SPECIAL COUNCIL & EXHIBIT 1

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING A Special Council Meeting was held on January 26, 2023, at 6:00 p.m., with Council President Sudler presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Neil, Dr. Pillsbury, Ms. Arndt, Mr. Rocha, and Mr. Hare. Mr. Taylor and Mayor Christiansen were absent. Council staff members present were Mr. Hugg, Ms. Bennett, and Ms. Walls. Other staff members present were Ms. Gray and Ms. Sass. Constituent’s Loitering Ordinance Language Concerns Madam Clerk Bennett explained the ground rules for the Special Council meeting. President Sudler reviewed his Loitering PowerPoint presentation with council and the public. President Sudler then asked for questions from the public. Crystal Chapman, 834 Woodcrest Drive, stated that she has been a City of Dover resident for 15 years. Ms. Chapman asked if the ordinance involves the homeless and if the police come up, where are they supposed to go? If they are being asked to move on in this mandate, they have nowhere to move, where are they supposed to go? Ms. Chapman asked if City Council and everyone else involved with this would make it their priority to figure out where to put these people. Is housing going to be developed for them, places where they can go so that they are not on the street? Is City Council considering anything for that? Responding to Ms. Chapman, Mr. Anderson stated that he appreciates her question; it is a very good one, but part of it is a little bit of a misconception of what loitering is. It is very explicit in that it does not mean that you happen to be outside, on the street, walking along, or anything of that nature. It is very specific, dealing with interesting areas and impeding entrances congregated in a way that creates alarm. It is not just like if somebody were sleeping at 9:00 AM in front of somebody's door, as a picture was sent to him recently. You wake them up, and they get up, they can walk, they can go anywhere. They can sit on a bench as long as they are not blocking anybody. Mr. Anderson explained that as long as they are not impeding anybody else, they have the right to be in any public area, just like anybody else. That is when it comes to what the city is doing to provide for them. If they are a homeless individual, then the city has recently allocated over $1.2 million to provide facilities in the daytime, provide to help The People's Church with renovations, help the House of Hope, help Dover Interfaith Mission develop a day facility and other such things. As well as job training and other buildings that are not finished yet. Mr. Anderson noted that council believes that in this city, they are committed to helping the people who need their help and are willing to receive it. Mr. Anderson stated that the city had made its biggest commitment yet. Teresa Campbell, Vice President of Code Purple, asked Mr. Anderson where they should go. Where are the homeless supposed to go on the holidays? The only shelter for day treatment right now is Hopes and Dreams, which opens around 8:00 AM and closes at 3:00 PM. So where do they go on Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, and Black Friday? Where do they go?

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 2 Responding to Ms. Campbell, Mr. Anderson said he wanted to remind her that this ordinance does not tell people they cannot be in a park. This explicitly recognizes people's right to be in a building, be on a bench, be out here, or go to the public youth facility. Mr. Anderson noted that he sees people in the library, he sees the homeless there, and that is fine. Council does not have a problem with that. People are not being excluded from public areas. It is just a matter of how you conduct yourself in those public areas. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Campbell asked when did the library become open on a holiday. Ms. Campbell also asked about Christmas. She thinks that the council needs to understand that there is nowhere for these people to go. They need somewhere to go when Code Purple lets out at 8:00 AM. If there is frigid weather, Hopes and Dreams closes. Ms. Campbell does not see anyone coming to Code Purple to volunteer, to help them open for the homeless. This is going to cause loitering. Responding to Ms. Campbell, Mr. Anderson stated that it does make loitering very objective. Mr. Anderson thanked Ms. Campbell for her dedication. Responding to Ms. Campbell, Mr. Neil asked if this problem is just in Dover or anywhere else, she knows of in the State of Delaware. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Campbell stated that it is a problem everywhere in Delaware. Ms. Campbell stated that she knows 60 homeless men she feeds every night, which is her problem. Responding to Ms. Campbell, Mr. Neil stated that they know it is a universal problem, but that they also have another problem within the problem. How many of those people simply, you know, have offered help strictly through Interfaith? Mr. Neil stated that he had asked this question back then if they accept that help or want that help to go on to be back into society to be constructive members, who are willing to do that? Mr. Neil stated that he understood that when the Supreme Court opened the chronic hospitals, people did not have to stay there and come out. Mr. Neil continued to state that he does know, he even asked Jane Clima from Interfaith, and it is his understanding that they have people who break down into three different categories; some who have mental problems and do not want to be there. They have some who fall into addiction and go into crime. You try to help the homeless and have to be out there, and they try to do that, and they fall out of the program. The economy hits those addicted; that is where the Interfaith Center does a fantastic job of bringing them back in. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Campbell stated that Interfaith has the cream of the crop. She goes over there and runs Interfaith every single day. They do not allow alcoholics; they are not allowing drug addicts; they are not allowing those with mental health issues. Ms. Campbell invited all of council to Code Purple. She will tell them anytime, any time of the day, she will be there from 5:00 PM to 8:00 PM, and she is the only woman down there most of the time. Ms. Campbell invited anyone to come to deal with mental health; they do not even have to touch the addiction or the alcoholism; they just come down for their mental health. Ms. Campbell stated that if council has any idea about mental health, addiction, and alcoholism, first of all, mental health, alcoholism, and addiction are under the mental health guidelines. So, they are dealing with 60 men with mental health with nowhere in Dover to take them, absolutely nowhere, because when they offer Dover Behavioral Health, they said they would rather die.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 3 Mr. Sudler asked Ms. Campbell, regarding the homeless if they talked with or had gotten a petition from taxpayers stating that they are willing to put their taxpayers' dollars towards a facility. Mr. Sudler stated that he thinks that is what needs to be done because he is in housing. Mr. Sudler noted that he deals with these types of things, and with low income, he deals with mental health. Mr. Sudler stated that he does a lot for our community, separate from being for- profit. Everyone who knows him knows he is, but she cannot sit here and say, "City Council has to build facilities for homeless individuals for you to support a loitering ordinance." Mr. Sudler explained that it is because it is not the city council's dollars, it is the taxpayer’s dollars, and if the taxpayers say, "We want this to be our priority," bring them to council. Council serves at the will of their constituents. Mr. Sudler noted that they must have their constituents, have people petition, and come out to say, "We are willing to put forth our tax dollars to build a facility." Now the city has offered land to Interfaith next to the Dover Police Department, a lot of land that they were going to, he believes, maybe charge them $1 a year to build their facility, and they rejected it. Mr. Sudler asked City Manager Hugg if he would please get her contact information so that the city can explore offering it to Code Purple, but that council has gone above and beyond, so he does not want the city council to be viewed as "They are not doing anything for the homeless." Mr. Sudler stated that the council supports initiatives just like Councilman Anderson said the council provides funding. Interfaith gets funding from the council. Ms. Campbell stated that the city is also taking time away from the police force when they do this. She knows she has personally called the police and waited 30 minutes. So why is the city going to take time from a police force that is already understaffed? Responding to Ms. Campbell, Mr. Sudler stated that this is already their mandate to police. These officers are getting paid good money. Mr. Sudler noted that loitering is a state statute that they enforce. The only thing the city is doing here is sharing and engaging in the struggle of decriminalizing homelessness through a certain language, the criminal offense language. Council is showing that we understand. Council is showing that they are with them as much as they can in that struggle. Despite what other organizations or individuals may feel, it is in layman's terms if you get a citation right now, do you want to be cited a criminal citation or a citation where you get a ticket? Mr. Sudler stated that they could get a ticket or a criminal offense so that when they get where they need to be, whether they are no longer homeless and go and apply for housing or a job, they will not have a criminal record. Mr. Sudler stated that he just wanted Ms. Campbell to understand the situation, what council is doing, which is separate from homelessness, and the need for more housing and homeless buildings. He respectfully disagrees with her, and council understands the need for resources, but they are two separate topics. She must understand that they are trying to decriminalize the criminal component of loitering in which the state gives someone a criminal record. Council is dialing it down, and they are taking out language about prowling and all that, which could lead to the probability of arrest or profiling because they are dealing with it. Council is trying to address that they are not targeting the homeless. Council is not targeting marginalized groups or individuals. That is the way they tried to explain it.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 4 Reginald Daniel II, 1211 Pondersoa Drive, asked how the city intends to enforce these citations and the homeless. What about those who unfortunately do not have the mental capacity to deal with it? How are we addressing those issues? Responding to Mr. Daniel, Mr. Sudler stated that the City of Dover recently authorized the Chief of Police to have a mental health specialist. Chief Johnson explained that what happens when they move there is a $25 fine associated with the electronic ticket handed to someone. Chief Johnson stated that there is a window of time to answer that charge at the station locally, and it is not an offense that gets entered into the state system. It is just that they have a window of time that, once it passes, the fine increases because of the delayed response and enters a schedule. Eventually, the schedule leads to just the transfer to one of two things. The practice of converting local ordinances into a state of action. Many years ago, that used to be a practice for anybody that is still in practice. It is not a City of Dover vendor, and the city is unaware of what they do with it from there. Responding to Mr. Daniel, Chief Johnson stated that he was trying to think how extreme the circumstance would have to be. The mere fact you have a local ordinance violation at the beginning, that they were probably not belligerent and abide by the request, so he is not going to say that it is impossible, but there would be a set of circumstances where it would happen. Chief Johnson noted that it would be so small that he is talking less than once a year, maybe, a couple of times every five years. The set of circumstances that would be there for them to feel like they needed to do that, in most cases, the witness would be levied as a low-hold situation. Responding to Mr. Daniel, Chief Johnson stated that whenever they make that contact, the individual that they believe is at risk of mental health, substance abuse, or anything that one of their clinical field partners might be able to have an impact on, they work every day, 12 hours a day. The city has two of them under contract. Their job is to assess before engaging the individual. It allows the police department to take a step back, and that way there is a little bit of privacy, perhaps if the person dislikes the presence of an officer. They can be with someone who is 100% identifiable as a healthcare professional, and they can try to connect them to services. Chief Johnson stated that he would say the data he has been tracking were about 50% successful. For every two individuals they have contact with, they can at least start somebody down the path of getting help. Chief Johnson stated that they are not a services organization, which would be too big for their mission as a police department. So, there is a point where they try to hand off to agencies and organizations that do the right thing, full-time, and professionally. The hope is that they will get what they need and those that they can connect with services, great. Sometimes the ones that they do, especially if it is an outpatient kind of situation, are doing the best they can to keep track of them to try to monitor their progress and make sure that they have continued connections to support. Chief Johnson explained that the idea behind all that, or the loop on the rationale, is that if these two clinicians with their officer partners meet a significant number of folks, they will not be able to offend in any capacity. Chief Johnson noted that they could do their small part in helping to improve their quality of life. Phil McGinnis, 555 East Loockerman Street, stated that at this point, there is a statute in place that you can be arrested for loitering, which is a criminal violation.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 5 Responding to Mr. McGinnis, Mr. Hare stated they are proposing that if someone gets arrested for loitering, they will get a parking ticket. It would be a criminal offense just to do that. So, what he hears is that the different organizations have no problem following the state ordinance. If they do give a ticket, they get a criminal record form because that is what they want to have, which is a criminal record. Responding to Mr. McGinnis, Mr. Sudler stated that they are taking two components of language out of the state’s ordinance, which the city did mirror the state ordinance word for word. The city is changing a line that discusses tackling a high-target area which could create an issue of profiling or an arrest based on a subjective view. So they are addressing the state's actions. The city is taking those elements out that could lead to profiling claims and hardship on marginalized individuals, and they are also taking out the criminal components. Council is dialing it back so that when they go to get a job or housing, whenever they need their record reviewed, it will not say you have a criminal offense. Mr. Hare stated that to follow up on what someone said earlier, yes, the city does have a great police department. They do have a lot on this language. Their sole purpose, driving around Dover, is not to look for people loitering, they have other things to do. They ignore the police. That is why they got arrested, not for just standing somewhere in the street. The ones that have been arrested are not homeless, and some people who are not homeless have received tickets. If everyone wants council to do that, they will follow the state code. Jean Bauer, 152 Westminster Terrace, stated that she had been a resident of Dover since her family moved here in 1948. Ms. Bauer stated that she wanted to know about issuing citations paid by cash or by some kind of monetary value for $25. Which none of these people have. Why not consider, instead of a citation payment, some civic responsibility, trying to pick up, clean up, and tidy up? Responding to Ms. Bauer, Mr. Sudler stated that the council had discussed this with the Chief. Mr. Sudler thinks that at one point, they discussed that that kind of order must come from the Justice of the Peace, it is a very good suggestion. That is something to explore. Responding to Ms. Bauer, Chief Johnson stated that doing that is not advisable. The difficulty comes in the administration of service. It is a little bit difficult for the police department to charge the entity and then administer that disposition. Now with the concern that has been discussed, there is a lot of discretion that comes into play. Chief Johnson noted that the barriers are infinite, but at the end of the day, they would have arrived at some alternative program, a retrial, or pre-events disposition. It would have to be set up with the local board and start with a state-charging document. The idea is that when the person has completed their community service and necessary things, a judge could dismiss the original offense, and it is done through the judiciary, and kind of record cleaning, and then the administration of community service, and the verification. The things that would have to be elements of an appropriate program would be managed and administered by the judiciary rather than the police department responsible in the executive branch. Fleur McKendall, President of the Central Delaware NAACP, asked what the expected revenue is if this were to roll out.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 6 Responding to Ms. McKendall, Mr. Sudler stated that they do not have any expected revenue. Council is just trying to decriminalize the component. That is their mission, but they have not gone into "How much money is this going to make us?" Ms. McKendall asked if it would not make the city any money, how much it would cost then? Responding to Ms. McKendall, Chief Johnson stated that other than the normal wear and tear of the hardware that they use to either generate a local ordinance e-ticket or a state summons, there is probably a time component, there is no official cost that he can project based on their current practices and current resources. Ms. McKendall asked what evidence the city has, or do they even have anything that shows they have a loitering problem? Where is the evidence? Has there been an assessment? What has been done for council to conclude that there is a loitering problem in the City of Dover? Responding to Ms. McKendall, Mr. Sudler stated that council has received many complaints from constituents. Whether they were complaints driven from or reported with Dover PD or just complaints to a council person. So, it is complaints driven, but do they have statistical data to support that if someone says something to us about it? Mr. Sudler stated that he does not know, but what he does know is that his constituents are concerned about that. Maybe some of the emergencies are here, or community members or homeowners can speak to that. Mr. Sudler noted that he does not know. Chief Johnson stated that the only data he could find were calls from residents. 285 calls for concerns related to citizen complaints, he believes it was Councilman Hare that referenced the window of 2022, the vast majority were handled in ways that did not involve a charging document. Eight ended up being disposed of with a state summons. Mr. Neil stated that he thinks that Mosaic took an extremely important survey. A poignant study by Mosaic pointed out safety was an extreme problem in Dover. There are concerns about people going down there safely, and safety is something that council has looked at before. From their point of view of rejuvenating Downtown, she cannot dismiss it as just hearsay, it is there. Council knows it is there, and they want to do something about it, that is not going to hurt the people who are disenfranchised in other ways. Ms. McKendall asked Mr. Neil if he believed that issuing out fines and fees to those who are scrambling to take care of their basic living necessities are going to be able to pay these fines. And if they cannot, what then happens, and at what point does it escalate? Responding to Ms. McKendall, Mr. Neil stated that, as Councilman Hare pointed out, it is state law. As the Chief has said, the city tries to avoid that. It becomes a weapon without an ending penalty that would cost somebody a job, or housing, which is essential and one of his soapbox stances. So on that point, it is still there. What they are doing is not going to change that because the same person that is fined by the state is going to have a criminal record and is going to have a hard time. Council is trying to avoid that to help those who have said, "Help us keep our business Downtown."

