERT FUNERAL CHAPEL & PARCEL #: ED05-077.05-04-15.00 55 S BRADFORD ST LANDS Nof TORBERT FUNERAL CHAPEL & PARCEL #: ED05-077.05-04-17.00 57 S BRADFORD ST 4" CIP WATER MAIN 24" SANITARY B LANDS Nof TORBERT FUNERAL CHAPEL & PARCEL #: ED05-077.05-04-18.00 SEWER MAIN 61 S BRADFORD ST B 15" RCP 24" RCP 15" RCP 24" RCP MH1086 REED STREET MAIN 6" CIP WATER MAIN 6" D.I.P WATER 4" CIP WATER MAIN B LANDS Nof TORBERT FUNERAL CHAPEL & PARCEL #: ED05-077.09-02-51.00 LANDS Nof 103 S BRADFORD ST ROBIN HOSE CO PARCEL #: ED05-077.09-02-16.00 116 S. BRADFORD ST LANDS Nof B GIA DOWNTON PROPERTIES LLC PARCEL #: ED05-077.09-02-50.00 109 S BRADFORD ST B LANDS Nof INGRAM, E VERNON JR & ALICE M PARCEL #: ED05-077.09-02-18.00 LANDS Nof 118 S. BRADFORD ST GIA DOWNTON PROPERTIES LLC B PARCEL #: ED05-077.09-02-49.00 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN 113 S BRADFORD ST B LANDS Nof INGRAM, VERNON JR & ALICE M PARCEL #: ED05-077.09-02-19.00 4" UCIP WATER MAIN 120 S. BRADFORD ST LANDS Nof WRIGHT, WILLIAM C & ROSE MARIE PARCEL #: ED05-077.09-02-48.00 117 S BRADFORD ST B A LANDS Nof CITY OF DOVER PARCEL #: ED05-077.09-02-21.00 124 S. BRADFORD ST LANDS Nof DIAMOND STATE TELEPHONE CO PARCEL #: ED05-077.09-02-47.00 125 S BRADFORD ST TREE LIKELY TO BE DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION, TO BE REMOVED LANDS Nof CITY OF DOVER PARCEL #: ED05-077.09-02-22.00 128 S. BRADFORD ST MH14880 LANDS Nof LANDS Nof CITY OF DOVER HALPERN FAMILY PROP INVESTMENT LP PARCEL #: ED05-077.09-02-23.00 PARCEL #: ED05-077.09-02-46.00 132 S. BRADFORD ST 129 S BRADFORD ST TREE HAS CURRENT HEALTH ISSUES, TO BE REMOVED LANDS Nof CITY OF DOVER PARCEL #: ED05-077.09-02-24.00 Tap at 12 o'clock 136 S. BRADFORD ST LANDS Nof HALPERN FAMILY PROP INVESTMENT LP PARCEL #: ED05-077.09-02-45.00 131 S BRADFORD ST MH1097 LANDS Nof WIDDER, RUSSEL P & DEEANN L PARCEL #: ED05-077.09-02-25.00 148 S. BRADFORD ST LANDS Nof DEL TRUST CO PARCEL #: ED05-077.09-02-44.00 133 S BRADFORD ST TREE REMOVAL NOTES: 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN LANDS Nof CENDEL FOUNDATION PARCEL #: ED05-077.09-02-27.00 150 S. BRADFORD ST LANDS Nof DEL TRUST CO MINOR STREET PARCEL #: ED05-077.09-02-42.00 137 S BRADFORD ST B = = A B LANDS Nof CENDEL FOUNDATION 10" CIP WATER MAIN PARCEL #: ED05-077.09-02-28.00 156 S. BRADFORD ST 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN LANDS Nof DEL TRUST CO PARCEL #: ED05-077.09-02-41.00 145 S BRADFORD ST B CLEANOUT (TYP.) LANDS Nof CENDEL FOUNDATION PARCEL #: ED05-077.09-02-29.00 LANDS Nof 158 S. BRADFORD ST JD LAND CORPORATION PARCEL #: ED05-077.09-02-35.00 153 S BRADFORD ST 24" SANITARY LANDS Nof CENDEL FOUNDATION LANDS Nof PARCEL #: ED05-077.09-02-33.00 MICHAEL HARRINGTON REALTY INC 101 W. LOOCKERMAN ST PARCEL #: ED05-077.09-02-34.00 33 W. LOOCKERMAN ST SEWER MAIN MH1098 150' LOOCKERMAN STR EET ATER MAI N 6" UCIP W 100 50 0'

