Regular City Council Packet - REVISED

CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING Wednesday, February 25, 2026 at 6:30 PM City Hall Council Chambers, 15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware AGENDA THIS MEETING HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED WITH LESS THAN SEVEN (7) DAYS NOTICE DUE TO INCLEMENT WEATHER CLOSINGS, AND THE AGENDA AND PAPERLESS PACKET HAVE BEEN REVISED TO REMOVE ITEM #1 - ROBBINS HOSE COMPANY (DOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT) ANNUAL REPORT, TO INCLUDE THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 10, 2026, AND TO MOVE PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2025-21 TO FINAL READING. THIS AGENDA HAS BEEN REVISED BY REMOVING ITEM #2 - PLANNING, INSPECTIONS, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2025 ANNUAL REPORT, ITEM #3 – DOVER HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION, AND ADDING ITEMS #23-26 – MONTHLY REPORTS AND ITEM #28 - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2025-14 - AMENDING CHAPTER 22 - BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, BY INSERTING ARTICLE XIII - LEMON HOUSING VIRTUAL MEETING NOTICE This meeting will be held in the City Hall Council Chambers with electronic access via WebEx. Public participation information is as follows: Dial: 1-650-479-3208 Link: https://rb.gy/kzxube Event number: 2530 120 9196 Event password: DOVER (if needed) If you are new to WebEx, get the app now at www.webex.com/ to be ready when the meeting starts. The meeting can also be viewed on Comcast Channel 14, Verizon Channel 20, and on the City's Streaming Player located at www.cityofdover.com under "Quick Links". OPEN FORUM - 15 Minutes Prior to Official Meeting (6:15 p.m.) The “Open Forum” segment is provided to extend the opportunity to the general public to share their questions, thoughts, comments, concerns, and complaints. Discussion of any item appearing on the agenda as a public hearing is prohibited during the Open Forum as an opportunity will be provided during consideration of that item. Citizen comments are limited to three (3) minutes. Council is prohibited from taking action since they are not in official session; however, they may schedule such items as regular agenda items and act upon them in the future. Page 1

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - February 25, 2026 PAGE 2 INVOCATION - Elder Ellis B. Louden PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Councilman Lewis ADOPTION OF AGENDA 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 so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered a separate item. RESOLUTIONS 1. JustServe Resolution CONSENT AGENDA ADOPTION OF MINUTES 2. Regular City Council Meeting of January 28, 2026 COMMITTEE REPORTS 3. Council Committee of the Whole meeting of February 10, 2026 COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS 4. Procurement/Bid Process Presentation (Mike Hamlett, Central Services Director) COUNCIL REPORTS - JANUARY 2026 5. First District 6. Second District 7. Third District 8. Fourth District 9. At-Large 10. Council President Neil Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement 11. Review of Active Recreation Plan – Bay Pointe Apartments at 1100 Bay Road (Property of 3.302 acres +/- located on the southwest side of Bay Road at the intersection with Lafferty Lane, as owned by Patel Hospitality Properties, LLC. Planning Reference: Conditional Use Site Plan: C-26-01) Page 2

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - February 25, 2026 PAGE 3 (Committee Recommendation: Approval of the Active Recreation Area Plan for the project, subject to the conditions outlined in the Active Recreation Review Report) Utility Committee 12. Annexation Request - 7 Nixon Lane, Owned by Lupe N. Fuller (Dawn Melson- Williams, Principal Planner) (Committee Recommendation: Upon consideration of utility services, it is found that electric, water, and sanitary sewer services are provided and/or available to the property located at 7 Nixon Lane. The Electric Department and Department of Water and Wastewater have no objection to its annexation.) 13. Annexation Request - 1624 N. Little Creek Road and Two Adjacent Parcels, Owned by United Worldwide Express, LLC (Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner) (Committee Recommendation: Upon consideration of utility services, it is found that electric, water, and sanitary sewer services are provided and/or available to the property located at 1624 North Little Creek Road and the two adjacent parcels. The Electric Department and Department of Water and Wastewater have no objection to its annexation.) Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee 14. Animal Control Officer Briefing (Caitlyn Smith, Animal Control Officer, and Sergeant Christopher Peer) (Committee Action Not Required) 15. Draft Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) (Patricia Marney, Controller/Treasurer) (Committee Recommendation: Acceptance of the draft report) 16. Update from the Dover Organization of Employees (DOE) on Membership Priorities (Matthew Brown, President of the DOE Union) (Committee Action Not Required) 17. Higher Education Public Safety Fund Disbursements (Chief David Carey, Dover Fire Department) A. Volunteer Firefighter Stipend Program B. Dover Fire Department Security Fence (Committee Recommendation: Approval of the disbursements as requested) 18. Amendment - Proposed Ordinance #2025-21 - Amending Chapter 106 - Traffic and Vehicles, Article III - Stopping, Standing, and Parking, by adding Sec. 106-139 - Page 3

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - February 25, 2026 PAGE 4 Pedestrian Safety (Councilman Anderson, David S. Hugg, III, City Manager, and Chief Johnson) (Committee Recommendation: Forward Proposed Ordinance #2025-21 as amended to council for approval) (This item will be considered during the latter part of the meeting - see item #26) MONTHLY REPORTS - December 2025 19. City Council’s Community Enhancement Fund Report 20. City Manager’s Report 21. Fire Chief's Report 22. Police Chief's Report ITEMS NOT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA 23. Bay Village Planned Neighborhood Design (PND) on the south side of White Oak Road - Sketch Plan Review (Staff Recommends that City Council determine that Bay Village Planned Neighborhood Design is of such a Design and Type that warrants Further Review by the Planning Commission. Staff Further Recommends that City Council Refer the Proposal to the Planning Commission for Further Review. Planning Reference: MI-26-03) ORDINANCES FIRST READING - The First Reading is offered on the Proposed Ordinance. Final action by Council will take place during the Second Reading on MARCH 09, 2026. The ordinance is available at the entrance of the Council Chambers, on the City's website at www.cityofdover.com under "Government," or by contacting the City Clerk's Office at 302-736-7008 or cityclerk@dover.de.us. 24. Proposed Ordinance #2025-14 - Amending Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, by inserting Article XIII - Lemon Housing FIRST READING REFERRAL - The First Reading is offered on the Proposed Ordinance. It is recommended for referral to the Planning Commission for a public hearing on MARCH 16, 2026, and that a Public Hearing before City Council be set for APRIL 13, 2026, at 6:30 p.m., at which time the Final Reading and Council action will take place. The ordinance is available at the entrance of the Council Chambers, on the City's website at www.cityofdover.com under "Government," or by contacting the City Clerk's Office at 302-736-7008 or cityclerk@dover.de.us. 25. Ordinance #2026-08 - Lands of ASMA Property, LLC at 317, 319, 325 West Division Street Review of Rezoning Application for three parcels of land consisting of 0.05 +/- acres, 0.13 +/- acres, and 0.08 +/- acres, for a total of 0.26 +/- acres (11,628 SF). The properties are zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone). The proposed zoning is C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone). The properties are located on the north side of West Division Street and east of North Queen Street. Page 4

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - February 25, 2026 PAGE 5 (Property Owners: ASMA Property, LLC. Property Address: 317, 319, and 325 West Division Street. Tax Parcels: ED-05-076.08-05-03.00-000, ED-05-076.08-05-02.00-000, and ED-05- 076.08-05-01.00-000. Planning Reference: Z-26-02. Council District 4.) FINAL READING - The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of DECEMBER 08, 2025. The ordinance is available at the entrance of the Council Chambers and on the City's website at www.cityofdover.com under "Government." 26. Proposed Ordinance #2025-21 - Amending Chapter 106 - Traffic and Vehicles, Article III - Stopping, Standing, and Parking, by adding Sec. 106-139 - Pedestrian Safety CITY MANAGER’S ANNOUNCEMENTS MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS COUNCIL MEMBERS’ ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. PURSUANT TO 29 DEL. C. §10004(e)(2), THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, WHICH ARISE AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING Page 5

Item #1. COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2026-02 WHEREAS, we firmly believe that the values of compassion, empathy, and community support are the foundation of a united, harmonious society and foster connections that transcend differences; and WHEREAS, the strength and prosperity of our cities, towns, and villages are based on the selflessness of its residents to serve and uplift one another; and WHEREAS, we acknowledge the profound impact that can be achieved when we extend a helping hand to our neighbors, especially those of diverse backgrounds, and lift them up, and collectively work to improve lives; and WHEREAS, we nurture a culture of giving within our cities, emphasizing that volunteerism is not just a duty but a source of personal fulfillment and community strength; and as we work side by side with and learn from each other, mutual understanding increases, misconceptions can be corrected, and new friendships are built; and WHEREAS, we urge all citizens to care for one another, volunteer, and engage in acts of service and kindness that contribute to our city’s betterment and its inhabitants’ well-being, regardless of background or belief; and WHEREAS, the City of Dover has joined a growing list of supporters, including the President of the National League of Cities and hundreds of leaders to date, in making a commitment to volunteerism. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and Council do herby proclaim on the ninth day of February, two thousand and twenty-six, as a day on which the City of Dover reaffirms its commitment to fostering a spirit of volunteerism by promoting the use of JustServe.org, encouraging residents to engage in meaningful opportunities to give back, and recognizing the invaluable contributions of volunteers throughout our community. ADOPTED: ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN FRED A. NEIL Page 6 MAYOR COUNCIL PRESIDENT

Item #2. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING The Regular City Council Meeting was held on January 28, 2026 at 6:53 p.m. with Council President Neil presiding. Council members present were Ms. Hall, Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Anderson, Dr. Pillsbury, Mrs. Arndt, Mr. Rocha, Mr. Lewis, and Dr. Sudler. Staff members present were Police Chief Johnson, Ms. Marney, Mr. Hugg, Mrs. Melson-Williams (via Webex), Mr. Griffith, and Ms. Bennett. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Fire Chief Carey was absent. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum was held at 6:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Neil declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council was not in official session and could not take formal action. William Faust, 136 Orchard Avenue, stated that the state already tried to pass an ordinance such as the Proposed Ordinance #2025-21. If the ordinance passed tonight, he urged everyone to vote no, because he did not believe that the ordinance would withstand public or legal scrutiny. He added that if those members who voted in favor of the ordinance tonight were willing to repay the citizens for the waste of public funds. The only individuals who would make money from the ordinance were the attorneys involved in the lawsuit. He emphasized that if council members were not willing to repay those costs, then those members who pushed the ordinance forward should ask themselves if they would resign due to putting a hardship on an already strained system, which would likely result in increased taxes or fees to cover unchecked costs. He noted that they needed to be more conservative and that the ordinance would not solve homelessness, nor would it solve public safety or security. Belinda Main, 142 Reese Street, stated that Proposed Ordinance #2025-21 did not address public safety and that homelessness was not a distraction. She stated that homelessness was a call for the city, council, and residents to come together to identify what was not being done. She further stated that council was elected and paid to address those issues and that, despite annual raises for council, the homeless population continues to grow with no improvement. John Davis, a Dover resident, spoke in favor of the Proposed Ordinance #2025-21 because he has witnessed several dangerous situations. He stated that he was concerned for both the drivers and the individuals soliciting funds from individuals, which were mainly at red lights, and the ones he witnessed the most were from the corner of Forest Avenue and Salisbury Road. He added that the ordinance was a public safety ordinance. He stated that he has read through the ordinance several times and that the ordinance does not address how an individual raises funds and, in fact, ignores that issue entirely. He further stated that the question of how individuals make money was not before council. He mentioned that he supported the issue of homelessness. He commended the city’s utility workers, police, and electrical workers in particular for their handling of the most recent snowstorm. He stated that those employees did not receive enough recognition when things were done well, but often hear criticism when things go wrong, and wanted to acknowledge their efforts. Page 7

Item #2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2026 PAGE 2 Lachelle Paul, 501 Silverside Road, stated that one (1) of the City Council’s primary responsibilities was to manage taxpayer funds responsibly, ensuring they were properly handled and distributed to benefit the city without creating unnecessary costs. She further stated that when it came to public safety and ordinances, it was the council’s responsibility to thoroughly research those measures before making any decisions. She noted that every member of council has the ability to contact the Attorney General’s Office to find out what laws could be applied. She mentioned that a key question that should be asked was how many of those laws were actually enforceable, what responses have been received from the Attorney General’s Office, and how many of those laws have actually been used to address median safety. She also added that the Police Chief Johnson's responsibility was to enforce existing laws and to figure out what needed to be done. She emphasized that Police Chief Johnson did not need to create an ordinance. Vonda Smack, 1001 White Oak Road, stated that she wanted to discuss transparency and accountability. She noted that the City of Dover council existed to serve the residents, all of the constituents, not just those with privilege, political access, or economic comfort, but every resident of the community, regardless of race, income, housing status, or circumstance. She explained that the Public Safety Ordinance #2025-21 demanded heightened scrutiny because laws that regulated survival presented in public space disproportionately impacted those with the least power. Transparency was not optional and was due no justice and no peace. Accountability means that council must clearly answer what problem the ordinance was solving and justify its necessity. She added that public safety could not be used as a blanket to justify criminalized poverty or push vulnerable residents into harm. She stated that true safety was built through housing, behavioral health care, employment access, and dignity, not citations, displacement, or selective enforcement. Jordan McClemenents, 11 Maple Lane, stated that individuals experiencing homelessness and addiction were part of the community. While they may not be everyone’s concern, they were his concern, and the way they were being treated was a disgrace to what Delaware represented. He noted that Proposed Ordinance #2025-21 did not address the ongoing losses to homelessness and addiction, and instead criminalized being in public. Meme Sebelist, a Bloomington resident, stated that she opposed the Proposed New Castle care because the Proposed Ordinance #2025-21 showed a coordinated effort between Wilmington and Dover to criminalize poverty and policy. She highlighted Subsection B of the ordinance, which addressed approaching vehicles, which was likely the source of safety concerns. However, Subsection C is separate and targets standing or remaining on the median, making it a crime to remain there even for the duration of two (2) traffic lights. She noted that pedestrian safety was insulting to say that it was fixing the streets. She questioned the fees individuals would incur if not paid within 14 days, noting that the fees would automatically double, and asked how those fees would be paid. Regina Smith, 354 Delta State Drive, expressed concern that the proposed ordinance could set homeless individuals up for failure. She explained that repeated fines for those unable to pay could lead to warrants, arrests, a criminal record, and long-term barriers to employment. She questioned whether the city had explored less punitive alternatives, such as signage or time-based restrictions, before imposing fines. Drawing on personal experience of having once been homeless, she stated that fines or criminal penalties could have prevented her from securing long-term employment. Page 8

Item #2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2026 PAGE 3 She argued that the ordinance placed an unfair burden on the homeless, appearing to offer help on one (1) hand while compounding their problems on the other (1) and urged council to reconsider whether the approach truly reflected the city’s values. Melissa Jeter, a Dover resident, stated that after reviewing the role of a councilmember, she noted that council members receive monthly stipends and are expected to provide leadership by serving as liaisons for the community and overseeing issues affecting residents. The speaker stated that when council comes to the table, the expectation is to brainstorm solutions. Referencing a prior meeting, she noted that council had emphasized accountability and stated that accountability required moving forward. She mentioned that council leadership had been in place for many years and questioned the direction and progress being made. She expressed concern that continued arguments failed to address the real issue, noting that public debate affected real individuals who were suffering. She urged council members to hold themselves accountable by working collaboratively to develop solutions rather than relying on punitive measures, and stated she agreed with comments made by Regina Smith. Bonnie Pennington, a Dover Resident, stated that she sees several homeless individuals. She further stated that there were several vacant buildings that were empty, and individuals would just like to have a place to live. She noted that she had a son who was homeless for a year, who lived on the streets and was kicked from home to home, city to city, because nobody wanted to help him. She mentioned that not every individual was on drugs to be homeless. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Mayor Robin Christiansen. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Sudler. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Dr. Sudler moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and unanimously carried. 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 so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered a separate item. Ms. Arndt moved for adoption of the consent agenda, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. PROCLAMATION – BLACK HISTORY MONTH The City Clerk read the following Proclamation into the record: WHEREAS, Black History Month is observed each February to recognize and celebrate the history, heritage, and contributions of African Americans; and Page 9

Item #2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2026 PAGE 4 WHEREAS, Black History Month traces its origins to 1926, when Dr. Carter G. Woodson established Negro History Week, which expanded into a month-long national observance in 1976; and WHEREAS, the Black History Month theme, “A Century of Black History Commemorations,” marks 100 years of organized efforts to honor, preserve, and elevate Black history and culture, highlighting the evolution of these commemorations and their role in educating the public, shaping national understanding, and ensuring that the achievements, struggles, and resilience of African Americans are recognized and remembered; and WHEREAS, this centennial theme invites reflection on how Black history observances have strengthened historical awareness, inspired civic engagement, and affirmed the importance of telling inclusive and accurate stories of our nation’s past; and WHEREAS, African Americans have made significant and lasting contributions to the cultural, civic, economic, and social development of the City of Dover, the State of Delaware, and the United States; and WHEREAS, recognizing Black history strengthens community understanding, promotes inclusion, and affirms the City’s commitment to equality, opportunity, and respect for all; NOW, THEREFORE, I, ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DOVER, do hereby proclaim February 2026 as BLACK HISTORY MONTH in the City of Dover and encourage all residents to observe this month by reflecting on a century of Black history commemorations and celebrating the achievements and contributions of African Americans throughout our nation’s history. On behalf of the Mayor and Council, Mayor Christiansen presented the proclamation to the former Councilman Reuben Salters. Mr. Salters expressed gratitude for the opportunity to discuss Black History Month. He believed that Black History should be celebrated year-round, and no special month for it. He noted that it was conceived by Caucasians and that they gave it the coldest and shortest month. He emphasized that he was a proud African American and that he raised his family to be proud, and hope that everyone was proud that he was African American. He also added that he was proud of everyone, no matter who they were, and that there are several different ethnicities in the state and city. He mentioned that all national and international holidays were celebrated in different ways, and proud to be an American. He noted that Delaware has the opportunity and has taken advantage of some of those opportunities to be the greatest state in the union. He pointed out that they live in Delaware because they love Delaware. He emphasized that he loved Delaware and his wife, and they have spent 69 years of marriage in the state of Delaware. He noted that his family was very proud and that they had made it their job and their God-given right to praise individuals of all nationalities. He expressed gratitude towards the youth of the community, who were tremendous. PROCLAMATION – HUMAN TRAFFICKING AWARENESS MONTH The City Clerk read the following Proclamation into the record: Page 10

Item #2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2026 PAGE 5 WHEREAS, human trafficking is a grave crime and a violation of human rights that exploits individuals through force, fraud, or coercion for labor or commercial sex; and WHEREAS, human trafficking occurs in communities of all sizes and affects people of all ages, genders, and backgrounds; and WHEREAS, public awareness, education, and community engagement are critical to identifying, preventing, and responding to human trafficking; and WHEREAS, the 2026 Human Trafficking Awareness Month theme, “Stronger Connections. Stronger Futures,” highlights the importance of building supportive relationships, community ties, and collaborative networks that protect vulnerable individuals and help prevent human trafficking; and WHEREAS, the City of Dover is committed to raising awareness, strengthening prevention efforts, and supporting survivors through coordinated local partnerships with law enforcement, service providers, educators, community organizations, and citizens; NOW THEREFORE, I, ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DOVER, hereby proclaim January 2026 as HUMAN TRAFFICKING AWARENESS MONTH in the City of Dover and urge all residents to learn the signs of human trafficking, strengthen supportive connections in their communities, and work together toward a future free from exploitation. On behalf of the Mayor and Council, Mayor Christiansen presented the proclamation to Dr. Pillsbury. Dr. Pillsbury stated that she served on the Human Trafficking Committee, and when she was first asked to represent the medical society of Delaware, she was naïve and did not believe human trafficking existed in Delaware. She noted that Delaware was a small state and had never encountered the situation, and believed that there was no problem, but was surprised that they were having a statewide committee and that the medical society was involved. She added that over the years, she has learned that human trafficking is a serious problem. She stated that it was not a problem that excluded Delaware. She encouraged everyone that if they suspect someone is being trafficked, please try to help them to provide them services and connect them with resources. She noted that she has read things online about youth and connecting with other individuals online, and not realizing the dangers associated with that, and then they are often exploited. She encouraged everyone to educate their children, because it does impact them as well; it was not just an adult problem. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 12, 2026 The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of January 12, 2026, were unanimously approved by motion of Ms. Arndt, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury, and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. Page 11

Item #2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2026 PAGE 6 COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT – JANUARY 13, 2026 The Council Committee of the Whole met on January 13, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. with Council President Neil presiding. Members of Council present were Ms. Arndt, Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Hall (via Webex), Mr. Lewis (out at 8:33 p.m), Mr. Anderson, Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Rocha, and Dr. Sudler (via Webex, out at 8:06 p.m.). Mayor Christiansen was also present. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Lewis (Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee), Mr. Garfinkel, and Mr. Shevock (via Webex) (Legislative, Finance, and Administration). ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Rocha moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Boggerty, and unanimously carried. Review of the Booted and Suited (Bobby Wilson, CEO and Founder) Mr. Bobby Wilson, CEO and Founder, and Ms. Deniera Gibson, Marketing Director, reviewed the presentation entitled “Booted and Suited”. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Wilson stated that they would have two shifts, a morning and evening shift, and that it would consist of two managers and himself overseeing the project. He noted that they have several volunteers who would be on probation and from the court system. He added that those volunteers would be involved in the community service on the project. He mentioned that in the budget, both managers would be paid $500, and he would be paid $1,000 overlooking the project weekly. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Wilson stated that he would be working around the clock, and as long as his managers were on the ground, he would be working. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Wilson stated that he was responsible for his business, U.S. Veteran Builder. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Wilson stated that he would divide his time with his staff members and that $1,000 would be broken down with his staff’s support as well. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Wilson explained that the Booted and Suited program would be part of a larger workforce development initiative. Participants would receive training in cleanup and other entry-level jobs, with opportunities to move into union careers. He mentioned meeting with a labor union and plans to meet with the Bricklayers Union, aiming to partner with multiple unions to create career pathways. The program also emphasizes building relationships with individuals returning from prison to help them successfully reintegrate into the community. Page 12

Item #2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2026 PAGE 7 Responding to Ms. Arndt, Mr. Wilson stated that the program was pursuing additional funding sources, with the intention of leveraging its current success to secure increased financial support. He also noted that a grant writer, who has successfully obtained millions of dollars in funding for a similar program in Wilmington, was working on grant applications to expand funding for the initiative. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Wilson clarified that he was looking to get Booted and Suited established in Dover. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Wilson clarified that the program already had a ready and available workforce that could be integrated. He noted that they operated a Saturday academy at their facility and have made investments in community- serving locations on Loockerman Street, including a training center on South Little Creek Road. Mr. Wilson provided the committee with a signed petition (Attachment #1). Big Brothers, Big Sisters of Delaware, Inc. (Councilman Boggerty and Anya Lindsey-Jenkins, Chief Executive Officer) Councilman Boggerty, Ms. Anya Lindsey-Jenkins, Chief Executive Officer, and Dr. Vilicia Cade, Treasurer, reviewed the presentation entitled “Big Brothers, Big Sisters of Delaware, Inc”. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Lindsey-Jenkins stated that they planned to continue to work with the Capital School District and plan to have their own vehicle for transportation to ensure that young individuals could get home safely in the evenings. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Dr. Cade stated that the board has had no discussions regarding securing bonds for financing at the moment. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Lindsey-Jenkins stated that much of their funding progress has come through grassroots efforts, including collaboration with senators, community members, and direct community outreach to share their vision and build public support. She added that they were open to additional funding opportunities and external consideration moving forward. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Lindsey-Jenkins clarified that they serve children from eight to eighteen years old, and although that is a wide range, they never mix the age groups. She mentioned that the specific media hub would focus on the older teens (Attachment #2). Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Lindsey-Jenkins stated that their organization has maintained a consistent high school program for the past five years, primarily serving older students. She noted that mentoring older youth can be more challenging, so the program has emphasized group mentoring, workforce readiness, and career preparation. She highlighted the success of their Beyond School Walls Page 13

Item #2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2026 PAGE 8 program, which has been operating at Howard High School. Over the last four years, the program has supported long-term student engagement, and seventeen youth graduated to college last year, marking the first full year that they completed four years in the program. She shared that their goal was to expand Beyond School Walls to Dover, describing it as their most successful program to date. The initiative focused on group mentoring, workforce readiness, and career training, and included plans to establish a safe community hub where mentors and youth could connect and feel supported. Network Connect Presentation (Councilman Boggerty and Cierra Hall- Hipkins, Executive Director) Councilman Boggerty, Ms. Cierra Hall-Hipkins, Executive Director, and Mr. Nathan McAllister, Program Development Manager, reviewed the Network Connect Presentation. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Hall-Hipkins stated that there is continued participation in the Special Olympics. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Hall-Hipkins stated that their organization has modeled a program after the Special Olympics and operated a race camp in Wilmington that serves young people impacted by trauma. She noted that the camp was free of charge, with funding secured through external sponsors. She shared that the program served 50 youth last summer, and the previous summer included participation from the entire Red Clay Consolidated School District. The camp focuses on teaching athletics, mental health recovery tools (not limited to substance use), and academics. She also highlighted monthly parent engagement activities and race days, where youth would compete alongside their parents. Ms. Cierra Hall-Hipkins and Mr. Nathan McAllister provided the committee with the Network Connect 2024 Annual Report (Attachment #3). Council Reports – December 2025 First District Dr. Pillsbury reported that she had participated in the Christmas activities in December and that she was limited in getting around because of her inability to drive, but noted that she would come to anything that could be arranged. Mr. Rocha reported that with the holidays and venturing out for Christmas activities, he did not have anything to report on. Second District Ms. Hall reported that she participated in the Legislative Summit with Spotlight Delaware to discuss items that the state government needed to understand about what their particular needs were locally, as compared to other parts of the state. She noted that the following day, she was able to participate with the Women’s Page 14

