CCW PACKET Revised 03-26-2018

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA MARCH 27, 2018 - 6:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 15 LOOCKERMAN PLAZA, DOVER, DELAWARE PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE WELCOMED ON ANY ITEM AND WILL BE PERMITTED AT APPROPRIATE TIMES. WHEN POSSIBLE, PLEASE NOTIFY THE CITY CLERK (736-7008 OR E-MAIL AT CITYCLERK@DOVER.DE.US) SHOULD YOU WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED. SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS 1. PRESENTATION BY THE DOVER/KENT COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) - FINAL REPORT OF THE DOWNTOWN DOVER PARKING STUDY 2. BRIEFING ON DOVER/KENT COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) PROJECTS (COMMITTEE ACTION NOT REQUIRED) 3. UPDATE - SAFETY ISSUES AT THE LIBRARY 4. ADJOURNMENT OF SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING UTILITY COMMITTEE AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS 1. PRESENTATION - ELECTRIC RATE DESIGN AND COST OF SERVICES STUDY 2. ROJAN MEADOWS SANITARY SEWER TERRITORY TRANSFERENCE (STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL TO TRANSFER THE ROJAN MEADOWS SANITARY SEWER TERRITORY TO KENT COUNTY PENDING THE DEVELOPER’S ABILITY TO OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY APPROVALS AND AUTHORIZATIONS AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY) 3. ADJOURNMENT OF UTILITY COMMITTEE MEETING

MARCH 27, 2018 COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Page 2 LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS 1. STATUS OF OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (OPEB) AND PENSION FUNDS (DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS, THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED DURING THE MEETING OF MARCH 13, 2018)(COMMITTEE ACTION NOT REQUIRED) 2. PROJECT CARRY-FORWARD BUDGET BALANCES AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2018-02 - FY 2017- 2018 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT (DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS, THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED DURING THE MEETING OF MARCH 13, 2018)(STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE #2018-02) 3. GRANT APPLICATION PROCEDURE REVISIONS (STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROCEDURE REVISIONS AS REQUESTED) 4. DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION STUDY REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) (DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS, THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED DURING THE MEETING OF MARCH 13, 2018)(STAFF RECOMMENDS AUTHORIZING FUNDING UP TO $97,400 TO SUPPORT THE FULL SCOPE OF THE RFP) 5. ADJOURNMENT OF LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING ADJOURNMENT OF COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING /TM S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\COMMITTEE-AGENDAS\2018\03-27-2018 CCW AGENDA. WPD THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. PURSUANT TO 29 DEL. C. §10004(E )(2), THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, WHICH ARISE AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING.

Parking Study Prepared for: City of Dover Dover / Kent County MPO Downtown Dover Partnership Prepared by: Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. KSK Architects Planners Historians January 2018

Downtown Dover Parking Study Final Report – January 2018 Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 3 2. Project Approach................................................................................................................................... 4 Project Boundaries .................................................................................................................................... 5 Project Milestones .................................................................................................................................... 8 3. Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 9 Review of Previous Parking Study ............................................................................................................. 9 Review of Current Regulations and Land Uses in Downtown Dover ...................................................... 15 Parking Inventory .................................................................................................................................... 16 Parking Counts ........................................................................................................................................ 17 Special Event Parking .............................................................................................................................. 22 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 22 4. Public Outreach Process...................................................................................................................... 25 Public Meeting Number 1 – March 29, 2017 .......................................................................................... 25 Public Meeting Number 2 – May 31, 2017 ............................................................................................. 28 Public Meeting Number 3 – August 24, 2017 ......................................................................................... 30 Public Survey ........................................................................................................................................... 36 5. Parking Rates Analysis and Comparison with Peer Cities ................................................................... 39 Review of Current Dover Parking Rate Structure ................................................................................... 39 Review of Comparable City Parking Rate Structures .............................................................................. 39 Analysis of Contributing Factors to Parking Rate Issues ......................................................................... 41 Alternatives Analysis for Downtown Dover Parking Rate Structure ....................................................... 42 6. Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 47 7. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 70 Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians i

APPENDICES: Appendix A – Previous Study – Downtown Dover Parking Study completed by KSK, February 2004 Appendix B – Public Meeting Boards and Sign-In Sheets Appendix C – Summary of Public Online Survey Results Appendix D – Parking Demand Models For further information on the project, please contact: James J. Galvin, Jr. AICP Dover/Kent County MPO 1783 Friends Way # 3, Camden, DE 19934 Phone: (302) 387-6030 www.doverkentmpo.delaware.gov Eddie Diaz, Planner City of Dover, Delaware, Department of Planning & Inspections City Hall, 15 Loockerman Plaza , Dover, DE 19901 Phone: (302) 736-7196 www.cityofdover.com This study was prepared for the Dover / Kent County MPO and the City of Dover by a team composed of Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. and KSK Architects Planners and Historians, Inc. Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. KSK Architects Planners and Historians, Inc. 1818 Market St, Suite 3300 2133 Arch St #303 Philadelphia, PA – 19103 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 845-8900 (215) 790-1050 www.langan.com www.ksk1.com Dover / Kent County MPO retains ownership of all products developed by the consulting team during this project, including the parking data collected, the Parking Demand Model, and the Parking Costs, Pricing and Revenue Model developed during the project. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians ii

Executive Summary The Downtown Dover Parking Study is an initiative of the City of Dover and the Dover / Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (DKCMPO), in partnership with the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP). These partners retained our consulting team, led by Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. (Langan) and with KSK Architects Planners and Historians, Inc. (KSK), to take a fresh look at the issue of parking downtown, and to come up with a series of recommendations that would be updated from the last time a parking study was conducted (in 2004) and would reinforce attempts to redevelop and bring fresh vitality downtown. The primary study area for this new study was bound by Water Street to the south, West Street to the west, Fulton Street to the north and State Street to the east. Additionally we also studied the area around the City Hall Lot which is bound by State Street to the west, Division Street to the north, Water Street to the south and Park Drive to the east. As with most successful downtowns, the complaints about parking in Dover are chronic. It was important to investigate the root cause of the complaints – whether they were caused by lack of sufficient parking (supply problem), by increased usage (demand problem), by lack of wayfinding or fear of safety (human factor problems), by parking rates (pricing problem), by unbalanced demand issues (management problem), or by a combination thereof. This analysis was especially important in light of the longstanding public discussion in Dover that a parking garage would be the solution. If this were the first option taken to address the parking issues, it would likely burden the city with significant debt to fund construction, while it would likely not operate significantly dissimilar from some of the existing parking lots which are currently half-full. The project team reviewed the previous study and other available parking data, conducted additional parking counts for both on-street and off-street parking, reviewed the current parking rate structure and peer cities’ rate structures, conducted significant stakeholder and public outreach, and at the end of the analysis came up with a set of recommendations. Ultimately, the data and the feedback showed that during peak-demand periods there is actually plenty of unused capacity within the current supply of downtown parking spaces. However, the patterns of parking utilization show that all available resources are actually not well utilized. “Parking surfers1” and staff occupy the prime parking spots that should instead be dedicated to visitors and customers for downtown businesses, and the current parking rate structure provides incentives for these users and for parking permit holders, in detriment of the desired visitors and customers. Key Findings  There are approximately 1,762 parking spaces within the study area, including 607 On-Street public spaces, 459 Off-Street public parking spaces, and an estimated 696 Off-Street private parking spaces.  To date, the City of Dover has managed parking demand with traditional methods, including, reserved parking leases (as an incentive to attract businesses downtown), free short-term parking, time limits for some spots, and installation of some metered sports.  Downtown Dover time limits are having no effect at distributing demand to areas with more availability and providing more rotation for customers for downtown businesses. Instead, “parking 1 Parking surfers are local workers who avoid the 2-Hour parking limits by constantly coming back to their cars to move them to a nearby spot or to re-feed a meter, thus effectively blocking the goal of the limits, which is to increase the rotation and availability of parking spots near businesses. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 1

surfers” are placing many of these spaces out of the inventory of available parking for customers. The current meter rates are also ineffective at moving these undesired uses away from high-demand areas.  The existing parking lease program is valuable to some key businesses that were attracted downtown. However, the current configuration of permit spaces effectively creates an inner ring of parking that is available only to permit holders (and might thus sit idle), while desired customers and visitors have to seek out other options further away.  The overall peak occupancy of on-street parking did not exceed 75%; and of the off-street parking lots did not exceed 63%. When adjusted for time of day and type of use, the overall system occupancy never exceeded 60%, when the typical targets for efficient use without overcrowding are typically are 85% occupancy for on-street parking and 90% for off-street parking.  There are indications that downtown Dover can become a successful park-once destination, where most drivers only use one parking space per visit, regardless of how many destinations they visit. The issue is really two-fold: an inefficient distribution of parking capacity, where some lots and preferred on- street spots might see over 80% occupancy, and others linger below 40%; and confusing wayfinding and parking rate systems, which contribute to create a large disincentive for parking downtown. The project team developed a series of recommendations to address these findings, based on the analysis as well as the input and feedback from multiple stakeholders and the public. These set of recommendations basically fall into these categories:  Better wayfinding and signage  Revised parking rate structure  Improved physical infrastructure, including streetscape, landscape, lighting, security cameras, new pocket parks and connecting walkways, and new gateways to downtown  Enhanced public engagement and marketing of Historic Downtown Dover as a destination The proposed wayfinding and signage system can be implemented in phases, and will mitigate the confusion about where to park; will better orient drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians; and will ultimately also help brand Historic Downtown Dover as a cool destination to be, live, work, and play. The overall pricing rate strategy we recommend provides for a pricing- and demand-based strategy for managing parking in downtown Dover. It provides for a streamlined set of parking rates for visitors to downtown ($2 for on-street and still 25 cents for off-street lots); while providing a restructured set of fees for permit parking that starts to fully value the location of each spot provided. Using these strategies, parking demand will be better distributed, and the right users will park at the right spots at the right costs. The revised physical infrastructure will increase safety, change perceptions, and create an overall attractive environment downtown. New pedestrian connections and new gateways are proposed to break down barriers and bring more visitors and customers downtown. Finally, the enhanced public engagement and marketing will reinforce and perpetuate the success of all other improvements. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 2

1. Introduction The issue of parking in Downtown Dover has long been a topic for discussion. To many observers, a resolution to perceived or real parking issues has seemed to be intractable. The last time the issue of parking was analyzed in detail was on a study completed by KSK Transport for the City of Dover Parking Authority2 and City of Dover Department of Public Works in February 2004. Since then, many changes in parking in Downtown Dover have taken place, but complaints persisted. In 2016, the City of Dover (City) and the Dover / Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (DKCMPO), in collaboration with the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP), decided that a fresh look at the issue of parking downtown was necessary. They retained our consulting team, led by Langan Engineering and with the institutional knowledge and planning experience of KSK3, to complete a new parking study. After a year of study and coordination with stakeholders and the public, this report summarizes the current state of parking in Downtown Dover; describes what peer cities do to address their parking needs; examines the current parking fee structure; and provides a menu of recommendations, separated into short-term, medium-term, and long-term. These recommendations can be implemented concurrently or individually, to enhance the parking experience downtown and help Dover further its economic redevelopment and continued growth. Dover and Downtown have challenges – but their future is bright, and implementation of these recommendations can help the city achieve its goals quicker and in a more fulfilling way. This report goes into detail about how Dover can achieve its goals, and is divided into the following chapters:  Chapter 2 describes the Project Approach, including details about previous studies, major goals of the project, the indicators studied, the project geography, and the major project milestones  Chapter 3 describes the Existing Conditions of Downtown Dover parking, including information from previous studies, how new parking counts were conducted, and an analyses of the main issues with parking  Chapter 4 describes the Public Outreach process, including summaries from the 3 Public Outreach meetings, which were all conducted in open feedback or charrette formats; and the results from the online parking survey conducted  Chapter 5 describes the Parking Rate Analysis and Comparison with Peer Cities, including some alternatives examined for modifying the current parking rate structure  Chapter 6 lists the Recommendations developed as a result of the work described in previous chapters, and lists them in short-term, medium-term, and long-term implementation timelines 2 The City of Dover Parking Authority was staffed by the Dover Office of Planning and Inspections, and was responsible for accepting the recommendations and implementing the plan. 3 KSK is now known as KSK Architects Planners Historians, Inc. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 3

2. Project Approach The Downtown Dover Parking Study Project Approach focused on collecting updated data and stakeholder and public feedback, to gauge the existing condition of parking downtown and work toward a set of recommendations to improve parking, reduce complaints, and ultimately help foster a more attractive downtown and additional economic development. The specific tasks included in the study included a review of previously collected information, collection of updated parking data, a stakeholder and public outreach process, the performance of a parking analysis and the preparation of a set of recommendations. These main tasks can be broken down into the following subtasks:  Definition of project goals and project geographic limits,  review of previous reports,  collection of updated parking data,  stakeholder and public outreach,  preparation of a baseline demand analysis,  review of peer city parking strategies,  review of the existing parking fee strategy,  an alternative analysis, and  development of a preferred set of recommendations. One of the first steps in the process was to define the parking study goals. In coordination with the City and DKCMPO, the goals for the study were determined at the onset to be:  Address the adequacy of parking supply;  Recommend ways to effectively communicate available parking;  Analyze the existing parking fee structure; and  Determine the infrastructure needs. Based on the conclusions from previous parking studies and initial stakeholder input, it was known from the beginning that viable solutions for the parking issues might involve a combination of parking management, pricing, streetscape, enforcement, wayfinding, and infrastructure development strategies. Accordingly, for each of the goals above, several different indicators were examined, including:  To address the adequacy of parking supply: o Allocation of public parking spots for permit holders versus customers o Availability of on-street and off-street parking options o Availability of parking for specific business and entertainment destinations o Availability of parking for special public events  To recommend ways to effectively communicate available parking: o Existing wayfinding signage to available parking o Existing wayfinding signage within public parking lots o Conflicting signage for adjacent private parking lots o Cues to on-street parking Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 4

 To analyze existing parking fee structure: o Existing on-street parking fee structure o Existing off-street parking fee structure o Existing permit parking fee structure o Peer city fee structures  To determine the infrastructure needs: o Existing state of parking lots and meters and on-street parking and meters o Existing condition of pedestrian realm o Existing perceptions of safety and lighting o Existing demand for parking o Future development plans and future demand for parking Several items were deemed not to be relevant for inclusion in the study, or deemed to be too costly or too burdensome in relation to the resources available for the study. These excluded items included the analysis of parking at adjacent state-controlled facilities, analysis of parking at areas surrounding Wesley College, and the development of economic development projections for future potential development. Some items were included in the study only in a qualitative manner, such as the impact of the City Hall / Central Library parking lot, which is adjacent to the main parking areas examined. Project Boundaries In terms of project boundaries, the primary study area was bound by Water Street to the south, West Street to the west, Fulton Street to the north and State Street to the east. Additionally we also studied the area around the City Hall Lot which is bound by State Street to the west, Division Street to the north, Loockerman Street to the south and Park Drive to the east. Due to stakeholder input, this area was then extended south to Water Street. (see Figure 1, on the next page) Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 5

Figure 1: On-Street Parking Study Areas In addition, the study examined these main public parking facilities (see Figure 2, below): 1. Governor’s Avenue Lot – located near the western edge of downtown, between Governor’s Avenue and New Street, just north of Loockerman Street 2. Bradford Street Lot – located between Bradford Street and Governor’s Avenue, just north of Loockerman Street; and Minor Street Lot – a minor lot located immediately adjacent to and south of the Bradford Street lot 3. A Street Lot – located off Loockerman Street, just east of its intersection with State Street 4. Loockerman Way Lot – a lot located between Governor’s Avenue and State Street, just south of Loockerman Street, it today is only accessible from the south, on North Street 5. North Street Lot – located across the street from the Loockerman Way Lot, it is the largest lot in the public system and is accessible from North Street on its north and bank Lane on its south. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 6

City Hall / Library Lot A Street Lot Bradford St and Minor St Lots North Street Lot Governor’s Avenue Lot Loockerman Way Lot Figure 2: Off-Street Parking Lot Study Areas Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 7

As mentioned before, the City Hall / Library Lot located near these main public parking lots was only qualitatively considered in the analysis; no counts or parking analyses were conducted for it. Project Milestones Once the goals and geography for the project were established, the project team began its work. Ultimately, these were the major milestones of the project:  Project Kick-Off Meeting – September 21, 2016  Site Field Views – multiple  Steering Committee Meeting #1 – November 14, 2016  Parking Counts – conducted between December 2016 and March 2017  Steering Committee Meeting #2 – March 7, 2017  Public Meeting #1 – March 29, 2017  Public Meeting #2 – May 31, 2017  Public Meeting #3 – August 24, 2017  Public Survey – open from August 24 to November 7, 2017  Steering Committee Meeting #3 – November 7, 2017 These milestones are described in more detail in the chapters following. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 8

3. Existing Conditions An objective and thorough analysis of existing conditions is the key element needed to kick-off a successful parking study. Our existing conditions analysis included a review of information from previous studies, a review of current regulations and land uses in downtown Dover, the performance of new parking counts to determine how on-street and off-street parking areas are currently being utilized, and an analyses of the main issues revealed by this data. Review of Previous Parking Study One of the main studies providing initial guidance to the current effort was KSK’s Downtown Dover Parking Study completed in February 2004 (see Appendix A). That study identified two main components to the “parking problem” in downtown Dover:  The perception that parking was unavailable or far from shops and restaurants, and  The potential for a shortfall due to permit parking rebates offered to prospective developers The study presented an incremental approach to address this problem, starting with cost efficient enhancements to maximize the utility of existing parking supply, proceeding to new surface lot investments, and ultimately progressing to the proposed construction of an above ground parking structure (or structures) when development momentum reached a critical level. These three steps can be summarized as follows: 1. General Upgrades a. Enhance wayfinding system b. Upgrade quality and aesthetics of streets and intersections c. Animate pedestrian routes and reduce dead spaces 2. Lot Reconfiguration a. Reallocate City Hall lot spaces b. Install meter system in Bradford Street lot c. Install meter system in North Street lot d. Install meter system in City Hall lot 3. New Facilities a. Implement shared contributor program b. Build new surface lot on North St off Governor’s Avenue (with future potential for a North Street garage) c. Expand the Water Street lot d. Long term planning and development for a Governor’s Avenue redevelopment and Governor’s Ave or City Hall garage The study also recommended several operational improvements, which were considered separately. Comparing these recommendations with the existing conditions today, we know that some were fully implemented, some only partially implemented, and some were not implemented or were not successful. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 9

Figure 3: Off-Street Parking Lot Study Areas in 2004 First, it must be noted that many parking lots were reconfigured, created, or eliminated since the original study was completed in 2004, as follows: 1. Governor’s Avenue Lot – the number of parking spots between 2004 and 2017 in this lot increased from 43 to 103. 2. Bradford Street Lot – the number of spots in this lot increased from 50 to 111, as additional parcels were added on the southwest corner of the lot, adjacent to the Minor Street Lot. The Minor Street Lot itself saw an increase from 6 spots to 8 spots. 3. A Street Lot – this lot did not formally exist in 2004. It now has 20 spots. 4. Loockerman Way Lot – the number of spots increased from 10 to 35. 5. North Street Lot – this lot was greatly expanded, with the consolidation of disparate private lots to the east, west, and southwest, and the number of spots increased from 110 to 183 spots. 6. Water Street Lot – this lot, originally controlled by the City, was eliminated from City control with the construction of 102 W. Water Street in 2001 (today, the office building for the State Attorney General and a Nemours medical facility) and the addition to the Kent County Courthouse in 2010. Back in 2004, this lot had also housed bus operations, which actually effectively created a disincentive for users to park there. The bus operations were transferred to the new Dover Transit Center further down Water Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 10

Street when that facility was completed with ARRA funding in 2010. The lot was converted to state control and 69 spots were no longer available to the public. 7. City Hall / Library Lot – this lot remained unchanged, with 152 spots4. In summary, despite the loss of the Water Street lot, the total number of parking spots under city control actually increased during this period from 440 to 612 spots. Second, the study recommended improving wayfinding in the Downtown area. Only 8 of 16 proposed locations have signs today, some provide incomplete directions, and a couple of them (the ones pointing to the Bradford Street Lot, for example) point to lots that are almost exclusively reserved for permit parking, thus misdirecting a potential visitor or customer (see Figure 4, below). Signage Missing in 2017 Signage Incomplete in 2017 Figure 4: Recommended Parking Signage Installation Locations from 2004 Study Finally, the study also recommended further streetscape improvements to enhance the ease of pedestrian navigation to and from parking lots, as well as the perception of safety. Even though minor improvement were 4 A portion of the City Hall lot is used by municipal staff and other city-owned vehicles all day, so technically not all of the 152 spots are available for free 2-Hour parking. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 11

done to Loockerman Street and one section of North Street, most sections remained untouched (and, as will be seen in following sections, our current study has further recommendations for enhancement). See Figure 5, below, for details. At least partially complete Incomplete Figure 5: Recommended Streetscape Enhancements from 2004 Study The review of the status of the proposed enhancements does not intend to seek blame upon anyone; instead, it is intended just as an honest assessment of which recommendations were fully implemented, which only partially implemented, and which were not implemented. There may have been multiple causes for not implementing a specific recommendation, including lack of funding, the impact of the Great Recession of 2007- 2010, changed conditions on the ground, or many others. Table 1, on the next page, summarizes the status of each of the recommendations from the 2004 study. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 12

Table 1: Status of Recommendations from 2004 Study Recommendations from Status of Item in 2017 Implementation Successful / Status Not Successful? 2004 Study General Upgrades a. Enhance wayfinding system Some signage was installed, but more than Partial Unsuccessful half was not; what remains is insufficient or provides incomplete direction. In addition, parking lots are still not visible from main arterials (Loockerman and State Streets); and signage directs visitors to some parking lots which are completely or significantly reserved solely for permit parking, thus providing misleading information and aggravating visitors. b. Upgrade quality and In the past decade, at least two Partial Partially aesthetics of streets and streetscape enhancement projects were successful intersections conducted on Loockerman Street, one of which included actual reconstruction of streetscape. However, side streets and lighting issues were not addressed; some retailers complain of tree overgrowth hampering the visibility of their window displays and tree roots damaging sidewalks; and additional enhancements would be welcome. c. Animate pedestrian routes Loockerman Street and Loockerman Plaza Partial Partially and reduce dead spaces saw some enhancements. Side streets and successful vacant storefronts and vacant lots still present significant challenges. Lot Reconfiguration a. Reallocate City Hall lot spaces After the conclusion of the construction of Recommendat Unsuccessful the new Library in 2012, the City Hall lot ion not reopened with a smaller footprint and with implemented free 2-Hour parking. It today offers the most aesthetically-pleasing parking lot within the CBD, and the one that best complies with current design standards. However, the recommendation from the original 2004 study was to convert most spaces in this lot to either permit spaces (thus opening up the possibility of converting permit spaces in other lots to visitor spaces, much closer to the businesses on Loockerman Street) ; or to metered spaces. None of these conditions was implemented. b. Install meter system in A central parking payment kiosk was Partial Unsuccessful Bradford Street lot installed, and $1 maximum daily parking rate instituted. However, permit spaces from the Bradford Street Lot were not transferred over to the City Hall Lot. Thus, the projected additional supply of spots for visitors / shoppers was not provided. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 13

Recommendations from Status of Item in 2017 Implementation Successful / Status Not Successful? 2004 Study c. Install meter system in North The North Street lot was expanded, but all Recommendat Unsuccessful Street lot its parking spots are reserved for permit ion not parking. Thus, no spots for visitors / implemented shoppers are provided d. Install meter system in City Free 2-Hour parking is the current policy Recommendat Unsuccessful Hall lot for this lot. ion not implemented New Facilities a. Implement shared contributor Program was not implemented. Recommendat Unsuccessful program ion not implemented b. Build new surface lot on The North Street lot was expanded, but all Partial Unsuccessful North St off Governor’s its parking spots are reserved for permit Avenue (with future potential parking. Thus, no spots for visitors / for a North Street garage) shoppers are provided c. Expand the Water Street lot The Water Street lot was lost from City Recommendat Unsuccessful control with the construction of 102 W. ion not Water Street in 2001 (today, the office implemented building for the State Attorney General and a Nemours medical facility) and the addition to the Kent County Courthouse in 2010. The lot was converted to state control and 69 spots were lost. (Note: Back in 2004, this lot had also housed bus operations, which actually effectively created a disincentive for users to park there. The bus operations were transferred to the new Dover Transit Center further down Water Street when that facility was completed with ARRA funding in 2010). d. Long term planning and Program was not implemented. Recommendat Unsuccessful development for a Governor’s ion not Avenue redevelopment and implemented Governor’s Ave or City Hall garage Operational Improvements a. Add Price Flexibility The report analyzes different potential Limited Unsuccessful pricing strategies, including reducing the cost of the monthly permit parking or charging for 2-hour parking. Ultimately, it recommended an intermediate measure, the installation of metered parking at 25 cents per hour up to $1 daily maximum, at several strategic locations, including at the Bradford St lot, City Hall lot, and North St lot. Only a small portion of the Bradford St lot was ultimately reserved for this metering. Several unintended consequences resulted, including additional confusion from adding one more type of pricing, the Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 14

