REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING The Regular City Council Meeting was held on December 12, 2022, at 6:30 p.m., with Council President Sudler presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Neil, Dr. Pillsbury, Mrs. Arndt, Mr. Rocha, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Hare. Mr. Boggerty was absent. Staff members present were Fire Chief Carey, Police Chief Johnson, Ms. Sharon Duca, Mrs. Mary Ellen Gray, Mr. Rodriguez, and Ms. Bennett. Mayor Christiansen was also present. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum was held at 6:15 p.m., prior to the commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Sudler declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council was not in official session and could not take formal action. Mr. Logan French, 923 Janeka Lane, Dover 19904, spoke about his concerns as a landowner in the City of Dover. Mr. French explained that he lives in the second district and is concerned about a position funded by the council and being eliminated within the Dover Fire Department. The funds are earmarked and approved until June 30, 2023. Mr. French claimed the person is being removed from the position without explanation. No derogatory marks or cause for termination has been given. The person has worked through COVID, been a major liaison through council, and acted as a department figurehead. Mr. French stated that with everything that has been presented, there has been no cause and no reason why this person is to be terminated come the end of the year, and it would be a great threat to the commerce of the city. Mr. French explained that it is his concern why the person would be removed because of the experience he has had and provided for the people of Dover. Mr. Davon D. Marque Hall, Wilmington, Delaware, spoke about his concerns related to the Loitering Ordinance. Mr. Hall was urged to attend at the behest of the ACLU and Delaware Poor People's Campaign, of which he is a coordinating member. Mr. Hall stated that he is thankful for the ability to speak and state for the record that it is not fair. Mr. Hall explained that there have been at least 70 cities that have repealed their panhandling ordinances when informed of the likely infringement on First Amendment rights, including Wilmington. Mr. Hall stated that we cannot have people that are hungry and who need help feel like they are criminals just by existing. He further explained that other folks feel threatened by those people that are not actually at risk because those people are not trying to hurt anybody. Mr. Hall explained that he is thankful that the Dover City Council, has the idea, has the mind, and has the heart to help the people that are here that are not trying to hurt anybody. Mr. Hall asked that members of council do everything they can to protect the most vulnerable citizens here in Dover. Mr. Hall stated that he was grateful for the opportunity to speak. Ms. Lachelle Paul, 501 Silverside Road, Wilmington, Delaware, 19809. Ms. Paul explained that she is here on behalf of Divided We Fall of Delaware and on behalf of a constituent that is a Dover resident. Ms. Paul stated that her constituent’s name is Cecil Wilson. Ms. Paul explained that the constituent saw a news broadcast that stated that this ordinance is being put in place because of the issues surrounding panhandling. Ms. Paul stated that she believes that clarity of what this ordinance is going to be addressing is very important. She further explained that she

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 2 has no qualms with the initial ordinance taken from the state law. Ms. Paul explained that it is the amendment verbiage stating that when you are going in to target and specify a specific area when you say high crime area, this is being targeted and directed to a certain area or a certain race. So that verbiage is the verbiage that is the issue that is had. So just to be clear if it is the state ordinance, there is no discrepancy with regards to if it is the verbiage that is dealing with, that came from mimicking the state law. Why, because if that ordinance is put in place, then the only thing it is doing is allowing the city to go through, do what they need to do, and the city would be able to get those fines as opposed to the state, and the city would be able to handle with regards to the situations which each occurrence. So, there is no discrepancy with that. Ms. Paul explained it is the verbiage of the amendment portion of the ordinance that there is an issue with at this point. So, we need to make sure that there is clarity and reference to know that it is not the entire thing, it is the amended portion that he has an issue with, and those other residents have an issue with. Just the verbiage to target one area is a violation. With, that clarity with the panhandling and the loitering, there needs to be some clarity as to what you want this ordinance to reference and what you want it to do. Ms. Paul asked if there was something that needs to be done. Yes, when she must call on the Chief, the Mayor, or anyone else outside to go through and deal with a particular situation that they are dealing with that could be potentially harmful and can create someone to lose their life, and she must depend on them to go out without having full knowledge of what is going on because she does not even know full knowledge. Mr. Paul stated that she is not a police officer. The city’s residents must be able to deal with the actual people that are handling these laws. Is it a tool that he feels is something that can be utilized and used? It must be done the right way. Understand, when people have an issue and concern, address the issues and concerns so that the verbiage and things that are done are done properly, and then you will not get the pushback. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Elder Ellis Louden. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council President Sudler. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Arndt and unanimously carried (Boggerty absent). ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA All Consent Agenda items are considered routine and non-controversial and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of Council so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered a separate item. Mr. Rocha requested the removal of Item #6, Proposed Ordinance #2022-26, from the consent agenda.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 3 Mr. Neil moved for the adoption of the consent agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Hare, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Boggerty absent) CERTIFICATE OF CONGRATULATIONS – GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN’S CLUB DELAWARE- 125-YEAR ANNIVERSARY The City Clerk read the following Certificate of Congratulations into the record: CERTIFICATE OF CONGRATULATIONS presented to GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN’S CLUB DELAWARE The City of Dover sends its gratitude and appreciation for the hard work and dedication that the General Federation of Women’s Club Delaware has provided to the community. General Federation of Women’s Clubs Delaware is a 1000-member strong volunteer community service organization with 22 clubs in Delaware communities and a member state organization of the General Federation of Women’s Club. Their mission is to enhance the lives of others through volunteer service. The City of Dover congratulates the General Federation of Women’s Clubs Delaware on its 125th Anniversary On behalf of the Mayor and Council, Mayor Christiansen presented the Certificate to Congratulations to Trish Rodriguez and members of the General Federation of Women’s Club Delaware in appreciation for their community service to the City of Dover. PRESENTATION - PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 2022-11 - CITY OF DOVER BRONZE MEDAL – DANIEL HARMON The City Clerk read the following Resolution into the record: WHEREAS, on August 9, 2022, Mr. Daniel Harmon was traveling south on State Street when he observed a vehicle going at a slow rate of speed. At that time, the operator of the vehicle ran off the road, hitting a tree and coming to a stop; and WHEREAS, Mr. Harmon proceeded to contact System Operations via the radio, requesting an ambulance and the police. Mr. Harmon got out of his truck and ran over to the subject’s vehicle. Councilman Taylor also observed what had occurred and came down the street to assist; and WHEREAS, Mr. Harmon tried to get into the subject’s vehicle, but the doors were locked. Mr. Harmon ran back to his work truck and retrieved a hammer to break the passenger side window. After entering the vehicle, Councilman Taylor spoke to 911, informing them of what was happening while Mr. Harmon put the car in park and shut it off. They stayed with the vehicle’s operator until police and medical assistance arrive.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 4 WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council recognize that the swift actions of Mr. Daniel Harmon while incurring injury to himself, deserve special recognition. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and Council award Mr. Daniel Harmon the City of Dover Bronze Medal in recognition of his selfless actions and direct the City Clerk to make this resolution a part of the permanent records of the City of Dover. ADOPTED: DECEMBER 12, 2022 By motion of Mr. Hare, seconded by Mr. Neil, Resolution No. 2022-11 was adopted by unanimous consent. (Boggerty Absent) Mayor Christiansen, Councilman Taylor, and Assistant City Manager Duca presented Daniel Harmon with the Resolution and a City of Dover Bronze Medal. ANNEXATION/REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1107 SOUTH BRADFORD STREET Ms. Mary Ellen Gray, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed the Petition to Annex and Re-zone the property. The Planning Commission recommended the annexation of the property with the zoning designation of C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone), as submitted. Mrs. Gray explained that this request is to annex and rezone the property located at 1107 South Bradford Street from RM Multi-Family Residential, which is a zoning designation in Kent County, to C2A, which is a limited central commercial zone. This proposed district is in council district two. This property is on the east side of South Bradford Street and is currently a single- family detached dwelling with a garage and a shed. It is 0.25 acres in size. Its comprehensive plan designation is category one high priority for an annexation area, and its land use category is commercial low intensity. This parcel is one of several parcels in the general area, that is in an enclave area, not located in the city. As indicated, the applicant wishes to annex and rezone this parcel to the C2A zone. The C2A zone consists of a mix of uses, in both commercial and residential sectors. Ms. Gray further explained at the Planning Commission meeting on November 21, 2022, the application AX 22-02 was presented by Dr. Nicholas Alcorn, a partner in the property ownership group, Ditko Properties LLC. The applicant presented their request for annexation and rezoning. During this hearing, no members of the public spoke, and no written comments were received. The Planning Commission's motion was to recommend approval for the annexation and rezoning application AX 22-02 lands at Ditko Properties, LLC, 1107 South Bradford Street with a proposed C2A rezoning and resulted in a vote of eight to zero in favor and no votes in opposition. Public Hearing - Zoning Classification Members considered a request for the rezoning of property proposed for annexation located at 1107 South Bradford Street, consisting of 11,248.2 SF (0.2582 +/- acres), owned by Ditko Properties, LLC. The property is currently zoned RM (Multifamily Residential District) (Kent