Item #2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2026 PAGE 9 Legislative Caucus at Legislative Hall to speak on issues pertaining to homeless women in the local area and plans to address those concerns. She also added that she had several constituents reach out, and she provided answers to those emails. Mr. Lewis reported that he had nothing significant to report in the Second District with the holidays, but he was following up on some complaints from constituents regarding code enforcement matters in the Stoney Creek development and crime issues over on Orchard Avenue and Stoney Creek. Third District Ms. Arndt reported that, similar to her colleagues, it was fairly quiet in the Third District. She attended holiday events and public events, including the Delmarva Blood Bank and an event for the Dover Volunteer Fire Department. Fourth District Mr. Anderson reported that he attended the Dover Volunteer Fire Department event and noted that several individuals who have saved lives should be recognized, adding that they deserve broader public recognition. He also attended various Christmas events, including one hosted by the Inner City Cultural League. He highlighted the upcoming Economic Breakfast with the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce being held on January 14th and the upcoming Annual Chili Cook- Off to benefit youth and after-school programs at People’s Community Center. He noted that there were various constituent meetings to help individuals connect in different ways to get the necessary help with shelter and other items. He expressed gratitude toward the staff for the replacement of the safety fence at Silver Lake Boulevard and stated that residents were pleased with the replacement. He also expressed appreciation to Senator Paradee for assistance with the community transportation funding, as well as to the Public Works Department for completing urgent downtown water and wastewater utility replacements. Dr. Sudler reported receiving multiple calls regarding sewer line infrastructure issues in the Lincoln Park area near Circle Road, noting that Ms. Barry and approximately five to six other property owners had incurred high costs due to a discrepancy between the city's and private sewer line responsibilities. He is gathering information to share with the Public Works Department to explore possible accommodations and prevent future issues. He also reported concerns about concrete and asphalt crushing within the city, which he forwarded to the Code Enforcement Department. He relayed community inquiries about the status of the Civic Arena project to City Council and the City Clerk’s Office. Additionally, he noted his ongoing work with Peer-to-Peer Recovery and Treatment organizations, community cleanup efforts in Downtown Dover, and coordination with the State’s Public Safety Mobile Unit and the Mayor’s Opioid Task Force on outreach initiatives. Page 15

Item #2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2026 PAGE 10 At-Large Mr. Boggerty reported that he had spent December and the latter part of November touching base with grassroots organizations, such as the presentations that were presented, and he met with constituents regarding the pedestrian safety ordinance and some concepts to consider moving forward, and how to address that, and over the holidays, assisted constituents with places to stay and with giving food. Council President Neil Council President Neil reported that he attended Wreaths Across America at Bally’s Dover Casino Resort in December and Tracy Harvey’s retirement party in January. He served as a panelist on the Construction and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals with Chairman Boggerty and Mr. Rocha. He noted receiving and responding to multiple emails opposing the traffic safety ordinance, engaged with a group proposing the Civic Ice Arena at Schutte Park, and informed Dover Motor Speedway officials that the Dover Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) denied a traffic study for the Leipsic Road corridor due to rapid apartment development. He also shared that he provided a tribute to the late former Council President William Hare for the Delaware State News, with the article written by Mike Finney, and noted that funeral arrangements were pending, with a ceremony expected in the spring. PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee met with Chairwoman Arndt presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Rocha moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury, and unanimously carried. Review of Revised Active Recreation Plan – The Enclave Apartments: Revised Walker Road Apartments (Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner) (Property of 6.08 acres +/- located on the north side of Walker Road and west of Independence Boulevard, as owned by Dover Synergy Group, LLC. Planning Reference: Site Plan S-26-03) Ms. Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the review of Revised Active Recreation Plan – The Enclave Apartments: Revised Walker Road Apartments. Staff recommended approval of the Active Recreation Plan with the provided comments and conditions. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the original plan was submitted a few years prior, and the overall layout was slightly smaller with a similar number of units. She noted that the site was partially wooded, requiring Page 16

Item #2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2026 PAGE 11 careful consideration of tree clearing, and explained that the decision reflected a balancing act and a shift in a different direction. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the project is scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on January 20th and that no written correspondence had been received to date. She explained that public notice requirements include a site posting, a legal advertisement in the local newspaper, and mailed notices to property owners within 200 feet. She added that the applicant has completed the required notices and that any objections would be addressed during the January 20th public hearing. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the applicant was responsible for mailing the notice and providing proof of mailing, noting that certified mail was not required, though some applicants chose to use it. She added that they have to prove to them that the notice was mailed to the mailing list of adjacent property owners that the city provided to them based on the current tax records. Mr. Neil moved to accept staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Ms. Arndt moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and carried by a unanimous roll call vote Ms. Arndt moved for adjournment of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Chairman Anderson presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Neil requested that Item #1, Review of The People’s Community Center Economic Development Fund Application, be removed from the agenda. Ms. Arndt moved for adoption of the agenda as amended, seconded by Dr. Sudler, and unanimously carried. Review of Donny Legans Economic Development Fund Application (Councilwoman Arndt, and David S. Hugg, III, City Manager) Councilwoman Arndt, Mr. David S. Hugg, III, City Manager, and Mr. Donny Legans reviewed the proposed Economic Development Fund Application. Page 17

Item #2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2026 PAGE 12 Staff recommended approval of the grant by the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee in the amount of $50,000. Mr. Lewis stated that he voted against the introduced economic development application because he believed the funds derived from the sale of city-owned properties should be distributed by the public rather than by the council. He expressed concerns about the creation of the Economic Development Fund but emphasized that his vote was not personal, commending Mr. Legans for the longevity and success of his business in the City of Dover. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Legans clarified that the HVAC upgrades were not for the main building but for a smaller structure that was originally a shipping container converted into a bar and currently lacks an HVAC system. He explained that the container’s interior temperature mirrors outside conditions and that installing a simple mini-split system would allow the space to be used for additional events. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Legans stated that he would be interested in providing transportation and noted that the Capital Improvement Plan includes a potential opportunity for micro-transportation. Mr. Boggerty stated that Mr. Legans has been a positive influence on the city, noting that economic growth often depends on places where people can gather after work, which Mr. Legans has provided. He added that Mr. Legans employs residents, including those seeking second-chance employment, and has succeeded in a challenging business environment. He emphasized that this aligns with the city’s economic development and reinvestment goals to help change the city’s narrative and highlighted the many positive places within the community. Ms. Bonnie Pettington, a Dover resident, stated that she lives across the street from the Rail Haus and initially had concerns about patrons parking in the alley near her home. She noted that this is no longer an issue, crediting Mr. Legans for improvements in the area and for bringing the community together. She encouraged council to allow Mr. Legans to enhance the property, stating that it would benefit the community and attract more people to the city. Mr. Cameron Llewellyn, 117 West Reed Street, stated that his business performed much of the construction work for Rail Haus. He explained that installing sod over only a few inches of topsoil caused drainage issues, with water pooling on the surface, leaving the area functioning more like a parking lot than grass. He noted that the proposed engineered grasses would allow for proper grading and improved drainage. He also stated that installing air conditioning would make the converted shipping container usable again. Mr. Rocha stated that installing grass would enhance the area, noting that it was a high-traffic location where seasonal improvements would support outdoor Page 18

Item #2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2026 PAGE 13 activities throughout the year. He expressed his full support for the proposal presented. Dr. Sudler stated that Mr. Legans is doing an excellent job, particularly in the Fourth District, and served as a strong model for other businesses. He expressed appreciation for Mr. Legans’ investment in the City of Dover and his commitment to serving the community. Mr. Rocha stated that as downtown development progresses, particularly along Loockerman Street by 2030 or when completed, there would be a clear connection between the beer garden and Loockerman Street. He noted that the development would extend toward Mr. Legans’ location and be supported by increased foot traffic, as the site was part of the downtown district. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Mr. Legans stated that the project could be completed during the winter and estimated it would take about ten days to remove the old surface, level the area, install nail boards, and deliver materials. He noted they were exploring using the DE Turf Sports Complex to reduce costs and inquired about available old turf, as Fifer’s Farm had done with their area, but was informed by Ms. Linda Parkowski that all the old turf had been used. He acknowledged that while using old turf could save some money, the project would likely require purchasing new turf, which was already accounted for in the budget. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Mr. Legans stated that he did not seek a loan from a bank or credit union. He noted that in 2025, they made a significant investment in a tent for the ceiling to protect the area from weather elements, such as rain, since they did not have sufficient funds for the grounds. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Mr. Legans clarified that their capital funds were sufficient and that they were using operational funds to do additional work. He explained that those funds would be coordinated with their current bank account to ensure the project’s completion, and any overages would be covered. Mr. Rocha moved to accept staff recommendations for the approval of the grant by the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee in the amount of $50,000. The motion was seconded by Dr. Pillsbury. Mr. Anderson stated that he supported the application based on its significant community impact. He explained that while economic development funds were not available for every business, this fund was created with community impact as a key criterion, which the for-profit business clearly met. He noted that the business has positively supported nonprofits, helped other businesses get started, and served as an economic incubator. He emphasized that the Economic Development Fund was established to reinvest proceeds from the sale of city-owned properties, particularly in Garrison Oak, back into economic development, job creation, workforce Page 19

Item #2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2026 PAGE 14 development, and community improvement, rather than absorbing the funds into the general budget and losing their long-term impact. Mr. Lewis stated that he would abstain from voting rather than vote no. He explained that his concern was that the funds could be diverted into the general fund and potentially used to cover a budget deficit instead of raising taxes. He added that he would take the same approach with any future applications seeking Economic Development Fund support and noted that, given the current budget, the city could face a deficit. Mr. Rocha moved to accept staff recommendations for the approval of the grant by the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee in the amount of $50,000. The motion was seconded by Dr. Pillsbury, carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes (Hall, Boggerty, Pillsbury, Arndt, Rocha, Neil, Shevock, Anderson), two (2) abstentions (Lewis and Garfinkel), and one (1) absent (Sudler). By consent agenda, Ms. Arndt moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and carried by a unanimous roll call vote Evaluation of Bids – Silver Lake Dam Repairs (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 the Silver Lake Dam Repairs. Staff recommended awarding the contract to Mar-Allen Concrete Products, Inc, for the Silver Lake Dam Repairs, request for quote #26-0009WW, for the amount of $128,282.64. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that the bidders explained that price increases were due to rising equipment costs. He noted this occurred with many projects and added that there were only two bidders, as finding additional companies capable of this type of work in the area was difficult, giving the bidders limited competition. Mr. Lyon explained that the funds being used came from savings in the streets program, which could have been returned to the general fund, but were recommended by his team to be applied toward the necessary repairs. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that he did not attempt to apply for assistance through any agencies. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that he would look into the other agencies, such as the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), that were responsible for dam safety repairs. Mr. Lewis stated that agencies such as the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) and the Federal Emergency Page 20

Item #2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2026 PAGE 15 Management Agency (FEMA) administer a national dam safety program and provide grants and technical assistance to support dam repairs at the state and local levels. He added that he would not support the bid, suggesting that Mr. Lyon could seek funding through those grant programs. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that he had not researched that type of assistance but appreciated the information being brought to his attention. He noted that other federal grants they have received typically took two to three years to be awarded. While he was willing to look into the grant options, he emphasized that the repairs should be completed promptly. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon explained that the Silver Lake dam undergoes an annual inspection by a professional engineer, who rated the urgency of repairs based on potential impact, and noted that those particular repairs did not require immediate action. Mr. Rocha appreciated Mr. Lewis for identifying the grant opportunity and noted that the repairs were part of ongoing maintenance that would benefit the city. He acknowledged that the work needed to be done and made a motion to accept the staff recommendation, emphasizing that delaying could result in higher costs, and recommended awarding the contract to Mar-Allen Concrete Products for the Silver Lake Dam repairs. Mr. Rocha moved to accept the staff recommendation to award the contract to Mar- Allen Concrete Products, Inc. for the services and repairs for the Silver Lake dam. The motion was seconded by Dr. Pillsbury. Responding to Mr. Bobby Wilson, Mr. Lyon stated that he had not reached out to DC Water. Responding to Mr. Wilson, Mr. Lyon stated that they coordinated with the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) for the dam inspection program. He noted that a state inspector, who reviewed all dams in Delaware, recommended using the State Office of Supplier Diversity to identify companies qualified to perform the necessary repairs. Mr. Wilson suggested reaching out to other municipalities that have experience with similar projects, as this could help identify additional qualified bidders. Mr. Rocha moved to accept the staff recommendation to award the contract to Mar-Allen Concrete Products, Inc. for the services and repairs for the Silver Lake dam. The motion was seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and carried by a roll call vote of nine (9) yes (Hall, Boggerty, Pillsbury, Arndt, Rocha, Neil, Shevock, Garfinkel, Anderson), one (1) no (Lewis), and one absent (Sudler). Page 21

Item #2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2026 PAGE 16 By consent agenda, Ms. Arndt moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and carried by a unanimous roll call vote Street and Alley Rating Overview (Jason Lyon, Director of Water and Wastewater) Mr. Jason Lyon, Director of Water and Wastewater, reviewed the proposal for the Street and Alley Rating Overview. This item was informational, and committee action was not required. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Mr. Lyon stated that in 2017, when the system was first installed, a quality control audit (QA/QC) was performed. He noted that roads could deteriorate or change at different rates, so if a road was last evaluated in 2017, conditions might have changed since then, or the road might degrade differently than neighboring streets. That made the ongoing quality control audit (QA/QC) challenging. However, at the time of installation, the system was evaluated as the individual conducted his assessments. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Mr. Lyon clarified that after the installation and evaluation of the system in 2017, they did not have an additional audit. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Mr. Lyon stated that the next audit would be in 2027. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Mr. Lyon clarified that the roads are scheduled to be reevaluated in 2027. He respectfully disagreed with him, noting that after driving the roads, he observed that Bicentennial Village had significantly more transverse cracking compared to Freedom Street and Liberty Street. He explained that cul-de- sacs experience less wear because they do not have the same through traffic as regular roads. He added that the road had longitudinal cracking but overall less damage than other roads. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Lyon stated that the snow removal process was consistent on all streets. He explained that the main concern was not the snow removal itself, but the effects of the freeze-thaw cycle during snowfall, which could worsen cracking in the roads. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Lyon noted that he did not want to speak on behalf of the snow removal team, but stated that an internal conversation about the issue could certainly take place. Proposed Ordinance #2025-14 – Amending Chapter 22 – Buildings and Building Regulations, Article I – In General, by adding Sec. 22-66 – Lemon Housing Protection (Council President Neil and Councilman Rocha) Council President Neil and Mr. Rocha reviewed the background and analysis of the Proposed Ordinance #2025-14 – Amending Chapter 22 – Buildings and Building Page 22

Item #2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2026 PAGE 17 Regulations, Article I – In General, by adding Sec. 22-66 – Lemon Housing Protection. Staff recommended forwarding Proposed Ordinance #2025-14 to council for approval. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Mr. Rocha stated that buyers are generally informed about inspections, though he was unsure whether the practice was specific to Delaware State Housing Authority (DSHA) or applied more broadly. In Ms. Butcher’s case, he noted that the realtor ordered a walkthrough inspection, possibly assuming she could not afford a more comprehensive option. He explained that the proposed ordinance would ensure potential buyers were informed of the different types of inspections available and allowed to choose based on cost. Even if a buyer could only afford a walkthrough inspection, they would at least be aware of the type of inspection they were selecting, rather than discovering it at closing after purchasing the home. He emphasized that the information would be especially beneficial for first-time homebuyers, and that the proposed ordinance would provide that transparency. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Mr. Neil stated that Ms. Butcher’s situation involved a cover-up by a house flipper. He explained that disclosure requirements differ because homeowners who have lived in a house must disclose known problems, whereas a flipper who has not lived in the home could claim they were unaware of any issues. As a result, problems could be concealed, such as termite damage or other defects. He noted that Federal Housing Administration (FHA) inspections only required certain items for approval, which allowed issues to be hidden; for example, a hole in the roof may be patched and disclosed as patched, but not necessarily repaired. In Ms. Butcher’s case, she stated that there was water damage that had been covered with a rug. He added that if all existing problems had been properly disclosed and reviewed, Ms. Butcher would not have been required to sign off on the purchase. Going forward, he stated that buyers would be required to sign off on all disclosed issues so no one could later claim the buyer was unaware and responsible for the problems. He emphasized that this had nothing to do with Delaware State Housing Authority (DSHA) versus the open market, as the law applied to everyone. However, he noted that it disproportionately affected individuals with limited financial resources, particularly those who relied on Delaware State Housing Authority (DSHA) loans because they could not afford the down payments required in the open market. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Neil clarified that there was no difference in standards, as all existing real estate industry documents and requirements were incorporated into the process. If those requirements changed, they would automatically be built into the proposed ordinance, including disclosure requirements. He explained that when an individual has never lived in a home, such as a flipper, they may state they were unaware of plumbing or electrical issues if those problems were not identified during inspection or appraisal. He noted that Page 23

Item #2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2026 PAGE 18 appraisal reports stated that certain deficiencies must be corrected, and if they were not, the buyer should not receive the loan. He explained that the purpose of the measure was to take the appraisal report and require the buyer to acknowledge which issues they accepted or understood before purchasing the home, including situations where the buyer believed they could address the repairs themselves. That ensured buyers fully understood what they were getting into at the time of purchase, since there was no recourse after closing. He emphasized that the proposed ordinance acted as a preventative safeguard by providing buyers with as much information as possible. He added that the ordinance incorporated all current real estate industry requirements into law, and if those requirements changed in the future, the ordinance would automatically reflect those changes to maintain the same protections for buyers. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Neil stated that the document required under the ordinance was the same document presented at closing, but it would require the buyer to review it line by line and check off each item to confirm full awareness of its contents. He noted that the ordinance included a penalty provision stating that if an individual failed to comply with the ordinance, they would no longer be permitted to do business in the City of Dover. Mr. Faust stated that when he purchased his home in 2002, he had a walkthrough inspection performed by a highly recommended inspector. He explained that the inspection covered only items that were visible and accessible, not concealed issues. As an example, the inspector reported that the insulation was in good condition, but a cracked heater block was later discovered, which the homeowner had to replace. He noted that he was not informed that there was no insulation in the house and was told that if problems were concealed and not visible during the inspection, the buyer had no recourse. He added that even if the law had changed since 2002, when issues are concealed and not identified by the inspector, there was nothing the buyer could do. Ms. Arndt stated that she was not understanding the issue well enough to make an informed decision, so she would be abstaining from the vote. Mr. Neil moved to recommend the adoption of Proposed Ordinance #2025-14. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and carried with two (2) abstentions (Arndt and Pillsbury), and two (2) absent (Sudler and Lewis). By consent agenda, Ms. Arndt moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and carried by a unanimous roll call vote Mr. Anderson moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 8:51 p.m. Page 24

Item #2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2026 PAGE 19 Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 8:51 p.m. By consent agenda, Ms. Arndt moved for acceptance of the Council Committee of the Whole Report, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Quarterly Revenue Report as of December 31, 2025 Members were provided the Quarterly Revenue Report as of December 31, 2025. By consent agenda, Ms. Arndt moved for acceptance of the Quarterly Revenue Report as of December 31, 2025, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Quarterly Review – Capital Investment Plan (CIP) (October, November, December) Members were provided the Quarterly Report of the Capital Investment Plan as of December 31, 2025. By consent agenda, Ms. Arndt moved for acceptance of the Quarterly Report of the Capital Investment Plan as of December 31, 2025, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. CONFIRMATION OF POLICE PENSION ELECTION By consent agenda, Ms. Arndt moved for acceptance of the Confirmation of the Police Pension Election, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Confirmation of Police Pension Election – Retired Lieutenant Timothy Mullaney, Sr. – Three (3) Year term to Expire January 31, 2029. DISSOLUTION OF THE DOVER PARKING AUTHORITY Mr. Dan Griffith, City Solicitor, briefed the members of council on the Dissolution of the Dover Parking Authority. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Griffith explained that in 1954, the Dover Parking Authority was incorporated, and according to its language, it was to operate and maintain all street and public parking facilities in Downtown Dover. The Dover Parking Authority remained in that capacity from 1954 through 2008, and according to the timeline that was in with the materials in 2008, when the Downtown Dover Partnership was created. He noted that there were some entities that were folded into the Downtown Dover Partnership, and that Dover Parking Authority was one (1) of them. He also explained that because the role of the Downtown Dover Partnership was more than just overseeing the parking facilities, the Dover Parking Authority was supposedly dissolved at that time. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Griffith stated that, to his understanding, the Dover Parking Authority essentially maintained, operated, and oversaw the parking facilities, employed personnel who would issue parking passes, parking cards, and collect fees for that purpose. Page 25

Item #2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2026 PAGE 20 Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mayor Christiansen stated that the Dover Parking Authority originally managed the parking lot and managed all the metered parking downtown. He noted that two (2) technicians went around and collected the money out of the meters, as well as enforced fire lanes, handicap parking, and the parking near the fire hydrants, etc. That had disappeared when it was folded into the Downtown Dover Partnership, which was a precursor to the Downtown Development Authority. He added that the Main Street Program, the Parking Authority, and Main Street all combined into the Downtown Dover Partnership. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mayor Christiansen clarified that when the Dover Parking Authority moved into the Downtown Dover Partnership, all those entities went together. Dr. Sudler moved for approval of the Staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Rocha and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. FIRST READING REFERRAL – REZONING REQUEST FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1600 NORTH LITTLE CREEK ROAD AND AN ADJACENT PARCEL AT 0.509 AC NORTH LITTLE CREEK ROAD – FIRST READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2026-07 Council President Neil reminded the public that copies of the proposed ordinance were available on the City's website at www.cityofdover.gov under "Government," or by contacting the City Clerk's Office at 302-736-7008 or cityclerk@dover.de.us. Staff recommended referral to the Planning Commission for a public hearing on February 17, 2026, and that a Public Hearing before City Council be set for March 9, 2026, at 6:30 p.m., at which time the Final Reading and Council action will take place. Ms. Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner, reviewed the Proposed Ordinance #2026-07 – Rezoning Request for property located at 1600 North Little Creek Road and an adjacent parcel at 0.509 AC North Little Creek Road. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the uses in the Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone (IPM) do not incorporate any airport-type uses. She explained that there was an Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone Three (IPM-3) that would allow for airport-related functions. The Airport Environment Overlay Zone (AEOZ) was a zoning classification related to flight activities at the Dover Air Force Base and that included areas of accident potential zones and noise zones. She noted that there were some land use compatibility tests for properties that fall into those areas, but for the specific use of developing any kind of airport facility, the IPM Zone would be the appropriate one (1) based on their current zoning. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Melson-Williams clarified that there was an IPM-3 Zone and that they currently do not have any property zoned, and that it was developed several years ago in anticipation of rezoning areas at the Horsepond Road area to the north of the base, where they find Kent County AeroPark and the adjacent Civil Air Terminal. That zoning classification of IPM-3 has uses that were related to airport functions, most clearly in their code. Page 26

Item #2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2026 PAGE 21 Ms. Arndt moved to refer the request to the Planning Commission for a public hearing on February 17, 2026, and to set a public hearing before City Council on March 9, 2026, at 6:30 p.m. The motion was seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and unanimously carried. In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of the proposed Ordinance #2026-07 as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows: ORDINANCE #2026-07 – AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1600 NORTH LITTLE CREEK ROAD AND AN ADJACENT PARCEL AT 0.509 AC NORTH LITTLE CREEK ROAD. FINAL READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2025-21 – AMENDING CHAPTER 106 – TRAFFIC AND VEHICLES, ARTICLE I – IN GENERAL, BY ADDING SEC. 106-18 – STRICTLY ENFORCED (COUNCILMAN ANDERSON, CHIEF JOHNSON) The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance #2025-21 was accomplished during the Council Meeting of December 8, 2025. The ordinances are available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or on the City’s website at www.cityofdover.gov under “Government.” Dr. Sudler moved that the Final Reading of the proposed ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and unanimously carried. Councilman David Anderson reviewed the Proposed Ordinance #2025-21 – Amending Chapter 106 – Traffic and Vehicles, Article I – In General, By Adding Sec. 106-18 – Strictly Enforced. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Anderson stated that the proposed ordinance improved public safety on several levels. He explained that it created a status offense related to individuals approaching vehicles, including walking into roadways, knocking on vehicle windows, or otherwise engaging drivers, which he described as a safety hazard that needed to be addressed. He further stated that the ordinance also addressed obstructions in medians. He noted that Delaware considered medians to be sensitive areas where certain activities, such as placing political signs, were restricted due to safety concerns. The proposed ordinance specifically targeted narrow medians where limited space created a risk of injury for individuals attempting to cross while medians were occupied. He stated that the ordinance was tailored to address those specific safety concerns and noted that similar ordinances have been upheld in multiple court cases and adopted in numerous jurisdictions across the country. He stated that the model had been tested nationally and that he had spoken with officials in jurisdictions where similar ordinances have been implemented, who reported positive outcomes. He concluded that the ordinance would reduce driver distraction, improve pedestrian safety, and address multiple safety concerns through a comprehensive approach rather than focusing on a single issue. Dr. Sudler stated that he was in agreement with the conceptual model of needing safety regarding the medians. He noted that he had a difference of opinion. He expressed concerns about the recent modifications or amendments. He mentioned that it would be a good idea to send back to the committee, in conjunction with additional dialogue, what the constituents have been asking from Page 27

Item #2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2026 PAGE 22 the Attorney General’s Office regarding some clarity needed. He also added that formally having the Council President and/or Mr. Anderson as the sponsor of the ordinance has the Attorney General’s Office come out and answer questions that the community has, in conjunction with allowing them to review the recent modifications. He stated that the ordinance needed to go back to the committee for approval and their input on the recent changes. He noted that the changes were good, and he expressed appreciation for making the changes, but he was at the point where he would not be able to support the ordinance. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Anderson stated that whether he wanted to delay the ordinance or not, it was a matter for him to know the body to decide, or when it comes to the amendments, they were not changing the substance of it. He does not believe that the ordinance needed to be referred back to the committee, but if he wanted more time to digest the information, if the five (5) members wanted that, he would not be hurt by that. He explained that when it came to the Attorney General, that had never been done before, and that the Attorney General does not weigh in on city ordinances, because there were two (2) doctrines involved. First was the doctrine of the home rule and if they look at state law, it gave the cities a certain amount of a certain level of authority over certain areas. He noted that it has nothing to do with the Attorney General. To go here would be compromising their view of home rule, and anymore, and that was something that he would be cautious about doing, and that was why they have their own legal counsel. He cited Article Two, Section 18 of the Charter of the City of Dover, which was state law: “The council is hereby vested with the authority to adopt ordinances of every kind relating to any subject coming within the powers and functions of the city, or relating to the government of the city, its peace and order, its sanitation, appearance and beauty, the health, safety, convenience and comfort of its population, and the protection and preservation of property, to include regulation of rental properties, safe communities, and land rentals, and to fix and impose and enforce the payment of, fines and penalties for the violation of any such ordinance; such penalties will be provided by the Dover Code of Ordinances and no provision in this Charter as to ordinances on any particular subject shall be deemed or held to be restrictive of the power to adopt ordinances on any subject not specifically enumerated.” Mr. Anderson stated that if they look at the ordinances and the bodies of the ordinances, what was being proposed fits exactly within them because it has to do with when it comes to the city powers, and that the city powers were in maximal negligence. After all, it has to do with the city street, the population of the city of safety, and has to do with public order. Basically, the city authority was at its height when it was dealing with public streets in the public realm and dealing with safety issues. He stated that the Attorney General would not particularly come in and make public comments and that it would be inappropriate because that would violate the second area of doctrine, which was the separation of powers. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Bennett clarified that the Proposed Ordinance #2025-21 was displayed on the screen, but the amendments were not in the packet. Mr. Rocha concurred with Dr. Sudler that the proposed ordinance needed to go back to the committee. He noted that he did not have a chance to review the amendments, and the public Page 28

