CCW Minutes and Attachment

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Council Committee of the Whole met on September 27, 2022, at 6:02 p.m. with Council President Sudler presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson, Ms. Arndt, Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Hare, Mr. Neil, Mr. Rocha, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Hare. Dr. Pillsbury was absent. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Dr. Jackson and Mr. Hosfelt (Safety Advisory, and Transportation) Mr. Shelton (Utility), Mr. Shevock (WebEx), and Mr. Contant (WebEx). Mr. McCutcheon (Utility)was absent. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Ms. Arndt, and unanimously carried. SAFETY, ADVISORY, AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee met with Chairman Taylor presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Ms. Arndt, and unanimously carried. Presentation - Next Generation Outcomes (Larry Normile, Erin Smith, and Emily Sestito) Mr. Larry Normile, 46 Stone Ridge Drive, Dover, Delaware. 19901 reviewed his presentation entitled Next Generation Outcomes. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Normile confirmed that Next Generation Outcomes is incorporated. Mr. Normile explained to get participants into the program, he will work in conjunction with the City of Dover Police Department, Department of Justice, Attorney General’s Office, and Probation and Parole. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Normile stated that he currently does not have a place for participants to live or a place for them to go once they graduate. Mr. Normile explained that he has reached out to Country Village Apartment Homes. Mr. Neil stated that it is going to be hard to locate housing, there is not much space available and that is something he has been looking and fighting for because that is the main reason a lot of people are homeless. Mr. Neil explained that even if people have the money, there is not enough inventory. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Normile stated that he does not have a current income source, which is why he is meeting with organizations such as the City Council and the Department of Justice. Mr. Normile stated that he does not have the money right now, but he will even if it is in another two to three years, he will work for it and build his capital. Mr. Neil wished Mr. Normile all the luck in the world because he thinks the program is terrific. Mr. Neil stated that if Mr. Normile can accomplish everything that he has set out to do it would be a marvelous tool for the Police Department, which anybody dealing with the social ills of this society can do.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2022 PAGE 2 Mr. Sudler stated that he thought Mr. Normile presented a very good presentation. Mr. Sudler recommended filtering loitering issues to this rehabilitation and community service program. Mr. Sudler urged Mr. Normile to contact the City Manager because last month another non-profit requested a building or dwelling that the city could donate based on a purpose and need. Mr. Sudler commended Mr. Normile for following his spirit, and heart, and providing a highly-needed service in our community. Mr. Anderson thanked Mr. Normile for coming tonight and for his presentation. Mr. Anderson stated that he is looking forward to the future with this program and he believes it will make the entire county better. Mr. Anderson stated that Kent County has grants open right now from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds and he believes that the deadline is October 25th. Mr. Anderson recommended Mr. Normile look at Kent County’s website. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Normile confirmed he received his 501(c)(3) in 2019. Mr. Boggerty encouraged Mr. Normile to meet with Group Violence Intervention Program (GVI) because he feels like both programs could work together. Mr. Boggerty stated that he would get the contact information to Mr. Normile after the meeting. Presentation - Dover Loitering Ordinance- 2022 Update (Chief Thomas Johnson, Dover Police Department) Chief Thomas Johnson, Dover Police Department, reviewed the presentation entitled Dover Loitering Ordinance 2022 Update. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Chief Johnson stated that slide 24, section 70-9 is for non-state-funded schools, for example, the private schools would have the same authority as public schools. Ms. Arndt stated that she liked that Chief Johnson was proposing court-tested language found in the state statute. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Chief Johnson stated that Council has the power to decide what the consequences of a loitering citation in the city would be. Mr. Boggerty stated that he would like to make sure the ordinance is being administered fairly, if they are going to use the lower-level ordinance, then it must be used for all unless they are frequent offenders. Mr. Boggerty requested seeing a fair report including demographic, age, race, sex, and national origin. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Chief Johnson stated that they used 2019 statistics because it was pre- covid. Chief Johnson explained that during the pandemic, there were operational adjustments on the number of citizen contact that they proactively engage in, and the data would have been skewed. Chief Johnson stated that Mr. Boggerty’s concern was completely understood as Council will be drafting the Ordinance and voting to implement it. Chief Johnson stated that he would provide contextual data, not only the numbers but context to draw off, for example, communication from elected officials, 911 calls, and proactive behaviors in chronic condition areas.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2022 PAGE 3 Mr. Boggerty stated that “I, Andre, councilman trust you, I have full confidence that they are given the spirit that you delivered.” Mr. Boggerty stated, “let’s clean up so we can tackle some issues that this city desperately needs tackling.” Mr. Boggerty explained there have been break-ins, an increase in the homeless population, and problems that Council needs to solve. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Chief Johnson stated that cadets only have the authority to enforce local offenses at Council’s pleasure. Chief Johnson explained cadets currently enforce parking, littering, and other quality-of-life things. Chief Johnson suggested that if council would like for cadets to enforce loitering, then they include that in the ordinance. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Chief Johnson stated that he could provide suggested language and that if there becomes a problem through an internal procedure, he could rectify the situation. Responding to Chief Johnson, Mr. Boggerty stated that whatever the numbers come out to be he would like to see that it is fair. Mr. Boggerty stated that page 21 of the packet discussed the cadets and that the created purpose was due to the continuing safety and security concerns expressed by the merchants. Mr. Boggerty suggested deleting why it was created because if the numbers go down someone could say they are not needed. Mr. Neil thanked the original sponsors of the loitering ordinance because they took a lot of heat to bring about this moment. Mr. Neil explained that the original sponsors tried to lessen the costs for somebody going through the process and not having a record at the same time, trying to balance the individual’s rights constitutionally with actions that were causing businesses to lose their business. Mr. Neil further explained that they were losing their livelihood, and equity invested, and deeply hurting the City of Dover because of the actions that were taken by people who were loitering. Mr. Neil thanked Mr. Anderson and Mr. Taylor for kicking the ball in the right direction. Mr. Neil stated that they are now going to pull together information from the Chief’s presentation so that they can achieve their goal. Mr. Neil explained that if we lose businesses and nobody wants to come then everyone gets hurt. Mr. Neil noted that he has absolute trust in the Chief. Mayor Christiansen stated that most of the job descriptions state that other duties may be added at the discretion of the Chief and that the cadets need to be modified to include the same language. Mr. Sudler stated that he would like to see a statistical data review board comprising individuals in certain zones so that they can review the statistics, look at the data, see the authentication of the process, and be able to talk about the prior data. Mr. Sudler explained that he felt they would get more buy-in from the community and that it would show more accountability and transparency. Mr. Sudler thanked Mr. Anderson and Mr. Taylor for their support in the loitering initiative. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Sudler stated that the Police Chief’s Advisory Board would be a start, but he thinks that individuals who live in the New Street area should be included to help advocate that they see the statistics, that this is something that is authentic and has a buy-in as a part of the process. Mr. Sudler explained that the Police Chief’s Advisory Board should also be comprised of the business owners in addition to residents because they will echo the message that they need to do their part as a part of the community and the initiative to clean up downtown Dover. Mr. Sudler stated that he felt

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2022 PAGE 4 they needed new eyes and a new mission statement separate from the Police Chief’s Advisory Board only looking at statistics. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mayor Christiansen stated that he agreed that they needed to make sure that the statistics and demographic information is available to the community. Mayor Christiansen stated that he has implicit trust in the Chief, his staff, our statistician, and the Police Chief’s Advisory Board which was established to review and provide some oversight and suggestions for the operation of the Dover Police Department. Mayor Christiansen stated that he did not feel it was in the best interest of the ordinance to reinvent the wheel. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Taylor stated that Dr. Jackson – Short is a member of the Police Chief Advisory Board, which helped bring forth this loitering presentation. Mr. Taylor agreed with the Mayor that oversight is needed but should be provided by the Police Chief’s Advisory Board. Mr. Taylor stated that he felt that they would continue to do an outstanding job if they were given another responsibility, whether it be dealing with the demographics of this or anything else. Mr. Taylor noted that he has full faith in their abilities to be non-biased and move forward in a way that everyone can find satisfaction in their efforts. Mr. Anderson stated that a statistical review could be made with a motion and that he felt that should be done parallel with the ordinance but not as part of the ordinance. Mr. Anderson noted ordinances are laws that last until they are repealed. Mr. Anderson stated that he would like to have flexibility in how they deal with issues when it comes to being able to review because their needs of them can change quickly. Mr. Anderson moved to refer to staff to move forward with the drafting of this loitering ordinance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil. Mr. Sudler stated that was a very keen observation and statement made by Mr. Anderson. Mr. Sudler noted that the community has called for the reactivation of the Human Relations Commission, and he believes that something of this magnitude needs the community’s input regarding whom they feel most comfortable. Mr. Sudler explained this is a sensitive topic and Mr. Taylor and Mr. Anderson have taken a lot of heat for the City of Dover. Mr. Sudler stated that Mr. Anderson and Mr. Taylor have also taken the time and the intelligence to listen and do their due diligence. Mr. Sudler stated that he appreciates it and supports this initiative. Mr. Anderson moved to refer to staff to move forward with the drafting of this loitering ordinance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Proposed Ordinance #2022-15 - Chapter 70 by adding Section 70-9, Nuisances, and amending Appendix F, Fees, and Fines (Mary Ellen Gray, Director of Planning and Inspections) Mr. Hugg reviewed Ordinance #2022-15-Chapter 70, Section 70-9, Nuisances, and amended Appendix F, Fees, and Fines. Staff recommended approving the Ordinance for First Reading on October 10, 2022, at the Regular City Council Meeting.