Regular Council Meeting Packet

CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 09, 2023 at 6:30 PM City Hall Council Chambers, 15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware AGENDA VIRTUAL MEETING NOTICE This meeting will be held in the City Hall Council Chambers with electronic access via WebEx. Public participation information is as follows: Dial: 1-650-479-3208 Link: https://rb.gy/bnmtuw Event number: 2538 073 9105 Event password: DOVER (if needed) If you are new to WebEx, get the app now at www.webex.com/ to be ready when the meeting starts. The meeting can also be viewed on Comcast Channel 14, Verizon Channel 20, and on the City's Streaming Player located at www.cityofdover.com under "Quick Links". OPEN FORUM - 15 Minutes Prior to Official Meeting (6:15 p.m.) The “Open Forum” segment is provided to extend the opportunity to the general public to share their questions, thoughts, comments, concerns, and complaints. Discussion of any item appearing on the agenda as a public hearing is prohibited during the Open Forum as an opportunity will be provided during consideration of that item. Citizen comments are limited to three (3) minutes. Council is prohibited from taking action since they are not in official session; however, they may schedule such items as regular agenda items and act upon them in the future. INVOCATION - Elder Ellis B. Louden PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Councilman Anderson ADOPTION OF AGENDA 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. Page 1

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - January 09, 2023 PAGE 2 PRESENTATIONS 1. Certificate of Congratulations - Dover High School Football Team PUBLIC HEARING FINAL READING - The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance #2022-21 was accomplished during the Council meeting of November 28, 2022, and Proposed Ordinance #2022-25 was accomplished during the Council meeting of November 14, 2022. The ordinance is available at the entrance of the Council Chambers and on the City's website at www.cityofdover.com under "Government." 2. Proposed Ordinance #2022-21 - Amending Article 3. District Regulations - Section 20A. - Industrial park manufacturing zone - Business and Technology Center (IPM2) 3. Annexation/Rezoning of Property consisting of three parcels on the north side of West Denneys Road and west of Carlisle Drive; Parcel A located at 57 Rocky Road, owned by George L. Craig Jr. and Deborah J. Craig; Parcel B located at 4085 West Denneys Road, owned by Robert G. Keller and Gloria K. Keller; Parcel C an unaddressed parcel on West Denneys Road, owned by Bruce A. Burkett A. Public Hearing - Zoning Classification Parcel A: The parcel consists of 27.5834 +/- acres located on the north side of West Denneys Road and west of Carlisle Drive. The owners are George L. Craig Jr. and Deborah J. Craig. Property Address: 57 Rocky Road. Tax Parcel: ED-00-056.00-01-40.00-000. The property is currently zoned AR (Agricultural Residential District) in Kent County. The proposed Zoning is RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and partially subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). Parcel B: The parcel consists of 10.5661 +/- acres located on the north side of West Denneys Road and west of Carlisle Drive. The owners are Robert G. Keller and Gloria K. Keller. Property Address: 4085 W. Denneys Road. Tax Parcel: ED-00-056.00-01-41.00-000. The property is currently zoned RM (Multifamily Residential District) in Kent County. The proposed Zoning is RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and partially subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). Parcel C: The parcel consists of 1.9662 +/- acres located on the north side of West Denneys Road and west of Carlisle Drive. The owner is Bruce A. Burkett. Property Address: unaddressed parcel on W Denneys Road. Tax Parcel: ED-00-056.00-01-42.00-000. The property is currently zoned AR (Agricultural Residential District). The proposed Zoning is RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone). (Planning Reference: Annexation Application AX-22-03 A, B, and C; First Council District). B. Adoption of Annexation Resolution No. 2022-08 C. Final Reading/Adoption of Rezoning Ordinance #2022-25 The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of November 14, 2022. The ordinance is available at the entrance of the Council Chambers and on the City's website at www.cityofdover.com under "Government." Page 2

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - January 09, 2023 PAGE 3 (1) An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map of the City of Dover by changing the zoning designation from a Kent County zoning classification to the City of Dover zoning classification consisting of three parcels on West Denneys Road. CONSENT AGENDA ADOPTION OF MINUTES 4. Regular City Council Meeting of December 12, 2022 MONTHLY REPORTS - November 2022 5. City Assessor's Report 6. City Council’s Community Enhancement Fund Report 7. City Manager’s Report 8. City Planner's Report 9. Controller/Treasurer's Budget Report 10. Fire Chief's Report 11. Police Chief's Report CITY MANAGER’S ANNOUNCEMENTS MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS COUNCIL MEMBERS’ ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. PURSUANT TO 29 DEL. C. §10004(e)(2), THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, WHICH ARISE AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING Page 3

Page 4 zeaz '6 t(,mnuv[, 'uosvas Jxau OJP.lVM.lOj)/OOI puv uo not( 2u!.laalf:J pat(o/ua aM 'JuaUlatl.a!lf:Jv aJqV)/.lVUla.l.l!alfJ .loj papnvlddv a.lV aU!.lp,IA uaploH puv 'au!.lp!A uapt(vH 'Jlo:JS aua2ny 'dUla)f xarv 'S!.l.lVH uvnO 'S!tl.vlfJ lfV!ss/ 'uosJvfl l.lvJ 'JlO.lL 'J'J 'o)/d!.l)/S l.laqO-g 'UVUl.l0N p!tl.Va 'JunH uosv[' 'ddvu)f d!lfJ salf:JvoJ puv UlvaJ a.l,IJua alfL Iva A .l!t(vZ suatl.alS sn!.lVa llVH )/v.lvqnw .fal.m:.J :J!.fy sV.fa.f.fv:.Ju!lsn[, Pt(0fl !If)/aw S.liJJVUVW .lapo A. UOPUV.lfl SUlV,Ill!M lfv,lUlalfaN SUlV!ll!M J!UlV[, uVUlaJ!lfM sVlo:J!N .fa)/lv M lfV!Ula.la[' UVUllf21!L JVlf)f, v[' uosuatl.alS lavlf:J!W uVUlzno-sad!us .(ISVN SUOUlUl!S.l!UlV[' t(a/)/:J0lfS /a!UVa t(vM2p!-g .louuoJ lJaMod ualt(v[' a:J.la!d uOtl.aN sU!)/.lad uvt(-g a:Jvad ualt(v[' aut(vd uVlfJvuo[, uos.laJlvd :J.lVW .la)/.lvd ulfo[, .la)/.lvd IVUlv[' .la)/.lvd uapv[' slolf:J!N sV:Jn7 S!.l.l°w)/aaUlvlfS uv2!ll!W uvast(L t(ql!)[ uoM)/v[' sauo[' UO.laUlvJ uosulfo[, t(O.lL uos)/:Jv[' a.laUl, lfvZ SU!)/SOHuosv[' lJaMj.lVH Juvt(.lfl S!.l.lvH .lVUlV[' lJa.l.lvH auo.lt(L uOJI!UlVH ut(lv[' t(pV.lO .lalfdo/s!.llf:.J lJt(lfO UVp.lo[' S!o:JUV.ld t(ISV.ld p.lVZV!/y a2p!-gvlfoN uos.laJJa[, uap.lVa .l!UlVL uVUlt(.ljunoJ uv2aa)f UOJloJ Ulaasv)f aUlso:.J UlaaslfvN a)/oo:.J Ulv!ll!M alo:.J Uf.lalfv[, alo:.J unvlfsva UlO.lt(fl .l.IUlV oll.lJJnfl /ua:JU!A s22,ufl .louuoJ unolflv:.J-lf:JUV.lfl paalfsv-g S.laMofllfv/!/y olf:Jvy vsoq.lVfl )/:J!U!UlOa ualJV unvlfs!VL sUlv.lqvaUO.lt(L S.liJAVIJ :a:JuvUl.loj.lad 2u!puv/s/n0 .l!alfJ .lojsaJallfJv-JuapnJs 2U!MolJojalfJ puaUlUlo:J aM 'uosvas lJvqJOod zeaz 2u!puv/Slno uv .l~r oJ paJuasa.ld SNOLLV7flLVNDNOJ JO JLLVJIJI1N:ElJ Item #1.

Item #2. PETITION TO AMEND TEXT of Dover Zoning Ordinance Public Hearing/Final Reading Before the City Council on January 9, 2023 Recommendation from the Planning Commission Meeting of December 19, 2022 With Staff and Development Advisory Committee Review Proposed Changes: Text Amendments to the following: • Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B: Zoning (Zoning Ordinance) o Article 3 – District Regulations, Section 20A – Industrial Park manufacturing zone – Business and Technology Center Zone (IPM2) o Article 12 – Definitions Summary of Amendments: This is a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance provisions relating to the IPM2 Zone (IPM2). These revisions add a purpose section, clarifies the definition of allowed manufacturing uses, adds the uses of vocational education facility, building contractor’s yard, retail component as an accessory use, indoor recreation, and craft distillery and microbreweries to the Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone – Business and Technology Center (IPM2). Ordinance Number: Proposed Ordinance #2022-21 File Number: MI-22-05 Planning Commission Recommendation: The proposed Text Amendment was presented by the Planning Director. A Public Hearing was held on December 19, 2022 where one member of the public participated, and one item of correspondence was received on the proposal. The Planning Commission moved by vote of 9-0 to recommend adoption of the Text Amendment: IPM2. MI-22-05 Text Amendment: IPM2 (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone – Business and Technology Center) – Proposed Ordinance #2022-21 This Zoning Text Amendment Application (Proposed Ordinance) was referred to the Planning Commission as per Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §5. The following information Report was presented to the Planning Commission as background on the proposed Text Amendment MI-22- 05. As the Planning Commission is required to provide a Review Report to City Council, the following serves as said Report. Page 5

MI-22-05 Text Amendments: IPM2 Zone PC Recommendation Report from December 19, 2022 Item #2. Page 2 of 6 I. Background on Development of Text Amendments The Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center (formerly known as the Garrison Oak Technical Park) was purchased by the city, with funding from the State, in 1999 and zoned as IPM2. This 400-acre site was funded through the State’s FY 2000 Bond Bill in the amount of $2,000,000 to facilitate the site acquisition. The Bond Bill included epilogue language specifying that for at least a period of ten years that the site be used as a “high technology industrial park” targeted to information technology, life sciences, semiconductor fabrication, scientific research and development, and high-tech manufacturing. Its location on White Oak Road with potential access to State Route 1 has been identified by Dover and the State as a “potential location to promote economic activity.” Council adopted the ordinance creating the IPM2 zoning district on August 23, 1999 that put the zoning for the Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center (then known as the Garrison Oak Technical Park) in place. The allowed uses included: • Manufacturing and processing of biotechnology and related products; • Research, design, testing and development laboratories; • Offices for corporate support operations for financial services, insurance, and health care industries; and • Agricultural or farm uses. It should be noted that the Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center is the only tract of land in the City of Dover that is zoned IPM2. The Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center was subdivided into lots and infrastructure planned under development application SB-09-06. The IPM2 zoning district was revised by Council on October 12, 2009 (Ordinance #2009-18, MI- 09-14). These revisions added electricity generation as a permitted use and modified the bulk standards by reducing the minimum lot size from 50 to 10 acres with a minimum width and depth of 100 feet. In December 2018, City Council adopted Resolution #2018-12 that modified the name of the Garrison Oak Technical Park facility to “Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center.” (Resolution attached) This Resolution also articulated that the City wanted to expand the purpose and nature of this site “…to reflect current business conditions and the changing marketplace, therefore improving its marketability…” This Resolution was part of a new marketing approach to secure occupants and a strategy linked to the research performed for the Kent Economic Partnership (KEP) that the area is best suited for growth prospects in the logistics, warehousing, and distribution sector. Council adopted the amendments to the IPM2 zoning district (Ordinance #2019-15, MI-19-04) on September 9, 2019, which reflected the intent of Resolution #2018-12 and were identified in the economic assessment research performed for the Kent Economic Partnership. This revision changed the name of the zone to Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone – Business and Technology Center and added warehousing, transshipment, distribution, and logistics support, as well as business and professional services and data management as permitted uses. Page 6

MI-22-05 Text Amendments: IPM2 Zone PC Recommendation Report from December 19, 2022 Item #2. Page 3 of 6 Proposed New Uses The Commercial Moving Experience Real Estate Company is the Broker of Record (Broker) for the Garrison Oak Business and Technology Park. They have indicated through a letter to the City Manager received on September 20, 2022 that the current IPM2 zoning limits development opportunities due to restricted development opportunities. (Letter attached) Furthermore that some of the potential purchasers uses have been denied due to zoning restrictions. A few of these potential users include: • Educational Facility • Athletic Fields • Self-Storage • Concrete Recycling • Contractor’s Yard In addition, the September 20, 2022 Letter suggests that the City consider some of these uses as Permitted Uses, Permitted Uses with Restrictions, and/or Conditional Uses without requiring a zoning change. A follow up letter dated October 7, 2022 was sent that included some suggested text language for the proposed uses described above. It also asked, “to allow for an easy approval process for more modern parking requirements” and to add “printing, publishing, binding, packaging, storage, warehousing, transshipment and distribution, and trucking terminals.” (Letter attached) II. Code Review & Analysis: When this park was created and state tax dollars provided funds to facilitate the site acquisition, it was done so with the provision that the site be used as a high-technology industrial park. The 2018 Resolution and associated 2019 Ordinance modified and expanded that purpose to reflect current business conditions and the changing marketplace by adding the uses of warehousing, transshipment, distribution, and logistics support, as well as business and professional services and data management as permitted uses. Planning Staff believes that any revisions to the IPM2 zoning district need to stay within these parameters. III. Summary of Proposed Text Amendments: Key components of the proposed Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 Section 20A – Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone – Business and Technology Center (IPM2) include the following: • Article 3 Section 20A – Add Purpose and Intent section. • Article 3 Section 20A.16 – Add “trucking terminals” to use. • Article 3 Section 20A.17 – Clarification and the addition of accessory uses. • Article 3 Section 20A.19 – The addition of indoor recreation and amusement establishments. Page 7

MI-22-05 Text Amendments: IPM2 Zone PC Recommendation Report from December 19, 2022 Item #2. Page 4 of 6 • Article 3 Section 20A.2 - The addition of conditional uses to include: - Builder’s contractor’s yard - Vocational education facility - Associated retail uses in conjunction with and accessory to a permitted use - Craft distillery and microbrewery • Article 12 - Add definition of “Vocational education facility “ Text Amendment Review Process Because this is a Text Amendment proposed to the Zoning Ordinance, a Public Hearing and Recommendation by the Planning Commission are required. This review process began when the proposed Ordinance was submitted to City Council for First Reading on November 28, 2022. City Council has referred the Ordinance #2022-22 to Planning Commission for a Public Hearing and consideration on December 19, 2022. Then it is scheduled for Final Reading, Public Hearing and Final Action by Council on January 9, 2023. At the meeting City Council may act to adopt the whole Ordinance, to reject it, to adopt part of the Ordinance, and/or to make other amendments to the proposed text. IV. RECOMMENDATION OF PLANNING STAFF: Review and Recommendations: Planning Staff developed the proposed Ordinance for the Text Amendments for the Industrial Park Manufacturing – Business and Technology Center Zone (IPM2) because of consideration of economic development strategies and interaction with developers/property owners. As part of the process outlined in Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 5, the City Planner must evaluate the following factors when preparing a report on the text amendment request: Article 10 § 5.22 City planner report. For each proposed zoning text amendment, the city planner shall issue a report to the planning commission and city council, including comments from other reviewing agencies, that evaluates the following factors: (A) Whether such change is consistent with the aims and principles embodied in the ordinance as to the particular zones concerned; and; (B) Whether proposed amendment is consistent with the aims of the comprehensive plan of the city. The Planning Office is in support of these changes to the permitted uses, accessory uses, and conditional uses in the IPM2 zoning district with the exception of the recommendation for indoor recreation and amusement establishments. This use was added by City Council at the First Reading of the Text Amendment (Ordinance #2022-21) on November 28, 2022; see Line 62 which added 20A.19 Indoor recreation and amusement establishments. As indicated in this above, the purpose and intent of this zoning district is a high technology and business district. Planning Staff believes that any changes to this zoning district should meet this intent and purpose and that the proposed use of indoor recreation and amusement establishments does not meet this threshold. See also Staff’s discussion in Committee Action Form dated November 10, 2022 on this topic. Planning Staff recommends that 20A.19 Indoor recreation and amusement establishments be stricken from the proposed text amendments to the IPM2 zone. Page 8

MI-22-05 Text Amendments: IPM2 Zone PC Recommendation Report from December 19, 2022 Item #2. Page 5 of 6 The 2019 Comprehensive Plan as part of Chapter 12 – Land Development Plan discusses office parks and industrial land uses as opportunity for the creation of employment centers. See Pages 12-16 through 12-18. This Text Amendment to the IPM2 zone clarifies and broadens the potential uses in the IPM2 while maintaining a focus on industrial activities and technology. Also, 2019 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 10 – Economic Development highlights the Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center as one of the location ready for industrial, office, and manufacturing uses and the opportunity to bring skilled and professional jobs to the City. See pages 10-4 through 10-7 and the recommendations of Economic Development Goal 5: Actively market the Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center (GOTBC). Additionally, the following advisory items are noted. 1) The Planning Office provided an opportunity to Development Advisory Committee (DAC) members to comment on the proposed Text Amendments at their meetings on November 30 and December 7, 2022. No other Agency which partakes in the DAC process had any significant comment or objection with regards to the proposed Text Amendments to the IPM2 zone. 2) The Proposed Ordinance is also subject to Legal Review by the City Solicitor which may identify additional clarifications or corrections. 3) The approval of this Text Amendment does not authorize the establishment of the uses on properties with the IPM2 zone. Prior establishment of a use, the appropriate applications for site development activity plan review, Building Permits, and other construction activity Permits, Business and Occupancy Licensing, etc. are required. V PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW FOR RECOMMENDATION This is a request for a zoning text amendment which revises the text in the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission as part of their public hearing and review process will provide a recommendation on the zoning text amendment request to City Council. As part of the process outlined in Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 5, the Planning Commission must evaluate the following factors when considering the request: Article 10 § 5.23 Report of the planning commission. Regarding each proposed amendment to the ordinance text, the planning commission shall provide a report to the city council stating a recommended action with regards to the proposed amendment, along with the commission's evaluation of the following factors: (A) Whether such change is consistent with the aims and principles embodied in the ordinance as to the particular zones concerned; and (B) Whether such proposed amendment is consistent with the aims of the comprehensive plan of the city. A Recommendation Report from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to City Council for their consideration of the Rezoning Application. Page 9

MI-22-05 Text Amendments: IPM2 Zone PC Recommendation Report from December 19, 2022 Item #2. Page 6 of 6 RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: At the Hybrid (In-Person and Virtual) Planning Commission Meeting of December 19, 2022, the Application MI-22-05 Text Amendment: IPM2 Zone was presented by City Planner Mary Ellen Gray. The version of the Ordinance #2022-21 considered was the First Reading Amended Version of November 28, 2022 which included the addition of line 62 for item 20A.19 Indoor recreation and amusement establishments. During the Public Hearing, one member of the public (Ms. Linda Parkowski of the Kent Economic Partnership) spoke, and one comment letter dated December 19, 2022 from Councilman David Anderson was received for the record. The Planning Commission’s motion was to recommend approval of the proposed Ordinance #2022-21 of Text Amendments to the IPM2 zone (as presented in the Meeting Packet) and resulted in vote of 9-0 in favor and no votes in opposition. The reasons cited for the approval include that the proposed text amendment is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and are consistent with the principles in the Ordinance for the particular zones. The recommend version of the Ordinance includes Line 62 which added 20A.19 Indoor recreation and amusement establishments as a permitted use. See also the included excerpt of the DRAFT Meeting Minutes of the December 19, 2022 Planning Commission meeting. The comments received from the other member agencies of the Development Advisory Committee (D.A.C.) are also provided. Attachments: • Development Advisory Committee Agency Comments: Department of Public Works, Department of Water & Wastewater, Electric Department, Office of Fire Marshal, and DelDOT • November 10, 2022 Action Form-Council Committee Meeting of the Whole • Resolution #2018-12 • September 20, 2022 Letter from Commercial Moving Experience Real Estate (Broker) • October 7, 2022 Letter from Commercial Moving Experience Real Estate (Broker) • Public Comments: Letter dated December 19, 2022 from Councilman David Anderson • Excerpt of Draft Minutes from December 19, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting • Proposed Ordinance #2022-21 (as amended at First Reading on 11/28/2022 to add item 20A.19 Indoor recreation and amusements) Page 10

CITY OF DOVER Item #2. DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 30, 2022 APPLICATION: Text Amendment: IPM-2 (Industrial Park and Manufacturing Zone) FILE #: MI-22-05 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Department of Public Works and Water & Wastewater CONTACT PERSON: Jason A. Lyon, P.E., Director of Water & Wastewater / Engineering Services CONTACT PHONE #: 302-736-7025 CONTACT PHONE #: jlyon@dover.de.us T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ’ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS SANITATION / STREETS / STORMWATER / WATER / WASTEWATER / GENERAL 1. Our office has no objections to the proposed text amendment to the IPM-2 (Industrial Park and Manufacturing Zone). RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES SANITATION / STREETS / STORMWATER / WATER / WASTEWATER / GENERAL 1. None ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT SANITATION / STREETS / STORMWATER / WATER / WASTEWATER / GENERAL 1. None I F Y OU H AVE A NY Q UESTIONS OR N EED TO D ISCUSS ANY OF THE A BOVE C OMMENTS , P LEASE C ALL THE A BOVE C ONTACT P ERSON AND THE P LANNING D EPARTMENT AS S OON AS P OSSIBLE . Page 11

Item #2. CITY OF DOVER ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: NOV 30, 2022 APPLICATION: Text Amendment: IPM-2 (Industrial Park and Manufacturing Zone) FILE #: MI-22-05 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Electric Department CONTACT PERSON: Shawn Burgett, Engineering Services & System Ops Superintendent CONTACT PHONE #: 302-674-7568 CONTACT EMAIL #: sburgett@dover.de.us T HE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE , PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY ’ S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE . T HE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS ELECTRIC 1. Electric Department has no objections to the proposed text amendment regarding the IPM-2 (Industrial Park and Manufacturing Zone). RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES 1. None ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT 1. None I F YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED TO DISCUSS ANY OF THE ABOVE COMMENTS , PLEASE CALL THE ABOVE CONTACT PERSON AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE . Page 12

C F #2. MI-22-05 Item I I T R CITY OF DOVER Y E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE O M F A APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY R D.A.C. MEETING DATE: December 7, 2022 D S O H V A E L R APPLICATION: Text Amendment : IPM-20 FILE #: MI-22-05 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Matthew Brown, Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY, AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT: 1. This office has no objection or comment for this project APPLICABLE CODES LISTED BELOW (NOT LIMITED TO): 2021 NFPA 1 Fire Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2021 NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2019 NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2019 NFPA 13 Installation of Sprinkler Systems (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2009 IBC (International Building Code) Latest editions of all other NFPA Codes as defined by the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations City of Dover Code of Ordinances *If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person listed. Page 13

Item #2. CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Text Amendment IPM-2 FILE#: MI-22-05 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Ryan Schroder PHONE#: 302-760-2674 =============================================================== THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY & STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: No person, firm, corporation or the like shall construct, open, reconstruct, maintain, modify or use any crossing or entrance onto a state-maintained highway, street or road, including any drainage modifications leading into or carried by the highway drainage system, without first having complied with standards and regulations adopted by the Department and having obtained a permit issued by the Department. Please contact the Delaware Department of Transportation - Development Coordination section to begin permit process. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1. DelDOT has no objections to amending the city zoning ordinance. Page 14

Item #2. ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council Committee of the Whole DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Planning and Inspections DATE SUBMITTED: November 10, 2022 PREPARED BY: Mary Ellen Gray, Director of Planning, Inspections and Community Development SUBJECT: Code Revision: Appendix B Zoning, Article 3 Section 20A, Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone – Technology Center (IPM2) REFERENCE: N/A RELATED PROJECT: N/A REVIEWED BY: EXHIBITS: Ordinance #2022-21 EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: n/a AMOUNT BUDGETED: n/a FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): n/a TIMETABLE: Review of Zoning Text Amendment in accordance with Zoning Ordinance Article 10 Section 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Referral of proposed zoning Text Amendment (Ordinance #2022-21) for First Reading and Public Hearings with Planning Commission and City Council Background of the IPM2 (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone – Technology Center) and the Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center The Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center (formerly known as the Garrison Oak Technical Park), was purchased by the city, with funding from the State, in 1999 and zoned as IPM2. This 400-acre site was funded through the State’s FY 2000 Bond Bill in the amount of $2,000,000 to facilitate the site acquisition The Bond Bill included epilogue language specifying that for at least a period of ten years that the site be used as a “high technology industrial park” targeted to information technology, life sciences, semiconductor fabrication, scientific research and development, and high-tech manufacturing. Its location on White Oak Road with potential access to State Route 1 has been identified by Dover and the State as a “potential location to promote economic activity.” Council adopted the ordinance creating the IPM2 zoning district on August 23, 1999 that put the zoning for the Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center (then known as the Garrison Oak Technical Park) in place. The allowed uses included: • Manufacturing and processing of biotechnology and related products; • Research, design, testing and development laboratories; • Offices for corporate support operations for financial services, insurance, and health care industries; and • Agricultural or farm uses. It should be noted that the Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center is the only tract of land in the City of Dover that is zoned IPM2. The Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center was subdivided into lots and infrastructure planned under development application SB-09-06. The IPM2 zoning district was revised by Council on October 12, 2009 (Ordinance #2009-18, MI-09-14). These revisions added electricity generation as a permitted use and modified the bulk standards by reducing the minimum lot size from 50 to 10 acres with a minimum width and depth of 100 feet. Page 15

