CCW Minutes and Attachment 1

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Council Committee of the Whole met on August 29, 2017 at 6:03 p.m., with Council President Slavin presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sudler, Mr. Neil, Mr. Polce (departed at 6:50 p.m. and returned at 6:51 p.m.), and Mr. Lindell. Mr. Lewis, Mr. Cole, and Mr. Hare were absent. Mayor Christiansen was also present (departed at 6:37 p.m., returned at 6:39 p.m., and departed at 7:00 p.m.). Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Mr. Garfinkel (Safety Advisory and Transportation), and Ms. Arndt (Utility). Mr. Shelton (Safety Advisory and Transportation) was absent. SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee met with Council President Slavin presiding in the absence of Chairman Lewis. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Viability of the Shotspotter Gunshot Detection and Location Service (Anderson) During the Council Committee of the Whole/Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Meeting of July 26, 2016, members discussed the Viability of the ShotSpotter Gunshot Detection and Location Service and deferred the item for further investigation. During the Council Committee of the Whole/Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Meeting of August 23, 2016, Marvin Mailey, then serving as Deputy Police Chief, addressed the questions that members had posed during the July 26, 2016 meeting discussion of this item. Mr. Anderson indicated that this matter was a very important issue in the City. He stated that, in spite of the fact that the City has one of the finest police forces in the region, there is a human element when it comes to shootings. Mr. Anderson explained that, from his experience, it can be very hard to tell exactly where shots are coming from because of echoes and ricochets. He advised that the City’s police officers usually respond to calls regarding shootings within a couple of minutes but are often spread out because they are not sure where the problem is. Mr. Anderson noted that officers had been very effective in dealing with the problems and apprehending suspects very quickly or finding weapons that escaping suspects had gotten rid of; however, the question was what more could be done to help officers be more efficient. Mr. Anderson stated that a new Shotpotter-type technology was developing and had been tested, and he noted that he did not think the City should be limited to any particular vendor. He explained that this technology helps to pinpoint exactly where gunfire comes from and had been used in some places with great success. Mr. Anderson noted that the technology was less successful in other places, particularly where the police are advised exactly when and where an incident occurs and it takes them 15 or 20 minutes to appear, which is not a problem with the police force in Dover. He advised that it is important to put so much heat on the criminals that they know the risk of getting caught is too high and find somewhere else to go.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF AUGUST 29, 2017 PAGE 2 Mr. Anderson advised that members had considered this type of technology a year ago and found it an intriguing and promising prospect; however, the price tag was understandably an issue and there was a need to research where to get money. He noted that new technology by GE made this matter worthy of discussion, explaining that GE now had ShotSpotter sensors with LED lights, with the benefit of brighter lights and associated cameras. Mr. Anderson indicated that there were now also ShotSpotter sensors on existing infrastructure, instead of having to go through the expense of trying to put sensors in buildings, etc., and having to build an entirely new meshed infrastructure. He stated that the LED lights would allow for obtaining energy-saving grants, and public safety grants could also be obtained. Mr. Anderson advised that, in checking with Representative Sean Lynn and Senator Colin Bonini and having them research this, it looked like ShotSpotter would also qualify for transportation spending, which would open up an entirely new realm of possibilities and definitely had the support of at least these two (2) members of the legislature. Mr. Anderson advised that Police Chief Mailey had been doing technical research. Police Chief Marvin Mailey stated that ShotSpotter had partnered with GE and AT&T in an endeavor to expand upon the standing ShotSpotter platform. He advised that this expansion would not entirely replace the existing platform and ShotSpotter would still have to locate microphones on structures; however, the new technology would expand the reach by putting them in light fixtures as well. Chief Mailey noted that you cannot have a ShotSpotter system that is independent of microphones being affixed to buildings. He stated that this harbor system would be slightly cheaper and provide the same coverage as far as ShotSpotter detection, noting that the City had previously looked at a footprint of roughly five (5) to six (6) miles. Chief Mailey indicated that the City would lease the system by contract, and the down side was that when the contract is up, if the City did not pay for the product in the outgoing years, it would not own it. Chief Mailey noted that he had previously spoken about a product called Verbi that costs more at the initial time of purchase, and the City would have to pay for the service as well; however, the City would not pay for hardware in the outgoing years. He explained that the ShotSpotter setup with AT & T and LED is very new, was currently being test piloted in a few areas, and there were no test results yet regarding its success. Chief Mailey advised that, earlier in the day, he had requested documentation from a salesperson. He stated that this individual was unable to produce documentation because the setup was so new, but he offered to send a complete layout of the cost to outfit the City when it becomes available. Chief Mailey stated that he believed the previous cost sheet from last year indicated a cost of $195,000 per year. Mayor Christiansen stated that he and Chief Mailey met with ShotSpotter representatives approximately two (2) months ago, and he and former Chief Bernat met a number of times with ShotSpotter, as well as the City of Wilmington, to track their success. Chief Mailey stated that ShotSpotter representatives advised that the first-year cost would be $235,000 and the initial year costs approximately $40,000 more than the outgoing yearly cost of $195,000. He indicated that representatives also provided guidance on grants and advised the City to reach out to stakeholders. Chief Mailey informed members that he had obtained contact information and emailed one (1) a representative from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) asking if they had time to talk about the feasibility of helping the City to fund

