Regular Council Minutes and Exhibit

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING The Regular City Council Meeting was held on July 22, 2024, at 6:33 p.m. with Council President Anderson presiding. Council members present were Mr. Hare, Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Neil, Dr. Pillsbury, Ms. Arndt, Mr. Rocha, Dr. Sudler, and Mr. Lewis (in at 6:33 p.m.). Staff members present were Deputy Chief Spicer, Mr. Hugg, Ms. Melson-Williams, Chief Carey, Mr. Rodriguez, and Ms. Bennett. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Ms. Marney was absent. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum was held at 6:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Anderson declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council was not in official session and could not take formal action. Ms. Alfreda Fisher Dean, 728 Bicentennial Boulevard, was concerned about the transformer that went out on June 3, 2024. She spoke at the June 24, 2024, meeting and explained that she contacted her insurance company, and they would not pay for her stereo to be replaced because it was not a hurricane, a fire, or a tornado. Ms. Dean explained that since the transformer was the City of Dover’s, they should take care of it. She was appalled that no one had responded to her letter. She feels that council is unfair to the seniors and would like to have a meeting with whoever she needs to get some explanation. Mr. Boggerty stated that he would make plans to get the stereo replacement by the end of the month. He stated for the record that it would not be coming out of anyone’s pockets but his own. Responding to Ms. Dean, Dr. Sudler apologized that she felt that way and that she has always been a great pillar of the community. He stated that throughout his high school years, she was always willing to help everyone while serving in the Capital School District. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Dean stated that the price of the stereo is $199. At the time that it was bought, it was over $500 and she has had the stereo for over 29 years. She noted that a gentleman from the electric company came to her and stated that her transformers were old and that they needed to be replaced. She was upset that Mr. Dill, the mayor, and Mr. Anderson never responded to her letters and she would like to know if they received her letters. The letters were brought to City Hall on July 17, 2024, and given to Nikki Arnold at 12:50 p.m. Responding to Ms. Dean, Dr. Sudler apologized that this had happened and hoped that they could take care of this for her. He appreciated Mr. Boggerty for wanting to do this out of his pocket, but as a representative, he believes that it is something that the City of Dover could handle. Dr. Sudler believes that the city manager is authorized to up to $50,000 at his discretion regarding any matter, and this situation would not break the budget. He would urge that the City of Dover and the city manager take care of this and if need be, put it on the agenda for a vote. He understands that Mr. Boggerty wants to take care of the matter, but it is bigger than just doing that, it is about the perception of the city council as a whole and how they are handling the senior citizens who are in distress or dismay. He would personally like to see the City Council come together and authorize the city manager to replace what was broken for $199. He believes that it is manageable and reasonable. Responding to Ms. Dean, Mr. Rocha stated that when he and Dr. Pillsbury received calls they chose between the two (2) of them who would call the constituents. He mentioned that it was he