Recommendations from Status of Item in 2017 Implementation Successful / Status Not Successful? 2004 Study lack of additional metered spots during times of high-demand, and no impact in reducing the “Car-surfing” culture at free 2-hour spots. b. Site-specific Modification / The report also recommended Recommendat Unsuccessful Reallocation reconfiguration of the City Hall lot, the ion not State-owned Armory lot, and the West End implemented Federal Building lot. None of these were implemented as intended. In summary, we can make the following general observations when we contrast the recommendations from the 2004 study with the existing conditions: 1. General Upgrades: a. Even though some wayfinding signs were installed, no comprehensive system was implemented, and this is still one of the major weaknesses of the system today b. Quality and aesthetics of streets and intersections and pedestrian animation efforts have fallen short of expected and should be re-emphasized 2. Lot reconfiguration options have been implemented on a very limited basis and have ameliorated some of the issues. However, the confusing allocation of different types of parking (permit, 2-hour, etc.) has likely reduced or eliminated most positive results from these efforts. 3. New facilities – some redevelopment has taken place in downtown Dover already, most notably the recruitment of the EZ Pass facility to downtown, and the development of a residential mixed-use building at the corner of Loockerman Street and Governor’s Avenue. However, due to the age of the recommendations and the changing development scene5, the suggestions and proposed redevelopment timeline of the original report need to be revisited. 4. In hindsight, all the recommendations from the 2004 report had the right intentions, but in implementation were lost or not implemented at the right scale. For example, additional wayfinding and streetscaping are needed – but only minor improvements were made after the report was completed. On the other hand, the optimism of Pre-2009 Recession redevelopment efforts probably colored the recommendations for major lot reconfigurations and for the construction of parking garages. Post-recession, a more incremental approach seems to be more reasonable. Review of Current Regulations and Land Uses in Downtown Dover After reviewing the 2004 Parking Study, the project team also performed a quick review of current regulations and land uses in downtown Dover. One of the major items criticized in the 2004 study was the fact that the City of Dover was allowing new office development with fewer parking spaces than typically required by code, which led to additional demand on the public parking lot system. At the time, each new office development was required by code to provide one space per 300 square feet; but several reduction factors were commonly utilized to reduce this requirement, including:  20% reduction if within the downtown development target area  5 spaces reduction for each vanpool space 5 For example, during the time the current study was conducted, a developer had proposed the redevelopment of Loockerman Plaza into a multifamily residential building. That project was placed on hold near the conclusion of the current study. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 15

 3 spaces reduction for each carpool space The study instead recommended that the City of Dover adopt a “Cost In Lieu” program where developers would contribute to a parking fund that would help fund public parking enhancements (and potentially streetscape enhancements) downtown. In effect, such a fund would be more efficient in creating a centrally- located parking facility that would benefit both public and private. Even though an official parking fund was never created, the city’s zoning ordinance currently allows developers to pay cash-in-lieu of constructing parking in order to secure a parking waiver from the Planning Commission. This in a sense was a large step towards the creation of the parking fund. However, under current conditions, funds raised are not dedicated solely to parking. Another factor to take into consideration is that development pressure also subsided somewhat after the 2007-2010 Great Recession, reducing the opportunities for raising significant funds for a parking fund. If in the near future there is significant development pressure in Dover, the City could reexamine the potential for a parking fund. Finally, recent planning and zoning trends around the nation have shifted to encourage more walkability, bikeability, and use of transit, as well as the reduction in the use of parking maximum requirements for new developments. Since 1997, the City of Dover has made great strides in creating a more bicycle- and pedestrian- friendly city, including:  Achieving a Bicycle-Friendly Community Bronze Level recognition from the League of American Bicyclists (2017-2021)  Issuing the city’s Bicycle Plan and Pedestrian Plan; and securing funding for design and construction of the #1 bicycle facility priority for the city, the Senator Bikeway (2015)  Completing Phases I and II of the Capital City Trail (2014)  Enhancing pedestrian access along North Street (DelDOT streetscape – 2013)  Adding bicycle lanes to portions of South Governor’s Avenue and US 13 (2012), and to DelDOT improvement projects including on College Road, Walker Road and East Loockerman Street  Enhancing pedestrian access to Booker T Washington and Town Point Elementary Schools, and William Henry and Central Middle Schools (Safe Routes to School – 2010 and 2011)  Incorporating pedestrian signals and enhanced crosswalks on Del DOT imrpvoement projects, including on Division Street, North Street, and West Loockerman Street (2007)  Building the Isaac Branch Trail, part of the St. Jones River Greenway (2007) These pedestrian and bicycle enhancements, along with potential transit enhancements, have the potential to reduce pressures on the parking system and increase the residential and commercial vitality of downtown. We are encouraged by the active role the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittee and other city agencies have taken to implement better infrastructure. In relation to zoning, we would encourage the City of Dover to continue to periodically reexamine its zoning and building requirements in light of the current progress in this field (even though we did not specifically include this recommendation in our final recommendations included in Chapters 6 and 7, below). Parking Inventory To better understand current parking patterns and behaviors, and what changes might have occurred since the 2004 study, we conducted an inventory of the available public and private parking in the downtown study area. The study team received information about public lots from the City of Dover, and supplemented if with field checks; assisted City staff in counting the number of on-street parking spots; and performed a count of private parking lot spaces from aerial photography. There are approximately 1,762 parking spaces within the study area, including 607 On-Street public spaces, 459 Off-Street public parking spaces, and an estimated 696 Off-Street private parking spaces. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 16

Figure 6, below, shows how much of downtown paved parking already occupies – between a third to a half of all of downtown is already covered in pavement and used in parking. Figure 6: Representative Areas Occupied by Paved Parking Areas within Downtown Of the 1,119 public parking supply (both on-street and off-street):  37% (394 spaces) are permit spaces or somehow reserved for staff or tenants  32% (346 spaces) are Free 2-Hour parking spots  28% (302 spaces) are basically Free on-street parking spots (where there is no sign posted)  3% (32 spaces) are Metered off-street spaces, costing $0.25 per hour up to a maximum of $1 daily  3% (32 spaces) are ADA spaces  1% (11 spaces) are Free 30-minute spaces  0.2% (2 spaces) are Free 15-minute spaces Parking Counts The next step in the process was to conduct field parking counts of both on-street parking and off-street public parking lots. The project team first developed a parking count strategy and data collection forms. Langan assisted the City and DKCMPO in developing these, and the City then provided field staff to conduct the actual counts. On-street parking counts were conducted on December 8, 2016. Later, counts were conducted on off-street public parking lots on January 19, 2017 and February 22, 2017. Care was taken to conduct the counts on representative regular business days (with no special events or holidays), with clear weather6. 6 Counts had originally been scheduled to take place earlier in the Fall of 2016. However, due to administrative and funding issues, the team was not able to conduct counts before the 2016 holiday season. However, upon review, the data collection was deemed Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 17

On-Street Parking On-street parking counts were conducted on the following blocks:  Loockerman Street o North side, in front of Post Office o North side, in front of City Hall and library o North side, from State Street to Bradford Street o North side, from Bradford Street to Governor’s Avenue o North side, from Governor’s Avenue to New Street o North side, from New Street to Queen Street o South side, from New Street to Queen Street o South side, from Governor’s Avenue to New Street o South side, from Bradford Street to Governor’s Avenue o South side, from State Street to Bradford Street  Loockerman Plaza o South side, west of church o South side, in front of the church o South side, between Federal Street and Legislative Street  South Kings Highway o East side, from intersection with Loockerman Street to DNREC crosswalk o East side, in front of DNREC Building o East side, from street split to Division Street o East side, from Reed Street to State Street o West side, fronting the triangle o West side, short stretch o West side, behind Wendt Hall o West side, from Reed Street to State Street  Pennsylvania Street o East side, fronting the triangle o West side, fronting the triangle at Governor’s Café  American Street o East side, from Kings Highway to Division St o West Side, from Division to Kings Highway representative of a regular business day, since December 8 was early enough before holiday shopping went into full swing and before local workers started their vacation schedules. Public parking lot counts were repeated in late February to check for the impact of any vacation or cold weather issues in January. No significant impact was noted. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 18

 S State Street o East side, from Kings Highway to Reed Street o West side, from Reed Street to Loockerman Street  Bradford Street o East side, from Loockerman Street to Reed Street o West side, from Reed Street to Loockerman Street  Governor’s Avenue o East side, from Loockerman Street to Reed Street o West side, from Reed Street to Loockerman Street o West side, from North Street to Loockerman Street  S New Street o East side, from Loockerman Street to North Street o West side, from North Street to Loockerman Street  Federal Street o East side, from Loockerman Street To MLK Boulevard o East side, at the end of Legislative Mall o East side, from MLK Boulevard to Water Street o West side, from Water Street to MLK Boulevard o West side, at the end of Legislative Mall o West side, from North Street to Loockerman Street  MLK Boulevard o North side, from Federal Street to Legislative Street o North side, adjacent to Legislative Mall o South side, adjacent to Legislative Mall o South side, from Federal Street to Legislative Street  Water Street o North side, adjacent to Cooper Building o North side, adjacent to rear of Haslet Armory o North side, reserved DOC towards Federal Street o South side, from Legislative to Kerbin Street o South side, from Kerbin Street to State Street  The Green o Outside loop o Inside loop  Bank Lane Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 19

o South side, for one block The total number of on-street parking spots in the project area was determined to be 607, of which 14 were permit-only and 12 were ADA spots, reserved for those with disabilities. Examining the data collected, we then determined the peak occupancy rates, as follows: Peak Hour Occupancy Rate – we found the peak hour of occupancy across the entire study area to be the 12:30pm-1:30pm hour and calculated the peak occupancy rate at 75%. See Table 2, below. Hour Occupied %Occupied 8:30 AM 379 62% 9:30 AM 394 65% 10:30 AM 404 67% 11:30 AM 394 65% 12:30 PM 453 75% 1:30 PM 450 74% 2:30 PM 405 67% 3:30 PM 346 57% 4:30 PM 232 38% 5:30 PM 155 26% Peak Hour Spaces 12:30 -1:30 PM 453 Table 2: Peak Occupancy – On-Street Parking In addition, we also calculated the peak occupancies for permit spots at 57% and for ADA spots at 67%. Peak Hour Violations Rate – we found the percentage of vehicles parked during the 12:30pm-1:30pm peak occupancy hour on each block that were or would be in violation of the parking time limits. Such vehicles had either overstayed the time limit by this time or would go on to overstay the time limit while parked in this same space. Overall, the violation rate was 16% during this peak hour. The occupancy rate data also provides insight into which blocks have the largest demand, which generally are:  State Legislative Parking – segments surrounding Legislative Mall  Municipal Parking – on Loockerman Plaza in front of City Hall and the Library  DNREC Parking – on Kings Highway and American Street, in areas adjacent to the DNREC Building  Retail parking – on Loockerman Street, on the north side between New Street and Queen Street and the south side between Bradford Street and State Street Off-Street Parking Off-street parking counts were conducted on the following parking lots:  Governor’s Avenue Lot – located near the western edge of downtown, between Governor’s Avenue and New Street, just north of Loockerman Street Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 20

 Bradford Street Lot – located between Bradford Street and Governor’s Avenue, just north of Loockerman Street; and Minor Street Lot – a minor lot located immediately adjacent to and south of the Bradford Street lot  A Street Lot – located off Loockerman Street, just east of its intersection with State Street  Loockerman Way Lot – a lot located between Governor’s Avenue and State Street, just south of Loockerman Street, it today is only accessible from the south, on North Street  North Street Lot – located across the street from the Loockerman Way Lot, it is the largest lot in the public system and is accessible from North Street on its north and bank Lane on its south. The total number of off-street parking spots in these parking lots was determined to be 459, of which 380 were permit-only and 18 were ADA spots, reserved for those with disabilities. Examining the data collected, we then determined the peak occupancy rates, as follows: Peak Hour Occupancy Rate – The overall peak hour for all lots was found to be 11am-12p with 63% occupancy. See Table 3, below, for details. Hour Occupied %Occupied 8:00 AM 177 39% 9:00 AM 237 52% 10:00 AM 286 62% 11:00 AM 291 63% 12:00 PM 260 57% 1:00 PM 250 54% 2:00 PM 261 57% 3:00 PM 272 59% 4:00 PM 211 46% 5:00 PM 144 31% Peak Hour Spaces 11:00 -12:00 PM 291 Table 3: Peak Occupancy – Off-Street Parking In addition, we also calculated the peak occupancies for permit spots at 63% and for ADA spots at 44%. However, we also noted that the peak occupancy for individual lots varied widely, with a minimum occupancy of 21 percent for the Governor’s Avenue lot and a maximum occupancy of 84 percent for the North Street lot. See Table 4, below, for details. Parking Facility Spaces % Occupancy A Street 20 65% Loockerman 35 83% North St 183 84% Government Ave 103 21% Minor Street 8 63% Bradford 110 63% Total 459 63% Table 4: Peak Occupancy – Off-Street Parking per Lot Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 21

Finally, several additional observations can be made in relation to the data collected for these lots:  The Loockerman and North Street lots consistently have the highest average occupancy rates, in the 65% to 80% range. This reflects the dedicated permit spots reserved for employees of the firms which acquired the permits.  The A Street lot and especially the Governor’s Avenue lot have the lowest average occupancy rates, as low as 9% for the Governor’s Avenue Free parking spots lot. This shows that visitors are unaware of the free parking available to them, as close as the A Street lot or as numerous as those available in the Governor’s Avenue lot.  The Loockerman and North Street lots seem to have a morning peak occupancy period, especially in permit parking spots. In contrast, the Bradford lot seems to have a midday peak, especially on the metered spots. This reflects the day-long employee / permit parking focus of the first two lots; and the slightly more visitor-focused orientation of the Bradford Street lot. Special Event Parking Based upon consultation with the Steering Committee and stakeholders, the consensus on special event parking seemed to be that it was not a large concern or issue. For events such as Dover Days, the Fourth of July fireworks, or Comicon, the feedback is that most visitors do not seem to mind parking at further distances, outside the available downtown Dover parking lots, and walking longer distances. In fact, this seems to indicate that the “critical mass” of large crowds has a psychological effect of making these longer walks seem shorter and safer. The only partial exception to this rule were the expressed parking needs for the Schwartz Center for the Arts. This downtown Dover institution had a critical need to raise revenue by hosting additional small and medium scale events, especially during weekday business hours. However, the institution had no dedicated parking and thus could not accommodate many of this type of event. Unfortunately, the center was forced to shut down as this study was being conducted, due to insufficient revenues. Data Analysis The industry standard for optimal parking utilization is typically seen as 85% occupancy for on-street parking and 90% for off-street parking. Beyond this range of parking utilization, a small number of spaces may be available, but it is generally difficult for parkers to find these spaces. In addition, some of the available spaces may be compromised due to improperly parked vehicles in adjacent spaces. To account for this, the actual parking supply is typically reduced by 10-15% to determine effective supply. If we compare these rates with downtown Dover’s 63% off-street and 75% on-street occupancy rates, it can be seen that there is no scarcity of parking downtown. In effect, if better managed, the existing parking capacity could manage even higher volumes of users. To further check on this initial comparison, we also prepared a quick model of the current parking demand in downtown Dover, based on guidance contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE’s) Parking Generation Manual, 4th Edition (2010)7. The model was run with zoning and occupancy data we collected from the City of Dover’s Tax Parcel Assessor database. Table 5, on the next page, summarizes the results of the analysis. 7 ITE standards are based on parking demand studies submitted to ITE by a variety of parties, including public agencies, developers and th consulting firms. The 4 Edition of the Parking Generation Manual is the most current edition, and is the preferred methodology nationally to determine baseline parking demand assumptions. We utilized adjustment factor to ITE standards, since it is common knowledge in the profession that ITE values are appropriate for suburban shopping malls, and common practice to adjust for urban areas such as Dover. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 22

Land Use Number of Parking Spots % of Total Required Commercial 414 28% of total supply Office/Industrial 823 55% of total supply Residential 260 17% of total supply TOTAL 1,498 85% of Existing Supply Existing Supply 1,762 Table 5: Peak Occupancy Model – Total Parking Required and Available As can be seen, the current demand projection never exceeds 85% of the current existing supply. This model very likely overestimates the total demand for parking, since it assumes that all current properties are fully occupied (no vacancies) and that different types of demand creators will have constant peaks throughout the day. In reality, different uses have distinct peaks – for example, residents of downtown Dover will have peak demand at night, when they return from work; while downtown Dover office workers will have peak demand in the morning and afternoon, when they are at work. Thus, we also analyzed the time of day distributions of parking needed, by modeling the actual peak demands expected for each type of use. The actual peak use expected for the entire system actually saw two small peaks in the late afternoon / early evening, reaching 59% at 6 pm and 60% at 9 pm. These two peaks reflect the expected overlap between office workers and retail still being open late in the afternoon, when some residents will already be coming back home from their jobs located in other parts of the region. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 23

Table 6, below, summarizes the results of the model. Land Use Number of Parking Spots Required by Time of Day 12- 4 5 am 6 am 7 am 8 am 9 am 10 11 Noon 1 pm 2 pm 3 pm 4 pm 5 pm 6 pm 7 pm 8 pm 9 pm 10 11 am am am pm pm Commercial 0 0 0 37 66 228 236 348 348 344 389 373 335 385 414 385 397 360 0 0 Office/Industrial 528 539 453 502 445 453 457 445 417 386 416 429 447 459 443 388 431 480 496 507 Residential 260 254 234 184 150 25 24 23 22 23 25 28 116 155 180 177 199 210 240 245 TOTAL 788 793 687 723 661 706 716 816 788 753 830 830 898 1000 1037 950 1028 1050 736 752 Calculated Peak Occupancy 45% 45% 39% 41% 38% 40% 41% 46% 45% 43% 47% 47% 51% 57% 59% 54% 58% 60% 42% 43% Table 6: Peak Occupancy Model – Total Parking Required and Available – Time of Day Distribution In other words, the current demand projection for the entire system, when adjusted for the time of day factor, never exceeds 60% of the current existing supply. Accordingly, the data confirms the empirical observations and the stakeholder and user feedback that the issue with parking downtown seems to be that it is confusing. It is difficult to find the right kind of parking one is looking for, and all the different rates and types of parking available just creates a situation where new and occasional visitors avoid downtown because of the confusion. Finally, we also prepared a model of potential future parking demand, based on the potential build-out scenario provided by the City of Dover. For more details, see Chapter 6. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 24

4. Public Outreach Process One of the keys of a successful parking study is the opportunity for stakeholders and the public to provide information and feedback as the study progresses. This study had frequent outreach to the Steering Committee, created for the purposed of providing information and advice to the project team, as well as checking interim deliverables and recommendations. The project team also performed significant outreach to the public, including three public meetings and an online parking survey. Major milestones in the outreach process included:  Steering Committee Meeting #1 – November 14, 2016  Steering Committee Meeting #2 – March 7, 2017  Public Meeting #1 – March 29, 2017  Public Meeting #2 – May 31, 2017  Public Meeting #3 – August 24, 2017  Public Survey – open from August 24 to November 7, 2017  Steering Committee Meeting #3 – November 7, 2017 The Steering Committee provided frequently useful updates and feedback to the team, which were in turn incorporated into information shared with the general public. All three public meetings were held at the Dover Public Library, within the project area; and were held in an open meeting format, where different members of the project team would be at different tables, presenting information about different aspects of the project, and gathering information from those who attended and taking notes. Description of the focus and feedback gathered at each public meeting is presented here: Public Meeting Number 1 – March 29, 2017 The first public meeting introduced the project team to the public, presented the initial questions that the study would be looking at, and also the preliminary data collected. The questions included: Is there too much or too little parking in downtown Dover? Is it too pricy or too cheap? Is it easy to understand and convenient to where I want to go? It showed the major project boundaries and discussed the goals of the project, and whether they needed any adjustments. Samples of the boards used at each meeting station can be seen below. See Appendix B for all boards used. Figures 7 and 8: Samples of Boards Used at First Public Meeting A total of over 35 people attended this meeting, of which 22 non-Steering Committee members signed-in to the meeting (see sign-in sheet in Appendix B). Some of the feedback and suggestions from the public we collected during this meeting included: Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 25

 Increased pedestrian and street lighting helps public mindsets over safety and comfort  Parking rates prices are reasonable, but people will defer to free/reduced cost when in similar proximity  Increase signage for parking lots and advertise rates and free lot status  Encourage local businesses to share parking maps and prices to facilitate return patronage  Consider installing head-in parking on Loockerman Plaza, since it would increase the number of spaces  Consider making Bradford Street on way going north and include head-in parking there as well  Contact the state of Delaware and Kent County to see what they say about their parking needs  There are “hygiene habits” (i.e., urinating and other abnormal behavior in public) and also unwanted teen/pre-teen behavior on West Reed Street  Consider installation of a Level 2 charging station for electric cars  Consider installation of bike racks for increased cycling  Consider installation of designated parking spaces for alternative fuel vehicles  Consider installation of permeable pavement parking spaces  Consider installation of solar reflective coatings and shade trees to reduce heat island impacts  Use recycled asphalt pavement in construction  Include landscaping and grass paving blocks to make parking more sustainable Several stations also had “Dot Exercises” to collect data about those attending the meeting and their parking habits. Some of the most relevant information gathered from these exercises included:  Most attendees usually park on-street on Loockerman Street; or off-street on the City Hall / Library Lot or Bradford Street / Minor Street Lot.  Most considered that their parking spots were usually close enough to their destinations, and that it generally took less than 5 minutes to find parking; however, nearly all said that signage was inadequate to help them find parking  By far the two most important factors in choosing where to park were first, location; and second, safety. Only three respondents said price was a factor, and cleanliness, ease to find, and visibility were ranked even lower.  In regards to safety, we asked those attending the meeting both where they felt safe and where they felt unsafe. o Respondents generally felt safest in these areas:  On-Street: Loockerman Street  Off-Street: City Hall / Library Lot o They also felt generally safe in these areas:  On-Street: Legislative Avenue, MLK Boulevard, The Green, Kings Highway between Loockerman Avenue and Division Street  Off-Street: North Street Lot o Only two people responded they felt safe at the Loockerman Way Lot and A Street Lot (note: the latter might have received few votes because few people might know or might have noticed where Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 26

it is located). Only one person said they felt safe at the Bradford Street / Minor Street Lot. No one answered they felt safe at the Governor’s Avenue Lot. o Respondents generally felt most unsafe at these locations:  On-Street: Seemingly paradoxically, they also said Loockerman Street  Off-Street: BY far, at the Governor’s Avenue Lot, followed by several votes for the Minor Street Alleys and the East State Street Alley, and a few votes for the Bradford St / Minor St Lots. o In other words, most users felt safest close to City Hall, where there probably is more pedestrian traffic, eyes on the street, and greater police presence; while the feelings of lack of safety increases as one progresses west of City Hall and west of State Street.  Finally, in a result that parallels the feelings of safety, respondents said that Loockerman Street and the City Hall / Library Lot and the North Street Lot had adequate lighting; while these areas needed more lighting: Governor’s Avenue Lot, Bradford and Minor Street Lots, alleys, and The Green. Figures 9 and 10: Photos of Layout and Response Board from First Public Meeting Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 27

Public Meeting Number 2 – May 31, 2017 The second public meeting was used to describe the initial data collected, including the measured occupancies of on-street spots and off-streets lots, and to present four scenarios of how the parking could be improved. These scenarios were precursors to alternatives that would soon be discussed with the steering committee about ways to ease the parking crunch in Dover. Figures 11 thru 14: Public Invitation and Samples of Boards Used at Second Public Meeting Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 28

A total of over 15 people attended this meeting, of which 10 non-Steering Committee members signed-in to the meeting (see sign-in sheet in Appendix B). At this meeting, we also presented for the first time to the public an illustrative concept site plan for consolidating parking and creating a new pedestrian connectivity path that would link up the Governor’s Avenue, Bradford Street, Minor Street, potential new State Street Alley, and City Hall parking lots. Figure 15: Illustrative Site Plan for Consolidating Parking and Creating New Pedestrian Connectivity Path, Presented at Second Public Meeting Figures 16 and 17: Sharing Details at Second Public Meeting Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 29

