Transcript: Regular Council Meeting
Wednesday, February 25, 2026
Machine transcript. Speaker names are machine-identified and can be wrong. Check the recording.
Showing 592 of 592 statements
Fred A. Neil
I call the February 25th, 2026 City Council meeting of Dover to order. Uh, we'll have an invocation by Councilman Andre Boggerty.
Play from 00:00Andre M. Boggerty
Let us pray. Eternal wise God, Creator of all people and source of all justice and mercy, we pause at the beginning of this meeting to acknowledge our dependence upon Your wisdom and guidance. We thank You for the privilege of public service and for the trust placed in those who lead this city. Remind us that leadership is not about power, but about stewardship; not about position, but about responsibility to the people we serve. During this sacred season, many in our community observe Lent, a time of reflection, sacrifice, and renewal, while others observe Ramadan, a season of fasting, prayer, generosity, and spiritual discipline. Though expressed through different traditions, both call us toward humility, compassion, and a deeper concern for our neighbors. May these holy seasons inspire all of us to lead with a renewed heart. Grant this Council wisdom to make decisions that are fair, thoughtful, and guided by the common good rather than personal interest. Grant us courage to do what is right even in difficult even if it's difficult or unpopular. Grant our hearts uh committed to service, grant us hearts committed to service, remembering those whose voices are unheard, those struggling in our neighborhoods, and those deep and depending on our on the outcomes of our work tonight. And grant our city peace, peace in our deliberations, peace among our residents, and peace that strengthen unity across every background, belief, and experience. Help us listen with respect, speak with integrity, and act with humility so that our decisions reflect justice, compassion, hope for the future of this community. May our work tonight contribute to a city where every person is valued, every family has opportunity, and every neighborhood can flourish. We offer this prayer in the spirit of unity and shared purpose, and we take a moment as we celebrate the life of public servants such as Jesse Jackson whose tenure has ended. Amen.
Play from 00:07Fred A. Neil
Amen. We'll have Councilman Brian Lewis lead us in the Pledge to the Flag.
Play from 02:07Brian E. Lewis
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Play from 02:11Andre M. Boggerty
Mr. Neil, Mr. Neil, if I could have personal privilege. I would like to have a moment of silence for uh Miss Bennett's father, who was a state representative, Representative Viola, if that would be permissible.
Play from 02:20Fred A. Neil
Yes. For those who do not know, um the former representative is the father of the uh madam clerk, head clerk of the City Council. Thank you.
Play from 02:27Fred A. Neil
You now have before this evening's agenda, and I'll entertain a motion for its adoption.
Play from 02:38Roy Sudler, Jr.
Thank you, Council President Neil, for recognizing me. Uh I would like to request, respectfully request, that item number
Play from 03:10Roy Sudler, Jr.
26, proposed ordinance number 2025-21, amending chapter 106, traffic and vehicle, article III, stopping, standing and parking, by adding section 106-139, pedestrian safety, um item 26 to be moved uh ahead since we have a lot of individuals that uh want to speak to this point. Um, I think that would be proper and in align.
Play from 03:16Fred A. Neil
Um Councilman Sudler, we have very few items on this agenda, and I would much prefer that we go through them.
Play from 03:45Fred A. Neil
Second. Any discussion? Hearing none, I call the motion. Yes, uh Councilwoman Arndt.
Play from 03:53Tricia K. Arndt
Thank you for recognizing me. I I too, I looked at the agenda and I saw that the the most popular item for discussion this evening is is at the end of the agenda. Um, but when I look at the agenda, uh the only items in front of it are um first reading referrals, um and referral to a planning commission. So very very quick items. I was thinking that those that are here for that those items could present and and carry on, and then majority of those that are left for the the final ordinance, we would get to it very quickly. I yield.
Play from 03:59Roy Sudler, Jr.
Thank you. Thank you for recognizing me. Um and I I do concur with with the fact that the agenda is um short, but based on the fact that a lot of individuals did not get opportunity to speak during the public forum and may have somewhere else to be out of consideration for them, I think that it would be proper to move this ahead.
Play from 04:32Fred A. Neil
Any other questions? Any other comments? We have members of the of staff who stayed for these items that they have to testify on. And in consideration of that, I would prefer that we just go through this this agenda. It's a very short agenda, and they will have a chance to speak at that time. We'll call for a vote. Um, all in favor should we call by roll call vote. We'll have a roll call vote on it.
Play from 05:00Donyale M. Hall
I'm in favor of moving ahead um with the agenda and for all the attendees um for reasons. But our city officials know if it's going to be brief, I agree that we should move forward. My My vote is no.
Play from 05:32Fred A. Neil
Motion failed. We'll move ahead with the agenda. Consent agenda. We have before us a consent agenda.
Play from 06:09David L. Anderson
Thank you, Mr. President. I move for the adoption of the agenda as presented.
Play from 06:19Fred A. Neil
I'm requesting that uh Item 14 be pulled from the consent agenda and other than that, we have this Item 14.
Play from 06:24Fred A. Neil
Now we have Resolutions 2026-22 JustServe. I request Councilman Anderson to brief members on this item and request the city clerk to read the proclamation into the record.
Play from 06:34David L. Anderson
Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, JustServe is an international clearinghouse of organizations and volunteers who wish to improve their community. Uh, service is the key element to any healthy community. When one uh lives by service before self, the whole is stronger and the individual is better for it. There are many people in the community just don't know where to engage or whom to contact in their area of interest, but JustServe solves this by providing an online clearinghouse based upon the community. Uh, JustServe is uh an international organization. Uh, it is endorsed by the National League of Cities and is uh, in fact, uh highly recommended by them. Uh JustServe dedicated staff in the state, which it has staff in Delaware, and many cities and towns have, including Smyrna, uh in, to, that are part of the network. It is uh very simple to be involved. We just need a resolution or proclamation to become a JustServe city. This will not only help to prioritize us, but we will get grants. The Town of Smyrna received food for their Christmas giveaway to citizens in need and the uh vice chair, Vice Mayor, uh Dr. Upshur uh highly recommend that we uh join. And uh it's also endorsed very strongly by the Mayor of Smyrna as well. The, it's, this is something that is uh rare because it, it is something good. It doesn't cost us anything. We don't have to dedicate staff time to it or, or, or money and it's uh, just enhances our community and, and then, and it even gets us re-
Play from 06:34Fred A. Neil
Any opposed? Passed. I'm calling, uh, requesting that item 14 be pulled from the consent agenda. And we have, um, resolutions—
Play from 07:04David L. Anderson
Mr. President, I move to accept the consent agenda as amended with item 14 removed.
Play from 07:24Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.
resources into our community as well as serves our citizens. Yeah, and I think much of the rest of the information's in the resolution itself. I yield, Mr. President.
Play from 09:49City Clerk
Sure. 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
Play from 09:59City Clerk
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 hereby proclaim the 26th day of February, 2026 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.
Play from 11:11Fred A. Neil
Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Next item of business is, I believe, number 14. Request—
Play from 11:44Brian E. Lewis
President Neil, before you move forward on that item, uh, I would like to make a—well, first of all, I had dialogue with the chief earlier this afternoon, and I'd like to make a motion, um, to defer this item to the next council meeting, uh, to revisit, uh, a conversation that I had with Ms. Benne. Uh, in view of the recent loss of a family member, um, you know, I don't feel that it would be appropriate right now to speak with her. Uh, so that's why I'm making this motion at this time.
