CCW Minutes and Attachment

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Council Committee of the Whole met on November 12, 2024, at 6:00 p.m. with Acting Council President Arndt presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Boggerty (via Webex), Mr. Hare, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Neil, Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Rocha, and Dr. Sudler. Council President Anderson was absent. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Mr. Iriowen (out at 7:49 p.m.), and Mr. Wilson (Utility). ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. Council Reports – October 2024 First District Dr. Pillsbury reported that she attended the Habitat for Humanity dinner on Saturday and that it was very well attended, except for the attendees from the City of Dover. She noted that only five people had come from the City of Dover. She announced that next Monday, November 18, 2024, she would be meeting with Chief Johnson to qualify with weapons, and anyone interested is welcome to join her. They will need to be at the location by 4:30 p.m. and, if anyone is interested, they should let Chief Johnson or herself know. On December 12, 2024, they would be having a District One Town Hall meeting at the Fire Station. Mr. Rocha reiterated Dr. Pillsbury's announcement and reminded everyone that the First District would be having a meeting on December 12, 2024, at 6:30 p.m. He noted that he has been working with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and on November 13, 2024, the Homeless Resource Fair at Dover Christian Church. The address for the Dover Christian Church is 1738 Forest Avenue. Mayor Christiansen and several officials would be present. Mr. Rocha stated that if Mr. Lewis’s schedule permits, he would attend, along with Dr. Pillsbury. Second District Mr. Hare reported that a flyer for the Shepherd Place was on Council’s desks. The event will be held on Saturday, November 16, 2024. He noted that any help would be appreciated and mentioned that he had stopped by Shepherd Place to speak with the director. Mr. Hare encouraged everyone to visit and engage with the organization, emphasizing that any contribution or assistance would be appreciated. Mr. Lewis had nothing to report. Third District Mr. Neil stated that he had attended the Dover Downtown Partnership (DDP) and the Kent County Tourism meetings. He had attended the Habitat for Humanity dinner and attended the Delaware League of Local Governments (DLLG) meeting that discussed the chemicals and water supply. He also attended a State Legislative Task Force meeting as a member of the Manufactured Housing Subcommittee. Mr. Neil attended a public open house of the Dover Municipal Freight Plan at the library. Mr. Neil has received several phone calls and emails, including concerns about the speed

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 2024 PAGE 2 at Dover Motor Speedway and the rollout of the stormwater service fees, which he noted has been rather bumpy. He attended meetings as the utility chair with Mr. Hugg, Mayor Christiansen, and Mr. Novak and his team. He noted that Mr. Novak addressed the Dover Motor Speedway concern, but that the vice president had not informed the general manager about what was discussed. In addition to that meeting, he attended a meeting with over 50 residents at Wild Meadows. He had extensive emails from a homeowner because of the unique situation that was faced by the lease land community. Mr. Neil explained that he filed a complaint with the Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding Wild Meadows's 2005 rent increase and requested and attended a meeting with the Dover Committee Community Police, with the HOA President and the manager of Persimmon Park Place (PPP). The meeting focused on a homeowner and management within the leasehold common interest community. Additionally, Mr. Neil completed the IT testing program. He sent a special report in the Wild Meadows November Newsletter and referred a constituent to the Community Legal Aid Society for Legal help. A constituent questioned about the need for a camera near the synagogue on Queens Street and a constituent problem with a light being out on Townsend Boulevard. The report by Ms. Duca indicated that they were aware of the problem created by burying the overhead electrical lights. This situation was referred to as an unintended consequence and involved an email exchange with the East Lake President, who had a problem with dogs. Additionally, a constituent from North State Street expressed gratitude for the leveled sidewalks, and their appreciation was forwarded to Ms. Duca and Mr. Novak. Ms. Arndt shared that she had attended several meetings with Nr. Neil, and brought up an additional constituent issue at Persimmon Park Place. The concern was about the need for a bus stop and a sidewalk for children to ensure their safety while walking to the bus. She also mentioned that she attended the Citizens Police Academy, a nine-week course, and found it insightful. Ms. Arndt appreciated gaining a better understanding of the daily challenges officers face and encouraged others to attend, noting that the academy runs once a year, with the final session taking place next week. Fourth District Dr. Sudler stated that on November 8, 2024, at 4:00 p.m. he met with Mr. Boggerty and Mr. Anderson, the owner and a staff member of the Duncan Center to discuss erosion in their parking lot caused by heavy rainfall or by a burst of pipes near their manhole. The discussion was centered on who was responsible for the repairs to the parking lot, which has caused major parking lot sinkhole damage. They advised the Duncan Center administration to contact the Assistant City Manager and State Representatives to examine prospective steps moving forward. At-Large Mr. Boggerty had nothing to report. Council President Anderson Council President Anderson was absent.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 2024 PAGE 3 UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee met with Chairman Neil presiding. Adoption of Agenda Dr. Pillsbury moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. Evaluation of Bids – Brandywine Court Condominiums Water Service Replacement (Jason Lyon, Water/Wastewater Director) Mr. Jason Lyon, Water/Wastewater Director, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Brandywine Court Condominiums Water Service Replacement. Staff recommended awarding the contract to Gateway Construction, Inc. for the Brandywine Court Condominiums Water Service Replacement, ITB#25-0009WW, for $371,660.00. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that they have used Gateway Construction for a current stormwater project that is next to the library parking lot. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon rated Gateway Construction as extremely satisfactory. They have done some water main replacement projects as well as emergency projects for them. When the city had a sewer or water break, they stepped up for the city. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that the Brandywine Court Condominiums was a private entity. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon clarified that they are not replacing the water line in the Brandywine Court Condominium Association. Instead, they were stubbing out the water services to each individual building, as outlined in the handbook. Mr. Lyon further clarified that the Brandywine Court Condominium Association can have water service to each building, but the association would need to hire a private plumber to complete the connections to each building’s water service. He explained that the work stopped at the easement line of the water main, and the project would use federal funds to provide the condominium association with the opportunity to connect to water and to disregard their aged infrastructure. He emphasized that federal funding was not allocated to private entities. Instead, it would follow a process similar to bond bill funding or Community Transportation Fund (CTF) funding. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that the project could be coordinated through the City of Dover, provided there was available funding from the federal government. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that the city would be responsible for carrying out the project under the infrastructure law. Dr. Pillsbury moved to recommend accepting the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 2024 PAGE 4 Evaluation of Bids – Puncheon Run Pump Station Roof Replacement (Jason Lyon, Water/Wastewater Director) Mr. Jason Lyon, Water/Wastewater Director, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Brandywine Court Condominiums Water Service Replacement. Staff recommended awarding the contract to Kirkin Exteriors for the Puncheon Run Pump Station Roof Replacement, for $52,168.00. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that the flow would go to the county, and they own the building. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon clarified that the wastewater in the city would go to the county at Frederica’s wastewater treatment facility, which operates under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. He explained that the city operated its wastewater treatment facility several years ago, but now the city has been a contract user of the county’s wastewater system for nearly 50 years. Mr. Lyon clarified that the wastewater flow from the city is directed to the Punch-to-Run station, located between Lynnhaven Drive and Webb’s Lane, where it is collected in a basin. From there, the wastewater is sent to the county’s treatment facility for processing and, after treatment, is deposited back into the environment. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon noted that the city pays the county for wastewater services, and the cost is structured as a pass-through expense that is billed to the citizens. There is a line item for the city sewer fee and another line item for the county sewer. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that he would rate the project as a critical situation that must be addressed within this fiscal year. He emphasized that the components inside the station are extremely expensive and high-tech. The roof leaks, allowing water to get inside, which could lead to component failures and potentially trigger a catastrophic event, such as sewer spilling out of the building. He further noted that there is a river directly next to the building, adding to the urgency of the situation. Responding to Mr. Iriowen, Mr. Lyon stated that the city has used Kirkin Exteriors on several facility roof replacement projects in the past. He mentioned that the company has been very forthright in its dealings, and after speaking with the facilities team that managed those projects, they have nothing but positive feedback about their work. Responding to Mr. Iriowen, Mr. Lyon stated that he could only speak about the lasting quality of the work done on the projects Kirkin Exteriors has completed recently. He noted that these projects appear to be holding up adequately. While he has not personally reviewed all of their projects in detail, he trusts the judgment of the facilities team that manages those projects and has heard nothing but positive feedback from them. Responding to Mr. Iriowen, Mr. Lyon stated that they recently completed a project for another pump station roof replacement on the east side of town. This was a smaller-scope project that did not require Council approval due to the funding amount. He noted that the team addressed the work promptly, and the project was completed without any issues. The pump station had been