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 5 County zoning classification), and the proposed zoning is C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) (City of Dover zoning classification). A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider the rezoning of property located at 1107 South Bradford Street, owned by Ditko Properties, LLC. Council President Sudler declared the public hearing open. Dr. Franklin Pancko, 13 Chadwick Drive, Dover, DE, spoke in favor of the rezoning/annexation. Dr. Pancko explained that they are seeking to rezone the property so three employees can do clerical work. Dr, Pancko explained that moving the three employees would allow them to move the three employees and increase their ability to see more patients. There being no one else present wishing to speak, Council President Sudler declared the public hearing closed. Adoption of Annexation Resolution No. 2022-10 Members considered Annexation Resolution No. 2022-10 for property located at 1107 South Bradford Street, owned by Ditko Properties, LLC. By motion of Mr. Hare, seconded by Mr. Taylor, Council, by a unanimous roll call vote (Boggerty absent), adopted Resolution No. 2022-10, as follows: A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INCLUSION OF AN AREA WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF DOVER WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Dover authorizes Council to extend the boundaries of the said City in accordance with Title 22, Chapter 1, Section 101 of the Delaware Code (22 Del. C.§ 101); and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council deem it to be in the best interest of the City of Dover to include an area contiguous to the present City limits, and hereinafter more particularly described, within the limits of the City of Dover; and WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Dover provides that if an annexation is petitioned by all owners of all property considered for annexation; no election shall be required. For an annexation petition not requiring an election, such petition shall be processed in accordance with procedures established for amendments to the zoning map, specified in Dover Code, Appendix B - Zoning. All annexation petitions shall be processed concurrently with the rezoning of the property considered for annexation and shall be subject to public hearing before City Council. Public notice shall be completed in accordance with the provisions of the Dover Code relating to amendment of the zoning map. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 6 1. That the following described area, situated in East Dover Hundred, Kent County, State of Delaware, along with all adjacent paths, sidewalks, roadways, and rights-of-way in their entirety shall be annexed to and included within the limits of the City of Dover: ALL THAT CERTAIN tract, piece or parcel of land and premises situated just south of the corporate limits of the City of Dover in East Dover Hundred, Kent County and State of Delaware, in the development known as South Dover Acres, lying on the east side of South Bradford Street, having a frontage on said South Bradford Street of seventy-five (75) feet and extending back therefrom between parallel lines in an easterly direction one hundred fifty (150) feed of land, be the same more or less, and being all of Lot No. 10 and north one-half of Lot No. 11 as shown on a plot of South Dover Acres of record in the office of the Recorder of Deeds at Dover in Plot Book 1, Page 41. 2. That the above-described property shall be annexed into the City of Dover with a zoning classification as set by City Council and in accordance with the zoning map and environs then in force, effective upon such lands being included within the limits of the City of Dover. 3. That the certified copy of this resolution of annexation, together with a plot of the area annexed, shall be filed for record with the Recorder of Deeds of Kent County. 4. That the effective date of this resolution shall be the 13th day of December 2022, at 12:01 a.m. ADOPTED: DECEMBER 12, 2022 Final Reading/Adoption of Rezoning Ordinance #2022-19 Members considered Ordinance #2022-19, rezoning property located at 1107 South Bradford Street, owned by Ditko Properties, LLC. Mr. Hare moved that the Final Reading of Ordinance #2022-19 be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Ms. Arndt, and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of the ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of October 10, 2022.) Mr. Hare moved for approval of the rezoning, as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and, by a unanimous roll call vote (Boggerty absent), Council adopted Ordinance #2022-19, as follows: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1107 SOUTH BRADFORD STREET WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within the limits of the City of Dover; and WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of property described below from RM - Multifamily Residential District (Kent County zoning

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 7 classification) to C-2A- Limited Central Commercial Zone (City of Dover zoning classification). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 1. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation from RM - Multifamily Residential District (Kent County zoning classification) to C-2A - Limited Central Commercial Zone (City of Dover zoning classification) on that property located at 1107 South Bradford Street, consisting of 0.2582 +/- acres (11,248.2 SF), owned by Ditko Properties, LLC. (Tax Parcel: ED-00-077.17-01-12.00-000; Planning Reference: AX-22-02; Council District: 2) ADOPTED: DECEMBER 12, 2022 ADOPTION OF MINUTES-REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 28, 2022 The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of November 28, 2022, were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Hare, and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - NOVEMBER 29, 2022 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 January 24, 2023, Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee Meeting.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 8 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 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. 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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 9 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 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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 10 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 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. 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.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 11 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 can 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.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 12 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. 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. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation to approve Ordinance #2022-26 for first reading at December 12, 2022, Regular City Council Meeting, seconded by Mr. Hare and carried by a unanimous 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. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation to approve the 2023 Transportation Priorities (CTP), seconded by Mr. Hare and carried by a unanimous roll call vote 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.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 13 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 continue 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. Mr. Hare moved to recommend research continue 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. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved to recommend research continue on the availability and ability to serve these properties with City of Dover utility services (Electric, Water, and Sanitary Sewer), seconded by Mr. Hare and carried by a unanimous roll call vote 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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 14 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 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) 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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 15 recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of Grant Funded Sole Source Vendor- Flock Safety – Vehicle Identification System Cameras request, seconded by Mr. Hare and carried by a unanimous roll call vote 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 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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 16 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 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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 17 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 does council 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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 18 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?" 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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 19 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 implementing a new system, but they are also 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 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.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 20 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. 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.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 21 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 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 regard 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.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 22 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. 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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 23 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 the 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. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of council by hanging a special meeting with the Controller/Treasurer to sit down and work out the problems that she is having and the communication issues, seconded by Mr. Hare and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. 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. 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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 24 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 was 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. Comparable 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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 25 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 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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 26 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 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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 27 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 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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 28 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 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 Council 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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 29 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 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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 30 continued to explain that there is a designation for 911 centers that not every place that answers a 911 call is a 911 center. 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 other municipalities or county 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. 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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 31 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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 32 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. 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.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 33 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 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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 34 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. 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 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 Bennett 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?"