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 7 Responding to Ms. McKendall, Mr. Neil stated that, no, it is about the civil rights of the business owner to have customers be able to come through their doors. Council is talking about the civil rights of people who are trying to do business, and they do not want to hurt others if council is a sponsor of this. Did you do that against homeless people? Did you do this against people who are panhandlers? Homeless people show up where people are. It was not designated to hurt them. It was designed to give the police a way to say, "We have a complaint, let us see what we can do.” Council is talking about something later this evening about Irish Mike’s. No civil rights interfere with other individuals' civil rights if they feel like they are being punished, then the city has to deal with it. This is a way of dealing with it that my colleagues have come up with. What can council do to keep those businesses in business because they pay the taxes that will pay for the homeless shelter? If they are not in business, they are not paying taxes, then the city does not have the money for homeless shelters. President Sudler stated that he believes Ms. McKendall’s initial question was regarding fines and fees. When they get a criminal record, they go to jail. How much of the taxpayer's allowance does it cost to keep them in jail and feed them versus giving them a pink slip? Just food for thought, not to answer that. Responding to Ms. McKendall, Mr. Sudler stated that he thinks that he would know that in regards to homelessness and getting funds for the homeless. So creating this ordinance as well as itself is an act saying, "Hey, council acknowledges that there is some adverse effect on loitering on the state level." These are little things that council could do if it got passed, which the council serves its constituents because, again, it is not their bank account or budget. Council’s constituents pretty much drive where they are supposed to be going to a certain extent. Responding to Ms. McKendall, Chief Johnson stated that if they are having a first encounter with someone about a query, they do not necessarily need to get to know each other because it is a low-level infraction. Sometimes, it is a roll-up, wind down the window, "Hey, come on, man. You know you are not supposed to be here." "Yeah, I am on my way." Chief Johnson stated that the officer drives away, then they drive away. So if it gets to someone who is defying them with correction, then they have a one-on-one official encounter. If they do not have an ID, it is almost impossible for an adult not to have some kind of electronic record in one of their databases just so that they can verify their identity. That does not necessarily mean they are going to create a charging document or execute an enforcement action at that point. At the very least, they know that they are not talking to a fugitive, someone that is wanted, or there are other concerns. Chief Johnson stated that if they did get to the point of a charging document, they have the database to fill in the basic demographics of the charging document. If they have ID, that expedites the process, but if they do not, they have other means. Responding to Ms. McKendall, Chief Johnson stated that at the end of a predetermined period, if the object of the enforcement action is not responsive, does not send anything, or does not communicate and pay the fine, it gets turned over to the city's collection agency down here. Whatever happens to an unpaid debt, do they stall that course of action? Chief Johnson noted that they probably would. Responding to Ms. McKendall, Chief Johnson stated that he could not speak intelligently to that, so he is going to stop because he would not be able to answer her question.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 8 Responding to Ms. Paul, Chief Johnson stated that he wants to be clear about when they say decreasing the consequence. Officers have discretion just like any other section of the criminal code that might have a mirrored section. There are times when the right thing to do is an ordinance. Sometimes the correct thing to do is a warning. Sometimes you have to think of the state statute. So his position and the police department's position is, this is an extra option that they have in certain situations where it is appropriate for enforcement action, but fortunately, they feel is necessary. Chief Johnson stated that they can issue an enforcement action that does not have the consequences that come with a state-level action where there is an official record. Chief Johnson stated that there is an unofficial record that is automatically triggered by being charged with anything in the state. If you do not respond, you get double-marked in the system. There is a lot that comes with that, and that is not necessary for everyone to have those consequences of getting the point across to people. So from their perspective, this created a layer where they have the authority to act, but they do not have to issue something that has additional consequences that are of concern to certain persons. Lachelle Paul stated that anybody in law enforcement generally does not decrease the consequence of an offense. Where has it been known or shown that decreasing the consequences lessens the offense because "We are saying one thing, and we are going back to another thing to say why this should be." If council is saying that businesses are having the issue with people loitering, it would be backward for them to decrease the consequence for these individuals that are offending the offense. Now also to add to that, she believes it was a meeting that was held in City Hall, where council stated that this particular ordinance was not supposed to deal with anything with panhandling or dealing with people in the homeless shelter. This ordinance was not supposed to deal with anything of that nature. So this particular argument with regards to this particular ordinance, unless she is mistaken here, it was said that this ordinance was not to be addressing those issues. So now is council saying that this ordinance is addressing those issues? Responding to Ms. Paul, Mr. Sudler stated that he is not saying this law and ordinance is addressing panhandling. Council is addressing everything under the ordinance of loitering and everything that is in the state's statute. Now to the concept of decriminalizing the penalty, which may increase the actual offenses made. Mr. Sudler suggested that she get with the ACLU. Mr. Sudler stated that she should ask the ACLU because they are also talking about decriminalizing homelessness. So if council decriminalizes homelessness, will that increase homelessness, or would that decrease homelessness? Mr. Sudler noted that council cannot answer that because that would be an assumption. Council does not have any data to say that if they do this, then it is going to have a different effect. That is just a small part. Ms. Paul stated that what he stated on the record is what this ordinance is supposed to do. So for him to try to sell this to the community because he is saying that council is decreasing the consequence for this particular offense. Now the first thing is if council is decreasing the consequence for the offense, and of course, the Chief just said it is under the discretion of the actual officer. So then creating this ordinance does not even necessarily mean that the person is actually in trouble for the ordinance. It does not say whether they are going to get the state law consequence and a ticket to appear in court or they are going to get the actual written order after all, per the discretion of the officer. Now with that being said, she had a previous meeting, and people were speaking about the Attorney General's Office not prosecuting some of the loitering offenses that come in front of them. She thinks that was maybe 15 cases if she was not mistaken. With that being said, did anybody ask the Attorney General's office why they did not follow through with those violations because the state law is already under appeal? People are

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 9 scrutinizing it because the question is about the Eighth Amendment right or the Fourth Amendment right. Ms. Paul stated they cannot preserve the Fourth Amendment right if they use that act because it is vague. With that being said, this is why the Attorney General's Office will not touch it now, which council says this ordinance mirrors the state law. Then when they talk about the children and the college students, she does not know about everyone, but when she was going to Delaware State, going to the yard was a beautiful thing because she was going to a party. Where does this come in for the kids, regardless of what they intend for it, it only takes one person not to go through this. Responding to Ms. Paul, Mr. Sudler stated that the students are only one component. Council is talking about marginalized individuals, which could be the homeless, it could be people with mental health issues, or it could be anyone that is most likely or has traditionally been, how should he say, profiled or experienced some disparities from society. Mr. Sudler noted that it also includes the criminal justice system. Council is only aiming to adopt the penalty part, and they are enforcing the loitering component. The loitering component does not talk about panhandling, and it does not talk about what the public thinks could be brought forth. Mr. Sudler stated that the Chief said that there is going to come a time when loitering is not the right violation to give them. Council is only dealing with the loitering language; they are only dealing with the criminal component. They see that some disparities and discrepancies exist and are brought forward. However, at this present moment, they have brought forth concerns, but there have been no court cases stating, nor has there been any judgment from a court stating, that the State of Delaware’s loitering statute is illegal or unconstitutional. Therefore, at this present moment to date, an individual can receive a criminal offense. Regardless of the things that have been brought forth. Right now, no court says loitering in the State of Delaware’s state statute is unconstitutional. Those that have argued, he has seen the arguments, but right now, it is still on the books. So council is just trying to lessen the adverse effects for a homeless individual, a student, or just someone of a marginalized group. That is what council is doing, and that is where they are. Ms. Paul stated that they have a state law, and the violations that they have, they can still enforce that law that is already there. She stated that she is not going to sit here and say, "Oh, yeah, that sounds good, decrease the penalty." She has never seen, in this great United States, where they decrease the penalty and get a better result. So, if you have somebody that is selling fentanyl and cocaine, and you go tell them, "Okay, well, we are not going to give you a charge, we are just going to give you a fine." Then you will see how much it increases as opposed to decreases Alani Ray stated that she has only two questions. Ms. Ray stated that her main question is why council does not meet to talk about it and speak with constituents. To assess how that money is invested, council is already making efforts to provide for the homeless. Why does council not speak with the nonprofits that are working with constituents one-on-one and make sure that that money is invested in creating the best? Responding to Ms. Ray, Mr. Sudler stated that council is doing that with the Chief of Police Advisory Committee, where they have students from Dover high school, parents, and community

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 10 members. Council also held community meetings at senior living communities. Council has already had a prior discussion at Luther Towers, he believes. Council has had meetings where they have advertised, and even tonight, this is an additional component of meetings. Council has done that with respect and maybe to make it clear that council has done their due diligence. Mr. Sudler asked where the individuals are when they have City Council meetings and when they have open forum sessions. Mr. Sudler stated that they have meetings throughout the year. He has a pulse on his constituents which consists of the downtown area, the surrounding area, and also students. Mr. Sudler stated that he thinks that some of the other council members should convey whether or not they have a pulse on their jurisdictions. Councilman Anderson, is there any other council person that may or may not have had conversations with their constituents regarding this topic with themselves? Do they want to give a sentiment if they are concerned or not? Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Anderson stated that when it comes to nonprofits, all of the members of council are aware. Council is very much with their coalitions; they create affordable housing. The City of Dover has recently not only given numerous properties to Habitat for Humanity but also allocated $600,000 to help build affordable housing. They also donated many properties to NCALL. Council is very much in collaboration with the health code. They sat down with Hope and Dreams, Code Purple, and with Dover Interfaith Mission, and they sat down at People’s Place. Council will work with them one-on-one. Council has started by having 18 different organizations come before the committee to address these issues. Council also set aside money from the Care Act funding, he cannot give the exact number, but it exceeded half a million dollars to get people off the streets and put them in hotels. An active coalition partner in the last 10 years, has helped 2,000 people in housing. When he talks with people who are homeless, they say they are from Virginia, Maryland, and Sussex County. Dover gets more people from other places; they cannot control the influx of people from other places. Our local city cannot do social services and solve a regional problem. These people come here because the city has services and transportation. Also, the fact that they are a passionate community and will remain so. Thousands of people directly get calls from people saying, "Thank you for your help. Thank you for helping me. I have a job now." Your reference helped. Now there are lots of people who are working that are involved. Plus, when you get people from all over the place, that is not a reflection of the city in a negative. In a way, that is a positive reflection of the council’s investment and compassion. Responding to Ms. Ray, Mr. Sudler stated that he asked the Delaware Central Branch President at the beginning of this January to schedule the meeting to provide Council with questions. Council did not approve it, and the only comment in the response was, "Noted, I got it." They never provided council with any information so that they can be prepared. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Ray stated that all she is saying is as a constituent, she would like to be treated with integrity and respect. Ms. Ray stated that she is just telling him her concerns, and as her legislator, he should be taking those concerns seriously. Sue Harris, 241 Pine Street, first wanted to touch base she was at the ACLU in the City of Dover, discussing her questions about whether this is constitutional, but it is very disingenuous to say that the homeless population and the loitering are not connected. She thinks that everyone knows if they did not have the homeless population, then there would not be a loitering problem. Can council please tell her where somewhere else is? Where is this illustrious somewhere else? She can imagine somewhere else, it is a place of compassion and empathy, where fellow human beings understand the needs of all, including the mentally ill, the addicts, and the alcoholics. Ms.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 11 Harris imagines it is a place that has small houses and amenities that those who live on disability, have social security checks, or depend on a small part-time job can afford. She imagines it as a place for people who accept each other, help each other, and live with each other in a community that cares about one another. Ms. Harris imagines it as a neighborhood very much like Europe, where you have people next door to lend a hand to, give a smile in the morning, and wave hello as you come home at night. She imagines it as a place where you can feel safe when you go inside and shut your door behind you and know you are okay for the night. She imagines it as a place that has friendly faces, caring hearts, and small houses for simple living. Ms. Harris stated that she is hoping that council can give them an answer as to where somewhere else is. She is sure they would rather be somewhere else instead of being in the way and in full view of everyone who sees the results of their worst decision. The fact that they are as poor as they can be is that they have mental health issues and addictions. Ms. Harris is sure that instead of having a neon sign on their forehead as people pass by on the streets, they could also go inside their homes like many, close the door, and hide these kinds of secrets from everyone. Everyone has those things they regret or left behind a closed door, but when you are this kind of poor, then you have these kinds of challenges. You live in a community where municipal leaders do not even see you, just think that you are in the way and somewhere else does not exist. They are finally accepting their role in creating infrastructure, which does include affordable housing. Many people continue to struggle to find somewhere else to go. Council’s recent infrastructure funding needs to consider that the National Low Income Housing Coalition reports that affordable housing is a critical element of any infrastructure package. Not only because housing informs other infrastructure needs but because it provides an enduring investment and economic growth. It says that housing is infrastructure. They encourage states and localities preparing to implement infrastructure investments to consider and coordinate these investments with affordable housing plans. So as soon as council and the elected officials accept their responsibility to create the opportunity for somewhere else, somewhere will continue to be nowhere but the city’s streets for them. Javonne Rich, Policy and Advocacy Director at the ACLU of Delaware stated that the ACLU has an invested interest to preserve and advance civil liberties and civil rights in the State of Delaware. That is why they have weighed in on this topic. Ms. Rich stated that she has sat in a couple of Dover City Council meetings, and many of them are because constituents are reaching out to them about policies and all that they believe will infringe upon their constitutional rights. This ordinance is unconstitutional and should be withdrawn. The ACLU of Delaware has already submitted a letter to the City of Dover outlining the reasons why this ordinance is unconstitutional. They have also stated that should the city council pass this ordinance; it will likely result in costly and unnecessary litigation. Ms. Rich has heard discussions about state solicitation and loitering codes. The ACLU of Delaware, just last week, sent a letter to the Delaware State Attorney General requesting a moratorium on enforcing those codes, as well as for the Attorney General to support a local appeal as well. Responding to Ms. Rich, Mr. Anderson asked if she thinks it is unconstitutional, then why do all 50 states have to pass similar legislation? Why is it in thousands and thousands of jurisdictions all over the country and in court to uphold it? His second question is if she thinks there is further language, would ACLU be willing to provide council with such language?