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2022 PAGE 5 Mr. Hare moved approving Ordinance #2022-15 for First Reading on October 10, 2022, at the Regular City Council Meeting, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. Discussion Loockerman Street Assessment Tour (Councilman Ralph Taylor) Mr. Taylor reviewed the pictures in the packet under Discussion of Loockerman Street Assessment Tour. Mr. Taylor noted the tree roots, loose bricks becoming weapons, tripping hazards, damaged downspouts from fighting, and alley fencing that the police cannot see through. Mr. Taylor noted that all of these are safety hazards for the city and our citizens. Mr. Taylor stated that a decision needed to be made regarding the trees causing damage, he suggested removing them and getting trees that are more suitable for those locations. Mr. Neil stated that he hoped that all of this was being shared with the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP) and Mosaic because it needs to happen but also be a part of the total plan for downtown. Mayor Christiansen pointed out that the Bond Bill gave the Downtown Dover Partnership a lot of money that could be used now for streetscape improvements. Mayor Christiansen stated that if DDP is going to be the true partner to the city, then some of those monies should be made available to address some of the issues Mr. Taylor has brought forth. Mr. Sudler stated that one way that they could deal with the roots of the trees, would be to shave the mature roots so that bedding could be placed for the pavers to be placed over. Mr. Sudler noted that they also have a foaming root killer that could be placed on the root, and it would dissolve in that area. Mr. Sudler explained that these options would not damage a mature tree but are short-term mechanisms that they could take to reinstall the bedding and concrete. Mr. Anderson agreed with Mr. Neil and thanked him for his comments. Mr. Andersons suggested they should look at different proposals and maybe look at how downtown looks and functions to make an informed decision. Mr. Anderson noted that they needed to decide quickly on how to proceed. Ms. Arndt stated that she hoped that they are not setting the stage to remove the trees, remove the brick, and put down smooth concrete. Ms. Arndt stated that she agreed with the tripping hazards and a relative immediate need to address those issues in terms of the tree and roots. Ms. Arndt stated that they learned a lot from the Bradford Street project and dealing with mature street trees that are healthy within urban environments. Ms. Arndt noted that brick sidewalks can be a maintenance headache however they are beautiful and make our downtown unique. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Taylor explained that the photo showed the only access to the basement. Mr. Taylor noted that it may be something they are going to have to work around. Ms. Tina Bradbury, DDP stated that the bond bill that was received is not for streetscape but that it is to bring buildings up to code and get ready to be leased. Mr. Taylor moved for adjournment of the Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee, hearing no objection, the meeting adjourned at 7:26 p.m.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2022 PAGE 6 Mr. Sudler announced Council would take a recess and resume at 7:35 p.m. UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee met with Chairman Rocha presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Ms. Arndt and unanimously carried. Mr. Hare moved to move items #2 Purchase Ground Penetrating Radar, #3 Delaware Drinking Water State Revolving Funds Applications, and #4 Aero Park Elevated Water Tank Equipment Relocation #5 Proposed Ordinance #2022-17 – Amending Chapter 110 – Cross Connection Control Program, Appendix F – Fees and Fines to Consent Agenda and take one vote to approve all four items. Mr. Anderson requested to remove Item #5 Proposed Ordinance #2022-17 – Amending Chapter 110 – Cross Connection Control Program, Appendix F – Fees and Fines Mr. Hare moved to move items #2 Purchase Ground Penetrating Radar, #3 Delaware Drinking Water State Revolving Funds Applications, and #4 Aero Park Elevated Water Tank Equipment Relocation to Consent Agenda and take one vote to approve all three. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boggerty and unanimously carried. Electric Service Handbook Revisions (Paul Waddell, Electric Director) Mr. Paul Waddell, Electric Director, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Electric Service Handbook Revisions. Staff recommended approving the presented revisions to the Electric Service Handbook. Mr. Neil moved to recommend approving the presented revisions to the Electric Service Handbook, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. Purchase Ground Penetrating Radar (Jason Lyon, Director of Water Wastewater) This item was approved on Consent Agenda and there was no separate discussion. Delaware Drinking Water State Revolving Funds Applications (Jason Lyon, Director of Water and Wastewater) This item was approved on Consent Agenda and there was no separate discussion. Aero Park Elevated Water Tank Equipment Relocation (Jason Lyon, Director of Water and Wastewater) This item was approved on Consent Agenda and there was no separate discussion. Proposed Ordinance #2022-17 - Amending Chapter 110 - Cross Connection Control Program, Appendix F - Fees and Fines (Jason Lyon, Director Water, and Wastewater) Mr. Jason Lyon, Director of Water and Wastewater, reviewed the background and analysis of Proposed Ordinance #2022-17.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2022 PAGE 7 Staff recommended approval of the Ordinance for First Reading at the October 10, 2022, Regular City Council Meeting. Mr. Lyon stated that he would like to thank Ms. Kate Mills, Water Production Manager because this would not be in front of Council without her and that she did a fantastic job putting this whole cross- connection control program together. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Lyon stated that it is important to realize that for the majority of residential customers, this will not impact them. Mr. Lyon noted that some exceptions were in the packet, such as if you have an irrigation system that is connected to a chemical disbursement, you must have a backflow preventer on that. Mr. Lyon stated that if you have your pool directly connected to the water service line, which is very, very rare, you must have a backflow preventer so that chlorine water cannot come back in. Mr. Lyon noted that if you have reclaimed water and if you have a fire suppression system, most residential units do not have that. Mr. Lyon explained that these fees are primarily going to be for businesses that are required to put in a backflow preventer because of the high hazard risk or if there were any sort of additional concerns that we would have. Mr. Lyon explained that it is going to be filled out in the survey, which is in the packet, and that it will be sent out to all the businesses, then they are going to return it to us. Mr. Lyon continued to explain that then the city is going to through them with our partner, National Water Specialties Company (NAWSC), and provide them with direction on which way to go. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Mr. Lyon confirmed backflow devices would need to be tested annually by a licensed contractor. Mr. Neil moved to recommend approval of Proposed Ordinance #2022-17 – Amending Chapter 110-Cross Connection Control Program, Appendix F – Fees and Fines for first reading at the October 10, 2022, Regular City Council Meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried. Mr. Rocha moved for adjournment of the Utility Committee, hearing no objection, the meeting adjourned at 7:43 p.m. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Chairman Anderson presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Ms. Arndt, and unanimously carried. Mr. Anderson moved to move items #4 Approval of a Grant Funded Group Violence Intervention (GVI) Crime Analyst Position and #5 Acceptance of a 1.5 Million Dollar Grant Funded Camera Expansion to Consent Agenda and take one vote to approve both items. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare. Mr. Sudler stated that he has a question for Item #4 and would like it removed from consent.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2022 PAGE 8 Mr. Neil moved to approve item #5 Acceptance of a 1.5 Million Dollar Grant Funded Camera Expansion by a consent agenda. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Chief Johnson stated that it is the goal to have money left over to purchase an extended warranty agreement with Advantech to push the city’s expenses off as long as possible. Chief Johnson stated that they may be able to push off the maintenance of the cameras for approximately 5 years. Chief Johnson noted that maintenance for existing cameras is roughly $65,000 -$70,000 and that there would be a modest bump from that. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Chief Johnson stated that there are many shovel-ready camera locations that they could opt to build. Chief Johnson stated that their goal is to build as far as they can and leave enough funds to purchase the warranty. Chief Johnson confirmed that once the money from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds is depleted the city will be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the cameras. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Chief Johnson stated that the new cameras will be an upgrade. Chief Johnson explained that the current cameras have a fixed position and that they are pan and tilt cameras. Chief Johnson noted that the new upgraded cameras have fixed-position cameras that look in every direction. Mr. Sudler stated that we currently have a lot of cameras that have appeared or have been perceived to be not operational downtown. Mr. Sudler stated that there was a question from the community about the location of the cameras and how did the cameras not catch a resident jogging downtown or even the fire on Lockman Street. Did they catch the individual who may or may not have caused the fire, just hearing from different circumstances, why are these cameras not working? Or when people go to ask for certain footage, why are those cameras not working? Mr. Sudler stated that his only concern is that maybe some of the grant money that the city is receiving, should be used to make sure that the cameras that are not operational become operational, or at least demonstrate to the community that all of our cameras are operating. Mr. Sudler continued by stating that they will feel more confident in knowing that, even though this is grant money, it is still money that is given to our constituents under the stewardship of Council to guide and direct where it should go. Mr. Sudler stated he likes the initiative, and the product, it looks great. I support that, but he would be remiss if he did not echo that he wants to make sure that all of our cameras are 100% operational for the transparency of the community and also to make sure that we are being good stewards of our taxpayers' dollars moving forward. Mr. Sudler stated he is all for progression and all upgrades, but he wants to make sure that what we have now is working and moving in a way that we can show due diligence in all our efforts. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Chief Johnson stated that there was a meeting a few weeks ago to achieve what Mr. Sudler has described and learn from past failures. Chief Johnson explained that the fiber optic network they are trying to build will take away a lot of the wireless line of sight interruptions. Chief Johnson further explained that a lot of the issues come from the trees blocking the line of sight and they do much better in fall and winter once the leaves fall.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2022 PAGE 9 Chief Johnson stated the money that will install state-of-the-art fiber optics is in collaboration with the in-kind contribution of the electrical department. Chief Johnson further explained it will be to connect to upgrades and cameras that look in every direction so that we no longer have gaps in coverage. Chief Johnson stated that the internal infrastructure at headquarters is going to be beefed up immensely and that it will complement the health monitoring software that they already invested in to try and make sure that Advantech gets a notification within 15 minutes of a detected failure so it can be addressed immediately, rather than waiting for someone to find it the next business day. Chief Johnson explained that they are looking in all of those zones while they were doing the planning. Chief Johnson continued that they would like to think that they have looked at all the contingencies that would be of concern and that think they have got them all earmarked for resolution over the lifespan of this expansion initiative. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Chief Johnson stated that the camera at Scarborough Road which is in proximity to the tail line overpass will have visual cameras and license plate reading cameras. Mr. Ryan Kelly, Advantech, currently has license plate recognition in place throughout the City of Dover and it is working flawlessly. Mr. Kelly explained that each camera has a specific lane it concentrates on, so it does not have to wonder which lane to concentrate on. Mr. Neil moved to recommend approving Item #5 Acceptance of a 1.5 Million Dollar Grant Funded Camera Expansion by a consent agenda. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. Proposed Ordinance #2022-08 - Amending Chapter 66 - Manufactured Homes, Mobile Homes, and Land Lease Communities, Section 66-3 - Manufacture; Homes and Appendix F - Fees and Fines Mr. Neil reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Proposed Ordinance #2022-08 and Attachment #1 – Letter to Dover City Council – Ordinance #2022-08. Staff recommended approving the Ordinance for First Reading at the October 10, 2022, Regular City Council Meeting. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Neil stated that it is a problem that the Department of Justice has to handle because in essence, when the person leaves, even if they take the title away with them and the community owner repossesses it for the lack of rent, they are selling a home they have no right to sell. Mr. Neil stated that it is not a Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) issue at this point and that you still cannot sell the home that you do not own. Mr. Neil explained that if you are selling the home, saying, "Here it is, buy it. I want to collect your rent," the person cannot resell the home. Mr. Neil continued to state that if they do not have a title, that is against the law, and that becomes a state issue that we have to turn over. Mr. Neil stated that if we recognize it because it is brought to our attention, then he thinks we have to go to the Attorney General and that this is what this ordinance calls for, to report it to the proper authorities with the state to let them deal with it. Mr. Neil noted otherwise that the house is going to stay vacant until they can get a title, but they cannot sell the home. Mr. Rocha moved to recommend approving Ordinance #2022-08 for First Reading at the October 10, 2022, Regular City Council meeting as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boggerty and unanimously carried.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2022 PAGE 10 Proposed Ordinance #2022-10 - Amending Chapter 22 Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VII. Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-226 Violation and penalties and Appendix F - Fees and Fines Ms. Mary Ellen Gray, Director of Planning and Inspections reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Proposed Ordinance #2022-10. Staff recommended approving the Ordinance for First Reading at the October 10, 2022, Regular City Council Meeting. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Gray stated that if this ordinance passes then it would be a question for legal counsel if it could be retroactive. Ms. Gray stated historically going backward, enforcement has been a question for legal counsel. Mr. Hare suggested consulting legal counsel if this ordinance could be retroactive, if the City can send a letter asking for fines to be paid within 90 days or if a lien will be placed, or if they could simply reissue the fine with a letter. Mr. Hare moved to recommend approving Ordinance #2022-10 for the First Reading at the October 10, 2022, Regular City Council meeting as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha. Ms. Arndt stated in regard to Article V on page 151 of the packet, parking in a fire lane, if the fee goes unpaid it would be a traffic violation and not tied to the property. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Ms. Gray stated she would look into it. Responding to Mr. Contant, Mr. Kopp stated that Code Enforcement has a lien spreadsheet that they update to include information such as owner information and tax parcel id, then it will be billed through customer service. Mr. Kopp assured Council that the process is not very time-consuming and that they have an established process that they use for grass fines. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Gray stated that as of this morning the total amount of unpaid fines between 2019-2021 is $605,800. Mr. Hare stated to Mr. Hugg that each penny of the tax increase raises $370,000 dollars and that this is part of the tax increase that we need to collect. Ms. Gray stated that the idea of this framework is that eventually, we would be bringing in fewer fines because they feel this is kind of like a parent who threatens to punish a child for bad behavior but never actually punishes them, that it ends up being a hollow threat, so the bad behavior continues. Ms. Gray stated that if the message gets out to the property owners of rental properties that there will be consequences for this behavior, then the behavior we hope will change and the properties will be better maintained. Mr. Gray stated that property owners and renters will be in better compliance and that this is the goal. Mr. Hare moved to recommend approving Ordinance #2022-10 for First Reading at the October 10, 2022, Regular City Council meeting as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2022 PAGE 11 Proposed Ordinance #2022-14 - Chapter 22- Buildings and Building Regulations, Article X.- Rental Dwellings and Appendix F - Fees and Fines Ms. Mary Ellen Gray, Director of Planning and Inspections reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Proposed Ordinance #2022-14. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Gray stated that Mr. Rodriguez issued a Legal Opinion in January 2020, indicating that he believes it is a violation of the landlord-tenant code- 25 Del. Coded 5101. Ms. Gray stated that this code shall regulate and determine all legal rights, remedies, and obligations of all parties and beneficiaries of any rental agreement of a rental unit within the state whenever, wherever executed. Any rental agreement, whether written or oral, shall be unenforceable, in so far as the agreement or any provision thereof conflicts with any provision of this code and is not expressly authorized herein. Mr. Sudler suggested contacting the Division of Human Relations that oversees HUD or contacting the board that puts together the landlord-tenant code for an opinion. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Gray stated that she attended the Fair Housing Act seminars in previous positions. Tracey Harvey also attends those training and provides background regarding that from the Delaware State Housing Authority, they do this every five years, and they assess our entities who receive Community Development Block Grant program money. Ms. Gray stated that there is a report that reviews every entity on how we are doing with fair housing and how we are implementing the Community Development Block Grant. Ms. Gray stated that she would bring forward that report. Mr. Anderson stated the opinion, which conflicted with the Deputy City Solicitor who drafted the ordinance, Representative Lynn, and Mr. Peraza. Mr. Anderson stated that to remedy that, we went through all the trouble of changing the charter to specifically allow for the City of Dover to deal with rental issues and safe communities. Mr. Anderson explained that the 2020 opinion does not consider the state law which just passed and was signed on September 9, 2022. Mr. Anderson stated that he inquired about that with Mr. Rodriguez, and he agrees that it means that the whole opinion, not saying what the result is, but the whole opinion would have to be revisited because the laws have changed. Mr. Anderson stated that he did not think that this should be part of that discussion and that we plan to put that on an Agenda in late October to give time for review, and that this should not be part of this ordinance. Mr. Anderson moved that the provisions regarding safe communities be stricken and deferred for another time. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare. Ms. Arndt stated that she is in support of striking the safe communities’ provisions from the ordinance. Ms. Arndt agreed with the solicitor that there is a conflict with the landlord-tenant code and the state housing position that it is a discriminatory practice. Ms. Arndt continued that the criminal activity is outlined within the safe community section of the ordinance. Ms. Arndt asked why that would only apply to renters. Ms. Arndt continues that criminal activity is criminal activity and that the way it is written, it targets renters specifically, and renters are more likely to be people of color. Ms. Arndt stated that she believes that is the basis for the opposition to the Fair Housing Act. Ms. Arndt stated that she would be in favor of, as written, striking the provision from the current ordinance.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2022 PAGE 12 Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Kopp stated that in regard to the agent required, the reason why we were striking out the family member is we have had several problems with properties where a designated family member is on site. Mr. Kopp explained that they are going out to a property three or four times because that family member is a tenant and a friend. Mr. Kopp continued that the owner would call us and be like, "Oh, hey, my brother's going to be there” and it is a tenant who is representing the property, and then it is not brought back into compliance. Mr. Kopp further explained that a lot of things they are discovering are, there are a lot of life safety concerns out here, the authorized agent, who is a family member does not get the message across to the owner, or the owner is out of state, and they cannot get ahold of the owner or the authorized agent whom they have listed. Mr. Kopp noted that is why we would like to require a property manager, somebody who is in Kent County who can respond. Mr. Kopp stated they have had several issues where, whether it is trash, a leaking pipe, or floors caving in because they have encountered that. Mr. Kopp continued that the owners could be in Hawaii, or let's say Afghanistan on deployment and are trying to get ahold of this authorized agent, who is nowhere to be found or does not exist. Mr. Kopp explained by having that agent required, is going to better assist the tenant in the event of an emergency, or if we do find violations within the property, the agent can better assist us to get in compliance. Mr. Kopp noted that in their history when there is a property manager assigned to the property, a licensed property manager, they tend to get these violations issued a lot faster or corrected a lot faster. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mr. Kopp stated that even though an owner leaves contact information, it is hard to get ahold of them and for them to get compliant in emergencies. Mr. Kopp stated that this is more geared toward emergencies. Mr. Kopp explained that they do have several emergencies where they cannot contact anybody and, unfortunately, they end up having to condemn the unit and displace the tenants, and then they are out on their own because again, they cannot get ahold of the owner. Mr. Anderson noted that the code already stated that the authorized agent and the family member of the individual must be in the county already. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Ms. Gray stated that line 55 can mirror line 112 of the ordinance to define property insurance. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Mr. Kopp stated that it will be yearly inspections that will take place with every new license, not renewed licenses. Mr. Kopp explained that code enforcement already does this as a best practice and is asking it to be placed in the code. Ms. Arndt suggested a performance-based licensing system, where you consider the property code, nuisance violations, and tax compliance so that landlords who are in good standing are incentivizing them. Mr. Arndt discussed a fee reduction or some sort of incentive package for the landlords that are doing a good job as opposed to the landlords that are not maintaining their properties. Mr. Neil moved to table Item #4 Proposed Ordinance #2022-14 - Chapter 22- Buildings and Building Regulations, Article X.- Rental Dwellings and Appendix F - Fees and Fines. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2022 PAGE 13 Mr. Taylor stated we look at sections 22-333, and we were just talking about the property manager, section A is line number 90. Mr. Taylor continued, that if we go down to line number 99, section B, to incorporate some of that language. Mr. Taylor explained any corporation or partnership owning a rental dwelling shall have a designated member, partner, or employee having charged care or control of the rental property. Mr. Neil moved to recommend tabling Item #4 Proposed Ordinance #2022-14 - Chapter 22- Buildings and Building Regulations, Article X.- Rental Dwellings, and Appendix F - Fees and Fines. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. Approval of a Grant Funded Group Violence Intervention (GVI) Crime Analyst Position (Chief Thomas Johnson, Dover Police Department Chief Johnson yielded to questions from Council. Staff recommended approving the grant-funded position as requested. Mr. Sudler asked regarding the proposed new position for the GVI Crime Analyst position, is there some statistical over workload or data indicating that the demand of the current Crime Analysis Position that we have is being overworked or overwhelmed? Responding to Mr. Sudler, Chief Johnson stated the crime analyst that they have right now is a hybrid position, he does crime analysis, but he is also the accreditation manager, which means he's heavily involved in the development and the maintenance of policy and procedure for the CALEA accreditation. Chief Johnson noted that he handles the general policing crime analyst duties. Chief Johnson stated that naively as a department when GVI came to us and turned the program on, we thought that we could handle what we thought was going to be a limited number of clients and a limited number, that we assessed as not a heavy lift on information, not only collecting, but the big piece is the information sharing. Chief Johnson explained that when you take into consideration under the umbrella of the Department of Corrections, the Department of Health of Human Services, and the other state law enforcement agencies in our federal partners, we had no idea the amount