council committee of the whole - amazon …council committee of the whole meeting of august 28, 2018...

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

The Council Committee of the Whole met on August 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m., with Council PresidentSlavin presiding (departed at 6:33 p.m. and returned at 6:34 p.m.). Members of Council present wereMr. Anderson (arrived at 6:22 p.m., departed at 8:15 p.m., and returned at 8:15 p.m.), Mr. Sudler(arrived at 6:05 p.m.), Mr. Neil, Mr. Lewis (arrived at 6:02 p.m.), Mr. Cole (departed at 6:42 p.m.,returned at 6:43 p.m., and departed at 8:15 p.m.), Mr. Polce (departed at 6:33 p.m., returned at6:35 p.m., departed at 7:23 p.m., and returned at 7:24 p.m.), and Mr. Lindell (departed at 6:33 p.m.,returned at 6:35 p.m., departed at 7:45 p.m., and returned at 7:46 p.m.). Mr. Hare was absent. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings wereMr. Caldwell (Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement), Mrs. Doyle and Ms. Scarborough(Utility), and Mr. Garfinkel and Mr. Shelton (Safety Advisory and Transportation). Dr. Warfield(Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement) was absent.

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE

The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee met with Council President Slavinpresiding in the absence of Chairman Sudler, who assumed the Chair upon his arrival at 6:05 p.m.

AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONSMr. Neil moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Lindell and unanimously carried.

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Semi-Annual ReportMrs. Tracey Harvey, Planner/CDBG Administrator, reviewed the CDBG Semi-Annual Report,February - July 2018.

Mr. Neil moved to recommend acceptance of the Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) Program Semi-Annual Report, seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried.

Presentation - Dover Park Master Plan (Whitman, Requardt and Associates LLP)Mr. Mike Campbell, Landscape Architect, Whitman, Requardt and Associates LLP (WRA),reviewed the Draft Dover Park Master Plan, dated August 2018. He noted that, earlier in the year,WRA was selected through a competitive bid process to develop the plan for the City. Mr. Campbellreminded members that the development of the plan was paid for through a grant from the DelawareDepartment of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) and matching funding fromthe City.

Mr. Polce noted the importance of statistical sample size and the validity of statistical sizes and asked if Mr. Campbell could explain what the low participation on the survey could be attributed to. Responding, Mr. Campbell stated that he was not sure, explaining that WRA worked closely withthe City. He advised that they did media blasts, used social media, and had website announcements. Mr. Campbell stated that the wikimap was made available and they tried to get as much publicparticipation as possible. He noted that the participation that they received was very valuable, and

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2018 PAGE 2

the working group consisted of local residents and it was a very valuable process. Mr. Campbellstated that he thought that the key to getting people to attend these types of events is to provide food.

Mr. Polce asked Mr. Campbell his experience outside the City of Dover and what othermunicipalities are doing really well to incorporate things like pop-up parks or proactive kinds ofwellness lifestyle regiments to increase attendance in parks. He noted that the City has a goodframework and asked how this could be enhanced with things like splash pads and new fixtures, etc. Mr. Polce asked whether, based on his experience, Mr. Campbell thought the City should focus onits core mission first, before extending into implementing some of the master plan. Responding,Mr. Campbell stated that during this project they struggled with the idea of what comes first andwhether the City should spend the money and make the improvements in the park just by addingsplash pads and see what happens or base it on programming and really take a look at the overallnetwork of the park system for the City of Dover. He explained that this was not part of the scopeof their work; however, they tried to stress the programming aspect throughout the process and howit fits in with other amenities and whether activities are being held at other parks. Mr. Campbellstated that linking health initiatives with programming has been very successful in othermunicipalities, and while his focus is more on the design elements, he could provide additionalinformation for members.

Mr. Neil asked whether the recommendation was to repair the breaches in the fences and havevisitors use the front and back entrances or whether they should make the breached locations intoentrances. In response, Mr. Campbell advised that they heard that the fence served two (2) purposes:to keep people in the park and to keep people out of the park. He indicated that, in their opinion, thiswas not what you want with a park, explaining that you want as many users in the park as possible. Mr. Campbell stated that, through public involvement, they identified that making those locationsformal entrances would invite users into the park and reduce the criminal element from thinking thatthey are sneaking into a park because there is a hole in the fence. He stated that formalizing thoseentrances, with communication with the adjacent residents, is proposed as part of the funding in thisplan.

Mr. Neil expressed appreciation that they had a number of alternate types of things, and a goodevaluation of the current park. He asked why they chose to place the community garden over centerfield of the softball field. Responding, Mr. Campbell stated that Mr. Neil made a good point. Heexplained that for the concept development, they were looking at an overall Master Plan andbasically looking at spaces and the exact location for the community garden would need to bedetermined during final design. Mr. Campbell noted that currently that is a space that is not utilizedat all and they would like to activate and program that space, and a community garden was oneopportunity to do so.

Mr. Neil stated that one thing Mr. Campbell struck upon immediately were perceptions. He statedthat the City deals with a lot of perceptions that are factually wrong, like the perception that the Citydoesn’t have any parking. Mr. Neil explained that the City does have parking; however, he indicatedthat having a parking garage may help the perception that the City doesn’t have parking. He notedthat he thought that this was also true for policing and crime. Mr. Neil stated that he knew that therewere certain areas where criminals can sneak in the park after dark and like to be active, and whilethe fact is that it is not a major problem, the City has the perception that it has to overcome. He


stated that he strongly supports the idea of having cameras and letting people know that the City iswatching and going to do the best it can to keep people that are using that park safe.

Mr. Lewis asked how much community outreach was done with regard to getting feedback on theproposed Master Plan. Responding, Mr. Campbell stated that the bulk of the five (5) months wasspent reaching out to the community as much as possible. He advised that they held four (4) publicevents, one (1) that was held at the Library, where they had the most success and the most peoplethat provided comments, and three (3) at Maranatha Church, which is adjacent to the park and adecent number of people showed up. Mr. Campbell stated that they also had the online wikimap. Mr. Lewis asked if it was a majority of people. In response, Mr. Campbell stated that the quantityof people that showed up was included in the Master Plan.

Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Campbell stated that he was not aware of the Mt. Zion Social ActionCommission survey. Mr. Sudler urged Mr. Campbell to review the survey, noting that City Councilhad approved for it to be incorporated into the comprehensive plan as input from the community. He stated that it contained valuable information, explaining that more 300 participants providedinput on the survey when he and others knocked door to door in Manchester Square, Towne Point,and other areas. In response to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Campbell stated that they did not do any field surveys for thisparticular process; however, they had done those types of surveys on other projects. He advisedmembers that there was a fairly limited scope for the Master Plan for this park and they workedclosely with the City to develop their best effort. Mr. Campbell stated that they did do a directmailing.

Mrs. Margery Cyr, Library Director, stated that a direct mailing was sent to individual homeowners. She advised that the 2014 Mt. Zion Social Action Commission survey for Dover Park, previouslyconducted by Mr. Sudler, was provided as part of this process.

