SPECIAL COUNCIL VDBO MINUTES

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING A Special Council Meeting was held on October 3, 2023, at 6:00 p.m. with Council President Hare presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Neil, Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Rocha, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Sudler. Ms. Arndt was absent. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Council staff members present were Ms. Gray, Ms. Bennett, and Mr. Rodriguez. Other staff members present were Mr. Kopp and Ms. Brown. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Boggerty, and unanimously carried. PUBLIC HEARING - VIOLATION OF THE DANGEROUS BUILDING ORDINANCE - PROPERTY LOCATED AT 51 SAULSBURY ROAD A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider a violation of the Dangerous Building Ordinance at 51 Saulsbury Road. Mr. Eddie Kopp, Chief Code Enforcement Officer, reviewed a presentation depicting the condition of the property. Staff recommended: 1) Declaring these buildings and all accessory structures on these properties dangerous; 2) Ordering the properties demolished by November 2, 2023, by the owners or equity owners at their own risk; 3) Ordering the Building Inspector to cause the demolition of the structures if not completed by the owners within 10 days of the date established by City Council; and 4) Ordering the City Manager, with the assistance of the City Solicitor, to cause the cost of demolition to be charged against the lands on which the buildings exist as municipal liens or cause such costs to be added to the tax duplicate as assessments, or to be levied as a special tax, or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owners.) Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Kopp stated that be believes the property has sat vacant since 2019. Mr. Kopp stated that it was in April of this year that it was discovered that the conditions of it were just deteriorating and that is why it was condemned. Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the staff’s recommendation, ordering the property demolished by November 2. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Ms. Arndt was absent). PUBLIC HEARING - VIOLATION OF THE DANGEROUS BUILDING ORDINANCE - PROPERTY LOCATED AT 207 NORTH WEST STREET. A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider a violation of the Dangerous Building Ordinance at 207 North West Street. Mr. Eddie Kopp, Chief Code Enforcement Officer, reviewed a presentation depicting the condition of the property.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2023 PAGE 2 Staff recommended: 1) Declaring these buildings and all accessory structures on these properties dangerous; 2) Ordering the properties demolished by November 2, 2023, by the owners or equity owners at their own risk; 3) Ordering the Building Inspector to cause the demolition of the structures if not completed by the owners within 10 days of the date established by City Council; and 4) Ordering the City Manager, with the assistance of the City Solicitor, to cause the cost of demolition to be charged against the lands on which the buildings exist as municipal liens or cause such costs to be added to the tax duplicate as assessments, or to be levied as a special tax, or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owners.) Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Kopp stated that it had been silent until he heard from her this past week when she asked if they could postpone the meeting. Mr. Kopp told her that was not possible and that the building had has just sat there. He told her that she could attend virtually if she could not attend in person. There are no updates on any repairs or anything for this property. So it has sat in the same condition since last year. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Kopp stated that he had interior pictures of the house. Mr. Kopp presented pictures of when the property was originally condemned and current pictures. Mr. Kopp noted that there is some water damage and that the floors inside are weak. Mr. Kopp noted that the bottom apartment is basically trash. There is water damage from a leak that happened upstairs that was left ignored. So water damage affected both floors of the property. The property has been repeatedly broken into and he presented a picture of the current condition of the upstairs unit. There are holes in the walls from where it has been vandalized on several occasions. Mr. Kopp explained that Code Enforcement has gone out there over 20 times securing this property before they finally had it secured. Mr. Kopp stated that there were like 50 screws in the door to prevent people from going up there. That is how extreme it had to get. So they had to place two (2) by four (4) braces and then put plywood over top of it with about 50 screws to prevent this property from being broken into because it had just been continuously broken into. So these are all the conditions of the actual building. Mr. Kopp noted that they are not mold experts, but that in the picture it appears to be mold or mildew from the food that was splattered on the walls and has been sitting there. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Kopp stated that just to clarify that this does fall under Chapter 22- 381 of the Dover Code of Ordinances, which was adopted by counsel. The parameters that it falls under are five (5) Unfit for Habitation, six (6) Light Air and Sanitation, eight (8) Loose Parts, nine (9) General Welfare, 10 Code Violations and 12 Unoccupied Buildings. These are all references under the Dangerous Building Ordinance and what deems a building dangerous. So that is what code enforcement is in their expertise are referencing when they are moving forward with this process to declare buildings dangerous in these categories. Mayor Christiansen stated that they do have a severe shortage of affordable housing. He too, in a previous lifetime, owned his own construction company. Laid block and did carpenter work if anybody remembers the Little Giant Construction Company back in the mid to late 70’s. Mayor Christiansen explained that he went and looked at the property again just so that he was sure of what was being presented to them. He does have some concerns about the structure of that building as well as the neighbor's concern. One thing that he needed to point out is that it was mentioned that they could put it up for sale. He is a firm believer in property rights and the rights of property owners. Mayor Christiansen asked if they would have the option, if they found this building to be

