CCW Minutes and Attachments 1-4 (Revised 07-26-18 to correct typographical error)

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Council Committee of the Whole met on June 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m., with Council President Slavin presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sudler, Mr. Neil, Mr. Cole (departed at 7:11 p.m. and returned at 7:12 p.m.), Mr. Polce (departed at 7:09 p.m. and returned at 7:10 p.m.), and Mr. Lindell (departed at 7:24 p.m. and returned at 7:25 p.m.). Mr. Lewis and Mr. Hare were absent. Mayor Christiansen was also absent. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Mr. Caldwell and Dr. Warfield (Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement), Mrs. Doyle (Utility), and Mr. Shevock and Dr. Stewart (Legislative, Finance, and Administration). Mr. Garfinkel (Safety Advisory and Transportation) and Ms. Scarborough (Utility) were absent. PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee met with Chairman Sudler presiding. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Neil moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Cole and unanimously carried. Presentation - Summer in the Parks Mrs. Margery Cyr, Library Director, stated that it is no secret that the ability to read is one of the keys to a successful life and is surely the key to success in school. She advised that public libraries around the world work hard at preventing the summer slide, which is a phenomenon that occurs to elementary and middle school students when they stop reading during the summer. Mrs. Cyr stated that the Dover Public Library offers opportunities for reading and engagement during the summer; however, they have worried about changes in today's environment, which make visiting the library on a regular basis difficult for many families. She explained that they struggle with creating a plan to bring library services out into the community for the benefit of those who need the services most, but can't get there for one reason or another. Mrs. Cyr stated that the Parks and Recreation Department is blessed with 33 City parks and they have long wished for an opportunity to bring active programming into the parks during the summer, but had been challenged with limited resources to do so. She informed members that last winter, the Library and Parks and Recreation Department met to discuss how to meet these needs with the limited resources of both departments and staff agreed to collaborate on a project called Tuesday in the Park. Mrs. Cyr reviewed a flier regarding Tuesday in the Park (Attachment #1), explaining that on Tuesdays, beginning June 19, 2018 at 11:00 a.m., the Library and the Parks and Recreation Department will offer programs that combine reading enrichment and physical activities. She noted that the programs would take place at Mallard Pond Park, Dover New Street Park, and Dover Park, and children, youth and families are encouraged to participate. Mrs. Cyr stated that the Dover Police Athletic League (P.A.L.) has struggled with some of the same issues for service that the Library and Parks and Recreation Department are facing. She reviewed

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JUNE 12, 2018 PAGE 2 a flier regarding Upcoming Dover P.A.L. Events (Attachment #2), noting that on Fridays, beginning July 6, 2018 at 10:00 a.m., the Police Athletic League will offer physical activity and fun for all ages. Mrs. Cyr stated that the Friday P.A.L. events would be held at People's Church, Dover Park, Mayfair Park, and Schutte Park. Mrs. Cyr informed members that the Library, Parks and Recreation Department, and Dover P.A.L. are very excited about this opportunity to bring events for families into the parks this summer. She expressed her hope that members would join them in the parks and help them spread the word about this amazing opportunity for the community. Mr. Neil indicated that he thought this was a terrific set-up of programs throughout the entire City that would be spectacular for the entire community. He expressed his hope that the word gets out and that the crowds come, noting that he thinks the people will enjoy it. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Cyr stated that she would be happy to email the fliers to members in PDF and jpeg formats, so they can use them however they want to. Referring to the reading enrichment program at 11:00 a.m. at Dover Park, Mr. Sudler asked what accommodations would be made if it rains, noting that there is no center. Responding, Mrs. Cyr explained that all of the programs are outside at all of the parks, and the only park that has an inside facility is Schutte Park, which will be used for a P.A.L. event. She noted that all of the events are subject to the weather and they do have lots of pop-up tents that they are planning to take with them. Mrs. Cyr stated that they have an opportunity to move some of them into the Library; however, that is not really ideal because the purpose is to bring the events out into the community. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindell and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:08 p.m. UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee met with Chairman Cole presiding. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS By unanimous consent, the agenda was approved as presented. Annexation Request - 3074 North DuPont Highway, Owned by Jesse L. Allen Mrs. Sharon Duca, Public Works Director/City Engineer, reviewed the Petition to Annex and Rezone Property located at 3074 North DuPont Highway, owned by Jesse L. Allen. She explained that although the annexation has being going through the appropriate process as contained within the Code, she wanted to clarify the comments provided by the Public Works Department regarding the water and sewer availability for the site. Mrs. Duca stated that she is not aware of what the applicant or owner intends to utilize the property for, or the basis of their request for wanting to

