CCW and Attachment

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Council Committee of the Whole met on February 27, 2024, at 6:00 p.m. with Council President Hare presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson, Ms. Arndt, Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Neil, Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Rocha, and Mr. Sudler. Mayor Christiansen was absent. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Ms. Smack (Safety, Advisory, and Transportation), Mr. Shevock (via WebEx) (Legislative, Finance, and Administration). Dr. Jackson-Short (Safety, Advisory, and Transportation), and Ms. Smith (Legislative, Finance and Administration) were absent. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. SAFETY, ADVISORY, AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee met with Chairman Lewis presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Lewis requested to remove Item #2 – Citizen Concern over Safety Issues in Towne Point, as the citizen who initiated the item being put on the agenda chose to not speak publicly. Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. Quarterly Briefing on Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Projects (Marilyn Smith, Executive Director of the Dover/Kent County MPO) Ms. Marilyn Smith, Executive Director of the Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), provided a quarterly briefing on Dover/Kent County MPO Projects. Committee Action Not Required. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Smith stated they have applied for a Rail Corridor Identification Grant in partnership with DelDOT, DART, WILMAPCO, and Salisbury/Wicomico MPO. Ms. Smith stated that they received a $500,000 grant to do the study however, since there is no identified passenger corridor operating right now, one must be identified. Ms. Smith explained that because DART was the applicant, they had to sign the agreement with the Federal Highway Administration. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Smith stated that the study should take 12 to 16 months to complete, once the federal contracts are in place. Ms. Smith explained that would put them at a year to a year and a half before they have a finalized study with recommendations. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Smith stated that in the Downtown Dover Pathways study, they are focusing on bike, pedestrian, and micro-mobility. Ms. Smith noted that micro-mobility

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2024 PAGE 2 includes electronic scooters. Ms. Smith explained that there will be a chapter that talks about micro-mobility including ebikes as well, and then shows how they could be implemented. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Smith stated that she is not sure what kind of funding is available for elevating the railroad tracks but if that is something that the city would like to pursue, then there would need to be a conversation with the Federal Railroad Administration. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Smith stated that the Bay Road Path & Walking Trail Connections study went from Chesapeake Utilities, onto Bay Road, down Bay Road, and then provided a safe crossing over to DelDOT. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Smith stated that if there is a specific section of trail that he has concerns with, they would have to find out who the trail sponsor is. Ms. Smith explained that the sponsors can be DNREC, DelDOT, the county, or a municipality. Ms. Smith also stated that when they recommend new trails or new connections, they include lighting as a part of the development to make sure the trail is safe. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Smith stated that in the meantime to help aid the need for truck parking, DelDOT created a flyer that provides some preferred truck parking areas. They are trying to get the word out to truck drivers that parking exists, and some are in Dover and Kent County. Ms. Smith explained that DelDOT has re-striped some truck parking spaces at the DMV and a couple of park-and-ride locations. Ms. Smith stated that their GIS mapper is working on pulling parcels that are owned by private landowners and could potentially be designated as temporary truck parking spaces. Ms. Smith explained that there is an RFP out to make significant upgrades to the Smyrna rest area so that it can accommodate more truck parking. Mr. Lewis moved for adjournment of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 6:39 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 Dr. Pillsbury and unanimously carried. Discussion – Establishing a Conduit Bond Program (Emilie Ninan, Partner at Ballad Spahr) Ms. Emilie Ninan, Partner at Ballad Spahr, reviewed the presentation entitled, Using Conduit Tax- Exempt Bonds to Finance Capital Projects. Committee recommended referring to staff for the next steps. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Ninan stated that the bank is lending the money based on their credit. The city would not have any responsibility as a conduit issuer to repay the debt because the city is not giving them any of their credit for them to obtain the lower rate. Ms. Ninan explained that the