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 35 Mr. Neil moved to recommend that the Committee continues to work on the Wage Study and bring another report to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved to accept the recommendation that the Committee continues to work on the Wage Study, and bring another report to Council, seconded by Mr. Hare and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. 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. 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.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 36 By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the committee recommendation to schedule a special meeting which includes an executive session with the Human Resources Director to discuss the 911 Supervisor position, seconded by Mr. Hare and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. 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 do that part at least. 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. 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.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 37 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 the 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 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, 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 not to go there. Mr. Anderson continued to state that as the Chair, he wants to intervene 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. Meeting adjourned at 9:56 PM The Council Committee of the Whole meeting adjourned at 9:57 p.m.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 38 By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for acceptance of the Council Committee of the Whole Report, seconded by Mr. Hare and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. MONTHLY REPORTS - OCTOBER 2022 By motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Hare, the following monthly reports were accepted by consent agenda: City Assessor’s Report City Council’s Community Enhancement Fund Report City Manager’s Report City Planner’s Report Controller/Treasurer’s Budget Report Fire Chief’s Report Police Chief’s Report PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2022-26 – AMENDING CHAPTER 70 BY ADDING A SECTION 70-2 LOITERING Mr. Rocha made a motion to remove Item#6 Proposed Ordinance #2022-26 – Amending Chapter 70 by adding a section 70-2 Loitering from the consent agenda for discussion. Mr. Rocha explained that he would like to amend this ordinance based on a legal opinion by the City Solicitor, Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Rocha explained that he had concerns and questioned the word "prowls" and the phrase "especially considering the crime rate in certain areas," which led to a legal opinion that was sent to members of the council that concurs with the recommendation to remove the language from the ordinance. Mr. Rocha stated that he is open to discussion but feels as though the word prowls and the phrase “especially considering the crime rate”, alludes to criminal activity, which he believes in a loitering ordinance, is a violation. Mr. Rocha stated that language should be stricken from what has been proposed. Mr. Anderson moved to strike from line 34, “especially considering the crime rate in the relevant area”, seconded by Mr. Taylor and unanimously carried. Mr. Anderson moved to strike the word prowls throughout the ordinance, seconded by Mr. Taylor, and unanimously carried. Mr. Anderson explained that he is fine if the committee decides to strike the word prowls from the proposed ordinance #2022-26. He further stated that it is from the state language and is not something local. The word “prowls” has no legal definition therefore, it defaults to the dictionary definition. Mr. Anderson stated that according to Meriam Webster, the term prowl(s) means to move about or wander stealthily or in search or pray to roam in a predatory manner. Mr. Anderson explained that he believes that it is a protection that is in there because it requires an officer to look and see that it is not just somebody standing around looking at a window, but there is suspicious behavior involved. Mr. Anderson thinks the state wording is a good thing, he would just want us to think about it before we remove it. Mr. Anderson explained that he would support the ordinance either way but gave his reasoning for not supporting the removal of it.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 39 Mr. Rocha thanked Mr. Anderson for his explanation and stated that he understood where he is coming from; however, he wanted to ask Chief Johnson a question for clarification. Mr. Rocha asked Chief Johnson about the definition of the word prowls, as described by Mr. Anderson. Mr. Rocha asked if there is someone prowling around a public area or even a private vicinity in a neighborhood. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Chief Johnson explained he would interpret it as suggestive of more than just a simple, local law violation. Chief Johnson stated that when someone is prowling, particularly during overnight hours or clearly in private property or places where they are normally not permitted to be, police officers are going to find one of two things, a completely legitimate explanation for their presence and behavior, or they are probably going to find something more than just prowling. He further explained that, in practical terms, they would probably end up relying on the state statute. Chief Johnson explained that functionally if it was in our local ordinance, he believes officers would be okay in making sure that they could address any kind of suspicious behavior that would be reported by a citizen or observed and acted upon by an officer through their training and experience. Chief Johnson believes he could be comfortable based on what normally occurs when they are addressing a prowler call. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Chief Johnson explained that as they receive calls for suspicious persons, suspicious vehicles, and suspicious conditions, they are never the same. Chief Johnson stated that he is not going to say they would be completely handcuffed because that would overstate the limitation. It is just that the officers would have to be very diligent in establishing the reasonable suspicion for an encounter and the probable cause for detention if that were to occur. They would just have to do a good job of developing all those articulable facts to proceed to the next step of determining whether there was something to be concerned about. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Chief Johnson explained it would be a little bit difficult for him to give them a recipe, if you will. Every proactive encounter that a police officer takes, whether it is based on their own observations or a 911 call, just for illustration and context, a 911 call on suspicious circumstances typically requires the officer to come into the area where the call location is, and then take a due diligence amount of time to try and observe the behavior that was described by the 911 caller, particularly if that caller asked to remain anonymous. That is because they do not have the caller’s testimonial evidence later to explain why someone was brought in. After that, it is a matter of the circumstances and a reasonableness test. Chief Johnson further stated that this could play out in a million different ways. A suspicious person could call and say they are loitering in the business district during the holiday shopping season. The 911 caller states that the loiterer is taking a few steps to follow and then changing their mind. Any unaccompanied person with a purse, a shopper, or something like that, or bags. That could be not what is happening, but that is what the caller thinks. So, it would be incumbent upon the officer to get into the area, observe, and through their training and experience, is this someone just meandering about with no real purpose but also no nefarious purpose? Are they making specific eye contact? The officers are trying to prevent a purse snatching or something like that. Chief Johnson explained that the shortest answer he can give council is that they would not need

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 40 this ordinance to do that. In addition to the state law that covers the behavior with similar language, there are other ways to articulate someone that you believe is engaged in unlawful drug distribution. Loitering is just one small element of the totality of that observation. Mr. Taylor explained that he does not oppose Councilman Rocha's approach. The word “prowls” has an ambiguity about it. Mr. Taylor stated that they must look in multiple dictionaries to get the definition since there is not one provided to us by the state in the statute. Again, with that ambiguity, it leaves questions. If council can eliminate the questions and move forward with this, that would be something he would be amenable to. Mr. Taylor further stated that somewhere around line 36 or 37, it also has built-in safeguards that simply say, if the officer does not complete this as written, there can be no conviction. Mr. Taylor believes that safeguarding is a necessary component of this. Mr. Taylor stated that when it comes to the homeless and the disenfranchised, they cannot afford court costs. They cannot afford the victim's compensation. They cannot afford the video phone fees. They cannot afford all these other fees that come along with a full custody arrest. When it comes to the young people at Delaware State University, Dover High, whatever the entity may be, Mr. Taylor does not believe that giving someone a criminal record for the rest of their life for one mere decision that was not even criminal, he does not believe that that is the path that they should take. This is a mere ordinance. It is a significant reduction from a full custody arrest. It will not follow them for the rest of their lives. It will be over and done upon paying the fine. Mr. Hare stated that he thinks council has spent a lot of time on this item, and he does not oppose councilman Rocha's objections. Mr. Hare explained that it was his understanding that Dover is going to mirror the state ordinance except for within the City of Dover, a person would receive a citation and not end up on a person’s criminal record. Mr. Hare explained in the last 15 months, there have only been seven violations written in the City of Dover. He further clarified that there have been 15 violations, eight followed the state ordinance, and seven followed the city ordinance. Mr. Hare explained that the numbers show the police are not targeting anybody. Mr. Hare stated he called the police two or three times, and the police came out. However, they did not write a ticket, they checked on the person and gave the person a ride. Mr. Hare stated that they are not targeting anybody; they are trying to be compassionate to the people. Mr. Hare explained that he does not care if it is called prowls or not, if he finds somebody sneaking around his house, they are going to walk into a bat, or he is going to call the police, and then they might walk into a bat in the meantime. Mr. Hare explained he does not care what you call it, prowling, sneaking, or whatever if someone is on his property sneaking around, that person is doing something illegal. Mr. Hare stated that the police can come and get the person off his property. This issue is on public property. Mr. Hare stated that no one gets tickets for hanging out at the library all day because they must leave the shelter at eight and cannot come back till five. Mr. Hare stated that the amendment mirrors the state statute and does just a citation. That way, it does not go on their record. This will help if they apply for something, they will not have a

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 41 criminal record on behalf of Dover. Responding to Mr. Hare, Chief Johnson explained that, to a degree, there can be a link. Chief Johnson stated there is no legal definition for the word casing. It is more of a police industry term. The casing can be accomplished by active behaviors of trying to challenge the security protocols of a business or judge the response time for an alarm that is transmitted through an alarm company. It also can be someone in a fixed location observing those behaviors or observing the potential victim’s behaviors, so they can decide whether they want to commit a crime. So, casing, at times, would be visible and potentially interpreted in a loitering circumstance. Chief Johnson noted that all these assessments are very situationally specific. Ms. Arndt stated that she is generally supportive of this ordinance, but she had a lot of time to talk to city staff, the Police Chief, and Mr. Rodriguez. Ms. Arndt referred to Mr. Hare's point that there has been a lot of time spent on this. She stated that she thought he said 15 months and that she would take his word for it. Ms. Arndt proposed that council spend a little more time on this ordinance. Ms. Arndt explained that she has received many comments, emails, phone calls, and messages, relaying concerns from the public regarding this ordinance. Ms. Arndt further stated that she thinks it is based on a misunderstanding of the intent and the consequences of the ordinance. She believes it is the job of council to make sure that the public understands what is being put forward and why. Ms. Arndt suggested the amended language be put back out there and then spend January doing public outreach. Ms. Arndt asked if the next step in the process is a public hearing and a final reading on January 9, 2023. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Council President Sudler stated there is no public hearing for this ordinance. Ms. Arndt suggested that council spend the month of January working with the public on this ordinance and then vote on it in February. Ms. Bennett, City Clerk, explained that this type of ordinance does not require a public hearing. Responding to Mr. Sudler, City Solicitor Rodriguez explained that this ordinance is a regular ordinance and does not require a public hearing. Mr. Rodriguez explained that he agrees with Ms. Arndt that this is an ordinance that requires a lot of study and that he agrees with the amendments discussed. Mr. Rodriguez further explained that he received a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and spoke to the person who wrote it. He further stated that if the ordinance is passed without the suggested amendments, they will take the City of Dover to court. Mr. Rodriguez further explained that what they have now to enforce this, is the state ordinance, which can be enforced. He thinks it needs a little more study. Mr. Rodriguez stated that he is