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JUNE 12, 2018 PAGE 3 annex into the City. She advised that the site is not currently provided public water and sewer. Mrs. Duca explained that City of Dover water and sewer are available within 200 feet of the property and the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) would not typically allow onsite water and sewer within that proximity. She advised that installation of City services would require approval from the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) to bore under Route 13. Mrs. Duca stated that DelDOT does not want utilities in their rights-of-way any longer; therefore, this would require a special approval from DelDOT. Mrs. Duca informed members that due to the fact that it would have to be bored and the County force main, which is already having issues, lies in the median, there will have to be particular caution and requirements and it would be highly unlikely that they would be able to obtain gravity sewer, which means they would need grinder pump connection. She explained that, depending on what they want to utilize the site for, they may need a two-inch connection for a standard usage or, if they are building a larger building or if the use of the building would require a sprinkler system, as per the Fire Marshal, that could require an eight-inch main to be run across. Mrs. Duca stated that the tentative costs at this point to provide service only to the property, which would be born by the applicant, would be $85,000 for the sewer and a two-inch line connection or $100,000 if an eight- inch line. Mrs. Duca noted that, through Kent County, Tidewater provides sewer and water to residences to the east and they also have an interconnection from the City through Wilmington University to provide supplemental water to that area if needed. Mrs. Duca advised that the closest water and sewer on the east side that is the City’s, is at Wilmington University, explaining that there is water at Wilmington University and they have a pump station that is City owned but associated with that site because there is no gravity sewer. She stated that there is also a force main near the Wawa which serves the Wawa and other properties south; however, based upon an analysis that was done when the Sonic went in prior to the Starbucks, that force main is pretty much at a capacity and would not be able to receive additional flow. Mrs. Duca explained that the distances to either location on the east side of the highway are greater than 600 feet and would most likely have to run in the right- of-way, which would require DelDOT approval and also be very expensive, similarly to crossing the highway. Mrs. Duca stated that these are items that Council and the applicant may want to consider as part of the overall annexation because it may affect what is proposed for the site. Mr. Neil indicated that he thought that this annexation request seemed premature unless these issues are worked out. He asked if it made any sense to proceed with the annexation, unless the owner wants the property annexed without the availability of water and sewer. Responding, Mrs. Duca explained this was why Public Works Department staff recommended that the applicant should probably review this information to determine if this is still a path forward that they would like, particularly if their original intent was to receive City water and sewer. She noted that for commercial properties it is typically the developer’s responsibility to provide the water and sewer to their property. Mrs. Duca stated that the City does not provide individual service at its expense and if the City wanted to expand service to the east side of the highway, it would be much more expensive than what's proposed here and would also go into Tidewater districts.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JUNE 12, 2018 PAGE 4 Mr. Neil asked how the Committee should proceed with this request other than a motion to defer it until such time as the applicant can resolve the issues that Mrs. Duca has reviewed. Responding, Mr. Cole advised that no action was required by the Committee at this time. Mrs. Duca stated that this was informative and that it was her belief that this information was being provided to the applicant since it is scheduled for consideration by the Development Advisory Committee and Planning Commission, and would also be coming back to City Council for consideration at a future meeting. Mr. Slavin noted that, as a matter of procedure, the proper action would be for the Committee to move this matter forward with no recommendation, which would allow the normal annexation process to continue. Mr. Slavin moved to move this item forward with no recommendation, seconded by Mr. Sudler and carried with Mr. Anderson voting no. Evaluation of Bids - Delaware Tech Pump Station Replacement Mrs. Sharon Duca, Public Works Director/City Engineer, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the evaluation of bids for the Delaware Tech Pump Station Replacement. Staff recommended awarding the contract to Teal Construction, Inc., for the City of Dover Delaware Tech Pump Station Replacement Project, Bid #18-0025PW, for the amount of $355,118. Mr. Sudler asked what the second lowest bid was and what the variation in the service would be between the two (2) contractors. Responding, Mrs. Duca stated that the second lowest bid was from George & Lynch, Inc. in the amount of $446,710.00 and, since these were bids, all of the contractors evaluated met all of the bidders qualifications and these are based upon price. Mr. Neil applauded staff, noting that he had observed that all of the bids being considered by the Committee during the meeting came in under budget, with the exception of one. He stated that he thought that this fit into the comprehensive plan of what the City is supposed to be doing in terms of these structures. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Evaluation of Bids - North State Street Water Main Replacement Mrs. Sharon Duca, Public Works Director/City Engineer, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the evaluation of bids for the North State Street Water Main Replacement. Staff recommended awarding the contract to Gateway Construction, Inc., for the City of Dover North State Street Water Main Replacement Project, Bid #18-0028PW, for the amount of $163,480. Mr. Anderson asked how many recent contracts the City had with Gateway Construction, Inc. Responding, Mrs. Duca stated that the City had a few contracts with Gateway Construction, Inc. over the years, on various types of projects. She noted that they do all kinds of work and, for the most part, they had been responsive.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JUNE 12, 2018 PAGE 5 Mr. Sudler thanked staff for their insight, noting that he thought it was a good call to assess and address this future problematic situation. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Evaluation of Bids - Silver Lake Pump Station Replacement Mrs. Sharon Duca, Public Works Director/City Engineer, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the evaluation of bids for the Silver Lake Pump Station Replacement. She noted that it is the second of the three pump stations that are part of the Revolving Loan Fund package that the Department has been working on. Mrs. Duca advised that this pump station has exceeded its useful life and there will be some capacity adjustments, which will be funded through the impact fee reserves. Staff recommended awarding the contract to Teal Construction, Inc., for the City of Dover Silver Lake Pump Station Replacement Project, Bid #18-0026PW, for the amount of $422,338. Mr. Sudler asked Mrs. Duca for her opinion regarding why a lot of the bids were now coming in under budget. In response, Mrs. Duca stated that two (2) of the key factors that staff deals with relating to the bids are the time of year when they bid them out in relation to construction work, and the overall types of work being done in the area. In regard to the time of year, she explained that there can be a variation of price if contractors are already knee deep in projects and it would cost more for them to mobilize more crews to get these jobs done. Mrs. Duca, referring to the types of work being done in the area, stated that if there are lulls with private work on the utility side, the City could get better prices on jobs. She advised members that staff has found that they can often get better prices by bidding a combination of projects out at the same time because contractors will be able to anticipate getting more work and be able to book their time better. Mrs. Duca reminded members that they had previously bid the Bradford Street and William Street water main replacement in the same bid. She stated that it is about trying to find appropriate combinations and keeping an eye on the market at the same time. Mr. Neil moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Lindell and unanimously carried. Evaluation of Bids - Walker Woods Pump Station Replacement Mrs. Sharon Duca, Public Works Director/City Engineer, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the evaluation of bids for the Walker Woods Pump Station Replacement. She noted that it is the third of the three pump stations that are part of the Revolving Loan Fund package that the Department has been working on. Mrs. Duca advised that this is the remaining infrastructure item that the City retained after the redevelopment of the Walker Woods development that started a couple of years ago. Staff recommended awarding the contract to Teal Construction, Inc., for the City of Dover Walker Woods Pump Station Replacement Project, Bid #18-0027PW, for the amount of $525,000.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JUNE 12, 2018 PAGE 6 Mr. Neil moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Lindell and unanimously carried. Evaluation of Bids - Water Treatment Plant Process Improvements Mrs. Sharon Duca, Public Works Director/City Engineer, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the evaluation of bids for the Water Treatment Plant Process Improvements. She noted that there were concerns about the efficiency of being able to remove iron magnesia and that type of thing out of the shallow wells because this is the unconfined aquifer, and explained that the upgrades will improve the overall efficiency of the Plant. Mrs. Duca reminded members that the design for the upgrades went through a value engineering assessment through White Marsh, which was previously approved by the Committee and Council. She advised that, taking into account the operational requirements of the City of Dover, it was determined that this is the most appropriate design, although it is more expensive than originally thought before the design was complete. Mrs. Duca explained that the City Manager had included these funds within the budget, starting next year and it would also be partially funding through a loan from the Revolving Fund. She stated that, at this point, with the appropriate planning, staff was within the budget requirements for this project and would be able to proceed with the loan as required. Mrs. Duca informed members that this project is expected to take over the next year or so to complete. Staff recommended awarding the contract to Johnston Construction Company for the Water Treatment Plant Process Improvements, Bid #18-0014PW, for the amount of $5,972,851. Mr. Anderson asked what was meant by the note that Bearing Construction and Johnston Construction Company provided extensions of their bids. Responding, Mrs. Duca explained that when the City originally put this project out to bid, the contractors had to hold the price for 90 days; however, due to the fact that the City wanted to go through the Value Engineering Assessment to make sure we were on the right track, we had to ask the contractors if they would hold their bid prices for a longer period of time. She stated that not all of the contractors held their prices but the final selection was made from those who did. Mr. Polce noted that he understood that the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund is a federal-state partnership and match, and asked if there is a maximum allocation request that the City can make for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. In response, Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, advised members that there probably is a maximum allocation; however, the City is evidently not exceeding it because the Water Advisory Committee reviews this and tells the City whether or not they are eligible for funds, and they authorized these funds. Mr. Sudler stated that he wanted to personally thank those contractors who held their bid, explaining that, as a contractor, he knows that contractors really do not want to hold a bid price because materials go up, and there are all kinds of variables when it comes to a bid. Mr. Neil moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Lindell and unanimously carried.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JUNE 12, 2018 PAGE 7 Evaluation of Proposals - Puncheon Run Wastewater Engineering Mrs. Sharon Duca, Public Works Director/City Engineer, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the evaluation of proposals for the Puncheon Run Wastewater Engineering. Mrs. Duca explained that this is one (1) of the City’s larger pump stations and has a grit removal system that takes care of some of the solids and other inappropriate matter that is located within the wastewater stream. Staff recommended awarding the contract to Pennoni Associates for the Puncheon Run Wastewater Engineering, Bid #18-0023PW, for the amount of $47,900. Mr. Sudler asked what the difference in the life span was for the current system versus the proposed new system. Responding, Mrs. Duca explained that part of the design is to provide the proposal on the new system. She stated that, in general, most things that they can choose from today have a better life span than what would have been put in the station 30 years ago. Mrs. Duca advised that one (1) of the key components of the design is testing the waste stream to see if there are any particular components that need to be taken into consideration for the materials that are used as part of the design, for instance, if something could be more corrosive, that could jeopardize the life span. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Evaluation of Proposals - Water Treatment Plant Construction Support Mrs. Sharon Duca, Public Works Director/City Engineer, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the evaluation of proposals for the Water Treatment Plant Construction Support. She explained that construction support is required because the level of the project being performed is outside the background of most of the City’s inspection staff and with the complexity of this station, staff would like people who are proficient in this area to make sure the construction is done properly and inspected. Staff recommended awarding the contract to Duffield Associates for the Construction Support related to the Water Treatment Plant Process Improvements, Bid #18-0018PW, for the amount of $298,500. Mr. Polce noted that the $7M budget for this project included the construction phase and construction support phase. He stated that $7M seemed great and asked how the City was generating these budgeted numbers and whether they were benchmarked accordingly. Responding, Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, advised that this project was originally budgeted for $2.7M and they had gone through the State Revolving Loan Fund for approval of that budget. She explained that when they got the engineering estimates, it was up to $6M. Mrs. Mitchell informed members that staff was able to divert $2M from the Wastewater Fund budget that had been budgeted for a water tower for the west side of Dover for which they were never able to get easements, and they received approval to increase the State Revolving Fund loan to $4M. She stated that the loan was for $4M and the rest of the funding was coming from the Water/Sewer Fund, impact fees, etc. Mr. Neil moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Lindell and unanimously carried.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JUNE 12, 2018 PAGE 8 Mr. Sudler moved for adjournment of the Utility Committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindell and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:38 p.m. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Council President Slavin presiding in the absence of Chairman Hare. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Discussion - Fiscal Year 2018 Audit Program Ms. Lori Peddicord, Controller/Treasurer, reviewed a presentation entitled “Auditor’s Responsibility for Communicating with Audit Committee,” dated June 12, 2018. Mr. Polce stated that it was his assumption that the City did compliance audits as well as financial audits and asked what the typical audit requests were. In response, Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, stated that for the financial audit, the auditors will audit the City for compliance with internal controls and those types of things. She noted, however, that they will not do compliance audits for grant funds or those types of things. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the City does not have a State auditor's office compliance audit. She advised that they will audit any grants that are greater than a certain threshold, which she believes was currently $750,000, and if the City does not exceed that threshold, it will not have an audit. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the City did not have an audit the past couple of years because it did not exceed that threshold, noting that the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) fund is only approximately $300,000. She advised the revolving fund loans are partly federal monies and, due to the size of the loans, the City would see audits in the future. Mr. Anderson moved to recommend acceptance of the report, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Proposed Amendments to Employee Handbook - City of Dover Personnel Policy, Article VII - Ethical Conduct, Section 6 - Harassment and Discrimination, Section 7 - Acceptable Use of Communications and Computer Systems (New), Section 8 - Social Networking: Personal Online/Internet Content Policy (New), and Section 9 - Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Guidelines (New) Mrs. Kim Hawkins, Director of Human Resources, reviewed the proposed amendments to the Employee Handbook - City of Dover Personnel Policy. She noted that currently Section 6 - Harassment and Discrimination, was limited to one (1) line and, in today’s market and employment field, it really needed to be enhanced tremendously. Mrs. Hawkins stated that the proposed amendments provide very good details of what to do if an employee is experiencing harassment

