CCW - MINUTES AND ATTACHMENTS 1-6

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Council Committee of the Whole met on November 29, 2022, at 6:00 p.m. with Council President Sudler presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Neil, Dr. Pillsbury, Ms. Arndt, Mr. Rocha, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Hare. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Civilian members present for their committee meetings were Dr. Jackson (Safety, Advisory, and Transportation), Mr. Shelton (Utility), Mr. Shevock, and Mr. Contant (Legislative, Finance, and Administration). Mr. Hosfelt ((Safety, Advisory, and Transportation), and Mr. McCutcheon (Utility) were absent. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and unanimously carried. SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee met with Chairman Taylor presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Taylor moved to defer Item #1 on the Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee Agenda – Quarterly Briefing on Dover/Kent Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Projects until the January 24, 2023, Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee Meeting. Mr. Neil moved to adopt the agenda as amended to defer Item #1 on the Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee – Quarterly Briefing on Dover/Kent Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Projects until the January 24, 2023, Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee Meeting the motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Proposed Ordinance #2022-26 – Amending Chapter 70 by adding a Section 70-12, Loitering Mr. David S. Hugg, III, City Manager, and Chief Thomas Johnson, Dover Police Department, reviewed the background and analysis regarding Proposed Ordinance #2022-26. Staff recommended approving the Ordinance for First Reading at the December 12, 2022, Regular City Council Meeting. Mr. Hare moved to accept the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Hugg stated he believed the City Solicitor had reviewed the Ordinance. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Hugg stated that the nuisance ordinance and the loitering ordinance are companion ordinances. The nuisance ordinance covers how people take care of their property and how they interfere with other people’s use of their property. The loitering ordinance addresses how an individual acts or behaves on public or private property.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 2022 PAGE 2 Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Chief Johnson stated that the language of high crime area is found in the state statute as one of the elements for an officer to consider when he or she is doing a loitering investigation. That high crime area has no connection to any specific geography in any municipality. Almost all decisions are data-driven, that’s why there are crime analysts and reports that get pushed out. So, the officers understand where the violent crime is, and where the quality of life is, they have a truer understanding of those “high crime zones” and they are in a state of flux. Chief Johnson continued to state that wherever the recent and compelling data might live, this language allows the changes in the data landscape to not ever conflict with the law that they are trying to enforce. The word high crime area would be viewed as whatever their current data now would suggest. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Chief Johnson stated that the existing loitering language at the time when there was no thought about repealing or relocating the language was in the parks section of the city code. With that being the adopted loitering statute in the city, the elements of the state loitering statutes appear to be harnessed in that first document that they all looked at 13 months ago to try to create a companion ordinance so that the elements of the state statute could be applied locally without state-level consequences. Chief Johnson continued to state that now that they are doing all the refreshment relocations, looking at the language, excluding things that are either repetitive or that they are not comfortable with. For example, the panhandling references are not in the City’s loitering ordinance because there is a separate ordinance for panhandling, and no need to state that twice. Chief Johnson noted that what remains are the elements of the state statute, which has all the comfort of being court-tested and effectively used all over Delaware, except now they have it in a local offense that is simply a ticket and something that can be addressed at a minor level if the overall situation would warrant that. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Chief Johnson stated that the language he referred to does not necessarily have to be in there. The language was modeled after the state ordinance. Chief Johnson continued to state that they reflected very closely on what the state did, and in the discussions with staff, they got the sense that council was comfortable with the idea that previously court-tested language would be desirable and not go too far outside of that. Mr. Neil stated this is the most difficult thing that council and the Police Department have to deal with every single day. Council is creating a law that came from the cries of businesses who threaten to leave, whose businesses and equity of their businesses are dying and threatening the heart of the downtown area. Mr. Neil stated that council is in the process of developing a Master Plan, hopefully, early next month they will get the first look at that, and what it is going to be. At the same time, he recognizes the points that Councilman Rocha has brought up. It is a constitutional problem of abuse of a law that would damage the individual and the constitutional rights of that individual. Two of the members of council took the brunt of that by saying “We are going to try to save downtown, the downtown businesses because these people are being hurt financially and they could go out of business, which hurts the city financially and hurts what we are trying to do with the downtown.” The compromises that have been developed, have been developed using a lot of the state language to make sure that they are not abusing it. The second thing is that council and the Chief must make sure that the officers do not abuse it. It is not set up for that and council has been through that. Mr. Neil supports this because he thinks it is necessary to tell people who want to do business in this city and downtown that they are there to protect them. Otherwise, you

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 2022 PAGE 3 are saying “Look, let the rebel decide what the future is going to be.” That is not what government is about. Council is there to protect people, and individuals, so that they will come down and feel comfortable at events and even in the evening, when we have things that are happening and stores are open. Mr. Neil stated that is their job to see if they can make that happen. Two members of this council have worked very diligently to make it happen. Mr. Neil salutes them, will support this, and will vote for this ordinance. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Chief Johnson stated that he thinks he speaks for both of them when he says he did not know what dawdling was until it was before council 13 months ago. Chief Johnson continued to state that he remembers looking up the definition of it. Dawdling had more to do with circulating in a zone as opposed to being in a fixed position, where loitering kind of was specific to a spot. That might be the only difference between the two words, dawdling kind of has a wider area of roaming, but it is still a general geography as opposed to a fixed point. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Hugg stated that he supports this language and supports this ordinance. The Chief and he together and independently went through this ordinance, asking themselves the question of whether they are achieving what they want to achieve. Are they treating the people who might be affected by this ordinance fairly, not making them criminals because they were standing on a street corner unless there is some other criminal activity going on? Responding to Mr. Sudler, Chief Johnson stated that he is also in support of this ordinance, as this provides an additional tool in the toolbox for his officers. This ordinance does not offer any enforcement power or statute to take action that does not already exist in state law. He would suggest the mindset of any officer that would be approaching a loitering situation will be to apply the kind of discretion that he thinks the community of Dover would want them to apply, whether they are thinking about the local ordinance at the time or the state statute. Ms. Engle stated, On October 26, 2021, the dawdling ordinance was heard here at a Council Committee of the Whole Meeting. Mr. Hare moved to table that ordinance, that vote was unanimous, and it has remained tabled until this time. At the September 27th, 2022, Council Committee of the Whole Meeting, Chief Johnson did a presentation regarding loitering. In this presentation, he showed the state-approved court-tested language. Ms. Engle stated that she believes that this committee recommended referring to staff to draft the Loitering Ordinance that is before them now. That was a unanimous vote by this committee. On October 24th, there were questions about the Nuisance Ordinance. This is in the same section of the code, Ordinance #2022- 15, Chapter 70, Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions, Section 70-9. So, the Nuisance Ordinance will be just before this ordinance in the city code. Mr. Anderson stated that he believes this ordinance is a vital tool to have in their city government. Mr. Anderson continued to state that it will help not only downtown and downtown businesses but people all over the city. The laws exist and council could make changes if they want to. If a minor change makes someone more comfortable, Mr. Anderson noted that he is fine with that. If council does so, understand that the state law can not be changed by them and will exist as it is. Council voted unanimously to draft this; it is exactly as they saw with some provisions taken out. Mr. Anderson noted that the only word that has been added is camping in the parks is unauthorized. This will provide a lower-level opportunity if someone has made a mistake it will not follow them.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 2022 PAGE 4 They will be able to enforce the law with a sense of mercy as well as justice so that people are not hemmed up five years later with an arrest record. Ms. Arndt stated that she was not comfortable with the Dawdling Ordinance but appreciates Councilman Taylor and Councilman Anderson getting council started towards addressing crime within the city. Ms. Arndt feels that something needs to be done and that they are moving in the right direction. The Chief gave a presentation at the September Council Committee of the Whole meeting and the fact that there would be a fine, but no time or permanent record was comforting. Ms. Arndt is concerned with whether council has engaged the public enough to express their concerns. Ms. Arndt thought there would be more communication with the ACLU, the Police Chief’s Advisory Committee, and the public. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Mr. Taylor stated that this was heard at the Police Chief’s Advisory Committee meeting. Dr. Jackson is the Vice Chair and saw it through the committee to ensure other people were hearing about it. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Chief Johnson stated, the state-level ordinance is being relied on since it was discovered that the loitering ordinance that Dover has only covered the parks. Chief Johnson stated that the loitering ordinance is effective. About five months ago there was a report of an officer who went through the steps of addressing somebody loitering on New Street. The person initially complied and left the area but within ten minutes they were right back in the same spot. Chief Johnson explained that they got out and took the next steps because there was a persistent situation, and a firearm was recovered. The local ordinance is being adopted in as much harmony with the state statute and will make sure that there are no confusing moments in the mindset of the officers that must rely on training in short circumstances. Dr. Jackson stated this ordinance has gone through the Police Chief’s Advisory Committee. Dr. Jackson asked if the Police Department has the capacity to be able to address the issue of increased calls of loitering. Responding to Dr. Jackson, Chief Johnson stated they are continuing to build capacity and that everyone is encouraged to call. Some calls may be triaged at high call volume times but if they want to see a police officer, they will get a prompt response. Chief Johnson is building more capacity to do more proactive enforcement as they go. When officers become assigned to the downtown unit those officers will rely upon this ordinance regularly to improve conditions on Loockerman and connecting streets. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Taylor stated that he is correct, and if the city ordinance is passed it would not leave a record for the person as where the state ordinance would. Assistant City Clerk Engle read Attachment #1 – Letter to Dover City Council – Proposed Ordinance #2022-26 - ACLU and Attachment #2 – Letter to Dover City Council – Proposed Ordinance #2022-26 - Central Delaware NAACP. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Chief Johnson stated that yes, the current ordinance will reduce the penalties that are already in place via the state statutes.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 2022 PAGE 5 Mr. Sudler stated the ACLU and NAACP would need to approach the state and federal levels to make changes to this ordinance. The City of Dover aims to reduce the penalties, not increase them. Mayor Christiansen stated that it is very important to get a review by the City Solicitor for the protection of the mayor and council and the action that council takes on behalf of the citizens. Mayor Christiansen noted that moreover, to protect the police officers with an interpretation that all the i’s are dotted, and the t’s are crossed because these folks are the ones that are going to have to be enforcing this ordinance. It must be above reproach what is in that ordinance and what their responsibilities are. Council President Sudler made a motion of call for the question. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Mr. Hare moved to approve Ordinance #2022-26 for the First Reading at the December 12, 2022, Regular City Council Meeting, recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and approved by an 8-2 roll call vote. Prioritization of City of Dover State Capital Transportation Program (CTP) Projects (David S. Hugg, III, City Manager) Mr. Hare moved to recommend approval of the 2023 Transportation Priorities, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Mr. Taylor moved for adjournment of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee, hearing no objection, the meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee met with Chairman Rocha presiding. Adoption of Agenda Ms. Arndt moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Taylor and unanimously carried. Annexation Request – Consideration of Utility Services for Lands of Craig, Keller, and Burkett: Three parcels on West Dennys Road (AX-22-03) Ms. Mary Ellen Gray, Director of Planning, Inspections, and Community Development reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Annexation Request – Consideration of Utility Services for Lands of Craig, Keller, and Burkett: Three parcels on West Dennys Road (AX-22-03). Staff recommended research continues on the availability and ability to serve these properties with City of Dover utility services (Electric, Water, and Sanitary Sewer). The Electric Department and Department of Water and Wastewater have no objection to its annexation.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 2022 PAGE 6 Mr. Hare moved to recommend research continues on the availability and ability to serve these properties with City of Dover utility services (Electric, Water, and Sanitary Sewer). The Electric Department and Department of Water and Wastewater have no objection to its annexation, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boggerty and unanimously carried. Annual Review and Approval of Governing Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management (Lori Peddicord, Controller/Treasurer) Mr. Sudler moved to defer the Annual Review and Approval of Governing Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management to the December 13, 2022, meeting. The motion was seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and unanimously carried. Mr. Rocha moved for adjournment of the Utility Committee, hearing no objection, the meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Meeting adjourned at 7:20 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 Dr. Pillsbury and unanimously carried. Update from the Dover Organization of Employees (DOE) on Membership Priorities (Matthew Brown, President of DOE Union) Mr. Matthew Brown presented a verbal presentation regarding an update from the DOE Union (Attachment #3). Mr. Anderson thanked Mr. Brown for his high compliment to council. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Brown stated that he does not know the exact ratio of what percentage of the union of 150 members that are in the current pension plan versus the 401/457 plan. Mr. Brown believes it would be a great benefit to an employee to have the state pension plan available to them. Mr. Taylor thanked Mr. Brown for his kind words and explained council is trying to figure it all out for all the unions. Mr. Taylor explained they do not know where all the money is going to come from, but they are grateful for everyone hanging in there. Approval of Grant Funded Sole Source Vendor – Flock Safety – Vehicle Identification System Cameras (Chief Thomas Johnson, Dover Police Department)