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2023 PAGE 3 dangerous, to put it up for market or would they be violating the property rights of the owner of that property? From where he sits, and he is not a lawyer, but he did stay at a Holiday Inn the other night, and he would have great concerns about putting that property up for sale and selling it to somebody if it does not indeed belong to them. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Mr. Rodriguez stated that they do not have a title to the property and there is no way that they could put it up for sale. So they would have to have a title to it to do that. Under their present ordinance, he does not think there are any procedures that they could follow. The only other thing would be to declare a lien against the property and then try to sell it in accordance with the lien and that is going to take some time. Council President Hare stated that this property was declared dangerous in April 2022. So they have had a year and a half to do something and the only time they ever hear anything is when they are going to have a meeting and then they never show. So how much longer do they continue to give them extensions without taking some action. Responding to Council President Hare, Mr. Sudler stated that his point of interest is in regard to the ordinance. Also, the fact that they do not have an expert to say that it is mold and mildew and that they do not have an expert opinion to say that it is not structurally sound. That was just his concern. Mr. Sudler noted that he can say that it is not in compliance, but to say that it is a dangerous building, he does not agree that it is a dangerous building. Mr. Neil stated that he would agree that if there was anything that they could do to keep any property that could be affordable in that sense, he would certainly support any change. The owner has had the option to sell it as is. It would have been to everybody's benefit if that property, when it first came up would have been sold as is because there are basically two living areas in it, one on top and one on the bottom but it did not happen. This has been costing the taxpayer’s money. They have heard the description of having to protect it. It is a danger in terms of that it is a magnet to bring people with nefarious ideas to get into that building and do damage. Mr. Neil thinks that they are doing a disservice in terms of the neighborhood of permitting a building to be a draw for criminal activity. Mr. Neil noted that it is costing the police and the city staff every time they have to go to the property. He would much prefer it if the owners put it up for sale, but they have not. His understanding is that if a property has been in this condition, condemned or whatever, if they do actually go through with the sale, it stops action, does it not? If it does, then that would become an action. That could be an option for it. Mr. Neil thinks that they have to go forward with it simply because it is a nuisance within the body that is costing the taxpayer’s money every single day that it stays there because it has been a draw for problems causing staff and the police to respond each and every time. Mr. Neil stated that he would agree with Mr. Sudler that they need to take a look at the other options in terms of what is dangerous and what is not. Right now, it is a nuisance, they need to do something, and he thinks with what they have, they have to go forward with it. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Rodriguez stated that they would certainly need to have an expert opinion on that one issue if that was the sole issue involved. There is no question about that. Mr. Rodriguez stated that Mr. Sudler is correct that according to their code, air quality is just one of a few issues.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2023 PAGE 4 Mr. Kopp clarified that Mr. Sudler is referring to item Six (6), light, air, and sanitation. The definition of that is not necessarily air quality, it is those having light, air and sanitation facilities which are inadequate to protect the health, moral safety, general welfare of human beings who lived or may live therein. So his interpretation of light, air and sanitation is basically the lights. Mr. Kopp continued to state that when they talk about light and air, that could be the boarding of windows. If you cannot open up a window, you cannot get ventilation in the house. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Kopp stated that after they demolish the building, he will prepare a lien sheet and submit it to Customer Service. Customer Service then creates a lien to be put against that property and then it is out of his hands. The property is still in the owner’s name, but the lien goes on it immediately. Mr. Kopp noted that any services that the city does, such as cutting their grass, a lien is going to be placed on that property as soon as that service is rendered or as soon as that invoice is prepared, because they have to recoup that money. So regardless of what it is, that lien goes on almost instantaneous. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Rodriguez stated that if council decides that it is going to be demolished, then it would be turned over to him according to the code to collect the lien and they would have a lien on the property. Mr. Rodriguez would have to foreclose on that lien and put the vacant lot up for public sale. Mr. Rodrigeuz explained that when Mr. Sudler asked him about the expert, they have an expert testifying there who does this. Mr. Rodriguez noted that Mr. Kopp should be given a lot of credit for his decisions, and that he would support his decisions. If it is just one thing that comes up, maybe they would need an expert opinion on it. Mr. Rodriguez continued to state that in regard to air quality, Mr. Sudler’s stated that they need an expert. Mr. Rodriguez stated that they have an expert there who has looked at it and who does a great job for the city. In regard to the lien question, it would come to Mr. Rodriguez, they would foreclose on it and have the property sold at a foreclosure sale. Mr. Rocha stated that he understands that Mr. Kopp has worked with the property owner, and then of course to be here a year and a half later and they do not see any progress. He understands exactly where Mr. Kopp is coming from but maybe since looking at the finances of what they have to put out, he is wondering now if they may be able to, in the future, work out something where they work with Habitat to fix the house up. If they are going to place a lien and then foreclose on the property, they might as well pick up the value of the house being on the property fixed up. Then it becomes the city’s versus just laying it down and just having a piece of property just sitting there. Mr. Rocha explained that originally, he was sitting there listening and saying, "Well, there is not much that they can do. It looks pretty bad inside the house," but after listening to Mr. Sudler and looking at it from a structural point of view and saying, "Hey, what is it going to take to get the trash out, rip the walls down and then build it back up, put a lien on it at that point for the property owner and then if they do not make good on the monies from there, take ownership of it and sell it." Mr. Rocha noted that he knows that they are not in the real estate business or anything like that, but that they could probably, if they start looking at that approach, they may be able to save some of these structures Mr. Kopp stated that Habitat, NCALL, and multiple investors reach out to him almost on a monthly basis to ask for the dangerous building list and the vacant building list. The problem with that is they can provide the list, they can provide the owner's information because it is a public record, but the city cannot force the owner to sell. He has sent numerous notices to all of these properties,