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JUNE 12, 2018 PAGE 9 and/or discrimination within the work environment, including who to report it to, what will happen once it's been reported, and the action that will be taken when the investigation is complete. Mrs. Hawkins advised that Section 7 - Acceptable Use of Communications and Computer Systems, was a current City policy that is distributed to all new employees and since she was brining forward other amendments for consideration, she thought it was a good opportunity to include it in the Employee Handbook - City of Dover Personnel Policy. In regard to Section 8 - Social Networking: Personal Online/Internet Content Policy, Mrs. Hawkins explained that this new section was very similar to what is currently implemented for officers by the Police Department. She advised that this section basically states that employees need to make it clear when they are on social websites that their opinions are not the opinions of the City of Dover. She noted that the City is not restricting an employee’s ability to communicate on social media; the City just wants them to differentiate between personal thoughts and those of a City of Dover employee. Mrs. Hawkins informed members that Section 9 - Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Guidelines, is a summary of the State law which was implemented by the State of Delaware in 2014. She noted that this is already in place and adhered to in the City and, like the Social Networking Policy, she thought it was the appropriate time to bring it forward with these additional changes. Staff recommended approval of the proposed amendments. Mr. Sudler, referring to Section 8 - Social Networking: Personal Online/Internet Content Policy, asked what tangible tool the City would use to measure achievement in regard to the required regulation. He asked if there was an example to provide employees of what is and is not acceptable, such as “Before I say anything, please note, for the record, that this is my own personal opinion and not the opinion of the City, although I am in a position with the City.” Responding, Mrs. Hawkins stated that she did not include any examples in Section 8, explaining that it would basically be self-reported or if someone happened to see someone else making inappropriate comments and representing themself as a City of Dover employee, and not clearly identifying that their comments are their own personal opinions, they would need to report it so it could be investigated. Mr. Sudler expressed concern that people having leeway to interpret the policy could lead to possible litigation and suggested the inclusion of a clear and precise example to which everyone could refer. Mr. Slavin stated that he would caution against using examples because then the examples become the only thing that things are measured against; however, he noted that it was Mrs. Hawkins decision as the Human Resources Director. Mr. Anderson thanked Mrs. Hawkins, noting that he thought she had done a superb job with the proposed amendments. He stated that he did not think the amendments went too far on one side or the other, but seemed to bring clarity in modern times, without infringing upon people’s daily lives. Mr. Anderson noted that he had one concern with the word “morale” in subparagraph 3 of the proposed new Section 8. Social Networking: Personal Online/Internet Content Policy. He explained that he thought that “morale” should be removed from the sentence “Could be reasonably interpreted as having an adverse effect upon City morale, discipline, and operation of the agency, safety of staff or perception of the public” because any supervisor could interpret morale any way they want, including constructive criticism or venting on something important. Mr. Anderson noted that a lot of times problems are found early because someone says something that happened in their daily lives; however, people could be afraid to say anything if it’s interpreted that broadly.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JUNE 12, 2018 PAGE 10 Mr. Anderson moved to recommend that the proposed new Section 8. Social Networking: Personal Online/Internet Content Policy, subparagraph 3, be amended to strike the word “morale.” The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil. Mr. Neil stated that he thought that morale is subjective and was not sure how it would be interpreted. He noted that he agreed with the rest of the amendments and thought that staff did a marvelous job. The motion to recommend that the proposed new Section 8. Social Networking: Personal Online/Internet Content Policy, subparagraph 3, be amended to strike the word “morale” was carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes (Anderson, Sudler, Neil, Cole, Lindell, Stewart, and Shevock), two (2) no (Polce, and Slavin), and two (2) absent (Lewis, and Hare). Mr. Sudler moved to recommend approval of the amendments to the Employee Handbook - City of Dover Personnel Policy, as amended, and with the notation and suggestions from Mr. Sudler. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Proposed Amendments to Appendix B - Zoning Mr. David Hugg, Director of Planning and Community Development, advised members that the following three (3) proposed amendments to Appendix B - Zoning of the Dover Code were part of an ongoing effort to address issues as staff works its way through the zoning ordinance and the day-to-day application process. He explained that these text amendments would ultimately be part of one (1) ordinance amendment to make it more efficient in terms of recording the changes. Text Amendment: Creation of IPM3 Zone (Industrial Park Manufacturing - Industrial Aviation and Aeronautics Center)(MI-18-05) Amending Article 3 - District Regulations, (New) Section 20B - Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone - Industrial Aviation and Aeronautics Center (IPM3) and Section 24 - Planned Neighborhood Design Option [(PND)]; Article 4 - Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations, Section 4.16 - M, IPM Zones; Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Section 8 - Performance Standards; and Article 12 - Definitions Mr. David Hugg, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed the background regarding the text amendments related to the creation of a new IPM3 Zone (Industrial Park Manufacturing - Industrial Aviation and Aeronautics Center), which is intended primarily to permit businesses in aviation and aeronautics-related industries. The proposed text amendments would also create bulk standards for the new zone and make minor changes to the performance standards to ensure uses in the IPM3 zone are covered under them. Staff recommended adoption of the proposed amendments. Mr. Slavin stated that the date for the public hearing and final action was noted as August 13, 2018; however, it would take place during the Regular Council Meeting on August 27, 2018. Mr. Neil moved to recommend adoption of the proposed amendments, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JUNE 12, 2018 PAGE 11 Text Amendment: Replacement of Maximum Parking Requirement (MI-18-06) Amending Article 4 - Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations, Section 4.15 - [C-3, C-4, R-C, IO, and CPO Zones.] and Section 4.16 - M, IPM Zones; and Article 6 - Off-Street Parking, Driveways and Loading Facilities, Section 3 - Required Off-Street Parking Spaces Mr. David Hugg, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed the background regarding the text amendments related to removing the maximum parking requirement. The proposed text amendments would remove the maximum parking space limitation given in Article 6 of the Zoning Ordinance, and replace it with new maximum lot coverage limitations for several zones where excessive parking lot size is of particular concern, including the C-3, C-4, RC, IPM, IPM-2, and M Zones, which would limit the amount of impervious surface on the property. Mr. Hugg advised members that these proposed amendments had been discussed with the development community and they like it because it gives them the flexibility to work with a broader standard. Staff recommended adoption of the proposed amendments. Mr. Slavin stated that the date for the public hearing and final action was noted as August 13, 2018; however, it would take place during the Regular Council Meeting on August 27, 2018. Mr. Neil moved to recommend adoption of the proposed amendments, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. Text Amendment: Vehicle Signs (MI-18-07) Amending Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Section 4 - Supplementary Sign Regulations Mr. David Hugg, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed the background regarding the text amendments related to vehicle signs. The proposed text amendment would give the city planner guidance on whether or not a vehicle sign is permitted. Under current Code, vehicle signs are always permitted except where the vehicle is inoperable or being used for the sole purpose of signage and the proposed amendments provide a list of criteria which the city planner may use to determine if a vehicle is being used for the sole purpose of signage. Staff recommended adoption of the proposed amendments. Mr. Slavin stated that the date for the public hearing and final action was noted as August 13, 2018; however, it would take place during the Regular Council Meeting on August 27, 2018. Mr. Sudler asked if there is a time frame that a vehicle can be parked or a time tracking system. Responding, Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner, explained that staff looked at some examples and line 529 of the proposed text amendments provides a series of criteria, which includes references to time, for example, what is happening with the vehicle during normal business hours, and whether it is regularly parked there. She advised that it does not include a specific number of days or time frame because the series of criteria are what the city planner would look to, to make a decision about whether or not it's being solely used as a sign, and not having other functions such as delivery, etc. Mr. Sudler suggested that a time track would add clarity.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JUNE 12, 2018 PAGE 12 Mr. Anderson expressed concern regarding these text amendments, explaining that the 2012 amendments had addressed complaints from businesses regarding the City’s sign regulations. He advised members that one of the intentions of the 2012 amendments to the sign ordinance was to ensure that people could promote their businesses by allowing them to park vehicles where they can be seen, when the vehicles are legitimately used for business deliveries and sales crew. Mr. Anderson noted that it is not okay to put a sign on vehicle that is up on blocks, unregistered, or inoperable, because then it is not legitimately being used for the business. He expressed concern that these amendments may, inadvertently, be reversing the previous amendments, noting that a lot of businesses, particularly small businesses, had benefitted from not having to worry about where to park their vehicles when they are trying to operate their businesses. Mr. Anderson expressed concern that the proposed amendments did not specify how many of the criteria are to be used, which could be confusing. He stated that he was particularly concerned with lines 539-541 of the proposed text amendments, noting that he thought that any vehicle that is wrapped would meet this criteria. Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Hugg to explain the criteria and where a wrapped vehicle would fit it. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Hugg stated that he could go back and look at what happened in 2012 and why the particular language was stricken. He explained that the intent of the proposed text amendments was not to prohibit someone who has a legitimate business use of a vehicle with a sign on it from parking in front of their business or legally parking anywhere. Mr. Hugg indicated that the intent is to address vehicles that are used solely for signage, explaining that there are several businesses in the area which are currently using vehicles for permanent directional signage. He advised that part of the problem is that many business owners do not have the luxury of being able to park a vehicle in front of their business, so they have to go through a very rigorous process to get business signs, while their neighbor can essentially beat the system because they are able to park a vehicle out by the road. Mr. Hugg stated that staff has tried to introduce judgment back into the ordinance in regard to when a vehicle is clearly being used for signage and when it’s being used for business purposes. Mr. Anderson stated that he had definite concerns regarding lines 539-541 of the proposed text amendments, especially when combined with lines 536-538, which state that “...it is not necessary that any one of or all the listed criteria be present to determine that the vehicle is inoperable or being used for the sole purpose of displaying signage.” He asked for an explanation to alleviate his concerns. Mr. Sudler noted that a great example of a stationary vehicle used to promote a business was the large vehicle at Mission BBQ, which is rarely moved and he had observed parked on the grass several times and reported. He expressed concern that when staff begins implementing these changes, other agencies may begin to scrutinize how strict staff’s enforcement with Mission BBQ has been. Mr. Sudler cautioned staff to make sure that the ordinance is enforced across the board. Responding, Mr. Hugg noted that a local Mexican restaurant has a large truck that is used as a sign and never moves, whereas Mission BBQ’s vehicle is at least a type of utility vehicle. He explained that staff can issue a citation for a violation for vehicles that are parked on the grass, regardless of signage.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JUNE 12, 2018 PAGE 13 Mr. Hugg explained that currently there were more than eight (8) businesses that he was aware of that were using vehicles for signage and there is not a good mechanism for staff to make an argument that they are being used solely for signage, unless the vehicle is clearly inoperable. Mr. Sudler noted that he had seen the Mission BBQ vehicle move and knew that they used it because he had seen it smoking. Likewise, he stated that the Mexican restaurant uses their vehicle for catering and is sometimes parked around the back of the business. Mr. Sudler explained that the bottom line was that the City needed to develop a concrete example to use across the board, so that individuals won’t feel like they’re targeted or unfairly treated. In response to Mr. Neil, Mr. Hugg advised that Kent County Tourism’s vehicle called “The Villager” falls into a grey area. He explained that if it’s routinely moved or used for some ongoing business purpose and not simply parked and left in the same position, it would be allowable under these changes, however, it is one that could arguably be considered a vehicle sign. Mr. Shevock asked how it would be handled if Mission BBQ were to somehow lift their vehicle on top of their building. Responding, Mr. Hugg advised that this would not fall under these provisions because it would be considered a sign at that point, which may or may not be permitted under the City’s sign ordinance. He explained that there are provisions regarding the size of signs, how they can be placed, the number that can be on a building, etc. Mr. Hugg stated that he did not think that the City would want to start allowing businesses to place vehicles on top of buildings, which would create problems like he had seen in other parts of the country. Mr. Anderson reiterated his concerns regarding the proposed text amendments, noting that he believes business is good and being able to promote a business is a good thing. He indicated that he thought that there were a number of areas of code enforcement that the City was behind on, however, he did not think this was an area that members needed to address to make the City better and more livable. Mr. Anderson stated that businesses being able to prosper is a social benefit to the City. He noted that part of the intent of the 2012 changes to the sign ordinance was that staff would not be able to enforce it, except in extreme circumstances, and he was happy to hear that the intent was being reached. Mr. Anderson stated that he thought that many business owners and churches in the City would have legitimate concerns with these proposed amendments. Mr. Sudler stated that he agreed with Mr. Anderson that the City is open for business; however, he explained that he did not think that the proposed amendments would take the City backward. Mr. Sudler stated that he is a firm believer in regulations and he thinks this is a good way to do it because a lot of the vehicles on the highway can obstruct the vision of someone turning, which could create a traffic issue. Mr. Neil noted that the ordinance was not being written in granite and, depending on the public reaction, members can always go back and revisit it again. Mr. Lindell echoed the sentiments of Mr. Sudler and Mr. Neil. He stated that he thought that there was an obvious issue which the Planning Department was trying to address. Mr. Lindell noted that Council still had time to review and make adjustments to these proposed amendments prior to adoption of the ordinance and, even if Council adopts them, changes can be made if issues and