Item #2. In December 2018, City Council adopted Resolution #2018-12 that modified the name of the Garrison Oak Technical Park facility to “Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center.” (Resolution attached) This Resolution also articulated that the City wanted to expand the purpose and nature of this site “…to reflect current business conditions and the changing marketplace, therefore improving its marketability…” This Resolution was part of a new marketing approach to secure occupants and a strategy linked to the research performed for the Kent Economic Partnership (KEP) that the area is best suited for growth prospects in the logistics, warehousing and distribution sector. Council adopted the amendments to the IPM2 zoning district (Ordinance #2019-15, MI-19-04) on September 9, 2019, which reflected the intent of Resolution #2018-12 and were identified in the economic assessment research performed for the Kent Economic Partnership. This revision changed the name of the zone to Industrial park manufacturing zone – Technology Center and added warehousing, transshipment, distribution, and logistics support, as well as business and professional services and data management as permitted uses. Source Water Protection Overlay Zone (SWPOZ) The eastern portion of this Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center is in a Tier 2 primary wellhead protection area in the Source Water Protection Overlay Zone (see map). The purpose of a Tier 2 area is to safeguard the potable water resources of Dover and Kent County through regulation of land use and development with zones of protection surrounding potable water supply well fields. Since the nearest wellfield is over 1 mile away; the enhanced protection requirements and immediately surrounding the wellhead likely do not apply. However, there are uses prohibited in the SWPOZ per Article 3 Section 29.. Proposed New Uses The Commercial Moving Experience Real Estate Company is the Broker of Record (Broker) for the Garrison Oak Business and Technology Park. They have indicated through a letter to the City Manager received on September 20, 2022, that the current IPM2 zoning limits development opportunities due to restricted development opportunities. (letter attached) Furthermore that some of the potential purchasers uses have been denied due to zoning restrictions. A few of these potential users include: • Educational Facility • Athletic Fields • Self-Storage • Concrete Recycling • Contractor’s Yard In addition, the September 20, 2022 Letter suggests that the City consider some of these uses as Permitted Uses, Permitted Uses with Restrictions, and/or Conditional Uses without requiring a zoning change. A follow up letter dated October 7, 2022 was sent that included some suggested text language for the proposed uses described above. It also asked “to allow for an easy approval process for more modern parking requirements” and to add “printing, publishing, binding, packaging, storage, warehousing, transshipment and distribution, and trucking terminals.” (Letter attached) Staff Recommendation When this park was created and state tax dollars provided funds to facilitate the site acquisition, it was done so with the provision that the site be used as a high-technology industrial park. The 2018 Resolution and associated 2019 Ordinance modified and expanded that purpose to reflect current business conditions and the changing marketplace and added the uses of warehousing, transshipment, distribution, and logistics support, as well as business and professional services and data management as permitted uses. Planning Staff believes that any revisions to the IPM2 zoning district need to stay within these parameters. Page 16

Item #2. Planning Staff concurs with adding the following suggested uses and recommends them since these uses meet the intent and purpose of this zoning district: • Printing, publishing, binding, and packaging, , • Add trucking terminals to section 20A.16 Warehousing, transshipment and distribution, and logistics support is already an allowed use in IMP2 ; • Building contractor’s yard as a conditional use; and • Vocational education facility. In addition, in reviewing this Code, planning staff thought it would be helpful to suggest some additional revisions to the IPM2 zoning district. Planning staff believes that these changes and additional uses will potentially expand the market potential of this site. These suggested changes include: • Add a purpose section per the suggestion of Councilman Taylor and Councilman Anderson; • Clarify the definition of allowed manufacturing uses; • Add the following uses: o Cafeterias and recreational facilities for the exclusive use of employee as an accessory use; o Retail component that is associated with a business as a conditional use; and o Craft distillery and microbrewery as a conditional usea. Uses Not Recommended Planning Staff does not recommend including Athletic Fields, Indoor Recreation, Self-storage, or Concrete Recycling for this zoning district since these uses do not meet the intent and purpose of this zoning district. Planning Staff recognizes that there is a market for these uses. Below is a list of zoning districts where these uses are currently allowed except for concrete recycling which is not allowed in any district currently. Planning staff recommends that this use be considered as a conditional use in the Manufacturing zoning district in the future. • Athletic Fields - Athletic Fields are currently allowed in Institutional and Office (IO) and Recreational and Commercial (RC) zoning district. Recreational facilities are allowed but limited to locating on thoroughfares, arterial streets or access highways within the Industrial Park Manufacturing (IPM).. • Indoor Recreational Facilities are allowed in Institutional and office zone (IO), Highway commercial (C-4) Recreational and commercial (RC) zoning district and have been allowed by interpretation in the Industrial Park Manufacturing (IPM) zoning district. • Mini-storage facilities are allowed in Service Commercial (C-3), Highway Commercial (C-4), Manufacturing (M), and Industrial Park Manufacturing (IPM) zoning districts. Parking Regarding the parking issue raised by the Broker, planning staff looks forward to working on revising parking requirements in this and other zoning districts in the future. Attachments: • Resolution #2018-12 • September 20, 2022 Letter from Commercial Moving Experience Real Estate (Broker) • October 7, 2022 Letter from Commercial Moving Experience Real Estate (Broker) a Craft distilleries and microbreweries are an allowed conditional use in Smyrna in the Central Business District and Industrial/Office/Research Park District; in Kent County in the Agricultural Districts; Newark in the Central Business District, General Industrial District, Office Research District, General Business Districts; and Milford in Central Business District, Riverfront Development District, Limited Industrial and Business Park District. Page 17

Item #2. ({itp of 1!\ober MA YOR AND COUNCIL COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2018-12 A RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE GARRISON OAK TECHNICAL PARK TO GARRISON OAK BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY CENTER WHEREAS, the City of Dover acquired the property known as the "Garrison Tract" in 1999 for purposes of creating jobs and providing economic stability, and WHEREAS, the State of Delaware provided funds from the FY 2000 Capital Improvements Act (Bond Bill) in the amount of $2,000,000 to facilitate the site acquisition with the provision that the site be used as a high-technology industrial park, and the site was designated as the "Garrison Oak Technical Park" and marketed as such, and WHEREAS, in accordance with epilogue language for the FY 2000 Bond Bill, a Memorandum of Understanding was executed between the City of Dover, Kent County and the State of Delaware setting forth various commitments regarding the responsibilities of each party. One condition contained in the epilogue language identified the types of business to be targeted, such designation to be in effect until January 1,2010, after which the limitation can be altered by mutual agreement of the City of Dover and the Delaware Economic Development Office (DEDO), and WHEREAS, the City of Dover now desires to expand the purpose and nature of the Garrison Oak Technical Park to reflect current business conditions and the changing marketplace, therefore improving its marketability, and the Delaware Secretary of State has determined that with the elimination of DEDO, no State approval of the name change is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dover hereby directs the Mayor to take necessary actions to cause the name to be changed to Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center and market the Center to prospective businesses in cooperation with the Kent Economic Partnership and the Delaware Prosperity Program. ADOPTED: DECEMBER 10,2018 S:\RESOLUTIONS-PROCLAMATIONS-TRIBUTES\2018\DRAFT\Rcsolution No. 2018-12 _ Changing the Name of Garrison Oak Technical Park\RcsolullOll No. 2018-12 - Change the Name of Garrison O:lk Tcchincal Park - FOR SIGNATURE.wpd ~~AVIN COUNCIL PRESIDENT Actions History 12/10/2018 - Introduction - City Council 11114/2018 - Introduction - Economic Development Committee Page 18 P.O. Box 475·:· Dover, Delaware ·:·19903 Q[ollllllunitp (Excellence ijrIJrounlJ I!l!lualitp ~eruice

Item #2. Page 19

Item #2. Page 20

Item #2. Page 21

Item #2. DAVID L. ANDERSON COMMITTEES : Councilman - Fourth District Legislative, Finance, and Administration - Chair 217 Cecil Street Dover, DE 19904 (302) 339-1047 - Cell City of Dover Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals - Chair (302)734-0366 - Alternate General Employee Pension Board (302) 736-7006 - City Office Other Post-Employment Benefits Board Police Pension Board December 19, 2022 To the esteemed members of the City of Dover Planning Commission: Thank you in advance for your positive consideration of our Zoning Text Amendment to IPM-2 or Proposed Ordinance #2022-21. I wish to provide a quick author’s explanation for the Ordinance as amended. The Garrison Tract was designated for economic development, but it was restricted in a way that reflected more dreaming than real world economics. This ordinance will bring jobs in the very near future and build upon the economic foundation of our city. These uses reflect a modern vision based on the 21st century needs of the people and enhancing the economic advantages we have. Our zoning code should keep up. This park is the only one with the current onerous restrictions. The question is how to modify them in a way that attracts businesses that will add to the quality of life, economic portfolio, and long-term economic viability of our City and County. Each of these changes do just that. We have broad agreement on the specifics, but I noticed one disagreement with the unanimous vote of Council, indoor recreation. I urge you to keep it, it was part of the original intent and has pending opportunities which could bring millions of dollars of investment, construction jobs, long term jobs and tourism related commerce, much like the outdoor fields in Frederica. There is no compelling reason to exclude an economic multiplier that will compliment the other changes such as the microbrewery. We as a city have to start saying yes to our future. One of the top 3 suggestions that I hear almost weekly from constituents is that we need something to do for the young people here. This is our chance. It would be legislative malpractice for the sponsors not to include it, so we did. The amendment was a compromise between including both outdoor recreation (athletic fields) and indoor recreation. We feel that many affordable opportunities for land exists for outdoor recreation in the city, but we feel that indoor recreation is unnecessarily limited to very few zones, and those which have it would have such high land cost to obtain that the investment to build, in addition to it, would make the project economically unfeasible without incentives. Transforming empty acreage into an economic driver and adding to the quality of life in our city is a sure shot winner. I urge your positive recommendation of the ordinance as amended. Please consider the expertise of the brokerage we hired and their suggestions so they can do their job well. Thank you for all you do to move Dover forward. Respectfully, David L. Anderson 4th District Councilmember and a sponsor of Ordinance #2022-21 P.O. Box 475 ˜ Dover, Delaware ˜19903 Page 22 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

Item #2. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2022 Excerpt from Meeting Minutes – Draft The Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, December 19, 2022 at 7:00 PM as an In-Person Meeting and also using the phone/videoconferencing system WebEx. The Meeting Session was conducted with Chair Mrs. Maucher presiding. Members present were Mr. Cooper, Mr. Roach (virtual), Mrs. Denney, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones, Mrs. Welsh (virtual), Mrs. Malone (virtual) and Mrs. Maucher. Staff members present were Mrs. Mary Ellen Gray, Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mr. Julian Swierczek, Mr. Jason Lyon (virtual) and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney (virtual). Speaking from the public on this application was Ms. Linda Parkowski. NEW APPLICATIONS MI-22-05 Text Amendment: IPM-2 (Industrial Park and Manufacturing Zone) - Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council of a Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 – District Regulations, Section 20A – Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone – Business and Technology Center (IPM-2), Section 20A and Article 12 – Definitions to include Vocational education facility. The proposed Ordinance outlines additional permitted land uses within the IPM-2 Zone to include printing, publishing, binding, and packaging, as well as various accessory uses. The Ordinance proposes adding several Conditional Uses to include Building contractor’s yard with restrictions; Vocational education facilities; Associated retail uses in conjunction with and accessory to a permitted use with restrictions; Craft distilleries and microbreweries with restrictions. The proposed Ordinance adds a purpose statement and includes guidelines and performance standards for the regulation of the above. Ordinance #2022-21. First Reading was held by City Council on November 28, 2022 where the Public Hearing dates were set for Planning Commission on December 19, 2022 and City Council on January 9, 2023. Representative: Planning Staff Mrs. Gray stated that this is a request for a Zoning Text Amendment which revises the text in the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission is part of the public hearing and review process and will provide a recommendation on the Text Amendment request to City Council. The Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center formerly known as the Garrison Oak Technology Park was purchased by the City with funding from the State in 1999. It is zoned as IPM-2 (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone). This 400-acre site was funded through the State’s FY2000 Bond Bill in the amount of $2 million to facilitate the site acquisition. The Bond Bill included epilogue language specifying that for at least a period of 10 years the site was to be used as a high-end technology industrial park targeted to information and technology, life sciences, semi-conductor fabrication, scientific research and development and high tech manufacturing. It’s location on White Oak Road with potential access to State Route 1 has been identified by Dover and the State as a potential location to promote economic activity. Council adopted the Ordinance creating IPM-2 (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone – Business and Technology Center) on August 23, 1999. That put the zoning for this Garrison Oak Business and Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 19, 2022 Page 1 of 5 Page 23

Item #2. Technology Center in place. The allowed uses then included manufacturing and processing of biotechnology and related products, research design, testing and development laboratories, offices for corporate support operations for financial services, insurance and healthcare industries, and agricultural farm uses. It should be noted that this Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center is the only tract of land in the City that is currently zoned IPM-2 (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone – Business and Technology Center). This zoning district was revised by Council on October 12, 2009. These revisions added electricity generation as a permitted use and modified the bulk standards by reducing the minimum lot size from 50 to 10 acres with a minimum width and depth of 100 feet. Then in December of 2018, City Council adopted Resolution #2018-12 that modified the name of Garrison Oak Technology Park Facility to the Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center as it is known today. This Resolution also articulated that the City wanted to expand the purpose in nature of the site to reflect the current business conditions and the changing marketplace therefore improving its marketability. This Resolution was part of a new marketing approach to secure occupants and a strategy to link to the research performed by the Kent Economic Partnership that the area is best suited for growth prospects and the logistics/warehousing/distribution sector. Council adopted these amendments to the zoning district on Dec 9, 2019, which reflected the intent of this Resolution. In addition to changing the name, it also added warehousing trans-shipment, distribution, and logistic support as well as business and professional services in data management as permitted uses. The eastern portion of this site is in a Tier 2 Primary Well Head Protection Area in the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone), and the purpose of Tier 2 is to safeguard the potable water resources of Dover and Kent County. Since the nearest well field is over a mile away the enhanced protection requirements merely surrounding the wellhead likely do not apply; however, there are uses that are prohibited in the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) area that are articulated in that Ordinance. Moving on to the proposed uses, that is why she is here tonight. It always helps to have the background history of this park. The commercial Moving Experience Real Estate Company, which is the broker of record marketing this property for the City, had indicated through a letter to the City Manager on September 20, 2022 that the current IPM-2 (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone – Business and Technology Center) limits development opportunities due to restricted development. Furthermore, that some of the potential purchases have been denied due to zoning restrictions. A few of these potential users include educational facilities, athletic fields, self-storage, concrete recycling, and contractor’s yard. In addition, this letter suggested that the City consider some of these uses as potential uses, permitted uses, or uses with restriction or conditional uses. Then a follow up letter by our broker was sent which included some potential language and also suggested that some additional uses be added to include printing, publishing, binding, and packaging as well as to look at some changes to the parking regulations. Regarding Staff recommendation when this park was created and State tax dollars provided funds to facilitate the site acquisition, it was done so with the provision that the site be used as a high technology and industrial park. The 2018 Resolution and associated 2019 Ordinance modified and expanded a purpose to reflect current business conditions and the changing marketplace by adding the uses of manufacturing and uses of warehousing, trans-shipment, distribution, and logistic support as well as business and professional services in data management as permitted uses. Planning Staff believes that any revisions to the IPM-2 (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone – Business and Technology Center) need to stay within these parameters. Regarding the Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 19, 2022 Page 2 of 5 Page 24

Item #2. proposed Text Amendments, there are a number that are being proposed within this to articulate these. There is an addition of a purpose and intent section. They are adding truck terminals and clarifying the addition of accessory uses. They are purposing to add indoor recreation and amusement establishments. The addition of conditional uses is to include building/contractor’s yard, vocational educational facility, associated retail uses in conjunction with and accessory to a permitted use, as well as a craft distillery and micro-brewery. Also, they are adding a definition for a vocational educational facility. Because this is a Text Amendment proposed to the Zoning Ordinance, a public hearing and recommendation by the Planning Commission is required. The next step after tonight, is that it will go before Final Reading and public hearing at the January 9, 2023 Council Meeting. Regarding the recommendation of Planning Staff. Planning Staff developed a proposed ordinance for text amendments for the Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone - Business and Technology Center (IPM-2) because of consideration and economic development strategies and interaction with developers and property owners. As part of this process as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance, the City Planner will need to prepare a report on the proposed zoning text amendment. The City Planner shall issue a Report to the Planning Commission and City Council including comments from other reviewing agencies which evaluates these two factors: whether such a change is consistent with the aims and principles embodied in the Ordinance as to particular zones and concerns as well as whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. To sum up the Planning Staff’s recommendation, the Planning Office is in support of these changes to the permitted uses, the accessory uses and conditional uses in the IPM-2 (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone – Business and Technology Center) with the exception of the recommendation for indoor recreation and amusement establishments. This use was added by City Council at the First Reading of the Text Amendment on November 28, 2022 and that is under line 62 which added articulation of 20A.19 Indoor Recreation and Amusement Establishments. As indicated in the discussion above, Staff feels the purpose and intent of this zoning district is a high-technology and business district. Planning Staff believes that any changes to the zoning district shall meet the intent and purpose and the proposed use of indoor recreation and amusement establishment does not meet this threshold. This is also included in the Staff’s Decision and the Community Action Form dated November 10, 2022 in the packet. Regarding the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 12-Land Development Plan discusses office parks and industrial land uses as an opportunity for the creation of employment centers. This Text Amendment to the IPM-2 (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone – Business and Technology Center) clarifies and broadens the potential uses while maintaining a focus on industrial activities. They feel that it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Regarding the Planning Commission review, from Zoning Ordinance Article 10 Section 5.23, the two factors that the Planning Commission should be looking at per the Code regarding a review for a text amendment to a Zoning Ordinance is whether such a change is consistent with the aims and principles embodied in the ordinance as to the particular zones of concern and whether such proposed amendment is consistent with the aims of the Comprehensive Plan of the City. She also wants to call to attention, a comment letter that Councilman Anderson submitted to the Planning Commission this afternoon regarding his support of the addition of the use for indoor recreation. Mr. Hartman asked if they had to consider the suggestions proposed by the applicant. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Gray stated that he is welcome to do so should he wish. The Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 19, 2022 Page 3 of 5 Page 25

Item #2. proposed Ordinance is in front of you, but you can certainly make additional recommendations if you wanted to add or suggest additional uses. Mr. Hartman stated that he doesn’t support most of those recommendations by the applicant. He was just asking as a matter of procedure. Mrs. Maucher stated that it is her understanding that what they will be voting on is the Ordinance as proposed. Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mrs. Gray stated yes. Mrs. Maucher opened a public hearing. Mrs. Linda Parkowski – Kent Economic Partnership Mrs. Parkowski stated that she is in support of the amendment. They have been trying to market Garrison Oak Industrial Park for a while. As the brokers’ letter stated, some of the uses were very restrictive and they were written in 1999 or 2009. We are in support of this. It brings the Zoning Ordinance into today’s world, and they certainly appreciate that. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the only written correspondence is the letter of December 19, 2022 from Councilman Anderson expressing his views regarding the IPM-2 (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone – Business and Technology Center) amendment that is proposed that you found either in your email or on your desk this evening. She can certainly read it into the record if you would like but she thinks that they have all had the opportunity to take a look at that tonight. Mrs. Maucher closed the public hearing. Mr. Cooper stated that he has a question for Mr. Hartman. As he reads through Councilman Anderson’s letter, he doesn’t find too many moments that make him pause. He has traveled around; he has a good buddy of his that he runs a beer blog for. He has traveled to almost 800 different breweries around the Country and a large number of them are in business parks. He finds that there is a lot of jobs and there are a lot of businesses that happen in business parks that aren’t necessarily tractor trailer type jobs. It’s not just loading and unloading. There are a lot of entities that happen across the Country, and he has gone as far as Washington State and down to Texas. He has driven home from some of these trips to Texas and Colorado and visited a lot of these places. He is curious to what give Mr. Hartman pause because in many evenings, Mr. Hartman has changed his way of thinking. Not that he wants him to now, but he is curious to know what gives him pause. Mr. Hartman stated that his question is concerning the letter from the real estate agent where they were purposing the use of concrete recycling facilities, athletic fields. His concern was not with the micro-brewery or distillery. Mr. Cooper stated that he doesn’t believe those are in his letter, not necessarily in the Ordinance. Responding to Mr. Cooper, Mr. Hartman stated yes. His question was whether or not they had to consider those, and he did not want to consider those tonight. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 19, 2022 Page 4 of 5 Page 26

Item #2. Mr. Hartman moved to recommend approval to City Council for MI-22-05 Text Amendment: IPM-2 (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone – Business and Technology Center) to adopt as written, seconded by Mr. Cooper. To clarify, Mrs. Melson-Williams asked if they were recommending approval of the version of the Ordinance that was included in the packet that also includes the indoor recreation and amusement establishments as a permitted use. She just wants to make sure that they are all looking at the same Ordinance. Mr. Hartman stated yes. The motion was carried 9-0 by roll call vote. Mr. Hartman voting yes; its consistent with the wishes of the Comprehensive Plan and it is consistent with the principles in the Ordinance to the particular zones concerned. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Dr. Jones voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mrs. Welsh voting yes. Mrs. Malone voting yes; based on Mrs. Gray’s comments. Mr. Cooper voting yes. Mr. Roach voting yes. Mrs. Denney voting yes; she thinks it’s clearly in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan and it has the potential to breathe a little new life into that project. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; she thinks that it is important that the City regularly review its Ordinances and make these kind of changes as conditions change. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 19, 2022 Page 5 of 5 Page 27

Item #2. Item #31. City of Dover 1 CITY OF DOVER ORDINANCE #2022-21 2 3 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN 4 COUNCIL MET: 5 6 That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 3 Section 20A Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone – Business and 7 Technology Center (IPM2) be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue font and deleting the 8 text indicated in red strikeout as follows: 9 10 APPENDIX B – ZONING 11 12 ARTICLE 3 - DISTRICT REGULATIONS 13 14 Section 20A. Industrial park manufacturing zone – Business and Technology Center (IPM2) 15 16 Sec. 20A.A Purpose and Intent. The industrial park manufacturing zone – Business and 17 Technology Center (IPM2) is established for the following: 18 19 (a) To provide locations for the development of light to moderate industrial manufacturing, 20 warehousing, distribution, logistics, research and technology establishments as well as 21 offices and professional services which could be compatible with residential uses. 22 23 (b)To provide employment opportunities for nonoffensive industries, businesses, and 24 technologies in close proximity to centers of population. 25 26 (c) To include guidelines and performance standards which will control and confine any 27 offensive features such as noise, vibration, heat, smoke, glare, dust, objectionable odors, 28 toxic waste, or unsightly storage. 29 30 Sec. 20A.1. 31 32 20A.1 Uses permitted. No building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a 33 building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, 34 for any purpose, except the following, and in accordance with performance standards procedure 35 as set forth in article 5, section 8, and subject to site development plan approval as set forth in 36 article 10, section 2: 37 38 20A.11 Manufacturing, assembling, converting, altering, finishing, cleaning, cooking, baking or 39 any other type of manufacturing, industrial, or technological processing of any goods, materials, 40 products, instruments, appliances, biotechnology, and devices.., provided that the fuel used shall 41 be oil, gas or electricity; together with incidental clinics, cafeterias and recreational facilities for 42 the exclusive use of employees of the concern engaged in such undertaking Page 28

Proposed Ordinance #2022-21 Proposed Ordinance #2022-21 - Amending Section 20A-Industrial Park Item #2. Manufacturing Zone (IPM2) 2 Item #31. Page 2 43 44 20A.12 Research, design, testing and development laboratories. 45 20A.13 Offices and corporate support operations for business and professional services, data 46 management, financial services, insurance, and health care industries. 47 20A.14 Agricultural or farm uses as defined and permitted in article 3,section 1.11. 48 20A.15 Production of electricity provided that the power source used shall be gas, oil solar or 49 wind. 50 20A.16 Warehousing, transshipment and distribution, and logistics support and trucking 51 terminals. 52 53 20A.17 Printing, publishing, binding, and packaging. 54 55 20A.18 Accessory uses: 56 57 a) On-site offices, clinics, food service facilities, recreation facilities and child day 58 care services collocated within the permitted use and limited to exclusive use 59 by employees, and such other accessory uses and structures clearly incidental 60 to, and customary to and associated with the permitted use. 61 62 20A.19 Indoor recreation and amusement establishments. 63 64 20A.2 Conditional uses: The following uses may be permitted as conditional uses if approved by 65 the planning commission in accordance with the provisions and procedures set forth in article 66 10, section 1 and any specified requirements set forth below: 67 68 20A.21 Building contractor’s yard provided that: 69 70 (a) Outside storage is within a completely enclosed and secure area and 71 appropriately screened from public view and not in any required setback from 72 property lines. 73 (b) 74 75 20A.22 Vocational education facility 76 77 20A.23 Associated retail uses in conjunction with and accessory to a permitted use, 78 provided that the associated retail use does not occupy more than 30 percent of 79 the gross floor area of the building or group of buildings on a lot. Parking shall 80 be provided at a rate of one parking space per 300 square feet of retail space for 81 the exclusive use of retail customers in addition to the bulk parking 82 requirements of this zoning district for a particular use. 83 84 20A.24 Craft distillery and microbrewery provided that: Page 29

Proposed Ordinance #2022-21 Proposed Ordinance #2022-21 - Amending Section 20A-Industrial Park Item #2. Manufacturing Zone (IPM2) 3 Item #31. Page 3 85 86 (a) All permits and approvals required by the Delaware Alcoholic Beverage 87 Commission are obtained and remain in full force and effect. 88 89 (b) All aspects of the distilling or brewing process are completely confined within a 90 building, including storage of all materials and finished products. 91 92 (c) Such establishment may offer to the public, various activities ancillary to its 93 distilling and/or brewing process, including by way of example: tours of the 94 premises, educational classes, demonstrations, tasting rooms, and retail sales 95 areas limited to the sale of beer, mead, cider, or spirits brewed or distilled on 96 the premises for consumption off-premises and other retail items. 97 98 (d) On-site consumption or tasting associated with a craft distillery or 99 microbrewery establishment shall be permitted. Any area associated with on- 100 site consumption or tasting shall not operate as a stand-alone bar or tavern, 101 shall be located on the premises of the craft distillery or microbrewery 102 establishment, and shall be ancillary to the primary use. "Ancillary" for 103 purposes of this section means subordinate, auxiliary, smaller and less 104 intensive than the primary use. On-site consumption or tasting of alcohol shall 105 be limited to those products brewed or distilled on the premises, except as 106 otherwise permitted by Delaware Law. 107 108 (e) All food sales shall be limited to prepackaged snack items or those food items 109 prepared by a food establishment licensed by the State of Delaware. 110 111 (f) Outdoor seating and gathering areas shall be permitted subject to the following 112 requirements: 113 i. Permanent and temporary outdoor seating and gathering areas shall 114 be subject to building permit application and approval 115 requirements. 116 ii. Outdoor seating and gathering areas and ancillary improvements 117 shall include physical barriers from public rights-of-way and 118 physical and visual barriers from adjoining properties. Physical 119 barriers along public rights-of-way shall restrict access from the 120 public rights-of-way to the outdoor seating and gathering areas and 121 shall not exceed four feet in height. Barriers along adjoining 122 property lines shall create a physical and visual barrier consisting of 123 fencing six feet in height or vegetation at least six feet in height. 124 iii. Maximum occupancy and points of ingress/egress shall be clearly 125 marked. Occupancy of outdoor seating and gathering areas shall not 126 exceed one person per 15 square feet of the outdoor seating and Page 30