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 12 Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Rich stated that she will pass along his first question. Although she is certain that the letter that was sent to the city council outlined case law that did not support loitering and panhandling ordinances and laws. Regarding the second question about the language, ACLU’s attorneys have already spoken with the Dover City Attorney to say that they are not in the business of giving language and that the city has an attorney to help them with city ordinances. Ms. Rich stated that they are asking for a full appeal of this ordinance. Ms. Rich stated that people are allowed to loiter and that people are allowed to congregate. Mr. Sudler asked Ms. Rich if there are any reports regarding the moratorium. Have they received any response in regards to whether they are going to hear about this or any outcome? Mr. Sudler stated that the ACLU sent the letter, but have they received a response saying, "We are going to review this, or we are going to hear the arguments out on this date and time"? Also, at this present moment, the ACLU put in a request for a moratorium and a full repeal, will they go back and take it off their record? Is it as of right now, that it still will stay on their record moving forward? For example, if he gets a ticket today for a loitering criminal offense and then tomorrow, the court says it is illegal. Will they go back and erase that offense? Mr. Sudler stated that his main concern is in the meanwhile if that is not the case, individuals are receiving a criminal offense. So in the meanwhile, they cannot help mitigate that by just providing a ticket. So when or if the full repeal is granted, they will not be in harm’s way. So, see where council is coming from at the same time, he understands where she is coming from. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Rich stated that was a good question and that she would like to spend some time connecting with her expert in expungements. Ms. Rich will be able to provide that information to council. Councilman Hare stated that he would just like to say that council appreciates everything that everybody is saying, but opposition right now is until all state laws and federal laws change. Council should follow state law as the constituents want, so what is the use? That is part of the issue right now. Vonderlear Smack, White Oak Road, stated that she is going to start by saying what has council done for her lately except a 40% increase in electricity. Now they are here about this ordinance that council wants to impose. This man has already discussed something that is already in place, he has already decided to keep it the way it is. So why does the city need to create its ordinance, the law? If they have a situation that happened to them downtown, they will be telling the story. They can get pictures sent to them, why are they only sending them to council? Why are they not calling the police? Council is not the police, why are they not calling the police to handle the situation? Out of 280 incidences of loitering, only eight resulted in a criminal offense. She stated that they owe a hand to Dover PD for de-escalating situations. Ms. Smack asked once again what has city council has done for her lately. Ms. Smack stated that is where she is at with this. Ms. Smack continued to state that city council can use their voices as an advocate with the State Government to ensure that funding is available and allocated to the city's needs. Council sitting up there having meetings about a loitering ordinance. Really? How about getting out there, speaking, and trying to get some money for the homeless people? People get evicted. How about they get behind them so they can keep homes for the homeless people? They desperately need council, they probably will not come out and say it, but she will. Ms. Smack stated that city council can allocate Senate bills on behalf of their residents for the right to counsel. These people would not be affected if they had council there with them. Ms. Smack

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 13 stated that she wants everyone to get on Senate Bill 14, go to the ACLU page, and pick both of them. Get behind it, stand behind it. City Council can advocate on behalf of these residents and ensure that people are not denied housing because of their income source or are participating in voucher programs. This housing discrimination matter will also be before the State Legislature this year. Council’s residents, their constituents, last time she checked, City of Dover African Americans, is that not most of the population here? Ms. Smack thanked Councilman Neil for being the only one that responded to her in an email, and she salutes him. So now, what has council done for her lately? Ms. Smack noted that they have to march to council for a meeting. Basically, what has council done for her? Ms. Smack stated that today, the Governor announced their spending plan that would include $101.5 million for affordable homes, which is the largest investment into affordable housing ever, according to the News Journal. Ms. Smack wants council to think that she is bringing everyone some good stuff, but she fights for her community, and they know that. Everybody knows Smack, but that is in the News Journal. Ms. Smack noted that she is speaking for her work, and she is passionate about her community. Ms. Smack explained that council does not like what she says, she has to say what she has to say so that people can understand, constituents are her homies, and they are her people. Ms. Smack stated that she tried to email President Sudler for about three years, but it has not been able to go through. Responding to Ms. Smack, President Sudler stated that he has not received anything from her. Mr. Sudler stated that city council has reached out on a state level to Trey Paradee and others. Mr. Sudler stated that they have also obtained liaisons for the state level, who obtained, what, $10 million that they were not getting before through the City Council initiative. Also, Council Hare can speak to the fact that they do not qualify for the bigger amount of money because of the population. Mr. Sudler stated that when Ms. Smack comes to council to ridicule or scrutinize them, please do her homework. Responding to Ms. Smack & President Sudler on what they were saying, Mr. Hare explained that the state has a program where they give pilot money to the county seats. Wilmington has, at least the last time he checked, $1.2 billion worth of state property that is tax-free, and Dover has $2.5 million tax-free. Georgetown is insignificant compared to those two. Mr. Hare stated that of the $4 billion that the state gives in pilot money, 85% of that $4 billion goes to Wilmington because they have a population of over 50,000. Mr. Hare stated that he has spent the last 10 years talking to the different Governors trying to get them to not add more money, just divide it equally. So if they did that, Dover might get close to 60% of the money, maybe 55%, which would be money that council could use. Mr. Hare explained that he does not know the breakdown of that $101 million, but he thinks almost 75% of it is going to Wilmington. He noted that he does not know the breakdown, so they might be able to find that out. Someone is knocking on the doors trying to get that money from the state, but Dover does not have the population. Mr. Hare is sure Dover will reach 50,000, and the legislature could change it to 70,000. Dover is working its way close to 50,000, but he is sure it will change when they get there. Mr. Anderson stated that he does think it is valid that they make sure that the taxpayers get to share money collectively for their work and effort. That is why for the last couple of years, they have been taking a much more aggressive approach. Council just had a meeting to help figure out a strategy for this year. Council is taking a much more aggressive approach to this, and that is something that has gotten a lot, especially with so many increased costs that they have with council’s projects, building parts, construction, materials, and the government’s price in

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 14 electricity, utility cost, and fuel, tripled in price. Council has the same cost concerns that each of the residents has, but therefore, they are taking a much more aggressive approach when it comes to that, and they have been very successful with it. Council would appreciate it if the constituents let the state and federal legislators know that they want to see more happen and increase council’s voice in that if everyone stands together. Mr. Anderson stated that he sat down with the Housing Alliance, and it was pointed out that they have in the city, because of the services, 22% of the homeless population in the state, but they are getting just a small percentage of the federal money that comes in. Mr. Anderson pointed out that they are trying to work with them to bring an appropriate share of that money. Council is looking at a grant with the city’s new representative Kerry Harris on how to bring more money in. Mr. Anderson stated that he went to a meeting with the state to look at how to get more. Mr. Anderson continued to state that he has written grants that have brought in many different services, including healthcare and other things for the city. He explained that they have gotten other council people to do the same in the last two years. So including bringing coalitions together, council can be one voice. The city’s non-profit department has helped, written letters to them, and once received $1.6 million. Council has helped other organizations get funding, and they have advocated for nonprofits. So that organizations and nonprofits, and economic development will be able to borrow at lower rates. Council is going to do things that transform the city with the constituent’s help. Mr. Neil stated that he agrees. What they need is the resident’s help. Mr. Neil stated that he is constantly writing and having commentaries in Mike Finney's newspaper, Delaware State News, the former paradigm for changing how they handle rights. The thing that is killing the state, that no single legislator has ever passed, is how much money coming out of this state goes into the pockets of landlords. How much tax money is being paid from that grant? What has happened is that a hundred million dollars or whatever is being given before that grant cannot be sustained as soon as the private equity function buys it up, whatever they pay for, the people are renters. The tenants are going to pay that difference in higher rates, leaving the state and giving the city no value. Mr. Neil explained that he has written column after column and thanked goodness for Delaware State News’ reporting when they go directly to these state legislators asking the same thing over again. Pay the landlord for what it costs them to operate and give them a profit from the operation and maintenance because so many properties are not maintained and are not healthy. As long as they are going to give many maintenance loans, Fannie May loans, Freddie Mac loans, HUD money, state money, and taxpayer’s money unless they have a tax, it is not going to happen. As soon as it happens, if you sell that property, it has to go to a not-for-profit. Then they are going to have homes for the homeless, then they will have reasonably cost housing. Then raising the minimum wage is not going to be wiped out and booked into some passive investors' hands who do not pay taxes in the state. Mr. Neil stated that he needs the residents, he needs the ACLU, and he needs the NAACP. Any organization that will stand up and say paradigm, a public service commission for records, and does what the city does with utilities, make them show the money. All they are saying is it is private, and they do not monitor the money. The money is so tremendous. Mr. Neil stated that he figured out in his leased land that his rent would drop by $300 a month. More to spend in this economy, more to spend in this state. So, understand if they do not go to those legislators, and

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 15 they do not raise hell, his voice does not mean much. Mr. Neil noted that by them joining him, maybe it will have an effect. The same thing goes for everything that they do in the city, one person cannot do it. It takes a community to do it. Ennio Emmanuel stated that by listening to pretty much everything, he thanked everyone for being there. He knows it is a lot of work to do, the work that they all do, and knows they do a lot, everyone has their needs, and council has all of their constituents. So, he is just going to state from his standpoint he is the Director and CFO at Code Purple. He is also the president of Kent County Alliance and Chaplain and Director at Maranatha Life-Changing Church. He is also an avid volunteer at People's Church and works a lot getting them funding for grants and their programs. So, did council know that the People's Church was established and consecrated before the creation of the City of Dover? So, there are gardens there, and a lot of people who they say are loitering go to church there, it is their holy ground. So, he knows some of this conversation might be around that area on Bradford, where he used to live, and they hear a lot of gunshots and a lot of cars getting stolen. That never happened to any of his cars or any of his friends that visited. So, he just wanted council to know to expect that People's Church is always going to be a haven for people in need. Mr. Emmanuel asked if council knew that People's Church is also working on opening a harm reduction center that will also go along with the opioid abuse and ER injuries, and things that people go to the ER for that they could probably care for. They are on- site with a small kind of medical unit, which is something that they are working on with BB Hospital. Mr. Emmanuel asked if they knew that when Theresa Campbell was saying earlier that maybe she did not feel that council was doing enough or while the NAACP was saying what has council done because, for him, he could say how much Code Purple has done historically from 2015 to 2019, they took in around 50 to 90 people a night on winter nights. They did that with a budget of $25,000 or less. So, it was not until 2019 that Code Purple’s Kent County budget went over $25,000, and so they are at a weird place where they can say for eight years, they have been dealing with this as an organization. Did council know that a good idea is to create a non-profit assistance program for education to non-profits or donate money to organizations like Dana or statewide support organizations? Mr. Emmanuel thinks that in the Kent County Alliance, he has 12 to 16 non-profits or companies that are members, and they have not applied for the Lieutenant Governor's outreach program for opioid abuse. Mr. Emmanuel had to tell them he had applied for it for Code Purple, but other groups there had not applied because they did not know how. So that is part of what he is working on with the Kent County Alliance. He thinks that the money that council gets should be used for support, he knows NCALL just opened up a business empowerment center. Mr. Emmanuel noted that they need to have a nonprofit empowerment center that he thinks should be led by the council. Do they remember that Code Purple did not receive any ARPA funds last year when they applied? He is thankful that they did receive $3,000 from the council and $150 from David Anderson's discretionary funds. Mr. Emmanuel stated that right now, just with those monies they did not get last year, they will apply this year, they are at around 89 people in their emergency sanctuary. That includes men, women, and children. Does council know that this makes Code Purple currently the largest homeless organization providing shelter nightly in Kent County? A lot of people think that their people are the ones that are loitering, and it is not that easy to say. People’s housing is a human right, and they are just providing sanctuary. What they provide is the same equivalent to a youth program at any church, anywhere doing a lock-in. They just do it periodically because of weather and mental health issues. Council also needs to know that Kent General has even sent people to

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 16 them with defibrillator machines and oxygen tanks. Kent General is sending people to Code Purple Sanctuary, not Code Purple Homeless Shelter, not Code Purple Clinic. They are sending them to a Code Purple Sanctuary where there are volunteers. They do not have the funding for nurses with oxygen tanks, and those people have to come upstairs and downstairs. They are trying to afford an elevator at People's Church, but it is almost $100,000. Did they know Bayhealth sent those people to them even though Code Purple asked them not to, and then they had to send them to the James William Center because they do not know what to do? After all, they cannot take people in those situations, health-wise, but then the James Williams Center sends them back to Code Purple. Mr. Emmanuel stated that the issue is that council does not know any of these things because they are not coming to any of their nightly dinners. They are not going to the board meetings, which is not their fault. Maybe Code Purple needs to reach out more. That is not just Code Purple, it is the life-changing church, the People Church, Kent County Alliance, and Dream for Foundation Tag Unlimited. These are all Milford Advocacy for the Homeless and Dover Advocacy for the Homeless. Mr. Emmanuel stated that he is on the board or leads one of those he just mentioned. So, they are all represented here, and he also just wants council to know that they are also going to be working alongside the ACLU, as is every organization. He said that they will be making sure that they support them in the lawsuit if this pushes forth. Andrew Freud stated that this is his first time here, and he has learned a great deal tonight. He apologizes if any of his comments are a little redundant. It sounds like everyone agrees, most of the reasonable people here, that there is a balance that needs to be found between creating the conditions that will allow the downtown area to be safe for pedestrians, the non-homeless community, the homeless community, the business owners, and also managing the homeless population in a humane way that does not ignore their civil liberties. Mr. Freud continued to state that he thinks that the number of complaints that have been received is evidence that there is an imbalance here. He has lived here for 30 years, and there about easily, he would say, there are 10 times as many homeless people in the area as he lives on South Bradford in the last 10 years. Mr. Freud explained that if this is about safety concerns, he knows it seems like there is far more that could be done. The downtown area has the ability for people to go to these businesses, and the willingness for people to spend time in that area, he thinks, has been decimated and has continued. There has been a steady decline there, he feels for most of his life. The neighborhood that he is in, which is just a couple blocks away near the fire department, has gotten less and less safe. He believes that he has family members that walk to work downtown, they have been doing it for 20 years, and they are reluctant to do it anymore. The Code Purple shelter is there, and there is a fairly regular kind of borderline harassment that occurs there with the people outside. Mr. Freud noted that he is not that type of person, but he is not reporting anybody specifically, but it is enough to make the area uncomfortable. He lives there and many of their neighbors have moved from that location in the last 10 years. Mr. Freud stated that he happens to know there were AA meetings that were at the People's Church that were stopped because of concerns. There was an elderly population there that had concerns about leaving just to go to their car. That is another vital resource to the community that he feels was compromised by the current status quo. It is just sort of an unpleasant situation. Any money that he thinks is going to be put into the downtown area that is not aimed at limiting the presence of the homeless population there or getting them the services they need is going to fail.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 17 Mr. Freud stated that he thinks that the constituents of the city this is just purely an opinion, but he thinks it is based on their not wanting an unsafe downtown area. Mr. Freud noted that he thinks some of the people dominating the conversation are a little bit of a squeaky wheel trying to get the grease here. Mr. Freud stated that he commends the council for their efforts, but if he had one criticism, it is that he thinks there may not be as much of an effort to reach out and get the pulse of the constituents that might be a little more apprehensive about speaking out on the issue because it is sort of sensitive and it is not an easy thing to talk about. Mr. Freud explained that he is frankly pretty reluctant to do it right now. All these arguments about civil liberties are very relevant, but he feels like the people taking the hardcore stance on them are being pretty unimaginative about what kind of solutions can be reached. Mr. Freud stated that he is a little skeptical of any representative from a national organization that may or may not have any stake in the community. He thinks they can get creative with this, but there are too many of these members of these national organizations. He just wants to point out that there is a biased perspective that they are bringing to it. He acknowledged his bias as somebody that lives in the area as well. Mr. Freud explained that he is not trying to say they should get rid of the Code Purple there, but just trying to make everybody aware of what he thinks the situation is there. He would happily pay more taxes to fund a homeless village somewhere. Something in line with what was done in Georgetown within the last few months. He has heard good things about it, but he does not know what is happening with that vacant campus community high school. Lauren Tinsley stated that she is the co-owner of the Center of Criminal Wellness at 121 West Loockerman Street downtown. They have been in business now for 14 years, and it is a big deal for them. They have been right in the center of downtown there. Their experience as a downtown business they opened back in 2008, compared to what it is now is night and day. Their doctors, their nurses, their therapists, and their staff are increasingly afraid to come to work. While they went all virtual due to COVID back in March of 2020, they have many of their providers who have returned downtown to provide in-person services. However, the majority of their clients do not want to come back downtown. They regularly ask, “When are you moving?” When they move out of downtown, they will feel safe to come down and feel safe to bring their children. Ms. Tinsley stated that this week on Monday morning, their 74-year-old neuropsychologist was mugged while trying to get her belongings out of her car to come inside their office for work. She was mugged by a woman who began by approaching her asking for $2, and from there, it escalated, she went into her car and manhandled her, and she is now having a hard time coming back to work. They are fortunate that they have the virtual option for some of these things. Ms. Tinsley stated that several weeks ago while walking outside to where her car was parked in the Minor Street lot, a man was grunting and yelling while staggering in and out of traffic in the street. She went and got her staff because she could not decide what was going on. They call the police regularly, and they have responded, but if it is somebody they are familiar with, then they are like, he has the right to do that, which is very concerning to her staff. Her staff is questioning her, and they take this as a very big responsibility. They have over 70 employees in their business. They are also community-based providers, and they are going in and out of the homes of their most at-risk families, and that is getting scarier as well. While this person, after staggering in and out of the street, walked into the back parking lot, and she witnessed this multiple times, proceeded to drop his pants and defecate between two of the cars in the Minor Street lot. She has heard this from so many people, and he is a regular, like this is his restroom or something, but people are nervous. This is very scary behavior when someone is walking

