REGULAR CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING The Regular City Council Meeting was held on October 10, 2022, at 6:30 p.m. with Council President Sudler presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Neil, Ms. Arndt, Mr. Rocha, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Hare. Dr. Pillsbury was absent. Staff members present were Chief Johnson, Ms. Peddicord, Mr. Hugg, Ms. Gray, Mr. Rodriguez, and Ms. Bennett. Mayor Christiansen was also present. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum was held at 6:15 p.m., prior to the commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Sudler declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council was not in official session and could not take formal action. Dennis D. Minus, 118 West Division Street, Apartment B, spoke about three concerns in the City of Dover. Mr. Minus feels the city can do better with cleanliness. He also explained when he returns books to the library, he feels the homeless people that congregate there are an embarrassment to the city. Mr. Minus also stated that there should neighborhood transitions. He believes the City of Dover could creatively do the same on New Street as on South Bradford Street. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Elder Ellis B. Louden. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilwoman Arndt. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Ms. Arndt, and unanimously carried. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA All Consent Agenda items are considered routine and non-controversial and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of Council so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered a separate item. Councilman Neil stated that he would like to remove the monthly report of the IT Department, briefly, for discussion. Councilman Anderson stated that is item number 22. Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the consent agenda with Item number 22 removed, seconded by Mr. Hare, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2022-11 - REZONING REQUEST FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21285 FORREST AVENUE A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider the rezoning of property located at 2285 Forrest Avenue, consisting of 25 acres (the overall existing parcel is 75.521 acres

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 2 +/-) , owned by Calvary Baptist Church of Dover. The equitable owner is Leander Lakes III, LLC. The property is currently zoned R-10 (One-Family Residence Zone) and partially subject to COZ- 1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) and the proposed zoning is RM-2 (medium Density Zone), and partially subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). (Tax Parcel: ED-05-075.00-01-16.00-000; First Council District; Planning Reference: Z-22-02). Council President Sudler reminded members of the public that copies of the proposed ordinance were available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or on the City’s website at www.cityofdover.com under “Government.” Mr. Neil moved that the Final Reading of Proposed Ordinance #2022-11 be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of the ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of September 12, 2022.) Planner's Review Ms. Mary Ellen Gray, Director of Planning and Community Development, stated that this rezoning application is a request for a zoning map amendment, which changes the zoning district of the property. Ms. Gray continued to state that the Planning Commission, as part of the Public Hearing and review process, provided a recommendation on the rezoning request to City Council. Ms. Gray noted that as part of the process outlined in the zoning Ordinance, Article 10, Section five, the Planning Commission evaluated the following factors when they considered the request. Ms. Gray explained that under Article 10, 5-5.36 report to the Planning Commission, regarding each application for a zoning map amendment, the Planning Commission shall provide a report to the City Council stating a recommended action, with regards to the proposed Amendment, along with the Commission's evaluation of the following factors: A: Whether the uses permitted by the proposed change would be compatible with the existing uses and zoning in the area concerned. B: Whether adequate public services and infrastructure exist or can be created or expanded to serve the needs of any additional demand, as a result of such change. C: Whether the proposed change is in accordance with the City's current Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Gray stated that the map describes the property, which is being proposed to be annexed. Ms. Gray noted that this is the 25-acre portion of the 75-acre parcel and that the proposed area, is the blue-hatched area, with access to Forrest Avenue. Ms. Gray explained on September 19, 2022, the Planning Commission held a hybrid meeting, which was in person and virtual. Ms. Gray continued to explain that application Z-2202 was represented by the members of the Project Team by Jim Erickson, Engineer of Solutions IPM, LB Steel, representative of the Applicant for Equitable Owner, Leander Lakes Three LLC. Ms. Gray stated that the Project Team presented their request for rezoning, including a series of maps. Ms. Gray noted that also present, virtually, regarding the rezoning application, were Reverend Dr. Charles Fletcher representing the property owner of Calvary Baptist Church, and Debbie Smith, also listening in, on behalf of the church. Ms. Gray stated that during the Public Hearing, no members of the public spoke, and no written comments were received. Ms. Gray continued to state that the Planning Commission's motion was to recommend approval for rezoning application Z-22-02, part of the lands of Calvary Baptist Church at 2285 Forrest Avenue, from R10/COZ-1 to RM2 COZ-1. Ms. Gray noted that the motion

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 3 resulted in a vote of nine to zero, in favor of the rezoning. Ms. Gray explained that the reason, cited for the approval, included consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and compatibility with the existing zoning of adjacent areas. Ms. Gray stated that there is the presence of existing infrastructure, including water, sanitary sewer, electric, police, fire, and emergency medical services, along with the recommendations of the Planning staff, and the Applicant's presentation and testimony. Public Hearing Council President Sudler declared the public hearing open. Jim Erickson stated that he is a professionally licensed Civil Engineer in the State of Delaware. and his License number is 18287. Mr. Erickson continued to state that he is the Principal Engineer at Solutions IPEM and representing this project. Mr. Erickson noted that he put together a quick presentation. Mr. Erickson noted that the staff, at the City of Dover, really does a fantastic job of preparing these reports for Council and the public. Mr. Erickson stated that they give a lot of information, and they are very detailed and very comprehensive. Mr. Erickson stated that all he wants to do is provide a few visuals to go along with the report and so, as was mentioned, this parcel, which is looking to be partially rezoned, is part of a church. Mr. Erickson stated that this parcel is owned by a church, rather and that this church had a site plan that was recently approved. Mr. Erickson noted that he believes that they are about ready to break ground. Mr. Erickson stated that there are over 300 feet to the nearest improvement associated with the church, and over 400 feet to the building itself, to the rezoned portion of the parcel. Mr. Erickson explained that as previously mentioned, it does front on Forrest Avenue, which is a minor arterial, as classified by DelDOT. Mr. Erickson continued to explain that within the vicinity of the project, as you can see, there is plenty of medium-density residential there. Mr. Erickson stated that there is institutional use with the high school right there. Mr. Erickson continued to state that there is commercial use, and even higher density, in that vicinity and that there is an existing church, adjacent to the site, and then the future church, that they have previously discussed. Mr. Erickson noted that right next door, there are also existing apartments, and those apartments are zoned RM2. Mr. Erickson stated that this is the same zoning designation that they are requesting with this application. Mr. Erickson stated that the provided document is taken out of the City of Dover's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Erickson continued to state that the site is in red which is overlaid on top of the yellow area and that the yellow is the area designated as being a medium-density residential. Mr. Erickson discussed the State Spending Strategies map and that if you look at the site overlay, you can see that this is investment level areas, one and two, which means, that the State anticipates this area being developed. Mr. Erickson concluded that if you consider all of this, with the staff's report, what he believes Council will find is that this rezoning request is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Erickson noted that it is in character with the area and that there are public facilities in the vicinity to handle the rezoning request. Mr. LB Steele representing Leander Lakes was present as well for questions. Responding to Councilman Hare, Mr. Erickson stated that this property will be an additional Garden Apartment and will be owned by Leander Lakes. Mr. Erickson stated that this property

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 4 will be taxable and that the purpose of this is for another phase of the Leander Lakes Apartment community. Responding to Councilman Rocha, Mr. Erickson stated that the intention would be to interconnect them. Mr. Erickson continued stating that obviously, it is contingent on Agency approvals but that the intention would be to interconnect, certainly. Responding to Councilman Taylor, Mr. Erickson stated that he believes the maximum density would be eight units per acre. Mr. Erickson noted that he does not have a site plan. Mr. Erickson stated that it would have to go through the site planning process so that it would be up to the allowable density in that zoning designation. Council President Sudler stated that City Council will have to restrict their conversation specifically to the zoning and not the usage of the zoning henceforth. There being no others present wishing to speak, Council President Sudler declared the hearing closed. Mr. Neil moved for approval of the rezoning request, as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and approved by a 6-2 roll call vote; Council adopted Ordinance #2021-11. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2285 FORREST AVENUE WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within the limits of the City of Dover; and WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of a 25-acre portion of the 75.251 acres +/- property described below from R-10 (One Family Residence Zone) and COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) to RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 1. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation from R-10 (One Family Residence Zone) and COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) to RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) on that property located at 2285 Forrest Avenue (on the south side of Forrest Avenue west of Dover High Drive), consisting of 25 acres (overall existing parcel is 75.251 acres +/-), owned by Calvary Baptist Church of Dover. (Part of Tax Parcel: ED-05-075.00-01-06.00-000; Planning Reference: Z-22-02; First Council District)