Mr. Sudler stated that he did not want the community to be overlooked and asked that they go backand review the Mt. Zion Social Action Commission survey because he did not see any of theconcerns or input from the surrounding community provided from that survey represented in theMaster Plan.

Mr. Anderson asked how the City would deal with the security aspect of the park if they were toopen more routes into the park. In response, Mr. Campbell stated that the proposed budget includedthe installation of three (3) cameras in the park, which would be linked to the Police Department’smonitoring system. He advised that they would not have a camera at each entrance; however, theirthought was to formalize the entrances that are currently being utilized and coordinate with thesurrounding residents in those particular neighborhoods who are asking for the entrances to beformalized. Mr. Campbell explained that, from a security standpoint, activating the park will be theprimary aspect that reduces the amount of criminal activity that occurs there. He stated that sincethe park is not currently being used during the day, that is when criminal activities are happening.

Mr. Anderson asked how the park would be activated. Responding, Mr. Campbell explained thathe thought that programming was needed to activate the park. He stated that the City was currently


hosting traveling park events, which included Dover Park. Mr. Campbell advised that programmingas well as cleaning up the park so people feel safe and will use it are the primary goals of theMaster Plan. He noted that clearing vegetation, limbing up trees, and removing dead trees providesthe perception that the park is maintained and is a safe place for people to go.

Mr. Anderson suggested that, when it comes to programming, the Police Athletic League (PAL) andother nonprofits could utilize some of the facilities. In response, Mr. Campbell stated that hebelieved this was recommended in the implementation section of the Master Plan. He advised that,as part of this process, they did not formalize those communications, however, he noted that it is animportant component that they found to be successful in other communities. Mr. Lindell expressed concern regarding security as well as maintenance. He noted that somethingneeded to be done on the east side of Dover; however, he stated that he was concerned aboutinvesting in something that would deteriorate if the City did not have the staff to maintain it. Mr. Lindell asked if the City was currently understaffed in this area. Responding, Mrs. DonnaMitchell, City Manager, advised members that the City was currently understaffed, however, thecurrent budget included three (3) new headcounts for the recreation maintenance staff. She statedthat staff was currently focused on getting a building constructed at Schutte Park in which to housethe grounds maintenance staff for the parks, explaining that there is no current location to housethem. Mrs. Mitchell explained that the current grounds crew is trying to do as much of themaintenance as they can, but they have the whole City and there are staffing challenges with turnoverin that division. She noted that one (1) person is currently injured and out of work and another justresigned earlier in the day. Mr. Lindell stated that he was not criticizing the grounds staff, and thathe thinks they do an excellent job with the resources they have.

Mr. Lindell noted that he experienced a similar situation when he served on the Capital SchoolDistrict Board of Education and they were constructing the new high school. He cautioned membersthat it is easy to get the funding to build something but it is much more difficult to maintain it. Mr. Lindell stated that he loved the plan, however, he thought that the maintenance investment alsoneeded to be considered. In response, Mrs. Mitchell advised that the maintenance cost was includedin the proposed budget for the Master Plan.

Mr. Lewis moved for adjournment of the Parks, Recreation, and Community EnhancementCommittee meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindell and unanimously carried.

Meeting adjourned at 6:33 p.m.

UTILITY COMMITTEE

The Utility Committee met with Chairman Cole presiding.

AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONSMr. Sudler moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimouslycarried.


Annexation Request - 179 Mifflin Road, Owned by Steven E. AndrewMr. David Hugg III, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed the Petition toAnnex and Rezone Property located at 179 Mifflin Road, owned by Steven E. Andrew. He notedthat this property is identified as a Category 1: High Priority Annexation Area in the City’sComprehensive Plan, and annexation would continue the desire to eliminate enclaves and createcomplete neighborhoods and boundaries for the City. Mr. Hugg advised that this property wasprimarily being annexed for the continuation of City trash service. He stated that the annexationrequest had gone through the State’s annexation review process and had also been reviewed by theappropriate City departments.

Staff recommended proceeding with annexation of the subject property.

Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Hugg advised that the costs of any future connections of any utilitieswould fall to the homeowner, and the homeowner would be billed for the trash service that theyreceive from the City.

Mr. Polce moved to recommend proceeding with annexation of the subject property, asrecommended by staff, seconded by Mr. Lindell and unanimously carried.

Evaluation of Bids - FY 2018 Street and Alley ProgramMrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, advised members that the Department of Public Works hadbeen busy, noting that, since June, the following projects had been approved: the DelTech PumpStation for $350,000; the North State Street water main at $163,000; the Silver Lake Pump Stationfor $422,000; the Walker Woods Pump Station at $525,000, and the water treatment plantimprovements at $6M. She stated that members would also be considering the relining project forthe wastewater project very soon. Mrs. Mitchell stated that she was happy that they were busy andhoped that members appreciated everything they were doing.

Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Evaluationof Bids for the FY 2018 Street and Alley Program. She advised that since she had not heard ofGrassbusters Landscaping, Inc. before, she asked the staff to check their references, and all of theirreferences were good. Mrs. Mitchell noted that the State had utilized this company before and didnot have any problems with them.

Staff recommended awarding a unit price contract, based upon Bid #18-0039PW, for the FY 2018Street and Alley Program to Grassbusters Landscaping, Inc. based on the Prevailing Wage unit pricesfor each work item submitted. The estimated value of the contract is $1,032,968.00. Work will beperformed in strict accordance to the Bid Specifications.

Mr. Polce moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil andunanimously carried.

Mr. Cole expressed his appreciation of Mrs. Sharon Duca, Public Works Director, and the entirePublic Works Department staff for the tremendous amount of work that they had done, noting thatthey always respond quickly to his inquiries.


Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Utility Committee meeting. The motion was secondedby Mr. Lindell and unanimously carried.


SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee met with Chairman Lewis presiding.

AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONSMr. Sudler moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried.

2018 Firefly Music Festival DebriefingLieutenant Kevin Kober, Special Enforcement Unit Commander, Dover Police Department,reviewed the Executive Summary of the “2018 Dover Police Department Firefly Music FestivalAfter Action Report.”

Mr. Neil noted that he lives directly across from the Woodlands and he thought that the pedestriantraffic on Persimmon Tree was much better this year; however, he suggested that the number ofpeople going back and forth on Persimmon Tree Lane could be eliminated by not allowing peopleto get back into Lot 18 via Persimmon Tree Lane. Mr. Neil stated that there were two (2) activitiesthat caused problems for the individuals who live on Persimmon Tree Lane, the After Fly event anda party held at Persimmon Park Place, which are not part of the Firefly event. He noted that,although he did not think it was bad this year, he was not sure how many complaints the PoliceDepartment received.