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JUNE 12, 2018 PAGE 14 complaints arise. He explained that his is the process of governing, you see an issue, you try to deal with it, if other issues arise from that, you deal with them as they come. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend adoption of the proposed amendments, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindell and carried with Mr. Anderson voting no. Mr. Sudler moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:23 p.m. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (All Members of All Committees) The Council Committee of the Whole met with Council President Slavin presiding. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Update on 2019 Comprehensive Plan Project Mr. David Hugg, Director of Planning and Community Development, and Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner, reviewed a presentation entitled “City of Dover, Delaware, 2019 Comprehensive Plan, Project Update June 2018” (Attachment #3). Members were provided with a copy of the City of Dover 2019 Comprehensive Plan Survey (Attachment #4) available at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/2YPJPV2. In addition to the survey, members were asked to complete an evaluation of the implementation of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan using the charts entitled “Evaluation of 2008 Goals and Recommendations.” Mr. Sudler noted that there were constituents on Queen Street who were interested in the comprehensive development plan for that area. He noted that there is housing for the local institutions, including Wesley College or Delaware State University, etc., and the owners of property in the area around 101 North Queen Street asked him to look into the comprehensive objectives for that area. Responding, Mr. Hugg stated that he would be glad to review this information with Mr. Sudler. Mr. Hugg noted that he had failed to mention that staff had identified five (5) target zones downtown in which major activities may take place, one (1) of which he is referring to as the new neighborhoods, which are basically located in the general area north and south of Division Street, where the City is working with the National Council on Agricultural Life and Labor Research Fund, Inc. (NCALL), Habitat for Humanity, and Restoring Central Dover. He indicated that they would welcome the opportunity to share what they are thinking and to receive input from these property owners as well. Mr. Sudler stated that they really want to know what the City is planning so they can tailor their plans around that and know what is and isn’t permissible. He noted that he would contact Mr. Hugg to schedule a meeting.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JUNE 12, 2018 PAGE 15 Mr. Polce noted that the data is critically important to this process. He expressed concern that the survey would be collecting non-identifiable data, since this would increase the probability for duplication of survey responses. Mr. Polce cautioned against dispersing the survey using Survey Monkey and in paper format because it would dilute the data and have an impact on what staff hopes to achieve. Referring to the survey questions, Mr. Polce noted that there were some inconsistencies with the way the questions were framed that could inherently have biases. He indicated that everyone must be mindful on how data influences their decisions as policy makers and stake holders, and encouraged them to take another look at what data they’re trying to collect, how they’re collecting it and how it’s going to shape the proposal. In response, Mr. Hugg explained that they were using the same survey that had been used in 2003 and 2008 to ascertain if there are any trends. He noted that he is not a great believer in open ended surveys but hopefully they will provide reaffirmation or indicate a change regarding the top ten issues. Mr. Anderson noted that many other municipalities similar in size to Dover bring in firms to help complete their comprehensive plans and asked if the City was doing it all in-house. Responding, Mr. Hugg stated that the City had purchased the professional version of Survey Monkey, which provided a lot of opportunities and had some assistance from Strongpoint Marketing; however, the majority of the work was being done in-house. He explained that the City already has a good plan, so they can take the time to refine it, instead of reinventing the wheel. Mr. Hugg indicated that the five (5) staff members in the Planning Department ought to know enough about the community or people who they can ask about the community to complete the project in-house, so paying someone from outside the City would not be the right way to go. Mr. Anderson suggested, from a marketing point of view, that the City may want to consider moving away from using the word “target” and instead using a term like dream or dreaming zones. He noted that this was one of the more frequent statements he had heard in the neighborhoods. Mr. Hugg expressed his thanks to the staff involved in the Comprehensive Plan project, noting that they are a great group. Mr. Slavin reminded all Council and civilian Committee members of the mandatory ethics training being held on June 26, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindell and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:59 p.m. Timothy A. Slavin Council President TAS/TM/dd//jt S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Committee-Minutes\2018\06-12-2018 CCW Minutes (Revised 07-26-18 to correct typographical error).wpd Attachments Attachment #1 - A flier regarding Tuesday in the Park, provided by Mrs. Margery Cyr, Library Director Attachment #2 - A flier regarding Upcoming Dover P.A.L. Events, provided by Mrs. Margery Cyr, Library Director