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2023 PAGE 5 and he has tried to be the mediator and get these guys in contact. They are refusing to sell. That is civil and is beyond him, but he is trying to do his due diligence to save these houses. Mr. Kopp noted that he does know there are some great programs out there, but if the owner is not willing to work their deal with the nonprofit, that is beyond their scope. Responding to Mr. Kopp, Mr. Rocha stated that he knows that these programs are out there and that they do not want to sell. So if they are going to put the lien on the property then what is presented to them now is to tear the building down. How can they save the structure and put the lien on it because it may be the same amount of money to fix it up. Then if they do not make good on it by getting a loan and paying the city back back, then the city forecloses on it and sells it. It is still a structure that is still a valued entity in the community, above and beyond what Habitat and neighborhood partners can offer. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp stated that one of the great programs out there is for the owners too, and they try to educate people on this and that they will not just buy the property. There are programs out there to actually help them fix their property, especially downtown, and this would qualify for that. So there is money out there to help fix it, but again, they have to be willing to take that because they go out, they issue violations all the time, and when people call council, they are like, "Hey, there are some great nonprofits. Reach out to them." The city provides the information, and these nonprofits have come in and fixed people's houses and fixed the violations. So at the end of the day, the city wants compliance, and they are achieving compliance. So there are some great programs that can help these people, they just have to unfortunately take it. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Kopp stated that before they even get to this point to where they are talking about demolition, they give them every opportunity to fix their property. First notice, second notice, third notice, fourth notice, fifth notice, sometimes even 10 notices. Then the owners receive a letter of intent. 30 days before this meeting is scheduled, Code Enforcement sends a letter of intent that basically states that the building is in violation, the owner has not made any repairs at all and has had no contact with the city. Failure to comply, to bring the property in compliance, will result in the building being prepared for this meeting here. So on top of all the violation notices, the owners still get that last effort to either correct the building or make contact. Then 30 days after that letter of intent, then they schedule another meeting, or they get another notification for this meeting. So they do everything in writing, and the reason why is that then they have a record of communication that took place. So they cannot come back and say, "You did not tell me.” “It is all in writing.” Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Kopp stated that for all correspondence, when it pertains to dangerous buildings, it gets sent first class mail, certified mail, and physically posted on the property. So they do all three of those delivery methods for letters of intent, dangerous building, 10-day notice, and everything that has to do with dangerous building, it goes through all that. As far as violations go, first notice and second notice go first class mail, then anything after the third notice which includes a citation, that is always certified mail. So any notice after the third one goes certified mail, but when it comes to dangerous buildings, there are three methods of delivery. Responding to Council President Hare, Mr. Kopp stated that right now, outstanding code enforcement fines is $1,550 and outstanding utilities is $1,189. Then outstanding taxes and the utility account are in collections. Mr. Kopp stated that they do not have an Engineer Report or an

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2023 PAGE 6 Air Quality Report. Mr. Kopp stated that just wanted to comment on the engineering report. So by code, any expert opinion that they would need, they can demand it from the homeowner, but when they fail to comply after the city demands it, then their hands are tied. So the City’s Code Enforcement Officers are certified through the ICC. The city’s dangerous building ordinance is word for word almost from the International Property Maintenance Code. So nothing in this ordinance is out of the ordinary. It mimics the International Property Maintenance Code. So light air sanitation code violations, it is all in the International Property Maintenance Code. They just mimicked it in the city’s ordinance. So it is almost the same except for a couple words. Mr. Kopp noted that he is certified through the ICC. He does have his property maintenance housing inspector, which covers the codes that he is referencing. So he is certified in the codes that he is enforcing. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Kopp stated that he is correct that with how the walls are, wires are now exposed and people that are breaking in could damage the wires and then it becomes a fire hazard. Mr. Kopp continued to state that the time he was in front of council over a year ago, the floor was super weak due to the water damage that exists within there. So even at this point, he has told the fire department, or members of the fire department, if that building were to catch fire, it would be unsafe for any firefighter to enter that building due to the condition of the building inside. So if somebody fell through the floor and goes into the basement, they are not getting out because there is a basement to this building. So the building is not safe in his opinion. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Kopp explained that long-term water damage deteriorates it, it weakens the structure. So wood, metal, the worst thing for any wood or metal is water. So when there is water going in there, it deteriorates it. One of the problems with this was due to vandalism. The water line was snapped up on the second story. So in one of the photos there was water gushing in there for an unknown amount of time which further softened the floor. So it is not just the second floor that they are worried about. The first floor’s floor is also in bad condition because of that water. Now, nothing has been done in over a year and the floor is already weak. So he does not know what it looks like inside within a year. Mr. Kopp continued to explain that he was concerned about it then, but it has had a year to be exposed to the elements with those conditions. So it has probably only deteriorated even more. That is what happens when things are left and sit like that, and there are soaking wet floors, it is just going to deteriorate even more. So even without going inside, he can comfortably say that that building is worse than it was the last time he was there. Mr. Kopp noted that this property has been broken into and been documented at least 20 times. Mr. Neil stated that there are two issues. One is being able to save a structurally sound building and to renovate it to put it in good shape. The second thing deals with the culpability of the owner who has absolutely refused to do anything about the letters, the warnings, the things that that they have sent, and they have consistently with all of these properties, not just this one, but all of these properties. In this case, he would really think that it has to go if the suggestion that the President has made in terms of, can they send out a letter saying that they are putting a lien on this building and the city is going to take the owner and foreclose on it, then that is a different story. If the city can foreclose on this building, if the solicitor says, "Yes, you can." Then Mr. Neil would say, "Then put a line on the building, see if they can get somebody to buy it and shape it up." Mr. Neil is not as concerned from the legal standpoint because of the culpability of the owner refusing to do what

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2023 PAGE 7 is required by the law and the warnings that they have received consistently. Mr. Sudler stated that he concurs with Mr. Neil and that he can also concur with Mr. Rocha. He thinks that is the way to go, especially considering the shortage of housing and they can put a lien against it for cutting grass. So if they can get someone in there to fix it up, which may cost them maybe $5,000, which would be roughly $20,000 less than demolishing it and maybe get habitat to do it for almost maybe $3,000 because they may want it themselves. That saves the taxpayers’ dollars, and it saves the city dollars. Mr. Sudler continued to state that he thinks moving forward, even though they have done things in the past differently, does not mean that they have to continue to do it. It does not mean that any one of them is wrong. They are saying that maybe through their experience now in council and seeing circumstances arise continuously, that they are innovating another way of doing things. That is pretty much what council is there to do. They govern a body of how they are going to do things in city council. In his view, he thinks that this is the way to go. Yes, individuals may think it is a blight and they get it, but they also have to do what is best in regard to the taxpayers because all of them are flipping the bill. In his view, some of them are quick to say this is what they want to do, but how quick would they be if it was coming out of their pocket. Dr. Pillsbury stated that by looking at this, she cannot believe that it could be cleaned up for $5,000. She thinks that it is unreasonable to expect anybody to do it for that amount of money. If they have to replace the floors and do all of that to make it structurally sound, she thinks they are at the point where it is going to be a breakeven to tear it down. Responding to Council President Hare, Mr. Rodriguez stated that he agrees with the Council President that if they do not enforce the ordinance, which they are supposed to do and something happens, and as he stated it fell, hit somebody, then the city could be sued for that. No question in his mind about that. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp stated that the cost to tear the building down now depends. That is why he put $10,000 to $40,000. It really all depends on the asbestos and the demolition. So his goal, because he is always looking for how the city can save the most money, is to put this as a package. When they do send these for demolition, package them altogether and send it as one big bid because he feels like they could get a lower price or a lower cost because it would be in unison. Mr. Kopp noted that everything on the property would be included in the demolition. That way if somebody does want to buy the lot, it is development ready. Mayor Christiansen stated that he just wanted to point out something to the members of council. A great point was made about the public safety issue concerning abandoned buildings, not just this one alone. Mayor Christiansen shared with council that in his 50 years as a volunteer fireman, he has been to three houses that mysteriously caught fire, that were abandoned. He fell through the second floor to the first floor. He fell through an abandoned trailer floor that was gone and he fell from the first floor into the basement on a house on New Street. Think about the liability for their volunteer firefighters, police officers, and other EMS personnel that have to go in there. Mayor Christiansen noted that he is not a big fan of taking people s properties. He stated that they have a responsibility to the first responders as well as to the citizens that live in that community and also to the citizens of the entire city.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2023 PAGE 8 Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Hare stated that he does not know if they can do it. If it is not brought up to code, but they are not paying taxes or fines, they can do it that way. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Kopp stated that with demolition or renovation, more than 50% would also require asbestos. Asbestos is regulated by the state. It is not an ordinance or not something that they could change at the city level with state law, it is regulated by DNREC. So they have no say in the way asbestos works. The city will not issue a permit unless that has been remediated. If someone does get a building permit, and they are ripping the roof off and the roof might contain asbestos and they are ripping the siding off, they will need the asbestos inspection. That would be the owner's responsibility to obtain. The only reason why the city does it is, it is in conjunction with demolition. So it is a requirement in order to demolish according to the State. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Kopp stated that yes, the price of rehabbing the property could increase. It could be a potential depending on what repairs would need to be done because like he said before, someone may look at it and be like, "Oh hey, this is going to be easy." They take off that first piece of siding and the whole wall is eaten away. So now it is more, and it all depends. Every situation is different. So the house could look perfect, but on the inside it could be bad. When they start getting down and ripping into them, studs or ripping, exposing the studs, it could be worse than what they thought. So it all depends. Mr. Neil moved for approval of the staff’s recommendation, ordering the property demolished by November 2. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried with Mr. Sudler and Mr. Lewis voting no. (Ms. Arndt was absent) PUBLIC HEARING - VIOLATION OF THE DANGEROUS BUILDING ORDINANCE - PROPERTY LOCATED AT 411 WEST REED STREET. A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider a violation of the Dangerous Building Ordinance at 411 West Reed Street. Mr. Eddie Kopp, Chief Code Enforcement Officer, reviewed a presentation depicting the condition of the property. Staff recommended: 1) Declaring these buildings and all accessory structures on these properties dangerous; 2) Ordering the properties demolished by November 2, 2023, by the owners or equity owners at their own risk; 3) Ordering the Building Inspector to cause the demolition of the structures if not completed by the owners within 10 days of the date established by City Council; and 4) Ordering the City Manager, with the assistance of the City Solicitor, to cause the cost of demolition to be charged against the lands on which the buildings exist as municipal liens or cause such costs to be added to the tax duplicate as assessments, or to be levied as a special tax, or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owners.) Responding to Mr. Hare, Mr. Kopp stated that he believes that there are two years of taxes due. Mr. Kopp noted that he thinks that it is taxes and vacant building fees. So when he pulled in numbers for this, he pulled the record, and he just got the numbers. The outstanding service fees that they see on there, that is from the city cutting the grass. Mr. Kopp continued to state that he thinks that the vacant building is attached to that too. With this property, this property has been an ongoing issue. It just keeps switching sellers because the new owners buy it, they get in over their head and they are unable to repair it. He knows with the last owner who sold it, that was the case.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2023 PAGE 9 He said that it was too much for him, he was going to sell it and that is exactly what they did. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Kopp stated that this property sold April 08, 2022. Mr. Kopp stated that they have requested interior inspections and they have not received interior inspections. Mr. Kopp explained that in regard to damaged walls, those which are exclusive of the foundation show 33% more damage or deteriorations of supporting members or mend members or 50% of damaged deterioration, non-supported enclosure, or outside walls. Mr. Kopp stated that he wanted to comment on the ordinance, and this is out of International Property Maintenance Code, it does not take everything. So one definition under Dangerous Building Ordinance or International Property Maintenance Code determines it a dangerous building. So for example, unoccupied buildings, those of which left unoccupied it or unintended for periods of three months or more, so that the decay is being accelerated by natural main causes or which may be attracting trespassers, vagrants increase in the probability of fire and danger to human life. It only takes one of these definitions. So he knows that they are going through and looking at each definition, but really if they just put unoccupied buildings, his interpretation of the code, it still falls under the dangerous building ordinance just for one of these definitions. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Mr. Kopp stated that the last time he was in the building, he did not have pictures, but he can speak based off of his inspection. When they were walking through the building, the building departed on the inside. Mr. Kopp just does not have pictures of it for this case but the previous time he was in there, the floors were slanted, and the walls were crumbling. There were a lot of concerns that they had. At that point, they asked for a structural engineering report from the previous owner. The previous owner knew he was in over his head and sold the property. Mr. Kopp noted that he can testify on the record that the inside is deplorable conditions, in his opinion. Mr. Kopp stated that he has had other inspectors walk through the building and have seen the conditions that he is speaking of. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Kopp stated that he does maintain an Excel spreadsheet with all of the dangerous buildings and basically staff's opinion on how dangerous they are between one and three. So if anyone on council would like to see that or would like to challenge it or maybe upgrade a priority on a building, feel free to stop by and he will walk them through it. So they did that to make sure they are prioritizing, because a building can set as dangerous for a couple of years. Does that mean it is priority one when you have a building that just burned down yesterday, and it is at great risk of collapsing? So that would be a priority one. So they prioritize it based on the conditions of the building and all circumstances involved. So that is what they are looking at, but he does have a great spreadsheet that has all of their dangerous buildings, and he said that they are averaging around 70 dangerous buildings right now. So just keep in mind, during COVID, the city did not demolish anything. So the dangerous buildings have just grown, and they are throughout the city. So they are doing the best that they can to identify what are the worst buildings in the city and try to address them first. If they look around the city, they are growing everywhere, and the city has to act. They have to start somewhere and that is where they are now. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Kopp stated that their ultimate goal here is compliance. So they are challenged with life safety of constituents in the city. So they are out there to make sure that everybody is living the same quality of life. So when they see stuff like this, they have a duty to react. They are not necessarily trying to spend taxpayer’s dollars, but they also have to look at what is in the best interest of the citizens of Dover. Honestly, with this building standing, he does