Item #2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2026 PAGE 23 should be aware of the amendments as well. He added that since there were amendments, regardless of just for transparency, they needed to take another review of the proposed ordinance. Dr. Sudler stated that he recognized and acknowledged that there was a distinction in the charter, and although the Attorney General’s Office does not have any legal standing in how they govern their municipalities, he believed that it was best practice to partner with the state and with the county on different issues that affect Dover. He believed that it would allow them to display that they were adhering to not only individuals on council who have concerns for clarity of what could be enforced now and what was not, but also the constituents whom they represent and serve at their will. Mr. Boggerty concurred with Dr. Sudler and Mr. Rocha that even minor matters require full information to properly support or oppose them. He questioned the prior argument regarding separation, clarifying that he was challenging the reasoning rather than the individual. He noted a limited connection in the argument and requested input from the City Solicitor. He referenced reviewing the issue using AI tools and discussed concepts of span of control and area of responsibility. He argued that the severability clause and the potential for future state action, similar to the Daughterling Act, could override or repeal the local measure, which they felt conflicted with the original position. Mr. Griffith explained that there was the legal preemption doctrine, which meant that federal law preempts state law, state law preempts municipal law, so that although Dover was a home charter rule municipality, they were restricted from enacting any ordinance which was either contrary to state law or where the General Assembly has expressed its intention to occupy that entire field of in its own. He added that it was not out of bounds for the Attorney General’s Office to weigh in on an ordinance that a municipality was contemplating, but the likelihood of getting a deputy attorney general to show and express the state’s position would be unlikely. They could not subpoena a deputy attorney general to be there and ask them to voluntarily come and weigh in on the state’s position on the matter. Mr. Boggerty stated that they should let the state finish the work so that they could focus on other issues to move their city forward. He argued that this was not against homelessness, and that it was not coming from a point of sensitivity, but coming from a point of information and what they need to do to move their city with efficiency, effectiveness, and as harmoniously as possible. He noted that they do not have to embarrass individuals at their lowest moments because many of those individuals are one (1) paycheck away, one (1) mental health crisis away, and one (1) furlough away from being homeless. He emphasized that they need to stop embarrassing and humiliating individuals and stick to what they need to stick to, and make their city better. He suggested that he would supersede his colleagues if they were amenable to waiting for the state to make a decision. Mr. Neil stated that the City Council has compassion for individuals who were homeless or who panhandle, noting that panhandling was legal in Dover. He explained that some individuals who panhandle struggle with addiction or mental illness, while others have chosen panhandling as a way of life. He emphasized that while individuals have the right to panhandle, accidents involving panhandlers can result in serious injury or death, creating significant emotional, mental, and financial consequences for drivers. He referenced an article written by Ms. LaChelle Paul on Page 29

Item #2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2026 PAGE 24 January 21, 2026, regarding commentary on all state laws that were available, as well as his prior op-ed, “Wheels of Justice or Crushing Cities,” which discussed the lack of enforcement of existing laws. He stated that the City Clerk’s Office was asked to share Ms. Paul’s two (2) page article with Council members and noted that the document was available to the public upon request through the City Clerk’s Office. He cited Title 21, Section 4147 of the Delaware Code regarding soliciting on highways and stated that the statute was currently unenforceable, noting that in 202, the Delaware Attorney General directed law enforcement agencies to cease enforcement due to constitutional concerns, including free-speech issues. He reiterated that panhandling was legal in Dover. He stated that residents have expressed concerns through petitions and emails and indicated that documentation of those communications existed. He concluded that he would support the matter because saving lives was important, but emphasized that the issue was a statewide problem and should not place the full burden on the City of Dover and its residents. Dr. Sudler made a motion to have the City Solicitor contact the Attorney General’s Office to invite Ms. Kathy Jennings to appear before Council and provide feedback on Ordinance #2025-21, regardless of whether the ordinance passed or failed. He stated that they still owed it to their constituents and council members to gather additional information and knowledge, which would benefit both groups. He emphasized that knowledge was power and that one (1) can never have too much of it. Dr. Sudler made a motion to have the City Solicitor contact the Attorney General’s Office to invite Ms. Kathy Jennings to appear before council and provide feedback on Ordinance #2025-21, regardless of whether the ordinance passed or failed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Griffith stated that if council directed him to contact the Attorney General’s Office, he would do that. Mr. Rocha asked to have the motion read again for clarity. Dr. Sudler stated that the motion on the floor was that they have the City Solicitor contact the Attorney General’s Office, Ms. Kathy Jennings, to come before the city council and the constituents of Dover to give feedback on the Ordinance #2025-21 within 30 days. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Griffith suggested that it would be more appropriate to act on the ordinance before considering contacting Ms. Jennings and then doing that. He noted that they should move to postpone consideration of the ordinance first, and then once the ordinance has been postponed. Responding to Mr. Griffith, Dr. Sudler stated that he did mention in his motion whether or not the ordinance passed, he wanted to have the general information, and referenced Mr. Boggerty’s comment that the state legislature's general assembly says this was not going to be permissible, and then they could challenge it, so either way, they need to gain the knowledge. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Lewis suggested that he put in his motion that the ordinance be brought back to the committee to review the amendments. To his understanding, he stated that the Page 30

Item #2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2026 PAGE 25 ordinance should have gone back to the committee. He referenced Mr. Rocha’s comment that the ordinance should be sent back to the committee for review. Dr. Sudler amended his motion for further review due to the amendments and that the City Solicitor contact the Attorney General’s Office, Ms. Kathy Jennings, to come before council and address the constituents and council members concerns for clarity in what was enforceable and not enforceable. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis. Mr. Anderson stated that the question should be divided between the Attorney General and the referral to the Council Committee of the Whole and that he had no issue with council reviewing the amendment, noting that there had been no change in substance. However, he emphasized the need to clearly distinguish between the two (2), explaining that one (1) of the reasons for pursuing the ordinance stemmed from the October 28, 2025, meeting, when the Chief Deputy appeared before the Council Committee of the Whole. At that time, the Chief Deputy stated that if additional prosecutors were hired, they would not focus on enforcing minor offenses. As Mayor Hutchison stated, that was one (1) of the reasons the city needed to take matters into its own hands, as the Department of Justice was not addressing those types of issues. Regarding the state, he noted that preemption was always a possibility, as the state can preempt any city action at any time. However, he stated that if Majority Leader Townson was leaning toward the city’s position, preemption was unlikely, as he would not bring such a matter to the floor. Mr. Anderson made a motion to divide the question so that each part would be voted on separately: the Attorney General portion and the referral to the committee. The motion was seconded by Ms. Arndt. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Griffith clarified that dividing the question was not legally necessary to separate the issues. He stated that he believed his motion had been seconded, noting that Mr. Anderson commented after the motion was made. However, he did not believe it was appropriate for Mr. Anderson to make a second motion while his motion was still pending. Mr. Anderson called for a point of order. He stated that, upon reviewing the division of the question, such a motion is intended for circumstances in which a matter contains two (2) distinct portions. In those cases, any member may move to divide the question so that each portion would be voted on separately. He noted that not only was the motion made, but it was also seconded, although a second was not required to bring the division to a vote. Mr. Griffith stated that, while they agreed conceptually, procedurally, the motion as presented should be voted down. He explained that the reason for voting against it would be to allow the motion to be divided and considered separately. Responding to Mr. Griffith, Mr. Anderson asked that the division of the question be reviewed, stating that he believed it would show that a separate motion was not required. Dr. Sudler called for a point of order. He stated that only the Council President could instruct the City Solicitor to look something up and that the Council President should intervene and authorize such action. He emphasized that matters should be handled properly and not based on personal advantage when outcomes were not going in one’s favor. Page 31

Item #2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2026 PAGE 26 Mr. Griffith stated that Mr. Anderson was correct, noting that while a multi-part motion is pending, a motion may be made to divide it. Mr. Anderson raised a point of information, stating that now that a ruling had been made that the question was in process, the vote would be conducted in two (2) parts. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Griffith clarified that the vote would be conducted on two (2) parts for the motion, and that typically the mover would identify what each question entailed. Ms. Bennett, City Clerk, read back each question for clarification. She stated that the first part was to refer the matter back to the committee for further review. The second part was, regardless of whether the ordinance passed, to request that the City Solicitor contact the Attorney General’s Office and ask that the Attorney General attend a Regular Council Meeting regarding the ordinance to provide feedback within 30 days on whether it was enforceable or not enforceable. Ms. Arndt voted no because they have debated and discussed enough and felt that she had enough information to move forward. Dr. Sudler moved to refer Ordinance No. 2025-21 back to the committee for further review. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis, and carried with a roll call vote of six (6) yes (Hall, Boggerty, Pillsbury, Rocha, Sudler, and Lewis), two (2) no (Arndt and Neil), and one (1) abstention (Anderson). Dr. Sudler made a motion that, regardless of whether Ordinance No. 2025-21 passed, the City Solicitor be requested to contact the Attorney General’s Office and ask that the Attorney General attend a Regular Council Meeting regarding the ordinance to provide feedback within 30 days on whether it was enforceable or not enforceable. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis, and carried with a roll call vote of seven (7) yes (Hall, Boggerty, Pillsbury, Rocha, Sudler, Lewis, and Neil), two (2) no (Anderson and Arndt). Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Anderson stated that because Dr. Sudler’s motion had passed, his motion to amend the ordinance would return to committee along with the underlying ordinance for consideration. FINAL READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2025-25 – AMENDING APPENDIX F – FEES AND FINES, CHAPTER 46 – FIRE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance #2025-25 was accomplished during the Council Meeting of December 8, 2025. The ordinances are available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or on the City’s website at www.cityofdover.gov under “Government.” Dr. Sudler moved that the Final Reading of the proposed ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and unanimously carried. Mr. Jason Osika, Deputy Fire Marshal, reviewed the Proposed Ordinance #2025-25 – Amending Appendix F – Fees and Fines, Chapter 46 – Fire Prevention and Protection. Page 32

Item #2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2026 PAGE 27 By motion of Ms. Arndt, seconded by Ms. Hall, Council, by a unanimous roll vote, adopted Ordinance #2025-25 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 46 -Fire Prevention and Protection, be amended to read as follows: Chapter 46. Fire Prevention and Protection Chapter 46. Fire Prevention and Protection Fees and Fines Article I. In General Sec. 46-1. Means of egress Subsec. (f) Penalties Any exit access, exit, or exit discharge, with the exception of a $100.00 first offense locked exit door, found to be in violation of this section $200.00 second or subsequent offense Any required exit door found to be locked against egress $100.00 each locked exit first offense, $200.00 subsequent offense Sec. 46-3. Impairment of fire protection equipment Subsec. (f) Fines $100.00 per device, first offense; $200.00 per device, second and subsequent offenses Sec. 46-7. Preventable and malfunctioning alarms to the fire company Subsec. (a)(1) Responsibility for malfunctioning and preventable Should the person alarms, owner response, and corrective action; generally notified fail to appear at said premises within 30 minutes after being notified to do so, the city may charge the owner of the premises a fine of $100.00 Subsec. (a)(2) Responsibility for malfunctioning and preventable Failure to return alarms, owner response, and corrective action; malfunction documentation of service/repair within the period of time stated on the notice of violation, which is satisfactory to the fire Page 33

Item #2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2026 PAGE 28 marshal, will result in assessment against the owner of a fine of $100.00 for the fire alarm malfunction Subsec. (b)(1) Fine charges; multiple fire alarm malfunctions or preventable alarms; amount of fine Number of preventable or malfunctioning fire alarms Fine per preventable or malfunctioning fire alarm Third alarm $100.00 Fourth alarm $200.00 Fifth alarm $250.00 All over fifth alarm, each alarm $250.00 Subsec. (b)(2) Fine charges; multiple fire alarm malfunctions or A $50.00 fine may be preventable alarms; panel reset assessed to the owner of a premises where the fire alarm has been reset before the fire department or assisting fire department arrives. $100.00 for second and subsequent offenses Sec. 46-8. Maintaining a known violation or hazard Subsec. (c)(1) Penalties; Any fines issued for violation of this section Minor deficiency $500.00 Major deficiency $1,000.00 Article II. Fire Department Article III. Fire Codes Fees established in subsection (b) of this section shall be doubled in the event that a permit is applied for after construction has commenced without the permission of the fire marshal. The fire marshal shall waive the doubling of fees in cases where the permit applicant is not a professional contractor and the work is not being done by a professional contractor. Sec. 46-126. Fire prevention permit Subsec. (b) Fee; each applicant $25.00 for each $1,000.00 of costs or multiple thereof of the fire protection system; provided that a minimum fee for each permit shall be $150.00 Page 34

Item #2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2026 PAGE 29 Subsec. (c) Reinspection First reinspection No charge Second reinspection $100.00 Third reinspection $200.00 Any subsequent reinspection $250.00 Subsec. (d) Fire alarm system inspection fee Certificate of inspection $25.00 per fire alarm system Subsec. (e) Fire suppression system inspection fee Certificate of inspection $25.00 per fire suppression system Sec. 46-127 Smoke detection devices Subsec. (g) Violations; penalties Revocation of any existing license to do business in the city, or a fine of not more than $150.00 per violation, or both such penalties Article IV. Public Occupancies Sec. 46-164. Fees Assembly No charge for an occupant load less than 75; $100.00 for an occupant load of 75 or greater Assembly—Fixed Seating $100.00 for first 200 seats and $10.00 each additional 50 seats Educational $100.00 Day Care $50.00 for Day Cares as defined by Appendix B— Zoning, Article 5, Sections 14.22, 14.23 and 22.1; $100.00 for other day cares Health Care $100.00 first 25 rooms and $5.00 for each additional room Ambulatory Health Care $100.00 Residential $100.00 per building Residential Board and Care $100.00 Mercantile over 10,000 sq. ft. $100.00 Business over 10,000 sq. ft. $100.00 Page 35

Item #2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2026 PAGE 30 Industrial $100.00 Storage over 10,000 sq. ft. $100.00 Assembly special provisions 1 $25.00 Assembly special provisions 2 $100.00 Sec. 46-168. Reinspection fee Subsec. (a) Amount $25.00 for any repeated violation cited by the fire marshal, determined to be a violation and which requires a follow up inspection to confirm the correction of the violation Subsec. (b) Fee attached A fee may be attached to any summons written for any violation found to be uncorrected upon reinspection Article V. Fire Lanes Sec. 46-202. Violations; penalties Subsec. (c) Other obstructions Any property owner or tenant found to be in violation; $50.00 Subsec. (d) Failure to mark Any property owner found to be in violation; $50.00 Sec. 46-205. Responsibility of owner or tenant Any property owner found to be in violation; $50.00 ADOPTED: January 28, 2026 CITY MANAGER'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Hugg announced that the upcoming Council Workshop will be on Friday, January 30, 2026, located in the Council Chambers. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Hugg stated that the Council Workshop was open to the public. Dr. Sudler stated that he would be asking questions referring to where they could reappropriate, non-restricted funds to give their constituents some kind of relief with their utility user fees. MAYOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS Page 36

Item #2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2026 PAGE 31 Mayor Christiansen expressed his gratitude to the city crews for their dedicated service during the snowstorm over the past weekend. He also thanked residents for their patience and understanding as the city worked through challenging conditions, including responding to emergencies and continuing snow removal efforts. He announced that the St. Patrick’s Day Parade will take place on March 14, 2026, and emphasized the need for volunteers to help make the event a success. He encouraged anyone interested in volunteering to contact his office so they can be connected with the Irish Society of Delaware. COUNCIL MEMBERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Rocha expressed his gratitude to the staff who participated in snow removal efforts. Dr. Sudler echoed Mr. Rocha’s appreciation and shared the same sentiments toward the staff. Mr. Anderson announced that on February 3, 2026, the Teen Town Hall hosted by Culture Creator Cohort 11, located at 20 East Division Street between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. He also announced on February 7, 2026, Black History Month, located at the Sankofa Cultural Arts Center, starting at 12:00 p.m. He expressed gratitude towards the individuals of the city who have supported the pedestrian safety ordinance and noted that 90% of the individuals who had made contact were supportive of the ordinance. He appreciated those individuals for making an effort. Mr. Anderson announced that on February 3, 2026, the Teen Town Hall hosted by Culture Creator Cohort 11 will take place at 20 East Division Street from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. He also announced a Black History Month event scheduled for February 7, 2026, at the Sankofa Cultural Arts Center, beginning at 12:00 p.m. He expressed his gratitude to community members who supported the pedestrian safety ordinance, noting that approximately 90% of those who provided feedback were in favor of the measure. He thanked them for their efforts. Mr. Neil expressed gratitude towards the staff who have been phenomenal during the cold weather streak they were in. The meeting adjourned at 8:24 p.m. ANDRIA L. BENNETT CITY CLERK All ordinances, resolutions, motions, and orders adopted by the City Council during their Regular Meeting of January 28, 2026, are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR Page 37

Item #3. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Council Committee of the Whole met on February 10, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. with Council President Neil presiding. Members of Council present were Ms. Arndt (out at 8:01 p.m.), Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Hall (via Webex), Mr. Lewis (in at 6:08 p.m., out at 6:52 p.m., in 6:56 p.m., out 7:30 p.m., in 7:35 p.m., out 7:47 p.m., in 7:52 p.m.), Mr. Anderson, Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Rocha, and Dr. Sudler (in at 6:29 p.m.). Mayor Christiansen (in at 6:25 p.m.) was also present. Civilian members present at their committee meetings were Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Lewis (via Webex) (Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee), Mr. Iriowen (via Webex) (Utility), Mr. Garfinkel, and Mr. Shevock (Legislative, Finance, and Administration). Mr. Wilson (Utility) was absent. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Ms. Arndt moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and unanimously carried. Procurement/Bid Process Presentation (Mike Hamlett, Central Services Director) Mr. Mike Hamlett, Central Services Director, reviewed the presentation entitled “Procurement/Bid Process”. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hamlett explained that a previous meeting was not required because the project involved a very specific design prepared by the engineers for that purpose. Based on his understanding, no additional information was needed beyond what was submitted, which was typically when a prior meeting would be necessary. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hamlett stated that the Central Services Department reached out to several municipalities, including the City of Milford, Wilmington, Newark, and Middletown. None of the municipalities that they reached out to indicated that pre-bid meetings were required. The closest example found was based on the complexity of the project. He further stated that, as the purchasing office, Central Services did not currently have a requirement mandating pre-bid meetings. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hamlett stated that, from his perspective, procurement operations have been running smoothly since emerging from COVID. He noted that the primary challenge has come from City Council concerning issues related to the number of bids being received. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hamlett explained that sole-source procurement was becoming an increasing issue for the city. Some systems, such as those from Control, are standalone and proprietary, meaning only the original vendor can maintain or update them. Updates were required annually for continued access, and if they were not paid for, no one else could work on the system. To avoid vendor lock-in, the city’s specifications now discourage proprietary systems, though some proprietary systems, such as certain security systems, were still in use. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hamlett clarified that the three percent was applied to the vendors nationwide in the State of Delaware. Page 38

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2026 PAGE 2 Item #3. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Hamlett stated that if a vendor was verified as both a minority- owned and a local business, how the preference was applied depended on the RFP process. Each RFP included a set of specifications for the specific project that outlined how those preferences were handled. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Mr. Hamlett clarified that pre-bid meetings were held in person. He noted that while the city was not entirely opposed to virtual meetings, some meetings require on- site attendance to provide visibility of the project. Responding to Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Hamlett stated that he was unsure whether a sole-source procurement could always be issued as a bid. He noted that even for a sole-source situation, there might be ways to put it out for bid rather than bypassing the procurement process, which was why the city wanted further guidance. Council Reports – January 2026 First District Dr. Pillsbury reported that she had attended the Dover Fire Company’s Annual Dinner and attended the Council meetings. Mr. Rocha reported that he attended the Martin Luther King event at Delaware State University and noted that he took several calls regarding snow and ice. Second District Ms. Hall reported that she attended the Dover Fire Company’s Annual Dinner and took several calls regarding the snow and ice. Mr. Lewis had nothing to report. Third District Ms. Arndt reported that she attended the Neighborhood Partners Open House with Mr. Rocha and received several calls regarding the snow, ice, and utility billing. Fourth District Mr. Anderson reported that there was a concern at Woodcrest Apartments regarding a walkway that had not been cleared, likely city property, which needed to be investigated. Positive developments include the downtown foundation opening, activities at the Youth and Children’s Center at People’s Community Center, and town hall sessions with future cohorts who share concerns about substance abuse and other community issues. The city has the opportunity to participate in a national survey through the National League of Cities’ Military Communities Council, which can help shape policies, best practices, and access potential resources. Residents have expressed gratitude for city services, including the response to snowfall, and appreciation for employees working long shifts to maintain essential services. Dr. Sudler had nothing to report. Page 39

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2026 PAGE 3 Item #3. At-Large Mr. Boggerty reported that he had received several calls regarding snow issues and expressed gratitude for city services. He also reported that he attended the Martin Luther King celebration at Delaware State University (DSU) and other fraternity events. He participated in a mentoring program at Delaware State University (DSU) with 120 young men from Delaware, New Jersey, and New York. Council President Neil Mr. Neil reported that he met with Sheena Miller from the Housing Group to discuss affordable housing. He also attended the January library board meeting, a government center meeting on zoning and property damage concerns near People’s Church, the police budget meeting, appeals hearings, and a city budget workshop at the library with staff and council members. He participated in a thank-you pizza party for city staff who worked in the snow and cold. He responded to emails and calls regarding the traffic safety ordinance and snow removal, including inquiries from a media outlet. He expressed appreciation for city employees across public works, electric, and water departments, as well as citizens helping each other during the snow events. He noted handling concerns from residents regarding high electric and water bills, with assistance from staff such as Jason Lyon and Paul Wadell. PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee met with Chairwoman Arndt presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Rocha moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury, and unanimously carried. Review of Active Recreation Plan – Bay Pointe Apartments at 1100 Bay Road (Dawn Melson- Williams, Principal Planner) (Property of 3.302 acres +/- located on the southwest side of Bay Road at the intersection with Lafferty Lane, as owned by Patel Hospitality Properties, LLC. Reference: Conditional Use Site Plan: C-26-01) Ms. Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the review of the Active Recreation Plan – Bay Pointe Apartments at 1100 Bay Road. Staff recommended approval of the Active Recreation Plan, and subjected to the conditions outlined in the Active Recreation Review Report, with the comments provided and conditions. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams explained that no waiver was requested or approved for the Bay Pointe Apartments application regarding active recreation space. Unlike some applications where a waiver was needed due to site constraints, the project met the zoning requirements through an allowable exception. She stated that the property qualified under the small development exception, as the site was 3.3 acres (less than 10 acres) and had a high-density layout exceeding 16 units per acre. Under the provision, compact, dense developments may reduce the active recreation space requirement from the standard 275 square feet per dwelling unit to 150 square feet per dwelling unit, while still meeting the minimum total requirement of 10,000 square Page 40

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2026 PAGE 4 Item #3. feet. The applicant provided 13,390 square feet of active recreation area, which exceeded the minimum requirement. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Melson-Williams explained that the application went through the conditional use site plan review process with the Planning Commission back in May 2021, and that then gave them two years to achieve final plan approval, pull a permit, and commence construction. The project also received a one-year extension, so they had a period of three years to move to construction, during which they finalized their plan, had a permit to commence site work, but the site work did not continue. She added that they did install a part of a temporary entrance, but did not move beyond that. She noted that there was a permit for the construction of the building that was reviewed and ready to be issued, but was never issued. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Balascio stated that the delay in moving forward with the project was due to post-COVID lending interest rates, which previously made financing prohibitive. He noted that current interest rates no longer prevent the project from moving forward. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Balascio clarified that the project did not move forward previously due to financial constraints; however, those issues have since been resolved, and the project is now able to proceed. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that between the parking lot and the amenities, there is a row of parking, with a green space and sidewalk providing separation. She further noted that along the Lafferty Lane frontage of the property, proposed landscaping, including tree plantings, will be installed to serve as a buffer between the active recreation areas and the roadway. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the MPO does participate in the review process of site plans. She noted that the location had a 30-foot landscape buffer between the property line and leading into the site, so there was some spacing of the amenities off the roadway. She also added that between the travel lanes and the property, there was green space and a multi- use path along the front edge instead of a sidewalk in that area. She mentioned that there was some distance between what was being developed on the project site in the roadway. She noted that the intersection for the apartment, the entrance, was aligned at the intersection that was the signalized intersection for Lafferty Lane, so the entrance to the development for the apartment building would be the fourth leg of that intersection. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the project regarding any kind of traffic studies was on a key roadway. She noted that DelDOT was the one that would require any such studies based on traffic generation. She added that some of that information was needed, and was provided with the engineer, and getting their entrance plan designed and approved, hence getting the dedicated right turn lane that would be added at the front entrance. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that part of the study that she believed he was referring to was the high traffic injury network, some of which was related to the lack of pedestrian amenities in the form of pathways or sidewalks. She noted that the project was implementing the multi-use path along their frontage as they were required, and how that Page 41

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2026 PAGE 5 Item #3. interconnected with the broader system was not just the issue of that project alone. She added that the area has been studied by the MPO related to the pedestrian access, and probably at the state level, if funds became available or as properties redeveloped, they would see a stronger network that placed those pedestrians in safer locations to be moving through that courtroom. Mr. Anderson moved to accept staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sudler and unanimously carried. Ms. Arndt moved for adjournment of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee meeting; hearing no objection, the meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee met with Chairman Rocha presiding. Adoption of Agenda Ms. Hall moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury, and unanimously carried. Annexation Request – 7 Nixon Lane, Owned by Lupe N. Fuller (Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner) Ms. Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the consideration of the utility service lands of Lupe N. Fuller, 7 Nixon Lane. Staff recommended, upon consideration of utility services, that if it is found that electric, water, and sanitary sewer services are provided and/or available to the property at 7 Nixon Lane. The Electric Department and the Department of Water and Wastewater have no objection to its annexation. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the owner may continue using the existing services. However, if either the well or septic system were to fail, it was unlikely that permits would be issued for replacement systems due to the property’s location within the City of Dover and the availability of public water and sewer, which would then be required as the preferred long-term option. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that she does not believe that the county was a water service provider. She noted that the county has several private water surveyors who have a territory that they are authorized to serve, so the county was not a water service provider. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that an RS1 (Residential Single Family Zone) is a Kent County zoning classification and noted that it allows single-family detached houses. She explained that the proposed R8 zoning is a City of Dover zoning classification, which allows predominantly single-family detached houses with a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet. Ms. Arndt moved to recommend the approval of the annexation request upon consideration of utility services; it is found that electric, water, and sanitary sewer services are provided Page 42