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JUNE 12, 2018 PAGE 16 Attachment #3 - A presentation entitled “City of Dover, Delaware, 2019 Comprehensive Plan, Project Update June 2018” Attachment #4 - City of Dover 2019 Comprehensive Plan Survey

ATTACHMENT #1 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 06/12/2018 TUESDAY IN THE PARK For additional information please visit or call: doverpubliclibrary.org cityofdover.com/parks-rec-home {302) 736-7030

ATTACHMENT #2 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 06/12/2018

ATTACHMENT #3 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 06/12/2018 City of Dover, Delaware 2019 Comprehensive Plan Project Update June 2018

2019 Comprehensive Plan Project •Overview •Project Schedule •Tasks to Date •Engagement Activities

Overview of Approach to Project • Current Plan: ▫ 2008 Comprehensive Plan (as amended)  Adopted February 9, 2009  Series of Amendments (2009-2016) • Requirements for Comprehensive Plans ▫ Delaware Code, Title 22 and 29 ▫ State of Delaware Comprehensive Plan Checklist • 2019 Comprehensive Plan Project ▫ 2018-2019 Major Goal of Department of Planning & Inspections

Project Schedule • Due Date: February 9, 2019 • Requests for Extension (due December 12, 2018) • Project Team: ▫ Planning Staff ▫ Resources ▫ Participants ▫ Reviewers

Project Schedule • Phases (5 Components): ▫ Information Gathering ▫ Plan & Map Development ▫ Consideration of Plan Recommendations ▫ Formal Review & Adoption Process ▫ Plan Implementation

• Data Gathering • Analysis of 2008 Plan Information • Pre-Update Review at PLUS February – September Gathering • Meetings with Agencies, Stakeholders, etc. 2018 • Engagement Events • Chapter Writing Review & Preparation of Map set Plan & Map • • Development of Goals, Recommendations, July – September 2018 Development & Actions Consideration of • Engagement Events • General Endorsement of DRAFT Plan by Plan Planning Commission and City Council September 2018 Recommendations • PLUS Review/ PLUS Letter • Plan Revisions Formal Review & • Planning Commission Hearing & Action October 2018 – February Adoption Process • City Council Hearing & Action 2019 • Plan Certification Plan • Final Publication • Implementation Work on Action Items February 2019 and ongoing Implementation