Play from 12:17Fred A. Neil
Seconded by Sudler. Um, I have no objection to doing it, but it will come up on here in order to correct the, uh, what information that, that was said past.
Play from 12:38Brian E. Lewis
Uh, that's fine. I also have, uh, documentation that I'm going to put into the record tonight, also.
Play from 12:46Andre M. Boggerty
Um, thank you for recognizing me, Council President. Um, it's to my understanding this is in, in, in regards to the, um, discrepancy in the animal, um, control report. And so, I think it would be, um, safe to say that, uh, we'll just wait to see, you know, once they have, uh, the conversation, uh—
Play from 12:52Roy Sudler, Jr.
see what is um actually accurate, and and what may not be accurate. You know, people's memories sometimes lapse, so I just want to say that for the record. Thank you. I yield.
Play from 13:06Fred A. Neil
Any opposed? It is passed and we have delayed this item. Going into now the items not on the agenda. Uh this is the Bay Village Planned Neighborhood Design, uh PND, on the south side of White Oak Road, a sketch plan review and we request uh Dawn Melson Melson-Williams to brief the members on this item.
Play from 13:23Dawn Melson-Williams
Uh thank you, Council President. I'm Dawn Melson-Williams, the principal planner for the city's planning office. Um included in your packet this evening was an action form in regards to this item, and it has a sketch plan plan for the Bay Village residential project that's proposed as a planned neighborhood design, um as well as a letter from the project engineer on behalf of Bay Village of Dover LLC. Uh this project, uh known as Bay Village Residential Planned Neighborhood Design, uh brings to council a general sketch plan. Uh that is the first step in the process of a planned neighborhood design uh project and the review processes that are required by uh the city's zoning ordinance. Uh so this is the first step. Um The charge to council per the the zoning ordinance um in Article 3, Section 24 in regards to a planned neighborhood design uh is to determine whether or not the proposed project, um in this case Bay Village Residential PND, uh is of such a design and type that warrants further review by the planning commission. Uh if council deems such and refers it to the planning commission, um they will need to file a conditional use um development plan application with the um planning commission um for their review. Uh the property, and if we go to the the next image is probably a little better uh to show us where we're talking about, um the property is just over 79 acres of land located on the south side of White Oak Road. Uh this is to the east of State Route 1. Um To the north, or at the top of the image on the screen, is where you find the Garrison Oak uh Business and Technology Center. Uh The report that we included provided a summary of previous applications regarding this tract of land. Um It's had fits and starts over the years, um but the proposal that is uh before you this evening um for consideration is Bay Village PND uh to consist of a project of 250 townhouse units uh and resolving um a larger tract there shown as the
Play from 13:48Dawn Melson-Williams
bottom of the page, uh, for a future potential, uh, apartment unit complex of 380 units. Um, as noted, the Planned Neighborhood Design process is multiple steps. This is the first step. Uh, a PND, uh, as we call it, is allowed in certain, uh, residential zoning classifications. Uh, this property is zoned RM-2, that is one of them that allows for such type of activity. Uh, this property is also subject to the source water protection overlay zone, um, which has some limitations due to, um, lot coverage in certain areas. The comprehensive plan also must be looked at when you're considering a PND, uh, and in this area, it gives a land use category of residential medium density, uh, and that is where, uh, the maximum density, uh, to be allowed would be eight dwelling units per acre. Uh, what this project is proposing is under that. Uh, the report also includes more detailed information about, um, this area along White Oak Road. Uh, in the comprehensive plan, it actually notes this Bay Village, um, parcel and that it is an opportunity to provide, uh, work for- workforce quality housing perhaps, um, should that, uh, an application to that effect come forward. Um, with a Planned Neighborhood, uh, Design, it is a residential land use, and residential land uses, one of the goals of the comprehensive plan is to develop and maintain an adequate supply of housing of various types, sizes, and densities, um, here in the city of Dover. Couple of key things with a PND: it requires 25% open space, um, and limits the density to eight dwelling units per acre. Uh, so what council is looking at is whether or not this location, um, w- warrants further review. Uh, you are not charged with, um, providing detailed, uh, code review of this. That process would happen should it be forwarded onto, um, planning commission and go through that review process for a subdivision and development under the PND requirements. Um, I will note that the, uh, project does have representatives of the engineering firm working on the project, um, here in the room this evening, uh, should you have any general questions that they could address. Uh, so, uh, planning staff is recommending that council forward this, uh, concept sketch plan onto the next step, um, to allow it to be, uh, submitted to the planning commission, uh, to begin a review process for the development as a Planned Neighborhood Design. Council President.
Play from 16:23Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.
Thank you, Council President, for recognizing me. Um, Ms. Melson-Williams, um, I'm just trying to picture, is this across the street from Garrison Oak, or
Play from 19:26Dawn Melson-Williams
um the east entrance um and ran straight ahead, you'd be on this property.
Play from 19:39Tricia K. Arndt
Not a question, I was ready to make a motion. I'll yield to Dr. Sudler.
Play from 19:50Roy Sudler, Jr.
Thank you, Council President, Neil for recognizing me and thank you, uh Councilwoman Arndt. Just a few questions. Um Bay, is that Bay Road?
Play from 19:56Dawn Melson-Williams
Um I am not familiar as to whether or not it is. I can tell you that the project has um gone through a traffic impact study with DelDOT and the design of any entrances onto White Oak Road, since it is a state maintained road, will be subject to the DelDOT review and approval process.
Play from 20:09Tricia K. Arndt
Thank you. I move to accept staff recommendation and refer this uh site plan back to the planning commission for additional review.
Play from 20:37Fred A. Neil
Any opposed? And none opposed, passes unanimously. We'll go to the planning commission.
Play from 20:51Fred A. Neil
Now, we have the first reading for proposed ordinance 2025-14 amending uh chapter 22 buildings and building regulations by inserting article uh 12, Renting Housing. The final action by the council will take place during the second reading of the ordinance on March the 9th, 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.
Play from 20:58Fred A. Neil
Um, Councilman Rocha, you can brief her, would you prefer that I brief? Okay, since we worked most worked on this.
Play from 21:41Fred A. Neil
Uh, this has been introduced before and was brought back based on questions raised by by uh zoning uh uh Mr. Kopp, and by planning uh uh Mrs. Dawn uh Nelson Williams. And as a result of the review, changes had been made and brought up to date. It is a result of a series of of problems that have resulted from uh one of our constituents in the third district who had a considerable amount of problems. We received a great deal of help by members of the uh real estate industry, notably uh Todd Stonesifer and Mr. Phil McGinnis who helped us and worked through this. Basically, if you do If you are at a day to deal and you are ready to sign that contract, once you have that lease, once you have borrowed that money, there's really no getting out. If you find out the house is not what it was supposed to be, there's literally you you are strung up, and you're in trouble. You're in a money pit, you're going to have to do all the fixing yourself. You you're stuck. And the idea behind this is to make sure that every
Play from 21:46Fred A. Neil
the dot is dotted, every t is crossed, using the methodology that the industry already has, but having a check-off to make sure that what you're getting is what you're getting. And we will have, of course, a hearing as it comes up again. Does anyone have any questions? Yes, Councilwoman Arndt.