The response from the public was overwhelmingly positive, with comments praising the concept for eliminating the darkness and reducing the perceived or real safety issues of the alleys located between the Loockerman Street businesses and the parking lots. See Appendix B for all boards used at this meeting. Public Meeting Number 3 – August 24, 2017 The third and final public meeting was geared to gathering as much feedback as possible, reviewing the issues presented by the different scenarios presented at the previous public meeting; but also having different board and stations set up to get feedback on the public’s parking cost sensitivity, on a potential wayfinding strategy for Downtown Dover, and on potential streetscape improvements and gateway enhancements that would enhance wayfinding, safety, and the attractiveness of downtown. The first station we set up at the Library was geared to gathering feedback on the potential improvement scenarios previously presented. The scenarios were slightly updated from before, with input from the second public meeting and from stakeholders incorporated into the updated versions. The four scenarios are intended to be considered as incremental in nature, increasing in cost and complexity. The scenarios presented at this public meeting were: Scenario 1 – Consolidated Parking – Under this scenario, changes would be made to the parking layout of the Loockerman Way, Bradford Street, Minor Street, and Governor’s Avenue Lots. To simplify the parking experience, 2-Hour and 15-minute parking would be eliminated from the parking lots. Metered and permit parking areas would be consolidated and clearly delineated with colorful striping and signage. Metered parking areas would now be located closest to the main Loockerman Street shopping areas, at the Loockerman Way Lot (now providing only metered parking), and the eastern end of the Bradford Street Lot. Some permit parking spots would shift west, to the Bradford and Governor’s Avenue Lots. Details on individual changes per lot are as follows:  North Street Lot – total spaces unchanged = 183: o Permit parking – Unchanged at 166 o Apartment Parking – Unchanged at 12, but suggested conversion to permit parking o ADA parking – Unchanged at 5  Loockerman Way Lot – total spaces unchanged = 35: o Permit parking – Reduced from 23 to zero o Metered Parking – Increased from 10 to 33 o ADA parking – Unchanged at 2  Bradford Street Lot – total spaces unchanged = 111: o Permit parking – Increased from 72 to 83 o Metered Parking – Unchanged at 22, but reconfigured from current locations o ADA parking – Unchanged at 5 o 2-Hour Parking: Reduced from 10 to zero o 15-Minute Parking: Reduced from 1 to zero  Minor Street Lot – total spaces unchanged = 8: o Permit parking – Unchanged at 8  Governor’s Avenue Lot – total spaces unchanged = 103: Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 30

o Permit parking – Increased from 42 to 52 o Tenant Parking – Unchanged at 49, but suggested conversion to permit parking o ADA parking – Unchanged at 2 o 2-Hour Parking: Reduced from 10 to zero In summary, Scenario 1 would provide 370 permit spaces (versus 372 previously) and 55 metered spaces (versus 32 previously). It basically preserves the numbers of permits available (the 2 spaces net lost is negligible), while significantly increasing the number and convenience of metered parking spaces. Scenario 2 – Consolidated Parking Plus New Lot – This scenario presents an alternative to Scenario 1, as it increases the number of parking spaces available by creating a new consolidated public parking lot. That lot would be created by consolidating multiple small private lots located along the State Street Alley (between Loockerman Street and Reed Street). It would provide metered parking areas closest to the main Loockerman Street shopping areas. Details on individual changes per lot are as follows:  North Street Lot – total spaces unchanged = 183: o Permit parking – Unchanged at 166 o Apartment Parking – Unchanged at 12, but suggested conversion to permit parking o ADA parking – Unchanged at 5  Loockerman Way Lot – total spaces unchanged = 35: o Permit parking – Unchanged at 23 o Metered Parking – Unchanged at 10 o ADA parking – Unchanged at 2  Bradford Street Lot – total spaces unchanged = 111: o Permit parking – Increased from 72 to 83 o Metered Parking – Unchanged at 22, but reconfigured from current locations o ADA parking – Unchanged at 5 o 2-Hour Parking: Reduced from 10 to zero o 15-Minute Parking: Reduced from 1 to zero  Minor Street Lot – total spaces unchanged = 8: o Permit parking – Unchanged at 8  Governor’s Avenue Lot – total spaces unchanged = 103: o Permit parking – Increased from 42 to 52 o Tenant Parking – Unchanged at 49, but suggested conversion to permit parking o ADA parking – Unchanged at 2 o 2-Hour Parking: Reduced from 10 to zero  New State Street Alley Lot – total spaces = approximately 44: o Permit parking – None provided o Metered Parking – 40 Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 31

o ADA parking – 4 In summary, Scenario 2 would provide 393 permit spaces (versus 372 previously) and the same number of metered spaces as Scenario 1 (72 versus 32 previously). In contrast to Scenario 1, it increases the numbers of permits available, while also significantly increasing the number and convenience of metered parking spaces. However, because the new parking lot would require acquisition, design, and construction, its cost would be significantly higher than the cost for Scenario 1. Scenario 3 – Consolidated Parking Plus Expanded Bradford Lot – This scenario presents an incremental improvement over Scenario 1, as it increases the number of parking spaces available by adding land to the Bradford Street parking lot8. It also focuses on increasing the number of available permit parking spaces – but it could just as easily shift to provide additional metered spacing, if conditions require. Details on individual changes per lot are as follows:  North Street Lot – total spaces unchanged = 183: o Permit parking – Unchanged at 166 o Apartment Parking – Unchanged at 12, but suggested conversion to permit parking o ADA parking – Unchanged at 5  Loockerman Way Lot – total spaces unchanged = 35: o Permit parking – Reduced from 23 to zero o Metered Parking – Increased from 10 to 33 o ADA parking – Unchanged at 2  Bradford Street Lot – total spaces increased = from 111 to 132: o Permit parking – Increased from 72 to 105 o Metered Parking – Unchanged at 22, but reconfigured from current locations o ADA parking – Unchanged at 5 o 2-Hour Parking: Reduced from 10 to zero o 15-Minute Parking: Reduced from 1 to zero  Minor Street Lot – total spaces unchanged = 8: o Permit parking – Unchanged at 8  Governor’s Avenue Lot – total spaces unchanged = 103: o Permit parking – Increased from 42 to 52 o Tenant Parking – Unchanged at 49, but suggested conversion to permit parking o ADA parking – Unchanged at 2 o 2-Hour Parking: Reduced from 10 to zero In summary, Scenario 3 would provide 392 permit spaces (versus 372 previously) and 55 metered spaces (versus 32 previously). Similar to Scenario 2, it increases the numbers of permits available, while also significantly increasing the number and convenience of metered parking spaces. However, because the parking 8 Please note that even though the meeting graph might portray a specific site for that expansion, no such specificity is intended. Any neighboring site might be an equivalent addition. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 32

lot expansion would require acquisition, design, and construction, its cost would be significantly higher than the cost for Scenario 1. Scenario 4 – New Parking Garage – This scenario presents a final incremental improvement over Scenario 3, as it increases the number of parking spaces available by building a new garage at the Bradford Street parking lot. Details on individual changes per lot are as follows:  North Street Lot – total spaces unchanged = 183: o Permit parking – Unchanged at 166 o Apartment Parking – Unchanged at 12, but suggested conversion to permit parking o ADA parking – Unchanged at 5  Loockerman Way Lot – total spaces unchanged = 35: o Permit parking – Reduced from 23 to zero o Metered Parking – Increased from 10 to 33 o ADA parking – Unchanged at 2  New Bradford Street Garage – total spaces increased = from 119 to over 400: o Permit parking – Increased from 80 to over 200 o Metered Parking – Increased from 22 to over 200 o ADA parking – Increased from 5 to 15 o 2-Hour Parking: Reduced from 10 to zero o 15-Minute Parking: Reduced from 1 to zero  Minor Street Lot – total spaces = 0: o Permit parking – Reduced from 8 to zero  Governor’s Avenue Lot – total spaces unchanged = 103: o Permit parking – Increased from 42 to 52 o Tenant Parking – Unchanged at 49, but suggested conversion to permit parking o ADA parking – Unchanged at 2 o 2-Hour Parking: Reduced from 10 to zero In summary, Scenario 4 would provide 479 permit spaces (versus 372 previously) and 233 metered spaces (versus 32 previously). In reality, numbers could be adjusted within the garage to reflect the needs of permit- holders and customers; and both permits and metered spaces would see an order of magnitude increase. However, the acquisition, design, and construction of the new garage would make it the costliest of all. In addition to the scenarios described above, the Project Team also shared boards intended to present an introduction for those who attended the public meeting on the potential costs of such investments; as well as boards that were intended to check on how sensitive parking users would be to changes in the parking cost. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 33

Figure 18: Board Introducing Potential Scale of Project Costs at Third Public Meeting The boards also introduced information about how much parking costs in 10 peer cities to Dover. We asked those attending the meeting to match what they thought parking cost in each of the cities, as a fun way to break the ice in relation to the cost of parking in Dover. We presented information on both hourly parking on- street, especially in peer cities of Wilmington and Newark, DE, Annapolis, MD, and Media, PA; as well as on daily off-street parking rates in those same cities. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 34

Figures 19 and 20: Boards about Cost of Parking and Potential Investments Used at Third Public Meeting Finally, we also presented a schematic wayfinding plan that would help both users get to the right parking lots faster, as well as help brand Downtown Dover as a destination, a cool place to be. The wayfinding strategy would involve three concentric rings of signage: a. Tourist Directional Signs – An outer ring of signs would be installed on DE Route 1, US 13 / DuPont Highway, and Saulsbury Road to direct visitors to Historic Downtown Dover b. Perimeter Welcome Signs – A second ring of signs would be located along the perimeter of downtown, welcoming visitors and thus helping create a better sense of place c. Parking Directional Signs – Finally, an inner ring of parking lot directional signs would be installed to finally end the confusion in wayfinding and specifically direct different types of users to the right locations in the parking lot system. See Appendix B for all boards used at this public meeting. Chapter 5 provides an analysis of peer city parking rates, parking costs, and recommendations for pricing in Downtown Dover. The final recommended wayfinding strategy, which incorporates comments from the public and stakeholders, is presented in Chapter 6. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 35

A total of over 40 people attended this meeting, of which 33 non-Steering Committee members signed-in to the meeting (see sign-in sheet in Appendix B). Public Survey Finally, the project team also made publically available between Public Meetings 2 and 3 an electronic survey to which anyone in the community could respond. The survey was open from August 24 to November 7, 2017 and was promoted at the two public meetings, as well as through flyers and signs posted at City Hall, the Public Library, the DKCMPO, and other local and state agency offices. In addition to private responses from the Steering Committee, a total of 8 members of the public responded to the online survey. While this level of response was not significant, we chose to include the information below in this report because it is representative of comments we heard during the public meetings. The survey included a total of 30 questions, of which the first 5 were just to collect demographic information. Respondents were:  5 male and 3 female  50 percent were between 50 and 59 years old, 25 percent between 30 and 49, and 25 percent older than 60  Half were residents of the immediate Dover zip codes, 19901 and 19904; 25 percent were residents of the Camden / Wyoming / Willow Grove zip code 19934, located west of Dover; one respondent was a resident of the Magnolia / White House Landing / Woodside East zip code 1962, located south of Dover; and one respondent was a resident of Wilmington (19802). The overwhelming majority (75 percent) were workers of zip code 19901. Highlights from these responses reinforced the feedback gathered at the open sessions at the library. Some of the feedback we collected from the survey included:  A majority of the respondents only came to Downtown Dover once every 2 to 3 months, with two respondents coming downtown once or twice a month, and only one coming downtown once or more a week. Most come in the afternoon and avoid coming at night; and come for only short visits, less than 2 hours.  The overwhelming reason for these respondents to come downtown was for Breakfast, Lunch, or Dinner; only two respondents also checked shopping or medical appointments as reasons for coming downtown; only one listed work as a reason.  Most parked at either the City Hall / Library Lot or the Bradford Street Lot; four responders stated they parked at the North St Lot. All other lots were also listed as occasionally used, except for the A Street Lot.  Most preferred parking at parking lots instead of on-street9; those who preferred on-street parking mentioned confusion about parking rates and “hard to find parking” as reasons to avoid the lots.  In response to the question “Is it easy to find parking?” three respondents said “Yes, most of the time”. However, two said “No, I just can’t figure out where to go to find parking”; while two others had specific comments, as follows: o “Permit holders have taken up much of the parking in lots. The parking lot on North Street is dedicated to the EZ Pass staff” o “Need handicapped parking. After driving around lots looking for a spot, I gave up.” 9 One responder was limited to lots because they are a handicapped user, and need the extra space behind their car to unload their mobile scooter. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 36

 The large majority of respondents had never been ticketed downtown.  In general, most respondents had only a short walk to their destination. But the large majority (85%) said that wayfinding signage needs improvement.  Most respondents prefer the limited number currently available of Free 2-Hour spaces, and seem to spend time looking for them, and get frustrated when they can’t find open spots.  In response to the question “Do you feel safe at Dover’s municipal parking lots?” half said “Yes, in all lots”, a third said “No, never”, and one respondent said “Yes, except anything off State Street at night”. They also generally said lighting could be improved.  In relation to parking during special events (such as Dover Days, Oktoberfest, First Fridays), half said parking is always an issue, a third said parking is available most of the time, and one respondent said “It’s fair on normal days, I prepare for the walk on other days”.  In relation to other modes (transit, walk, bike, Uber/Lyft, carpool) that respondents might use to get downtown, only two respondents occasionally walk downtown. It is worth focusing on the responses received to the cost-related questions:  We asked respondents how much they would be willing to pay for hourly and daily parking downtown. The goal of this question was to gauge the price sensitivity of those users. We had multiple responses available, and respondents could rank their preferences. The highest ranked responses were: 1. “I only do quick errands, so I would only use FREE 15-minute or 2-Hour parking” – score of 5.17 2. “I only do quick errands, But I would be willing to pay for more convenient and available 2-Hour parking” – Score of 4.60 3. “I would be willing to pay $2 daily for a more convenient on-street spot” – score of 4.20 It was not surprising that free parking was the highest-ranked response, chosen by half as their number one preference. However, it was surprising that the next two responses ranked as high as they did – half of the respondents picked Option 2 as their second highest preference, while a quarter of respondents picked Option 3 as the number one option. This suggests that users are willing to pay more for a better parking experience.  We also asked respondents how much they were willing to pay for monthly permit parking. Even though no responders were current permit holders, and most only come downtown occasionally, the responses are still valuable to gauge the potential for a revised permit system to attract new users. The highest ranked responses were: o “I would be willing to pay more for my own dedicated, marked spot that is ALWAYS available” – score of 4.00 o “Now that I think about it, I only park downtown at night – I would be willing to get a cheaper permit just for the night hours” – score of 3.83 o All other responses, including keeping the cost of the monthly permit between $20 and $30, increasing it to $40, increasing it over $40, and providing a cheaper daytime-only permit, tied for third place with a score of 3.67 There are two items interesting to note from these responses: first, it seems that there is a willingness again shown for users to pay more for better service and for a more varied set of permits; second, no alternative was clearly a winner, but none were clearly dismissed either. In other words, the results from this question, along with the feedback received during the public and stakeholder meetings, suggests that pricing alternatives should definitely be explored. Parking rates are further discussed in the next chapter, Chapter 5. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 37

 We also asked respondents about how much funding they thought the City, the Downtown Dover Partnership and private partners should budget in the next five years to improve parking. The responses were: o Between $50,000 and $100,000 per year – preferred by 57% o Less than $10,000 per year – preferred by 29% o Between $100,000 and $500,000 per year – preferred by 14% Accordingly, it seems that the public feel that a yearly budget in the $100,000 range does not seem out of the question. Finally, we also asked respondents about their preferences for best strategies to improve parking in Downtown Dover. We provided both preliminary suggestions they could rank, as well as the opportunity to provide new suggestions. The highest ranked suggestions were: 1. Better signage directing us to the right spots – ranked most important by all respondents to the question, score of 1.00 2. Increase police and cadet safety presence – ranked most important by two-thirds of respondents to the question, score of 1.33 3. Improve lighting – score of 1.67 4. And tied for fourth, all with a score of 1.83: o Consolidate small parking lots into big parking lots o Ticket people who exceed parking limits more aggressively o Improve accessibility and make ADA improvements in parking lots and on streets o Improve pedestrian paths and landscape in parking lots to make them nicer o Better parking payment options Ranking lowest were “further improving permit parking process”, “building a multi-level parking garage”, and “provide dedicated parking for state employees”. The additional suggestions respondents wrote-in included:  “Why for the love of God, is there NEVER a map printed showing all the types and sites of all the Dover lots and spaces?”  “If you are trying to bring people downtown, you should not have them pay. It is yet another discouragement to coming downtown.”  Install a convex mirror on the utility pole on the southeast corner of Governors Avenue and Bank Lane, to increase safety (“Sight is often restricted by buses, ambulances, trucks, etc. cued up at the light).  “More handicapped parking spots and better signs directing us to these parking spots” For the full results of the survey, please see Appendix C. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 38

5. Parking Rates Analysis and Comparison with Peer Cities When looking at the issues with parking downtown, one must try to track down the root causes for the issues, beyond just the immediate symptoms and dysfunction that is experienced by all current users. A key issue that must be examined is the cost of parking – is it too little or too large? The Project Team performed a review of the current parking rate structure in Dover, gathered data about what peer cities do, and, upon analysis, came up with a set of recommendations in relation to parking rates. Review of Current Dover Parking Rate Structure Dover currently has the following parking rate structure:  On-Street Parking – parking is free, with the main commercial stretch of Loockerman Street and some adjoining streets reserved for 2-Hour Parking  Off-Street Public Parking Lots – surface lots typically have rates of $0.25 per hour, $1 per day and $22 per month. Downtown businesses currently acquire annual parking permits, which are rebid every year. Many of these businesses, however, have included in their leases or other agreements with the City the requirement for a specific number of dedicated permit spots. Accordingly, the City and DDP have less flexibility in managing the permit spots.  Off-Street Private Parking Lots – no privately-owned parking lots open to the general public are present in the immediate project area. However, multiple accessory private parking lots serve individual businesses. These are very fragmented and generally not well signalized; many of the smaller building accessory lots are not more than paved or gravel-covered backyards of these properties.  Off-Street Public Garages – there currently are no garages downtown. Review of Comparable City Parking Rate Structures The Langan team and DDP have compiled data for 12 cities that are comparable in size, geography, and other characteristics (e.g., economic activities, political structure, being state capitals, etc.) with downtown Dover. These were:  Regional Cities: o College Park, MD o Lancaster, PA o Media, PA o Milford, DE o Newark, DE o Smyrna, DE o West Chester, PA o Wilmington, DE  Capital Cities: o Annapolis, MD o Concord, NH o Harrisburg, PA Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 39

o Trenton, NJ Table 6, below, summarizes the most important data from this compilation – highlighted in yellow are the lowest and second lowest average rates in each category: City Average On- Average Off-Street Rates Street Meter Hourly Rate Daily Rate Monthly Rate Rates Dover Free 25 cents $1 $22 1 College Park, MD n/a $3 $15 $65 2 Lancaster, PA $1.50 $2 $15 $45 - $70 n/a 3 Media, PA $0.50 - $1 50 cents $40 ($1 – SEPTA only) Free (2-hour limit Free (2-hour limit 4 Milford, DE* n/a n/a in some areas) in some areas) 5 Newark, DE $1.25 $1 n/a n/a 6 Smyrna, DE* n/a Free Free n/a 7 West Chester, PA $0.75 per 30 mins $1 $8 $50 8 Wilmington, DE $1 $2.93 $11.85 $157 9 Annapolis, MD $2 $1 - $5 $10 - $20 $80 - $225 10 Concord, NH 75 cents 50 cents $12 $360 $3 CBD, $1.50 11 Harrisburg, PA $4.45 $25.64 $165 elsewhere 12 Trenton, NJ n/a $3.50 $13.63 $142 Table 6: Parking Rates at Dover and Peer Cities As can be seen from Table 6, if we exclude Milford and Smyrna (which are much smaller cities), downtown Dover has the lowest rate of all comparable cities in every single category – for both on street and off street parking. For reference, the next lowest rates for each category are:  On Street Rate – 50 cents in Media PA versus free for Dover  Off-Street Hourly Rate – 50 cents in Concord NH versus 25 cents for Dover  Off-Street Daily Rate – $8 in West Chester PA versus $1 for Dover  Off-Street Monthly Rate – $40 in Media PA versus $22 for Dover Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 40

Analysis of Contributing Factors to Parking Rate Issues When reviewing the existing parking rates in Dover, recommendations cannot be made without also looking at several factors that work in concert with the rate structure to create the current unsatisfactory state of the parking infrastructure system. One of these factors is the time restriction on parking downtown, and the other is the state of leased parking spots. These factors are further discussed below. Parking Time Restrictions In addition to the rates, it must be noted that most on-street parking in downtown Dover is restricted to 2- Hour Parking, Monday through Fridays from 8 am to 5 pm. The intent of this regulation is to encourage better use of available parking supply and thus, by rotating vehicles more often, make more spots available for business district customers. However, the practical effect of this regulation is that it has created two grave unintended consequences:  First, it has encouraged “parking surfing”, where state employees and others leave work every two hours to relocate their cars from one on-street parking spot to another, instead of using longer- term off-street lots. Beyond the inherent work and economic inefficiencies this is creating for employers, this practice in effect also makes many fewer spaces available for potential downtown business customers.  Second, the two-hour time limit and the threat of overstaying the limit pushes away customers who might want to stay longer downtown10. In other words, instead of going on a longer errand to multiple destinations downtown, visitors are limited to single trips with single purposes, thus negating the advantages of having so many businesses and destinations downtown. Leased Parking Spot Restrictions Downtown office businesses (such as EZ Pass) currently acquire annual parking permits, which are rebid every year. Many of these businesses, however, have included in their leases or other agreements with the City the requirement for a specific number of dedicated permit spots, and many times at specific parking lots. It is understandable that these lease incentives might have been required to attract these businesses to downtown in the first place. However, today the leased parking is taking up the most premium and convenient spaces in the parking lots closest to the downtown businesses. In addition, many times these permitted spots sit empty, since they were allocated to handle a full load of employees. In practice, based on the counts conducted, between 15 and 40% of permitted spots might sit empty even at peak hours of usage – but unavailable for any other use due to the permit restrictions – on any given day. In effect, these leased spaces create a barrier around downtown businesses – a first-time visitor or even a frequent visitor will give up on a return trip downtown, if they cannot find convenient parking and instead have to drive all the way to the farthest public parking lot or drive around for a significant amount of time looking for an on-street parking spot. At a minimum, leased parking is resulting in the City and DDP having less flexibility in managing their existing parking supply. A final note in relation to permit spots: In the past few months, we have heard that EZ Pass will be expanding in 2019; and that additional businesses might soon be requesting even more permit parking spots. If the number of spots restricted to permitted parking increases, it will only exacerbate the existing dysfunctional allocation of parking. 10 E.g., a visitor could go to an errand to pay a bill at City Hall, have lunch, go shopping, and go to a medical appointment, all in one trip. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 41

Alternatives Analysis for Downtown Dover Parking Rate Structure Parking should be managed so that there is both an adequate supply of parking downtown; as well as the perception that there is adequate supply and that parking is actually attractive to those who visit, and not a barrier. As a recent article from famed parking planner Donald Shoup notes “Underpriced and overcrowded curb parking creates problems for everyone except a few lucky drivers who find a cheap space; all the other drivers who cruise to find an open space waste time and fuel, congest traffic, and pollute the air. Nearby merchants lose potential customers, workers lose jobs, and cities lose tax revenue.” Here we will discuss how the rate structure in Dover can be modified to address the actual supply of parking; and how changing the rate structure might also have a significant positive impact in improving the perception and attractiveness of parking downtown. This study proposes a medium- and long-term integrated strategy that incorporates changes in rates, time limits, and geography to adjust the parking availability in downtown Dover. The strategy consists of three main steps, as follows: 1. Install parking meters (preferably single pay station meters) along the main 2 to 4 blocks of Loockerman Street that see the most demand. This measure would be the critical first step to implement a parking strategy that reflects the true costs and true demand for parking in Dover. By placing a cost on the heaviest demand area, then users will adjust and some of the distortions in the current parking patterns will be mitigated. Some stakeholders might have an initial negative reaction to this measure, saying “But we WANT people to come to our main commercial strip. It makes no sense to make them pay for it!” What they don’t understand is that they are currently providing free parking not to their customers, but to all of those who could – and should – park elsewhere, such as their employees and the parking surfers previously mentioned. It is only by putting a price on this most precious asset that we can start changing the behavior of those who currently park on Loockerman but who should probably be parking elsewhere. Pros: Finally places in place a pricing strategy that reflects the true cost of parking; would probably have the most impact of any measure. Cons: An initial investment is required to research, design, and install the parking station infrastructure. 2. Consider Modifying or Eliminating Time Limits for all metered parking within downtown, including on- street spots and off-street lots. Currently, even though the 2-hour limit is supposed to incentivize parking rotation and parking availability for a greater number of visitors, it is doing the opposite – incentivizing instead parking surfing and visitors to avoid downtown. There are two different ways to handle this distortion: Option 2A – Enforcement – One solution would be to keep the existing 2-Hour limits downtown, and just rely on the parking meters installed in Step 1 and on a more balanced pricing structure (see Step 3, below), all backed up by a much more aggressive enforcement approach. In other words, meters and pricing would bring something closer to the true cost of parking to the users of these prime parking spots. Parking surfers would then opt to park elsewhere, and only short-term parkers or those with more meaningful business to conduct downtown would be willing to park on these spots. Of course, this approach would only work if a much more focused enforcement strategy were put in place, to discourage old behaviors from recurring. Pros: Maintains the status quo of time limits, might be easier for stakeholders and users to comprehend and support. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 42

