CCW and Attachments 1-4

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Council Committee of the Whole met on January 28, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. with Council President Anderson presiding. Members of Council present were Ms. Arndt, Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Hare, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Neil, Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Rocha, and Dr. Sudler. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Dr. Jackson-Short and Ms. Smack (Safety, Advisory, and Transportation), and Mr. Garfinkel and Mr. Shevock (Legislative, Finance, and Administration). ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Anderson requested a quick update from Mr. David S. Hugg, III, City Manager, regarding the federal funds freeze. Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda as amended, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and unanimously carried. Mr. David S. Hugg, III, City Manager, briefed the members about the Presidents series of executive orders that would place a freeze on federal funds. One of the executive orders was effective at 5:00 p.m. and placed a freeze on all federal funds of all types from all agencies. Mr. Hugg stated he participated in a conference call with the congressional delegation and the governor. He explained that there are several uncertainties in what the executive order would do and what it would affect. He explained that the freeze applied to all federal money that was not received or dispersed to the state and the local governments. Mr. Hugg pointed out that the State Attorney General was planning to join a group of attorney generals across the country to file a lawsuit in Rhode Island Federal Court. They are requesting a temporary restraining order against the President and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the freeze. The freeze could become critical for the cities operations particularly in the department of water and wastewater, some of their projects rely on federal funds and several grants, including police grants, could be affected as well. Mayor Christiansen stated that Mr. Hugg and himself sat in on the conference call and were informed that the district court in Rhode Island had supposedly issued a pause, but he was not able to verify that and the information. THE GREEN BERET PROJECT (ADAM KRAMER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR) Mr. Adam Kramer, Executive Director, reviewed the presentation titled The Green Beret Project. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Kramer stated that they could help fix a car, but they rely on mechanics to volunteer their time. Mr. Kramer explained that they have a young man who rents the shop in New Castle during the day, and they are currently mentoring him to start a business. They have given him a seventeen-year-old employee which he manages. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Kramer stated that they do not work off referrals or enrolment; the kids usually join by word of mouth. He explained that there are levels of involvement. If the kids put in work, they are provided extra responsibilities and resources.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JANUARY 28, 2025 PAGE 2 Ms. Arndt suggested an idea for a community service project for people in need like the elderly and disabled. She suggested that they could create a list of people who need assistance with shoveling their sidewalks. Once it snows, they could reach out to those individuals and possibly make a good amount of money for the program. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kramer stated that their art program is usually done seasonally, as they have gotten several art-specific grants through the Delaware Community Foundation. He noted that there were girls from the Academy of Dover who were in the Green Beret Project and had been a part of the different art programs. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Mr. Kramer stated that they are working on getting the certificate of occupancy for the building in Manchester Square. He noted that the bathroom was in, however, there were some drainage issues. They are currently waiting on the ground to thaw to complete the cement and obtain the certificate of occupancy. SAFETY, ADVISORY, AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee met with Chairman Boggerty presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and unanimously carried. Prioritization of City of Dover State Capital Transportation Program (CTP) Projects (David S. Hugg, III, City Manager) Mr. David Hugg, III, City Manager, reviewed the Prioritization of City of Dover State Capital Transportation Program (CTP) Projects. Staff recommended approving the 2025 Transportation Priorities. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Hugg stated that they are broken down by category, and the first project in each category was the number one priority. He explained that they used to rank them from one to twenty, but there was more than one number one for different reasons. For example, the Garrison Connector was an economic development priority, and Leipsic Road was a traffic priority. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Hugg stated that the Kenton Road project was funded. There was money in DelDOT’s budget for design, and right-of-way acquisition for this year and next year for the construction on College Road from McKee Road to Kenton Road to tie into the intersection in 2027. He noted that it was the number one priority under the safety and capacity improvements, and it was in the capital project for DelDOT. The sidewalks within the walk zone of the high school were the secondary priority in that same category. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Hugg stated that the project for Leander Lakes to the high school would include a crosswalk and a connection from the south side of the intersection down to the high school where there is a section of property just outside the city limits that does not have a

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JANUARY 28, 2025 PAGE 3 sidewalk either. He also brought attention to the first phase of the sidewalk improvement program that is taking place on Route 13 up to the area of Lowes. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Hugg explained that the Crawford Carroll Avenue Extension was removed because the project was originally proposed over ten years ago, and Delaware State University has built their athletic fields in what would have been the right of way. Additionally, the projected traffic solution did not meet the cost requirements to make it feasible to do. The project dropped primarily at the request of DelDOT. At one time the project was included in a realignment of the north mall road that exists by the Volkswagen dealership. That intersection would have been a four-way intersection, crossing the highway and ending between the Produce Junction and Home Goods stores, that would have placed the road through the two Delaware State base ball fields. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Hugg stated that he does not recall the road being presented as easy access to transport students from Delaware State University. He noted that the idea at one time was to extend it across behind Lowe’s and then cut across what is now the baseball fields. Mayor Christiansen explained that Crawford Carroll Boulevard was intended to improve and accommodate the proposed Dover Civic Center. When the property was given to Delaware State University the plans and the need for Crawford Carroll to be extended to the improvements at the intersection by Produce Junction were put on hold. Mayor Christiansen explained that he intends to have a meeting with the secretary of transportation as well as the governor to see if they can expedite the State College Road Project and the two traffic studies for McKee Road and State Street. He pointed out that Dr. Sudler brought forward the needs for those projects to be expedited if there were any means to do so. Mayor Christiansen explained that he also reached out to a legislator about a dedicated crossing with a signal from Leander Lakes to Dover Highschool. He stated that there is currently a signal in front of a building that is no longer being utilized as a school facility on Walker Road. He explained that he has not heard anything back, but it would save the city money and hopefully improve the traffic situation. Mr. Neil moved to recommend accepting staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Discussion – Snow Removal Practices and Constituent Concerns (Councilman Rocha and Sharon Duca, Assistant City Manager) Ms. Sharon Duca, Assistant City Manager, briefed the committee on snow removal practices and constituent concerns (Attachments 1-2). Committee Action Not Required. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Mark Nowak, Public Works Director, stated that salt and brine would not affect their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. He explained that using sand would be an issue because it is considered an illicit discharge into the system. Currently there is not a specific time in which they would have to sweep the sand up, but it would have to be in a timely fashion. He stated that the weather must be taken into account because if is freezing outside they cannot use water and if they are sweeping up the sand it will be