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 42 aware that a lot of time has been spent on it. Mr. Rodriguez stated that the suggested amendments tonight, which he believes are appropriate, can be added and brought back before council. Mr. Rodriguez again stated that we have received a letter from the ACLU, and if council does pass it, they are going to have a fight in court. Mr. Rodriguez stated that he does not think they should spend that money until he has had a chance to talk with the American Civil Liberties Union and try to work something out that would be agreeable with them and agreeable with citizens of the City of Dover and Council. Mr. Rodriguez stated that he would prefer to do it that way and agrees with Ms. Arndt. Mr. Hare stated that he must be missing something from this conversation. He stated that there is a state ordinance that they have been following, and the people arrested following the ordinance, have a criminal record. Council is trying to make an adjustment to the state ordinance so that if someone gets arrested in the City of Dover for loitering or whatever you want to call it, it is just a citation, and they do not have a criminal record. Obviously, the ACLU and all these people are against that. Mr. Hare stated why do they not just leave it at the state ordinance and then all the people that get arrested in the City of Dover, they can say, "Thank the ACLU because now you have a criminal record. If you had let Council do their thing, they would not have a criminal record." So, they can thank the NAACP, the ACLU, whoever. Thank them for you now having a criminal record. Mr. Hare noted that they should just say Dover follows the state ordinance and that way they will get a criminal record and it makes the ACLU happy. Then when they apply for housing or funds that they need to get housing, they say, "Oh wow, you got a criminal record." Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Anderson stated that this ordinance was not directed to panhandling. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Taylor stated no, not at all. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Taylor answered no, this ordinance was not directed to the homeless or to prevent having homeless any place in the city. He further stated that the homeless were not being brought into it. He explained that they are talking about a simple change of behavior, whether it be a homeless person or someone who lived in one of the homes downtown. It has nothing to do with someone’s socioeconomic status or the color of their skin. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Anderson stated this would not affect a person for being homeless. It does not prevent, as Councilman Hare mentioned, you can be outside all day long. There are no time limits or anything else. It addresses only behavior. If you look at the end of item one, if you look at item two, item three, et cetera, it addresses only behavior, not just the fact that you happen to be walking around. That is a major misconception that people have. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Taylor explained that for the past four years, he has been looking at opportunities. Ensuring that people of color, and people who are not of color, all had equal opportunities. Opportunities to worship freely, opportunities for great health, opportunities for a great education, home ownership, entrepreneurship, and equal justice under the law. This

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 43 ordinance does not reflect one person or one group. Mr. Taylor stated that it does not. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Anderson explained that there are three major drivers for him, whether it is downtown or whether it is Walgreens, they are not going to have a city that can prosper. Mr. Anderson stated that the Mosaic Study group said to him, "If you cannot get a handle on this, nothing else is going to work." So that is one factor but to him, another factor has been residents. That is funny because most of the people that have a problem with this that he hears from are people that live here. It has been residents and as well as property owners who have brought this up as an issue. Mr. Anderson explained he has received phone calls from people who tried to go to a restaurant downtown at night. A lady called, and Councilman Taylor was aware of this, and with telling her story about how she and her three friends were affected, and a couple of them do not want to come back until the problem was solved. That is money that is not coming down here but more importantly than the money, it is the people, the citizens of Dover, who do not feel like the whole city is theirs, that they can be part of the whole city, and that is a real shame. Mr. Anderson further stated that there are people who work here, who own businesses, and one of them took and played for Councilman Taylor and himself, for what, about 45 minutes of security footage, event after event, after the event, after the event. Finally, one of the reasons why this needs to be an ordinance in his review as well as just the state law is because when they have the cadets back up and running, the cadets enforce city ordinances, not state law. If you want it fully enforced and able to be enforced properly, you need the city ordinance because there is a difference. That way, all the law enforcement sworn officers and cadets would be able to issue these citations. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Taylor stated that it would be a tool that would be used by the police officers, especially to clear the crowd. Mr. Taylor thinks when they start talking about the major crimes, loitering does not play into it at all. That is something that is going to be handled at a state level. Every felony is picked up by the State of Delaware. These are simply ordinances that they are trying to, again, give the police officers another tool. Now, a second ago, he talked about opportunity. Opportunity for all. The business owners downtown are human beings as well and they have to have the opportunity for entrepreneurship. If council has an equal justice portion of it that is imbalanced, that imbalance will hinder economic development in the city. Right now, the city does not have a list of people waiting to become business owners downtown solely because they understand their customers are being run away. That is black customers, that is white customers. It does not matter. Men, women and their customers are being run away by people walking up to them and grabbing them now. Mr. Taylor stated it has become so brazen that they grab you now. Tell you that they are not robbing you, but they want your money. It happened to someone who is 6 foot 4, 250 pounds, okay, 220 on a good day. If they are going to walk up and grab him, they are going to grab his daughter. They are going to grab his granddaughter. They are going to grab his wife. They are going to grab your wife. At some point in time, council must understand equal justice under the law means just that. Everyone has the same opportunities and that is what council is doing. Lastly, this is not acute. Prior to COVID, this place was filled with business owners saying, "We cannot make it, we are on life support. We are barely surviving. Give us something. Give us