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2024 PAGE 3 only thing to be concerned about as the issuer is the reputational risk and whether the city wants to be associated with that borrower. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Ninan stated that in some counties, the whole council is the approver. Ms. Ninan explained that if the President is selected by the members, then they are not considered elected as President, so the whole council would be the approver. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Ninan stated that they would ask for a commitment letter indicating that there is interest in the market for the requested type of bonds. Ms. Ninan explained that council would not want to spend their time considering an application for someone with wishful thinking. Instead, council would want them to have a real project that can pass the credit scrutiny. Mr. Neil moved to refer to staff for further development and consideration. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. Update from the General Employee Pension Plan and Committee Report (Bob Gedney, General Employee Pension Chair, and Christina Kober, City of Dover Retiree) Mr. Bob Gedney, General Employee Pension Chair, and Christina Kober, City of Dover Retiree and General Employee Pension Board member reviewed an update from the General Employee Pension Plan. Committee Action Not Required. Mr. Sudler expressed gratitude to the retirees for their dedication. Mr. Sudler explained that council is committed to showing that they value all employees, past and present. Mr. Anderson mentioned that there will be legislation on a future agenda to address the concerns of pensioners. Mr. Anderson stated that the actuary numbers should be in for the workshop and that they will be available for the committee meeting in March. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Kober stated that the link he provided did not have any assistance information available for her to pass on, but she appreciated the help. Ms. Arndt expressed concern with the 25.5% cost of living adjustment and explained that she would need to see all the data before making any decisions. Dr. Pillsbury stated that 25% is what they did not receive over the past seven or eight years. Dr. Pillsbury explained that they have taken the percentages each year and added them up to come up with 25%. Mr. Anderson mentioned that the city's actuary, with whom they contract, has reviewed the numbers, and arrived at a figure close to what is being requested. He emphasized that the requested amount is not unreasonable. He also explained that once the numbers are back for the workshop meeting, they will review several proposals from staff before committing to anything they cannot fulfill.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2024 PAGE 4 Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Anderson stated that regarding the pension COLA and the proposed retitling and regrading one will not take away from the other. Mr. Anderson stated that council is not breaking the budget to make the changes for this year. Responding to Ms. Kober, Mr. Anderson stated that he has not been provided with the report but anticipates that they will be talking about it on Friday at the workshop. Responding to Mr. Gedney, Mr. Anderson stated that council will have the report by March 1st. Proposed Ordinance #2024-02 – Amending Chapter 106 – Traffic and Vehicles, Sec. 106-136 – On-street disabled parking (Councilman Neil and Councilwoman Arndt) Mr. Neil reviewed the background and proposed changes to the proposed Ordinance #2024-02. Staff recommended approval of Ordinance #2024-02. Mr. Neil moved to include the staff amendments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg stated that the City Clerk’s Office has researched and made the proposed changes. He did not want to have more than one person calling to try to get different answers. Mr. Hugg explained that he has the contact information for the Council on Disabilities of the State, which is a State ADA Administrator. However, he has not taken any further steps knowing that Mr. Neil, Ms. Arndt, and the Clerk’s Office were doing the research. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Neil clarified that the changes to the city's code were intended to add extra information, emphasizing that anyone requesting a parking spot would be granted one if the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) approved. He noted that the ordinance detailed existing city code requirements, responsibilities regarding curb cuts, and other provisions aligning with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Mr. Neil, who has 20 years of experience in vocational rehab, reassured that the changes were not meant to harm the individuals he had previously assisted. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg stated that the city does not have an ADA Coordinator in the sense that Mr. Lewis asked. Mr. Hugg explained that the city has an individual who is responsible for ensuring that anything the city does by way of contracting or construction, including streets and curb cuts, meets ADA standards. Mr. Hugg stated that it is not their responsibility to determine if someone is eligible for a placard. Mr. Hugg explained that the Public Works Department is the entity that issues the handicapped spaces and they do that following the ADA requirements of depth and width. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg stated that if an individual walks into the Public Works Department with a DMV certificate along with the various forms stating that they meet the requirements, Public Works will go out and paint the space. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Neil clarified that if a resident has a driveway, they do not need two placards. However, if they have a driveway and one parking spot, they will need two placards. If