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 5 ADOPTED: OCTOBER 10, 2022 ADOPTION OF MINUTES -REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2022 The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of September 26, 2022, were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Hare, and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - SEPTEMBER 27, 2022 The Council Committee of the Whole met on September 27, 2022, at 6:02 p.m. with Council President Sudler presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson, Ms. Arndt, Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Hare, Mr. Neil, Mr. Rocha, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Hare. Dr. Pillsbury was absent. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Civilian members present for their committee meetings were Dr. Jackson and Mr. Hosfelt (Safety Advisory, and Transportation) Mr. Shelton (Utility), Mr. Shevock (WebEx), and Mr. Contant (WebEx). Mr. McCutcheon (Utility)was absent. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Ms. Arndt, and unanimously carried. SAFETY, ADVISORY, AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee met with Chairman Taylor presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Ms. Arndt, and unanimously carried. Presentation - Next Generation Outcomes (Larry Normile, Erin Smith, and Emily Sestito) Mr. Larry Normile, 46 Stone Ridge Drive, Dover, Delaware. 19901 reviewed his presentation entitled Next Generation Outcomes. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Normile confirmed that Next Generation Outcomes is incorporated. Mr. Normile explained to get participants into the program, he will work in conjunction with the City of Dover Police Department, Department of Justice, Attorney General’s Office, and Probation and Parole. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Normile stated that he currently does not have a place for participants to live or a place for them to go once they graduate. Mr. Normile explained that he has reached out to Country Village Apartment Homes.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 6 Mr. Neil stated that it is going to be hard to locate housing, there is not much space available and that is something he has been looking and fighting for because that is the main reason a lot of people are homeless. Mr. Neil explained that even if people have the money, there is not enough inventory. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Normile stated that he does not have a current income source, which is why he is meeting with organizations such as the City Council and the Department of Justice. Mr. Normile stated that he does not have the money right now, but he will even if it is in another two to three years, he will work for it and build his capital. Mr. Neil wished Mr. Normile all the luck in the world because he thinks the program is terrific. Mr. Neil stated that if Mr. Normile can accomplish everything that he has set out to do it would be a marvelous tool for the Police Department, which anybody dealing with the social ills of this society can do. Mr. Sudler stated that he thought Mr. Normile presented a very good presentation. Mr. Sudler recommended filtering loitering issues to this rehabilitation and community service program. Mr. Sudler urged Mr. Normile to contact the City Manager because last month another non-profit requested a building or dwelling that the city could donate based on a purpose and need. Mr. Sudler commended Mr. Normile for following his spirit, and heart, and providing a highly needed service in our community. Mr. Anderson thanked Mr. Normile for coming tonight and for his presentation. Mr. Anderson stated that he is looking forward to the future with this program and he believes it will make the entire county better. Mr. Anderson stated that Kent County has grants open right now from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds and he believes that the deadline is October 25th. Mr. Anderson recommended Mr. Normile look at Kent County’s website. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Normile confirmed he received his 501(c)(3) in 2019. Mr. Boggerty encouraged Mr. Normile to meet with Group Violence Intervention Program (GVI) because he feels like both programs could work together. Mr. Boggerty stated that he would get the contact information to Mr. Normile after the meeting. Presentation - Dover Loitering Ordinance- 2022 Update (Chief Thomas Johnson, Dover Police Department) Chief Thomas Johnson, Dover Police Department, reviewed the presentation entitled Dover Loitering Ordinance 2022 Update.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 7 Responding to Ms. Arndt, Chief Johnson stated that slide 24, section 70-9 is for non-state-funded schools, for example, the private schools would have the same authority as public schools. Ms. Arndt stated that she liked that Chief Johnson was proposing court-tested language found in the state statute. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Chief Johnson stated that Council has the power to decide what the consequences of a loitering citation in the city would be. Mr. Boggerty stated that he would like to make sure the ordinance is being administered fairly, if they are going to use the lower-level ordinance, then it must be used for all unless they are frequent offenders. Mr. Boggerty requested seeing a fair report including demographic, age, race, sex, and national origin. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Chief Johnson stated that they used 2019 statistics because it was pre-covid. Chief Johnson explained that during the pandemic, there were operational adjustments on the number of citizen contact that they proactively engage in, and the data would have been skewed. Chief Johnson stated that Mr. Boggerty’s concern was completely understood as Council will be drafting the Ordinance and voting to implement it. Chief Johnson stated that he would provide contextual data, not only the numbers but context to draw off, for example, communication from elected officials, 911 calls, and proactive behaviors in chronic condition areas. Mr. Boggerty stated that “I, Andre, councilman trust you, I have full confidence that they are given the spirit that you delivered.” Mr. Boggerty stated, “let’s clean up so we can tackle some issues that this city desperately needs tackling.” Mr. Boggerty explained there have been break-ins, an increase in the homeless population, and problems that Council needs to solve. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Chief Johnson stated that cadets only have the authority to enforce local offenses at Council’s pleasure. Chief Johnson explained cadets currently enforce parking, littering, and other quality-of-life things. Chief Johnson suggested that if council would like for cadets to enforce loitering, then they include that in the ordinance. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Chief Johnson stated that he could provide suggested language and that if there becomes a problem through an internal procedure, he could rectify the situation. Responding to Chief Johnson, Mr. Boggerty stated that whatever the numbers come out to be he would like to see that it is fair.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 8 Mr. Boggerty stated that page 21 of the packet discussed the cadets and that the created purpose was due to the continuing safety and security concerns expressed by the merchants. Mr. Boggerty suggested deleting why it was created because if the numbers go down someone could say they are not needed. Mr. Neil thanked the original sponsors of the loitering ordinance because they took a lot of heat to bring about this moment. Mr. Neil explained that the original sponsors tried to lessen the costs for somebody going through the process and not having a record at the same time, trying to balance the individual’s rights constitutionally with actions that were causing businesses to lose their business. Mr. Neil further explained that they were losing their livelihood, and equity invested, and deeply hurting the City of Dover because of the actions that were taken by people who were loitering. Mr. Neil thanked Mr. Anderson and Mr. Taylor for kicking the ball in the right direction. Mr. Neil stated that they are now going to pull together information from the Chief’s presentation so that they can achieve their goal. Mr. Neil explained that if we lose businesses and nobody wants to come then everyone gets hurt. Mr. Neil noted that he has absolute trust in the Chief. Mayor Christiansen stated that most of the job descriptions state that other duties may be added at the discretion of the Chief and that the cadets need to be modified to include the same language. Mr. Sudler stated that he would like to see a statistical data review board comprising individuals in certain zones so that they can review the statistics, look at the data, see the authentication of the process, and be able to talk about the prior data. Mr. Sudler explained that he felt they would get more buy-in from the community and that it would show more accountability and transparency. Mr. Sudler thanked Mr. Anderson and Mr. Taylor for their support in the loitering initiative. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Sudler stated that the Police Chief’s Advisory Board would be a start, but he thinks that individuals who live in the New Street area should be included to help advocate that they see the statistics, that this is something that is authentic and has a buy-in as a part of the process. Mr. Sudler explained that the Police Chief’s Advisory Board should also be comprised of the business owners in addition to residents because they will echo the message that they need to do their part as a part of the community and the initiative to clean up downtown Dover. Mr. Sudler stated that he felt they needed new eyes and a new mission statement separate from the Police Chief’s Advisory Board only looking at statistics. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mayor Christiansen stated that he agreed that they needed to make sure that the statistics and demographic information is available to the community. Mayor Christiansen stated that he has implicit trust in the Chief, his staff, our statistician, and the Police Chief’s Advisory Board which was

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 9 established to review and provide some oversight and suggestions for the operation of the Dover Police Department. Mayor Christiansen stated that he did not feel it was in the best interest of the ordinance to reinvent the wheel. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Taylor stated that Dr. Jackson – Short is a member of the Police Chief Advisory Board, which helped bring forth this loitering presentation. Mr. Taylor agreed with the Mayor that oversight is needed but should be provided by the Police Chief’s Advisory Board. Mr. Taylor stated that he felt that they would continue to do an outstanding job if they were given another responsibility, whether it be dealing with the demographics of this or anything else. Mr. Taylor noted that he has full faith in their abilities to be non-biased and move forward in a way that everyone can find satisfaction in their efforts. Mr. Anderson stated that a statistical review could be made with a motion and that he felt that should be done parallel with the ordinance but not as part of the ordinance. Mr. Anderson noted ordinances are laws that last until they are repealed. Mr. Anderson stated that he would like to have flexibility in how they deal with issues when it comes to being able to review because their needs of them can change quickly. Mr. Anderson moved to refer to staff to move forward with the drafting of this loitering ordinance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil. Mr. Sudler stated that was a very keen observation and statement made by Mr. Anderson. Mr. Sudler noted that the community has called for the reactivation of the Human Relations Commission, and he believes that something of this magnitude needs the community’s input regarding whom they feel most comfortable. Mr. Sudler explained this is a sensitive topic and Mr. Taylor and Mr. Anderson have taken a lot of heat for the City of Dover. Mr. Sudler stated that Mr. Anderson and Mr. Taylor have also taken the time and the intelligence to listen and do their due diligence. Mr. Sudler stated that he appreciates it and supports this initiative. Mr. Anderson moved to refer to staff to move forward with the drafting of this loitering ordinance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation to refer staff to move forward with drafting the loitering ordinance, seconded by Mr. Hare, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 10 Proposed Ordinance #2022-15 - Chapter 70 by adding Section 70-9, Nuisances, and amending Appendix F, Fees, and Fines (Mary Ellen Gray, Director of Planning and Inspections) Mr. Hugg reviewed Ordinance #2022-15-Chapter 70, Section 70-9, Nuisances, and amended Appendix F, Fees, and Fines. Staff recommended approving the Ordinance for First Reading on October 10, 2022, at the Regular City Council Meeting. Mr. Hare moved to approve Ordinance #2022-15 for First Reading on October 10, 2022, at the Regular City Council Meeting, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Hare and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Discussion Loockerman Street Assessment Tour (Councilman Ralph Taylor) Mr. Taylor reviewed the pictures in the packet under Discussion of Loockerman Street Assessment Tour. Mr. Taylor noted the tree roots, loose bricks becoming weapons, tripping hazards, damaged downspouts from fighting, and alley fencing that the police cannot see through. Mr. Taylor noted that all of these are safety hazards for the city and our citizens. Mr. Taylor stated that a decision needed to be made regarding the trees causing damage, he suggested removing them and getting trees that are more suitable for those locations. Mr. Neil stated that he hoped that all of this was being shared with the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP) and Mosaic because it needs to happen but also be a part of the total plan for downtown. Mayor Christiansen pointed out that the Bond Bill gave the Downtown Dover Partnership a lot of money that could be used now for streetscape improvements. Mayor Christiansen stated that if DDP is going to be the true partner to the city, then some of those monies should be made available to address some of the issues Mr. Taylor has brought forth. Mr. Sudler stated that one way that they could deal with the roots of the trees, would be to shave the mature roots so that bedding could be placed for the pavers to be placed over. Mr. Sudler noted that they also have a foaming root killer that could be placed on the root, and it would dissolve in that area. Mr. Sudler explained that these options would not damage a mature tree but are short-term mechanisms that they could take to reinstall the bedding and concrete. Mr. Anderson agreed with Mr. Neil and thanked him for his comments. Mr. Anderson suggested they should look at different proposals and maybe look at

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 11 how downtown looks and functions to make an informed decision. Mr. Anderson noted that they needed to decide quickly on how to proceed. Ms. Arndt stated that she hoped that they are not setting the stage to remove the trees, remove the brick, and put down smooth concrete. Ms. Arndt stated that she agreed with the tripping hazards and a relative immediate need to address those issues in terms of the tree and roots. Ms. Arndt stated that they learned a lot from the Bradford Street project and dealing with mature street trees that are healthy within urban environments. Ms. Arndt noted that brick sidewalks can be a maintenance headache however they are beautiful and make our downtown unique. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Taylor explained that the photo showed the only access to the basement. Mr. Taylor noted that it may be something they are going to have to work around. Ms. Tina Bradbury, DDP stated that the bond bill that was received is not for streetscape but that it is to bring buildings up to code and get ready to be leased. Mr. Taylor moved for adjournment of the Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee, hearing no objection, the meeting adjourned at 7:26 p.m. Mr. Sudler announced Council would take a recess and resume at 7:35 p.m. UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee met with Chairman Rocha presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Ms. Arndt and unanimously carried. Mr. Hare moved to move items #2 Purchase Ground Penetrating Radar, #3 Delaware Drinking Water State Revolving Funds Applications, and #4 Aero Park Elevated Water Tank Equipment Relocation #5 Proposed Ordinance #2022-17 – Amending Chapter 110 – Cross Connection Control Program, Appendix F – Fees and Fines to Consent Agenda and take one vote to approve all four items. Mr. Anderson requested to remove Item #5 Proposed Ordinance #2022-17 – Amending Chapter 110 – Cross Connection Control Program, Appendix F – Fees and Fines Mr. Hare moved to move items #2 Purchase Ground Penetrating Radar, #3 Delaware Drinking Water State Revolving Funds Applications, and #4 Aero Park Elevated Water Tank Equipment Relocation to Consent Agenda and

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 12 take one vote to approve all three. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boggerty and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation to move items #2, #3, and #4 to consent agenda and take one vote to approve all three items, seconded by Mr. Hare and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Electric Service Handbook Revisions (Paul Waddell, Electric Director) Mr. Paul Waddell, Electric Director, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Electric Service Handbook Revisions. Staff recommended approving the presented revisions to the Electric Service Handbook. Mr. Neil moved to recommend approving the presented revisions to the Electric Service Handbook, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation to approve the presented revisions to the Electric Service Handbook as recommended by staff, seconded by Mr. Hare, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Purchase Ground Penetrating Radar (Jason Lyon, Director of Water Wastewater) This item was approved on Consent Agenda and there was no separate discussion. Delaware Drinking Water State Revolving Funds Applications (Jason Lyon, Director of Water and Wastewater) This item was approved on Consent Agenda and there was no separate discussion. Aero Park Elevated Water Tank Equipment Relocation (Jason Lyon, Director of Water and Wastewater) This item was approved on Consent Agenda and there was no separate discussion. Proposed Ordinance #2022-17 - Amending Chapter 110 - Cross Connection Control Program, Appendix F - Fees and Fines (Jason Lyon, Director Water, and Wastewater) Mr. Jason Lyon, Director of Water and Wastewater, reviewed the background and analysis of Proposed Ordinance #2022-17. Staff recommended approval of the Ordinance for First Reading at the October 10, 2022, Regular City Council Meeting. Mr. Lyon stated that he would like to thank Ms. Kate Mills, Water Production Manager because this would not be in front of Council without her and that she did a fantastic job putting this whole cross-connection control program together.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 13 Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Lyon stated that it is important to realize that for the majority of residential customers, this will not impact them. Mr. Lyon noted that some exceptions were in the packet, such as if you have an irrigation system that is connected to a chemical disbursement, you must have a backflow preventer on that. Mr. Lyon stated that if you have your pool directly connected to the water service line, which is very, very rare, you must have a backflow preventer so that chlorine water cannot come back in. Mr. Lyon noted that if you have reclaimed water and if you have a fire suppression system, most residential units do not have that. Mr. Lyon explained that these fees are primarily going to be for businesses that are required to put in a backflow preventer because of the high hazard risk or if there were any sort of additional concerns that we would have. Mr. Lyon explained that it is going to be filled out in the survey, which is in the packet, and that it will be sent out to all the businesses, then they are going to return it to us. Mr. Lyon continued to explain that then the city is going to through them with our partner, National Water Specialties Company (NAWSC), and provide them with direction on which way to go. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Mr. Lyon confirmed backflow devices would need to be tested annually by a licensed contractor. Mr. Neil moved to recommend approval of Proposed Ordinance #2022-17 – Amending Chapter 110-Cross Connection Control Program, Appendix F – Fees and Fines for first reading at the October 10, 2022, Regular City Council Meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation to recommend Proposed Ordinance #2022-17-Amending Chapter 110-Cross Connection Control Program, Appendix F – Fees and Fines for the first reading at the October 10, 2022, Regular City Council Meeting., seconded by Mr. Hare and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Rocha moved for adjournment of the Utility Committee, hearing no objection, the meeting adjourned at 7:43 p.m. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance and Administration Committee met with Chairman Anderson presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Ms. Arndt, and unanimously carried. Mr. Anderson moved to move items #4 Approval of a Grant Funded Group Violence Intervention (GVI) Crime Analyst Position and #5 Acceptance of a 1.5