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2024 PAGE 2 who was going to make the call and reach out to her. Mr. Nate Attard, President of the Friends of Old Dover, read his statement into the record. (Exhibit #1). Mr. Attard asked for the Board of Adjustment to at least hear their case and if they choose not to hear the case, return the application fee of $300. Mr. Attard noted that it was unfair that they did not get a chance to speak in two (2) different city forums. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the application fee was paid for the appeal to the Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment has a filing fee of $300 that was established in the provisions of the zoning ordinance and Appendix F of the Dover Code of Ordinance. She believes there are provisions for the Board of Adjustment to consider returning that fee since the deliberation was not undertaken at their most recent meeting in July as part of the adoption of the agenda, the appeal application was removed from their agenda, finding that they did not have jurisdiction to hear that case. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Melson-Williams explained that most of the boards and commissions have an application fee, depending on the type of application being filed. This fee covers staff involvement in processing the application to the Board of Adjustment and the public notice requirements that the city is responsible for, including legal advertising and mailing. The per diem that the board members receive for their participation in the meeting is their stipend. Mr. Hare believes that the fee should be returned to the applicant. Mr. Neil stated that at that meeting, they began by noting they had received a legal opinion indicating they could not hear the case, and it should be dismissed and automatically sent back due to its advanced stage. He believes it was their fault for not obtaining the opinion in advance and that the process should be done automatically INVOCATION The invocation was given by Elder Ellis B. Loudon. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilwoman Arndt. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury, and carried unanimously. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA All Consent Agenda items are considered routine and non-controversial and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of Council requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered a separate item. Mr. Lewis requested a point of order and asked that item number 20 be removed from the consent agenda of the interview committee for the controller/treasurer for discussion.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2024 PAGE 3 Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes (Hare, Boggerty, Neil, Pillsbury, Arndt, Rocha, Sudler, Anderson) and one (1) no (Lewis). RESOLUTION NO. 2024-11 – ENACTING A MORATORIUM ON RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA LAND USES WHILE CONSIDERING ZONING REGULATIONS TO ADDRESS SUCH USES The City Clerk read the following Resolution into the record: BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council seek to preserve, protect, and promote the general health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City of Dover, Delaware through the enactment of certain codes, ordinances, and other regulatory tools and policies that are necessary, and good to achieve that end; and WHEREAS, recreational marijuana became legal for adult use in the State of Delaware on July 5, 2023, when the Delaware Marijuana Control Act went into effect; and WHEREAS, the Delaware Marijuana Control Act allows municipalities to enact ordinances or regulations prohibiting the operation of recreational marijuana related establishments within their jurisdiction or governing the time, place, manner, and number of recreational marijuana establishment operations; and WHEREAS, the Council Committee of the Whole, Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee discussed options on regulating recreational marijuana within the City of Dover at their meetings on September 26, 2023, and April 09, 2024, and directed city staff to draft an ordinance permitting recreational marijuana establishments within certain zones; and WHEREAS, during this meeting, several public commenters raised concerns about the provisions outlined in these proposed ordinances; and WHEREAS, following this discussion, the Council Committee of the Whole Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee and City Council requested that more research and community outreach be conducted and ultimately deferred the issue to a Special Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting; and WHEREAS, the State of Delaware Office of the Marijuana Commissioner will begin accepting applications for all recreational marijuana business license types on September 1, 2024, and will begin issuing licenses on November 1, 2024; and WHEREAS, the City of Dover, Delaware is actively working to determine the best way to regulate land uses related to the recreational marijuana industry. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2024 PAGE 4 The City Council does hereby enact a moratorium on recreational marijuana related uses within the City of Dover, Delaware, subject to the following stipulations and conditions: 1. This moratorium shall become effective immediately upon adoption by the City Council of the City of Dover, Delaware; and 2. This moratorium shall apply to all recreational marijuana establishments licensed by the Delaware Office of the Marijuana Commissioner, which are defined as follows: a. “Marijuana cultivation facility” means an entity licensed to cultivate, prepare, and package marijuana and sell marijuana to retail marijuana stores, to marijuana product manufacturing facilities, and to other marijuana cultivation facilities, but not to consumers. A marijuana cultivation facility may not produce marijuana concentrates, tinctures, extracts, or other marijuana products. b. “Marijuana product manufacturing facility” means an entity licensed to purchase marijuana, manufacture, prepare, and package marijuana products, and sell marijuana and marijuana products to other marijuana product manufacturing facilities and retail marijuana stores, but not to consumers. c. “Marijuana testing facility” means an entity licensed to test marijuana for potency and contaminants. d. “Retail marijuana store” means an entity licensed to purchase marijuana from marijuana cultivation facilities, to purchase marijuana and marijuana products from marijuana product manufacturing facilities, and to sell marijuana and marijuana products to consumers. 3. It shall be understood that the purpose of this moratorium is to afford the City Council a reasonable due diligence period to consider alternative courses of action relative to the governing of recreational marijuana uses within the city including, but not limited to, adoption of an amendment to the Dover Code of Ordinances, regulating the time, place, manner, and number of marijuana establishment options; and 4. This moratorium shall remain in effect until December 31, 2024, unless rescinded by City Council or unless City Council adopts ordinances related to recreational marijuana related uses/establishments at an earlier date. ADOPTED: JULY 22, 2024 Mr. Lewis wanted to put on the record that realistically, recreational use businesses would not happen immediately because they would still need to get a permit from the state, which, to his understanding, would not be available until the fall. Thus, in his opinion, the moratorium would not be necessary. He stated that if he made a motion, he would be outnumbered. He hoped that city staff would continue to develop a code for the various types of marijuana businesses and that an ordinance would be presented in the near future.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2024 PAGE 5 Mr. Hare moved for the adoption of Resolution No. 2024-11. The motion was seconded by Ms. Arndt and carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes (Hare, Boggerty, Neil, Pillsbury, Arndt, Rocha, Sudler,) and two (2) no (Lewis and Anderson). ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 8, 2024 The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of July 8, 2024, were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Council Committee of the Whole met on July 09, 2024, at 6:00 p.m. with Council President Anderson presiding. Members of Council present were Ms. Arndt, Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Hare, Mr. Lewis (arrived at 6:15 p.m.), Mr. Neil, Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Rocha, and Mr. Sudler. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Tholstrup (Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement), Mr. Iriowen, and Mr. Pugh (Utility), and Mr. Garfinkel, and Mr. Shevock (via WebEx) (Legislative, Finance, and Administration). ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and unanimously carried. Council Reports – June 2024 First District Dr. Pillsbury reported that she attended Mr. Boggerty’s Unity Day event, the Fourth of July activities, and several Chamber of Commerce meetings. Mr. Rocha had no report to give. Second District Mr. Hare reported that he attended Mr. Boggerty’s Unity Day and was able to dance with the steppers. Mr. Lewis was absent; no report was given. Third District Mr. Neil reported that he attended the Kent County Tourism and Downtown Dover Partnership meetings. Mr. Neil also rode with Mayor Christiansen in the Fourth of July parade along with Councilwoman Dr. Pillsbury. Mr. Neil reported that, on behalf of both Councilwoman Arndt and himself, he sent the Third District Civic and HOA leaders an alert regarding the power failure caused by a truck hitting a pole near Home Depot. He also included the schedule and predicted traffic impacts due to the Phish concerts at the Woodlands from August 15, 2024, through August 18, 2024.The attendance is rumored to be in excess of

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2024 PAGE 6 55,000 people. Mr. Neil also reported that they sent out an alert on the Recreational Marijuana Survey and received a number of direct responses. Mr. Neil thanked Sharon Duca, Assistant City Manager for assisting in constituent concerns regarding recycling lid containers being left open at collection, and a driveway damaged by a city truck in Wild Meadows. In closing Mr. Neil reported that he responded to an Eastlake consultant regarding fireworks, concerns about smoking, and noise being made by crowds outside of an apartment and provided items for an event at the request of the President of the Wild Meadows Homeowners Association. Ms. Arndt stated that she had nothing in addition to Mr. Neil’s report. Fourth District Mr. Sudler reported that he recently attended an event with the Nigerian community, he met with Gregory Gross, Deputy Clerk of Peace to speak about concerns downtown in regard to loitering, prostitution, and the perception that the Department of Justice is not prosecuting the low-level offenses which is having an adverse effect on downtown Dover. Mr. Sudler explained that Mr. Gross plans to connect him with someone from the Department of Justice, and Ms. Kathy Jennings. Mr. Sudler stated that he would like to invite the mayor and the Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee chair to the meeting once it is scheduled. Furthermore, Mr. Sudler reported that he has been working with the church on New Street to address people loitering and assist them in addressing code enforcement and structural issues with their dwelling to help clean up New Street, and downtown. Lastly, Mr. Sudler reported that he has continued to volunteer with Mr. Rocha, Mr. Boggerty, and Mr. Anderson to help maintain the Sunset Memorial Garden on College Road. At-Large Mr. Boggerty reported that his Third Annual Unity Day, which focused on anti- bullying, was successful. Mr. Boggerty explained that nearly everyone running for or currently holding a state-level office was present to speak about addressing bullying. Additionally, voter registration and COVID-19 tests were available among other services. Mr. Boggerty also reported that he obtained 100,000 COVID-19 tests for the city and is working on partnering with agencies to distribute the tests. Council President Anderson Council President Anderson reported that city staff was very responsive in assisting with overgrowth on city property, which he expressed appreciation for since it affects the quality of life within the neighborhood, they also filled potholes, and addressed several other concerns. Mr. Anderson expressed gratitude for the Public Works and Parks and Recreation departments and their quick responsiveness. Mr. Anderson also expressed appreciation for the City of Dover Police Department for assisting a 72-year-old handicapped man after the Fourth of July Celebration by providing him with the resources he needed to get on the right path. Mr. Anderson acknowledged the General Assembly Finance