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 2022 PAGE 7 Chief Thomas Johnson, Dover Police Department reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Grant Funded Sole Source Vendor – Flock Safety – Vehicle Identification System Cameras. Staff recommended approving the Grant Funded Sole Source Vendor – Flock Safety – Vehicle Identification System Cameras request. Mr. Hare moved to recommend approval of Grant Funded Sole Source Vendor – Flock Safety – Vehicle Identification System Cameras request, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler. Responding to Mr. Contant, Chief Johnson stated, the cameras would be new cameras, and as far as the technology that is under consideration. There has been a conversation with Advantech who is the consulting vendor, and they are going to reshape what we are doing to allow this to fit into the overall program. Responding to Mr. Contant, Chief Johnson stated, this will change some locations from the standpoint of this technology will allow them to hit some of the spots where there are power challenges and some other logistical hurdles. This technology is portable so if after installation the desired result is not produced it can be picked up and relocated. Mr. Hare moved to recommend approval of Grant Funded Sole Source Vendor – Flock Safety – Vehicle Identification System Cameras request, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. Discussion Timing and Content of Financial Reports (Councilman David Anderson) Lori Peddicord, Controller/Treasurer, discussed correspondence regarding the timing of the reports that are appearing on the council agendas. Ms. Peddicord stated that it has never been brought to her attention that there was a particular standard time that they were to be presented. Ms. Peddicord noted that she is particularly talking about the monthly report and quarterly reports. Ms. Peddicord stated that she is looking for direction on how that came about or if there is a huge concern or issue with when they are presented. Council President Sudler stated that he believes there is a past pattern of practice. Mr. Sudler stated that he would refer to Madam Clerk Bennett to indicate the past pattern of practice and any additional information for the committee to consider and review for their judgment. City Clerk Bennett stated that monthly reports are due for the first meeting of each month for each department. City assessors, City Council's Community Enhancement, City Manager, City Planner, Controller, Fire Chief, and Police Chief. Ms. Bennett continued to state that quarterly reports are due for the second meeting. Ms. Bennett explained that the Quarterly Revenue Reports as of December 31st would be the second meeting in January and then it would go accordingly at the end of the quarter. Ms. Bennett stated that they have recurring items on each Council Committee of the Whole as well as Regular City Council meetings. Ms. Bennett continued to state that when she double-checked with the former City Clerk, she told her that it had been in practice for as long as she could remember, it was not anything new. Ms. Bennett noted that these have been expected

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 2022 PAGE 8 at the same time each month because when they started getting pushback, that was when she reached out to the former City Clerk to ask. Council President Sudler stated thanked the Clerk’s Office for clarifying any of the concerns for the Treasurer/Controller. Mr. Sudler noted that it is also within his seven years of experience that, that has been the pattern of practice previously. Ms. Sudler stated that he does not know if council wants to adopt a new practice. Mr. Sudler continued to state that if they do, that is why they are bringing it forth but that has been the pattern of practice to his knowledge as well. Responding to Mr. Anderson, City Clerk Bennett stated that he is correct and that is why this came up. Ms. Bennett explained that two months ago, Mr. Neil brought it up that the packets are already hundreds of pages long and that a finance report was roughly 37 pages additional. Ms. Bennett apologized and stated that there were three months that were pushed and there was an additional report which was roughly 30 pages and then it added over a hundred pages to council’s packet. Mr. Hare stated that his thing is maybe a mistake or some late information was coming in, but that this has been a policy that he has known since '91 and that it has worked for almost, what, over 30 some years that he has been aware of it. Mr. Hare continued to state that if there was a mistake or a late report, he is sure, well, maybe, he does not know, maybe there is somebody in the room that has never made a mistake or presented anything late. Ms. Peddicord stated that she did send council an email about some of her concerns. Ms. Peddicord noted that there were some reasonable practices regarding the monthly reports. Ms. Peddicord explained that the biggest concern she has was when the quarterly report came up and she was told that because it was not ready on the second meeting of October, it would then be presented in January. Mr. Peddicord stated that to her then the information is no longer valuable to council. Ms. Peddicord stated that it also kills employee morale because her team is very overworked and that she is just trying to get the direction of how council chooses to receive their information and whether it is timely or not. Mr. Hare stated that his experience and knowledge of working in Ms. Peddicord’s department are somewhat limited. Mr. Hare continued to state that he would trust her department's expertise to give council the guidance instead of them giving Ms. Peddicord the guidance on what is the best way to proceed with this if there is a late report or something. Mr. Neil stated that he reads everything that is in the packet and that the packets are always a month late. Mr. Neil continued to state that by the time they see it for the next meeting, it is a month late. Mr. Neil explained that when he sees it three months late, in other words, he would expect the last month would be at least current. Mr. Neil stated that he does not know what it is that Ms. Peddicord has to do, whether it's Tyler Munis or whatever they are working on, whether that is a problem. Mr. Neil explained that when he starts in one, then all of a sudden there is something there that is the next month is different, then the next month is different. Mr. Neil noted that if it is quarterly, the best way to present it is every three months but that to have it within the month of, at least not the current month, but the last month before the meeting. Mr. Neil stated that he would be satisfied and at least they have to know what that flow is. Mr. Neil stated just as he has to know what is happening with the Police Department, or with the Fire Department and their

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 2022 PAGE 9 statistics bring it up. Mr. Neil explained that if Ms. Peddicord has a problem because she does not have enough help or something else that council does not know about it until she says so, and that she is saying so now tonight. Mr. Neil noted that basically if she has to do it every quarter, then present it every quarter, but on a timely quarterly basis. That the three months will be together so they will see exactly what the flow of the cash is that they are looking at. Mr. Neil noted that every other department is giving it to council, not that month, but from the month previous. Mr. Neil stated that is what council is looking at, that is what they are reviewing, and that is what we need. Mr. Neil continued to state that he does read it, he does make notes, and the Clerk’s Office knows that he makes notes because he will let them know if he sees something that becomes important. Mr. Neil noted that is their education and that is where they go to school. Mr. Hare stated that he is following up on what Mr. Neil said, the one remark that every other department sends their reports, well if Ms. Peddicord was giving council a report for just her department, he is sure they would be right on time. Mr. Hare stated that Ms. Peddicord has to give council a report for the whole city and if she does not get the information from all the other departments on time, then it could be a problem. Mr. Hare stated that one or two mistakes do not create a constant misappropriation or mismanagement and that she is very good about giving council if nothing else, the cash flow status reports so they know where they are. Cash flow status. Mr. Hare stated that he thinks their department does well, but as he said, it is not a report for just their department. They have to get it from all over the city. Mr. Anderson stated that he wants to be clear that this is not about any recrimination, it is all about how they get the timely flow of information. Mr. Anderson thinks that she raises a valid question that if a quarterly report is delayed, such as if they had an issue with the auditor and it delayed a quarterly report, council needs to see it as soon as they can. Mr. Anderson stated that the question he thinks about is, "How doescCouncil want to see that?" Does council want to have it emailed to them and then put in the next appropriate packet? Mr. Anderson noted that he does not find it useful to have a quarterly report and not see it for three months. Mr. Anderson explained that does not have useful information to council anymore and that is the question that she was trying to raise, he thinks the quarterly reports, maybe if it is delayed, having at the next available second meeting of the month is reasonable in his opinion. Mr. Hare stated that as Council President, he knows how imperative it is to have reports. Mr. Hare explained that their decisions, their packet, everything is based on a coordinated effort to have the knowledge that council needs to make the proper and educated decisions for the city. Mr. Hare stated that he is not out to put Ms. Peddicord on the cross, however, he is here to say that they need those reports. Mr. Hare continued to state that he concurs with Councilman Hare that he has not fallen short and that he has oversight at times where he has missed something. Mr. Hare noted that three months is too much for them and that it is too much for the city. Ms. Sudler noted that he also concurs with Councilman Neil that they need the information and that this is not a grandstanding moment. Mr. Sudler continued to state that this is a vital moment and that Ms. Peddicord holds one of the most significant positions in the City of Dover, Treasurer/Controller. Mr. Sudler noted that council needs to know what is in the budget tonight. Mr. Sudler explained that they are dealing with wage salary, they are dealing with money, they are dealing with, "When can council give some financial relief to our constituents who pay all of us?"

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 2022 PAGE 10 Mr. Sudler noted that they work for the City of Dover and without their constituents, none of them have a job. Mr. Sudler stated that no matter how much increase you want in your pay, without them, there is no pay for the increase. Mr. Sudler continued to state that they need to know what they are looking at moving forward to make sound decisions. Mr. Sudler expressed that this is not personal, this is professional. Mr. Sudler stated that as Councilman Hare said, since what, '92 '91? Mr. Sudler noted that Ms. Peddicord is talking about morale, yes, it does affect morale. Mr. Sudler explained that he does agree with her a hundred percent because we have other department heads that are in compliance and then when they see another department head that is not in compliance, how do they justify that? Mr. Sudler explained that it was three months, not one month, not two months, three months, and not in compliance. Mr. Sudler noted that all they are asking is for the reports to be on time. Mr. Sudler stated that if there are variables that are unforeseen that they do not see, let council know ahead of time but say, "Hey, I am sorry things happen. This did not occur this month. I will catch you next month,” that is not going to work. Mr. Sudler explained the council runs this city, not one department. Mr. Sudler stated that he is going to tell everyone something that former Council President Slavin said to him, "Don't be hard on the person. Be hard on the issue." The issue is they are not getting what they need to make sound and educated decisions promptly. Mr. Sudler stated that he is not mocking you. I'm just saying, "Please, whatever they need to do as City Council to help her comply with that time frame, let them know ahead of time." Mr. Sudler continued to state that just saying, "Oh well this is what it is. This happened, this happened last minute," is not going to work. Mr. Sudler noted that this is not going to work under his administration as Council President. Ms. Peddicord stated that she has a list of things that she has brought up several times. Ms. Peddicord noted that she is going to run off a few of them. Ms. Peddicord explained that first, the timing of the month-end close and the issuance of that first monthly report and the last report for the fiscal year has never been timely within that following month. Ms. Peddicord continued to explain that this is because at the fiscal end close, there are accruals that must be accounted for that, if they did not report those expenses within the proper fiscal year, council’s reporting would not be accurate. Those two months take extra time to complete. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Peddicord stated that he is correct that June and July’s reports are delayed because of the closeout of the fiscal year. Ms. Peddicord explained that the loading of the data, the closeout of the year, and the collecting of information from other departments. That is included in the report as Councilman Hare explained. Ms. Peddicord noted that they are the hub and we collect the data from every department in the city. Ms. Peddicord stated that everyone's financial information is not all the time accurate, timely, and/or known to the finance department. Ms. Peddicord continued to state that to get reporting that is accurate to Council, they need time to get it from the individuals that have it. Ms. Peddicord stated that her point is, they are dependent on other departments in reporting the information accurately and timely to them. Ms. Peddicord continued to state that they collect the data and that they do not always have control over it. Ms. Peddicord noted that whether it is outside people, or inside people, they do not have everything in front of them. They are also working between two systems, as everyone is aware, she has explained how difficult this has been. Ms. Peddicord stated that she has explained how time-consuming it is and how much time has taken of every staff member of the city. Again, that is time-consuming because not only are they