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 14 Million Dollar Grant Funded Camera Expansion to Consent Agenda and take one vote to approve both items. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare. Mr. Sudler stated that he has a question for Item #4 and would like it removed from consent. Mr. Neil moved to approve item #5 Acceptance of a 1.5 Million Dollar Grant Funded Camera Expansion by a consent agenda. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Chief Johnson stated that it is the goal to have money left over to purchase an extended warranty agreement with Advantech to push the city’s expenses off as long as possible. Chief Johnson stated that they may be able to push off the maintenance of the cameras for approximately 5 years. Chief Johnson noted that maintenance for existing cameras is roughly $65,000 - $70,000 and that there would be a modest bump from that. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Chief Johnson stated that there are many shovel-ready camera locations that they could opt to build. Chief Johnson stated that their goal is to build as far as they can and leave enough funds to purchase the warranty. Chief Johnson confirmed that once the money from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds is depleted the city will be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the cameras. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Chief Johnson stated that the new cameras will be an upgrade. Chief Johnson explained that the current cameras have a fixed position and that they are pan and tilt cameras. Chief Johnson noted that the new upgraded cameras have fixed-position cameras that look in every direction. Mr. Sudler stated that we currently have a lot of cameras that have appeared or have been perceived to be not operational downtown. Mr. Sudler stated that there was a question from the community about the location of the cameras and how did the cameras not catch a resident jogging downtown or even the fire on Lockman Street. Did they catch the individual who may or may not have caused the fire, just hearing from different circumstances, why are these cameras not working? Or when people go to ask for certain footage, why are those cameras not working? Mr. Sudler stated that his only concern is that maybe some of the grant money that the city is receiving, should be used to make sure that the cameras that are not operational become operational, or at least demonstrate to the community that all of our cameras are operating. Mr. Sudler continued by stating that they will feel more confident in knowing that, even though this is grant money, it is still money that is given to our constituents under the stewardship of Council to guide and direct where it should go.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 15 Mr. Sudler stated he likes the initiative, and the product, it looks great. I support that, but he would be remiss if he did not echo that he wants to make sure that all of our cameras are 100% operational for the transparency of the community and also to make sure that we are being good stewards of our taxpayers' dollars moving forward. Mr. Sudler stated he is all for progression and all upgrades, but he wants to make sure that what we have now is working and moving in a way that we can show due diligence in all our efforts. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Chief Johnson stated that there was a meeting a few weeks ago to achieve what Mr. Sudler has described and learn from past failures. Chief Johnson explained that the fiber optic network they are trying to build will take away a lot of the wireless line of sight interruptions. Chief Johnson further explained that a lot of the issues come from the trees blocking the line of sight and they do much better in fall and winter once the leaves fall. Chief Johnson stated the money that will install state-of-the-art fiber optics is in collaboration with the in-kind contribution of the electrical department. Chief Johnson further explained it will be to connect to upgrades and cameras that look in every direction so that we no longer have gaps in coverage. Chief Johnson stated that the internal infrastructure at headquarters is going to be beefed up immensely and that it will complement the health monitoring software that they already invested in to try and make sure that Advantech gets a notification within 15 minutes of a detected failure so it can be addressed immediately, rather than waiting for someone to find it the next business day. Chief Johnson explained that they are looking in all of those zones while they were doing the planning. Chief Johnson continued that they would like to think that they have looked at all the contingencies that would be of concern and that think they have got them all earmarked for resolution over the lifespan of this expansion initiative. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Chief Johnson stated that the camera at Scarborough Road which is in proximity to the tail line overpass will have visual cameras and license plate reading cameras. Mr. Ryan Kelly, Advantech, currently has license plate recognition in place throughout the City of Dover and it is working flawlessly. Mr. Kelly explained that each camera has a specific lane it concentrates on, so it does not have to wonder which lane to concentrate on. Mr. Neil moved to recommend approving Item #5 Acceptance of a 1.5 Million Dollar Grant Funded Camera Expansion by a consent agenda. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 16 By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation to approve Item #5 Acceptance of a 1.5 Million Dollar Grant Funded Camera Expansion, seconded by Mr. Hare and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Proposed Ordinance #2022-08 - Amending Chapter 66 - Manufactured Homes, Mobile Homes, and Land Lease Communities, Section 66-3 - Manufacture; Homes and Appendix F - Fees and Fines Mr. Neil reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Proposed Ordinance #2022-08 and Attachment #1 – Letter to Dover City Council – Ordinance #2022- 08. Staff recommended approving the Ordinance for First Reading at the October 10, 2022, Regular City Council Meeting. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Neil stated that it is a problem that the Department of Justice has to handle because in essence, when the person leaves, even if they take the title away with them and the community owner repossesses it for the lack of rent, they are selling a home they have no right to sell. Mr. Neil stated that it is not a Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) issue at this point and that you still cannot sell the home that you do not own. Mr. Neil explained that if you are selling the home, saying, "Here it is, buy it. I want to collect your rent," the person cannot resell the home. Mr. Neil continued to state that if they do not have a title, that is against the law, and that becomes a state issue that we have to turn over. Mr. Neil stated that if we recognize it because it is brought to our attention, then he thinks we have to go to the Attorney General and that this is what this ordinance calls for, to report it to the proper authorities with the state to let them deal with it. Mr. Neil noted otherwise that the house is going to stay vacant until they can get a title, but they cannot sell the home. Mr. Rocha moved to recommend approving Ordinance #2022-08 for First Reading at the October 10, 2022, Regular City Council meeting as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boggerty and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation to approve Proposed Ordinance #2022-08 for First Reading at the October 10, 2022, Regular City Council meeting as recommended by staff, seconded by Mr. Hare and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Proposed Ordinance #2022-10 - Amending Chapter 22 Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VII. Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-226 Violation and penalties and Appendix F - Fees and Fines Ms. Mary Ellen Gray, Director of Planning and Inspections reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Proposed Ordinance #2022-10.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 17 Staff recommended approving the Ordinance for First Reading at the October 10, 2022, Regular City Council Meeting. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Gray stated that if this ordinance passes then it would be a question for legal counsel if it could be retroactive. Ms. Gray stated historically going backward, enforcement has been a question for legal counsel. Mr. Hare suggested consulting legal counsel if this ordinance could be retroactive, if the City can send a letter asking for fines to be paid within 90 days or if a lien will be placed, or if they could simply reissue the fine with a letter. Mr. Hare moved to recommend approving Ordinance #2022-10 for the First Reading at the October 10, 2022, Regular City Council meeting as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha. Ms. Arndt stated regarding Article V on page 151 of the packet, parking in a fire lane, if the fee goes unpaid it would be a traffic violation and not tied to the property. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Ms. Gray stated she would look into it. Responding to Mr. Contant, Mr. Kopp stated that Code Enforcement has a lien spreadsheet that they update to include information such as owner information and tax parcel id, then it will be billed through customer service. Mr. Kopp assured Council that the process is not very time-consuming and that they have an established process that they use for grass fines. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Gray stated that as of this morning the total amount of unpaid fines between 2019-2021 is $605,800. Mr. Hare stated to Mr. Hugg that each penny of the tax increase raises $370,000 dollars and that this is part of the tax increase that we need to collect. Ms. Gray stated that the idea of this framework is that eventually, we would be bringing in fewer fines because they feel this is kind of like a parent who threatens to punish a child for bad behavior but never actually punishes them, that it ends up being a hollow threat, so the bad behavior continues. Ms. Gray stated that if the message gets out to the property owners of rental properties that there will be consequences for this behavior, then the behavior we hope will change and the properties will be better maintained. Ms. Gray stated that property owners and renters will be in better compliance and that this is the goal. Mr. Hare moved to recommend approving Ordinance #2022-10 for the First Reading at the October 10, 2022, Regular City Council meeting as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 18 Proposed Ordinance #2022-14 - Chapter 22- Buildings and Building Regulations, Article X.- Rental Dwellings and Appendix F - Fees and Fines Ms. Mary Ellen Gray, Director of Planning and Inspections reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Proposed Ordinance #2022-14. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Gray stated that Mr. Rodriguez issued a Legal Opinion in January 2020, indicating that he believes it is a violation of the landlord- tenant code- 25 Del. Coded 5101. Ms. Gray stated that this code shall regulate and determine all legal rights, remedies, and obligations of all parties and beneficiaries of any rental agreement of a rental unit within the state whenever, wherever executed. Any rental agreement, whether written or oral, shall be unenforceable, in so far as the agreement or any provision thereof conflicts with any provision of this code and is not expressly authorized herein. Mr. Sudler suggested contacting the Division of Human Relations that oversees HUD or contacting the board that puts together the landlord-tenant code for an opinion. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Gray stated that she attended the Fair Housing Act seminars in previous positions. Tracey Harvey also attends those training and provides background regarding that from the Delaware State Housing Authority, they do this every five years, and they assess our entities who receive Community Development Block Grant program money. Ms. Gray stated that there is a report that reviews every entity on how we are doing with fair housing and how we are implementing the Community Development Block Grant. Ms. Gray stated that she would bring forward that report. Mr. Anderson stated the opinion, which conflicted with the Deputy City Solicitor who drafted the ordinance, Representative Lynn, and Mr. Peraza. Mr. Anderson stated that to remedy that, we went through all the trouble of changing the charter to specifically allow for the City of Dover to deal with rental issues and safe communities. Mr. Anderson explained that the 2020 opinion does not consider the state law which just passed and was signed on September 9, 2022. Mr. Anderson stated that he inquired about that with Mr. Rodriguez, and he agrees that it means that the whole opinion, not saying what the result is, but the whole opinion would have to be revisited because the laws have changed. Mr. Anderson stated that he did not think that this should be part of that discussion and that we plan to put that on an Agenda in late October to give time for review, and that this should not be part of this ordinance. Mr. Anderson moved that the provisions regarding safe communities be stricken and deferred for another time. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 19 Ms. Arndt stated that she is in support of striking the safe communities’ provisions from the ordinance. Ms. Arndt agreed with the solicitor that there is a conflict with the landlord-tenant code and the state housing position that it is a discriminatory practice. Ms. Arndt continued that the criminal activity is outlined within the safe community section of the ordinance. Ms. Arndt asked why that would only apply to renters. Ms. Arndt continues that criminal activity is criminal activity and that the way it is written, it targets renters specifically, and renters are more likely to be people of color. Ms. Arndt stated that she believes that is the basis for the opposition to the Fair Housing Act. Ms. Arndt stated that she would be in favor of, as written, striking the provision from the current ordinance. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Kopp stated that regarding the agent required, the reason why we were striking out the family member is we have had several problems with properties where a designated family member is on site. Mr. Kopp explained that they are going out to a property three or four times because that family member is a tenant and a friend. Mr. Kopp continued that the owner would call us and be like, "Oh, hey, my brother's going to be there” and it is a tenant who is representing the property, and then it is not brought back into compliance. Mr. Kopp further explained that a lot of things they are discovering are, there are a lot of life safety concerns out here, the authorized agent, who is a family member does not get the message across to the owner, or the owner is out of state, and they cannot get ahold of the owner or the authorized agent whom they have listed. Mr. Kopp noted that is why we would like to require a property manager, somebody who is in Kent County who can respond. Mr. Kopp stated they have had several issues where, whether it is trash, a leaking pipe, or floors caving in because they have encountered that. Mr. Kopp continued that the owners could be in Hawaii, or let's say Afghanistan on deployment and are trying to get ahold of this authorized agent, who is nowhere to be found or does not exist. Mr. Kopp explained by having that agent required, is going to better assist the tenant in the event of an emergency, or if we do find violations within the property, the agent can better assist us to get in compliance. Mr. Kopp noted that in their history when there is a property manager assigned to the property, a licensed property manager, they tend to get these violations issued a lot faster or corrected a lot faster. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mr. Kopp stated that even though an owner leaves contact information, it is hard to get ahold of them and for them to get compliant in emergencies. Mr. Kopp stated that this is more geared toward emergencies. Mr. Kopp explained that they do have several emergencies where they cannot contact anybody and, unfortunately, they end up having to condemn the unit and displace the tenants, and then they are out on their own because again, they cannot get ahold of the owner. Mr. Anderson noted that the code already stated that the authorized agent and the family member of the individual must be in the county already.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 20 Responding to Ms. Arndt, Ms. Gray stated that line 55 can mirror line 112 of the ordinance to define property insurance. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Mr. Kopp stated that it will be yearly inspections that will take place with every new license, not renewed licenses. Mr. Kopp explained that code enforcement already does this as a best practice and is asking it to be placed in the code. Ms. Arndt suggested a performance-based licensing system, where you consider the property code, nuisance violations, and tax compliance so that landlords who are in good standing are incentivizing them. Mr. Arndt discussed a fee reduction or some sort of incentive package for the landlords that are doing a good job as opposed to the landlords that are not maintaining their properties. Mr. Neil moved to table Item #4 Proposed Ordinance #2022-14 - Chapter 22- Buildings and Building Regulations, Article X.- Rental Dwellings and Appendix F - Fees and Fines. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler. Mr. Taylor stated we look at sections 22-333, and we were just talking about the property manager, section A is line number 90. Mr. Taylor continued, that if we go down to line number 99, section B, to incorporate some of that language. Mr. Taylor explained any corporation or partnership owning a rental dwelling shall have a designated member, partner, or employee having charged care or control of the rental property. Mr. Neil moved to recommend tabling Item #4 Proposed Ordinance #2022-14 - Chapter 22- Buildings and Building Regulations, Article X.- Rental Dwellings, and Appendix F - Fees and Fines. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation to table Item #4 Proposed Ordinance #2022-14- Chapter 22- Buildings and Building Regulations, Article X.-Rental Dwellings, and Appendix F-Fees and Fines, seconded by Mr. Hare and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Approval of a Grant Funded Group Violence Intervention (GVI) Crime Analyst Position (Chief Thomas Johnson, Dover Police Department Chief Johnson yielded to questions from Council. Staff recommended approving the grant-funded position as requested. Mr. Sudler asked regarding the proposed new position for the GVI Crime Analyst position, is there some statistical over workload or data indicating that the demand