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2024 PAGE 7 Committee, noting that the city is set to receive funding for the fire department, police department, and specific infrastructure projects. Mr. Anderson expressed appreciation for Ms. Kay Sass and her work getting the Recreational Marijuana Survey out as it has collected 544 responses so far. Lastly, Mr. Anderson reported that at the Delaware League of Local Governments (DLLG) meeting, the head of the Delaware Municipal Electric Corporation (DEMEC) spoke about potential challenges related to maintaining reliable power. Mr. Anderson explained that the city will likely have to consider a path going forward. PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee met with Chairwoman Arndt presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and unanimously carried. Discussion – Update on the Consideration of a Public Space Naming Policy (Tricia K. Arndt, Chair of Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee) Ms. Tricia Arndt, Chair, reviewed the presentation entitled "Guidelines for Naming Public Spaces” (Attachment #1). (Committee Action Not Required) Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Arndt stated that when she initially started conducting research, she did not find any municipalities in the state of Delaware that had a policy to reference, nor did the state code. She further explained that as a result of not finding any information she searched other municipalities that were similar in comparison to Dover. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Arndt stated that she was able to find information that was included in a prior presentation that she could provide. She also explained that she attended a meeting of the Silver Lake Commission to get their input on the space naming proposal and she received positive feedback from them. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Arndt clarified that the request was not initiated by the Silver Lake Commission but rather came about when she received two requests to consider renaming a park. Upon reviewing the ordinances, she discovered that the city lacks a dedicated process or procedure for such requests. She further explained that in the past they came before council, it was discussed, and put to a vote. She stated that she initially presented the proposal to the committee, where it was suggested to establish an ad hoc committee for further

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2024 PAGE 8 input. Given the Silver Lake Commission's status as an established committee, she decided to present the information to them, valuing their input. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Arndt stated that there would be a public process, which would include a public hearing prior to any vote on a name change. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Arndt asked for input on changing the requirement to having twenty-five signatures to move the consideration forward. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Arndt stated that in order to move the process forward the request would have to have the support of the neighborhood and then the request would come before council for a public hearing. She explained that she chose fifty percent as the requirement from the street naming procedure, but she is open to a different proposed number. Mr. Boggerty expressed concerns about the process of naming a park that is not specifically located in a neighborhood. He recommended that the ordinance include language stating that if the park is situated in an established neighborhood, the requestor would need the support of that neighborhood. Mr. Sudler expressed his support of using fifty percent of the property owners in conjunction with renters. He explained that having a park naming process will help preserve the historical knowledge of someone who was once there and provide the community the opportunity to learn about why that name is so significant. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Arndt stated that the evaluation criteria was based on her research and was designated as historical significance, geographic location, contribution to the community, alignment with community values, public sentiment, and support. The names would have to reflect the cultural, historical, and natural heritage of Dover to be considered. Any corporate or commercial names would not generally be considered unless there was a significant and longstanding contribution to the community. She further explained that in the application process, it would be on the requestor to put forward the documentation and justification in support of their proposal so that the members of council and the public could consider their request. Mr. Sudler recommended including a few examples to help guide the requestor through the process, he used Mayor Christiansen as an example. Mayor Christiansen provided the history of Holden Park. He explained that Mr. Holden was a longtime contractor for the City of Dover, and he built most of the houses in Lincoln Park. Mayor Christiansen also stated that Schutte Park is named after the family that sold the property to the City of Dover. He explained that they wanted $2 million for the property however, Councilman VanSant and himself sat down with the Schutte family and saved the city $500,000 by promising to name the park after their family.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2024 PAGE 9 Mr. Anderson suggested that instead of the two-thirds rule, a majority rule would be more appropriate, citing that it currently takes two-thirds to override a mayor’s veto, thereby providing a balanced approach. Additionally, he recommended using a fixed number for the petition requirement rather than a percentage of property owners. He pointed out that there are many situations where parks do not directly border neighborhoods or where property owners live out of state or own multiple properties. Mr. Rocha expressed support for using a fixed number for the petition rather than fifty percent as well. Dr. Pillsbury expressed support for using a fixed number for the petition. She explained that twenty-five people is a reasonable number to move the request forward and onto an agenda. Mr. Tholstrup recommended that the language include the requirement for the park to be within a certain radius of a neighborhood, considering that some parks do not directly border a neighborhood. He also suggested requiring a plaque that details the history of the person being honored, ensuring their story is preserved for future generations. Mr. Lewis expressed his support of the fifty percent requirement for the petition and not excluding any renters from signing the petition. Ms. Arndt explained that her intent was never to exclude renters, when she said property owners, she meant a resident with an address that could be verified. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend deferring the item back to staff to create an ordinance and have it brought back to the committee for review. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Rocha and carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes (Hare, Boggerty, Neil, Pillsbury, Arndt, Rocha, Sudler, Anderson) and one (1) no (Lewis). Ms. Arndt moved for adjournment of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 6:44 p.m. UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee met with Chairman Neil presiding. Adoption of Agenda Dr. Pillsbury moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2024 PAGE 10 Evaluation of Bids – Well #9 Improvements (Jason Lyon, Director of Water and Wastewater) Mr. Jason Lyon, Director of Water and Wastewater reviewed the background and analysis of the evaluation of bids for Well #9. Staff recommended awarding the contract to A-Del Construction, for the construction phase of Well #9 Improvements, ITB #24-0026WW, for $1,699,000. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that the well was built in 1976, so it is 48 years old. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that he considers this project to be a priority. The project has been on the books for three years and if the city wants to invite additional development into the City of Dover, they are going to need water. He explained that the well can not produce water because it is currently under the floodplain, which does not benefit the city. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that he is fortunate to be a part of the Delaware Consortium for the American Public Works Association, which is composed of folks from all over the state. He explained that they often talk about vendors sticking to the jobs they want to do. They have also heard that the State of Delaware currently has some big projects that are getting federal and state funds which has taken a lot of the vendors. He explained everyone has projects that they are trying to place a bid out for and there are only so many contractors that can do the proposed type of work. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Lyon stated that the project has funding from fiscal year 2024, as well as fiscal year 2025. The funding from 2024 was $1 million, and then once the bids were received it was programmed into the budget for fiscal year 2025. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Lyon stated that Garrison Oak Technical Park is reaching capacity, necessitating increased water usage. He also elaborated that his team is making preparations for marijuana cultivation within the city, alongside plans for shared use of the airport to attract more businesses, all of which could potentially increase water demand. Mr. Lyon also mentioned that integrating the wells into the same pressure system allows for redundancy. In the event of a catastrophic occurrence, such as the loss of a well or prolonged power outage, the city could rely on wells across different parts of the system to maintain water supply for the main distribution system and fire protection needs. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Lyon stated that they are all on one pressure system, so a well on one side of town could potentially provide water on the other side of town.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2024 PAGE 11 Janelle Barrett, Dover Country Club, Dover, questioned if assessments were done prior to the bid being made, and was there an outline as to the method of construction that would be used in the process. She further questioned if a torque test was done to grade the type of soil necessary and see if there was a soil stabilization method that could be used to formulate a method of drainage. She explained that a slope in the land may assist as a runoff mechanism. Responding to Ms. Barrett, Mr. Lyon stated that they have done soil samples to gauge the soil stability and what can be put there as far as weight and structure. He also explained that due to the location of the area and the classification in the flood plain, it is not feasible to do a diversion because of the topography and the way the stream runs around the house. Mr. Hare moved to recommend accepting the staff recommendation and the motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha. Mr. Sudler expressed concern with the lack of bids from contractors. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that the proposed contractor has been used by the State of Delaware numerous times along with the Town of Smyrna and the Town of Middletown. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon explained that the local vendor preference does not mean that they get paid less money. The local vendor preference is extended through the bidding process to entice local vendors to work on city projects. For example, if there were two bidders and both bid a hundred dollars on a project and one happened to be in the City of Dover limits and one was not, then they would get a three percent reduction in the evaluated price. Mr. Hare moved to recommend accepting the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Rocha and carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes (Hare, Boggerty, Neil, Pillsbury, Arndt, Rocha, Sudler, Anderson) and one (1) no (Lewis). Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Utility Committee meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 7:03 p.m. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Chairman Rocha presiding.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2024 PAGE 12 Adoption of Agenda Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and unanimously carried. Evaluation of Bids – Garrison Oak Steel (Paul Waddell, Electric Director) Mr. Paul Waddell, Electric Director reviewed the background and analysis of the evaluation of bids for Garrison Oak Steel. Staff recommended awarding the contract to AUI, Bid #24-0037EL, for the amount of $162,688.82. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend accepting the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Rocha and carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes (Hare, Boggerty, Neil, Pillsbury, Arndt, Rocha, Sudler, Anderson) and one (1) no (Lewis). Proposed Ordinance #2024-07 – Amending Chapter 80 – Personnel, Article IV – Pension Plans and Retirement Benefits (Except Police), Division 3. – General Employee Pension Plan Council President Anderson and Dr. Pillsbury reviewed the background for Proposed Ordinance #2024-07. General Employee Pension Plan Board recommended approval of Proposed Ordinance #2024-07. Mr. Neil moved to recommend approval of Proposed Ordinance #2024-07. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boggerty. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Anderson stated that the board has been a part of the process, and they unanimously adopted the ordinance after a thorough review of each change. Dr. Pillsbury stated that the ordinance had not been updated in a long time and that the General Employee Pension Plan Board reviewed it line by line even after seeking a legal opinion about concerns raised. She recommended that if any other city documents are that old and out of date they need to be reviewed before they become a liability. Mr. Neil moved to recommend approval of Proposed Ordinance #2024-07. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boggerty and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Rocha and carried by a roll call vote of eight (8)