Play from 22:56Tricia K. Arndt
Thank you for recognizing me. I still have concerns about this this ordinance as proposed, particularly in how it relates to the state process and requirements for home inspection. So I look forward to having those questions answered during the during the hearing when there are real estate professionals available to answer those questions. I yield.
Play from 23:08Fred A. Neil
Okay. I now defer to Madam Clerk Rivera for the introduction of the ordinance in accordance to Section 1-9 of the Dover Code. Madam Clerk.
Play from 23:24Rivera
There is no action at this time. Proposed Ordinance 2025-14, amending Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations, by inserting Article 13, Lead in Housing.
Play from 23:32Fred A. Neil
Okay, we now have the first reading and referral of proposed Ordinance 2026-08 for the rezoning of property located at 317, 319, and 325 West Division Street. It's recommended for referral to the Planning Commission for a public hearing on March the 16th, 2026,
Play from 24:09Fred A. Neil
and a public hearing before the City Council set for April 13th, 2026 at 6:30 p.m., at which time the final reading and council action will take place. The ordinance is available on the city's website at www.cityofdover.com under Government, or by contacting the city clerk's office at 736-7008, or cityclerk@dover.de.us. I request Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, principal planner, to brief members on this proposed ordinance, Ordinance 2026-08.
Play from 24:25Dawn Melson-Williams
Thank you, Council President. I'm Dawn Melson-Williams, principal planner with the City's Planning Office. This is the first step in a process for rezoning, and that is the announcement of the filing of the application and setting the formal dates for public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council. This request is application Z-26-02, and the associated ordinance number is 26 2026-08. It involves the lands of ASMA Property LLC, and is focused on three properties along West Division Street.
Play from 25:22Dawn Melson-Williams
Those properties being located at 317, 319, and 325 West Division Street. I think your packet includes an image to locate these properties on the next page. Those properties are located on the north side of West Division Street, just east of the intersection with North Queen Street. In total, the three properties are a total size of 0.26 acres,
Play from 25:47Dawn Melson-Williams
which translates into 11,628 square feet. Currently they are zoned IO, Institutional and Office zone, and the requested or proposed zoning classification is C-1A, Limited Commercial zone. With this action this evening, the application will be referred to the Planning Commission, who will conduct a public hearing and provide a recommendation to City Council regarding the rezoning, and then City Council will conduct its own public hearing on April 13th of this of 2026, in accordance with the process for rezoning outlined in the city's zoning ordinance. Council President.
Play from 26:12Roy Sudler, Jr.
Thank you, Council President Neil, for recognizing me. Just for the record, can you please define IO for our constituents who may not be, um, you know, planning and zoning savvy?
Play from 27:00Dawn Melson-Williams
This is Dawn with the planning office. IO is the Institutional and Office zone.
Play from 27:52Roy Sudler, Jr.
And can you also define what C-1A, what are some of the permitted uses under C-1A?
Play from 27:59Dawn Melson-Williams
C-1A is the Limited Commercial zone. It allows for a mix of commercial-style uses ranging from retail to service-type establishments. It also allows for a number of residential components as well.
Play from 28:05Roy Sudler, Jr.
Okay. And I ask this ques- thank you for answering those questions. I ask this question because I know that that's in my district. I know that that road is already stressed with concerns from Bennie Smith Funeral Home in regards to the bicycling road system there, and the enormous amount of traffic from the also the body shops and the mechanic shops there. So, leading to my question, which you know was coming, is that a- A, is that a city road, and if it's a city road, is that on the high injury network?
Play from 28:22Dawn Melson-Williams
This is- this is Dawn with the planning office. These properties front on West Division Street. Division Street is a state-maintained roadway. The adjacent- it is a cor- basically a corner. North Queen Street would be a city street, and then these three properties are also flanked by city alleys.
Play from 28:51Dawn Melson-Williams
As to the question about the High Injury Network, I am not familiar with that that study, but certainly as part of the rezoning process, a lot of detail about zoning and any concerns from our regulatory agencies will be expressed through the Development Advisory Committee review process, and focus on the rezoning. Should the property be redeveloped, then that would be a separate application process if they were looking to change how access occurs.
Play from 29:10Roy Sudler, Jr.
Now what's trending is that if municipalities um compound um traffic on an already overstressed and congested uh road system then communities, right now communities are using the High Injury Network um designated area as a argument for uh legal grounds to sue municipalities for congesting their um already identified uh high-risk and high-crash areas leading to um lawsuits. Now there is a study uh a legal study, I think it's uh Barley Plaza that up in New Castle that got successfully sued uh for that uh same very reason. And I believe that if we're going to be progressive planners, that we must uh know about the uh DelDOT Comprehensive Plan for Safe Systems Approach and where our high-injury network systems are right here in Dover uh because it's imperative and it affects the quality of life, which there is a Quality of Life Act that we um are supposed to be adhering to when it comes to progressive planning for our great city and capital of Delaware. Um so therefore, I would suggest uh that we start to um have a closer relationship with DelDOT to make sure that um their Comprehensive Plan for Road System and Safe Systems Approach uh is adhered to also or at least is synchronized with the capital uh of Delaware, we're synchronized with it because it does affect individuals. There are very um the vulnerable road users that DelDOT has done the extensive um research, and actually DelDOT is under federal mandate to have um the the metropolitan planning commission to assess what areas have high-risk and the infrastructure issues. And that's and that's very important because um you know when you're planning and and for the future, um DelDOT has moved away from a level of service planning to a more progressive planning for a safe systems approach planning. So I just wanted to put that out there um that we need to be looking at that because that does impact our communities, the safety of our communities, and vulnerable road users. Uh I yield. Thank you for your explanation of the terms. Thank you.
Play from 29:29Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.
Thank you, Council President. Although I I tend to agree with with what Dr. Sudler is saying, we're not at that point yet though, are we?
Play from 31:55Dawn Melson-Williams
Uh this is Dawn. We are not at that point. Um they are just asking for rezoning of the property. Uh the IO zoning I believe is not uh working for what they hope to utilize uh those existing buildings for at this point.
Play from 31:59Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.
Right. And then um the the C-1A zoning looks like it's according to this map I'm looking at seems consistent with most of the parcels in that area, correct?
Play from 32:36Dawn Melson-Williams
C-1A zoning district is found on nearby properties along the West Division Street corridor. In fact, these three properties previously were zoned C-1A, and a rezoning in 2021 took them to IO at the request of a potential purchaser, but that project did not move forward.
Play from 32:46Brian E. Lewis
And the and the properties that we're talking about, there was a car dealership there at at at one point?
Play from 33:11Dawn Melson-Williams
Again, this is Dawn with the Planning Office. Yes, two of the properties were involved in the parking lot area and a building that provided automobile sales and service, and then the third parcel is a single-family residence building.
Play from 33:19Roy Sudler, Jr.