Cons: Requires significantly enhanced enforcement – resources might not be in place to support this; old parking behaviors might recur; does not create an incentive for new visitors to come downtown. Option 2B – Eliminate the Two-Hour Limit – We heard from many stakeholders that they want more customers to park on Loockerman and go to the stores along the commercial strip. Since permit parking creates the barrier around this downtown commercial strip and private parking options are limited, visitors who would want to spend longer stretches of time downtown have no options. However, eliminating the two-hour limit would both simplify the existing parking rate structure, and also finally create an incentive for visitors to spend more time downtown. By giving visitors the flexibility they need – park 15 minutes or park all day – , then metered parking can again help downtown Dover welcome visitors, instead of confusing or sending them away. Those who wanted to spend the day could thus combine multiple types of activities – shop, go to a doctor, pay bills, and dine – while not worrying that their meter might be expiring within 2 hours. Pros: Creates larger incentive for longer visitor trips downtown, might be easier to manage, requires relatively less enforcement effort. Cons: Might be slightly more complex to explain to stakeholders; if parking spots are not properly priced, this option would not be as effective in eliminating parking surfing and employee parking. Note: If this option is selected, two-hour parking limits should be maintained at the edge of downtown, especially on residential streets where local residents need some level of protection from encroachment of commercial downtown traffic. Since these spots are not the prime commercial main street or public employee destinations, they are less likely to receive parking surfers when the policy is changed. (Nonetheless, they should be monitored during the implementation phase, just in case). 3. Institute Demand-Based Pricing – The final step related to parking rates is implementing a reasonable demand-based pricing strategy. A typical such strategy includes an analysis of existing parking geographical and timing patterns, and the implementation of a sliding scale of pricing for parking spots. For example, the locations that have greater demand would be priced higher, and those that have lower demand would be priced lower – thus better distributing parking demand across all locations. The industry standard for optimal parking utilization is typically seen as 85% occupancy for on-street parking and 90% for off-street parking. Existing parking occupancy data from our Dover study suggests that there are some clear on-street and off-street parking locations that receive significant demand and some that clearly receive very little demand. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 43

Figure 21: Potential Zones for On-Street Demand-Based Pricing Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 44

Looking at these areas of demand, one possible demand-based pricing structure for daily on-street parking would be as follows: a. Zone 1 – High Demand “Core Zone” – Loockerman Street from Legislative Avenue to Governor’s Avenue – $2 (twice the current off-street cost), Unlimited hours b. Zone 2 – Medium Demand Zone – adjoining blocks to Loockerman, one block north and one block south from Loockerman – $1 (equal to current off-street cost) , Unlimited hours c. Zone 3 – Low Demand Zone – continues to be free – Unlimited hours for non-residential areas; for residential areas there would be a 2-Hour limit for non-residents d. Off-Street Public Parking Spots – maintained at $1 – But now Unlimited hours (no 2-hour parking spots offered)11 The reason for the significant increase in the High Demand area is obvious: again, the intent would be to discourage parking surfers and employees from parking at those locations. Instead, these prime spots should be reserved for the key visitors that want to do a quick errand, or for those visitors with more meaningful business to conduct downtown and who would be willing to pay this rate. Also, note that the rate of the Medium-Demand On-Street Zone and the Off-Street Parking Lots, which are adjacent, would thus reasonably be the same. In addition, we would recommend that a demand-based pricing structure also be instituted for permit parking. Parking spots closest to downtown destinations (North St lot, Loockerman lot) would thus be priced higher; and those farthest (e.g., Governor’s Ave lot) would be priced lower. In addition, premiums could be charged for providing reserved spaces; and discounts given for permits that were requested for only a weekday space or only a weekend space. Here is a potential adjusted demand based pricing structure for off-street permit parking lots: a. High Demand – Parking Zone A – North St lot and Loockerman St lot  Permit A Reserved (numbered parking spaces) – $50 / month (approximately double current rate)  Permit A Regular (pooled parking spaces) – $40 / month (less than double current rate)  Permit A Weekday only (pooled) – $22 / month (equal to current rate)  Permit A Weekend or Overnight only (pooled) – $11 / month (half of current rate) b. Medium Demand Zone – Parking Zone B – Bradford Street lot and Minor Street lot  Permit A Reserved (numbered parking spaces) – $40 / month (less than double current rate)  Permit A Regular (pooled parking spaces) – $30 / month (approximately a third higher than current rate)  Permit A Weekday only (pooled) – $22 / month (equal to current rate)  Permit A Weekend or Overnight only (pooled) – $8 / month (less than half of current rate) c. Low Demand Zone – Parking Zone C – Governor’s Avenue lot  Permit A Reserved (numbered parking spaces) – $30 / month (less than double current rate)  Permit A Regular (pooled parking spaces) – $22 / month (equal to current rate) 11 We recommend that this pricing strategy be also extended to the City Hall / Library lot, for consistency across the downtown parking area. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 45

 Permit A Weekday only (pooled) – $11 / month (half of current rate)  Permit A Weekend or Overnight only (pooled) – $5 / month (less than a third of current rate) We can make several observations in relation to this proposed permit rate structure:  The current $22 monthly rate would be maintained for those customers who are price-sensitive and who would not want any additional increase in rates. These would be available on weekday rates in Parking Zones A and B; and on regular rates for Parking Zone C. This can potentially reduce the amount of complaints over an increase in rates.  The rate changes can be implemented for those spots guaranteed in lease agreements, where guaranteed permit costs were not included in the lease agreement language.  This is just a proposal. It can be modified before implementation of the pilot; and can be adjusted later, based on changes in demand and user feedback Pros: Demand-based pricing is the ultimate measure to reduce distortions in parking patterns. Provision of pooled, weekday and weekend-only permits significantly increases the capacity of the existing number of parking spots. Cons: Permit demand-based pricing will require negotiations and coordination with existing permit- holders. Finally, we also prepared a model of current and future costs, pricing, revenues, and profits/loss for downtown Dover’s parking system. The model was based on the “Parking Costs, Pricing and Revenue Calculator” developed by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute and was updated with inputs that reflect Dover’s current conditions. Making assumptions about current costs in Dover, the model calculated that the city today probably has a monthly cost on the order of $8.33 per on-street parking spot and $41.67 per surface parking lot spot. Based on these costs, the model calculated a breakeven monthly revenue of $20 dollars per on-street parking spot and $73 per surface parking lot. Based on the current numbers of parking spots that are publically managed (607 on-street and 459 off-street, as previously described), the total net revenue for on-street parking is expected to the on the order of $73,000, while the costs of maintaining surface parking probably means that the City might be losing over $137,000. In other words, the expected total result of downtown Dover’s current system is deficitary, with an expected total loss of approximately $65,000 per year. We also modeled what would happen with revenues under our proposed parking fee adjustments, as well as with the construction of a parking garage downtown. Under the first scenario, just implementing our parking fee recommendations and assuming that occupancies remained high, we could expect a turnaround into an annual profit of over $100,000. Under the second scenario, however, the construction of a parking garage would place additional debt and maintenance load on the system, and could generate annual deficits approaching $500,000 a year. See Appendix D for the complete results of the model. In summary, the overall pricing rate strategy we recommend provides for a pricing- and demand-based strategy for managing parking in downtown Dover. It provides for a streamlined set of parking rates for visitors to downtown ($2 for on-street and still 25 cents for off-street lots); while providing a restructured set of fees for permit parking that starts to fully value the location of each spot provided. Using these strategies, parking demand will be better distributed, and the right users will park at the right spots at the right costs. Finally, we would expect this pricing strategy to help the City and DDP not only better manage the existing parking supply, but also help build up a capital reserve for future system enhancements. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 46

6. Recommendations In summary, the Downtown Dover Parking Study arrived at the following conclusions:  Overall there is sufficient supply in the study area to accommodate existing demand, however the demand is unbalanced and thus some localized parts of the study area are at or over capacity while some of the more remote regions within the study area are well under capacity.  Some parkers may feel that there are parking supply constraints because remote parking areas are not well-defined, parking regulations might be confusing, and wayfinding is not provided for such areas; or because some parkers may be hesitant to park in more distant off-site lots, especially ones that might require a longer walk in low-pedestrian volume areas perceived as being “unsafe”. So, the study did identify some issues with parking, but not necessarily a lack of parking. The main factors are really related to how parking is managed, and how it can be better managed. The foremost complaint was that just the basic action of finding parking was tough. Some of the reasons might include on-street parking occupied by parking surfers and employees; lack of clear directions to a parking lot or to the sought-after type of parking (including ADA spaces for those with disabilities); the reservation of preferred spaces for permit parking; and the confusing, multiple categories of parking. All these issues are related to the cost that is charged – or not charged – for different types of parking. There is also a perception of lack of safety, especially at night and at lots farther from active pedestrian traffic. And finally, many expressed how it would be extremely helpful to have a concerted effort to better create a sense that Downtown Dover is special, that it is a place well worth a visit. Based on these findings, recommendations were developed. Most of them fall into several distinct categories, including “Wayfinding”, “Pricing”, “Streetscape and Lighting Enhancements”. Instead of listing them by these categories, we separated them into Short-Term (“low hanging fruit” measures that can be implemented in less than one year); Medium-Term (those that can be implemented between one and three years); and Long-Term (those that require long-term effort, and would only start to be implemented after three years). The five most critical recommendations, which reflect the findings of our study and stakeholder and public input, were:  Short-term – Recommendation 1 – Wayfinding, install Parking Directional Signage  Short-term – Recommendation 3 – Pricing Strategy, pilot the first phase of a new pricing strategy, focused on permit parking  Medium-term – Recommendation 8 – Metered Parking, install new parking meters or metered kiosks on Loockerman Street, to be able to completely implement the new pricing strategy  Medium-term – Recommendation 9 – Pricing Strategy, pilot the second phase of a new pricing strategy, focused on on-street parking  Medium-term – Recommendation 10 – Streetscape and lighting enhancements to increase the safety, ease of navigation and attractiveness of Downtown Dover Recommendations are described in further detail below. Short-Term Recommendations These recommendations can be considered “low-hanging fruit”, measures that can be taken within one year of the completion of this study: 1. Wayfinding – Parking Directional Signage – to address one major complaint, the first phase of the Wayfinding Plan should be implemented immediately, installing new signs at key intersections to Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 47

direct visitors to the two commercial strip parking lots currently available – the Bradford Street lot and the Governor’s Avenue lot –, as well as to the City Hall / Library lot for those who have city business to address. We suggest that a total of 20 to 30 signs are required to provide directions from all the main access routes to downtown, which include:  Division Street, Forrest Street and W North Street from the west  Governor’s Avenue and State Street from the north and south  Division Street, Kings Highway, Loockerman Street, Water Street and MLK Boulevard from the east  Loockerman Street, Governor’s Avenue, Bradford Street, Reed Street within the immediate adjacency of the parking lots Figure 22: Potential Parking Directional Signs 2. Wayfinding – Private Parking Lot Signage – another easy measure to implement is to ask key private parking lot owners to post signs saying “Free Evening Parking” of “Free public parking after 6 pm”. This would make it clear to evening visitors that those spaces are available. 3. Pilot First Phase of New Pricing Strategy – because any modifications to the on-street parking rates will require additional stakeholder coordination and procurement of new parking meters, we suggest that the new pricing strategy be first piloted with implementation of Demand-Based Pricing for parking permit spaces. As mentioned in Chapter 5, higher prices would be charged for permits on the North and Loockerman Way lots, while the lowest prices would be charged on the Governor’s Avenue lot. In addition, Weekday Only and Weeknight Only permits could also be implemented. 4. Pilot Parking Lot Reconfiguration – Once the parking permits are reissued under the new pricing scheme, then we recommend that the Bradford Street and Governor’s Avenue lots be reconfigured with paint, so that metered spots are concentrated on the east side of the lots, and permit spots on the west side of the lots. Additional internal lot signage would direct users to the appropriate metered, permit and ADA spots. 5. Disincentive Campaign – in parallel with these strategies, the City and DDP could send letters and hold meeting with shop owners and state employees, to educate employees and “parking surfers” Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 48

about the damage they do the system, and to discourage them from doing the same in the future. The police department should also increase the level of enforcement after the outreach to these groups is completed. 6. Incentive Campaign – in addition to the Disincentive Campaign, which has a focus on negating or minimizing current bad parking behavior, a more positive campaign can be put in place to encourage more people to walk over to downtown Dover’s businesses. One key finding from talking to business owners is that they would like to see more pedestrian traffic from state employees, visitors to state offices, and students from Wesley College. Some of the potential ways to encourage these potential visitors and customers to come downtown include:  Hosting Downtown Dover business outreach fairs, showcasing downtown businesses and products, right in front of (or even inside) state office buildings and Wesley College. The goal would be to introduce all these potential customers to these businesses and let them know that they are only a short walk away.  Hold “Walking Parties”, where a volunteer “Walking Ambassador” schedules walks or jogs at lunchtime or at the end of the day, so that potential customers from state offices or students can exercise, make new friends, go to their parking spaces, and – most importantly – go to local businesses.  Expand current downtown marketing efforts to include ads and slogan to “Walk Downtown” Medium-Term Recommendations These recommendations can be implemented within one to three years of the completion of this study: 7. Wayfinding – Downtown Dover Destination and Welcoming Signage – the second phase of the Wayfinding Plan can be implemented within this timeframe. The next two layers of signage would then be installed – first the enhanced directional signage located on perimeter major access roads (DE Route 1, US 13 / DuPont Highway, and Saulsbury Road) to direct visitors to Historic Downtown Dover; and then the Perimeter Welcome Signs – a second ring of signs would be located along the perimeter of downtown, welcoming visitors and thus helping create a better sense of place. To meet this schedule, coordination between the City and DelDOT should begin soon. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 49

Figure 23: Potential Wayfinding Strategy (see Legend below) Green rectangles with arrows – outer perimeter directional signage (see mockups with standard highway brown background above) Orange rectangles with “W” – proposed locations of Welcome signs Blue rectangles with arrows – proposed location of inner perimeter parking lot directional signage Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 50

8. Metered Parking – to fully implement the new pricing strategy, new meters or meter kiosks will need to be installed along Loockerman Street. We prepared an order-of-magnitude estimate of the probable costs of installing meters or metered kiosks (see Table 7, below), and arrived at an estimated cost ranging from $14,000 to $60,000. # Unit # Block Cost Meters TOTAL faces Meters $350 41 $14,350 $5,000 - $30,000 - 6 Metered Kiosk $10,000 $60,000 Table 7: Estimated Costs for Installing Meters on Loockerman Street (Three blocks, north and south sides) As shown on the table, the cost to install multi-space meters would depend on the number of spaces assigned to a pay machine. The cost per pay machine ranges from $5,000 to $10,000 depending on the vendor and number of units purchased. In comparison, the cost to install a new single space meter is approximately $350 each. Additional costs for multi-space meters could include set up for debit card distribution locations and credit card processing fees. Furthermore, for wireless communications, a monthly service fee is typically collected through the vendor. Multi-space meters offer a single pay station for all parking along a curb, or within parking garages and off- street surface lots. On-street they typically replace up to ten single space meters along a block. Off-street, they can manage all spaces within sight, although more than one machine is provided, if necessary, for user convenience during peak periods. This technology allows for multiple payment options, including coins, bills, credit cards, and debit cards. Pre-paid tokens (to replace vouchers) are also available for local businesses. The multi-space meters offer options to either pay by space number (typical in lots/garages), or pay and display (typical for curb parking). Pros:  Multiple payment options (Many drivers like the convenience of paying by credit card)  Reduces or eliminates the need for customers to carry or obtain coins  Reduces the amount of coins to be collected  Potential reduction in staffing because of fewer coins and locations to collect  Less obstructed streetscape with elimination of meters replaced by one multi-space pay station.  Improved accounting and revenue tracking  Automated notifications by broken meters to request repairs  No revenue loss due to broken meter (If meter is broken, drivers can use any other nearby meter to pay) Cons:  Less convenient location for the parking customer  Capital cost of new multi-space meters significantly higher than single-space meters Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 51

 Cost of removing/disposal of existing single space meters  Potential for delays in receipt of credit card revenues due to processing and transferring  If enabled for acceptance of debit cards there would be a need for multiple locations to sell, load and reload debit cards (because of the small scale of the proposed system, even including the existing multi-space meters in the existing lots, a debit card system is probably not economically feasible)  Drivers may not be familiar with technology, learning curve should be expected  Potential for customer to not observe the presence of the multi-space meter location and the need to pay for parked time If metered parking is approved for implementation, fundraising and coordination should also begin soon. 9. Pilot Second Phase of New Pricing Strategy – after the new parking meters or kiosks are installed, then the pricing strategy can be extended to on-street parking (refer to Chapter 5 for details). Prior to the start of the new pricing, the City and DDP should conduct an educational campaign to educate the public about the new pricing strategy, why it makes sense, and how it will help enhance parking downtown for the long-term. 10. Streetscape and Lighting Improvements – one of the most frequent complaints heard during the study was that of safety and the heightened sense of awareness one had to have even during a short walk to a parking lot after work. One of the easiest ways to address this issue is to use urban design strategies and technology to enhance both safety and the perception of safety of those using the on-street and off-street parking facilities in Downtown Dover. Several of these strategies include, in incremental order of complexity and cost:  Maintain sidewalks and public infrastructure in a good state of repair  Continue to activate shopping corridors with the existing and new banner programs  Prune trees that might be blocking existing lighting fixtures, so that more lighting reaches sidewalks and thus provides safer pathways to destinations  Replace existing streetlamps and lighting fixtures with LED lights and more modern fixtures, that provide better lighting  Provide additional landscaping along sidewalks  Install additional safety cameras to provide police with live additional data  Continue to provide incentives for storefront revitalization and to bring additional businesses downtown – the more businesses and the more visitors downtown gets, the greater the chance of creating a virtuous circle of redevelopment that thus also provides more eyes on the street and more safety  Create additional pedestrian bumpouts to shorten pedestrian crosswalk crossing distances, and thus create a safer environment for pedestrians  Modify the parking layouts and rebuild the Bradford Street and Governor’s Avenue lots, to match or exceed the higher quality urban design of the North Street lot Finally, during the study the Project Team also developed the concept for a specific streetscape project, the “Parking Connector Alley”, which would greatly enhance the safety, convenience, and attractiveness of using the off-street public parking lots. The project would basically entail building a continuous pedestrian pathway in existing public or parking lot right-of-way, connecting the New Street and the Governor’s Avenue lot on the west, thru the Bradford and minor Streets parking lots Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 52

and Minor Street, across State Street and Kings Highway, all the way to the City Hall / Library lot on the east. This new pathway would have a high-quality aesthetic, possibly with brick pavers to match the historic character of Downtown Dover; would have excellent lighting, to address the complaints of dark alleys (especially surrounding Minor Street and the State Street Alley); and would also provide space for “pocket parks”, small gathering spaces that could be green, could provide areas to just sit and relax, or could even provide spaces for small performances or events. Ultimately, if this alley is built, it would create the kind of street connector that the North Street lot or Loockerman Way today provide, and would most probably increase the attractiveness of the Bradford Street and Governor’s Avenue lots, thus helping the entire off-street system reach more balanced and fuller occupancy rates. Figure 24, on the next page, shows a plan rendering of what this alley could look like. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 53

Figure 24: Potential New Parking Connector Alley Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 54

As a follow-up to this parking study, the Project Team recommends that the City, DKCMPO, and partners start a process of identifying and prioritizing potential streetscape and lighting improvements that can be implemented to enhance the parking experience in Downtown Dover, including the low- hanging fruit measures of changing lights to LEDs and potentially the construction of the New Parking Connector Alley. 11. Promote Alternative Transportation Options – as Downtown Dover continues to prepare for future development, it is important to consider the many ways in which overall demand for parking can be reduced. Dover already does this in several ways, such as making the city more walkable and pedestrian friendly. The city could consider increasing those efforts, including promoting the following alternative transportation options:  Integrating centralized lots with shuttle services, as was expressed by stakeholders especially with connections to Wesley College, Bayhealth’s Kent General Hospital, and the Dover Transit Center  Providing abundant bicycle parking facilities to promote the use of bicycles for local transportation.  Expanding the emergent bicycle lane network and connecting it with existing regional trails  Assisting businesses to provide bicycle parking and amenities (lockers and showers)  Creating parking cash out programs - incentives to those who don't drive  Providing free or discounted transit passes (TransitChek)  Providing priority parking for carpools or vanpools and ride-matching services for carpool or vanpool partners  Attracting car sharing programs (e.g. Zipcar, Enterprise Car Share) and bike-sharing programs  Creating guaranteed ride home services 12. (Optional) Implement Pay by Cell Phone System – to make parking more convenient, several municipalities or counties around Dover have started experimenting with pay-by-mobile- phone systems for on-street parking, including Bethany Beach, Montgomery County, MD, and Harrisburg, PA. From a customer’s perspective, this technology makes parking more convenient by:  Eliminating the need to carry coins, cash, or even take a credit card out of your wallet  On some systems, allowing you to charge your phone bill for the parking  Providing the opportunity to extend your parking session from your cell phone, without physically returning to your car (and thus also potentially also avoiding a traffic ticket)  On some systems, providing information about where available parking is From the provider’s perspective, this technology offers the opportunity for:  Getting accurate data on peak times and popular parking zones, thus allowing them to better manage available parking resources  Reducing costs, including on some systems by eliminating meters, maintenance needs, cash collection efforts, and accounting Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 55

 Reducing parking surfing if there are time limits for parking spots  Reducing enforcement, legal challenges and complaints, since parking data is actively collected The City could consider the implementation of a Pay by Cell system in addition to the new meters or kiosks; or possibly even as an alternative system, bypassing the need for installing new meters or kiosks. Long-Term Recommendations Finally, the following recommendations will require long-term focus and effort for implementation, and can be implemented three years or more after the completion of this study: 13. New Gateways to Downtown Dover – once the downtown parking changes and the new streetscapes and lighting as well as the initial branding efforts are completed, then Downtown Dover should consider creating new gateways at the major intersections that provide access to downtown. These gateways would consists of green landscaped public spaces, with sculptural elements to denote the special character of downtown Dover, and thus serve as additional mileposts and attractions for visitors to go downtown. See Figure 25 on the next page, for an overall aerial view of potential gateway locations and character. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 56

Figure 25: Potential Gateway Locations Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 57

As can be seen in Figure 25, we suggest that new gateways should be created at the intersections of US 13 / DuPont Highway with both MLK Boulevard and Division Street. In addition, the existing gateway at the intersection of Division Street and Kings Highway would also be enhanced. These two intersection improvement projects are described in more detail below.  US 13 / DuPont Highway with Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard and Bay Road Figure 26: Potential Gateway 1 Location at Intersection of US 13 / DuPont Highway and MLK Boulevard, view looking south (MLK Boulevard to the right) As can be seen on Figure 26, our schematic rendering for a new gateway at this intersection includes:  Installation of landscaping and trees to differentiate the gateway from the standard highway-side or commercial landscape  Installation of sculptural elements – the renderings shows a trellis-like concrete structure in the highway median and in a semi-circle at the entrance to MLK Boulevard. Even though these are only conceptual in nature, structures like these would serve both as symbolic elements denoting this location as a gateway, and also as visual elements directing passers-y towards downtown  Enhancement of sidewalks and pedestrian crossings  Installation of additional directional and visitor-support signage  Potential installation of specialized lighting Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 58

Figure 27: Potential Gateway 1 Location at Intersection of US 13 / DuPont Highway and MLK Boulevard, view looking northwest Figure 27 portrays how the enhanced landscaping really makes a difference in how residents, workers and visitors would perceive downtown. While conceptual in nature, several elements of this rendering can be discussed:  The trellis serves both to provide visual cues to drivers that there is a special place just beyond DuPont Highway, and to provide a higher quality background for those using the sidewalks, shielding them from traffic, parking lots, and visual pollution  The enhanced plantings at the edge of the roadways help make the point that this is a special place, the seat of government for the state of Delaware and a clean, safe, and exciting place to be  The sculptural columns at the entrance of MLK Boulevard are visible from wide distances, once more marking this spot as someplace special and serving as the gateway markers for the entrance to downtown. Figure 28: Potential Gateway 1 Location at Intersection of US 13 / DuPont Highway and MLK Boulevard, view looking east Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 59