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2026 PAGE 6 Item #3. and/or available to the property at 7 Nixon Lane. The Electric Department and Department of Water and Wastewater have no objection to its annexation, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boggerty and unanimously carried. Annexation Request – 1624 North Little Creek Road and Two Adjacent Parcels, Owned by United Worldwide Express, LLC (Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner) Ms. Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the consideration of the utility service lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC, 1624 North Little Creek Road, and Two Adjacent Parcels. Staff recommended, upon consideration of utility services, that if it is found that electric, water, and sanitary sewer services are provided and/or available to the properties at 1624 North Little Creek Road and Two Adjacent Parcels. The Electric Department and the Department of Water and Wastewater have no objection to its annexation. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that if the property were annexed into the city and if they wished to develop, the city’s zoning ordinance would have provisions that would limit the amount of woodlands that could be cleared during development activity. Likewise, she noted that if those woodland areas included wetlands, the city also have provisions that would prohibit development in those wetland areas or require buffer and/or require buffers from those areas. She added that there were protections in the city’s code related to protection and wetland areas. She was unsure if DNREC would have any approval necessarily related to cleaning up those areas unless it was part of some requirement that they needed to obtain from that agency. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that those types of activities were related to development and that the process they were in now was to bring the property into the city. She noted that it was not for their development of those plans as of yet. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that as part of the annexation process, the application was headed to the Planning Commission, and it was reviewed by the development advisor committee for the city, which was made up of city departments and other outside state agencies, which included the Dover Kent County MPO. She noted that they have provided comments with references to a series of studies that focused on the potential for transportation improvements that could make improvements to the interchange of Route Eight and State Route One. She added that those comments have been provided to the property owner as part of the review process and that they were aware of them at that point. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Melson-Williams clarified that the property was not in the City of Dover and that the process was to annex the property into the city. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Melson-Williams clarified that by annexing the property into the city, it would be added to the property tax base. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Melson-Williams clarified that if any property coming into the city would be subject to their property tax regulations, whether that would be land or land with improvements. Page 43

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2026 PAGE 7 Item #3. Ms. Arndt moved to recommend the approval of the annexation request upon consideration of utility services; it is found that electric, water, and sanitary sewer services are provided and/or available to the property at 7 Nixon Lane. The Electric Department and Department of Water and Wastewater have no objection to its annexation, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and unanimously carried. Mr. Rocha moved for adjournment of the Utility Committee meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 7:12 p.m. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Chairman Anderson presiding. Amendment Mr. Anderson invited Ms. Jennifer Jurznak, Polytech Adult Education Aide, and nine (9) students to the podium. She expressed gratitude towards Mr. Anderson for inviting her and her students. She noted that her students had come from different countries. Mr. Boggerty expressed gratitude towards Ms. Jurznak and her students and noted that he supported getting their education because it was to be celebrated. He emphasized that he celebrated them and thanked them for being courageous enough to take that step. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Anderson requested that the agenda be amended by removing Item #1 – Presentation on Affordable Housing (Michelle Williams, Little Living, LLC) from the agenda. Mr. Garfinkel moved for adoption of the amended agenda, seconded by Mr. Shevock, and unanimously carried. Animal Control Officer Briefing (Caitylyn Smith, Animal Control Officer, and Sergeant Christopher Peer) Ms. Caitlyn Smith, Animal Control Officer, and Sergeant Christopher Peer reviewed the background and analysis of the Animal Control Officer. Committee Action was not required. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Sergeant Peer stated that one of her duties was follow-ups, and when she was not on duty and during after-hours, the Office of Animal Welfare (OAW) would be called if they were available, and she would follow up the next working day with them and the status of the case. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Sergeant Peer stated that to make the public aware of the animal control officer, they would be going out like any other organization, but she would go out to engage with the community. Page 44

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2026 PAGE 8 Item #3. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Ms. Smith stated that management of feral cat colonies is handled through volunteer efforts. She explained that if a cat is sick or injured, volunteers would set a trap so the cat could receive the necessary medical treatment and then be released back outdoors. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Ms. Smith clarified that they supported the trap-neuter-return (TNR) travel neighborhoods with the other ancillary agents. She noted that there were a few women who consistently cared for a colony of approximately 25 cats and were familiar with each animal and its health status. The volunteers were in regular contact and were able to quickly identify and check on cats if concerns arose, including injured or aging animals. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Ms. Smith stated that she could reach out to the Animal Management & Rescue Project (AMR) to determine whether they would be able to assist with trapping and neutering efforts. She noted that monitoring capacity was limited due to having only one trap available. She further explained that she could not monitor the entire cat colony by herself, as three women rotated responsibilities for caring for the single colony and fed the cats twice daily. She added that any relocation of feeding stations or related materials would require reaching out to individuals or organizations with available funding or resources from an existing contact list. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Smith clarified that she does handle cats who are injured and sick, even if they are stray or feral. She noted that they do try to track them and give them to Brandywine SPCA. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Smith clarified that he could contact her with any cat issues. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Sergeant Peer clarified that Ms. Smith does work from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Sergeant Peer clarified that individuals could contact the State or Dispatch directly, or call the Dover Police Department, and the call would be transferred as appropriate. Mr. Neil expressed appreciation for Ms. Smith’s role, noting its importance due to the high volume of animal-related calls received. He referenced frequent community concerns such as barking dogs, animals left on properties, feral cats, and wildlife issues, including the health risks of feeding raccoons. He emphasized the need to increase public awareness of those services and recommended promoting the role through the City’s website. Draft Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) (Patricia Marney, Controller/Treasurer) Ms. Patricia Marney, Controller/Treasurer, reviewed the background and analysis of the Draft Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR). Staff recommended acceptance of the draft report. Mr. Faust raised concerns regarding the potential revenue shortfall, including whether it would be approximately 5% or 10%, and the overall value of the proposed business. He expressed concern Page 45

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2026 PAGE 9 Item #3. about impacts on police services and equipment and questioned how the proposal could be made financially viable. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Marney stated that staff reviewed the use of unrestricted funds, including the possibility of a PCA credit; however, the city’s reserve policy currently does not allow for such credit. Regarding a two-cent utility reduction, it was stated that the city’s energy authority advisors do not currently recommend that action, though it would continue to be evaluated through the budget process. She acknowledged financial strain within the community and noted that factors such as green energy mandates impacted the city’s ability to offer rebates or reductions. She noted updated guidance from the energy authority was expected next month for Fiscal Year 2027 planning. Additionally, she noted that the city was beginning to align with county property values through ongoing tax assessment efforts that have been in progress since approximately 2021. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Ms. Marney stated that the current rates did not fully cover the city’s costs. She noted that the most recent rate study indicated that the rates in place for the electric utility did not fully cover extended operational costs. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Marney clarified that the year-end June 30, 2020, was a typo and should be June 30, 2025. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Marney stated that, as previously mentioned in an email to the City Clerk’s Office, the enterprise fund figures for business activities are not complete, and therefore, the reported transfer numbers are not accurate. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Marney clarified that she would provide council with the correct numbers. Ms. Chelle Paul raised concerns regarding the accuracy and transparency of transfer amounts in the budget. She noted that previous budgets from 2015–2019 provided line-by-line, itemized expenditures by department, whereas recent budgets, beginning around 2021, listed expenditures by category without detailing exactly where the funds were being spent. She emphasized the public’s need to understand how the money was allocated, particularly regarding transfers and deficits. Additionally, she raised concern about the Economic and Development Fund, noting it contained nearly $3 million, and questioned the rationale for allocating substantial funds to nonprofits while the city faced budget deficits and utility-related expenses. Responding to Ms. Paul, Ms. Marney stated that the 2024 ordinance for the Economic Development Fund specified that the funds could be used to address general funding deficits. She noted that as the Fiscal Year 2027 budget was being prepared, consideration would be given to that provision. She mentioned that currently, only one application has been approved, with approximately $50,000 allocated for that business. She also added that regarding the financial statements, detailed information behind the numbers could be provided through a FOIA request. Responding to Ms. Paul, Ms. Marney clarified that she was reviewing the budget rather than the financial statements. She explained that financial statements showed actual versus budgeted Page 46

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2026 PAGE 10 Item #3. amounts, while the budget reflected planned allocations, which may differ from actual expenditures. Dr. Sudler moved to recommend acceptance of the draft report as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Dr. Pillsbury. Mr. Boggerty moved to amend the draft report to correctly reflect the year 2025, ensuring it is properly captured. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sudler and unanimously carried. Dr. Sudler moved to recommend acceptance of the draft report as amended, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and unanimously carried. Update from the Dover Organization of Employees (DOE) on Membership Priorities (Mathew Brown, President of the DOE Union) Mr. Matthew Brown, President of the DOE Union, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the update from the Dover Organization of Employees (DOE). Committee action not required. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Brown stated that the department is committed to reviewing operations to identify potential budget reductions despite current staff shortages. He emphasized their willingness to help in any way possible, expressed openness to exploring better ways of doing things, and welcomed ongoing discussions on opportunities to save money. Higher Education Public Safety Fund Disbursements: Volunteer Firefighter Stipend Program and Dover Fire Department Security Fence (Chief Carey, Dover Fire Department) Mr. David Carey, Chief of Dover Fire Department, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Higher Education Public Safety Fund Disbursements: Volunteer Firefighter Stipend Program Staff recommended approval of the disbursements as requested. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Fire Chief Carey explained that the program was based on a 20% share of the city’s marketing salary, which determined federal eligibility limits. The volunteers could earn up to $922 per month if they maximized hours each month, totaling approximately $11,900 annually per individual. He noted that the program currently included around 50–55 members, with all active members able to reach the maximum earnings under the current structure. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Fire Chief Carey stated that the contingency plan would remain unchanged, even if implemented three years ago. He explained that the city could contribute smaller amounts each year to maintain the plan. He also noted that potential grants may be available in the future to help fund the plan, though he was not aware of any current opportunities. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Fire Chief Carey stated that currently, the stipend has approximately $100,000. He noted that they were setting it up to be between $340,000 to $400,000 each year. Page 47

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2026 PAGE 11 Item #3. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Fire Chief Carey stated that if a volunteer was on duty for three hours, they would receive a $30 stipend. He noted that in the event of a major fire, additional compensation could apply for those who respond. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Fire Chief Carey stated that the purpose of the higher education public safety fund was to help fund the fire department and those agencies that provide services to those organizations, such as Delaware Technical College and Delaware State University, for those agencies to help give them protection. He also added that the other item was that the universities and colleges in Dover do not donate to the fire department. He mentioned that this was helping them operationally for services to the organizations, as well as providing funding that was coming in. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Mr. Anderson clarified that the referenced legislation pertained to equipment and fire trucks. He explained that the intent was for the funding to be treated as an offset, allowing it to be considered a hybrid and therefore not subject to set restrictions. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Ms. Marney stated that if the $1.6 million were used, it should be applied toward reducing debt service or for capital needs such as fire trucks. She noted that the opinion had been expressed previously. She also stated that, based on their understanding of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), approximately $1.65 million was intended to be assigned to the Fire Department, with the funds designated for use by both the Fire and Police Departments. She asked that this consideration be kept in mind when making decisions. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Ms. Marney stated that the budget analyst, Mr. Jeff Dill, indicated during the previous week’s workshop that the funds should be maintained in the General Fund, if possible, to help offset expenses. She explained that those offsets could include administrative costs, such as employee and departmental expenses, including positions partially supported by grant funding, as well as overhead costs such as building operations, debt service, and related expenses. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Fire Chief Carey clarified that the $1.65 million was unrestricted. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Fire Chief Carey stated that the $1.65 million was based on providing a service to the universities and helping set the cost of the organizations that were providing that. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Fire Chief Carey stated that he wanted to use some of the $1.65 million to build a stipend program and security for the fire station. Responding to Mr. Neil, Fire Chief Carey explained that the Fire Department was working to return to a 15-year replacement cycle for fire apparatus. He stated that once a truck was paid off, the payment could be rolled into the next apparatus purchase, which helped manage costs and offset inflation. He noted that cost savings were achieved by ordering two vehicles early, allowing the city to avoid future price increases and long manufacturing timelines, with fire engines currently taking approximately three years and ladder trucks up to four years to deliver. Page 48

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2026 PAGE 12 Item #3. Regarding the stipend program, Chief Carey clarified that it applies only to career staffing and does not involve volunteers. He explained that accountability was maintained through a kiosk system at the fire stations, where personnel clocked in and out using a key fob and photo verification. Hours were automatically tracked, and if an individual failed to clock out, they were not paid. He noted stipend calculations were completed by the Fire Administrative Manager, reviewed by an accountant, and processed through established safeguards to ensure accuracy and accountability. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Fire Chief Carey stated that several fire departments have reached out with interest in the city’s apparatus replacement cycle and living program, noting that Dover was likely one of the few departments currently operating such a program. He explained that the program had been thoroughly reviewed by the city’s administration and legal counsel and was funded through donations made to the fire companies, ensuring proper accounting and oversight of those funds. Mr. David Carey, Chief of Dover Fire Department, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Higher Education Public Safety Fund Disbursements: Dover Fire Department Security Fence. Staff recommended approval of the disbursements as requested. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Fire Chief Carey stated that they have reached out to the police department, but they are busy as well with vehicle accidents and crime in other places. Responding to Fire Chief Carey, Dr. Sudler suggested hiring armed security and/or putting that in their budget. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Fire Chief Carey clarified that they had received fence quotes. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Fire Chief Carey addressed a question regarding whether a maintenance contract or warranty was included with the equipment and what potential future costs may arise if issues occur. He noted that the information was not immediately available in the materials but could be provided upon follow-up. He added that he believed the security station would be a one- time expense. He further stated that maintenance would likely be covered through the department’s building program, which was supported by donations, state grants, and funding received by the fire department outside of city funds. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Fire Chief Carey stated that the funds were coming from a grant fund and not from the city budget. Dr. Sudler moved to accept the recommendation for approval of disbursements for Letters A and B. The motion was seconded by Dr. Pillsbury. Mr. Garfinkel moved to divide the question. He believed that the Letters A and B needed to be voted on separately. Page 49

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2026 PAGE 13 Item #3. Dr. Sudler moved to accept the recommendation for approval of disbursements for the Volunteer Firefighter Stipend Program. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and carried by roll call vote of eight (8) yes (Hall, Boggerty, Pillsbury, Shevock, Sudler, Lewis, Rocha, Anderson), two (2) no (Garfinkel, Neil), one (1) absent (Arndt) Dr. Sudler moved to accept the recommendation for approval of disbursements for the Dover Fire Department Security Fence. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. (Arndt absent) Amendment – Proposed Ordinance #2025-21 – Amending Chapter 106 - Traffic and Vehicles, Article III - Stopping, Standing, and Parking, by adding Sec. 106-139 - Pedestrian Safety (Councilman Anderson, David S. Hugg, III, City Manager, and Chief Johnson) Mr. Anderson, member of Council, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Amendment – Proposed Ordinance #2025-21 – Amending Chapter 106 - Traffic and Vehicles, Article III - Stopping, Standing, and Parking, by adding Sec. 106-139 - Pedestrian Safety. Recommended to forward Proposed Ordinance #2025-21 as amended to council for approval. Mr. Anderson referred to an email from Mr. Griffith, City Solicitor. (Attachment #1) Mr. Boggerty raised concerns about Letter G, about medians less than seven (7) feet. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Anderson stated that they were amending Letter G to have the medians be more than seven (7) feet. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Anderson clarified that he was correct and that the medians should be more than seven (7) feet in width. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Anderson, referring to Letter H in the Proposed Ordinance, stated that the intent was to coordinate with willing organizations, and enforcement was achieved by providing funding only to those organizations that agreed to participate. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Anderson explained that if enforcement were desired, a clause could be added and reviewed annually in the next grant cycle. At present, it is not necessary to require participation because the city already follows current procedures. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Anderson stated that, according to the chart, the City Manager oversees all functions and can delegate tasks to anyone under their authority. He added that while the City Manager was ultimately responsible for ensuring duties were completed, they do not perform all tasks personally but assign them to staff to carry out. Belinda Main, a Dover resident, expressed concern that an ordinance cannot force organizations or individuals to participate in programs or follow directives. She emphasized that all members have opinions and that authority does not allow one individual to override others. She criticized the current approach to the ordinance, suggesting it lacked consideration for practical circumstances and real-life impacts, such as safety concerns at street corners. She also noted that Page 50

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2026 PAGE 14 Item #3. certain well-intentioned actions, such as providing blankets, may not address underlying needs, and that understanding the actual circumstances of individuals was more important than surface- level interventions. Chelle Paul, a Dover resident, emphasized that medians must remain safe and noted that existing state laws, such as those regarding public intoxication, were enforceable. She stated that certain provisions of the amendment were unconstitutional, as the city could not dictate where an individual may move as long as they remain safe. She suggested that the ordinance should focus solely on medians, without specifying width or footage, because safety concerns made medians restricted areas, and that the language should reflect “medians” in general. Mr. Rocha stated that Letter H should be removed from the proposed ordinance, noting that it was based on an assumption about pedestrian safety. He indicated that, in his view, there was no need to require coordination with individuals who might be in need. He also added that he agreed with Ms. Paul that the language should reflect “medians” and did not need more or less. Mr. Rocha moved to strike letter H from the Proposed Ordinance #2025-21. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boggerty and unanimously carried. (Arndt absent) Alicia Martin, a Bear resident, emphasized that all members agreed on the importance of pedestrian safety. She noted that the focus should remain on safety itself, rather than comparing different situations, and stressed that sidewalks, crosswalks, and medians were in place to keep individuals safe. She expressed a desire for professionals to maintain high standards and reiterated the goal of ensuring pedestrian safety for all. Gerald Martin, a Dover resident, described observations at intersections, noting safety concerns related to pedestrians and individuals soliciting money. He mentioned that some individuals appeared to be using funds to support drug use, while others gathered in vehicles or businesses to pool money. He highlighted broader safety risks, referencing traffic accidents and the need for safe locations for individuals, while emphasizing the complexity of the situation beyond panhandling alone. Jeannie Anderson, 217 Cecil Street, expressed serious safety concerns regarding pedestrians walking in roadways. She shared video and photo evidence (Attachment #1) of an individual walking between cars at an intersection near Sam’s Club and emphasized that the behavior posed a high risk of accidents. She stressed that the issue was one of pedestrian safety, not related to freedom of speech or homelessness, and emphasized that individuals do not belong on highways or roadways due to the risk of injury or liability for the city. William Faust, 136 Orchard Avenue, responded to a presentation of a photo (Attachment #2), noting that the situation depicted was jaywalking rather than panhandling. He emphasized that the city could not protect individuals from all risky behavior, such as impaired or reckless pedestrians, and that limited police resources made constant enforcement impractical. He stressed that addressing broader issues, such as homelessness, mental health, and substance abuse, would be more effective than the proposed ordinance and urged members to vote against it, noting that it would not improve safety. Page 51

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2026 PAGE 15 Item #3. Vonda Smack, 1001 White Oak Road, referenced a letter from the Delaware Department of Justice, signed by Attorney General Kathy Jennings, sent to all municipalities in the state. She expressed concern that the proposed ordinance may violate individual rights despite pedestrian safety concerns. She requested clarification from Councilmembers Anderson and Rocha regarding any correspondence sent to the Department of Justice (DOJ) about the ordinance, particularly concerning arrest powers. She emphasized that collaboration with stakeholders could address safety issues without infringing on rights. She cited the Department of Justice (DOJ) letter noting constitutional concerns with the enforcement of 11 Del. C. §1321 (loitering) and 21 Del. C. statutes related to pedestrian soliciting and stressed that those areas could not be enforced in ways that violated rights. Stephan Pierce, 437 Barrister Place, stated that the council’s role was to implement rules to keep individuals safe. He noted that Middletown had installed fences along highways to prevent pedestrians from panhandling and crossing roadways in high-traffic areas. Mr. Pierce yielded the remainder of his time to Ms. Smack, who emphasized the importance of collaboration and communication. She noted that stakeholders and community advocates should be involved in discussions. She stressed that the focus should be on doing what was right for the community, not just what the Council wants, and expressed concern that the ordinance, as written, could violate individuals’ rights. She expressed frustrations at why her questions go unanswered about the fences, the number of individuals who have been killed on the median and not on the highway, and why there were 427 homeless children in the City of Dover. Aletha Francheski, a Dover resident, noted that the issue was not only about pedestrians but also about driver safety. She expressed concern over arguments suggesting individuals have a constitutional right to occupy certain areas at any time, describing such behavior as unsafe, selfish, and potentially illegal. She emphasized the need for collaboration and sensible regulations to ensure public safety and a more orderly community. Pastor Leroy Bradshaw, 101 South New Street, expressed concern that while the council addressed safety issues, there should also be a focus on helping vulnerable populations, including the homeless and elderly. He emphasized the moral and ethical responsibility to care for those in need and urged that compassion and community support guide council decisions. Tyler Muck, a resident outside the City of Dover, expressed concern that council has not engaged in good-faith discussions with the community. He criticized the ordinance process as wasting resources and time and emphasized that efforts should focus on programs to help individuals in distress rather than enforcing the ordinance. He questioned the judgment of those making decisions on the council. Police Chief Johnson explained that some were outdated state statutes related to soliciting that remained on the books but were no longer enforceable. Current law did not allow action against someone simply standing on a median, though proposed state legislation could address that in the future. He noted that public intoxication and other incidents were handled case by case, often with the behavioral health unit pairing officers with social workers. He mentioned that enforcement Page 52

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2026 PAGE 16 Item #3. required willing witnesses and compliance with court procedures; otherwise, officers could not act. He emphasized that council could enact a local ordinance in the interim, but officers were limited in approaching individuals engaged in protected First Amendment activity. He noted that the legislative process had been slow, leaving a legal gap that requires careful council consideration. Responding to Ms. Paul, Police Chief Johnson stated that it would depend on enforcement and on specific conditions being met. He noted that a citizen would need to call 911, remain on scene, identify themselves as a witness, and be willing to testify if the case were challenged. He clarified that when he referred to an “arrest” in those situations, it usually meant issuing a citation or charging document on scene, not taking that individual into custody. He added that in most cases, the individual would be identified, checked for warrants, issued a ticket if appropriate, removed from the unsafe area, and then released. He further added that they would not typically be transported to the police station. He explained that if an individual was standing in the roadway, officers do have the authority to act because being in the road was a violation. However, situations became less clear when an individual was primarily on the median with only part of a foot touching the roadway. He noted that while an officer technically could issue a citation in that scenario, he mentioned that such a case would likely not be viewed favorably by a judge and would not be a practical or reasonable use of enforcement. He emphasized the need for common sense and discretion, stating that officers were unlikely to take action over something as minor as a few inches into the roadway when most of the individual was in a protected area. Responding to Ms. Paul, Police Chief Johnson explained that the key difference between relying on state law versus adopting a local ordinance was that, at present, there was no enforceable state law available. The relevant state statute was suspended due to ongoing litigation, which left officers without authority to act solely based on observation. He stated that the proposed ordinance would create a “status offense,” meaning officers could take action based on their own observation. He added that the officer does not need a 911 call. Mr. Garfinkel called to question, and it was unanimously carried. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Mr. Anderson explained that the seven (7) foot rule was used to determine whether a median was considered safe for an individual to stand on. The courts and federal safety research have found that medians narrower than about seven (7) to eight (8) feet were unsafe because they do not provide enough space for an individual to stand clear of traffic on both sides. Under this approach, intersections were still covered regardless of width, because intersections were inherently higher-risk areas due to turning vehicles, visibility issues, and traffic movement. He added that the seven (7) foot measurement applies to the entire usable width of the median, running lengthwise through it. If the median was less than seven (or eight) feet wide, courts have often presumed it to be unsafe. He noted that the presumption was what the attorneys relied on when drafting the language, using federal research and prior court rulings to support the distinction. Mr. Rocha moved to approve the amendment letter G, which medians more than seven (7) feet in width. The motion was seconded by Mr. Shevock and carried with Mr. Lewis and Dr. Sudler voting no. (Arndt absent) Page 53

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2026 PAGE 17 Item #3. Mr. Neil moved to accept the staff recommendation as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and carried by a roll call vote with seven (3) yes (Boggerty, Pillsbury, Shevock, Garfinkel, Rocha, Anderson, Neil), three (3) no (Hall, Sudler, Lewis), and one (1) absent (Arndt). Mr. Anderson moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 9:58 p.m. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 9:58 p.m. Fred A. Neil Council President Attachments Attachment #1 – Email from Mr. Dan Griffith, City Solicitor Attachment #2 – Mr. Anderson’s pictures Page 54

ATTACHMENT #1 2/10/2026 Council Committee of the Whole Item #3. From: Anderson, David To: City Clerks Office Subject: Fw: EXTERNAL: RE: Cell phone Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 10:45:56 PM Attachments: image004.png image002.png 425 Loitering and Solicitation Draft Bill.pdf Here is the email from our attorney for the record. Respectfully, The Honorable David L. Anderson 4th District Councilman, Dover, DE Phone: (302)339-1047 Council Office: (302)736-7006 Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device Get Outlook for Android From: Griffith, Daniel A. <dgriffith@whitefordlaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 2:02:18 PM To: Anderson, David <david.anderson@dover.de.us> Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: RE: Cell phone I spoke on the phone with the Attorney General’s Director of External Affairs, Mat Marshall. As you can imagine, the AG’s office is not interested in giving us their legal opinion concerning the constitutionality of the Pedestrian Safety Ordinance or whether the provisions of the Ordinance are already addressed by existing state law. They would defer to the City’s own solicitor on those things. However, he did refer me to the draft bill attached (which we have previously circulated) and advised that this is a proposal that the AG’s office presented to the General Assembly for passage so we could probably draw some conclusions on the AG’s views of this from the language of this draft bill. He told me he would provide me with something in writing that I could present to Council as a more formal response to our request for the AG’s office to weigh in on this and that the writing would likely be in the nature of an email. Thanks very much, Page 55

Item #3. Dan From: Anderson, David <david.anderson@dover.de.us> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 1:34 PM To: Griffith, Daniel A. <dgriffith@whitefordlaw.com> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: RE: Cell phone Any word from the AG's office. I am thinking of asking that if they choose to get involved to make sure they endorse it as amended since my interest came from Mr. Stonesifer's conversation with their office asking for a Dover ordinance. This Any word from the AG's office. I am thinking of asking that if they choose to get involved to make sure they endorse it as amended since my interest came from Mr. Stonesifer's conversation with their office asking for a Dover ordinance. This a mirror of their proposal. Respectfully, The Honorable David L. Anderson 4th District Councilman, Dover, DE Phone: (302)339-1047 Council Office: (302)736-7006 Page 56