Thank you, Council President, for recognizing me. Ms. Williams, at the beginning, towards the end of questions being taking questions, you stated that City Council was charged with whether or not further review is necessary or further review was required. When it comes to further review, what is the scope of further review? Can can we ask for the information that I just posed as a as a notion, as an idea to look at? Like that's how I want to make it official and ask for the, you know,
Play from 33:40Roy Sudler, Jr.
the comprehensive plan of DelDOT and whether or not this lies in the Safe Systems area, the high injury area. So in other words, can you just elaborately elaborate on the further review? How how much further can we go? What is the scope of a further review, whether or not council can is asking for further review? Because if if I could ask for that under further review, then I might consider asking for that, that information I brought up. So can you just define further review for me, please, and for our constituents?
Play from 34:59Dawn Melson-Williams
So there Again, this is Dawn with the Planning Office. Further review, that term I mentioned in the previous request regarding the planned neighborhood design, that is a different process than what we are in here for rezoning. The zoning ordinance lays out the criteria upon which the Planning Commission will base their decision for rezoning, as will Council. This what we're dealing with tonight, the first reading, is really an announcement that an application has been filed. As part of the review process for that rezoning application, it will go through review with our Development Advisory Committee, which is made up of city departments and outside agencies, including DelDOT and the Dover/Kent County MPO. All of those agencies and departments provide comments in regards to the request for rezoning and any advisory comments related to future redevelopment. So that information will
Play from 36:02Dawn Melson-Williams
be kind of gathered and presented to the Planning Commission, and also the um that information along with the Planning Commission action will come back to Council when you consider this rezoning application.
Play from 36:02Roy Sudler, Jr.
All right, thank you. So I would just have one request. I'm not going to put in a motion. Um I'm just going to put in a request that those that those departments take a look at the DelDOT 2026 Comprehensive Plan for the Safe Systems Approach uh for development of roadway systems and utilizing roadway systems uh so that we can make sure that the quality of life for our vulnerable road users is high. Are you okay with that?
Play from 36:16Dawn Melson-Williams
Um I I certainly um one of our partners in development in here in the city is the Dover/Kent County MPO, uh so I think the the planning office can certainly reach out to them to learn more about um these previous studies and references to um that safe system approach to um planning of transportation networks.
Play from 36:43Roy Sudler, Jr.
All right. Great. I greatly appreciate it. I feel much better in decisions I make when I have all the information and data. I yield.
Play from 37:06Fred A. Neil
Neil moves for the um staff recommendation of sending this to the Planning Commission.
Play from 37:18Fred A. Neil
It passes with one no. Uh Madam Clerk, uh please introduce the uh ordinance in accordance to Section 1-9 of the Dover Code.
Play from 37:35City Clerk
Ordinance number 2026-08 amending the zoning ordinance and zoning map of the City of Dover by changing the zoning zoning designation of properties located at 317, 319, 325 West Division Street. This constitutes the first reading. The final reading is scheduled to take place on April 13th, 2026.
Play from 37:46Roy Sudler, Jr.
Thank you, Council President, for recognizing. I just want to state for the record uh the reason why I voted no is because I believe I need information pertaining pertaining to traffic in order to make sound decisions that's going to affect vulnerable road users. Thank you. I yield.
Play from 38:13Fred A. Neil
Uh what is this? This is this this. Okay. Now we have the final reading proposed ordinance. The first reading of the proposed ordinance was accomplished during the council meeting of December the 8th, 2025. The ordinance is available at the entrance of the Council Chambers, or at the city website at www.cityofdover.com under Government. First I'll entertain a motion to consider the final reading by title only. A separate motion will be necessary for its adoption. What is the pleasure of the Council?
Play from 38:28Fred A. Neil
Any opposed? It has passed unanimously. Now uh we request uh Councilman Anderson to brief members on this...
Play from 39:10Fred A. Neil
ordinance. Ordinance 2025-21, amending chapter 106, traffic and vehicles, article 3, stopping, standing, parking, by adding section 106-139, pedestrian safety. Councilman Anderson.
Play from 39:19David L. Anderson
Uh thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to uh keep my re- remarks a little bit short so that uh Chief Johnson has time to uh give his point of view on it. The uh I think we we've discussed this ordinance uh many times and you pretty well know the items that it covers. It's a pedestrian safety ordinance that deals with the with basically keeping the intersections and the medians uh flowing and and free of uh those who um are not using them for their intended purposes, and also deals with uh the idea of of people who are walking out into the roads. Uh because you technically until you cross the road, you're not jaywalking, so so this just makes it a lot easier to enforce. It makes it a status offense instead of a uh having a hodgepodge of of rules, which makes it uh harder, particularly where one has to find a victim to complain, which is one reason why the laws are are almost uh unenforceable currently. Uh the city has uh authority to deal with uh this issue, the council and section 18 and uh charter which is state law talks about the authority council is vested to adopt ordinances of every kind relating to any subject within the powers and functions of the city or relating to city government, its peace, its order, sanitation, appearance, beauty, the health, safety, and convenience, and comfort of its population, and the protection, preservation of property, uh et cetera, and to um, and then in and one of those uh is uh streets, sidewalks, et cetera, and the control in section 29 of uh council, the streets, sidewalks, lanes, and alleys in the city shall be under supervision, management, control of the council and council may and and so on. And that that is uh So um this is uh something that we uh can do, we and something we should do. And we should do it because life is precious. This ordinance will potentially save lives, improve the orderly working of the city. It's designed not to hurt anyone. No one ever has to be fined under it uh because it has a warning provision first. It takes effect in July to give people a chance to adapt or transition uh to get help if that's uh what's their motivation. While the activists focus is on the effect of panhandling, it's not mentioned in the ordinance because it is a comprehensive approach to pedestrian safety. The Does the city have the power? Yes, we discussed that in the charter. Uh it is uh and if it weren't, the Attorney General would have uh graciously
Play from 39:34David L. Anderson
...pointed that out. It's the, it is based upon a national model, upheld by the courts, and adopted in over 50 communities. It has been enforced by the - it's been endorsed by the business community, our citizens, five police chiefs of Dover, four former and the current, four, three former safety chairs, and a former Secretary of Transportation. It's about safety and the ability of our police to have a simple and understandable rule to enforce, instead of a patchwork that does, does not apply in many circumstances, and requires a victim to enforce. The people want it, the businesses want it, many medical professionals want it, our law enforcers want it. Let them have the tools they need. This is an easy step, let's not falter here. And uh Chief, I yield to you.