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF AUGUST 29, 2017 PAGE 3 the ShotSpotter technology. He noted that the ShotSpotter salesman had advised that reaching out to HUD and perhaps the local hospital would probably be the best options. Chief Mailey indicated that he had not spoken with the CEO of Bayhealth Medical Center, stating that it would be difficult to ask someone that he does not know for approximately $200,000; however, he stated he would reach out to him. He noted that the cost of the product was tremendous; however, it would greatly help the Police Department’s capacity to respond to shots fired complaints and put officers at the spot where they need to be without guesswork. Chief Mailey explained that, within seconds of shots being fired, this is relayed through a network to a response or receiving center where they analyze the shot, verify that it was a shot, and transmit it to the local police department so that officers can be deployed to the exact location. He stated that this approach had been somewhat successful in a lot of cities, and others had not liked it at all. Chief Mailey noted that he had spoken with Police Chief Robert Tracy in Wilmington, where the technology had been used for several years, and Chief Tracy was not against it but was not overjoyed with some of the results he had seen. Mayor Christiansen stated that he would facilitate a meeting with Mr. Terry Murphy, President and Chief Executive, Bayhealth Medical Center. Mayor Christiansen informed members that one (1) of the first contacts they had with ShotSpotter was when Attorney General Matt Denn released some of the funds from the Bank of America settlement; however, it proved to be cost-prohibitive. He noted that there had been an ongoing research process since that time, during the regime of former Chief Paul Bernat and the succession of Chief Mailey. Mayor Christiansen stated that he had discussed this topic at the Conference of Mayors in Washington in January and was provided with maps with some of the statistics. He indicated that, because of the City’s tight budget situation, the City would have to rely on grant monies and also hunt for funds through its own resources to facilitate this program to any extent. Mayor Christiansen advised that, if the City is committed to this program and becomes reliant on it, it will be an ongoing expense for which Council will have to assume the costs. He explained that the City had received grants for the police cadet program, which was self-sustaining for 18 months, and the City then had to pick up the costs. Mayor Christiansen stated that the system is proprietary and the equipment would eventually be turned over to the City after the initial contract. Mayor Christiansen stated that he was not 100% convinced of the success of the program. He noted that he had talked to Mayor Bill de Blasio from New York City, who indicated that they were very happy with their system. Mayor Christiansen advised that New York’s response time was probably not as rapid as the Dover Police Department’s. He indicated that when they spoke to the City of Wilmington initially, Wilmington was reporting moderate success. Mayor Christiansen stated the need to think about whether to move forward with this program and to consider not only the success of the program but also the actual budget cost. Mr. Anderson indicated that the ShotSpotter people had been more responsive than those from Verbi and asked what the annual cost of service would be for Verbi. Responding, Chief Mailey stated that the startup cost would be approximately $350,000. He indicated that after that there would be a cost for the monitoring service, which he imagined would be much cheaper; however, he could not put a dollar figure on it without verifying it with Verbi. Mr. Anderson noted that this cost would make a difference and stated the need to look at various options.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF AUGUST 29, 2017 PAGE 4 Mr. Anderson stated that the spike in problems with shootings had largely been driven by drug turf, due to changes in leadership and other items, and may not be a permanent situation. He asked, if the City went with a leased system and could get the number of shootings down, whether the City could reassess whether or not to keep the system after a five-year contract. Responding, Chief Mailey stated that this would be an option with ShotSpotter. He advised that the hardware is purchased with Verbi and would belong to the City, and the City would pay for the service cost. Chief Mailey noted that the problems regarding drug turf and increases in shootings had been identified and addressed quite successfully. He explained that the Police Department was making a lot of progress, they had great people who were working hard, and they had a good plan that was working. Mr. Anderson stated that the Department does have good people and asked Chief Mailey to let them know that Council supports them in their efforts. Mr. Neil stated that, when members considered this matter previously, the area being discussed was very narrow. He indicated that the question was, when looking at a pot of money to help protect citizens, whether it should be spent to cover three (3) to five (5) miles versus the City’s entire area. Mr. Neil noted that members were weighing whether this money could be used for additional cadets, services, or other things, stating that he would look to Chief Mailey to give members an idea of how this would be spent. He stated that it was wonderful to look at the technology, noting that the price usually comes down as progress is made; therefore, this could be something to look forward to. Mr. Neil noted that if City was to spend this enormous amount of money to cover three (3) to five (5) miles, when the City is much larger, he was concerned about problems in the Third District in the White Oak and Towne Point area. He stated that he was delighted that Chief Mailey was looking at what was available and he looked forward to Chief Mailey providing members with information regarding how he feels the money could be spent and how they can help him to do a better job. Mr. Polce stated that he echoed some of Mr. Neil’s concerns. He advised that, as the second-newest member of Council after Mr. Lindell, he tries to do research for every Council meeting. Mr. Polce advised that he had the opportunity to ride with a Dover police officer a little over a month ago, and it was amazing what they do with their limited resources. He explained that, on this rainy Thursday evening, there were 12 patrol units on the street by the computer system; however, due to vacation, sick time, etc., there were approximately nine (9) officers to patrol a city of 40,000 plus. Mr. Polce indicated that their response time, going from the Wawa on Route 8 across town, had been very fast. Mr. Polce stated that, from his research regarding ShotSpotter and this type of technology, he had immense concerns regarding the financial allocation, practicality, functionality, and potential legal implications that the City could be exposed to. He noted that some cities had used this technology very well and implemented it with success; some stated that there had been a 10% reduction in shooting incidents, which was amazing; and some had reported a nominal decrease. Mr. Polce stated that most concerning was research he pulled from around the City of Oakland, California, where there were a number of pending legal cases that were now finding their way through the circuit court based on this technology. He explained that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had picked up on this, and this had made him pause and really deliberate on the necessity of this technology. Mr. Polce advised that in Oakland there had been claims that this technology had been able to identify specific voices, and those voices had been used to prosecute individuals, arguably without true discretion. He stated that this would open a massive door to technology surveillance policing