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2023 PAGE 10 not think it is safe for any citizen of Dover to be hanging out around this building. So in his opinion, compliance would be demolition of this building. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Kopp stated that the books neatly placed at the back door are from the unhoused community who continues to break into the property. Mr. Kopp noted that that back door was boarded. So the unhoused removed the board from the door and granted themselves access. Somebody breaks into that house, right? They see all the boards on there, the fire company rolls up, they see all of them boards on there. What is the likelihood that they think that that guy is going to survive? Who is inside that house trapped in the basement? The fire company is going to be, "Oh man, this house has been vacant. Nobody is supposed to be in here." So they have boards on all of the windows. More than likely they are going to parish inside that house because there is no escape. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Kopp stated that they could get it fenced off and he can tell them historically, because he has just dealt with this on another property to where they tried to fence it off. So he fenced it off that afternoon, within an hour, both sides of the fencing were completely cut and destroyed. Mr. Kopp continued to state that he thinks that they have shown urgency once they sent them several notices with citations repeatedly. Like they do this every day, they are sending them notices and citations. If they do not get the message by that point, he thinks it is a waste of resources to fence it off to try to give them another chance. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Kopp stated that the unhoused will continue to go in there. The Lockerman Street fire, they had that chained off with steel fencing and chains. They still jumped the fence, and they were in there with that building falling apart the way it was. They still had people going in there every single day. So that is the point in the condemnation, placard by code, they have to placard every entrance point to the property, which that is why they see stickers on the back doors. Walkways, he would say a walkway, it says entry point. He thinks it says walkable entry point but look at it, if they are crawling through a window, they probably know better. They deal with it every day but if they are going around putting a sticker on every window, that is not very cost-effective. They do placard each entrance, which is according to code. So every entrance gets placard, and they take a picture of it. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Kopp stated that the door that door was plywood. When they deal with these properties repeatedly, they put a placard on the door and the plywood that way when you rip the plywood off, "Hey, here is another notice that states, 'Oh, hey, by the way, you cannot come in here.'" The plywood, the reason for this picture was to identify that the plywood was ripped off. So when he is going through here, they can only put so much in a PowerPoint. They have hundreds of pictures, so they pick out the best ones. The plywood was up there, it was removed. Mr. Neil stated that when they talk about fairness in terms of what they are doing, owners have abandoned the property, and they owe the city money. He thinks that whatever action that they are taking on these, they should be putting that lien against the property and make sure that they understand it. That they know that they owe the city money. If they care about this property or they care about what is happening, they are going to pay what they owe the city. If they do not pay it, then they do not care. That is another reason why moving against these properties makes sense to get the lien on because they are costing the taxpayer's money.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2023 PAGE 11 Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Kopp explained that, that is outside of code enforcement. As long as it is in this condition, code enforcement is going out there every single month and 70 other properties. So instead of the city worrying about trash in the alley or the abandoned car, they are dealing with this. Every month, they have to go out there and inspect the properties. They have to make sure it is secured and "Oh, hey, if I go out there today and it is secure and then neighbor calls me tomorrow, they rip the boards off, code enforcement is spending more time out there." So they spend countless hours on these properties. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp stated that with the lien search, every lien search that is done, every code enforcement fine is captured for that lien search for any sale of property, whether it is selling or whether they are refinancing. All that goes through the lien search. All of the code fees are captured, so they cannot move forward unless they pay them fees. So even if it is not a lien, so a part of the lien search, they add the code enforcement fines whenever the lien search comes to the city, even if it is something they have not had to send the lien paperwork for, it is still money owed to the city. Then it gets added to the lien sheet. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp stated that it is the seller's responsibility to disclose all violations to the buyer. It is in the International Property Maintenance code. So the seller is supposed to disclose that to the buyer, and in the event that fails, they do not that, then they would have to pursue that civilly, but it is in code that they have to disclose it. Mr. Anderson moved for approval of the staff’s recommendation with the addition of giving 30 days to repair or demolish the building at 411 West Reed Street. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and carried unanimously. (Ms. Arndt was absent). PUBLIC HEARING - VIOLATION OF THE DANGEROUS BUILDING ORDINANCE - PROPERTY LOCATED AT 674 ROBERTA AVENUE. A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider a violation of the Dangerous Building Ordinance at 674 Roberta Avenue. Mr. Eddie Kopp, Chief Code Enforcement Officer, reviewed a presentation depicting the condition of the property. Staff recommended: 1) Declaring these buildings and all accessory structures on these properties dangerous; 2) Ordering the properties demolished by November 2, 2023, by the owners or equity owners at their own risk; 3) Ordering the Building Inspector to cause the demolition of the structures if not completed by the owners within 10 days of the date established by City Council; and 4) Ordering the City Manager, with the assistance of the City Solicitor, to cause the cost of demolition to be charged against the lands on which the buildings exist as municipal liens or cause such costs to be added to the tax duplicate as assessments, or to be levied as a special tax, or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owners.) Responding to Mr. Hare, Bridget Anakwe, 286 Troon Road, stated that there was a fire and it had damaged the building and after the insurance did what they needed to do, there was a contractor that started with that. Unfortunately the contractor vanished, and they had to go through the process and take the contractor off, and then get a different contractor. They got another contractor, she believes that was in 2021. He did what he needed to do some things and the insurance was actually sending people out to do the inspection to see that it had been done. From what the insurance