Play from 42:35Thomas Johnson
If you, um, apologize for um, I didn't have prepared remarks uh for this evening. Um, but I will um try and summarize um the best I can. I'll I'll lead with I join the previous police chiefs and other public safety professionals in regards to keeping uh pedestrians out of uh pedestrian safety problems, i.e., uh in traffic situations um where they're defenseless, uh unable to uh win the battle of science um should there be some type of a collision either directly or indirectly in their proximity. Uh, I understand all the the points of view that have surrounded this uh discussion uh in the months leading up to this evening. Uh, I think in the aggregate, um, I would ask um Council to perhaps place their trust in the officers, the folks uh that I have the privilege to lead, to use appropriate discretion in the application of this ordinance should you see fit to pass it. The idea that um there would be a warning, an idea that we would use the least uh intrusive means to gain compliance with the local law, um is something that we don't even need to be codified. Um, that that's kind of how we function. That's how a community policing uh oriented police department functions. Uh, I would uh suggest to you that right now we do have a gap in the law, um while still on the books at the state level, we are under Attorney General's written directive to not address this very specific circumstance. Um, while there are a few potential applicable sections of the state law that we could use, as Councilman Anderson mentioned, they are not status offenses. They require a cooperating victim or a cooperating witness uh for us to proceed. The gap in the law is recognized in the draft language that I believe has been in recent publication in uh various media in Delaware where there's very specific language about uh pedestrians on median strips uh in this bill that has yet to be given a number and yet to be introduced in the State Assembly. But I expect it will be um considered and debated uh during the current se-
Play from 43:33Thomas Johnson
the idea that pedestrians in medians would be uh outlawed if this um if this draft bill at the state level survives mostly as it's currently constructed. Of course through debate they can change the language any way they'd like. So we're in a little bit of an in-between space and time right now. Uh if that state law eventually comes, that would give us the necessary authority to do the things that we need to do if somebody's not manifestly under the influence. Um under the influences a bit of a subjective term, so it's always going to come down to uh a particular officer or paramedics uh judgment if the EMS is called to the scene uh as to whether somebody is not sober enough um to be where they are. Um so we would, in effect, have, uh pending any uh challenge or court test, uh if there ends up being a court opinion issued on this ordinance we would clearly follow that, but between that moment and then uh it would give us that status offense that we don't currently have um to take action when we feel it's appropriate. Uh I can affirmatively state that there will be no targeted special operation to begin monitoring intersections and trying to see how many people that we can catch. It's not about um generating enforcement uh numbers. I think uh the quality of life presentation that I gave back in October kind of lets you know how I felt about how well the system works um when we try enforcement uh as a solution, um but it does give us a mechanism to get people to actually leave uh the median strip and get out of harm's way. Uh the police department is not chiming in on the um the panhandling debate or other issues uh related to all the at-risk populations that we serve every day in Dover. Um I'm not say- I'm not addressing any of that right now. Uh I'm speaking strictly through the lens of uh a former provider uh as a um I guess 30 God, 37-year paramedic at this point who took a lot of trauma patients to the hospital. Um prevention is always the best medicine. Um my policing profession has changed how I address uh the victims of injury and accident uh when it comes to transportation-related accidents. Uh I think um this will have um at the end of the day more benefit than it has any um detraction from the posture that the city takes in trying to make sure that we balance compassion with accountability and doing only things that are necessary to protect life. Um our only two pedestrian fatalities, I've said this before and I'll say it one last time, our only two pedestrian fatalities last year were not necessarily on medians at intersections, but they were members of at-risk populations that our Behavioral Health Unit had files on, that were in close proximity to traffic, and they stepped in in harm's way, and they did not survive. Um so I've said before when it relates to any kind of violence or any kind of um tragedy, one is too many, and I don't remember I don't remember who said it, but I I will end with a statement that I did hear in one of the previous sessions that if we can prevent the first death in recent memory in one of these uh circumstances um because of an intersection collision that spins a car out of control at an odd angle or just straight up somebody jumps the curb and hits somebody, um why wouldn't we want to do that?
Play from 45:52Roy Sudler, Jr.
Thank you, Council President Neil, for recognizing me. This question is for uh the Chief. Uh Chief, would you feel that, do you feel that um someone providing uh an individual who is on the median um money for whatever reason, uh do you feel that would be considered an obstruction of justice because it's, you know, outlawed? And how would you weigh weigh that out when it comes to uh the constituents who are giving money out of the goodness of their heart?
Play from 49:12Thomas Johnson
Uh Dr. Sudler, the um uh I wouldn't call it obstruction of justice. I uh um at the most I could call it would be obstruction of the of the flow of traffic. Um I would not anticipate um grievous injury or um serious collisions in that scenario, but I believe that language exists in in this this draft of the ordinance based on other ordinances and and the wisdom that's been collected about um, especially in heavy traffic flow when multiple cars are following in in short succession, um in an accident investigation universe we call, we kind of call this what they call caravanning, when everybody's kind of moving and they're looking at the light and I'm I'm wondering if I'm going to get up there before it turns red, and then all of a sudden, because I I don't want to wait another light cycle, um all of a sudden the car in front of you, who really didn't have any other reason to stop, all of a sudden
Play from 49:32Thomas Johnson
stops short, sticks a dollar out the window, you weren't ready for it, you hit him in the back, and nobody's going to the hospital, cars probably aren't disabled, but now we have, we have a minor accident in a in a flowing traffic lane. And the idea being you could probably work that transaction out some other way if you knew you weren't allowed to stop in a in a moving traffic lane. Um the benevolence part of that act, I got no issue with. It's just the the time and the methodology is is the thing that probably doesn't cause as many injuries, but it does cause property damage and and minor accidents, and I believe that's the spirit as to why it's included in the uh draft ordinance.
Play from 50:29Roy Sudler, Jr.
Um thank you, and and and I and I understand that. Um and just from your knowledge, I think some at some lights, the caution light, the timing is different from different intersections. Is that correct? I think, cuz I had to learn that out a little bit, too. Cuz I was one of those individuals that like, you know, the light just turned, you know, green and now it's, you know, yellow and and red. Right. So there are intersections that the timing is a little different than most, um which contributes to probably that. But uh thank you for answering my question. I yield.
Play from 51:18Fred A. Neil
Any questions? With hearing no other questions, we I would uh request that we open to the people who have signed up to speak on this.
Play from 51:39David L. Anderson
So moved. Uh we move that we open, Mr. President. I move that we open a public hearing for the people who have signed up, Mr. President.
Play from 51:46Public Commenter
I came to address the uh issue of people jumping in the road all the time. I come down here and do a lot of business, go to my doctors, all that. On Route 8, there's a group of them. When you're turning, you're lucky if you don't hit them because they jump out automatically at you, trying to get you to give them money and stuff. Same thing happens over at the Wawa when you turn to go to the Capital. There's a group of guys out there doing the same thing. Same thing happens when you go to Lowe's, goes you go into Sam's Club, or you go into Bob Evans. It's a whole strip on 13. It's a danger to a lot of people, like the the the officer said. When you turn around and you come in, the light it's started it's turning and all of a sudden somebody stops when the traffic is moving because somebody jumps out off the curb and is right there in the street to try to get money. Something needs to be done either to create a safe zone for people to do it, or turn around and move it out of those busy intersections because it is a danger to people and to other people who are in the cars, because you could have an an accident. Like, you're saying rear-ending, it could cause damage or injuries to other people, or we could accidentally kill somebody because they jump in the road. It's common, everyday thing here. I would appreciate it if you would turn around and pass this bill, and make it a rule, and if you would turn around and look at if there's a safer place that people who want to do something, they could go to in a safer zone. Because in these high-traffic areas, it's too dangerous. Thank you.
Play from 52:27Tracey Johnson
Good evening, members of the town council of Dover. My name is Tracey Johnson and I live on the outskirts of Smyrna, and although I don't live in Dover, I patronize businesses almost daily, many businesses and restaurants. I am here to support the proposed Ordinance 25 20 2025-21 regarding pedestrian safety. I am concerned for not only the people who are in on those medians or along the sides of the roads, but for the drivers on those roadways in your in your city. While I understand that this ordinance does not mention panhandling specifically, I would like to address the following incidents. I have had several run-ins with people who are in the median or on the sides of the roads all around the city of Dover. One particular incident was on the corner of Route 13 and KW Boulevard at Sam's Club. I watched a woman go from the median over to the right turn lane to grab something from the driver. The light turned green and she was almost hit by other cars trying to turn left. They had to swerve to miss her. Another time was near Route 8 by the Modern Maturity Center. There were people walking up and down the median so close to the cars that only one slip could get them hit. There are several others, but my time is limited. I urge each and every one of you to vote in favor of this ordinance. When the officer stated that the ordinance only saves one person, that one person matters. Please pass this ordinance. Thank you.