Responding to Lieutenant Kober, Mr. Neil explained that there is a lot of vehicle traffic onPersimmon Tree Lane and asked if it would be possible to cut down the traffic by limiting Lot 18to be an exit only and allowing people to go north or west to get to the activities at Miles theMonster. In response, Lieutenant Kober indicated that Persimmon Tree Lane is already limited andthe people who camp in Lot 18 have to have a way to get back into the lot, noting that sometimespeople walk out of the front exit of Firefly and have to walk back to their campground. LieutenantKober advised that he did not think there was a way to reduce traffic anymore than it had alreadybeen reduced, explaining that the After Fly and Permission Park Place events Mr. Neil mentionedare along this roadway, parent drop-off is directly across from Lot 18, and there are also people wholive on Persimmon Tree Lane who are provided passes to drive on the road during Firefly. Mr. Neilnoted that it had been better the past two (2) years.

Mr. Sudler asked what the contributing factors were to the fatality and if there was a plan to addressthose determinants in the near future. Responding, Lieutenant Kober stated that the results werepending toxicology from the medical examiner's office, so the Department was not commenting onthat.

In response to Mr. Lewis, Lieutenant Kober advised that the Department did not intend to doanything differently for Firefly next year. He stated that it was their seventh year and they had it


down pretty well; however, they are open to suggestions and ideas. Lieutenant Kober explained thattheir initial plan would remain relatively the same unless there is a change by the DelawareDepartment of Transportation (DelDOT) or the promoters, or some type of change to the event orcampgrounds. He stated that the status quo had proven reliable for the number of people.

Responding to Mr. Sudler, Lieutenant Kober confirmed that there had only been one (1) fatality inseven (7) years of the event.

Mr. David Hugg III, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed his memo datedAugust 17, 2018 regarding “Debriefing/Post-Mortem Report on 2018 Firefly Music Festival.” Mr. Jason Osika, Fire Marshal, reviewed a presentation entitled “Firefly 2018, Fire Marshal’s OfficeAfter Action Report” (Attachment #1).

Mr. Lewis commended the Dover Police Department and Fire Marshal’s Office for the work theydo at the festival.

Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Osika explained that Red Frog is the organization that runs theFirefly Music Festival. He advised that a few years ago AEG became involved with Red Frog andnow AEG is basically taking over the festival, so they will hear AEG in relation to the festival, inthe future.

In response to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Osika advised that any cooking has to be under flame retardant tents,so that the tent does not catch on fire if there is some type of flash fire. He explained that somevendors inside are part of AEG; however, some are outsiders renting space, and they do notunderstand the rules and are putting up additional tents in the back and cooking under them. Mr. Osika stated that staff dealt with this issue this year as best they could and they had a meetinglast week and decided that for 2019, if it’s not flame retardant, it will have to go.

Mr. Sudler asked if the participants also cook underneath their tents and, if so, how it is regulated. Responding, Mr. Osika advised that it is not a concern in the camping areas, explaining that withinthe festival they are dealing with commercial cooking with fryers and full grills. Mr. Osika statedthat while some people bring full grills into the camping areas, it is mainly smaller camping-stylegrills.

Mr. Neil noted that the City was fortunate to have former Police Chief and City CouncilmanJames Hosfelt as the head of the speedway security force, explaining that it is a benefit because heknows what’s going on and understands what his colleagues and the Police Department have to do.

Mr. Neil indicated that each year Firefly does a property map and suggested that they could includea route to the west side, to encourage people not to use Persimmon Tree Lane. He stated that hethought that this would help reduce the pedestrian traffic on Persimmon Tree Lane, since there arevehicles that travel back and forth.

Mr. Hosfelt indicated that the speedway is very fortunate to have the relationship that they do withthe City. He advised that there is a year-round planning process to make Firefly happen, noting thathe met with the Fire Marshal’s Office last week, and has a monthly meeting with Lieutenant Kober,


DelDOT, and all of their partners. Mr. Hosfelt stated that the meetings start in earnest in Septemberwith AEG. He informed members that they could expect to see bigger and better things for the Cityand Kent County with AEG. Mr. Hosfelt stated that they are looking forward to a long and lastingrelationship, noting that AEG made the comment that, of all of their 41 festivals worldwide, theyconsider Firefly to be in the top five of their portfolio.

Evaluation of Proposals - Ambulance Services ContractMr. Slavin read Chapter 30 - Standards of Ethical Conduct and Ethics Commission, Article II -Standards of Conduct, Section 30-20 - Established, Subsection (n) - Ex Parte Communication, ofthe Dover Code, as follows:

(n) Ex parte communications. No official or employee shall encourage, make oraccept any ex parte or other unilateral application or communication thatexcludes the interests of other parties in a matter under consideration whensuch application or communication is designed to influence official decisionor conduct of the official or other officials, employees or agencies in order toobtain a more favored treatment or special consideration to advance thepersonal or private interests of himself or herself or others. The purpose ofthis provision is to guarantee that all interested parties to any matter shallhave equal opportunity to express and represent their interests.

Any written ex parte communication received by an official or employee inmatters where all interested parties should have equal opportunity for ahearing shall be made part of the record by the recipient.

Any oral ex parte communication received under such conditions should bewritten down in substance by the recipient and also made a part of the record.

A communication concerning only the status of a pending matter is notregarded as an ex parte communication.

Mr. Slavin reminded everyone that the Code is applicable to all City Council and Committeemembers. Mr. Slavin stated that he and Mr. Neil had provided the written communications that theyhad received regarding this matter (as on file in the Office of the City Clerk). He advised that hereceived two (2) phone calls, one (1) of which he did not return because he was aware of thisprovision.

Mr. Slavin reminded everyone that the Council Committee of the Whole would make arecommendation to City Council, and Council would take final action during their Regular Meetingon September 10, 2018. He explained that evaluations of bids and proposals that are brought beforethe Committee and Council do not typically include presentations by the bidders or proposersbecause the bids and proposals have already been submitted. Mr. Slavin noted that severalindividuals had signed the speaker sign-in sheet, who he believed are representatives of thecompanies who submitted proposals, and advised that it would be unconventional and out of theCity’s normal practice to all them to speak. He stated that the Committee’s options would be to ask


those individuals to withdraw their interest in speaking or to formally vote to suspend the rules andallow the individuals to speak, with the understanding that doing so may jeopardize the process.

Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, provided a brief overview of each of the companies thatsubmitted a proposal. She stated that GEM Ambulance was incorporated in 1997, expanded intoDelaware in 2013 and, in January of 2018, SeniorCare EMS of New York City took over themanagement of GEM Ambulance. SeniorCare has extensive experience running 911 contracts withthe Fire Department in New York, EMS system. Currently, GEM Ambulance has operations inCheswold, which is a transport operation in Newark. Mrs. Mitchell advised that Mid Atlantic Carehad been in business for 11 years, was licensed in Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, andNew Jersey, and primarily focused in Delaware. She stated that they did not provide sufficientinformation in their response to the RFP and, coupled with the cost of their service, the committeechose not to consider their proposal. Mrs. Mitchell informed members that PrimeCare wasestablished in 1997 and was a local family owned company with offices in Milford and Dover. Shestated that St. Francis Healthcare had been in business over 90 years and was a member ofTrinity Health, the second largest faith-based healthcare ministry in the U.S., with over 97,000employees in several hospitals, continuing care facilities, home care, and hospice locationsnationwide. Mrs. Mitchell advised that St. Francis was established in 2008 when contracted by theCity of Wilmington under the Wilmington Fire Department.