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 2024 PAGE 5 experiencing water leakage, which was a significant concern, but since the roof replacement, no further issues have been observed. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that the pump station was built in the 1960s, though he was unsure of the exact date. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that an evaluation was included in the Wastewater Master Plan presented to the Utility Committee about a month ago. Prior to that, the facilities team conducts routine checks on facilities throughout the city, including the pump stations. Mr. Lyon stated that he would need to check with the facilities team on the exact rate that they check on them. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that the roof only needs to be replaced for the pump station and that it would cost $52,000. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that they went through a competitive bidding process and believed that this was the best option available at the time. He explained that the building is fairly large with a flat roof, which includes several components, as well as the vapor barrier mentioned earlier. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Lyon explained that the roof would be an Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) roof, which is the material commonly used for flat roofs. He mentioned that they could go over the specifications and installation process, which would include a vapor barrier rubber overlap to prevent leaks. Mr. Lyon stated that he could provide a detailed quote if necessary for the committee. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that the life expectancy of the proposed roof was a 20- year manufacturer with a 15-year craftsmanship warranty. Responding to Mr. Lyon, Dr. Sudler expressed his concerns about the roof costs. While he understood the complexity of the project, he questioned the value, given that the roof has only a 15 to 20-year life expectancy. He was concerned that the price of the roof did not align with the relatively short lifespan it would provide. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Lyon stated that it was not his area of expertise and that he would talk with the facilities team to address the concerns. He noted that when the paperwork was submitted by the different bidders, there were no concerns raised regarding the roof’s lifespan. He explained that he does not know the actual industry standard for the flat roof material used. Responding to Mr. Lyon, Dr. Sudler suggested that they wait to receive additional information on the lifespan of the typical flat roof and consider reopening the bid. He expressed concerns that the cost of a flat roof with limited coverage might not be the best option. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Lyon stated that the original building was built in the 1960s. He is unsure of how long the particular roof has been in place, but he will check with the facilities team to find out.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 2024 PAGE 6 Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Lyon stated that based on his experience with a smaller pump station, which had less flow, a component failure occurred about seven years ago, costing upwards of $200,000 for cleanup and repairs, excluding overtime staff costs. The pump station in question handles approximately one and a half times more flow. Using the equations from seven years ago, adjusted for inflation, the cost could approach half a million dollars. He emphasized that if something were to happen, especially since the station is near a river, it could significantly impact the environment. He believes it is not worth waiting, as delaying the repairs could result in much higher costs in the long run. Mr. Neil stated that the pump station in question is located near Route 13, close to the Home Depot area. He expressed his belief that they should not wait, as any issues that arise could lead to significantly higher costs in the long run. Dr. Pillsbury believes that because the roof is flat, its life expectancy is much shorter than that of a typical resident or office-type roof. She explained that water, snow, and ice tend to accumulate on flat roofs, which increases the likelihood of damage. Despite these concerns, Dr. Pillsbury stated that she supported the proposal. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Lyon stated that while he does not believe the roof would collapse immediately, the project was included in the budget in March 2023, when they first became aware of the issue. After consulting with the facilities team, he explained that the roofing companies typically do not keep their prices firm for long. He noted that a standard bid process, as Mr. Lewis mentioned, would take one to two months, during which time they could risk higher costs due to price changes or potentially different pricing for a longer warranty from another company. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Lyon stated that the roof surface area would be close to 2,000 square feet. Ms. Arndt stated that after reviewing the three bids, the bid before them was the lowest of the three. She believes that it is competitive and trusts the specifications that were provided to determine the final costs. Ms. Arndt does not see a need to rebid and express confidence in both the bid before them and the staff’s expertise in selecting the contractor. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Lyon stated that there had been standing water in some locations, skylights were tearing apart from the roof, and some skylights that are in the building were pulling away from the membrane. He noted that those are two major issues that he has seen. If it rains, there would be leakage in the building, though it would be minimal and not a critical issue. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Lyon stated that in the other bids, they had guaranteed the same as Kirkin Exteriors. He noted that he did do a Google search and with a flat roof, the life expectancy would be between 15 to 25 years. For the record, Mr. Lewis stated with hesitation and for the safety of civilians that he would vote yes. Dr. Pillsbury moved to recommend accepting the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Ms. Arndt and carried by unanimous roll call vote.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 2024 PAGE 7 Dedication of Rights-of-Way and Public Infrastructure – Patriot Village (Jason Lyon, Water/Wastewater Director) Mr. Jason Lyon, Water/Wastewater Director, reviewed the background and analysis of the Dedication of Rights-of-Way and Public Infrastructure for Patriot Village. Staff recommended accepting the dedication of rights-of-way and public infrastructure of the Patriot Village Subdivision. Dedication is to include all of the referenced public improvements noted in Attachment A. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Lyon emphasized that the financial impact of the budget over the next year or two was expected to be minimal. On the water and wastewater side, he pointed out that the infrastructure is new, which would reduce the likelihood of significant work outside of routine maintenance tasks, such as maintaining the fire hydrants. Additionally, he noted that snow removal may be required if it snowed, but given the limited length of road involved, it would not have a substantial effect on the budget. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Mr. Lyon clarified that the Patriot Village community is working together to pull the funding to do the upgrade. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Lyon clarified that the roads are up to the standards of the city. The building was subdivided into a design portion, and they were told that there was a certain width for the curb and sidewalk, so they built it per the plan. Dr. Sudler moved to recommend accepting the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. Discussion – Stormwater Utility Billing Concerns (Sharon Duca, Assistant City Manager) Ms. Sharon Duca, Assistant City Manager, and Mr. Jason Lyon, Water/Wastewater Director reviewed the Stormwater Utility Billing Concerns. This item was informational, and committee action was not required. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Duca noted that the annual operational costs are expected to range between $1.1 to $1.2 million, with adjustments for inflation over time. She emphasized that the projects best suited for funding through the infrastructure bill would fall under the capital program. These capital programs typically progress through feasibility, design, and construction in different years. Projects that are well-designed and prepared are likely to receive favorable consideration from the federal government for funding acceptance. By securing funding for capital projects from external sources, such as the infrastructure bill, the financial burden on rates could be reduced. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Duca highlighted that obtaining funds from the $11.7 billion being allocated to states would be the preferred approach, rather than continuing along their current path. She noted that one of the projects under the capital program involved the meeting house branch and improvements to PW2. However, eligibility for funding under the infrastructure bill would need to be verified, especially given that PW2 had contamination issues caused by the City of Dover.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 2024 PAGE 8 Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Duca mentioned several concerns that have been raised with the Customer Service and Public Works Departments. The Public Works Department has been reviewing billing discrepancy issues, such as residents receiving a commercial bill as to a residential bill. The Public Works Department has been working to resolve these discrepancies and address the concerns that have been brought forward. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Mark Nowak, Public Works Director, clarified that the billing label “commercial” could be misleading. He explained that while the tier might be labeled as commercial and all other, it applies to properties that are not in a residential zone, such as manufactured housing. If a property is in any zone other than residential, it is categorized under a commercial tier for billing purposes. If the bill has a “C” for commercial, it does not mean that they are being charged because they are in a commercial zone, it is just not a residential zone. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Nowak explained that the credits and appeals manuals outline a process for parcel owners to appeal their tier classification if they believe it was assigned incorrectly. He emphasized that Public Works has been handling over 30 phone calls daily about the issue, not including emails and other inquiries. Staff have been informing customers about the credits and appeals manual and addressing their concerns. Mr. Nowak noted that the billing should have indicated “all other” rather than “commercial/all other” on the bill because it is anything other than residential zoning. He reassured customers that there was a way to request a tier reassignment through the appeal process, which involved a review of the case. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Duca stated that some of the projects were cut in previous years because of limited funding. Several capital projects that they are looking at are receiving more complaints about drainage concerns. Ms. Duca noted that they are finding some failed infrastructure in certain locations with sinkholes. They are doing their best to patch them up, but they are trying to address the overall infrastructure problem. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Duca noted that they have ignored the problems for the past eight years. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Duca explained that currently the transfer from the electric fund is capped at $10 million per year, which is what they had included in the budget that followed the financial policy. Doing any further work would require an act of council to change it under the advisement, which would most likely affect the bond rating to go above $10 million. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Allison Haines, Interim Customer Service Director, stated that they had to set it up as a general bill because that was where the tax bills were in the Tyler Program and that would be different from the utility bills, different customer and location numbers. Ms. Haines noted that they have made it easier for them to pay online and that they have taken off the part where they would have to set up an account, so they could use their customer number or the invoice number and make a credit card payment. She further noted that they could mail the bills to Wilmington, and at the office, payments could be made via cash, check, or money order, or customers could use the drop-off boxes. Ms. Haines stated that they are looking to rewrite some of the information on the bills to make it easier for people because they do not know their parcel ID numbers. The Tyler Program currently handles the payment of taxes, and at the moment, they