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2024 PAGE 13 yes (Hare, Boggerty, Neil, Pillsbury, Arndt, Rocha, Sudler, Anderson) and one (1) no (Lewis). Discussion – Possible Moratorium on Recreational Marijuana Land Uses While Considering Zoning Regulations to Address Such Uses (David S. Hugg, III, City Manager, and Ann Marie Townshend, Rossi Group) Mr. David S. Hugg, III, City Manager, and Ann Marie Townshend, Rossi Group, reviewed the proposed moratorium on recreational marijuana land uses. Staff recommended forwarding Resolution No. 2024-11 to city council with a recommendation of approval. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Townshend stated that it is doubtful for the city to be shut out of the program. She explained that businesses can begin applying for licenses for cultivation on the first of September and the first licenses will be issued on the first of November. After the initial issuance of permits, they will be staggered, and they will only be for cultivation as it is the most important to get out because there is no product without them. Ms. Townshend further explained that when the licenses are initially issued, they are not location-dependent. However, the license holders have 18 months to secure a location after the license has been issued. She explained that they are hoping to move forward by November, but the moratorium gives them the ability to take the extra time so that if licenses are issued and license holders are looking for locations, the city’s procedure is not unclear. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Townshend stated that the survey was pushed out through a Facebook post, and it contains a web link so that you do not need Facebook to access it. She also explained that the survey data is being collected through the electronic platform Constant Contact. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Townshend mentioned that she would discuss with Kay Sass to ensure that paper copies of the survey are made available. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Marney mentioned that including a paper copy with utility billing before July 21, 2024, would be extremely challenging. She explained that sending out a newsletter costs around $2,000-$3,000, not including postage, which is why they use Constant Contact. Mr. Sudler recommended moving the survey deadline to August to fully capture the voice of the constituents. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Townshend stated that Constant Contact is the platform being used to collect the data. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Townshend stated that, to the best of her knowledge, Kay Sass will be the only one with access to the platform. She also