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JANUARY 28, 2025 PAGE 4 dirty and dusty, and people will likely complain. Mr. Nowak emphasized that in regard to the NPDES permit the sand would be the biggest issue because it is such a messy process to clean up. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Duca stated that currently the city treats critical routes which include several state roads and higher-use roads that have an increased thickness to the roadbed. She explained that one concern is the neighborhood and development roads which already have cracks and issues of grass and vegetation growing out of the roadbed. Treating those roads would continue to damage the roads quicker than is currently happening. Ms. Duca emphasized the importance of the balance between capital investment in the roads versus the operation. She explained that it is hard to predict how much material would be used in any given year because the weather is so inconsistent as opposed to Detroit. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Duca stated that one of the best preventative measures would be to keep up with regular street sweeping measures which the city currently executes a more aggressive pattern than is required by the NPDES permit. She explained that staff perform other preventative measures and maintenance efforts such as crack sealing which Mr. Nowak budgets for every year to address certain neighborhoods. She noted that it may be necessary to increase those efforts to prevent further decay. Ms. Arndt stated that she did not recall having such high-volume constituent complaints in previous years. She believed that they did a good job with the resources that they had available given the situation and the weather that they were in. She stated that she felt the sand was not an option because of the permitting and disposal issues. She stated that brining and purchasing additional trucks would be a risk because it could be a wasted investment if they do not have a significant snowstorm in the future. Ms. Arndt explained that based on the information provided, she was not inclined to pursue either of the scenarios presented. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Duca stated that they have not looked into contractors that would be able to perform a level of service equivalent to what they are currently providing. She explained that Mr. Nowak was able to bring in a contractor to help with snow removal using several front loaders and equipment of that nature. She emphasized that two 12-hour shifts cost nearly $25,000. She stated that if there were to make additional efforts, they would want to minimize their staff increase as was mentioned. She explained that using contractors could benefit in that regard, but they would need to evaluate what equipment the different contractors use and what services they would be able to assist in providing. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Duca clarified that the cost of the contractors was nearly $25,000. She explained that in order to perform a valued analysis, they would need to get information back from contractors to find out what services they would provide and the cost. Requesting qualifications would be the best way to get the information and then they could analyze the cost- benefit. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Duca stated that certain roads in the City of Dover are required to be taken care of by the city.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JANUARY 28, 2025 PAGE 5 Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Nowak stated that the city has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which lays out what roads the city is responsible for, a map of the DelDOT plow routes, and a do not plow list. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Nowak stated that the MOU outlines the state roads that the city will assist DelDOT in plowing. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Duca stated that when POW-MIA Parkway was constructed, the original expectation of DelDOT was that the City of Dover would maintain the sidewalks and other infrastructure associated with the project and DelDOT would maintain the pavement and the bridges. The city did not have the staff to maintain those things, so they did some trading and DelDOT took on the sidewalks and the city took on part of a road. Part of the trading involved moving grass in certain areas along state roads three times a year because they did not want to mow more frequently than DelDOT performed that function themselves. She explained that the 1964 agreement outlined that DelDOT would maintain certain roads, but as a result, the city had to retain certain areas as well which is why the state is solely responsible for Route 13. They maintain a lot of signage and traffic signals. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Duca stated that they could look at the 1964 agreement and renegotiate to see if they could minimize the number of state roads that they take care of so they can utilize more of their resources to address city matters. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Duca stated that the state roads that the City of Dover is responsible for are pretreated by the City of Dover. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Duca stated that they use the brine for all emergency routes. She explained that some of the state roads are on the critical list, so they use a mixture of brine and salt. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Duca stated that roads are pretreated and get more travel which creates more friction. That friction helps dissipate the snow and ice and therefore the roads are better served. She explained that during a storm like the one that just occurred where it had been twenty-four hours before anything had been on the road and there was little traffic, the snow was then packed down making it more difficult to plow once the storm was over. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Duca stated that the intent of the agreement with DelDOT was to save costs for the state, but they were looking at these past agreements and trying to uphold them. There are several agreements in addition to the 1964 agreement and the POW-MIA Parkway agreement. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Duca stated that they are bringing forward a proposed ordinance that would change the timeframe for snow removal. The current code states that snow removal timeframe states removal must be completed within 12 hours of daylight after it ceases snowing. The proposal would be to change it to 24 hours after it ceases snowing. Additionally, there would be a proposed change from sending citations upon inspection and noting that the snow had not been shoveled. Currently, the citations are sent by certified mail and can take three to five days to