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 2024 PAGE 9 are exploring the possibility of setting up automatic payments. However, this feature is not feasible at this time. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Haines stated that it could not be the same account number because then the payments would go to the utility bill. She clarified that if customers pay through bill pay, they must set up the bill with a different customer number, ensuring that the payment is sent to a different lockbox address than their utility bill. This is necessary to keep the funds separate, as the system for tax payments and utility payments operate in two different systems. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Ms. Haines clarified that customers received a double-sided flyer, with one side containing information about the stormwater utility, and the other side about the sanitation enterprise fund. This flyer was sent out with the utility bills for July and August. She noted that the same information was available on the website and that it would also be included with the tax bills. Exempt parcels would not be required to pay the fee, and the homeowner's cost would increase. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Mr. Nowak stated that based on the size of the lot versus the size of the impervious surface would not factor in as a credit to reduce the bill. He explained that it is based on the allowable impervious surface according to the person’s zoning as outlined in the code. The classification of the property is grouped according to its zone, rather than the specific size of the impervious surface relative to the lot. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Mr. Nowak stated that they do not calculate the impervious surface for residential zones, it is only for commercial or all other zones. Mr. Nowak noted that they only use the allowable impervious surface according to the zoning. In communities, people could apply for credits depending on whether they have stormwater ponds in their community, swales, or things of that nature. He suggested that a homeowner’s association put together a meeting and figure it out. There was a question from the Village of Westover regarding their ponds. They do not go case by case. He stated that a parcel owner can appeal their tier, but it had to be justifiable according to the credits and appeals manual, which would be reviewed by him. Mr. Nowak would then give a response in 60 days, and then if the customer does not agree with the response, they can appeal to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Mr. Nowak clarified that if a neighborhood has a stormwater management pond, then all homes within that neighborhood would be able to take advantage of the credit for having the stormwater pond. He stated that there are certain criteria that they need to provide to the city that are in the credits and appeals manual. It states what they need to do, but everyone would get that credit. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Mr. Nowak stated that the homeowner’s association would be able to apply on behalf of the entire neighborhood and the city would adjust the rate for all of the parcels in that neighborhood. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Mr. Nowak stated that the Public Works Department has been able to provide customers with information and discuss the credits and appeals manual on a one-on-one basis. Mr. Nowak noted that they are providing them with guidance and what options are available to them.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 2024 PAGE 10 Responding to Ms. Arndt, Ms. Haines stated that the Customer Service Department has been forwarding customers a link to the credit and appeals manual with instructions on how to pay. She noted that the flyer that was sent out contained information on how customers could apply for the credit. Ms. Haines stated that when customers call, she provides them a link via email so that more detailed information can be sent. Unfortunately, she mentioned that more questions are being directed at the Public Works Department as a result. Ms. Arndt suggested organizing an interactive webinar where customers could listen and go through the appeals process. She noted that the webinar could be recorded, allowing customers to view it later, and that it would provide an opportunity to take comments and address their concerns. could listen to the recording, and they could take comments and address their concerns. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Duca stated that $5 million was available through the state only for wastewater projects, not for stormwater. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Duca explained that #5 other funding sources, one example is the Community Transportation Fund (CTF). Currently, CTF is funding a project for Bogs Drive to address drainage concerns, with legislators assisting in covering the cost of the design. Additionally, the Meeting House Branch project was supported by state bond fill funding. Ms. Duca clarified that the capital budget for fiscal year 2027 included $10 million, which incorporates both city and state funding, helping to offset some of the project requirements. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Duca stated that most of the stormwater projects would be classified as community development-related projects. Ms. Duca highlighted ongoing concerns from constituents, particularly in older neighborhoods with insufficient drainage infrastructure, such as fewer catch basins. This often results in roadway ponding and related issues. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Duca stated that the community development funds from the sale of city properties. The parcels recently reviewed could likely cover the cost of a feasibility study, but there would not be enough funding for construction. Therefore, the community development funds would not be sufficient for the entire project. Dr. Sudler expressed concern that employees are spending excessive time addressing issues related to the new process, which detracts from productivity and costs the city money. He suggested that the city return to relying more heavily on grants to meet its funding needs, rather than placing the burden on constituents. He emphasized that taxpayers, who are already financially strained, have been affected by raising utility bills over the past three years. Dr. Sudler agreed with Mr. Hare's suggestion to explore alternative funding sources and reduce the reliance on taxpayers. He proposed leveraging resources such as Delaware State University and nearby institutions, which could assist with grant writing to support city projects. This collaboration, he argued, would provide relief to residents, improve their quality of life, and benefit the council by offering a more sustainable financial strategy. Additionally, Dr. Sudler pointed to opportunities under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and EPA grants, which he viewed as attainable sources for covering infrastructure costs. He expressed