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 44 anything." Mr. Taylor stated that has been his real motivation for this, not against anyone. This is about bringing opportunity to everyone. There are churches downtown so they can worship freely. Council is trying to get educational programs downtown. Who wants to bring their children downtown under these circumstances? No one. It is time for it to stop. Mr. Taylor stated that he has been reading the mission statement for NAACP. Fleur, I have always respected you. I have always given you the utmost respect. You are on the wrong side of this one. You are on the wrong side of this one. Your mission says that we have over 2200 units and branches across the nation, along with over two million activists. Thank you for your service. It also goes on to say, its mission is to secure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights to eliminate race-based discrimination and ensure the health and wellbeing of all persons, not just the disenfranchised, not just the black, of all persons, everybody. That means that this ordinance must have balance. If council does it the way they are proposing or absolutely nothing, it eliminates the balance. Mr. Neil stated Okay, now basically what he has heard was that they were attacking, and this is the thing that bothers him. Mr. Neil continued to state that he has never seen this council do anything but attempt to be inclusive, that goes without saying. Mr. Neil explained that he wants to make sure, and the reason he brought this up was that people must understand that they are not aiming at any specific individual, particularly those who are down and out because the city is only limited to so many things that they can do by the Charter. Mr. Neil noted that he has been on his soapbox in this group here talking about housing and what is occurring in affordable housing and proposing a paradigm of having a rental commission, a public service commission. He does not have these people coming up and saying, we are with you because we know we need affordable housing and that we need to keep it. They are not coming up for that. So, he thinks it has to be made clear and that is what he hopes that his questions to council have been. That it is not anti, it is basically a positive thing. Mr. Neil stated that if indeed they do not like it, he is perfectly willing to say he will not vote for it. Dover will use the state law, which is harsher and the things that you tried to do are going to be wiped away and people will have records. Just as Councilman Hare has pointed out, council is trying to avoid that while trying to build something in the Mosaic master plan. Hopefully, the city will have something that they can build on in terms of housing downtown as well as businesses. Destroy that, you destroy the tax base for the city, then council cannot do the things that they wish to do. Responding to Council President Sudler, Chief Johnson stated that the Police Chief’s Advisory Committee is open to the public. Responding to Council President Sudler, Chief Johnson explained that the best and most balanced answer he can give him is that no one was excluded, but it would not be fair to say that they would proactively advertise that they were going to be talking about any topic. So, he does not want to put the idea out there that there was a widespread publication and proactive invitations to the advisory committee meeting. Whenever there is something going on with the department, whether it is a program or initiative, he thinks he has said this before. Before he came to council with the body-worn camera proposal, he kind of vetted it through the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 45 stakeholder group that represents the advisory committee. In this case, this was something that council initiated that he became involved in subsequently, and then, he was trying to figure out the best advice and behavior that he could exhibit to support a resolution. Chief Johnson stated that they had a discussion and the most he could say is that everybody seemed comfortable with what they were trying to do there to create an extra layer that was not quite as impactful as utilizing the state law. Chief Johnson stated that he will go as far as this, there seemed to be a consensus that nothing was askew in the approach from the group present that night. That is about as far as he could go with that characterization but certainly, there was no external solicitation or invitation to that meeting for the purposes of that discussion. That would not be accurate. Responding to Council President Sudler, Chief Johnson stated that the meeting agenda is a collaboration, but mostly under the control of the committee chairperson because they are an informal committee that is only in his department as opposed to giving him non-binding. There are no decisions made, there is nothing that is acted on. They do not publish an agenda but they also, but whenever they have any idea that there is going to be an issue that another stakeholder might be involved in, they kind of get the word out and proactively notify. Chief Johnson thinks that he regularly tries to encourage any council member that would like to attend to do that, and several members have accepted that invitation. Mr. Anderson pointed out that this item in the meeting was announced on two different occasions right on from this floor during council member announcements. It was therefore definitely publicized publicly as well as there were different times in various neighborhood associations, and neighborhood watches. It has been on the TV, it has been in the newspaper, it has been in the News Journal, the Delaware State News, and the Dover Post, as well as invitations for people who wanted to give input, which many have. It is very easy for anyone to contact the Clerk's office to be able to become part of any discussion. He would like to encourage anyone in any future discussions of ordinances, if they would like to get involved, they can contact the Clerk’s office. This one had a whole lot more publicity than any other item, quite frankly, in the last two years. Mr. Hare stated that he needed clarity, so he knows which way to vote. This ordinance basically mirrors the state ordinance for loitering, whatever you want to call it, with one exception if the person is in the city, they would not get a criminal record, they would just get a citation. So, he thinks of the lady that was camping out in a neighborhood where if she did not get arrested, they worked and they got her to the women's shelter, which was very good. He has checked into it, and she is now living in a hotel, and she got a job. Mr. Hare stated that if they followed the state ordinance and she did get arrested for that because she could have been, she would have a criminal record, might not have been able to get the job, might not have been able to get in the shelter, he does not know. The police were very compassionate. They just helped her out. So, with this, all council is doing is following the state ordinance and saying that instead of arresting them and making them go to court, they are just going to give them a citation and they will have no record. Mr. Rocha stated he thought that 15 months ago or so, council decided to establish a committee

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 46 and recommended that Councilman Taylor and Councilman Anderson have a committee to engage the NAACP, the ACLU, and community leaders to basically vet this out. At the time they did not adopt or try to adopt the state ordinance, but at least come up with something that they could all live with. Mr. Rocha does not know if that happened at all, and he questioned it. He thinks they would not be here today if that had occurred. Council would have been able to come up with a mutual agreement that would have worked for all citizens of the city. Mr. Rocha explained that what resonates with him is the fact that the city solicitor does recognize the need for this type of ordinance, even though he does say to give him time so that he can investigate it more so that council does not wind up in a lawsuit situation. This is something where they could be proactive and let their city solicitor look at this ordinance because the state ordinance might be under scrutiny too. Mr. Rocha stated what Councilman Anderson talked about the need for a city ordinance so that our cadets can have some authority downtown. Mr. Rocha stated that it buys them some time until they allow Chief Johnson to hire more officers also. So that does resonate, but he agrees with Councilwoman Arndt that he thinks council needs to engage the citizens and have that conversation with their citizens a little bit more. Mr. Rocha stated that they need to also listen to their city solicitor because before they come under scrutiny and must spend more money, they should not just rush this thing through. Of course, if they would have established this 15 months ago, they would probably be ahead of the game. Mr. Rocha stated here they are, back to square one. Let them get back to the basics and say, let them vet this out just a little bit more and allow their city solicitor to be comfortable with it before they move this forward Responding to Mr. Hare, Mr. Rodriguez stated what they have discussed tonight about the amendments, which he thinks are great, and he thinks they brought out tonight, it is not aimed at any sex or any race or anything. It is to protect citizens in the city of Dover and council has given the reasons for that and everything. So, he agrees with all of that, and he just thinks he needs a little more time to look at it and calm the American Civil Liberties Union down because he really has not talked with them. Mr. Rodriguez stated that he does not think that anybody has talked with them. They just wrote the letter, and the letter is positive that they are going to sue the city and that he thinks that they can talk around that and do something that would be beneficial to citizens of the city of Dover, which is what they are looking at and what they are talking about tonight and what is their concern. Mr. Rodriguez continued to state that they should give him a little time to deal with them and maybe come out with something for the public as suggested by Councilman Rocha. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mr. Rodriguez stated the thing that kind of worries him is that he does not know how many arrests or how frequently the state ordinance has been utilized. Mr. Rodriguez stated that there is a question that comes up also, has it been used? It is still on the books, so it has not been declared unconstitutional and he could not see any laws or any court cases that have attacked it. Mr. Hare stated what he is saying is that they have not sued the state over that ordinance, and council’s amendment to make the state ordinance easier on people if something were to happen like these seven people in the last 15 months, they would sue over that because they would want it to remain a state ordinance and they would have a criminal record? He guesses that is okay.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 47 Mr. Taylor stated that Councilwoman Arndt brings up a great point. Their city solicitor has made his position known. If it would be amenable, he would simply say, he would make a motion for this to go back to safety and transportation. Allow them to communicate about it one more time. Allowing NAACP, allowing the American Civil Liberties Union, and any other organization that wants to come and speak on it. They will be speaking on loitering. They will not be speaking of dawdling. They will not be speaking of anything else. They will be speaking exclusively on loitering and council lowering the penalty. Mr. Taylor moved to take the proposed Ordinance #2022-26 back to Safety, Advisory and Transportation Committee, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and carried by a roll call vote of 7 in favor, one opposed (Anderson), and one absent (Boggerty). Mr. Anderson moved for the acceptance of the report of the Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee, seconded by Mr. Taylor, and unanimously carried. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Ms. Bennett gave the date of January 24, 2023, as the date of the Safety, Advisory, and Transportation meeting that will discuss the loitering ordinance. MAYOR ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN VETO – REQUEST FOR WAIVER APPENDIX A – SUBDIVISIONS, ARTICLE VI – SUBDIVISION – GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND DESIGN STANDARDS, SECTION A – STREETS (RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN AS RAYMOND STREET AND RAILROAD AVENUE) – WAIVER OF REQUIREMENTS TO INCREASE IN MAXIMUM LENGTH OF A DEAD-END STREET (CUL-DE-SAC), AND ELIMINATION OF SIDEWALK ON THE ONE SIDE OF A PUBLIC STREET ASSOCIATED WITH A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RAYMOND STREET AND RAILROAD AVENUE TO ALLOW FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTIES THAT THESE STREETS WILL GIVE ACCESS During their Regular Meeting of November 28, 2022, by unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted Request for Waiver - Appendix A - Subdivisions, Article VI - Subdivision - General Requirements and Design Standards, Section A - Streets (Right-of-Way known as Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue) - Waiver of Requirements to Increase in Maximum Length of a Dead-End Street (Cul-de-Sac), and the Elimination of Sidewalk on One Side of a Public Street associated with a Site Development Plan for the improvements to the rights-of-way of Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue to allow for further development of the properties that these streets will give access On November 29, 2022, the City Clerk received a letter from Mayor Robin R. Christiansen disapproving of the motion, which stated: I hope this finds you well. This letter is to inform you that I am vetoing Council's actions during the City Council meeting on Monday, November 28, 2022, in accordance with the authority granted to the mayor in the code. That item is the following: Request for Waiver Appendix A - Subdivision, Article VI - Subdivision - General Requirements and Design Standards, Section A - Streets (Right-of-Way known as Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue) - Waiver of Requirements to Increase in Maximum Length of a Dead-End Street (Cul-de-Sac), and the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 48 Elimination of Sidewalk on One side of Pubic Street associated with a Site Development Plan for the improvements to the rights­ of-way of Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue to allow for further development of the properties that these streets will give access. I respect the opinions of each member of Council and particularly the comments of Councilman Neil with which I concur, with the need for decent affordable housing. I believe that we need to look at the hardship of the current residents of the area and their future safety; and those of future residents with one way in and one way out. Also, I have concerns about the property rights of the Mishoe Family and the legacy which has been entrusted to them. Therefore, I feel compelled to error on the side of the angels and hereby veto that action to approve those waivers. I would hope that a solution which is fair to all concerned in consideration to the above concerns which I have. Mr. Taylor stated they have voted for this to pass, it passed council, and then it was vetoed by the Mayor. Mr. Taylor asked for them to pass it again, simply, please, a two-thirds vote, and allow them the opportunity to conduct their business to the best of their ability. Mr. Taylor noted that he is referring to the Patel Group. Mr. Taylor believes that for him to do anything other than that, and this is personal, it would be disingenuous to the citizens that he represents, knowing that one of the ones that he represents may live in one of the domiciles that they are creating. So again, he asks that council pass this, and it has to be a two-thirds vote to ensure that they are able to do the business in the city that they were told by the planning staff that they could do. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mayor Christiansen explained that the young lady who typed that letter left Raymond Street in there inadvertently, and he did not realize it until the letter had been delivered. His veto stands. He went out there and looked at the property. Mayor Christiansen respects the opinion of Councilman Taylor. One way in, one way out is not the route to go. There is an opportunity to extend Rustic Lane to that property to a road that is already signaled. It is within a block and a half of the railroad track. Mayor Christiansen stated that he went out there and sat in the morning and in the afternoon when the school let out. Mayor Christiansen explained that he is not a traffic engineer, but it is going to become a nightmare. State College Road at that point is improved. Mayor Christiansen further explained that the other side of the lake coming toward Delaware State University is not improved and that it is already a nightmare. Council has already recognized that and he thinks that they would be remiss, and he has no ill toward members of Council if they override his veto. Mayor Christiansen explained that he thinks that it is the wrong thing to do, and he thinks that the Patel Group, if they are indeed interested in being part and parcel of the community, that they should go back and talk to Delaware State University who has that property that connects to Rustic Lane to give them more access and egress. Mr. Hare stated that when it was brought up by Delaware State about the safety issues, one of the concerns that he had, and he did what the mayor did. Mr. Hare stated that he went out there at Rustic Lane and looked where it is just very tight where it is right now. Mr. Hare stated that while he was out there, he talked to some of the people and he just does not think it is, he just does not know. It would be very tight, but he thinks there are other options that could be explored. Mr. Hare noted that Delaware State University is a pretty good voice.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 49 Mayor Christiansen suggested that he would facilitate a meeting with Dr. Allen and the powers that be at Delaware State University and with the Patel group. Mayor Christiansen stated that one way in and one way out is not the route to go. Mayor Christiansen stated that it is a nightmare. Not only would they be putting additional traffic on a road that is already overloaded, but it just does also not make good sense. There are schoolchildren, there is a nursery, and a nursing home there. They have college students, the housing. Mayor Christiansen stated that he concurs, with his right honorable friend, Councilman Neil, as he says in his letter, the city does need housing. The city does need affordable housing but this plan for that is not the route to go. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mayor Christiansen confirmed that Rustic Lane is next to Lowe’s Home Improvement Store in North Dover and that years ago there was supposed to be a Civic Center. Mayor Christiansen stated that there is a ditch that would have to be circumvented but the Rustic Lane location would give two accesses and egresses, one to Crawford Carroll Boulevard and the other to Rustic Lane, and both intersections are signaled. Mr. Taylor asked if Mayor Christiansen had spoken with Planning in reference to the Rustic Lane approach. Ms. Gray stated not to her knowledge. Mayor Christiansen stated that any ancillary discussions outside of the Council Chamber is not his route to go. Mayor Christiansen explained that he cast the veto and gave the information. Mr. Taylor stated that Mayor Christiansen vetoed it without talking to Planning or anyone else, without discussion. Mr. Taylor stated that these are some of the things happening consistently, and this is the reason why we are filled with inconsistencies throughout the city. Mayor Christiansen stated that the conversation was held within council. The discussion was held that night. Ancillary discussions are not part of the veto. Ancillary discussions with members of council, he stated in his letter, according to the Charter, he was supposed to do, there was no room for any conversation. It is not his point. Once he cast that veto and Council has approved what was presented to the Planner, secondary conversations are not part of that veto according to the Charter. Mr. Taylor stated that the lack of communication is one of the pillars that are tearing down this city. Mr. Neil stated that this is a nice piece of property. It is private, it is owned by somebody, and we are making a minimal amount of money from it, from taxes, from assessments. It could be used as a warehouse with the train, and all they have to do is put a rail line in it. Mr. Neil thinks that it is already zoned for that and could be used for that. It has been recommended for that. Mr. Neil stated they could have trucks, big trucks coming in and out, bringing materials in and out there. Mr. Neil stated that there is a point where you have to say, "Are we going to lock this thing away and make sure that they never have a chance to use it?" There is a certain thing that deals with