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JANUARY 28, 2025 PAGE 6 be received by a homeowner or occupant. The proposal would be to conduct a posting similar to what was approved with the grass ordinance and no fine would be issued in the company of the posting to give the homeowner or occupant time to clear the snow. Ms. Duca explained that they understand the concern for pedestrians when the sidewalks are not shoveled and there is additional concern for staff. She emphasized that there had been one injury from a slip and fall on ice in code enforcement this year. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Nowak stated that they are unable to remove any large piles of snow or ice that are not on the roadway because they do not have the proper equipment to remove it and run the risk of destroying anything underneath. He further explained that they ran out of space in many of the developments and were currently running through trash routes to remove excess snow piles. He estimated that they would spend two additional days to complete all the routes, and they have a large pile of snow at Schutte Park. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Nowak stated that they could possibly knock the piles down, but they would have to get assistance through Grounds and Parks and Recreation since they have the equipment for sidewalks. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Duca stated that they could discuss that with Parks and Recreation and evaluate what they have and how long it might take to do that citywide. Responding to Dr. Jackson-Short, Mr. Eddie Kopp, Chief Code Enforcement Officer, stated that code enforcement does go out after the period of time has passed. Twelve hours daylight is the current ordinance, which meant that they did not go out until Wednesday and were well within 12 hours. Changing that to 24 hours instead of having the word daylight in there would eliminate some of the confusion (Attachments 3-4). He pointed out that the reason why the time may seem small was because the ordinance was not a beautification ordinance. The sidewalks are to be cleared for public safety. Mr. Kopp explained that he was aware of concerns with the homeowners, but several complaints were pedestrians walking into the roadways and highways. People in wheelchairs were trying to get down the sidewalk and they could not pass. He explained that the purpose of the ordinance was to protect the safety of all citizens, and a lot of people walk in Dover. Mr. Kopp emphasized that he was the slip and fall mentioned previously. He fell on an icy sidewalk posting a notice unrelated to snow removal. Responding to Dr. Jackson-Short, Mr. Kopp stated that they start in the area where they receive complaints from and then they spread out from there. He explained that the city is split into four areas, and everyone in his department is assigned an area. He stated that staff focused on their assigned areas and what streets were most traveled and then worked their way into the neighborhoods. He emphasized that their focus was on the main highway because so many people were walking down the highway and the more exposed streets. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Kopp clarified that it was not the sidewalk that walked up to the front door, but the sidewalks that surrounded the perimeter of the property.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JANUARY 28, 2025 PAGE 7 Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Nowak stated that the brine is made with a combination of water and salt and because their brining system is old, while making the brine they must continuously test to make sure they are at the twenty-three percent salt. He explained that they have no issue storing the salt. The salt that was used was from topping off the salt barn last year. He stated that they have already received two loads of salt to fill the barn after the one snowstorm this year. He emphasized that they have enough storage to keep up with the current need, however, if they needed to do more than what they are currently doing there would be a need for a bigger barn. If they were to do the whole city, they would need a salt barn like DelDOT. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Nowak stated that the only place that they could place a barn would be in Schutte Park. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Duca stated that based on the purchasing of the front half of Schutte Park, north of Van Sant, that area could only be utilized for recreational facilities, which is why most of the city’s operations are in the back half near Dover Little League. She stated that they would have to look at other facilities if they needed to expand operations. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Duca stated that the better investment would be the brine, however, it would not address the icy conditions afterwards and they would have to evaluate how it would work going into residential areas with the amount of traffic in them. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Nowak stated that every year when they are putting together a snow plan, they reach out to different companies for help. He explained that if the city does not have a retainer with the company, they have other customers that are serviced first. He stated that Teal Construction was the company that they used this year and past years, and they are able to assist the city once they have completed work for their other customers. He explained that it could be hard to find a company that they do not have to pay to be available. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Duca stated that they would likely have to pay a retainer if they were to expand to more contractors to be available when the city needs them. The retainer would likely be paid at the beginning of the year, and the money would not be refunded if there was no snowstorm because the company would be on standby for the city. Mayor Christiansen stated when Shutte Park was purchased a deed restriction was put in that the properties to the front would remain for recreational purposes. He reminded council that over the years, several Public Works Directors requested a salt barn to be built, but those projects were removed from the budget and that was why they do not have salt barn in place. Additionally, the 1964 agreement was made with the State of Delaware to relinquish having to deal with plowing and maintaining the new Route 13. The city signed over that they would take up the maintenance on State Street, Governors Avenue, Division Street, Forest Street, and several other streets, and the city would pick up plowing them while the state would maintain the paving and maintenance. Belinda Main, 142 Reese Street, Dover, stated that she had contacted Mr. Kopp about the notice she received about the snow removal on the sidewalks. She explained that after the snow on Monday, January 6, 2025, they shoveled their sidewalk and repeatedly shoveled it. Due to the wind drifting, the snow did go back on the sidewalk. Ms. Main had called and sent a picture on Thursday,