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2024 PAGE 14 explained that the Constant Contact platform will collect, analyze, and provide reports on the data. Mr. Sudler recommended using SurveyMonkey because it outputs reports as PDFs, which prevents manipulation of the data. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Townshend stated that they should be able to separate the data by council districts. She further explained that about twenty-nine percent of people who have completed the survey so far have stated that they do not live in the city. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Townshend explained that they included districts in the survey so that elected officials could understand the views of their constituents. Mr. Boggerty asked whether the state has considered offering leniency, dropping charges, or releasing individuals with past marijuana offenses from incarceration. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Townshend stated that she had not seen anything, but she could research the topic. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Townshend stated that she was not aware of any protections on the survey to prevent multiple submissions, but she would check with Ms. Sass. She explained that some platforms prevent multiple submissions from the same IP address and that she would find out if this applies. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Townshend clarified that implementing the moratorium would not prevent someone from applying for a license, as they do not need an approved location at the time of application. She explained that they are still hopeful to complete everything by November, but it is important for applicants to understand that their license will be on hold until the location issues are resolved. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Townshend stated that applicants have 18 months from the time their license is issued to find a location. She added that the moratorium is set to expire at the end of the year, so the issues would need to be resolved before then, ensuring that applicants are not significantly delayed within their 18-month period. Mayor Christiansen expressed support for moving the survey period to the end of August to allow everyone the opportunity to participate. He explained that the moratorium is fitting as it does not hinder anyone while allowing the city to work within the confines to resolve the issue promptly. He further explained that council should consider incorporating public opinion and research while not inhibiting anyone from having the opportunity to apply for a license, whether it is for the city or someplace else.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2024 PAGE 15 Mr. Sudler moved to recommend accepting the staff recommendation, extending the survey closing date to August 31, 2024, and having an update brought back to a Legislative, Finance, and Administration meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Arndt. Mr. Anderson expressed support for extending the survey. However, he did not recommend extending it beyond the date of the Special Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting that was scheduled to be held on August 5, 2024. Mr. Anderson requested that the petitions from Puffster be added to the record (Attachment #2 and Attachment #3). Responding to Mr. Hare, Mr. Rocha stated that in the special meeting to be held on August 5, 2024, Mr. Hugg and Ms. Townshend will provide an update on the consensus at the time. The goal of the meeting will be to put the wheels in motion and know where council is standing at that point but continue to gather survey information through the end of the month. Ms. Arndt recommended extending the survey deadline to July 31 or August 1 to allow sufficient time to analyze the data before the August 5, 2024, meeting. Ms. Marney stated that if council would like to send the survey out in the utility bills, customer service would need to have 25,000 copies by July 15, 2024. To better reach all of the customers the survey would need to be included with the July 15, 2024, and August 15, 2024, utility bills. She also recommended including a note that all responses must be received either by mail, dropped at city offices, or responded to online by August 31, 2024. Cynthia Christiansen, 714 Carol Street, Dover, expressed her opposition to allowing retail marijuana stores downtown. She also explained that it was mentioned that a water survey was sent out via the electric bill, but she did not receive it nor did friends in south Dover and west Dover. Ms. Christiansen expressed her support for the moratorium and explained that city staff and the Rossi Group should not be collecting and analyzing the data. She questioned if all the addresses on the petition that was submitted had been checked for accuracy and explained that she was unaware petitions could be submitted. Mr. Sudler stated that he agreed with Ms. Christiansen and that a third party that is not linked to the city should oversee the collection and distribution of the data of the survey. This would make sure that the process could withstand public scrutiny and bring validity to the findings. Ms. Arndt stated that she disagreed with the thought of a third party because the city has hired a neutral consultant, who does not take one position or another. The consultant is to guide council through the process. She further stated that a professional planner has an ethics component that they must adhere to as a part of

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2024 PAGE 16 their professional certification. She explained that the Rossi Group can analyze the survey data as they have been hired to do. Mr. Anderson stated that he agreed with Ms. Arndt and recommended that the data be preserved once it has been collected, analyzed, and compiled so that anyone from the public could review it. Joan Denney, 350 N. State Street, Dover, expressed her support for the moratorium. She explained that she opposes the retail sale of marijuana but feels differently about medical marijuana. She feels that anyone with a prescription should have access to medical marijuana. Ms. Denney also explained that many senior citizens do not have computer access and she believes taking paper surveys to the Modern Maturity Center would be a great benefit. She also explained that she pays her utility bill online, so when the paper copy arrives, she often files it away without opening it. She suggested that this might be something to consider. Ms. Denney stated that the National Institute of Health has a section called the National Institute of Drug Abuse and she recommends that everyone take time to look up their most recent meeting regarding marijuana. Faye White, 101 Babb Drive, Dover, explained that at Luther Village and Luther Towers marijuana and all drugs are prohibited, especially marijuana. She explained that they are prohibited from medical marijuana on the premises and could lose their homes. Mr. Lewis explained that he was willing to bring the surveys to gain their opinion if they felt that the city should or should not allow the retail sale of marijuana. Michael Pugh, 31 Ann Avenue, Dover, questioned if customer service would be able to prepare all the documents by July 15, 2024, or if there would be logistical problems getting that completed. After Mr. Hugg confirmed that the surveys would be able to go out, he also suggested that it be included on the city website. Mr. Pugh stated that council needs to consider putting copies of the survey at places such as Delaware Technical Community College, Delaware State University, and the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce. He explained that certain groups of people tend to lean in specific directions, so it would be wise to include those locations. Scott Kidner, 3 Shinnecock Road, Dover, expressed support for the moratorium. Mr. Kidner stated that council is faced with the tough decision of whether they will allow the establishment of various aspects of recreational marijuana within city limits. He explained that council has been very supportive of the Downtown Dover Partnership and the vision for the downtown Dover district. Mr. Kidner stated that he does not believe that allowing the recreational sales distribution downtown aligns with that vision. Taylor Collins, 202 North American Avenue, Dover, expressed opposition to the moratorium. She further stated that the latest issue of AARP reported that

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2024 PAGE 17 marijuana sales generated $27 billion in income in 2022. Ms. Collins reviewed a conversation between her and Nicole Chick, owner of Puffsters (Attachment #4). Nicole Chick, 510 Kirkwood Highway, Wilmington, Delaware, expressed opposition to the moratorium. Ms. Chick stated that she feels that the survey is important to collect feedback from the city however, she does not feel it is right for her business to be impacted by the time it takes to collect the data. She reviewed the petitions she submitted in support of her business (Attachment #2 and Attachment #3). Ms. Chick requested council consider giving her business a grandfathered exception so that she may transition her business. Ms. Chick read a letter from the Downtown Dover Partnership relaying their stance on the legalization of marijuana retail sales or related issues in downtown Dover (Attachment #5). Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Hugg stated the city does not directly receive any of the proceeds from the sale of marijuana beyond a business license. He explained that manufacturing or cultivation could generate considerable revenue from both water and electric consumption. However, the city does not directly collect any revenue outside of the standard business license fees. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg stated that if someone bought a building, they would have to pay a transfer tax, property tax, and any other retail business fees but there would be no additional revenue outside of those. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg stated that the distribution of proceeds was set forth in the state law. He explained that the state law states that the state gets the revenue and there is no revenue sharing. He stated that the General Assembly could potentially decide to share a portion of the proceeds, but to the best of his knowledge, there have been no discussions on that possibility. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Hugg stated that his opinion about marijuana is irrelevant, and the city needs to address the provisions of the state law that allow municipalities to adopt regulations relating to marijuana activities in terms of where they are located or how they operate. Amber Ember, 115 West Loockerman Street, Dover, expressed opposition to the moratorium. Ms. Ember stated that allowing Puffster to expand its business would provide a legal dispensary for safe marijuana. She explained that she found out that her friend, father, and downtown Dover employee Jose Colombo passed away over the weekend from a fentanyl overdose. Ms. Ember asked council to prevent these deaths by allowing downtown Dover access to safer marijuana. Ethan Whitsett, 226 Chenault Court, Dover, expressed his support for Puffster and his interest in becoming a cannabis cultivator.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2024 PAGE 18 Jeannie Anderson, 217 Cecil Street, Dover, expressed support for the sale of retail marijuana. She stated that people are turning to the streets to obtain pain medication and they are continuing to die from fentanyl. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend accepting the staff recommendation, extending the survey closing date to August 31, 2024, and having an update brought back to a Legislative, Finance, and Administration meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Arndt and carried with Mr. Anderson voting no, and Mr. Lewis abstaining. Mr. Sudler moved to have a hard copy of the survey placed in with the electric bills and have the city manager provide council with a memo on the logistics of doing so. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare and carried with Mr. Anderson, Ms. Arndt, and Mr. Shevock, voting no. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Rocha and carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes (Hare, Boggerty, Neil, Pillsbury, Arndt, Rocha, Sudler, Anderson) and one (1) no (Lewis). Mr. Rocha moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 9:06 p.m. Mr. Anderson moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 9:06 p.m. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for acceptance of the Council Committee of the Whole Report, seconded by Mr. Rocha and carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes (Hare, Boggerty, Neil, Pillsbury, Arndt, Rocha, Sudler, Anderson) and one (1) no (Lewis). QUARTERLY REPORTS – MAY 2024 Quarterly Revenue Report as of June 30, 2024 Quarterly Review – Capital Investment Plan (CIP) (April, May, and June) By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for acceptance of the Quarterly Reports, seconded by Mr. Rocha and carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes (Hare, Boggerty, Neil, Pillsbury, Arndt, Rocha, Sudler, Anderson) and one (1) no (Lewis). APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY MAYOR CHRISTIANSEN By motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Rocha, the following appointments/reappointments were accepted by consent agenda:

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2024 PAGE 19 Board of Adjustment: Christian Joshua Swalm – One-Year Term to Expire July 2025 (to fill the unexpired term of E. Jane Warren) Richard D. Senato – Three-Year Term to Expire July 2027 Planning Commission: Andrea B. Maucher – Second District – Three-Year Term to Expire June 2027 William L. Witham, Jr. – Second District – Three-Year Term to Expire June 2027 APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT Economic Development Committee – One-Year Term to Expire May 13, 2025 Kim I. Adams – Minority Voting Member Clayton E. Hammond – Minority Voting Member By motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Rocha, the Economic Development Committee was accepted by consent agenda. Interview Committee for Controller/Treasurer Councilwoman Tricia K. Arndt – Chair Councilwoman Julia M. Pillsbury Councilman Fred A. Neil Councilman Gerald L. Rocha Ms. Arndt made a motion to approve the Interview Committee for Controller/Treasurer, seconded by Mr. Neil. During the Council meeting. Mr. Lewis stated that the item be pulled from the discussion to make a motion regarding it. Mr. Lewis made a motion to include Human Resources Director Naomi Poole on the committee to ensure a transparent process with an elevated level of integrity. He additionally recommended that Councilman Roy Sudler be added as a committee member. Mr. Lewis further amended his motion to include Mayor Christensen. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sudler. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Anderson stated that he still has to have a motion and a second. He noted that Ms. Poole is part of the hiring process, and that council would be part of an ex officio member of the committee. Ms. Poole would be directing it, just not be a voting member, because that would be a council hire. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Lewis stated that he was aware of it, but he wanted to put it on the record and put it into motion format. He further stated that he does want Ms. Poole on the committee and that was the motion he was making.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2024 PAGE 20 Responding to Mr. Hare, Mr. Anderson stated that they could have five (5) council members on the interview committee, and they have to have the same notice and quorum, so it could be done. Mr. Hare noted that if those five (5) decide who they want to hire, then the rest of council does not have a say. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mr. Anderson stated if the committee members are unanimous, that would be part of the purpose of having a four-member committee. The Human Resources Director would not be a voting member but would be present as a professional to guide the committee. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Hare stated that if they are going to have five (5) members on the committee, they might as well have all of council so they can all discuss, and if it comes back that the five (5) people on the committee come back and say here is who they want, then it does not matter what they think. Mr. Boggerty stated that he could not be on the committee because he knew one of the applicants and he wanted to make sure that it was integral. He further stated that he is challenged by the statement that the process was to be questioned to make sure it was integral as if his colleagues do not have integrity. He believes that it is outlandish to think that these individuals who have served and represented the city, continued to represent the city for their integrity to be questioned for a hire. He noted that for his colleagues to be considered less than integral in a hiring process speaks volumes of what they think of each other. Mr. Boggerty stated that he would be opposed to this due to questioning his colleague's integrity. Mr. Anderson pointed out that the same committee that was originally appointed by the past council president and everyone consented to with the backup member was Dr. Pillsbury. The only difference was that the chair was not named at the time. Mr. Lewis stated that his concern is that he has been told that current members of the committee have expressed support for one particular candidate. He is bringing it to everyone’s attention and to the public to ensure transparency. He emphasized the importance of having Ms. Poole present, especially when adding someone to the committee. He concurred with Mr. Hare, suggesting that all council members could be on the committee, as they would ultimately make the final decision and handle the hiring. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Boggerty stated that he questioned the integrity of their colleagues and to clarify his statement, he already made a statement that the Human Resources Director would be part of the process. Mr. Boggerty noted that he just restated what he said and that it was recorded. Ms. Arndt stated that she agreed to be on the committee and asked to be chair. She assured them that she would chair with the utmost integrity, pledging to conduct due diligence in interviewing, selecting, and evaluating candidates. She assumed that the Human Resources Director would be involved throughout the process to guide them and ensure that everything was conducted properly. Ms. Arndt also expressed concerns about having all nine members on the interview committee, citing potential scheduling challenges and the difficulty of coordinating interviews