ATTACHMENT #2 2/10/2026 Council Committee of the Whole Item #3. Page 57

Item #3. Page 58

Item #19. Page 59

Item #19. CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT FUND JULY 1, 2025 - JUNE 30, 2026 100-10-12-99-000-53037 Current Balance - $ 14,150.00 BUDGETED AMOUNT $ 25,000.00 COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT FUND - $2, 500 FOR EACH COUNCIL MEMBER PER DISTRICT AND $5, 500 FOR THE AT-LARGE COUNCIL MEMBER. THE PURPOSE OF THE FUND IS TO ALLOW MEMBERS TO CONTRIBUTE FUNDS TO A SMALL PROJECT OR COMMUNITY NEEDS IN EACH DISTRICT. Total $ 25,000.00 Date COUNCIL SPONSOR Vendor Description P.O. #/INVOICE # BATCH# TOTAL CHARGES YEAR TO DATE BALANCE Councilman Anderson authorized the designation of $500 Email from David Anderson dated 06/02/2025 and of his community enhancement funds to the Hispanic an email from Anthony (Tony) Velazquez Hispanic Organization of Latin Organization of Latin Americans (HOLA) for their Baila Founder/CEO dated 06/02/2025 7/1/2025 Anderson Americans (HOLA) Con Dover Festival. 6577 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 24,500.00 Councilman Sudler authorized the designation of $1,000 Email from Roy Sudler, Jr dated 07/03/2025 and a of his community enhancement funds to Holy Trinity letter from Pastor Sheila Lomax dated 06/20/2025 7/3/2025 Sudler Holy Trinity UAME Church UAME Church for their Youth Empowerment event. 6577 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 23,500.00 Councilman Rocha authorized the designation of $200 of Email from Gerald Rocha, Sr. dated 07/05/2025 and his community enhancement funds to Holy Trinity UAME an email from Pastor Sheila Lomax dated 7/5/2025 Rocha Holy Trinity UAME Church Church for their Youth Empowerment event. 07/04/2025 6577 $ 200.00 $ 1,700.00 $ 23,300.00 Councilman Anderson authorized the designation of $200 Email from David Anderson dated 07/07/2054 and a of his community enhancement funds to Holy Trinity letter from Pastor Sheila Lomax dated 06/20/2025 7/7/2025 Anderson Holy Trinity UAME Church UAME Church for their Youth Empowerment event. 6577 $ 200.00 $ 1,900.00 $ 23,100.00 Councilman Lewis authorized the designation of $400 of Email from Brian Lewis dated 07/07/2054 and a his community enhancement funds to Holy Trinity UAME letter from Pastor Sheila Lomax dated 06/20/2025 7/7/2025 Lewis Holy Trinity UAME Church Church for their Youth Empowerment event. 6577 $ 400.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 22,700.00 Councilman Boggerty authorized the designation of $150 Email from Andre Boggerty dated 07/09/2025 and a of his community enhancement funds to Holy Trinity letter from Pastor Sheila Lomax dated 06/20/2025 7/9/2025 Boggerty Holy Trinity UAME Church UAME Church for their Youth Empowerment event. 6656 $ 150.00 $ 2,450.00 $ 22,550.00 Councilwoman Pillsbury authorized the designation of Email from Julia Pillsbury dated 07/11/2025 andan $200 of her community enhancement funds to Holy Trinity email from Pastor Sheila Lomax dated 07/04/2025 7/14/2025 Pillsbury Holy Trinity UAME Church UAME Church for their Youth Empowerment event. 6656 $ 200.00 $ 2,650.00 $ 22,350.00 Councilwoman Pillsbury authorized the designation of Email from Julia Pillsbury dated 07/11/2025 and an $200 of her community enhancement funds to the email from Anthony (Tony) Velazquez Founder/CEO Hispanic Organization of Latin Hispanic Organization of Latin Americans (HOLA) for their dated 07/11/2025 7/14/2025 Pillsbury Americans (HOLA) Baila Con Dover Festival. 6656 $ 200.00 $ 2,850.00 $ 22,150.00 Councilman Boggerty authorized the designation of $200 Email from Andree Boggerty dated 07/14/2025 and of his community enhancement funds to the Hispanic an email from Anthony (Tony) Velazquez Hispanic Organization of Latin Organization of Latin Americans (HOLA) for their Baila Founder/CEO dated 07/11/2025 7/14/2025 Boggerty Americans (HOLA) Con Dover Festival. 6656 $ 200.00 $ 3,050.00 $ 21,950.00 Councilwoman Hall authorized the designation of $200 of Email from Donyale Hall dated 07/11/2025 andan her community enhancement funds to Holy Trinity UAME email from Pastor Sheila Lomax dated 06/20/25 7/17/2025 Hall Holy Trinity UAME Church Church for their Youth Empowerment event. 6764 $ 200.00 $ 3,250.00 $ 21,750.00 Councilman Rocha authorized the designation of $250 of his community enhancement funds to the Hispanic Email from Gerald Rocha dated 07/28/2025 and an Hispanic Organization of Latin Organization of Latin Americans (HOLA) for their Baila email from Anthony (Tony) Velazquez, 7/29/2025 Rocha Americans (HOLA) Con Dover Festival. Founder/CEO, dated 07/11/2025 6854 $ 250.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 21,500.00 Councilman Lewis authorized the designation of $500 of his community enhancement funds to the Hispanic Email from Brian Lewis dated 07/31/2025 and an Hispanic Organization of Latin Organization of Latin Americans (HOLA) for their Baila email from Anthony (Tony) Velazquez, 7/31/2025 Lewis Americans (HOLA) Con Dover Festival. Founder/CEO, dated 07/30/2025 6906 $ 500.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 21,000.00 Councilman Lewis authorized designation of $300 of his community enhancement funds to the Caribbean Culture Awareness Inc. for their 2nd Annual Delaware Caribbean Email from Brian Lewis dated 08/11/2025 and an 8/11/2025 Lewis Caribbean Culture Awareness Inc. Carnival. email from Eveann Fenty-Marseil dated 8/09/2025 6959 $300.00 $ 4,300.00 $ 20,700.00 Councilman Rocha authorized the designation of $500 of Email from Gerald Rocha dated 08/12/2025 and A 2nd Chance A Haven for Abused his community enhancement funds to Ms. Faye White at A email from City Clerk's Office dated 08/12/2025 8/12/2025 Rocha and Battered Woman and Children 2nd Chance, for their Annual Veterans Honorary Dinner 6959 $ 500.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 20,200.00 Councilman Neil authorized the designation of $100 of his Email from Fred Neil dated 08/12/2025 and email A 2nd Chance A Haven for Abused community enhancement funds to Ms. Faye White at A from City Clerk's Office dated 08/12/2025 8/12/2025 Neil and Battered Woman and Children 2nd Chance, for their Annual Veterans Honorary Dinner 6959 $100.00 $ 4,900.00 $ 20,100.00 Councilman Anderson authorized the designation of $200 of his community enhancement funds to Ms. Faye White Email from David Anderson dated 08/12/2025 and A 2nd Chance A Haven for Abused at A 2nd Chance, for their Annual Veterans Honorary email from City Clerk's Office dated 08/12/2025 8/12/2025 Anderson and Battered Woman and Children Dinner 6959 $ 200.00 $ 5,100.00 $ 19,900.00 Councilman Sudler authorized the designation of $500 of his community enhancement funds to the Hispanic Email from Roy Sudler dated 08/15/2025 and an Hispanic Organization of Latin Organization of Latin Americans (HOLA) for their Baila email from Anthony (Tony) Velazquez, 8/15/2025 Sudler Americans (HOLA) Con Dover Festival. Founder/CEO, dated 06/06/2025 7002 $ 500.00 $ 5,600.00 $ 19,400.00 Councilman Anderson authorized the designation of $750 of his community enhancement funds to Holy Trinity Email from David Anderson dated 08/19/2025 and 8/19/2025 Anderson Holy Trinity UAME Church UAME Church for their Back to School Book Bag Drive an email from Pastor Sheila Lomax dated 08/19/25 7002 $ 750.00 $ 6,350.00 $ 18,650.00 Councilwoman Pillsbury authorized the designation of Email from Julia Pillsbury dated 09/4/2025 and an $200 of her community enhancement funds to I Am My email from Marcille Sewell-Liningham dated 9/8/2025 Pillsbury I Am My Sister's Keeper (MSK) Sister's Keeper (MSK) for their Founders Day 09/4/25 7165 $ 200.00 $ 6,550.00 $ 18,450.00 Councilman Boggerty authorized the designation of $250 Email from Andre Boggerty dated 09/4/2025 and an of his community enhancement funds to I Am My Sister's email from Marcille Sewell-Liningham dated 9/8/2025 Boggerty I Am My Sister's Keeper (MSK) Keeper (MSK) for their Founders Day 09/4/25 7165 $ 250.00 $ 6,800.00 $ 18,200.00 Councilman Neil authorized the designation of $50 of his community enhancement funds to I Am My Sister's Email from Fred Neil dated 09/4/2025 and an email 9/8/2025 Neil I Am My Sister's Keeper (MSK) Keeper (MSK) for their Founders Day from Marcille Sewell-Liningham dated 09/4/25 7165 $ 50.00 $ 6,850.00 $ 18,150.00 Councilman Rocha authorized the designation of $200 of his community enhancement funds to 1NA Foundation for Email from Gerald Rocha dated 09/4/2025 and an 9/8/2025 Rocha 1NA Foundation their 2nd Annual 1NA Day of Giving Back email from Deanna Wright dated 09/4/25 7165 $ 200.00 $ 7,050.00 $ 17,950.00 Councilwoman Pillsbury authorized the designation of $200 of her community enhancement funds to 1NA Email from Julia Pillsbury dated 09/4/2025 and an 9/8/2025 Pillsbury 1NA Foundation Foundation for their 2nd Annual 1NA Day of Giving Back email from Deanna Wright dated 09/4/25 7165 $ 200.00 $ 7,250.00 $ 17,750.00 Councilman Boggerty authorized the designation of $300 of his community enhancement funds to 1NA Foundation Email from Andre Boggerty dated 09/12/2025 and an 9/16/2025 Boggerty 1NA Foundation for their 2nd Annual 1NA Day of Giving Back email from Deanna Wright dated 09/1/25 7121 $ 300.00 $ 7,550.00 $ 17,450.00 Councilwoman Hall authorized the designation of $500 of her community enhancement funds to The Veterans The Veterans Awareness Center Awareness Center Foundation Stand-Down for their 9/17/2025 Hall Foundation Stand-Down Delaware 2025 Veterans' Stand Down Email from Donyale Hall dated 09/17/2025 7263 $ 500.00 $ 8,050.00 $ 16,950.00 Councilman Anderson authorized the designation of $500 of his community enhancement funds to the Inner City Cultural League for their Martin Luther King Jr. National Email from David Anderson dated 10/16/2025 and a 10/16/2025 Anderson Inner City Cultural League Holiday Celebration letter from Reuben Salters dated 10/13/2025 7504 $ 500.00 $ 8,550.00 $ 16,450.00 Councilman Lewis authorized the designation of $200 of his community enhancement funds to the Hispanic Email from Brian Lewis dated 11/10/2025 and an Hispanic Organization of Latin Organization of Latin Americans (HOLA) for their Winter email from Anthony (Tony) Velazquez, 11/10/2025 Lewis Americans (HOLA) Wonderland Extravaganza Holiday Coat & Toy Giveaway Founder/CEO, dated 11/06/2025 7602 $ 200.00 $ 8,750.00 $ 16,250.00 Councilman Sudler authorized designation of $500 of his community enhancement funds to the Inner City Cultural Verbal phone call by Dr. Sudler 1/6/2026, will be League for their Martin Luther King Jr. National Holiday sending an email and letter from Reuben Salters 1/6/2026 Sudler Inner City Cultural League Celebration dated 11/25/2025 7914 $ 500.00 $ 9,250.00 $ 15,750.00 Councilman Boggerty authorized designation of $100 of his community enhancement funds to the Zeta Phi Beta Email from Andre Boggerty dated 1/6/2026 and an Zeta Phi Beta Sorority, Inc., Theta Sorority, Inc. for their 19th Annual Prayer Breakfast and email from Soror Karen Drummond and Soror 1/6/2026 Boggerty Zeta Zeta Chapter Scholarship Fundraiser Jermein Bell dated 12/31/2025 7914 $ 100.00 $ 9,350.00 $ 15,650.00 Councilman Lewis authorized designation of $500 of his community enhancement funds to the Inner City Cultural League for their Martin Luther King Jr. National Holiday Verbal conversation with Mr. Lewis 1/7/2026 and an 1/7/2026 Lewis Inner City Cultural League celebreation email from Reuben Salters dated 1/7/2026 7930 $ 500.00 $ 9,850.00 $ 15,150.00 Councilwoman Hall authorized designation of $250 of her community enhancement funds to the Inner City Cultural Email from Donyale Hall dated 1/9/2026 and an League for their Martin Luther King Jr. National Holiday email and letter from Reuben Salters dated 1/9/2026 Hall Inner City Cultural League Celebration 11/30/2025 7930 $ 250.00 Councilman Boggerty authorized designation of $750 of his community enhancement funds to the H.O.P.E Email from Andre Boggerty dated 12/8/2025 and a 1/13/2026 Boggerty H.O.P.E Foundation Foundation for their Youth Leadership Conference letter from Gregory Bunkley dated 12/8/2025 7930 $ 750.00 TOTALS $ 10,850.00 $ 14,150.00 BUDGETED AMOUNT DISTRICT COUNCIL SPONSOR YTD EXPENDITURES BALANCE $ 5,000.00 At-Large Boggerty $ 1,750.00 $ 3,250.00 $ 2,500.00 1st District Pillsbury $ 800.00 $ 1,700.00 $ 2,500.00 1st District Rocha $ 1,150.00 $ 1,350.00 $ 2,500.00 2nd District Hall $ 950.00 $ 1,550.00 $ 2,500.00 2nd District Lewis $ 1,900.00 $ 600.00 $ 2,500.00 3rd District Arndt $ - $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 3rd District Neil $150.00 $ 2,350.00 $ 2,500.00 4th District Anderson $ 2,150.00 $ 350.00 $ 2,500.00 4th District Sudler $ 2,000.00 $ 500.00 TOTAL $ 10,850.00 $ 14,150.00 Page 60

Item #20. CITY MANAGER’S MONTHLY REPORT December 2025 Page 61 1

Item #20. Blank Page Page 62 2

Item #20. Page 63 3

Item #20. Page 64 4

Item #20. CENTRAL SERVICES MONTHLY REPORT December 2025 PROCUREMENT & INVENTORY DIVISION Purchase Orders for Stock by Fund FY 2026 to Date Difference from FY 2025 Electric $456,433.12 -352.3% Water $41,246.84 -25.5% Wastewater $2,487.18 3.6% General $94,396.01 51.7% Total $594,563.15 -264.0% Issues from Stock by Fund FY 2026 to Date Difference from FY 2025 Electric $593,114.59 -15.7% Water $65,507.63 -14.0% Wastewater $1,658.12 13.7% General $69,525.62 7.9% Total $729,805.96 -13.3% Bids/RFPs Solicited FY 2026 to Date Difference from FY 2025 20 -20.0% Money Spent for Postal Services FY 2026 to Date FY 2025 to Date $103,674.46 $104,974.80 Fuel Usage Type FY 2026 to Date FY 2025 to Date Unleaded 75,372 74,750 Diesel 37,193 41,691 Dollars Spent $263,901.22 $284,896.84 Page 65 5

Item #20. Warehouse Stock Value FY 2026 FY 2025 $5,644,921.78 $5,076,833.00 Purchase Orders for Stock are down 264% compared to this time last year. Issues from Stock are down 13.3% compared to this time last year. Bids/RFP's are down 20% compared to this time last year. Postal Expenses are down 1.3% compared to this time last year. Fuel Costs are down 8% compared to this time last year. Overall warehouse value is up 10.1% compared to this time last year. FLEET DIVISION PM Work Orders Scheduled: PM Work Orders Total Work Orders PM & 12 Completed: 47 Repair: 116 Total Hours Turned: Excess Hours Turned: Uncaptured Time: 267.5 0 56.1 MEASURE December 2025 December 2024 Completed PM's 47 32 DIFFERENCE 46.88% There were 12 PM's scheduled for this month. A total of 47 PM's were completed along with 69 repair work orders. There were a total of 116 work orders completed. Page 66 6

Item #20. FACILITIES DIVISION Routine Work Orders Emergency Work Orders Completed: 40 Completed: 3 City-owned Facility Work Events & Support Work Orders: 39 Orders: 4 MEASURE December 2025 December 2024 Completed Work Orders 43 64 DIFFERENCE -32.81% There were 43 routine and emergency Work Orders completed during this month. The work orders consisted of 39 for maintenance and repair of City-owned facilities and 4 related to events and other support work. Central Services Narrative Warehousing & Procurement is operating as normal. Project CS2502 permit complete. Facilities is operating as normal; two positions posted. Fleet is operating as normal. Page 67 7

Item #20. CENTRAL SERVICES PROJECT UPDATE December 2025 FY/PROJECT NUMBER DEPARTMENT STATUS CITY HALL FC2601 QUOTING FLAT ROOF PEAR STREET FC2600 SCHEDULING VENDOR ABATEMENT CITY HALL FC2602 FIRE ALARM EQUIPMENT SCHEDULING VENDOR UPGRADE WEYANDT HALL EA2601 FLOORING ORDERED STAIRWELL FLOORING FUEL ISLAND CONTRACT AWARDED CS2502 UPGRADE EQUIPMENT ORDERED Page 68 8

Item #20. Recap of monthly activities / notations – As of December 31, 2025, the City of Dover served 25,343 electric utility customers, which is an increase in comparison to 25,117 in December 2024 and 13,375 water utility customers in comparison to 13,253 customers in 2024. Data is sourced from the Monthly Utility Bill Summary Report, which includes all utility rate classifications. No disconnections for nonpayment were completed due to weather restrictions. Visitations from the Electric Admin and the Code Enforcement Department were a success and effective for departmental overview and collaboration for team efforts within the City. The Customer Services Department continues to focus on serving the community, providing service in excellence, and working together collaboratively to strengthen daily opertations. Receivable Comparison FY 2025 to Utility Disconnections for December 2025 FY2026 to date (December 2025) 0 accounts were disconnected for non-payment of service. Compared to the same time last year the City had open receivables of Total receivable collected through the disconnection process $0. $10,146,049.2 vs $9,960,887.73. Ending Utility Receivable Due -$7,997,928.85. Customer Service Department Mission Continually provide quality public service to our diverse group of customers with professionalism, respect, & integrity. ~ City of Dover Customer Service Department Page 69 9

Item #20. ASSESSOR’S REPORT Number of Deeds Stamped for Transfer Tax Dollar Amount for the Month of Dec. 2024/2025 the Month of 30 23 29 24 $400 Dec. 2024/2025 22 $230 Thousands 25 16 $186 20 10 $200 $122 15 $101 $53 10 3 2 1 4 2024 $23 $10 $1 2024 5 $0 0 2025 2025 First Time Buyer for the Month Dec. 2024/2025 Realty Property of Dec. 2024/2025 Sales in Dollars Received Prior to 29 Recording 30 23 24 $12 $12 $15 $7 $8 $7 20 Millions Res. Non-First $10 $3 10 Time Buyers $5 $1 $0 2024 10 $0 Res. First Time 2025 Buyers 0 2024 2025 Major Updates October November December Assessment Change -$220,900 $392,600 $6,340,000 Residential Sales Ratio Report Sales in Study Total Assessed Total Sale Price Ratio PRD Value 36 $5,938,500 $10,142,448 0.59 1.03 Ratio – Assessed Value divided by Sale Price. PRD – Mean – A PRD above 1.03 tends to indicate assessment regressivity – high valued properties are under appraised relative to low valued properties. A PRD below .98 tends to indicate assessment progressivity – high valued properties are relatively over appraised. Page 70 10

Item #20. ASSESSOR’S REPORT Tax Office Wild Meadows / Persimmon Park Place Home Sales for December 2025: Property Address Assessed Value Sales Price N/A N/A N/A January Supplemental Billing - Supplemental bills were generated totaling $13,759.88. Page 71 11

012ÿ445ÿ4647 44ÿ 89 ÿ 9ÿÿ 1ÿ1  ÿ 1ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ 814 19 2BC D8 1 D29   B  9  118D 1ÿ1 1ÿ 98 1  !" " #! "& )" #$ÿ+),-,-+ÿ./0ÿ) " & "((% # " #& 8@ 21 ÿÿÿÿÿ"$#A& "8# ÿÿÿÿÿ% A ÿ!% $ !""#! # )" &$ÿ1,002+ÿ) " "% "( ' # "#& 8 21 ÿÿÿÿÿ"""A' 8# ÿÿÿÿÿ##A ÿ!" $ !""#! # )" ""&ÿ342,0ÿ/5005.ÿ) " % "( & " "# 8 21 ÿÿÿÿÿ" A "&8# ÿÿÿÿÿ%%A ÿ!'& $ !"%#%! # )" ÿ-ÿ2--ÿ21 " "' "($ " "$ 8 21 ÿÿÿÿÿ"A" "8# ÿÿÿÿÿ#%A ÿ!' $ !"%"! # )" # ÿ1,)+,-,2ÿ21 " "$ "((# " " & 8 21 ÿÿÿÿÿ"$ A  #(8# ÿÿÿÿÿ%&A ÿ!' $ !"$"#$! " )" $##ÿ-ÿ.67ÿ67 "  "($% # "'$' 8@ + ÿÿÿÿÿ"&$A  ##8# ÿÿÿÿÿ%A ÿ!$" $ !"$#%! " )" #"ÿ85049:,2ÿ21 " " "(%' # "& & 8@ 21 ÿÿÿÿÿ"(%A( "&8# ÿÿÿÿÿ%#A ÿ!$ $ !#% &! & )" %'ÿ-ÿ:)2;5)ÿ67 " " "(# "! ##  : 21 ÿÿÿÿÿ#"%A" #8# ÿÿÿÿÿ%#A ÿ!$$ $&!"'##%! "% )" %% ÿ9282)7/4)ÿ) " "' "($ " ""% 8 + ÿÿÿÿÿ" (A" "8# ÿÿÿÿÿ#A ÿ!& $&!"&"'! )" $%ÿ92<0ÿ<=.> " "' "(% " "# 8 + ÿÿÿÿÿ"$ A# &8# ÿÿÿÿÿ" A ÿ!(& $&!"("'! $ )" # %ÿ285)-ÿ0-  "' "( " ""  8@ 21 ÿÿÿÿÿ"$'A& "8# ÿÿÿÿÿ%'(A ÿ!' $&!"(#(! $ )" "#%ÿ0,--ÿ87 " & "((# # "#%# 8 21 ÿÿÿÿÿ"'"A$ 8# ÿÿÿÿÿ# &A ÿ!" $&!"(! "' )" "$(ÿ0?,-+75-ÿ<0 " "% # # #% 8@ + ÿÿÿÿÿ"&'A$ %8# ÿÿÿÿÿ%#'A ÿ!  $!%"'$! "' )" "# ÿÿ6/0)2=ÿ8,) " & #$ # "& 8@ 21 ÿÿÿÿÿ"$ A "$8# ÿÿÿÿÿ%A ÿ!$  $!'#('! # )" ""ÿ)ÿ/21-ÿ.2> " "% ## # "'# 8@ 21 ÿÿÿÿÿ"' A  "8# ÿÿÿÿÿ%#(A(( ÿ!'  $!'"!""""# ) ( ÿ<2)ÿ/21-ÿ) " # "( & " "& 8 ? ÿÿÿÿÿÿ$A% #(8# ÿÿÿÿÿÿ A ÿ!&$  $!$#$! "' )" %&ÿ/27/);,0ÿ.2> " & "((% # "'& 8@ + ÿÿÿÿÿ"%A# ##8# ÿÿÿÿÿ#$A ÿ!&  $! %$! " )" ""ÿ;5?ÿ/200ÿ) " "($ # # # : ÿÿÿÿÿ#&"A #(8# ÿÿÿÿÿ'%%A$& ÿ!$  $!$#"!"% ) "ÿ27)29ÿ/200 " # "( % " " % : + ÿÿÿÿÿ""%A& 8# ÿÿÿÿÿ" (A( ÿ!$% 12 Page 72 Item #20.

012ÿ445ÿ4647 44ÿ 89 ÿ 9ÿÿ 1ÿ1  ÿ 1ÿ4ÿÿÿÿÿÿ 814 19 2AB C8 1 C29   A  9  118C 1ÿ1 1ÿ 98 1   !"#$!!%%$ % ) '&'ÿ+,-./+-ÿ01  '& % #"( . 3: ÿÿÿÿÿ&(@%  !.!% ÿÿÿÿÿ%@ ÿ$&(  !"#$!!&'$ & ) #ÿ12340ÿ)   ''# % '(( .? 3: ÿÿÿÿÿ @ !.!% ÿÿÿÿÿ% @ ÿ$#  !"#$&!%!"$ # ) '#ÿ4,55+,-ÿ)  % $  ' . 3: ÿÿÿÿÿ'&@ '!.!% ÿÿÿÿÿ& @ ÿ$ #  !"#$%!!'$ ) %ÿ02)6//ÿ.1  # ' '  # & .? 3: ÿÿÿÿÿ(@& !.!% ÿÿÿÿÿ%(@ ÿ$#  !"#$%!%!#$ % ) #&ÿ.23)+0ÿ)  # '#&  "& .? 7 ÿÿÿÿÿ((@ !.!% ÿÿÿÿÿ'@' ÿ$#  !"#$%!%! ($ % ) %ÿ6//07ÿ)  & '#  (% . 7 ÿÿÿÿÿ%@ '!.!% ÿÿÿÿÿ#@ ÿ$ #  !"#$%!&!'$ ) ' #ÿ83-93ÿ+-  & ''&  #"' .? 3: ÿÿÿÿÿ'(@' !.!% ÿÿÿÿÿ%@ ÿ$#%  !""$ !!&$ ' ) &ÿ0ÿ7/:)-/)0ÿ3:  %' %  % .? 3: ÿÿÿÿÿ'@  &!.!% ÿÿÿÿÿ%@ ÿ$##  !""$"!! "$ # ) &&ÿ4/),3)1;ÿ01 ( %" % &%& . 3: ÿÿÿÿÿ&(@" !.!% ÿÿÿÿÿ%#%@ ÿ$ "  !""$"!#!(&$ # ) ÿ-/<ÿ2,++ÿ)  %# % #( <! 3: ÿÿÿÿÿ%'@(  !.!% ÿÿÿÿÿ "@ ÿ$ '  !""$(!!&$ # ) %#ÿ)/83-ÿ)   %% % '"# .? 3: ÿÿÿÿÿ"#@  %!.!% ÿÿÿÿÿ%#@  ÿ$ &  !""$(!!(#$ # ) %ÿ53,)53=ÿ+-   %% %  (( .? 3: ÿÿÿÿÿ#%@( %&!.!% ÿÿÿÿÿ%" @ ÿ$ '  !""$(!!("$ # ) % ÿ53,)53=ÿ+-   %% %  (( .? 3: ÿÿÿÿÿ#%@( %&!.!% ÿÿÿÿÿ%" @ ÿ$ '  !""$!%!&$ % ) #%&ÿ),:)ÿ)  & ' #  '% .! 5) ÿÿÿÿÿÿ'%@' #!.!% ÿÿÿÿÿ%% @ ÿ$&  !""$"!&!#($ & ) &ÿ+/1>0ÿ01  '& % "' .! 7 ÿÿÿÿÿ" @  !.!% ÿÿÿÿÿ' @ ÿ$'  !( $%!!'$ % ) &ÿ3+)ÿ)  '#& %   .? 7 ÿÿÿÿÿ(@ '!.!% ÿÿÿÿÿ@ ÿ$#  !( $%!!%%$ % ) %(ÿ900+),-7ÿ3:  '#& %   .? 7 ÿÿÿÿÿ#@" '!.!% ÿÿÿÿÿ%(@ ÿ$ ( 13 Page 73 Item #20.