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2024 PAGE 5 they do not have access to a driveway but have two placards, they would have two parking spots. He explained that the changes primarily focus on driveway access, specifying responsibilities for ensuring ADA compatibility. Andria Bennett, City Clerk stated that the staff amendment was added at the request of Mark Nowak, Public Work’s Director because a lot of times when there is a disabled spot in front of someone's home, they think that they own that spot. Ms. Bennett clarified that even if someone has requested a parking space and it is in front of their home, they do not own the space. Anyone with a placard indicating a need for accessible parking may rightfully park in that space. Mr. Boggerty expressed his concerns with not being able to assign a requested parking spot in a non-residential area to the disabled person who requested the space. Mr. Boggerty stated that 30 years ago, the slope of the driveway may not have been an issue. Now it is for someone using a walker or wheelchair and they should be able to have rights to the spot that they requested. Mr. Boggerty emphasized that it's not a matter of whether an altercation will occur, but rather when it will happen. Mr. Sudler agreed with Mr. Boggerty and Mr. Lewis and stated he feels that there is a need for a more expert viewpoint and opinion on the matter. Mr. Sudler questioned how many complaints were received and were the complaints made in writing. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Neil stated that there are a series of emails that have transpired with the person making the complaint. Mr. Neil explained that Ms. Arndt and Mr. Boggerty were able to review the emails and Mr. Boggerty also met with the person. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Neil stated that if they have a driveway, one person can still have the parking spot, and two placards are needed. Mr. Neil explained that two people need two parking spots, and one person needs one parking spot. Mr. Neil stated that if they have a placard and the placard runs out then the parking spot will disappear. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Neil stated that when the placard expires the spot should disappear unless they renew the placard. Sharon Duca, Assistant City Manager stated that the program in the Public Works Department has been around for some time. Ms. Duca explained that typically a resident would call in requesting a spot to be designated on their road. Ms. Duca stated that the residents would be asked to come in to show their identification, and the placard, and give their address. Ms. Duca explained that the Streets Supervisor or another member of the Streets Division would then go out to the site and evaluate if a spot could be placed there. Ms. Duca stated that the resident would then be contacted with the verdict if the spot would fit, and the city would paint the spot. Ms. Duca explained that the Public Works Department has started tracking the spots through the GIS system so that they have a list of all the spots because they must be repainted on a certain frequency. Also, so that they can check expired tags, in which case they would contact the resident for an updated record. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Ms. Duca stated that if they both want to have a greater probability of getting a spot, then they both should request a spot.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2024 PAGE 6 Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Duca stated that because there have been other people who have requested designated spots not related to this, council would have to move to allow into code to have individually designated spots. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Duca stated that the way the code is written, they would have the one in the driveway and then the one on the street. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Duca stated that even though it is not addressed in the code, if the city were to evaluate a personal driveway, they would have to look for an ADA-accessible route from each parking spot. Therefore, to get from their parking spot, they would still need to use their driveway to get to the front door or sidewalk, which may or may not follow the slope requirements. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Duca stated that Public Works does not enforce who is parking in the space but if someone has a placard, then they are allowed to park there. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Duca stated that none of the spots are designated solely for anyone in particular. Ms. Arndt stated that the reason the text was added in green at the end was that it stated that disabled parking spaces on public streets and parking lots are for public use for validated placarded vehicles, not for personal or private use. Ms. Arndt explained that if there is a handicapped space and they hold a handicapped placard, they can park there regardless of whether they were the ones who sought to have the space put there. Ms. Arndt stated that the intent was to preserve the opportunities, in that folks who have an accessible option on their property that they could use, that they would then not need to use the public space on the public street that someone else might need for public space handicapped parking. Ms. Arndt stated that they would then use their property, their driveway, or their parking pad and that would constitute their opportunity to have an ADA-compliant place to park and to preserve additional space on the street. Ms. Arndt explained that the proposed changes are for those who have space where they could park on their property, but still choose to get a handicapped placard and a space on the street in front of their home. Which in turn, will then take away space that others could use. Ms. Arndt stated that the proposed changes are just trying to encourage people to park on their property and not on the street. William Faust, 136 Orchard Avenue, Dover, expressed his concerns with the enforcement of the abuse related to the use of handicapped placards. Ron Krause stated that the appropriate term and the term used in state legislation is accessible parking space, not disabled or handicapped. Mr. Krause also stated that the Mid-Atlantic ADA would be a great resource. Arielle Rivera, Assistant City Clerk, read into the record the opposition letter from Mr. Richard Senato (Attachment #1). Mr. Neil moved to recommend approval of the staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Ms. Arndt.