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF AUGUST 29, 2017 PAGE 5 and the question of where Big Brother stops. Mr. Polce advised that he unequivocally supported the Dover Police Department; however, he indicated that they needed more officers and to re-engage community policing to really make an impact. He stated that, with these concerns within the court system and the limited information that they had, especially when looking to spend a quarter of a million taxpayer dollars, members could not make a sound decision. Mr. Polce also stated concerns regarding the scientific validity of the statistics gathered about the success and the success rate. He noted, as an academician, he looks at data and sees that it may not be that valid. Mr. Polce indicated, as a social scientist, that members could find greater value in Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data, gun violence data nationally, and in identifying where the City’s issues are in the census block. Mr. Polce advised that he agreed absolutely with Chief Mailey and commended him on targeting specific areas and then making sure that the patrolmen are right there. He explained that on the rainy Thursday night that he mentioned, there were two (2) reports of gunshots, and when participating in the ride-along, they were at both scenes within 90 seconds after coming across town. Mr. Polce stated that the Police Department’s work is amazing and the City’s resources need to be spent in the form of bodies, community policing, letting Chief Mailey and his Department come up with the proposal that makes the most sense. Mr. Polce moved to table the matter until members have additional information, seconded by Mr. Lindell. Mr. Sudler asked Chief Mailey for his thoughts regarding whether this technology could be utilized right now versus more police officers. Responding, Chief Mailey stated that there is nothing that trumps an officer in a squad car being able to respond to the area. He noted that the technology would put officers at the exact spot and there would be no guesswork for looking around; however, as Mr. Polce stated, on a night when there are 12 officers on paper but two (2) out on Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave and one (1) injured, ShotSpotter cannot fill that void. Chief Mailey stated that ShotSpotter would get officers to the spot quicker. He explained that, although he would like to ask for additional police officers, he had not done so and did not plan to, noting that he takes the resources that he has. Chief Mailey informed members that changes were being made within the Police Department to fully staff the patrol unit by robbing Peter to pay Paul, and had done so for the last several years while he was a member of staff and in a position to be a part of those meetings and conversations. He stated that technology is great and is used to help the Department perform more efficiently; however, he would always rather have the manpower. Mr. Slavin indicated that he was hearing a healthy amount of skepticism, which was not necessarily a bad thing. He stated that tabling was the proper action to take because members did not have enough information to make a recommendation. Mr. Slavin indicated that he had a procedural concern and stated his assumption that this item would be part of a request for next fiscal year’s budget, rather than a mid-year expense. He noted that there was not $195,000 laying around that members wished to spend. Mr. Slavin advised that he encouraged continuation of this discussion, which would inform the draft budget and the budget that would eventually come forward. He stated that, philosophically, he would rather see the City’s money spent on reducing the number of shootings than responding to them faster. Mr. Slavin noted that the technology was interesting; however, he thought the gain would be better before the shootings occur than after.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF AUGUST 29, 2017 PAGE 6 Mr. Anderson stated that members would not have to make an either/or choice because the money for the technology would not be money that could be spent on the officers if the City had these particular grants. He indicated that energy grants and transportation funds, which could be used for lighting upgrades and other issues, as well as crime grants, would not go toward hiring police officers. Mr. Anderson advised that hiring officers could be discussed, noting that he had always been supportive of this and had supported the addition of police officers three (3) times while on Council. He stated that unless enough officers would be hired to put substations in every neighborhood, which he did not see the City heading toward, technology would be needed to help officers. Mr. Anderson noted that hiring 30 more officers was not part of the discussion or budget. Mr. Anderson stated that one (1) of the reasons this matter had been brought up was because it was time to do research on grants and to include this as part of discussion when a public service fee is brought up and when looking at new transportation funds coming in. He indicated that it was currently time to have this discussion because the City would be looking at public money that could be coming in for public safety. Mr. Anderson stated there was a need to know what mix of technology and people would best serve, noting that he fully supports both. Mr. Lindell stated that he agreed with Mr. Anderson that discussion is good on issues that can help the Police Department with crime in the City; however, he likes to rely on the experts in the field. Having also done a ride-along, he stated that he could vouch for the speeds of those rides, and the Police Department’s response time and professionalism were excellent. Mr. Lindell indicated that he had to take Chief Mailey’s word that they were making progress and suggested letting the experts continue to quarterback the situation and come to members to further the discussion if they need something. He stated that he did not necessarily want to invest in something that the City would be on the hook for leasing year after year, after buying the hardware, or to put future Councils in the same position. Responding to Mr. Lindell, Mayor Christiansen estimated that the cost of putting an officer on the street at roughly $82,000 - $84,000, including salary, training, and benefits and not including a car. Mr. Lindell asked if this equipment or two (2) more police officers on the street would make a bigger difference in helping to reduce the shootings. Responding, Chief Mailey stated that he would rather have the two (2) officers. He noted that he had heard the concern from Council and the community, and the Dover Police Department had established why there had been so many shootings in the City and was addressing the problem. Chief Mailey advised that the problem was not a broad sweep where they had no idea who was committing the shootings. He explained that they knew who was committing them, they had the Department’s attention, and the Department had been making policing and tactical decisions to remove them from the streets of Dover. Chief Mailey stated that he thought members would be very happy with the results at the end of this project. Mr. Lindell stated that he relies on the advice of present and past experts. Referring to the Council Committee of the Whole Report of July 26, 2016, he noted that former Councilman James Hutchison had stated that this equipment could be considered; however, when the price tag is considered, he felt that putting boots on the ground and possibly paying extra duty officers to become more involved in community policing would provide a better value than this device. Mr. Lindell stated that former

