SPECIAL COUNCIL AND EXHIBITS 1 & 2

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING A Special Council Meeting was held on January 2, 2025, at 5:18 p.m., with Council President Anderson presiding. Council members present were Mr. Hare, Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Neil, Dr. Pillsbury, Ms. Arndt (via Webex), Mr. Rocha, Dr. Sudler, and Mr. Lewis. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Staff members present were Mr. Hugg, Mr. Rodriguez, Ms. Marney (via Webex), and Ms. Bennett. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Boggerty, and unanimously carried. MAYOR ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN VETO – MOTION ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 9, 2024 – TO AFFIRM CITY COUNCIL’S DECISION OF DECEMBER 9, 2024, ORDINANCE #2024-24 – AMENDING CHAPTER 26 BUSINESSES, ARTICLE II – LICENSES, SEC. 26-31. – DEFINITIONS, AND APPENDIX F – FEES AND FINES, CHAPTER 26; ORDINANCE #2024-25 – AMEDNING CHAPTER 26 BUSINESSES, ARTICLE II – LICENSES, SEC. 26-31. – DEFINITIONS, AND APPENDIX F – FEES AND FINES CHAPTER 26; ORDINANCE #2024-29 – AMENDING, APPENDIX B-ZONING, ARTICLE 3 – DISTRICT REGULATIONS, SEC. 19 – MANUFACTURING ZONE (M), SEC. 20 – INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING ZONE (IPM), SEC. 23 – AGRICULTURAL ZONE (A), ARTICLE 5 – SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS, SEC. 24 – MARIJUANA RELATED BUSINESSES, ARTICLE 12 – DEFINITIONS; ORDINANCE #2024-30 – AMENDING APPENDIX B – ZONING, ARTICLE 3 – DISTRICT REGULATIONS, SEC. 16 – HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONE (C-4), ARTICLE 5 – SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS, SEC. 24 – MARIJUANA-RELATED BUSINESSES, ARTICLE 12 – DEFINITIONS During their Regular Meeting of December 9, 2024, by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes (Hare, Boggerty, Neil, Pillsbury, Arndt, Rocha, Lewis, Anderson), and one (1) no (Sudler), Council adopted Ordinance #2024-29 – Amending Appendix B – Zoning, Article 3 – District Regulations, Sec. 19 – Manufacturing Zone (M), Sec. 20 – Industrial Manufacturing Zone (IPM), Sec. 23 – Agricultural Zone (a), Article 5 – Supplementary Regulations, Sec. 24 – Marijuana Related Businesses, Article 12 – Definitions. During their Regular Meeting of December 9, 2024, by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes (Hare, Boggerty, Neil, Pillsbury, Arndt, Sudler, Lewis, Anderson), and one (1) no (Rocha), Council adopted Ordinance #2024-30 – Amending Appendix B – Zoning, Article 3 – District Regulations, Sec. 16 – Highway Commercial Zone (C-4), Article 5 – Supplementary Regulations, Sec. 24 – Marijuana Related Businesses, Article 12 – Definitions. During their Regular Meeting of December 9, 2024, by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes (Hare, Boggerty, Neil, Pillsbury, Arndt, Rocha, Lewis, Anderson), and one (1) no (Sudler), Council adopted Ordinance #2024-24 – Amending Chapter 26 Businesses, Article II – Licenses, Sec. 26-31. Definitions, Appendix F – Fees and Fines, Chapter 26. During their Regular Meeting of December 9, 2024, by a unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted Ordinance #2024-25 – Amending Chapter 26 Businesses, Article II – Licenses, Sec. 26-31.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 2, 2025 PAGE 2 Definitions, Appendix F – Fees and Fines, Chapter 26. Mr. Lewis moved to reaffirm the previous Council action to adopt Ordinances #2024-29, #2024-30, as amended; #2024-24, and #2024-25. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sudler. On December 16, 2024, the City Clerk received a letter from Mayor Robin R. Christiansen disapproving the motions, which stated: "RE: To the Citizens of the City of Dover and Members of Council, I hereby veto the following Ordinances pursuit to the City of Dover Charter Section 10, 2024-24 -Amending Chapter 26 Businesses, Article II - Licenses, Sec. 26-31. - Definitions, and Appendix F - Fees and Fines, Chapter 26 (Formerly Proposed Ordinance #2024-24A - Recreational Marijuana Business License: Cultivation, Manufacturing, and Testing Facilities) 2024-25 -Amending Chapter 26 Businesses, Article II - Licenses, Sec. 26-31. - Definitions, and Appendix F - Fees and Fines, Chapter 26 (Formerly Proposed Ordinance #2024-24B - Recreational Marijuana Business License: Compassion Centers, Retail Marijuana Stores) 2024-29 -Amending Appendix B- Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Sec. 19 - Manufacturing Zone (M), Sec. 20 - Industrial Manufacturing Zone (1PM), Sec. 23 - Agricultural Zone (A), Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Sec. 24 -Marijuana Related Businesses, Article 12 - Definitions (Formerly Proposed Ordinance #2024- 25A - Recreational Marijuana Land Use and Zoning: Cultivation, Manufacturing, and Testing Facilities) 2024-30 -Amending Appendix B- Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Sec. 16 - Highway Commercial Zone (C-4), Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Sec. 24 - Marijuana Related Businesses, Article 12 - Definitions (Formerly Proposed Ordinance #2024-25B - Recreational Marijuana Land Uses and Zoning: Retail Marijuana Stores) For the following reasons - The 4 ordinances recently passed by City Council represent, in my opinion and in concert with many of our residents, law enforcement, first responders, and business community, will cause irreparable harm to this City, the capital of the Frist State. Given Dover's already significant problems with alcohol and illegal drug abuse, I do not believe it to be in the best interest of this city to add another drug to this difficult situation. The use of this drug, legal according to state law but illegal as classified by Federal Statute, sends all the wrong messages and none of the right messages as we work to bring back a city that is full of families and residents, young and old, who live, work, and play here and raise families. Further, the growth, manufacturing, distribution, testing and/or retail of this drug benefits the State of Delaware, not the city of Dover. All taxes paid by the consumer will flow to the State. Dover will gain little benefit from business licensing, water