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 2024 PAGE 11 discomfort with the current method of generating income for the city and strongly advocated abandoning the existing approach in favor of pursuing alternative funding avenues. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Duca stated that she would need to gather information to determine the exact amount currently available in the Water and Wastewater System Reserve Fund (WWSRF) and would provide an update once the details are confirmed. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Marney stated that she would need to confirm the exact amount currently held in the Electric Reserve fund and would provide that information once it was available. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Marney stated that the city did generate some revenue by supporting states in the southern U.S. with electricity during hurricane recovery efforts. She noted that the income was added to the city’s reserves and stated that she would provide the specific financial details upon request. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Hugg clarified that the funds referenced by Dr. Sudler pertained to the Meeting House Square and the drainage program around that section of the city. He noted that these funds were committed and have not yet been spent. The money had a specific, dedicated purpose, and redirecting it to another use would negatively impact the Meeting House Square initiative. Mr. Hugg also shared that he had received a call from the property owner and Senator Paradee regarding the responsibility for a particular pipe. Based on his understanding, the pipe was installed when the building was originally constructed by its initial owner, although he could not confirm this conclusively. He further explained that the type of infrastructure was not something the city regularly maintained. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Hugg strongly suggested that they avoid using the community development funds for the project due to the critical nature of the Meeting House Branch drainage project, which has been in development for several years and is essential to address ongoing drainage concerns. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Lyon clarified that the funding from Senator Paradee was earmarked for the Meeting House Branch project along with the Persimmon Tree drainage project, as presented to the committee last session. He noted that the funds have an expiration date of June 30, 2026. Currently, they are in the design phase and working with the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) to develop an appropriate work plan, particularly given the challenges of dealing with contaminated soil. Additionally, they are collaborating with Bayhealth to redesign its property to accommodate upstream stormwater improvements. The redesign was considered in Bayhealth’s long-term plans, which would include constructing a building over the area in question. Mr. Lyon reiterated that while they are still in the design phase, the funding remained secure until the specified expiration date. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mr. Lyon clarified that the money was for the Meeting House Branch project. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Duca explained that part of the money budgeted for the capital project was allocated for the necessary remediation work. The funding received through the bond

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 2024 PAGE 12 bill would specifically cover the actual construction of the improvements, not the remediation efforts. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Duca clarified that the construction remediation is more than $3 million. Mr. Neil explained that there were two categories for residents living on leased land: those who pay property taxes because their homes have been assessed, and those who pay an annual fee, often collected by the community owner and remitted. He pointed out that the funding for projects could lead to higher rents for those residents, creating a unique issue regarding their classification as residential. He stated that the situation is nuanced because these properties are residential but also not entirely straightforward. Mr. Neil mentioned that a packet had been provided for Mr. Nowak to review the process of appealing the matter. Mr. Neil highlighted concerns regarding the appeals process, noting that some individuals in leased land situations are incorrectly identified as property owners, which they are not. Misclassification creates challenges that need resolution. Mr. Neil emphasized that the issues with the Tyler system and any related platforms need to be resolved. He pointed out that resolving those technical issues would allow residents to make regular payments, including their monthly bills and taxes, through an integrated process. He expressed that the current situation was unsatisfactory and created unnecessary challenges for those who are willing and able to pay. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Mr. Hugg explained that the budget put together and enacted by the council was designed with the establishment of the enterprise fund in mind. The general funding portion of the budget assumed that certain expenses would not be charged to the general fund. He clarified that if any changes were made to the budget, a budget amendment would be necessary. That would allow for a detailed review of the budget to identify whether there are other funds the council wishes to transfer or if an alternative mechanism needs to be found to increase general fund revenue to cover additional costs. Responding to Mr. Hugg, Ms. Arndt stated that she would be in favor of making modifications, and that would reduce the revenue that they would collect and offset that somewhere else. Mr. Neil cautioned that there was uncertainty when it came to securing grants and that the city should not rely on them as guaranteed funding. He emphasized the importance of focusing on what they could reliably count on and maximizing the grants that they could secure. He suggested that by leveraging available funding sources, the council could minimize the impact on the general fund while still advancing essential projects. The approach will provide flexibility if they need to shift money around to address any funding gaps. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg stated that, to his understanding, the council’s discussions about the stormwater program began between 2015 and 2017. These discussions eventually culminated in the decision to create a utility to cover the associated costs. He clarified that he was not involved at that time, but that the creation of the utility was the result of several years of deliberations within council. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg mentioned that while there was always a possibility of receiving funding, the chances of securing money for general operations were slim. However, there