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 2022 PAGE 11 implementing a new system, they are not just dropping the information from the old system to the new system. The processes are documented and then they have to be updated. Troubleshooting has to occur, and some errors are reported that have to be corrected before accurate data can be provided to council. Ms. Peddicord stated that again, it does not just flow through the system by itself without any maneuverability and reporting of accuracy. Ms. Peddicord stated that she has requested year, after year, more staff. Ms. Peddicord explained that her staff is truly constraint-stricken not only because of our daily tasks but because of the implementation. Ms. Peddicord continued to explain that though everyone is not involved as a team member in the implementation, they are still involved in the data flow that comes from the new system. Mr. Peddicord stated that if they look back, she is going to guarantee that there has been no growth within her department for many, many years. Ms. Peddicord stated that she has been with the city since 2014 and there has been no additional staff added. Ms. Peddicord stated that there have been additional tasks assigned to her department and she thinks that she has been told that she is doing more than one job. City Clerk Bennett stated that another example was there was a report due in November that they had been waiting for that now has been pushed to after the first of the year. That email came through earlier that day. Mr. Taylor stated that he thinks Ms. Peddicord is doing a great job. Mr. Taylor continued to state that he thinks she is doing a fantastic job and he thinks a lot of work with minimal people. Mr. Taylor noted that one of the things they did discuss solution-wise was the system that they are using, the cumbersome system they discussed would allow them to bring some people in. Mr. Taylor stated that they even talked dollar amounts about it and asked where they are on that with them coming in assisting with some of that downloading of information, that data drop that they are referring to. Mr. Taylor stated that yes, they did hear Ms. Peddicord and that they know that there is a lot on her shoulders. Mr. Taylor stated that this information is imperative and is needed. Mr. Taylor asked what else can council do to help, other than, approve whatever dollar amount she needs. Mr. Taylor stated let us make sure they do not slip but if funds are available that she can bring in Tyler's people or is there another solution that they could go to. Mr. Taylor noted that they are listening and they are seeking solutions themselves. Mr. Taylor continued to note that he does not want Ms. Peddicord to feel like she is on an island by herself and that she is being attacked. Ms. Peddicord stated that in response to the Tyler system and the discussion they had about having their implementation team help them is specifically phases two-related. Ms. Peddicord continued to state that was to provide additional training and hands-on because they had had a huge turnover in the majority of the implementation team. Additional help was needed from Tyler to get those individuals up to speed on what their practices should be. Ms. Peddicord noted that they took advantage of that. As an example, they have a new Human Resources director and a new Human Resources Administrative Assistant who does all the data entry into both time and payroll systems. One is ADP, the legacy system and the other is the Tyler system, where the time is then pulled in and then calculates the payroll. Ms. Peddicord noted that she was not here during the original training and the implementation and the build of that system. They needed to obtain more training for her, more hands-on, "Come in, help her, tell her what she is doing wrong, walk through it with her because this is all new and they are ready to GoLive.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 2022 PAGE 12 Ms. Arndt stated that she feels like this discussion could have been an email and that she does not think that this is the appropriate forum for this discussion. Ms. Arndt thanked Ms. Peddicord for sharing her constraints with council and that she appreciates that information. Mr. Arndt noted that she does recall that she has tried to meet with council on several occasions and they have not scheduled that meeting. Ms. Arndt stated that she believes that would have been the opportunity to discuss these issues and for Ms. Peddicord to share with them her path moving forward. Mr. Hare stated that he is just following up on what Councilman Arndt said. Mr. Hare stated that he was going to make the same statement because he has discussed it with Ms. Peddicord when she got the email and said they should hopefully get to meet when the October report was not available for that meeting. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Peddicord stated that she was told by the Clerk’s Office that the quarterly report would be presented in January. Ms. Peddicord stated that she does think that they ended up putting it on the agenda. Ms. Peddicord stated that again, I think this standard reporting of monthly reports, the first of the month quarterly reports, the second meeting of the month, at the month after the quarter end. That's the discussion. I guess they want to clarify that. Council President Sudler addressed Councilman Arndt and Councilman Hare. Mr. Sudler stated that he asked for a time and date to meet with Ms. Peddicord but that she did not provide that to the Clerk's Office. Mr. Sudler asked if there was a time and date that was provided to Council regarding that meeting. I would refer to the director of the clerk's office. Responding to Mr. Sudler, City Clerk Bennett stated no, sir. Mr. Anderson stated that he does not know if there are any recommendations, but that he would like to thank everybody for expressing their concerns and thanked them for communicating some of the challenges that are there. City Clerk Bennett stated that she would like direction from council and that Mr. Neil had brought it to their attention that they were putting multiple reports in. Ms. Bennett stated that they follow the recurring agenda items for Council and Council Committee of the Whole. Ms. Bennett stated that they were told that it goes into the next meeting but if there are set dates and set items, they go on the agenda. Ms. Bennett noted that just like the reports today, Mr. Anderson, the financial reports that were being pushed till after the first of the year, she understands that. Ms. Bennett stated that they were getting pushed back by council members for the time of the reports and that this is how this came up over this fall. Ms. Bennett noted that at one point they put three monthly reports in one and that the Clerk’s Office is doing it the way that it has always been done. Ms. Bennett stated that it has just been brought to their attention by council that this is an issue because it adds information to the packet that sometimes is not relevant due to it being three months in one packet. Ms. Bennett stated that council is not happy about getting multiple reports in one and that this was not about being punitive or anything. Ms. Bennett noted that her office is following what the Clerk's Office Manual says and that this is what council has set up as recurring agenda items for

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 2022 PAGE 13 both meetings. Ms. Bennet explained that they have a process for the packets and everybody knows there are Department Head meetings in which they talk about the next agenda the day after the Council Committee of the Whole meeting. Ms. Bennett continued that they have only been here a year in the office but this is the way it has always been done. So it seems like there is a problem all of a sudden. Mr. Neil stated that this is a communication problem and that this is not a real problem. Mr. Hare explained that it is a communication problem because they know that there is a problem with Tyler Munis. Mr. Neil noted that they are not communicating back and forth. Mr. Neil noted that he is certain that if council were to receive a communication that said, "We have a problem because of," they would not be here at this particular point. Mr. Neil stated that in regards to that meeting, it is public so nobody will not question who said what. It's now a motion if it will be seconded. Mr. Sudler asked what are they going to meet on and why do they need 30-plus days? Mr. Sudler stated that he needs to know what they need to meet on because they already discussed one item out of the three or four items that she provided in the email. Mr. Boggerty stated that he is looking forward to a productive meeting. Mr. Boggerty noted that was not to say that they are not being productive. Mr. Boggerty stated that Ms. Peddicord has maintained her professional composure under heat and that he applauds her for that. Mr. Boggerty stated that he is not saying the reports are not important, but if you listen to the undertow that in all things there is project management, so there are steps and processes that, and Ms. Peddicord just expressly stated that she is preparing for a new launch or GoLive. Anybody who has ever worked with a GoLive situation knows the added stress that that is. Mr. Boggerty stated that he wishes that they would have responded and that she did point out some things. Mr. Boggerty noted that Council owned some of the lack of response, he is going to say it. Mr. Boggerty stated that council pushes, "Team Dover," but in his opinion, that is not berating our employees in front of the public. Mr. Boggerty noted that whether they are wrong or right, there is a way to handle it and that he is not happy that she is being handled this way in public for everybody to see. Mr. Boggerty stated that if she is wrong, we need to fix it. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Peddicord stated that it had been six or eight months ago since she had sent that email, but yes. Ms. Peddicord noted that she thinks they have tackled a number of the issues and that she finds it hard to do a good job for there is no dialogue with council other than on this floor. Mr. Neil stated that there are two things and that they have nothing to do with Ms. Peddicord’s professionalism and what she is doing. Mr. Neil stated that it is a communications item but that the communication item also deals with the Clerk's Office as to what is expected. Mr. Neil continued to state that if they can relax, what was done before does not have to be done before. Mr. Neil noted that it becomes part of the equation and that it is not an expectation. Mr. Neil explained that there has to be some flexibility because of the problems that she does have, in particular with the Tyler Munis that are happening. Mr. Neil stated that he thinks that they need to make sure that they are clear on what she needs and clear on what they need in terms to do their job.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 2022 PAGE 14 Mr. Sudler stated that since time is of the essence, the Clerk's Office has reached out to Ms. Peddicord plenty of times. Mr. Sudler stated council already offered Ms. Peddicord an opportunity to meet with them. Mr. Sudler stated that the Clerk's Office has done its due diligence and the council has done its due diligence. This is out of frustration; this is out of Councilman Neil stating they are not getting it in time. Mr. Sudler stated that he did not even know about it and that it was brought to his attention. Mr. Sudler noted that they should not throw the City Clerk's Office or himself under the bus. Mr. Sudler stated that the proof is in the pudding and that the Clerk's Office has reached out to her. Mr. Sudler stated that he is not built like that and that he speaks the truth. Some people can handle it, some people cannot. Mr. Rocha stated that the meeting that is being requested is not about throwing anybody under the bus, including Ms. Peddicord. Wipe the slate clean and let council do their part in listening to their employee without having her out here in public being ridiculed. Mr. Rocha stated that she is one of their employees, she works for council, and that he believes that the only way that they can solve any of these issues, is to have a forum where they can have an employer-employee relationship without being in front of the public. Mr. Rocha stated that he believes that they should move forward with a meeting so that they can iron out all the details, build a relationship with Ms. Peddicord and put together a process so that this does not happen again. Mr. Rocha noted that it is not about throwing anybody under the bus but that it is about getting together to solve the issues. Mr. Anderson stated that the idea of the meeting is to be solutionary and in a special meeting in January, it is open to the public. Mr. Anderson continues to state that by its nature, it will be a much more comfortable forum to be able to discuss the four issues that she had brought up that she wanted to share with city council, and they look forward to that. Mr. Neil moved to recommend approval of council by having a special meeting with the Controller/Treasurer to sit down and work out the problems that she is having and the communication issues. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boggerty and unanimously carried. Report on Wage Study (Sharon Duca, Assistant City Manager) City Manager Dave Hugg stated that this has been a bit of a journey for them as well as the employees, so he appreciates everyone being here. Mr. Hugg noted that he wants to just touch on a couple of things so everyone is on the same page going forward. Mr. Hugg stated that this is an update to council on the report on the wage study and that it is not a final report, it is not engraved in stone, and it is a work in progress. Mr. Hugg explained that they are at a point where they needed to come back to council to say this is what they have done in the last five months, this is where they see this taking them, and to start to build some credibility around the analysis and identify the costs. Mr. Hugg continued to state that their intent was for it to be fair and non-biased. Mr. Hugg stated that it was important to them that they look at this objectively, that it be data-driven, that they rely on comparables in the public sector, and that no hidden policy agendas are going into this study. Mr. Hugg explained that they looked at all 179 positions, 410 or so active employees and that everybody that works for the city including part-timers was looked at. Mr. Hugg stated that they did an analysis based on an average of the comparable minimums for similar jobs, and similar titles in other jurisdictions. Mr. Hugg continued to explain that they also made the point going into this study that it could be replicated by anybody who wanted to test the assumptions and test the data.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 2022 PAGE 15 Mr. Hugg stated that some of the data may or may not be what others would like to hear, and maybe some of it ultimately might be questioned, but they relied on the data that they were able to acquire. Mr. Hugg stated that a couple of other points were that there was no make-it-fit any dollar amount and that they did not know, quite frankly, until about a week ago even what the numbers looked like. Mr. Hugg noted that this was they were going to do the analysis, they were going to do the matrix, which is the size of a bedsheet, and they were going to see what that adds up to. Mr. Hugg stated that what they are going to hear tonight is a study that suggests that 186 employees are below the market minimum and are underpaid by whatever standard they want to look at. Mr. Hugg noted that it is an embarrassment to the city. Mr. Hugg explained that the premise going into this study was that the City of Dover, by not paying competitive wages, has a difficult time recruiting and a difficult time retaining qualified employees. Mr. Hugg continued to explain that it is not to their advantage at all and that the City needs to change that. Mr. Hugg stated that they know there are a couple of positions that people have raised questions about and that some of those may be policy decisions. They may not be strictly a numbers decision and those are things they are looking to Council to help guide them with. Mr. Hugg noted that they are still to be looking at all those crazy questions of how you pay for it, how you implement it, and when you implement it. Do you have to do it in one fell swoop or can you do it in pieces? Mr. Hugg stated that they do not have those answers yet but that it is part of this process. Sharon Duca, Assistant City Manager, stated that City Council authorized the City Manager to conduct a wage equity study at the Council meeting on July 11th. The City manager at that time had expected the study would take about six months. Ms. Duca noted that a management team was created which included the City Manager, herself, and Naomi Poole, the Human Resources Director and that they were assigned advisory members to the team which includes Councilman Boggerty, Councilman Hare, and Mayor Christiansen. Ms. Duca stated that they started with the establishment of the market area which was based one hour within the City of Dover. Ms. Duca continued to state that there were eight local governments chosen and they included New Castle, Kent County, Sussex County, Newark, Middletown, Smyrna, Milford, and Seaford. The study reviewed all active positions that were on their roster as of July 1st, 2022, as well as some others that are part of progressions within the city. Some may not be filled right now, but they could be filled in the future. Ms. Duca noted that the positions that were compared were those that appeared to be like or matched the City of Dover. Ms. Duca explained that a spreadsheet was created to compare the job titles and that a thorough comparison of job descriptions was performed, although some were used for clarification purposes as they went through. Ms. Duca continued to explain that there were a total of 179 positions that were reviewed representing 410 active employees as of the September 12th, 2022 snapshot of the data in the ADP system. Comparables were not available for 24 positions, in which case scope and responsibility were compared to other City of Dover positions. Meetings were held with department heads in August regarding the comparisons that were made to date and additional job descriptions were pulled for review as a result of these meetings. Meetings were also held with union representatives in September. Ms. Duca stated that there was clarification on certain comparables that were performed. Ms. Duca continued to state that it is important to note the concerns of staff, of which IBEW can be an example. Ms. Duca explained