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF AUGUST 29, 2017 PAGE 7 Councilman James Hosfelt had some of the same skepticism about the program as well. Mr. Lindell suggested letting the Police Department do what they need to do and come to members if they need assistance and a discussion of what they need to get the job done. The motion to table the matter until members have additional information was unanimously carried. Quarterly Briefing on Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Projects Mr. James Galvin, AICP, Principal Planner, Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), advised members that the executive director of the MPO had left as of June 30, 2017 and the MPO was currently searching for a new executive director. He stated that they had received applications and anticipated a review process and potential hiring by October. Mr. Galvin informed members that one of the most important projects the MPO was working on was the Dover Parking Study. He advised members that the MPO had provided several public comment opportunities during the last couple of months, with the most recent meeting held on Thursday, August 24, 2017. Mr. Galvin reviewed an updated presentation entitled “Downtown Dover Parking Study,” dated August 24, 2017 (Attachment #1), noting that it was the version of the presentation that was presented to the Dover community on August 24, 2017. Referring to the graph on page 4 of the presentation, Mr. Galvin noted that he believed that the red area labeled “Off-Street Parking Takes this much space” was actually representative of on-street parking. In reference to page 7 of the presentation, he informed members that the MPO is going to suggest that the consultants not use the graphic of the disembodied parking lot because it is confusing and they received many comments regarding it during the public workshop. Referring to the Cost of Parking, page 9, Mr. Galvin informed members that there were comments during the public workshop that Dover should not be compared with Wilmington; Newark; Annapolis, Maryland; or Media, Pennsylvania, because Dover is more like Smyrna and Milford. Mr. Galvin advised that he disagreed with these comments and thought that Dover was more like Newark. Mr. Galvin noted that there would not be any spots gained with Potential Improvement Scenario 1; 40 spots would be gained with Scenario 2; 40 spots would be gained with a combination of Scenarios 1 and 2; with Scenario 3, 22 spots would be gained out of the 1,800 that they counted; Scenarios 2 and 3 would provide a total gain of 62 spots; and 318 spots would be gained with Scenario 4, the garage. Mr. Sudler asked if there was any projected profit forecast for the $4M or $100,000 options. Responding Mr. Galvin explained that the consultant had not done a profit forecast yet and he had not had the opportunity to do one himself. He stated that he expected that the profit forecast would be included in the final report.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF AUGUST 29, 2017 PAGE 8 Mr. Neil informed members that he had attended the community meeting on August 24, 2017 and he thought that the report and the personnel there anticipated virtually every question he had to ask and they did it well. He noted that the presentation also included directional signage, which he thought was a very important component. Mr. Neil stated that the fact that there are a number of places where you need a permit was also discussed. He noted that he thought that the City charges a permit fee, which is probably less than the amount that should be charged, explaining that it could help pay for the additional parking. Mr. Neil stated that he was very familiar with Annapolis and, because it is a capital city, parking is difficult to come by. He explained that there are a lot more stores and a lot more activity because of the Naval Academy, and they can afford to drive up the prices of parking, since there isn’t any. Mr. Neil noted that Annapolis and many other cities in Maryland have parking garages, and stated that he thought that a public-private partnership may be able to be brought in to provide that additional parking. He indicated that he provided one of the Langan representatives with contact information for Ms. Wendy Vestfall, Executive Director, Kent County Tourism, because he thought a synergy could be worked out between tourism and parking. Mr. Neil stated that the more we can do to make it easier for people to come and to park, the better it will be for the merchants and the City as a whole. Mr. Galvin, referring to page 22 of the presentation, informed members that there was discussion regarding having shared cars located somewhere in downtown Dover. He stated that he thought that this would really work if there was a parking garage to put the shared cars in, and he expected that to be one of the ideas included in the final report. Mr. Galvin reviewed the Parking Study deliverables, indicating that the project management portion was simply getting the consultant to talk to the MPO and the second deliverable was stakeholder and public participation. He stated that the MPO had pushed them to make sure that they get good public participation. Mr. Galvin advised that, for the last workshop, public notices went out three (3) or four (4) weeks ahead of time and were shared with the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP) and posted on their website and the City's website. He stated that he thought that the result showed since more than 40 people attended the workshop. Mr. Galvin advised that the next step was data collection and baseline analysis, which had been completed, and the consultant had gone into the alternatives analysis, which was included in the presentation. He stated that the fifth step would be a preferred plan which they are developing now, and the last is a final report. Mr. Galvin noted that the study was running behind schedule, explaining that the consultant’s contract, which he believed was signed approximately one (1) year ago, stated that they would have it completed within six (6) months. He advised that he had only recently become involved with the study, since Mr. Rich Vetter left the MPO. Referring to other MPO projects, Mr. Galvin advised members that they were finishing the Regional Bike Plan, which had a good public outreach component, and the public comment period had just ended. He stated that they were tweaking the plan, would be presenting it to the MPO Council in two (2) weeks, and would be happy to present it to City Council as well. Mr. Galvin noted that the request for proposals (RFP) for a Milford parking study was in draft.