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 18 downtown with their children. Her sister Erin Sweets, who allowed Ms. Tinsley to speak on her behalf tonight, owned two different retail stores on Loockerman Street for many years, Bell Boutique and The Look. While she had several reasons why she chose to close her physical stores on Loockerman Street, one of the main reasons that she chose to leave downtown was out of fear for the safety of herself, her employees, and her customers. Ms. Tinsley stated that these are nice boutiques, that people are coming out with bags of clothing and stuff, and that people are standing on the street. It got to the point where they were regularly walking people to their cars so that the customers were feeling safe along the street without getting harassed. Ms. Tinsley stated that they completely support the homeless and their community and provide mental health and substance use treatment. They do their best to provide resources and assistance in any way they can. The majority of the homeless that they work with every day are not violent and are very appreciative of any support they receive. Her concern is that they are experiencing an increase in people scaring their employees and clients. When they call the police, it seems like it is an ongoing matter. The police seem familiar with the person they are describing and frustrated that they want to be able to assist, but there is not much with what is going on unless it escalates. Ms. Tinsley stated that she does not know if this legislation is the answer, but she can say if something does not begin to change quickly, they will not have anyone left to feel safe to open businesses in the downtown area. Councilman Rocha stated that it was good to hear from the business’s perspective, but what he did not hear was anything that pertained to loitering. Council already has an ordinance for panhandling, and it sounds like a lot of those actions that were described were more criminal. So is loitering even a problem is what he is saying? Somebody has to come forward and say something about locking the entrance, he wants to get more of that stuff other than the panhandling. Mr. Rocha stated that he is just pointing out how they can resolve this issue by hearing some facts, and so far, he has not heard that yet. So if someone has a comment, he suggests they go ahead and sign up so that council can hear what they have to say. Todd Stonesifer, 115 North State Street, stated that he also owns two businesses in downtown Dover, a Real Estate office, and is currently partners in a business called The House of Coffi. Mr. Stonesifer continued to state that he lives, works, and spends a lot of time downtown. Mr. Stonesifer is also the leader of the Downtown Dover Partnership, and for the record, he is not speaking on behalf of the Downtown Dover Partnership. He is speaking on behalf of himself and his businesses. Where his real estate office is located, he parks in the rear and has to walk around in front of the office to get inside. His office is in the former Wells Fargo parking lot. He walks around Bradford Street, where he has to pass the Cendel parking lot, and for the record, Downtown Dover Partnership does not own the parking lot behind the Cendel building. It is mentioned in the Delaware State News they do not own that parking lot. That includes walking in front of the liquor store, where there is usually a congregation of people. His clients also have to do that, and they will not come to the office anymore. He also has all glass windows on his building in which he is there typically an eight-hour day, and within direct eyeshot is the building that he would call the former Sears building, which is now an apartment building with commercial units on the bottom. When he sits where he can see that every day and people are sitting along that wall right there. They have signs up that say No Loitering. He works near Ms. Tinsley; her sister's name is Ms. Erin Sweets. He would see her business, and her customers would not walk past that building when they were sitting there, they got harassed. Look, he does not know where it is for these folks to go, and he does not think that

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 19 they need to go anywhere if they are respectful. Mr. Stonesifer stated that he thinks that the whole point behind all of this is that the mechanism right now puts them in a position where they cannot get ahead. The mechanism in the future, if this passes, would be such that allows them to get ahead in life and they are trying to help them. He wants nothing more than for everybody to succeed. He would like to succeed, and he cannot. Council has a very tough job ahead of them. Mr. Stonesifer appreciates and respects the courage that it takes for council to put themselves in the line of fire. Fleur McKendall 44 East Circle Camden, DE, stated that she is there on behalf of Central Delaware NAACP, where she serves as president. Ms. McKendall wants to address President Sudler’s comments to Alani earlier about the City Manager emailing her multiple times on his behalf, asking Ms. McKendall to submit any questions that he can answer before tonight's meeting, which is true. She did get all the emails, and that is true because, for one, she had to almost beg to have this type of community meeting with the council and other community organizations and discuss alternatives. So no, she was not willing to have an off-the-record conversation with Council President or anyone else about anything that they were going to say or that they were thinking because President Sudler was President in 2021 when Councilman Taylor promised to bring the NAACP, the ACLU, and other community organizations to the table to have a discussion when this came up the first time around. Ms. McKendall stated that council is well aware that he did not keep on that promise. So she was not willing to engage in a conversation with him via email for providing any additional information. Secondly, she just wants to ensure that, for the record, a text message that she received this morning from Councilman Taylor that went to Councilman Anderson is on the record. Ms. McKendall stated that she presumes that this text message was not meant for her eyes and that it was sent to her by accident. The message read, and she quotes, "I have remained silent since I move in days, but no non-citizen should be able to determine how citizens should live and conduct business. Ms. Paul is currently engaged in a lawsuit against the city, no one from the ACLU lives here, nor does the NAACP president. Local reporters have already spoken about this. When that goes public, you will hear from the rest of the city. Pass it, and trust law enforcement to do the right thing." End quote. Ms. McKendall continued to state that she is the president of the Central Delaware branch of the largest, oldest, most forthright civil rights organization in the country. Yes, she does live in Camden, but the majority of her branch's members and constituents live in Dover. So wherever her people are, she will also be. She has just as much of a right as anyone else that is here to be able to be there tonight and make comments. Organizations like the NAACP and the ACLU are the reason why four men of color are sitting before her as elected officials when everyone knows that some 60 years ago, they would not have even been able to vote, much less run for office as an elected official. Now that is cleared up, she expressed that back in 2021, when this same council proposed this type of ordinance under the guise of anti-dawdling, the NAACP did have some severe concerns that this type of ordinance would have a disproportionate impact on underserved and already marginalized communities, subjecting them to increased police oversight. Ms. McKendall stated that as she has said many times, it is nonsensical to subject this population, who more often than not cannot meet their necessities, their basic living needs, to this type of ordinance in the name of public safety for all, it just does not make any sense. Given the police murders and excessive use of force cases all over this country, of which Dover is not

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 20 exempt, let her be clear on that. The NAACP has engaged in direct actions to demand police accountability, transparency, and transformative community policing strategies that build community trust. Ms. McKendall stated that they have been doing a great job with that. This ordinance, in their view, will not be conducive to promoting the advancement of those goals. She thinks this will achieve the exact opposite, which is increased resentment towards police, that is going to fuel a barely contained fire. Ms. McKendall explained that there are severe and irreversible consequences when people are subjected to vague, ambiguous, and crime-based laws that involve the subjective judgment of their criminal propensity. Regardless of how pretty you try to gift-wrap this ordinance or offer it as some great option, the bottom line is, it gives officers another stick in their belt to force unwanted people from public places. As the Chief has said tonight, more than once, "Officers can use their discretion to either enforce the state or the local ordinance if it were passed." Which in their view, will have a further propensity to have a disparate impact on black, brown, and already marginalized communities. This council, despite what it claims, she does not believe has done all it can to address the problem it claims this ordinance will alleviate. They have heard no substantive information from any council to support that statement. In her view, it is a lazy approach that will not solve the problem. She is requesting that they kill this bill and invest in long-term planning that should include adequate funding for programs where people experiencing homelessness can have somewhere to go, such as community centers. Loitering ordinances have been challenged by the NAACP in other municipalities, and they will continue to be vigilant as they work to secure quality, equity, and justice for all in partnership with the ACLU and other like-minded civil rights organizations. Ms. McKendall quoted the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., "In the end, it will not be the words of our enemies that we will remember, but the silence of our friends." So she would ask all of them to take a moment to ask themselves if council is their enemy or if council is their friend and then act accordingly. Responding to Ms. McKendall, President Sudler stated that he would like to add a point of clarity to her statements. One, it was not the City Manager, it was the City Clerk’s office that reached out to her. Two, Councilman Taylor did not make him aware that he did not fulfill his promise. Mr. Sudler stated that he was there after the meeting, where he said he was going to meet with her. Mr. Sudler stated that he does not babysit people, they are grown. He is not checking with him to say, "Hey, did you meet with her?" That is not his responsibility, and he is sorry that Mr. Taylor did not meet with her and fulfill his obligation, according to her. Mr. Sudler stated that he had nothing to do with that. Mr. Sudler stated that his last comment is regarding the text. There were only four individuals that had that text message, and he also received that same text. He could be wrong, but maybe that same text was sent to the four individuals, as well. Mike Harrington, a property owner in downtown Dover stated that he got his start in downtown Dover in 1968, he was the manager of a discount drug store and worked his way up his whole life dedicated to downtown Dover. Mr. Harrington stated that his comment is that council can hear from somebody who deals with loitering every day. He owns 33 West, the home of La Hacienda, and it is next door to a package store, which he thinks is a draw. There is not a single day that he does not have to send somebody down there to clean up feces off of the sidewalk and his door to get upstairs, 155 South Bradford, which is the second floor of that building. Mr. Harrington has eight offices up there; it is a revolving door because many of these businesses that rent small offices upstairs are young ladies. When they come down the stairs to get into the

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 21 building or get out of the building, many times they are approached. It is crazy, he will sign a lease with somebody, they will give him a deposit, and a week later, they will say, "Just keep the deposit, I cannot deal with this." Mr. Harrington stated that he commends council for the approach that they are taking here. He served in the Delaware Legislature for a while, he has been in their shoes, and he knows they are damned if they do, and they are damned if they do not. The only reason he is talking is to prove the point that there is a severe loitering problem on Bradford Street and then downtown. Mr. Harrington noted that he recently had La Hacienda tell him they are giving up the property next door in his building. They were going to expand, but because they said of the loitering problem, they just do not have the volume, and being a good guy, he released them. Responding to President Sudler, Mr. Harrington stated that Rebel Cove, which was a restaurant closed because it did not have the volume of business to survive. They can talk about the reasons and all that. It was just basically a lack of business, and he also let them out of their lease. Councilman Rocha stated that he just wanted to provide some clarity. It is not that he does not believe there is loitering downtown because he has walked the streets downtown. Mr. Rocha’s office was there, and he has spent many days and evenings in the parking lot behind the Cendel building because he accessed that building. It is not that he does not know the issues out there. It is just that in the testimonial that is going on record, he is just asking for specifics to loitering like Mr. Harrington just provided him. That is what he wants to see so that he can sort through all of this and make his determination without hearing other things that do not sound like anything unique or do not pertain to loitering, in his opinion. For the business owners downtown, if they can just show up and come to the podium and explain their experiences with loitering, be specific, that is all he is looking for. Brett Scott, Loockerman Square Apartments, stated that he did not come there tonight with the express purpose of this particular ordinance. After hearing the conversations that he has heard, he did feel compelled to get his opinion on the record as someone who is a downtown resident. When he moved into Loockerman Square Apartments, he made it a point to support all downtown businesses. When he first moved in, Rebel Cove was a nice restaurant, but shortly after he moved in, they left. There was a period when the building was empty, and then La Hacienda came. While he has enjoyed going to La Hacienda, he has since learned that they are going to leave downtown because they are not getting the business. As far as loitering is concerned, what he can tell council from his experience is that if he exits his apartment building on any given day, there is a group of guys hanging out in front of his apartment building drinking beer, drinking rum, open containers, and nothing is done about it. Mr. Scott believes that it is a problem and that something needs to be done about it. He stated that he is not opposed to guys hanging out on the street. What he is concerned about is when alcohol is involved. Mr. Scott noted that he is going to kill two birds, one stone here. They know the issue of Irish Mike's is going to come up later, he is not going to hang around for that conversation. What he will say to council is that Irish Mike’s has made Loockerman Street dangerous to be on, particularly late at night. He does not think that enough is being done. They have been given opportunities to police themselves and are not doing it.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 22 Lachelle Paul stated that the way people are trying to make this seem is as if they do not already have something in place for the issues of loitering that are already going on. They have a state law. There is nothing prohibiting the Chief or any one of Dover PD's officers from enforcing the state law. So with that being said, this ordinance, come on think about it, mirrored the ordinance from the existing state law. So, what is this ordinance going to do that is any different than what the state law is? It is not the problem of the ordinance; it is the problem of enforcing it. To be clear, you have business owners like Irish Mike's, and she did have the opportunity to speak with the owners of Irish Mike's. Ms. Paul stated that she was just there, and they talked about the people in front of Driftwood, the liquor store, and things of that nature they are having issues with. Those are loitering issues, but this ordinance is not going to be how you get results by lessening the punishment for that particular violation, it will not help these business owners. Ms. Paul stated that those violators, they need to have the state ordinance. Is the state law enforced? It is not a matter of the law not working, it is not being enforced. They have kept on talking about this ordinance for 15 months. They already have a law, use it, and enforce it. Use street residents, they have their barbecues, chilling out in the parking lot, and it is real, they are doing this. Playing cards on the sidewalk, she cannot make this stuff up. With that being said, this ordinance is not going to stop that behavior, the law does. It is what they have laws for. To sit here and say, "Oh, we are going to pass an ordinance so that we can make it easier." makes no sense to her. If they can make it a crime, they want to make it harder, think twice before going out here to do it again. What council is saying does not make sense to her. These businesses like Irish Mike's and this gentleman right here with his real estate company do not need this ordinance, they need the law enforced. Council said they were going to have a mobile substation. Council talks about everything that was supposed to be done. Now, if they are not going to do so, they need to get a plan to do something that makes sense. This is not going to solve the problem and it is not the end-all because they already have a law. So what is council going to do about it? Nothing. Let us get it together, go back to the basics, and get back on track so they can do something. About not living in this area. Yes, for everyone within this great United States, even in this local government, including our mayor. If it were not for them, people from these organizations going out to speak would not be afforded the seat they are in. Ms. Paul noted that council has a City Solicitor, and he is an attorney. Ms. Paul stated that she is a paralegal by profession. If council’s attorney tells them not to do something, then they do not do it. It is common sense because if it was council’s own money and had to pay for their council, they would not do it. This is the constituent’s money, go out and make your own. Councilman Anderson stated that what they need is something that is more easily enforced. The problem with the state law is that if they do not want to enforce it, and therefore if it is not enforced, it is not abided by. It is not the penalty, but it is the consistency of enforcement. It is not about how harsh the penalty is. If they put in penalties, and throw people in jail for a year, if that is enforced, then that would not matter. It is when they enforce something with consistency that gives them the response. Also, the city ordinance can be enforced by all officers, including candidates who hopefully graduate in the spring but cannot enforce state law. The people who actually have eyes on the street and are actually on the street would not have to call in to get a sworn officer to come in to enforce it. There is a reason behind it when it comes to the survey. If there is a survey, he would like to ask that the DPD release the report, and if they can get a survey which shows that residents and people who talk here, he believes it is not top three, but certainly one of the top five challenges that they see in the city. That is what people can tell them