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 2022 PAGE 16 that they used local governments to compare to the City of Dover, and the current IBEW does tasks that are not within the scope of other local governments. Ms. Duca noted that they are more competitive with the private sector. The State of Delaware was also not used and part of this was also the reason why 24 positions did not have matches. Like in the IBEW, the city has some that do not exist in other municipalities, so that is important to keep in mind as they go through this. Ms. Duca went through her PowerPoint presentation with the Council. Ms. Duca stated that after the comparables were laid out for each position, the average minimum was then calculated and then used to determine the new pay scales. The pay scales are not newly created and they are based upon existing pay scales positions. Ms. Duca noted that they were just moved from one grade to another rather than creating a whole new system. Ms. Duca explained that they then were compared with each other to look for equity based on organizational hierarchy and progression within positions. Just as a note, the wage requirement of $15 an hour that is set for 2025 was taken into account during this study, rather than trying to go through that again six months or a year from now, they are trying to reflect it now. Ms. Duca stated that as she had mentioned, the organizational hierarchies were compared to look at the different pay grades for the staff or the proposed pay grade. One of the examples of what they are looking for is to make sure that supervisors are making more than direct reports and that their certain positions have a line of succession like MEO 1, 2, and 3, where you want to make sure they are actually in order and not as skewed there. Ms. Duca explained that regarding the proposed pay grade there are only changes made to the DOE and non-bargaining because of the comparisons that were found for the FOP and IBEW, which as she mentioned earlier, there were some concerns there. Ms. Duca stated that the example with the organizational chart on it shows how we looked at the different hierarchies to make sure that the pay grade succession was in effect. Ms. Duca noted that they did that for each department. All of the department heads provided their current organizational structure so they could use that to lay out staff and the pay scales that lead to placing staffing grades. Ms. Duca explained that by moving all the positions into the new pay grades, they were able to come up with the new minimum for a pay grade, but not everybody started at the same time in the same staff placement. So it is important to look at placement in grade and they looked at a couple of different possibilities. Ms. Duca stated that just looking at the grade itself, was calculating how much it would take to get everybody to the minimum so that they get rid of the disparity there. Ms. Duca continued to state that it was then looked at to run different scenarios for placement and grade based upon years of service as the example that is contained within the presentation. Ms. Duca noted that there is some flexibility to be able to make some adjustments here and there. Ms. Duca stated that based on their system here, it was then determined that a cap would be placed on pay for placement purposes if the existing pay was greater than the proposed pay. Ms. Duca noted that the cap is not forever, it is just for the one time here, and that they would still be subject to raises and that type of thing. Ms. Duca stated that with the formula that they have, they would be looking at the proposed payment. The percent increase would give them the placement in grade and then the placement in grade plus the proposed minimum pay would equal their new pay. Ms. Duca stated that there were some concerns in terms of some of the numbers on the other one, so they chose to be a little more straightforward. The first example is if your existing pay is $55,000, your proposed minimum is $50,000, 25 years of service, your percent increase is 5%. The placement and grade work out to

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 2022 PAGE 17 be $2,500. The new pay would then be $52,500. In the example, the existing pay is greater than the new pay, so they would be capped at the existing. Ms. Duca explained that this also exemplifies how she had said that there is not a whole lot of range penetration in the proposal. They are looking at someone with 25 years of service and they are capped at their existing pay already. Ms. Duca stated that the second example is one where it has the same minimum pay, but an existing pay of $45,000, 4 years of service would get a 1% increase. The new pay would calculate to $ 50,500, and then their new payment would be established as it is greater than their existing pay based upon the calculation. Ms. Duca explained that moving everybody just to the minimum is almost $900,000. It affects 196 employees, but it does not address placement and grade, which affects years of service and that type of thing for the different employees. Ms. Duca continued to explain that a recommendation would be to move to a placement in grade configuration for staff. The example that was provided to council is approximately $1.2 million. It affects 227 employees as some of those other permeations come about. The greater separation between the percentages, the more employees are then affected. Ms. Duca noted that this is something that can be taken into consideration as part of this and that no staff member wages will be decreased. Ms. Duca stated that calculations do not necessarily reflect any raises that would be proposed for fiscal year '24 if this were implemented in '23. Ms. Duca continued to state that it is going to matter when it occurs to fine-tune the calculations as to what is going on. The calculations reflect salaries only and do not reflect anything related to benefit costs or overtime. Things such as title adjustments, reclassifications, new step progressions and the like should be evaluated as part of the budget process. Mr. Hugg stated that one of the questions that the participants in the study asked was how the city would fund it. Where do we find the money? What can we do? Mr. Hugg stated that is something that they are still working on. There are reserve funds of various types that the city has. Mr. Hugg explained that some of them have bond covenant relationships and so they may not be able to use those funds even if they are there. Mr. Hugg stated that some of them have threshold percentages and that when they did the budget presentation this year, he had asked to reduce the carry forward percentage to lower it and council did not want to do that. Ms. Hugg noted that there may be some reserve accounts that council has some ability to readdress. Mr. Hugg explained that we can hope that some windfall monies come to the city in fiscal year '22. For example, the city experienced a couple of very large real property transfer tax revenues. Mr. Hugg noted that you cannot count on them, and you cannot predict them, but it is likely that sometime during the year some major property in the city will get transferred and the city will get a property tax or a real property transfer tax infusion. Ms. Hugg stated that as he has reported to council, the city has a property offered for sale in Garrison Oak Park. Disappointingly, a settlement that was scheduled for November 20, 2022, fell through because of the change in the Federal Reserve interest rates that made the project not profitable for the individual. Mr. Hugg explained that the good news is he has another contract on that piece of property, but he does not have a settlement date. So, there is a possibility that there will be some funds from a variety of sources Mr. Hugg stated that he hopes that the city will do a little better this year in terms of revenues than they forecasted when they came before council six

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 2022 PAGE 18 months ago. Again, that is not a hard number at the moment, but it is something that he has asked the budget folks to go back, really kind of look at each of the revenue streams and look at their ending balance, beginning balance, kind of recheck those numbers. Mr. Hugg explained that as Councilman Anderson knows, the city enjoyed a brief period when actual gas prices fell from the eight or nine-dollar range to the five-dollar range. They are back up to seven now but there could be a little bit of additional revenue that comes from that standpoint. Mr. Hugg stated that if council were to say, yeah, we want to do it, then the real question comes, when do you want to do it? Mr. Hugg continued to state that if they do it in January, it has an implication but if they do it in March, it is cheaper because the new rates do not apply for as many months in this year. The $900,000 is an annualized number and it reflects a 12-month salary cost. Mr. Hugg noted that whenever it is implemented, it will be varying amounts of impact. Mr. Hugg explained that there are some capital projects and capital investments that perhaps don't have to get done this year, we could go back and look at a couple of them. We were advised, for example, that Ford will not release three new trucks for the City of Dover in the same calendar year, so we may have a capital investment or two that gets postponed. We could capture any salary savings that are out there as a result of vacant positions and reallocate them to this function. So there are several techniques that we're looking at. Mr. Hugg stated that what they are asking for tonight, is for council to say, yeah, we like the approach, we like how they have put this together. Go back and make sure that if some questions or adjustments need to be made, make them, and figure out what it would cost to implement it say January, March, or July, and then be a little precise on the numbers. Mr. Hugg noted that he does want to emphasize again to everybody that this is an update and that it is not a final plan. Mr. Hugg stated that there is room here for reconsideration of not a whole lot, but reconsideration if there are a couple of issues that they need to look at. Mr. Hugg continued to state that they cannot start over with a different approach, well at least if they did, it would be another five or six months probably. Mr. Hugg noted that there is room for discussion. There are some policy questions that council will be potentially asked to make. Mr. Hugg stated that while their formula-driven, data- driven analysis says A plus B will equal C, there may be some policy reason why A plus B equals C plus, and those things will bring to council as they build them out. Mr. Anderson thanked the members of the team for all of their tremendous work. Mr. Sudler thanked Team Dover for their effort and for putting this together. Mr. Sudler stated that in regard to the flexibility, his biggest concern is there may be a concern in regard to what someone is making today who has been with the city maybe five to ten years versus someone who has been here ten to twenty years. Is there a way that they could look at trying to compensate them for the tenure or their experience or has that been in consideration? Mr. Sudler stated that he does not know if they looked at the duties of their current position for those who have been there ten to twenty years versus someone who has been there five to ten years, but how can they address that to make sure that they know that they are valued? Ms. Duca stated that in terms of coming up with the range penetration or the place in range, she has started running scenarios such as 1% per year of service or getting them to the midpoint