Item #20. ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT For the month of December 2025, the Electric Department contributed to the quality of life for all our customers. The city experienced a system peak of 108.71 megawatts, an increase of 17.99 megawatts from last month and a 7.57 megawatt increase from the same month last year. There was a total of 3 outages for the month, affecting a total of 216 customers with an average outage time of 52.39 minutes. For the month, all three were thought to have been from squirrels and resulted in fuses being replaced. Project Updates: The department continues to work on FY26 projects and completed the Operations & Maintenance and Capital FY27 budget. Work on transmission pole replacements continues as well as the substation project. We are still communicating with them concerning the discrepancies that need to be addressed. Van Sant was dispatched by PJM in December for a time to start test and ran for 2.3 hours. During this time the team was able to accomplish the annual winter capacity test requirement. The goal was to meet 42 MWs and the unit exceeded that after temperature corrections. FY 26 YTD Outages and Response Time: Total – 45 Average Response Time – 25.5 minutes (Goal – Less than 30 minutes) Lost Time Accidents – Workorders Generated – Current Month – 0 Total FY – 0 Current Month – 115 Total FY – 935 Historical Peak Load 180 160 140 120 100 2022 Megawatts 80 2023 60 2024 40 20 2025 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Page 74 14

Item #20. Emergency Management and Communications The Department of Emergency Management and Communications is dedicated to protecting lives, property, and the well-being of our community through coordinated emergency preparedness, effective communication, and responsive public safety services. Through transparent public information and proactive community engagement, we strive to build trust, enhance readiness, and strengthen the City’s resilience before, during, and after any crisis. We oversee and support Emergency Management, Emergency Medical Services, Public Communications, and the Office of the Fire Marshal, ensuring rapid, professional, and compassionate response to emergencies. Director Kay M. Sass Deputy Director & Fire Marshal Jason A. Osika Deputy Fire Marshal’s FM2 Matthew C. Brown FM3 Phillip M. Lewis FM4 Sean P.M. Christiansen EMS Primary Contacts: Senior Regional Director of Operations Tyler Selak Dover EMS Division Chief Michael Jenkins Page 75 15

Item #20. Fire Marshal’s Office - At a Glance December 2025 The Fire Marshal’s Office investigated 4 incidents during the month of December. Staff is conducting mercantile annual fire and life safety inspections. Matt Brown continues to assist with the building department as the liaison to the third party plan reviewer. Staff attended a jurisdictional Fire Marshal's meeting with the State Fire Marshal in New Castle County. Month Year to Date Previous Year to Date Annual Fire & Life Safety Inspections 12 163 167 Deficiencies From the Above Inspections 10 118 279 Fire Code Violations/Deficiencies/Complaints 15 114 186 C/O & Fire Equipment Acceptance Tests 11 102 58 Meetings & Walk Through 25 135 79 Fire Plan Review & DAC 5 58 56 Month Year to Date Previous Year to Date Accidental 4 totaling $50,000 19 totaling $183,958 25 totaling $527,102 Incendiary 0 4 totaling $2,200 5 totaling $2,003 Undetermined 0 5 totaling $100,503 5 totaling $518,100 Natural 0 1 totaling $1,000 0 Investigation time 11 hours 61 hours 116 hours Injuries 0 3 11 Deaths 0 1 0 Page 76 Arrest Made with DPD 0 0 0 16

EMS DECEMBER 2025 Item #20. RUN VOLUME: A total of 1275 responses by Dover EMS for the month. Of those 1275, 758 required transport (815 patients) 249 received services and did not transport and 57 cancelled or refused. Sick persons was the most frequent calls, followed by MVC’s, and chest pains at time of dispatch. Average Response Times: State of Delaware compliance requirements are that 90% of responses be below the response time guidelines. Dover EMS exceeded the 90% minimum in every category. Alpha 9.6 min. 97.73% (Low priority - Ie: non life threatening Ie: non serious illness, back pain, flu like symptoms) Bravo 6.9 min. 96.43% (Moderate Priority - Ie: minor allergic reaction, fainted now alert) Charlie 7.1 min. 99.26% (Urgent - Ie: difficulty breathing, severe abdominal pain, diabetic emergency) Delta 6.6 min. 99.57% (High Priority - ie: cardiac arrest, not breathing severe trauma or choking, childbirth complications) Echo 5.0 min. 100% (Highest priority - Ie: cardiac arrest confirmed, not breathing at all, mass casualty, CPR in progress) Omega 11.2 min. 100% (Lowest Priority - Ie: Minor nosebleed, non injury fall assist) Participated in many holiday events and stand by throughout the community during the holiday season. Additional information: 36 Total Surge Emergencies - Surge emergences refer to situations where the demand for EMS exceeds normal capacity causing the implementation of a surge plan (Bringing on additional units) 9 Total Surge Unit Activations with Transports 15 dispatches with a 27– Run Card (Penetrating Trauma) - 13 patients transported (ie: gunshot wound, stab wounds, other types of impalements) Average response time 6 min Dover was dispatched out of district 45 times, and transported 24 of those. Total calls handled by mutual aid into Dover is 17. (1.3% of run volume) Dover was dispatched out of district 27 times (arrived 21) resulting in 19 transports. 10.7% of the overall calls were individuals without a home. Page 77 17

Item #20. HUMAN RESOURCES DECEMBER 2025 City of Dover Human Resources Mission Statement: The City of Dover’s Human Resources Department strives to provide quality service to assist our greatest asset, our employees. Equity, Integrity, and Urgency is our focus to ensure employee satisfaction as well as company wellness. We implement policies and procedures that align with organizational goals, including a safe and compliant workplace, effective training and professional development, and addressing both the needs of employees and the organization. City of Dover Human Resources Value Statement: Innovation: We strive to include best HR practices to enhance a robust technological movement to enhance the quality and efficiency of the department. Collaboration: We honor knowledge sharing, diversity of thoughts and ideas, and experiences to encourage an inclusive workforce. Integrity and Transparency: We honor our commitments and promote a healthy environment that promotes fairness, honesty, respect, and trust. Results Driven: Customer service is front and center, and we advocate for employees' and retirees’ needs at all times. DECEMBER SUMMARY: DECEMBER Hiring Trends FY26: MONTH NEW HIRE AMOUNT STATUS DECEMBER 7 6 FT, 1 PT DECEMBER Voluntary Termination/Involuntary Termination Trends FY26: VOLUNTARY 0 FT INVOLUNTARY 0 FT RETIREMENT 0 FT Page 78 18

Item #20. HUMAN RESOURCES DECEMBER EEO DATA EEO DATA 3% 2% 2% 2% 16% 75% AMERICAN INDIAN ASIAN AFRICAN AMERICAN CAUCASIAN HISPANIC OTHER RACE AMERICAN INDIAN 2% ASIAN 2% AFRICAN AMERICAN 16% CAUCASIAN 75% HISPANIC 3% OTHER RACE 2% Page 79 19

Item #20. HUMAN RESOURCES DECEMBER EEO DEMOGRAPHICS EEO DEMOGRAPHICS OTHER RACE 9 MINORITY 97 CAUCASIAN 302 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 OTHER RACE 9 MINORITY 97 CAUCASIAN 302 Page 80 20

Item #20. HUMAN RESOURCES DECEMBER GENDER REPORT GENDER REPORT 0% 28% 72% FEMALE MALE NONBINARY MALES 72% FEMALE 28% NON-BINARY 0% Page 81 21

Item #20. HUMAN RESOURCES FULL-TIME VS. PART-TIME EE’S FULL -TIME VS. PART-TIME EE'S 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC FULL TIME PART TIME TOTAL EE'S Numbers do not reflect committees, or council members. Page 82 22

Item #20. HUMAN RESOURCES DECEMBER INTERNAL EE AGE DEMOGRAPHICS AGE DEMOGRAPHICS 18-24 5% 25-34 16% 35-44 22% 45-54 24% 55-64 26% 65+ 7% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% AGE PERCENTAGE 18-24 5% 25-34 16% 35-44 22% 45-54 24% 55-64 26% 65 + 7% Page 83 23

Item #20. HUMAN RESOURCES HIRING DETAILS Position Hired: LIBRARY PAGE, POLICE PATROLMAN (4), GIS SPECIALIST, UTILITY MAINTANENCE MECHANIC I Transferred/Promoted: Position Terminated/Resigned/Retired/Other: Terminal Leave: N/A CURRENT VACANT POSITIONS *Not used for Budgeting Purposes Page 84 24

Item #20. HUMAN RESOURCES TURNOVER STATISTICS Page 85 25

Item #20. HUMAN RESOURCES Page 86 26

Item #20. HUMAN RESOURCES Page 87 27

Item #20. HUMAN RESOURCES DECEMBER WORKER’S COMPENSATION DATA Respectfully Submitted by H. Naomi Poole Page 88 28

Item #20. Information Technology material was not available at the time this report was completed and therefore will be included in next month’s report. Page 89 29

Reference Transactions December 2025 Item #20. Adults 486 Teens 65 Children 192 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 Circulation Dec. '25 FYTD '26 Dec. '24 FYTD '25 City of Dover Residents 8,533 56,467 8,741 61,531 Electronic Materials 7,755 49,620 7,411 42,728 Kent County Residents 8,657 60,102 9,317 63,289 Non-County Residents 1,105 7,714 1,257 7,804 New Library Registrations City of Dover Residents 189 1,650 209 1,449 Kent County Residents 87 838 77 633 Non-County Residents 1 32 2 26 Registered Library Users as of 12/01/2025 Registered Library Users as of 12/31/2024 City of Dover Residents 18,879 20,188 Kent County Residents 10,201 9,568 Non-County Residents 672 704 TOTAL 29,752 30,460 Other Visitors 14,250 88,669 12,787 85,316 Meeting Room Attendance 3,453 18,266 3,326 18,784 Number of Computer Users 1,421 9,172 N/A 4,075 Number of Wireless Computer Users 1,187 9,120 1,143 8,742 Inter/Intralibrary - Loaned 38 45 Inter/Intralibrary - Borrowed 49 73 Holds Sent 2,324 2,347 Holds Received 1,689 1,576 TOTAL 4,100 26,527 4,041 24,698 Tech Services/Items Added 1,102 963 Tech Services/Items Deleted 2,038 2,114 Passport Services/Customers 183 1,159 165 1,296 Passport Services/Revenue $7,345 $45,510 $9,130 $55,308 Monthly Highlights ►326 attended 48 programs for adults. ►877 attended 19 program for teens. ►1,158 attended 28 programs for children. ► 0 volunteers. Program Spotlight 0 Page 90 30

Item #20. Parks & Recreation Monthly Report – December 2025 PARKS & RECREATION HIGHLIGHTS Dover Park Building and Spray Pad: Please visit our web page for frequent updates: https:// www.cityofdover.gov/departments/ParksRecreation/Splashpadandcommunitycenter All Accessible Playground: Will begin construction once the building and spray pad are complete. Skate Park: Staff are working with WRA on final design for bidding project. Parks & Recreation: John W. Pitts hosted the City of Dover Holiday Luncheon for all city employees. Winter youth basketball and indoor field hockey leagues began for the 2025/2026 season. Grounds Department: The grounds department worked hard with the Christmas trees and wreaths all around the City. Grounds and Parks and Recreation hosted our annual tree lighting ceremony. Outdoor Sports & Leagues Participant & Spectator Count FY 26 General FY 25 Recreation Activity Participants Spectators Location Sports General Leagues Recreati Indoor Field Hockey 204 350 Schutte Park on Trips Basketball Participation 247 450 Schutte Park Bldg, Field, Sports Pee Wee Play Day 118 150 Schutte Park Pavilion & Stage Camps Leagues Volleyball Tryouts 50 75 Schutte Park December 2025 December 2024 General Recreation $4041.00 General Recreation $716.00 Sports $2160.00 Sports 744.00 Leagues $16,410.00 Leagues $2,440.00 Trips $8,158.00 Trips $410.00 Bldg, Field Pavilion Bldg, Field Pavilion $325.00 $60.00 Stage Permits Stage Permits Camps $0.00 Camps $0.00 Parks & Recreation FYTD FYTD Dec 25 Dec 24 Programs 26 25 General Recreation 78 924 155 2,096 Open Gym 126 876 151 656 Sports 330 908 0 496 Leagues (Inside) 1,549 15,301 3,710 13,416 Bldg, Field, Facility, 412 8,456 571 8,044 Stage permits Camps 0 1,700 0 1,609 Page 91 31

Item #20. Grounds Monthly Report Arborist Crew December-2025 Tree Work Completed Tree's Trimmed 0 Arborist Crew: Tree's Removed 3 Root Pruning 0 - Christmas lights Stumps Removed 2 - Stump grinding Trees Planted 0 - Tree removal - Snow removal Beautification Crew: - Assis with Christmas decorations Trees Removed - Maintained flower beds 80 - Trim buses and remove leaves around city buildings 60 - Snow removal 40 20 Mowing Crew: 0 - Cleaned up mowing areas Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec - Assist with Christmas decorations 2022 2023 2024 2025 - Snow removal Litter Removal: Litter Cans Collected - Litter route is being picked up on schedule 800 - 241 cans picked up 600 Parks Crew: 400 - Maintain parks, picked up litter and fallen tree limbs 200 - Assist with Christmas decorations 0 Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec - Helped set up events and the Pitts Center 2022 2023 2024 2025 Miscellaneous: - Winterized equipment - Bushhog areas around the city Trees Trimmed 250 200 150 100 50 0 Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 2022 2023 2024 2025 Page 92 32

Item #20. Page 93 33

Item #20. Page 94 34

Item #20. Page 95 35

Item #20. Page 96 36

Item #20. CITY OF DOVER DEPARTMENT OF WATER & WASTEWATER MONTHLY REPORT Dec-25 Inflow & Infiltration Costs This chart indicates the amount of money the City is spending on treating ground and / or rain water through Kent $200,000.00 County. This cost is being offset by the Ground Water Inflow Adjustment rate passed on to the customers. April 2025 and July 2025 had a large amout of rainfall, causing a significant I & I deficit. December 2025 had an estimated volume due to a flow meter malfunction $150,000.00 $100,000.00 $50,000.00 $- Dec-24 Jan-25 Feb-25 Mar-25 Apr-25 May-25 Jun-25 Jul-25 Aug-25 Sep-25 Oct-25 Nov-25 Dec-25 $(50,000.00) $(100,000.00) I & I Cost Water & Wastewater Repairs 8 Water mains and services are typically repaired at a higher rate when drastic change in temperature 7 occurs. This freeze and thaw cycle expands and contracts the soil, causing cracks in the water line. 6 January 2025 had large fluctuations of temperature, causing a large volume of repairs. 5 4 3 2 1 0 Dec-24 Jan-25 Feb-25 Mar-25 Apr-25 May-25 Jun-25 Jul-25 Aug-25 Sep-25 Oct-25 Nov-25 Dec-25 Water Mains Repaired Water Services Repaired Wastewater Mains Repaired Wastewater Laterals Repaired Page 97 37

Item #20. CITY OF DOVER DEPARTMENT OF WATER & WASTEWATER MONTHLY REPORT Dec-25 Number of Brown Water Complaints 9 This chart indicates the number of complaints the Department receives. 8 February and March 2025 were high due to flushing being scheduled in April 7 2025. 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Dec-24 Jan-25 Feb-25 Mar-25 Apr-25 May-25 Jun-25 Jul-25 Aug-25 Sep-25 Oct-25 Nov-25 Dec-25 Number of Brown Water Complaints Linear (Number of Brown Water Complaints) Department Spotlight - December Turnberry Pump Station was received upgraded to provide a more efficient station. Additionally, a new driveway and fence were installed. Page 98 38

Item #21. DOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT December 2025 FIRE CHIEFS REPORT Page 99

Item #21. To: Mayor and Council From: David Carey, Fire Chief Date: December 9, 2025 Subject: December 2025 Fire Chief’s Report First, I would like to wish all of you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year from the members and officers of the fire department. Several members participated in the Dashing Through Dover Christmas Parade and Operations Santa runs. Operation Santa is a huge task for the fire department, covering the entire fire district in just three days. Again, our membership dedication has proven to shine. Swearing-In Ceremony Fire Officers were officially sworn in on December 16th by the Mayor at City Hall. Major Incidents • House Fire – Lordship Lane • House Fire – Laurel Drive • MVC Entrapment – Westville Road • Building Fire – Par Haven Drive • Kitchen Fire – Whatcoat Apartments • House Fire – N. Governors Blvd Newly Qualified Drivers • Zach Lawrence – Engine 1, Squad 1 • Roc Reb – Squad 1 • Kevin O’Toole – Ladder 1, Tower 2 • Fred Chase – Tower 2 Page 100

Item #21. Stipend Program Financial Overview The Stipend Program continues to perform strongly. In November, 50 firefighters participated. We are actively collecting feedback, identifying areas for improvement, and making necessary adjustments. Month Total ($) Members June $19,106.00 41 July $21,188.10 41 August $25,607.00 46 September $25,915.80 47 October $27,600.00 47 November $24,070.00 48 December $25,640.00 50 Total Expenditure to Date: $194,733.90 Personnel Activities Category Hours Meetings 123.5 Training 67 Duty Crews 5,698 Incident 3,423 Total Hours 9,311.5 Total Calls for the month of November: 145 Average Attendance: 23 personnel per call Page 101

Item #21. Closing The Fire Department continues to operate with professionalism, adaptability, and commitment to public safety. Ongoing training, policy updates, and staffing efforts are strengthening operational readiness. The department appreciates the continued support of City Council and remains committed to transparent communication and service excellence. Respectfully submitted, David Carey, Fire Chief Page 102

Item #21. Page 103

Item #21. Page 104

Item #21. Page 105

Item #22. Page 106

CITY OF DOVER DEPARTMENT OF POLICE Item #22. 400 SOUTH QUEEN STREET DOVER, DELAWARE 19904 302-736-7111 Chief of Police Police Captains THOMAS A. JOHNSON, JR. RANDY R. ROBBINS Deputy Chief of Police ROBERT E. ROSWELL PAUL D. KUNTZI KEVIN A. STREADWICK February 9, 2026 Honorable Robin Christiansen, Mayor Members of Dover City Council City Hall Dover, DE 19901 Mayor Christiansen and Council Members: The following is the monthly report of Dover Police Department activities for December: COMPLAINTS/EVENTS YTD Totals compiled through December numbered 46,508. This represents a decrease of 1,969 from the 48,477 reported over the same period in 2024. 60,000 48,477 46,508 50,000 39,908 40,443 43,211 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS Burglary: 7 cases reported, 7 cases cleared and 9 cases were cleared from previous months. Robbery: 1 case reported, 0 cases cleared and 3 cases were cleared from previous months. Sex Assault: 2 cases reported, 1 case cleared and 0 cases were cleared from previous months. Homicide: 0 cases reported, 0 cases cleared and 0 cases cleared from previous months. There was 7 Non-Criminal Death Investigations, 7 cases cleared and 0 cases cleared from previous months. 1 Page 107

DRUG, VICE, & ORGANIZED CRIME / STREET CRIMES UNIT ENFORCEMENT Item #22. Marijuana: 26.5 grams seized Cocaine: 235.4 grams seized Ecstasy: 0 doses seized Prescription Pills: 0 doses seized Heroin: 0 grams seized Methamphetamine: 0 grams seized Fentanyl: 0 grams seized Other Rx Drugs: 0 grams/doses seized Drug Proceeds: $3,520 seized FIREARM SEIZURES/INSIDE CITY LIMITS 15 10 6 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CI DVOC/STREET CRIMES PATROL SEU HANDGUN RIFLE SHOTGUN Firearms: 7 Handguns TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT YTD Citation Totals compiled through December numbered 7,740. This represents an increase of 1,971 from the 5,769 reported over the same period in 2024. 9,000 7,807 7,740 8,000 6,755 7,000 5,785 5,769 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 TRAFFIC CRASHES: YTD = 1,980 2 Page 108

911 CENTER ACTIVITY Item #22. Total compiled during December numbered 7,126 calls. This represents a decrease of 233 from the 7,359 reported during the same period in 2024. 7,600 7,503 7,400 7,359 7,200 7,126 7,079 7,000 6,812 6,800 6,600 6,400 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 CITY ORDINANCE SUMMONS YTD Totals compiled through December numbered 4,538. This represents an increase of 1,234 from the 3,304 reported over the same period in 2024. 5,000 4,538 4,097 3,761 4,000 3,304 3,000 2,317 2,029 2,000 1,363 1,030 890 1,037 1,000 0 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 ISSUED 4,097 3,761 2,029 3,304 4,538 PAID 1,030 890 1,037 1,363 2,317 3 Page 109

COMMUNITY POLICING Item #22. This proactive unit takes the lead on community engagement and supporting our community organizations. They have administrative responsibilities and also support other departmental units, such as patrol, during times of high work volumes or special operations with enforcement activities. In addition to those duties, the unit accomplished the following in December:  Assisted Patrol Units during major incidents, high 911 call volume and/or low staffing  Training Events: Drug Recognition Expert and SORT  Conducted property checks of problem areas from community complaints  Planning for Easter Egg Hunt, Toys for Tots, Hometown Holiday, Dashing Through Dover, Polar Bear Plunge  Participated in a Career Day – Postlewaite Middle School [K-9 Roy]  Participated in the Holiday Heroes event – Target Store [K-9 Roy]  Participated in the Dashing Through Dover Parade - Downtown  21st Century Program activities at the Central Middle School [PAL]  [PAL] coordinator worked on a new program- Sponsored Athlete  Assisted Patrol Unit with a Crash Reconstruction assignment.  Physical Training with Police Recruits leading into Academy Day - 1  Meeting with U.S. Capital PD – Employee Wellness strategies  Ride-a-long- Deputy AG in charge of traffic collision prosecutions  Participated in the Christmas Tree Lighting- Loockerman Plaza.  Liaison with Mr. Scott Campbell regarding security at Persimmon Park Place  Coordinated the Hometown Holiday event on Legislative Mall [K-9 Roy]  Continued efforts regarding Quality of Life complaints on South Governor’s Ave.  Meeting with a resident regarding a neighbor dispute on Boggs Drive  Participated in Annual Blue Light Vigil – Legislative Mall  The Behavioral Health Unit (BHU) responded to and/or assisted with 62 notable Calls for Service (CFS). Of those 62 CFS, the following occurred: o 21 involved transports to the Dover Police Department or Medical/Mental Health Facilities. o 30 involved Mental Health contacts and 19 involved Substance Abuse contacts, while 5 CFS involved a combination of both. o 57 involved other circumstances and/or CFS types. o 78 direct field contacts occurred during the 62 complaints involving Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and/or Other Circumstances.  BHU Meetings/Events/Community Engagement/Projects/Training: o Most Notable: The BHU assisted Patrol and SaVida Health with a group home client on Paradee Drive that was becoming increasingly aggressive. Over the month, one arrest, several complaints, and numerous meetings occurred with legal and clinical recommendations made, which ultimately led to the client’s voluntary discharge. o The BHU offered additional services and meetings to Conexio Care in reference to a group home client on Bertrand Drive. o The BHU assisted with a stabbing incident that occurred at the Capital Inn. Interviews were completed and services were offered and delivered to a mother and child involved in the 4 Page 110

complaint. It was later discovered that the mother voluntarily left secure housing that was Item #22. organized by BHU in conjunction with Dover Interfaith. o Continued communication with Code Enforcement and Property Representatives for several downtown properties and Eden Hill reference the ongoing trespass and homelessness issues. o Continued meetings with the Prescription Opioid Settlement Distribution Commission and others about upcoming funding for the City of Dover, Kent County, and the DPD Behavioral Health Unit. o The BHU assisted with a firearm incident at Walgreens on Rt. 8 that included subjects known to CPL Shepherd. Services were offered and transportation provided to a juvenile involved. o CPL Shepherd continued to meet with Dover Behavioral Health and Bayhealth Emergency Department staff to improve crisis response throughout Dover and the State.  BHU continued to assist all Units within the Department with Behavioral Health PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES On December 2nd, the Mayor administered the oath of office to Officer Steven Payne. Officer Payne is a graduate of the Dover Municipal Police Academy who began his career as a member of the Delaware State University Police Department. This hire occurred in conjunction with the onboarding of our five (5) Recruit Officers who will begin the Academy in January. In total, upon their successful graduation, and not factoring in any unexpected departures, this brings the agency up to 107 sworn staff over the course of calendar year 2026. Bad weather had an impact on the December 7th assessment day for potential Recruit Officers. Background investigations began on a small number of candidates and results are expected by late January. During the first week of December, the Department played host to an FBI-coordinated class for Advanced Public Information Officer skills. Master Corporal Ryan Schmid was among the dozens of veteran officers who attended the 5-day course. He currently serves as the DPD PIO and we congratulate him on his success in the class. On December 8th, Dover PD was notified of an opportunity to participate in a Federal Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) grant program that is already approved and ongoing in the State of Delaware. The Delaware Criminal Justice Council (CJC), the designated office in charge of sub-awards of Federal BJA programs, identified Dover to receive a pre- determined sum in excess of $60,000.00 under the umbrella of their State Crisis Intervention Program (SCIP). To take advantage of the offer, the DPD would need to identify an acceptable project and return a completed application within 30 days. Continued investigation into the opportunity indicated there was a high probability of a subsequent grant, with similar funds, to continue an approved project for an additional year. Based on all of the available information, and the short response time, the Department elected to submit the “ZeroEyes” technology for consideration. This technology has already been outlined to City Council and fits well within the SCIP program categories of “Support for Law Enforcement” and “Firearms Safety/Firearms Violence.” If this is ultimately approved by the CJC, the technology should become a force multiplier for the existing City Camera Network. The grant-funded introductory period should also generate the needed data for an informed decision related to future funding using local resources. 5 Page 111