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 23 with surveys, and that is what they are telling council. Diana Palmer-Welch, 6 Shadow Court, stated that she owns two businesses, the Golden Fleece Tavern, and the Grey Fox Grille. Ms. Palmer-Welch submitted a letter and supporting documents to council (Exhibit #1). Yes, loitering is a problem because they are pushing guys out of their patios more now than they ever have. Even the back patio at the Grey Fox. They hang around the front of the Golden Fleece, and they push them along. Ms. Palmer-Welch stated that she has a very good security group that pushes them along, and they can only push them so far once it stops being her property. One of the issues that she sees here is that there is a huge difference between private property and public property. The NAACP has been extremely successful, and rightfully so, in challenging these unconstitutional laws. They are unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, the 14th Amendment, sometimes the Fifth Amendment, and sometimes the First Amendment when you are talking about panhandling. These loitering ordinances are very, very hard to put in place, so good luck with that challenge. That is because, in Chicago vs. Morales and Reed vs. Todd Gilbert 1999, the Supreme Court is constantly striking these down. So, be very careful about the loitering ordinance, it might be a lot of exercise for no payback whatsoever. If they take the teeth out of it like the young lady said from Wilmington, what is the point? There are no teeth, why are they here? Since council cannot write a loitering ordinance with teeth or a panhandling ordinance with a lot of teeth, then they have to look at possibly when the behavior becomes criminal, right? Well, the problem is, they are balancing that with waiting until it becomes criminal. Look, she does not envy their positions at all right now. Ms. Palmer-Welch stated that full disclosure, she is running for Mayor. Probably should have said that when she got up there. Yeah, she is running in the next election, so vote. If council has to balance the unconstitutionality of a loitering and panhandle law with the fact that businesses will pull up roots and leave. There was a point where she considered it, it is getting too hard out there. Fortunately, they have eventually been able to overcome it, but a new business that does not have an already established clientele who are going to step over the bodies, and she is not kidding when she says that it is a problem. Rebel Cove could not overcome it. Bad timing, COVID, heightened crime. This also plays into the homeless, she does not want to address that, but somebody said that nobody is addressing it. Ms. Palmer-Welch stated that they have all talked about possibly a tiny home village that the land council is talking about. These are all things that are being looked at. A community center cannot be done overnight. She does agree with what everyone says that a community center could get a lot of those folks off the street during the day, but she would caution not to do it on New Street. That is not of benefit to someone who is trying to get clean. She knows everyone thinks not in my backyard, but it needs to be somewhere where it is away from that temptation. Ms. Palmer-Welch stated that if they are trying to get clean, she does not know that living on New Street is a good idea. She knows when she was trying to quit smoking and was unsuccessful because she lived with a smoker. It is really hard when someone around you is doing that thing that you are addicted to. Anyway, that is all she has to say. She appreciates council, but this is very difficult, and she, unfortunately, has to side with the NAACP on this, they are going to be successful at what they do, and these ordinances usually are typically unconstitutional. The wording has to be extremely, extremely careful. She sent Mr. President a link to the white paper on why they are unconstitutional.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 24 Bobby Wilson, 32 West Loockerman Street, stated that the loitering problem, guys that are loitering, think that the policing is a joke. They are getting slapped on the wrist, and they will brave this law. They will think it is a joke because they think it is a joke now. He has been in downtown Dover ever since 1986, and this is the worst he has ever seen. He is on the West End, 32, and he just sent pictures, pictures do not lie. How many times has he sent the city pictures? All of the time. They are shooting up and OD'ing right in front of the building. Is that enough loitering? Loitering and panhandling go together. This is what they are dealing with, and this city is going completely down to crap if they do not do something immediately. Cody Canasa, the owner of Agape Body Piercings on Bradford Street, stated that they have been down there for three and a half years. Ms. Canasa stated that she does not have a lot of contexts, but what she does have is an observation of this evening. She will admit she does see a loitering problem. Her business is run completely by women, four ranging from ages 22 to about 39. There is a safety concern when there are predominantly men saying words. Ms. Canasa stated that she does not know if this is the answer, and she does not have enough context to speak on that. She just wanted to make an observation, not of the proposal, but more of tonight’s meeting. The fact that they have continued to keep the language that entails that it is not us versus them, she is so grateful to have witnessed tonight's meeting. Because is about the homeless, not them. They have said it is not us versus them or us versus the homeless. It is “our” homeless, she lives in Dover, so they are a part of everyone. They have equal rights to be here. Ms. Canasa stated that they do believe that there should be a middle ground between what they are permitted to do. That does affect the rights of others, being a business owner. She opened up three once before Covid, and it was not easy. It is only by the grace of God that they are still open. They need to have a solution. Again, she does not know if it is this one, but she does believe as long as they keep the language as our homeless, not them. As long as they say, it is not “us versus them”. As long as everyone stays united and together, what she loves is the passion behind her comes from concern, not from wanting to fight a fight. Ms. Canasa stated that she is so grateful that God continues to keep their hearts open to receive one another and the ideas and understandings of each other and not a blockade between those seats and these seats. Ms. Canasa continued to state that these are not her words, but Samuel 2:8 says, "He raises the poor from the dust, and he lifts the needy from the ash. He seats them with princes and has them inherit the throne of honor. For the foundations of the earth are the Lord's, on them, he has set the world. It is not those of us that have already had the door open that more are concerned with, but those that are still waiting for that door.” Otis Brooks, Caribbean Cuisine, stated that he has been on Loockerman now for about almost 14 years. One of his stores that he opened in February had to close by early December because it caught fire. However, no one has ever divulged any communication with him, nor has even heard any of his concerns about what happened to him and to his business. As if it does not matter. He has been a businessman for the past 14 years and has seen so much. The whole problem with loitering also has been here that long, he has lived it and experienced it. Mr. Brooks stated that he is unsure how he has survived 14 years. Mr. Brooks noted that he always asks for more police for a fix. A competitor just opened up on New Street, and everyone knows what New Street is known for, but again, why do they need an ordinance? More police and a stronger police presence would be a big deterrence. All the criminals see a cop sitting there, and they do not care at all. Mr. Brooks stated that he would like to see more police because that is the ultimate deterrence. In the summertime, once in a while, there may be a beat cop walking by but they need more than that.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 25 Mr. Brooks stated that he also wants to mention the closing of New Street, there was no organization and no support from the city. Those are poor people, which affects the city. This cannot be the way council is going or operating. Mr. Brooks stated that he sees what is said about a person that is strong in media by their vision. He has seen that for 14 years. Mr. Brooks noted that he currently has two businesses and two businesses coming up shortly. If he did not have a vested interest, a vested life, he would leave. Several people had advised him to, but he was not bold enough. So he is glad to see someone reach out to him, especially for some degree of restitution as far as his business and to help him get back, so he can go on and get the store opened back up. Mr. Brooks stated that they need to see some degree of change. Responding to Mr. Brooks, President Sudler asked City Manager Hugg & the Director of Planning and Zoning if they initially reach out to business owners in that area, and if so, he will be looking to get some concerns and what Mr. Brooks is speaking about. Mr. Sudler also asked if there is anything the city can do retribution-wise, for example, giving them a break or a reduction on something. Do they have something in the works? Mary Ellen Gray, Director of Planning, Inspections, and Community Development, stated that, yes, they have been in contact with Mr. Otis about this, as well as the businesses immediately impacted. The city did it the old-fashioned way by knocking on doors and talking with them. Ms. Gray stated that Eddie Kopp, Chief Code Enforcement Officer, also has been in contact regarding Mr. Otis’s business, episodically with updates as far as what is been going on, which Dan Bross has been talking about this with Tina Bradbury, who builds downtown apartments. Working with Tina to see if there is any grant money available. This is how it flows. Also, all of the businesses down there have been contacted by social media on the updated process. David Hugg III, City Manager, stated that he would just repeat what Ms. Gray indicated. Mr. Hugg has had some conversations with her staff regarding making sure that the folks in the area affected are kept apprised of what is going on. He has also been looking at establishing funding opportunities that could help Tina from the Downtown Partnership. Ms. Gray also indicated that the demolition process should be completed by the end of the next week, and New Street should be open. President Sudler stated that he would like for Mr. Brooks to contact the City Manager's office and provide them with his thoughts regarding restitution or how the city can assist him. President gave Mr. Brooks his cell phone number and stated maybe they can get with other business owners who have been affected by that and do something jointly. Reginald Bernard Daniel II, 1211 Pondersoa Drive, stated that his concerns regarding this ordinance are this, first and foremost, that when coming up with an ordinance, it is important to take into account most of all the affected, and in this regard, the most affected is through those who suffer addiction or mental illness. College students will likely not be affected by this ordinance. All these are important laws that already existed. Trespassing, assault, public indecency, defecating, and so on, which this ordinance would not cover those threats and issues. What even constitutes loitering? Is it, are they here for five minutes, are they here for 10, are they here for three hours? How far along do they have until they have to move? To some of them, that means enforcing the laws that currently exist. If they have issues with defecation on the streets,

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 26 public indecency is already a statute, and most importantly, they honestly do not. Businesses are important. They need businesses, and he wants everyone to feel safe. For revitalization of a community is not just about making money and profits in the business, it is about investing in the people running it for you. They would certainly chill if they are going to get housing, rentals, or anything else that they would need to survive, and they know about this. Janaid Kareem, Janaid's Salon for Men, stated that they just celebrated their 33rd anniversary on November 22nd. He started downtown, probably 35 years ago, with Mr. Bobby Wilson. He understands the loitering issue, but he thinks the issue stems from the drug issue that is a block away. They have to be honest with their selves, realistically, you set up businesses on Loockerman Street, right? One block from Loockerman Street, you are dealing with drug usage and drug dealing right there in that area. So at some point, they have to enforce those laws, and it is going to prevent the overflow coming to Loockerman Street. So the difficult position that he put himself in is he drives downtown every day, honestly, in his area, he does not see too much loitering. People ride by, he has guys outside, they smoke cigarettes and that sort of thing, but he does not have that issue. He has not seen any of the stuff that Bobby was talking about, the loitering and the pictures, he showed him some of the pictures. He can see that, but that stuff stems from the drug activity a block away. If any of council has ridden down Reed Street as he is sure some of them have, and after they blocked off Loockerman and Reed, excuse him, Queen and Reed or New and Reed. They blocked off New and Reed for the demolition of the building where drug traffic is now in front of Reverend Lot's house. All those people, all they did was put them in front of Reverend Lot's house, so at some point, there have to be some reports made to get enforcement. He is not calling for people to get locked up and that sort of thing. They are going to see eventually, maybe in two years or three years down the road a change in the area. He remembers years ago, he was talking to Mr. McGinnis before he had passed away, and he said, "Janaid, one of the things that he does not see when he drives down Loockerman Street is people coming back downtown, right?" So he said, "The only place he sees open is his barber shop and a couple of bars." "We need residents. We need people coming back." They go to work, like all downtowns, they go out to work, and they are coming back right to their homes, to the apartments, or whatever. Dover does not have that with the houses, some of the apartments, and things that they have there. They need more residents, but residents are not going to come downtown if you have this drug element one block, not two blocks, it is one block away. Unfortunately, the police station is a few blocks in the other direction. So at some point, to the sisters point, at some point, they have to enforce those laws that are already on the books. They have to enforce those laws. He and Harrington have a place for people who graduate from the program and launched a program into some of his properties, and fortunately, those individuals are doing well. If they continue to have this criminal element, they are not going to come. So they can talk about loitering all day long, talk about the consequences of that. They can talk about all of that, but the reality is they are going to get that if they keep having the opposite of that one block away. Councilman Neil stated that one of the things that everybody is missing, many of them who are in the room are aware of the presentations on the master plan, on the previous emphasis of that program, housing. The biggest emphasis to improve crime is to have more people downtown, more emphasis on improving the city’s crime is to have restaurants and things that people will

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 27 come to. Therefore, when it comes to this piece of the ordinance if this piece of ordinance lives up to what they have said to the merchants who have begged for it because their constitutional rights are being crushed, saying, "We are going to do this as another weapon to be able to dupe people without giving them a record", then that is where they are going to because that is what is going to help their life. Mr. Neil stated that they have a lighting system. He thinks that they have about $750,000 dollars invested in a three-million-dollar system in the downtown area and have never been able to have a ceremony where the council is there, but those lights are on. He does not see a person defecating if they are not taking a picture of them and they have evidence that it is there, and then people follow up. Those things are happening. He is not going to see it 10 years from now because he is not going to be around. Mr. Neil stated that he wants to be there when the first shovel gets into the ground and that the master plan starts to build downtown, actually bringing housing, and bringing businesses. There are going to be all kinds of things that people will come down to, but they have to feel safe. No question about it, if they do not feel safe, they are not going to be there. The more people that are there, the safer they will feel because of the circulation of the people. Tolano Anderson stated that he just wanted to comment on one of the bigger aspects of this. Something has got to happen, whether it is this ordinance or whether it is enforcing the state law. He is listening to both sides of the argument here, it is very, very polarized. Mr. Anderson noted that he is just thinking about where is the unity in this thing. They are talking about crimes and giving people the leg up, and some of those people do not want help. Some of them might like where they are and what they are doing. Some of them need help, but it seems to him like there is somewhere in the middle where a compromise has to happen or some sort of agreement because the status quo is unsustainable. Something has got to happen; they are losing downtown. Mr. Anderson stated that they have 16 units, 8 on Monument Street, 8 on New Street, and 38 people, period. Next month is going to be even colder. Wait until June or July because how many of them remember last summer when people pulled out on Loockerman Street in front, they were ground zero. Mr. Anderson stated that they have both sides of New Street and Loockerman Street. He can barely keep business owners in the businesses because of the issues with people loitering, what he considers loitering. A gentleman said, "Well, what is loitering?" When a person pulls up with their friends, stops their car, parks on the street, and turns on the music. They pull out lawn chairs, sit on Loockerman Street in lawn chairs, and refuse to move, when they eat their food, they throw their wrappers down, and you come the next day, and you have to clean up after grown people, that is loitering. It is not sustainable, he cannot stand cleaning this up, but he has to do it. It is unacceptable, and something has got to happen. Maybe it is the state law, or maybe it is this ordinance, but he applauds council because they have a very hard job. It is a balancing act, and he understands they want to protect people's rights. Business owners have rights as well, and he has people that cannot feed their families to pay their mortgage from their business because they have people that do not want to address this on the street because they do not want to get into an altercation. The businesses are being hurt because customers do not want to go in. They have two new businesses down there right now, one more getting ready to open, and he is concerned about it. Mr. Anderson stated that he heard the young lady read scriptures, but the one that comes to mind told him that they should all join together and are all together in unity. That is really what the Lord wants, and he thinks that they can find a solution that helps everybody.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 28 Constituent’s Safety Concerns Regarding Irish Mikes Pub Michael Pillsbury, 141 Shinnecock Road, stated that the thing with Irish Mike's is he cannot speak to what happens late at night there, but he worked at the car wash over the summer, and at the end of the day, he and the guys would go get a beer there. They played pool, and it was very cordial. People were nice, they were kind, and he just thinks that there are not enough places for people to congregate in the city as it is, and if you close down Irish Mike’s, it is just going to go across the street to the Fleece, or they are going to go to Tom's, they are going to go to the Touchdown, and there will be fights there. Mr. Pillsbury stated that he knows this was an issue with the nightclub on 13, some years ago. They had to close for that reason, and he feels like it is a systemic thing. Trying to close one establishment would just be like trying to put a Band-aid on a bullet hole-type thing. They have to come up with something that is going to rejuvenate downtown, Dover. Same thing with the loitering issue and the homeless issue. When he was growing up 20 years ago, and in high school, they did not have that many homeless people. Andrew was right when he said that there has been 10 times increase in the last decade, and it is not just Dover, it is nationwide. He is not sure what the illustrious council can do to fix the problem, but he does applaud them all for working on it. He thinks it is great that they are starting to decriminalize, but Irish Mike's is good in his book. Lachelle Paul, 40501 Silverside Road, Wilmington, Delaware, stated that the first thing she wanted to speak about on this particular matter is the issue of the safety concern that is based on the length of time that it took to get to this fight with regards to how long it took to reverse it or even to get it to be done. Ms. Paul stated that she did have someone who gave her a call because they have had other businesses where people think that they have a fair shot of being able to keep their businesses open. One was the El Tone, they had the Square Club and Allure. She has always been the person when someone comes to her with something, not only does she address it, but she also thinks about the rational part of it. What they said to her was, "It was not right when those establishments were shut down and the way that they were shut down. Why? Because they were not allowed to get it together." Ms. Paul stated that she went through it and knows the history, but if it was not right for those black owners, it is still not right if this business is not given a fair opportunity. So when it comes in as not being right, they have to go through it, they have to follow a certain protocol and make sure that everybody is allowed to be able to do what they need to do to keep their establishment open. Ms. Paul stated that Ms. Howard reached out to her, and some of the questions that she had were very simple. “What do we need, what is it that we can do? What do we need to do? What do constituents want?” One of the things that were an issue is that it is a nightclub. You cannot hear when you have music, people moving around, and it is dark. The security cannot hear everybody, so everybody now has the use of their earbuds and walkie-talkies where they can hear what is going on within that club, so it is not going to take seven to ten minutes for someone to get to a certain position when they are fighting, and it is not going to take them seven to ten minutes to turn the lights on. Those are things that they implemented that make sense because they said they do not want these things to happen. After all, the issue is safety. They increased their security. Ms. Paul noted that everything the constituents had concerns about, they did it immediately, even about providing food for their patrons. They are in support of allowing other businesses to come and take their menus, allowing them to come out, the food trucks, giving them the ability to feed them and have food where they can eat. That was one of the big major concerns, and that is one of the things that she can say that Ms. Howard did put forth the effort. Ms. Paul stated that she