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 2022 PAGE 19 depending on their years of service. Ms. Duca stated that there are many different scenarios that they can run and bring back to Council. Mr. Neil stated that to follow up on President Sudler's question, that was one of the things that they addressed in their meeting, is the people that had been here X number of years versus someone that has not. Mr. Neil continued to state that he thinks one of the major things we had discussed was bringing everybody at least to the minimum and then addressing what to do with the people that have been here ten years, fifteen years. Mr. Neil stated that is something they talked about and they just have to see more numbers when they are putting it together. Mr. Neil explained that he thinks one of the main things that they discussed was, first of all bringing everybody up to at least minimum and then going from there, having another alternative for someone that has been here three years, making $8,000 below minimum. Mr. Neil continued to explain that they would bring them up to a minimum and for someone that has been here fifteen years, what do you do for them? Someone that has been here twenty years, who did not want to be a supervisor and they are making X, but now someone has been here for eight years and now as a supervisor making more than them because they decided they did not want to be a supervisor. Mr. Neil stated that there are a lot of issues that they discussed with Councilman Boggerty, so there is a lot to be done but those are some of the main things getting everyone at least initially to a minimum and then proceeding from there. Mr. Neil stated that they have been receiving all kinds of information from their people who are concerned about things. Chief Carey is concerned. Mr. Neil explained that they have already agreed to parity for the dispatchers, Fire Department, and Police department. Mr. Neil stated that he would hope that if they agreed to that as they did at one of the council meetings, that would be carried out. Mr. Neil stated that this is a work in progress and that this is not something that is a done deal. Mr. Neil stated that they had heard from Jason Osika who is a very respected member of the team. Mr. Neil explained that Mr. Osika had several points that he brought up that should be considered. Mr. Neil continued to explain that a lot of the things that he said are being considered in terms of grade but that he thinks that they hear those and respond to them by the committee in terms of some of those things. Mr. Neil stated that they also heard from DOE regarding the Wage Study. Mr. Neil explained that it is a work in progress and that he is confident that they are listening to people, that they will hear them out, and to make sure that they are as fair as they possibly can be. Mr. Neil continued to explain that then they have to figure out how they are going to pay for it. Mr. Neil stated that they are talking about taking a vacancy and not paying it and using that for money when one of the problems is that they are creating a whole system to attract people into those vacancies because the city is not getting them. Mr. Neil noted that one of the biggest problems that they have is filling those spots. Mr. Neil stated that they should keep that in mind when they say they are going to take those salaries that are not being paid and use them to pay for the existing salaries Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Hugg stated that he is correct. Mr. Hugg stated that it is one of those kinds of Catch-22s. Mr. Hugg continued to state that if they did something like that, they would want to make sure that it was only for a limited period. Mr. Hugg explained that they want the

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 2022 PAGE 20 concurrence of the department heads that they have been without X for some time. Mr. Hugg explained that it is not one he would necessarily recommend but if they get to the point that they say, "We want this done and I've got to find nickels and dimes to make it happen." There are ways to make it happen but they are not necessarily comfortable ways to make it happen. Mr. Hugg stated that he does want to comment because he knows Chief Carey came to see him the other day and he wants to explain how the discrepancy occurred that is in the report. Mr. Hugg explained that when they use a set of comparables, the criteria that they use for the comparable drives, are the average minimum wage. In the case of the Police Dispatchers versus Fire Dispatchers, it was brought to their attention that they had included in the Police Dispatchers a comparable that was not a public safety answering center Mr. Hugg continued to explain that there is a designation for 911 centers that not every place that answers a 911 call is a 911 center, by definition. Mr. Hugg stated that when you put those criteria against what they were looking at, they drop one municipality out, and that happened to be a lower compensated municipality, so the resulting calculation is higher. Mr. Hugg noted that is why he says this is data-driven. That is not an assumption, that is not something they have to do, but simply that is how it comes out. Mr. Hugg stated that if the council's prerogative is that they want to make them the same, that is fine. Mr. Anderson stated that he does want to point out something and that is, they said that they were having parity in the raises so that one group got a raise and the other group did not get one or got a smaller one. Mr. Anderson continued to state that they did not say they were going to make the positions have parity. Mr. Anderson explained that is something that they can discuss but that he wants to be very clear about what they have agreed to, because he does not want them to be said, they have an understanding that is different from what they had in the public vote. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Hugg stated that one of the things that they have to address is part of when it occurs. The DOE union and the FOP union had a fiscal 24 rate and that is something that is already agreed to, so that is not something additional. Responding to Mr. Contant, Mr. Hugg stated that it was probably a little bit of both. Certain positions are unique because nobody else has them except the State of Delaware, perhaps a private employer or whatever, which is critical to us when we started the study that everybody is compared to the same set of comparables with the same criteria. That ignores the fact that in the private sector there may be certain kinds of jobs that we have that maybe other municipalities or counties don't have and that may skew the final result and we just have to accept it. Mr. Hugg stated that part of the problem is the issue with the Fire Marshal, and he is going to pick on them that the City of Dover is the only municipality that has its own Fire Marshal. So, getting a comparable for the Fire Marshal from those folks that they believe they compete with, is not going to happen. It is a unique position. That is one of the policy decisions they are going to have to look at but he did not want to open this up where everybody came to them and said, "Well Joe, that works for George, and Lynch makes $25 more an hour to drive a backhoe than I did," because then somebody is going to come and say, "Well, yeah, but Mitton pays $37." Once you open that box up, they lose total control of the credibility of the report. Mr. Hugg stated that quite frankly that is the problem with the Seigal Study. The Seigal Study went in and cooked the books on certain positions because they did not come out where they wanted them to.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 2022 PAGE 21 Mr. Hugg explained that this is what they were worth based on the comparables that they used. Mr. Hugg continued to explain that they can talk about the comparables, but they massaged the numbers before they got to the policy questions. The policy question is, do they look outside for certain positions that they do not have comparables for? Do they look at positions that are reasonably close to each other in terms of what they do that may not have gotten the same rating because of the accredited answering center or something? Mr. Hugg stated that one of the next steps is they do need to address this placement in grade. They did this one to 5% just to get a sense of how that would work out. If the minimum is $40,000 a year, you have been here five years and you only get 1% which is a $400 difference, that is probably not an acceptable solution. Mr. Hugg noted that it is better than nothing, but that is about all it is. So, they will be looking at other kinds of ways to figure out how to move people in and integrate. Mr. Hugg stated that he does not know that there are very many positions other than the handful they have talked about that anybody has questioned. Mr. Hugg continued to state that the matrix is open in the event that somebody comes back and says, "You really just…" Mr. Hugg then stated that he will give Council an example. One that got corrected when they were looking at auto mechanics. The City of Milford was on the list of comparables, say somebody called an auto mechanic, but when they look at what that auto mechanic does, he is a Jiffy Lube employee. They change the oil, the wiper blades, that is it. So, that position, that particular comparable was removed because it was not comparable. There may be some of those that they need to adjust. Responding to Mr. Contant, Mr. Hugg stated that he is basically looking for direction from council and then coming back to them with an update number two. Mr. Hare stated that as a follow-up to what Mr. Contant said, they did not just say, "Oh, well we think this is what it should be." They did comparables like it was in the report. Mr. Hare stated that they compared Delaware instead of as in the other report because it does not matter what they make in Maryland to finagle some of the positions. Mr. Hare explained that his position has always been, if you think they make more in Frederick, Maryland than they do here in Dover then go get a job in Frederick, Maryland. Mr. Hare stated that his thoughts were that if somebody has been with the city ten years and they are making $3,000 above the minimum and someone who has been here two years, they are going to get $8,000 raise up to the minimum. Mr. Hare continued to state that the person that is making $3,000 above the minimum that has been here ten years, maybe they get like one and a half percent per year for those ten years. So, they would get a 15% increase which would put them up. Mr. Hare noted that he thinks that what was done was good and that he thinks they did something with equity. Mr. Hare explained that a lot of the positions they have in the city are making more than the positions in all these other ten that they compared to. Mr. Hare stated that it is not going to require something there because they are already above what the other cities are making. Mr. Hare continued to state that he thinks it is good to let Ms. Duca continue to do the work that she is doing to come up with some type of an equity increase for people that have been here a length of time and to let her continue to come up with an idea, such as his. Mr. Hare noted that maybe it should be one and a quarter percent a year because they have been getting the raises but to let them see what they come up with and bring it back to council. Mr.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 2022 PAGE 22 Hare stated that they did what they felt was right for the people, the employees of Dover, and bringing everyone to the minimum that is compared to ten other locations in the state. Mr. Taylor stated that was a great job, it is an outstanding start, and for them to continue doing their due diligence. Mr. Taylor continued to state that they should address the outliers, carefully review the implementation processes, make the tough cuts, when need be, and make our people whole. Mayor Christiansen stated that this is quite refreshing, this report that they worked on, and that he is not going to say that because he was part of the process. Mayor Christiansen stated that this is the first time that they have done a wage and salary study that has come back and recognized the people that are in the trenches that are doing the work. Mayor Christiansen explained that he would hope that they can move forward, check out the disparities that they have in some of the job classifications and come up with a rapid method to reward those who have the length of service. Mayor Christiansen noted that they should also put this in effect as soon as possible. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Hugg stated that based upon the information he had, the MOU information, the actual rates are the same as the fiscal year 24’. They were both set up for fiscal 24’ at the time. Mr. Hugg continued to state that their contract has those rates in it right now, regardless of the MOU. Mr. Boggerty stated that he just wanted to thank them for the opportunity to serve the most important people in the City, the staff and the employees. Mr. Boggerty stated that they are working. Mr. Boggerty explained that it may not be everything they want, but they are not just sitting on their hands. It is a start, a great start really, that there are some other avenues that they are looking at and he looks forward to continuing the process. Mr. Boggerty thanked Councilman Hare for his wisdom and looks forward to continuing working on the process. Mr. Boggerty asked everyone to be patient. If there was a big money tree, they would shake it and pay everybody but it is not, but they are going to do something. Mr. Hugg stated that he believes that they have achieved what they wanted to achieve at this meeting, which was to tell council what they have done, how they have gotten to where they are, and what the numbers are beginning to look like. Mr. Hugg continued to state that it sounds like their approach is one that council is comfortable with. Mr. Hugg noted that he is pleased to hear that council did not throw their hands up and say, "Oh my Gosh, it is going to cost too much," or anything like that, because he agrees with all the comments that have been said. This is critical to building and maintaining the team, and the quality of the team that they have and want to have going forward. Mr. Sudler thanked them for their hard work. Mr. Sudler stated that they should also keep in mind how important it is for additional training to allow other opportunities for individuals to grow within the organization, and to provide them with opportunities to advance to another level or new job description throughout the workforce. Mr. Sudler continued to state that he has heard that there are some skill sets such as welding and other things that they would like to do, that they are good at naturally. That could also save the city some money and also put some additional money in their