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 2, 2025 PAGE 3 and electricity, yet all other taxes, fees, and state licensing monies benefit the State's General Fund. However, the consequences from the consumption of this drug, including but not limited to anticipated expenses, will be borne exclusively by the City's residents, law enforcement, and medical community. Further, by allowing all four categories of this drug within the city limit without adequate protection for our schools, hospitals, clinics, and no protection for our religious organizations is unacceptable. The ordinances leave blank any setback distances from any of our many well-established churches and religious organizations in the city. Additionally, the 500 feet noted in the Ordinance # 2024- 30 for retail along our Rt. 13 corridor would have allowed up to six, or even seven, retail shops stretching from the City of Dover Sign to the north entrance of DAFB. This number of retail marijuana establishments, without sufficient distance standards to sensitive properties as named previously, does not create a healthy situation for our city. Further, these ordinances were written and produced without any review by the City Solicitor to determine their legality or potential conflicts with the current City Code and the revised zoning ordinances sent back to the planning commission for review. Further, some on City Council believed action must be taken to preserve the ability of the one compassionate care/medical dispensary currently operating in the city to remain in business. Specifically, any currently zoned and state licensed medical facility will not lose their ability to stay in business as a medical dispensary. They will be automatically granted a retail license by the State. It then becomes the choice of the owner to seek zoning and acceptance by a local jurisdiction of their state retail license. Their ability to remain a medical dispensary is not impacted. Further, there have been numerous arguments rendered about removing the illegal market within the city. I have seen no evidence of this in the areas that have legalized the growth, manufacturing, distribution, testing, and/or retail sale of this drug. Further, by the act of the Assembly, they have granted all the towns and cities in Delaware the option to allow or not allow the growth, manufacture, distribution, testing, and/or sale of this drug within their city limits. Currently, over 65% of the towns and cities have found in their studies good reasons to ban any industry related to marijuana within their city limits and have done so. Finally, by the authority given to me by the City of Dover and my deep concerns with the significant negative impact this drug already has, an impact that stands only to be amplified by adding its growth, manufacturing, distribution, testing, and retail sale within our great City's limits, I hereby veto Ordinances # 2024-24, 2024- 25, 2024-29, 2024-30, for the above stated reasons. Respectfully Submitted this Day, the Sixteenth of December, Two Thousand and Twenty-Four.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 2, 2025 PAGE 4 Mr. Rocha stated for the record that he agreed with Mayor Christiansen’s veto and everything that was specified. He wanted to let council know that they were making a decision, and if there was any thought process that would go into being in favor, would this be something they want for a family-oriented city where they have invested millions of dollars into the development of the Downtown Dover to become a destination for families. Mr. Rocha noted that from what he heard from his constituents, it was the negative, not to approve the ordinance. He believed that this would not benefit the city and if they went against this veto, they could bring forth another ordinance on the contrary to this. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Anderson clarified that if the ordinances did not pass, people could set up retail marijuana shops in the city, including Downtown Dover. Mr. Neil stated that he understood why Mayor Christiansen vetoed the ordinances, but that does not ban marijuana, and they cannot get rid of it from the state. The fact was that it was here, and they were dealing with this, and it could not stop a person from coming in and selling because it was legal. The question would be if they are just pushing it off so that a business could open up directly across their border and be smoking across from a sign that stated: “Welcome to Dover.” Mr. Boggerty stated that his position was that he did not disagree with Mayor Christiansen, Mr. Rocha, or Mr. Neil. If he was ever going to abstain from something, it would be from this, but he would not because that was not why he was voted into council. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Anderson stated that they would need to have a license to add a small sales tax, but under the current state law, it would be specifically made to benefit the state. It does not mean the law cannot change. He noted that Wilmington’s representatives are trying to lobby for a small local tax, and they have reached out to see if Dover would like to join in, and he fully supports that. Mr. Anderson emphasized that once they were through the ordinances, they would bring a resolution to support that if they all agreed upon it. Mr. Anderson pointed out that regardless of whether the ordinances were passed or not, marijuana remained legal, and all costs were legal. The concern would be driving out local businesses, such as the business to be converted, which they have said would move those jobs outside the city. Furthermore, the other concern could be driving out other local businesses that are trying to relocate to areas where those businesses could legally sell marijuana. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Anderson clarified that if the ordinances were approved, businesses would stay, but if the ordinances were not approved, the businesses would leave. Mr. Anderson noted that at least two (2) businesses would leave if the ordinances were not approved. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Anderson stated that Wilmington representatives were discussing addressing a 1% to 1 ½% tax and the 1 ½% would be the equivalent of 10% of the state tax. He noted that they do not want to put the tax too high, or they would drive the black market up, and that would be where people would get contaminated products, which could lead to death, and they do not want that. Mr. Anderson emphasized that if one good thing can come out of this would be to save lives. Mr. Lewis concurred with Mr. Neil and reiterated marijuana was here to stay. The state legislators voted, and it passed. Despite what some people think, a public survey was conducted months ago,