Proposed Ordinance #2022-21 Proposed Ordinance #2022-21 - Amending Section 20A-Industrial Park Item #2. Manufacturing Zone (IPM2) 4 Item #31. Page 4 127 gathering areas identified in the building plans or any other 128 occupancy limit established by the City of Dover. 129 iv. All structures and uses related to outdoor seating and gathering 130 areas and facilities are subject to the Dover Code of Ordinances, 131 Chapter 22 and Chapter 46. 132 v. The occupancy of outdoor seating and gathering areas shall be 133 included when calculating the building requirements and minimum 134 parking standards required by the City of Dover and State of 135 Delaware. 136 vi. Tables, chairs, umbrellas, equipment, games, and any other items 137 provided in connection with outdoor seating and gathering areas 138 shall be maintained in good repair and shall be secured during non- 139 business hours in a safe and orderly manner. 140 vii. Any licensing required by the Delaware Alcoholic Beverage Control 141 Commissioner for outdoor seating and gathering areas shall be 142 obtained. 143 144 20A.23 Uses prohibited. The following uses are specifically prohibited: 145 20A.231 Residences, except those existing at the time of adoption of this amendment. 146 20A.232 Manufacturing uses involving primary production of the following products from 147 raw materials: Asphalt, cement, charcoal, and fuel briquettes; chemicals: aniline dyes, 148 ammonia, carbide, caustic soda, cellulose, chlorine, and carbon black and bone black, 149 creosote, hydrogen and oxygen, industrial alcohol, nitrates (manufactured and natural) of 150 an explosive nature, potash, and synthetic resins, pyroxylin, rayon yarn, and hydrochloric, 151 nitric, phosphoric, picric, and sulphuric acids; coal, coke, and tar products, including gas 152 manufacturing; explosives, fertilizers, glue, and size (animal); linoleum and oil cloth; 153 matches; paint, varnishes, and turpentine; rubber (natural or synthetic); and soaps, 154 including fat rendering. 155 20A.233 Storage, except that which is incidental to the primary use on the lot. 156 20A.234 The following processes: nitrating of cotton or other materials; magnesium foundry; 157 reduction, refining, smelting, and alloying of metal or metal ores; refining secondary 158 aluminum; refining petroleum products, such as gasoline, kerosene, naphtha, and 159 lubricating oil; distillation of wood or bones; and reduction and processing of wood pulp 160 and fiber, including papermill operations. 161 20A.235 Operations involving stock yards, slaughter houses, and slag piles. 162 20A.236 Storage of explosives, and bulk or wholesale storage of gasoline above the ground. 163 20A.237 Dumps. Page 31

Proposed Ordinance #2022-21 Proposed Ordinance #2022-21 - Amending Section 20A-Industrial Park Item #2. Manufacturing Zone (IPM2) 5 Item #31. Page 5 164 20A.238 Quarries, stone crushers, screening plants, and storage of quarry screenings, 165 accessory to such uses. 166 20A.239 Junkyards, automobile dismantling plants or storage of used parts of automobiles or 167 other machines or vehicles or of dismantled or junked automobiles. 168 20A.34 Site development plan approval. Site development plan approval, in accordance with 169 article 10, section 2 hereof, shall be required for either conventional individual lot 170 development or planned industrial park development of land zoned IPM2 prior to the issuance 171 of building permits for the erection or enlargement of all structures and prior to the issuance of 172 certificates of occupancy for any change of use. 173 20A.45 Performance standards. All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in article 174 5, section 8. 175 176 BE IF FURTHER ORDAINED: 177 178 That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 12 – Definitions be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, 179 blue font in appropriate alphabetical order: 180 181 Vocational education facility: Services or instruction which are geared toward training for a 182 specific occupation or set of skills. 183 184 185 186 187 188 ADOPTED: 189 Proposed Ordinance – Zoning Article 3 Section 20A IPM2 clean version – DEMW edits Nov 21 2022 190 191 192 SYNOPSIS 193 This is a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance provisions related to the IPM2 zone. These revisions 194 add a purpose section, clarified the definition of allowed manufacturing uses, adds the uses of vocational 195 education facility, building contractor’s yard, retail component as an accessory use and craft distillery 196 and microbreweries to the Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone – Business and Technology Center 197 (IPM2). 198 199 (SPONSORS: COUNCILMAN TAYLOR AND COUNCILMAN ANDERSON) 200 201 202 Actions History: 203 11/28/22 – Scheduled for First Reading 204 11/15/22 - Legislative Finance, and Administration Committee Page 32

Item #2. FINAL READING City of Dover 1 CITY OF DOVER ORDINANCE #2022-21 2 3 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN 4 COUNCIL MET: 5 6 That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 3 Section 20A Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone – Business and 7 Technology Center (IPM2) be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue font and deleting the 8 text indicated in red strikeout as follows: 9 10 APPENDIX B – ZONING 11 12 ARTICLE 3 - DISTRICT REGULATIONS 13 14 Section 20A. Industrial park manufacturing zone – Business and Technology Center (IPM2) 15 16 Sec. 20A.A Purpose and Intent. The industrial park manufacturing zone – Business and 17 Technology Center (IPM2) is established for the following: 18 19 (a) To provide locations for the development of light to moderate industrial manufacturing, 20 warehousing, distribution, logistics, research and technology establishments as well as 21 offices and professional services which could be compatible with residential uses. 22 23 (b)To provide employment opportunities for nonoffensive industries, businesses, and 24 technologies in close proximity to centers of population. 25 26 (c) To include guidelines and performance standards which will control and confine any 27 offensive features such as noise, vibration, heat, smoke, glare, dust, objectionable odors, 28 toxic waste, or unsightly storage. 29 30 Sec. 20A.1. 31 32 20A.1 Uses permitted. No building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a 33 building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, 34 for any purpose, except the following, and in accordance with performance standards procedure 35 as set forth in article 5, section 8, and subject to site development plan approval as set forth in 36 article 10, section 2: 37 38 20A.11 Manufacturing, assembling, converting, altering, finishing, cleaning, cooking, baking, or 39 any other type of manufacturing, industrial, or technological processing of any goods, materials, 40 products, instruments, appliances, biotechnology, and devices.., provided that the fuel used shall 41 be oil, gas or electricity; together with incidental clinics, cafeterias and recreational facilities for 42 the exclusive use of employees of the concern engaged in such undertaking Page 33

Ordinance #2022-21 - Amending Section 20A-Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone (IPM2) Page 2 Item #2. 43 44 20A.12 Research, design, testing and development laboratories. 45 20A.13 Offices and corporate support operations for business and professional services, data 46 management, financial services, insurance, and health care industries. 47 20A.14 Agricultural or farm uses as defined and permitted in article 3,section 1.11. 48 20A.15 Production of electricity provided that the power source used shall be gas, oil solar or 49 wind. 50 20A.16 Warehousing, transshipment and distribution, and logistics support and trucking 51 terminals. 52 53 20A.17 Printing, publishing, binding, and packaging. 54 55 20A.18 Accessory uses: 56 57 a) On-site offices, clinics, food service facilities, recreation facilities and child day 58 care services collocated within the permitted use and limited to exclusive use 59 by employees, and such other accessory uses and structures clearly incidental 60 to, and customary to, and associated with the permitted use. 61 62 20A.19 Indoor recreation and amusement establishments. 63 64 20A.2 Conditional uses: The following uses may be permitted as conditional uses if approved by 65 the planning commission in accordance with the provisions and procedures set forth in article 66 10, section 1 and any specified requirements set forth below: 67 68 20A.21 Building contractor’s yard provided that: 69 70 (a) Outside storage is within a completely enclosed and secure area and 71 appropriately screened from public view and not in any required setback from 72 property lines. 73 (b) 74 75 20A.22 Vocational education facility 76 77 20A.23 Associated retail uses in conjunction with and accessory to a permitted use, 78 provided that the associated retail use does not occupy more than 30 percent of 79 the gross floor area of the building or group of buildings on a lot. Parking shall 80 be provided at a rate of one parking space per 300 square feet of retail space for 81 the exclusive use of retail customers in addition to the bulk parking 82 requirements of this zoning district for a particular use. 83 84 20A.24 Craft distillery and microbrewery provided that: 85 86 (a) All permits and approvals required by the Delaware Alcoholic Beverage Page 34

Ordinance #2022-21 - Amending Section 20A-Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone (IPM2) Page 3 Item #2. 87 Commission are obtained and remain in full force and effect. 88 89 (b) All aspects of the distilling or brewing process are completely confined within a 90 building, including storage of all materials and finished products. 91 92 (c) Such establishment may offer to the public, various activities ancillary to its 93 distilling and/or brewing process, including by way of example: tours of the 94 premises, educational classes, demonstrations, tasting rooms, and retail sales 95 areas limited to the sale of beer, mead, cider, or spirits brewed or distilled on 96 the premises for consumption off-premises and other retail items. 97 98 (d) On-site consumption or tasting associated with a craft distillery or 99 microbrewery establishment shall be permitted. Any area associated with on- 100 site consumption or tasting shall not operate as a stand-alone bar or tavern, 101 shall be located on the premises of the craft distillery or microbrewery 102 establishment, and shall be ancillary to the primary use. "Ancillary" for 103 purposes of this section means subordinate, auxiliary, smaller and less 104 intensive than the primary use. On-site consumption or tasting of alcohol shall 105 be limited to those products brewed or distilled on the premises, except as 106 otherwise permitted by Delaware Law. 107 108 (e) All food sales shall be limited to prepackaged snack items or those food items 109 prepared by a food establishment licensed by the State of Delaware. 110 111 (f) Outdoor seating and gathering areas shall be permitted subject to the following 112 requirements: 113 i. Permanent and temporary outdoor seating and gathering areas shall 114 be subject to building permit application and approval 115 requirements. 116 ii. Outdoor seating and gathering areas and ancillary improvements 117 shall include physical barriers from public rights-of-way and 118 physical and visual barriers from adjoining properties. Physical 119 barriers along public rights-of-way shall restrict access from the 120 public rights-of-way to the outdoor seating and gathering areas and 121 shall not exceed four feet in height. Barriers along adjoining 122 property lines shall create a physical and visual barrier consisting of 123 fencing six feet in height or vegetation at least six feet in height. 124 iii. Maximum occupancy and points of ingress/egress shall be clearly 125 marked. Occupancy of outdoor seating and gathering areas shall not 126 exceed one person per 15 square feet of the outdoor seating and 127 gathering areas identified in the building plans or any other 128 occupancy limit established by the City of Dover. 129 iv. All structures and uses related to outdoor seating and gathering 130 areas and facilities are subject to the Dover Code of Ordinances, 131 Chapter 22 and Chapter 46. Page 35

Ordinance #2022-21 - Amending Section 20A-Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone (IPM2) Page 4 Item #2. 132 v. The occupancy of outdoor seating and gathering areas shall be 133 included when calculating the building requirements and minimum 134 parking standards required by the City of Dover and State of 135 Delaware. 136 vi. Tables, chairs, umbrellas, equipment, games, and any other items 137 provided in connection with outdoor seating and gathering areas 138 shall be maintained in good repair and shall be secured during non- 139 business hours in a safe and orderly manner. 140 vii. Any licensing required by the Delaware Alcoholic Beverage Control 141 Commissioner for outdoor seating and gathering areas shall be 142 obtained. 143 144 20A.23 Uses prohibited. The following uses are specifically prohibited: 145 20A.231 Residences, except those existing at the time of adoption of this amendment. 146 20A.232 Manufacturing uses involving primary production of the following products from 147 raw materials: Asphalt, cement, charcoal, and fuel briquettes; chemicals: aniline dyes, 148 ammonia, carbide, caustic soda, cellulose, chlorine, and carbon black and bone black, 149 creosote, hydrogen and oxygen, industrial alcohol, nitrates (manufactured and natural) of 150 an explosive nature, potash, and synthetic resins, pyroxylin, rayon yarn, and hydrochloric, 151 nitric, phosphoric, picric, and sulphuric acids; coal, coke, and tar products, including gas 152 manufacturing; explosives, fertilizers, glue, and size (animal); linoleum and oil cloth; 153 matches; paint, varnishes, and turpentine; rubber (natural or synthetic); and soaps, 154 including fat rendering. 155 20A.233 Storage, except that which is incidental to the primary use on the lot. 156 20A.234 The following processes: nitrating of cotton or other materials; magnesium foundry; 157 reduction, refining, smelting, and alloying of metal or metal ores; refining secondary 158 aluminum; refining petroleum products, such as gasoline, kerosene, naphtha, and 159 lubricating oil; distillation of wood or bones; and reduction and processing of wood pulp 160 and fiber, including papermill operations. 161 20A.235 Operations involving stock yards, slaughter houses, and slag piles. 162 20A.236 Storage of explosives, and bulk or wholesale storage of gasoline above the ground. 163 20A.237 Dumps. 164 20A.238 Quarries, stone crushers, screening plants, and storage of quarry screenings, 165 accessory to such uses. 166 20A.239 Junkyards, automobile dismantling plants or storage of used parts of automobiles or 167 other machines or vehicles or of dismantled or junked automobiles. 168 20A.34 Site development plan approval. Site development plan approval, in accordance with 169 article 10, section 2 hereof, shall be required for either conventional individual lot 170 development or planned industrial park development of land zoned IPM2 prior to the issuance Page 36

Ordinance #2022-21 - Amending Section 20A-Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone (IPM2) Page 5 Item #2. 171 of building permits for the erection or enlargement of all structures and prior to the issuance of 172 certificates of occupancy for any change of use. 173 20A.45 Performance standards. All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in article 174 5, section 8. 175 176 BE IF FURTHER ORDAINED: 177 178 That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 12 – Definitions be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, 179 blue font in appropriate alphabetical order: 180 181 Vocational education facility: Services or instruction which are geared toward training for a 182 specific occupation or set of skills. 183 184 185 ADOPTED: 186 187 Proposed Ordinance – Zoning Article 3 Section 20A IPM2 clean version – DEMW edits Nov 21, 2022 188 189 190 SYNOPSIS 191 This is a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance provisions related to the IPM2 zone. These revisions 192 add a purpose section, clarified the definition of allowed manufacturing uses, adds the uses of vocational 193 education facility, building contractor’s yard, retail component as an accessory use and craft distillery 194 and microbreweries to the Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone – Business and Technology Center 195 (IPM2). 196 197 (SPONSORS: COUNCILMAN TAYLOR AND COUNCILMAN ANDERSON) 198 199 Actions History: 200 01/09/2023 - Public Hearing - Final Reading - City Council 201 12/19/2022 - Public Hearing - Planning Commission 202 11/28/2022 - First Reading 203 11/15/2022 - Legislative Finance, and Administration Committee Page 37

Item #3. PETITION TO ANNEX AND REZONE PROPERTY Public Hearing Before the City Council on January 9, 2023 Recommendation from the Planning Commission Meeting of December 19, 2022 With Staff and Development Advisory Committee Review File Number: AX-22-03 Ordinance Number: 2022-25 Property Information: Three properties located on the north side of West Denneys Road and west of Carlisle Drive. Total Size: 40.1157 +/- acres Equitable Owner: Jack Lingo Asset Management, LLC Parcel A: Owners of Record: George L. Craig Jr. and Deborah J. Craig. Property Address: 57 Rocky Road, Dover DE Tax Parcel: ED-00-056.00-01-40.00-000 Lot Size: 27.6834 +/- acres Current Zoning: AR (Agricultural Residential District) in Kent County Proposed Zoning: RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and partially subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) Parcel B: Owners of Record: Robert G. Keller and Gloria K. Keller Property Address: 4085 W. Denneys Road, Dover DE Tax Parcel: ED-00-056.00-01-41.00-000 Lot Size: 10.5661 +/- acres Current Zoning: RM (Multifamily Residential District) in Kent County Proposed Zoning: RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and partially subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) Parcel C: Owner of Record: Bruce A. Burkett. Property Address: unaddressed parcel on W. Denneys Road Tax Parcel: ED-00-056.00-01-42.00-000 Lot Size: 1.9662 +/- acres Current Zoning: AR (Agricultural Residential District) in Kent County Proposed Zoning: RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) 2019 Comprehensive Plan Category 2: Priority Annexation Areas Designation: 2019 Comprehensive Plan Residential Medium Density Land Use Category: Page 38

Item #3. AX-22-03 Lands of Craig, Keller, and Burkett: Annexation of Three Parcels on West Denneys Road Planning Commission Recommendation Report from December 19, 2022 Page 2 of 13 Present Use: Residential (Existing dwellings) and Woodland areas Proposed Use: Residential (Future project) Utility Availability – Electric: These properties are not currently served by City Electric: of Dover Electric. The properties at Parcel A: 57 Rocky Road and Parcel B: 4085 W. Denneys Road include Parcel A: 57 Rocky Road existing residences that are served by another electric service provider. The property at Parcel C: unaddressed Parcel B: 4085 West Denneys property on W. Denneys Road is currently vacant land Road and likely does not have electric service. Parcel C: Unaddressed With any future redevelopment of the properties, the property on north side of West electric service provider and service needs will need to be Denneys Road evaluated. The property owner/developer will be responsible for any and all costs associated with the changes of electrical service needs related to the future redevelopment including extending and providing service upgrades to the proposed properties. Utility Availability - Water and Sanitary Sewer: These properties are not Water & Wastewater: currently served by the City of Dover Water or Sanitary Sewer. Parcel A: 57 Rocky Road Water service is available on the opposite (southern) side Parcel B: 4085 West Denneys of W. Denneys Road. It shall be the developer’s Road responsibility to obtain a change in the current Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for each Parcel C: Unaddressed property, as it is not within the city’s current area. property on north side of West Denneys Road Sanitary Sewer is available; however, it is approximately 600 feet away from the eastern property line of Parcel C, on Hobbyhorse Court. The developer would be responsible for extending the sanitary sewer main from Hobbyhorse Court to the property. This property is situated on the north side of the road. Installation of utilities will require DelDOT approval. The property owner is responsible for any and all costs associated with extending and providing service to the proposed development including tapping the water main, extending and tapping the sewer main, paying impact fees and obtaining permits. Utility Services Research continues on the availability and ability to serve Recommendation from Staff these properties with City of Dover utility services for AX-22-03: (Electric, Water and Sanitary Sewer). Page 39

Item #3. AX-22-03 Lands of Craig, Keller, and Burkett: Annexation of Three Parcels on West Denneys Road Planning Commission Recommendation Report from December 19, 2022 Page 3 of 13 Planning Commission The property owners and an equitable owner have Recommendation: expressed interest in annexing the series of three parcels (Parcels A, B, and C) located at 57 Rocky Road, 4085 W. Denneys Road, and a parcel on the north side of W. Denneys Road into the City for future redevelopment. The Application was represented by Ms. Pamela Scott of Saul Ewing LLP on behalf of Jack Lingo Asset Management, LLC (equitable owner). A Public Hearing was held by the Planning Commission on December 19, 2022 where one member of the public spoke, and a property owner was listening online. An email of written comments was received (during meeting). The Planning Commission’s motion was to recommend approval for Annexation & Rezoning application AX-22-03 Lands of Craig, Keller, and Burkett: Annexation of Three Parcels on West Denneys Road with the proposed RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) and resulted in vote of 9-0 in favor and no votes in opposition. AX-22-03 Annexation of Lands of Craig, Keller, and Burkett: Annexation of Three Parcels on West Denneys Road This Annexation and Rezoning Application was referred to the Planning Commission as per Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §5. The Planning Commission is required to provide a Review Report to City Council. I. APPLICATION SUMMARY This application is for the Annexation and Rezoning of three parcels of land totaling 40.1157 +/- acres located on the north side of West Denneys Road. The parcels are described as follows: Parcel A: The parcel consists of 27.5834 +/- acres located on the north side of West Denneys Road and west of Carlisle Drive. The owners are George L. Craig Jr. and Deborah J. Craig. Property Address: 57 Rocky Road. Tax Parcel: ED-00-056.00-01- 40.00-000. The property is currently zoned AR (Agricultural Residential District) in Kent County. The proposed Zoning is RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and partially subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). Page 40

Item #3. AX-22-03 Lands of Craig, Keller, and Burkett: Annexation of Three Parcels on West Denneys Road Planning Commission Recommendation Report from December 19, 2022 Page 4 of 13 Parcel B: The parcel consists of 10.5661 +/- acres located on the north side of West Denneys Road and west of Carlisle Drive. The owners are Robert G. Keller and Gloria K. Keller. Property Address: 4085 W. Denneys Road. Tax Parcel: ED-00-056.00-01-41.00- 000. The property is currently zoned RM (Multifamily Residential District) in Kent County. The proposed Zoning is RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and partially subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). Parcel C: The parcel consists of 1.9662 +/- acres located on the north side of West Denneys Road and west of Carlisle Drive. The owner is Bruce A. Burkett. Property Address: unaddressed parcel on W. Denneys Road. Tax Parcel: ED-00-056.00-01-42.00- 000. The property is currently zoned AR (Agricultural Residential District). The proposed Zoning is RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone). The annexation category for the three parcels according to Dover’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan is Category 2: Priority Annexation Areas and the land use designation is Residential Medium Density. Proposed Council District 1. Ordinance #2022-25. Existing Property The properties are located on the north side of West Denneys Road to the west of the residential subdivision known as Carlisle Village (Carlisle Village is not within the City). The subject properties are in an area just outside of the incorporated area as the City boundary runs along West Denneys Road. Adjacent areas to the south of West Denneys Road are within the City of Dover. The Parcel A property includes of series of three (3) dwellings off a private drive named Rocky Road and also an existing pole barn under the AR (Agricultural Residential District) in Kent County. The north portion of this lot contains a large woodland area. The Parcel B property includes an existing single-family detached dwelling directly adjacent to West Denneys Road and continues to be predominately wooded for the balance of the parcel; it is currently zoned RM (Multifamily Residential Zone) in Kent County. The Parcel C is a wooded lot with no buildings; it is zoned AR (Agricultural Residential District). These properties are not currently served by City Electric or by City Water & Wastewater services (See information on page 2). The equitable owner is considering redevelopment of the properties for residential use. Surrounding Land Uses To the east, the subject area is adjacent to the residential subdivision of Carlisle Village, an existing neighborhood of single-family detached dwellings zoned RS1 (in Kent County). To the south across West Denneys Road is the State owned parkland known as the Anne McClements Woodland as part of the Fork Branch Nature Preserve; it is zoned ROS (Recreational and Open Space Zone). Portions of this park area at the southeast corner of the intersection of Kenton Road and West Denneys Road were previously proposed for development as the Maidstone Subdivision prior to its donation/sale to the State to expand the park. The area consists of open fields and wooded areas. To the west of the subject area are other properties zoned AR (Agricultural Residential District) under the jurisdiction of Kent County including a church, other single family dwellings, and woodland areas. To the north, is a stream that is part of the Fork Branch waterway system and another wooded tract. Page 41

Item #3. AX-22-03 Lands of Craig, Keller, and Burkett: Annexation of Three Parcels on West Denneys Road Planning Commission Recommendation Report from December 19, 2022 Page 5 of 13 II. COMPRENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE REVIEW In the 2019 Comprehensive Plan, the Potential Annexation Areas (Map 13 -1) identifies the properties in the Category 2: High Priority Annexation Areas. The Growth and Annexation Plan Chapter (Chapter 13) describes the Category 2 Areas as being located on the periphery of the city that would close gaps or holes in the orderly limits of the city or that would be the logical extension of the city. Category 2 Areas (along with the Category 1 Area) are the City’s ten-year plan for annexation. The 2019 Comprehensive Plan also sets the review criteria for the review of zoning for parcels being proposed for annexation. Chapter 13, page 13-9 notes that the Zoning Review may include: • Proposed zoning be in compliance with the land use category shown on Map 13-2 and used in conjunction with Table 12-1: Land Use and Zoning Matrix; • Character and compatibility of the surrounding land uses and properties; • The street type and capacity serving the property; • Environmental concerns and conditions that may influence land use and zoning; • Market concerns and conditions; • The compatibility with the overall goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Map 13-2: Potential Land Use for Annexation Areas identifies the Land Use Classification for this property to be Residential Medium Density. The goals and recommendations for the Residential Medium Density Land Use are listed in the 2019 Comprehensive Plan excerpts presented below: Goals: Residential Land Uses To develop and maintain an adequate supply of housing of varying type, size, and densities that are aesthetically pleasing and located within neighborhoods designed or redesigned to promote convenience, conservation, and access to the greater community, but which are properly buffered through distance and landscaping from incompatible land uses. Policies: Residential Land Uses • Allow flexibility in housing styles and types while regulating gross density within residential developments. • Require linkage streets and sidewalks between adjoining residential subdivisions and street right-of way stubs to adjoining vacant developable land. • Encourage the separation of residential areas from incompatible uses through buffering distances and the use of transitional zoning categories. • Encourage high density residential development in infill areas that are near essential services, public transit, and employment opportunities. • Permit limited compatible neighborhood commercial uses that support surrounding residences within residential areas. Page 42

Item #3. AX-22-03 Lands of Craig, Keller, and Burkett: Annexation of Three Parcels on West Denneys Road Planning Commission Recommendation Report from December 19, 2022 Page 6 of 13 The following is an excerpt from the 2019 Comprehensive Plan regarding Residential Medium Density Land Uses (page 12-4): Recommendation for Residential Medium Density Residential Medium Density land uses involve a maximum gross density of eight (8) dwelling units per acre. This type of development may include single family houses on smaller lots, duplexes, townhouses, and some apartments. Some Manufactured Home Park developments would also be considered Residential Medium Density. Medium density residential uses are permitted in the following zoning districts: R-8 (One Family Residence Zone), R-7 (One Family Residence Zone), RM-1 (Medium Density Residence Zone), RM- 2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) planned to reflect the historic patterns and mix of land uses common to Dover’s early development, RG-1 (General Residence Zone), RG-2 (General Residence Zone), RG-3 (Group Housing Zone), RGO (General Residence and Office Zone), and MH (Manufactured Housing Zone). The Land Development Plan recommends that Residential Medium Density uses be permitted near existing and planned service and employment centers and in locations well supported by transportation infrastructure and mass transit services. Areas identified as Medium Density Residential can be looked at as potential receiving areas under a transfer of development rights program. Areas in the northern portion of the City are appropriate for Residential Medium Density development. As part of the Land Development Plan, Table 12-1: Land Use and Zoning Matrix specifies that the following zones are compatible with this land use classification of Residential Medium Density (as amended 6.14.2021). Land Use Category Zoning District R-10 (One Family Residence) R-8 (One Family Residence) R-7 (One Family Residence) RM-1 (Medium Density Residence) RM-2 (Medium Density Residence) Residential Medium Density RG-1 (General Residence) RG-2 (General Residence) RG-3 (Group Housing) RGO (General Residence and Office) MH (Manufactured Housing) C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) III. ZONING REVIEW Request for RM-2 (Medium Density Residential Zone) The applicant has requested the zoning of RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone). The types of permitted uses in the RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) are given in Article 3 §7 of the Zoning Ordinance and referenced sections including Article 3 §1. One-Family Residence Zones. See the following Code excerpt: Page 43