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JANUARY 28, 2025 PAGE 8 January 8, 2025, because she had received a fine of $100, and there was snow on one square in front of her walkway that had snow. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp stated that snow removal is considered a non-appealable type fine, and they were in the process of updating the ordinance. The ordinances that are not appealable are based on a legal opinion. He explained that they are in the process of trying to incorporate an appeal process because currently there is no appeal process for any ordinances in the Dover Code of Ordinances. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp stated that currently, the ordinance states that the sidewalks have to remain clear. At the time the photo that was taken, there was still snow on the sidewalk. Mr. Kopp stated that his interpretation of it, there was still snow on the sidewalk and he instructed the complainant to contact the city manager’s office if they felt they disagreed with his interpretation of the code. This was something that they would do with anyone who disagreed with their interpretation. He explained that their job as code enforcement was to interpret the ordinance in the way it is written and the way the ordinance is currently written, it does not grant any leniency. As a code enforcement officer, he has to follow the code, and the code does not give any opportunities to decide what they would or would not enforce. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp stated that the $100 fine was increased recently as a part of all the fees and fines being increased. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp stated that with the past snowstorm, they issued over 500 fines. He explained that there were a few reasons for this, one being the lack of compliance throughout the city and the other is because their office is completely staffed versus previous years. He stated that they were still receiving complaints and completing snow cases during the week as complaints were still coming in. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp stated that in Ms. Main’s case, it was shoveled at a point. He had no way to determine when the snow came back onto the sidewalk. To be fair and consistent with everyone that Mr. Kopp spoke with, who may have shoveled their snow early, he could not make that determination. If he did try to interpret Ms. Main’s, he would have to interpret everyone else. He can interpret the way the ordinance is written, and it says that it has to remain free of hazards, whether it be snow drifts, ice, that may be on the sidewalk. Mr. Kopp noted that at the time he looked at the picture when the violation was issued, it was not free of hazards, so therefore it was not in compliance with the code and that was his interpretation of it. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Kopp stated technically the way the code is written right now, it would be required to chip the ice. Code Enforcement is taking a lot of heat, but they are enforcing the ordinance that was passed by City Council. He stated that the best way to go about was to revise the ordinance and specify what a hazardous condition was. They are looking into amending the ordinance, and they could look into defining hazardous conditions and put some parameters in there for ice and snow.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JANUARY 28, 2025 PAGE 9 Marilyn Wilkes, WebEx attendee, asked why does the letter that came out state that it could be appealed when it was a non-appealable offense, and who was responsible for the sidewalks at Schutte Park. Responding to Ms. Wilkes, Mr. Boggerty stated that the City of Dover would be responsible for the sidewalks at Schutte Park. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Kopp stated that all the letters that they send out state there is a right to appeal. He explained that a legal review told them that it had to remain on the letter. The appeal does not necessarily say they are appealing to a board, but they are appealing to staff. They could appeal to the inspector who issued the citation as it does not say they appeal to the Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals or appealing to a court of law. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Kopp stated that it was not loosely interpreted, it was a legal opinion by the city solicitor. It did state that the Dover Code of Ordinances are not appealable, and they do have that in writing. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Kopp stated that they could specify on the letter where they could appeal, such as to him or the city manager’s office, or they would have to appeal to the Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Kopp stated that it would not be an easy fix, but it could be something to look into and define, and they might have to create a new letter. Doug Hall, 718 Governors Avenue, Dover, expressed concerns with the advice of the City Solicitor regarding the snow removal appeal process and his previous opinion regarding an alley abatement. LaChelle Paul, 501 Silverside Drive, Dover, wanted to know what areas the 500 citations were given. She stated that she was out helping to remove snow and elderly people in their neighborhoods. Ms. Paul noted that she had watched code enforcement ride by multiple times. She asked how they were giving the citations out when the roads were not cleared. Some roads were not addressed at all and there were cars out on the street and there was ice. The city has resources, but they are not going through the outsourcing like they should. She pointed out that they talk about outsourcing and picking bigger companies when they can go through smaller companies and give them smaller territories to cover so they can get it done for less money. Ms. Paul suggested that if they went through and lowered their bond rating, they could get small local businesses involved, but they made it impossible for those businesses to be able to assist in those situations. She stated that they talked about the safety of a sidewalk, but the city could not clear the roads that go up to those sidewalks. She further stated that the city could not state that it was not appealable but listed it because it had to be there. Charles Cunningham, 116 East Sheldrake Circle, Dover, stated that he had tried to appeal when he received a letter, he went to City Hall after looking up the ordinance online and looking at the range for the fines. He was trying to figure out why he got fined the maximum. Mr. Cunningham spoke with Mr. Kopp and was told that it was a result of the ordinance change. He went online to

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JANUARY 28, 2025 PAGE 10 view the ordinance, and it had not been updated. He noted that it would be helpful to update the ordinances. Responding to Dr. Jackson-Short, Mr. Rocha clarified that according to the ordinance online, it stated that any person, corporation, company, or entity found guilty of a violation of this article shall pay a fine of no less than $25, nor more than $100. Ms. Arielle Rivera, Assistant City Clerk, stated that once council passes an ordinance, it is adopted. However, the online code system groups them together and processes them at one time once they have so many. She noted that it does take a while for the website to be updated, however, they are adopted whenever council passes them. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Kopp stated that the citations were throughout the city. He did not have the information with him, but he could have it plotted on a map. The city is split into four different sections. The Code Enforcement staff are all assigned to their areas, and they have all received cases in their areas. He emphasized that no specific neighborhood was targeted, it was throughout the city, and that data could be shown on a map. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Kopp stated that it would take a few days to provide the data. He would get with GIS and give him the data and plot it on the map. Mr. Kopp could provide the data in a week and provide it for their next meeting. Dr. Sudler asked if he could provide the number of complaints that were submitted and the areas that received citations. He stated that they needed clarity in the ordinance, their responsibility, the constituent’s responsibility, and moving towards being more user-friendly as municipalities for their constituents. He believed that they need to waive fines for now and moving forward they could work on getting it right since it snows maybe one to three times a year. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Kopp recommended putting the current date of January 28, 2025, to make sure everyone was covered and then he could instruct staff not to issue any mail the following day. Dr. Sudler moved to waive the fines associated with snow removal for the month of January that were issued. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha. Mr. Neil stated that the deadline should be January 28, 2025. Dr. Sudler moved to waive the fines associated with snow removal from January 6, 2025, through January 28, 2025, that were issued. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha. Dr. Pillsbury expressed concerns with waving everyone’s fines. She believed that people who made the effort to clear it and the snow blew onto their sidewalks, that was a legitimate excuse to get it waived, but people who made no effort to clear their sidewalks should still be fined. Responding to Mr. Kopp, Mayor Christiansen asked that if he could provide them with a numeric or type of color coding as to where the complaints came in from. He believed that it would help