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2023 PAGE 12 company said that it was about at least 90% done and so they paid them what they needed to pay them, but then the contractor again vanished and so she just got somebody else to come in and do what else needs to be done to the building. Ms. Anakwe stated that she is planning on selling the property after it is repaired since she has moved. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Anakwe stated that the siding and then they still got to do the floor in the inside, but what is inside is not much, because the insurance company had deemed that there was at least 90% of the work that was done and so the contractor was paid but then they did not come to finish what needed to be done. She stated that she can surely ask her insurance company for documentation and that before she could switch to a different contractor, they needed some things from her. They needed her to send them a certified mail, which she then showed to the insurance company before they could take the first contractor off and agree to the next contractor. So she can surely ask the insurance company what they can provide as far as that is concerned. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Anakwe stated that she not a contractor so she really cannot say without talking to her contractor and saying realistically how long is it going to take to do what needs to be done. She could give them a number now, but then she could be off by that number. She knows that they have requested something from the insurance company, so that is something that she could also do. Have a meeting with a contractor and say realistically how long is it going to take to do what needs to be done. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Anakwe stated that she actually came to get a permit with the contractor, and he should have started the work, because she bought some material already for the things that need to be done. Actually the material had been bought previously and was just sitting in there waiting for the issues to be resolved, so there is material for some of what needs to be done. They bought the items for the siding that needs to be done. That is already there. What he needs, he has gotten the permits, so realistically he should have started the work already. Mr. Anderson moved to adopt the staff recommendation with the additional language of a good faith effort to repair or demolish by November 2, 2023 and that the Building Inspector be allowed to at that time do an inspection to see that this order is complying. If insufficient action is taken, then the city will be allowed to execute repairs and be able to recover them through tax liens and/or civil action seconded by Mr. Lewis and carried unanimously. (Ms. Arndt was absent). PUBLIC HEARING - VIOLATION OF THE DANGEROUS BUILDING ORDINANCE - PROPERTY LOCATED AT 848 FOREST STREET. A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider a violation of the Dangerous Building Ordinance at 848 Forest Street. Mr. Eddie Kopp, Chief Code Enforcement Officer, reviewed a presentation depicting the condition of the property. Staff recommended: 1) Declaring these buildings and all accessory structures on these properties dangerous; 2) Ordering the properties demolished by November 2, 2023, by the owners or equity owners at their own risk; 3) Ordering the Building Inspector to cause the demolition of the structures if not completed by the owners within 10 days of the date established by City Council; and 4) Ordering the City Manager, with the assistance of the City Solicitor, to cause the cost of

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2023 PAGE 13 demolition to be charged against the lands on which the buildings exist as municipal liens or cause such costs to be added to the tax duplicate as assessments, or to be levied as a special tax, or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owners.) Nesta Felix, 848 Forest Street, stated that she is the Executive Director of a youth program and during COVID they actually had a shed on the property that was in very bad condition, and their community raised some funds so they could work on getting a shed so that they could store a lot of their program supplies. She runs programs in the area and in a couple of different states. So they decided to build a shed. The work was done by their community leaders, but it was done without acquiring a permit. Actually the work was, it actually got further ahead than they anticipated, and along the way, well when it was done, she recognized that they needed to get a permit. So in 2021 she went to the city and spoke with Mike McGregor. She let him know that she had some work done. It was supposed to be a one-story shed. “It just kind of got out of hand, how do I rectify it?” During that time, Mike pretty much said to her, “well, you need to put in a request for a permit and get that done.” She submitted a permit, and it was around May 2021. During the time the permit, they had to actually get drawings for the permit for it to be approved, and the drawings were actually the biggest challenge. She had documentation upon documentation of the communication between herself and Mike from the day she met him, up until he was no longer with the City. She has constant emails going back and forth between local architects just trying to get the drawings to get the permit to rectify the issues with this shed. Ms. Felix stated that then a couple of years went by again, it was still COVID, so people just were not working. No one wanted to do it. She had various architects come and look at the property. It just seemed like she was going nowhere. When Mike McGregor left, she came back in and met Eddie Kopp. Eddie Kopp scheduled to come and look at the property along with Mr. Akers at the time, and they did a walk through the property. They pretty much were very patient with her and said, look, there are a lot of things that are not in compliance here, but here is what she needs to do if this needs to be in compliance. They gave her an extensive list and said that she needs to put in a permit, but you need to get drawings first. Pretty much the same thing Mr. Mike had told her. She went looking for an architect again and continued to communicate with everyone, letting them know the hardship she was having, just to find someone to do it. The biggest challenge was the architect, because a sign was put on the property that she could no longer do anything on the property. She could not go on the property, work on the property, or do anything, so she could not make adjustments to the property, unless these drawings were acquired. It was just very difficult and along the way she continued to email everyone in the office and let them know that this architect had turned her down. She reached out to the city to see if they could refer an architect to her. She was made to know that they could not refer an architect to her as it was not appropriate for the department. Ms. Felix stated that finally about six months ago, she was able to obtain an architect company and she shared the information with Mr. Kopp. Some of her family were just trying to go to the office to make sure that everyone knew that she was doing her best to make sure whatever was an issue was born to compliance. She did not want the city to think that she was not responding or ignoring the call for the work to be done. Six months ago, she met an architect from the Williams Architect Agency in Dover, literally after she gave him $2,000, he went mute on her, was sick, went to the hospital for major surgery. She continued to email him and the authorities to let them know that this was happening. To let him know the urgency of these drawings and that she needed to be able to give the city a response, because they were asking her to do this. Along the way, the