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF AUGUST 29, 2017 PAGE 9 Members were informed that the West Dover Connector was scheduled to open in September. Mr. Anderson asked if parking apps were part of the discussion, noting that they would be simple, relatively inexpensive, and go well with signage. In response, Mr. Galvin advised that parking apps had not been part of the discussion so far. He noted that this was brought up during the last workshop, and he was certain the consultants would be happy to provide an app at an additional cost. Mr. Slavin stated that, based on his personal experience, the apps work very well and are very convenient. Mr. Anderson advised that he had heard a concern about morning and afternoon rush hour traffic and the difficulty getting onto Governors Avenue and New Burton Road from Crossgates. He asked if there had been any studies on those types of traffic patterns. Responding, Mr. Galvin advised that, to an extent, New Burton Road is going to have more traffic when the West Dover Connector opens, because there is an exit off the West Dover Connector to New Burton Road at the Boys and Girls Club and County facility. He stated that the MPO had not done a study on New Burton Road and he did not think one had been done in a while. Mr. Galvin recalled that the biggest thing that came out of the MPO for New Burton was getting pedestrian facilities, noting that there were not currently any. He indicated that he thought that New Burton Road would be one of the more difficult streets to discuss additional lane area for, if that was an alternative, given the constraints in the area between the railroad tracks and the property owners to the east. Mr. Galvin stated that it is something that the MPO may want to look in future years. Mr. Anderson stated that there was a suggestion a while ago for the West Dover Connector to be named after William Penn, and he asked if that had been given any consideration or if there was a naming convention. Responding, Mr. Slavin stated his belief that it had been named the POW-MIA Highway. Mr. Galvin noted that it had been named and the MPO was not involved in the naming. Mr. Kirby Hudson, Assistant City Manager, informed members that he had attended the community meeting of August 24, 2017 and, during that meeting, he stated that he thought that the wayward signs were great; however, signage on Route 1 had not been mentioned. He advised that the consultants said that they would put that in the notes. Quarterly Update - Bicycle/Pedestrian Subcommittee Mr. David Hugg, Acting Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed the Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittee Quarterly Update for August 2017. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF AUGUST 29, 2017 PAGE 10 UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee met with Council President Slavin presiding in the absence of Chairman Cole. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Anderson moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Dedication of Rights-of-Way and Public Infrastructure - Garrison Oak Technical Park Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Acting City Manager, advised members that the Department of Public Works had requested that all public infrastructure improvements related to the Garrison Oak Technical Park be dedicated to the City of Dover for permanent ownership and maintenance. Referring to the list of public improvements, she noted that since the City of Dover was the developer of this project, the contractor, account number, and project codes associated with the specific infrastructure were notated. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the total construction value of capitalized public improvements was $12,241,583.21, the final budget was $12,983,000, and the total expenses with non-capital was $13,078,497.53. She explained that the total expenses amount was different because it included the engineering costs and items that were not being capitalized. Members reviewed a map depicting the general location and configuration of the subject rights-of-way. Mrs. Mitchell noted that all construction aspects had been completed to meet the City of Dover Standards and Specifications for Public Works Construction as well as the Water/Wastewater Handbook, and a one (1) year Maintenance Bond and a Release of Liabilities would be submitted as part of the dedication process. She stated that required as-built drawings of the infrastructure as well as videos of the sanitary sewer mains had been provided to staff. Staff recommended acceptance of the dedication of rights-of-way and public infrastructure of the Garrison Oak Technical Park. Dedication is to include all of the referenced public improvements. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Mitchell confirmed that this was a pro forma action, explaining that at the conclusion of a City project, the City dedicates the streets and accepts them. Mr. Neil moved to recommend acceptance of the dedication of rights-of-way and public infrastructure of the Garrison Oak Technical Park, as recommended by staff. Dedication is to include all of the referenced public improvements. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindell and unanimously carried. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Utility Committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:08 p.m.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF AUGUST 29, 2017 PAGE 11 Mr. Polce moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindell and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:08 p.m. Timothy A. Slavin Council President TAS/TM/dd S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Committee-Minutes\2017\08-29-2017 CCW.wpd Attachments Attachment #1 - Updated presentation entitled “Downtown Dover Parking Study,” dated August 24, 2017, provided by Mr. James Galvin, AICP, Principal Planner, Dover/Kent County MPO