of time this was going to burden Case Detectives in making sure that everybody involved in GVI is on the same page, particularly when we have an event where shots are fired and folks that have other roles to play need real-time data as to what is going on in an investigation. Chief Johnson stated that we started the year with him hearing, "Chief, we will be all right, we do not need this analyst. We got this." And then by the middle of the summer, it was, "Yeah, Chief, we were wrong. We need this analyst." Chief Johnson stated that coincidentally, the same point of contact in the Governor's office brought to us the camera expansion opportunity through ARPA. Chief Johnson stated that apparently, they did not realize at the time that ARPA was being considered as the funding source for this position by the Governor's office. Chief Johnson stated that when they started talking about the cameras, the spreadsheet that is in the packet had personnel at the top line that had not been there before. However, they are merging both the camera project and the crime analyst into the same budget from their perspective. Chief Johnson stated that from the city’s standpoint, there is a difference between a camera expansion project and a mid-season addition of personnel.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2022 PAGE 14 Chief Johnson wanted to make Council aware of the way that they have this structured in the ask in case this money ever runs out. Chief Johnson stated that the state intends to continue funding beyond this three-year window. Chief Johnson continued to state that in the event, that there is some kind of philosophical change or a barrier that makes that impossible, the way they are doing this is that Council can turn this position off, at almost a moment's notice because it is part-time at the maximum number of allowable hours. Chief Johnson stated that if it is Council's pleasure at that time not to fund the position through city tax dollars that it will be 100% at the discretion of Council if it is not funded anymore by the state. Chief Johnson noted that there is currently no money out of pocket from city dollars to make this position start. Chief Johnson stated that if the state suddenly must step away from it, we have no other match or obligation from that day forward to continue. Chief Johnson noted that Council is 100% free to do as they wish at that time. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Chief Johnson stated that if this is denied then the case detectives will not have as much time to do, such as major case detectives that are in our drug, vice, and organized crime units, who are some of the lead personalities with the GVI program. Chief Johnson noted that they are not working cases if they are typing reports and making tons of phone calls and generating emails. Chief Johnson stated that not only the GVI staff at the state level, but corrections, probation, parole, health human services, anybody that is involved with a GVI client who is sending us information, and then the information that we generate on a GVI client that we have to share with all those other entities, that burden cannot stop, and it is mostly a safety issue. Chief Johnson explained that a lot of the GVI, non-law enforcement practitioners are in the field on their own, and if they do not know in real-time that there is a conflict in progress or beef going on, then they could be walking into something. Chief Johnson stated that they have to step up their game to be as real-time as they can with information sharing, which is why they are finding this position so crucial. Mr. Sudler asked Chief Johnson if there was a process other than verbally saying to the Chief, is there a process where they write and give a description regarding in what areas a breakdown, so that the justification, the rationale is in black and white on paper? Responding to Mr. Sudler, Chief Johnson stated there is a process in place. Chief Johnson stated that in early '21 he wanted to try and make sure he captured hourly utilization. Chief Johnson stated that the annual report that he provided, was the first draft of them attempting to capture the number of hours that they spend on any particular task. Chief Johnson continued that there are categories for that information is captured and that in some of its investigations, you could go all the way down. How long they are taking in the transport of prisoners from point A to point B? Chief Johnson explained that he is trying to build a cadre of data to justify any further requests that he might have to bring to Council going forward in future years. Chief Johnson noted that he does not have a specific category that discusses hours that are involved in administrative time for GVI and that he is unsure if he could go in reverse to get that information. Chief Johnson stated that he is trusting Lieutenant Dickinson and the rest of the GVI team, which includes stakeholders outside of the Dover PD, where the consensus is. Chief Johnson noted that Wilmington ended up having to do the same thing and that they have more than one because of the number of clients that they have. Chief Johnson explained that they are just starting with one and that

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2022 PAGE 15 they are starting it out in a way that has the most flexibility for them to make decisions in the future to the pleasure of the department and Council as far as funding it. Chief Johnson noted that he wished he had a better answer for Council President as to the exact data that drove the request but that they are still moving towards our first calling, which is going to bring more clients under the umbrella of GVI. Chief Johnson continued that from then, all the things that occur from that calling date will require top-shelf information sharing, and it is more analyst work than it is police work. Responding to Chief Johnson, Mr. Sudler stated that he wished he could support this initiative, but without the data, he cannot justify approval from his perspective. Mr. Sudler stated that he does support Dover PD, but that is his opinion, and he is just one vote. Mr. Hare stated that the Chief has his support and that this is something the officers needed, they came to the chief for it, and it is not costing the City money, and he does not see the downside of approving it. Mr. Hare moved to recommend approving the grant-funded position as requested by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and passed 7 in favor to 1 opposed (Mr. Sudler). Mr. Rocha moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee, hearing no objection, the meeting adjourned at 8:56 p.m. Mr. Sudler moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting, hearing no objection, the meeting adjourned at 8:56 p.m. Roy Sudler, Jr. Council President RS/re S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS\Committee-Minutes\TEMPLATES\COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE TEMPLATE.docx Attachments Attachment #1 - Attachment #1 – Letter to Dover City Council – Proposed Ordinance #2022-08