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 21 of the current Crime Analysis Position that we have is being overworked or overwhelmed? Responding to Mr. Sudler, Chief Johnson stated the crime analyst that they have right now is a hybrid position, he does crime analysis, but he is also the accreditation manager, which means he's heavily involved in the development and the maintenance of policy and procedure for the CALEA accreditation. Chief Johnson noted that he handles the general policing crime analyst duties. Chief Johnson stated that naively as a department when GVI came to us and turned the program on, we thought that we could handle what we thought was going to be a limited number of clients and a limited number, that we assessed as not a heavy lift on information, not only collecting, but the big piece is the information sharing. Chief Johnson explained that when you take into consideration under the umbrella of the Department of Corrections, the Department of Health of Human Services, and the other state law enforcement agencies in our federal partners, we had no idea the amount of time this was going to burden Case Detectives in making sure that everybody involved in GVI is on the same page, particularly when we have an event where shots are fired and folks that have other roles to play need real-time data as to what is going on in an investigation. Chief Johnson stated that we started the year with him hearing, "Chief, we will be all right, we do not need this analyst. We got this." And then by the middle of the summer, it was, "Yeah, Chief, we were wrong. We need this analyst." Chief Johnson stated that coincidentally, the same point of contact in the Governor's office brought to us the camera expansion opportunity through ARPA. Chief Johnson stated that apparently, they did not realize at the time that ARPA was being considered as the funding source for this position by the Governor's office. Chief Johnson stated that when they started talking about the cameras, the spreadsheet that is in the packet had personnel at the top line that had not been there before. However, they are merging both the camera project and the crime analyst into the same budget from their perspective. Chief Johnson stated that from the city’s standpoint, there is a difference between a camera expansion project and a mid-season addition of personnel. Chief Johnson wanted to make Council aware of the way that they have this structured in the ask in case this money ever runs out. Chief Johnson stated that the state intends to continue funding beyond this three-year window. Chief Johnson continued to state that in the event, that there is some kind of philosophical change or a barrier that makes that impossible, the way they are doing this is that Council can turn this position off, at almost a moment's notice because it is part-time at the maximum number of allowable hours. Chief Johnson stated that if it is Council's pleasure at that time not to fund the position through city tax dollars that it will be 100% at the discretion of Council if it is not funded anymore by the state.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 22 Chief Johnson noted that there is currently no money out of pocket from city dollars to make this position start. Chief Johnson stated that if the state suddenly must step away from it, we have no other match or obligation from that day forward to continue. Chief Johnson noted that Council is 100% free to do as they wish at that time. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Chief Johnson stated that if this is denied then the case detectives will not have as much time to do, such as major case detectives that are in our drug, vice, and organized crime units, who are some of the lead personalities with the GVI program. Chief Johnson noted that they are not working cases if they are typing reports and making tons of phone calls and generating emails. Chief Johnson stated that not only the GVI staff at the state level, but corrections, probation, parole, health human services, anybody that is involved with a GVI client who is sending us information, and then the information that we generate on a GVI client that we have to share with all those other entities, that burden cannot stop, and it is mostly a safety issue. Chief Johnson explained that a lot of the GVI, non-law enforcement practitioners are in the field on their own, and if they do not know in real-time that there is a conflict in progress or beef going on, then they could be walking into something. Chief Johnson stated that they have to step up their game to be as real-time as they can with information sharing, which is why they are finding this position so crucial. Mr. Sudler asked Chief Johnson if there was a process other than verbally saying to the Chief, is there a process where they write and give a description regarding in what areas a breakdown, so that the justification, the rationale is in black and white on paper. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Chief Johnson stated there is a process in place. Chief Johnson stated that in early '21 he wanted to try and make sure he captured hourly utilization. Chief Johnson stated that the annual report that he provided, was the first draft of their attempt to capture the number of hours that they spend on any particular task. Chief Johnson continued that there are categories for that information is captured and that in some of its investigations, you could go all the way down. How long they are taking to transport prisoners from point A to point B? Chief Johnson explained that he is trying to build a cadre of data to justify any further requests that he might have to bring to Council going forward in future years. Chief Johnson noted that he does not have a specific category that discusses hours that are involved in administrative time for GVI and that he is unsure if he could go in reverse to get that information. Chief Johnson stated that he is trusting Lieutenant Dickinson and the rest of the GVI team, which includes stakeholders outside of the Dover PD, where the consensus is. Chief Johnson noted that Wilmington ended up having to do the same thing and that they have more than one because of the number of clients that they

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 23 have. Chief Johnson explained that they are just starting with one and that they are starting it out in a way that has the most flexibility for them to make decisions in the future to the pleasure of the department and Council as far as funding it. Chief Johnson noted that he wished he had a better answer for Council President as to the exact data that drove the request but that they are still moving towards our first calling, which is going to bring more clients under the umbrella of GVI. Chief Johnson continued that from then, all the things that occur from that calling date will require top-shelf information sharing, and it is more analyst work than it is police work. Responding to Chief Johnson, Mr. Sudler stated that he wished he could support this initiative, but without the data, he cannot justify approval from his perspective. Mr. Sudler stated that he does support Dover PD, but that is his opinion, and he is just one vote. Mr. Hare stated that the Chief has his support and that this is something the officers needed, they came to the chief for it, and it is not costing the City money, and he does not see the downside of approving it. Mr. Hare moved to recommend approving the grant-funded position as requested by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and passed 7 in favor to 1 opposed (Mr. Sudler). By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation to approve the grant-funded position as requested by staff, seconded by Mr. Hare, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Rocha moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee, hearing no objection, the meeting adjourned at 8:56 p.m. Mr. Sudler moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting, hearing no objection, the meeting adjourned at 8:56 p.m. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for acceptance of the Council Committee of the Whole Report, seconded by Mr. Hare, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. MONTHLY REPORTS – August 2022 By motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Hare, the following monthly reports were accepted by consent agenda: City Assessor’s Report City Council’s Community Enhancement Fund Report City Planner’s Report Police Chief’s Report