Mrs. Mitchell reviewed a presentation entitled “911 EMS Transports, 2018 Ambulance RFP.” Sheadvised members that after the original Request for Proposals (RFP) was submitted for solicitation,staff did more research and felt that it did not contain all of the requirements it should have, so theRFP was rewritten and expanded from one and a half pages to 17 pages to include more details. Mrs. Mitchell explained that the RFP was expanded to require a higher level of report and metrics,a financial audit, employee certifications and training information, hire and employment procedures,discrimination, diversity, EOC and sexual harassment policies, ambulance and equipmentcertifications, ambulance and equipment maintenance, and reporting requirements with stateagencies for operations, vehicles, and patient care matters.

Mrs. Mitchell advised that GEM Ambulance was asked to come in for further questioning andclarification because the review committee wanted to determine whether their pricing would changeif they were asked to have a location in Dover. She stated that the committee also wanted to ensurethat GEM Ambulance understood the market rates for Dover with that pricing. Mrs. Mitchellinformed members that they answered the question satisfactorily, it did not change their pricing, andthey were amenable to finding a location in central Dover.

Mrs. Mitchell stated that the committee did not find the termination clause in the proposal submittedby GEM Ambulance, so they were emailed to determine whether they omitted that information ormissed the question, which is permissible with an RFP. She informed members that GEMAmbulance responded that they would need 120 days if they terminated the contract. Mrs. Mitchellnoted that they had included in their proposal that if they lost 20% of the transport volume, thatmight be subject to the termination clause. She stated that the RFP called for a 90-day terminationclause and GEM Ambulance’s proposal was 30 days beyond that. Mrs. Mitchell advised that, aftermeeting with GEM Ambulance and discussing the current demographics of Dover, the committeedid not see that as an issue and proceeded with GEM Ambulance through the process.


Mrs. Mitchell advised that each proposal submitted had three (3) references and the committeereceived responses from two (2) of the references for each submission. She noted that several of thereferences were transport scheduled companies, not patient care companies; however, all three (3)references provided by GEM Ambulance were from senior care nursing home types of places.

Mrs. Mitchell stated that the committee believed that all of the vendors, except PrimeCare wouldrequire a transition period in order to advertise positions, conducting interviews, check backgroundsand credentials, provide training on corporate policies and on-boarding, etc. She informed membersthat she thought that all of the companies felt that there was a highly qualified population of fire andEMS people in the Dover area, so they would have a good pool for employees.

Mrs. Mitchell stated that the presentation noted that PrimeCare’s costs had exceeded budget the lasttwo years; however, she clarified that she thought that this may have been because the budget wasnot sufficient. She explained that she did not think this was because of PrimeCare’s cost, which wasbased on the contract. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the cost for FY 17 was $236,994 and the cost forFY 18 was $244,296.

Mrs. Mitchell noted that the Ambulance BLS Emergency charge for St. Francis EMS was $1,882,while the other proposals were in the $500 range. She explained that this concerned the committeebecause this drives up the healthcare cost for the City’s residents and employees that have the City’shealth insurance in Dover. Mrs. Mitchell advised that the committee was looking at what this willcost the City, as well as what it will cost the City’s residents and whether they can afford to pay thesekinds of rates if their insurance doesn’t cover it.

Mrs. Mitchell informed members that all of the vendors that the committee finalized with, exceptMid Atlantic, had comparable scores because they all met the minimum requirements of the RFP. She stated that the committee recommended GEM Ambulance. Mrs. Mitchell advised that the Citywould have to negotiate a successful contract for GEM Ambulance, as well as an extension of thecontract for PrimeCare, if Council agrees with the committee’s recommendation.

Mr. Lewis stated that he believed this is an important matter because it deals with the safety andmedical treatment of the citizens of the City. He noted that when he reviewed the information, hewas looking at response times, the number of EMT’s on duty, and the housing location foremergency vehicles.

In response to Mr. Lewis, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she did not have information on the amount ofcalls for medical care in the City of Dover versus other municipalities.

Mr. Sudler asked if there was a process in place to monitor or assess whether constituents are ableto bear the financial burden. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell advised that the ambulance company takescare of it; however, the City gets involved and will work with the vendor if a call or complaint isreceived. She stated that all of the ambulance companies have hardship policies and procedures thatwould be used to address the hardship.

In response to Mr. Neil, Mrs. Mitchell confirmed that the City followed its procedure for the RFPand put together a committee that she was confident could do the evaluation. She informed members


that one of the deciding factors for GEM Ambulance was that they received the highest marks fromone of the senior care facility references, who talked about how their billing and collectioncapabilities and how they manage to help the people in need.

Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Mitchell stated that GEM Ambulance currently does transportsfor the City; however, BLS calls are transferred to PrimeCare because they have a current contractwith the City for BLS. She explained her understanding that the transport coverage is for peoplewho need transport to a doctor’s office from a senior care facility or similar situations but is not formedical emergencies.

Mr. Anderson asked why PrimeCare’s cost was so much higher than the other proposals, noting thatthey have had the contract for years and should have the infrastructure in place. In response,Mrs. Mitchell stated that she could not answer that question but suggested that the proposals werebased on the cost of operations.

Responding to Mr. Shelton, Mrs. Mitchell explained that PrimeCare was currently the only companyfully staffed to begin because they have the current contract with the City. She advised thatSt. Francis stated that they would need to hire 25 people and GEM Ambulance stated that they wouldneed a transition period of 90 days to get staff in and everything up and running.

Mr. Shelton asked if Mrs. Mitchell knew where St. Francis would be hiring their people from andwhat the market looked like for those people. In response, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she could notanswer that questions, however, it was her understanding that the Dover market has peopleexperienced in this field that could take those jobs. Responding to Mr. Shelton, Mrs. Mitchellconfirmed that there could be an opportunity for more people in our area to get jobs.

Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the second choice would have been PrimeCare. She stated that one of the determining factors for GEM Ambulance was that their proposal was verywell organized, well written, and included all of their standard operating procedures (SOP’s). Mrs. Mitchell advised that the other factor was budgetary.

Mr. Lindell asked if any of the four (4) organizations submitted data regarding some of thesuggestions that were made in the report that was provided a couple years ago that the committeeused to evaluate them, for example, a summary of mutual aide requests and reliability. Responding,Mrs. Mitchell explained that mutual aide and reliability were included in the RFP and was reviewedby the committee. In regard to reliability, she informed members that the committee had KentCounty 911 double check some of the data. She explained that what they found is that the data doesnot take multiple responses or hospital delays into consideration.