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 2, 2025 PAGE 5 and he believed that it was a fair process because it was open to those who wanted to take it. The data was analyzed and after it was closed, 60% of the citizens wanted retail marijuana, with the caveat not being downtown, which council had abided by. Mr. Lewis has no problem and concurs with marijuana not being downtown. It was what the public wanted, and it was their interest. Mr. Rocha stated that when the survey was conducted, the draft ordinance at that time had a one (1) mile distance along the corridor on Route 13, which has now been changed to 500 feet. In his opinion, that was a game-changer for him. He pointed out that other municipalities are having the same discussion and have not passed an ordinance yet. For example, Milford is looking at two (2) ordinances, one (1) to approve, and one to ban sales. Those municipalities still have one (1) mile distance in one (1) ordinance that they are trying to approve. Mr. Rocha noted that at the last council meeting, he had made a statement that if the ordinances were not approved that evening, then he was told no they could not have a special council meeting. He further noted that they could have resolved this within the last three (3) weeks, and now are still sitting here in chambers discussing the veto. They could have been making improvements or changing things in a special council meeting, had they acted accordingly during the last council meeting. Whatever would be decided, he is part of the team, but his vote would be no. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Anderson clarified that only six (6) dispensaries would be licensed in Kent County. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Anderson stated that it would be impossible to have six (6) dispensaries in Dover due to the setbacks. The very most that could be had would be four (4) dispensaries, but there are 20 municipalities. The Town of Smyrna has already voted to allow marijuana, and they are treating marijuana just like alcohol, which essentially can go anywhere in the town. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Townsend stated that if there was no ordinance, then it would fall back to whatever that underlying use was. A retail license would be permitted anywhere that retail was allowed. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Rodriguez stated that the Planning Commission voted not to approve the two (2) zoning amendments, and the other two (2) ordinances would not go before the Planning Commission because they did not involve zoning, that was the position of the Planning Commission. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Rodriguez clarified that council would have the authority to change the ordinance after the Planning Commission had reviewed it. Dr. Sudler stated that, in his view, Cannabidiol (CBD) was more harmful than cannabis because CBD has synthetic marijuana in it, and not only is that legal, but a person does not have to be 18 years of age to have it. Dr. Sudler’s concern from his and his constituent’s perspective, was that they would rather have a safe pathway to cannabis usage, that was free from synthetics and fentanyl. If individuals want to indulge in cannabis, that can be an alternative that would be clean. Dr. Sudler emphasized that their role was to serve their constituents. If the constituents felt that they wanted it and it was reasonable, ethically sound, and a tangible tool that they could assess, then council owed it to their constituents to at least give it a shot. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Anderson stated that just like with any ordinance, they would have