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 24 ITEM #22, CITY MANAGER REPORT Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Hugg stated that the City does carry cybersecurity insurance. Mr. Hugg continued to state that the City also carries general liability insurance, whether it would protect us or cover the City in the event of a natural disaster, he does not know. Mr. Hugg stated that he would need to confirm but that his understanding and Ms. Peddicord may know better, but his understanding is that the cyber insurance covers the City against bad actors, which is somebody that comes in and takes down our system. Mr. Hugg noted that interestingly, today they were talking to the IT Director about looking for a backup server. Mr. Hugg explained that if the city could find money to buy a backup server, they would have a little bit more redundancy if one of the servers went down or if the system were to fail. Mr. Hugg stated that he can get Council more information at a future date. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Hugg stated that is how they price the support. Mr. Hugg stated that they also going to have to buy some additional support before they are full and before they are finished with the Tyler Munis investment. Mr. Hugg noted that it is a substantial investment with still a fairly long way to go. Responding to Councilman Taylor, Ms. Peddicord stated that yes, she was going to send an email to everyone about the status of the project, especially after that presentation to Council Committee as a Whole. Ms. Peddicord explained that it was not particularly to do the data entry, it was more so to either provide refresher training or walk through correcting any problems that they were not able to tackle themselves. Numerous things, roles, and permissions refresher for the IT staff. Ms. Peddicord stated that they have been working on those things since her presentation and she believes that was in August. Ms. Peddicord noted that they had some IT issues with the middleware between Kronos, which is the time and attendance system, and the Tyler system. Ms. Peddicord explained that they do not know what was causing the middleware to shut down, but it was for over a week that it would stop. Ms. Peddicord stated that no files were transferred back and forth communicating the important information to capture the time punches for employees. Ms. Peddicord noted that has been resolved. Ms. Peddicord continued to state that they are working away with Tyler representatives and have scheduled them to provide more assistance over the next three months so that they can bring this to go live. Responding to Councilman Taylor, Ms. Peddicord stated that they are in phase two. Ms. Peddicord explained that they finished phase one and phase three. Ms. Peddicord stated that they are trying to wrap up phase two, which is payroll, and HR. Ms. Peddicord noted that they are working in phase four, in which they have not determined the Go Live. Ms. Peddicord explained that originally it was scheduled for possibly March but that they had some clarifications that they needed to obtain from Tyler about a modification program, a modification that they completed for the city. Ms. Peddicord noted that she believes they just got some proof last week or the week before last when they did those modification changes. Ms. Peddicord stated that there were also some concerns about the data conversion that was coming from our legacy system, HTE, and going into Tyler. Ms. Peddicord stated that after this Go Live for payroll, they were only about halfway through five or six phases.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 25 Mr. Neil moved to accept the City Manager’s Report. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. APPOINTMENT RECOMMENDED BY MAYOR CHRISTIANSEN – BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT- E. JANE WARREN – THREE-YEAR TERM TO EXPIRE JULY 2025 Mayor Christiansen recommended the appointment of E. Jane Warren to serve on the Board of Adjustment for a three-year term to expire July 2025. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the appointment of Ms. E. Jane Warren as recommended by Mayor Christiansen. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried. ITEMS NOT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA EVALUATION OF BIDS - ASBESTOS ABATEMENT 235-239 WEST LOOCKERMAN STREET (EDDIE KOPP, CHIEF CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER) Eddie Kopp, the Chief Code Enforcement Officer for the City of Dover discussed a presentation regarding the asbestos abatement for 235- 239 West Loockerman Street. Mr. Kopp stated that upon inspection from Compliance and Environmental, who is the contractor that the City uses for asbestos inspections, it is determined to have asbestos throughout the building. Mr. Kopp explained that this is a two-part asbestos abatement due to the condition of the building, there is a phase one and a phase two. Mr. Kopp continued to explain that in phase one, a contractor will go out there and remove all asbestos that can be safely removed and then phase two will be during the demolition. Mr. Kopp stated that there are parts of the building that could not be accessed due to the condition of the building and that it could not be sampled. Mr. Kopp stated that phase one is roughly $89,000 and that is a hard, final number. Mr. Kopp also stated that phase two is an estimate due to it having to take place during demolition. Mr. Kopp stated that the documents submitted in the packet are the time and materials estimate. Mr. Kopp continued to state that the number could fluctuate either way depending on what is found during demolition. Mr. Kopp noted that the way phase two works is there will be asbestos contractors on site. Mr. Kopp explained that asbestos or any potential asbestos is discovered, it will be remediated at that time by the asbestos contractors. Mr. Kopp continued to explain that the first reports submitted were them identifying the asbestos. Mr. Kopp stated that the second report submitted was the bids for the asbestos. Mr. Kopp noted that all bidding was done through Compliance and Environmental and then the third report submitted was for the estimated time and materials for phase two. Mr. Kopp stated that Compliance and Environmental reached out to four contractors and that the city went with the lowest bidder. Mr. Kopp stated that they talked to them after the fact and they lowered their bid because the initial bid was $120,000, they lowered it down to $89,000. Mr. Kopp continued to state that they did reach out to the other contractors, one bid was as high as 189,000 and the lowest they would go was $120,000. The other contractors refused to bid on the project due to safety concerns.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 26 Responding to Councilman Boggerty, Mr. Kopp stated that it would be a part of the demolition process and then throughout the demolition process. Mr. Kopp continued to state that right now, it is just the asbestos and that with the asbestos removal, it will be able to be done safely with the building still open. Mr. Kopp stated that they will rope off the areas that will be needed to be roped off. Mr. Kopp noted that he does know one of the methods is using water to help contain any kind of dust or materials that would be stirred up. Mr. Kopp stated that as of right now, it is no harm to anybody and that it is only harmful once it is disturbed. Mr. Kopp explained that once they start ripping it out, then the concern is there, and they will take all precautions to prevent it from leaving the building or affecting the public. Responding to Councilman Boggerty, Mr. Kopp stated that it is part of the process. They will identify anything that may contain asbestos or when they are on-site, they will block that off. Mr. Kopp stated that it is very clearly marked. Mr. Kopp continued to state that it will say asbestos on them and that even the dumpsters they use will be clearly marked with asbestos. They will have bags in them. Responding to Councilwoman Arndt, Mr. Kopp stated that everything is included in the bid. Responding to Councilwoman Arndt, City Manager Hugg stated that as with any enforcement action or demolitions, the City will put a lien on the property and recoup all expenses they can at the time the property is sold. Responding to Councilman Rocha, Mr. Kopp stated that was not assessed. Mr. Kopp explained that the city has to remove the asbestos to be in compliance with the law and that lead is not something they have to identify during the process. Mr. Kopp stated that he does know the entire roof contains asbestos and that it is sporadic throughout. Mr. Kopp continued to explain that there is some in the floor, there is some in the pipe fittings, and throughout the building. Mr. Kopp explained that part of the problem is the condition of the building and that not all areas of the building were able to be tested. Mr. Kopp continued to explain that was one of the concerns with contractors not being able to test everything, but that the entire roof is full of asbestos. Mr. Kopp stated that the removal could take anywhere from a week to a couple of weeks. Mr. Kopp continued to state that the size of the building and the condition of the building play factors. Mr. Kopp stated that everything is a basic walkthrough without touching anything. Mr. Kopp stated that once they get in there and start tearing it down, it could extend the amount of time. Mr. Kopp continued to state that they are aware of that, they are taking all risks and in the bid that went out, it says in the event they have to sure-up anything to remove the asbestos. Mr. Kopp noted that is an assumption that they took. Responding to Councilman Taylor, Mr. Kopp stated that they will remove all the asbestos or anything that may have been contaminated with asbestos. Mr. Kopp noted that an example is up on the third floor, a lot of the roof is laying on the floor and anything that is in contact with that roof will be disposed of. Mr. Kopp stated that it will be done in two phases. Phase one, they will go there and remove what they can at that time. Mr. Kopp continued to state that anything visible that can be removed at that time is a part of phase one. Phase two is going to be the parts of the building that are too dangerous to access now. Mr. Kopp stated that as they start demolishing and clearing the pathway, the asbestos contractors can step in, or the contractors can pretty much

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 27 deliver that asbestos to the asbestos contractors, and then they will properly dispose of it. Mr. Kopp stated that Councilman Taylor is correct. Ms. Gray stated that she was just going to add to Councilman Boggerty’s questions regarding outreach to the businesses downtown. Mr. Gray continued to state that they were discussing that they would be notified ahead of time, sending out notifications, and discussing with the Downtown Partnership as well as the businesses downtown. Ms. Gray discussed giving them a heads up and educating them on what is going to happen regarding the asbestos removal, and the same for the demolition when they receive the bids. Ms. Gray stated as soon as they get a date, they will be working with all of those entities and will be giving everyone a heads-up about what is going to be happening. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Kopp stated that is what they do now anyway and that anytime the public sees asbestos containers, they will add a demolition site. Mr. Kopp stated that they frequent the sites during this process. Mr. Kopp explained that they educate whoever asks questions because people are concerned with this asbestos and say oh hey, what if I have asbestos in my house. Mr. Kopp stated that unless it is disturbed, it is not an issue and that they will convey that message throughout. Mr. Kopp noted that he plans to be on-site throughout this process and that it is a very big project. Mr. Kopp stated that they will be monitoring it as the entire process goes through and is completed. Mr. Neil moved to recommend approving the lower bidder for the removal of the asbestos at 235-239 West Loockerman Street as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Ms. Arndt and unanimously carried. DISCUSSION OF SPECIAL EVENT OVERTIME, VACATION, AND CITY VEHICLE USAGE A. BACKGROUND OF SPECIAL EVENT OVERTIME, VACATION, AND CITY VEHICLE USAGE TOPIC 2015 Councilman Anderson stated that Council is looking to clarify some issues that have come up. Councilman Anderson noted that in doing so, they are not trying to deprive anyone of money earned. Councilman Anderson stated that they want to make sure everybody is paid what they are owed and that they are paid legally. Councilman Anderson also stated that they need to be paid with the right codes, with the right titles, and that the City should sustain any potential audits or anything of that nature. Councilman Anderson noted that he does not want anyone to get any misconceptions or feel anyone is being targeted, attacked, or anything of that nature and that they will have a recommendation afterward. Councilman Anderson explained that back in 2014, there had been some discussions to make overtime more controlled because overtime was starting to eat up a very significant portion of the budget. Several things were looked at including, which the city did eventually, which was to hire more police officers so that there was less overtime needed. Councilman Anderson noted that some things were done with scheduling when it came to court days, et cetera. Councilman Anderson stated that in those issues, the unions put in some time a little later in their contract where captains did not get overtime. Councilman Anderson continued to state that was for the City’s budgetary purposes for those that sort of felt like the people controlling the schedule