ATTACHMENT #1 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 09/27/2022 To: My Dover City Council Colleagues Sept. 27, 2022 From: Fred Neil, 3rd District Re: Ordinance 2022-08, Primer on Leased Land Housing Scope: Mobile Housing has moved from vacation homes to permanent domiciles on rented land. Think teachers with summers off having a mobile vacation home in Sussex County. If unhappy with the landlord, drive off to another community. With time and the economy, those homes became permanent domiciles and spread throughout Delaware. In 1974, HUD set standards to improve the quality of these manufactured homes. ! Each home has a HUD serial number. Delaware treats these homes as vehicles and provides a Title for each home recorded by DMV. When the original buyer sells the home the Title is handled just as with a vehicle sale. Can you sell something you have taken possession of legally, but if you do not have a legal Title signed over to you, can you sell it? ! Manufactured homes come in various sizes and styles. Most common are Single Wides brought to the community on wheels. These are removed and the homes are placed on cinder blocks and usually skirted. In Dover, the owner of this type of home pays an annual fee. ! My community Wild Meadows was created as an upscale community with the homes on a permanent foundation, with one or two car garages, and are assessed as are other properties every 5 years. My home is 1728 sq ft. Not only do we pay city & county taxes individually, but under State law we pay the property taxes on the community through our rents . ! The equity of the tenant homeowner is always at risk. The maintenance of the home falls on the homeowner. The requirements of the landlord is spelled out in the lease to be en forced by the State. Code 25, Chapter 70 which lacks teeth in enforcement powers. ! The City of Dover provides far more protection to leased land home owners than the State of Delaware. Missing from State law is the requirement for a receipt for rents paid; management availability requirements, and snow removal requirements within the private community. City Code inspectors enforce city ordinances requiring the maintenance of the community. ! The $1.6 million taken out of the Dover and State economy from Wild Meadows with very small cost of the operation and no return in benef its, is a separate subject for discussion. What prompted Ordinance 2022-08 is from the desperate struggles to have a roof over their heads by low income homeowners in a standard community and our role in their health and safety. ! Depending upon the philosophy of the community owner, a house in the community may be owned or rented. The house could be rented by the community owner or an individual. Our Code Inspectors can not inspect a privately owned home, but they are required to inspect a rental. This ordinance is designed to help our Code Inspector to determine which homes are being rented. The community owner should know if an individually owned home is being rented. ! Only when a complaint was made, did we find out, homes sold by the community owner, the buyers were not given the Title which would permit them to legally sell the house. This is apparently a wide spread practice which we have placed into the hands of the DOJ. ! Requiring a Certificate of Occupancy by Landlord sold homes should dramatically increase the health & safety of the buyer and their families.

I provided Case histories following a request from the Delaware Manufactured Homeowners Association (DMHOA) previously. In brief, our Code Inspectors acted with alacrity showing that a homeowner had complied with a required clean-up and saved her from eviction from the Kings Cliffe leased land community. What followed were an immediate condemnation of house with a family of 4 required to leave almost immediately, the revelation of shells of houses being sold that were a threat to buyer’s health and safety, and what I believe to be illegal sale of houses where the buyers did not receive the Title to home required by law. The Nickell Family Story: When our Code Inspector examined the rented house they were living in fir 4 years by the disabled parents and 2 children, she gave them 3 hours to move out. For 4 years, the Nicholls had been asking the manager for multiple fixes including dangerous electrical problems. Our Code Inspector declared the house uninhabitable. T he house did nit have a door knob to only exit. It had to be pried open with a knife. The family could find no place to live in Delaware they could afford. Others in the community frightened to complaint because they do not want to lose their homes such as it is. I interviewed 2 homeowners who never received Titles with their home purchase: Disabled veteran William Bar, with on-set of memory problems has an adult autistic son living with him. His ex-wife bought the house for him and visits on weekends from New York. The house cost $2,000.$7,000 was spend supplies and 6 months of sweat equity, thanks to younger family members, before home was ready for occupancy. Was the house put together correctly? Amanda Darwick purchased this shell of house a year ago from the Community Owner using a Debit Card for $4,250, Interest unknown. The shell had holes in the wall, floors in many rooms were missing, no cabinets and no toilet. She paid credit card $4000 to m ake it habitable. She requested but never received the DMV Title. She was threatened with eviction for non-payment of rent. Community gets home back in better condition than when should, but is it safe. Where’s the Title? An HOA was formed and incorporated. I was asked to sit in the meeting with the HOA and Community Manager. The manager complained that I was abusive and threatening. 1st you know me, and 2nd there are witnesses. I want to put that out as we proceed with this proposed ordinance for transparency purposes. I have provided you with a Primer on leased land housing and the headlines of media stories of the money extracted from low and middle income families, seniors and retired military who have virtually no protection from financial abuse. Affordable housing is at the cornerstone of our lives and out economy. The ordinance is a small step forward to protect a very vulnerable population. On the reverse of the Primer are headlines of media reports that I have in my Library. Please advise if you wish to read the original story. Questions?