Mr. Colin Faulkner, RFP review committee member and Director of Kent County EmergencyServices, explained that when you deliver a patient to a hospital you cannot leave them until youtransfer care or you will risk a patient abandonment issue, which is a challenge for ambulancesbecause they cannot leave and the paramedics cannot leave either. He stated that previously theywould divert nonpriority patients to hospitals other than Bayhealth; however, Bayhealth recentlydecided that they will not do diverts anymore, so the delays have increased. Mr. Faulkner advisedmembers that the entire system in Delaware is built around mutual aide.


Mr. Anderson asked if this would be an argument for two (2) ambulances 24/7, as opposed to one (1)ambulance 16/7 and one (1) 24/7. Responding, Mr. Faulkner stated that the RFP did not ask for that. He advised that Kent County runs two (2) paramedics 24/7 and, because of staffing issues and otherconstraints, currently has a power unit up for 12 hours, from 7:00 to 7:00, when it should really beup from 7:00 to 11:00 or 12:00, because those are their peak response times. Mr. Faulkner statedthat he would have to have a good look at the data to support Mr. Anderson’s conclusion. Heexplained that most ambulances in municipal governments are more busy during the daytime hoursand the volume drops off in the middle of the night when most people go to sleep. Mr. Faulknerstated that Kent County is setup similarly to PrimeCare, except PrimeCare extends their hours to11:00 for their second unit.

Mr. Garfinkel noted that in 2017 there were over 1,700 calls handled by other departments, whichis approximately 18% of the total. He stated that one in five calls were dropped by the City’scontractor and asked what the City pays for mutual aide. Responding, Mr. Faulkner stated that theCity had indicated to him that they pay a stipend to the Cheswold and Camden fire companies formutual aide. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the City pays approximately $13,000 to $14,000. She advisedthat the information Mr. Garfinkel was quoting sounded like the correspondence referred to byMr. Slavin and that she would like time to review those numbers.

Mr. Polce, noting that Bayhealth is not currently in a diversion pattern, asked if any of the proposalsindicated a functionality or willingness to expand to telehealth in order to alleviate some of theburden. In response, Mr. Faulkner stated that this was not part of the RFP that the City sent out. Headvised that for those who are knowledgeable and have their sight on the horizon, that is a realitybut it is not something that can happen overnight. Mr. Faulkner stated that he did not expect to seetelehealth within the next few years.

Mayor Christiansen indicated that he is always worried about the training levels of the people thatare going to be performing EMS in the City. He asked if the RFP required two (2) EMT’s perambulance. Responding, Mr. Faulkner stated that the RFP followed State law which requires one(1) EMT and one (1) driver or rescue tech, explaining that the driver does not have to be a full EMT. He advised that State law states that you have to have one (1) nationally registered EMT on anambulance and that is how the RFP was put out and how the committee evaluated them. Mayor Christiansen stated that this was not the level of service he would like to see, explaining thathe would feel more comfortable if there were two (2) EMT’s on board and the maximum numberof ambulances available on site. He stated that he runs with the Fire Department and indicated thatsometimes they have to wait until they can get another ambulance. Mayor Christiansen stated thathe hoped that the City might look at the qualifications of the people who are manning theambulances.

Mr. Slavin stated that he needed to resolve whether or not the three (3) individuals who signed upto speak were going to waive their opportunity to speak, or if members were going to vote to suspendthe rules. In response, a member of the audience indicated that he wished to speak.

Mr. Sudler moved to suspend the rules to provide an opportunity for comments from the three (3)individuals who signed up to speak. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson.


Mr. Anderson asked if the three (3) individuals were representatives from different companies. Responding, Mr. Slavin stated that two (2) representatives were from St. Francis Healthcare, and thethird individual, Dave Scott, did not list an affiliation. In response to Mr. Slavin, Mr. Scott indicatedthat he did not wish to speak.

The motion to suspend the rules to provide an opportunity for comments from the three (3)individuals who signed up to speak failed by a roll call vote of five (5) yes (Anderson, Sudler, Lewis,Garfinkel, and Shelton), five (5) no (Neil, Cole, Polce, Lindell, and Slavin), and one (1) absent(Hare).

Mrs. Mitchell stated that she respected what Mayor Christiansen said, however, she noted thateveryone knew that staff was working on the ambulance contract and no one indicated that theywanted a greater level of service. She stated that staff mirrored the setup for the EMT’s off the lastcontract.

Mr. Sudler stated that he agreed with Mayor Christiansen in regard to the level of service and wouldlike to hear more in regard to what the City can or cannot do to address that.

Mr. Sudler moved to defer this matter until the next Council Committee of the Whole/SafetyAdvisory and Transportation Committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Garfinkel.

Mr. Slavin asked how long the proposals are valid. He also asked if the same result could beachieved by moving the matter forward to Council with no recommendation. Responding toMr. Slavin, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the proposals are valid for 90 days.

Mr. Slavin asked Mr. Sudler for clarification regarding the additional information he would like andhow to obtain it since this was a bid process and the bids had been submitted. In response,Mr. Sudler stated that he wanted a little bit of information in regard to what Mayor Christiansen saidregarding having more than one (1) EMT on board.

Mr. Lindell cautioned that, based on his previous experience on the Capital School District Boardof Education, it is a slippery slope to start going beyond the processes in regard to bids. He statedthat he would support Mr. Slavin’s recommendation to forward this matter to Council with norecommendation, since there was still sufficient time within the bounds of the RFP to get theanswers prior to the next Regular Council Meeting.

Mr. Neil stated that he agreed with Mr. Lindell. He indicated that he was also concerned about thebudget and what it would cost to delay the process.

Mr. Anderson stated that he could understand the reasoning behind the motion; however, his concernwas that the City was currently in an extension of a contract that he did not like. He explained thatthe City had an opportunity to select a vendor that has very high references and recommendations,a base in the local area, and at a cost that is less than what the City is currently paying. Mr. Anderson stated that he thought that this was an opportunity to benefit the citizens in manydifferent ways, including providing superior service, noting that members had heard complaints foryears. He stated that he was personally ready to move on and would be voting no.


Mr. Sudler stated that as he has gotten older, he has realized that sometimes it is not all about money. He noted that you cannot purchase healthcare at Walmart, so sometimes it is more beneficial to takeyour time and make sure you make the right decision, especially when it comes to health, becausehealth does not have a cost.

Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Sudler stated that, as the maker of the motion, he would not considermoving this forward to City Council on September 10, 2018, rather than bringing it back to theCouncil Committee of the Whole.

The motion to defer this matter until the next Council Committee of the Whole/Safety Advisory andTransportation Committee meeting failed by a roll call vote of six (6) no (Anderson, Neil, Cole,Polce, Lindell, and Slavin), four (4) yes (Sudler, Lewis, Garfinkel, and Shelton), and one (1) absent(Hare).

Mr. Anderson moved to forward the matter to Council with no recommendation and that there bean attempt to find information about more than one (1) EMT in the contract between now andSeptember 10, 2018. The motion failed for lack of a second.

Mrs. Mitchell noted that the RFP was posted with one (1) EMT and asked if members wanted thereview committee to go back to each vendor and ask for pricing for two (2) EMT’s. Responding,Mr. Sudler stated that he just wanted more information and was not ready to vote at this time.