As can be seen on Figure 28, the intersections improvements also include signage that help enhance wayfinding and streamline traffic exiting downtown, especially so during large scale events.  US 13 / DuPont Highway with Division Street – as can be seen in Figure 29, below, our schematic rendering for a new gateway at this intersection includes: o Installation of special pavements for pedestrian crossings, as well as special pavement or thermoplastic paint effects within the intersection o Construction of two gateway walls on the west (downtown) side of the intersection, with potential “Welcome to Downtown Dover” signage o Installation of landscaping and trees to differentiate the gateway from the standard highway- side landscape Figure 29: Potential Gateway 2 Location at Intersection of US 13 / DuPont Highway and Division Street, birds-eye view Figure 30, on the next page, shows how this gateway might look like from the ground level. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 60

Figure 30: Potential Gateway 2 Location at Intersection of US 13 / DuPont Highway and Division Street, ground level view In addition, we also recommend that the existing gateway at Division Street / Kings Highway be enhanced. The rendering in Figures 31 and 32, below and on the next page shows how minor streetscape and landscaping enhancements can make a difference in making the existing triangular public area feel more like a gateway. Figure 31: Potential enhanced Gateway Layout at Intersection of Kings Highway and Division Street Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 61

Figure 32: Potential enhanced Gateway Layout at Intersection of Kings Highway and Division Street, ground level view 14. Long-Term Visitor Promotion Program – in follow-up of the short-term Incentive and Disincentive Campaigns and the short- and medium-term installation of all the new way wayfinding signage, we recommend that a long-term visitor promotion program be put in place. The City and the Downtown Dover Partnership should coordinate with the Kent County Tourism Corporation (dba Delaware’s Quint Villages) to expand its already significant marketing efforts, and slightly adjust some of its marketing efforts to help new visitors “Discover Historic Downtown Dover”. In addition, the statewide Delaware Tourism Office can also revise its Visit Delaware – Endless Discovery campaign and website to include a lot more (and easier to find) information about local Dover attractions and businesses. Finally, even direct outreach / marketing efforts to neighboring metropolitan centers such as Wilmington, Annapolis, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Washington DC should be considered. With a unified and integrated wayfinding and marketing campaign, then downtown can expect to see many more visitors and help spur further redevelopment. Figure 33: Potential Layout for Welcome Sign for Downtown Dover 15. New State Street Alley Parking Lot – as was discussed as part of Scenario 2 during the stakeholder and public outreach process, a new parking lot can be built by combining existing private parking areas along State Street Alley, between Loockerman Street and Reed Street. Such a project would require significant outreach and coordination with property owners, as well as fundraising to reconfigure the individual lots into one integrated, coherent lot. However, if such work was undertaken, between 40 and 50 new parking spots could be made available to downtown merchants and their customers. 16. New Parking Garage (once development reaches critical mass) – during the early stakeholder and public outreach process, a frequent question heard was “So, when do we build a garage?” Developing Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 62

a parking garage is an expensive proposition, and can be especially problematic in a small downtown environment like Dover where many small users (and overflow from state parking facilities) contribute to a cumulatively growing parking demand. In Chapter 3, we described the peak occupancy model we developed to check on the current parking supply and demand balance downtown. It showed that current raw demand currently does not exceed 85%, and when time of day and types of use are considered, the demand likely does not exceed 60%. In other words, as stated several times before, there is sufficient supply downtown – but it is not currently well managed. Future Development Scenarios Based on the current demand model, we also ran three scenarios to check on what would happen with future development. The first scenario examined what would happen to the peak occupancy rate if downtown saw a significant increase in residential development, with approximately 3 times the currently existing supply – and no new parking supply was provided (not even the minimum required by the zoning code). The second scenario examined the first scenario, but with the provision of new parking supply according to code. And the third scenario builds on the second by adding a further 100,000 square feet of office space. See Table 7 below for the results of the analysis. Land Use Number of Parking Spots Required Original Scenario 1 – Scenario 2 – Scenario 3 – Demand Model Residential Residential Residential and Growth, no Growth, new Office Growth, new parking parking new parking according to according to zoning zoning Commercial 414 414 414 414 Office/Industrial 823 823 823 1,107 Residential 260 688 688 688 TOTAL 1,498 1,925 1,925 2,209 Existing Supply 1,762 1,762 2,082 2,415 Calculated Raw Peak 85% 109% 92% 91% Occupancy Calculated Time of Day / 60% 79% 67% 58% Parking Type Peak Occupancy Table 7: Peak Occupancy Model – Total Parking Required Under Different Scenarios Under Scenario 1, it can be seen that the raw peak occupancy exceeds the supply at 109%. However, this scenario was purposefully designed to gauge how much the parking system could absorb if no new parking supply was built. When we then examine the peak occupancy considering time of day and types of parking, it would not even exceed 79% for this scenario, leaving plenty of available supply under most conditions. Scenarios 2 and 3 just show that under the current zoning conditions, even if significant levels of development occur, the raw occupancy demand would not exceed the supply, and the time-of-day adjusted rates show that sufficient parking would be available. If we look closely at Scenario 3, it represents the addition of another major office business to downtown Dover (larger even than the current largest one, EZ Pass). Should such a potential addition to downtown Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 63

pop up, that is when the City and DDP should consider a partnership to develop a new large parking lot or garage. In other words, growth scenarios show that if current zoning requirements are respected (and zoning exceptions avoided), downtown Dover is unlikely to lack parking supply in the near future. If the current parking supply is better managed, then it should be sufficient to address low- and even moderate-growth scenarios. (For full demand models, please see Appendix D). Implementation: Phasing Strategy, Funding Sources As was seen above, quicker and cheaper strategies for implementation were listed in the Short-Term List of Recommendations, then we listed Medium-Term recommendations, and those that will require more time and budget, or completion of previous recommendations, were listed in the Long-Term List. This breakdown offers the City and DDP a menu of options that can be implemented within a year, within one to three years, and on a three to ten year horizon. In this era of scarcity of resources, we suggest that between one and three strategies be picked from each of the Short, Medium, and Long Term Lists so that the City and DDP can dedicate staff and funding for more successful implementation. Within this list we recommend one critical sequence of recommendations should be implemented – the five most critical recommendations, which reflect the findings of our study and the stakeholder and public input:  Short-term – Recommendation 1 – Wayfinding, install Parking Directional Signage  Short-term – Recommendation 3 – Pricing Strategy, pilot the first phase of a new pricing strategy, focused on permit parking  Medium-term – Recommendation 8 – Metered Parking, install new parking meters or metered kiosks on Loockerman Street, to be able to completely implement the new pricing strategy  Medium-term – Recommendation 9 – Pricing Strategy, pilot the second phase of a new pricing strategy, focused on on-street parking  Medium-term – Recommendation 10 – Streetscape and lighting enhancements to increase the safety, ease of navigation and attractiveness of Downtown Dover Recommendations 1, 3, 8, and 9 form a coherent base sequence of actions that can transform the performance of the parking system downtown; recommendation 10 is then critical to alter both the experience of using the parking system, as well as the perception of lack of safety and inconvenience. The following funding sources are available to help Dover implement this program:  DelDOT – Community Transportation Funding (CTF) – up to $275,000 available to legislators and as match for other programs  DelDOT – Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside Program – up to $1 million in design and construction funds, 20% match required  USDOT TIGER – between $5 million and $25 million, minimum 20% match, for multi-modal transportation projects that will have significant impact to a metropolitan area or region, including: o Repair bridges or bring infrastructure to a state of good repair o Safety improvements, including shorter or more direct access to critical health services Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 64

o Connect people to jobs, services, and education o Anchor economic revitalization and job growth, especially in manufacturing  DE Division of Small Business, Development and Tourism – Neighborhood Building Blocks Fund – up to $50,000, 25% match required  DE portion of federal HUD Community Development Block Grant  And specifically for green elements of the project, such as streetscape enhancements and the creation of pocket parks along the New Parking Connector Alley and on the city gateways: o DNREC – Outdoor Recreation, Parks & Trail Program – typically up to $100,000 per municipality, 50% match required o DuPont Clear Into the Future program o Longwood Foundation To assist the City and DDP in the process of prioritizing and selecting the preferred recommendations for implementation, the project team prepared a summary matrix with potential costs/resources needed for implementation, benefits, and potential milestones and obstacles for each recommendation. In addition, we also list the preferred funding sources for each. The matrix can be seen in Table 8, below. Table 8: Summary of Expected Costs, Benefits, Obstacles and Funding Strategy for Each Recommendation Recommendation Expected Expected Benefits Milestones / Potential Funding Cost/Resources Obstacles Sources Needed for Implementation SHORT-TERM 1. WAYFINDING – Install Less than $50,000 Reduce driver / i. Secure grant or city DelDOT CTF / City parking directional visitor confusion funding funds signage ii. Coordinate with agencies iii. Design signage iv. Manufacture and install signage 2. WAYFINDING – Install Less than $10,000 Reduce driver / i. Secure small City funds and private parking lot / Collaboration visitor confusion; and funding private signage with private lot provide additional commitments contributions owners parking options ii. Coordinate with agencies iii. Design signage iv. Manufacture and install signage 3. PRICING – Pilot first Can probably be Will start i. Coordinate and Not required Phase done internally implementation of a receive board demand-based approval for pilot pricing system; might pricing strategy provide additional ii. Communicate and revenue, and provide receive feedback additional spaces for from existing hourly/daily visitors permit holders iii. Implement strategy during Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 65

Recommendation Expected Expected Benefits Milestones / Potential Funding Cost/Resources Obstacles Sources Needed for Implementation next permit renewal phase (Fall 2018?) iv. Monitor results post-issuance of permits, and for a year afterwards 4. PHYSICAL – Can probably be Reduce driver / i. Design new Not required or TRANSFORMATIONS done internally; or visitor confusion parking lot layouts small city budget Parking Lot with small ii. Paint new striping Reconfiguration assistance from and replace consultants. signage where needed 5. ENGAGEMENT – Can probably be Reduce driver / i. Prepare goals of Not required or Disincentive / done internally visitor confusion; campaign and small city budget Enforcement reduce gaming of draft presentation Campaign parking system ii. Pilot presentation (reduce “parking at two events and surfing”); and thus update provide additional presentation spaces for iii. Coordinate with hourly/daily visitors police on increased enforcement iv. Monitor results 6. ENGAGEMENT – Can probably be Increase number of i. Prepare goals of Small city budget Incentive Campaign done internally visitors downtown campaign and prepare presentations and events ii. Host promotional events iii. Increase marketing effort MEDIUM-TERM 7. WAYFINDING – Install Less than Reduce driver / i. Secure grant or DelDOT CTF / City Destination and $100,000 visitor confusion; city funding funds / DE Division Welcoming Signage increase awareness ii. Coordinate with of Small Business, of downtown Dover agencies Development & as an everyday iii. Design signage Tourism destination iv. Manufacture and install signage 8. PRICING – Install $15,000 - $60,000 Reduce driver / i. Secure grant or DelDOT CTF / City Metered Parking visitor confusion; city funding funds next step in ii. Coordinate with implementation of a agencies demand-based iii. Design and pricing system; might procure system provide additional iv. Install meters / revenue, and provide kiosks additional spaces for hourly/daily visitors Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 66

Recommendation Expected Expected Benefits Milestones / Potential Funding Cost/Resources Obstacles Sources Needed for Implementation 9. PRICING – Pilot Less than $50,000 Will continue i. Coordinate and DelDOT CTF / City Second Phase / Beyond cost of implementation of a receive board funds / DelDOT TA Recommendation demand-based approval for Set-Aside 8, might require pricing system; might second phase of support from a provide additional pricing strategy consultant. revenue, and provide ii. Communicate and additional spaces for receive feedback hourly/daily visitors from existing permit holders iii. Implement strategy during next permit renewal phase (Fall 2018?) iv. Monitor results post-issuance of permits, and for a year afterwards 10. PHYSICAL – Depending on Continues physical i. Secure grant or DelDOT CTF / City TRANSFORMATIONS - scale of effort, transformation and other funding funds / DelDOT TA Streetscape and between $50,000 redevelopment of ii. Coordinate with Set-Aside / DE Lighting and possibly over downtown, further agencies Division of Small Improvements $1 million if encouraging higher- iii. Design and Business, significant new value occupancy of procure Development & lighting , safety vacant spaces; improvements Tourism cameras, new reducing perceptions iv. Build landscaping, and and levels of improvements new Parking unsafety; and Connector Alley bringing additional are built residents and visitors alike. 11. ENGAGEMENT – Can probably be Decrease demand for i. Prepare goals of Small city budget Promote Alternative done internally driving and parking campaign and Transportation downtown, thus prepare alleviating parking presentations and issues; Increase events number of visitors ii. Host promotional downtown events iii. Increase marketing effort 12. PRICING – Pay by Cell $ To be Increase level of TBD DelDOT CTF / City Phone System Determined / performance and funds / DelDOT TA Would require convenience of Set-Aside / DE collaboration with parking downtown Division of Small technology Business, provider Development & Tourism LONG-TERM 13. PHYSICAL – Depending on Creates new i. Secure grant or DelDOT CTF / City TRANSFORMATIONS scale of effort, perception of other funding funds / DelDOT TA New Gateways between downtown as a ii. Coordinate with Set-Aside / DE $500,000 and destination, bringing agencies Division of Small Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 67

Recommendation Expected Expected Benefits Milestones / Potential Funding Cost/Resources Obstacles Sources Needed for Implementation over $1 million additional residents iii. Design and Business, and visitors alike. procure Development & improvements Tourism iv. Build improvements 14. ENGAGEMENT – Can probably be Decrease demand for i. Prepare goals of Small city budget, Long-Term Visitor led internally driving and parking campaign and plus DE Division of Promotion Program downtown, thus prepare Small Business, alleviating parking presentations and Development & issues; Increase events Tourism number of visitors ii. Host promotional downtown events iii. Increase marketing effort 15. PHYSICAL – TBD, between Continues physical i. Secure grant or DelDOT CTF / City TRANSFORMATIONS $250,000 and $1 transformation and other funding funds / DelDOT TA – New State Street million redevelopment of ii. Coordinate with Set-Aside / DE Alley Lot downtown, further agencies Division of Small encouraging higher- iii. Design and Business, value occupancy of procure Development & vacant spaces; improvements Tourism reducing perceptions iv. Build and levels of improvements unsafety; and bringing additional residents and visitors alike. 16. PHYSICAL – Over $4 million / Continues i. Secure Private Funds / City TRANSFORMATIONS Collaboration with redevelopment of development funds / DE Division – New Parking Garage private developer downtown, leverages agreement of Small Business, private investment; ii. Coordinate with Development & and brings additional agencies Tourism residents and iii. Design and bid visitors. iv. Build improvements Here are the major upcoming grant deadlines that the City and DDP should consider:  DE Division of Small Business, Development and Tourism – Neighborhood Building Blocks Fund – Grant application deadline, Dec 20, 2017  Longwood Foundation – Registration for information session – recommended before December 31, 2017  Longwood Foundation – Pre-Application Homework due to foundation – February 6, 2018  Longwood Foundation – Grant information session in Dover (Delaware State University) – February 12, 2018 Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 68

 DNREC – Outdoor Recreation, Parks & Trail Program – typically invitation letter sent in March, pre- applications due in May, and applications due in September  DelDOT – Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside Program – probably Spring 2018 grant deadline  USDOT TIGER – possibly October 2018  USDOT INFRA – possibly November 2018  DE Division of Small Business, Development and Tourism – Neighborhood Building Blocks Fund – Grant application deadline, Dec 2018 Supportive Strategies In addition to the recommendations listed above, there are several additional strategies that the City, DKMPO, and DDP can together take in follow-up, to help mitigate the factors that make that parking experience downtown such a burden. They include:  Coordination with State parking facilities – in addition to reaching out to state employees to encourage them to visit downtown more often, the city can also reach out to public facility executives to coordinate collaborative measures to share city and state parking facilities.  Coordination with Wesley College – similarly, even though at a smaller scale, the City can coordinate with the college on collaborative measures to manage parking in the perimeter of downtown.  Shared Parking Program – even if the City opts not to pursue the construction of the new State Street Alley parking lot, the City can build on its initial outreach to private parking lot owners (see Recommendation 2) and broker additional shared parking agreements – not only along the alley, but also at other potential shared-use private parking lots.  Friendlier Enforcement – as the City implements new parking pricing arrangements, the City could train the Police’s Safety Ambassadors or create a new group of volunteer “parking ambassadors” to reach out to parking meter and lot users, and serve as front line of friendly outreach to educate and assist the public during the ramp-up of the new pricing strategies.  Event / Valet Parking system – even though generally not considered a significant issue by stakeholders and the public, if need be, the City could create such a system to accommodate the additional parking demand derived from special events (Dover Days, NASCAR races) or busy legislative / judicial sessions.  Parking Consultant – if the workload for implementation and management of parking issues becomes too big, the City could seek out a parking consultant to manage the implementation program and to provide ongoing monitoring of the system. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 69

7. Conclusion The City of Dover and the Downtown Dover Partnership are well on their way to making Dover a vital destination, a great place to be, work, live, and play. However, one of the most frequent complaints heard from visitors, customers, and residents is the issue of parking, which acts as a deterrent to more frequent visits and further revitalization. As one year studying the issue showed, the overall peak occupancy of on-street parking did not exceed 75%; and of the off-street parking lots did not exceed 63%. When adjusted for time of day and type of use, the overall system occupancy never exceeded 60%, when the typical targets for efficient use without overcrowding are typically are 85% occupancy for on-street parking and 90% for off-street parking. The issue is really two-fold: an inefficient distribution of parking capacity, where some lots and preferred on- street spots might see over 80% occupancy, and others linger below 40%; and confusing wayfinding and parking rate systems, which contribute to create a large disincentive for parking downtown. The project team developed a series of recommendations, with the input and feedback from multiple stakeholders and the public. These set of recommendations basically fall into these categories:  Better wayfinding and signage  Revised parking rate structure  Improved physical infrastructure, including streetscape, landscape, lighting, security cameras, new pocket parks and connecting walkways, and new gateways to downtown  Enhanced public engagement and marketing of Historic Downtown Dover as a destination This report provides a menu of choices for implementation of these recommendations, and lists potential funding sources and actions to implement them. We believe that as the City and DDP move into implementation, every small win will help transform the parking experience and the visitor enjoyment of downtown, helping build momentum for further enhancements. Along the way, downtown will again be the vital public space that connects all the residential, employment, government, educational, recreational, and historic areas of the city. Langan Engineering / KSK Architects Planners Historians 70

March 27, 2018 City of Dover – Cost of Service And Rate Design Study 1

Agenda • Cost of Service / Rate Design Overview • Revenue Requirement • Cost of Service • Rate Design – Rate Design Proposal • Proposed Rates and Rate Impacts • Discussion NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 2

Cost of Service and Rate Design Overview

Steps in the Analytical Ratemaking Process Determine the revenue Revenue Requirement STEP 1 requirements of the utility Determination Unbundle costs by functions STEP 2 and services (production, transmission, distribution, etc.) Classify costs (demand, energy, STEP 3 customer costs, etc.) Cost Allocation Allocate cost among customer STEP 4 classes STEP 5 Design rates Rate Design NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 4

Revenue Requirement

Revenue Requirement • Revenue Requirement based on five year “Test Year” (FY 2019 – FY 2023) – Rely on City’s financial forecast • Start with FY 2017 expenses • Cash basis – Includes system investments for capital – Recognizes existing reserve levels / policies – Budget projections for operating expenses • Includes TEA costs for future fuel / power NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 6

Revenue Requirement Item 2017 Cash Adjustments Test Year Operation and Maintenance Expense Dover Production $7,150 $165 $7,315 PJM Purchased Power $36,256 $4,683 $40,939 Transmission & Distribution $5,285 $690 $5,975 Metering / Customer $1,447 $216 $1,662 Admin & General $4,432 $842 $5,274 Subtotal O&M Expenses $54,569 $6,596 $61,165 Debt Service $1,611 ($2) $1,609 Transfer to General Fund $10,000 $0 $10,000 Appropriations to Reserve Funds $11,402 ($5,050) $6,352 Subtotal Revenue Requirement $77,582 $1,544 $79,126 Less Other Income ($922) $134 ($788) Total Revenue Requirement $76,660 $1,678 $78,338 Revenue at Current Rates* $80,624 $2,112 $82,735 Over / (Under) $3,964 $4,397 Difference (%) 4.92% 5.31% NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 7

Revenue Requirement Test Year Revenue Requirement by Cost by Function (%) Street Ligthing, Function ($000) Customer, 3% 0.1% Distribution, 13% Production $60,789 Transmission , Transmission $4,778 6% Distribution $9,802 Customer $2,943 Street Lighting $25 Total Cost of Service $78,338 Production , 77% Production Transmission Distribution Customer Street Ligthing NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 8

Revenue Requirement Test Year Revenue Requirement by Cost Cost by Classification (%) Classification ($000) Customer , 6% Demand, 50% Demand Related Costs that vary with system capacity $39,092 Energy Costs that vary with energy (kWh) sold $34,868 Customer Costs that vary with number of customers $4,378 Total Cost of Service $78,338 Energy, 45% Demand Energy Customer NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 9

Cost of Service

Cost of Service Total System Load by Month 200,000 150,000 kW 100,000 50,000 - Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month System Peak Residential • System Peak ~ 162.8 MW • Peak in June, July, August, September • 4 CP Cost Allocator • Residential Class Peak ~ 66.6 MW • Peak in June, July, August, September • 4 NCP Cost Allocator NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 11

Cost of Service – Test Year Cost of Current Proposed % Service Revenues Difference Revenues Difference Change Class (a) (b) (a-b) (c) (c-a) (c/b)-1 Residential $28,937,503 $26,916,943 ($2,020,559) $27,468,331 ($1,469,171) 2% Small Commercial $4,073,885 $3,002,651 ($1,071,233) $3,057,524 ($1,016,361) 2% Medium Commercial $4,923,543 $5,308,542 $384,998 $5,056,954 $133,411 -5% Large Commercial $15,506,941 $18,197,969 $2,691,028 $16,944,837 $1,437,896 -7% Primary $15,681,040 $18,344,980 $2,663,940 $17,097,531 $1,416,490 -7% Transmission $8,220,137 $9,289,643 $1,069,506 $8,654,632 $434,495 -7% Other Tran $191,020 $421,017 $229,996 $391,884 $200,863 -7% Lighting $803,592 $1,208,940 $405,348 $1,208,940 $405,348 0% Total $78,337,661 $82,690,685 $4,353,024 $79,880,632 $1,542,972 -3.4% NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 12

Cost of Service Average Cost of Service ($/kWh) $0.0000 $0.0200 $0.0400 $0.0600 $0.0800 $0.1000 $0.1200 $0.1400 $0.1600 Small Commercial $0.1522 Residential Service $0.1394 Medium Commercial $0.1105 Lighting $0.0987 Large Commercial $0.0957 Primary Service $0.0830 Transmission $0.0734 Cost of Service ($/kwh) Excludes PCA NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 13

Rate Design

Rate Design Overview COS and Rate Making Cost of Service vs. Rate Making Cost accounting, allocate utility Policy decisions, used to incentivize costs with use, classification specific behavior, rates do not have to precisely match cost of service but should move towards COS Utility Functions: Power Supply Distribution Customer (Demand and (Demand and (Customer Energy Customer Components) Components) Components) NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 15

Rate Design Overview Rate Making Best Practice • Align a utility’s costs with appropriate classifications (e.g. demand, energy, customer) – Costs categorized as fixed and variable • Rates should fairly reflect the cost of service, but policy should be considered • Rates should incentivize customers to use utility plant efficiently NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 16

Rate Design Overview Objectives • Reduction in Revenue Requirement – Reduction contribution to reserves • Draw down Working Capital reserves through Power Cost Adjustment (PCA) – Gradual decrease in PCA credit over 5 year period • Adjust class revenues to better align with cost causation • Implement changes over 5 year period – Rate changes for July 1 for FY19, FY21, FY23 – Rate change % are constant for each FY NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 17

Rate Proposal

Rate Proposal – Residential Service Class Characteristics Residential Class Characteristics (Test Year) Class Meters: 21,187 Class Annual Sales (kWh): 207,590,560 Average Monthly Sales per Customer (kWh): 732 Average Monthly Demand per Customer (kW): 4.65 Average Monthly Load Factor (%): 26% NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 19

Rate Proposal – Residential Service Phase I Rate Changes / Current Rates / COS Rates Item/Rate - Residential Current Proposed (Phase 1) COS Customer Charge ($/Month) $7.50 $8.46 $12.53 Energy Charge ($/kWh) $0.1203 $0.1206 $0.0466 Green Energy Charge - GEF ($/kWh) $0.00018 $0.00018 $0.00 PCA Charge ($/kWh) ($0.0086) ($0.0038) ($0.0038) Demand Charge ($/kW)* $0.00 $0.00 $16.89 Average Monthly Bill** $98.89 $103.94 Average Rate ($/kWh) $0.1211 $0.1273 $0.1356 Difference (%) 5.11% 11.93% * No Demand Charge for Residential Customers **Excludes Public Utility Tax Based on 2017 Billing Database Analysis NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 20