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2024 PAGE 7 Mr. Rocha stated that the terms handicapped and disabled are outdated and that he believes based on the recommendation that they should be changed to accessible. Mr. Rocha moved to make an amendment to update the ordinance recommendation to remove the terms handicapped and disabled and replace them with accessible or the term that is the preference of what the ADA recommends. Mr. Neil and Ms. Arndt stated that they are amendable to the changes. Ms. Bennett stated that the original email from Mr. Neil included emails from constituents as well as information from different municipalities that were suggested. One of the suggested ordinance changes was too stringent and one was not stringent enough. Ms. Bennett explained that the email suggested that there was a situation going on in one of the communities and it concerned more than one person. Mr. Neil moved to recommend approval of the staff recommendations with the requested changes. The motion was seconded by Ms. Arndt and carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes (Boggerty, Neil, Rocha, Arndt, Anderson, Hare, and Shevock), three (3) no (Pillsbury, Sudler, and Lewis), and one (1) absent (Smith). Procedure for the City Manager When Meeting with Legislators (Councilman Rocha) Mr. Rocha reviewed the background for the proposed procedure for the City Manager when meeting with legislators. Staff recommended adoption of the procedure. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Rocha explained that the procedure is for formal meetings to ensure that everyone is on the same page. He emphasized that if a council member has heard the information during meetings and understands the direction, they will not be blindsided by the information. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Rocha stated that the policy would not apply to a meeting on the street, it would be for official meetings between the City Manager and Legislators. Mr. Boggerty expressed concerns about limiting the number of council members present to not have a potential quorum and what constitutes a formal meeting. Mr. Sudler stated that he feels Mr. Rocha intended to create a policy that is as simple as council receiving an informal notice such as an email or memorandum, stating that he will be meeting with a Legislator, and they will be discussing whatever the topic may be. Mr. Sudler stated that if council knows that the City Manager is scheduled to meet with Legislators, council can then follow up on how the meeting went and what his thoughts are. Mr. Sudler explained that based on their form of government, this policy would help make council aware that the City Manager is meeting with Legislators about these specific topics so that council is aware when they are approached by legislators.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2024 PAGE 8 Mr. Hugg expressed appreciation for the improved communication with council. He shared an experience where he was approached by a legislator on a topic that blindsided him, highlighting the challenge of staying informed. Mr. Hugg, who has been in local government for a long time, mentioned that he sometimes runs into legislators during lunch and has conversations that he may not be able to relay to the council ahead of time. Responding to Mr. Hugg, Mr. Rocha clarified that the policy was not intended to suggest Mr. Hugg was not doing a good job. He explained that the policy was unrelated to chance encounters with legislators but rather focused on ensuring that if Mr. Hugg were to convene a meeting with the Governor's Aides and legislators, someone from the council should be aware or invited. Mr. Rocha expressed willingness to adjust the language of the policy as needed. Ms. Arndt emphasized that council sets the vision and goals, and Mr. Hugg's work is crucial in realizing those objectives. She suggested that it might be beneficial for the council to receive a synopsis after the meetings to help them feel more informed. She mentioned a previous City Manager who sent out weekly review emails summarizing meetings and discussions, which she found helpful in staying informed and connected with the city's progress. Mr. Hugg stated that he has made sure that council will be included in the League of Local Government emails. Mr. Hugg also stated that he will make sure to summarize weekly what he has been involved in. Mr. Hare interpreted the proposed policy as allowing the Council President to request a specific council person to attend a meeting where the City Manager plans to be present and where that council person may have relevant experience. Mr. Neil expressed concerns about micromanaging the City Manager. Mr. Neil stated that if more communication is what council wants then council can simply ask that the City Manager communicate more with a verbal request. Dr. Pillsbury suggested that council provide Mr. Hugg with a list of their expertise. Dr. Pillsbury stated that it is not appropriate for meetings to be scheduled and council to be excluded. Dr. Pillsbury stated that the council members all have different expertise and could be of value to Mr. Hugg and the Mayor in doing their job effectively. Mr. Sudler emphasized that the council is seeking increased transparency and engagement with the City Manager. He stated that the council is engaged, educated, and wants to be involved in the decision-making process. While acknowledging that the City Manager is the boss of the department heads, Mr. Sudler stressed that the council wants to be actively involved and engaged in city affairs. Mr. Neil moved to recommend tabling the policy to rework the language. The motion was seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and carried with Mr. Rocha voting no. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Anderson stated that the author and the City Manager could work out the wording because the only issue was with the last sentence.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2024 PAGE 9 Mr. Rocha stated he would work with Mr. Hugg to make the changes and bring it back on the future agenda. Consideration of Re-titling and Re-grading Positions (David S. Hugg, III, City Manager) David S. Hugg, III, City Manager reviewed the background and analysis of the re-titling and re- grading of the Accounts Payable Clerk and the Administrative Assistant to the Mayor. Staff recommended approval of the re-titling and re-grading of the positions. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Hugg stated that support for the mayor and Kay Sass is being covered by Yvonne or himself. Mr. Hugg stated that handicaps the City Manager's office and they have asked Kay to do more of the clerical functions that the mayor’s office would handle. Mr. Sudler stated that when the wage study was done, it was stated that they were doing duties outside of the scope of their job description, so they were compensated for those duties. Mr. Sudler explained that his concern is that once those duties are relieved from them, will they still be making that amount of money, the same amount that they were making while doing those duties? Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Hugg stated that the Administrative Assistant to the mayor’s job description was a team effort between Kay, Yvonne, and Naomi because they did not have a good job description. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Patricia Marney, Interim Controller/Treasurer stated that the Accounts Payable position was reviewed by looking at the current account clerk job description, job descriptions for other municipalities, and looking at the job duties from the knowledge of those who have performed the job. Ms. Marney stated that the rest of the document was created by the Human Resources Department to the best of her knowledge. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Marney stated that the account clerk II position will be replaced with the accounts payable clerk, which has a higher education requirement. Ms. Marney explained that they reviewed the education requirements of Middletown, Milford, and Smyrna and that their educational component is the same as what was presented. Ms. Marney stated that the salary scale has already been worked into the current fiscal year budget. Ms. Marney explained that the individual who currently holds the Accounts Payable position is planning to retire in December and it is imperative that she be able to replace her. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Hugg explained that the hiring process for the mayor’s position is similar to that of any other position in the city. Mr. Hugg stated that the position will be posted, there will be a selection committee that involves the Human Resources Department and someone in a similar position elsewhere in the city, and then there is usually a second and third person. After the job is posted, the Human Resources Department will determine qualified candidates, an interview panel will be convened, and the mayor will have the final hiring authority among the qualified candidates. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Hugg stated that both the Human Resources Department and the department heads are involved in creating the job descriptions. Mr. Hugg stated that the Human

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2024 PAGE 10 Resources Department drafts an outline and will loop in the department head or hiring manager to identify and confirm what the responsibilities are, and then in most cases, they are passed on to him or the assistant city manager. Mr. Hugg explained that some of the education issues have come up over the years as the human resources world has evolved. Mr. Hugg stated that in the State, they are getting away from degree requirements and allowing agencies to look at experience and other skills. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Hugg stated that the mayor’s position is a budgeted position but not at the presented level. The mayor’s position is currently budgeted as an administrative assistant. Ms. Bennett reviewed the background and analysis of the Administrative Assistant to the City Clerk/City Council. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Hugg stated that the wage study that they are referring to is the one that Sharon took the lead on and got everyone moved into a more reasonable structure. Mr. Hugg explained that at the end of the wage study, they looked at various jobs that do not exist in other jurisdictions like the Executive Assistant to the City Manager, and people were doing those duties but not under that kind of title. Mr. Hugg stated that they did not make any adjustments to the City Clerk’s Office because they had not had any discussions about the evolution of the office. Mr. Hugg noted that the functional category of executive assistant exists across various departments under different titles. However, only the Executive Assistant in the City Manager's Office has been implemented so far, and this was done in the budget when the wage study was adopted. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Hugg stated that there were significant problems with the Segal study from both the credibility and the accuracy. Mr. Hugg explained that the study did not give a full-scale look at the city employees, so it did not have much influence on the assessments that they did. Mr. Hugg stated that if the assessments they did said someone should be a pay grade of 120 that is the scale they assigned. Mr. Hugg explained that was based on several factors, including the required skill set, job specifications, and how the position compared to similar roles in other jurisdictions that were considered during the review process. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Hugg stated that they started by comparing salary by salary and that is when the city came out 30% under the market. Mr. Hugg explained that then they made the adjustment based on the job specifications because of the difference in name compared to other municipalities. Mr. Hare moved to accept staff recommendations and approve the retitling and regrading of the positions. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Bennett stated that the mayor’s position would be changed from Administrative Assistant to Executive Assistant, then in the City Clerk’s office, the Administrative Assistant would be retitled and regraded to an Executive Assistant. Then with that process, the other three positions in the office must be regarded because of the hierarchy.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2024 PAGE 11 Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg stated that there is minimal impact on the budget for the accounts payable clerk because there is not much difference in the pay scales. Mr. Hugg explained that there is sufficient money to pay for the positions as they are. Mr. Hugg stated that in approving the reclassifications there needs to be a second motion as to when they become effective so that it is clear if there will be a financial impact now or in next year's budget. Ms. Bennett stated that the City Clerk’s Office has salary savings from when the office had a vacant position. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Hugg stated that the Accounts Payable Clerk is critical to the reorganization of the Finance Department. Mr. Sudler moved to divide the question. Council moved to approve the Accounts Payable Clerk position. The motion was unanimously carried. Mr. Neil moved to approve retitling the Administrative Assistant to the Mayor to Executive Assistant. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare and carried with Mr. Lewis voting no. Council moved to approve the retitling and regrading of the Administrative Assistant to the City Clerk to Executive Assistant along with the other items in the memorandum. The motion was unanimously carried. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend accepting the City Manager's recommendation to have the Accounts Payable Clerk position effective immediately. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boggerty and unanimously carried. Mr. Boggerty moved to recommend the change of the Administrative Assistant to the mayor effective as of one (1) July. The motion was seconded by Ms. Arndt and carried with Mr. Lewis voting no. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Anderson stated that if they decided to hire someone for the mayor’s position, that person would know that the position is going to be bumped up one (1) July. Mr. Boggerty moved to recommend that the Administrative Assistant to the City Clerk/Council and all of the positions included in the submission as recorded be effective one (1) July. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. Mr. Anderson moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 9:41 p.m. Mr. Hare moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 9:41 p.m.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2024 PAGE 12 William F. Hare Council President Attachments Attachment #1 - Email from Richard Senato in opposition to the proposed Ordinance #2024-02.

ATTACHMENT #1 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 02/27/2024 Bennett. Andria From: rdsen@aol.com Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2024 1:57 PM To: Bennett, Andria Subject: EXTERNAL: Richard Senato= = HANDICAPPED PROPOSAL You don't ohen get email fromrdsen@aol.com. Learn why this is important WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To The Honorable Andrea Bennett, Dover City Clerk. I HAVE READ THE HANDICAPPED PROPOSAL DEALING WITH PARKING ON CITY STREETS IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW MANY COMPLAINTS WERE ACTUALLY RECEIVED, ONE, TWO??? FIRST OF ALL, THE ADA SHOULD BE THE MAIN COORDINATOR AND NOT THE CITY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. LET ME JUST SAY THIS, THAT THERE ARE GRADED DRIVEWAYS IN THE CITY CONTRARY TO WHAT COUNCILMAN NEAL SAYS. OTHER STATES ALLOW HANDICAPPED PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. Twenty-eight PERCENT OF ADULTS IN THE US LIVE WITH A DISABILITY AND 14 PERCENT OF THOSE ADULTS HAVE A MOBILITY DISABILITY. FOR A COUNCILMAN TO PROPOSE THAT A HANDICAPPED PERSON NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A DESIGNATED PARKING SPACE IN FRONT OF THERE HOME IS IN MY OPINION LUDICROUS. THIS PROPOSAL SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED INTO LAW. Richard Senato 152 Evergreen Drive 1