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 2022 PAGE 23 pockets. Mr. Sudler stated that they should look at what they have internally, the skillsets they have internally so that the city can also promote growth and development within their organization. Chief Carey, Fire Department, gave comments about the Wage Study (Attachment #4). Kay Sass, AFSCME President, gave comments about the Wage Study (Attachment #5). Jason Osika, Fire Marshall, gave comments about the Wage Study (Attachment #6). Matt Brown, DOE President, stated that he did not have a prepared statement for this comment section because he honestly was not sure how it was going to be presented. Mr. Brown continued to state that he believes he is going to express the same concern that most people are going to express. It is the longevity equation of this and how they bring current employees into it. Mr. Brown noted that he has several ideas as well. Mr. Brown explained that the only thing he is going to ask is, they have reiterated their commitment tonight to what they are doing and that he cannot thank them enough for that. This is something that is not part of their contract and that it is not required to be done. Mr. Brown stated that they recognized the need and that they are moving forward to fix it. Mr. Brown believes that they are off to a good start. Mr. Brown stated that the only thing he is asking for is more inclusion of the unions or employees with the team, whether it is once a month, or once a quarter so that they can discuss some of the issues that have come to their attention, the longevity pay, how they are incorporating that. Mr. Brown continued to state that they are some questions they would have loved to have asked by now but maybe it was not appropriate, he is not sure. Mr. Brown noted that going forward, now that they have gotten the plan and assuming they move forward with it, he just asks that they are included in that. Mr. Brown stated that they have ideas that may not be their ideas that they may like better than their own. They may have ideas that are better than his, but collaboratively, he thinks that they can do it. Steve Newberry, Business Manager for IBEW Local 1238, stated that his union represents the employees in the Electric Department. Mr. Newberry stated that he appreciates what is going on with the wage study. Mr. Newberry noted that he has been representing the Electric Department since 1996, so he has been through this quite a few times. Mr. Newberry stated that the issue they have is the comparables. The comparables when they look at what the folks do here, especially the line and substation techs, these types of folks, are compared with the utility industry as has been stated early, which is mostly a private sector job. When they compare them to the City of Smyrna, Lewis, and Milford, they do not do the same things that these guys do every day. The only ones that could even come close are maybe Middletown, but when they look at the City of Dover with its service territory of over fifteen substations, he thinks Middletown has two or three. Mr. Newberry explained that these guys go out every day in gloves and sleeves, whether it is 120-volt streetlight or whether it is a 69KV transmission line. They do not do that in Lewis, they do not do that in Smyrna, and they do not do that in Newcastle. They do that at Delmarva Power and they do that at Delaware Electric Co-op. Mr. Newberry stated that to have a study that does not include these entities. Mr. Newberry stated that he has been through wage studies before and he sympathizes with these folks because he has been through it, and he was on one that took a year and a half. Mr. Newberry continued to state that everything is based on those comparables and how they weigh the data and everything like that. Once they decide all of that, then it is just a math problem.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 2022 PAGE 24 Mr. Newberry stated that his point is, and what he would ask council to consider is Delmarva Power, and these private entities, the co-op, are their competitors. Mr. Newberry continued to state that he has linemen in his shop in New Castle that were linemen here. Some linemen have left here to go there, and some linemen have left here to go to the co-op. Mr. Newberry noted that it is even going to get worse for the city when it comes to retention. Right now, half of his folks have a retirement pension and then the other half are on the 401k. The ones with the 401k are going to be the guys that go and the guys that have the pension, they are going to stay here and ride it out. Mr. Newberry stated that he looked back at 2012 because he stood up in front of not the council but the committee in 2012. Mr. Newberry stated that it was the same thought, that it is getting worse in the utility industry. Mr. Newberry noted that Delmarva Power, which he represents, is even having trouble attracting and maintaining, and it is something that the city is going to have to look at. Mr. Newberry stated that he is asking them to incorporate these private entities in this wage study. Mr. Hugg stated that he appreciates the comments and suggestions. Mr. Hugg noted that they were aware of most of them that could be an issue and they will certainly take a look at them. Mr. Hugg stated that he does not want to refute or challenge anything that anybody said. They are legitimate comments, and they will be part of the next report and again he appreciates them coming and being involved. City Clerk Bennet read an online question, “This is from Alexander Hoffman. With the current formulas and examples, someone who is hired this year at $19.46 an hour will end up making $68,535.18. Or someone who has been in that same position for five years and is currently making $23.20 an hour will make $61,130.38. Is this a known flaw with the current formula?" Mr. Neil moved to recommend that the Committee continue to work on the Wage Study and bring another report to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. 911 Supervisor Position (Naomi Poole, Human Resources Director) Naomi Poole, Human Resources Director, stated that she was prepared to give a presentation regarding some concerns that were brought forth concerning processes. Ms. Poole continued to state that the concerns that were discussed were specific to the internal process and development of the emergency communication manager position, as well as the process associated with the new FOP, and MOU contracts. Ms. Poole explained that when she was creating her presentation, she noted that she could not speak to a lot of things because this is an open forum and that she feels like it would not do the conversation justice and would be confusing. Ms. Poole explained that her goal specifically in her role as an HR director is to ensure that the city is incorporating best practices within its policies and procedures. Best practices create consistency and most importantly, accountability. Accountability keeps the city honest and upholds them to the highest standards needed to serve in all their roles. Ms. Poole continued to state that they have some great folks working for the City of Dover who believe in this sentiment and she wants to ensure that they continue down this lane as they continue to tighten and redefine their standards. Ms. Poole stated that at this point, what she is recommending is to reconvene and discuss some of these concerns that have been brought forth so that they can have a full discussion, lay everything out so that they can all review concerns and include the parties that are involved in the concerns. Ms.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 2022 PAGE 25 Poole stated that the reason for that is that this is a personnel matter, and she does feel as though they need to uphold a certain level of respect towards that. So at this moment, what she is recommending is that we reconvene in an executive meeting, if possible, to discuss these concerns. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Poole stated it was to discuss the 911 Supervisor Position and also the MOU contract as well. Ms. Poole stated that out of respect, it is not the person, it is the position and the process. Ms. Poole continued to state that she just wants to make that clear that they are not talking specifically about the person because the person was not a part of the internal process involved. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend approval of staff recommendation to schedule a special meeting which includes an executive session with the Human Resources Director to discuss the 911 Supervisor position. The motion was seconded by Mr. Taylor and unanimously carried. Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (Naomi Poole, Human Resources Director) Naomi Poole, Human Resources Director, stated that the FOP MOU is also a part of her recommendation. Ms. Poole stated that it was the 911 Emergency Communications Manager position process and also the process of the MOU contract and how that went about. Ms. Poole explained that as well as a personnel matter she does think that should be an executive meeting as well. Mr. Anderson stated that for the personnel part, they can do an executive session. Mr. Anderson continued to state with the Memorandum of Understanding there are public implications to that and questions that he knows that he has and that he would like to get moving on this. Mr. Anderson noted that council does have a legal opinion on parts of this stuff, when it comes to the salaries, and the positions, a Memorandum of Understanding has things that they had not seen that just need to be discussed. Mr. Anderson explained that one of them has to do with updating the change order on the implementation of a motion that they approve publicly. Mr. Anderson stated that Council would have to at least do that part. Mr. Sudler asked how Ms. Poole feels about what Chairman Anderson just stated and if she is comfortable, if can she decipher or give a clear distinction without going into material that may lead to an executive session. Mr. Sudler explained that he knows that some time ago, they were trying to have this kind of conversation, then they all said it needed to be an executive session. Mr. Sudler asked Ms. Poole, as the HR director with the expertise, if can she decipher, and if there is, what the material is or the elements that she feels comfortable with that she does not feel would be eligible for executive session criteria. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Poole stated that she thinks it is a little difficult for her to decipher what to speak on and what not to speak on. Ms. Poole continued to state that she thinks she would rather just leave it for a time when she can just lay everything out so that they can discuss it properly.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 2022 PAGE 26 Michael Stafford stated that he is a special solicitor for labor and employment matters for the City of Dover. Mr. Stafford reminded Council that any questions they ask him in a public forum, they are waiving the attorney-client privilege concerning those answers. Mr. Stafford noted that council may want to consider that. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Stafford stated that he is correct in saying some things are required to be on the public agenda. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Stafford stated that concerning item six, if they are talking about specifically the approval, was the wage component of the MOU properly approved? Is it taking effect? Is additional action by council required? Mr. Stafford stated that he thinks that is for a public session but if they are talking about actions or inactions of city officials, they are getting into personnel matters, and he thinks that would be an executive session. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mr. Stafford stated that the legal question again that he was asked to answer was whether or not the MOU as approved was legally binding. Mr. Stafford stated that if council is asking me to answer that question in public, he will do it. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mr. Stafford stated that yes, the $239,000 that council approved was legally binding. Mr. Stafford stated that in Mr. Hare’s comment, he said they are coming back and asking for more money. Mr. Stafford noted that is not his understanding at all. Mr. Stafford stated that the question that Mr. Hare is asking is whether or not in the MOU, in the presentation, there was a costing error on the part of the city, not on the part of the union, on the part of the city. Mr. Stafford explained that the question he was asked, and that Mr. Hare is now asking him to answer here in this session is whether or not that MOU is approved. Mr. Stafford stated that is correct. Mr. Anderson stated that he is asking Mr. Stafford to not go there. Mr. Anderson continued to state that as the Chair, he wants to intervene on that because it will interfere with their legal position. Mr. Stafford stated that yes it would. Mr. Sudler stated that at this present moment, as Council President, he is going to conclude the meeting until they get a legal opinion. Mr. Sudler stated that he is going to take over right now and that he is going to conclude the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting as Council President. Mr. Sudler explained that they are getting into waters that could come back and have some legal ramifications that could have a hardship on the City of Dover. Mr. Sudler continued to explain that until they have the City’s legal solicitor, Mr. Rodriguez, in conjunction with, and they can hear what they are saying, he is not comfortable giving council that advice. Mr. Sudler asked why council is pushing him. Mr. Sudler stated that he is going to take over the meeting and that the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting is now adjourned. Mr. Sudler moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee, hearing no objection, the meeting adjourned at 9:56 p.m.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 2022 PAGE 27 Meeting adjourned at 9:56 PM The Council Committee of the Whole meeting adjourned at 9:57 p.m. Roy Sudler, Jr. Council President RS/ar S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Committee-Minutes\TEMPLATES\CCW Minutes TEMPLATE.wpd Attachments Attachment #1 - Letter to Dover City Council – Proposed Ordinance #2022-26 - ACLU Attachment #2 - Letter to Dover City Council – Proposed Ordinance #2022-26 - Central Delaware NAACP Attachment #3 - DOE Union Update – Mr. Matthew Brown Attachment #4 - Chief Carey Wage Study Comments Attachment #5 - Kay Sass, AFSCME President Wage Study Comments Attachment #6 - Jason Osika, Fire Marshall Wage Study Comments

ATTACHMENT #1 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 11/29/2022 November 29, 2022 Mayor Robin R. Christiansen Councilmember Andre M. Boggerty Councilmember Julia M. Pillsbury Councilmember Gerald L. Rocha, Sr. Councilmember William F. Hare Councilmember Ralph L. Taylor, Jr. Councilmember Fred A. Neil Councilmember Tricia K. Arndt Councilmember David L. Anderson Councilmember Roy Sudler, Jr. Via Email Dear Mayor Christiansen and Dover City Councilmembers, We write with respect to proposed ordinance #2022-26, which assigns specific penalties to any activity deemed to be “loitering,” a term that, per the new language, could apply to citizens sitting on park benches and otherwise lawfully occupying public spaces. As written, this ordinance raises constitutional concerns of Dover residents and provides further precedent for law enforcement officers to harass and confront individuals without homes and those engaging in lawful protest. We therefore ask you to reject the proposed ordinance. The Proposed Ordinance Raises Constitutional Concerns Federal courts have generally struck down laws that make it an offense to be in a public place for no apparent reason because they tend to restrict individuals’ constitutionally protected right to travel, which encompasses the right to travel intrastate and to live or stay in a city. See Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969); King v. New Rochelle Mun. Hous. Auth., 442 F.2d 646, 648 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 863 (1971); Lutz. v. City of York, 899 F.2d 255 (3d Cir. 1990). A federal district court, for instance, has held that a city ordinance violated the right to travel by allowing people to be arrested for sleeping, standing, or congregating in public places because the ordinance had “the effect of preventing homeless people from coming into the city” as well as expelling those already present, and “significantly burdening their freedom of movement within the state,” Pottinger v. City of Miami, 810 F. Supp. 1551, 1558 (S.D. Fla. 1992). Dover’s proposed ordinance prohibits people from the same activities that other courts have held are contained in the constitutional right to travel, including sitting, standing, and congregating in public.