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2024 PAGE 21 with each candidate. She believes that this approach would not be feasible. Dr. Sudler stated that the current tension was not reflecting the best spirit of the city council and its collaborative nature. Despite his expertise and doctorate in workplace behavior, he felt that he would not be a valuable asset to the committee. He declined to participate due to his observations and feelings about the situation. Dr. Sudler emphasized that the council could perform better collectively and noted that seniors perceive them as divided and not unified. He pointed out that much of the division is personal, which ultimately affects their ability to work together. Dr. Sudler expressed hope that council members with personal issues would resolve them, as their lack of unity is detrimental. He reminded the council that their role is to represent constituents and that they deserve the council's best efforts. Mr. Hare believed that the four (4) members of the committee would do an excellent job, they are going to interview the candidates and recommend the top two (2) or three (3), for further consideration. He emphasized that the committee is not a hiring committee; its role is to provide recommendations on candidates. The final candidates will still be interviewed by the council. Dr. Sudler declined to serve as a member of the committee. Mr. Lewis rescinded his motion. Ms. Arndt made a motion for the approval of the interview committee as presented, seconded by Mr. Neil, and carried unanimously. PROPOSED CANCELLATION OF AUGUST 26 AND 27, 2024 MEETINGS Dr. Sudler moved to approve the cancellation of the August 26th Council Meeting and August 27th, Committee of the Whole Meetings for 2024, seconded by Mr. Hare and was unanimously carried. TENTATIVE LABOR CONTRACT WITH DOVER ORGANIZATION OF EMPLOYEES (DOE) Mr. Hugg briefed members on the Tentative Labor Contract with the Dover Organization of Employees (DOE). Mr. Neil moved to adopt the Dover Organization of Employees Labor Contract, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. TENTATIVE LABOR CONTRACT WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS (IBEW) Mr. Hugg briefed members on the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Dr. Sudler moved to approve the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Contract, seconded by Mr. Hare, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. FIRST READING PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2024-07 – AMENDING CHAPTER 80 – PERSONNEL, ARTICLE IV – PENSION PLANS AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS (EXCEPT POLICE), DIVISION 3. – GENERAL EMPLOYEE PENSION PLAN Council President Anderson reminded the public that copies of the proposed ordinance were available on the City’s website at www.cityofdover.com under “Government”, or by

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2024 PAGE 22 contacting the City Clerk’s Office at 302-736-7008 or cityclerk@dover.de.us. Final action by council on the proposed ordinance will take place during the Council Meeting of August 12, 2024. In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of the proposed Ordinance as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows: ORDINANCE #2024-07 – AMENDING CHAPTER 80 – PERSONNEL, ARTICLE IV – PENSION PLANS AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS (EXCEPT POLICE), DIVISION 3. – GENERAL EMPLOYEE PENSION PLAN FINAL READING PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2024-27 – AMENDING APPENDIX F – FEES AND FINES: CHAPTER 82 – PLANNING, APPENDIX A – SUBDIVISIONS, APPENDIX B – ZONING (DAVID S. HUGG, III, CITY MANAGER, AND DAWN MELSON-WILLIAMS, PRINCIPAL PLANNER)) The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of July 8, 2024. Council President Anderson reminded members of the public that copies of the proposed ordinance were available on the City’s website at www.cityofdover.com under “Government”. Mr. Neil moved that the Final Reading of the proposed ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury, and unanimously carried. Mr. David Hugg, III, City Manager, and Ms. Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner, reviewed Proposed Ordinance #2024-27 – Amending Appendix F – Fees and Fines: Chapter 82 – Planning, Appendix A – Subdivisions, Appendix B – Zoning. By motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury, by a roll call vote, eight (8) yes (Hare, Boggerty, Neil, Pillsbury, Arndt, Rocha, Sudler, Anderson), and one (1) no (Lewis) adopted Ordinance #2024-22 as follows: BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: That Appendix F – Fees and Fines, Chapter 82. - Planning be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue, font and deleting the text indicated in red strikeout as follows: Chapter 82. – Planning Chapter 82. Planning Fees and Fines Sec. 82-3. Planning services (a) Zoning verification letters/administrative interpretations $60.00 per letter/interpretation BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED:

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2024 PAGE 23 That Appendix F – Fees and Fines, Appendix A. – Subdivisions be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue font and deleting the text indicated in red strikeout as follows: Appendix A. – Subdivisions Appendix A. Subdivisions Fees and Fines Article IV. Subdivision—Procedure Subsec. A.2. Preapplication; filing fee $225.00 Subsec. B.2. Preliminary layout; filing fee $350.00 Subsec. C.3. Plat; review fee $225.00, plus $85.00 per acre for the first ten acres, $60.00 per acre for the next ten acres and $45.00 per acre for each acre thereafter Subsec. C.3. Plat; review fee—Minor lot line adjustment Plats for minor lot line adjustments shall require a review fee of $200.00 Subsec. C.3. Plat; review fee—Minor subdivision Plats for minor subdivisions shall require a review fee of $200.00 plus $20.00 per lot BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix F – Fees and Fines, Appendix B. – Zoning be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue font and deleting the text indicated in red strikeout as follows: Appendix B. Zoning Appendix B. Zoning Fees and Fines Article 3. District Regulations Sec. 24. Planned Neighborhood Design option (PND) Subsec. 24.2. Review process—General sketch plan review fee, each $150.00 application Subsec. 24.8. Conditional use plan approval Subsec. 24.81. Plan approval fee, each application $250.00, plus $20.00 per acre Subsec. 24.9. Site development preliminary subdivision plan review Subsec. 24.91. Preliminary plan approval fee; each application $350.00, plus $25.00 per acre Subsec. 24.10. Final subdivision plat approval

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2024 PAGE 24 Subsec. 24.101. Final subdivision plat approval; each application $300.00 Sec. 28. Traditional Neighborhood Design Zone (TND) Subsec. 28.4. Procedure; application for rezoning of a land area to a TND zone Subsec. 28.411. Minimum fee; each rezoning petition $350.00 Subsec. 28.422. Implementation plan approval; each application $350.00, plus $10.00 per acre Subsec. 28.434. Site development plan or subdivision plat; each $300.00 application Article 5. Supplementary Regulations Section 4. Supplementary sign regulations Subsec. 4.8. Unified campuses and complexes Subsec. D.4. Submission requirements; application fee $250.00, due at time of application Subsec. 4.9. Supplementary sign provisions Subsec. D.1. Temporary signs; permit $50.00 Article 9. Board of Adjustment Sec. 3. Procedure Subsec. 3.4. All variance requests and appeals from an order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative official, board, or agency of the city shall be accompanied by a fee All variance requests for residential uses $325.00 All variance requests for nonresidential uses $625.00 All appeals from an order, requirement, decision, or determination $300.00 made by an administrative official, board, or agency of the city The board of adjustment may, in its discretion, return to the applicant part or all of the fee paid by him in the event that his appeal under section 2.1 (interpretation) hereof is partially or wholly successful. The fees filed in connection with applications under section 2.2 (variances) shall not be returnable, regardless of disposition of the case by the board Article 10. Planning Commission Sec. 1. Approval of conditional uses Subsec. 1.52. Application procedure; conditional use permit; each $450.00, plus $25.00 application per acre of the area or multiple thereof involved in the application Sec. 2. Site development plan approval Subsec. 2.42. Fees—Application for administrative site plans $325.00 Subsec. 2.43. Fees—Application for site development plan approval $450.00 plus $25 per acre Sec. 3. Historic district commission and architectural review Subsec. 3.26. Procedures for an architectural review by the historic district commission or planning commission Subsec. (b) Application and fee for an architectural review $250.00