In response to Mr. Neil, Mrs. Mitchell stated that this would change the RFP because the Cityoriginally advertised it for one (1) EMT. She advised that she was not sure whether the City wouldneed to re-advertise or send out the RFP again and she would need to check with the City’spurchaser. Mrs. Mitchell stated that she thought that the City would at least have to allow all of themto provide new pricing for two (2) EMT’s to avoid a legal challenge. Mr. Slavin stated that hepartially agreed with Mrs. Mitchell with one huge caveat, explaining that the whole idea behindbidding is that people don’t get a chance to see what the pricing is for other vendors and then rigtheir pricing against the others. He noted that he was not saying that would happen, but noted thatthere clearly would not be a level playing field anymore if the City were to allow this. Mr. Slavinstated that the bid went out with certain requirements and people were asked to bid against thoserequirements, if they did more than those requirements, he did not think the people who follow therules should be penalized and given an advantage based on the information that was contained.

Mr. Lindell stated that he thought it was a slippery slope and he was only in favor of questions withinthe bounds of the RFP. He noted that when you start getting out of the bounds of the RFP, it willcost the City more money in the end.

Mayor Christiansen stated that, in an effort to make sure that the City has the Cadillac of service, itseemed that he had unintentionally thrown a wrench into this matter. He recalled having previouslysaid that he was looking for the highest level of service with this RFP based on the information thathe thought was included in the study that the City previously had done, although he did notremember whether he said it officially or unofficially. Mayor Christiansen indicated that he thoughtthat it was Council’s prerogative to follow through on the maintenance of standards that the RFP had


been put out as it was. He expressed his hope that the next time the City puts out the RFP, membersmake sure it includes what they want.

Mr. Anderson moved to forward this matter to City Council with no recommendation,seconded by Mr. Slavin and carried with Mr. Sudler voting no.

Prioritization of City of Dover State Capital Transportation Program (CTP) ProjectsMr. David Hugg III, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed his memo datedAugust 21, 2018 regarding 2018 Transportation Priorities. He noted that in developing the City’s2018 Transportation Priorities, staff reviewed the Dover/Kent Metropolitan Planning Organization’s(MPO’s) draft priority list, the Delaware Department of Transportation’s (DelDOT’s) ranking ofcapital projects in their Capital Transportation Program (CTP), as well as information regarding thelevel of development that is occurring in some of the areas, and the costs of some of the projects.

Mr. Hugg advised that the biggest change is the recommendation to move the Garrison OakConnector Road to the first priority, noting that it was the last priority last year. He indicated thatin reviewing the list, staff asked themselves “What are the projects that have the greatest economicdevelopment potential, or could have the greatest impact on the City?” Mr. Hugg noted that the Cityis in a catch-22, explaining that there was a study a year ago that said this road isn’t needed nowbecause there isn’t any traffic out there; however, there isn’t any traffic because there aren’t anyusers, and there aren’t any users because you can’t get there. He stated that the City needs to askDelDOT and the MPO to go back and look at some alternatives and the economic developmentopportunity, and come up with a plan and start developing an alignment.

Mr. Hugg informed members that a few other priorities changed based on the status of the projects. He stated that DelDOT had been doing more alignment work on the Crawford Carroll AvenueExtension, so staff recommended moving it up to priority 4. Mr. Hugg advised that the LoockermanStreet/Forest Street Intersection had been studied since at least 1999 and keeps progressing and thenstopping. He stated that staff believes that from the City and downtown development perspectivesthis really needs to get resolved, so it has been moved to priority 2. Mr. Hugg explained that theproject for sidewalks within the walk zone of the new Dover High School was a high priority lastyear and remained a high priority this year; however, its ranking changed slightly. Referring to theprojects prioritized 5-11, Mr. Hugg indicated that the staff prioritized these projects based on theState ranking. He stated that the Kenton Road Corridor Upgrades/ Route 8 East/West Corridor PlanImprovements, in particular, is a high priority but based on information from DelDOT, it is anextremely expensive project that probably will not get funded, so staff thought it made sense to moveit down the priority list. Mr. Hugg reminded members that the City provides their input to theSecretary of Transportation and the MPO for their consideration as they develop the CTP. He notedthat the City’s draft 2018 Transportation Priorities list was developed through collaboration andcooperation between departments.

Staff recommended approval of the recommended priority ranking for the coming year.

Mr. Anderson asked if there were any alternatives to the expensive project that could address someof the safety concerns on Kenton Road. Responding, Mr. Hugg asked Mrs. Donna Mitchell,City Manager, if this was discussed at the MPO meeting. Mrs. Mitchell advised that this matter was


not discussed at the MPO meeting; however, she stated that this had increased to a multimilliondollar project and they were concerned about that. She stated that it may still be considered but thelikelihood is that it will not be. Mrs. Mitchell indicated that the MPO also thought that the CollegeRoad Corridor Upgrades (Kenton Road to McKee Road) would not make the list. She stated thatone (1) of them might bump the other because of the price for each of them. Mr. Anderson statedthat he thought that Mr. Lindell and Mr. Polce should be asked which project is more important.

Mr. Lindell expressed concern. He indicated that even though he knows the price and that the Statemight not make the project a priority, he thought that the City should continue to remind the Statethat the City is going to grow toward the west and it is important to start looking toward the west aswell. Mr. Lindell stated that, looking at the project as a whole, it’s not only a safety issue, but thereis economic benefit as well, noting that it is a high priority for the Central Delaware Chamber ofCommerce (CDCC). He recalled that Mr. Hugg informed members last year that the letter to theSecretary of Transportation is subjective and they can completely ignore the City’s priorities if theywant to. Responding, Mr. Hugg stated that Mr. Lindell was correct and noted that members wouldnot hurt staff’s feelings if they wanted to change any of the priorities.

In response to Mr. Lindell’s comments regarding the CDCC, Mr. Hugg advised that the CDCC’sconcern was the creation of an east/west roadway connecting Route 8 through Dover to 301. Heexplained that, based on his discussions with the CDCC, they are not as concerned about thespecifics of Route 8 in Dover, as they are about the fact that there is not a good connection andDelDOT is not planning for a future east/west highway. Mr. Lindell stated that he thought that,although the CDCC might have a different motive, it is still an economic motive.

Mr. Lindell indicated that he thought that the City needed to tell its own story, even if the State isgoing to set its own priorities in the end. He stated that he thought that the west side of the City isa major priority as it continues to grow. Mr. Hugg stated that he did not disagree with Mr. Lindell;however, he noted that the investment in new roadways, particularly in urban areas, had fallen waybehind the need.