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 2024 PAGE 13 is a higher likelihood of receiving funding for specific projects. For example, if they had a significant stormwater pond that was failing and needed to be rebuilt, it might be possible to receive assistance from the general assembly for that particular project. He noted that they did not receive any general assembly funding for running the program itself. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Duca stated that they used a financial model originally developed by a consultant to project over a five-year period. The model accounted for both personnel expenses and regular operating costs, including items like leaf collection, as well as the proposed capital program. By utilizing the model, they adjusted the capital program to make it more manageable, as attempting to include everything within five years was becoming too costly. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Mr. Nowak explained that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDS) program, which was administered through the State of Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). The program ensured that the city remained compliant with environmental regulations, and it is reviewed every five years. The most recent review was extended to 10 years due to organizational issues, but now it is more stringent. The city is required to follow specific guidelines, or risk citations and fines. He noted that the stormwater coordinator and environmental scientists have been actively enforcing regulations, and the sanitation division helps by notifying the department whenever issues arise, such as grass clippings and things of that nature. If compliance is not met, code enforcement steps in. Mr. Nowak explained that the outfall inspections have become more demanding, with the inspection rate increasing from 5% to 20% per year. This year, the team worked with the fire department to inspect outfalls at Silver Lake, which had never been inspected before. The city was also required to comply with mandates regarding chemical containment at facilities like the fleet shop and pump stations. Additionally, Mr. Nowak mentioned that a new outreach program was mandated, and they had to prove that it was completed. He expects that the process will become even more cumbersome in five years when a new permit is required. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Mr. Nowak stated that fines were imposed when there was an issue with handling the process in a disorganized manner through the Planning Department. He indicated that the lack of effort or proper coordination contributed to the problem, which led to the fines. He noted that he was not directly involved in the matter and could not provide detailed information. He offered to look into it further for more details. Arielle Rivera, Assistant City Clerk, read an email from Donna Mitchell regarding the stormwater utility fees. (Attachment #1) Responding to Ms. Mitchell, Ms. Duca stated that the legality of the proposal has been researched and found to be legal. She also mentioned the utility was modeled after the system in Newark, which operated as an enterprise fund. Responding to Ms. Mitchell, Ms. Duca clarified that the classification of commercial and all other customers was not determined by zoning but by the actual impervious surface on their property. She reiterated Mr. Nowak’s point that the property owners can request a review and potentially

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 2024 PAGE 14 receive credit by following the process outlined in the credits and appeals manual, which addresses those calculations. Responding to Ms. Mitchell, Ms. Duca stated that the billing is completed by using the property tax module in the Tyler System. Responding to Ms. Mitchell, Ms. Haines stated that bank drafting was currently not supported by the Tyler system. However, residents can make payments using their checking accounts through EFT on the website, pay with a credit card, visit the office, or mail payments to Wilmington. She noted that the team is exploring the option of enabling bank drafting but working with Tyler has limitations. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Duca acknowledged her awareness of the $11.7 billion grant from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the EPA’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund. She noted that while their previous grant writer had applied for projects under this initiative, the success was limited, and they only received a portion of the requested funding. Despite the challenges, she confirmed that they intend to explore the funding opportunity again for future projects. Dr. Sudler moved that the City Manager and supporting staff review the criteria for submitting a letter of interest for funding through the Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Municipal Grant program to help the capital of Delaware address the stormwater and sewer infrastructure needs and provide the committee with an update by the subsequent Utility committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis. Mr. Hare amended the motion to add having staff review the Wastewater Revolving Fund and the electric reserve fund to determine the amount in each. Then, the council can hold a budget review with the possibility of a budget amendment. Mr. Hare would like to see if there was money to cover the $2 million needed for the year. Dr. Sudler and Mr. Lewis were amenable to the amendment. Dr. Sudler stated for the record that council and the committee as a whole, needed to start moving towards a quarterly budget review. He emphasized that the approach would allow them to address issues more proactively quarterly rather than annually since they are not seeing what they need to see throughout the year in a budgetary manner. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Hare stated that the largest bill a business had received was for Edgewell, amounting to $60,000, and for the quarter, the largest bill that would have been received was from Dover Speedway, totaling $40,000. Dr. Pillsbury expressed confusion regarding the billing amounts, particularly whether the charges discussed were annual or quarterly. She noted that the discussion was about a quarterly bill and believed the charges reflected an annual amount divided into quarterly payments. She emphasized the need for clarification to ensure that the highest amount was not charged every quarter. Dr. Sudler moved that the City Manager and supporting staff review the criteria for submitting a letter of interest for funding through the Sewer Overflow and Stormwater

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 2024 PAGE 15 Reuse Municipal Grant program to help the capital of Delaware address the stormwater and sewer infrastructure needs, provide the committee with an update by the subsequent Utility committee meeting, and have staff review the Wastewater Revolving Fund and the Electric Reserve Fund to determine the amount in each. Then council could hold a budget review with the possibility of a budget amendment. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Utility Committee meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 7:59 p.m. Ms. Arndt moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. David L. Anderson Council President Attachments Attachment #1 - Email from Donna Mitchell regarding the stormwater utility fees