Item #22. The Holiday Heroes program was another great success this year. This is an annual collaboration with the Dover Target Store and the Capital School District to ensure that the spirit of the season makes it to as many community members as possible. More than 20 of our DPD team members made it out for the fun and excitement on December 10th. “Bullseye” even showed up to pose for a photo. Hats off to everyone who made it possible both in the store and behind the scenes. During the second week of December, multiple officers attended a 4-day course related to the problem of Human Trafficking. The class was hosted at the Dover campus of Wilmington University and ties in with the expanded focus on this issue by the DPD. After successfully completing their Field Training experience, Officers Carney, Deallie, Jackson and Lewis have been released to full duty in the Patrol Unit. This is noteworthy in the sense that it allows the Motorcycle Officers to return to their primary duties. The Motor Unit had been supplementing the patrol platoons for quite a while but will now be clear to re-engage the important traffic enforcement function. Please visit our website at www.doverpolice.org for up to date information on crimes and activities in the City of Dover. Respectfully Submitted, Thomas A. Johnson, Jr. Chief of Police 6 Page 112

Item #23. CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE ACTION FORM MEETING: City Council MEETING DATE: February 23, 2026 Meeting DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Planning, Inspections and Community Development PREPARED BY: Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner SUBMITTED: February 18, 2026 SUBJECT: Bay Village Residential: Planned Neighborhood Design – Concept Plan (General Sketch Plan) REFERENCES: • MI-26-03 Bay Village Residential: PND at White Oak Road Concept Plan Review by City Council • Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B: Zoning (known as Zoning Ordinance) • 2019 Comprehensive Plan RELATED PROJECTS: A number of Applications for Minor Lot Line Adjustments, Rezoning, and other Planned Neighborhood Design Option/ Senior Citizen Housing Option projects involving the property. See listing in Report below. EXHIBITS: • Sketch Plan for Bay Village Residential at White Oak Road: Planned Neighborhood Design • Letter dated February 9, 2026 from Verdantas (Project Engineer on behalf of Bay Village of Dover, LLC) TIMETABLE: • The Planned Neighborhood Design Option (PND) review process involving a subdivision consists of three review steps which involve the City Council and then the Planning Commission. This is the first of the steps. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The City Council shall determine whether or not the proposed project known as the Bay Village Residential: Planned Neighborhood Design is of such a design and type that warrants further review by the Planning Commission. If the City Council determines that further review is warranted, the project should be referred to the Planning Commission and a Conditional Use Application filed for review. Planning Staff recommends that Bay Village Residential: Planned Neighborhood Design be referred to the Planning Commission for further review. Page 113

City Council Meeting February 23, 2026 Item #23. Action Form on MI-26-03 Bay Village Residential PND Concept Plan Referral Page 2 of 5 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS Property Development History The subject property is 79.14 acres of land on the south side of White Oak Road currently in agricultural cultivation with areas of woodland and wetlands adjacent to the Little River/Tax Ditch system. The property is currently zoned RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone): Tier 2 Primary Wellhead Protection Area. Over the years there have been multiple proposals for development of the property as summarized below. This current proposal completed the Preliminary Land Use Services (PLUS) Review process (PLUS Review #2024-02-03) in 2024 after which additional design revisions occurred as a result of comments received and consultation with City Planning Staff. The Applicant’s response to the PLUS Comments is on file in the Planning Office. Previous Applications for Bay Village PND The following are previous applications for development of or associated with this property. These presented different development scenarios and subdivision lot layouts included many applications that were not fully pursued. These are only listed for reference. • MI-24-09 Bay Village Veteran’s Home Project (20 acres at White Oak Road/Long Point Road) presented as idea to City Council • MI-04-17 Bay Village PND-SCHO (Senior Citizen Housing Option of 700 units on 224 acres) at City Council on September 27, 2004. • C-04-09 Bay Village PND-SCHO (Senior Citizen Housing Option on 224 acres on White Oak Road and Long Point Road): December 2004 – no action taken by Planning Commission/application withdrawn • MI-07-09 Lands of Bay Village of Dover: Minor Lot Line Adjustment Plan for property on west side of Long Point Road, recorded Record Plan July 10, 2007 • MI-09-07 Bay Village Minor Lot Line Adjustment Plan – Parcel Consolidation on White Oak Road • Z-09-02 Lands of Bay Village of Dover, LLC on White Oak Road for 79.16 acres: Rezoning from A/AEOZ/SWPOZ to RM-2/AEOZ/SWPOZ approved by City Council on October 12, 2009 • SB-09-03 Bay Village of Dover at 999 Long Point Road: Minor Subdivision of 2 lots on 117.77 acres granted conditional approval by Planning Commission on June 15, 2009 • MI-10-05 Bay Village PND (462 units on 76.72 acres on White Oak Road) – General Sketch Plan at City Council on March 8, 2010 Current Application (MI-26-03 Bay Village Residential - PND): This submission is the first step in the process for consideration of a Planned Neighborhood Design project. For Bay Village Residential PND, the project proposes to construct a residential subdivision of 250 Townhouse units on individual lots and is proposed with an additional parcel reserved for future development of a 380-unit apartment complex. The applicant has submitted a Sketch Plan Narrative Letter dated February 9, 2026 and a Concept/Sketch Plan set showing the subdivision plan of streets, lots, Clubhouse location and other active recreation areas, stormwater management facilities, woodland area, wetlands, and existing/revised Special Flood Hazard Areas. The property is approximately 79.14 acres located on the south side of White Oak Road, east of State Route 1 and across from the Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center (industrial park). The project completed a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) with DelDOT and will also be pursuing a Page 114

City Council Meeting February 23, 2026 Item #23. Action Form on MI-26-03 Bay Village Residential PND Concept Plan Referral Page 3 of 5 CLOMR (Conditional Letter of Map Revision) with FEMA related to the Special Flood Hazard Area. See Attachments. Planned Neighborhood Design Option The applicant is seeking approval under the Planned Neighborhood Design Ordinance for the Option (see Zoning Ordinance, Article 3, Section 24.1(a)). The Ordinance sets forth a three-step review and approval process. In the first step, the developer shall meet with the City Council and present a general sketch plan per Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 Section 24.2. The City Council shall determine whether or not the proposed project is of such a design and type that warrants further review by the Planning Commission. If the City Council determines that further review is warranted, then the project shall proceed to the second step, which is a more detailed Conditional Use/ Conceptual Subdivision Plan review and public hearing process before the Planning Commission. A third review step (Preliminary Subdivision Plan) with the Planning Commission including public hearing will be required as the proposed project involves a land subdivision. This submission to the City Council represents the first step in the review process for the Bay Village Residential - PND. The PND is permitted in certain residential zoning classifications (R-20, R-15, R-10, R-8, RM-1, RM-2 zoning classifications) as a Conditional Use. Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §24.1(a) notes that the PND project is to present “a superior community design than would be possible under the conventional zone.” The PND must present a community design that is in accordance with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Sketch Plan shall reflect the general layout of streets, open space, and housing areas and types. Comprehensive Plan Recommendations The City of Dover 2019 Comprehensive Plan as amended shows this property on the Land Development Plan Map (Map 12-1) with the Land Use Category of Residential Medium Density. The Land Development Plan Matrix (Table 12-1) notes a series of zoning districts appropriate for the Land Use Category of Residential Medium Density. R-10 (One Family Residence) R-8 (One Family Residence) R-7 (One Family Residence) RM-1 (Medium Density Residence) RM-2 (Medium Density Residence) Residential Medium Density RG-1 (General Residence) RG-2 (General Residence) RG-3 (Group Housing) RGO (General Residence and Office) MH (Manufactured Housing) C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) Further described in the Comprehensive Plan, the Land Use Category of Residential Medium Density is associated with residential development of a maximin gross density of eight (8) dwelling units per acre in a variety of housing types (see pages 12-4 and 12-5). The White Oak Road Area is specifically described as related to the Residential Medium Density Land Use. Page 115

City Council Meeting February 23, 2026 Item #23. Action Form on MI-26-03 Bay Village Residential PND Concept Plan Referral Page 4 of 5 The following is an excerpt from the 2019 Comprehensive Plan regarding Residential Medium Density Land Uses (page 12-4 and 12-5): Recommendation for Residential Medium Density Residential Medium Density land uses involve a maximum gross density of eight (8) dwelling units per acre. This type of development may include single family houses on smaller lots, duplexes, townhouses, and some apartments. Some Manufactured Home Park developments would also be considered Residential Medium Density. Medium density residential uses are permitted in the following zoning districts: R-8 (One Family Residence Zone), R-7 (One Family Residence Zone), RM-1 (Medium Density Residence Zone), RM- 2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) planned to reflect the historic patterns and mix of land uses common to Dover’s early development, RG-1 (General Residence Zone), RG-2 (General Residence Zone), RG-3 (Group Housing Zone), RGO (General Residence and Office Zone), and MH (Manufactured Housing Zone). The Land Development Plan recommends that Residential Medium Density uses be permitted near existing and planned service and employment centers and in locations well supported by transportation infrastructure and mass transit services. Areas identified as Medium Density Residential can be looked at as potential receiving areas under a transfer of development rights program. Areas in the northern portion of the City are appropriate for Residential Medium Density development. White Oak Road Area: Residential Medium Density The Land Development Plan recommends that an area east of State Route 1 on White Oak Road be developed as Residential Medium Density. Bay Village who owns this property zoned RM-2 (Residential Medium Density Zone) could potentially develop it in an environmentally sustainable manner to provide workforce quality housing. While previously there was concern that development of this area could be a “domino” leading to additional development of land east of State Route 1, the State’s purchase of development rights in the area has reduced this concern. Additionally, the site’s location across from Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center makes it a good location for workforce housing. If there is residential development on the Lands of Bay Village, the City shall ensure that the development of the Bay Village site proceeds as a master planned community with transit access and bicycle and pedestrian amenities both within the site and connecting with Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center and other areas to the west. Additionally, the City must ensure that the viability of Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center is protected by requiring that the phasing and design of development on the site minimizes any potential conflicts between the residential and industrial uses and include buffering from the industrial area. The Comprehensive Plan establishes stated goals for various types of land uses within the City limits. The stated goal for Residential Land Uses is “to develop and maintain an adequate supply of housing of varying type, size, and densities that are aesthetically pleasing and located within neighborhoods designed or redesigned to promote convenience, conservation, and access to the greater community, but which are properly buffered through distance and landscaping from Page 116

City Council Meeting February 23, 2026 Item #23. Action Form on MI-26-03 Bay Village Residential PND Concept Plan Referral Page 5 of 5 incompatible land uses” (see page 12-3). One of the goals outlined in Chapter 11 – Housing & Community Development is to “Encourage Balanced Housing Opportunities for all Residents of the City.” Map 13-2: Potential Land Use for Annexation Areas identifies the Land Use Classification for this property to be Residential Medium Density. The goals and recommendations for the Residential Medium Density Land Use are listed in the 2019 Comprehensive Plan excerpts presented below: Summary Comments and Staff Recommendation It is important to keep in mind that this proposal does not involve a rezoning of the land. The Planned Neighborhood Design Option is plan specific. The land would remain zoned RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone). The PND option allows for a greater variety of housing types and allows for commercial uses while requiring 25% open space and limiting density to eight (8) dwelling units per acre. This proposal for Bay Village Residential includes 250 Townhouses and future development of a 380-unit Apartment complex. The development parcel includes areas located in the Special Flood Hazard Area (1% Annual Chance Flood/ 100-year floodplain), wetlands, tax ditch network, and woodland areas. A portion of the development area is within the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone): Tier 2 – Primary Wellhead Protection Area. The Planning Staff recommends this Concept (Sketch) Plan be forwarded to the Planning Commission for further review and consideration through the Conditional Use process. It is important to note this report provides a summary of the project and does not represent Conditional Use/Site Plan review commentary. A detailed Plan review for code compliance and design considerations is performed through the Conditional Use Site Plan Review process for a Planned Neighborhood Design. Advisory Comments to Applicant: Should City Council choose to forward this proposal on to the Planning Commission for Conditional Use review, the applicant shall prepare the Conditional Use Plan/Subdivision Plan submission in accordance with the requirements set forth in Article 3, Section 24 and Article 10, Section 1 of the City of Dover Zoning Ordinance. The act of forwarding a proposal to the Planning Commission for further review is not intended to represent, nor shall it be construed to mean that the project is approved. The approval authority over Conditional Use applications rests with the Planning Commission. Page 117

Item #23. GENERAL NOTES: 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN IS TO CREATE A PLANNED NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT WITH 250 TOWNHOUSES. A PORTION OF THE SITE WILL BE SUBDIVIDED OUT FOR THE POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT OF A 380 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. THE APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT IS NOT PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN. MAJOR LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN N RO AD ISO E 2. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LAWS AND THE CITY OF DOVER RR RIV CODE AND STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, MOST CURRENT EDITION. ALL CONSTRUCTION MUST BE DONE IN COMPLIANCE OA WITH THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT OF 1970 AND ALL RULES AND REGULATIONS THERETO APPURTENANT. 3. EXISTING UTILITIES ARE SHOWN FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE CONTRACTOR, BUT THE COMPLETENESS OF ACCURACY OF THE SAME IS NOT GUARANTEED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AT HIS OWN EXPENSE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DAMAGES AND REPAIRS TO EXISTING UTILITIES DURING CONSTRUCTION. BAY VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL NORTH GAAK D O HI W TE K 5400 LIMESTONE ROAD WILMINGTON, DE 19808 AT WHITE OAK ROAD 4. THE EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN WERE TAKEN FROM THE BEST AVAILABLE RECORDS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT MISS UTILITY OF DELMARVA (1-800-282-8555) TO VERIFY THEIR EXACT LOCATION PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY CONSTRUCTION. ANY DAMAGE INCURRED TO ANY UTILITIES SHALL BE REPAIRED IMMEDIATELY AT THE CONTRACTORS' TEL. 302-239-6634 EXPENSE. IF THE CONTRACTOR RELIES ON THE UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON, HE DOES SO AT HIS OWN RISK AND WILL NOT BE ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION DUE TO THE DELAYS FROM SAID RELIANCE. 5. A FINAL TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LETTER WAS RECEIVED BY VERDANTAS FROM DELDOT ON DECEMBER 18,2025. RO UT SITE 6. DELAWARE REGULATIONS PROHIBIT THE BURIAL OF CONSTRUCTION DEMOLITION DEBRIS, INCLUDING TREES AND STUMPS E ON CONSTRUCTION SITES. ANY SOLID WASTES FOUND DURING EXCAVATION MUST BE REMOVED AND PROPERLY 1 DISPOSED. 7. A WETLAND EVALUATION WAS CONDUCTED BY VERDANTAS IN OCTOBER 2022 AND WETLANDS WERE FOUND ON THE SITE. STATE: DELAWARE P.E. #14062 WETLAND FLAGGING WAS LOCATED AS PART OF THE BOUNDARY SURVEY. LI T VERONICA M. DUBE, P.E. E 8. FLOODPLAINS ARE PRESENT ON SITE PER FEMA MAP PANEL 10001C0186J LAST REVISED 7/7/2014. THEY ARE SHOW ON THE PLANS PER THIS MAPPING. TL V 9. ALL HANDICAPPED PARKING DEMARCATION, STALLS AND BUILDINGS ACCESSIBLE ROUTES SHALL COMPLY WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AND ANSI A117.1-1998 ACCESSIBLE AND USABLE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES. RI 10. BEFORE THE CONTRACTOR CAN BEGIN CONSTRUCTION, HE MUST OBTAIN THE PROPER PERMITS AND/OR APPROVALS ER FROM THE CITY OF DOVER, KENT CONSERVATION (KCD), DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DELDOT), AND OTHER APPROPRIATE FEDERAL, STATE, CITY, AND COUNTY AGENCIES. MAP: KENT COUNTY GIS PARCELS LOCATION MAP SCALE: 1" = 1200'' 11. ALL CONSTRUCTION METHODS AND MATERIALS SHALL BE ACCORDING TO THE CITY OF DOVER AND DELDOT STANDARDS AND CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS. SITE DATA: 12. ALL FIRE LANES, FIRE HYDRANTS, AND FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS SHALL BE MARKED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE FIRE PREVENTION REGULATIONS. 1. TAX PARCEL NO.: 4-05-068.00-01-06.00-00001 CHK'D BY DESIGNED BY CHECKED BY PROJECT NO. 13. ALL WORK WITHIN STATE MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAYS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS AS SET FORTH IN THE 2. SOURCE OF TITLE DEED: D6718 / 242 DRAWN BY CURRENT REVISION OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE ROAD AND BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION, BY THE DELAWARE PLAT BOOK: 0113 0073 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DELDOT). 3. OWNER: BAY VILLAGE OF DOVER, LLC 34677 DATE 14. TRAFFIC AND SAFETY CONTROL SHALL BE MAINTAINED DURING CONSTRUCTION IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CURRENT PO BOX 461 VERSION OF THE DELAWARE MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (DE MUTCD) FOR CONSTRUCTION AND DOVER, DE 19903 MC VMD MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS. 4. SITE ADDRESS WHITE OAK ROAD BRK Δ AA STREET 15. ALL PROPOSED SIGNS (PYLON SIGNS, MONUMENT SIGNS) ARE SUBJECT TO A SEPARATE CITY OF DOVER PERMIT AND IS DOVER, DE 19901 ALSO SUBJECT TO A COMPREHENSIVE UNIFIED SIGN PLAN. 5. ZONING: EXISTING: RM-2 (RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY) 16. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SEDIMENT/EROSION CONTROL SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT DELAWARE PROPOSED: PLANNED NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT (PND) D AVENUE SEDIMENT AND STORMWATER REGULATIONS BY THE DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND 6. PROPERTY USE: EXISTING VACANT (FARM LAND) A BOULEVARD ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL (DNREC). PRELIMINARY PROPOSED TOWNHOMES 17. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL/STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS OF PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINTS. THE B STREET 7. SITE ACREAGE: EXISTING: 79.1364± AC PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINTS, AS SHOWN ON SITE PLAN, SHOULD ONLY BE USED AS A REFERENCE TO THE PROPOSED: 79.1364± AC ABOVEMENTIONED PLANS. R.O.W DEDICATION -0.4059± AC 18. WATER SUPPLY, SANITARY SEWER, AND STORM DRAIN LINES PROPOSED BY THIS PLAN ARE PRIVATE AND SHALL BE TOTAL 78.7315± AC REVISION NOT FOR MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER. E COURT 8. DATUM: HORIZONTAL: NAD 83 DE STATE PLANE GRID 19. THE SITE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY OF DOVER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AT 302-736-7025 48 HOURS VERTICAL: N.A.V.D. 88 PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE CITY OF DOVER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ACE 9. BENCHMARK: MAG NAIL 20007 MAG NAIL 20008 MUST OBSERVE AND APPROVE ALL CITY OWNED WATER AND SANITARY SEWER INTERCONNECTIONS AND TESTING. ALL C PL ELEV: 18.94 ELEV: 14.41' WATER TAPS MUST BE PERFORMED BY A CITY OF DOVER APPROVED CONTRACTOR. THE PROPOSED LOCATION FOR THE NORTHING: 429821.69 NORTHING: 429352.64 CONSTRUCTION WATER CONNECTION MAY NEED TO BE ADJUSTED IN THE FIELD DUE TO CONDITIONS OF THE EXISTING MAIN. POSSIBLE EASTING: 633901.68 EASTING: 633518.48 F CO URT CONDITIONS THAT WOULD REQUIRE TAPPING RELOCATION INCLUDE PROXIMITY TO PIPE JOINTS, OTHER TAPS, CONCRETE 10. ZONING REQUIREMENTS : F COURT ENCASEMENTS, CONFLICT WITH OTHER UTILITIES, AND THE LIKE. TEST HOLES MUST BE PERFORMED BY THE CONTRACTOR REQUIRED (RM-2) PROPOSED (PND) TO DETERMINE THE BEST TAPPING LOCATION OR FOR ANY WORK REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO MAKE AN MIN. LOT AREA 20 AC 78.7315 APPROPRIATE AND LAWFUL CONNECTION. MAX. DENSITY 8 DU / AC 5.69 DU / AC TOTAL DWELLING UNITS 633.1 DU 250 DU 20. PART II, CHAPTER 180, ARTICLE III, SECTION 180-10 OF THE CODE OF KENT COUNTY REQUIRES THAT "NO PERSON SHALL TOWNHOMES 250 DU DISCHARGE OR CAUSE TO BE DISCHARGED ANY STORMWATER, SURFACE WATER, UNCONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER, G AV ENUE FUTURE APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT 380 DU No. - ROOF RUNOFF, SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE, UNCONTAMINATED NONCONTACT COOLING WATER OR UNPOLLUTED INDUSTRIAL MIN. OPEN SPACE 25% / 19.8 AC >25% PROCESS WATERS TO ANY SANITARY SEWER", THIS SHALL INCLUDE CONDESATE. SECTION 11-231 OF THE CITY OF DOVER 11. PROPOSED TOWNHOME REQUIREMENTS: CODE DEFINES STORM SEWER AS "ANY SYSTEM USED FOR CONVEYING RAIN WATER, SURFACE WATER, CONDENSATE, REQUIRED (RM-2) PROPOSED (PND) COOLING WATER OR SIMILAR LIQUID WASTES, EXCLUSIVE OF SEWAGE." THE CONTRACTOR, DEVELOPER, OWNER AND TOTAL DWELLING UNITS 250 UNITS DESIGNERS SHALL ENSURE DURING CONSTRUCTION THAT NO ILLEGAL DISCHARGES TO THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM OFF-STREET PARKING 500 SPACES 500 SPACES 110 OVERFLOW ARE CREATED WITH THE SITE IMPROVEMENTS. MIN. LOT AREA 1 AC CONCEPT MAJOR LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN 21. BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY DATA SHOWN HERE WAS PREPARED BY TRANSITION ENGINEERING SURVEYING IN MIN. LOT AREA / DWELLING UNIT 2,200 SF 1,600 SF MIN. LOT WIDTH 22 FT 20 FT OCTOBER 3, 2022. AERIAL TOPOGRAPHY WAS PROVIDED BY COOPER AERIAL SURVEYS ON AUGUST 27, 2022. MIN. LOT DEPTH 80 FT 80 FT 22. IF THE APPROVED PLAN NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED, ADDITIONAL SEDIMENT AND STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES MAY BE MIN. BUILDING SETBACK FROM STREET 20 FT 20 FT REQUIRED AS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE KENT CONSERVATION DISTRICT. LOT 251 15.8410±AC MIN. BUILDING SETBACK FROM PROPERTY LINE 10 FT 10 FT FOR FUTURE APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT MIN. BUILDING SPACING 30 FT 30 FT BAY VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL 23. THE KENT CONSERVATION DISTRICT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ENTER PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF PERIODIC MAX. DWELLING UNITS / BUILDING 8 DU 5.69 DU SITE INSPECTION. MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT/STORIES 35 FT 35 FT / 3 STORY MAX. LOT COVERAGE 75% <75% (1,200 SF MAX) CITY OF DOVER~KENT COUNTY~DELAWARE 24. ALL OPEN SPACES AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MAINTENANCE TO BEGIN AT THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT UPON FINAL ACCEPTANCE BY 12. ACTIVE OPENS SPACE REQUIRED 275 SF PER UNIT = 275 * 250 = 68,750 SF (1.58 ACRES) THE CITY, DELOT, AND KCD. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN THE STORMWATER PROVIDED = 1.6 ACRES MANAGEMENT FACILITIES UNTIL THE PROPERTY OWNER TAKES OVER RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MAINTENANCE. 13. SITE COVERAGE: EXISTING: OPEN SPACE 2,223,657 ± SF (51.05± AC) 64.52% 25. ANY GAS FIRED HVAC EQUIPMENT MUST BE EQUIPPED WITH EMERGENCY CUT OFF SWITCHES REMOTELY LOCATED. WOODLAND 1,223,518,± SF (28.08± AC) 35.48% 26. ADDRESS NUMBERS OF AT LEAST 12 INCHES IN HEIGHT MUST BE PLACED ON THE STREET SIDE OF THE BUILDING VISIBLE BUILDINGS 0± SF (0.00± AC) 0.0% GRAVEL 0± SF (0.00± AC) 0.0% FROM THE STREET, 2 REQUIRED. ASPHALT 0 ± SF (0.00± AC) 0.0% 27. ANY NATURAL OR LP GAS BOTTLES, METERS, REGULATORS, ETC. MUST HAVE IMPACT PROTECTION. TOTAL 3,447,175± SF (79.136± AC) 100.0% PROPOSED: OPEN SPACE 1,544,343± SF (35.45± AC) 45.0% WOODLAND 1,117,570 ± SF (25.66± AC) 32.6% KENT CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES: TOWNHOUSE (75% LOT COVERAGE) 435,600± SF (10.00± AC) 12.7% OTHER IMPERVIOUS 331,987± SF ( 7.62± AC) 9.7% TOTAL 2,739,510 ± SF (78.73± AC) 100.0% 1. IF THE APPROVED PLAN NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED DUE TO ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR FIELD CONDITIONS, ADDITIONAL \\verdantas.com\dfs\project files\aa-bz\bvh\34677 - bay village residential development\cad\gd-index-34677.dwg 2/9/2026 1:08 PM SEDIMENT AND STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES MAY BE REQUIRED AS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE KENT 14. SOURCE OF WATER: CITY OF DOVER CONSERVATION DISTRICT. 15. SOURCE OF SEWER: CITY OF DOVER AT WHITE OAK ROAD 16. SOURCE OF ELECTRIC: CITY OF DOVER INDEX SHEET 2. THE KENT CONSERVATION DISTRICT (KCD) RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ENTER PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF 17. SOURCE OF GAS: CHESAPEAKE UTILITIES PERIODIC SITE INSPECTION. 18. TRASH COLLECTION: PRIVATE 19. EXISTING WETLAND AREA: 22.02 ACRES± 3. THE OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROPER OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES ON SITE. CERTIFICATION OF ACCURACY OWNER / DEVELOPER'S PLAN DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL I, VERONICA M. DUBE, P.E., HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM A REGISTERED I THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT BAY VILLAGE OF DOVER, LLC PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER WITH A BACKGROUND IN CIVIL ENGINEERING IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AND SHOWN ON THIS PLAN, THAT THE IN THE STATE OF DELAWARE, THAT THE INFORMATION SHOWN HERON PLAN WAS MADE AT MY DIRECTION, AND THAT I ACKNOWLEDGE THE SAME TO ME BY ACT HAS BEEN PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND TO THE BEST OF MY AND DESIRE THE PLAN TO BE DEVELOPED AS SHOWN AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF REPRESENTS GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICES DATE APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. AS REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE. FEBRUARY 3, 2026 __________________________________________ SCALE DATE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE __________________________________ BAY VILLAGE OF DOVER, LLC 1" = 200' DATE VERONICA M. DUBE P.E. REGISTRATION # SHEET 200 0 200 400 DRAWING SCALE 1" = 200' C-001 Page 118