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2023 PAGE 14 permit became null and void because the time had expired, but she was just unaware of that. So she was notified. When she finally got the drawings about a couple of weeks ago, she submitted it again to the department. Ms. Felix noted that she was notified that, well, the permit is no longer good, or the permit that you had before, it has been 160 days since the permit application. Ms. Felix explained that it has just been a series of unforeseen events and she has been doing her best to respond to the city, because she knows that actually they were patient even to come and look at the property and say, “Hey, here is what you need to do.” These are community funds that she raised to create the storage. This would not have been any different if she could have just gotten it right with the documentation. As a property owner, she is learning things, things that she has done wrong, but she is always attempting to communicate with the city to make sure that she is in compliance. The fire was also what created the major damage, and she did reach out to her electric company. There was no electricity running in the building at the time, even though the fire was deemed due to electricity. Her neighbors called her at 1:30 AM and she was traveling with the youth program. There was no electricity running and she did call the city to confirm, because when she is away sometimes, the electricity is turned off, so that is still yet to be determined. She does not understand what happened, but she did contact someone in the city to find out what had been deemed the cause of the fire. It was chalked up to electricity, but again, when she reached out to the city’s electric company, they confirmed that there had not been any electricity on the property for two weeks when this had occurred. Ms. Felix noted that she does know that her neighbor has people that come and go. Some of the people that tend to the property are not always in the best financial position. People know that she is away traveling, so it happens. Again she did not make an issue of it, but she did realize that that may have been the cause of deeming the building appropriate for demolition. So she wants to do what she can to save this property. It would be crushing to have to notify the people that helped raise money for this and whatever needs to be done to rectify it. Ms. Felix stated that she will go above and beyond to do it once she can get these permits to begin the work. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Kopp stated that a short term rental had been operating out of the property. Mr. Kopp believes it was an Airbnb. Responding to Mr. Boggerty and Mr Kopp, Ms. Felix stated that the building is not an Airbnb. The building is a storage space. She went by the building and told them that she had ceased all use of the trailer, because she did not know that she could not have a habitable trailer on the property. She was told that she could not. She received the letter and stopped using it. The shed itself is a storage space with their program supplies, whatever they have for programs go in there, her house supplies and obviously they have more than normal. They did question the sauna that they had in there, but it is no longer obviously, with the fire. Ms. Felix noted that the sauna was operational. Ms. Felix stated that the building has electricity. When the fire occurred, there was no electricity in the building and the sauna was there before the fire. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Felix stated that she is not an expert. She does not know if electricity can still actually be in limbo, but she does know that there was no electricity in the house. That electricity goes to the shed, the same electricity from the house. Again, she does not know what the cause of that fire was. She thinks it could be that people may have been hanging out but again, that is all speculation. The sauna was not the cause of the fire. She have multiple things in the shed because the shed is large. She has refrigerators, ovens, tools, pool tables that are

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2023 PAGE 15 not set up and bikes. She has so many things in that shed that go in and out of their program’s day to day. She does know that Mr. Akers and she had a direct conversation about making sure that she is clear that the building is not set up to be used for anything but a shed. She said to him, “okay, whatever I need to do to make sure it is in compliance and that that is clear, she would make sure that that it is done.” Ms. Felix stated that when the shed was built there was no electricity running to it but now there is electricity in the building. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Felix stated that yes, her youth program is an incorporated, not-for- profit program. The building, the shed, is actually part of the property. It was there and when it was built, they knocked down the old one. They took it apart by hand, and the intention was they were given some funding to build onto the shed that they currently had at the property. So they could expand it so they could store their program supplies and equipment. They were able to get some community funding from their youth program to do that, even though it is at their residence. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Kopp stated that they would try to work with them, depending on the situation. So if the building, for example, if something is crumbling and they are worried about somebody getting hurt or dying, then it would escalate. They will try to work with people, but some situations require immediate action. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Kopp stated that the whole structure was built prior to or without a permit. A permit was applied for after the fact and after the fire. The permit was denied due to the circumstances of the building. The permit was denied, he believes twice, and as of today, there is no issued active permit on file for this property. Mr. Sudler moved to adopt the staff recommendation with the additional language that they can remove any items from the building and property at their own risk seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried unanimously. (Ms. Arndt was absent). Mr. Hare moved for adjournment of the Violation of the Dangerous Building Ordinance meeting, hearing no objection, the meeting adjourned at 8:13 p.m. ANDRIA BENNETT CITY CLERK All ordinances, resolutions, motions, and orders adopted by City Council during their Special Meeting of October 3, 2023, are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /AB S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS\Council-Minutes\2023\10-October 2023\10-03-2023 SPECIAL COUNCIL VDBO.docx