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JANUARY 28, 2025 PAGE 11 council and constituents to understand that no particular area was being singled out and how the citations came about. Mr. Anderson stated that he would be in favor of the particular motion. He does share some agreement with Dr. Pillsbury that someone who has not done anything would be dereliction. He noted that the reason he supported the motion was that some time ago they had an issue of the non- appealable when it came up before the Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals and the board stated that they did not handle the grass issues because it was not under the title that deals with what they consider. At that time, they pointed out that there was a problem with the letter because it stated that a person could appeal, and they had asked that the letter be revised. He felt that there should be two separate letters, one for the appeals board that tells the person the process and the other for the ones that are appealed in-house to the city manager’s office. Since there are hundreds of citations and ongoing server issues and software, he did not want to push all those back onto the city manager to sort through which ones were legitimate and which ones were not. Mr. Anderson stated that for the sake of expediency, they should treat all of them equally, even though they are not all equal. The people in the Code Enforcement have spent several hours going out responding to constituent complaints and trying to keep people safe and hated that he felt like he was throwing away all of that work regardless. The problem needed to be fixed and there was no way to sort it out efficiently. He believed that the only way to deal with it was to have a clean slate and take the path forward to make adjustments that need to be made to the snow ordinance. Dr. Sudler moved to waive the fines associated with snow removal that were issued from January 6, 2025, through January 28, 2025. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and carried with Dr. Pillsbury voting no. Mr. Lewis moved to include the presented draft ordinance Section 98-12, snow and ice removal from sidewalks in the public right away be put on the next Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sudler. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Rivera read the second proposed ordinance which proposed changes to Appendix F by stating that Section 98-12, snow and ice removal from sidewalks in the public right of way, (b) would be a warning and a posting for $0, and (c) violations and penalties would be a $100 per violation. Ms. Bennett stated that one of the ordinances amended the code and the second ordinance would amend the fee schedule. Mr. Lewis moved to include both proposed ordinances and an appeals process be put on the next Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sudler and unanimously carried.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JANUARY 28, 2025 PAGE 12 Discussion – Constituent Concerns Surrounding East Loockerman Street (Councilman Boggerty) Mayor Christiansen briefed the committee on the constituent concerns surrounding East Loockerman Street. Mr. Anderson moved to instruct staff to begin process of evaluating the proposed road closure with the required agencies and departments, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. Mr. Boggerty moved for adjournment of the Safety, Advisory, and Transportation meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 8:36 p.m. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Chairman Rocha presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and unanimously carried. Proposed Ordinance #2025-01 – Amending Appendix C – Downtown Redevelopment (David S. Hugg, III, City Manager, and Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner) Ms. Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner reviewed the background and analysis regarding Proposed Ordinance #2025-01. Staff recommended forwarding Proposed Ordinance #2025-01. Mr. Hare moved to recommend accepting the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Proposed Ordinance #2025-03 – Amending Chapter 1 – General Provisions, Section 1-18 – City of Dover Service Mark (Councilman Lewis and Dr. Sudler) Mr. Lewis reviewed the background and analysis regarding Proposed Ordinance #2025-03. Staff recommended forwarding Proposed Ordinance #2025-03 to council. Mr. Hare moved to recommend accepting the committee recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Andria L. Bennett, City Clerk, clarified that they would have to apply through an application to use the service mark. She explained that during their conversations the application would go to Ms. Kay Sass and appeals would be provided to the City Clerk’s Office to be placed on an agenda for council review. Mr. Anderson expressed concerns with section one in the ordinance. He explained that it should exempt events that are sponsored or co-sponsored by the city explicitly, that way if the city was