ATTACHMENT #4 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 04/24/2018 Division Street— Capital Gateway Plan Presentation to Dover Council Committee of the Whole / Safety and Transportation Tuesday, April 24, 2018 | 6:00 p.m.

Project Overview PURPOSE Establish a vision and implementation plan to: • Enhance the gateway • Coordinate efforts • Guide new development • Support comprehensive area wide revitalization efforts

Project Overview STUDY AREA

Planning Process

Planning Process TIMELINE

Planning Process PRE-CHARRET TE • Existing conditions and base information gathering • Key stakeholder interviews: o Bayhealth o Dover Police Department o Area developers o Adjacent property owners o Capital School District o Mayor’s Office o City council representatives o NCALL o DelDOT o Wesley College o DTC o Public Works, City of Dover o Downtown Dover Partnership o Dover Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittee o Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing

Planning Process GUIDING PRINCIPLES Category Guiding Principle Achieve comfortable, balanced circulation and accessibility Transportation for all modes Create an aesthetically pleasing, welcoming, and vibrant Urban Design / gateway to the Capitol District that has a defined sense of Land Use place and attracts positive activity Provide predictability and clear expectations for current and Regulatory prospective property owners Engage residents in support and achievement of the Vision Social / Process and Plan (and promote social capital)

Planning Process CHARRET TE—DAY 1: VISIONING AND EXISTING CONDITIONS

Planning Process CHARRET TE—DAY 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS

Planning Process CHARRET TE DAY 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS

Planning Process CHARRET TE DAY 2: ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT

Planning Process PREFERENCES: TRANSPORTATION / STREETSCAPE Auto Travel • Adjust travel and turn lane configuration Bicycle / Pedestrian Accommodation • Shorten crossing distance for pedestrians • Proceed with development of Senator Bikeway, including safe crossing of railroad and lighting along the finalized route • Improve sidewalks and lighting along West Street, connecting Division and Forest Streets • Add crossing guard and walk signal at Weston Street Parking • Limited on-street parking west of the railroad tracks on Division Street • Establish off-street parking locations as redevelopment occurs Access Management • Improve car wash access and staging to reduce conflicts with pass-through traffic • Consolidate access points, especially on Division Street, to reduce conflict with flow of all modes of travel Transit • Upgrade transit stops for ADA accessibility and general comfort/safety Streetscaping • Upgrade to pedestrian level street lighting with decorative aesthetics • Improve and maintain sidewalks • Bury utility lines or make less visually obtrusive throughout corridor • Improve aesthetics of fencing/screening along the corridor, such as at the Public Storage facility

Planning Process PREFERENCES: COMMUNITY DESIGN AND LAND USE Architectural Character • 3-4 story buildings • Brick facades • Set minimum standards for property aesthetics, which harmonize with the rest of Central Dover and enforce, for both new and existing development • Maintain small set-backs for buildings along Division and Forest Streets Landmark Gateway (at Division and Forest Streets) • “Welcome Wall” that provides wayfinding and current events information • Keep from being overly commercial looking • Landscape the periphery of the parcel beyond the Division/Forest Street split (currently a Laundromat) Vegetation / Greenspace • Strategically add street trees, being careful to select species and locations that are compatible • Increase access to recreation activities • Ensure plans for maintenenace exist prior to planting Strategic Infill / Redevelopment • Promote commercial/mixed use (re)development along Division Street east of the railroad Relocate Public Storage and redevelop site to extend Loockerman Street with a mix of uses (east of Lincoln • Street) • Develop the corners around the railroad along Forest Street Maintain residential land use north/west of Lincoln Street and limit commercial growth on Forest Street