ATTACHMENT #1 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 11/12/2024 From: Donna Mitchell To: Hugg, Dave Cc: Duca, Sharon; City Clerks Office; City Council; Marney, Patricia; BaytoBayNews | Delaware State News Subject: EXTERNAL: Stormwater Utility Date: Tuesday, November 12, 2024 12:46:10 PM Attachments: Gmail - RE_ EXTERNAL_ Utility bill - 1120 Monroe Terrace - Stormwater.pdf Gmail - Storm Water Utility.pdf Gmail - Re_ EXTERNAL_ Ordinances on this evening"s agenda #2.pdf Gmail - Re_ EXTERNAL_ Re_ Ordinances on this evening"s agenda.pdf Newark Ordinance Sec._25A_2.___Stormwater_charges..pdf WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dave, I would like to have my previous correspondence (questions) as attached read into the record this evening. Hopefully these documents will assist everyone in understanding tonight's Utility Committee presentation. A couple of other matters not included in the attachments are as below. Property owners that own vacant land. Due to the zoning code these parcels are being billed based on zoning code but have no structures on the parcels. This creates a disparity with the size of lots. I have heard from a few of them, as you and Council Members may have as well. I have attached Newark's code as their ordinance is tied to impervious square feet and not zoning code. The second matter is the residents have to create a self-service account separately for General Billing to pay this by credit card, or come into the office, or mail a check. I have on-line banking and bank drafting due to my travels. I don't want to pay by credit card for this one service when all others are done by bank draft. I did try to do so but had trouble with getting into the Self-Service feature but yet I can get into the Utility and Tax payment programs. I noticed the PO Box for this service is the same as the property tax bill, so I electronically sent it through my on-line banking to that PO Box. Staff will need to credit the correct account. Thank you, Donna Mitchell 1120 Monroe Terrace Dover, DE 19904

Donna Mitchell <dwmitchell7895@gmail.com> Re: EXTERNAL: Ordinances on this evening's agenda 1 message Donna Mitchell <dwmitchell7895@gmail.com> Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 1:21 PM To: "Hugg, Dave" <dhugg@dover.de.us> Thank you. On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 10:30 AM Hugg, Dave <dhugg@dover.de.us> wrote: I am asking Mark to contact you to address your requests. From: Donna Mitchell <dwmitchell7895@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 8, 2024 10:28 AM To: Hugg, Dave <dhugg@dover.de.us>; Duca, Sharon <SDuca@dover.de.us> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Ordinances on this evening's agenda Dave, In going back through my emails, I noticed I never received a response from Mark as he was "Out of Office" according to his email. Can I please be provided the attachment that was not included in the Council Packet item. Also, can I be sent the specifications for each zoning classification. I am getting questions from citizens as to how this works, since the SW Ordinance and rates are based on Zoning classification but nobody knows what that means. If there is a document or link that I can be sent that will be helpful. I also had someone tell me that they went into Customer Service and heard the staff explaining to customers that the new invoice is due to the State and the County no longer funding stormwater and pushed it down to the City. I don't believe this is factual and would hope that employee's would provide a more appropriate explanation. Your help is greatly appreciated. Donna Mitchell On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 1:24 PM Hugg, Dave <dhugg@dover.de.us> wrote: It is the Robbins Hose fire territory which is slightly larger than city limits. The billing system will accommodate. Not sure why those items are missing. Mark: please answer. From: Donna Mitchell <dwmitchell7895@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 12:57 PM To: Hugg, Dave <dhugg@dover.de.us> Cc: Duca, Sharon <SDuca@dover.de.us>; Marney, Patricia <pmarney@dover.de.us>; City Clerks Office <CityClerk@dover.de.us> Subject: EXTERNAL: Ordinances on this evening's agenda

WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. This email is bcc'd to the City Council and Mayor Dave, Can you tell me if the Robbins Hose/Dover Territory is just City limits (Page 33; Section 38-85(a)? The BLS contract in the past, just covered City limits if I'm not mistaken. If you add it to the utility bill will the system know to bill just the tax parcels of the City and not County? Anyone outside of the City would have to pay the Ambulance Service provider. I know some of our electric territory includes Camden, Leipsic, and Little Creek Fire Districts. I was curious as to how this is being billed. I know we have out of City and in City customers for water & wastewater so I would think this is doable. The Tarriff sheet Item 19, Page 80, references a Table 2 for Commercial Customers, however the table in not showing in the tariff/appendix or in the Storm Water Ordinance, Item 30 - Page 238. Do you know why it was omitted or is this an oversight? Will we be provided our zoning ordinance classification? Will the Commercial Customers be provided with a formula and ERU information to understand how to calculate their charges? If a letter could go out to every customer explaining these changes and new fees it would be informative, particularly since all changes take effect July 1, 2024. Thank you, Donna Mitchell 1120 Monroe Terrace Dover, DE 19904

Donna Mitchell <dwmitchell7895@gmail.com> Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Ordinances on this evening's agenda 1 message Donna Mitchell <dwmitchell7895@gmail.com> Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 7:59 AM To: "Wambaugh, Bryn" <bwambaugh@dover.de.us> Cc: "Hugg, Dave" <dhugg@dover.de.us>, "Nowak, Mark" <mnowak@dover.de.us>, "Duca, Sharon" <SDuca@dover.de.us> Thank you. I’m asking for my actual impervious area, I know this information was included in the original stormwater model. My bill is based on the average for that zoning code. I would like to have the actual. Is the billing completed using the zoning module or the tax parcel/property tax module? I appreciate your help in this matter. Donna Mitchell On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 7:54 AM Wambaugh, Bryn <bwambaugh@dover.de.us> wrote: Good morning, For all residential parcels, the impervious area is calculated based on a three-tiered system. You can read more about this is 1.2 (a) of the Dover Credits, Grants, and Appeals Manual. Your property, 1120 Monroe Terrace, is in the R-8 zoning district meaning that it is in Tier 3. Using Table 1 in my prior email, we can see that the average impervious square feet in Tier 3 is 3,700ft2 which is equal to 2.2 ERUs. This is the impervious square feet used for all properties in Tier 3 of the Single Family Residential Zoning Class. Sincerely, Bryn Wambaugh Stormwater Coordinator Department of Public Works 302-736-7020 bwambaugh@dover.de.us City of Dover, Delaware Public Works Storymap Prevent Illicit Discharges DPW News

From: Donna Mitchell <dwmitchell7895@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 8, 2024 4:27 PM To: Wambaugh, Bryn <bwambaugh@dover.de.us> Cc: Hugg, Dave <dhugg@dover.de.us>; Nowak, Mark <mnowak@dover.de.us>; Duca, Sharon <SDuca@dover.de.us> Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Ordinances on this evening's agenda You don't often get email from dwmitchell7895@gmail.com. Learn why this is important WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Bryan, Sorry, I didn’t include this. Can I please be provided the actual impervious square footage on our property. Thanks much, Donna Mitchell On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 4:20 PM Donna Mitchell <dwmitchell7895@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you. This is helpful. I read the ordinance and just saw the rates and was thinking they were monthly rates only and no multiplier for impervious square feet. So was surprised by the amount of my charges. On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 3:35 PM Wambaugh, Bryn <bwambaugh@dover.de.us> wrote: Good afternoon, Mark forwarded me your email because he is out of the office today. Below is the attachment that was not included in the Council Packet item. Table 1 ‐ Single Family Residential Classes Tier No. Applicable Zoning Average ERUs Monthly Districts Impervious Area Charge (Square Feet) 1 RG-3, RG-4, TND 1,700 1.0 $6.00 2 RM-1, RM-2, RG-1, RG- 2,400 1.4 $8.40 2, R-7 3 R-8, RG-5, R-10, R-20, 3,700 2.2 $13.20 R-15 I called the City Clerk’s office to confirm that it was decided that the Rates & Tariffs sheet would be parallel to the Stormwater Ordinance in that it would reference the table in the Dover Credits, Grants, and Appeals Manual.