Information Gathering • Data Gathering • Analysis of 2008 Plan • Pre-Update Review at PLUS • Meetings with Agencies, Stakeholders, etc. • Engagement Events • February – September 2018

Plan & Map Development • Chapter Writing • Review & Preparation of Map set • Development of Goals, Recommendations, & Actions (Updated/Revised/New) • July – September 2018

Consideration of Plan Recommendations • Engagement Events • General Endorsement of DRAFT Plan by Planning Commission and City Council • September 2018

Formal Review & Adoption Process • PLUS Review/ PLUS Letter • Plan Revisions [to meet State requirements (if any)] • Planning Commission Hearing & Action • City Council Hearing & Action • Plan Certification (OSPC, CCSPI to Governor) • October 2018 – February 2019

Plan Implementation • Final Publication • Implementation Work on Action Items • February 2019 and ongoing

Tasks to Date • Project Team Meetings • 2008 Comprehensive Plan documents and Review • Pre-Update Review with PLUS • Outreach to Resources • Plan4Health: Guidance for Incorporating Health into the City of Dover Comprehensive Plan • CLG Grant Application • Questionnaire/Survey developed

Questionnaire/Survey • Series of Topics • Electronic (Online) and Paper Copy Formats • Survey Link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/2YPJPV2

Engagement Activities •Events & Activities •Information Sources •Other Activities

Events & Activities •Evaluation of Goals & Recommendations from 2008 Plan •Evaluation of Status of 2008 Action Items & Plan Implementation

Evaluation of Goals & Recommendations from 2008 Plan Task • Using the attached Charts entitled “Evaluation of 2008 Goals and Recommendations,” please evaluate each goal and provide any comments regarding each goal. The second Chart focuses on the recommendations; please evaluate recommendation and provide any comments regarding each recommendation. These Plan Goals and Recommendations are found in Table 1-1 and in Chapters 5-11 of Dover's 2008 Comprehensive Plan as amended. • Use the following scale of 1 to 5 in evaluating the importance of each goal and for each recommendation. ▫ 1 = Less Important ▫ 2 = Somewhat Important ▫ 3 = Important ▫ 4 = More Important ▫ 5 = Very Important

Events & Activities Dover Economic Development Forum An Economist Vision of Dover Wednesday, June 13th 10 AM – 1 PM Dover Campus Building A 3282 North DuPont Highway Dover, DE

Events & Activities Understanding Housing Market Trends Discussion with Realtors and Homebuilders (Tentative) Wednesday, July 11th 2:00PM Economic Development Committee Meeting

Information Sources • 2008 Comprehensive Plan (as amended) • Annual Reports to OSPC • Departments’ Monthly Reports to City Council • Planning & Market Reports/News Reports • Other Studies and Plans

Information Sources • 2008 Comprehensive Plan (as amended) https://www.cityofdover.com/comprehensive-plan-4005 • 2019 Comprehensive Plan Project https://www.cityofdover.com/2019-comprehensive-plan

2019 Comprehensive Plan Project Planning for a Bigger, Better Dover! compplan@dover.de.us Planning Office at 736-7196

ATTACHMENT #4 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 06/12/2018 City of Dover 2019 Comprehensive Plan Survey The City of Dover is creating a new Comprehensive Plan for 2019. The Comprehensive Plan is an assessment of the City’s strengths, as well as areas that can be improved upon, and how we can allocate our resources to ensure that the City of Dover continues to grow and thrive. This covers all aspects of City life from roads to parks, employment to housing, land use to annexation and much more. The City of Dover cannot make this new plan without the active involvement of our most crucial aspect, our citizens. This Survey is our opportunity to ask you your thoughts on the current state of the various elements of life in the City of Dover, as well as your vision for the future. Your answers are extremely important to us and we thank you for your time in sharing your opinions with us in this Survey! This survey is also available online at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/2YPJPV2 Follow the progress of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan project at: www.cityofdover.com/2019-comprehensive-plan If you have any questions or comments please let us know! City of Dover Planning Office: (302) 736-7196 Project e-mail address: compplan@dover.de.us If you have filled out the physical copy of the survey, we kindly ask that you bring the completed survey to the City of Dover Department of Planning and Inspections front desk at City Hall, 15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, DE. Thank you!

Welcome! Before we get to questions about the city, please take a moment to tell us about yourself. This demographic information will help us identify trends in the preferences and views of our respondents. 1. What is your age? (Circle one) 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75+ 2. What is your current employment status? (Check one) □ Employed full time (40+ hours per week) □ Student □ Employed part time (up to 29 hours per week) □ Retired □ Unemployed and currently looking for work □ Homemaker □ Unemployed and not looking for work □ Self-Employed □ Unable to Work 3. What is your household income? (Circle one) Less than $20k $20,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $124,999 $125,000 to $149,999 More than $150k 4. Check all that are true: □ I own a home in Dover □ I own a business in Dover □ I own a commercial investment property in Dover □ I own a residential investment property in Dover 5. What is your zip code? Write here: ____________________ 6. Do you live inside the City Limits of Dover or outside the City Limits? (Circle one) Inside Outside Unsure 7. How many children are in your home, under the age of 18? Write here: ____________ 8. The City of Dover uses multiple channels to relay occasional information to the community. How do you prefer to receive information? (Circle all that apply. Answering this question will not sign you up for any distribution lists). Email Social Media Text/SMS messages Telephone Printed newsletter Other: __________________ Dover 2019 Comprehensive Plan: Summer 2018 Survey Page 1 of 13

Economic Development Dover’s economy is increasingly healthy and expanding as new businesses chose Dover as their home. Health care and retail services are leading Dover’s recovery from the economic downturn of a few years ago. However, many goods and services are supplied by business outside our area, draining dollars and jobs away from Dover and Kent County. Please share your opinions on the following topics: Please rate the following statements using the scale below, circling only one number for each answer: Strongly Agree Agree No Opinion Disagree Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 1. The City should be directly involved in retention and recruitment of businesses by dedicating staff and resources to economic development, promotion and marketing of the City, and participation in closely aligned organizations such as the Kent Economic Partnership, the Central Dover Chamber of Commerce, Greater Kent Committee, and the State. 1 2 3 4 5 2. The City should work with Dover’s institutions of higher education (Delaware State University, Wesley College, Wilmington University and Delaware Technical & Community College) to promote the City as a center for higher education and encourage greater involvement of college students in the local economy. 1 2 3 4 5 3. Dover should prioritize the creation of more skilled labor and trade jobs to improve our economy and provide opportunities for our youth. 1 2 3 4 5 4. The City should strengthen the Downtown by investing in key public facilities, such as a parking garage, new City Hall, and improvements to the Downtown streetscape. 1 2 3 4 5 5. Dover should actively promote tourism, the arts, recreation, cultural resources, natural resources, and entertainment as key components of maintaining a high quality of life. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Several studies have proposed a major mixed-use redevelopment of the western end of Loockerman Street and the Forest Street gateway into the City. The City should implement these studies because the area is currently long-neglected and in need of revitalization. 1 2 3 4 5 Dover 2019 Comprehensive Plan: Summer 2018 Survey Page 2 of 13