Item #3. AX-22-03 Lands of Craig, Keller, and Burkett: Annexation of Three Parcels on West Denneys Road Planning Commission Recommendation Report from December 19, 2022 Page 7 of 13 Article 3 Section 7. - [Medium density residence] RM-2 zone. 7.1 Uses permitted. In an RM-2 zone, no building or premises shall be used, and no building or part of a building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any purposes, except the following: (a) Any use permitted in one-family residence zones; (b) One-family lot-line dwellings, not to exceed one such dwelling per lot; (c) Duplex dwellings; (d) Multiplex dwellings; (e) Townhouses; (f) Roominghouses accommodating not more than five roomers. (g) Garden apartments. 7.2 Performance standards. All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in article 5, section 8.1. 7.3 Site development plan approval. Site development plan approval in accordance with article 10, section 2 hereof shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for the erection or enlargement of all structures and related accessory structures. The approval shall be required prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for a change of use. 7.4 Maximum density. The gross residential density in an RM-2 zone shall not exceed eight dwelling units per acre. 7.5 [Signs.] Signs shall meet the regulations found in article 5, section 4, supplementary sign regulations. (Ord. of 2-12-2001) The subject area (part of Parcel A and Parcel B) will also be partially subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). In this case, the SWPOZ: Tier 3 – Excellent Recharge Area crosses through the northern portion of the subject area; see Zoning Exhibit Map. Information regarding the Excellent Recharge Areas of the SWPOZ can be found in Article 3 §29.79 of the Zoning Ordinance. See the following Code excerpt: Article 3 Section 29. – Source Water Protection Overlay Zone (SWPOZ). 29.1 Purpose. The purpose of this source water protection overlay zone is to provide a safe drinking water supply and to ensure that groundwater is adequately protected and maintained. The overlay zone's purpose is to protect public health and safety by minimizing contamination of the aquifer and to ensure that the aquifer is property maintained and supplied with clean water through the reduction of impervious surfaces. 29.2 Definitions. Aboveground storage tank (AST). An AST is a single containment vessel greater than 250 gallons as defined in the Delaware Regulations Governing Aboveground Storag e Tanks. ASTs with a storage capacity greater than 12,499 gallons containing petroleum or hazardous substances, and ASTs with a storage capacity greater than 39,999 gallons containing diesel, heating fuel or kerosene are subject to the design, construction , operation and maintenance requirements of the Delaware AST regulations. Hazardous material. A material which is defined in one or more of the following categories: Page 44

Item #3. AX-22-03 Lands of Craig, Keller, and Burkett: Annexation of Three Parcels on West Denneys Road Planning Commission Recommendation Report from December 19, 2022 Page 8 of 13 Ignitable: A gas, liquid or solid which may cause fires through friction, absorption of moisture, or which has low flash points. Examples: white phosphorous and gasoline. Carcinogenic: A gas, liquid, or solid which is normally considered to be cancer causing or mutagenic. Examples: PCBs in some waste oils. Explosive: A reactive gas, liquid or solid which will vigorously and energetically react uncontrollably if exposed to heat, shock, pressure or combinations thereof. Examples: dynamite, organic peroxides and ammonium nitrate. Highly toxic: A gas, liquid, or solid so dangerous to man as to affor d an unusual hazard to life. Example: chlorine gas. Moderately toxic: A gas, liquid or solid which through repeated exposure or in a single large dose can be hazardous to man. Corrosive: Any material, whether acid or alkaline, which will cause severe damag e to human tissue, or in case of leakage might damage or destroy other containers of hazardous materials and cause the release of their contents. Examples: battery acid and phosphoric acid. Underground storage tank (UST). A UST is one or a combination of tanks including underground pipes, the volume of which is ten percent or more belowground, as defined in the Delaware Regulations Governing Underground Storage Tank Systems. The following USTs are not subject to the design, construction, operation and maintenance requirements of the Delaware UST regulations: Residential heating fuel, agricultural and residential motor fuel USTs less than 1,100 gallons and any UST less than 110 gallons. 29.3 Use and bulk requirements. The uses and bulk standards which govern the underlying zoning designations attached to the properties within the source water protection overlay zone shall apply in all instances except where uses are specifically prohibited by this section and except pertaining to impervious surface, ground cover, and floor area ratio. Where issues of impervious surface, ground cover, and floor area ratio are concerned, the provisions of the source water protection overlay zone are the governing provisions, overriding the existing zoning for the property. 29.4 Zone boundaries. This section of the zoning ordinance encompasses the lands demarcated on the City of Dover Zoning Map as set forth in article 2 section 2 of this Ordinance, as the source water protection overlay zone. 29.5 Uses prohibited. The following uses are specifically prohibited throughout the source water protection overlay zone: 29.5 Uses prohibited: a) Automobile body/repair shop, motor vehicle, boat or farm equipment service; b) Gas stations and motor vehicle service stations; c) Fleet/trucking/bus terminal; d) Dry cleaner; e) Electrical/electronic manufacturing facility f) Machine shop; g) Metal plating/finishing/fabricating facility; h) Chemical processing/storage facility; i) Wood preserving/treating facility; j) Junk yard/scrap yard/salvage yard; k) Mines/gravel pit; Page 45

Item #3. AX-22-03 Lands of Craig, Keller, and Burkett: Annexation of Three Parcels on West Denneys Road Planning Commission Recommendation Report from December 19, 2022 Page 9 of 13 l) Land divisions resulting in high density (> one unit/acre) septic systems; m) Equipment maintenance/fueling areas; n) Injection wells/dry wells/sumps, except for single-family residences directing gutter downspouts to a drywell; o) Underground storage tanks; p) All uses not permitted in the underlying zone district. 29.6 Geothermal wells. Geothermal wells are permitted uses within the source water protection overlay zone in accordance with other city and state regulations. 29.7 Tier 3: excellent recharge areas. Lands defined as tier 3 lands are areas which have been identified as 'excellent recharge areas'. Recharge areas are defined as land with high percentages of sand and gravel that have "excellent" potential for recharge as determined through a stack unit mapping analysis performed originally by the Delaware Geological Survey. 29.71 Applicability. The impervious cover restrictions of this section shall apply only to any activity requiring approval of the planning commission. 29.72 Impervious surfaces. Impervious surfaces within tier 3 lands of the source water protection overlay zone are limited to a maximum of 30 percent. Limits upon impervious surface apply to portions of a site which is within tier 3 lands. New development may exceed the 30 percent impervious cover threshold up to 60 percent impervious cover provided the differential volume of stormwater generated from 30 percent to 60 percent impervious cover, based on the two-year storm, is infiltrated within an excellent recharge area. The use of infiltration shall be based upon the technical merits of the application as well as the ability to quantify the volume of recharge. All infiltration facilities shall be designed in accordance with the Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Regulations. 29.73 Redevelopment. Site modification which requires site development plan approval must create a 15-percent reduction in the amount of impervious surface on the site when compared to pre-redevelopment conditions. (a) If the 15-percent reduction would require a site to go below the 30-percent maximum impervious surface provision of section 29.72, then the maximum impervious surface cover for the site is 30 percent. (b) If stormwater is infiltrated within the excellent recharge area as per section 29.72 then only an amount of reduction in impervious surface which is necessary to meet the 60-percent maximum will be required. 29.74 Storage tanks. Underground storage tanks are prohibited within tier 3 lands. Aboveground storage tanks which use, store, transfer, or dispose of any solid or liquid material or waste having potentially harmful impact on groundwater quality are prohibited within tier 3 lands. 29.75 Site design. All reasonable efforts must be undertaken to position permanent structures on the portions of the property which are not subject to the tier 3: excellent recharge area. The particular desires of personal or corporate entities shall not constitute reasonable efforts. 29.76 Alternative design standards. It is the intent of this ordinance to protect, conserve, and improve the available supply of potable water while still maintaining property rights. As such, where the restrictions of this ordinance prevent development that would otherwise be reasonable and proper according to the base zoning, the applicant may request alternative design standards as part of their application and development plan. Page 46

Item #3. AX-22-03 Lands of Craig, Keller, and Burkett: Annexation of Three Parcels on West Denneys Road Planning Commission Recommendation Report from December 19, 2022 Page 10 of 13 The planning commission may modify specific bulk standards when in the opinion of the commission, it has been demonstrated that the use of alternative design standards is desirable and consistent with the protection of water resources. Alternative bulk standards include but are not limited to changes in building height/stories, floor area ratio, or building setbacks. 29.77 Master plans. Site development which occurs as part of a site development master plan as specified in the zoning ordinance, article 10 section 2.58 may consider the area of the entire tier 3 portion of the master plan area when developing individual phases. This will allow for higher than prescribed amounts of impervious cover on specific portions of the master plan so long as the overall impervious surface for the entire tier 3 lands in the plan remains in compliance with this section. On a site development master plan, when the city engineer certifies that the project utilizes superior infiltration design that maximizes groundwater recharge, impervious cover may be increased to 75 percent. 29.78 Improvements to existing residential lots. Improvements to existing residential lots, including additions to existing one-family dwellings, the placement of sheds, and fences are exempt from section 29.7 and may be permitted when all other applicable zoning district bulk requirements are met. 29.79 Downtown target area. The downtown redevelopment target area as defined in appendix C, article II, section 3 [Target Area] of the City of Dover Code of Ordinances shall be exempt from the requirements and restrictions of the source water protection overlay zone. 29.710 Special environmental considerations. On sites where infiltration would be contrary to a cleanup agreement or other conditions imposed by the department of natural resources and environmental control or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the impervious surface limitations of this section shall not apply to the affected areas. Such sites shall be certified by the City Engineer through the development application process. 29.711 Procedure for Contesting the delineation of the source water protection overlay zone. Data used to define these zones was generated in a report from the Delaware Geological Survey entitled, "Report of Investigations No. 66, Ground-Water Recharge Potential Mapping in Kent and Sussex Counties, Delaware". Any challenges to the delineation of the source water protection overlay zone must follow the methods provided in the above sited report to contest the delineation. IV. RECOMMENDATION OF PLANNING STAFF: The request for the RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) is for a zone that consists of a variety of residential housing types while limiting the density of the development to a maximum of eight (8) dwelling units per acre. The permitted uses in the RM-2 Zone include one-family residences (detached dwellings, duplex units, and townhouses), apartments and multi-family dwellings (more than 2 dwelling units in same building). The provisions of the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) aid in the protection of groundwater resources by limiting certain uses due to their potential for contamination and by limiting impervious surfaces to allow for recharge. Staff recommends the annexation of the three parcels (Parcel A: 57 Rocky Road, Parcel B: 4085 West Denneys Road, and Parcel C: unaddressed parcel on West Denneys Road) and approval of their rezoning to RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and with the implementation of the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Zone: Tier 3 - Excellent Page 47

Item #3. AX-22-03 Lands of Craig, Keller, and Burkett: Annexation of Three Parcels on West Denneys Road Planning Commission Recommendation Report from December 19, 2022 Page 11 of 13 Recharge Area). The subject area is in the City’s Annexation Plan of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan as Category 2: Priority Annexation Areas with a Land Use Classification as Residential Medium Density. This is a Priority Annexation Area and is a logical expansion area of the City of Dover boundary. The RM-2 zoning allows for a variety of housing types and it is consistent with the Land Use Classification of Residential Medium Density. For the redevelopment of the subject area, the applicant will need to take steps in order to coordinate the opportunity to receive City of Dover utility services. This Annexation/Rezoning Request does not grant approval of a specific use for the property but makes its land use subject to a listing of uses permitted and potential conditional uses as allowed in the RM-2 zoning district and any limitations of the SWPOZ. Staff notes that any potential redevelopment for the site or changes of use for the existing buildings would have to be in line with the zoning classifications and would similarly have to follow all development design guidelines of the Zoning Ordinance. Were the Application for Annexation/Rezoning to be recommended by the Planning Commission and subsequently approved by the City Council, the applicant would still have to submit Site Development Plans and/or Permits for review for any new use of the site or the buildings. The parcels generally meet the bulk standards dimensionally for lots zoned RM-2. Some of the existing dwellings and accessory structures may not comply with the required setbacks; however, they would be considered legal non-conforming as to their setbacks from property lines due to their existing placement. In addition, Parcel A appears to have a series of three dwelling unit buildings on the same parcel. Any non-conformity of the existing buildings’ uses and placement regarding the bulk standards of the RM-2 would be subject to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 7 – Nonconforming Buildings and Uses. Any development of the properties once zoned RM-2 would be subject to the bulk standards and provisions and the review processes for site development. This recommendation is being made without the benefit of hearing the comments of surrounding landowners and residents. A Public Hearing is required on this matter and the Planning Commission should give those comments consideration. V. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW FOR RECOMMENDATION As part of the Annexation Request, the City of Dover zoning district is to be determined; therefore, it is a request for a type of zoning map amendment which changes the zoning district of a property. The Planning Commission as part of their public hearing and review process will provide a recommendation on the zoning to City Council. As part of the process outlined in Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 5, the Planning Commission must evaluate the following factors when considering the request: Article 10 § 5.36 Report of the planning commission. Regarding each application for a zoning map amendment, the planning commission shall provide a report to the city council stating a recommended action with regards to the proposed amendment, along with the commission's evaluation of the following factors: (A) Whether the uses permitted by the proposed change would be compatible with the existing uses and zones in the area concerned; Page 48

Item #3. AX-22-03 Lands of Craig, Keller, and Burkett: Annexation of Three Parcels on West Denneys Road Planning Commission Recommendation Report from December 19, 2022 Page 12 of 13 (B) Whether adequate public services and infrastructure exist or can be created or expanded to serve the needs of any additional demand as a result of such change; and (C) Whether the proposed change is in accordance with the city's current comprehensive plan. A Recommendation Report from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to City Council for their consideration of the Annexation/Rezoning Application. RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: At the Hybrid (In-Person and Virtual) Planning Commission Meeting of December 19, 2022, the Application AX-22-03 was represented by Ms. Pamela Scott of Saul Ewing LLP for equitable property owner Jack Lingo Asset Management, LLC. During the Public Hearing, one member of the public spoke, and a property owner was also present online. An email of written comments was received during the Planning Commissioners vote on the application; the email was read into the record. The Planning Commission’s motion was to recommend approval for Annexation & Rezoning application AX-22-03 Lands of Craig, Keller, and Burkett: Three Parcels on West Denneys Road with the proposed zoning of RM-2 (Medium Density Residential Zone) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) and resulted in vote of 9-0 in favor and no votes in opposition. The reasons cited for the approval include that the proposed annexation is consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan as a priority for annexation and the zoning is consistent with the land use designation of Medium Density Residential and is compatible with the surrounding land use. See also the included excerpt of the DRAFT Meeting Minutes of the December 19, 2022 Planning Commission meeting. The comments received from the other member agencies of the Development Advisory Committee (D.A.C.) are also provided. Submission of Plan of Services As required by 22 Delaware Code §101, a Plan of Services is being prepared for submission to the Office of State Planning Coordination. A copy of the full Plan of Services submission with all attachments will be on file with the Planning Office. VI. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT 1) From the agency comments received, it appears that ability to provide City water and sanitary sewer is feasible due to the proximity to existing infrastructure in the general vicinity. However, the properties are either currently served by other non-City utility providers or within the service territory of non-City utility providers. Additional coordination will be required to makes changes to theses Utility providers. It would be the property owner’s responsibility to cover all costs associated with extending and connecting services to the existing dwellings or any improvements to services for any redevelopment activity. Page 49

Item #3. AX-22-03 Lands of Craig, Keller, and Burkett: Annexation of Three Parcels on West Denneys Road Planning Commission Recommendation Report from December 19, 2022 Page 13 of 13 2) Regarding any future connections to City services for water and sanitary sewer, the applicant must contact the City’s Department of Water & Wastewater for procedures, permitting and impact fees. 3) Upon annexation into the City of Dover, the property will be subject to the provisions of the Dover Code of Ordinances. This includes procedures such as review processes for plans and permits for redevelopment and/or construction activities, licensing, etc. Examples of required licenses or permits based on the current existing buildings on the Parcel would include Manufactured Home License and Rental Dwelling Permits. 4) The applicant shall be aware that approval of any Annexation & Rezoning application does not represent a Site Development Plan, Building Permit, or other construction activity permit approval. A separate plan review process and a separate permit application submission showing all improvements is required before issuance of plan approvals and permits by the City of Dover. Attachments: • Zoning Map Exhibits AX-22-03 of Location and Proposed Zoning • Application AX-22-03 Submission: o Plan Set of properties: 57 Rocky Road, 4085 W. Denneys Road, and unaddressed parcel on W. Denneys Road • Development Advisory Committee (D.A.C.) Comments: Department of Public Works, Department of Water & Wastewater, Office of the Fire Marshal, DelDOT, and Kent Conservation District • Public Comments: Email from Brandon Fansler dated December 19, 2022 • Excerpt of Draft Minutes from December 19, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Page 50

City of Dover Application No.: AX-22-03 Item #3. Department of Planning & Inspections RM-1 d sR ey nn De W R-15 aple R-8 M A B C Gl en or yh Dr bb Ho se Site Ct R-8 Legend ROS Subject Property Dover Boundary Zoning Dover Parcels Kent County Parcels SWPOZ Tier 3 Tile: Lands of Craig, Keller, and Burkett: Annexation of Three Parcels on W. Denneys Road Ordinance #: 2022-25 Parcels: A) 57 Rocky Road, ED-00-056.00-01-40.00-000, George L. Craig Jr. and Deborah J. Craig B) 4085 W. Denneys Road, ED-00-056.00-01- 41.00-000, Robert G. Keller and Gloria K. Keller C) unaddressed parcel on W Denneys Road, ED-00-056.00-01-42.00-000, Bruce A. Burkett Existing Zoning: A) AR (Agricultural Residential District) B) RM (Multifamily Residential District) C) AR (Agricultural Residential District) « Proposed Zoning: RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) Date: 11/8/2022 0 410 820 1,640 Feet Page 51

City of Dover Application No.: AX-22-03 Item #3. Department of Planning & Inspections RM-1 C R-8 B or yh A bb Ho se Ct De nn ey s Rd W Legend ROS SWPOZ: Tier 3 Subject Property Dover Boundary Zoning Dover Parcels Tile: Lands of Craig, Keller, and Burkett: Annexation of Three Parcels on West Denneys Road Ordinance #: 2022-25 Parcels: A) 57 Rocky Road, ED-00-056.00-01-40.00-000, George L. Craig Jr. and Deborah J. Craig B) 4085 W. Denneys Road, ED-00-056.00-01-41.00-000, Robert G. Keller and Gloria K. Keller C) unaddressed, ED-00-056.00-01-42.00-000, Bruce A. Burkett « Existing Zoning: A) AR (Agricultural Residential District) B) RM (Multifamily Residential District) C) AR (Agricultural Residential District) Proposed Zoning: RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) & SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) Date: 11/9/2022 0 350 700 1,400Page Feet 52

Item #3. FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP NW NW NW FP FP FP NW FP NW NW FP NW FP FP FP NW NW FP FP FP NW FP NW FP FP FP NW NW P NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW 10/20/22 NW NW FP FP Page 53

Item #3. FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP NW NW NW FP FP FP NW FP NW NW FP NW FP FP FP NW NW FP FP FP NW FP NW FP FP FP NW NW P NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW 10/20/22 NW NW FP FP Page 54

Item #3. NW NW NW NW NW NW 10/20/22 NW NW FP FP Page 55

Item #3. 10/20/22 NW NW FP FP Page 56

CITY OF DOVER Item #3. DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 30, 2022 APPLICATION: Lands of Craig, Keller and Burkett: Annexation of Three Parcels on West Denneys Road FILE #: AX-22-03 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Department of Public Works and Water & Wastewater CONTACT PERSON: Jason A. Lyon, P.E., Director of Water & Wastewater / Engineering Services CONTACT PHONE #: 302-736-7025 CONTACT PHONE #: jlyon@dover.de.us T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ’ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS SANITATION / STREETS / STORMWATER / WATER / WASTEWATER / GENERAL 1. Our office has no objections to the proposed annexation of tax parcels ED-00-056.00-01-40.00-000, ED-00-056.00-01-41.00-000 & ED-00-056.00-01-42.00-000. Any redevelopment shall adhere to the City of Dover Water/Wastewater Handbook and the Specificationss, Standards & Procedures for Public Works Construction. Impact fees will be applied to this property. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES SANITATION / STREETS / STORMWATER / WATER / WASTEWATER / GENERAL 1. None ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT SANITATION / STREETS / STORMWATER / GENERAL 1. None WATER / WASTEWATER 1. As per the Petition to Annex and Rezone Property, as heard by the Council Committee of the Whole, please find the following: a. These properties are not currently served by the City of Dover Water or Sanitary Sewer. Water service is available on the opposite (southern) side of W. Denneys Road. It shall be the developer’s responsibility to obtain a change in the current Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for each property, as it is not within the city’s current area. Sanitary Sewer is available; however, it is approximately 600 feet away from the eastern property line of Parcel C, on Hobbyhorse Court. The developer would be responsible for extending the sanitary sewer main from Hobbyhorse Court to the property. This property is situated on the north side of the road. Installation of utilities will require DelDOT approval. The property owner is responsible for any and all costs associated with extending and providing service to the proposed development including tapping the water main, extending and tapping the sewer main, paying impact fees and obtaining permits. I F Y OU H AVE A NY Q UESTIONS OR N EED TO D ISCUSS ANY OF THE A BOVE C OMMENTS , P LEASE C ALL THE A BOVE C ONTACT P ERSON AND THE P LANNING D EPARTMENT AS S OON AS P OSSIBLE . Page 57

C F #3. AX-22-03 Item I I T R CITY OF DOVER Y E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE O M F A APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY R D.A.C. MEETING DATE: December 7, 2022 D S O H V A E L R APPLICATION: Lands of Craig, Keller, and Burkett: Annexation of 3 parcels on West Dennys Rd FILE #: AX -22-03 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Matthew Brown, Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY, AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT: 1. This office has no objection or comment for this project APPLICABLE CODES LISTED BELOW (NOT LIMITED TO): 2021 NFPA 1 Fire Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2021 NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2019 NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2019 NFPA 13 Installation of Sprinkler Systems (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2009 IBC (International Building Code) Latest editions of all other NFPA Codes as defined by the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations City of Dover Code of Ordinances *If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person listed. Page 58

Item #3. CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Lands of Craig, Keller, and Burkett FILE#: AX-22-03 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Ryan Schroder PHONE#: 302-760-2674 =============================================================== THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY & STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: No person, firm, corporation or the like shall construct, open, reconstruct, maintain, modify or use any crossing or entrance onto a state-maintained highway, street or road, including any drainage modifications leading into or carried by the highway drainage system, without first having complied with standards and regulations adopted by the Department and having obtained a permit issued by the Department. Please contact the Delaware Department of Transportation - Development Coordination section to begin permit process. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1. DelDOT has no objection to annexation and rezoning. Page 59

KENT CONSERVATION DISTRICT Item #3. 1679 SOUTH DUPONT HIGHWAY • DOVER, DELAWARE 19901• (302) 608-5370 • WWW.KENTCD.ORG CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY DECEMBER 2022 APPLICATION: Lands of Craig, Keller, and Burkett: Annexation of three parcels on W. Denneys FILE #: AX-22-03 REVIEWING AGENCY: Kent Conservation District CONTACT: Kate Owens PHONE: 302-608-5370 EMAIL: stormwater@kentcd.org THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: Source: 2019 Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Regulations CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: Kent Conservation District has no objection to the annexation for the above referenced parcels. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: In the future, if there is any proposed disturbance that will exceed 5,000 square feet, a sediment and stormwater management plan must be reviewed and approved by our office prior to any land disturbing activity (i.e. clearing, grubbing, filling, grading, etc.). Page 60

Item #3. From: Brandon Fansler To: CompPlan Subject: EXTERNAL: Application AX-22-03 Date: Monday, December 19, 2022 7:46:58 PM WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My name is Brandon Fansler and I am the property owner of 3074 Kenton road. My property is attached to Parcel A. I do not have concern or comment on the annexation of the property but do oppose the rezoning. Rezoning these properties to RM 2 would significantly change the character of the community. Thank you. Brandon Fansler Sent from my iPhone Page 61

Item #3. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2022 Excerpt from Meeting Minutes – Draft The Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, December 19, 2022 at 7:00 PM as an In-Person Meeting and also using the phone/videoconferencing system WebEx. The Meeting Session was conducted with Chair Mrs. Maucher presiding. Members present were Mr. Cooper, Mr. Roach (virtual), Mrs. Denney, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones, Mrs. Welsh (virtual), Mrs. Malone (virtual) and Mrs. Maucher. Staff members present were Mrs. Mary Ellen Gray, Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mr. Julian Swierczek, Mr. Jason Lyon (virtual) and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney (virtual). Also present for this application were Ms. Pamela Scott, Mr. Doug Motley, and Mr. Charlie Barnett. Speaking from the public on this application was Mr. Mark Slater. NEW APPLICATIONS AX-22-03 Lands of Craig, Keller, and Burkett: Annexation of Three Parcels on West Denneys Road – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council of an Annexation Request and Rezoning Request for recommendation to City Council for three parcels of land totaling 40.1157 +/- acres located on the north side of West Denneys Road. Parcel A: The parcel consists of 27.5834 +/- acres located on the north side of West Denneys Road and west of Carlisle Drive. The owners are George L. Craig Jr. and Deborah J. Craig. Property Address: 57 Rocky Road. Tax Parcel: ED-00-056.00-01- 40.00-000. The property is currently zoned AR (Agricultural Residential District) in Kent County. The proposed Zoning is RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and partially subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). Parcel B: The parcel consists of 10.5661 +/- acres located on the north side of West Denneys Road and west of Carlisle Drive. The owners are Robert G. Keller and Gloria K. Keller. Property Address: 4085 W. Denneys Road. Tax Parcel: ED-00-056.00-01-41.00- 000. The property is currently zoned RM (Multifamily Residential District) in Kent County. The proposed Zoning is RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and partially subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). Parcel C: The parcel consists of 1.9662 +/- acres located on the north side of West Denneys Road and west of Carlisle Drive. The owner is Bruce A. Burkett. Property Address: unaddressed parcel on W. Denneys Road. Tax Parcel: ED-00-056.00-01-42.00- 000. The property is currently zoned AR (Agricultural Residential District). The proposed Zoning is RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone). The annexation category for the three parcels according to Dover’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan is Category 2: Priority Annexation Areas and the land use designation is Residential Medium Density. Proposed Council District 1. Ordinance #2022-25. The First Reading of this Annexation Request was held on November 14, 2022. Public Hearing before the Planning Commission is scheduled for December 19, 2022 and City Council on January 9, 2023. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 19, 2022 Page 1 of 4 Page 62