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 28 should not be able to direct overtime to themselves. Whether that was true or not, who knows? Councilman Anderson stated that it is a matter of perception there and it was accepting the union contract. Councilman Anderson continued to state that now they have of course exempt employees, which the Police Department has two. The two exempt employees are the Chief and Deputy and they do not get overtime by federal law. Councilman Anderson noted that separate from that was extra duty. Councilman Anderson explained that they had discussions in 2014, 2015, and 2016, where they discussed extra duty, how that was paid, how much it was paid, and how it should be billed. Mr. Anderson continued to explain that all of those are available on record for anyone that is interested, the Clerk's Office could send this out and that would be appreciated. Councilman Anderson stated that Council started, mostly in the Legislative, Finance and Administration committee, which then of course was approved by Council, and then he worked through many different details on that in conjunction with the City Manager, Finance, the Controller, Treasurer, Donna Mitchell, and then the Chief, which he believes there were two different ones in that time period. Councilman Anderson stated that all of that came through and was approved by Council. Councilman Anderson explained that in there were some clarifications about who was eligible for extra duty and that extra duty was in the policy marked distinct and separate from overtime. Councilman Anderson stated that in the extra duty eligibility, it is spelled out specifically that the Chief is eligible, the Deputy is eligible, and believe it or not even the mayor is eligible according to policy, for extra duty pay. Mr. Anderson noted that he has never seen that happen and that he has never seen the mayor hired out to get out there for extra duty. Councilman Anderson stated that the reason is, and it was made specific in the memorandums that specific money does not come from the taxpayer money, but it is an additional contract. Councilman Anderson stated that now it is understood in policies across the state, that exempt employees can get a command rate, but they are not paid overtime. Councilman Anderson explained that the Command rate, just for sake of the way it looks, should not equal 1.5 times because if it looks like overtime, people are going to say it is overtime. According to the policy, it is 1.45 times, as long as it is a consistent straight command rate. Councilman Anderson stated that it was done specifically because in these larger events it takes an awful lot of coordination and staffing. Councilman Anderson noted that sometimes it needs a very senior person to coordinate at a certain level, not just with our activities but also with other police agencies. Councilman Anderson explained that you want somebody of appropriate command structure, for example, when you are calling the State Police or if you are calling other agencies so that they know that they are dealing with somebody who can speak with authority. Councilman Anderson stated that presumably if he is wrong, he will yield, but that is why it was done so that you could have the appropriate command level for the extra duty on it. It seems like only two events that require senior command, and those are the two very large events over at Dover Downs, the NASCAR event, and the Firefly, at this particular time. Councilman Anderson stated that those were approved by Council and if they have any recommendation for changes, those changes also must go through the process and be approved. No changes of substance can occur administratively because it is spending money and that is why it is Council approved, Council revised, and when it is budget time, Council amends the rate for the extra duty so that it keeps up with cost and wages. Councilman Anderson noted that this is, so the city does not lose money in providing the service to the community.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 29 Councilman Anderson stated that his recommendation in the current situation would be that they approve that staff pays what is correctly owed and that would be determined by consultation with our staff, including the City Solicitor, to make sure that the amount is appropriate and does not violate the Fair Labor Standards Law. Councilman Anderson continued to state that once that is done, the Council President is to be notified, and it would be notified to Council and be appropriately paid from there. Councilman Anderson stated that there is a problem in the coding, which if it is, could unnecessarily cause the city problems. Councilman Anderson stated that his recommendation would also be that, now they slide into part B, they fix the coding issues ASAP. Councilman Anderson stated that it has been seven years, and there is no reason that there should be that confusion from looking on the outside because the coding is wrong. Councilman Anderson noted that it is small things like that, that could cause the city problems unnecessarily, not only bad PR, but could create problems when it comes to some of the federal grants the department has and accreditation, et cetera. Councilman Anderson stated that it is unnecessary because what is being done with the extra duty is legal and proper from the research that he sees and from what other departments do. Councilman Anderson stated that the department deserves better than to have a bad look for something that is completely legitimate because of a technicality. Councilman Anderson noted that the coding issue needs to be done as soon as possible. Councilman Anderson stated that he believes that a record of this should be made and be placed with the auditing so that it is known that until it is fixed, that is a separate and distinct line, and it was just incorrectly coded. Councilman Anderson stated that it is recognized as being fixed and the city should not have a problem. B. FUTURE ALTERNATIVES/PAYMENT METHODS Mr. Neil moved to defer the discussion to a future Executive Session. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boggerty and unanimously carried. C. HR-GUIDELINES FOR EXEMPT AND NON-EXEMPT EMPLOYEES HENCEFORTH Naomi Poole, Human Resources Director, stated that she appreciates Council President Sudler’s compliment. Mrs. Poole stated that she wants to make this very simple by way of definition. Exempt means that an exempt employee specifically means that they do not receive any sort of overtime pay. Non-exempt does mean that you can have access to receiving overtime pay. Mrs. Poole explained that it came to her attention by way of an employee, who at the time was receiving an increase as well as a higher position and requested to, as an exempt employee, receive overtime pay. Mrs. Poole stated that the theory behind that was that they have two employees who are already receiving that. Mrs. Poole continued to state that her theory is very simple. The city follows FLSA guidelines for a reason. The Fair Standards Labor Act again specifically states that exempt employees do not receive overtime pay and they do not receive any sort of comp time. Mrs. Poole noted that she made that clear to her boss, Mr. Hugg, and she has made it clear to anybody who will listen. Mrs. Poole stated that it is a standard that the City has done it in the past and she understands that but that is the past, and as of right now if we know better, we need to do better.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 30 Responding to Council President Sudler, Mrs. Poole stated that the city currently has 60 exempt employees. Mrs. Poole stated that she wants to be clear on that and that if the city does something for one employee, then she feels like they need to do it for every employee. Mrs. Poole noted that there are 60 employees across the City of Dover, all of whom hold different positions and all of whom are in multiple departments. Mrs. Poole stated that if the city is going to be fair and equitable amongst everybody, she believes that it extends itself to those folks as well. Mrs. Poole stated that in relation to vehicle usage, the city’s policy is pretty clear on that as well. City equipment, materials, tools, and supplies shall not be available for personal use nor be removed from city property except in the conduct of official city business. An employee shall care for vehicles owned by the city in the same responsible way that an employee would care for his or her own personal vehicle. Lack of care can result in disciplinary procedures. Such vehicles are to be used exclusively for official city business, except when by special approval. Use of vehicles for commuting to and from work shall usually be limited to an employee who is subject to an emergency call back to work. No individual shall operate or ride in a city vehicle except as is required for the conduct of city business. Councilman Neil stated that his preference for a discussion of this type would not be at a very late but legal add-on to the city council meeting. Councilman Neil stated that they already have a long agenda, and this diminishes the depth and the value of the discussion the members of the Council will have and the benefits to the public that they serve. Councilman Neil noted that he would hope that the City’s HR Director would moderate and have other experts as part of the panel. Councilman Neil stated that he has received a series of documents from the FOP, which he believes should be discussed at length, but not if the discussion would be truncated. Councilman Neil stated that he believes the city has a superior Police Chief and that if he has to leave at the age of 55 Councilman Neil believes the citizens of the city would be cheated. Mr. Neil stated that he will stand by the agreement already made by the Mayor and those they have elected to do the job, but that has been proposed to discuss. Councilman Boggerty stated that typically, he is an avid reader, believe it or not. His life revolves around books, reading, and studying. Councilman Boggerty stated that one of the best books he read is called “The Four Agreements”, and one of those agreements says, "Don't take anything personally." Councilman Boggerty explained that he is struggling tonight because the first question when this topic came up was, please provide any written information so that they can properly address it with written information. Councilman Boggerty noted that Director Poole provided a document for him, and he thanked her. Councilman Boggerty also noted that the Chief provided a document for him, and he thanked him. Councilman Boggerty stated that he asked for invoices and finances just so they can have a history. Councilman Boggerty stated that Councilman Anderson mentioned that there is an agreement out there. Councilman Boggerty noted that there could be an agreement, a document, or something out there that was before his time and that maybe he should have dug deeper. Councilman Boggerty explained that Councilman Neil would pretty much give them a better basis for where they are. Councilman Boggerty noted that he even made phone calls to certain individuals, and they were not returned. Councilman Boggerty stated that he is there to say that this is a matter that should have been discussed in an executive session and they should have had information, privy for the new

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 31 individuals new to council, so they can make a solid decision wrong or right. Councilman Boggerty stated that he understands, and they may have heard him say to the Employment attorney, "We need definitions." Is that correct? I said we need a definitions page. What is overtime? What constitutes overtime? What constitutes special events? Councilman Boggerty stated that he specifically said that in the meeting because it is very difficult to make sound decisions if you do not know, just like Councilman Anderson demonstrated, between the words tabled and deferred. Councilman Boggerty stated that somebody like himself would have just gone with it but obviously, there is more to it. Councilman Boggerty explained that until they get the proper information, so they can have a historical context, so they can fully understand where they go, what they need to do better, and what they can do going forward. Was this overtime or was this special duty? Councilman Boggerty noted that there are some other things that he will not bring forth and that there are some other matters that way in the balance based on this decision. Councilman Boggerty stated that he specifically recommends that Council defers it and receives the information so that they can make a sound, rash, competent decision that can be able to stand at any level. Councilman Boggerty continued to state that right now, they would not do it here tonight. Councilman Boggerty noted that he is here to say that his little years of HR obviously did not matter in this situation, but he knows what he is looking at and he knows what is before Council. Councilman Boggerty noted that whatever decision they make is going to have an impact and the monies that they will particularly pay, one way or the other, will cost the city a little bit more. Councilman Hare stated that he just wanted to follow up and say that he thinks that any information that is provided needs to be provided to all of Council, not just to one councilperson. Councilman Hare noted that they need to know what is going on, they need to know what has been paid in the past. Councilman Hare stated that they need to know because as our HR director has said, and he also has an HR background, they need to know what exempt employees have been paid overtime, and if someone directed the Finance Department to do that and who did it. Councilman Hare stated noted that there is a lot of information that they do not have, and they need to have it. Councilman Hare stated concluded that he thinks an executive session is where it should be discussed, to start. Councilman Taylor stated that he too is in support after hearing all of it. An executive session is probably where Council needs to discuss this. Councilman Taylor noted that he does want to say to Mrs. Poole, thank you. Change is afoot, but change can be uncomfortable. It is just one of those situations where they can get it all out, shine a light under the rug, and they can make sure everything comes out so that they do not have to do this again. There is so much to do in this city, but Council is rehashing something again and again. Councilman Taylor stated that he is so grateful for Mrs. Poole’s professionalism and the way she carries herself daily. Councilman Taylor noted that he will say the same thing about the Police Chief, outstanding. Councilman Taylor also noted about our Mayor, outstanding. Councilman Taylor stated that he does not doubt that this is going to be resolved. Councilman Taylor continued to state that the council should figure this out quickly but let Council go to an executive session where they can talk freely and hash out ideas.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 32 Responding to Councilman Rocha, Councilman Anderson stated that it was passed by Council, as Council policy, the extra duty, and it was revised in 2016. Councilman Anderson continued to state that the last time, he believes, was August 23, 2016. Councilman Anderson explained that extra duty has zero to do with overtime and that it is not related, it is not synonymous, and it is not paid by the taxpayers. Councilman Anderson continued to explain that it is paid from a separate account by the people, it can be other employees as well. There are other employees as well that could be hired separately for extra duty, by a third party, to accomplish a special event, but it is most commonly done by, hiring police officers for events, by a contract, which is a separate contract that is set up and paid for by the events. Councilman Anderson stated that in 2016, Council made sure that no tax money went to it by ensuring that the events were revenue neutral, at the least and that the city would not subsidize them. Councilman Anderson explained that the policy made specific reference to what is a public event, what is a public safety cost the city is responsible for such as traffic direction, and what is supposed to be for the event. Councilman Anderson noted that it also specifically references what is private, whether it is the corporation, person, or organization, and what they are responsible for. Councilman Anderson stated that distinction was made clear in policy, which is still in effect today, by the City Council. Councilman Anderson noted that when he said that various employees can all get it, he means that it is not just the police and that various employees may have special things that may be. Councilman Anderson continued to note that we might have to hire Park employees for instance, under extra duty they are out there setting up stages that are paid for by a third party. Other factors could exist, it is just that most of the time, it is paid for and when you say extra-duty pay, it is the police, because the police are, 95% of the time, the ones contracted for extra duty. Councilman Anderson stated that there is an agreement with Bally’s and that money has already been paid out to an account, for the city, for those services. Mayor Christiansen stated that as everyone is well aware, Councilman Anderson has alluded to the approval of policies of the previous Council, which he is not sure whether City staff was aware or not, aware of federal laws that bind the City. Mayor Christiansen wanted to thank Mrs. Poole and her staff for bringing this to Council’s attention. Mayor Christiansen noted that he understands that there were some comments made about the Chief, the Deputy, and the Captains reporting to Firefly and that he does not know if this is appropriate, but that he going to do it anyway. Mayor Christiansen explained that considering the letter, and the email that he received regarding their participation in Firefly, it was at the 11th hour, and that is not Mrs. Poole's fault, that is not his fault. Mayor Christiansen continued to explain that as Mayor, he has the responsibility via the Charter, to provide for the public safety of every man, woman, and child that lives in this city, the 20,000 people that would have commuted through the city, during days of Firefly, and the 50,000 out-of-town visitors, whom the city hopes they were bringing tourist dollars here. With that responsibility that the mayor has within the Charter, he ordered the Chief, the Deputy, and their staff as they needed, to fulfill the plan that they had discussed, in his office before each of these major events, that occur in the city. Mayor Christiansen noted that it was not to disregard the information that was provided by the HR director and her staff, but it was to fill his responsibilities to the citizens of the City of Dover and those people who chose to be here. Mayor Christiansen

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 33 stated that as he said in the email that he sent to the Chief, they would deal with how they would be paid or enumerated at a later date. Mayor Christiansen stated that he wants everyone to know that he takes his responsibilities very close to his heart, as every member of Council does. Mayor Christiansen continued to state that he does not want anyone in the room or in the City of Dover to think that he was flaunting the advice that was given to them and given to him by the HR Director, but he had a responsibility to the public at the time. Mayor Christiansen stated that he does believe, as the members of Council do, that Mrs. Poole will guide them in the right direction so that they will not get in trouble with the feds. Mayor Christiansen noted that he will tell every one of them, and those that are watching, and those that are not watching, that he will fulfill his responsibilities to the public safety of this city when needed and whatever is needed. Naomi Poole, HR Director, stated that anyone can create a policy, any department, Department Heads can create a policy. Mrs. Poole stated that every policy needs to be vetted to make sure, and to ensure, that it follows state and federal guidelines. Mrs. Poole explained that they have something in place, as you are suggesting, back in 2014 and then it was re-passed again in 2016, but that does not mean that it is correct. Mrs. Poole stated that her job is to, when she sees something that is not right, speak up and say, "Hey, this is not right." Mrs. Poole continued to state that just because the city has done it in the past, again, does not mean that they continue to do so. Just because there is something that is created that specifically says that it is okay, does not mean that it is okay if it is a violation of federal law. This is a violation of federal law. Mrs. Poole also stated that there is no distinction between extra duty and overtime pay, they are synonymous. Mrs. Poole noted that they are the same thing and that there is no difference. Mrs. Poole explained that to make herself clear in that, they are all speaking the same language and saying the same thing. There is no difference in that. Responding to Councilman Rocha, Solicitor Rodriguez stated that thing about tonight to defer this to executive session. Solicitor Rodriguez also stated that he is not prepared, legally, to answer that question at this time without further research but he thinks they need to look at the definitions of who is getting paid, who is paying the money, and things of that nature. Solicitor Rodriguez noted that there are just too many questions involved to try to give a legal opinion on that. Solicitor Rodriguez stated that he thinks that the whole purpose of the motion that is before Council now is to defer it to an Executive Session for further consideration by Council, and it needs to go that way. Naomi Poole, HR Director, stated that they did receive counsel from the City’s employee attorney and that the document that they are talking about that she sent, kind of late, but sent, was also vetted by the City’s attorney, and that he also agreed with the fact that this is a violation of the FLSA guidelines. Councilman Anderson stated that he respectfully disagrees. Councilman Anderson continued to state that as the Solicitor said, the facts matter and the fact that it comes out of a different pool, with a different contractor, the rate of pay is different, and that all those factors matter. This was not something they just made up. It was something that was legally vetted when they did it, and that is why they took two years to work it through, with all due respect. Councilman Anderson