Rate Proposal – Residential Service Rate Curve Analysis Accounts Current Proposed Cost of Service $0.1900 6000 $0.1800 5000 $0.1700 NO. ACCOUNTS 4000 $0.1600 $/KWH $0.1500 3000 $0.1400 2000 $0.1300 1000 $0.1200 $0.1100 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 KWH/MONTH NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 21

Rate Proposal – Residential Service Rate Impact Analysis - % Change (Phase I) Average Monthly Increase (Decrease) 7000 6000 5000 Median: $4.27/Month # Customers 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 $0.96 $2.22 $3.48 $4.75 $6.01 $7.27 $8.53 $9.79 $11.06 $12.32 $13.58 $14.84 $16.10 $17.36 $18.63 $19.89 $21.15 $22.41 $23.67 $24.94 $26.20 $27.46 $28.72 $29.98 $31.25 $/Month NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 22

Rate Proposal – Residential Service Rate Impact Analysis - % Change (Phase I) Percentage Change in Annual Bills 12000 10000 Median: 5.2% 8000 # Customers 6000 4000 2000 0 4.57% 4.91% 5.25% 5.59% 5.94% 6.28% 6.62% 6.97% 7.31% 7.65% 7.99% 8.34% 8.68% 9.02% 9.37% 9.71% 10.05% 10.39% 10.74% 11.08% 11.42% 11.77% 12.11% 12.45% 12.80% %/Year NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 23

Rate Proposal – Small Commercial Service Class Characteristics Small Commercial Class Characteristics (Test Year) Class Meters: 2,353 Class Annual Sales (kWh): 26,763,760 Average Monthly Sales per Customer (kWh): 854 Average Monthly Demand per Customer (kW): 4.60 Average Monthly Load Factor (%): 28% NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 24

Rate Proposal – Small Commercial Service Phase I Rate Changes / Current Rates / COS Rates Item/Rate - Small Commercial Current Proposed (Phase 1) COS Customer Charge ($/Month) - 1 Phase $7.50 $8.39 $27.58 Customer Charge ($/Month) - 3 Phase $22.50 $23.39 Energy Charge ($/kWh) $0.1004 $0.1006 $0.0466 Green Energy Charge - GEF ($/kWh) $0.00018 $0.00018 $0.00 PCA Charge ($/kWh) ($0.0086) ($0.0038) ($0.0038) Demand Charge ($/kW)* $0.00 $0.00 $17.16 Average Monthly Bill** $98.23 $103.78 Average Rate ($/kWh) $0.1036 $0.1095 $0.1484 Difference (%) 5.65% 43.17% * No Demand Charge for Small Commercial Customers **Excludes Public Utility Tax Based on 2017 Billing Database Analysis NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 25

Rate Proposal – Small Commercial Service Rate Curve Analysis Accounts Current Proposed Cost of Service $0.4300 450 $0.3800 400 350 $0.3300 NO. ACCOUNTS 300 $0.2800 $/KWH 250 $0.2300 200 150 $0.1800 100 $0.1300 50 $0.0800 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 KWH/MONTH NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 26

Rate Proposal – Small Commercial Service Rate Impact Analysis - % Change (Phase I) Percentage Change in Annual Bills 500 450 Median: 6.0% 400 350 # Customers 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 5.34% 5.61% 5.88% 6.15% 6.42% 6.68% 6.95% 7.22% 7.49% 7.76% 8.03% 8.29% 8.56% 8.83% 9.10% 9.37% 9.64% 9.90% 10.17% 10.44% 10.71% 10.98% 11.25% 11.51% 11.78% %/Year NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 27

Rate Proposal – Medium Commercial Service Class Characteristics Medium Commercial Class Characteristics (Test Year) Class Meters: 595 Class Annual Sales (kWh): 44,548,720 Average Monthly Sales per Customer (kWh): 6,176 Average Monthly Demand per Customer (kW): 22 Average Monthly Load Factor (%): 39% NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 28

Rate Proposal – Medium Commercial Service Phase I Rate Changes / Current Rates / COS Rates Item/Rate – Medium Commercial Current Proposed (Phase 1) COS Customer Charge ($/Month) - 1 Phase $7.50 $11.73 $28.77 Customer Charge ($/Month) - 3 Phase $22.50 $26.73 Energy Charge ($/kWh) $0.0677 $0.0658 $0.0487 Green Energy Charge - GEF ($/kWh) $0.00018 $0.00018 $0.00 PCA Charge ($/kWh) ($0.0086) ($0.0038) ($0.0038) Demand Charge ($/kW) $13.95 $13.40 $16.41 Average Monthly Bill* $689.56 $699.39 Average Rate ($/kWh) $0.1106 $0.1122 $0.1067 Difference (%) 1.43% (3.55%) *Excludes Public Utility Tax Based on 2017 Billing Database Analysis NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 29

Rate Proposal – Medium Commercial Service Rate Curve Analysis Accounts Current Proposed Cost of Service $0.3400 180 160 $0.2900 140 NO. ACCOUNTS $0.2400 120 $/KWH 100 $0.1900 80 $0.1400 60 40 $0.0900 20 $0.0400 0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% LOAD FACTOR NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 30

Rate Proposal – Medium Commercial Service Rate Impact Analysis - % Change (Phase I) Percentage Change in Annual Bills 60 Median: 1.4% 50 40 # Customers 30 20 10 0 -2.73% -2.48% -2.24% -1.99% -1.75% -1.51% -1.26% -1.02% -0.77% -0.53% -0.29% -0.04% 0.20% 0.45% 0.69% 0.93% 1.18% 1.42% 1.67% 1.91% 2.15% 2.40% 2.64% 2.89% 3.13% %/Year NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 31

Rate Proposal – Large Commercial Service Class Characteristics Large Commercial Class Characteristics (Test Year) Class Meters: 448 Class Annual Sales (kWh): 162,084,240 Average Monthly Sales per Customer (kWh): 28,435 Average Monthly Demand per Customer (kW): 85 Average Monthly Load Factor (%): 46% NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 32

Rate Proposal – Large Commercial Service Phase I Rate Changes / Current Rates / COS Rates Item/Rate - Large Commercial Current Proposed (Phase 1) COS Customer Charge ($/Month) $22.50 $30.11 $34.43 Energy Charge ($/kWh) $0.0677 $0.0647 $0.0466 Green Energy Charge - GEF ($/kWh) $0.00018 $0.00018 $0.00 PCA Charge ($/kWh) ($0.0086) ($0.0038) ($0.0038) Demand Charge ($/kW) $13.90 $13.38 $16.50 Average Monthly Bill* $3,130 $3,142 Average Rate ($/kWh) $0.1037 $0.1041 $0.0918 Difference (%) 0.40% (11.46%) *Excludes Public Utility Tax Based on 2017 Billing Database Analysis NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 33

Rate Proposal – Large Commercial Service Rate Curve Analysis Accounts Current Proposed Cost of Service $0.2900 100 90 $0.2400 80 70 NO. ACCOUNTS $0.1900 60 $/KWH 50 $0.1400 40 30 $0.0900 20 10 $0.0400 0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% LOAD FACTOR NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 34

Rate Proposal – Large Commercial Service Rate Impact Analysis - % Change (Phase I) Percentage Change in Annual Bills 200 180 Median: 0.6% 160 140 # Customers 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 -3.21% -2.26% -1.32% -0.37% 0.57% 1.52% 2.46% 3.41% 4.35% 5.30% 6.24% 7.19% 8.14% 9.08% 10.03% 10.97% 11.92% 12.86% 13.81% 14.75% 15.70% 16.64% 17.59% 18.53% 19.48% %/Year NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 35

Rate Proposal – Primary Commercial Service Class Characteristics Primary Commercial Class Characteristics (Test Year) Class Meters: 43 Class Annual Sales (kWh): 188,909,620 Average Monthly Sales per Customer (kWh): 385,950 Average Monthly Demand per Customer (kW): 957 Average Monthly Load Factor (%): 56% NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 36

Rate Proposal – Primary Commercial Service Phase I Rate Changes / Current Rates / COS Rates Item/Rate - Primary Current Proposed (Phase 1) COS Customer Charge ($/Month) $15.00 $19.66 $37.71 Energy Charge ($/kWh) $0.0676 $0.0654 $0.0456 Green Energy Charge - GEF ($/kWh) $0.00018 $0.00018 $0.00 PCA Charge ($/kWh) ($0.0086) ($0.0038) ($0.0038) Demand Charge ($/kW) $11.25 $10.67 $15.68 Average Monthly Bill* $32,448 $32,831 Average Rate ($/kWh) $0.0886 $0.0896 $0.0792 Difference (%) 1.18% (10.60%) *Excludes Public Utility Tax Based on 2017 Billing Database Analysis NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 37

Rate Proposal – Primary Commercial Service Rate Curve Analysis Accounts Current Proposed Cost of Service $0.2900 8 7 $0.2400 6 NO. ACCOUNTS $0.1900 5 $/KWH 4 $0.1400 3 2 $0.0900 1 $0.0400 0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% LOAD FACTOR NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 38

Rate Proposal – Primary Commercial Service Rate Impact Analysis - % Change (Phase I) Percentage Change in Annual Bills 7 6 Median: 0.9% 5 # Customers 4 3 2 1 0 -5.00% -4.71% -4.41% -4.12% -3.82% -3.53% -3.24% -2.94% -2.65% -2.36% -2.06% -1.77% -1.47% -1.18% -0.89% -0.59% -0.30% 0.00% 0.29% 0.58% 0.88% 1.17% 1.47% 1.76% 2.05% %/Year NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 39

Rate Proposal – Transmission Service Class Characteristics Transmission Class Characteristics (Test Year) Class Meters: 4 Class Annual Sales (kWh): 112,077,720 Average Monthly Sales per Customer (kWh): 2,385,305 Average Monthly Demand per Customer (kW): 4,413 Average Monthly Load Factor (%): 32% Transmission Class: DAFB, Kraft, P&G and White Oak Solar NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 40

Rate Proposal – Transmission Commercial Service Phase I Rate Changes / Current Rates / COS Rates Item/Rate - Transmission Current Proposed (Phase 1) COS Customer Charge ($/Month) $0.00 $0.00 $46.76 Energy Charge ($/kWh) $0.06370 $0.06180 $0.0450 Green Energy Charge - GEF ($/kWh) $0.00018 $0.00018 $0.00 PCA Charge ($/kWh) ($0.0086) ($0.0038) ($0.0038) Demand Charge ($/kW) $10.50 $9.80 $14.21 Average Monthly Bill* $173,709 $177,369 Average Rate ($/kWh) $0.0743 $0.0759 $0.0695 Difference (%) 2.11% (6.50%) *Excludes Public Utility Tax Based on 2017 Billing Database Analysis NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 41

Rate Proposal – Transmission Service (Supplemental) • Transmission – Federal – Maintain discount on energy ($0.002/kWh) • 69 kV Transmission for NRG 88 MW EWG System Peak: May: 4:00 PM June: 3:00 PM July: 4:00 PM Aug: 4:00 PM Sept: 5:00 PM Oct: 4:00 PM NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 42

Rate Proposal – Transmission Service (Supplemental) • 69 kV Transmission for NRG 88 MW EWG – Currently on Transmission Rate • $10.50 / kW • $0.06370 / kWh – Proposed Rate • $7.96 / kW • $0.0618 / kWh – Implement annual on-peak penalty NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 43

Other Rates • Business Retention Rate – Maintain discount • Private Outdoor Lighting – No change to lighting rates – New LED lights at equivalent lumen rate NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 44

Discussion

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Utility Committee AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Public Works DATE SUBMITTED: 3/16/2018 PREPARED BY: Sharon J. Duca, P.E., Public Works Director / City Engineer SUBJECT: Rojan Meadows Sanitary Sewer Territory Transference REFERENCE: N/A RELATED PROJECT: N/A APPROVALS: City Manager, Controller/Treasurer EXHIBITS: Exhibit A: Aerial Map EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A AMOUNT BUDGETED: $ N/A FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): N/A TIME TIMETABLE: Developer shall coordinate with local agencies to properly transfer this sanitary sewer territory to Kent County, if approved, upon Council action. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that City Council grant conditional approval to transfer the Rojan Meadows sanitary sewer territory to Kent County pending the developer’s ability to obtain all necessary approvals and authorizations as required by the City. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS In 2003, the Rojan Meadows subdivision was proposed within the City of Dover. The development went through the City’s Development Advisory Committee (DAC) and received initial approval from the Planning Commission. The original intent of this development was to install gravity sanitary sewer mains and a pump station that would be dedicated to the City of Dover. The project was tabled in 2010. Rojan Meadows did not receive final approval from the City of Dover. In 2014, Kent County installed a gravity sanitary sewer line that serves Grandview, M&S and Oak Grove Mobile Home Communities. This was a result of a consent decree that was issued to the communities. The sewer line traverses from the communities through the proposed footprint of Rojan Meadows and eventually discharges into the Dover East Pump Station, which was transferred from the City of Dover to Kent County in 2012. The gravity sewer main that is currently installed through the Rojan Meadows property was installed within an easement from the existing property owner and built to Kent County standards. The developer has revived this project and is intent on obtaining final approval for the Rojan Meadows development. One aspect of the final approval is to provide sanitary sewer service to all proposed lots. As mentioned earlier, a gravity sanitary sewer main was installed through Rojan Meadows. The developer would like to connect to this line to serve the proposed community. Kent County does not want to transfer this infrastructure to the City as they incurred significant debt service on the construction of the line. The proposal is to transfer the sanitary sewer territory of the Rojan Meadows subdivision, and any adjacent lots to be served by this system, to Kent County for ownership and maintenance. In order to consider this transference, the following items must be addressed:  Written Confirmation from Kent County: The developer shall request a letter from Kent County stating they are willing to accept this territory.  Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) Transfer: Currently, this development is within the City’s CPCN. The developer must petition the Public Service Commission (PSC) to have this territory changed to Kent County.

ACTION FORM Rojan Meadows Sanitary Sewer Territory Transference Page 2 of 2  Written Confirmation from Kent County: The developer shall request a letter from Kent County stating they are willing to accept this territory.  Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) Transfer: Currently, this development is within the City’s CPCN. The developer must petition the Public Service Commission (PSC) to have this territory changed to Kent County.  Kent County User Agreement Modification: The current user agreement allows for a deduction for each mobile home of the three (3) communities that flow through the Dover East Pump Station. The agreement must be altered to have a deduction for single family residences, as the volume for a mobile home is less than a single family residence.  Easement Preparation: The existing sanitary sewer line will eventually be within the future City of Dover right-of-way. An easement must be created by the developer that will allow Kent County to have their infrastructure within the City’s right-of-way.  Final Subdivision Approval: The developer shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary approvals to construct the subdivision. Staff is seeking a conditional approval from Council to transfer the sanitary sewer territory to Kent County. This conditional approval is contingent on the above referenced items being addressed by the developer to the satisfaction of the City of Dover.

Exhibit A Rojan Meadows Sanitary Sewer Territory Transference las D r Nicho State Hwy 1 N Little C r eek Rd Prospect Pl Ke nt Pl on Corn e r Ct Cir ew n a S Pi lot Cir ow ad Ho Sh Pl oop St C es er ir C lm Cameo Ct Regent S t Dr R oun d tre e hDr Signal St arc on Barrist M Ingram St Pl er Surdex Corp, 2017 Date Printed: March 16, 2018 File: m:\gis_data\projects\tech_mxds \jason_lyon_maps\caf_maps \caf_rojan_meadows_sanitary_Sewer Department: Public Works GIS City of Dover, Delaware ¯ 0 250 500 Feet

City of Dover Post Retirement Benefit Liabilities As of July 1, 2017 for the Plan Year June 30, 2019

City of Dover Post Retirement Benefit Liabilities As of July 1, 2017 for the Plan Year June 30, 2019 General Pension Water/ General Wastewater Electric City Fund Fund Fund Total Funding Liability $ 33,916,402 $ 5,031,922 $ 21,919,276 $ 60,867,600 Actuarial Value of Assets (18,964,641) (3,326,166) (18,569,818) (40,860,625) Unfunded Liability $ 14,951,761 $ 1,705,756 $ 3,349,458 $ 20,006,975 Funded % 55.9% 66.1% 84.7% 67.1% Normal Cost $ 165,437 $ 31,911 $ 54,563 $ 251,911 Amortization Payment 1,821,615 211,051 425,035 2,457,701 Interest at 6.5% 129,158 15,793 31,174 176,125 Actuarially Determined Contribution $ 2,116,210 $ 258,755 $ 510,772 $ 2,885,737 Estimated Applicable Payroll $ 3,646,715 $ 584,622 $ 1,747,882 $ 5,979,219 Normal Cost % of Payroll 4.54% 5.46% 3.12% 4.21% Amortization & Interest % of Payroll 53.49% 38.80% 26.10% 44.05% Total FY19 Percentage of Payroll 58.03% 44.26% 29.22% 48.26% Other Post Employment Benefits - Retirement Health Insurance Water/ General Wastewater Electric City Fund Fund Fund Total Funding Liability $ 50,616,558 $ 5,406,880 $ 13,281,633 $ 69,305,071 Actuarial Value of Assets (22,109,789) (1,760,270) (5,183,787) (29,053,846) Unfunded Liability $ 28,506,769 $ 3,646,610 $ 8,097,846 $ 40,251,225 Funded % 43.7% 32.6% 39.0% 41.9% Normal Cost $ 1,086,489 $ 77,128 $ 58,252 $ 1,221,869 Amortization Payment 2,049,742 262,205 582,265 2,894,212 Interest at 6.5% 203,855 22,057 41,633 267,545 Actuarially Determined Contribution - Prelim $ 3,340,086 $ 361,390 $ 682,150 $ 4,383,626 Expected Benefit Payments - Retiree's 2,233,989 310,811 858,376 3,403,176 Actuarially Determined Contribution - Final $ 5,574,075 $ 672,201 $ 1,540,526 $ 7,786,802 Estimated Applicable Payroll $ 14,939,651 $ 1,426,100 $ 2,734,786 $ 19,100,537 Trust Funding as a % of Covered Payroll 13.70% 2.20% 2.00% 6.40% Net Trust Funding $ 2,046,732 $ 31,374 $ 54,696 $ 2,132,802 Estimated Claim Payments - Retiree's 2,233,989 310,811 858,376 3,403,176 Total Estimated OPEB Funding $ 4,280,721 $ 342,185 $ 913,072 $ 5,535,978 Police Pensions City of State of City of Dover City Dover Delaware Pro-Rata Share Total Funding Liability $ 18,862,607 $ 300,194,000 Actuarial Value of Assets (13,777,724) (284,298,000) Unfunded Liability $ 5,084,883 $ 15,896,000 $ 1,431,281 Funded % 73.0% 94.7% Normal Cost $ - $ 1,269,000 $ 1,269,000 Amortization Payment 986,268 986,268 Interest at 6.5% 64,107 64,107 Actuarially Determined Contribution $ 1,050,375 $ 2,319,375 Estimated Applicable Payroll $ 7,607,900 Normal Cost % of Payroll 16.68% Note - State Plan FY18 % of Payroll was 11.42% or $819,900; An increase of $449,100. Attributed to lower investment earnings, lowered rate of return to 7.0%; Salary increases for 81% of active employees were greater over the assumed increase by approximately 4.6%; Assumption 2.5% plus merit

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council Committee of the Whole DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Finance DATE SUBMITTED: 03/01/2018 PREPARED BY: Lori Peddicord, Controller/Treasurer SUBJECT: Project Carry-Forward Budget Balances & Proposed Budget Amendments REVIEWED BY: City Manager and Controller/Treasurer APPROVALS: Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee EXHIBITS: Exhibit A – Capital Investment Plan Amendments EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: As per the attached Exhibit and Draft Ordinance AMOUNT BUDGETED: N/A TIME TIMETABLE: Upon Council approval RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Budget Amendments for Fiscal Year 2018. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The proposed budget amendment includes adjustments to the Beginning Budget Balances for all funds and Capital Project budgets (see Exhibit A). It also includes any adjustments related to Council Actions taken to date on changes in project budgets or operating items that were not included in the original budget. Financial Policy transfers of favorable carry forward balances are as follows: • The General Fund includes a transfer to the Capital Asset Reserve of $214,700 attributed to favorable revenues. • Personnel favorability in FY 17 is included to be transferred to the General Pension Fund in the amounts of $570,600 for General Fund; $144,800 for the Water/Wastewater Fund and $234,500 for the Electric Fund. • Personnel favorability in FY 17 is included to be transferred to the Police Pension Fund in the amount of $50,000 for General Fund. • Budget balance for the General fund was over the 12% threshold which equates to approximately $75,000 which is used to fund legal fees $47,300, City Manager contractual services of $27,700 and Human Resources Diversity & Inclusion training $79,900 additionally $10,000 was transferred from Council’s budget to help cover costs for the Diversity & Inclusion training. Additional adjustments are as follows: • No revenue increases are being projected at this time. There are a couple of revenue changes in the Capital Funds for projects that were carried forward and are funded by reserves and grants. • Increases to Division budgets for vacation sell-back, retirement payout, and education assistance with a corresponding decrease to Other Employment Expenses across all applicable funds. • Favorable variance in Grounds Maintenance has been transferred to Recreation for the new Recreation Director in the amount of $40,800. • Carryforward $80,000 of unspent Streets Department material and supplies and administration expense from FY 2017 to be used to clean up Schutte Park. • Governmental Capital Projects Fund - Increases in Grant and Parkland Reserve revenues $30,000 each

for the Dover Park Master Plan which is carried forward from prior year $50,000 and increased by $10,000. An additional increase in Parkland Reserve revenue of $800 for Continental Park play area with corresponding increases in expense in the Recreation Department for Dover Park Master Plan $60,000 and $800 for Continental Park play area. • Project balances are carried over from last fiscal year as reflected in the Capital Investment Plan Amendments Schedule (exhibit A – page preceding Draft Ordinance) with the additional adjustments to the FY 18 Budgets as follows: o Increase in Governmental Capital Project Fund expenditures in City Clerk Department for Broadcast and production equipment. o Transfer from Streets to Sanitation $42,000 to repair vehicle #445. o Increase of $27,000 in IT Department capital outlay for Network Infrastructure covered by sale of assets $21,800 and interest earned $5,200. o Added transfer to Parkland Reserve $25,800 which includes $2,809 Parkland Revitalization fund raising and $22,914 in lieu of parkland for Grande Apts. o Transfer to WWW I & E Fund was reduced by $27,000 since the Metering project was moved to the operating fund because these types of expenses are not capitalizable. o Increase in WWW I & E Fund Misc. Revenues $32,400 to install an air scrubber at PS #7. Half of the cost is funded by Kent County total cost is $64,800; includes a corresponding increase in Water Department expense of $64,800. o Includes in Water Treatment Plant Expense an increase of $2,468,200 approved by Council for Water Treatment Plant Process Improvements; $1,115,200 carried forward from prior year and $1,353,000 added from current year budget balance. o Transfer of expense from Electric Fund Power Supply $250,000 to Contractual Services – RFP’s $150,000 for rate study and to Legal Expenses $100,000 for purchased power agreements with the IRP. o Grant Funds have been adjusted to reflect new programs and/or adjustments to current grants.