Play from 54:53Yolanda Mane
Yolanda Mane, City of Dover. Um, I have a, out of the two commenters, um, I do have something to say in the case of the driver. Um, before I start my spiel is if you're driving your car, you shouldn't be on the cell phone, you should be paying attention to what's in front of you. So if there's a person jumping into a median or jumping off a median or getting money from something, you should see that person and not be having your eyes down on something you can't see for one thing. So it's not the panhandlers that are the problem. It's the driver sometimes that are the problem that aren't paying attention. If you're going to back into somebody because they're stopped at a red light and they decided not to go because there's a car coming, then you want to know what? They're protecting themselves and you from getting hit by somebody who's not paying attention on the road. As for panhandling and this ordinance, I'm going to say for one thing it was brought to my attention that there are different types of medians that are not classified. There's an island, which is what's on 13, that is larger than 7 ft, that any car or human being can stand in without getting hit or anything else and still pull over to give money to anyone who needs it, or food. So in that aspect, we need to clarify what is a median, what is the shape of a median, what do we include as a median? Mark it. Mark the safe spots of where people can do what they need to do in order to bring money home for their families to feed them, and for people to be able to safely give them these fundings. Because there are churches that, yes, they offer a great, large amount of things, but one thing they don't offer sometimes is moneys for them to take home to pay their bills if they have a house, or to take, or to set up a place where they can put their tents if they're homeless. They may give them the supplies, but they do not give them the area to set up safely. Panhandlers need an area that they can safely be considered a median not to go on, especially the ones that are shaped like little triangles, okay? And another thing is, is if you're going to, if you're going to fine them and then you're going to fine the people that help them, again, like I'm going to bring to this, then you might as well fine everybody who helps anyone who needs help. So you should put in this ordinance, not only are we going to fine panhandlers, we're going to fine the people that help them, we're going to fine the churches that offer, you know, Christianity help, we're going to fine the people that, like you, that go out and hand out tents that they have no place to set up, clothes that they can't wash that are eventually going to get dirty and make them look even more and feel even more horrible. You're going to give them money? Yes, they're not all drug addicts out there. Let me tell you. I've accompanied a lot of them.
Play from 55:42Ronald Eads
How you doing? I'm Ronald Eads, living in Dover. Uh, to the gentleman that was just speaking earlier, the heavy-set guy, I'm on 13. I stand where he's talking. We are not that stupid where we're going to jump out in front of cars. There's Tammy, and there's Cowboy, and me. We're the only three people who stand out there where Wawa--
Play from 58:35Public Commenter 1
always. And I know these people like the back of my hand. We are not that stupid. If you see a car, you don't run out to a car. You wait for it to stop. And even then, you don't run up to the cars. If they call you over to the car, fine. We that's when we approach the cars. We don't approach a car just cause it's sitting there. We're not stupid. We have respect for people's pro- for people's space and whatnot. So, I don't know what this gentleman is talking or what he's smoking. But we are not that stupid. We don't I know all the guy all the guys who stay on 13 where Wawa is, and I'm sorry, gentleman, sir, we are not idiots. We are not retards.
Play from 58:58Public Commenter 1
We do not stand where it's not safe, if we can help it. I stand where the grass is at. Um, matter of fact, Tanya will stand where the grass is at too, when I'm not there. We take turns, I guess you could say. Cowboy will stand in the median between, I guess, the mechanic mechanic mechanic shop and Wawa. That's where Cowboy stands at. Now, I can't speak for the people on Route 8. I don't know them, don't really care to. But I'm just saying. The reason why I am there, and my wife are there, is we have a motel room. But it takes money to keep us off the street. I'm not trying to get back on the street, so I panhandle to pay for my room, for me and my wife's room. And not only that, but also to put food in our stomachs. We need to eat, we need to stay dry. My My wife has, um...
Play from 59:26Arlene Butler Howard
Hello. I just want to say that, um, with this panhandling, as I look at it, I don't see anything wrong with it. And I want to ask the Chief one question, well two questions. First of all, what is the fatal from people panhandling? And also how many accidents was it within the past... you said you did a... from last year you said two deaths, but that wasn't even from panhandling.
Play from 1:00:34Thomas Johnson
Your, um, your point is is well taken. Uh, I thought I made it clear when I was speaking that they were not panhandling, they were not on a median, but they were next to a major highway and they stepped into that highway and got struck. So, my point was two of the individuals, I don't like to label anybody so I just say they represent some of our at-risk community members, um, were my only two traffic fatalities last year, but I did not state, and I'll say clearly now, they were not panhandling at the time that they were struck.
Play from 1:01:15Arlene Butler Howard
Okay. That's what I I wanted to hear that part. Now how many accident was it with people panhandling last year?
Play from 1:01:36Thomas Johnson
I don't have that data with me, but I don't believe it's very much. Um, I That's not something that's been reported to me as, 'Oh, we've got this this huge problem.' So, I would say I could count it on less than one hand if it's any. I don't have the data with me.
Play from 1:02:05Female Public Commenter
And I was just making that as once two points really is because, like he said, they have common sense if they're out there trying to solicit for money that they might need to pay their rent, to handle anything if they're hungry. And the Bible speaks, and I can say this, they speak that we're going to have the rich and the poor. So everybody here is not rich, everybody's not poor. Some people are in the middle class. But still, they should have a right to go out to panhandle, because I don't see anything wrong with it. They're not doing anything to, like the gentleman said, that he was in the parking lot and almost had an accident. I'm quite sure nobody jumped in front of his car to ask him for any money.
Play from 1:02:15Female Public Commenter
So, only thing I look at this, I when I looked at 10 section 106-139, their safety, they have their safety on guard. And then, you look at it if their safety is not going on guard, you're going to give them a written warning, then $15 for the second offense, and then $50 for the third offense. Only thing I see is that money is coming into the state for what? From people who don't have money? They don't have anything, so that's why they're out there panhandling. They're not out there trying to cause an accident. They're not trying to out there trying to jump in front front of traffic to get hurt.
Play from 1:02:55Female Public Commenter
So the only thing I see on here is that it really should be striked the 106-139, because they have their safety under control, like the gentleman just now stated. They're not out there trying to cause an accident. They're not out there trying to get hit. They're out there trying to survive, because of today's economy. They don't have anything. You might have something, I might have something, you might have something. All y'all might have something. They don't have anything. They have nothing. So that's what they're doing is trying to survive. So and they're not crazy. They're not stupid. Some of them might have some mental mental issues, but still they're human. So that's why they should strike this. The only thing I see is is a moneymaking for the state of Delaware where they going to fine people who don't have money, or the city. Thank you.