Mr. Polce expressed concern in seeing that the City’s priorities had shifted. He stated that he thoughtthat College and McKee Roads should be at the top of the City’s priority list. Mr. Polce indicatedthat he remembered members discussing public safety in this area eight months ago and, more recentconversations regarding creating a more bicycle and pedestrian friendly environment. He stated thathe thought that this was a really important priority and that when members of Council hear issuesthat are related to public safety, they need to start calling the next State Senator and Representativeto ensure they know it is a real priority for the constituents in the City. Mr. Polce indicated that hewould recommend moving the Kenton Road Corridor Upgrades/ Route 8 East/West Corridor PlanImprovements to priority 3 and combining College Road with it, noting that it would be moreefficient and cost effective to do both of the projects, since one tenth of a mile is already overlappingin the bids.

Mr. Shelton concurred with Mr. Polce’s comments that the work on Kenton Road and College Roadneeded to be done. He noted that he was a resident of the Hidden Oaks community, located offCollege Road and he thought that the entire road needed to be addressed, from Kenton Road toDelaware State University. Mr. Shelton advised that the intersection of McKee and College Roads


also needed work, noting that westbound traffic cannot make a right turn without waiting for thetraffic to go through.

Mayor Christiansen stated that he respected the work that staff had done on the City’s prioritizationlist and he thought the City should solidify the list and send it to the MPO. He advised that he is theChairman of the MPO and would rather have a letter of support moving the Garrison Oak ConnectorRoad, for economic development reasons, as well as the Kenton and College Road projects, to thetop of the list, explaining that with the recommendation of the MPO, the City will get the Secretaryof Transportation and DelDOT’s attention. Mayor Christiansen indicated that extra traffic is beingpushed onto both Kenton and College Roads and there is a new project going on the west side ofCollege Road that will generate more traffic, and stated that he thought that the City had theresponsibility to make sure these become top priority.

Mr. Sudler stated that College Road had been in need of special attention for a long time. He urgedmembers to do exactly what Mayor Christiansen recommended and get some attention for Collegeand McKee Roads by moving them up the prioritization list.

Mr. Lindell moved to recommend that the Kenton Road Corridor Upgrades/ Route 8 East/WestCorridor Plan Improvements and the College Road Corridor Upgrades (Kenton Road to McKeeRoad) be moved up to priorities 2 and 3, and approval of the priority list. The motion was secondedby Mr. Sudler.

Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sudler and Mr. Lindell indicated their willingness to amend themotion to include that the other items would be renumbered accordingly.

The motion to recommend that the Kenton Road Corridor Upgrades/ Route 8 East/WestCorridor Plan Improvements and the College Road Corridor Upgrades (Kenton Road toMcKee Road) be moved up to priorities 2 and 3, with the other items renumbered accordingly,and approval of the priority list (Attachment #2).

Mr. Sudler moved for adjournment of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committeemeeting, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried.


Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting. The motionwas seconded by Mr. Shelton and unanimously carried.


Timothy A. SlavinCouncil President

TAS/TM/dd/jtS:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Committee-Minutes\2018\08-28-2018 CCW Minutes.wpd

AttachmentsAttachment #1 - A presentation entitled “Firefly 2018, Fire Marshal's Office After Action Report” Attachment #2 - City of Dover 2018 Transportation Project Prioritization List, as amended

Firefly 2018Fire Marshal’s Office After Action Report

ATTACHMENT #1 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 08/28/2018

- The Fire Marshal’s Office is onsite to ensure that all Fire and Life Safety items are in place and adhered to for the citizens, staff, and attendees of the Firefly Music Festival to have a safe and enjoyable experience.

- The Fire Marshal’s Office is in constant communication with Dover International Speedway, Red Frog Events, and AEG throughout the year in preparation for the Firefly Music Festival.

- The Special Event Permit is turned into The City of Dover at least a month ahead of time. This permit is reviewed by staff who has input on all special event permits. Any changes to the festival after the permit submission is approved must be done through change orders submitted to Dover International Speedway and the Fire Marshal’s Office. These changes must be approved by both agencies.

- There were also several other permits submitted by individuals not associated with Dover International Speedway/Red Frog Events/AEG who conduct business offsite during the festival. Staff reviews these permits and checks on them as well.

Fire Marshal Jason OsikaDeputy Fire Marshal’s Matthew

Brown and Maria Quinones

The Fire Marshal’s Office always had at least one person onsite for the festival (when the festival was open). This year, we were onsite 24/7 for load in and we were assisted by Code Enforcement staff to accomplish this. The current three staff members and one Code Enforcement Officer put in a total of approximately 241 hours between Monday morning and Sunday evening. The following was conducted by staff who were onsite:

o Staffed utilized a new layer through the City of Dover GIS system which was created by Mark Nowak. While utilizing this system, staff plotted 144 “incidents” to include, but not be limited to, mobile/temporary cooking issues, FM contacted for information, emergency/exit light issues, meetings, electric department access, pyrotechnics preshow review, pyrotechnics show, EMR contact, open flame issues, and egress issues. I want to thank Mark Nowak for all his assistance with this new layer which we will continue to utilize.

o Staff conducted a walkthrough of the entire festival. Several items were noted and passed onto Dover International Speedway to ensure compliance. Staff continued checking the festival during the remainder of the week.

o Staff was onsite to ensure load in was conducted in accordance with office requirements.

o Staff was onsite for pyrotechnics preshow review. Staff was on stage when pyrotechnics were conducted. 6 shows had pyrotechnics this year which is an increase from last year.

o Several drivable surfaces were installed in accordance with an agreement made with Red Frog. Next year is the last year of the agreement made which will have most of the required roads completed.

o We answered several questions that security had during the vehicle searches (this was the first year that this was conducted).

o Staff assisted the electric department with access to areas needing to be checked due to a credentials issue.

o Staff assisted EMS staff

o Staff assisted Dover International Speedway security with noncompliance of camping rules (cars in the fire lane)

o Staff assisted with a large crowd at the entrance of the festival on Saturday

Items to address for the next

festival

o Mount Fire extinguishers on stages in fixed locations.

o Dover International Speedway security is needed in Lot 2 during load in (like lot 18). This is to ensure vehicles are pulled in and not turned around. This should continue to be monitored throughout the week like lot 18.

o The vendor camping behind the North Hub needs to be marked out like the other lots and all rules apply to this lot as well (constant issue).

o All cooking needs to be conducted under a flame-retardant tent. Several tents were flame resistant which included other questionable language. These tents were relocated this year. In the future, they will be required to be taken down.

o Ensure all propane tanks are properly secured

o No household furniture is permitted in the camping lots. One couch made it into lot 18. We will need a contact for the trash company to pick these items up immediately next year.

o The Loft needs to be discussed in detail. We will not allow the fence/chain/rope to be in place. Any means of egress needs to be free. We can discuss what needs to be done if there is a desire to secure sections appropriately. I suggest that swing type doors be installed that read emergency exit only.

o Complete roadways per the Red Frog agreement. Additional areas will need to be discussed and installed prior to the 2020 festival.

o Emergency lights and exit lights need to be operable. This is a continuing issue. All electrical cords need to be out of reach and the connections need to be taped so they cannot be unplugged.

o The structure in lot 9, third party inspection was never received.

o All appropriate parties need to discuss and review the rules. Everyone should understand and enforce these rules. These rules need to be updated on the website and the app. In addition to other rules, no generators, charcoal grills, or open fires are allowed. I will review the Firefly website and submit additional comments. When purchasing tickets, the fans should have to acknowledge that they have read the rules.

o The platform above the Progressive bus was used prior to a third-party inspection taking place

o Some back of house Fire Lanes were impeded (mainly in Division 2/3). I believe this was due to there being additional space last year; however, the festival was brought back to normal conditions this year.

o We would like to mark the lot 18 middle fire lane with the street signs

o Need to ensure specific language is in the rules regarding the type of vehicles, tents, and how vehicles are parked/tents are placed.

o Emergency plan needs to be submitted to this office

o Need to ensure that there is always fire protection on both sides of the bridge

o Discussion needs to take place with the City of Dover City Solicitor about the special event permit.

o This office will be working with the Planning office to propose new fees and fines to the Legislative and Finance Committee and Planning Commission. We are hoping to have this on the October agendas.