Exhibit A City of Dover Fiscal Year 2017/2018 Budget First Amendment Capital Investment Plan Amendments Fiscal Year 2017 Original Revised Prior Carry FY 2018 Revised CIP CIP Fiscal Year Forward Year FY 18 CIP Project # Title Budget Budget Expenses Balance Budget Budget --- Broadcast and Production Equipment $ - $ - $ 8,740.50 $ 156,200.00 $ - $ 156,200.00 PR1701 Dover Park Master Plan 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 10,000 60,000 ST1504 Old PW2 Site Improvements 106,700 181,500 103,553 77,900 - 77,900 ST1701 FY17 Street and Alley Program 900,000 878,800 119,155 759,600 - 759,600 ST1703 Silver Lake Dam Improvements 126,000 126,000 14,550 111,500 - 111,500 Streets Division $ 1,182,700 $ 1,236,300 $ 245,999 $ 1,155,200 $ 10,000 $ 1,165,200 Total General Capital Project Fund $ 1,182,700 $ 1,236,300 $ 245,999 $ 1,155,200 $ 10,000 $ 1,165,200 Total Increase in General Cap Proj Fund $ 1,155,200 CT1627 FY16 Paving Projects $ 107,600 $ 107,600 $ 62,995 $ 44,600 $ - $ 44,600 CT1703 Paving Project - Wyoming Avenue 200,000 200,000 30,105 169,900 - 169,900 CT1714 Paving Project - Paper Alley 15,000 15,000 - 15,000 - 15,000 TE0601 TCSP Lincoln Park 79,100 79,100 - 79,100 - 79,100 Total Community Transportation Fund $ 401,700 $ 401,700 $ 93,101 $ 308,600 $ - $ 308,600 Total Increase in Comm Transportation Fund $ 308,600 Compressor $ 12,800 $ 12,800 $ - $ 10,700 $ - $ 10,700 WD1705 Future Well Installation 100,000 100,000 28,430 71,600 - 71,600 Water Division $ 112,800 $ 112,800 $ 28,430 $ 82,300 $ - $ 82,300 Total Increase in Water Division $ 82,300 Compressor $ 12,800 $ 12,800 $ - $ 10,700 $ - $ 10,700 WW1303 Westover Pump Station Upgrade 593,000 594,500 75,141 519,400 - 519,400 WW1603 Rolling Acres Pump Station Replacement 396,100 450,600 11,279 439,300 25,900 465,200 WW1704 Delaware Tech Pump Station 52,000 52,000 19,006 33,000 - 33,000 WW1705 Silver Lake Pump Station Replacement 52,000 52,000 31,809 20,200 - 20,200 WW1706 Walker Woods Pump Station Replacement 52,000 52,000 34,610 17,400 - 17,400 II1800 Inflow/Infiltration Removal - - - - (25,900) (25,900) Wastewater Division $ 1,157,900 $ 1,213,900 $ 171,845 $ 1,040,000 $ - $ 1,040,000 Total Increase in Wastewater Division $ 1,040,000 WD1609 WTP Process Improvements $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 84,808 $ 1,115,200 $ 1,353,000 $ 2,468,200 Water Treatment Plant $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 84,808 $ 1,115,200 $ 1,353,000 $ 2,468,200 Total Increase in WTP $ 1,115,200 Total Water/Wastewater I & E Fund $ 2,470,700 $ 2,526,700 $ 285,083 $ 2,237,500 $ 1,353,000 $ 3,590,500 Total Increase in Water/Wastewater I & E Fund $ 2,237,500 EG1701 VanSant Unit 11 Major Overhaul $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 5,840 $ 394,200 $ 1,548,000 $ 1,942,200 EG1704 Unit #3 Hydrogen Analyzer 96,000 96,000 - 82,400 - 82,400 EG1712 Remote Start Capability at VanSant 10,800 50,800 31,893 12,000 - 12,000 Electric Generation $ 506,800 $ 546,800 $ 37,733 $ 488,600 $ 1,548,000 $ 2,036,600 Total Increase in Electric Generation $ 488,600 FIN Purchase of ERP System $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 58,252 $ 941,700 $ 1,500,000 $ 2,441,700 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 58,252 $ 941,700 $ 1,500,000 $ 2,441,700 EE1617 Oak Grove Trailer Park - Distr Upgrade $ 77,400 $ 77,400 $ 45,739 $ 31,700 $ - $ 31,700 EE1627 Dover East Estates - Distribution Upgrade 125,500 125,500 112,662 12,800 - 12,800 EE1631 North Street OH to UG 170,000 170,000 164,489 5,500 5,500 EE1709 Substation Relay Upgrade 125,000 125,000 4,882 120,100 - 120,100 Engineering Division $ 497,900 $ 497,900 $ 327,772 $ 170,100 $ - $ 170,100 Total Increase in Engineering $ 170,100 --- 2018 Ram 1500 (2) $ - $ - $ - $ 36,000 $ - $ 36,000 Metering Division $ - $ - $ - $ 36,000 $ - $ 36,000 Total Increase in Metering $ 36,000 Total Electric I & E Fund $ 2,004,700 $ 2,044,700 $ 423,756 $ 1,636,400 $ 3,048,000 $ 4,684,400 Total Increase in Electric I & E Fund $ 1,636,400 Total Carryforward balances from FY 2017 $ 5,337,700

CITY OF DOVER ORDINANCE # 2018-02 2017-2018 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 2 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Forty Nine Million Three Thousand Two Hundred dollars 3 ($49,003,200) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues 4 and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year 5 beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018: 6 GENERAL FUND 7 CASH RECEIPT SUMMARY FOR 2017-2018 8 2017/18 2017/18 9 BUDGET REVISED 10 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 4,597,100 $ 6,072,200 11 RECEIPTS 12 FINES AND POLICE REVENUE 746,600 746,600 13 LIBRARY REVENUES 100,000 100,000 14 KENT COUNTY BOOK REIMBURSEMENT 300,000 300,000 15 BUSINESS LICENSES 1,467,000 1,467,000 16 PERMITS AND OTHER FEES 1,956,000 1,956,000 17 MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES 57,000 57,000 18 POLICE EXTRA DUTY 500,000 500,000 19 PROPERTY TAXES 13,025,600 13,025,600 20 RECREATION REVENUE 150,000 150,000 21 FRANCHISE FEE 688,100 688,100 22 SANITATION FEES 3,080,400 3,080,400 23 RENT REVENUE - GARRISON FARM 96,900 96,900 24 COURT OF CHANCERY FEES 1,350,000 1,350,000 25 INVESTMENT INCOME 138,000 138,000 26 RECEIPTS SUBTOTAL 23,655,600 23,655,600 27 INTERFUND SERVICE RECEIPTS 28 INTERFUND SERVICE RECEIPTS W/WW 1,716,100 1,716,100 29 INTERFUND SERVICE RECEIPTS ELECTRIC 3,660,100 3,660,100 30 INTERFUND SERVICE RECEIPTS SUBTOTAL 5,376,200 5,376,200 31 GRANTS: 32 POLICE RELATED/EXTRA DUTY 60,000 60,000 33 POLICE PENSION GRANT 415,000 415,000 34 GREEN ENERGY GRANT 98,500 98,500 35 MISC GRANT REVENUE 25,000 31,500 36 HISTORIC DISTRICT GRANT 6,500 37 GRANTS SUBTOTAL 605,000 605,000 38 TRANSFERS FROM: 39 TRANSFER TAX 1,209,300 1,209,300 40 MUNICIPAL STREET AID 673,100 673,100 41 CIVIL TRAFFIC PENALTIES 511,800 511,800 42 WATER/WASTEWATER 900,000 900,000 43 ELECTRIC 10,000,000 10,000,000 44 TRANSFERS FROM SUBTOTAL 13,294,200 13,294,200 45 TOTAL REVENUES 42,931,000 42,931,000 46 TOTAL BEGINNING BALANCE & REVENUE $ 47,528,100 $ 49,003,200 2

47 2017-2018 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT 48 GENERAL FUND - EXPENDITURES AND BUDGET BALANCE FOR 2017-2018 49 2017/18 2017/18 50 DEPARTMENT EXPENSES BUDGET REVISED 51 CITY CLERK $ 436,700 $ 440,700 52 COUNCIL 155,100 145,100 53 TAX ASSESSOR 238,500 241,200 54 FIRE 774,900 774,900 55 GROUNDS MAINTENANCE 1,142,000 1,101,200 56 LIBRARY 1,708,300 1,715,800 57 RECREATION 764,200 811,500 58 LIFE SAFETY 499,600 500,900 59 CODE ENFORCEMENT 449,700 452,100 60 PLANNING 563,400 568,000 61 INSPECTIONS 721,000 724,800 62 POLICE 16,483,900 16,713,300 63 POLICE EXTRA DUTY 560,000 560,000 64 STREETS 1,119,400 1,202,100 65 SANITATION 2,563,900 2,566,600 66 CITY MANAGER 751,500 820,500 67 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 777,400 781,200 68 FINANCE 1,038,900 1,038,900 69 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION 718,300 720,100 70 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 629,700 633,200 71 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING 277,700 278,800 72 PROCUREMENT & INVENTORY 605,100 610,600 73 FLEET MAINTENANCE 838,200 840,200 74 CUSTOMER SERVICE 1,169,500 1,174,700 75 HUMAN RESOURCES 436,600 538,600 76 MAYOR 119,300 119,300 77 DEPARTMENT SUBTOTALS 35,542,800 36,074,300 78 OTHER EXPENSES 79 DEBT SERVICE 443,100 443,100 80 CONTRIBUTION TO DDP 150,000 150,000 81 MISCELLANEOUS GRANT RELATED EXP 25,000 25,000 82 INSURANCE 735,000 735,000 83 RETIREES HEALTH CARE 2,063,000 2,063,000 84 OTHER EMPLOYMENT EXPENSES 367,500 70,900 85 BANK & CREDIT CARD FEES 21,000 21,000 86 UNCOLLECTIBLES - TRASH AND OTHER 100,000 100,000 87 STREET LIGHTS 810,000 810,000 88 OTHER EXPENSE SUBTOTAL 4,714,600 4,418,000 89 TRANSFERS 90 TRANSFER TO CAPITAL FUND - PROJECTS 1,368,700 1,368,700 91 TRANSFER TO THE CAPITAL ASSET RESERVE - 214,700 92 APPROP. TO THE POLICE PENSION FUND 761,500 811,500 93 APPROP. POLICE PENSION - STATE GRANT 415,000 415,000 94 APPROP. TO THE GENERAL PENSION FUND 48,400 619,000 95 TRANSFER TO INVENTORY WRITE-OFFS 10,000 10,000 96 TRANSFERS SUBTOTAL 2,603,600 3,438,900 97 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 42,861,000 43,931,200 98 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE 4,667,100 5,072,000 99 TOTALS $ 47,528,100 $ 49,003,200 100 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 101 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 102 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 103 ADOPTED: 3

104 2017-2018 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT 105 GOVERNMENTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 106 REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2017-2018 107 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 108 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Three Million Seven Hundred Thirty One Thousand Three Hundred dollars 109 ($3,731,300) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues and other 110 funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 111 and ending June 30, 2018: 112 REVENUES 113 2017/18 2017/18 114 BUDGET REVISED 115 BEGINNING BALANCE - PROJECTS $ 412,900 $ 1,637,200 116 REVENUES 117 STATE GRANTS - Other 33,000 63,000 118 INTEREST EARNINGS 8,300 8,300 119 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND 1,368,700 1,368,700 120 TRANSFER FROM PARKLAND RESERVE 205,000 235,800 121 TRANSFER FROM CAPITAL ASSET RESERVE 418,300 418,300 122 SUBTOTAL PROJECT RECEIPTS 2,033,300 2,094,100 123 TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES 2,033,300 2,094,100 124 TOTAL BEGINNING BALANCE AND REVENUES $ 2,446,200 $ 3,731,300 125 EXPENSE SUMMARY 126 2017/18 2017/18 127 EXPENDITURES BUDGET REVISED 128 CITY CLERK $ - $ 156,200 129 FIRE 145,700 145,700 130 GROUNDS 62,500 62,500 131 RECREATION 271,000 331,800 132 POLICE 379,900 379,900 133 STREETS 1,070,000 1,977,000 134 SANITATION - 42,000 135 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 36,600 63,600 136 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 25,100 25,100 137 DEPARTMENT SUBTOTAL 1,990,800 3,183,800 138 TRANSFERS 139 TRANSFER TO PARKLAND RESERVE - 25,800 140 TRANSFERS SUBTOTAL - 25,800 141 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,990,800 3,209,600 142 BUDGET BALANCE 455,400 521,700 143 TOTAL BUDGET BALANCE & EXPENDITURES $ 2,446,200 $ 3,731,300 144 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 145 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 146 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 147 ADOPTED: 4

148 2017-2018 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT 149 GOVERNMENTAL CAPITAL ASSET RESERVE 150 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2017-2018 151 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 152 The amount hereinafter named aggregating One Million Eight Hundred Nine Thousand Three Hundred 153 dollars ($1,809,300) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current 154 revenues and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal 155 year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018: 156 CASH RECEIPTS 157 2017/18 2017/18 158 BUDGET REVISED 159 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 1,525,700 $ 1,576,100 160 RECEIPTS 161 INTEREST EARNINGS 18,500 18,500 162 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND - 214,700 163 TOTAL RECEIPTS 18,500 233,200 164 TOTALS $ 1,544,200 $ 1,809,300 165 EXPENSE SUMMARY 166 2017/18 2017/18 167 BUDGET REVISED 168 TRANSFER TO GOVERNMENTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND $ 418,300 $ 418,300 169 CARRY FORWARD TO NEXT YEAR 1,125,900 1,391,000 170 TOTALS $ 1,544,200 $ 1,809,300 171 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 172 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 173 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 174 ADOPTED: 5

175 2017-2018 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT 176 PARKLAND/RECREATION RESERVE 177 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2017-2018 178 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 179 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Three Hundred Forty One Thousand Two Hundred dollars 180 ($341,200) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues and 181 other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year 182 beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018: 183 OPERATING REVENUES 184 2017/18 2017/18 185 BUDGET REVISED 186 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 376,300 $ 336,300 187 INTEREST INCOME 4,900 4,900 188 TOTALS $ 381,200 $ 341,200 189 OPERATING EXPENSES 190 2017/18 2017/18 191 BUDGET REVISED 192 TRANSFER TO GOVERNMENTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND $ 205,000 $ 235,800 193 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE 176,200 105,400 194 TOTALS $ 381,200 $ 341,200 195 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 196 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 197 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 198 ADOPTED: 6

199 2017-2018 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT 200 WATER/WASTEWATER FUND 201 REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2017-2018 202 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 203 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Eighteen Million Five Hundred Nineteen Thousand Two Hundred 204 dollars ($18,519,200) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues 205 and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year 206 beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018: 207 2017/18 2017/18 208 BUDGET REVISED 209 BEGINNING BALANCE - WATER $ 1,330,900 $ 1,680,500 210 BEGINNING BALANCE - WASTEWATER 1,166,800 1,399,700 211 TOTAL BEGINNING BALANCES 2,497,700 3,080,200 212 BASE REVENUE 213 WATER SERVICES 5,914,600 5,914,600 214 WASTEWATER SERVICES 3,768,000 3,768,000 215 WASTEWATER TREATMENT SERVICES 2,952,900 2,952,900 216 GROUNDWATER INFLOW ADJUSTMENT 1,899,700 1,899,700 217 WATER TANK SPACE LEASING 391,400 391,400 218 WATER IMPACT FEES 231,000 231,000 219 WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES 209,000 209,000 220 INTEREST - WATER 5,700 5,700 221 INTEREST - WASTEWATER 5,700 5,700 222 MISCELLANEOUS SERVICE FEE 61,000 61,000 223 TOTAL REVENUES 15,439,000 15,439,000 224 TOTAL BEGINNING BALANCES AND REVENUES $ 17,936,700 $ 18,519,200 7

225 2017-2018 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT 226 WATER/WASTEWATER FUND - EXPENSES AND BUDGET BALANCE FOR 2017-2018 227 2017/18 2017/18 228 DIRECT EXPENSES BUDGET REVISED 229 ENGINEERING & INSPECTION $ 517,800 $ 523,300 230 WATER DEPARTMENT 635,700 650,300 231 WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT 962,800 981,000 232 WATER TREATMENT PLANT 1,780,500 1,791,100 233 DIRECT EXPENDITURE SUBTOTAL 3,896,800 3,945,700 234 OTHER EXPENSES 235 DEBT SERVICE - WATER 524,600 524,600 236 DEBT SERVICE - WASTEWATER 612,800 612,800 237 RETIREES HEALTH CARE 242,200 242,200 238 OTHER EMPLOYMENT EXPENSES 25,900 4,000 239 PENSION UNFUNDED LIABILITY - 144,800 240 KENT COUNTY TREATMENT CHARGE 3,926,500 3,926,500 241 INTERFUND SERVICE FEES 1,716,100 1,716,100 242 BANK & CREDIT CARD FEES 26,000 26,000 243 BOND ISSUE COSTS 40,000 40,000 244 OTHER EXPENSES SUBTOTAL 7,114,100 7,237,000 245 TRANSFER TO: 246 GENERAL FUND FROM WATER 500,000 500,000 247 GENERAL FUND FROM WASTEWATER 400,000 400,000 248 WATER IMP AND EXT 1,600,000 1,586,500 249 WASTEWATER IMP AND EXT 1,600,000 1,586,500 250 GENERAL EMPLOYEES PENSION 7,500 7,500 251 TRANSFER TO SUBTOTAL 4,107,500 4,080,500 252 TOTAL EXPENSES 15,118,400 15,263,200 253 BUDGET BALANCES 254 BUDGET BALANCE WATER 1,575,600 1,849,400 255 BUDGET BALANCE WASTEWATER 1,242,700 1,406,800 256 BUDGET BALANCE SUBTOTALS 2,818,300 3,256,200 257 TOTAL CURRENT YEAR BALANCES AND EXPENSES $ 17,936,700 $ 18,519,400 258 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 259 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 260 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 261 ADOPTED: 8

262 2017-2018 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT 263 WATER/WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENT & EXTENSION FUND 264 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2017-2018 265 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 266 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Nine Million One Hundred Forty Three Thousand Two Hundred 267 dollars ($9,143,200) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues 268 and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year 269 begining July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018: 270 CASH RECEIPTS 271 2017/18 2017/18 272 BUDGET REVISED 273 BEGINNING BALANCE - WATER $ 2,042,000 $ 4,836,100 274 BEGINNING BALANCE - WASTEWATER 1,195,100 1,008,500 275 TOTAL BEGINNING BALANCES 3,237,100 5,844,600 276 REVENUES 277 MISC REVENUES - 32,400 278 TRANS FR OPERATING FUND - WATER 1,600,000 1,586,500 279 TRANS FR OPERATING FUND - WW 1,600,000 1,586,500 280 INTEREST INCOME 93,200 93,200 281 TOTAL REVENUES 3,293,200 3,298,600 282 TOTAL BEGINNING BALANCES & REVENUES $ 6,530,300 $ 9,143,200 283 EXPENSE SUMMARY 284 2017/18 2017/18 285 EXPENSES BUDGET REVISED 286 WATER $ 1,608,400 $ 1,742,000 287 WASTEWATER 1,543,000 2,569,500 288 WATER TREATMENT PLANT - 2,468,200 289 TOTAL EXPENSES 3,151,400 6,779,700 290 BUDGET BALANCE - WATER 2,080,200 2,275,200 291 BUDGET BALANCE - WASTEWATER 1,298,700 88,300 292 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE SUBTOTALS 3,378,900 2,363,500 293 TOTAL BUDGET BALANCES & EXPENSES $ 6,530,300 $ 9,143,200 294 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 295 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 296 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 297 ADOPTED: 9

298 2017-2018 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT 299 WATER/WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE RESERVE 300 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2017-2018 301 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 302 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Four Million Two Hundred Thirty Nine Thousand Four Hundred 303 dollars ($4,239,400) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated fromcurrent revenues 304 and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year 305 beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018: 306 CASH RECEIPTS 307 2017/18 2017/18 308 BUDGET REVISED 309 BEGINNING BALANCE - WATER $ 249,800 $ 652,500 310 BEGINNING BALANCE - WASTEWATER 2,909,500 3,540,600 311 TOTAL BEGINNING BALANCES 3,159,300 4,193,100 312 RECEIPTS 313 INTEREST EARNINGS - WATER 4,200 4,200 314 INTEREST EARNINGS - WASTEWATER 42,100 42,100 315 TOTAL RECEIPTS 46,300 46,300 316 TOTALS $ 3,205,600 $ 4,239,400 317 EXPENSE SUMMARY 318 2017/18 2017/18 319 BUDGET REVISED 320 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE - WATER $ 254,000 $ 656,700 321 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE - WASTEWATER 2,951,600 3,582,700 322 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE SUBTOTALS 3,205,600 4,239,400 323 TOTALS $ 3,205,600 $ 4,239,400 324 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 325 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 326 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 327 ADOPTED: 10

328 2017-2018 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT 329 WATER/WASTEWATER CONTINGENCY RESERVE 330 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2017-2018 331 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 332 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Five Hundred Thirty Seven Thousand Six Hundred dollars 333 ($537,600) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues 334 and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year 335 beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018: 336 CASH RECEIPTS 337 2017/18 2017/18 338 BUDGET REVISED 339 BEGINNING BALANCE - WATER $ 251,600 $ 251,700 340 BEGINNING BALANCE - WASTEWATER 278,200 278,300 341 TOTAL BEGINNING BALANCES 529,800 530,000 342 RECEIPTS 343 INTEREST EARNINGS - WATER 3,500 3,500 344 INTEREST EARNINGS - WASTEWATER 4,100 4,100 345 TOTAL RECEIPTS 7,600 7,600 346 TOTALS $ 537,400 $ 537,600 347 BUDGET SUMMARY 348 2017/18 2017/18 349 BUDGET REVISED 350 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE - WATER $ 255,100 $ 255,200 351 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE - WASTEWATER 282,300 282,400 352 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE SUBTOTALS 537,400 537,600 353 TOTAL EXPENSES AND CURRENT YEAR BALANCES $ 537,400 $ 537,600 354 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 355 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 356 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 357 ADOPTED: 11

358 2017-2018 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT 359 ELECTRIC REVENUE FUND 360 REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2017-2018 361 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 362 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Ninety Seven Million Nine Hundred Fifty Thousand dollars 363 ($97,950,000) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues and other 364 funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 365 and ending June 30, 2018: 366 2017/18 2017/18 367 BUDGET REVISED 368 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 20,290,200 $ 22,252,500 369 DISTRIBUTION OF EARNINGS - PCA CREDIT (6,176,700) (6,176,700) 370 BEGINNING BALANCE - ADJUSTED 14,113,500 16,075,800 371 BASE REVENUE 372 DIRECT SALES TO CUSTOMER 79,656,000 79,656,000 373 UTILITY TAX 1,236,200 1,236,200 374 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 531,200 531,200 375 RENT REVENUE 104,500 104,500 376 GREEN ENERGY 130,000 130,000 377 INTEREST EARNINGS 216,300 216,300 378 TOTAL REVENUES 81,874,200 81,874,200 379 TOTAL BEGINNING BALANCE & REVENUES $ 95,987,700 $ 97,950,000 12

380 2017-2018 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT 381 ELECTRIC REVENUE FUND EXPENSES AND BUDGET BALANCE FOR 2017-2018 382 2017/18 2017/18 383 EXPENSES BUDGET REVISED 384 POWER SUPPLY $ 22,807,900 $ 22,557,900 385 SOLAR ENERGY 2,661,300 2,661,300 386 SOLAR RENEWAL ENERGY CREDITS 371,200 371,200 387 POWER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT 835,000 835,000 388 REC'S (Renewable Energy Credits) 578,300 578,300 389 RGGI (Regional Greenhouse Gas Init.) 64,000 64,000 390 PJM CHARGES - ENERGY 6,024,400 6,024,400 391 PJM CHARGES - TRANSMISSION & FEES 6,900,200 6,900,200 392 CAPACITY CHARGES 10,482,500 10,482,500 393 SUB-TOTAL POWER SUPPLY 50,724,800 50,474,800 394 PLANT OPERATIONS 6,146,500 6,146,500 395 GENERATIONS FUELS 817,400 817,400 396 PJM SPOT MARKET ENERGY (958,100) (958,100) 397 PJM CREDITS (535,400) (535,400) 398 CAPACITY CREDITS (7,120,100) (7,120,100) 399 GENERATION SUBTOTAL (1,649,700) (1,649,700) 400 POWER SUPPLY & GENERATION SUBTOTAL 49,075,100 48,825,100 401 DIRECT EXPENDITURES 402 TRANSMISSION/DISTRIBUTION 3,599,600 3,609,700 403 ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING 1,226,400 1,247,900 404 ADMINISTRATION 797,000 777,000 405 METER READING 392,500 393,500 406 SYSTEMS OPERATIONS 644,700 656,700 407 DIRECT EXPENDITURE SUBTOTALS 6,660,200 6,684,800 408 OTHER EXPENSES: 409 UTILITY TAX 1,236,200 1,236,200 410 ALLOW FOR UNCOLLECTIBLES 250,000 250,000 411 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES - RFP'S 100,000 250,000 412 LEGAL EXPENSES 25,000 125,000 413 RETIREES HEALTH CARE 820,300 820,300 414 OTHER EMPLOYMENT EXPENSES 105,200 80,600 415 PENSION UNFUNDED LIABILITY 1,000,000 1,234,500 416 OPEB UNFUNDED LIABILITY 1,000,000 1,000,000 417 GREEN ENERGY PAYMENT TO DEMEC 130,000 130,000 418 INTERFUND SERVICE FEES 3,660,100 3,660,100 419 INTEREST ON DEPOSITS 21,000 21,000 420 BANK & CREDIT CARD FEES 295,000 295,000 421 DEBT SERVICE 1,605,500 1,605,500 422 OTHER EXPENSES SUBTOTAL 10,248,300 10,708,200 423 TRANSFER TO: 424 IMPROVEMENT & EXTENSION 5,000,000 5,000,000 425 GENERAL FUND 10,000,000 10,000,000 426 RATE STABILIZATION RESERVE 5,200,000 5,200,000 427 TRANSFER TO SUBTOTAL 20,200,000 20,200,000 428 TOTAL EXPENSES 86,183,600 86,418,100 429 BUDGET BALANCE - WORKING CAPITAL 9,804,100 11,531,900 430 TOTALS $ 95,987,700 $ 97,950,000 431 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 432 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 433 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 434 ADOPTED: 13