Play from 1:04:07Crystal Chatman
Good evening, everyone. My name is Crystal Chatman. I'm a Dover resident, activist, and advocate. I implore you to say vote no on this on Ordinance 2025-21, and develop better solutions than penalties. I'm going to give you three things that I've continued to hear coming to these meetings. Addiction, alcoholism, is a disease that needs to be treated physically, mentally, spiritually, and for long periods of time. Unless you've had to walk that journey with someone, you have no right to judge their demons. Judge not, unless you are willing to be judged by everyone in power or privilege. Mental illness is a disease of the brain and soul, which needs to be treated physically inside and out, spiritually and humanly. Have you ever had to walk that journey with someone? I have. It's not a pretty picture. Homelessness is a disease of so-
Play from 1:04:21Public Commenter
society, that's our fault. It needs to be treated with empathy, compassion, and humanity. Something we've lost sight of. We have all three of those on the median. You call for safety, safety, safety. Where are the solutions, solutions, solutions? Where is the housing, housing, housing? Where is the treatment, treatment, treatment?
Play from 1:05:32Public Commenter
What is next? Penalties on empathy, compassion, and humanity? Oh, I'm sorry, this ordinance already covers that. I would like everyone in this gallery to reflect on the on the prayer that was given tonight by Councilman Boggerty. Empathy, compassion, humility, and true service to all our fellow man. Thank you and have a good evening.
Play from 1:06:00Clarion Arroana
Madam Clerk, thank you, but I think I'm going to pass on my agenda tonight.
Play from 1:07:21Phyllis Smolack
I'm going to make mine kind of short cause I talk a lot. But I have to come back to the first time I gave public comment in this building and asked, "What have you done for me lately?" And I know everybody remembers that. And I'm starting off with that tonight because I really want to see some things for our city. I'm all up and down the whole state of Delaware, and everyone says we have to bring resources in to help the people. I know you had started off the conversation when this all came up, gathering data for resources to help the people. And instead, and I know you don't like it Councilman Rocha, but we are criminalizing poverty. A lot of these people who are on the medians, I mean I've been on the medians, I can tell you names of people why they're on there. Veterans are out there, there's mothers out there trying to make money for the rooms. There are some people that are addicted. I ask, "Do you need services?" I'm out there. But it's really criminalizing poverty, and people don't understand that. We're targeting people that are standing in medians. This bill is penalizing drivers who slow down to help someone. It ties those violations to fines that stack up fast if you can't pay, whether it's at the state level or the city level. I was looking at your report, and it showed the fines. The blue line is higher of the fines that have been given out, but hardly nobody's paying back into the city. So it makes one think that we're trying to come up with another way to get money. I just think there's a better way, and I've always asked, "Why haven't y'all had like a stakeholder meeting and call the advocates to the table, get to hear what we say?" And then when we speak, so many people are mad about what we're saying. We're advocating. That's what we do. We're advocating because we don't like what we see. It's the words and how it's written and how it's violating people's rights. There's got to be a better way. One thing that we all do agree on, that it is a pedestrian safety issue. But where we can't, where we
Play from 1:07:34Public Commenter
haven't agreed on because we haven't come to a table and talked about it. It's in forums like this. Bring people who who've done this in other cities and see how they did it and how it's successful. I'd be giving people emails, I don't know what y'all think about me, but I get things, and y'all do not take advantage and it hurts, because I want more for my city.
Play from 1:08:48Public Commenter
When a councilman try to have a conversation and say that my tactics are using black money, I had to go look up that. What's black money? A lot of what we do doesn't cost anything, it's a it's a subscription, $10 a month. But it's called good organizing.
Play from 1:09:05Public Commenter
And I still want to know, what are we going to do about the 400 and twelve some kids
Play from 1:09:14Public Commenter
that are homeless in the city of Dover? Nobody has answered that yet.
Play from 1:09:17George Johnson
Good evening council members. My name is George Johnson, resident of the city. Um, I had a good meeting today with Governor Matt Meyer's um, who's opposition opposed this the the this this ordinance that y'all got going on, saying that, uh, it's helping our society. I call it pain. The reason I call it pain, because I sit in my city and, uh, those are the less fortunate, I put in rooms.
Play from 1:09:24George Johnson
Those that, um, ain't got no place to lay their head, welcome in my home. God said, you cover the land and protect the people. Um, as a clergy, a a a pastor, um, who votes yes, my God, my God, what happened to my city?
Play from 1:10:01George Johnson
Um, we supposed to be able to bring people together and bring the resolution that makes things better. This is not better. Um, fining someone just because they saying, hey, I need help. They say, why hear your voice if it's not being heard? Where is the hand that one reach for, and it cannot be grabbed? Because they said, hey, we must be segregated. No justice, no peace.
Play from 1:10:13George Johnson
Um, I'm a strong advocate here in the city, and I'm going to continue advocating for mine, because I don't want to see nobody lesser than me, because we all equal. Um, I'm not better than nobody. I came from I came from the bottom, and now I'm at and now I'm where I need to be. And I'm bringing everybody that's less fortunate with me. So, I don't care how many bills they come out, how many ordinances they come out. If it's against the people, I'm against it. Um, they said I was always told when I was young, never be the oppressed, be the oppressor.
Play from 1:10:27Cher Paul
Cher Paul, Dover, Delaware. Um, I sent, of course, I sent many emails, and with these emails that I sent, I sent a copy of the problems that you have with this ordinance. And every one of you got the copy of the, and and and for those that didn't read the emails, I went and I brought you a copy
Play from 1:11:18Cher Paul
of these of the ordinance, and the issues that we have. Now, our our solicitor, I went through, I attached him onto that email. I also provided you with a copy. Now in this ordinance and it breaks it down into sections and it shows the
Play from 1:11:54Ms. Poling
problems, and I gave also the something you got that shows the problems with this particular ordinance. So it highlights the constitutional concerns, and it also highlights legal concerns that may not just be constitutional but may be a little illegal in some areas and may be vague. And I'm not going to go through it because I got 3 minutes.
Play from 1:12:05Ms. Poling
But, Mr. Solicitor, with these concerns, are these true? The this structure from this ordinance, Councilman Anderson, you took it from the framework from the very from the very bill, the very actual law that has been challenged. And the state Not only was it challenged, the state was challenged by it, but they also lost. So why would you take
Play from 1:12:18Ms. Poling
You know, and and and, Mr. Solicitor, you're an attorney. I I I don't know what I don't know what area of law you got this from, or why you would even go there. But when you find case study and you are trying to go through and you're arguing cases, in the firm I worked in, we always found precedent in cases that we won on, not ones that we lost.
Play from 1:12:35Ms. Poling
If you took this framework from that law, in which you did, this framework right here was already challenged and lost. So every single last one of you that vote yes, you are putting taxpayer dollars in jeopardy.
Play from 1:13:13Ms. Poling
Now, you don't want anybody to talk to the solicitor cuz Mr. Solicitor, you get paid the big bucks. And you already paying out the yin yang already for issues that you already are legally dealing with that he has to deal with. So you're even your time is limited to what you can communicate with the solicitor.
Play from 1:13:23Ms. Poling
But I'm suggesting that anybody that votes yes to this, understand you already lost it on the state level. It made no sense to put this put the taxpayers in jeopardy for framework that was done from the state from a state law that's already been it's already been challenged, it's done.