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 50 private property. Mr. Neil stated that now sometimes you can use the property wrong, but the question is do they want to have the railroad stopping back and forth? Do they want to have a warehouse back there, or are they just going to tell these people, "You cannot develop anything because there is nothing that can be developed? You do not have the access to it, you cannot do it." Mr. Neil further stated that unless there is something where they can sell it and perhaps profit from it, and then the city can basically develop it so that it becomes that the city gains taxes from it and there is a use for it, then they are saying they cannot use it. Mr. Neil explained that he is saying yes, they have gone through the process, as Councilman Taylor pointed out. They did what council wanted them to do, and if there is going to be more access, if they can use Rustic Lane or something else to get them in and out, that is fine. Mr. Neil stated that the fact is they are holding up a group of people who have an investment in it, and the city is not benefiting from it whatsoever, unless council can maybe plant a pot, and have a cannabis thing. No, that is a state thing. Mr. Neil noted that he does not want to get into that and that he is backing off. Mr. Anderson explained that this is a tough issue for him. He voted for this because he agrees with the arguments of the Councilmen that have been stated, but he had doubts because he did not like the interest in egress, and to him, it was, he voted for it because he thought it was probably the least bad option for that particular aspect. Mr. Anderson stated that the project is a positive one, and he appreciates that. Mr. Anderson explained that when money is engaged, he hates to delay it because time is money. Mr. Anderson stated that he is going to change his vote and support the mayor’s veto for the following reasons. One is the mayor offered an alternative, which he would like to see explored. Mr. Anderson stated that the mayor has a 40-plus-year track record in public safety, and when it comes to public safety issues if he has doubt, Mr. Anderson tends to go with the mayor because he has 40-plus years when it comes to fire and other public safety issues. Mr. Anderson stated that he does not know if the mayor is right. However, if he is wrong, it is going to be on council because he will probably be the deciding vote. Mr. Anderson continued to state that he is going to go with them on this one and hope it works out right and that we can get something that is positive because the second reason is he, too, has connected with constituents in that area, and he has not found one that does not support the veto. Mr. Anderson noted that it is his district, and he has got to sort of go with his voters. Mr. Anderson stated that Delaware State University supports the veto and that they believe a better compromise can be reached. Mr. Anderson continued to state that they have safety concerns and that they are also an organization that is going to invest a lot in bettering the city and giving them a little leeway on goodwill to work out something, he thinks, is reasonable if council expects a lot from them. So, for those three reasons, he is going to do something that he rarely does, and that is change his mind. Mr. Neil moved to reaffirm the previous Council action to adopt Request for Waiver - Appendix A - Subdivisions, Article VI - Subdivision - General Requirements and Design Standards, Section A - Streets (Right-of-Way known as Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue) - Waiver of Requirements to Increase in Maximum Length of a Dead-End Street (Cul-de-Sac), and the Elimination of Sidewalk on One Side of a Public Street associated with a Site Development Plan for the improvements to the rights-of-way of Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue to allow for further development of the properties that these streets