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 34 stated that they did not just go, "Oh, we feel like this." This was very carefully done, and he thinks that it will withstand legal scrutiny. Councilman Anderson stated that as the Solicitor said, this is something that is complicated because it has many different factors, and once those factors are inputted, it will withstand. Councilman Anderson noted that they need to make sure that all of the facts are there because they need everything to be structured properly so that it does not even look like it runs afoul. Councilman Anderson stated that he thinks that needs to be improved because there are certain issues with the paperwork that he does not want to discuss in public, that look confusing and wrong, and that they need to be fixed quickly. Councilman Taylor thanked Council for the recommendation of a definitions page because that is what he wants to talk about. Councilman Taylor noted that Mrs. Poole had read the procedural notice and it was talking about special approval. Councilman Taylor stated that they need to be specific in that because if he were Mayor, the first thing he would be thinking is that he can give special approval and if he gives that then he does not want it superseded, he is not going to say federal law, he does not want it superseded within confounds of the local government. Councilman Taylor stated that he would have given his Chief and Major special permission to do something, so please make sure that is added to the definitions page so that they can work around that. Councilwoman Arndt stated that moving forward, any item on the agenda should have an accompanying issue statement and background resources. Councilwoman Arndt continued to state that she does not like feeling that she is stumbling into a discussion and not knowing half of what is being discussed. Councilwoman Arndt noted that it is disrespectful. Councilman Hare stated that he was just going to say the same thing as Councilwoman Arndt and that he does have one disagreement with Naomi. Councilman Hare stated that extra duty and overtime, depending on the contracts you have, are different. Councilman Hare explained that if he says he wants to contract Mr. Neil to come work for him for 40 hours during this event and he is going to pay this then and he says, okay, then he comes and works for him as the contract. Councilman Hare continued to explain that if the Mayor agrees with him about the safety of the city and with all due respect if he tells the Chief that something is going on, they have got to pray downtown, he wants your presence down there for the evening. Councilman Hare stated that does not warrant overtime because that is their job is to do that, exempt employees, and that if the next day the Chief must go somewhere and he is gone for the day, he does not get cut pay. Councilman Hare stated that there is a difference between extra duty, contract extra duty, and overtime. Councilman Hare noted that is the only disagreement that he has because if he has to give the city a contract, then he wants to hire 40 police officers and he is going to pay $70 an hour and we are not taking people that are working and putting them over there. These are extra-duty officers, so then that would be a separate thing from overtime. Councilman Hare stated that if they get paid the overtime rate to do that by the company, then that is fine and as a city, we should pay them as a contractor. Councilman Hare noted that if they work 40 hours and they get say $50 an hour for doing the extra duty, we give them $2,000 and at the end of the year, we give them a 1099 form. Councilman Hare stated that is because they are not working for the city at the time, they are on extra duty.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 35 Councilman Hare stated that they are a contract employee of whomever Firefly was and then they receive a 1099 form for the extra duty. Councilman Hare stated that they have the choice of taking it or not taking it but if it is overtime and they are directed to do it, then they do not have a choice. They have to do it, but extra duty is optional. Councilman Hare explained that the city is not obligated per se to pay them overtime because it is a choice that they have to make. Councilman Hare stated that is his only discussion, but he does think this should be an Executive Session. Mr. Hare moved to end the Discussion of Special Event Overtime, Vacation, and City Vehicle Usage. The motion was seconded by Mr. Taylor and unanimously carried. FIRST READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2022-08 Council President Sudler reminded the public that copies of the proposed ordinance were available on the City's website at www.cityofdover.com under "Government," or by contacting the City Clerk's Office at 736-7008 or cityclerk@dover.de.us. Final action by Council on the proposed ordinance will take place during the Council Meeting on October 24, 2022. By Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of the proposed Ordinance as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows: ORDINANCE #2022-08 - AMENDING CHAPTER 66 - MANUFACTURED HOMES, MOBILE HOMES, AND LAND LEASE COMMUNITIES, SECTION 66-3 - MANUFACTURED HOMES AND APPENDIX F - FEES AND FINES 29. Councilman Neil explained that he provided the information of what is occurring within communities here and that this ordinance deals with the individuals who are buying shells of homes, they have to put money out to prepare their homes and could lose it because of their low income. Mr. Neil explained that then the home goes back. Mr. Neil further explained that he would like to ensure that if the home is sold by the community owner that the home will pass a Certification of Occupancy (COO) and that it is safe for them to move into that manufactured home. Mr. Neil further stated that another factor is dealing with the titles of the homes that are being sold without the title from the DMV, which is required for the sale of the home. Mr. Neil explained that he would like to make sure that if our staff discovers individuals who are buying these homes do not have those titles, it is reported to the Attorney General's Office for action because it is an illegal act of selling a home to a person when they do not have the right to sell that home. FIRST READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2022-10 Council President Sudler reminded the public that copies of the proposed ordinance were available on the City's website at www.cityofdover.com under "Government," or by contacting the City Clerk's Office at 736-7008 or cityclerk@dover.de.us. The first Reading by Council on the proposed ordinance will take place during the Council Meeting on October 24, 2022. Staff requested the First Reading of item #29 be deferred until October 24, 2022, Regular Council Meeting

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 36 ORDINANCE #2022-10 - AMENDING CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VII. PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22-226 VIOLATION AND PENALTIES AND APPENDIX F - FEES AND FINES (Staff requested the First Reading of item #29 be deferred until October 24, 2022, Regular Council Meeting) Ms. Mary Ellen Gray, Director of Planning and Community Development, explained that after discussion with staff, and reviewing some of the questions that were asked at council a second time, it was decided to edit the ordinance. She further explained that the changes did impact the intent or meaning of the ordinance, however, they did edit some of the language and sent it to City Manager Hugg to review and for discussion. Ms. Gray explained that the changes impacted the timing of the First Reading that was scheduled for tonight. She respectfully requested it to be placed on the next council meeting agenda. Mr. Anderson moved to defer the First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance #2022-10 until October 24, 2022, Regular Council Meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Taylor and unanimously carried. FIRST READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2022-15 Council President Sudler reminded the public that copies of the proposed ordinance were available on the City's website at www.cityofdover.com under "Government," or by contacting the City Clerk's Office at 736-7008 or cityclerk@dover.de.us. Final action by Council on the proposed ordinance will take place during the Council Meeting on October 24, 2022. By Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of the proposed Ordinance as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows: ORDINANCE #2022-15 - CHAPTER 70 BY ADDING SECTION 70-9, NUISANCES, AND AMENDING APPENDIX F, FEES, AND FINES 31. Mr. Dave Hugg, III, City Manager, reminded members of council that while going through the Charter amendments last spring, one of the areas that were identified was a provision in the Charter that allows council to find and abate Nuisances. Mr. Hugg explained that the Charter then identified only interferences with television and radio transmission as a nuisance. Mr. Hugg stated that the current definition was not sufficient because these are the kind of issues that our Code Enforcement Officers deal with daily. Mr. Hugg explained that by providing clear definitions and identifying what are nuisances or what could cause potential harm to public health, public safety, and the welfare of the public. Mr. Hugg stated that they need a much more definitive ordinance so that either the Police Department or the Code Enforcement officer could provide enforcement. Mr. Hugg explained that one of the definitions is any material existence that constitutes or may constitute a danger to a person or property. Mr. Hugg stated that this ordinance was written with definitions and examples. Mr. Hugg thanked the City Solicitor for researching to identify some of the provisions that have been included in the draft. Mr. Hugg also

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 37 thanked Councilman Anderson and Councilman Taylor for their input on the ordinance. Mr. Hugg recommended it for approval. FIRST READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2022-17 Council President Sudler reminded the public that copies of the proposed ordinance were available on the City's website at www.cityofdover.com under "Government," or by contacting the City Clerk's Office at 736-7008 or cityclerk@dover.de.us. Final action by Council on the proposed ordinance will take place during the Council Meeting on October 24, 2022. By Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of the proposed Ordinance as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows: ORDINANCE #2022-17 -AMENDING CHAPTER 110 - CROSS CONNECTION CONTROL PROGRAM, APPENDIX F - FEES AND FINES ANNEXATION/REZONING REQUEST/FIRST READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2022-19 - PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1107 SOUTH BRADFORD STREET OWNED BY DITKO PROPERTIES, LLC. A request was received for annexation and rezoning of the property located at 1107 South Bradford Street, consisting of 11,248.2 SF (0.2582+/- acres), owned by Ditko Properties, LLC. This property is currently zoned RM (Multifamily Residential District) (Kent County Zoning Classification), and the proposed zoning is C-2A (Limited Central Commercial) (City of Dover Zoning Classification). Staff recommended that the request be referred to the Utility Committee on October 25, 2022, and to the Planning Commission on November 21, 2022; and that a public hearing be set for December 12, 2022, at 6:30 p.m. (Tax Parcel: ED-00-077.17-01-12.00-000; Planning Reference: AX-22-02) Mr. Neil moved for referral, as recommended, seconded by Mr. Taylor, and unanimously carried. In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of the proposed Ordinance as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows: ORDINANCE #2016-08 AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1107 SOUTH BRADFORD STREET, OWNED BY DITKO PROPERTIES, LLC. FINAL READING-PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2022-09 The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting on September 26, 2022. The ordinance is available at the entrance of the Council Chambers and on the City's website at www.cityofdover.com under "Government." Mr. Neil moved that the Final Reading of the proposed ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Anderson, and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of the proposed ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of September 26, 2022.)

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 38 By motion of Mr. Rocha, seconded by Mr. Neil, Council, by a unanimous roll call vote (Pillsbury absent) adopted Ordinance #2022-09, as follows: BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: That Chapter 114 –Vegetation, Article II-Weeds, Section 114-34- Fines be amended to read as follows: Sec. 114-34. Fines. (a) Generally. Any person convicted of a violation of section 114-32, regardless of corrective actions taken, shall be punished for that violation by a fine as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines. Any such fine shall be in addition to any charges or assessments imposed upon the violator pursuant to section 114-33(a). All fines imposed shall be in accordance with the minimum fine schedule set out in subsection (c) herein. (b) Each day. Every day that a violation of section 114-32 continues shall be considered a separate offense, for which the violator may be tried and convicted without the necessity of further notice. (c) Minimums. (1) Any fine assessed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall be no less than the minimum amount as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines. (2) In determining the applicable minimum fine, an offense shall be considered a recurring offense only if the defendant has previously pleaded or been found guilty of causing or permitting the same nuisance at the same location within the past 12 months, or for every day that the violation of section 114-32 continues as per subsection (b) of this section. (d) Lien. Any fines imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section which remain unpaid shall: (1) Be added to the tax duplicate for the tax year said services were provided by the city and invoiced as part of the annual property tax bill for said property and collected as part of the city property tax collection process, and (2) Be placed by the city as specified in the municipal lien docket as a lien against the property on which the violation occurred, and the procedures for enforcement or collection of said lien shall be as set out in section 114-33(b). (e) When not paid. Fines not paid within 14 days of the day the fine was issued, including the day the fine was issued, shall be automatically doubled in amount. (Code 1981, § 21-19; Ord. of 3-23-1992; Ord. of 7-27-1992; Ord. of 9-22-2003; Ord. No. 2009- 09, 6- 22-2009; Ord. No. 2012-22, 11-13-2012) BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix F be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue font and deleting the text indicated in red strikeout as follows: Chapter 114. Vegetation

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 39 Chapter 114. Vegetation Fees and Fines Article II. Weeds Every day that a violation of section 114-32 continues shall be considered a separate offense, for which the violator may be tried and convicted without necessity of further notice. Fines not paid within 14 days of the day the fine was issued, including the day the fine was issued, shall be automatically doubled in amount. Sec. 114-33. Failure to maintain proper height; abatement by city; costs and lien Subsec. (a) Summons; action by the city $50.00 per hour for such work that must be done to render the property in compliance with this article Sec. 114-34. Fines Subsec. (a) Generally, In addition to charges or assessments imposed, a fine of not less than $50.00, nor more than $250.00 in accordance with minimum fine schedule in Subsec. (c)(1) In determining the applicable minimum fine, an offense shall be considered a recurring offense only if the defendant has previously pleaded or been found guilty of causing or permitting the same nuisance at the same location within the past 12 months, or for every day that the violation of section 114-32 continues as per subsection (b) of this section. Subsec. (c)(1) Minimums—Any fine assessed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall be no less than the following minimum: First offense $50.00 Second offense $100.00 Third and subsequent offenses $250.00 ADOPTED: OCTOBER 10, 2022 (SPONSORS: ANDERSON AND HUGG) FINAL READING-PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2022-13 The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting on September 26, 2022. The ordinance is available at the entrance of the Council Chambers and on the City's website at www.cityofdover.com under "Government." Mr. Rocha moved that the Final Reading of the proposed ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Neil, and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of the proposed ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of September 26, 2022.)