The proposed ordinance may also infringe upon the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech, expression, and to protest. By prohibiting congregations of individuals in public places, the city proposes an ordinance that could easily impede free speech and the right to protest by criminalizing it under the broad definition of “loitering” suggested by 2022-26. Moreover, the ordinance may be unconstitutionally overbroad in that it prohibits unavoidable, harmless, inoffensive conduct that the homeless or others are forced to engage in within public spaces. The Supreme Court has struck down similar ordinances because the “[f]reedom to loiter for innocent purposes” is part of the liberty protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999). Loitering laws have long been used to exclude visibly poor and homeless people from public places and prevent homeless people from exercising their First Amendment right to ask for help. See e.g., Reed v. Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015). This ordinance can make it substantially more difficult for people experiencing homelessness to exercise their First Amendment right to ask for help. See Schaumburg v. Citizens for Better Environment, 444 U.S. 620, 633 (1980). Additionally, given that this ordinance includes fines and fees associated with the act of “loitering,” it potentially implicates the prohibition against excessive fines and fees included in the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the corresponding protection in the Delaware State Constitution. See Del. Const. Art. I § 11. When fees and fines are grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense, they run afoul of the excessive fines clause of the Constitution. See United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 322, 324 (1998); See Blake v. City of Grants Pass, No. 1:18-cv-01823-CL, 2020 WL 4209227 (D. Or. July 22, 2020). Dover’s loitering ordinance that assigns fines of $25 for a first offense ($50 if at a school, college, or university) and $100 for each subsequent offense ($200 at a school, college, or university) are likely unconstitutionally excessive, particularly if such fines are disproportionately or discriminatorily levied against people experiencing homelessness. The Ordinance Is Unsound Public Policy Because people experiencing homelessness are not on the street by choice but because they lack choices, punishment serves no constructive purpose. As stated by the United States Department of Justice, “criminalizing homelessness is both unconstitutional and misguided public policy, leading to worse outcomes for people who are homeless and for their communities.” Bell v. Boise, et al., 1:09-cv-540-REB, Statement of Interest of the United States (Aug. 6, 2015). The ordinance criminalizes the simple presence of Dover residents in public spaces while also doing nothing to protect or promote public safety: individuals

engaging in behaviors that are legitimate public safety risks while loitering are likely to be violating existing criminal provisions in local and state law. In addition, numerous studies have shown that communities save money by providing housing and services to those in need rather than saddling them with fines, fees, and arrest records and cycling them through expensive hospital and jail systems. See Housing Not Handcuffs Report, HOUSING-NOT-HANDCUFFS-2019-FINAL.pdf (homelesslaw.org). Housing solutions, in lieu of criminalizing policies, save money on law enforcement and improve school attendance of young children, enable people to maintain steady employment, increase the success of mental health and substance use treatment, and help preserve public health. See Chris Herring et al., Pervasive Poverty: How the Criminalization of Poverty Perpetuates Homelessness, 67 Social Problems 131 (2019), https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b391e9cda02bc79baffebb9/t/5cc1c0569140b7fb43b1af 44/1556201561950/Pervasive+Penality+social+problems+(1)+(1).pdf. The Ordinance Is Racist The widespread criminalization of homelessness disproportionately impacts communities of color; this is true both in terms of who is most likely to experience homelessness and the extent and severity to which individuals are punished under anti-homeless laws. For example, nearly 40% of people experiencing homelessness in the country (and more than 50% of unhoused families with children) are Black despite representing only 13% of the US population. In contrast, white individuals account for 72% of the total US population yet only 48% of those experiencing homelessness (https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/what-causes-homelessness/inequalit y/). This disparity is compounded by the fact that anti-homeless laws are significantly more likely to be enforced against people of color, in particular Black people. While national statistics do not yet exist on the subject, regional snapshots are telling: a leading report out of California illustrates that unhoused Black and Latinx people are 9.7 and 5.7 times more likely to be cited under these laws than white people who engaged in the same activities (Cited for being in plain sight – the Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights San Francisco, https://lccrsf.org/wp-content/uploads/LCCR_CA_Infraction_report_4WEB-1.pdf). Due to rampant and historic racism in policing, unhoused Black people and people of color are also far more likely to have encounters with police end in physical injury or death. Stopping the enforcement of laws criminalizing homelessness is inherently an issue of racial justice and equity for Black, Indigenous, and other people of color in Dover. This ordinance, overall, is an inhumane use of power during an era of record poverty that has only been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, as seen in Housing Alliance

Delaware’s new report on homelessness (https://www.housingalliancede.org/_files/ugd/9b0471_322d16c2158c4ab09743a897dc12aa6d .pdf) , prolonged unemployment, and a shrinking stock of affordable housing. We urge you to reject the ordinance, place an immediate moratorium on enforcement of the anti-loitering ordinance, and instead divert funding that would be spent enforcing the ordinance to invest in housing and services that would address and end homelessness in Dover. Sincerely, /s/ Javonne Rich Javonne Rich Policy & Advocacy Director ACLU of Delaware

ATTACHMENT #2 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 11/29/2022 Walls, Ashley A From: Fleur McKendell <mckendellf@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 6:42 PM To: Andre Boggerty; Christiansen, Robin; City Clerks Office; David Anderson; Engle, Rachel N.; Gerald Rocha; Neil, Fred; Sudler, Roy; Taylor, Ralph L., Jr; Tricia A Subject: EXTERNAL: Public Comment Re: Loitering Ordinance 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. Please read the following comment at the 11/29/22 council meeting re: Loitering Ordinance My name is Fleur McKendell and I am here on behalf of the Central Delaware NAACP branch, where I serve as President. First and foremost, I want to thank the esteemed Dover City Council members for providing this opportunity for me to provide comment. As expressed in our November 2, 2021 letter and at that month’s subsequent council meeting, the NAACP has grave concerns that the proposed loitering ordinance will have a disproportionate impact on underserved and already marginalized communities- subjecting them to increased police oversight. In our view, it's nonsensical to subject this population, who more often than not don't have their own basic living and public safety needs met, to fines and fees that in namesake will supposedly enhance public safety for all. And doing so is like putting a band aid on a broken leg. In recent years, much of the NAACP’s direct action initiatives have been focused on police accountability, transparency and transformative community policing strategies aimed at building trust between city residents and law enforcement. This ordinance, in our view, will not be conducive to achieving these goals and would in fact achieve just the opposite- increased resentment towards police that will fuel an already barely containable fire. It would also impose penalties to peaceful protesters like myself and other NAACP and community members. Time and time again we have had front row seats to the consequences that communities suffer when vague, ambiguous, and harm-based laws that involve subjective judgements about people's criminal propensity are enacted. This is why the NAACP supports and encourages community-led initiatives in order to address and overcome community crisis. Last year, Dover city council members pledged to invite community members and local organizations to the table to discuss alternative routes to achieving what this ordinance claims to which was quoted by Councilman Taylor as changed behavior. However, the NAACP never received any follow up invitation to participate in a dialogue around this issue. Loitering ordinances have been challenged by the NAACP in other municipalities and we will continue to be vigilant as we work to secure equality, equity and justice for all. This ordinance must not be moved out of the safety and transportation committee, as doing so will have damming results. 1

Thank you! 2

ATTACHMENT #3 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 11/29/2022 Good evening, thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of Dover Organization of Employees or DOE or doe as we refer to it. My name is Matthew Brown (Fire Marshal’s Office) and I have been the Union president for the last 6 years out of my 9 years with the city. Our officers consist of Kenny Black Vice President (Public Works), Nichole Arnold Secretary (Planning and Inspections), and Velvet Johnson Treasurer (Public Works). We also have various other positions held by several members that assist with the operation of our union. DOE is a fully independent union recognized by the Delaware Public Employees Relations Board, we are not governed by a national union. We govern ourselves, we maintain our own bylaws, and fund everything we do with unions Dues. We do maintain a labor attorney, Ron Stoner, on retainer for advice and he leads our negations for contracts. DOE is made up of 145-165 employees at any given time. We serve our city in many compacities. We are often referred to as the Blue- Collar workers. However, we do not consider ourselves any different than anyone else employed by the City of Dover. We are all here to serve the community in an effort to make Dover a great place that people want to live, work and visit. Our members fill 47 different roles within the labor force. A question I was asked was to talk about was what our long-term goals are. That’s a complicated, yet a simple question for me to answer. Our focus is always fair and equitable treatment of all employees. That is the main purpose of the contract. The contract spells everything out so that everyone gets treated the same and receives the same benefits. Our biggest hurdle has always been compensation and benefits. Even though we have made some great strides to correct the compensation

issue. The labor market has moved faster than we or the city could of ever predicted. The brings us to the wage study being presented to you tonight. First, this council has already made a bold commitment to correct this situation by voting unanimously this past summer to direct management to complete a wage study that was transparent to all. For this, the Doe union members thank you. I also want to thank the management team assigned to this very large task. Our union members have put their faith in this council to correct it. For example: A Doe employee who has felt for a few years they were underpaid, applied for similar position with another municipality that is pretty comparable to ours. It was not something they did lightly. They enjoy who they work with, who they work for, and even more importantly to them, the community they serve. This union member was offered the position with a pretty large pay increase. However, after much consideration, turned it down because they believe in this council. They stated to me that if this 2 or 3 years ago. They would of never considered staying. But with this council and the commitment you have made they chose to stay. They have (without any guarantee) put their faith in you. There are many obvious reasons why an equitable wage is important. The most common examples are recruitment and retention. But often overlooked is the mental effect that constant turn over has on an employee. It takes a tremendous amount of time and effort to earn the respect of your peers and supervisors. This goes in both directions. The trust that is built between staff and supervisors does not come easy.

When we have constant turn over and staff has to gain the respect and trust of someone new over and over again can become overwhelming. Currently the city has 16 open positions (not including police officers). 12 of those positions are within our union. This number is pretty constant in our opinion. We believe with your commitment to a fair and equitable wage study, the constant turnover will be a thing of the past. We need to focus on keeping employees here as well as finding new ones ,that will stay, to fill the vacancies. This means that we need to find away to bring current employees up to wage reflective of their years of experience and commitment that they have already made to this City. We are here to help. There is no reason this cannot be a collaboration of both the union and the city to overcome any obstacle in order to make this City, the City, that everyone wants to work for. I know an update on the pay study is being presented to this committee in a few minutes. We may have some questions or concerns after it is presented. However, I would like to save our questions and comments until after the presentation. With all that being said. I would like to thank you for this opportunity to speak at your meeting. If you any questions, I am willing to answer what I can now, or you may certainly contact me anytime.