Table 1 shows the breakdown of the tiers. The Stormwater Utility is based off of Equivalent Runoff Units (ERUs). One ERU is equal to 1,700ft2 or $6.00. Since the average impervious area in Tier 1 is 1,700ft2, parcels in Tier 1 only produce one ERU. Thus their monthly charge is $6.00. Parcels in Tier 2, for example, have an average impervious area of 2,400ft2. We divide the average impervious area in the tier by the size of one ERU to find the ERUs for Tier 2 (2,400ft2 / 1,700ft2= 1.4 ERU). Next to find the monthly charge for Tier 2, we multiply the price of one ERU by our adjusted ERU for Tier 2 ($6.00 *1.4 = $8.40). The Stormwater Utility briefing provides an overview of the Stormwater Utility. In addition, on the last slide of the briefing there are links to the Dover Parcel and Zoning Viewer as well as the Dover Credits, Grants, and Appeals Manual. Sincerely, Bryn Wambaugh Stormwater Coordinator Department of Public Works 302-736-7020 bwambaugh@dover.de.us City of Dover, Delaware Public Works Storymap Prevent Illicit Discharges DPW News

Donna Mitchell <dwmitchell7895@gmail.com> RE: EXTERNAL: Utility bill - 1120 Monroe Terrace 1 message Haines, Allison M. <ahaines@dover.de.us> Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 11:21 AM To: Donna Mitchell <dwmitchell7895@gmail.com> Donna, Good morning, currently we do not offer autopayment in the TYLER system, we hope to make it work in the future. If you would like to pay with a credit card, you would have to create an account online, and the instructions can be found in the line below: https://www.cityofdover.com/media/Set%20up%20CSS%20account.pdf Regards, Allison From: Donna Mitchell <dwmitchell7895@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 8, 2024 10:16 AM To: Haines, Allison M. <ahaines@dover.de.us> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: U lity bill - 1120 Monroe Terrace Allison, Is it possible to set up bank drafting for our Stormwater quarterly billing as is done for my other utilities? Can you replicate our banking information or do I need to submit a new form. If a new form is necessary would you mind sending me a pdf and I will email it back to you. Hope all is going well for you. Donna Mitchell

Donna Mitchell <dwmitchell7895@gmail.com> Storm Water Utility 1 message Donna Mitchell <dwmitchell7895@gmail.com> Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 5:57 PM To: "Duca, Sharon" <sduca@dover.de.us>, "Hugg, Dave" <dhugg@dover.de.us> Cc: "cityclerk@dover.de.us" <cityclerk@dover.de.us>, Bill Hare <billh2323@comcast.net>, "Lewis, Brian E." <brian.lewis@dover.de.us>, "Boggerty, Andre M." <andre.boggerty@dover.de.us> Dave and Sharon, The Storm Water Utility as explained to me during the Budget Workshop on March 1, included fees to commercial customers based on impervious square footage and all others by zoning classification. Have you checked into this for legality? Enterprise funds are based on usage, consumption of a good or service. I would think the commercial businesses would challenge the utility if they are subsidizing the other classifications by their usage versus the others. I know when the concept of storm water utilities came up in other communities some charged a flat fee to all tax parcels and I'm not sure those funds were accounted for in a governmental type of fund or an enterprise fund. I can't recall if any did based on usage/impervious land and if so how they developed rates by class of customer. Can you advise if this has been researched? Thank you, Donna Mitchell

Sec. 25A-2. Stormwater charges. (a) The stormwater charge represents an equitable system for recovering costs related to all aspects of stormwater management, including but not limited to: capital improvements including debt service; operation and maintenance costs including routine replacements; compliance with all current and future stormwater and surface water regulatory requirements; surface water quality monitoring, inspection, management and improvement projects; flooding mitigation; inspections of stormwater management facilities; billing and administration; plan review and inspection of sediment control and stormwater management plans and practices; acquisition of interests in land including easements; and watershed planning and protection initiatives. (b) All parcels that are within the city's corporate boundaries shall be assessed a monthly stormwater charge as per the provisions of this article. (c) The stormwater charge for each parcel shall be determined as per the provisions of this article, based on the number of equivalent stormwater units "ESUs" and the ESU rate. The ESU, the ESU rate and the single-family residential tiers may be amended by city council by ordinance. (d) Equivalent stormwater unit. The equivalent stormwater unit is 1,620 square feet. (e) Equivalent stormwater unit monthly rate. The equivalent stormwater unit monthly rate is $3.89. (f) The stormwater charge for the various stormwater classes shall be determined as follows: (1) Single-family residential stormwater classes. For the single-family residential stormwater classes, a four-tiered stormwater charge is established to accommodate the wide range of impervious area square footage that exists among the single-family residential parcels in the city. The four tiers of impervious area and the stormwater charge for each tier are as shown in Table 1: Table 1: Single-Family Residential Parcels Tier Impervious Area Equivalent Monthly (square feet) Stormwater Stormwater Unit Ratio Charge (ESU ratio) 1 0 to 1,289 0.60 $2.33 2 1,290 to 1,950 1.00 $3.89 3 1,951 to 2,610 1.30 $5.07 4 2,611 and over 1.80 $7.01 The impervious area for each residential parcel is determined based on the actual main floor, attached area, and detached structure square footage data provided by the county's tax assessment system. Based on the impervious area determined, the residential parcels are assigned to one of the four tiers of impervious area. The PWWR shall assign a tier to each single-family residential parcel. A stormwater charge will be assessed monthly based on the assigned ESU ratio and ESU rate. In the event of a newly constructed single-family residential dwelling, the PWWR shall assign a tier and ESU ratio upon issuance of the certificate of occupancy for that dwelling and upon recording of the parcel attributes in New Castle County's Department of Land Use records. (2) Condominium stormwater class. The stormwater charge for a condominium shall be the calculated ESU factor multiplied by the ESU rate. The PWWR shall calculate an ESU factor based on the estimated impervious area and the information in New Castle County's Department of Land Use records. Created: 2024-10-16 10:02:37 [EST] (Supp. No. 105, Update 1) Page 1 of 4