ATTACHMENT #1 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 08/29/2017 Downtown Dover Parking Study Presented to the Dover Community August 24, 2017 These are the notes related to the board used at the 3rd Public Meeting for the Downtown Dover Parking Study. They were prepared by Langan Engineering and KSK Architects Planners Historians, on behalf of the Dover / Kent County MPO and the City of Dover. They document the findings of a year‐long investigation of parking issues in downtown Dover.

Downtown WhatDover Parking Study is the Project? – “Too much?” – “Too little?” – “Too pricy?” – “Too cheap?” – “Easy to Understand?” – “Convenient to where I want to go?” The downtown Dover study focused on the key streets along the commercial areas downtown – mostly blocks along and adjacent to Loockerman Street and The Green. And tried to better understand from where the inefficiencies and complaints about parking came.

What is the Project? = approximately 6.5 acres The parking study area is the area shown by the red dotted line in this figure. The Primary study area is the area bounded by Water Street to the south, West Street to the west, Fulton Street to the north and State Street to the east. Additionally we studied the area around the City Hall Lot which is bounded by State Street to the west, Division Street to the north, Loockerman Street to the south and Park Drive to the east

Private Parking Lots Take Public Parking Lots Take What is the Project? this much space this much space Off‐Street Parking Takes this much space = approximately 6.5 acres When all on‐street and off‐street, public and private parking spots are counted, they total over 1,800 spots – which is a large number of parking spots for a downtown and city of this size and character. This graph show how much area each type of parking would take if they were all consolidated into a single block.

What is the Project? This plan shows the total number and type of parking for all areas studied.