Downtown Dover Downtown Dover is the historic heart of the City. The Restoring Central Dover Plan was completed in 2014, setting forth a vision and program for revitalization. Since then the City, the Downtown Dover Partnership, NCALL, Habitat for Humanity and other public and private investors have made significant improvements to the area, including the construction of 22 new homes and acquisition of 10 lots to build more as well as providing numerous redevelopment incentives to businesses. This planning initiative was critical to the state’s designation of Dover’s Downtown Development District. How do you feel about the continued revitalization of Downtown Dover? 1. I support the continuation of City policies that encourage Downtown revitalization (circle one). Yes No No Opinion 2. I believe the current efforts of the City and other partners have been successful (circle one). Yes No No Opinion 3. The following issues have been identified as important challenges for Downtown Dover. Are these issues still important? Please rate them based on the following scale, circling only one number for each item: Extremely Important Important No Opinion Not Important Not an Issue 1 2 3 4 5 Crime and Safety 1 2 3 4 5 Filling Vacant Stores 1 2 3 4 5 Historic Preservation 1 2 3 4 5 Property Maintenance 1 2 3 4 5 Homelessness 1 2 3 4 5 Parking 1 2 3 4 5 Housing 1 2 3 4 5 Public Utilities 1 2 3 4 5 Streetscape 1 2 3 4 5 Other (specify____________________) 1 2 3 4 5 Please write down your three highest priority issues from the list above: ____________________ ____________________ ______________________ No. 1 Priority No. 2 Priority No. 3 Priority Dover 2019 Comprehensive Plan: Summer 2018 Survey Page 3 of 13

Housing It is desirable in any community to have a range of housing styles available for people of various family types, sizes, and economic classes. An adequate supply of housing ensures a vibrant community and a sound economy. Please share your opinions below about housing opportunities in the City. 1. There is an adequate supply of housing in Dover for people of all ages, family styles, and economic classes (circle one). Agree Disagree No Opinion 2. Please rate how appropriate the following housing styles are for Dover using the following scale. Assume that each housing type would be well designed, well maintained, and located in a suitable area as defined by the Comprehensive Plan. Please circle only one number for each item. Highly Desirable Desirable No Opinion Undesirable Highly Undesirable 1 2 3 4 5 Single family detached houses 1 2 3 4 5 Single family townhouses / duplexes 1 2 3 4 5 Manufactured homes 1 2 3 4 5 Garden apartments (less than 3 stories) 1 2 3 4 5 High-Rise apartments (more than 3 stories) 1 2 3 4 5 Upper floor apartments (above commercial) 1 2 3 4 5 Accessory apartments (Within owner-occupied one-family homes) 1 2 3 4 5 3. Please rate how appropriate the following housing styles are specifically for providing affordable housing to the City’s neediest members, including the homeless population. Assume that each housing type would be well designed, well maintained, and located in a suitable area as defined by the Comprehensive Plan. Use the scale above and circle only one number for each. Single family homes (all types) 1 2 3 4 5 Apartments (all types) 1 2 3 4 5 Group homes and assisted living 1 2 3 4 5 Manufactured homes 1 2 3 4 5 Tiny houses (detached structures typically less than 400 sq.ft.) 1 2 3 4 5 4. The City should encourage efforts to find housing for the city’s homeless population (circle one). Agree Disagree No Opinion Dover 2019 Comprehensive Plan: Summer 2018 Survey Page 4 of 13

Traffic and Transit Dover has several major roads passing through the City, including Route 13 (DuPont Highway), Route 8 (Forrest Avenue and Division Street) and Route 15 (McKee Road, Saulsbury Road, and Hazletteville Road). These roads are used by thousands of cars each day, as well as by local buses operated by DART. The City works extensively with the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) planning for future road improvements on these roads. Dover also has over 100 miles of local streets maintained exclusively by the City. Please share your opinions below on the following topics related to road and transit improvements: 1. Please let us know how much you agree with the following statements. Circle only one number for each statement. Strongly Agree Agree No Opinion Disagree Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Route 8 and Route 15 are adequate to handle the daily traffic present on the road. 1 2 3 4 5 POW-MIA Parkway (the West Dover Connector) has improved traffic flow on the west side of Dover since its construction. 1 2 3 4 5 Neighborhood streets (all streets other than the main roads) are well maintained. 1 2 3 4 5 2. What improvements to public transit (DART buses) would make it a more attractive transportation option to you? Please rank the following 1-6 with the number 1 being the most important to you. Use each number only one time. Improvement to the public transit/bus system Rank Longer bus operating hours More frequent bus stops along existing routes More bus shelters and benches at bus stops Changing routes to allow faster time to one’s destination Better accommodations for bicycles, strollers, etc. on buses and at stops More services at or near the Dover Transit Center 3. The City should actively pursue policies that will make Dover friendlier to emerging transportation technologies, such as electric vehicles, self-driving cars, ridesharing, and bikesharing (circle one). Agree Disagree No Opinion Dover 2019 Comprehensive Plan: Summer 2018 Survey Page 5 of 13

Utilities and Services Public utilities and Infrastructure include electricity, water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater management, while Community Services and Facilities include police, fire & ambulance, parks & recreation, the library, disaster preparedness, health, and education. The City faces several challenges in its provision of utilities and services. Responsibility for some public utilities is shared with Kent County, and many community services, like schools and healthcare facilities, are run by the State or private entities. In addition, some services have been provided by the City for decades or even centuries, leading to aging infrastructure that is expensive to replace. Finally, new commercial and residential developments put additional pressure on this already aging infrastructure. The City seeks to keep pace with demand and meet the needs of our residents and businesses. Please share your opinion on how the City can improve the quality of its services: 1) One of the main goals set out by the City of Dover in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan was to provide a new library facility to meet the demands of our growing local community. In 2011, the new library building was finished on Loockerman Plaza. This new facility has proved successful at meeting the demands placed on it for media, meeting space, study areas, technology access, and other library functions (circle one). Strongly Agree Agree No Opinion Disagree Strongly Disagree 2) Since 2008 the City has experienced few or no electric brownouts or blackouts when there is NOT a storm or weather event (circle one). Strongly Agree Agree No Opinion Disagree Strongly Disagree 3) Since 2008, the City has experienced less frequent incidents of brown water or other water system failures (circle one). Strongly Agree Agree No Opinion Disagree Strongly Disagree 4) The City’s Police, Fire, and Ambulance Services are adequately equipped to meet the demands of the City of Dover’s residents and businesses (circle one). Strongly Agree Agree No Opinion Disagree Strongly Disagree Dover 2019 Comprehensive Plan: Summer 2018 Survey Page 6 of 13

Parks and Recreation The City has committed to comprehensively studying park and recreation issues in Dover. The first step was taken with the 2015 Recreation Needs Assessment, which identified needed improvements in several city parks, including trails, skate parks, park shelters, and other amenities. To follow up the City began developing Master Plans for the City’s largest parks, including the 2017 Schutte Park Master Plan and the ongoing Dover Park Master Plan. These plans will give more detail on how needed improvements should be designed and when they should be built. One issue that has not been studied in depth is how to fund these improvements and pay for ongoing park maintenance. Please share your opinions below on the following issues related to parks: 1. What are the most important parks and recreation issues to you? Please rank the following 1-6 with the number 1 being the most important to you. Use each number only one time. Issue Rank Building walking and bicycle trails Providing passive parks and natural areas Programming active parks and ball fields Maintaining playgrounds for children Building more indoor recreation space Maintaining interpretive or historical sites 2. Which do you think is a better way to help make sure there are enough parks and recreation opportunities for both current and new residents? Check one: □ Charge developers an impact fee for new residential development, with the revenue going towards improvements to existing public parks such as Schutte Park, Silver Lake Park, and Dover Park □ Require developers to build private playgrounds, trails, and other amenities for new residential development, and form HOAs (homeowners’ associations) or other organizations to maintain them 3. The City is currently doing a good job maintaining its public parks. Playground equipment, park shelters, and other amenities are in good repair. Trees, grass, and other plants are trimmed so the parks do not look unkempt (circle one). Agree Disagree No Opinion Dover 2019 Comprehensive Plan: Summer 2018 Survey Page 7 of 13