(3) All other stormwater classes. The stormwater charge for all other storm water classes shall be the calculated ESU factor multiplied by the ESU rate. The PWWR shall calculate an ESU factor based on the estimated impervious area. The impervious area will be estimated by applying the runoff factors set forth in Table 2, to a parcel's gross parcel area, based on the information in New Castle County's Department of Land Use records. Table 2: All Other Stormwater Classes 1 2 3 Stormwater Class Description* Runoff Factor COM Commercial 0.95 GOV Government 0.95 IND Industrial 0.90 INS Institutional 0.90 MFA Multi-family Apartments 0.75 PAR Parks and Cemeteries 0.25 PAV Paved Surfaces 0.95 PKG Parking 0.95 REC Recreational Areas/ 0.35 Playgrounds UTI Utilities 0.90 VAC Vacant 0.30 Stormwater classes are based on New Castle County Department of Land Use occupancy codes assigned to each parcel. (4) Monthly stormwater charge calculation. The monthly stormwater charge is calculated by multiplying the assigned ESU ratio, by the ESU rate. (5) Exemptions. No parcel within the city's corporate limits shall be exempt from the stormwater charge. (Ord. No. 17-34, Amend. No. 1, 10-9-17; Ord. No. 18-24, Amend. Nos. 1, 2, 12-10-18; Ord. No. 21-40, Amend. Nos. 1, 2, 12-13-21) Sec. 25A-3. Stormwater charge billing frequency; charge for new properties/parcels. (a) The stormwater charge shall be billed and collected on a monthly basis. The city shall notify customers in advance of any change in billing frequency. (b) Any new property or parcel resulting from the subdivision and/or consolidation of an existing parcel shall become liable for the stormwater charge of the current monthly billing period, at such time as the parcel is reflected in New Castle County's Department of Land Use records. (Ord. No. 17-34, Amend. No. 1, 10-9-17) Sec. 25A-4. Effective date of stormwater charges; liability of payment. (a) The stormwater service charges herein authorized shall become effective January 1, 2018. (b) The stormwater charges shall be collected from the following: Created: 2024-10-16 10:02:37 [EST] (Supp. No. 105, Update 1) Page 2 of 4

(1) The owner of record of a parcel will be assessed the stormwater charge. In the event that the owner of a parcel and the user of a parcel are not the same, the owner shall be liable for the stormwater charge. (2) In the case of joint ownership of a parcel, the stormwater charge shall be billed to the owner designated as the primary owner in the assessor's records of the New Castle County Department of Land Use. (3) In the case of condominiums, the stormwater charge shall be billed to the condominium association. (Ord. No. 17-34, Amend. No. 1, 10-9-17) Sec. 25A-5. Stormwater service charge; when stormwater bills are due and payable; service charge on unpaid balance; water service cut off for delinquency in stormwater service charge; additional charge for reconnection of water; adjustments for billing errors and omissions; utility payment allocation. (a) Bills for stormwater charges shall be due and payable on the day of mailing from the city office, and if not paid within 21 days of the due date, shall be subject to a one and one-half percent per month service charge on the unpaid balance, except that this service charge shall not apply to those residents of the city who are 65 years or older and/or who are disabled and who qualify under Chapter 13, Sections 13-9 and 13-10 of this code. (b) For stormwater customers. All penalties, fines and costs associated with the enforcement of this chapter shall be liens on the property to the extent permitted by Title 25, Chapter 29 of the Delaware Code. Any unpaid fines, penalties, and fees imposed by any court for violation of this chapter shall be added to the property tax billings for the property that was the subject of the violation. (c) Any partial payment made on a city utility bill with an outstanding balance owed shall be allocated on a pro- rata basis across the electric, water, sewer and stormwater utilities as applicable. (Ord. No. 17-34, Amend. No. 1, 10-9-17; Ord. No. 20-30, Amend. No. 3, 12-14-20) Sec. 25A-6. Credits. (a) Credit. A system of credits, which may reduce a parcel's monthly stormwater charge, shall be established for all other stormwater classes. A stormwater charge credit shall be issued to a parcel at the discretion of the director of public works and water resources and upon written application by the parcel owner for employing structural or non-structural best management practices or other stormwater management practices on-site, which significantly reduces the quantity of stormwater run-off or significantly improves the quality of stormwater run-off from the parcel. (b) [Other proceedures.] All other procedures pertaining to credits shall be per the City of Newark's Stormwater Credits, Appeals and Grants Manual. (Ord. No. 17-34, Amend. No. 1, 10-9-17) Sec. 25A-7. Appeals. (a) [Appeals.] An owner of a parcel for which a stormwater charge has been assessed, may appeal the stormwater charge for that parcel for the following reasons: (1) The calculation of the stormwater charge; Created: 2024-10-16 10:02:37 [EST] (Supp. No. 105, Update 1) Page 3 of 4

(2) The assigned stormwater class; (3) The assigned tier, if applicable; and (4) The eligibility for a credit. (b) Burden of proof. (1) The burden of proof shall be on the appellant to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence the validity of the appeal. (c) Appeals procedure. (1) The appellant must file the appeal in writing to the Director of PWWR. The appellant shall submit: a. A completed stormwater charge appeals application form; b. A land survey prepared by a registered surveyor showing dwelling units, gross parcel area, total impervious area, type of surface material, as appropriate; and c. Any other required information as specified by the director of public works and water resources. The director may waive, in writing, the submission of a land survey. (2) The director shall send a written copy of the decision to the appellant with a copy to the director of finance. (d) Timing of appeals, imposition of fees and charges during appeal and application of decisions rendered. (1) An appeal may be filed at any time. (2) The filing of a notice of appeal shall not stay the imposition, calculation or duty to pay the stormwater charge; the appellant shall pay the stormwater charge, as stated in the billing. (e) Ability to audit. (1) The city reserves the right to audit a parcel's stormwater charge at any time. (2) This may include a review of the estimated impervious area associated with the parcel as well as any unique characteristics as they relate to the generation of stormwater runoff and/or the management thereof. (f) [Other procedures.] All other procedures pertaining to appeals shall be per the City of Newark's Stormwater Credits, Appeals and Grants Manual. (Ord. No. 17-34, Amend. No. 1, 10-9-17) Sec. 25A-8. Transfers. There shall be no transfers from the stormwater fund to any other operating fund of the city without an ordinance change by city council. (Ord. No. 17-34, Amend. No. 1, 10-9-17) Created: 2024-10-16 10:02:37 [EST] (Supp. No. 105, Update 1) Page 4 of 4