Item #23. 5400 LIMESTONE ROAD WILMINGTON, DE 19808 TEL. 302-239-6634 STATE: DELAWARE P.E. #14062 AA STREET VERONICA M. DUBE, P.E. PROPOSED 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 20 19 D AVENUE A BOULEVARD CHK'D BY DESIGNED BY CHECKED BY PROJECT NO. 21 DRAWN BY 113 112 111 110 109 108 107 106 105 104 103 102 101 123 122 121 120 119 118 117 116 115 114 22 ACTIVE OS 23 0.19 AC 34677 B STREET DATE VMD 24 MC 124 25 125 BRK 126 127 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 26 143 144 145 146 147 139 140 141 142 27 128 100 28 99 ACTIVE OS 0.20 AC E COURT PRELIMINARY 29 98 129 30 97 130 138 131 ACTIVE OS 96 137 0.73 ACRE 172 171 170 169 168 167 166 165 164 163 162 161 132 173 31 136 C PL NOT FOR 133 REVISION 32 135 95 ACE VAN 33 134 VAN 94 34 93 35 92 CONSTRUCTION 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 91 36 F CO 37 217 216 215 URT 214 213 90 38 212 211 210 F COURT 89 39 209 OS #2 208 40 207 206 205 88 25.93± AC No. 204 87 203 - 218 202 201 199 198 197 196 195 194 193 192 191 190 189 188 187 219 200 86 220 221 222 223 224 ACTIVE OS 225 226 227 0.48 AC 228 85 229 230 231 84 232 TOT G AV ENUE 233 234 235 236 237 83 LOT CONCEPT MAJOR LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN 249 250 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 82 81 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 BAY VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL 49 80 50 51 79 52 53 54 55 CITY OF DOVER~KENT COUNTY~DELAWARE 78 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 77 76 OS #1 12.50± AC LOT 251 15.8410±AC FOR FUTURE APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT AT WHITE OAK ROAD OVERALL CONCEPT PLAN z:\project files\aa-bz\bvh\34677 - bay village residential development\cad\gd-site-34677-rendering.dwg 2/9/2026 3:23 PM PROPOSED 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN DATE FEBRUARY 3, 2026 SCALE LEGEND (PROPOSED) 1" = 100' PROPERTY LINELINE RIGHT-OF-WAY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE LOT LINE SHEET 100 0 100 200 C-201 PCC ON-SITE CURB 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN DRAWING SCALE 1" = 100' Page 119

Item #23. 5400 LIMESTONE ROAD WILMINGTON, DE 19808 LEGEND (PROPOSED) PROPERTY LINELINE RIGHT-OF-WAY TEL. 302-239-6634 32' RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE LOT LINE 35' 20' PCC ON-SITE CURB AA STREET 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN 20' 90' STATE: DELAWARE P.E. #14062 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 20 19 18 17 16 VERONICA M. DUBE, P.E. PROPOSED 60' R/W 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN 60' 24' D AVENUE R/W 22' 8' TYPICAL TOWNHOUSE CLUSTER A BOULEVARD NOT TO SCALE 21 60' 113 112 111 110 109 108 107 106 105 104 103 102 101 123 122 121 120 119 118 117 116 115 114 CHK'D BY DESIGNED BY 80' PROJECT NO. 22 CHECKED BY 80' ACTIVE OS 29' TYP. DRAWN BY 23 0.19 AC B STREET 20' TYP. 34677 24 DATE VMD 16' 124 16' MC 25 4' OFFSET BETWEEN 125 BRK TOWNHOUSES, TYP. 126 80' 80' 127 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 26 143 144 145 146 147 139 140 141 142 PRELIMINARY 128 MIN. 2' BETWEEN BUILDING 27 100 AND SETBACK, TYP. 24' 28 99 80' ACTIVE OS 60' R/W 60' 0.20 AC 29 16' E COURT 24' R/W 98 REVISION NOT FOR 129 80' 30 97 18'x18' ASPHALT DRIVEWAY, TYP. 130 138 131 24' ACTIVE OS 96 137 0.73 ACRE CONSTRUCTION 60' 169 168 167 166 165 164 163 162 161 NOTE: OFFSET OCCURS EVERY 132 173 172 171 170 60' 90' 31 136 R/W 80' R/W TWO UNITS 22' 32 133 135 ACE VAN 95 33 C PL 134 8' VAN 16' 94 34 No. - 93 35 22' 18' 24' 92 16' 80' 80' 9' 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 91 60' R/W 60' R F CO CONCEPT MAJOR LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN 36 /W 32' 37 217 216 215 URT 214 213 90 F COURT 24' 60' R/W 38 212 211 BAY VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL 210 89 OS #2 209 39 80' 25.93± AC 208 88 207 206 CITY OF DOVER~KENT COUNTY~DELAWARE 40 205 204 87 203 218 202 201 199 198 197 196 195 194 193 192 191 190 189 188 187 219 200 80' 86 220 221 16' 60' R/W 222 223 224 ACTIVE OS 225 226 227 0.48 AC 80' 228 16' 85 229 230 231 84 232 G AV TOT LOT ENUE 233 234 235 236 237 80' 83 249 250 60' 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 82 R/W 81 AT WHITE OAK ROAD 41 42 CONCEPT PLAN 43 z:\project files\aa-bz\bvh\34677 - bay village residential development\cad\gd-site-34677-rendering.dwg 2/9/2026 3:23 PM 44 45 60' 46 24' 47 R/W 48 49 80 50 90' 51 79 52 53 54 55 78 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 77 90' 76 OS #1 12.50± AC 16' DATE FEBRUARY 3, 2026 PROPOSED 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN SCALE LOT 251 15.8410±AC 1" = 60' FOR FUTURE APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SHEET 60 0 60 120 DRAWING SCALE 1" = 60' C-202 Page 120

5400 Limestone Road Item #23. Wilmington, DE 19808 302.239.6634 February 9, 2026 City Of Dover Department of Planning & Inspections 15 Loockerman Plaza Dover DE 19903 302.736.7196 Attn: Dawn Melson-Williams Re: Bay Village - Conceptual Planned Neighborhood Development Narrative S.White Oak Road Dover , DE 19903 Tax Parcel -04-05-06800-01-0600-00001 Verdantas Project Number 34677 Dear Ms. Melson-Williams: The purpose of this correspondence is to present the development of the existing farmland at the above referenced site into a Planned Neighborhood Development. The project envisions the construction of 250 townhouse units, as well as a dedicated parcel reserved for the future development of an approximately 380-unit apartment complex. The current site primarily consists of row crops and is surrounded by meadows and woodlands. The property is bordered to the west and south by an existing tax ditch and stream, which include associated floodplain and wetland areas. The proposed site plan incorporates townhomes, a clubhouse and pool, and other active open space areas, all of which will be interconnected by public roads and alleys situated behind the townhouse units. An earlier version of this development plan was submitted for review through the Office of State Planning Preliminary Land Use Service (PLUS) and featured a different layout, with apartments and townhouses intermixed throughout the site. In response to feedback from the PLUS process and in coordination with the City of Dover’s initial recommendations, the updated sketch plan now designates the apartment parcel for future development, concentrates all townhouse units in the northeastern section, and relocates the clubhouse and pool for a better community fit. Additionally, alleys have been added to improve townhouse access. These revisions reflect our collaborative efforts to address planning priorities and enhance the overall design of the neighborhood. In addition, the number of units brought before PLUS has not changed. 1. Location The subject property encompasses approximately 79.14 acres and is located east of Route 1 within the City of Dover, Kent County, Delaware. More specifically, the site is situated on the southern side of White Oak Road, approximately 1,600 feet east of Route 1. The property is identified as Tax Parcel Number 4-05-068.00-01-06.00-00001 and is zoned RM-2 (Residential Medium Density). The site is part of the Little Creek Watershed, which is within the broader Delaware Bay Watershed. Page 121

Bay Village PND Narrative: 34677 Item #23. February 9, 2026 2. Existing Site Information The land cover consists of approximately 51.05 acres of row crops and 28.08 acres of woodland and vegetation, with no existing impervious surfaces. The Little River defines the southwestern boundary of the property, featuring a channel approximately twenty feet wide with steep, vegetated slopes. The river connects to the site via three large concrete culverts running beneath White Oak Road. Additionally, a drainage ditch runs along the southeastern boundary of the property, measuring approximately five feet wide at its base, and is similarly lined with mature vegetation. This ditch ultimately discharges into the Little River through a corrugated metal culvert. The northeast corner of the property contains dense, flat wetlands that, while lacking a traceable discharge location, are presumed to flow toward the ditch. These wetlands are contiguous with those along Little River and will be preserved in their natural state throughout the development process. Portions of the site are located within a FEMA-designated floodplain with mapped elevations. 3. Proposed Development This development is being pursued under the Planned Neighborhood Development (PND) option in accordance with the City of Dover’s zoning code. The plan proposes 250 townhome units, each served by 16-foot-wide alleys providing access to parking areas at the rear of each lot. The internal road network will feature 60-foot rights-of-way with a 24-foot cartway and parallel parking on one side to accommodate overflow parking needs. Townhomes will be grouped in clusters of five or fewer, with reduced lot widths of 20 feet, consistent with the PND application for this site. In addition, the minimum lot size is requested to be 1,600 sf. A centrally located community center will provide convenient access for residents, while smaller, interconnected active open spaces are distributed throughout the development via sidewalk connections. Concurrently with this application, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) will be submitted to FEMA for review and approval to adjust the current floodplain boundaries on the site. Utilizing detailed survey data and calculations, the adjusted floodplain will allow for the development to be situated outside of floodplain areas. Significant portions of the property, including wooded wetlands and stream corridors, will be preserved, with substantial buffers maintained between developed areas and existing natural features, consistent with PND objectives to minimize site disturbance. The site will be serviced by City of Dover water and gravity sewer systems, eliminating the need for a pump station. Utilities will be extended to Lot 251, which has been designated for future apartment development. The Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) has reviewed and approved the Traffic Impact Study for the site, which requires the installation of turn lanes and frontage improvements, as well as two site entrances. Stormwater management plans will be submitted to and reviewed by the Kent Conservation District for approval. Verdantas.com | 2 Page 122

Bay Village PND Narrative: 34677 Item #23. February 9, 2026 We appreciate your time and consideration of this proposal and the associated Planned Neighborhood Development application. We look forward to your response and the opportunity to collaborate on a project that will contribute positively to the growth and development of the City of Dover. Sincerely, Verdantas LLC Benjamin Kulp Veronica Dube, PE Project Manager Civil Group Leader bkulp@verdantas.com vdube@verdantas.com Verdantas.com | 3 Page 123

Item #24. FIRST READING City of Dover PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2025-14 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN 2 COUNCIL MET: 3 4 That Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Article XII – Vacant Buildings, be 5 amended by inserting the text as follows: 6 7 Secs. 22-407-499. – Reserved. 8 9 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 10 11 That Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, be amended by inserting the text as follows: 12 13 14 ARTICLE XIII. LEMON HOUSING 15 16 Sec. 22-500 Lemon Housing Protection 17 18 Section 1. Purpose 19 20 The purpose of this ordinance is to promote the safety, health, and welfare of the residents 21 of Dover. This ordinance establishes the requirements for home inspections prior to the 22 transfer of residential properties. 23 24 Section 2. Definitions 25 26 The following words, terms, and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings 27 ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different 28 meaning: 29 30 Transfer of Property means the sale, exchange, or any legal conveyance of residential 31 property from one party to another. 32 33 Home Inspection means a comprehensive, whole-house evaluation of the property’s 34 structure, systems, and components conducted by a licensed home inspector. 35 36 Defect means any condition identified during the inspection that does not meet safety, 37 operational, or structural standards. Page 124

Item #24. FIRST READING 38 39 Section 3. Inspection Requirement 40 41 (a) Timeline - A home inspection shall be conducted within one (1) year prior to the 42 date of property transfer. 43 44 (b) Inspector Qualifications - The inspection must be carried out by a licensed home 45 inspector recognized by the State of Delaware. 46 47 Section 4. Owner Occupancy Requirement 48 49 (a) Any additional professional practices that are standard at the time of the sale, 50 which shall be deemed incorporated into this ordinance by reference and 51 automatically enforceable as local law. 52 53 (b) The seller must disclose in writing if he or she has never lived in the house or has 54 lived for less than one year in the house. 55 56 (c) The seller must disclose if he or she is in the business of buying and selling homes. 57 58 Section 5. Acknowledgement of Defects 59 60 (a) A report detailing all identified defects shall be provided to the buyer. 61 62 (b) The buyer must initial each noted defect in acknowledgment of receipt and 63 awareness. 64 65 Section 6. Enforcement and Penalties 66 67 (a) Non-compliance shall be reported in writing by email or written hard copy to the 68 city manager. Based on confirmation, the city manager may levy a penalty. 69 70 (b) Failure to comply with this ordinance may result in the seller and or the seller’s 71 agent, real estate representative (realtor) losing their license to practice in the City of 72 Dover. 73 74 (c) A fine shall be paid unto the city as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines. 75 76 (d) A penalty may be appealed to the Construction and Property Maintenance Code 77 Board of Appeals. 78 79 80 Section 7. Appeals 81 82 (a) Appeals – Whenever any person is aggrieved by a decision of the city manager 83 with respect to the provision of this chapter, it is the right of that person to appeal to Page 125

Item #24. FIRST READING 84 the construction property maintenance code board of appeals. Such an appeal must 85 be filed, in writing, within 30 days after the penalty is levied by the city manager. 86 87 (b) Notice of Hearing – Upon receipt of such an appeal, the construction and property 88 maintenance code board of appeals shall set a time and place in not less than 10 nor 89 more than 30 days for the purpose of hearing the appeal. Notice of the time and place 90 of the hearing of the appeal shall be given to all parties, at which time they may appear 91 and be heard. The determination by the construction and property maintenance code 92 board of appeals shall be final in all cases. 93 94 Section 8. Effective Date 95 96 This ordinance shall take effect on March 9, 2026, following its adoption and publication as 97 required by law. 98 99 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 100 101 That Appendix F – Fees and Fines, be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue font 102 as follows: 103 104 Chapter 22. Buildings and Building Regulations 105 Chapter 22. Buildings and Building Regulations Fees and Fines Article XIII. Lemon Housing Protection Sec. 22-500 Sec. 6 – Enforcement and Penalties (c) $ 106 107 108 109 ADOPTED: 110 111 SYNOPSIS 112 The ordinance establishes requirements for licensed home inspections prior to the transfer of 113 residential property in Dover. It defines key terms, outlines inspection timelines and disclosure 114 obligations, and requires sellers to acknowledge whether they have lived in the home or are 115 engaged in the business of selling homes. Buyers must be provided with inspection reports and 116 confirm acknowledgment of any identified defects. The ordinance provides for enforcement by the 117 City Manager, including fines and potential loss of licensure for non-compliance. It also 118 establishes a formal appeals process through the Construction and Property Maintenance Code 119 Board of Appeals. 120 121 122 (SPONSORS: NEIL, ROCHA) 123 124 Actions History 125 02/23/2026 – Scheduled for First Reading – City Council Page 126

Item #24. FIRST READING 126 01/13/2026 - Introduction - Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative, Finance, and Administration 127 committee Page 127

Item #25. PETITION TO AMEND ZONING DISTRICT First Reading before the Dover City Council February 23, 2026 Application: Lands of ASMA Property, LLC at 317, 319, and 325 W. Division Street Rezoning IO to C-1A Previous Application: Z-21-06 Lands of Ingram at 317, 319, and 325 W. Division Street: Rezoning from C-IA to IO (approved with Ordinance #2021-21) Owner: ASMA Property, LLC Addresses: 317 W. Division Street, Dover DE 319 W. Division Street, Dover DE 325 W. Division Street, Dover DE Location: Located on the north side of West Division Street and east of North Queen Street Tax Parcels: ED-05-076.08-05-03.00-000, ED-05-076.08-05-02.00-000, and ED-05- 076.08-05-01.00-000 Size: 0.05 acres +/-, 0.13 acres +/-, and 0.08 acres +/- Total of 0.26 acres +/- (11,628 SF +/-) Present Use: Single Family Detached Dwelling, previous Auto Sales & Service Building (Vacant Building), and Parking Lot 2019 Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Category: Mixed Use Present Zoning: IO (Institutional and Office Zone) Proposed Zoning: C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) Reason for Request: Rezoning the properties for future retail use File Number: Z-26-02 Ordinance Number: #2026-08 This is presented for referral of the Rezoning Application to the Planning Commission as per Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §5 and to schedule the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission for March 16, 2026 and the Public Hearing before the City Council on April 13, 2026. Page 128

Item #25. Page 129

Item #25. 1/27/26 1/27/26 Page 130

Item #25. FIRST READING City of Dover PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2026-08 1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF 2 THE CITY OF DOVER, CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY 3 LOCATED AT 317, 319, AND 325 WEST DIVISION STREET 4 5 WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property 6 within the limits of the City of Dover; and 7 8 WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted 9 use of properties below from IO (Institutional and Office Zone) to C-1A (Limited Commercial 10 Zone). 11 12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE 13 CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 14 15 1. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning 16 Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation 17 from IO (Institutional and Office Zone) to C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) on that 18 property located at 317 West Division Street, consisting of 0.05+/- acres, 319 West Division 19 Street, consisting of 0.13+/-16 acres, and 325 West Division Street, consisting of 0.08+/- 20 21 acres, (on the north side of West Division Street and east of North Queen Street), owned 22 by ASMA Property, LLC. 23 (Tax Parcel: ED-05-076.08-05-03.00-000, ED-05-076.08-05-02.00-000, and ED-05-076.08- 24 5-01.00-000; Planning Reference: Z-26-02; Fourth Council District)) 25 26 ADOPTED: * 27 28 Action History 29 02/23/2026 – Scheduled for First Reading – City Council Page 131

Item #26. City of Dover PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2025-21 WITH STAFF SUBSTITUTE #1 AND CITY COUNCIL AMENDMENT #1 (CITY COUNCIL AMENDMENT #1 IS INDICATED IN GREEN TEXT) (CITY COUNTIL AMENDMENT #2 IS INDICATED IN ORANGE TEXT) (CITY COUNTIL AMENDMENT #3 IS INDICATED IN PURPLE TEXT) 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN 2 COUNCIL MET: 3 4 That Chapter 106 – Traffic and Vehicles, Article III – Stopping, Standing, and Parking, Division 5 I - Generally, be amended by adding Sec. 106-139 – Pedestrian Safety by inserting the text 6 indicated in bold, blue font and deleting the text indicated in red strikeout as follows: 7 8 Sec. 106-139. – Pedestrian Safety. 9 10 A. Limitation of occupancy of medians or the adjacent roadway at intersections 11 serves to prevent driver distraction, traffic congestion, delay of traffic, and 12 accidents collisions, especially on median strips or in the roadway itself. 13 14 B. No person, other than a person in or on a vehicle, shall stand, sit, or remain on a 15 portion of a City Street as designated below and approach any vehicle in 16 operation causing it to slow or stop, except a vehicle that is legally parked at the 17 curb on the shoulder. 18 19 C. No person shall stand, sit, or remain upon a median of a City Street as designated 20 below unless that person is in the process of crossing the highway in a safety 21 zone or crosswalk. It is prima facie evidence of a violation of this sub-section if a 22 person stays on the median through two consecutive opportunities to complete 23 their crossing of the highway in a legal manner under this Chapter and the State 24 of Delaware traffic laws. This may include, but would not be limited to, a change 25 in the traffic control signal or a lack of traffic, as applicable. After such two 26 consecutive opportunities, such a person shall not be considered to be “using 27 the safety zone or crosswalk to cross the highways”. 28 29 D. No operator of a vehicle shall park, stop, or leave standing a vehicle, or permit a 30 passenger to leave it, on any City Street where prohibited or suddenly decrease Page 132

Item #26. 31 the speed of said vehicle or deviate from a traffic lane for the purpose of 32 responding to persons violating this ordinance. 33 E. This ordinance applies to intersections at any street or right-of-way within the 34 incorporated boundaries of The City of Dover, but only for the first two-hundred 35 (200) feet on major principal arterials, minor arterials, and urban collectors and 36 one-hundred (100) feet on the urban local street system as defined in the City’s 37 currently adopted Comprehensive Plan, measured along the center lines at the 38 designated painted stop bars where the two rights-of-way intersect. Boundaries 39 will be defined by appropriate marking or signage, but such is not required where 40 impractical. Failure to mark a boundary does not limit the enforcement of this 41 ordinance. 42 43 F. Violators may be charged a fine as specified in Appendix F. A law enforcement 44 officer shall have discretion to consider reasonable defenses to this Section, 45 such as mechanical breakdown, etc. 46 47 G. This ordinance shall not apply to sidewalks, private property, medians less more 48 than 7 feet in width, or other pedestrian walkways not within a vehicular lane of 49 travel. 50 51 H. The city manager shall coordinate with non-profit organizations and Community 52 Development Block Grant recipients to establish safe locations to assist 53 residents in need away from intersections. 54 55 I. Severability Clause 56 57 A. If any provision of this Ordinance shall be held or made invalid by a court 58 decision, statute, or shall be otherwise rendered invalid, the remainder of 59 this Ordinance shall not be affected thereby. 60 Secs. 106-139 140 – 106-160. – Reserved. 61 62 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 63 64 That Appendix F – Fees and Fines, be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue font 65 as follows: 66 67 Chapter 106. – Traffic and Vehicles Chapter 106. Traffic and Vehicles Fees and Fines Article I. In General Fines not paid within 14 days of the day the fine was issued, including the day the fine was issued, shall be automatically doubled in amount. Page 133

Item #26. Sec. 106-7. Obedience to state law; violation of any provision of 21 A fine of not less Del. C. § 101 et seq. (except Sec. 106-7(1)—Handicapped parking than $25.00, nor and Sec. 106-7(2)—Fire lanes) more than $1,000.00 Subsec. (1) Handicapped parking Minimum fine, as defined in 21 Del. C. § 4183, at the time the violation occurs Subsec. (2) Fire lanes Minimum fines, as defined in 21 Del. C. § 7001(a), at the time the violation occurs Sec. 106-14. Off-road motor vehicle regulations Subsec. (d) Penalties A minimum fine of $25.00 and a maximum fine of $100.00 Sec. 106-15. Failure to stop for a red traffic signal; traffic light signal violation monitoring program; penalties Subsec. (b)(3) Traffic light signal violation monitoring program; civil or administrative assessment Failure to comply with a traffic light signal $75.00 If not paid within 14 days, an additional assessment shall be added $10.00 to the original assessment Additional assessment shall be increased if the assessment is not $20.00 paid within 45 days Additional assessment shall be increased if the assessment is not $30.00 paid within 90 days Court costs or similar administrative fees may also be assessed if Maximum $30.00 the owner requests a hearing to contest the violation, and is ultimately found to be in violation or fails to pay or contest the violation in a timely manner Sec. 106-16. Violations; except as otherwise provided Subsec. (a)(1) Moving offense Minimum of $10.00 Subsec. (a)(2) Nonmoving offense Minimum of $15.00 Subsec. (a)(3) Parking violation $20.00 for each offense, if the fine is paid within 72 hours from the date the offense is recorded in time, the fine shall be $15.00 Article II. Bicycles Fines not paid within 14 days of the day the fine was issued, including the day the fine was issued, shall be automatically doubled in amount. Sec. 106-55. Penalties for violation Not to exceed Page 134

Item #26. $100.00 and not less than $10.00 Article III. Stopping, Standing and Parking Sec. 106-135. Residential parking Subsec. (i)(1) Expiration; Two-hour parking $20.00 fine or $15.00 if paid within 72 hours of issuance of such fine Subsec. (i)(2) Expiration; change of residence, etc. $20.00 fine or $15.00 if paid within 72 hours of issuance of such fine Subsec. (m) Violations; penalties Any violation of this section not having a stated, specified penalty will result in a $20.00 fine or $15.00 if paid within 72 hours of issuance of such fine Sec. 106-137. Parking areas for persons with disabilities Subsec. (c)(3) Signage; fines Failure to achieve compliance within 30 calendar days of the issuance of the notice of violation shall be subject to the fines set forth in subsection (f) of this section Subsec. (f) Penalties Whoever violates this section shall be fined not less than the minimum fine as defined in 21 Del. C. § 4183 at the time the violation occurred Sec. 106-139. Pedestrian Safety $50.00 Sec. 106-139. Pedestrian Safety First Offense Written Warning Second Offense $15.00 Third Offense within a twelve (12) month period $50.00 Sec. 106-163. Use of meters required Subsec. (a) Failure to make the required payment in the parking $20.00 fine or $15.00 meter if paid within 72 hours of issuance of Page 135

Item #26. such fine Subsec. (b) Payments accepted Each $0.25 coin Permits the vehicle to be parked for a period of one hour Each $1.00 Permits the vehicle to be parked for the duration of the enforcement period of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Sec. 106-164 Violations; penalties Subsec. (a) Generally; each violation if paid within 24 hours from A fine of not less time summons giving notice of violation is issued than $1.00 for each violation Subsec. (a) Generally; each violation if paid after expiration of 24 $2.00 for each hours from time summons giving notice of violation is issued violation, if payment is made voluntarily prior to the time and date set forth in the summons Subsec. (a) Fourth violation; each violation if paid within one hour $1.00 for each such from time summons giving notice of violation is issued violation Subsec. (a) Fourth violation; each violation if paid after expiration $2.00 for each of one hour from time summons giving notice of violation is issued violation, if payment is made voluntarily prior to the time and date set forth in the summons Subsec. (a) Fifth violation, etc.; any person committing more than $5.00 for each such four violations within any 30-day period of the provisions of this violation, if payment division is made voluntarily prior to the time and date set forth in the summons. Subsec. (b)(4) Any person who unlawfully removes a device for $500.00 fine for each immobilization of a vehicle violation Subsec. (b)(5) Any person who tows or otherwise moves an $500.00 fine for each immobilized vehicle without authorization by the chief of police or his violation designee Subsec. (c) Cost. No cost will be assessed if payment of the penalty as hereinbefore imposed is voluntarily paid without the necessity of a hearing before the proper official. 68 69 70 ADOPTED: * 71 Page 136

Item #26. 72 73 SYNOPSIS 74 This Ordinance shall take effect on the first day of July after passage and approval. 75 76 (SPONSORS: ANDERSON and HUGG) 77 78 79 Action History 80 02/23/2026 – Scheduled for Final Reading – City Council 81 02/10/2026 – Council Amendment Scheduled for Reintroduction – Council Committee of the 82 Whole/Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee 83 01/26/2026 – Final Reading – City Council (referred back to committee) 84 12/08/2025 – First Reading – City Council 85 11/25/2025 – Staff Substitute Scheduled for Reintroduction – Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative, 86 Finance, and Administration Committee 87 10/25/2025 - Introduction – Council Committee of the Whole/ Legislative, Finance, and Administration 88 Committee (referred back to staff) Page 137