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JANUARY 28, 2025 PAGE 13 investing money into an event, they should get credit for it and be able to use the seal and see it. Therefore, he proposed an amendment to line sixteen starting after Dover, to add unless the city is a sponsor or co-sponsor of the event. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Lewis believed that it would not apply because they would still be able to affix the seal, since they were sponsoring that event. Mr. Anderson explained that they could run into timeframes where they have put community enhancement funds into, and the organization may have offered to place the city as a sponsor. If there is no meeting between the disbursement of funds and the event, then they would not be able to use the seal. He explained that in order to avoid any confusion in the future he would like to see it explicitly include the amendment. Staff and people in the future may not understand the assumed intent. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Lewis stated that he had no objection to that and that it was not the intent of the ordinance. The intent was to protect the seal from individuals who would use the city seal at their discretion. Mr. Anderson moved to amend line 16 after Dover to say unless the city is the sponsor or co- sponsor of the event of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Hare and Mr. Neil accepted the amendment. Mayor Christiansen expressed appreciation for the efforts of Mr. Lewis and Dr. Sudler. He believed that the seal needed to be protected. The City of Dover’s Mayor and Council have sponsored and contributed to numerous events that they have sanctioned such as Dover Days, The Caribbean Festival, and The Latino Festival. He believed that it was important that when they make a substantial contribution to these organizations and to other things that they participate in the City Seal should be authorized to show that the city supports these efforts to make their community a better place to live, work, and play. Mayor Christiansen urged members of council to accept the friendly amendment but to proceed forward with the protection of the City Seal and the uses thereof. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Garfinkel stated that he was looking at line 12 in the proposed ordinance, which no person shall intentionally or negligently use the Registered Service Mark. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Ms. Bennett stated that after discussions of what Mr. Lewis and Dr. Sudler were looking to do, Mr. Rodriguez and the paralegal put the language together. After hearing what their intent was, that was the language that Mr. Rodriguez and the paralegal drafted. Ms. Bennett explained that she could get clarification before it comes to council for the first reading with the amendments and can talk with Mr. Rodriguez about the language and Mr. Garfinkel concerns to ask what the reason or rational was with using the language as presented. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Mr. Lewis stated that the appeal process would start with Ms. Sass as the coordinator and then the appeal would be brought before council.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JANUARY 28, 2025 PAGE 14 Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Ms. Bennett stated that the appeals process is outlined on the application. The initial application would go to Ms. Sass and the appeal would come to the City Clerk’s Office because they serve at the pleasure of council. Mr. Hare moved to recommend accepting the committee recommendation to forward Proposed Ordinance #2025-03 to council as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Fiscal Year 2026 Tax Evaluation and Fiscal Year 2027 Reevaluation Thereafter (Allison Haines, Interim Customer Service Director) Ms. Allison Haines, Interim Customer Service Director, reviewed the Fiscal Year 2026 Tax Evaluation and Fiscal Year 2027 Reevaluation Thereafter. Staff recommended using the City’s 2020 re-assessment values for the 2025 tax bills and changing the ordinance to adopt Kent County’s tax values starting with Fiscal Year 2027, thereafter in Fiscal Year 2029 they would be assessed every five years. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Haines stated that Kent County released the information late Friday afternoon, on January 24, 2025, without an MOU and a $60 fee. Mr. Hare moved to recommend approving staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sudler. Responding to Mr. Shevock, Ms. Haines stated that to her understanding during a tax revaluation, the city’s preference is to remain revenue neutral. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Haines stated that she has been serving as the Interim Customer Service Director for a year now. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Ms. Haines clarified that they would get the evaluation from Kent County and require an adjustment to the tax rates for them to make it revenue-neutral in 2027. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Ms. Haines stated that they paid $60 for the information from Kent County. She noted that she would need to get back to them for those numbers but said that they did save a lot of money by paying the $60 rather than going through an independent assessment. Mr. Hare moved to recommend approving staff recommendation, seconded by Dr. Sudler and carried unanimously. Permission to Proceed with Implementation of Kronos Payroll Processing Program (Patricia Marney, Controller/Treasurer) Ms. Patricia Marney, Controller/Treasurer, reviewed the background and analysis to the Implementation of the Kronos Payroll Processing Program. Staff recommended granting permission to proceed with obtaining quotes for the transition to the Kronos Payroll Processing Program.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JANUARY 28, 2025 PAGE 15 Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Marney stated that she would defer to council to decide if an RFP is required and if they would approve her moving forward with modifying the current contract. Mr. Hare moved to recommend accepting the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sudler. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Marney asked if they could modify the staff’s recommendation to proceed with a quote she received. If they agree to that, she would be happy to forward a copy of the quote to all council members. Dr. Sudler noted his concern that there was only one (1) quote that they received. He was not sure if they could use one (1) quote and be in violation. Mr. Boggerty stated that he was familiar with Kronos and that it was a great product. He wanted to make sure that there were no legal obligations for them to have an RFP put out and have conversations like this to avoid preselection. Mr. Anderson stated that by declaring an emergency they could skip the RFP selection process. Ms. Duca stated that getting three quotes would be in alignment with the purchasing policy because Ms. Marney was proposing additional services above $57,000. She explained that an emergency can be declared to maintain a continuity of service which provides the city manager the ability to act in those regards. Mayor Christiansen stated by the power vested to him by the charter, he declared an emergency. Mr. Hare moved to amend the motion to recommend granting permission to proceed, due to emergency with quotes received for the transition to the Kronos Payroll Processing Program. Mr. Hare moved to recommended accepting the staff recommendation as amended to proceed, due to an emergency, with the quote received for the transition to the Kronos Payroll Processing Program. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sudler and carried unanimously. Mr. Rocha moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Mr. Anderson moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 9:11 p.m. David L. Anderson Council President

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JANUARY 28, 2025 PAGE 16 Attachments Attachment #1 – Snow Removal Practices Memorandum Attachment #2 – Road Check 2025 Presentation Attachment #3 – Proposed Snow Ordinance Attachment #4 – Proposed Snow Ordinance Appendix F

ATTACHMENT #1 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 01/28/2025 City of Dover City Manager’s Office PO Box 475 Dover DE 19903-0475 Phone: (302) 736-7005 E-Mail: sduca@dover.de.us MEMORANDUM To: Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee CC: Dave S. Hugg, III, City Manager From: Sharon J. Duca, P.E., ICMA-CM, Assistant City Manager Mark Nowak, GISP, Public Works Director Eddie Kopp, Chief Code Enforcement Officer Date: January 28, 2025 Subject: Snow Removal Practices and Constituent Concerns Attachments: Road Check 2025 Presentation Draft Section 98-5, Section 98-12 and Appendix F On January 5-7, 2025, the City of Dover experienced a snowstorm resulting in approximately six-inches (6”) of snow. Following this event, at the January 13, 2025 City Council meeting, the agenda was modified to include a report on the snow removal efforts (see attached presentation). Standard operational procedures were followed for both City snow removal and code enforcement efforts. Based upon concerns received from City Council and constituents, the following alternatives assessment is provided for discussion. CITY SNOW REMOVAL PRACTICES The City’s snow removal team currently consists of staff from the Department of Public Works (DPW), the Department of Water & Wastewater, the Parks & Recreation Department and the Central Services Department. While response will vary from storm to storm, the primary mission is to keep emergency and critical routes open during the storm. This involves pre-treating emergency routes with brine, pre-treating critical routes with salt, treating emergency and critical routes with salt if required and plowing. Once this part of the operation is complete, all other roads will be plowed if the snowfall exceeds four-inches (4”). Once roads are plowed and sidewalks are cleared, staff will return to their Departmental Assignments. For the DPW, this means Sanitation Division staff will return to trash collection and Streets and Stormwater Division staff will continue removing snow that was piled in cul-de-sacs and the like during plowing operations. For reference purposes, for the recent storm, trash collection resumed on January 8, 2025 and snow removal operations are still occurring today. (Please refer to the attached presentation for additional details regarding response efforts, what worked for us and what worked against us.) Complaints received regarding this snowstorm included concern over the icy conditions, particularly on residential roads, and requests were made for additional treatment options. As a result, three (3) scenarios were