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 51 will give access. The motion was seconded by Mr. Taylor and defeated by a roll call vote of 4 in favor, 3 opposed (Anderson, Rocha, and Hare), one abstention (Sudler), and one absent (Boggerty). (Approval of the motion requires a 2/3 majority vote (six affirmative votes) since the original motion was vetoed by Mayor Christiansen) FINAL READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2022-22 The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of November 28, 2022. Council President Sudler reminded members of the public that copies of the proposed ordinance were available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or on the City’s website at www.cityofdover.com under “Government.” Mr. Hare moved that the Final Reading of the proposed ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Neil, and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of the proposed ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting on November 28, 2022.) By motion of Mr. Hare, seconded by Mr. Taylor, Council, by a unanimous roll call vote (Boggerty absent), adopted Ordinance #2022-22, as follows: BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: That Chapter 2 - Administration, Article V - Finance be amended to read as follows: Section 2-422 -Tax Increment Financing, Purpose, and Findings a) The City Council of the City of Dover has determined that a need exists within the city for improvements and reinvestment throughout the city. Such improvements will enhance the taxable base of the city, directly and indirectly, encourage the development and redevelopment of commercial and residential areas of the city, increase commercial activity, increase employment, and benefit the general health and welfare of residents; and b) The City Council on February 14, 2017, passed Resolution #2017-02 supporting changes to the Delaware Code to enable Dover and Kent County to utilize the provisions of the TIF and Special District code provisions; and c) 22 Delaware Code, Section 1703 provides “In addition to whatever other powers it may have, and notwithstanding any limitation by law, any municipality may borrow money by issuing and selling bonds, at any time and from time to time, for the purpose of financing the development of an industrial, commercial or residential area.”; and d) Delaware Code was amended to authorize the City of Dover to use the provisions of 22 Delaware Code, Chapter 17, Municipal Tax Increment Financing Act, including specific Dover provisions in 22 Del. C, Section 1716; and e) Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is a financing method that allows the use of future tax revenues generated by economic development projects to help pay for the project; allows

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 52 for the issuance of revenue bonds for such purposes, such bonds being tax-exempt and not a pledge of good faith or credit of the city; and by capturing the tax revenue increment between the original assessed value and the value resulting from the project; and f) Due to the condition, age, and design of buildings and infrastructure, configuration and size of parcels, competition from commercial activities throughout the city, and other factors, the costs and complexities of development, redevelopment, and reinvestment tend to limit investment; and g) Tax increment financing is frequently used by local governments to enable funding of certain development and infrastructure projects but the availability of alternative financing options for these projects might not occur otherwise. Section 2-423 - Authorization to Consider Issuance of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District Bonds a) Before issuing bonds under the Municipal Tax Increment Financing Act, the city must designate by Resolution, an area as a TIF District, obtain from the City Assessor an assessment of the original assessed value in the district, create a special fund for the purpose of receiving the tax revenue increment, and comply with all other provisions of the Municipal Tax Increment Financing Act. b) By enactment of this Ordinance the City Council indicates its intention to issue bonds, notes, or similar instruments in one or more series from time to time for projects and amounts to be determined in the future, prior to the bond offering, for the purposes set forth in the Resolution and as allowed under Municipal Tax Increment Financing Act. c) "Council shall have the power by Resolution to establish terms of the bonding and financial arrangement and enter a cooperating agreement with other taxing entities such as State, County, and school districts." Section 2-424 - Effective date This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon final passage by the City Council of the City of Dover. Passed December 12, 2022. Sec. 2-425. - Sale and disposition of real property. (a) Authorized. Except as otherwise provided and upon approval of the city council, the city manager is hereby authorized to sell or dispose of excess property. (b) Determination of excess status. The city manager, upon determining that a city owned parcel of land is excess in nature and that the disposal of such land would be beneficial to the City of Dover, will request, through the legislative, finance, and administration committee, that city council consider disposal of such land. (c) Costs of conveyance. Unless otherwise specified by the city council, all fees and costs, legal or otherwise, associated with the sale and conveyance of all excess lands shall be

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 53 paid by the purchaser. (d) Standard method of disposition. (1) The legislative, finance, and administration committee, upon receiving a request to dispose of excess real property, shall, prior to making a recommendation to city council, request all pertinent information including, but not limited to, the following: a. Determination that subject parcel is not required by any other city department. b. Written explanation of why subject parcel is now surplus. c. Determination of whether a zoning change would enhance the sale value of subject parcel and recommend said change if warranted. d. Determination if the parcel's exact location and size is known and, if not, recommend whether said parcel should be surveyed by the city prior to any sale attempts. (2) City council, after receiving a positive recommendation from the legislative, finance, and administration committee to dispose of a surplus parcel of land, shall, as part of its deliberations: a. Determine if disposal of the parcel is in the city's best interests. b. Determine if disposal by sale, gift, or some other means would best serve the city's interests. c. Determine if the city planner should be requested to initiate rezoning procedures. d. Publicize the pertinent information concerning the surplus parcel and its availability for purchase to the general public at least once a week for two weeks in a local newspaper. e. Make public, and a part of the record, all written correspondence received and, after the publicizing requirements of subsection (2)d are met, hold a public hearing to receive any other citizen input. (3) City council, after voting to proceed with the sale of surplus land, shall determine: a. If an unbiased appraisal is needed to establish a minimum acceptable price. b. Whether to sell the parcel by public auction or by sealed bid and what the minimum acceptable offer will be. c. The degree and scope of advertising, with a minimum of exposure being advertisement once a week for two weeks in a newspaper of general circulation within the county. d. Whether the circumstances of and surrounding a particular sale may be such that the best interests of the city would be served by listing the property for sale with a licensed real estate agent. (4) City staff shall, with city council's direction: a. Arrange for advertisement of the sale. b. Draft the sale bill setting out a description of the parcel to be sold, time, date, and place of sale or bid opening, the terms and conditions of sale, and the city's reservation of acceptance or rejection of any or all bids received at the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 54 time of sale or bid opening. c. Order and distribute a sufficient number of sale bills for posting and distribution in the county courthouse, at the site, and in the general area of the parcel. d. Obtain the services of a professional auctioneer if said sale is to be a public auction. e. Conduct the sale and submit the results to city council. f. Obtain the services of a licensed real estate agent if the sale is to be brokered. (5) City council, after confirming the sale, shall: a. Request the city solicitor to prepare a deed for execution and to arrange for final settlement with the purchaser, at which time the city will deliver the deed, the purchaser will pay all balances due, and the city solicitor will record said deed in the Recorder of Deeds Office for Kent County. (e) Exceptions to standard method of disposition. (1) Exception A—Sale to an abutting owner. When, in the opinion of city council, a public sale would be detrimental to the lands of an abutter, and/or that a public sale would place the abutter at undue risk; or that the combination of abutter's land and city's land would be substantially greater in value than that of the sum of the parcels considered individually, city council may direct the city assessor to have prepared one or more unbiased fee appraisals of the parcel. Thereafter, the subject land will be offered for sale to the said abutter at the appraisal price, plus the appraisal fees, plus the legal costs. In the event the offer is not accepted, a public sale may be ordered. Examples of detrimental affect might be when the surplus city parcel lies between an abutting property and the street and development of the parcel would obstruct visibility of the abutter's property, or when the surplus parcel is zoned multi-family and abuts a single-family parcel. (2) Exception B—Trade of lands. Trade of lands may be approved when it is shown beyond doubt that such a trade will be equal to or better than the lands to be traded either on a "square foot for square foot" measure and/or on a "dollar for dollar" measure. (3) Exception C—Conveyance of odd shaped and/or unbuildable parcels. City acquisitions for roads, utility usages, etc. may, after such usage is accomplished, leave a small strip of land that is odd shaped and unbuildable. City council may approve the conveyance of this strip of land to an abutting property owner on request of said owner. The price for these lands shall be at the same cost basis as that paid by the city. If conveyance is made in excess of two years after the date of city acquisition, then the consideration shall either be based on a price established by an unbiased fee appraisal made on the basis of the value added to the abutting property by the acquisition of said lands, or on the city's cost basis for the parcel adjusted for inflation, whichever city council shall select. All fees, legal or otherwise, associated with the conveyance are to be paid by the purchaser.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 55 (4) Exception D—Sale of small or irregular shaped lot to an abutting owner. If any excess parcel of land is too small or irregular in shape to be of any value to anyone other than an abutting owner, it may be sold to such owner at either its fee appraised fair market value, or at its fair market value as established by the city's assessment records, whichever city council shall select. The costs of the appraisal and all legal costs shall be paid by the owner requesting the conveyance. (5) Exception E—Donation of land to non-profit organizations. If, in the opinion of city council, the donation of a parcel of excess land to a non-profit organization would be in the best interest of the city, council then reserves unto itself the right to make such donation. (Code 1981, § 2-80; Ord. of 3-12-2001; Ord. No. 2017-02, 2-13-2017) Secs. 2-426—2-500. - Reserved. ADOPTED: DECEMBER 12, 2022 FINAL READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2022-23 The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting on November 28, 2022. Council President Sudler reminded members of the public that copies of the proposed ordinance were available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or on the City’s website at www.cityofdover.com under “Government.” Mr. Hare moved that the Final Reading of the proposed ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of the proposed ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting on November 28, 2022.) By motion of Mr. Hare, seconded by Mr. Rocha, Council, by a unanimous roll call vote (Boggerty absent), adopted Ordinance #2022-23, as follows: BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: That Chapter 2. Administration - Article IV. Officers and Employees - Division 4. Controller/Treasurer be amended to read as follows: Section 2-261. - Appointment. There shall be a controller/treasurer selected by a council majority vote of the city council to hold office until their successor has been duly chosen and qualified, but subject to removal at any time by the council. (Code 1981, § 2-136; Ord. of 3-12-2001; Ord. No. 2009-23, 10-26-2009) Charter reference— Treasurer and financial affairs, subpart A, §§ 42—50. Secs. 2-262—2-280. - Reserved.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 56 ADOPTED: December 12, 2022 FINAL READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2022-24 The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of November 28, 2022. Council President Sudler reminded members of the public that copies of the proposed ordinance were available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or on the City’s website at www.cityofdover.com under “Government.” Mr. Hare moved that the Final Reading of the proposed ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Taylor, and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of the proposed ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting on November 28, 2022.) By motion of Mr. Hare, seconded by Mr. Rocha, Council, by a unanimous roll call vote (Boggerty absent), adopted Ordinance #2022-24, as follows: BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: That Chapter 2. Administration - Article IV. Officers and Employees - Division 5. City Clerk be amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-281. - Appointment. There shall be a city clerk selected by a council majority vote of the city council and such person shall serve as the clerk of the city council until their successor has been duly chosen and qualified, but subject to removal at any time by the council. (Code 1981, § 2-116; Ord. of 3-12-2001) Sec. 2-282. - Functions. The city clerk shall perform the following functions: (1) Records generally. Have charge of and preserve the records, books and papers of the city that are entrusted to him by this Code or by the city manager; (2) Meetings. Attend all meetings of the city council and transcribe a record of the proceedings; (3) Ordinance records. Keep records of all ordinances adopted by the city; (4) Notices. Prepare and sign, at the direction of the city council or the city manager, all notices for grading, paving, graveling or curbing sidewalks or the placing of gutterplates, notices for opening streets and condemnation of land and whatever other notices that the city shall direct;