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 29 does not have time to call people. She will send emails all day long, but she does not have time to be sitting up and playing patty cake with people. It is just not something she has time to do because she has a life. Ms. Paul continued to state that not only did she go to the establishment, but she also looked at some of the concerns that had been stated. If she comes to someone with something, she must have it on video, or she is going to go there that way, she can prove what she says. With that being said, she did go out to that establishment, and one thing that she did notice is that, over in the parking lot on the side of the liquor store, there were people that were sitting in their cars, and they were just chilling. They were just doing what they wanted to do, and then some of these people you did not see go in and patronize Irish Mike's. What they need is for the city to enforce the law. They do not have to go home; they had best get out of there. That is what they need to be doing. Ms. Paul stated that the safety issue is concerning with the amount of time that it took to break up that fight. Responding to Ms. Paul, President Sudler discussed multiple community meetings that they have had. Mr. Sudler continued to state that they have at least two to three community meetings where the community said, "This is what we need from you. We need you to have tighter security, and we need you to not have people come in, or at least when they are out, making sure that they are not fighting about certain things they were doing." So when they got shut down, it had nothing to do with the city per se, nothing to do with the city trying to hush up. If they are in violation, then they are in violation. They had a conditional use, so they were functioning as if it was a public entity, but it was a private entity where they have to sign people in. Mr. Sudler noted that he went there, and he has not signed in. Mr. Sudler stated that he is a local from here, and Irish Mike's, he supports them because he grew up here in Dover, so he can tell her the real deal. So with that, they were not in compliance. They got jammed up with the state, which forced the city to revoke its license. Mr. Sudler stated that council sort of got blamed for that, but they did not want them to shut down. Usually, everything is complaint-driven, and he can personally say that in every experience he has had at Irish Mike's, him personally, he has never seen a fight. He has never seen any disorderly conduct. Kate was always professional, and he is just giving her his personal experience. Mr. Sudler noted again that he is from Dover, Delaware, Dover High School, and has lived here all his life, so he can speak to that. Mr. Sudler stated that he also has seen the food trucks, which he was glad to see recently. So, he can also testify to some of what they are saying about the food truck, he knows the Howard family and Kate as well, that they will do whatever they need to do to be successful and adhere to the community. They are part of the community, and he knows for a fact that Kate is very receptive to ideas. Councilman Anderson stated that he would like to add one clarification, and that is the Elk Lodge had their liquor license revoked due to serving under-aged people. That they did not adhere to the conditional use or do anything to reopen. There were about three years of negotiations beforehand to avoid problems, but they messed up on them. Phil McGinnis, McGinnis Commercial Real Estate Company, stated that he works downtown and he has been promoting downtown since he came back from college in 1980 and got his license. Mr. McGinnis continued to state that he has tried to bring businesses downtown. They constantly fight the problem of older buildings that do not comply with the updated building codes and require a huge capital investment. They always have some sort of disadvantage. They

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 30 have businesses that fail all the time, but he does not want to confront the reputation that the City of Dover closes businesses anytime they get upset about something. That is tough, and he cannot bring businesses to a place that is fearful of being closed. He hopes they consider that in their deliberations and, after that, roll the building codes back a little bit. Reginald Daniel II stated that regarding the conversation he had, he thought there was an amount of concern. He came tonight wanting to see what changes have been made in his town from 2022 to 2023. What he wanted to see is just what changes have been made and a chance to show where changes have been made. Mr. Daniels fully believes stigmas can be tough. Diana Palmer-Welch, the owner of the Golden Fleece, stated that she is right across the street from Irish Mike's and has been for 13 years. She has had a pretty good relationship with them, and in mid-2021, things got a little out of hand, and she was pretty angry about it. She had several talks with Kate, and she does not think Kate got serious until it got serious. She does think that Kate is serious now. What she will tell council is that a lot of the things happening are out of Irish Mike's control. She thinks they have their space under control, but once it becomes out of their space, they move to that parking lot. Ms. Palmer-Welch stated that she is struggling with making a bar. Next thing you know, some rocks are thrown. So she has to be very careful about this. She will throw a couple of rocks, however, at city council, the Mayor, and a little bit of Dover PD. Ms. Palmer-Welch explained that there are about 10 things they could be doing that are pretty simple, very effective, pretty quick, and pretty cheap. They have been asking for this for about three years. The cameras downtown, all six of them, do not work half the time, maybe they do, but the other half of the time, they are pointed in the wrong direction, or the Wi-Fi is spotty, or, "Gee, I cannot pull that up." She cannot tell them how many times a Detective has had to come to either one of her businesses and ask her for footage from outside. She covers her bar, but the city needs to cover outside, it is not her job. It is not their job to light up the parking lot if it does not belong to them. That belongs to either that building or the City of Dover. They need a 24/7 monitored multi-camera system covering all downtown areas with special attention to high crime areas. They have been asking for it for years, but instead, they have six rackety old cameras that never point in the right direction. Ms. Palmer-Welch stated that they know what is going on and still do not have a camera that only costs $500. She stated that she will buy them a ring and just point it at that parking lot. That is what needs to happen, and they need to be real-time because of officer safety. She stated that she is a retired federal agent, full disclosure, and her husband is a retired Dover Police Officer. She would love for him to roll up to a situation knowing how many guys they have and how many shots were fired. One of her employees lives across from that parking lot and has a shoot policy for his family. They know exactly what to do because eight times in 2022, eight times, shots have been fired at him. No one should have to live with that, and that has nothing to do with something that they cannot influence. These are crimes that have to be dealt with. They need to examine the feasibility to place a substation downtown. She has been hearing that for a while and thinks they need to move on that. They need to add lighting to all municipal parking lots and light them up. Ms. Palmer-Welch stated that they need to partner with State Social Services, and that is a whole other thing. She has a 10-point document that she would like to submit to council in writing. Ms. Palmer-Welch discussed Dover’s Livability Score and Crime Index. People do not want to live

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 31 here anymore once they pull those up. Ms. Palmer-Welch stated that she was not there to throw rocks at Irish Mike's, she is there to ask the City why this was the case. Responding to Ms. Palmer-Welch, Chief Johnson stated that he brought the cameras to the council just a few months ago. He found funding for $5 million to invest in the specific issues she spoke of. Chief Johnson stated that Council has authorized him to hire two more telecommunicators and believes they are on their way to 16 when the resources are available. He stated that they are moving in that direction. Responding to President Sudler, Chief Johnson stated that one of the chronic problems that they are having is that they have a conflict between two council priorities. They want the cameras, but they also want the trees. Whether they are discussing the technology that was initially installed, which is using infrared to cut down the amount of money that the city would have to spend on fiber to make the system go, is one of the biggest reasons there is spotty coverage. Once they bloom the leaves get in the way of that signal, they lose it. So part of the plan for the money that council authorized just a few months ago is they are in the process of just getting everything on wires, so they get to keep the trees but get the cameras. They are upgrading every piece of equipment at the end of that wire on every pole to provide their technology with better pixels and resolution. Ms. Palmer-Welch stated that she sent out an email a while ago when they started having problems. Not only detailing what was happening to all the council members and the Chief. She only received four responses, and she wanted to thank Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sudler, Mr. Hare, and Chief Johnson. They were very, very good about reaching out to her about a lot of her concerns, and she does appreciate that. One more thing that she wanted to talk about is adding lighting, they talked about that and addressed the Cendel building, which is their property, and they need to do that. Things have gotten so bad that they might need to chalk it off for a little bit and just send a load of officers there, even on overtime. She knows that the city is going to have to approve the overtime, but they need something down here. Ms. Palmer-Welch stated that they go hours and hours without seeing a single cop car. She knows they are 15% down, she knows it, and she knows what is happening. Focus on two block areas, gobs of cops for like three weeks. It may just be a shock and awe-kind of thing that could be used to move them along. They have been doing it for a long time. Chief Johnson asked Ms. Palmer-Welch to submit her documents to the City Manager’s office. Mike Harrington, a property owner in downtown Dover stated that he owns a building that is alongside that parking lot that they are talking about. Last year, he upgraded the lighting all around there just to hold down safety factors and all of that. As he said earlier, he was a merchant on Loockerman Street from 1967 to 1978 and managed the corner store, Wise Discount Center, for 11 years. The point he is telling council is that Irish Mike's, which was not called Irish Mike's back in those days but it was that way of life. He used to go, and it is a nice place now. He feels safe when he goes in there, he does not feel safe when he comes out. The moral of the story is to give a solution, and he has offered to give, free, an office located off of that parking lot. It is about 2500 square feet of space. It could be a substation. He knows that the Police Chief is not in favor of a substation, that is what he has been told, not by him. Mr. Harrington stated that he agrees with practically everything Diana said and thinks council is taking it to heart; lighting, cameras, more police protection, and all of that. The real problem is the liquor store, and he has discussed it with practically every councilman, practically everyone, including the mayor. Mr.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 32 Harrington does not want to speak out of term for the mayor, but he said, "Jeepers, I wish there was some way that we could make this work.". People were there getting their alcohol fix, creating a lot of traffic. Janaid Kareem stated that he does not even think that this should be a discussion. Mr. Kareem remembers years ago, Councilman Sudler knows, after the Dover High games, people would load up, go to McDonald's, and there would be fights. There would be a lot of people over there, and before that, it was Hardee’s. People would go to Hardee’s, and there would be fights and all kinds of stuff, but they did not blame Hardee's for that. They did not blame McDonald's for that. Before Hardee’s, it was Rodney Village. People went to Rodney Village, and there would be a bunch of fights, but they did not blame those entrepreneurs trying to survive in the Rodney Village shopping center. He does not think that Kate should be blamed for what is going on. She employs people, she employs a brother of his here, and he does not have anything to say about her or her business. Everybody that comes in at his place always talks highly about it. Especially on Friday and Saturday, you want a safe place to go. They were having a conversation about going to First Fridays, and she had a little table out there and everything, feeding people and stuff. The city does not need to shut down people invested in the community the way that she is invested in the community. Todd Stonesifer, 115 North State Street, stated that they are trying to bring business, life, and energy back to downtown, which has been depressing. His experience regarding the comments that he has heard from working with constituents as well as his staff, most of the problems are happening in parking lots that are not able to be controlled by someone that does not go there. Things happen in bars; everyone goes there and has fun. Sometimes it gets out of hand, he thinks they control it when it gets out of hand pretty quickly. When it goes out onto the streets, he thinks it is really hard to tell if any of the people have even been inside of that establishment that is causing some of the issues that are out on the streets. Mr. Stonesifer stated that he sees it in the parking lot behind his office, and he sees it in the Cendel parking lot, and again, it is loitering. People are coming and setting up grills, they are setting up chairs. They are hanging out in these parking lots, and sometimes the owners of these parking lots are home asleep and do not see this trespassing issue or loitering issue. He is hearing that it is not enforced because the owner of this property has not called in and complained. Anyone can see what is going on, and they need to enforce that. They cannot be expected to control something that is not theirs because they are going to get into trouble for trying to do that. They should not be penalized for something happening beyond their control. Jerell Farrakhan, Carolina Place, stated that he would like to say that the City does not acknowledge that some of the smaller businesses downtown have changed. They are not out there walking the streets. They are not out there every day, not going to Walmart, not going to Target, and going home. Going down there, getting out of their vehicle. Walking up and down the streets for a few years, every day, and keeping a real experience of what is going on downtown. He does not feel like people think it happens. He has been sitting here all night, listening to people. When it comes down to downtown, once the college closed, do not take that as a small thing, it is a large thing. They used to have their alumni coming down, too, and they do not come back to visit now. If they close these businesses, they take away all of that, so what do they have then? Those people who say, "I have nothing else to do," are the same people that say, "I'm going to tear it up,

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 33 let’s go out.” Council is making it seem like it is the business owner’s problem, it is “our” problem, it is everybody's problem, it is the whole city's problem. He has been around a lot of business owners since he was a kid. He stated that if the city wants to start somewhere, start with the minorities, start bringing the mentoring programs back, and get around to that. As far as Irish Mike’s, nothing but love for everybody there, Kate is an amazing person. Everyone makes mistakes, especially with business. He is sure a lot of councilmembers have a business, has big decisions where they have to go back and look and say, "I need to change this." Unfortunately, on the scale that she is at, with the amount of attention that she has daily, it is hard to just go back and decide that decision. With that being said, he just wanted to get up and say he thinks the city needs to look at the general town as a whole. Kiera Johnson stated that as an employee of Irish Mike's for about two years now, she would like to come up and say firsthand how it has affected them all a lot. Ms. Johnson stated that the problem is not inside their bar and that they are fine. She feels as safe as she could have ever felt at any job. The problem is outside. As other people have said about the parking lots. She does not park in the parking lots around the corner or behind the building because she does not feel safe. She has to drive around a few times till she finds space just because she does not feel safe. People come up and cannot handle it, and they are convinced, but these things are beyond our control. There is generally nothing that they can do. They cannot see outside of their windows. There have been times that she has been in charge, and she has had to call the cops, and the cops have never shown up. There have been times when she has called the line like they are supposed to. They are like, "So what is it? What's going on?" "I do not know. I am inside my bar. The car is outside." She has had a cop laugh at her and be like, "You should have known the model." There are a lot of different things that they cannot control, and everything that has gone wrong has affected their pockets tremendously. Now, she is a single mom with three kids, and their business has been, before it came out, falsely accused, does not do anything that they have control over. They are not fair at all, so she asks that the city thinks about the lives that are being affected by this. The employee, the owners, just everything. She has never worked for people that are more caring and giving. She appreciates them because they come in and see their employees. They have regulars that genuinely have spent their lives with the employees. Really, and to repeat their thoughts, and frankly, they feel attacked. It is not fair because they are trying. That is just what she wanted to say as an actual employee of the business. Nobody puts themselves in their shoes and sees how it affects them, not just the owners and the people still there. They are trying to support their families and their children. Responding to Ms. Johnson, President Sudler stated he just want to assure her that it was complaint-driven and not by city council. However, once things occur, they have a responsibility to the community to at least hear the complaints. That does not mean they have already made a decision and that they are going to do this now. Council does have a fiduciary duty to their constituents and the community to at least have a meeting, like what they are having tonight, and he thanks her for bringing forth a different view on it. Cody Canasa, the owner of Agape Body Piercings, stated that seeing both sides of things, she has herself, when she is sitting in her apartment late at night, has had a lot of issues, being the spill over into her parking lot, even though it is significantly further than those two closer lots. She does have a genuine concern about how some of the overflow or the flow over from the events happening within Irish Mike’s. She also agrees with the fact that a lot of that does not have to do with anything they have or have not done on their end. Yes, being concerned, having it literally in her backyard, she cannot deny that it is concerning both as a citizen as well as, as a business