This was another successful festival within the City of Dover. I

appreciate the outstanding working relationship our agency has with all the other agencies

onsite. A special thank you goes to Mark Hostetter and Jim Hosfelt of

Dover International Speedway who the City of Dover Fire Marshal’s Office mainly deals with for Fire and Life Safety compliance. We

also look forward to working with AEG this year for the 2019 Festival.

Questions?

City of Dover

MAYOR AND COUNCIL

CITY OF DOVER2018 TRANSPORTATION PROJECT PRIORITIZATION

1. Garrison Oak Connector Road – This project was moved down in the priority list last yearreflecting completion of a June 2017 study (Garrison Oak Traffic Study) that indicated that road isnot justified at this time, based on the current uses and potential continued development in theGarrison Oak Technical Park (GOTP). However, an alignment study to determine the feasibilityand location of a future road connection is justified as this is an important economic developmentasset for the City and the County. Utilization of the GOTP is restricted by the lack of good accessto SR1. As additional development occurs in the park its priority for construction will be revisedas appropriate. It is not in the CTP. It is listed as a high priority project by the Central DelawareChamber of Commerce.

2. Kenton Road Corridor Upgrades/ Route 8 East/West Corridor Plan Improvements – Thisproject includes road improvements and sidewalks to improve traffic flow and bicycle/pedestriansafety. It is critical to improving the approach to the City from the northwest where new residentialareas within and outside the City are being built. This segment also lacks sidewalks. The Route 8Corridor Study identified several improvements along the Route 8 corridor that would improvesafety, better manage access, reduce congestion and provide improved traffic flow. Whileimprovements complementary to this corridor (POW-MIA Parkway and Senator Bikeway, forexample) address north/south movements, continued development on the west side of the Cityimpact the capacity and operation of this roadway. This project is in the CTP as priority #70. It islisted as a high priority by the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce.

3. College Road Corridor Upgrades (Kenton Road to McKee Road) – This project is in the CTPas priority #77 and includes road improvements and sidewalks in this heavily traveled corridor. Itis a key east-west linkage of northwest residential areas to commercial corridors and DSU. Recentdevelopment in this area includes apartments and a rehabilitation hospital near the CollegeRoad/McKee Road Intersection.

4. Loockerman Street/Forest Street Intersection – This project has been a priority of the City to helpspur redevelopment activities in the Downtown Development District while also improving trafficcirculation and safety. It was identified as an improvement needed through the Restoring CentralDover Study and the West Side Redevelopment Study conducted in 2001. It is also complementaryto the recommendations of the Capital Gateway Study addressing the Forest Street/Route 8corridor. It would result in improved traffic circulation, a more pedestrian-friendlier zone at therailroad crossings and create a new “gateway” into the downtown. It is in the CTP as priority #60.

5. Sidewalks within the walk zone of the new Dover High School – Dover High School is enteringanother school year and critical gaps in the sidewalk system remain, including along Mifflin Roadand along Route 8 on the south side from Mifflin Road west. This project also addresses the

P.O. Box 475 � Dover, Delaware �19903

Community Excellence Through Quality Service

ATTACHMENT #2 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 08/28/2018

City of Dover2018 Transportation Project Prioritization Page 2

continuation of the Senator Bikeway and the recommendations from the Capital Gateway Study. The City is very concerned about public safety in this area and believes it deserves to be includedin the CTP and funded at the earliest opportunity.

6. Crawford Carroll Avenue Extension – This project reflects the continuing growth of DelawareState University, commercial development in the area, and future development possibilitiesinvolving the Dover Mall and adjoining properties. It would provide access between the DSULearning and Living Commons facility and the main campus as an alternate to using US 13. The2008 Comprehensive Development Plan identified the need to link educational facilities of DelTechand DSU. It is also linked to priority #5 as part of a plan to improve access throughout the US 13corridor and is associated with the Dover Mall north entrance realignment. This project is includedin the CTP as priority #47.

7. West Street Improvements from North Street to the Transit Center - This project is along thewestern edge of the Downtown Development District and would improve traffic flow, safety andaccess to the transit system serving the Downtown and the City, and provide an opportunity formulti-modal linkages to be established. West Street has become an important connection for theDART Transit service in the City but has not been improved to reflect the standards to meet thisuse. Part of these improvements were achieved with the completion of bike/ped pathways. It is inthe CTP as Priority #71.

8. US 13 Service Roads/Scarborough Road – This project would create a service road parallel toUS 13 from Leipsic Road to Scarborough Road, and a set of local access roads providing economicbenefits to the Dover Mall and proposed adjacent commercial complex, the Dover Mall PowerCenter project concept. This project is in the CTP as SR 1/Scarborough Road C-D roads at priority#100 and is part of the US Route 13 Circulation Study. It is listed as a high priority by the CentralDelaware Chamber of Commerce.

9. US 13 Sidewalk Construction – Construction of multi-use paths along US 13 continues to be apriority. Construction of sidewalks is required when properties are developed or redeveloped, butsignificant sections of the sidewalk system are either in deteriorated condition or missing (PublicSafety Boulevard to Puncheon Run Connector, for example). This project is not in the CTP.

10. Route 8/Hazelettville Road Connector – This is a north/south access road that was identified inthe Route 8 Concept Plan and Operations Study. This connection will encourage economicdevelopment and provide transportation alternatives in this heavily traveled corridor. This projectis in the CTP as priority #54.

11. Kings Highway/Route 13 Intersection Improvements – The intersection of Kings Highway/White Oak Road and US 13 needs improvements to meet an acceptable level of service. Extensivenew commercial development (Capital Station Shopping Center and other commercial facilities)are being constructed or are planned south of the intersection which will add traffic and accessburdens on these roads. The intersection project is not in the CTP.

In addition to these projects, the City is also in support of implementation of the Bicycle and PedestrianPlans developed by the Dover/Kent MPO and approved by the City Council in 2016. We appreciateDelDOT’ s active participation in construction of segments of the Capital City Trail and Senator Bikeway.

council committee of the whole - amazon …council committee of the whole meeting of august 28, 2018...

Documents