Plan Recommendations

Plan Recommendations GATEWAY IMPROVEMENT

Plan Recommendations DIVISION STREET—LAND USE

Plan Recommendations DIVISION STREET—TRANSPORTATION

Plan Recommendations DIVISION STREET—OPTION 2: MEDIAN

Plan Recommendations DIVISION STREET—TRANSPORTATION Senator Bikeway • As the study area redevelops, proceed with development of the Senator Bikeway, according to concepts and priorities presented in the City of Dover Bicycle Plan Pedestrian Improvements • Complete gaps in the sidewalk between Ridgely Street and West Street • Tighten the right turn radius from Gibbs Drive onto Forest Street and shorten the pedestrian crossing distance. Parking • general consensus: make adjustments to Division Street that maintain on- street parking (less critical west of the railroad) and slow speeds (especially east of the railroad)

Plan Recommendations DIVISION STREET—TRANSPORTATION Rendering of sidewalk added on Division Street, west of railroad tracks

Plan Recommendations FOREST STREET—LAND USE Rendering of Redevelopment Concept for Proposed Clarence Street Extension (looking southeast)

Plan Recommendations FOREST STREET—TRANSPORTATION

Plan Recommendations FOREST STREET – TRANSPORTATION Rendering of roundabout planned in front of the Duncan Center—the southern tie in for gateway improvements.

Plan Recommendations FOREST STREET – TRANSPORTATION

Plan Recommendations IMPLEMENTATION PLAN—OVERALL Land Use • Change zoning code to limit building height to • Explore options for land-banking to stabilize three or four stories vacant, dilapidated properties and facilitate redevelopment • Phased implementation of streetscape enhancements to extend style of Loockerman • Extend tax abatement program west to include Street project area east of the railroad tracks • Explore options for burying overhead utilities • Encourage homeownership in the corridor and (or less visually obtrusive) more evenly distribute rental and low-income housing • Market / communicate gateway plans to current and prospective developers/property • Explore best opportunities to promote home owners improvements and establish incentives program • Work with property owners and prospective property owners to encourage and promote • Explore other regulatory mechanisms to brick facades and improvements to facades address building conditions and upkeep (e.g. incentive programs, such as the Downtown Development District) • Develop mechanisms for stormwater management that are not onerous on • Consider form-based code / hybrid code to redevelopment projects encourage quality physical appearance that extends the traditional main street character, while allowing flexibility for (re)development

Plan Recommendations IMPLEMENTATION PLAN—OVERALL

Questions?

ATTACHMENT #5 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 04/24/2018 City of Dover MAYOR AND COUNCIL May 15, 2018 Mr. Reed Macmillan Executive Director Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization P.O. Box 383 Dover, DE 19903 Dear Mr. Macmillan: During the Regular City Council Meeting of May 14, 2018, Council directed that a letter be sent to the MPO regarding consideration of a service road connector from the existing Route 1 interchange at Route 8 to the Garrison Oak Technology Park. We are aware of the 2017 MPO Traffic Study that determined that a connector road was not justified at this time; however, the City believes that good access to the Garrison Oak facility is critical for its future development. Therefore, the City of Dover respectfully requests that a connector from Route 8 at SR1 to Garrison Oak Technology Park on White Oak Road be included in the MPO’s future transportation planning program and that consideration be given to the future alignment of this facility. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Robin R. Christiansen Timothy A. Slavin Mayor Council President TAS/DH/js S:\Correspondence\Council Meeting\2018\05-14-2018 MPO - Letter of Support - Gateway West Connector.wpd cc: Mayor and Council P.O. Box 475 ˜ Dover, Delaware ˜19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service