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 34 owner. Ms. Canasa stated that she just wanted to again, just bring the tiniest bit of encouragement. She has been downtown for three years now, and she does not know, again, she cannot speak to what other people have or have not. This is just her, and she will say there have been leaps and bounds of a difference between when they were first opening up Agape and today. She has seen nothing but improvement. All the transient population has been gone. The people that are left are the people that live there, and they are not dangerous. They are just concerned people when it is late at night, and they are all in front of her. She will say she does not think anybody in this chamber wants another business shut down. she does not think anybody in this chamber has any ill intent toward wanting that to be the result. She is just grateful that there are conversations around it, that the people that have a concern are being valid in their feeling, but the people that are being criticized the most are saying, "Hey, what can we do because we cannot help what we cannot, but we can help what we can." So she is hoping that this discussion tonight is less about an end decision and more about open dialog. Kevin Howard, 107 W. Loockerman, stated that has learned that when you are ahead, you should just sit down and shut up. Now, he is an old player, so he is going to say a few things anyway. In September 2021, they lost their business license temporarily. The good people of the city office work shopped serious issues with them. Their suggestions, the Police Chief, Mr. Hugg, and they met several times. They took all of their suggestions to heart. They attempted to implement all of the changes that they thought were appropriate, including additional and better-trained security. Mr. Howard stated that he has spent $10,000 on a camera system and lights on the exterior front and back of his business, with a dedicated feed to the City of Dover Police, and they have heard about two parking lots. One lot is roughly to the rear of Irish Mike’s by the Cendel Trust lot. The other lot, which he will call the Wells Fargo lot because their kiosk still sits out there. He is unsure if they still own it, but you cannot see them. When you leave Irish Mike’s, you make a left, go East on Loockerman, and then turn on Bradford Street, they cannot see you once you get out the front door. So what they did was mount cameras back there, with that dedicated feed, so that, at least, there would be a record of what happened, and the police could react to what happened. If they wanted to watch that, and he would encourage additional personnel, they want to watch what is happening on that lot, so they lit it up like a Christmas tree, even though they do not own it. They have created a camera system so that they can watch. That is something they did. They did the same thing in front of the building because of the park. Mr. Howard stated that he is not involved in the park, and he uses that phrase loosely. The park is another trouble spot because it is where things can happen at night. It is dark, so they lit it up to the best of their ability. They also added two exterior cameras at the front of the building, which gives them a perfect view of the parking lot, and they record those inside. They are available to the police, and the police have used that information to solve other offenses that have occurred downtown that have nothing to do with the operation of his business. The police also have had access to, over the years, the 14 cameras that they put inside Irish Mike’s, and Irish Mike’s is not even as big as the council chamber. Not even this big, but there are 14 cameras to show them every square inch of Irish Mike’s, and there have been cases where the police needed to know whether, during the course of the night, "Somebody was downtown, can we look at your cameras?" They have made identification of perpetrators from events that they have had. The State police have done it, and the City of Dover police have done it. They have co-operated over the years. Getting back to what happened in 2021. There were concerns, things were happening. It seemed like the momentum building downtown toward a violent circumstance centered around the vicinity of Irish Mike’s. They took that seriously, and they made whatever changes they

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 35 could to contribute to the safety of downtown. They spend now, on Friday and Saturday night, 25% of their gross revenue on security. How many businesses can say they do that? He does not even know how many businesses can afford that. He does not even know if he can afford it because their business is affected by the lack of traffic downtown too. They do not open until 4:00 or 4:30 in the afternoon, and they are open seven days a week. At one o'clock, whenever the number of patrons, 30 or 50 people left in the tavern, go onto the sidewalk. They cannot make them leave, but you would think they would leave. It is one o'clock in the morning, and he does not know about everyone except for tonight, he is usually in bed by this time. There were occasions when people would not leave, they would gather, and the Police Chief said yes to this. At that time, if they get the sense that something is going to happen, they should contact the police because they were not doing it enough. They took that to heart because his people have standing instructions. If the bar lets out, and they do not leave or get a sense that something is going to happen, they proactively call. Whether a car is dispatched or not depends on the discretion of the people that work there, but they convey their concerns, and they have a standing policy there. They reopened in November of 2021 when their business license was restored. Once it was restored, since then, until, he wants to say, New Year's Eve, an event occurred inside the bar that was picked up on social media, and he thinks it is the source of these current complaints. So he wanted to explain the event because what they saw on social media is the event, not what was happening immediately before and not what happened after. Mr. Howard stated that he did not mean to get into the weeds about this, but he wants them to understand it because a tavern is a dynamic business. They are a tavern, and, Kate was working that night, so she is an eyewitness. Kate is Katherine Howard; she is his middle daughter. She runs Irish Mike’s. Mr. Howard does not have any daily role or much of any role at all except to sometimes sign a check. That is about it, but Kate is there all the time. She has her finger on the pulse, and she is behind the bar. They have security working the door. At some time, before 11 o'clock, ABC representatives come into the bar and say, "Hey, we are in the neighborhood. We are going to be going to the restaurants and the other establishments. We are going to be checking IDs. Make sure your door security is carding customers. Make sure you are up to snuff on your routine." They put two guys on the door, which was, in retrospect, a mistake because unbeknownst to those two guys, at 11 p.m., a girl was dancing in the rear of the bar, back in the dark. Since they have cameras there, with enough interaction, they were able to watch what transpired, both before and after. The young lady came in, she was at the bar for six minutes. She did not buy anything. She walked immediately to the back, where some people were gathered, and they were dancing, and for some unknown reason, she snatched a wig off of another woman's head. That did not go over that well, and the lady, whose hair got pulled off her head, got violent. So for about 30 seconds, these two women were at each other. Fortunately, neither of them was hurt, and Irish Mike’s security responded from the front of the business and separated the two people. They then expelled them, but they first found out whether anybody was hurt. Nobody was hurt, and they declined medical attention. Then they asked if they wanted Irish Mike’s to call the police, either of them, because somebody, a guest, could have said that they were the victim in that circumstance, but they did not want to call the police. It is 11 o'clock, New Year's Eve, and should they send a car, the City of Dover Police, to a disturbance that has been resolved on New Year's Eve night? So Kate made the discretionary call not to call the police. Maybe in retrospect, they should have because he does not know if they

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 36 would be there now if they had called the police. He does not think it would have been right to call the police because they controlled the situation. The people they hired as security did their jobs, and things went on for the rest of the night, and it was uneventful. He has not counted the number of days since the council restored their business license, but it has got to be somewhere in the 400 to 500-day range. This is one event in 500 days for a business open seven days a week. If they put this business on lock because they have been open 30 years. He bought the tavern from Busting at the time, they called it the Towne Tavern, but it was the Olde Towne Pub. They still use that in the title. This is Irish Mike’s Olde Towne Pub. They are good citizens, and they try to contribute. They do create employment for the people downtown, and they are a lovely environment. He knows that the Chief of Police will hear him out on this. In this business, most of it is the reaction, how to react to a circumstance. They get called to a scene, they get called to a disturbance, and they do their jobs. The tavern is not much different. They try to anticipate problems. They stop people coming in who are intoxicated or people who get loud or are in trouble. They try to get them out of the business before trouble kicks off, but sometimes that is all they can do. They try to react in ways that are the least troublesome. Mr. Howard noted that he feels like they are good citizens and they have done their part. Now, that is not to say if somebody has an idea that will make their operation better and safer and further support the safety of the people and the property owners downtown, they are going to do it. They put their money where their mouth is. He wants somebody, some other business owner, to raise their hand if they invested $10,000 last year in the security of downtown because he did. Mr. Howard does not think anybody else can say that, and they are ready to do more. So that the record is clear, half of Irish Mike’s is the property he rents from Mr. Harrington and has for 20 years. Council President Sudler stated that they are not there to decide whether Irish Mike’s is going to stay open or close. Council is there just to hear the community, and he is glad it is getting shared with them, from Mr. Howard’s perspective. Councilman Boggerty stated that it is obvious that he was contacted a few times. He wanted to add on record, saying he does not want to see Irish Mike’s closed. At night, some of the biggest parties in the city were happening, and at his barber shop, he was vexed. Mr. Boggerty emailed them, thinking of the barbershop, but he was unable to sleep the next day, so he understands what that feels like. Regarding what he said in the paper and all that, he does not want to see them close, but council wants to make sure that everybody is safe. Mr. Boggerty noted that he went to visit Coney Island. He goes everywhere down there, and it is timeless. Tina's is timeless, and he will buy records from there. Grey Fox, the event that he will not say what it was, but he was there, and he cannot wait till the next one because he will be there. See, his barber shop is down there, and Harry Louie, his cleaners. Miss Cartwright does his tailoring, and when that ice cream shop is open, he gets the Oreo sundae. It is probably not open, but there, they do not stay open too much. Councilman Boggerty stated that he is excited and grateful. He knows what the investments look like because he had to put cameras in his place, and he understands that Coney Island is going to stay open to help feed people. Mr. Boggerty stated that he does not know if they worked that out. He does know about the food trucks, so they do have his support to stay open, and he hopes that it was clear. Whatever he can do to help, it is for them to make sure of it.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 37 Mr. Howard stated that he wanted to emphasize one more thing, they have created a new account. They create a video record every night of what happens in Irish Mike’s. They do that for a couple of reasons, but the primary reason is to save some proof of this if they can do something better. So that is his anticipation. Mr. Howard stated that the gentleman who left early said that they make downtown Dover dangerous, he does not necessarily agree. If he is apprehensive that they are not doing something, he wants him to feel safe downtown. They want people in their business. Councilman Neil stated that they are the victim of their success. He means some businesses would love to be able to have their reputation and be packed with bar clientele. Struggling to resist when they go outside is a problem. That is something that he thinks they have to look at in terms of what everybody says because they are fighting. He wants businesses down here to be safe. One other thing, he knows Mr. Howard based a lot of this on the mugging, but he never saw that incident. Mr. Neil stated that it is his job to put this down or die, and, as one person who is here, who is saying, even he will say, "Oh my heavens, this is the best." They have had all kinds of reports, and basically, that is what they are referring to. It is the funniest thing, he started life back in 1960, as a newsman, as a reporter in Longwood. They cannot be in every place, even if they wanted to. Responding to Mr. Howard, Mr. Neil stated that they need people to report to the council once and for all. That is why he knows they have a deal. That is why he knows they have to make a different type of emergency downtown to protect them. If, for any reason, the state gives up or does not force their law, begging your pardon for uttering. He does not want the safety of the bill that they have to be able to at least use that or have that, to move people around. This would go, in their case, they could move those people around without throwing them in jail, without giving them additional problems with all the things they have in life. Irish Mike’s does not belong on both sides. President Sudler stated that he would just like to say that, after hearing the sentiment of the majority of individuals separate from his personal view that he stated earlier, he supports Mr. Howard and Kate. He never had a negative experience there. It has always been a professional experience. Mr. Sudler supports all businesses from here, and he believes that their problem is bigger than Irish Mike’s. It is a multitude of problems that happen to be centered around their establishment. Mr. Sudler stated that he will continue to support them and to please reach out to him, Kate has his number. Stay in contact with him so that if they are having concerns or things are not going their way, in regards to they are trying to reach people or contact people within the city, department heads, or managers. Mr. Sudler noted that they have an excellent team at Team Dover. They do a great job, but sometimes they all get overwhelmed, including himself. So let them keep the dialog coming, and they have his support. Councilman Rocha just wanted to say that he applauds them for leaning in on this situation and providing the resources, such as lighting and cameras in the back of their establishment, and going above and beyond for their city. It is appreciated, and he thinks he can speak for everybody, for the rest of the council, regarding the appreciation that he is a business owner and caring enough to do that.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2023 PAGE 38 Mr. Sudler moved for adjournment of the Special Council meeting, hearing no objection; the meeting adjourned at 10:21 p.m. ANDRIA BENNETT CITY CLERK ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /AW Exhibits Exhibit #1- Letter & supporting documents submitted by Diana P. Welch-Golden Fleece

EXHIBIT #1 Special City Council Meeting of 01/26/2023 GOLDEN FLEECE TAVERN LLC 132 W. Loockerman St DOVER DE 19904 Website: Goldenfleecetavem.com Email: goldenfleecetavem@gmail.com 23 January 2023 To City Council, City Manager, Office of the Mayor, and Chief of Police: In the past two and a half years, our businesses have fought to survive Covid, inflation, staffmg shortages and now crime. It is not hyperbole to say the last three business years have been the most dreadful anyone could have ever imagined. In mid-2021, merchants and residents downtown were asking for city assistance with the sharp rise of violent crime downtown. In August 2021, as serious crimes continued to escalate, merchants and residents reached out again, asking the city to address the issue. There were stabbings, shootings, brawls in the street, sexual assaults, arson, destruction of property, and drug crimes. In September 2021, I sent a letter to City Council, the Mayor, and mUltiple city officials, requesting action be taken. The action taken focused on the initial catalyst of the problem but failed to address the areas outside where functional control was limited. In September 2022, a young man was fatally shot. It is worth noting, only 4 members of the City Council and municipal leadership responded to my 2021 email.andonlythreefollowedupwithcontinueddialogue.Thankyou.Mr.Anderson.Mr.Sudler.Mr. Hare, and Chief Johnson. In spring 2021 sales numbers were mostly coming in line with previous pre-Covid years. However, by August 2021, as media reported the spike in violent crime, sales sharply decreased and sustainability for Downtown businesses was substantially impacted. Customers flat out said they did not want to come downtown. Hiring was already challenging, but at least two prospective employees declined offers of employment because we were located downtown. Workers and customers are afraid to park in any of the parking lots after dark for fear of robbery. A 70-year-old woman was mugged last week in broad daylight. The family across from the CenDel Parking lot implemented a "shots fired" drill due to no less than 8 incidents of gunfire in 2022. A man pulled a gun in the middle of the street and pointed it at my staff. Restaurants had cancellations of lucrative events with customers citing crime as the reason. Retail business owners have seen a decline even during the day due to reports of crime, unruly loitering, and incessant, relentless panhandling. Business owners, residents, and workers have to dislodge up to half a dozen people from their doorways which is private property. Responding officers on at least one occasion were outnumbered and virtually surrounded. Just last week, I had three potential tenants decline a below market priced excellent apartment opportunity when they became aware of the address - in the tightest housing market in history. This problem can only be addressed with a multi-pronged, long-term, sustained approach. It is a marathon. Not a sprint. Over the last 2 years, numerous ideas, suggestions, and potential solutions were put forth for incremental implementation via committees, personal calls, letters, emails, and meetings with the Mayor, City Council Members, DDP Board members, and the City Manager. Yet to date, few have been implemented. We still have no additional cameras. The cameras we do have don't work reliably, if at all, and there are too few cameras in total with minimal coverage. The camera failures and lack of coverage has been a known issue by the Mayor, City Council, and Dover PD for years without repair or upgrade. I am certain additional camera presence would be welcome by Dover PD since it would enhance proactive response and officer safety. Sadly, detectives regularly have to rely on local businesses to provide footage after a crime due to poor coverage or non-operative city cameras. It is important to note it is only a three to four block area that needs coverage. Certainly not an

overwhelming task ifit was a priority for city officials. Lighting is poor in many areas of high crime and very poor in parking lots. This is also a known issue. There are fewer patrols downtown at the midnight hour than in previous years when we could count on the presence of Dover PD to stop issues before they began. Manning shortages issues now impact Dover PD from committing as much presence. Leadership will have to make hard financial choices, use force multipliers, and become creative. The only way to get serious about this is to get serious. At a minimum the City of Dover should: 1. Swiftly secure a contract for a 2417 monitored multi camera system covering all of the downtown area with special attention to areas of high criminal activity. 2. Deploy officers to patrol downtown (overtime if necessary) during hours of darkness. 3. Review and adopt loitering and panhandling ordinances with clear criteria as to be legally enforceable (Chicago v. Morales & Reed v. Town of Gilbert) to include verbiage regarding aggressive, criminal, and menacing behavior. 4. Add lighting in all municipal parking lots and areas of drug and criminal activity. 5. Address the CenDel Building parking lot problem by placing a lock chain around the parking lot and tow cars after lOpm. 6. Examine feasibility to place a police substation downtown with extreme haste. 7. Promote and encourage downtown merchants to call police to report all criminalJdrug/soliciting/trespassing activity to get a better statistical reference for actual crime. 8. Examine innovative ways to place more officers and/or seasonal officers on the street during peak crime hours and deploy technology-based force multipliers to enhance effectiveness, efficiency, and officer/public safety. 9. Encourage merchants and residents to post no trespassing signs, no soliciting signs, and/or no panhandling signs on private property. 10. Partner with state social services, Bay Health, and Mental health services to safeguard individuals in crisis and not simply return them to the street. Unless the municipal leadership, both elected and non-elected, seriously commit to solving the escalating violent crime, all the Masterplans, all the parking meters, and all committees are for nothing. Investors will not come. Residents and businesses will leave, and our historic 300-year-old capital will die. And it will happen on your watch. Regards Diana P. Welch, Owner 302-883-1800 E-MAIL goidenfleeetavern@gmail.com WEB SITE www.goldenfleecetavern