Snow Removal Practices and Constituent Concerns January 28, 2025 Page 2 of 3 reviewed by staff including (1) Pretreatment: applying brine to all 133.5 miles of roadway, (2) Pretreatment: applying salt to all 133.5 miles of roadway, and (3) Post-treatment: applying sand at intersections. A summary of these scenarios on a per storm basis, including pros and cons, is provided below. Please note that all costs are estimates. Capital expenses would be up front costs only. * Total Cost represents Year 1 investment plus operational expenses for one (1) storm.

Snow Removal Practices and Constituent Concerns January 28, 2025 Page 3 of 3 Category Current Practice Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Staffing Expenses Not included Not included Not included Not included Fuel Not included Not included Not included Not included Contract Assistance $24,400 $24,400 $24,400 $24,400 Brine 400 gal / $800 6,200 gal / $12,400 400 gal / $800 400 gal / $800 Salt 70 tons / $5,700 70 tons / $5,700 315 tons / $25,700 70 tons / $5,700 Sand Not utilized Not utilized Not utilized 2,000 tons / $45,000 Sand Disposal Not utilized Not utilized Not utilized 1,000 tons / $73,000 Operational Cost $30,900 $42,500 $50,900 $148,900 Existing Equipment Not included Not included Not included Not included New Brine System Not required $100,000 Not required Not required New Brine Truck Not required 3 / $549,000 Not required Not required New Salt/Sand Barn Not required Not required $200,000 $400,000 New Spreader Truck Not required Not required 4 / $768,000 4 / $768,000 New Sander Rack Not required Not required $50,000 $50,000 New Sweeper Truck Not required Not required Not required $300,000 Capital Cost $0 $649,000 $1,018,000 $1,518,000 Total Cost* $30,900 $691,500 $1,068,900 $1,666,900 Pros 1. All roads 1. Reduced potential 1. Reduced potential 1. Improved addressed within 24 of road icing. of road icing. traction. hours of storm end. Cons 1. Residential roads 1. More staff must 1. More staff must 1. More staff must are typically not be activated for be activated for stay activated for completely clear to response prior to response prior to response after pavement which can start of storm. start of storm. plowing which result in icy 2. Additional brine 2. Additional salt could effect trash conditions. will decrease life will decrease life collection restart and expectancy of roads expectancy of roads snow pile removal. of which the City is of which the City is 2. To comply with not adequately not adequately NPDES permit, sand investing. investing. must be swept and 3. Will not address 3. Will not address disposed of. issues in areas of issues in areas of 3. Will not address parked cars. parked cars. issues in areas of parked cars. CODE ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS The City’s Code Enforcement team, within the Department of Planning & Inspections, currently works to ensure compliance with the City of Dover Code of Ordinances. In terms of snow Section 98-5 of the Code currently requires sidewalks to be cleared within twelve (12) hours of daylight after it has ceased snowing. Noncompliance currently results in a $100.00 fine. In accordance with the Code, staff will go out into neighborhoods within their respective zones, following twelve

Snow Removal Practices and Constituent Concerns January 28, 2025 Page 3 of 3 (12) hours of daylight after the snow has ceased. Sidewalk inspections are performed and pictures are taken. Cases are entered in the system and notices / citations are sent out via certified. This past storm resulted in 556 citations sent at a cost of over $5,000. Various complaints were received as a result of these citations. In turn, the provided draft ordinance of Section 98-5 and Section 98-12 are proposed. A summary of the existing and proposed ordinances, including pros and cons, are provided below. Category Current Section 98-5 Proposed Section 98-5 / 98-12 Removal Timeframe Within twelve (12) hours of After twenty-four (24) hours have daylight after it has ceased passed since it has ceased snowing. snowing. Notification Method Certified Mail Posting Notification Timeframe 3-5 days At time of inspection. Fine $100 No fine with posting. Pros 1. Ability to perform vehicle 1. Minimize the misinterpretation inspections. of the removal timeframe with providing for twenty-four (24) hours. Cons 1. Level of compliance determines 1. Concern for staff safety in how long it takes to complete posting notices when snow and ice inspections. Whole City was not are present. complete after three (3) days. 2. The additional step of posting will likely reduce the number of inspections performed over a similar period. It should be noted that numerous residents and businesses were noncompliant with the current code requirements. In order to address, public outreach will be critical moving forward. Options include mailers being provided within the utility bills twice a year for grass and snow requirements. Also, before each storm, sending out notifications on social media, the City’s website and within the City’s newsletter.