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 57 (5) Recording and filing. Record or file reports or papers, at the direction of the city council or the city manager; (6) Other duties. Perform such other duties as required by law, by this Code or as directed by the mayor or city council. (Code 1968, § 2-26; Code 1981, § 2-117; Ord. of 3-12-2001) Sec. 2-283. - Records management program. The city records management program shall consist of an established policy and procedures, as follows: (1) Policy. A records management policy shall be established and implemented by the city to ensure the safety of essential records; to provide for an archival depository for the permanent preservation of historical records; and to provide an orderly system of maintaining, retrieving, and storing of records and proper and legal disposal of obsolete records. In order to establish an efficient and economic records program, it shall be the duty and responsibility of each department head to ensure compliance within their department of the city records management policy. Should a department fail to comply with the records management policy, the records manager or his designee has the authority to serve as the records coordinator for the department in implementing the policy. (2) Records manager. The city clerk is hereby designated as the records manager for the city and is responsible for the implementation and maintenance of the city records management policy. The records management policy shall incorporate the minimum requirements and guidelines set forth in 29 Del. C. § 501 et seq. The records manager shall serve as the city's liaison with the state bureau of archives and records. The records manager shall also serve as the coordinator of all city departments and shall develop, or assist in the development of, records management procedures specific to those departments consistent with state law, the city Charter, and this Code. (Code 1981, § 2-118; Ord. of 8-12-1996) Secs. 2-284—2-300. - Reserved. ADOPTED: December 12, 2022 CITY MANAGER'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Ms. Sharon Duca, Assistant City Manager, wished a Happy Holidays to all the City of Dover staff and thanked everyone for attending the holiday luncheon and for all the services they provide. MAYOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Christiansen thanked the organizers of the Home for the Holidays Tree Lighting in front of City Hall. Mayor Christiansen thanked Dr. Sessoms for the Delaware State University Band

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 58 concert at the Schwartz Center. Mayor Christiansen also thanked the committee for the Dashing Through Downtown Dover Electric Light Parade, especially Kay Sass and Katie Kempista. Mayor Christiansen wished all the citizens a very Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanza, Happy Hanukkah, and a Happy New Year. Mayor Christiansen asked Councilman Hare to come to the podium for a presentation. Mayor Christiansen explained that there are a lot of unsung heroes in the council chamber, but that there is one gentleman who has done quite a bit for the military families in the City of Dover over the last five years. The mayor presented Mr. Hare with a Certificate of Appreciation for his work with the Delaware Military Support Organization (DMSO) and all he does for air force families. Mr. Hare thanked the Mayor and Council for the recognition and explained that there was a full- page ad thanking everyone that supported Operation Warm Heart for Thanksgiving. Mr. Hare stated that over 300 families were helped due to the generous support. COUNCIL MEMBERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS Council President Sudler acknowledged Councilman Boggerty’s birthday on December 14 and Councilman Rocha’s birthday on December 25th. Councilwoman Arndt shared the information about a free webinar that will take place on Tuesday, December 13, 2022. The webinar is Healthier Housing Addressing Substandard Housing for Delaware Homeowners. Ms. Arndt explained that the webinar will discuss the needs assessment for repairs to low-income occupied housing in Delaware and approaches to addressing those needs. Ms. Arndt directed anyone interested to go to the University of Delaware Institute for Public Administration’s website under events, and you can join. It is being held from 10:00 a.m. until 11:30 a.m. Councilman Rocha stated that just short of a year ago, Ms. Cherrita Matthews contacted him about putting holiday decorations in the area across from Booker T. Washington that years ago used to be decorated for Christmas. After looking into it, Mr. Rocha explained that he was told that there is no longer any electricity in that spot. He further explained that he does not know the reason this changed but wanted it on record that he looked into the matter. Mr. Rocha stated that maybe this could be addressed in the future by enhancing our city even more by decorating the triangle once again. Councilman Taylor wished everyone Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanza, and Happy Hanukkah. Mr. Taylor asked Mayor Christiansen if he could look into putting a Christmas Tree on the west end of Loockerman Street. Mr. Taylor explained that he has had multiple requests for a tree down in that area. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mayor Christiansen responded that there is a Christmas tree that the city paid for that is directly diagonal from the Duncan Center. The tree is from Loblolly Farms, and the Duncan family gave permission to place the tree. Mayor Christiansen suggested that it be lit for next year so that everyone can enjoy it. Mr. Anderson wished everyone a Merry Christmas. Mr. Anderson stated it is a very important holiday, and sometimes we forget the reason for the season. He explained that the reason is

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 59 because of the birth of a very special person who changed the world for the better. Mr. Anderson stated that when you look at the facts about how different the world was before Jesus Christ was born until now, it is tremendous, and that is a reason to celebrate. Mr. Anderson also wished everyone a Happy Hanukkah and thanked the season of lights. Mr. Anderson stated that this is particularly important in a year where there has been an unfortunate rise in anti-Asian or antisemitism. This is a time of year when everyone can all stand together and reject racism and sexism, all together. It is a great time of year to refocus on loving one another. Mr. Anderson wished Happy Bodhi to all of his Buddhist constituents and also, Happy Kwanza. Council President Sudler wished the entire City of Dover, as well as the workforce, a Happy Holiday. Ms. Bennett, City Clerk, reminded everyone that the second council meeting of December is canceled. Meeting adjourned at 8:41 p.m. ANDRIA BENNETT CITY CLERK All ordinances, resolutions, motions, and orders adopted by City Council during their Regular Meeting on December 12, 2022, are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /AB S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS\Council-Minutes\2022\12-December 2022\12-12-2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES.doc Exhibits