Natural Environment Dover benefits from many natural resources in and near the City, including Silver Lake, the St. Jones River and its tributaries, the Fork Branch Nature Preserve, and the Delaware Bay. Natural resources like trees and water have many beneficial effects, including reducing noise pollution, reducing the urban “heat island effect” by giving shade and cooling the air, and allowing for recreational opportunities. However, natural resources usually need to be protected to make sure they continue to thrive. Please share your opinions below on the following topics related to the natural environment: This section to be edited 1. Please rate the following actions the City can take to improve and/or protect the natural environment in Dover, using the following scale. Circle only one number for each item. Very Important Important No Opinion Not Important Should Avoid 1 2 3 4 5 Combat floods by preventing new development in known flood areas, and undertaking mitigation projects to minimize flooding 1 2 3 4 5 Improve air quality and urban temperatures by planting more trees around the city 1 2 3 4 5 Improve water quality by filtering stormwater before it reaches Silver Lake and other water bodies, and by keeping the water free of trash 1 2 3 4 5 Continue policies discouraging development east of State Route 1, to keep the land between the city and the bay as agriculture and open space 1 2 3 4 5 Build infrastructure that allows easier access to natural resources, such as woodland trails 1 2 3 4 5 Please write down your two highest priority issues from the list above: _________________________________ ___________________________________ No. 1 Priority No. 2 Priority 2. Since 2008, flooding in the City has become (circle all that apply): More intense More frequent Less intense Less frequent The same as it was in 2008 Made worse by development Made better by development Dover 2019 Comprehensive Plan: Summer 2018 Survey Page 8 of 13

Development and Urban Design Urban Design is the design of public places- not just the architecture of buildings, but all the space and features in between, including streetscapes, landscaping, parking, and service areas like stormwater management ponds and loading spaces. The City is committed to promoting new development that not only looks attractive, but is designed to be convenient to residents and visitors. Please share your opinions below on how well the City has met this goal. 1. The City is committed to promoting residential neighborhoods in Dover that are well planned, designed, and constructed, thereby providing a high quality of life to residents. Please rate how well new residential neighborhoods are designed and developed according to the following scale. Circle only one number for each item. Very Good Good Adequate Poor Very Poor 1 2 3 4 5 Variety of housing 1 2 3 4 5 Landscaping and trees 1 2 3 4 5 Recreation areas 1 2 3 4 5 Pedestrian access and sidewalks 1 2 3 4 5 Automobile access and parking 1 2 3 4 5 Bicycle access and bike paths 1 2 3 4 5 Utilities and services 1 2 3 4 5 Stormwater management 1 2 3 4 5 Overall design of developments 1 2 3 4 5 Clarity of development process 1 2 3 4 5 2. The City is committed to promoting commercial, institutional, and industrial development in Dover that is well planned, designed, and constructed, thereby delivering high-quality and efficient goods and services to residents and visitors. Please rate how well new commercial and other non-residential construction is designed and developed according to the scale above. Circle only one number for each item. Variety of commercial opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 Convenience of locations 1 2 3 4 5 Landscaping and trees 1 2 3 4 5 Pedestrian access and sidewalks 1 2 3 4 5 Automobile access and parking 1 2 3 4 5 Bicycle access and bike paths 1 2 3 4 5 Stormwater management 1 2 3 4 5 Overall design of developments 1 2 3 4 5 Clarity of development process 1 2 3 4 5 Dover 2019 Comprehensive Plan: Summer 2018 Survey Page 9 of 13

Land Use, Growth and Annexation The City’s services and utilities have been impacted by urban growth and increased population, even when it has occurred outside of the current City limits. The City can expand its limits to add newly developing properties on the periphery to its tax base, but this also increases the area for which the City is responsible for services. New growth frequently occurs inside the city instead, and while this does not increase the City’s service area it can more strongly impact existing neighborhoods. One way or another, Dover welcomes more people every year, and the City needs to be prepared for them. Please share your opinions below on the topics of land use, growth, and annexation in Dover. 1. Since 2008 the rate of growth and development in Dover has been (circle one): Too fast Too slow Just right No Opinion 2. The City should seek to annex properties on the periphery of Dover that will be developed as residential subdivisions, especially when City utilities and services are suggested (circle one). Agree Disagree No Opinion 3. The City should seek to annex properties on the periphery of Dover that will be developed as commercial or industrial businesses, especially when City utilities and services are suggested (circle one). Agree Disagree No Opinion 4. The City should seek to funnel residential growth into existing areas of Dover (i.e. promote redevelopment), increasing density but allowing the same City utilities and services to serve more people (circle one). Agree Disagree No Opinion 5. The City should seek to promote mixed use development (co-location of residential growth with commercial development and job opportunities) to enable easier access to amenities and reduce strain on the City’s transportation network (circle one). Agree Disagree No Opinion 6. The City should encourage redevelopment or renovation of existing buildings for new uses (circle one). Agree Disagree No Opinion Dover 2019 Comprehensive Plan: Summer 2018 Survey Page 10 of 13

Dover Air Force Base and the Civil Air Terminal Dover Air Force Base is a significant part of the Dover community and a critical piece of our nation’s military infrastructure. The Base employs over 6000 civilian and military personnel and is the east coast’s largest air cargo port. The base runways also support a small civilian airport on Horsepond Road known as the Civil Air Terminal. The City has long had the policy of supporting the Base’s mission by restricting residential and other land uses where they are incompatible with flight operations. Please share your opinions below on the following topics regarding the City’s coordination with the Dover Air Force Base: 1. The City of Dover should actively seek to retain the base within the city by enacting policies that support its mission. The City should oppose any efforts or activities that may result in a future base closure (circle one). Agree Disagree No Opinion 2. The City of Dover should continue the policy of restricting certain types of land uses where they are incompatible with the mission of the base. This includes temporary activities such as special events which draw large crowds (circle one). Agree Disagree No Opinion 3. The City of Dover should support expansion and development of the Civil Air Terminal, in order to improve commuter air service to the city and attract industries focused on aviation and aeronautics (circle one). Agree Disagree No Opinion Dover 2019 Comprehensive Plan: Summer 2018 Survey Page 11 of 13

Dover Top Ten As part of the process for previous Comprehensive Plans, respondents were asked to list the items they liked most and least about living and working in Dover. The results of that question are listed below (in no priority order). Please rank in order of importance to you these issues, assuming 1 being the most important and 10 being the least important to you. Please rank these responses. Assume that “1” is the most important to you and “10” is the least important to you. Likes about Dover Rank Design and size of the City Historic buildings Low taxes / no sales tax High quality of life Cultural and seasonal activities Flowers, trees, and landscaping Downtown Dover Proximity to big cities Small town atmosphere Mixture of land uses Dislikes about Dover Rank Not enough sidewalks Poor planning Rapid growth Traffic congestion Lack of Downtown parking Not enough recreation programs Crime and drug issues Not enough bike paths / lanes Too many vacant buildings Traffic lights Recognizing that much has changed since 2008, please list up to three additional likes/dislikes that should be considered in developing the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. Likes 1_______________________ 2______________________ 3______________________ Dislikes 1_______________________ 2______________________ 3______________________ Dover 2019 Comprehensive Plan: Summer 2018 Survey Page 12 of 13

Comments Please use this space to share any additional thoughts and opinions on the City of Dover and on any of the topic areas covered in this survey. Thank you for participating! ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Dover 2019 Comprehensive Plan: Summer 2018 Survey Page 13 of 13