ATTACHMENT #2 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 01/28/2025 ROAD CHECK 2025 Thursday January 9, 2025

MAYFAIR

MAYFAIR

ELM TERRACE

ELM TERRACE

ORCHARD AVE AND LOTUS

ORCHARD AVE AND LOTUS

MORIARITY STREET

MORIARITY STREET

WHY DO WE DO, WHAT WE DO?  Responsible to clear a total of 133.5 miles of roadway. Of those, 21.2 miles (15.9%) are critical and 8.6 miles (6.4%) are emergency routes.  Plowing of those critical and emergency routes must be done at the onset of the storm and done throughout the storm. This keeps the main arteries open.  Emergency Services (Police, Fire, EMS) help determine the what and why an area is considered critical or emergency.  We typically do not enter residential ares until the snow has stopped falling and we have full control over the emergency and critical areas. (If it is drifting badly, we may not get into the residential areas until the winds subside.) In addition, residential areas are not plowed unless the snow depth exceeds 4”.  We do not salt residential areas. This is a resource issue: staff, money, equipment and materials.  When we have large amounts that pile up, once we can free up dump trucks, we haul the large piles (particularly in cul-de-sacs) to Schutte Park.  Plows are not dropped to pavement level. To avoid damage to vehicles, drivers and infrastructure, plows maintain a height of approximately 3” from the ground when plowing.

WHAT WORKED FOR US?  Contractors  Light snow – it was not a wet and heavy snow  Sunshine – some areas get more sun  All staff had personalized (to the city) snow plow training.  All Critical and Emergency Routes were brined / pretreated.  Critical/High Priority Routes were treated with salt.  Emergency Routes were treated with brine.

WHAT WORKED AGAINST US?  Winds (winds on January 9, 2025 were 21 mph)  Starting asphalt temp was 27° at the onset of the storm which caused it to stick and ice faster.  Bitterly cold temps lasted for days.  Drifting  We don’t get large snow accumulations often, so we have resource issues which include staff, money, equipment and materials.  Not moving vehicles off the roadways.  The storm started at night.  Duration – the snow lasted almost 24 hours  We experienced the same thing the State of Delaware and many parts of Maryland reported. WBOC had good coverage of the struggles in DE and MD (aired on 1/9/25).

Special thanks to all who worked the storm - in every capacity. It is greatly appreciated!

ATTACHMENT #3 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 01/28/2025 Sec. 98-5. Duty of tenants or owners to maintain sidewalks and landscaped areas within the street right-of-way. (a) It shall be unlawful for the owner or occupant of any premises abutting upon a sidewalk to permit or allow snow or ice to remain thereon for longer than 12 hours of daylight after it has ceased snowing, or to permit debris or other materials to accumulate at any time so that pedestrians may conveniently and safely pass. (b) It is the responsibility of the owner or occupant of any premises abutting upon a sidewalk to keep the landscaped area between the sidewalk and the curbline, or where no sidewalk exists between the property line and curbline or paved street, maintained in accordance with the standards set forth in chapter 114, article II, pertaining to weeds. (c) It shall be unlawful to sweep, blow, or otherwise discharge grass clippings into any street, sidewalk, storm drain, or water course more than incidental amounts of grass. (d) Violations; penalties. Any person(s) violating any provision of this section shall be fined as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines. (Code 1968, § 28-25; Code 1981, § 19-5; Ord. of 8-10-1987, § 1; Ord. of 2-23-1998; Ord. No. 2014-19, 9-8-2014) Sec. 98-12. Snow and ice removal from sidewalks in the public right of way. (a) It shall be unlawful for the owner or occupant of any premises to permit or allow sidewalk(s) abutting the property to accumulate snow or ice when 24 hours have passed since it has ceased snowing. The sidewalks must remain clear after the 24-hour period of the ceasing of snow. (b) Warning; posting. Any property found to have snow or ice remaining on sidewalk(s) abutting property after 24 hours have passed since the cease of snow will receive an initial notice of violation via posting of notice by the code official. This notice provides 24 hours to remove all snow and ice from the sidewalk. (c) Violations; penalties. Any property who fails to keep the sidewalk(s) free from snow and ice after 24 hours of the posting of the initial notice of violation will be subject to penalties as provided in Appendix F- Fees and Fines. Secs. 98-12 13—98-40. Reserved. Created: 2024-10-17 07:52:06 [EST] (Supp. No. 41, Update 1) Page 1 of 1

ATTACHMENT #4 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 01/28/2025 Chapter 98. Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places Chapter 98. Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places Fees and Fines Article I. In General Sec. 98-5. Duty of tenants or owners to maintain sidewalks and $100.00 per violation landscaped areas within the street right-of-way Sec. 98-11. Placement of wireless communications facilities within rights-of-way (c) Use of Rights-of-Way Permit (1) Permit Fee $25.00 for ROW Permit (2) Annual Fee for Rights-of-way Use No charge for WCF placement on existing City owned wireless support structure in City ROW $220.00 for Placement of new wireless support structure/pole in City ROW $220.00 for WCF placement on a third party/non-City wireless support structure/pole in City ROW Sec. 98-12 Snow and ice removal from sidewalks in the public right of way. (b) Warning; Posting $0.00 (c) Violations; penalties $100.00 per violation Article VI. Excavations Sec. 98-253. Bond Maximum of $5,000.00 per opening Article VII. Parades Sec. 98-303. Fee at the time of filing the application for a parade $10.00. This fee may permit be waived, in whole Created: 2024-10-17 07:52:16 [EST] (Supp. No. 41, Update 1) Page 1 of 2

or in part, by the chief of police. (Ord. No. 2020-13, 11-9-2020; Ord. No. 2024-19, 6-24-2024) Created: 2024-10-17 07:52:16 [EST] (Supp. No. 41, Update 1) Page 2 of 2