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2024 PAGE 25 certificate Sec. 5. Amendments Subsec. 5.32. Application. Each application for a zoning map amendment: Minimum fee, in addition to required district supplemental fee $450.00 One-family residence zones (R-8, R-10, R-15, and R-20); $25.00 per acre supplemental fee General residence zones, Medium density residence zones, and $50.00 per acre Mobile home park zones (RG-0, RG-1, RG-2, RG-3, RG-5, RM-1, RM- 2, and MH); supplemental fee Commercial and office (C-1, C-1A, C-2, C-2A, C-3, C-4, CPO, RC $75.00 per acre and IO); supplemental fee Shopping center development (SC-1, SC-2 and SC-3); supplemental $75.00 per acre fee Industrial zones (M, IPM, IPM2, and IPM3); supplemental fee $75.00 per acre BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That the Effective Date of this schedule of application fees be established as September 1, 2024, and any application filed to meet an application filing deadline set for after September 1, 2024, be subject to these new rates. ADOPTED: July 22, 2024 CITY MANAGER'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Hugg discussed that the labor union contracts are nearing resolution, with only the fourth and final contract with AFSCME remaining. The main challenge is coordinating a date when all parties are available to meet and finalize the agreements. MAYOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Christiansen noted that there would be several fun events coming in August and early September because he is the fun mayor. COUNCIL MEMBERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS Ms. Arndt wanted to wish Mr. Anderson a happy birthday, which is on July 29th. Mr. Boggerty stated that he was contacted directly by Health and Human Services at the federal level to ensure that they received COVID-19 tests. They asked how many COVID-19 tests he wanted and had received a total of 100,000 COVID-19 tests for the city and surrounding areas and committed some to Delaware State University. He mentioned that Delaware State University would receive 6,000 COVID-19 tests, down south would receive 1,000, and abroad. Mr. Boggerty noted that if anyone’s organization would like newer COVID-19 tests, please let him know. He wanted to thank Mr. Wolfgang and his team for unloading 18 pallets of COVID-19 tests. Those tests are in the city warehouse. He wanted to thank Ms. Sass for all her work, as well. Mr. Boggerty announced that on July 27, 2024, from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., a drive-up distribution event will be held in the City Hall parking lot where people can collect as many

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2024 PAGE 26 COVID-19 tests as needed. Lanes will be set up in both directions for efficient distribution. Mr. Rocha announced that on Monday, July 29, 2024, there will be a three (3)-on three (3) basketball tournament at the Capital Green basketball court. He also noted that Dr. Sudler would be cooking out at the event. This community event, which will run from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., is an excellent opportunity for everyone to come out and enjoy the festivities. Mr. Anderson stated that the Dover Police National Night Out is on August 6, 2024, at Dover High School, starting at 6:00 p.m. This is a big event that people from all over the city and elsewhere very much enjoy. He encourages everyone to participate. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. ANDRIA BENNETT CITY CLERK All ordinances, resolutions, motions, and orders adopted by the City Council during their Regular Meeting of July 22, 2024, are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /AB Exhibits Exhibit #1 – Nick Attard’s BOA Appeal Statement

EXHIBIT #1 Regular City Council Meeting of 07/22/2024 From: Nathan Attard To: City Clerks Office Subject: EXTERNAL: Public Comment re: BOA appeal Date: Monday, July 22, 2024 7:27:20 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from nateattard@gmail.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. My name is Nate Attard and I am the president of the Friends of Old Dover. On June 17, myself and 19 members of our organization wanted to provide comments to the Planning Commission on the appeal of the historic district commission regarding the demolition of 148-150 S. Bradford Street.. We were not allowed based on a staff determination we believe to be incorrect. Items said by this staff person contradict our City Code and the requirements for the Planning Commission when they conduct architectural review certification. Not even the commissioners of the Historic District Commission got to speak. The public hearing was supposed to be the one conducted for the historic district commission, but minutes were only provided at the beginning of the meeting. In contrast, the DDP was allowed to state their case from their perspective, with five presenters, in a way greatly changed from how they presented to the Historic District Commission. But the public got to say nothing. Citizens, groups, and even city boards and commissions can challenge an order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official of the City of Dover in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance through the Board of Adjustment. We wrote up a letter outlining our case against this staff person, and looked forward to it being heard on July 17. The ability for any citizen or group to take this action is enshrined in the City of Dover Zoning Code, Article 9, and is not an authority unique to Dover but required of the city by state law, as written in Delaware Code Title 22, Chapter 3, Subsection II. Instead of City staff receiving it for what it was, our desire for answers on why the decision was made to prevent public comment on June 17, it was written on the agenda as an appeal against the decision, when we sought an appeal against the staff determination. This created an us versus them movement with the Friends as “plan opponents” when we just sought the opportunity to speak and be heard. Had we had the chance to speak on June 17, there would have been no July 17 appeal. And if we could have spoken July 17, we would have set the record state that plan supporters were also public participation opponents. The board of adjustment declined to hear our case, but only the morning of July 17. This decision was made after discussion in executive session, we had no opportunity to address the Board of Adjustment and have few insights into their justification. We continue to believe an appeal through the Board of Adjustment is an appropriate forum to hear grievances against

administrative officers. We received little information as to why this appeal was not heard, other than hearing from the media that it was based on a recent Superior Court decision on another case, Mishoe, et al. v. City of Dover Mayor and City Council, et al. which is an appeal of a complex project instead of an appeal based on the actions of an administrative officer of the City. This is the last place I wanted to be tonight. I thought I was a supporter of the City and its downtown master plan, Capital City 2030. You have lost me. The plan you have rallied behind is not the plan that was crafted through a deliberate process. Many people would like to say this, but have been silenced by your staff. I will not go on as to my feelings on the plan further as I am here tonight about how staff actions are silencing those trying to speak up. Dover deserves a first class project. We are getting a single use parking garage the type that other cities are tearing down. In conclusion, given the Board of Adjustment would not hear our case or speak to us on this matter, we are asking you to either let our case be heard as it should, as a complaint against an administrative officer, or return our appeal fee. I implore you to seek answers as to why our city is silencing members of the public through staff and solicitor actions.i also implore you to consider how actions like this violate the Delaware Open Meetings Law, where all boards and commissions must have the opportunity for the public to address decision makers. In this case, the Planning Commission is the decision maker, and they did not hear our concerns. Thank you for your time.