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 40 By motion of Mr. Hare, seconded by Mr. Neil, Council, by a unanimous roll call vote (Pillsbury absent) adopted Ordinance #2022-13, as follows: BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: That Chapter 90 – Solid Waste, Section 90-2 – Unlawful deposits be amended to read as follows: Sec. 90-1. Definitions. The following words, terms, and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Alley means any public way, generally of less width than a street, used for public utility purposes and right-of-way, and as an alternate secondary or emergency route for vehicle and pedestrian traffic, generally situated at the rear of or alongside a tier of lots. Apartment means a suite or set of rooms, with necessary appurtenances, in a building occupied or suitable to be occupied as a dwelling unit. Apartment complex means an assemblage of large multiple dwelling unit buildings located in zones RG-2 and RG-4 as defined by appendix B to this Code pertaining to zoning. Apartment house means an owner-occupied dwelling unit with apartments, or a building, formerly a residence, converted into apartments. Automated collection means the use of fully- or semi-automated mechanized lift collection vehicles with authorized containers. Building code means the current edition of the city building code, adopted in article III of chapter 22. Bulk residential household waste means materials too bulky to fit in city issued solid waste containers permitted in section 90-4. Bulk residential yard waste means yard waste material too bulky to fit in private yard waste containers permitted in section 90-4. Commercial establishment means any structure intended or used for the purpose of conducting a commercial business enterprise. Container means a receptacle for the deposit of solid waste. Drive-in service means a service involving city sanitation department employees driving in or on private property to collect commercial accounts. Duplex means a structure intended for use and occupancy as two-family dwelling units.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 41 Dwelling unit means a dwelling unit as defined by the city's building code (article III of chapter 22). Food establishment means a cafe, restaurant, or other similar establishment serving food or food products, including quick service drive-ins where food is prepared or served. Garbage means solid waste consisting of putrescible animal and vegetable waste materials resulting from the handling, preparation, cooking, and consumption of food, including waste materials from markets, storage facilities, handling and sale of produce and other food products. Health inspector means the head of the health department, or anyone authorized to act for him. Illegally dumped solid waste means any solid waste placed on properties, with or without the consent of the owner or person in control, where such waste constitutes a nuisance detrimental to the public health and welfare. Industrial solid waste means waste that is generated by businesses from an industrial or manufacturing process. Institution and institutional mean any church, church building or structure housing any charitable, philanthropic, or eleemosynary undertaking, or any school, or any publicly owned or governmental building. Manager means the person in charge of real estate used for apartment, institutional or commercial purposes. Manual collection means the service rendered in collecting municipal solid waste from containers, when containers can be handled by persons picking up the containers as distinguished from automated collection. Municipal solid waste and solid waste mean solid waste resulting from or incidental to municipal, community, trade, business, and recreational activities, including garbage, rubbish (or trash), and all other solid waste, other than industrial solid waste. Newsprint means a common and inexpensive machine-finished paper made chiefly from wood pulp, including, but not limited to, newspapers, magazines, periodicals, telephone books and catalogues. Occupant means the person residing in a dwelling unit, specifically the head of such household. Owner means the record title holder of real property. Permittee means any person licensed by the state solid waste authority to contract to collect, remove or dispose of solid waste.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 42 Property line means the peripheral boundary of real estate. Public easement means a right-of-way used or dedicated to be used by any public utility, including, but not limited to, services such as electricity, telephone, gas, solid waste collection, water, sewer, and drainage. Public way means any street, alley, easement, or other right-of-way. Recyclable material or recyclables means any material or group of materials that can be collected and sold or used for recycling as designated by the Delaware Solid Waste Authority and/or State of Delaware. Recycling means the process by which solid wastes are separated for use as raw materials, product, or replacement of product. Residence means a structure intended for use and occupancy as a one-family dwelling Rubbish and trash mean all waste or refuse of any kind, including garbage, either combustible or noncombustible in nature, having little or no value except as waste or refuse. Sanitary landfill means a method of disposing of municipal solid waste on land, without creating a nuisance or hazard to public health or safety, by utilizing the principles of engineering to confine the solid waste to the smallest practical area to reduce it to the smallest practical volume, and to cover it with a layer of earth at appropriate intervals. Street means any public thoroughfare for the passage of vehicle and pedestrian traffic. Vehicle means any wheeled conveyance. Yard waste means plant material residues resulting from lawn maintenance and other horticultural gardening and landscaping activities including grass, leaves, pruning, brush, shrubs, and garden material provided that trunks and limbs do not exceed three inches in diameter and are cut in lengths not to exceed four feet. Leaves are considered yard waste except during a time that leaf collection is provided as scheduled by the City Manager or his/her designee. Yard waste may not be comingled with trash, garbage, or any other non-yard waste material. (Code 1981, § 8-1; Ord. of 5-24-1982; Ord. No. 2019-10, 5-13-2019) Section 90-2. Unlawful deposits. (a) On outside premises. It shall be unlawful for any person to place, deposit, discard, or otherwise cause to be put yard waste, garbage, rubbish, or any other type of waste on any outside premises within the city, whether public or private, in such a manner as to cause unsanitary, unsightly, or unhealthy conditions, except at such places as are, have been, or shall be designated by the city manager, and except in accordance with other provisions of this chapter. For the purposes of this subsection, the term "outside premises" includes, but

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 43 is not limited to, streets, alleys, sidewalks, ditches, yards, lots, fields, streams, and exterior portions of buildings. (b) Inspections; citations. The city code enforcement officer shall regularly inspect all outside premises to enforce the provisions of subsection (a) of this section. The city code enforcement officer shall issue citations for violations for every occurrence and may abate such conditions pursuant to the provisions of the Charter and this Code. (c) Removal. The city reserves the right to remove waste determined by the code enforcement officer to cause unsanitary or unhealthy conditions or cause a public nuisance should the owner, occupant or person notified fail to remove the waste and address the public concern in an expedient fashion. In such cases the owner, occupant, or person notified will be billed for the waste removal. (d) Prosecution; presumptions. In the prosecution of a violation of subsection (a) of this section, the following presumptions shall apply: (1) Owner, occupant. If the condition resulting from the violation was found on premises owned and/or occupied by the person to whom notice was given, then it shall be presumed that said owner and/or occupant was responsible for said condition. Notice shall be in writing and be physically posted on the property. If the person to whom notice was given fails to notify the city code enforcement officer that he or she is not responsible for said condition within forty-eight hours (two business days) of notification, then it shall be presumed that the said person notified was, in fact, responsible for said conditions not being removed. The presumptions described above are rebuttable by the person charged and must be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence for the person so charged to be exonerated. (2) Multiple dwelling units. If the condition resulting from the violation was found on the property whereon multiple dwelling units exist and the party committing the violation cannot with reasonable certainty be determined, then it shall be presumed that the owner or manager of the subject premises, upon being given written notice, is the party responsible for ensuring that the condition is removed from the premises. (Code 1981, § 8-2; Ord. of 5-24-1982; Ord. No. 2019-10, 5-13-2019) BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix F, Chapter Insert Chapter 90. Solid Waste, Sec. 90-17 Violations; be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue font and deleting the text indicated in red strikeout as follows: Chapter 90. Solid Waste Chapter 90. Solid Waste Fees and Fines Fines not paid within 14 days of the day the fine was issued, including the day the fine was issued, shall be automatically doubled in amount. Sec. 90-16. Violations; penalties Not less than $100.00, nor more than $1000.00 for each violation

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 44 ADOPTED: OCTOBER 10, 2022 (SPONSORS: ANDERSON AND HUGG) CITY MANAGER'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. David Hugg, III, City Manager, announced that on November 2, 2022, from 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM at the Dover Library, the City of Dover in conjunction with NCALL, the Help Initiative, the State of Delaware Standby by Me program, and the United Way is holding a Helping Hands Energy Conservation and Education event. Mr. Hugg explained that they will be helping customers understand how they can improve their energy efficiency. Mr. Hugg continued to explain that the organizations will also be providing financial education on how to budget and manage utility bills and provide information on where and how to apply for assistance for residents who may need support or additional help in paying their utility bills. MAYOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Christiansen wished everyone a Happy Indigenous People Day and to those of Italian American descent, a Happy Columbus Day. Mayor Christiansen also offered congratulations and thanks to those who participated in the Faith in Blue Event on Saturday. The Mayor also congratulated the Destination Downtown Dover group for the great Octoberfest event that showcased the City of Dover. COUNCIL MEMBERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilman Rocha, First District, announced that the first district is holding a West Dover Community Town Hall meeting on November 3, 2022, from 6:30 PM to 8:30 PM at Maple Dale County Club. The event is being hosted by First District Councilman Gerald Rocha, First District Councilwoman Julia Pillsbury, and At-Large Councilman Andre Boggerty. They will be discussing first district concerns, action steps with utility concerns, and an overview of the progress downtown with Mosaic and DDP. Councilman Anderson, Fourth District, reminded residents that the Kirkwood Neighborhood Watch Association will be meeting on Wednesday, October 19th at 5:00 PM at the Solid Rock Community Center. Councilman Anderson also reminded residents of the Hamlet neighborhood watch meeting that is on October 18th at 6:30 PM. Councilman Anderson explained that the neighborhood association recently restarted and that it has been a few years due to COVID. Councilman Boggerty, At-Large, announced an expungement clinic and community fair on Wednesday, October 19th from 10 AM to 2:00 PM at DSU Downtown, location is 120 North State Street. Councilman Boggerty announced on October 11, 2022, there is a career fair at the Department of Labor in Wilmington. Councilman Boggerty announced that on October 22, 2022, the NAACP is hosting the Freedom Fund Banquet, where Congresswoman Lisa Blunt Rochester is the keynote speaker and Councilman Boggerty is the Master of Ceremonies. Councilman Hare, Second District, announced that it is time for Operation Warm Heart at the airbase. Councilman Hare explained that Delaware Military Support Organization (DMSO)

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 PAGE 45 supports Operation Warm Heart every year. Mr. Hare further explained that 300 families are supported with Thanksgiving baskets. Councilman Hare noted that they have all of the turkeys donated, but that they still need 300 gift cards in the amount of $25.00 that will be given out with the turkeys for the side dishes. Mr. Hare stated that whatever Council is willing to donate he will match up to $1,000.00. Mr. Hare stated that Delaware Military Support Organization is a 501C3. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Sudler moved for adjournment of the Regular Council meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m. ANDRIA BENNETT CITY CLERK All ordinances, resolutions, motions, and orders adopted by City Council during their Regular Meeting on October 10, 2022, are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /AB