Item #3. Representative: Ms. Pamela Scott, Saul Ewing LLP; Mr. Doug Motley, Jack Lingo Asset Management LLC; Mr. Charlie Barnett, Morris & Richie Associates Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this request is for a series of three parcels that are located on the north side of West Denneys Road. The area on the south side of West Denneys Road is already within the City of Dover. The three parcels this evening have various ownerships and ultimately total just over 40 acres of land. We have identified them as Parcel A which is the lands owned by George Craig Jr and Deborah Craig. Parcel B which is just over 10.5 acres and has an address of 4085 W. Denneys Road and is owned by Robert and Gloria Keller. Parcel C which is just under 2 acres of land and is owned by Bruce Burkett. In total, there are three parcels that we are considering this evening. The property is considered contiguous to the City of Dover as noted with the area on the south side of W. Denneys Road is currently within the City of Dover. The City’s Comprehensive Plan has identified this area as a Category 2: Priority Annexation Area meaning it is eligible for annexation into the City of Dover upon request of the property owners. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan outlines that this area should have a land use category of Residential Medium Density. Residential Medium Density carries with it a series of zoning classifications that would meet that land use category. The applicant is pursuing a zoning classification of RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) which is a medium density residential zone here in the City of Dover. The RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) allows for a variety of types of residential development including single family houses, duplexes, townhouses, and garden apartments. Tonight, you are just considering annexation and the appropriate City of Dover zoning classification for the property. Any future development of the site would be subject to an additional review process once it is part of the City of Dover. Additionally with this property, we find that there is a particular area which will be the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). The SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone), specifically the Tier 3: Excellent Recharge Area, does impact these properties and that would be applied to both parts of Parcel A and parts of Parcel B. The Planning Staff is recommending approval of the request for Annexation. They find that it is compliant with the Comprehensive Plan (the Annexation component of that plan), and it would be a logical expansion area of the City of Dover. Likewise, they do recommend approval of its Rezoning to the RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone), finding that it allows for a variety of housing types and is consistent with the land use classification of Residential Medium Density. Likewise, we also recommend the implementation of the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). The parcels in general would meet the general standards for RM-2 (Residential Medium Density Zone) just as they are. It is noted that there are some existing dwellings on the subject properties. The Planning Commission is charged with considering the Annexation request and has to consider the following factors when looking at the potential zoning of the property. One, to look at the uses that are permitted by the proposed change and whether they would be compatible with the existing uses and zones in the general area; whether adequate public services and infrastructure exists or can be created or extended to expand the needs of this area; and whether the proposed change is in accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The City Utility Committee did consider utility service needs for this area. There is the opportunity for City services; however, right now they are served by a different utility provider when it comes to electric, and they fall within the CPCN (Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity) of another water service provider. The Department of Water/Wastewater has also noted that sanitary sewer service is available in the general vicinity, and it would be the burden of the developer to make those improvements. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 19, 2022 Page 2 of 4 Page 63

Item #3. Ms. Scott stated that Mr. Jack Lingo is the equitable owner of these property and has them under contract at the moment. As indicated, its three parcels combined, are just over 40 acres in size. The properties, as Mrs. Melson-Williams indicated, are currently located in the Priority 2 Area in terms of annexation so the annexation of these properties would be consistent with what is proposed in the 2019 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Dover. In addition, in terms of the proposed zoning classification for the property, Medium Density Residential is what is proposed as part of the 2019 Comprehensive Development Plan. What they have proposed in terms of RM- 2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) is consistent with that Medium Density Residential classification. It is also consistent with the surrounding properties in the area that are already located within the City of Dover that fall into a Medium Residential Density classification. Mrs. Maucher opened the public hearing. Mr. Mark Slater – 22 Ardsley Circle Dover, DE 19904 Mr. Slater stated that he has a question about the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). Are there restrictions as far as development and if so, what are they? Responding to Mr. Slater, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) Tier 3 Area: Excellent Recharge Area. So, there are some limitations on the amount of impervious surface that can be located in those areas. Meaning how much of that land could be covered by things like building, pavement, and the like. Depending on where it’s located on the property, will be how much of that is in involved in any future development. The SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) also specifically prohibits a number of types of activity that she would say are probably already prohibited in our residential zones anyway. These tend to be uses that have the potential for some type of hazard that could affect a water supply that’s in the ground. Those are things like an automobile repair shop, a gas station, or other things related to chemical processing. If it was to be developed on septic systems, there are some limitations there. But it’s really the uses that are outright prohibited that would be ones that could potentially have some activity that would harm groundwater. There are limitations on the amount of pavement or impervious surface for a project. Those thresholds can be as low as 30% and up to 60% of that area that could be paved but there are certain things that they have to do to try to get the water back into the underground. Those are the limitations just really in general. Our Zoning Ordinance outlines them in more detail. Mrs. Debbie Craig (property owner) was listening online but had no comments. Mrs. Maucher closed the public hearing. Dr. Jones moved to recommend approval to City Council for AX-22-03 Lands of Craig, Keller, and Burkett: Annexation of Three Parcels on West Denneys Road based upon Staff recommendations and DAC comments as they are in the Comprehensive Plan and it is consistent with the land use designation of Medium Density Residential and to include the change in zoning to RM-2 (Medium Residential Density Zone) and to include the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone), seconded by Mrs. Denney and the motion was carried 9-0 by roll call vote. Dr. Jones voting yes; the application is consistent with the provisions in the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; as Dr. Jones stated, the change in zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Malone voting yes; for reasons stated. Mr. Cooper voting yes; for reasons stated. Mr. Roach voting yes; for reasons stated. Mrs. Denney voting yes; it is in keeping Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 19, 2022 Page 3 of 4 Page 64

Item #3. with the Comprehensive Plan and it is what she believes to be a great use for this parcel. Mr. Hartman voting yes; based upon the designation in the Comprehensive Plan that it is a high priority for annexation and is compatible with existing uses. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; based on Staff recommendation and it meets the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as well as compatible with existing surrounding land use. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she just received an email regarding some public comments regarding this application so she will read it into the record. Noting that the email came at 7:47 PM as Planning Commission was voting on the Annexation request. It is an email from Brandon Fansler. It states “My name is Brandon Fansler. I am a property owner of 3074 Kenton Road. This property is attached to Parcel A. I do not have a concern or comment on the Annexation of the property but do oppose the Rezoning. Rezoning these properties to RM-2 (Medium Density Residential Zone) would significantly change the character of the community. This will be included as part of the information that goes forward to City Council, but it just now came in as the Commission was completing their deliberation. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 19, 2022 Page 4 of 4 Page 65

Item #3. City of Dover MAYOR AND COUNCIL COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2022-08 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INCLUSION OF AN AREA WITHIN THE 2 LIMITS OF THE CITY OF DOVERz 3 4 WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Dover authorizes Council to extend the boundaries of the said 5 City in accordance with Title 22, Chapter 1, Section 101 of the Delaware Code (22 Del. C.§ 101); and 6 7 WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council deem it to be in the best interest of the City of Dover to include an 8 area contiguous to the present City limits, and hereinafter more particularly described, within the limits 9 of the City of Dover; and 10 11 WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Dover provides that if an annexation is petitioned by 12 all owners of all property considered for annexation; no election shall be required. For an 13 annexation petition not requiring an election, such petition shall be processed in accordance 14 with procedures established for amendments to the zoning map, specified in Dover Code, 15 Appendix B - Zoning. All annexation petitions shall be processed concurrently with the 16 rezoning of the property considered for annexation and shall be subject to public hearing before 17 City Council. Public notice shall be completed in accordance with the provisions of the Dover 18 Code relating to amendment of the zoning map. 19 20 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE 21 CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 22 23 1. That the following described area, situated in East Dover Hundred, Kent County, State 24 of Delaware, along with all adjacent paths, sidewalks, roadways, and rights-of-way in their entirety 25 shall be annexed to and included within the limits of the City of Dover: 26 27 Parcel A (Tax Map Parcel No.: ED-00-056.00-01-40.00-000) 28 29 BEGINNING at a point on the northly side of West Denneys Road - KCR #100 30 (25’ from centerline) said being the southwesterly boundary corner for lands now 31 or formerly of Robert G. & Gloria K. Keller, where it joins the northeasterly 32 boundary corner for lands herein described. Said point being located by the 33 following (5) courses & distances from a 25’ radius junction curve joining the 34 southwesterly side of Carlisle Drive (60’ Wide) with the northwesterly side of West 35 Denneys Road. 1. With an arc curving to the left A=116.40’ R=997.23’ CB=S 36 52⁰37’37” W CD=116.34’ to a point another point of curvature. 2. With an arc 37 curving to the left A=258.98’ R=617.98’ CB=S 34⁰51’41” W CD=257.09’ to a 38 point. 3. S 22⁰52’19” W, 60.48’ to a point. 4. S 17⁰59’54” W, 96.64’ to a point of 39 curvature. 5. With an arc curving to the right A=183.15’ R=495.86’ CB=S 40 28⁰34’42” W CD=182.11’ to a point of beginning. 41 P.O. Box 475 ❖ Dover, Delaware ❖19903 Page 66 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

Council Resolution No. 2022-08 Page 2 Item #3. 42 THENCE from the point of beginning, along the westerly side of West Denneys 43 Road – KCR#100 the following (2) courses & distances. 1. With an arc curving to 44 the right A=63.55’ R=495.86’ CB=S 42⁰49’54” W CD=63.51’ to a point. 2. S 45 48⁰00’36” W, 37.09’ to a point, a corner for lands now or formerly of the Church 46 of God, Trustees. Thence by the same, with Church of God, Trustees the following 47 (2) courses & distances: 3. N 50⁰27’45” W, 535.91’ to a point. 4. S 51⁰22’57” W, 48 188.44’ to a point in the line of lands now or formerly of David & Veronica Gonce. 49 50 THENCE by the same, with David & Veronica Gonce the following (4) courses & 51 distances: 1. N 38⁰01’21” W, 904.08’ to a point. 2. S 44⁰25’05” W, 169.00’ to a 52 point. 3. S 13⁰46’11” E, 292.99’ to a point. 4. S 23⁰33’43” W, 145.23’ to a point. 53 54 THENCE by the same and with lands now or formerly of William M. & Joan R. 55 Warrington and Gerald P. & Lura J. Johnson, S 35⁰40’37” W, 561.02’ to a point, a 56 corner for lands now or formerly of Michael A. & Karen L. Belton. Thence by the 57 same and with lands now or formerly of Alvin D. & Evelyn L. Rohm, Chase A. 58 Bechtol, Albert E. Muchille, and Brandon & Sabrina Fansler, N 20⁰16’02” W, 1373.79’ 59 to a point, a corner for lands now or formerly of Brandon B. Pollitt. 60 61 THENCE by the same, N 71⁰49’49” E, 799.65’ to a point, a corner for lands now or 62 formerly of DEL-HOMES, Inc. 63 64 THENCE by the same, and with lots 351 thru 355 of Carlisle Village section 3, S 65 61⁰01’56” E, 608.69’ to a point, a corner for lands now or formerly of Robert G. & 66 Gloria K. Keller. 67 68 THENCE by the same with Robert G. & Gloria K. Keller the following (3) courses & 69 distances. 1. S 27⁰58’15” W, 309.00’ to a point. 2. S 48⁰43’51” E, 1096.00’ to a point. 70 3. S 47⁰08’55” E, 172.65’ to the first mentioned point or place of beginning. Containing 71 within said metes and bounds 27.5834 +/- acres. 72 73 Parcel B (Tax Map Parcel No.: ED-00-056.00-01-41.00-000) 74 75 BEGINNING at a point on the northly side of West Denneys Road - KCR #100 76 (25’ from centerline) said being the southwesterly boundary corner for lands now 77 or formerly of Bruce A. Burkett, where it joins the northeasterly boundary corner 78 for lands herein described. Said point being located by the following (2) courses & 79 distances from a 25’ radius junction curve joining the southwesterly side of Carlisle 80 Drive (60’ Wide) with the northwesterly side of West Denneys Road. 1. With an 81 arc curving to the left A=116.40’ R=997.23’ CB=S 52⁰37’37” W CD=116.34’ to a 82 point another point of curvature. 2. With an arc curving to the left A=210.53’ 83 R=617.98’ CB=S 37⁰06’28” W CD=209.51’ to a point of beginning. 84 85 THENCE from the point of beginning, along the westerly side of West Denneys 86 Road – KCR#100 the following (4) courses & distances. 1. With an arc curving to 87 the left A=48.45’ R=617.98’ CB=S 25⁰06’07” W CD=48.44’ to a point. 2. S 88 22⁰52’19” W, 60.48’ to a point. 3. S 17⁰59’54” W, 96.64’ to a point of curvature. P.O. Box 475 ❖ Dover, Delaware ❖19903 Page 67 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

Council Resolution No. 2022-08 Page 3 Item #3. 89 4. With an arc curving to the right A=183.15’ R=495.86’ CB=S 28⁰34’42” W 90 CD=182.11’ to a point of lands now or formerly of George L. & Deborah J. Craig. 91 92 THENCE by the same, with George L. & Deborah J. Craig. the following (3) courses 93 & distances: 1. N 47⁰08’55” W, 172.65’ to a point. 2. N 48⁰43’51” W, 1096.00’ to a 94 point. 3. N 27⁰58’15” E, 309.00’ to a point in the line of lot 356, Carlisle Village section 95 3. 96 97 THENCE by the same, and with lots 357 thru 362 of Carlisle Village section 3, and 98 lands now or formerly of Wilson M. Dennis, Phillis P. Palmer, and Shannon L. 99 Schilling, S 61⁰01’56” E, 824.11’ to a point, a corner for lands now or formerly of 100 Bruce A. Burkett. 101 102 THENCE by the same with Bruce A. Burkett the following (2) courses & distances. 1. 103 S 37⁰06’26” W, 209.72’ to a point. 2. S 62⁰16’59” E, 420.19’ to the first mentioned 104 point or place of beginning. Containing within said metes and bounds 10.5661 +/- 105 acres. 106 107 Parcel C (Tax Map Parcel No.: ED-00-056.00-01-42.00-000) 108 109 BEGINNING at a point on the northly side of West Denneys Road - KCR #100 110 (25’ from centerline) said being the southwesterly boundary corner for lot 1, 111 Carlisle Village, Section 1, where it joins the northeasterly boundary corner for 112 lands herein described. Said point being located by an arc curving to the left 113 A=116.40’ R=997.23’ CB=S 52⁰37’37” W CD=116.34’ from a 25’ radius junction 114 curve joining the southwesterly side of Carlisle Drive (60’ Wide) with the 115 northwesterly side of West Denneys Road. 116 117 THENCE from the point of beginning, along westerly side of West Denneys Road 118 – KCR #100 with an arc curving to the left A=210.53’ R=617.98’ CB=S 37⁰06’28” 119 W CD=209.51’ to a point, a corner for lands now or formerly of Robert G. & Gloria 120 K. Keller. 121 122 THENCE by the same the following (2) course and distances: 1. N 62⁰16’59” W, 123 420.19’ to a point. 2. N 37⁰06’26” E, 209.72’ to a point, a corner for lot 6 of Carlisle 124 Village section 1. 125 126 THENCE by the same and with lots 1 thru 6 of Carlisle Village section 1, S 127 2⁰15’18” E, 420.16’ to the first mentioned point or place of beginning. Containing 128 within said metes and bounds 1.9662 +/- acres. 129 130 2. That the above-described properties shall be annexed into the City of Dover with a zoning 131 classification as set by City Council and in accordance with the zoning map and environs then in 132 force, effective upon such lands being included within the limits of the City of Dover. 133 134 3. That the certified copy of this resolution of annexation, together with a plot of the area 135 annexed, shall be filed for record with the Recorder of Deeds of Kent County. 136 P.O. Box 475 ❖ Dover, Delaware ❖19903 Page 68 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

Council Resolution No. 2022-08 Page 4 Item #3. 137 4. That the effective date of this resolution shall be the 10th day of January 2023, at 12:01 a.m. 138 139 140 ADOPTED: JANUARY 9, 2023 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN ROY SUDLER, JR. 148 MAYOR COUNCIL PRESIDENT 149 150 151 Actions History 152 01/09/23 –Scheduled for Public Hearing/Final Reading – City Council 153 12/19//22 -Planning Commission Review 154 11/29/22 - Utility Committee Review 155 11/14/22 - First Reading - City Council P.O. Box 475 ❖ Dover, Delaware ❖19903 Page 69 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

FINAL READING Item #3. City of Dover CITY OF DOVER ORDINANCE #2022-25 1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE 2 CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF THREE (3) 3 PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WEST DENNEYS ROAD. 4 5 WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within 6 the limits of the City of Dover; and 7 8 WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of 9 property located at 57 Rocky Road (Parcel A) described below from AR (Agricultural Residential 10 District)(Kent County Zoning Classification) to RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone), and 11 partially subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone)(City of Dover zoning 12 classifications). 13 14 WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of 15 property located at 4085 West Denneys Road (Parcel B) described below from RM (Multifamily 16 Residential District) (Kent County Zoning Classification) to RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone), 17 and partially subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone)(City of Dover zoning 18 classifications). 19 20 WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of 21 an unaddressed property located on the north side of West Denneys Road (Parcel C) described below 22 from AR (Agricultural Residential District) (Kent County Zoning Classification) to RM-2 (Medium 23 Density Residence Zone) (City of Dover zoning classifications). 24 25 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY 26 OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 27 28 A. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning 29 Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation from 30 AR (Agricultural Residential District)(Kent County Zoning Classification) to RM-2 (Medium 31 Density Residence Zone), and partially subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay 32 Zone)(City of Dover zoning classifications) on that property located at 57 Rock Road (Parcel A) 33 (located on the north side of West Denneys Road and west of Carlisle Drive), consisting of 34 27.5834+/- acres., owned by George L. Craig and Deborah J. Craig. 35 (Parcel A; Tax Parcel: ED-00-056.00-01-40.00-000; Planning Reference: AX-22-03; First Council 36 District) 37 38 B. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning 39 Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation from 40 RM (Multifamily Residential District) (Kent County Zoning Classification) to RM-2 (Medium P.O. Box 475 ❖ Dover, Delaware ❖19903 Page 70 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

Item #3. Proposed Ordinance #2022-25 – Annexation- Lands of Craig Keller, Burkett- 3 Parcels on West Dennys Rd. Page 2 41 Density Residence Zone), and partially subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay 42 Zone)(City of Dover zoning classifications) on that property located at 4085 West Denneys 43 Road (Parcel B) (located on the north side of West Denneys Road and west of Carlisle Drive), 44 consisting of 10.5661+/- acres., owned by Robert G. Keller and Gloria K. Keller. 45 (Parcel B; Tax Parcel: ED-00-056.00-01-41.00-000; Planning Reference: AX-22-03; First Council 46 District) 47 48 C. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning 49 Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation from 50 AR 51 (Agricultural Residential District)(Kent County Zoning Classification) to RM-2 (Medium 52 Density Residence Zone) on an unaddressed parcel on West Denneys Road (Parcel C) (located 53 on the north side of West Denneys Road and west of Carlisle Drive), consisting of 1.9662+/- 54 acres., owned by Bruce A. Burkett. 55 (Parcel C; Tax Parcel: ED-00-056.00-01-42.00-000; Planning Reference: AX-16-01; First Council District) 56 57 ADOPTED: 58 59 Actions History 60 01/09/2023 - Public Hearing/Final Reading - City Council 61 12/19/2022 - Public Hearing - Planning Commission 62 11/14//2022 - First Reading - City Council Page 71

Item #4. 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, Ms. 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 Page 72

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 2 Item #4. 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 Ms. 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. Page 73

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 3 Item #4. 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. Page 74

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 4 Item #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 Page 75

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 5 Item #4. 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: Page 76

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 6 Item #4. 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 Page 77

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 7 Item #4. 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. Page 78

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 8 Item #4. 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 Page 79

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 9 Item #4. 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 Page 80

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 10 Item #4. 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. Page 81

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 11 Item #4. 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. Page 82

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 12 Item #4. 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. Page 83

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 13 Item #4. 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 Page 84

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 14 Item #4. 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 Page 85

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 15 Item #4. 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 Page 86

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 16 Item #4. 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 Page 87

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 17 Item #4. 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 Page 88

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 18 Item #4. 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 Page 89

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 19 Item #4. 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. Page 90

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 20 Item #4. 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. Ms. 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 Councilwoman 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 Councilwoman 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. Page 91

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 21 Item #4. 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. Page 92

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 22 Item #4. 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 Page 93

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 23 Item #4. 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 having 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 Page 94

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 24 Item #4. 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 Page 95

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 25 Item #4. 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 Page 96

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 26 Item #4. 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 Page 97

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 27 Item #4. 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 Page 98

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 28 Item #4. 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 Page 99

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 29 Item #4. 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 Page 100

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 30 Item #4. 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 Page 101

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 31 Item #4. 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 Page 102

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 32 Item #4. 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. Page 103

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 33 Item #4. 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 Page 104

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 34 Item #4. 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?" Page 105

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 35 Item #4. 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. Page 106

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 36 Item #4. 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. Page 107

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 37 Item #4. 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. Page 108

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 38 Item #4. 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. Page 109

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 39 Item #4. 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 Page 110

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 40 Item #4. 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 Page 111

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 41 Item #4. 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 Page 112

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 42 Item #4. 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 Page 113

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 43 Item #4. 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 Page 114

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 44 Item #4. 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 Page 115

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 45 Item #4. 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 Page 116

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 46 Item #4. 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. Page 117

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 47 Item #4. 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 Page 118

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 48 Item #4. 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. Page 119

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 49 Item #4. 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 Page 120

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 50 Item #4. 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 Page 121

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 51 Item #4. 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 Page 122

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 52 Item #4. 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 Page 123

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 53 Item #4. 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 Page 124

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 54 Item #4. 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. Page 125

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 55 Item #4. (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. Page 126

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 56 Item #4. 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; Page 127

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 57 Item #4. (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 Page 128

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 58 Item #4. 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 Page 129

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 PAGE 59 Item #4. 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 Page 130

Item #5. Monthly Report November 2022 Office of City Assessor Page 131

Item #5. ASSESSOR’S REPORT Number of Deeds Stamped for Transfer Tax Dollar Amount for the Month of Nov. 2021/2022 the Month of Nov. 2021/2022 45 $200 $162 50 Thousands 40 31 27 30 19 18 18 $100 $63 $55 20 $35 $10 $0$0 1 1 0 0 2021 $9 10 2021 0 $0 2022 2022 First Time Buyer for the Month Nov. 2021/2022 Realty of Nov. 2021/2022 Property Sales in Dollars Received Prior to Recording 45 50 $15 $11 40 31 $7 $5 Millions Res. Non‐First $10 $4 30 19 18 Time Buyers $5 $1 $1 $0 $0 2021 20 $0 Res. First Time 2022 10 Buyers 0 2021 2022 Major Updates September October November Assessment Change $8,684,100 $0 $0 Residential Sales Ratio Report Sales in Study Total Assessed Total Sale Price Ratio PRD Value 23 $3,885,800 $5,603,680 0.69 1.03 Ratio – Assessed Value divided by Sale Price. PRD – Mean – A PRD above 1.03 tends to indicate assessment regressivity – high valued properties are under appraised relative to low valued properties. A PRD below .98 tends to indicate assessment progressivity – high valued properties are relatively over appraised. 1 Page 132

012ÿ456ÿ 74ÿ7477 289 ÿ ÿ0ÿ1 1ÿ98 19ÿ 1ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ 27 80 @AB0 C2 001 C@899 1 A9 9 81  0120C 9 9ÿ 1ÿ09 821Item #5.  !!"  !% *! !!ÿ),-).)*/0ÿ(1 !  $!$ $ $#"# ; )< ÿÿÿÿÿ$"? !&05<$$ ÿÿÿÿÿ"? ÿ   !  !% *! !!ÿ2.31ÿ(1 ! !" !&%% $ $"% ; )< ÿÿÿÿÿ$"#?! $$05<$$ ÿÿÿÿÿ"!? ÿ   !!!#  ! *! &ÿ4/'350ÿ* ! ! !&& ! !$# ( 6 ÿÿÿÿÿ!?$ !#05<$$ ÿÿÿÿÿ$&? ÿ   !#!  $ *! !"$ÿ(5''6ÿ* ! ! !&" ! !% ( =* ÿÿÿÿÿÿ&?" !!05<$$ ÿÿÿÿÿ!!? ÿ %  !"#  $ *! ÿ.(7ÿ* ! !# !& ! !% ( )< ÿÿÿÿÿ!$? $%05<$$ ÿÿÿÿÿ!#? ÿ %  !#"  ! *! %#ÿ4/'350ÿ* ! ! !&% ! ! ( )< ÿÿÿÿÿ!? "05<$$ ÿÿÿÿÿ"!? ÿ   !$#  ! *! %#%ÿ455(*31ÿ1*0 ! !" !&%# $ !" ( =* ÿÿÿÿÿ!$?& 05<$$ ÿÿÿÿÿ!&&?& ÿ " % !!"  !" *! &ÿ./''*ÿ* !  !&% $ $%# (> )< ÿÿÿÿÿ!&? !05<$$ ÿÿÿÿÿ$#? ÿ %$ % !"!# " ! * &ÿ(2)12).ÿ(1 ! !" !&% $ $$# ; )< ÿÿÿÿÿ!"?! $!05<$$ ÿÿÿÿÿ$!? ÿ # % !$&  % *$ $!&ÿ0ÿ31)1ÿ31 $ % !&# $ $&# ; )< ÿÿÿÿÿ!&"? !%05<$$ ÿÿÿÿÿ$? ÿ  % !&$  !# *! !$ÿ'8/06150ÿ9' ! % $& $ !# (> 6 ÿÿÿÿÿ!? $"05<$$ ÿÿÿÿÿ$#? ÿ !  "$$%  !# *! "&ÿ9)*)ÿ* ! !" $% $ !$ (> )< ÿÿÿÿÿ!? $"05<$$ ÿÿÿÿÿ$? ÿ   #$  $ *! %ÿ*/6':ÿ;'< ! !" $$$ $ !#$ ; )< ÿÿÿÿÿ!?$ 05<$$ ÿÿÿÿÿ$? ÿ %  $"  $ *! "!ÿ3150ÿ;*557ÿ9' ! !" !&%# $ !"$ ( )< ÿÿÿÿÿ!$$? !%05<$$ ÿÿÿÿÿ!? ÿ! $"  !"#!&  !# *! $ÿ05*12540ÿ* ! !" $ $ !%# (> )< ÿÿÿÿÿ!!? !05<$$ ÿÿÿÿÿ$? ÿ   $$"   *! #ÿ3ÿ2)'3:ÿ* ! !# !&" ! &% ( )< ÿÿÿÿÿ!!$?" $&05<$$ ÿÿÿÿÿ!&? ÿ %  !   *! #$ÿ05;ÿ2/''ÿ* ! ! $!% $ !&$ ; )< ÿÿÿÿÿ$#$? $"05<$$ ÿÿÿÿÿ"#? ÿ   %%   *! ""ÿ;'-(5)1ÿ31 ! ! $!% $ !&$ ; )< ÿÿÿÿÿ$#!? $$05<$$ ÿÿÿÿÿ"#? ÿ   !!$$   *! %#ÿ3-031ÿ1* ! ! !&& ! !$ (> )< ÿÿÿÿÿ!!?" !%05<$$ ÿÿÿÿÿ$%? ÿ !  !$#  # *! %%ÿ.5**/3ÿ* ! !# !&$ ! !!!$ ( )< ÿÿÿÿÿ!%?" "05<$$ ÿÿÿÿÿ!&? ÿ %" % %""$  !$ *! $%ÿ=/'*3ÿ6*0 ! !# !& ! ! ( 6 ÿÿÿÿÿ!%"?# #05<$$ ÿÿÿÿÿ$%%? ÿ # % !$!!!  !$ *! """ÿ)'*ÿ* !  !& $ !%$ (> 6 ÿÿÿÿÿ!%%?% !05<$$ ÿÿÿÿÿ$#? ÿ & '(% !%!#  !) *! !$ÿ3-3)0ÿ9' ! !! $$$ ! !!$ ( )< ÿÿÿÿÿ!?# !05<$$ ÿÿÿÿÿ!&$?% ÿ  Page 133