Parking Count Findings • On-Street Parking – Peak Hour – 12:30 to 1:30 pm – Peak Occupancy Rate – 75% – Peak Violation Rate – 16% • Off-Street Parking – Peak Hour – 11 am – Noon – Peak Occupancy Rate – 63% Some key findings from the study included: • Peak parking usage is typically around lunchtime, both for on‐street and off‐street parking. • Even at these peaks, parking occupancy rates never approach capacity. For example, the peak rate for on‐street parking is 75%. Well‐managed parking networks can have occupancies of 90% and still satisfy most users. • The peak violation rate for on‐street parking is fairly high. Over 16% of users were not in compliance during the day – and that number does not include the “parking surfers” that might be gaming the current parking system. That means that a sizable portion of users is staying well over the parking limits and not paying their fair share for parking.

Parking Study Findings Peak Occupancy Per Lot 65% 63% 83% 84% 62% 21% When we take a closer look at Off‐Street Parking, we see that the average 63% rate is actually not representative, since there is wide discrepancy in rates amongst all lots. For example, the North and Loockerman Way lots have occupancies over 80%, while the Governor’s Avenue lot has occupancy below 25%. The existing parking capacity could be better managed and much better utilized.

Cost of DOVER Parking: Wilmington (Per Hour / On Street) Newark Annapolis, MD Media, PA So then, we start looking for some reasons behind these parking patterns. One reason is cultural – people have just gotten used to the current way parking works downtown. But the current way also pushes away all those customers and visitors who cannot find parking. Another reason is the pricing structure. We looked at over 10 peer cities to compare parking costs.

Cost of DOVER Parking: Wilmington (Per Day / 12 x Public Lots) Newark 8x Annapolis, MD 13 x Media, PA The peer cities included not only cities in DE, such as Wilmington, Newark, Middletown, Smyrna, Milford, Seaford, and Lewes; but also other cities of same size and/or per capita income in surrounding states (such as Media, West Chester, and Lancaster PA; College Park, MD), and other capital cities of approximately same size and/or per capita income (Annapolis MD, Harrisburg PA, Trenton NJ, and Concord NH). Of all cities that had regulated parking facilities, Dover had the lowest cost – by far – for both on Street and off‐street parking. As an example, the 2nd and 3rd cheapest options in each category were: • On‐Street Parking – (1) Dover (Free), (2) Media (50 cents/hr), and (3) Concord (75 cents/hr). • Off‐Street Parking – (1) Dover ($1 a day), (2) West Chester ($8 a day), and (3) Wilmington ($11.85 average a day)

How Would You Spend Your ? , but 20 mins only Quick Errand to Downtown / hr, On‐Street Dover / hr, Off‐Street All day, Off‐Street Day-long Stay All day, On‐Street, but moving car every 2 hours All day, On‐Street We used this board to gauge the public’s preferences.

Current: What is the Project? Another reason for the current parking patterns is the confusing layouts and regulations of existing off‐street parking lots. Some lots might have 3 or 4 different types of permitted parking, and the routes thru them might be confusing as well. Finally, it is not easy to distinguish from the street where a visitor should go to find the right type of parking. We designed four different scenarios, based on stakeholder input – and used those to get feedback from stakeholders and the public about what might be acceptable solutions / changes.

Potential ImprovementWhat is the Project? Scenario BRADFORD STREET LOT (Proposed – Scenario 1): 1: Total Parking Spaces: 111 Permit parking: 72 plus 11 new spaces (converted from 2‐Hour and 15‐min parking) Meter parking: 22 (reconfigured) ADA Parking: 5 LOOCKERMAN WAY LOT (Proposed – Scenario 1): Total Parking Spaces: 35 Meter parking: 33 ADA Parking: 2 GOVERNORS AVE LOT (Proposed – Scenario 1): Total Parking Spaces: 103 Permit parking: 42 plus 10 new spaces (converted from 2‐Hour parking) Tenant Parking: 40 ADA Parking: 2 Scenario 1 focuses on creating a simple structure of only 2 types of parking – metered and permit parking; and on consolidating spots so they are easier to see and access from the street. Under this scenario, we proposed converting all of the Loockerman Street lot to metered parking to cater to visitors and customers to the downtown Loockerman St businesses; and also consolidating metered parking spots within the Bradford Street lot.

Potential NEW STATE STREET ALLEY LOT (Proposed – Scenario 2): Total Parking Spaces: Approximately 40 ImprovementWhat is the Project? Meter parking: 40 (reconfigured) ADA Parking: 4 Scenario 2: GOVERNORS AVE LOT (Proposed – Scenario 2): Total Parking Spaces: 103 Permit parking: 42 plus 10 new spaces (converted from 2‐Hour parking) Tenant Parking: 40 ADA Parking: 2 Scenario 2 focused on creating additional capacity by creating a new lot along the State St Alleyway.