ATTACHMENT #4 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 11/29/2022 11/29/2022 Council Committee of the Whole Good evening, First, I would like to thank City Council and the management team for performing a wage study for all city employees as this will affect everyone. I have the trust in this City Council that they will make fair and equitable decisions for all employees. I am not going to speak about the Fire Dispatchers versus the Police Dispatcher duties; however, I will speak on integrity, respect and complete disregard for City Council by the Police Chief and City Manager. What is Integrity – Is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy or one's actions. What is Respect – is a positive action shown towards someone considered important or held to a high esteem or regard. On Tuesday, June 14, 2022, during the Council Committee of the Whole meeting, emergency dispatchers were discussed. During that discussion, the Police Chief spoke on how he needed to provide an emergency pay raise of $5.00 an hour and a $10,000 bonus to his dispatchers due to his dispatchers applying to Newark Police and he could lose a large amount of his current workforce. Since then, not a single dispatcher has left and over half of their dispatchers are in the pension plan and probably won’t leave. During the meeting, it was discussed by the Police Chief, Council and I, that emergency dispatchers would be leveled up on pay and City Council recommended that this to take place in the pay study. Since the pay study was published last Wednesday, it has been brought to my attention, as well as my employees, that this is not the case. During my meeting with the wage study team, all emergency dispatchers were being compared to the same comparable, which seems fair and equitable. Monday morning, November 28th I met with City Manager Hugg regarding the pay study and I asked him why there was a change, especially when the comparisons showed that the positions were the same. Why are the fire dispatchers a pay grade 18 and the Police Dispatchers a pay grade 22. City Manager Hugg admitted to me that there was a private meeting between the Police Chief and him sometime after the Council Meeting where the Police Chief was persuasive and that his dispatchers should not be compared to the same standard as the fire dispatchers at which time the standard was changed, completely showing a lack of respect towards City Council and their recommendation. (Note, this was changed behind closed doors, not in the comparisons in the study).

Allowing this type of side bar agreements to continue causes frustration and loss of trust in leadership by the employees throughout the entire city. This is not the only situation of where their integrity has been questioned. During the City Picinic on August 18th, it was brought to my attention that employees from the Police Department as well as the Police Chief made comment that there was a 5-year plan to move the Fire Dispatchers, Fire Marshal’s Office and the Emergency Manager under the Police Chief. Myself and Fire Marshal Osika questioned the City Manager on the plan and he acknowledged that there have been discussions but would not elaborate on the plan. I immediately called the mayor regarding this and scheduled a meeting Between the Mayor and the Police Chief. The Police Chief denied the allegations. Also, there was another private meeting between the Police Chief and City Manager when Fire Dispatcher staffing was at a low. During this meeting it was discussed moving the fire dispatchers to Dover PD. Why was this being discussed behind closed doors without the Fire Chief being present? This involves the fire department wouldn’t you think the Fire Chief would be involved? Do they really understand how detrimental this would be to the Volunteer fire service in the City of Dover? The Fire Chief Doesn’t make recommendations on how the police department handles their business. The Police Chief and City Manager both acknowledged such conversations took place. These are all recent examples of why their integrity and respect is being questioned. While I am not a city employee, I am a Volunteer Fire Chief that happens to be a department head within the city. I follow the rules and if I am not sure I ask questions. City of Dover employees have my upmost respect for the job they do every day. I came with a solution to make all Emergency Dispatcher wages fair and equitable at or above market value that I am willing to discuss with management and the wage study team. While I appreciate the support City Council has given me and my employees, I have the trust and respect for City Council that they will make decisions on this pay study that is fair and equitable for all employees. The Fire Department supports the Dover Police Department and our great working relationship with the department; however, the fire department does not support the Police Chief or his backdoor antics with the City Manager. Respectfully Submitted, David Carey, Fire Chief

ATTACHMENT #5 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 11/29/2022 Walls, Ashley A From: Sass, Kay Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 6:55 AM To: City Clerks Office Subject: Copy of 3 minute speech CCW mtg 11 29 2022 Good morning, thought this would be advantageous for when you do minutes. Have a good day. Good evening, Kay Sass, AFSCME President I want to say thank you again to Council for recognizing the need to evaluate and acknowledge the inequity of pay in the City of Dover versus the other municipalities. I also want to thank Sharon Duca and the others for their efforts in the salary study. We are fortunate (or unfortunate) that many of our positions in AFSCME are recognized as undervalued and it will make it easier to fill many positions that often are difficult to fill, this pay study bridges the beginning salary gap and will bring up all of the new hires to a fair market. As addressed by Sharon, Members of Council and many others, I appreciate you recognize what this fails to address is fair placement within the new salary ranges. This ties hand in hand with Longevity Pay ‐ to bring newly hired staff in at only 1, 2, 3 or 4% below people that have been in their positions for 10, 15, 20+ years of dedicated service hurts. It hurts retention, and it hurts employee morale. Demeaning their years of service and experience to the city and to our community. There should be consideration of placing our employees who have 10 or 12 years of service in at mid‐range of the salary scale because you would be "mid‐way" thru your 20–25‐year career with the city. I would like to know how it is being determined where new hires are currently being brought in at (above minimum on the scale) and to equally apply that same formula to those who have worked for the city for many years. If you are placing someone in above minimum because they are coming here with 10 years’ experience, why would we not apply that to the current staff? We have staff that fall within the range because they have worked here for 15 years, so they get nothing under this study, but someone just starting would only be about 4k below them or worse, higher than them because their experience would count and have value. All of this is long overdue. Not just for the study to take place but to be implemented – this is at no fault of this current council. While past studies were skewed this one is at least a solid starting point. We all see what our jobs pay in other localities. I ask you to remember it is just that, a starting point. 1

Now we have a viable model that we can tweak and run different formulas on to see if we can come up with a viable formula that is amicable to the employees and to the taxpayers. It is evident that the city staff is for the most part grossly below market. I look forward to being part of the ongoing conversations to find a realistic, amicable resolution. Thank you Respectfully, Kay Sass Public Affairs and Emergency Management Coordinator City of Dover 302‐736‐7003 (Office) Text keyword DOVER to 42828 to be added to our electronic newsletter or log onto the city website at www.cityofdover.com to sign up! 2

ATTACHMENT #6 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 11/29/2022 From: Jason Osika To: Anderson, David Cc: City Clerks Office Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Council Committee of the Whole Meeting, Wage Study Date: Monday, November 28, 2022 10:00:54 AM Good morning, It is public, I plan on reading it tomorrow night as well. Thank you! On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 9:53 AM Anderson, David <david.anderson@dover.de.us> wrote: Mr. Osika, Thank you for your thoughtful correspondence. Is this email for the Committee to consider as part of the public record or is it private correspondence to the people addressed? Respectfully, The Honorable David L. Anderson 4th District Dover City Council (302)736-7006 office (302) 339-1047 Cell (personal) david.anderson@dover.de.us davidlevianderson@gmail.com (personal) From: Jason Osika <jasonosika4655@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 7:41 AM To: Hugg, Dave <dhugg@dover.de.us>; Duca, Sharon <SDuca@dover.de.us>; Poole, Naomi H <npoole@dover.de.us>; Christiansen, Robin <rchristiansen@dover.de.us>; Boggerty, Andre M. <andre.boggerty@dover.de.us>; Hare, William <billh2323@comcast.net> Cc: Pillsbury, Julia M. <julia.pillsbury@dover.de.us>; Rocha, Gerald L., Sr <gerald.rocha@dover.de.us>; Taylor, Ralph L., Jr <ralph.taylor@dover.de.us>; Neil, Fred <fredneilbooks@comcast.net>; Arndt, Tricia K. <tricia.arndt@dover.de.us>; Anderson, David <david.anderson@dover.de.us>; Sudler, Roy <roysudlerjr@comcast.net>; Gray, Mary Ellen <mgray@dover.de.us>; Bennett, Andria <abennett@dover.de.us> Subject: EXTERNAL: Council Committee of the Whole Meeting, Wage Study

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. Good morning, First, I hope that you all had a good Thanksgiving. Second, I want to thank the City Council for having a wage equity study completed for the entire City, it was long overdue. I want to also thank the Management Team who conducted the study for their hard work. When the Wage Study was released in the Council Committee of the Whole Meeting packet on Wednesday, I reviewed it and became very frustrated. After digesting it over a few days, I am requesting that the complete Management Team have sessions with the city employees in order to be completely transparent, explain the study in detail and answer any questions the employees may have. I write this email for the employees I supervise, as well as myself. From following the process since day 1 and from what I have reviewed, I have the following questions and concerns: - For comparables not provided, why weren’t proper comparables sought out if none were provided? For example, nothing matched my office; however, I had a meeting and provided proper comparisons from the State of DE Fire Marshal’s Office. For some reason, the State of DE wasn’t used; however, they are in our own backyard. - How were the numbers created for the inspector I, inspector II, and Inspector III for the Fire Marshal's Office? They are not comparable to what I presented in a meeting with the management team comparing us to the State of DE Fire Marshal’s Office. The inspector III is not comparable to the Chief Building Inspector as well. - Why is it focused on pay minimums? - Why are we becoming just average employees? I was at a meeting where members of the City Council stated that they wanted the best. Becoming average does not keep or get us the best. - Are the averages equitable? For example, if a position only had 4 comparisons, were they factored the same as someone with 8 comparables? The position with 8 comparables can have comparables with much lower pay bringing their average down compared to the position with 4 comparables. - Why are years of service so worth almost nothing? - Years of service is a complete slap in the face for people with longevity to the City of Dover. Currently, I have 20 years of service with the City and make $10,000 over the proposed minimum; however, I am $26,000 away from the proposed maximum. I have an employee who has 10 years of service and newer employees will bring very close to their salary. - How do you ever max out? - It appears that what is presented only brings the newer employees up in pay (which once again - brings them closer to employees with longevity, causing longevity to mean nothing). I feel this may have been done to lower the cost of the implementation. - Why aren’t the current scales adjusted across the board with the same increase which would keep longevity in place? - Why wasn’t minimum and maximum pay determined with steps in between which were for longevity? This would place employees in the scale fairly. - Or why not create a scale and place everyone where they currently are only under the new wages? - If you are moving any staff up, all staff in that category should be moved up at the same rate due to longevity. - Were how the comparables place their employees into their scales considered? - The old philosophy was that you start at the minimum and work your way to retirement reaching the maximum. If this has changed, what is the policy to fairly show implementation of placement for all employees? - While the pay study was being completed, you had a new supervisor get reclassed and is almost at their “new” maximum. What about other employees who have

been here longer? Why did this happen when this study was taking place? - Title adjustments, reclassifications, new step progressions, new positions, and promotions should be evaluated for the budget process. Is this for everyone? I believe this is current policy; however, the Police Chief hasn’t had to follow this, and the Mayor and City Manager allow it. This is not fair to all the other employees. This causes frustration and the employees start to lose faith when they see things like this taking place. - We have several new managers that have started well above the minimum rate. What determines this? - Are people who make more than they should red circled? - If training, knowledge, and experience is used, was every employee evaluated equally? For example, when I started, I did not have a degree and several certifications which I have now obtained. Was a new pension plan (State of DE) discussed as part of the compensation package as most of the comparables have a pension plan. During my meeting with the management team, I asked this, and I was advised that during every meeting, the topic of a pension came up; however, it hasn’t been addressed. This is part of a compensation package. This is the third budget that I am making a pay request for my entire office based on training, knowledge, experience, and longevity. Last year, I asked that I be involved in all meetings regarding this and in the end, I wasn’t, and the increase was removed. Meanwhile, the Police Chief didn’t go through the process and was able to reclass and obtain new positions. Where does the money come from? How is this fair? I have applied for it once again this year. In the end, this proposal doesn’t appear to bring fairness and equity to everyone, only to the newer employees, I can only conclude that this is done to keep costs down. The opening slide shows that this wasn’t what was supposed to take place, an actual fair and equitable study was supposed to take place showing where all employees should be. I feel that the study was skewed to ensure management didn’t need to find proper funding. When this started, employees told me that this would never happen. I told them that I have worked with this Council and that they are pro employees and will do what is right. If what I see is accepted, I will be wrong. What the team has proposed is not fair and equitable to all employees, only a fraction. I still have faith that this council will do what’s right regarding the direction of the study. I am asking these questions for clarification for the employees of the City of Dover. I just want what the Council wants, transparency, and equity that is fair and across the board for all employees regardless of position. Thank you for hearing my concerns. Please feel free to contact me at any time. Respectfully, Jason Osika