DOVER, DE CRIME ANALYTICS S:,urce & ,ielhoook:gy JATA DOVERCRIME DATA CD CRIME INDEX DOVER ANNUAL CRIMES 2 VIOLENT PROPERTY TOTAL 371 1.573 1.944 (r'm.;: Rate 9.51 40,34 49.86 S.3fer thar 2% cf J. S. Ct"es :per 1.:::00 res'dems': VIOLENT CRIME

AJ re'SS f' g tor' OJ (I",::: ~.;t .::;tite Pt" v ret' Search» Delaware» Dover» Livab'lity five IT. .4.~;}:'( X) Find a free lancer Look no further. Dover, DE Livability ("Jilt•tit' livability Real Estate Rentals Demographics • • • • livability Amenities Cost of Living Crime • Employment • Housing • Schools • User Ratings

Panhandling Ordinances after Reed and Norton Maria Davis, Assistant Legal Counsel, League of Wisconsin Municipalities The First Amendment prohibits In 2015, the United States Supreme in Reed also made it very clear that a laws abridging the freedom of speech Court decided Reed v. Town ofGilbert.6 content-based law will be subject to and is applicable to states through The petitioners in Reed filed a claim strict scrutiny regardless of how benign the Fourteenth Amendment.1 When against an Arizona town, arguing that or well-intentioned the government's evaluating a regulation of protected certain provisions in the town's sign purpose behind the law is.1OAlthough speech, a court must determine the code infringed on their right to freedom Reed contemplated sign code provisions, proper level of judicial scrutiny to be of speech. The sign code distinguished its holding carries First Amendment applied, depending on whether the between categories of signs based on implications that reach beyond the realm regulation is aimed at the content of that their communicative content and applied of sign codes. speech.2 "In a traditional or designated different restrictions depending on Ordinances prohibiting or regulating public forum, content-neutral restrictions which category a sign fell in to. The panhandling are an example, as illustrated on the time, place, and manner of category at issue in Reed pertained to by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals' expression must be narrowly tailored "Temporary Directional Signs Relating decision in Norton v. City of Springfield.ll to serve some substantial governmental to a ~alifying Event," which received In Norton, the court considered the interest, and must leave open adequate the strictest treatment under the code in constitutionality of a city ordinance that alternative channels of communication" terms of permitted size and placement prohibited panhandling in the city's - also known as intermediate scrutiny.3 duration.7 The code defined "qualifying "downtown historic district."12 The In contrast, when a regulation of event" as "any assembly, gathering, ordinance defined "panhandling" as "an protected speech is content-based, the activity, or meeting sponsored, arranged, oral request for an immediate donation highest level of scrutiny, strict scrutiny, or promoted by a religious, charitable, of money."!3 Signs requesting immediate applies and the regulation may only be community service, educational, or other donations and oral requests for donations justified by the government proving the similar non-profit organization."8 at a later time were permitted.14 The regulation is narrowly tailored to serve Ultimately, the Court held the sign Seventh Circuit first decided Norton in a compelling governmental interest.4 code provisions were unconstitutional as 2014 in favor of the City of Springfield, Panhandling, often defined by ordinances content-based regulations of speech that Illinois, upholding the ordinance as a as a verbal or written request for the did not survive a strict scrutiny analysis. content neutral regulation of speech immediate donation of money, is a Reed clarified that a law is content based that did not restrict speech because form of speech protected by the First on its face if it addresses a specific topic of the message conveyed or because Amendment.s Case law demonstrates or subject matter, even if it does not of a governmental disapproval of that that ordinances affecting or regulating discriminate among viewpoints within message. IS Upon a petition for rehearing, panhandling can be either content-based that topic or subject matter.9 The Court the court deferred reconsideration of or content-neutral. 1. Thayer v. City of Worcester, 144 F. Supp. 3d 218,232'33 (D. Mass. 2015). 2. Id. at 232. ••..p.19 3.ld. 4. Id. at 233. 5. United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720, 725 (1990). 6. For a more in'depth discussion of Reed v. Town of Gilbert, see Licensing and Regulation 397. 7. Reed, 135 S. Ct. 2218, 2225. 8.ld. 9. Id. at 2230. 10. Id. at 2228. 11.Norton v. City of Springfield, 806 F.3d 411 (7th Cir. 2015). 12. Id. at 412. 13.ld. 14.ld. 15. See Norton v. City of Springfield. 768 F.3d 713, 717 (7th Cir. 2014) rev'd 806 F.3d 411 (7th Cir. 2015). 18 The Municipality March 2019

the case until the Supreme Court decided Reed.!6 After the Reed decision, the Seventh Circuit reversed its opinion in Norton, finding the city ordinance was unconstitutional.!7 The court noted that Reed altered its understanding of content discrimination - an ordinance that regulates because of the topic or subject matter it discusses, even if it is neutral towards viewpoints within the topic area or subject matter, is content based and subject to strict scrutiny.!S '~y law distinguishing one kind of speech from another by reference to its meaning now requires a compelling justification."!9 It's worth noting that the Seventh Circuit did not decide whether the Springfield ordinance would pass muster under a strict scrutiny analysis, only that it was subject to strict scrutiny as a content-based regulation of speech. This was due to the parties' agreement that the ordinance would "stand or [fall] on the answer to the question whether it is a form of content discrimination."20 The court made it explicitly clear that, under Reed, a panhandling ordinance regulating the topic of "requesting immediate donations of money" is a content- based regulation of speech and must survive strict scrutiny to be constitutional. Seventh Circuit precedents are binding on Wisconsin. Accordingly, Wisconsin municipalities should proceed with caution where panhandling ordinances are concerned as strict scrutiny most often signals a law will fail. The Supreme Court has not decided a panhandling case since Reed, although other courts have addressed panhandling ordinances in its wake. In McLaughlin v. City of Lowell, the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts examined an ordinance aimed to prohibit panhandling in certain downtown locations as well as "aggressive" panhandling techniques.21 Like the Seventh Circuit in Norton, the district court found the ordinance prohibiting panhandling in downtown areas to be content-based.22 The ordinance failed the court's subsequent strict scrutiny analysis. The preamble to Lowell's ordinance laid out the city's purpose for enactment: protecting tourism and its "compelling interest in providing a safe, pleasant environment .... "lJ However, the court found the purpose, while important, did not rise to the level of a compelling government interest.24 p.20 16. Norton, 806 F.3d at 411. 17. Id. at 413. 18. Id. at 412. 19. Id. at 413. 20.ld. 21. McLaughlin v. City of Lowe", 140 F. Supp. 3d 177,181·82 (D. Mass. 2015). 22. Id. at 185. 23. Id. at 188. 24. Id. at 188·190. The Municipality March 2019 19

The court likewise found the aggressive which the court separated into three not increase liability for criminal activity panhandling ordinance to be content- categories: duplicative provisions, that is connected with protected speech.29 based, noting that the ordinance coercive behaviors, and location-based Next the court turned to the second distinguished between conduct prohibitions_27 Evaluating the first category of actions, those that, while not deemed aggressive based on the actor's category, the court focused on the criminal, constituted coercive behavior. accompanying speech, illustrating that ordinance's prohibition of panhandling Examples included continuing to a person following another while asking while using fighting words. The court panhandle from an individual who gave a for a donation would be considered noted that certain behavior prohibited negative response and following a person illegal panhandling, but that a person under the ordinance could already while intending to ask them for money.30 following another while asking for a be prosecuted using other existing The court concluded prohibiting petition signature would be permissible.25 ordinances - e.g., panhandling behavior these actions was more restrictive than The aggressive panhandling ordinance that also constitutes assault and battery- necessary_31There may be benign reasons passed the first prong of the strict scrutiny and that the City had not demonstrated a panhandler might follow another analysis - it was enacted to further the that public safety required harsher city's compelling interest in public safety punishments for panhandlers engaging individual- e.g., providing a longer explanation for his or her request for - and the court next turned to whether it in assault and battery than others donation and walking alongside a person used the least restrictive means to achieve committing the same crime.28 Moreover, while doing so. The court stated that that interest. 26 The ordinance identified the court stated that an ordinance should "giving panhandlers only one chance 10 actions as "aggressive panhandling," to convey their message was more 25. Id. at 191. 26.ld. p.21 27. Id. at 192-96. 28. Id. at 192-93. 29. Id. at 193. 30.ld. 31. Id. at 193-94. ([@ Integrated PUBLIC RESiOLlRC£S 20 The Municipality March 2019

" " ,It • • ~ , , ,"~'. '. , Legal -' :"~."'}.I,,'.~\ ~" •... ' ,~., restrictive than necessary. "32The third Cutting, the First Circuit considered found the ordinance to be geographically category was also more restrictive than an ordinance prohibiting standing (or overinclusive and banning more speech necessary in prohibiting panhandling sitting) in traffic medians unless doing than necessary to accomplish the city's in certain locations.33 Certain locations, so to cross a street.36 Noting that other interest in promoting public safety.39 like bus stops, were not tailored towards circuit courts have considered medians to The ordinance banned standing in all public safety while other locations, be public fora and finding the ordinance city medians, despite evidence that such as public restrooms, were aimed at content-neutral, the court examined the suggested only a handful of medians public safety but were over-restrictive ordinance to determine whether it was presented a significant safety concern.40 because they could have allowed passive narrowly tailored to serve a significant It banned expressive activity that would panhandling through signs without government interest, while leaving not necessarily pose a safety risk - e.g., a significant cost to public safety.34 open ample alternative channels for individuals holding campaign signs while Ultimately, both the location-based and communicationY In other words, to be standing in mediansY Moreover, the city aggressive panhandling ordinances failed. constitutional, the ordinance must not did not demonstrate that less restrictive burden more speech than necessary to means would not have achieved its Another post-Reed panhandling case further the city's interest.38 Citing several purpose.42The court pointed out, is Cutting v. City oJPortland out of the reasons for its conclusion, the court among other things, that the city might First Circuit Court of Appeals. 35In 32. Id. at 194. 33. Id. at 195. 34. Id. at 195-96. p.22 35. Cutting v. City of Portland, 802 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2015). 36. Id. at 83. 37. Id. at 84. 38. Id. at 86. 39. Id. at 89-91. 40. Id. at 89-90. 41. Id. at 90. 42.ld. at 91. OonIoullj~ E.nvfJHriIIg BulJcaIe~n Simplify waste managment with Custom Bag B4Ilkklgt'S1nM:tIQI DnPiiIn ~ CUal'Ry - tt:rMl'St P'.rK;e tDG-tH-78t1 Gtn •••••IEn!il tnrlSl.IQC Cro•• ~ Enttlrorntt1 •• 1 ~. ZonII1IJ AdrnllilfnQoq MEP0..91.1.0 00nIrvI ~ fad.«y.Dimd - ,~ Suumline Tras.h F&tc)08bIe ~ & .'~ 1- • J!r 1, .~-~- collection and raise \. • _- - __-J W.., TO'oftII' "-Irr1Jr'fl •• R pidr - I~. funds for your recycle {;-J!,. :::-~_~_~I ~ Wtehing & E:1I1*'I~ J*l,. L.N:IIor sa!,,}, ~ progra moO \~ '* "ti:# 1 LANE TANK CO., INC. PO IlIOII ~ MIItIo~ WI54?51 e.t; .,,$) 3CWM5 ~ (11$) m-:Jno 30" X 36"5 $15..12"'per box l.50bIgt.-ct"4irOC_1II\I11r; ••••- 2S '""(JtI'I8"', ~ II'~ Fa.:: '115}~~ 1~~ de.- IJ' btD II ~~ )(S1IKIOOI-l'Q) P!I'l~. 00-. StqJti1Id ~;AU- m oc 33 X 45"_a$19.32·per box ,»_ t1 dII!iIr or ttJt ~ ( mil· 2:5 Tllt.ItJrl!I"""1 p« loll 't<rr !illbIgI cilia' ar I)'D, I !l1TII • 381t'11J":1ll h:kJ 1* ,£lI betl ~ Mk'I},)I'ICIf - :s."~00 o [N(IIKEEliiNQ. 1(17 Jl.. SItftC KliNK.:" €. :SJJR'i1:YOA::. StoJ\'!H n.n. 'M !))';IrG .:; AFICHITI:CTu 1!i'201 lS6 9«-:- .:;_Pl.N-: E'RS. ~("'''''IIIlIQ(I'''II C' I us for I1i rant 1I1u. coiM. ttllclMH. or pdnbdlmll •••. 800.558.6055 414.762.0410 www •.t.uetmwlnd.com 36' J. 44" • , 0 f1'II' 425- Gags 38"' J. 6l)" • 1:5 rnI • ZOOBags 40' J 48· - 2.5 1M - 14(1Ba!Qs 4l)" x~· . 1.5 rr1I - ~JO Bali' S56.• • per roll. Prc:>I_ ••.t:clu;I;~" _ ~!;go 47 ~.f.o.b.OIIfOOd: 'l'W.." """",.,.... •••• ~ www.JeweIlAs$oc.com The Municipality March 2019 21

• • • '0"', ',r.. . Legal :" ,,' "',"1:-", '., "" •••.• ' ,~, . have restricted the ban to only those interest in public safety as the purpose About the Author: dangerous medians or limited activity for an aggressive panhandling ordinance. Maria Davis is the League's Assistant on medians at night or in inclement However, such an ordinance must pass a Legal Counsel. She provides legal weather.43 strict scrutiny analysis to survive, which is assistance to municipal attorneys and no easy feat. Additionally, Cutting implies These cases highlight several issues officials through telephone inquiries, that a municipality wishing to prohibit municipalities should be aware of written opinions and briefs, workshop standing in medians should carefully when contemplating a panhandling presentations, and published articles. She establish its purpose in the ordinance, ordinance or other ordinance that may also assists in writing League handbooks narrowly tailor the effect of the ordinance have an effect of speech, such as a ban and planning the Municipal Attorney's to that purpose, and ensure that alternate on standing in certain 10cations.44 In Institute. Maria joined the League staff channels of communication remain open. light of Reed and Norton, an ordinance in 2018 after working in the City of An ordinance failing to do so may very directly prohibiting panhandling - i.e., Madison's Office of Real Estate Services likely be held unconstitutional. content based - is likely to fail under a upon graduating law school in 2015. strict scrutiny analysis. McLaughlin and Licensing & Regulation 399 Contact Maria at mdavis@lwm-info.org Cutting, while not binding in Wisconsin, Ordinances & Resolutions 511 indicate it may be possible for a municipality to demonstrate a compelling 43. Id, at 92, 44. For members of the International Municipal Lawyers Association, a Model Panhandling Ordinance is available in the IMLA's resource library. The National League of Cities Names Milwaukee an Early Learning Nation Cohort support children. That's why the National League of Cities (NLC) congratulates the City of Milwaukee for being chosen for the NLC's #EarlyLearningNation technical assistance initiative. NLC provides each city in the network with individual assistance to improve early learning systems including information about the latest research and promising practices; assistance with developing and implementing local plans; and connections to national experts and resources. The project will build on the lessons communities have Municipal leaders are well positioned to champion the learned over decades of work improving outcomes for needs of children and families and create communities young children. Results will be shared and generate where all children can thrive. A child's development is recommendations so that community by community, we affected by his or her family, neighborhood, community, will become an Early Learning Nation. and institutions, as well as local, state, and federal policies. Learn more at https:llwww.nlc.org/early-Iearning-nation A well-designed early childhood system takes this into account and addresses how the whole community can 22 The Municipality March 2019