Item #6. Page 134

Item #6. CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT FUND JULY 1, 2022 - JUNE 30, 2023 100-10-12-99-000-53037 Current Balance- $ 19,150.00 COM M UNI TY ENHANCEM ENT FUND - $2,500 FOR EACH COUNCI L M EM BER PER DI STRI CT AND $5,000 FOR THE AT-LARGE COUNCI L BUDGETED AM OUNT M EM BER. THE PURPOSE OF THE FUND I S TO ALLOW M EM BERS TO CONTRI BUTE FUNDS TO A SM ALL PROJECT OR COM M UNI TY $ 25,000.00 NEEDS I N EACH DI STRI CT. Inner City Cultural League Vendor # 200 FI NAL BUDGET TOTAL $ 25,000.00 COUNCI L TOTAL YEAR TO DATE SPONSOR VENDOR DESCRI PTI ON I NVOI CE # CHARGES DATE BALANCE Councilman Boggerty authorized the designation of Email from Andre Boggerty dated $100.00 of his community enhancement funds to 07/21/2022 and email from Leandra 7/26/2022 Boggerty DEMCO DEMCO for the Annual Back to School Event Marshall dated 07/13/2022 $100.00 $100.00 $4,900.00 Batch # 9222 Councilman Anderson authorized the designation of Email from David Anderson dated $300.00 of his community enhancement funds to The 06/29/2022 and email from Tracey 7/26/2022 Anderson The 302 Movement 302 Movement for the backpack program. Weems dated 06/28/2022 $300.00 $400.00 $2,200.00 Batch # 9222 Councilman Anderson authorized the designation of $1000.00 of his community enhancement funds to The Email from David Anderson dated The Inner City Cultural Inner City Cultural League for the reasons stated in the 06/23/2022 and email from Elizabeth 7/26/2022 Anderson League letter. Daniels dated 06/23/2022 $1,000.00 $1,400.00 $1,200.00 Batch # 9222 Councilman Neil authorized the designation of $200.00 of Email from Fred Neil dated 08/10/2022 his community enhancement funds to Persimmon Park and email from Joyce Talley dated 8/15/2022 Neil Persimmon Park Place Place for the Backpack Giveaway 08/09/2022 $200.00 $1,600.00 $2,300.00 Batch #9391 Councilwoman Arndt authorized the designation of Email from Tricia Arndt dated $200.00 of her community enhancement funds to 08/10/2022 and email from Joyce Talley 8/15/2022 Arndt Persimmon Park Place Persimmon Park Place for the Backpack Giveaway dated 08/09/2022 $200.00 $1,800.00 $2,300.00 Batch #9391 Councilwoman Arndt authorized the designation of Email from Tricia Arndt dated $500.00 of her community enhancement funds to the 08/31/2022 and email from Elena 9/6/2022 Arndt Dover Art League Dover Art League for the Grand Opening Stewart dated 8/31/2022 $500.00 $2,300.00 $1,800.00 Batch # 9512 Interdenomonational Councilman Boggerty authorized the designation of Email from Andre Boggerty dated Ministerial Alliance of $600.00 of his community enhancement funds to the 09/06/2022 and email from Theodore 9/12/2022 Boggerty Dover and Visinity (IMA) Annual Community Unity Family Day Henderson dated 9/6/2022 $600.00 $2,900.00 $4,300.00 Batch # 9567 Councilman Anderson authorized the designation of Email from Dave Anderson dated $300.00 of his community enhancement funds to the 10/05/2022 and email from Bishop Carol 10/6/2022 Anderson The Well Church Faith and Blue Weekend E. Harris dated 10/5/2022 $300.00 $3,200.00 $900.00 Batch # 9727 Councilman Hare authorized the designation of $400.00 Email from City Clerk Bennett dated of his community enhancement funds to the Faith and 10/05/2022 and email from Bishop Carol 10/6/2022 Hare The Well Church Blue Weekend E. Harris dated 10/5/2022 $400.00 $3,600.00 $2,100.00 Batch # 9727 Councilwoman Arndt authorized the designation of Email from Tricia Arndt dated $150.00 of her community enhancement funds to the 10/07/2022 and email from Bishop Carol 10/7/2022 Arndt The Well Church Faith and Blue Weekend E. Harris dated 10/5/2022 $150.00 $3,750.00 $1,650.00 Batch # 9727 Councilman Rocha authorized the designation of $200.00 Email from Gerald Rocha dated of his community enhancement funds to the Faith and 10/07/2022 and email from Bishop Carol 10/7/2022 Rocha The Well Church Blue Weekend E. Harris dated 10/5/2022 $200.00 $3,950.00 $2,300.00 Batch # 9727 Councilman Anderson authorized the designation of $500.00 of of his community enhancement fund to Tracy Email from Dave Anderson dated Tracy Palmer Ministries, Palmer Ministries, Inc for Thanksgiving Dinner & Winter 10/12/2022 and email/letter from Paster 10/12/2022 Anderson Inc Food Events Tracy Palmer dated 10/12/2022 $500.00 $4,450.00 $400.00 Batch #9784 Councilman Anderson authorized the designation of Email from Dave Anderson dated $250.00 of of his community enhancement fund to 11/03/2022 and email/letter from 11/3/2022 Anderson United Way of Delaware United Way of Delaware Wonderland Coat and Toy Drive Kenyatta Livingston dated 11/03/2022 $250.00 $4,700.00 $150.00 Batch #9946 Councilwoman Pillsbury authorized the designation of Email from Julia Pillsbury dated $500.00 of of his community enhancement fund to 11/05/2022 and email/letter from 11/7/2022 Pillsbury United Way of Delaware United Way of Delaware Wonderland Coat and Toy Drive Kenyatta Livingston dated 11/03/2022 $500.00 $5,200.00 $2,000.00 Batch #9946 Councilman Taylor authorized the designation of $650.00 of his community enhancement funds to the Hometown Email from Ralph Taylor dated 11/15/2022 Taylor Dover Police Department Holiday Event 11/15/2022 $650.00 $5,850.00 $1,350.00 Batch #9984 Councilman Boggerty authorized the designation of $825.00 of his community enhancement funds to the Email from Andre Boggerty dated 11/16/2022 Boggerty Dover Police Department Hometown Holiday Event (Returned-Not Needed) 11/16/2022 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Batch #6 $5,850.00 $19,150.00 Budgeted Amount District Council Sponsor YTD Expenditures Balance $5,000.00 At-Large Boggerty $700.00 $4,300.00 $2,500.00 1st District Pillsbury $500.00 $2,000.00 $2,500.00 1st District Rocha $200.00 $2,300.00 $2,500.00 2nd District Hare $400.00 $2,100.00 $2,500.00 2nd District Taylor $650.00 $1,850.00 $2,500.00 3rd District Arndt $850.00 $1,650.00 $2,500.00 3rd District Neil $200.00 $2,300.00 $2,500.00 4th District Anderson $1,850.00 $150.00 $2,500.00 4th District Sudler $0.00 $2,500.00 TOTAL $5,350.00 $19,150.00 Page 135

Item #7. CITY MANAGER’S MONTHLY REPORT November 2022 Page 136

Item #7. Blank Page Page 137

Item #7. Page 138

ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT Item #7. Electric Divisions System Peak Total System Load Number of New Month outages customers Feb 21 58,116 Services Feb 21 103.54 Mar 21 56,803 Oct 20 5 738 Oct 20 8 Mar 21 96.05 Nov 20 7 3,230 Nov 20 12 Apr 21 106.06 Apr 21 52,494 Dec 20 0 0 Dec 20 15 May 21 135.17 May 21 56,801 Jan 21 1 2 Jan 21 9 Jun 21 69,150 Feb 21 3 1518 Feb 21 7 Jun 21 156.90 Mar 21 4 568 Mar 21 20 Jul 21 156.16 Jul 21 79,792 Apr 21 4 1,287 Apr 21 14 Aug 21 164.90 Aug 21 77,971 May 21 9 733 May 21 6 Sep 21 140.78 Sep 21 65,002 Jun 21 10 736 Jun 21 40 Oct 21 58,157 Jul 21 13 3,730 Jul 21 9 Oct 21 117.77 Aug 21 11 728 Aug 21 11 Nov 21 95.71 Nov 21 55,279 Sep 21 7 1,037 Sep 21 20 Dec 21 96.13 Dec 21 58,299 Oct 21 9 4,693 Oct 21 16 Jan 22 107.95 Jan 22 65,916 Nov 21 6 347 Nov 21 23 Feb 22 55,827 Dec 21 13 1540 Dec 21 22 Feb 22 103.87 Jan 22 11 1599 Jan 22 17 Mar 22 99.08 Mar 22 56,876 Feb 22 6 1005 Feb 22 8 Apr 22 92.65 Apr 22 50,847 Mar 22 5 512 Mar 22 18 May 22 59,233 Apr 22 1 350 Apr 22 20 May 22 143.11 May 22 13 4,199 May 22 21 June 22 June 22 June 22 19 6,639 June 22 11 July 22 July 22 July 22 7 357 July 22 16 Aug 22 Aug 22 Aug 22 8 395 Aug 22 47 Sep 22 Sep 22 6 2920 Sep 22 27 Sep 22 Oct 22 3 732 Oct 22 21 Oct 22 Oct 22 Nov 22 4 1328 Nov 22 17 Nov 22 Nov 22 We have the meter; however, the information is not accurately registering. NAES staff is working with the contractor to resolve the issues. Electric Monthly Outage Report The annual outage goal will be less than 295 minutes per customer, which is a Delaware Standard. This will be measured by calculating the System Average Interruption Duration Index. SAIDI Long Time looks at the previous 24months of outages FY 23 YTD FY 22 FY 21 64.63 128.28 356.04 Outages Average Response Time Goal is less than 30 minutes Month Year-to-date Month Year-to-date 4 28 19.75 27.94 PROGRAM UPDATES NOV 22 Nov 21 FY22 YTD Tree Trimming 251 169 1479 Number of Oil Releases 0 0 0 Lost Time Accidents – All Electric Utility Divisions 0 0 0 New Services 17 23 128 Page 139

Item #7. November 2022 Activities Energy Education Visit: helpinitiativede.org • Utility Rates Increases / Billing / Public Education • Utility Billing, Phase 4, ERP Implementation Or call 833-888-0410 • Tax Collections, Agreements • Recruitment To register for a Home • DE&I Activities • LIHEAP Program Assistance Energy Audit DIVERSITY, EQUITY, & INCLUSION ACTIVITIES NOVEMBER 2022 The City of Dover Customer Service Department values Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. We strive to provide quality services to external and internal customers through our daily activities. This segment will highlight activities provided to internal department staff. • Participation in monthly D, E & I team meetings or activities. • ERP Training Session included staff input. • Signage to encourage inclusion of all. • Goodwill Committee – Birthday / Life Events recognition • Change publications and forms to multilingual (work in progress) • Community Partners Meeting / Assistance / Education event planning. (canceled due to low participation) Customer Service Mission Continually provide quality public service to our diverse group of customers with professionalism, respect, & integrity. ~ City of Dover Customer Service Department Page 140

Item #7. Fleet & Facilities Management Monthly Report NOVEMBER 2022 Fleet Maintenance PM Work Orders Completed: 32 Number of Tire Repairs: 12 Number of Road Repairs: 7 Other Work Orders: 67 Repair Hours: 272.5 Road Repair Hours: 8.5 Total Work Orders: 99 Fabrication Hours: 0 Misc. Hours: -10 PM Hours: 82.5 # of Scheduled PM’s: 19 # of PM’s Completed: 32 Major Program Updates NOVEMBER NOVEMBER MEASURE 2022 2021 DIFFERENCE Fleet Maintenance - Completed PM 32 out of 19 41 out of 19 appointments vs scheduled PM’s -47.37 % 168.42 % 215.79 % (Quantity and Percentage) Facilities Maintenance Facilities - Routine work orders 76 out of 94 55 out of 76 completed within 5 days 8.48 % 80.85 % 72.37 % (Quantity and Percentage) Facilities - Emergency work orders 7 out of 7 6 out of 9 completed within 2 days 33.33 % 100.00 % 66.67 % (Quantity and Percentage) Facilities: Total Work Orders Written in November: 101 Total Work Orders Completed in November: 90 (includes previous months’ W/O’s that were incomplete) Page 141

Item #7. MEMORANDUM Department of Central Services P.O. Box 475 Dover, Delaware 19903 Phone: (302) 674-7567 Fax: (302) 736-7178 E-mail: mhamlett@dover.de.us TO: Dave Hugg, City Manager Sharon Duca, Assistant City Manager FROM: Michael C. Hamlett, Central Services Director DATE: 11/2/2022 SUBJECT: Fiscal Year Project Update ______________________________________________________________________________ Outlined below are the stages of each project in process for Fiscal Year 2023 FC2001 City Hall HVAC Renovation: Currently under contract with Statewide Mechanical and all equipment has been installed. We are currently awaiting the completion of the return duct work to be completed. The contractor will begin scheduling duct cleaning in the next few weeks to take place after hours. EA2204 Weyandt Hall HVAC Renovation: Currently in the engineering and design phase with E2engineering. The mechanical & electrical drawings and specifications are complete. We are waiting on the structural drawings to be completed. EA2202 Electric Admin Window Replacement: Is complete other than 13 windows that came in wrong. Windows are scheduled to ship 11/16/2022. EA2203 Weyandt Hall Window Replacement and LED Lighting Upgrade: Window installation is 90% complete. Facilities staff is currently working on LED upgrades. LB2201 Library HVAC Controls Upgrade: Contracts are signed and currently waiting for materials. CS2301 Warehouse LED Lighting Upgrade: Materials are on hand and awaiting Facilities staff completion of Weyandt Hall LED upgrade. 1 Page 142

Item #7. Fiscal Year Project Updates CS2302 Warehouse Replacement of Tile Flooring and Exterior Painting: Proposal for flooring replacement has been signed with Tri-State Carpet and installation is scheduled to begin 11/28/2022. Painting has been completed. FC2303 City Hall Window Replacement: Currently awaiting quotes FC2304 Old Post Office Hazardous Material Abatement: Currently 95% complete and scheduled for completion 11/18/2022. Weyandt Hall Security Upgrades: All wiring for cameras and swipe badges has been installed; however, we/Advantech are currently waiting for equipment to arrive. Ballistic glass has been mostly installed; however, 2 panels came in wrong and had to be reordered, awaiting eta for delivery. Michael Hamlett, Central Services Director Phone: 302‐674‐7567 Email: mhamlett@dover.de.us 2 Page 143

Item #7. HUMAN RESOURCES November 2022 Monthly Hired vs Resigned vs Promoted 10 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 44 4 4 4 3 3 3 33 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nov '21 Dec '21 Jan '22 Feb '22 Mar '22 Apr '22 May '22 Jun '22 Jul '22 Aug '22 Sept '22 Oct '22 Nov ' 22 Hired Resigned/Term/Retired Transferred/Promoted November – Retire 0; Resigned 2; Terminated 1 CY Hired, Resigned, Promoted 80 70 67 59 60 57 54 50 47 47 44 41 42 41 40 35 33 32 30 22 20 18 20 15 9 10 0 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Hired Terminated, Resigned, Retired Transferred or Pormoted Page 144

Item #7. HUMAN RESOURCES (Continued) Five year Full-Time vs Part-Time Employees 450 400 32 22 26 350 30 26 300 250 200 366 373 379 337 346 150 100 50 0 Nov '18 Nov '19 Nov '20 Nov '21 Nov '22 Full-Time Part-Time -Numbers do not reflect, temporary, seasonal, relief fire dispatchers, committee or council members Part-time employees (4 Pitts Center, 1 Recreation, 24 Library, 2 Police Department, 1 Central Services) EEOC Demographics 450 400 350 83 85 97 81 78 300 250 200 150 294 305 313 304 286 100 50 0 Nov '18 Nov '19 Nov '20 Nov '21 Nov '22 Caucasian Minority Page 145

Item #7. HUMAN RESOURCES (Continued) Position Hired: Library Assistant – Youth Services, Library Assistant – Youth Services (PT), Arborist Transferred/Promoted: MEOII - Sanitation Position Terminated/Resigned/Retired/Other: MEOII – Night Street Sweeper, Sign Street Painter, MEOI – Sanitation, Sex Offender Registry Agent Terminal Leave: Customer Service Clerk (January) Open or Currently Recruiting* Open or Currently Recruiting by Dept. November 2022 Electric 0 Public Works 7 Police 10 Water Wastewater 0 All Other Departments 6 Totals 23 *Not used for Budgeting Purposes Electric: Public Works: Motor Equipment Operator I – Streets (2), Motor Equipment Operator I – Stormwater, Motor Equipment Operator I – Sanitation (2), Sign Street Painter, MEOII – Night Street Sweeper Police: (4) Cadet (PT), Police Officer (3), Police Clerk II, Central Services Coordinator, Communications Operator, Animal Control Officer, Sex Offender Registry Agent Water/Wastewater: All Other Departments: Administrative Assistant – Finance, Planner II, Customer Service Clerk I, Fire Dispatcher, Arborist, Administrative Assistant – Public Works Turnover Statistics 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Turnover % 6.75 11.00 10.91 6.02 12.05 8.68 15.36 10.33 9.66 13.96 9.69 15.93 Termination Turnover % 1.08 0.29 1.47 0.57 0.28 0.54 1.92 1.36 0.54 1.42 .25 1.62 Resignation Turnover % 4.05 5.21 5.01 2.29 7.56 6.24 7.41 5.98 6.17 7.98 7.14 9.01 Retirement Turnover % 1.62 5.50 4.42 3.15 4.20 1.90 4.39 2.45 2.68 4.27 2.29 1.15 Other - - - - - - 1.65 0.54 0.27 0.28 .25 .23 2012 Healthcare cost sharing implemented 2013 Healthcare cost sharing implemented for DOE 2016 RIF in Economic Development; 2018 RIF in Electric Page 146

Item #7. HUMAN RESOURCES (Continued) Average Employees 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Number of Employees Separating 25 38 37 21 42 32 56 38 36 49 38 48 from Service Average Number of 356 333 325 331 333 340 337 340 346 **355 370 405 Full-time Employees Average Number of 25 23 15 12 14 18 24 28 28 28 26 28 Part-time Employees * Healthcare cost sharing implemented **Updated Worker’s Compensation November November Category 2021 2022 Monthly Workers Comp. Injuries 2 2 Monthly Workers Comp. 827 0 Hours used by employees Workers Compensation Cost FY2022 $6 $6 Department $3 $48 Total Cost (In thousands) Total: $63,000 *8/2021 graph changed to FY Page 147

Item #7. Information Technology Department November 2022 Report Larry Josefowski, Director Metrics: As a change of pace from the usual suite of metrics, we’ve including a dashboard from one of our insurance vendors, Cowbell. They use a combination of our answers on our insurance submission, our policies, and publicly available information regarding our presence in various spheres to determine these scores. In short, the gray numbers are the range they see in similar entities, blue is the average, and green and red is where we were on October 31st (Green is better than the average, red is worse). We are doing well in all areas, except supply chain. This metric measures our susceptibility to software supply chain incidents, and is compiled based on our size, services offered, total revenues, and physical location, as well the infrastructure and networking tools, as well as our supply chain partners and publicly available information. Network Security (Internal): We replaced 4 network switches during the month, increasing the reliability of the system, with more scheduled in November. Network Security (External): We pushed cybersecurity awareness with several programs and feeds from external sources, including a security quiz and prizes for those that scored 100%. This contest (and the number of winners) was more popular than expected. One area of concern is our backup solution, which relies on a combination of on-site, off-site, and off-network backups. Data growth has outstripped it’s capacity, and we’ve requested funding for an upgrade. Training: We conducted our annual training for City of Dover users, with approximately 60% of the members completing in on time. We hope to increase that number before we end it by 15 November. We also completed our 4th quarter Phishing campaign, with only a 1.2% failure rate. As a means of comparison, our insurance vendor wants a failure rate of less than 10%. Larry also attended the annual Secure Delaware conference. Other: Damani Jones started on October 12th as our newest LAN Analyst and has been a great add to the department. Issues developed with our phone system, which continues to show its age - there was a security setting that interacts with our email system, which we were able to temporarily turn back on. We also had meetings with Inacom regarding the new system, which we expect to deploy after the first of the year. We continue to be part of a now-weekly meeting of the State of Delaware’s Local Cybersecurity Grant Focus Group. This group’s purpose is to develop the framework for increasing the cybersecurity capabilities of local INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY - 1 Page 148

Item #7. governments in Delaware. About 2.2M is going to be distributed. Priorities will be in the areas of risk management and governance, perimeter protection, and increasing the capabilities of the workforce. Tyler/Munis: We continue to support the Tyler/Munis deployment, with an upgrade to the way clients log on being the primary project for the month, as well as assisting in the creating of user credentials. This was needed for both regular access and for the new Self Service areas. We also continued regular system patching. SCADA for Electric: Servers have arrived for the SCADA project, which will start next month. Some issues remain with our licensing vendor, but we expect to be ready to go for the first phase of the deployment, as we will “borrow” 2 switches for the project, as the ones purchased for this project are not due in until after January 1st. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY - 2 Page 149

Reference Transactions November 2022 Item #7. Adults 927 Teens 89 Children 249 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 * Electronic Materials include Overdrive & Hoopla starting July 2022 Circulation Nov. '22 FYTD '23 Nov. '21 FYTD '22 Dover Residents 10,338 55,084 11,163 59,972 * Electronic Materials 4,027 21,850 3,306 18,146 Kent Residents Total - 6,684 37,809 5,881 30,917 ~Harrington 25 43 ~Milford 36 19 ~Smyrna 324 354 ~Unincorporated Kent Co. 6,299 5,465 Non-County Residents 1,087 6,373 1,158 5,084 New Registrations Dover Residents 184 1,257 182 1,063 Kent Residents Total - 60 591 54 306 ~Harrington 0 0 ~Milford 0 0 ~Smyrna 0 3 ~Unincorporated Kent Co. 60 51 Non-County Residents 1 20 1 17 Registered Library Users as of 11/30/22 Registered Library Users as of 11/30/21 City of Dover Residents 17,184 City of Dover Residents 18,730 Kent County Residents 6,544 Kent Co. Residents 6,142 Sussex County Residents 245 Sussex Co. Residents 268 New Castle Co. Residents 343 New Castle Co. Residents 353 Out of State 20 Other 19 TOTAL 24,336 25,512 Other Visitors 11,484 66,837 9,184 58,690 *Visitors - Curbside Pick-up 0 0 0 0 Meeting Room Usage 1,569 8,723 738 10,295 Photocopier Usage 354 1,706 335 1,529 Computer Printing Usage 1,653 11,995 1,907 10,178 Computer Users 1,469 8,043 1,123 6,287 Wireless Computer Users 1,337 7,302 869 4,426 Inter/Intralibrary - Loaned 38 42 Inter/Intralibrary - Borrowed 63 47 Holds Sent 2,501 2,546 Holds Received 1,767 1,798 TOTAL 4,369 25,105 4,433 24,136 Tech Services/Items Added 1,246 1,353 Tech Services/Items Deleted 941 284 502 Passport Services/Customers 175 756 131 770 Passport Services/Revenue $7,090 $39,281 $5,228 $30,689 Monthly Highlights ►0 volunteers. * Estimated Figure Page 150

Parks & Recreation Item #7. Monthly Report - November 2022 Parks & RecreaƟon Highlights  November was a busy month of planning for the upcoming Capital Holiday Fes val and Annual Food Drive.  CIP Projects: Dover Park Building & Spray Pad was finally released from our Planning Office. Staff con nues to work on remaining CIP Projects on the list.  John W. PiƩs RecreaƟon Center served as a Poling Place site for the November 8th elec ons. This is a great opportunity for our cons tuents to see our facility and learn more about the programs we offer while vo ng.  Playground equipment repairs were made to Dover Park and New Street Park (Blackshear Park) Playgrounds. A new crawling tube was installed at the New Street Park Playground and a new slide replaced a broken one at Dover Park.  Annual Food Drive is underway. We are collec ng non‐perishable foods now un l December 1st. We will distribute to the local food pantries/churches. Capital Holiday Fes val ‐ December 1st Recreation Revenue Breakdown John W. PiƩs RecreaƟon Center What a busy month for our recrea on center. We hosted Dover Police Training Academy, Delaware Associa on of Athle c Directors Volleyball Tournament and Early College High School boys & girls basketball team prac ces, in addi on to hos ng our own adult volleyball league and fitness/dance November 2022 November 2021 classes. General Recrea on $539 General Recrea on $480 Trips $3,720 Trips $2,310 Staff is preparing the building for the upcoming in‐ Leagues $10,250 Leagues $13,300 door athle c season. Evenings will be full of young Bldg./Field/Pavilions $665 Bldg./Field/Pavilions $210 basketball players and weekends full of basketball Sports $630 Sports $210 and field hockey teams ready to win! Come on over and check out a great game! JWP Program FYTD FYTD November Outdoor Sports & Leagues Nov 22 Nov 21 ParƟcipant & Spectator Count ParƟcipants 23 22 AcƟvity ParƟcipants Spectators LocaƟon General Recrea on 279 904 0 242 Youth Soccer League Schu e Park Open Gym 113 460 109 732 Healthy Kids Running Coming Soon! Schu e Park Sports 0 597 n/a 0 DHS Cross Country Schu e Park Leagues 216 8,942 228 804 CMS Cross Country Schu e Park Page 151