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 2, 2025 PAGE 6 the ability to come back and make changes to the ordinance if something was not working. He noted that the only caveat would be the existence of a location that was grandfathered in because of certain property rights, but council could adjust the boundary lines, setbacks, et cetera. Mr. Anderson stated that Mr. Rodriguez formed an opinion that under state law, there would be no timeframe given limiting their action so that they could come back and address actions, just like with any other ordinance. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Dr. Sudler suggested that they should consider that and decide to move forward as a team by honoring their constituents’ feedback. Mr. Hare concurred with Mr. Rocha. He does not want to see marijuana in the Downtown Dover Business District. As much as Mr. Hare does not want to see drugs in the city if the ordinances do not pass, then they could see marijuana downtown and anywhere in the city. Dr. Pillsbury stated that her understanding was that not allowing the sale within the city limits, would limit the number of people within the city who would be using marijuana. People could still get it in the county and anywhere else, it is not against the law to smoke it. There would be no repercussions for anyone who chooses to use marijuana. She believed that they were not going to be able to accomplish Mayor Christiansen’s laudable goals by not allowing marijuana and the concerns from others who have expressed where marijuana would go. She noted that it was a tough decision and would not change people’s behavior. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Anderson stated that there was a caveat that Mr. Rodriguez pointed out that individuals were not supposed to smoke marijuana on a public street itself, and it would need to be on private property. Mr. Anderson explained that when they look at the particular ordinances, they are born of compromise. There was a large portion of the city that had been heard in the chambers, and what was seen from the surveys, a large portion of the city wanted no restriction whatsoever. There was a sizable minority that wanted all the restrictions. People wanted to ban marijuana if they could, but the state made it legal no matter what. He explained that the state allowed some ways for the municipalities to have options within their local values and their local constraints. There was a sizable portion of the city that wanted marijuana to be legal, but they wanted it to be restricted. He noted that the ordinances were supported by 60% of people. More people who responded to those surveys were from Dover than those who would vote in the elections. He further noted by looking at the public hearings that they have had, it breaks down in the same range. Mr. Anderson believed that there was validity to these surveys and the petitions that he had received, this was not a controversial issue in his district. The compromise has given the people who want restrictions, 90% of what they want, and over 90% of the city will be off-limits to marijuana retail, marijuana cultivation, and marijuana testing. Mr. Anderson stated that they have walled off the vast majority of the city's marijuana and people would have to accept the 90% victory. The compromise that has been worked through would allow businesses to flourish and expand. It allowed them to receive the benefits of an industry that would be growing in Delaware; if they did not, they would be missing out on any benefits from it, but they would have all the burdens. The question would be why they would accept the burdens and not have any of the benefits. Mr. Anderson questioned why they would not want the jobs, utilities, and property taxes that could come along. He noted that what they have done had a balanced approach to the ordinances. He noted that the ordinances were not what he would have chosen if he had drawn

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 2, 2025 PAGE 7 them up because it was more restrictive than his libertarian learnings. He noted that there are a substantial number of people who want to regulate marijuana, but they do not want to ban it. Mr. Anderson stated that the question would be do they go with the wisdom of the people or not. Mr. Anderson supported Mr. Lewis’s motion and said that he was willing to be a sponsor of the ordinances, even though they were not particularly what he preferred. He noted that council had decided on a moderate approach, and with moderation, Mr. Anderson believed there was wisdom to it. Mr. Anderson stated that a vote of yes would override the veto and that the motion would reaffirm the council’s action, which was the way they have done in the past, and a vote of no would be against the ordinance. Mr. Lewis made a motion to reaffirm the previous Council action to adopt Ordinances #2024- 29, #2024-30, as amended; #2024-24, and #2024-25. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sudler and carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes (Hare, Boggerty, Neil, Pillsbury, Arndt, Sudler, Lewis, Anderson), and one (1) no (Rocha). Mr. Anderson moved for adjournment of the Special Council meeting, hearing no objection; the meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. ANDRIA BENNETT CITY CLERK ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /CW Exhibits Exhibit #1 – Dr. Dina Carol Vendetti’s Letter Exhibit #2 – Jun Xu’s Letter

EXHIBIT #1 Special City Council Meeting of 01/02/2025

EXHIBIT #2 Special City Council Meeting of 01/02/2025