Potential ImprovementWhat is the Project? Scenario BRADFORD STREET LOT (Proposed – Scenario 3): 3: Total Parking Spaces: 111 Permit parking: 72 plus 33 new spaces (converted plus new) Meter parking: 22 (reconfigured) ADA Parking: 5 LOOCKERMAN WAY LOT (Proposed – Scenario 3): Total Parking Spaces: 35 Meter parking: 33 ADA Parking: 2 GOVERNORS AVE LOT (Proposed – Scenario 3): Total Parking Spaces: 103 Permit parking: 42 plus 10 new spaces (converted from 2‐Hour parking) Tenant Parking: 40 ADA Parking: 2 Scenario 3 is an enhanced version of Scenario 1, with an expanded Bradford Street lot to address additional demand for permit parking.

Potential ImprovementWhat is the Project? Scenario BRADFORD STREET GARAGE (Proposed – Scenario 4): 4: Total Parking Spaces: approx. 400 (3 stories) Permit parking: 200 Meter parking: 200 ADA Parking: 15 LOOCKERMAN WAY LOT (Proposed – Scenario 4): Total Parking Spaces: 35 Meter parking: 33 ADA Parking: 2 GOVERNORS AVE LOT (Proposed – Scenario 4): Total Parking Spaces: 103 Permit parking: 42 plus 10 new spaces (converted from 2‐Hour parking) Tenant Parking: 40 ADA Parking: 2 And finally, Scenario 4 would be the “Garage Scenario”, a point where demand is high enough that a parking garage structure is made viable for development. Based on preliminary input from stakeholders, one potential location would be on an expanded Bradford Street lot site.

How Would You Spend Your ? Scenario 1 Less than $100k Scenario 2 $1M to $2M Scenarios 1 and 2 $1M to $2M Scenario 3 $1M to $2M Scenarios 2 and 3 $2M to $4M Scenario 4 Over $4M However, each of these scenarios have costs. We suggest that the City would do best to address the “low hanging fruit” and take the more affordable measures first. And then Scenario 4 should only be implemented when downtown redevelopment has advanced enough to warrant the additional supply and cost of a new garage.

Wayfinding and Signage Another requisite solution to the parking issues is to better guide customers and visitors to the existing available parking. And, in addition, help downtown businesses by better branding od Downtown, as well as better signage along Route 1, US 13 and other major corridors – so that everyone that drives near Dover would know that, just off this exist or after a left at this traffic light, there is a very cool destination – Downtown Dover!

Wayfinding and Signage We propose three layers of signage – on the outside perimeter, highway directional signage pointing to “Historic Downtown Dover”; in the downtown perimeter, “Welcome to Historic Downtown Dover” signs; and then once downtown, better directing drivers to the right parking locations. This wayfinding system would be a very efficient use of scarce dollars.

Potential On-Street Parking Zones In addition, going back to the question of pricing, we would recommend creating a tiered system of pricing for both on‐street and off‐streets parking. Our final report will have more details on a recommended pricing structure that can be implemented. But the pricing strategy will be developed in conjunction with input from stakeholders and public and will be implemented as a pilot so that 6 or 12 months later, the pricing strategy can be revisited and adjusted based on customer reaction and actual real‐life results. The tiered system, however, should follow some basic principles: • Be simple to understand and market • Have the highest costs at the highest demand locations • For off‐street lots, limits parking categories to permitted locations and metered locations, reducing the number of categories from 4 to 2 • On the other hand, create a greater variety of permits to get better utilization of existing permit spots. For example, some permit holders might opt to renew a (Cheaper) weekday‐only or weeknight‐only permit, instead of a 24‐hour/30‐day a month permit.

Streetscape and Safety In addition, Dover should also think about streetscape enhancements downtown – to increase safety, aesthetics and attract more visitors; as well the creation of gateways along Route 13, so that drivers recognize that there is a cool city behind each intersection, and not just another strip mall or gas station. This slide shows streetscape enhancements along Loockerman, including lighting and safety cameras; and the creation of a parallel pedestrian corridor that connects all parking lots between Governor’s Avenue and City Hall. Instead of a dark back alley, now visitors would have an attractive, brick pavement sidewalk, well‐lit and landscaped, to connect them to Loockerman St and State St businesses, and local and state government offices.

Gateways This board showcases visions of what the gateways along Route 13 could look like.

New Technologies XOnline Payments Smart Meters In‐Car Meters Kiosk Meters Car Sharing Pay by Phone Solar PV Bike Sharing and more… Finally, the final report will also have suggestions in relation to how new technologies can help Dover better manage its parking.