Item #7. Grounds Monthly Report Nov-22 Arborist Crew: Arborist Crew - Continued working on holiday lights on the plaza. Tree Work Completed - Installed 52 new 100' strands on trees on the plaza. Tree's Trimmed 15 - Replaced over 1000 bulbs on trees on the plaza. Tree's Removed 1 - Repaired existing holiday lights that were damaged. Root Pruning 0 - Changed light strand colors on Loockerman St crossing Stumps Removed 3 the road. Trees Planted 0 Beautification Crew: - Planted tulips in 23 Flower beds and pots on Loockerman St. - Removed 17 unsightly bushes from City Hall. Mowing Crew: - Mowing finished middle of November. - Crews began clean up of mowing locations. Litter Removal: - Litter is being picked up on city property as per the weekly schedule. - Litter person has been diligent in the reporting of destruction in City parks. - 323 Total 90 gallon cans collected. Parks Crew: - Removed leaves from Dover park pavilion and roadway. - Began off season maintenance of softball fields. - Replaced all basketball nets at Dover Park. - Removed sun shade from softball field at Schutte Park. - Assisted the Beautification Crew with planting tulips. Miscellaneous: - Finished Bush hog work per the schedule. - Installed 75 strands of garland on Loockerman St. - Installed 75 Wreaths on Loockerman St, the Gateway, and the Plaza. - Removed leaves off Loockerman St sidewalks. Page 152

Item #7. T Trees Trimmed r150 e100 e 50 200 0 Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 2021 2022 Trees Removed 40 30 20 10 0 Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 2021 2022 90 Gallon Litter Cans Collected 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 2021 2022 Page 153

Item #7. November 2022 Procurement & Inventory Report Measure FY 2023 FY 2022 DIFFERENCE Issue Effectiveness – How often the FY 2023 (To date) FY 2022 (Total) warehouse has what the departments [698/ (698+164)] *100 [1610/ (1610+241)] *100 -6.01% need when it’s needed. 80.97% 86.98% [issues / (issues + back orders)] * 100 Turn Over Rate – Indicates that the material stocked is the material being -0.12 Turnovers per 0.85 Turnovers per year 0.97 Turnovers per year used. (2020-2021 Goal 1 per year) year WITHOUT TRANSFORMERS FUEL USE FY 2023 TO DATE FY 2022 TO DATE STOCK WITH OVER 60 MONTH SUPPLY (5 YEARS) Unleaded: 61,718 gallons 59,644 gallons Electric: $ 499,746.48 206 Line Items Diesel: 34,946 gallons 34,382 gallons Water: $ 14,159.75 35 Line Items Dollars Spent: $347,139.48 $226,911.32 General: $ 21,093.60 83 Line Items Total: $ 534,999.23 324 Line Items Purchase Orders for Stock by Fund Issues from Stock by Fund FY 2023 TO DATE FY 2022 TO DATE FY 2023 TO DATE FY 2022 TO DATE Electric: $254,644.70 $924,387.68 Electric: $712,291.09 $717,256.17 Water: $40,908.40 $39,026.60 Water: $26,472.18 $35,732.11 Wastewater: $0.00 $0.00 Wastewater: $32.14 $3,124.52 General: $33,225.45 $91,242.22 General: $63,508.90 $52,760.84 Total: $328,778.55 $1,054,656.50 *Total: $802,304.31 $809,095.40 Warehouse Stock Money Spent for Postage/Postal Services FY2023 FY2022 FY 2023 TO DATE FY2022 TO DATE Total Dollar Value: $2,873,965.52 $2,447,063.63 $72,585.98 $65,237.11 Total Line Items: 999 1,014 * Total of Issues from Stock by Fund includes Issues from Electric Returns (ER) warehouse. Current Bid/RFP Status BID REQUESTING COMMODITY TERM Status as of December 1, 2022 NUMBER DEPARTMENT College Road Pump Station 23-0001WW One Time Water/Wastewater Forwarded to W/WW on 9/7/2022 Williams Park Pipe Replacement 23-0004PW One Time Public Works Forwarded to Public Works on 11/16/2022 Bid opening scheduled for December 8, 2022 @ 2:00 FY23 Street and Alley Program 23-0005PW One Time Public Works PM Mirror Lake Drainage Improvements 23-0006PW One Time Public Works Bid opening scheduled for January 4, 2023 @ 2:00 PM Page 154

Item #7. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS November 2022 MONTHLY REPORT GIS GIS PROJECT HOURS Create Data Requests Printing Technical Support Updates Configure Training 8% 17% 13% 10% 1% 18% 33% GIS PROJECT HOURS Other City-Wide DWW DPW Tax Mayor IT Cust. Service Dover PD City Manager City Clerk Planning & Insp. Library Parks & Rec Electric 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 GIS Project Hours Page 155

Item #7. SANITATION MONTHLY REFUSE (TONS) Bulk Rear Automated 943.45 919.01 889.91 888.37 879.47 885.75 846.68 861.69 865.91 846.3 792.94 798.79 720.09 174.23 129.76 155.48 136.88 128.04 121.09 116.32 113.92 95.93 83.01 72.46 155.37 147.1 91.5 138.41 71.85 124.26 156.68 128.4 135.88 146.31 118.57 106.41 127.28 133.5 81.45 NOV 21 DEC 21 JAN 22 FEB 22 MAR 22 APRIL 22 MAY 22 JUNE 22 JULY 22 AUG 22 SEPT 22 OCT 22 NOV 22 SANITATION HOURS October 2021 Data Unavailable 600 508 518 500 395 380 400 328 304 300 265.5 200 111 100 0 Bulk Automated Hand Trash Yard Waste Nov 2021 Nov 2022 SANITATION Nov 22 FYTD 23 Nov 21 FYTD 22 Trips to DSWA Sandtown Landfill 202 1049 206 853 Total Tonnage to DSWA 1,071.30 5,525.89 1,165 6,123 90-gallon Containers Delivered 45 305 39 155 300-gallon Containers Delivered 0 2 1 2 Total Man Hours Containers Delivered 14 114 23 73 CURBSIDE RECYCLING TOTAL CANS COLLECTED TOTAL ACCOUNTS WEIGHT (LBS) AVE. WEIGHT (LBS) November 2022 20,191 9,971 215,840 10.69 Page 156

Item #7. STREETS / STORMWATER MONTHLY STREET SWEEPING & LEAF COLLECTION Sweeper Waste (cu.yd.) Street Sweeping (miles) Leaf Collection (miles) Leaf Debris (cu.yd.) 5579 5552 3605 3451 6322 93.5 410 13450 0 43 78 1 3177 0 0 1204 970 6 0 78.5 634645 1170331 0 1208 585 0 0 135 0 1630 75 1783 0 Leaf Debris (cu.yd.) 1085 0 92 0 0 1570 0 0 Leaf Collection (miles) 133.5 122 1914 0 0 0Street Sweeping (miles) 122 0 Sweeper Waste (cu.yd.) STREETS / STORMWATER November 22 FYTD 23 November 21 FYTD 22 Signs Installed 4 33 4 40 Signs Repaired 3 73 3 102 Curbs Painted Yellow (ft) 0 1,716 90 4,315 New Posts Installed 7 46 0 17 Storm Catch Basins Repaired 0 6 1 5 Storm Catch Basin Repairs (hrs) 0 16.5 8 27.75 Storm Catch Basins Cleaned (l.f.) 0 0 1 6 Storm Catch Basin Cleaning (hrs) 0 2.75 2 9.5 Hot Mix Patching (tons) 0 31.25 0 31.37 Hot Mix Patching (hrs) 0 82.5 0 42.5 Cold Mix Patching (hrs) 1.25 53.50 1 33.0 Concrete Work (hrs) 0 224 6 297.5 Concrete Patching (cu.yd.) 0 39.18 0.24 66.40 Ditch Work (hrs) 0 4 4 4 Street and Alley Maintenance (hrs) 0 8 0 4 Street Sweeping (miles) 0 3,290.5 43 5,328 Street Sweeping (cu.yd.) 0 469.5 6 436 Leaf Collection (miles) 3,177 3,762 3,605 4,730 Leaves Collected (cu.yd.) 6,322 1085 5,579 6,336 Page 157

Item #7. CITY OF DOVER DEPARTMENT OF WATER & WASTEWATER MONTHLY REPORT Nov-22 This chart indicates the amount of money the City is spending on treating ground and / or rain water Inflow & Infiltration Costs through Kent County. This cost is being offset by the $200,000.00 Ground Water Inflow Adjustment rate passed on to the customers. The July and September flow is showing as a negative cost due to the timing of the Kent County reporting vs the timing of the City billing. $150,000.00 $100,000.00 $50,000.00 $- 1-Nov 1-Dec 1-Jan 1-Feb 1-Mar 1-Apr 1-May 1-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug 1-Sep 1-Oct 1-Nov $(50,000.00) I & I Cost Water & Wastewater Repairs 7 Water mains and services are typically repaired at a higher rate when drastic change in temperature occurs. This freeze and thaw cycle expands and contracts the soil, causing cracks in the 6 water line. This was evident in the month of January 2022, 6 water main breaks. Weather started to become colder in 5 Novemrber 2022, causing issues. 4 3 2 1 0 1-Nov 1-Dec 1-Jan 1-Feb 1-Mar 1-Apr 1-May 1-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug 1-Sep 1-Oct 1-Nov Water Mains Repaired Water Services Repaired Wastewater Mains Repaired Wastewater Laterals Repaired This chart indicates the number of Number of Brown Water Complaints complaints the Department receives. Please note that our flushing 14 operatinons occured in October 2021, March and October 2022, hence the higher volume. Volume was high in 12 January 2022 due to a private issue at Delaware State University. 10 8 6 4 2 0 1-Nov 1-Dec 1-Jan 1-Feb 1-Mar 1-Apr 1-May 1-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug 1-Sep 1-Oct 1-Nov Number of Brown Water Complaints Linear (Number of Brown Water Complaints) Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Activities Sending all staff to Unconscious Bias training – this will provide some enlightenment to staff members on the pitfalls of bias. We are sending office staff out to meet with field staff to collaborate on current operational and future capital projects to gather insight from all team members Two (2) staff members have joined the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion committee. This will hopefully open up some ideas from other City team members on what they are trying to accomplish. Attended June meeting and participated with entire committee. A Department wide picnic occurred on September 30, 2021. The team was able to come together and talk about the vision of the Department and where we want to go. An emphasis was provided to the team to provide any and all ideas to grow the Department. A Department wide event was held on May 2, 2022 to celebrate National Drinking Water Week. A State of the Department is scheduled for late July / early August to bring team together. One on one sessions with all team members and the Director to solicit any ideas and / or improvements for the Department has been initiated and conversations have been promising. Encouraged and provided all staff the ability to participate in the DEI survey to understand the needs and desires of City staff. 90 % of the team attending the "Together We Succeed" cookout Emergency Exercise including three (3) different divisions, requested feedback and input during event Team members attended a Coffee & Conversation meeting at the Pitts Center Page 158

Item #8. City Planner’s Monthly Report Department of Planning & Inspections NOVEMBER 2022 Planning & Inspections Highlights Some Items to Call to Your Attention Planning Staff was involved with the review of 43 Building Permits and 5 Certificates of Occupancy permits that were issued for a calendar year total of 932. This tally amount is higher than the last few years when compared to a 2021 year-to-date total of 775 Permits and COs and 2020 year-to-date total of 695 Permits and COs; it is more inline with pre-pandemic Permit volumes experienced. As mentioned in recent monthly reports, the business license renewals were sent out in early July, 2022. As of November, the Permits and Licensing Office has collected $1,401,797 which is 97% of our Planning and Inspections revenue budget for business licenses. In November the Inspections and Permitting Division conducted 341 building inspec- tions and on-site meetings; conducted 584 plumbing/mechanical inspections and is- sued 5 certificates of occupancy, compared to last year at this time of 254 building in- spections, 420 plumbing/mechanical inspections and 9 certificates of occupancy. In November 2022, Residential Building Permits were issued for 1 single family de- tached dwelling in Patriot Village and two (2) manufactured home placements in Dover East Estates. Certificates of Occupancy were issued to a single family detached dwell- ing on McKee Road, to a manufactured home placement in Persimmon Park Place and for two (2) apartments at 108 West Loockerman Street and for the tenant fit-out of offices for Brandywine Counseling & Community Services. A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued for tenant space renovations in the Shoppes of the Hamlet. Building Permits activities included renovation projects of office space at 500 West Loockerman Street. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued for tenant space renovations in the Shoppes of the Hamlet. Certificates of Occupancy were issued for the tenant fit-out of offices for Brandywine Counseling & Community Services. The Fire Marshal’s Office Staff investigated seven (7) incidents during the month of No- vember. Staff members conducted 22 Annual Fire & Life Safety Inspections of mercan- tile occupancies. Staff also participated in 17 meetings and walk through with busi- nesses. The Code Enforcement Division spent considerable time on preparation for the demoli- tion of the 235-239 West Loockerman Street Building. . Page 159

Item #8. PROGRESS IN PICTURES Macy’s Omni Service Center 1365 N DuPont Highway 108 West Loockerman Street Apartments #1 and #2 Shoppes at the Hamlet: 1019 Walker Rd. Suite 3 Page 160

Item #8. PROGRESS IN PICTURES 49 S. Kirk- wood Brandywine Counseling & Community Services, Inc. 696 Bay Road 239 Tea Party Trail 1480 McKee Road 126 Susan Place –Persimmon Park Place Page 161

Item #8. Planning & Inspections Revenue FY2023 Revenue Estimates for FY2022 Actual Revenue Stream Budget (YTD) November % of Budget Business License $1,450,000 $ 1,401,797 97% Manufactured Home License $16,000 $ 12,327 77% Building Permits $550,000 $ 265,127 48% Cert. of Occupancy $8,000 $ 7,105 89% Public Occupancy $45,000 $ 3,715 8% Lodging House $14,000 $ 28 0% Plumbing/Heating/Air $80,000 $ 57,988 72% Rental Inspection Fee $410,000 $ 8,497 2% Miscellaneous $20,000 $ 6,873 34% Fire Protection Fees $70,000 $ 47,273 68% Code Enforcement Fines $60,000 $ 51,975 87% Vacant Building Reg. $70,000 $ 16,125 23% Total P&I Revenue $2,793,000 $ 1,878,830 67% Department Operations—Planning Office The Meetings of the Boards and Commission supported by the Planning Office continue to be presented in the Hybrid format with both In-Person and Virtual (using WebEx) meeting options for participation. Electronic communications and conducting Meetings and Trainings in virtual formats are commonplace due to realized efficiencies. Planning Staff participated in GIS Day activities on November 16, 2022 by viewing the Story Maps of GIS activities and participating in the Aerial Golf event. Training activities for the month also included: the Downtown Development District Workshop on November 2, 2022; and Historic Preservation Commission Training (Virtual) Workshops on “Design Review” and “Law and Procedures” co-sponsored by Preserva- tion Delaware and the State Historic Preservation Office. PLANNING OFFICE—Permit Reviews The Planning Office is part of the review process for certain types of construction activity permits (Building Permits, Sign Permits, etc.) and Certificate of Occupancy permits in order to confirm compliance with the Zoning Ordinance provisions. For November 2022, Planning Staff was involved with the review of 43 Building Permits and 5 Certificates of Occupancy permits that were issued for a calendar year total of 932. This tally amount is higher than the last few years when compared to a 2021 year-to-date total of 775 Permits and COs and 2020 year-to-date total of 695 Permits and COs; it is more inline with pre- pandemic Permit volumes experienced. Staff also reviews new applications for Business Licenses and Rental Dwelling Permits. Page 162

Item #8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 2019 Comprehensive Plan Implementation of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan continues as Departments citywide focus on the plan im- plementation items as found in Implementation Plan (Chapter 15) items such as the projects, studies, code amendments, and other activities. A copy of the Final Plan (as amended) is available on the Comprehensive Plan website: https://www.cityofdover.com/2019-comprehensive-plan . Visit the Dover Parcel and Zoning Viewer on the City’s website to see zoning information for properties located in Dover. Use the Quick Link on the main page www.cityofdover.com . • DAFB Compatible Use Study: City Planning Staff is part of the Technical Committee for the DAFB Com- patible Use Study. As part of a Department of Defense program initiative, DelDOT is leading this study of uses in a Study Area of a 5-miles radius of the Dover Air Force Base. Consultant assistance for the Study includes the University of Delaware – Institute for Public Administration and Century Engineering. A Public Workshop was held on November 29, 2022 for review of issues and strategies in the study ar- ea. See the project website for more information on activities: https://deldot.gov/projects/Studies/ dafb/ • Downtown Dover Strategic Master Plan: The Downtown Dover Partnership has retained consult ser- vices for the development of a Strategic Master Plan. The Project Team lead by Mosaic Development Partners is analyzing data and refining concepts. See the project webpage for more information activi- ties: https://www.downtowndoverpartnership.com/ddp/Downtown-Dover-Strategic-Master-Plan/ CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY • In November 2022, Residential Building Permits were issued for a single family detached dwelling in Patriot Village, and two (2) manufactured home placement in Dover East Estates. • Certificates of Occupancy were issued to a single family detached dwelling on McKee Road, to a manu- factured home placement in Persimmon Park Place, and for two (2) apartments at 108 W. Loockerman Street. • Building Permits activities included interior renovation projects of office space at 500 W. Loockerman Street. • A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued for tenant space renovations in the Shoppes of the Hamlet. Certificates of Occupancy were issued for the tenant fit-out of offices for Brandywine Counsel- ing & Community Services. NOVEMBER 2022 (FY23) TOTAL FOR FY23 New Home Permits Issued 1 65 Value of Commercial Projects $170,000.00 $16,760,381.00 Downtown Incentives (Fees Waived) $0.00 $10,905.00 Page 163

Item #8. BOARD AND COMMISSION ACTIVITY The November Meetings of the Boards and Commissions supported by the Planning Office were held in the Hybrid Format with the In-Person Meeting and a Virtual Meeting option using the WebEx telephone/video conferencing platform. The Planning Commission Meeting of November 21, 2022 included consideration of three applications: an Annexation Request, a Site Development Master Plan, and a Site Plan. The Historic District Commission Meeting was held November 10, 2022. The Board of Adjustment did not meet in November due to lack of agenda items. Board of Adjustment: The Board of Adjustment did not meet on November 16, 2022. The next Board of Ad- justment meeting is scheduled for December 21, 2022. Historic District Commission: The Historic District Commission met on November 10, 2022. The next Historic District Commission meeting is scheduled for December 15, 2022. The Commission heard updates activity and the following application. Also as the Annual Meeting, Eric Czerwinski was elected Chair and Ann Baker Horsey as Vice- Chair. • HI-22-07 Update on Referral of Demolition Activities for 233-239 W. Loockerman Street - The update noted that the City will be moving forward with demolition of the building as per the direction of City Council. The Demolition Activities are for ex- isting fire damaged commercial/residential building. The property was declared a Dangerous Building by City Council on Au- gust 15, 2022. The property is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and subject to the H (Historic District Zone). The proper- ty is located at the northeast corner of West Loockerman Street and South New Street. The owner of record is SAG Holdings, LLC. Property Addresses: 233-239 West Loockerman Street and 149 S. New Street. Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.09-01-50.00-000. Council District 4. Following referral by the City Planner, the Historic District Commission on October 20, 2022 determined the property to be “Demolition by Neglect” and also requested that the property be evaluated for saving/reconstruction of the structure as part of consideration for Architectural Review Certification. Planning Commission: The Planning Commission met on November 21, 2022 to consider several new applica- tions. The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for December 19, 2022. The meeting consisted of the following: • AX-22-02 Lands of Ditko Properties, LLC at 1107 S. Bradford Street – The Planning Commission recommended approval to City Council of an Annexation Request and Rezoning Request for a parcel of land totaling 11,248.2 SF (0.2582 +/- acres) lo- cated at 1107 S. Bradford Street, Dover to include the agreement with the DAC findings that the proposed change is com- patible with existing uses and zones in the area concerned and that adequate public services and infrastructure exist or can be created to serve the needs, and that the proposed change is in accordance with the City’s current Comprehensive Plan. The property is currently zoned RM (Multifamily Residential District) in Kent County. The proposed zoning is C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). The property is located on the east side of S. Bradford Street approximately 135.37 feet south of Wyoming Avenue. The annexation category according to Dover’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan is Category 1: High Priority An- nexation Areas and the land use designation is Commercial Low Intensity. • S-22-12 DuPont Plaza at 747 N. DuPont Highway: Revised Master Plan – Planning Commission granted conditional approval of the Revised Site Development Master Plan to permit phased construction of a retail center known as DuPont Plaza. The center is to consist of three buildings totaling 52,190 SF and is to be constructed in three phases. The buildings proposed include three multi-tenant structures of 18,360 SF (Building A – Retail and Bank, Phase 1); 14,150 SF (Building B, Phase 2); and 19,680 SF (Building C, Phase 3); and a Pocket Park site amenity. The property is zoned SC-2 (Community Shopping Cen- ter Zone) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). The property is located on the east side of North DuPont Highway and south of Leipsic Road. This site was subject to S-19-03 Retail Center at 747 N. DuPont Highway: Master Plan reviewed by Planning Commission in March 2019 and July 2019 with its Final Plan approval issued in 2021 along with Administrative Site Plan S-19-18 DuPont Plaza: Phase 1. • S-22-13 Garrison Homes LLC Warehouse at 119 Rosemary Road – The Planning Commission granted conditional approval the Site Development Plan and associated Lot Consolidation Plan to permit the construction of a one-story, 17,485 SF ware- house and associated site improvements at 119 Rosemary Road and 110 Lafferty Lane. The properties are zoned M (Manufacturing Zone) and subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): Noise Zones A and B, APZ I (Accident Poten- tial Zone I), and APZ II (Accident Potential Zone II). The properties are located on the east side of Rosemary Road and north of Lafferty Lane. The owner of record is Garrison Homes, LLC. Property Addresses: 119 Rosemary Road and 110 Lafferty Lane. Tax Parcels: ED-05-077.16-02-12.02-000 and ED-05-077.16-02-12.01-000. Council District 2. Waiver Requests granted: Elimination of Sidewalk along Rosemary Road and Lafferty Lane; Partial Elimination of Upright Curbing. The Performance Standards Review was also accepted Page 164

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Item #8. CDBG FY21 Projects • Homeownership Assistance Program CDBG funds will be used to provide homeownership assistance to first-time homebuyers who purchase affordable housing in the City of Dover. One (1) family has purchased a home and one (1) family is scheduled to close on a property in early December. • Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing (DIMH) CDBG funds will be used to provide operations cost for the shelter. DIMH has purchased a building for its new shelter location that will be renovated with CDBG funds. The project is underway. • Central Delaware Housing Collaborative CDBG funds will be used to provide operations cost for a women’s shelter. This project is underway. • Milford Housing Homeowner Rehabilitation/Emergency Home Repair Pro- grams CDBG funds will be used to rehabilitate existing owner-occupied housing in the City that is in violation of the City’s Housing Code and complete emergen- cy home repairs to eliminate housing conditions that threaten the health and safety of low-income homeowners. Emergency Home Repairs have been completed on two (2) owner occupied homes and two (2) single family homes have been renovated. • American Rescue Act (ARPA) Funding City Council approved to award a little under $1.8 million in grant funding for Housing and Community Service projects. All projects are underway. Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing has expended $50,000 in ARPA funding provid- ing motel vouchers and rental assistance in response to those persons affect- ed by COVID-19 and the Department of Health and Social Services has spent 82% of their grant award by providing motel vouchers and utility payment as- sistance in response to persons affected by COVID-19. A total of $802,492 or 42% of funds have been spent on all projects year to date. Page 165

Item #8. CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY Dangerous Buildings, Vacant Buildings & Demolitions  Vacant Buildings currently registered - 148  Dangerous Buildings – 44  235-239 W Loockerman Street - Demolition has started.  37 S New Street - Demolition has been completed. Page 166

Building Inspections & Licensing Summary Item #8. July 2021— July 2022– Current June 2023 NOVEMBER 2021 June 2022 PERMITTING AND LICENSING Permits Issued NOVEMBER NOVEMBER (2022) FYTD 23 (2021) FY22 FYTD 22 Administrative Permit 5 32 2 27 Building Addition/Renovation Permits 30 138 25 153 Building Permits 11 138 20 112 Demolition Permits 2 12 2 7 Fence Permits 10 184 15 68 Fire Prevention Permits 4 27 3 23 Mechanical Permits 35 212 42 168 Plumbing Permits 46 183 29 115 Sign Permits 10 41 14 78 Swimming Pool Permits 0 7 0 1 Subtotal 974 752 Business Licenses 23 1648 45 1659 Merchant Licenses 8 292 25 316 Contractor Licenses 40 1091 18 1073 Subtotal 3031 3048 Lodging House Licenses 0 3 0 14 Public Occupancy 8 62 7 69 Rental Dwelling 19 118 25 99 Subtotal 183 182 Manufactured Homes 2 266 23 271 BUILDING INSPECTIONS Inspections NOV (2022) NOV (2021) FY 23 FYTD 23 FY22 FYTD 22 Building (Inspections/CBI/Site Meetings) 341 1731 254 1316 Plumbing/Mechanical 584 2142 420 1589 Certificate of Occupancy 5 74 9 33 Page 167