435 2017-2018 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT 436 ELECTRIC UTILITY IMPROVEMENT AND EXTENSION FUND 437 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2017-2018 438 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 439 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Fifteen Million Eight Hundred Forty Five Thousand Five Hundred 440 dollars ($15,845,500) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues 441 and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year 442 beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018: 443 REVENUES 444 2017/18 2017/18 445 BUDGET REVISED 446 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 6,600,300 $ 10,365,700 447 REVENUES 448 TRANSFER FROM ELECTRIC 5,000,000 5,000,000 449 GENERAL SERVICE BILLING 370,000 370,000 450 INTEREST EARNINGS 109,800 109,800 451 TOTAL REVENUES 5,479,800 5,479,800 452 TOTALS $ 12,080,100 $ 15,845,500 453 EXPENSE SUMMARY 454 2017/18 2017/18 455 EXPENSES BUDGET REVISED 456 ELECTRIC ADMINISTRATION $ 8,500 $ 8,500 457 ELECTRIC GENERATION 2,328,000 2,816,600 458 TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION 1,725,500 1,725,500 459 ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING 1,315,000 1,485,100 460 ELECTRIC METERING - 36,000 461 ERP SYSTEM 1,500,000 2,441,700 462 TOTAL EXPENSES 6,877,000 8,513,400 463 BUDGET BALANCE 5,203,100 7,332,100 464 TOTAL BUDGET BALANCE & EXPENSES $ 12,080,100 $ 15,845,500 465 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 466 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 467 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 468 ADOPTED: 14

469 2017-2018 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT 470 ELECTRIC UTILITY CONTINGENCY RESERVE 471 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2017-2018 472 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 473 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Eight Hundred Seventy Six Thousand Three Hundred dollars 474 ($876,300) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues and 475 other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year 476 beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018: 477 CASH RECEIPTS 478 2017/18 2017/18 479 BUDGET REVISED 480 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 863,500 $ 862,500 481 RECEIPTS 482 INTEREST EARNINGS 13,800 13,800 483 TOTAL RECEIPTS 13,800 13,800 484 TOTALS $ 877,300 $ 876,300 485 EXPENSE SUMMARY 486 2017/18 2017/18 487 BUDGET REVISED 488 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE $ 877,300 $ 879,300 489 TOTALS $ 877,300 $ 876,300 490 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 491 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 492 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 493 ADOPTED: 15

494 2017-2018 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT 495 ELECTRIC UTILITY DEPRECIATION RESERVE 496 SOURCES AND USE OF FUNDS FOR 2017-2018 497 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 498 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Thirteen Million Two Hundred Forty Seven Thousand 499 dollars ($13,247,000) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from 500 current revenues and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government 501 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018: 502 CASH RECEIPTS 503 2017/18 2017/18 504 BUDGET REVISED 505 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 13,042,800 $ 13,038,300 506 INTEREST EARNINGS 208,700 208,700 507 TOTALS $ 13,251,500 $ 13,247,000 508 BUDGET SUMMARY 509 2017/18 2017/18 510 BUDGET REVISED 511 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE $ 13,251,500 $ 13,247,000 512 TOTALS $ 13,251,500 $ 13,247,000 513 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 514 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 515 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 516 ADOPTED: 16

517 2017-2018 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT 518 ELECTRIC UTILITY FUTURE CAPACITY RESERVE 519 SOURCES AND USE OF FUNDS FOR 2017-2018 520 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 521 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Thirteen Million Four Hundred Four Thousand Four Hundred 522 dollars ($13,404,400) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues 523 and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year 524 beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018: 525 CASH RECEIPTS 526 2017/18 2017/18 527 BUDGET REVISED 528 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 13,197,700 $ 13,193,200 529 INTEREST EARNINGS 211,200 211,200 530 TOTALS $ 13,408,900 $ 13,404,400 531 BUDGET SUMMARY 532 2017/18 2017/18 533 BUDGET REVISED 534 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE $ 13,408,900 $ 13,404,400 535 TOTALS $ 13,408,900 $ 13,404,400 536 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 537 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 538 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 539 ADOPTED: 17

540 2017-2018 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT 541 ELECTRIC UTILITY INSURANCE STABLIZATION RESERVE 542 SOURCES AND USE OF FUNDS FOR 2017-2018 543 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 544 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Seven Hundred Eighty Seven Thousand One Hundred 545 dollars ($787,100) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues 546 and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year 547 beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018: 548 CASH RECEIPTS 549 2017/18 2017/18 550 BUDGET REVISED 551 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 775,800 $ 774,700 552 INTEREST EARNINGS 12,400 12,400 553 TOTALS $ 788,200 $ 787,100 554 BUDGET SUMMARY 555 2017/18 2017/18 556 BUDGET REVISED 557 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE $ 788,200 $ 787,100 558 TOTALS $ 788,200 $ 787,100 559 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 560 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 561 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 562 ADOPTED: 18

563 2017-2018 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT 564 ELECTRIC UTILITY RATE STABLIZATION RESERVE 565 SOURCES AND USE OF FUNDS FOR 2017-2018 566 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 567 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Sixteen Million Seven Thousand Six Hundred dollars 568 ($16,007,600) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current 569 revenues and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government 570 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018: 571 CASH RECEIPTS 572 2017/18 2017/18 573 BUDGET REVISED 574 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 10,635,500 $ 10,637,400 575 INTEREST EARNINGS 170,200 170,200 576 TRANSFER FROM ELECTRIC OPERATING FUND 5,200,000 5,200,000 577 TOTALS $ 16,005,700 $ 16,007,600 578 BUDGET SUMMARY 579 2017/18 2017/18 580 BUDGET REVISED 581 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE $ 16,005,700 $ 16,007,600 582 TOTALS $ 16,005,700 $ 16,007,600 583 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 584 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 585 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 586 ADOPTED: 19

587 2017-2018 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT 588 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND 589 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2017-2018 590 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 591 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Two Million One Hundred Eighty Four Thousand Five Hundred 592 dollars ($2,184,500) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current 593 revenues and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the 594 fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018: 595 OPERATING REVENUES 596 2017/18 2017/18 597 BUDGET REVISED 598 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 1,487,800 $ 1,257,700 599 INTEREST INCOME 22,500 22,500 600 PREMIUM FROM CITY 904,300 904,300 601 TOTALS $ 2,414,600 $ 2,184,500 602 OPERATING EXPENSES 603 2017/18 2017/18 604 BUDGET REVISED 605 PROGRAM EXPENSES/SUPPLIES - CLAIMS $ 565,000 $ 565,000 606 INSURANCE 110,800 110,800 607 STATE OF DEL - SELF INSURANCE TAX 39,000 39,000 608 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 25,000 25,000 609 TOTAL EXPENSES 739,800 739,800 610 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE 1,674,800 1,444,700 611 TOTALS $ 2,414,600 $ 2,184,500 612 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 613 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 614 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 615 ADOPTED: 20

616 2017-2018 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT 617 COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT FUND 618 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2017-2018 619 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 620 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Five Hundred Seventy Thousand Nine Hundred dollars 621 ($570,900) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues and 622 other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year 623 beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018: 624 OPERATING REVENUES 625 2017/18 2017/18 626 BUDGET REVISED 627 PRIOR YEAR BALANCE $ 85,200 $ 70,900 628 GRANTS REVENUE 500,000 500,000 629 TOTALS $ 585,200 $ 570,900 630 OPERATING EXPENSES 631 2017/18 2017/18 632 BUDGET REVISED 633 PROGRAM EXP. GRANT RELATED $ 500,000 $ 500,000 634 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE 85,200 70,900 635 TOTALS $ 585,200 $ 570,900 636 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 637 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 638 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 639 ADOPTED: 21

640 2017-2018 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT 641 LIBRARY GRANT FUND 642 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2017-2018 643 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 644 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Three Hundred One Thousand Five Hundred dollars 645 ($301,500) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues 646 and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year 647 beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018: 648 OPERATING REVENUES 649 2017/18 2017/18 650 BUDGET REVISED 651 PRIOR YEAR BALANCE $ - $ 18,900 652 STATE GRANT 281,700 280,800 653 FEDERAL GRANT 2,500 1,800 654 TOTALS $ 284,200 $ 301,500 655 OPERATING EXPENSES 656 2017/18 2017/18 657 BUDGET REVISED 658 STATE GRANTS 659 FURNITURE/FIXTURES $ 1,500 $ 5,500 660 OFFICE SUPPLIES 30,000 28,000 661 PRINTING AND DUPLICATING 13,000 13,700 662 PROGRAM EXPENSES/SUPPLIES 23,500 25,500 663 BOOKS 126,400 128,800 664 COMPUTER SOFTWARE 2,100 2,500 665 COMPUTER HARDWARE 1,000 5,300 666 AUDIO VISUAL SUPPLIES 74,700 79,000 667 POSTAGE 100 200 668 TRAINING/CONF/FOOD/TRAV 2,500 4,200 669 OFF EQP/REPAIRS & MAINT 4,900 4,000 670 OTHER EQUIP - LEASE 2,000 2,100 671 SUBTOTAL EXPENSES STATE GRANTS 281,700 298,800 672 FEDERAL GRANTS 673 PROGRAM EXPENSES/SUPPLIES 2,500 2,700 674 SUBTOTAL EXPENSES FEDERAL GRANTS 2,500 2,700 675 GRAND TOTAL EXPENSES 284,200 301,500 676 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE - - 677 TOTALS $ 284,200 $ 301,500 678 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 679 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 680 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 681 ADOPTED: 22

682 2017-2018 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT 683 POLICE GRANTS FUND 684 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2017-2018 685 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 686 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Seven Hundred Ninety Three Thousand Five hundred dollars 687 ($793,500) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues 688 and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year 689 beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018: 690 OPERATING REVENUES 691 2017/18 2017/18 692 BUDGET REVISED 693 PRIOR YEAR BALANCE $ 72,400 $ 121,600 694 STATE AND FEDERAL GRANTS RECEIVED 358,000 671,900 695 TOTALS $ 430,400 $ 793,500 696 OPERATING EXPENSES 697 2017/18 2017/18 698 BUDGET REVISED 699 EXPENDITURES 700 PERSONNEL EXPENDITURES 701 CADET PROGRAM SALARIES $ 11,900 $ 11,900 702 CADET PROGRAM FICA 900 900 703 CADET PROGRAM W/COMP 700 700 704 MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 705 POLICE EQUIPT & PROG SUPP 312,000 365,900 706 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES 707 CELL PHONE CHARGES 20,000 20,000 708 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES - 210,000 709 TRAINING 15,000 25,000 710 AUDIT FEES 1,000 1,000 711 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 361,500 635,400 712 OTHER FINANCING USES 713 OPERATING TRANSFERS-OUT 60,000 100,000 714 TOTAL FINANCING USES 60,000 100,000 715 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE 8,900 58,100 716 TOTALS $ 430,400 $ 793,500 717 The above budget represents the combination of all State & Federal Grants. 718 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 719 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 720 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 721 ADOPTED: 23

964 2010-2011 BUDGET ORDINANCES - CONTINUED 965 966 OPEB (OTHER POST-EMPLOYEMENT BENEFITS) RESERVE 967 968 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2010-2011 969 970 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 971 972 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Four Million Eight Hundred Eighty Seven Thousand Five Hundred 973 Fifty Two dollars ($4,887,552 ) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current 974 revenues and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal 975 year beginning July 1, 2010 and ending June 30, 2011: 976 977 OPERATING REVENUES 978 2010/11 979 BUDGET 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 OPERATING EXPENSES 990 2010/11 991 BUDGET 992 993 994 995 996 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make inter- 997 departmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any department 998 except that the City Manager shall not make any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306 and/or #F306ADD.

722 2017-2018 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT 723 CDBG GRANT FUND 724 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2017-2018 725 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 726 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Three Hundred Twenty Thousand Eight Hundred dollars 727 ($320,800) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues 728 and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year 729 beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018: 730 OPERATING REVENUES 731 2017/18 2017/18 732 BUDGET REVISED 733 PRIOR YEAR BALANCE $ 2,100 $ 2,100 734 CDBG GRANTS RECEIVED 216,700 318,700 735 TOTALS $ 218,800 $ 320,800 736 OPERATING EXPENSES 737 2017/18 2017/18 738 BUDGET REVISED 739 EXPENDITURES 740 PRIOR YEAR CONNECTION SUPP PROGRAM $ - $ 6,800 741 PRIOR YEAR CLOSING COST/DOWN PAYMENT PROGRAM - 11,800 742 PRIOR YEAR MHDC HOMEOWNER REHAB. - 35,900 743 PRIOR YEAR MHDC EMERGENCY HOME REPAIR - 15,000 744 PRIOR YEAR ADMIN EXPENSE - 18,800 745 CURRENT YEAR CLOSING COST/DOWN PAYMENT PROGRAM 60,000 70,000 746 CURRENT YEAR CONNECTION SUPP PROGRAM 3,000 3,000 747 CURRENT YEAR DOVER INTERFAITH MINISTRY 24,000 24,000 748 CURRENT YEAR MHDC EMERGENCY HOME REPAIR 25,000 26,000 749 CURRENT YEAR HABITAT FOR HUMANITY 21,300 21,300 750 CURRENT YEAR MHDC HOMEOWNER REHAB. 40,000 40,000 751 CURRENT YEAR ADMIN EXPENSE 43,400 46,100 752 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 216,700 318,700 753 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE 2,100 2,100 754 TOTALS $ 218,800 $ 320,800 755 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 756 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 757 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 758 ADOPTED: 25

759 2017-2018 BUDGET ORDINANCES - FIRST AMENDMENT 760 SUBSTANCE ABUSE GRANTS FUND 761 CASH RECEIPTS/REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2017-2018 762 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 763 The amount hereinafter named aggregating One Hundred Forty Eight Thousand Four Hundred dollars 764 ($148,400) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues 765 and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year 766 beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018: 767 OPERATING REVENUES 768 2017/18 2017/18 769 BUDGET REVISED 770 PRIOR YEAR BALANCE $ 45,300 $ 87,400 771 STATE GRANTS RECEIVED 28,000 28,000 772 RECREATION REVENUE 33,000 33,000 773 TOTALS $ 106,300 $ 148,400 774 OPERATING EXPENSES 775 2017/18 2017/18 776 BUDGET REVISED 777 EXPENDITURES 778 TEMPORARY HELP/BENEFITS $ 67,700 $ 67,700 779 PROGRAM EXPENSES/SUPPLIES 35,000 35,000 780 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 102,700 102,700 781 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE 3,600 45,700 782 TOTALS $ 106,300 $ 148,400 783 The above budget represents the combination of all State & Federal Grants. 784 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 785 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 786 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. 787 ADOPTED: 26

COMMITTEE ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Legislative and Finance Committee AGENDA ITEM NO.: DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Police DATE SUBMITTED: 2/20/18 PREPARED BY: Captain Dave Spicer / Administrative Division Commander SUBJECT: Grant Application Procedure Revisions REFERENCE: City of Dover Procedures Concerning Grant Management RELATED PROJECT: N/A APPROVALS: Controller/Treasurer, City Manager EXHIBITS: Proposed Changes to City and Departmental Policies EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: N/A PROJECT BUDGET: N/A FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): N/A TIMETABLE: Procedure updates to be approved and implemented by March 31, 2018 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the procedure revisions as requested. BACKGROUND During a recent USDOJ grant monitoring visit regarding Police Department grants, revisions to the City of Dover Grant Application Procedure No. 317 and the Police Department General Order 17 Budget & Purchasing Procedures are needed to correct the following items: 1. Sub Award Procedures - The City of Dover does not have written procedures regarding the subrecipient award process; pre-award, post award monitoring, closeout. Grantee must develop procedures regarding the management of disparate / subaward recipients to comply with OJP requirements. 2. Sub Monitoring Procedures - The City of Dover does not have written procedures regarding the monitoring of subaward recipients. Grantee must develop procedures regarding subaward monitoring of disparate / subaward recipients to comply with OJP requirements. After receiving the corrective actions from the grant monitor, the City procedures were researched to confirm the changes needed. To satisfy the two recommendations, revisions are needed to be made to the City’s Grant Application Procedures No. 317 and to the Police Department General Order 17 Budget & Purchasing Procedures. The changes are shown below and are also included in the marked-up version of Procedure 317 and the Police Department General Order 17 Budget & Purchasing Procedures, both of which are included.

Additions to the Definitions Section of Both Procedures “Pass-Through Entity”: a non-Federal entity that provides a subaward to a subrecipient to carry out part of a Federal program. “Subaward”: an award of financial assistance in the form of money, or property in lieu of money, made under an award by a recipient to an eligible subrecipient or by a subrecipient to a lower tier subrecipient. The term includes financial assistance when provided by any legal agreement, even if the agreement is called a contract. “Subrecipient”: a legal entity to which a subaward is made and which is accountable to the recipient for the use of the funds provided. Proposed New Section to Grant Application Procedure No 317 following Grant Award/Post Award Process Section: Subawards and Monitoring Procedures 1. The requesting department that received the grant award is the award recipient. If the department is approved or required to make a subaward for a Federal grant received the department is also considered a pass-through entity. For these types of grants, the department must ensure the identifying Federal award information and applicable compliance requirements, including applicable special conditions, are clearly designated in the subrecipient award agreement. The subaward or agreement must, at a minimum, include the following information: A. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) title and number B. Award name and number C. Name of the Federal awarding agency D. Activities to be performed E. Period of Performance F. Project policies G. Original award flow-through requirements that are applicable to the subrecipient H. Instructions and procedures for subaward monitoring compliance I. Other policies and procedures that may apply and need to be followed J. Dollar limitation of the agreement K. Cost principles to be used in determining allowable costs 2. In addition, departments must complete the actions required during the grant program to monitor the subrecipient’s use of Federal funds. The methods of monitoring may vary; some of the factors that may be considered in determining the nature, timing, and extent of monitoring follow: A. Programs with complex compliance requirements that may have a higher risk of non- compliance. B. The larger the percentage of program awards passed through, the greater the need for subrecipient monitoring. C. Larger dollar awards are of greater risk.

D. Subrecipients may be evaluated as higher risk or lower risk to determine the need for closer monitoring. Generally, new subrecipients may require closer monitoring. For existing subrecipients, based on results of during-the-award monitoring and subrecipient audits, a subrecipient may warrant closer monitoring (e.g., the subrecipient has a history of non-compliance as either a recipient or subrecipient, new personnel, or new or substantially changed systems). 3. Some of the mechanisms that may be used to monitor subrecipient activities throughout the year include: A. Review monthly financial and performance reports submitted by the subrecipient. B. Perform subrecipient site visits to examine financial and programmatic records and observe operations. C. Review detailed financial and program data and information submitted by the subrecipient when no site visit is conducted. Documents to review might include timesheets, invoices, contracts, and ledgers that tie back to financial reports. D. Regular communication with subrecipients and appropriate inquiries concerning program activities. 4. The purpose of these monitoring activities is to provide reasonable assurance that the subrecipient has administered the pass-through funding in compliance with the laws, regulations, and the provisions of the award and that the required performance goals are being achieved. Proposed New Section to Police Department General Order 17 Budget & Purchasing Procedures contained within the Grant Process Section: D. Perform subgrant monitoring as required. There are police grants that may be awarded on a joint basis due to a disparate funding situation identified by the granting agency. The prime example of this includes recurring law enforcement grants the police department receives from the Federal Department of Justice. For these grants, the Dover Police Department shares its award with other agencies as identified in the grant funding authorization document which is published on the USDOJ website at the time of the grant solicitation. Since the Dover Police Department usually is awarded the larger share of funds on these grants, it becomes the pass-through entity and makes subawards to the other agencies on the joint awarded grant. The following procedures will apply: 1. Grant subawards will be issued and contain any applicable information as identified in the City’s Grant Application Procedures (Procedure 317). However, all grant purchases will be made and paid for directly through the City of Dover’s financial systems, so the Dover Police Department will ensure all grant purchases comply with the City of Dover Purchasing Policy. 2. Subrecipient monitoring: the grants received in the past were awarded jointly to the Dover Police Department, Smyrna Police Department and Kent County for purchases of law enforcement equipment and/or training. The funding for the subrecipient shares did not exceed $25,000, so there is less risk involved with completing these types of purchases. As a result, monitoring procedures will include: the review of the program and financial documentation submitted for the grant purchases to ensure they comply

with the City of Dover Purchasing Policy and verification that the purchases were made and the required equipment lists are provided to close the grant. 3. The monitoring instructions above will be outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding that is required to be submitted as part of the grant application and in the grant subaward document. ACTION REQUESTED The Legislative and Finance Committee and Council approve the changes requested above.

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Legislative, Finance and Administrative Committee DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Human Resources DATE SUBMITTED: March 1, 2018 PREPARED BY: Kim Hawkins, Human Resources Director SUBJECT: Diversity and Inclusion Study Request for Proposal (RFP) REVIEWED BY: Donna Mitchell, City Manager EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $49,450 - $97,400 AMOUNT BUDGETED: $17,500 FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): $7,500 from the Human Resources Budget and $10,000 from the City Council’s Budget. If approved in the FY18 budget additional funding would need to be secured from FY18 budget savings. If approved for the FY19 budget, expense can be included in the budget planning process. TIME TIMETABLE: Approximately six (6) months RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize funding up to $97,400 to support the full scope of the RFP. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS A Request for Proposal (RFP) for Diversity and Inclusion was issued on October 31, 2017 with a bid opening on November 29, 2017. Five (5) submissions were received. After the closing, the University of Delaware was contacted to determine their interest in the project. Following discussions with the University, they submitted their response on February 8, 2018. Below is a summary of the RFP details and the submissions. The scope and deliverables of the RFP are as follows: SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of these consulting services will be to determine:  Workforce availability, based on EEOC job categories, within the entire city of Dover geographic area,  Recommendations to improve diversity efforts in regards to recruiting for civilian and sworn police officers and cadets,  Strengths and weakness of the employment, recruitment and selection practices and written personnel policies,  Current level of inclusion with the workforce,  Clear recommendations to improve all of the above. DELIVERABLES Consultant shall supply a written report to the Human Resources Director that shall include:  Workforce availability, based on EEOC job categories, within the entire city of Dover geographic area,  Recommendations to improve diversity efforts in regard to recruiting for civilian and sworn police officers and cadets,  Strengths and weakness of the employment, recruitment and selection practices and written personnel policies,  Current level of inclusion with the workforce,  Using the assessments results, the consultant will advise and assist the City in developing a detailed, thoughtful Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan.

Below is the list of firms who submitted proposals in response to Request for Proposal number 18-0012HR on November 29, 2017 at 2:00 pm. NAME COMPANY NAME COST* SUMMARY Wendy Savage JJA Consultants Minimum $59,416. Additional A strong submission was provided Moore Fairfax, VA 22030 expense for online surveys and representing key components of the RFP. interview with stakeholders and review an analyze of best practices data. (will match other service providers’ prices for the same scope of work and expected deliverables) Christina The Kaleidoscope Group $67,400 - $97,400 RFP was comprehensive and strong. Georgas Chicago, IL 60654 Difference of $30,000 is related Clarification is needed in regards to the to services to develop a D&I additional cost of $30,000. Believe it is strategy. associated with creating goals and an action plan. Kathy Murphy University of Delaware $49,450 The proposal does not include advising and assisting the City in developing a detailed and thoughtful D&I Strategic Plan. Inclusion interviews are limited to twenty (20) employees. This represents approximately 3% of the total full-time workforce. Elevate USA Elevate USA $142,000 A strong submission was provided Pompano Beach, FL representing key components of the RFP. 33062 Training, shadowing and community outreach along with outreach to vendors was included in the cost. This was not a request of the RFP. The RFP is over reaching of the scope. Denise Bailey Milligan & Co. $32,316 Milligan will review our numbers and make Philadelphia, PA 19103 suggestions. Inclusion was not included in the proposal. Zachary Scott Zachary Scott, $73,000 Scope of work focused only on numbers. Statistician Review of policies and developing and Smyrna, DE 19977 implementing improvement methods were not included in the bid. No experience with Diversity and Inclusion * Cost escalate with the inclusion of on-site visits. The selected firm must visit Dover in order to gauge the current level of inclusion from our employees. A verbal conversation would be held with JJA Consultants and The Kaleidoscope Group to learn more details about their proposals. Following the conversation, a decision on the award would be made. The University of Delaware would be considered an alternative provider if the city is willing to forgo the strategic plan.