Item #8. Fire Marshal’s Office—At a Glance November 2022 The Fire Marshal’s Office Staff investigated seven (7) incidents during the month of November. There was a fire on the outside of an apartment building that occurred in Dover this month. This fire was suppressed by the sprinkler system until the Fire Department arrived. The building also has a concrete type siding that prevented the spread of fire up the wall to the roof. Staff members are conducting Annual Fire and Life Safety Inspections of mercantile occupancies. Month Year to Date Previous Year to Date Annual Fire & Life Safety Inspections 22 125 169 Deficiencies From the Above Inspections 77 602 797 Fire Code Violations/Deficiencies/ 10 134 217 Complaints C/O & Fire Equipment Acceptance Tests 20 71 42 Meetings & Walk Through 17 87 91 Fire Plan Review & DAC 10 59 54 Month Year to Date Previous Year to Date Accidental 5 totaling 19 totaling $267,601 8 totaling $31,001 $30,000 Undetermined 1 totaling 2 totaling $86,000 5 totaling $520,000 $1,000 Incendiary 1 4 totaling $4,000,002 1 totaling $20,000 Arrest Made with DPD 0 1 1 Investigation Time 16 90 hours 51 hours Injuries 0 0 3 Deaths 0 1 0 Page 168

Item #9. Page 169

Item #9. Finance Department Monthly Report November 2022 This page intentionally left blank Page 2 Page 170

Item #9. Finance Department Monthly Report November 2022 CITY OF DOVER ACTIVITY REPORTS November 2022 FINANCE DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY LEVELS FY22 YTD FY23 YTD BANK TRENDS Number of Deposits Made (Hand, ACH & Wire, Lockbox) 2,798 2,759 Total Amount of All Deposits $ 90,951,880 $ 106,663,303 Other Activity Number of Pay Periods 11 11 Number of Payroll Checks & Direct Deposits Issued 4,565 4,559 Number of Pension Checks Issued 1,345 1,333 Total Pension Benefits Paid - Defined Benefit Plan $ 2,556,908 $ 2,533,316 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Number of Check Vouchers 2,514 2,938 Number of EFT Vouchers 1,151 1,420 Vouchers Dollar Amount Disbursed $ 32,202,104 $ 42,873,259 $171,604 FY22 YTD Wages FY23 YTD Wages $24,492 $34,061 $27,136 $501,670 $32,789 $109,537 $375,138 $368,661 $341,261 $914,238 $911,121 $873,703 $872,655 $7,765,324 $8,286,177 Regular Regular All over time All over time Vacation Vacation Sick Sick Terminal Leave - Retiree Vacation/Sick Payout Terminal Leave - Retiree Vacation/Sick Payout Personal Personal Other Comp Time Other Comp Time Page 3 Page 171

Item #9. Finance Department Monthly Report November 2022 City of Dover General Fund Summary Fiscal Year to Date (November 2022) Revenues Original Budget Revised Budget Actual % Property & Transfer Taxes $ 17,625,000 $ 17,625,000 $ 17,015,804 97% Program Revenues 10,329,400 10,329,400 5,829,262 56% Utility Transfers 10,000,000 10,000,000 4,166,660 42% Grants 1,051,000 1,118,600 134,337 12% Interfund Services 6,181,400 6,181,400 2,349,745 38% All Other 1 820,000 820,000 369,485 45% $ 46,006,800 $ 46,074,400 $ 29,865,293 65% Expenditures Original Budget Revised Budget Actual % Program Expenses $ 31,054,300 $ 31,050,300 $ 11,371,684 37% Interfund Services 11,588,500 11,592,500 4,397,604 38% Debt Service 630,000 630,000 263,148 42% Post Retirement Benefits 2,328,500 2,328,500 970,205 42% Pension Fund Contributions 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 0% Capital Project Transfers 3,536,500 3,554,600 1,768,250 50% All Other 2 2,210,400 2,210,400 499,358 23% $ 52,348,200 $ 52,366,300 $ 19,270,248 37% 1 Includes Cable Franchise Revenue, Miscellaneous Receipts, Garrison Farm Rent, Sales of Assets, Fund Invest Manager Cost. 2 Includes Bank and CC Fees, Street Lights Expense, DDP Contribution, Trf to Cable Franchise Reserve, Trf to Electric I & E, and Trf to Electric Revenue Fund, Trf to Uncollectible Reserve and Misc. Grant Expense. Page 4 Page 172

Item #9. Finance Department Monthly Report November 2022 General Fund Revenues $20,000,000 $18,000,000 $16,000,000 $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $- Property & Transfer Taxes Program Revenues Utility Transfers Grants Interfund Services All Other 1 Original Budget Revised Budget Actual General Fund Expenditures $35,000,000 $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $- Program Expenses Interfund Services Debt Service Post Retirement Benefits Pension Fund Contributions Capital Project Transfers All Other 2 Original Budget Revised Budget Actual Page 5 Page 173

Item #9. Finance Department Monthly Report November 2022 City of Dover Water Fund Summary Fiscal Year to Date (November 2022) Revenues Original Budget Revised Budget Actual % Customer Sales $ 6,500,000 $ 6,500,000 $ 3,200,148 49% Impact Fees 220,000 220,000 135,552 62% Rents 425,400 425,400 399,756 94% Miscellaneous 1 59,600 59,600 76,933 129% $ 7,205,000 $ 7,205,000 $ 3,812,390 53% Expenditures Original Budget Revised Budget Actual % Program Expenses $ 3,228,600 $ 3,228,600 $ 1,337,017 41% Interfund Services 1,096,400 1,096,400 425,428 39% Debt Service 692,000 692,000 358,951 52% Post Retirement Benefits 207,400 207,400 86,415 42% Capital Project Transfers 920,700 920,700 460,350 50% Electric I&E Fund Transfer 25,000 25,000 25,000 100% General Fund Transfer 1,000,000 1,000,000 416,665 42% All Other 2 72,000 72,000 13,979 19% $ 7,242,100 $ 7,242,100 $ 3,123,805 43% 1 Includes Penalties, Income from Sale of Assets, Miscellaneous Income, and Reconnect Fees. 2 Includes Bank & CC Fees. Page 6 Page 174

Item #9. Finance Department Monthly Report November 2022 Water Revenues $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $- Customer Sales Impact Fees Rents Miscellaneous 1 Original Budget Revised Budget Actual Water Expenditures $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $- Program Expenses Interfund Services Debt Service Post Retirement Benefits Capital Project Transfers Electric I&E Fund Transfer General Fund Transfer All Other 2 Original Budget Revised Budget Actual Page 7 Page 175

Item #9. Finance Department Monthly Report November 2022 City of Dover Wastewater Fund Summary Fiscal Year to Date (November 2022) Revenues Original Budget Revised Budget Actual % Customer Sales $ 9,922,700 $ 9,922,700 $ 4,337,238 44% Impact Fees 180,000 180,000 122,654 68% Miscellaneous 1 4,200 6,700 58,683 876% $ 10,106,900 $ 10,109,400 $ 4,518,575 45% Expenditures Original Budget Revised Budget Actual % Program Expenses $ 1,454,800 $ 1,454,800 $ 559,279 38% Kent County Treatment Fee 4,850,000 4,850,000 1,608,227 33% Interfund Services 841,600 841,600 320,365 38% Debt Service 715,000 715,000 306,298 43% Post Retirement Benefits 100,500 100,500 41,875 42% Capital Project Transfers 756,400 756,400 378,200 50% Electric I&E Transfer 25,000 25,000 25,000 100% General Fund Transfer 1,000,000 1,000,000 416,665 42% All Other 2 30,000 30,000 8,134 27% $ 9,773,300 $ 9,773,300 $ 3,664,043 37% 1 Includes Interest Income, Penalties, Loss on Disposal, and Miscellaneous Income. 2 Includes Bank & CC Fees and transfer to Impact Reserve. Page 8 Page 176

Item #9. Finance Department Monthly Report November 2022 Wastewater Revenues $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $- Customer Sales Impact Fees Miscellaneous 1 Original Budget Revised Budget Actual Wastewater Expenditures $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $- Program Expenses Kent County Treatment Interfund Services Debt Service Post Retirement Capital Project Electric I&E Transfer General Fund Transfer All Other 2 Fee Benefits Transfers Original Budget Revised Budget Actual Page 9 Page 177

Item #9. Finance Department Monthly Report November 2022 City of Dover Electric Fund Summary Fiscal Year to Date (November 2022) Revenues Original Budget Revised Budget Actual % Customer Sales $ 82,505,800 $ 82,505,800 $ 35,205,606 43% Distribution of Earnings 21,840,000 21,840,000 9,817,416 45% All Other 1 10,892,000 10,934,200 765,435 7% $ 115,237,800 $ 115,280,000 $ 45,788,457 40% Expenditures Original Budget Revised Budget Actual % Power Supply & Generation $ 86,970,700 $ 87,000,700 $ 26,798,736 31% Electric Operating Div. Exp. 7,919,700 7,919,700 3,081,493 39% Interfund Services 4,243,400 4,243,400 1,603,952 38% Debt Service 1,591,600 1,591,600 584,460 37% Post Retirement Benefits 911,000 911,000 379,580 42% Capital Project Transfers 6,435,200 6,435,200 3,217,600 50% General Fund Transfer 8,000,000 8,000,000 3,333,330 42% All Other 2 3,120,700 3,120,700 1,444,158 46% $ 119,192,300 $ 119,222,300 $ 40,443,308 34% 1 Includes Rental Revenue, Miscellaneous Service Revenue, Interest Earnings, Investment Management Fees, New Service Fees, Sale of Assets, Trf from Uncollectible Reserves, General Service Billing, Revenue from Rate Stabilization, Penalties, and Green Energy Charges. 2 Includes Utility Tax, Interest on Deposits, Bank & CC Fees, Bond Issuance Costs, Transfer to Uncollectible Reserve, and Green Energy. Megawatt Hours Sold & Purchased Budget Rev. Budget Actual Sales to Customers MWh (excl. Street Light MWh) 747,331 747,331 327,197 Sales per MWh $137.42 $137.42 $135.37 Purchased/Generated MWh 765,382- 765,382- 334,733- All In MWh Supply & Generation $113.57 $113.60 $80.03 Page 10 Page 178

Item #9. Finance Department Monthly Report November 2022 Electric Fund - Revenues Mi l lions $- $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 $100 $110 $120 $130 Original Budget Revised Budget Actual Customer Sales Distribution of Earnings All Other 1 Electric Fund - Expenditures $95,000,000 $90,000,000 $85,000,000 $80,000,000 $75,000,000 $70,000,000 $65,000,000 $60,000,000 $55,000,000 $50,000,000 $45,000,000 $40,000,000 $35,000,000 $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $- Power Supply & Electric Operating Post Retirement Capital Project General Fund Interfund Services Debt Service All Other 2 Generation Div. Exp. Benefits Transfers Transfer Original Budget $86,970,700 7,919,700 4,243,400 1,591,600 911,000 6,435,200 8,000,000 3,120,700 Revised Budget $87,000,700 7,919,700 4,243,400 1,591,600 911,000 6,435,200 8,000,000 3,120,700 Actual $26,798,736 3,081,493 1,603,952 584,460 379,580 3,217,600 3,333,330 1,444,158 Original Budget Revised Budget Actual Page 11 Page 179

Item #9. Finance Department Monthly Report November 2022 City of Dover Division Expense Summary (General Fund) Fiscal Year to Date (November 2022) Original Budget Revised Budget Actual % General Fund Divisions % of Budget City Clerk $ 379,300 $ 379,300 $ 137,319 36% Council 256,800 256,800 86,885 34% Mayor Fire 724,000 724,000 328,381 45% Human Resources Grounds 1,611,100 1,610,600 633,053 39% Customer Services Library 1,916,500 1,916,500 734,947 38% Fleet Maintenance Recreation 1,341,300 1,341,300 492,805 37% Procurement & Inventory Life Safety 594,700 594,700 223,093 38% Code Enforcement 821,300 821,300 243,268 30% Engineering Planning 757,600 757,600 233,920 31% Facilities Management Public Inspections 758,200 758,200 295,372 39% Pub. Services Administration Police 19,206,200 19,206,200 7,022,095 37% Finance Police Extra Duty 405,000 405,000 346,424 86% Information Technology Streets 674,800 673,800 209,681 31% Sanitation 2,801,100 2,799,100 954,043 34% City Manager Stormwater 864,900 863,900 227,562 26% Stormwater City Manager 1,251,200 1,251,200 428,848 34% Sanitation Information Technology 832,700 832,700 416,808 50% Streets Finance 1,109,500 1,109,500 418,111 38% Police Extra Duty Pub. Services Administration 541,800 541,800 203,566 38% Police Facilities Management 844,200 844,200 348,047 41% Engineering 188,700 188,700 60,090 32% Public Inspections Procurement & Inventory 754,800 754,800 311,405 41% Planning Fleet Maintenance 941,100 940,600 414,111 44% Code Enforcement Customer Services 1,393,300 1,393,300 525,023 38% Life Safety Human Resources 488,300 493,300 156,987 32% Recreation Mayor 234,400 234,400 59,496 25% $ 41,692,800 $ 41,692,800 $ 15,511,343 37% Library Grounds Fire Council City Clerk 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Page 12 Page 180

Finance Department Monthly Report November 2022 Item #9. City of Dover Utilities Expenditure Summary Fiscal Year to Date (November 2022) Water Divison Original Budget Revised Budget Actual % Engineering & Inspection $ 338,200 $ 338,600 $ 141,765 42% Water Department 690,800 690,400 283,347 41% Water Treatment Plant 2,199,600 2,199,600 911,906 41% $ 3,228,600 $ 3,228,600 $ 1,337,017 41% Wastewater Divison Original Budget Revised Budget Actual % Engineering & Inspection * $ 279,100 $ 279,100 $ 147,634 53% Wastewater Department 1,175,700 1,175,700 411,646 35% $ 1,454,800 $ 1,454,800 $ 559,279 38% Electric Division Original Budget Revised Budget Actual % Transmission/Distribution $ 4,196,300 $ 4,196,300 $ 1,610,141 38% Electrical Engineering 1,611,300 1,611,300 577,873 36% Administration 894,100 894,100 442,811 50% Meter Reading 353,600 353,600 166,452 47% Systems Operations 864,400 864,400 284,216 33% $ 7,919,700 $ 7,919,700 $ 3,081,493 39% Page 181 Page 13

Finance Department Monthly Report November 2022 Item #9. Water Division % of Budget Water Treatment Plant Water Department Engineering & Inspection 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 42% 42% 42% Wastewater Division % of Budget Wastewater Department Engineering & Inspection * 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Electric Division % of Budget Systems Operations Meter Reading Administration Electrical Engineering Transmission/Distribution 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Page 182 Page 14

Finance Department Monthly Report November 2022 Item #9. City of Dover Division Expense Summary (Electric Fund) Fiscal Year to Date (November 2022) Budget YTD (Over)/Under Original Budget Actual November Budget YTD 3rd Party Hedge Purchases $ 32,617,500 $ 13,004,031 $ 13,140,000 $ 135,969 Capacity Charges 13,528,300 5,097,326 5,682,300 584,974 Solar Power Supply 3,153,300 1,138,202 1,377,600 239,398 Solar Renewal Energy Crdt 388,300 163,929 194,000 30,071 Renewable Energy Credits 5,177,000 1,287,750 2,157,000 869,250 Regional Greenhouse Gas 53,500 - 22,292 17,833 PJM Charges Trans & Fees 10,111,200 5,128,217 4,220,900 (907,317) PJM Charges 25,850,300 2,192,501 10,039,700 7,847,199 Page 183 Page 15

Finance Department Monthly Report November 2022 Item #9. City of Dover Capital Outlay Summary (All Funds) Fiscal Year to Date (November 2022) General Fund Original Budget Revised Budget Actual % Fire $ 360,800 $ 507,100 $ 67,091 13% Code Enforcement 25,300 25,200 - 0% Inspections - 29,800 - 0% Police 858,200 1,352,000 72,909 5% Streets 128,000 3,302,500 1,888 0% Sanitation 527,000 1,225,400 - 0% Stormwater 1,865,700 3,206,600 303,302 9% Grounds 93,900 163,100 48,896 30% Library County Grant - 154,500 - 0% Recreation 1,940,000 1,945,700 66,356 3% Purchasing 172,000 172,000 61,092 36% Information Technology 153,100 160,600 5,092 3% Facilities Management 200,000 969,300 511,200 53% General Fund Capital Projects $ 6,324,000 $ 13,213,800 $ 1,137,825 9% Water Fund Water $ 797,000 $ 2,811,300 $ 151,330 5% Water Treatment Plant 148,700 518,500 - 0% Water Fund Capital Projects $ 945,700 $ 3,329,800 $ 151,330 5% Wastewater Fund Wastewater 1,012,000 2,249,000 74,508 3% Wastewater Fund Capital Projects $ 1,012,000 $ 2,249,000 $ 74,508 3% Electric Fund Electric Generation $ 4,000,000 $ 12,851,800 $ 214,963 2% Transmission/Distribution 2,075,900 2,524,900 531,008 21% Electrical Engineering 745,000 8,891,400 667,102 8% Metering 44,300 44,300 - 0% ERP System 500,000 1,967,400 43,750 2% Electric Administration 1,570,000 1,899,400 129,487 7% Electric Fund Capital Projects $ 8,935,200 $ 28,179,200 $ 1,586,310 6% TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS $ 17,216,900 $ 46,971,800 $ 2,949,973 6% Page 184 Page 16

Finance Department Monthly Report November 2022 Item #9. Capital Outlay - All Divisions $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $- Original Budget Revised Budget Actual Capital Outlay - By Fund $30,000,000 $28,179,200 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $13,213,800 $10,000,000 $8,935,200 $6,324,000 $5,000,000 $3,329,800 $2,249,000 $1,137,825 $1,586,310 $945,700 $1,012,000 $151,330 $74,508 $- Original Budget Revised Budget Actual General Fund Capital Projects Water Fund Capital Projects Wastewater Fund Electric Fund Capital Projects Page 185 Page 17

Finance Department Monthly Report November 2022 Item #9. This page intentionally left blank Page 186 Page 18

Item #10. DOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT NOVEMBER 2022 FIRE CHIEFS REPORT Page 187

Item #10. Page 188

Item #10. Page 189

Item #10. Page 190

Item #11. Page 191

Item #11. DEPARTMENT OF POLICE Thomas A. Johnson, Jr. 400 South Queen Street Chief of Police Dover, Delaware 19904 302-736-7111 January 9, 2023 Honorable Robin Christiansen, Mayor Members of Dover City Council City Hall Dover, DE 19901 Mayor Christiansen and Council Members: The following is the monthly report of Dover Police Department activities for November: COMPLAINTS/EVENTS YTD Totals compiled through November numbered 37,036. This represents an increase of 516 from the 36,520 reported over the same period in 2021. 50,000 39,282 38,166 36,520 37,036 40,000 30,749 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS Burglary: 2 cases reported, 2 cases cleared and 0 cases cleared from previous months. Robbery: 0 cases reported, 0 cases cleared and 0 cases cleared from previous months. Sex Assault: 1 cases reported, 0 cases cleared and 2 cases cleared from previous months. Homicide: 1 case reported, 1 case cleared and 0 cases cleared from previous months. There were 9 Non-Criminal Death Investigations, 9 cases cleared and 0 cases cleared from previous months. 1|Page Page 192

Item #11. DRUG, VICE, & ORGANIZED CRIME / STREET CRIMES UNIT ENFORCEMENT Marijuana: 3,043.04 grams seized Cocaine: 126.43 grams seized Ecstasy: 31.6 doses seized Prescription Pills: 1,067 doses seized Heroin: 71.424 grams seized Methamphetamine: 1,261.51 grams seized Fentanyl: 0 grams seized Other Rx Drugs: 0 grams/doses seized Drug Proceeds: $9,498 seized FIREARM SEIZURES/INSIDE CITY LIMITS 15 10 10 5 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CI DVOC/STREET CRIMES PATROL SEU HANDGUN RIFLE SHOTGUN Firearms: 12 Handguns, 2 Rifles & 1 Shotgun TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT YTD Citation Totals compiled through November numbered 5,382. This represents a decrease of 1,727 from the 7,109 reported over the same period in 2021. 10,000 8,683 9,000 8,329 8,000 7,109 7,000 6,000 5,382 4,760 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 TRAFFIC CRASHES: YTD = 2,254 2|Page Page 193

Item #11. 911 CENTER ACTIVITY Total compiled during November numbered 7,170 calls. This represents an increase of 485 from the 6,685 reported during the same period in 2021. 7,300 7,254 7,202 7,200 7,170 7,100 7,000 6,900 6,800 6,695 6,685 6,700 6,600 6,500 6,400 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 CITY ORDINANCE SUMMONS YTD Totals compiled through November numbered 3,513. This represents a decrease of 413 from the 3,926 reported over the same period in 2021. 6,000 4,966 4,728 5,000 3,926 4,000 3,272 3,513 3,000 2,245 1,772 1,610 2,000 978 820 1,000 0 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 ISSUED 4,728 4,966 3,272 3,926 3,513 PAID 2,245 1,772 1,610 978 820 3|Page Page 194

Item #11. COMMUNITY POLICING This proactive unit takes the lead on community engagement and supporting our community organizations. They have administrative responsibilities and also support other departmental units, such as patrol, during times of high work volumes or special operations with enforcement activities. In addition to those duties, the unit accomplished the following in November:  Planning for the December Holiday Extravaganza Event  Follow up at 246 Northdown Dr. reference ongoing issues with neighborhood kids  Follow up at 406 Tuckett Circle in reference to complaints from HOA  Contacted Property manager, Village of Westover, reference ongoing issue with tenant  Assisted with continuing neighborhood issue at 445 New Castle Ave  Assisted with Municipal Police Academy Instruction  Liaison with the Code Purple organization  Participation in IMA Turkey Giveaway at Solid Rock Church  Liaison with Liberty Court manager regarding items noted on monthly stat review  Dover Behavioral Health Meeting in reference to recent problems  Attended the wall raising at 11 S. New Street in support of Habitat for Humanity  Participation in a DVOC special operation  Staged a “Coffee with a Cop” session at the Capital Station Starbucks  Addressed homeless situations near 801 W. Division Street, M&T Bank, 601 Fulton Street, the Kohl’s property, and the Walgreens property  Met with resident of 457 E Water St. in reference to ongoing issue with follow up that included Dover Housing Authority and Resident of 426 Kent Ave.  Planning and Participation in the Operation Gobble (Turkey giveaway)  K-9 Roy visited classrooms at the Academy of Dover & spent time with a troubled child  Multiple Property Checks at 132 S. New Street and Lake Club Apartments  Participated in the Group Violence Intervention “Call-In”  Addressed a Loitering situation at Dunkin Donuts  Engaged a suicidal homeless person at La Tonalteca and got them help  Continue to address a neighborhood dispute on Fairwinds Place  Community Response Vehicle event at Capital Green  Participation in the Downtown Dover Partnership Crime Watch meetings  Addressed a group of people playing cards & loitering behind a Daycare on New Street  Support several understaffed patrol shifts  Assisted with active shooter scenario training at Parkway Academy  Participation in Town Pointe Elementary safety patrol ceremony  Kept tabs on the Rite Aid property at 246 N. DuPont Highway due to ongoing problems  Continued foot patrols along Loockerman Street Corridor  Assisted the Dover Library with disruptive issue  Contacted families from capital school district in reference to families eligible to receive donated turkey for the holidays.  Multiple CPU Officers attended schools for topics including Mobile Field Force, Autism, & SORT  Attended Neighborhood Revitalization meeting in support of Habitat for Humanity  K-9 Roy now has an Instagram account  The Behavioral Health Unit made 44 field contacts and took official actions with 21 clients needed substance abuse or mental health care 4|Page Page 195

Item #11. Members of the CPU attend numerous meetings with community associations and organizations as a part of our ongoing liaison relationships. CHIEF’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Police Chief’s Advisory Committee (PCAC) is comprised of nine (9) diverse stakeholders living/working in the City of Dover. It meets regularly to provide input/feedback to the Chief on the various operations of the agency. November activity is as follows:  The Advisory Committee met on November 7, 2022. The Faith N Blue event was the first topic as there were mixed results to discuss. On one hand, it was well organized and well delivered; but on the other hand, it was competing with other city events and did not generate the anticipated attendance. Adjustments will be considered for next year.  The framework of the GVI “call-in” was reviewed with the committee and the topic will be revisited in December to discuss the results.  The final draft of the Recruitment videos were displayed for the committee for final suggestions. Finishing touches will be made and roll out is expected either in December or January in advance of the next hiring cycle.  The committee was briefed on the development of a new program called the “First Responder Experience”. Corporal Willie Johnson has been working with the Capital School District to engage high school aged children on public safety professions. If the interest is there, 20-30 students (possibly more) will be exposed to the Emergency Medical Services, Firefighting, Law Enforcement and Emergency Communications.  The International Association of Chiefs of Police will hold their 2023 annual conference in San Diego, CA. Chief Johnson received the support of the committee to submit a proposal for a conference presentation on the topic of our advisory committee as a model for other police departments.  The committee set a next meeting date for December 21, 2022. A noon meeting will be attempted to see if it works better for the majority of the group. PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES  The 4th session of the Dover Municipal Police Academy continues to make strides. Of the 19 Recruit Officers that remain, four of them are Dover employees who are progressing well through the 20-week program.  The Community Response Vehicle continues to visit neighborhoods with a focus on youth engagement. Weather permitting, November locations included Capital Green, Liberty Court and Persimmon Park.  The Citizens Police Academy had its graduation on November 1, 2022. Another dozen of our community members have completed the two-month long program that outlines the roles and responsibilities of police officers in the 21st Century. 5|Page Page 196

Item #11.  We continue to see vacancies in the department. Our payroll clerk left for another position after we offered positions for the two existing vacancies. One of our Sex Offender Agents decided to retire. We hired a 911 Dispatcher who previously worked in Sussex County. There is another candidate from Florida who has good experience and good references but we are competing with other dispatch centers for his talent. Background investigations are in progress for a limited number of police recruit candidates. We have a lateral entry police officer prospect that looks promising at this point. Work continues on the Animal Control Officer position and Cadet vacancies.  The Coffee with a Cop program series continues and we thank Councilman Hare for attending the event at the Capital Station Starbucks on DuPont Highway on November 15, 2022. We will take a break in December and be back in January with an evening event at McGlynn’s Restaurant.  The GVI Call-in event was held at the Dover Christian Church on November 16, 2022. Local, State and Federal criminal justice representative delivered brief remarks before giving way to GVI staff and influencers who attempted to persuade the offenders in attendance to accept supportive services so that they can leave their violent life-style. From a technical perspective, the Dover event received high marks from the GVI organization. We now hope that we see practical success in the coming months. Please visit our website at www.doverpolice.org for up to date information on crimes and activities in the City of Dover. Respectfully Submitted, Thomas A. Johnson, Jr. Chief of Police 6|Page Page 197