Play from 1:13:38Ms. Poling
Wait, the solicitor did not answer my question. Don't do that. Don't do that. Don't do that. I expect for my question to be answered like everybody else.
Play from 1:14:24Ms. Poling
No, that's not it. You can act like, don't act like you don't get paid the big bucks. No, that question was serious, don't act like that.
Play from 1:14:36City Solicitor
I I very much appreciate the question, Ms. Poling, and I I respect the research you've done on this. Um it's important. Um the state statutes that you're talking about that were, quote-unquote, lost, that was not a decision on the merits. The challenge was to loitering and panhandling, and the issue seemed to be whether or not the state statute was an overly broad ban on First Amendment
Play from 1:14:41City Attorney
Amendment rights. And the argument was there is a First Amendment right to asking somebody else for money. There is a First Amendment right to stand and express your freedom of assembly. And when those statutes were challenged, there was no decision on the merits, there was a an agreement by the State of Delaware not to enforce those statutes.
Play from 1:15:22City Attorney
I think we've provided, or at least council has has seen, the State of Delaware through the Attorney General's office is trying to figure out a way to more narrowly tailor the statute that addresses pedestrian safety without unduly infringing on First Amendment rights.
Play from 1:15:42City Attorney
So I think I think really what we're talking about from a legal perspective tonight is, is the proposed ordinance sufficiently narrowly tailored to address pedestrian safety issues without unduly infringing First Amendment freedom of expression, freedom of assembly issues?
Play from 1:15:56Ms. Small
Okay, can you yield can you yield your time to me because he had a minute left over, because this is very important. And the reason why I'm saying it's important is because it's your it's your money. It's taxpayer dollars. So y'all need to hear the answer to this question.
Play from 1:16:48Ms. Small
So you and I both know that with regards to law that even though it was settled out, but the fact that the the state is not allowing anyone to enforce those loitering laws, then we know that it was one of those things that were challenged. So when that happens, it means what? We've come to an agreement and we decided not to go into court, and we've come to an agreement to settle out, which means they lost that challenge. And because they don't want to go any further, they want to go to and make sure that we do things legally, correct?
Play from 1:17:00City Attorney
I can't speak for the state as to why they made the agreement they did.
Play from 1:17:30Ms. Small
But those constitutional laws that I put in writing for you, those may be some constitutional issues that we have with this ordinance, correct?
Play from 1:17:32City Attorney
Ma'am, candidly, it looked like you took the ordinance and put it through an AI application.
Play from 1:17:39City Attorney
I think what happened is you you take the any ordinance, if you say a an instruction into an AI app to—
Play from 1:17:47Ms. Small
I suggest you take it to an AI, and you go through it, and when you put it through there, it went through, are those issues, are those issues that may that could be challenged? Is it yes or no?
Play from 1:17:53City Attorney
I think it's the same as you could with any statute or ordinance. If you put it through an AI and say, what could be potential challenges to this, it'll it'll come up with some potential challenges.
Play from 1:18:03Ms. Small
Okay, well we just we just want to know. So in the event that that you get that you that you do get sued, y'all need to understand when you say when you say yes, understand what you're saying yes to. I suggest you also look into the court—
Play from 1:18:11Cheyenne Miller
We have, and I appreciate you taking the time. Cheyenne Miller, HOMES Campaign, um,
Play from 1:18:34Public Commenter
Come from Wilmington, and we're having similar issues up in Wilmington. And I'm a little disappointed because you guys put this ordinance up back in October. It's been about 5 months of debate on this ordinance. Five full months, and I've been checking the ordinances that have been popping up over that 5 months, and not near one has anything to do with addressing the issue of homelessness or addressing the issue of affordability in Dover
Play from 1:18:38Public Commenter
or addressing the issue of the quality of life, the types of jobs. It is extremely disappointing. We have the same problems all across the state, and all municipalities have said that they do not feel like they have the responsibility to deal with homelessness unless it comes down to the fact that they want to give them fines and arrest. One of the parts of this bill, since I don't think that there is that much care about whether or not people are experiencing homelessness and having to beg for help, what I think really matters is that
Play from 1:19:05Public Commenter
this bill says that no operator of a vehicle shall park, stop, or leave standing a vehicle, or permit a passenger to leave it on any city street where prohibited, or suddenly decrease the speed of said vehicle, or deviate from a traffic lane for the purpose of responding to persons violating this ordinance.
Play from 1:20:18Public Commenter
I think that this is the part that, if you don't care about the homeless, you should care about the drivers. You should care about people who have a First Amendment right to respond to people as they need to. But also, you should care about the fact that when a driver is stopping to help someone, that that is the place that you are going to be getting the money from. The Dover City Council had a hearing about its budget and said essentially that they are not making enough money to cover the needs of the city. Most cities that can't make enough money decide instead that they want to fine people instead of looking at tax reforms. Fining people is a way to be able to raise money without having to, again, go through the process of creating new taxes. You will not get the money from the people experiencing homelessness, but I promise you you will get the money from the people who are driving. Because those who are driving that are fined under this won't be able to renew their licenses, won't be able to renew their registration. They're the ones who are going to pay. I know we're saying that the city does not want to do a whole fine thing and that's not something we're trying to do, but the reality of the ordinance is that you have the power and the the the the the power to actually say that you're going to fine someone. And I promise you you will not get the money from the individuals who are panhandling. You won't get the money from the individuals who are selling and soliciting on the side of the street for their business, the tax guy flipping the thingy, but you will get it from the drivers. And so again, I ask you all vote no on this. Come up with some real solutions for homelessness. You have a responsibility to your city, and as a person who drives through here all the time, I'll be ready for my ticket.
Play from 1:20:35Jeannie Anderson
Hi, my name is Jeannie Anderson. I'm coming up here because I have been at a light and I have been approached and where somebody was banging on my window, probably six. So anyway, I am tired of this. I grew up
Play from 1:21:37Public Commenter
Yeah privilege. I grew up in an abusive home, and what I experienced coming into this meeting, I'm telling you, I'm at a light, and I can't get away from a strange man banging on my door! And if I did, if I could go through the light, I would get a ticket. What about people like me? And yet every time I come in here, I hear about my privilege. Right. I called 911, and I told you all that before, but you went to the media, and you said it's a lack of integrity if she didn't. Well, I did call 911. I am tired of this. I want to know what about people like me that have been abused? That have been abused, and can't get away from some man, some strange man banging on my window over and over again? And you and you go on about church and oh how we don't care about the homeless and all that, all these homeless Pastor Boggerty, what y'all - oh my god, they have a homeless shelter, they help homeless people all the time. David does fundraisers all the time. We help people all the time! But I want to know what about people like me that have been abused, and I can't leave, I can't get away. There are a lot of people like me. Go on WBOC and all these people talking about these people trying to get in in their doors and open their doors, and you want to talk about privilege. Oh my god, you should have seen the privilege I grew up with. I'm sick of this.
Play from 1:21:55Amber Kennedy
Uh good evening. My name is Amber Kennedy. I live in Magnolia, but I work and I've - in Dover, and I've been here for 30 years. Um I just want to state that I'm for this ordinance um for multiple different reasons. The projections make, you know, there's back and forth feeling on it, but it's not If you read the title, it's safety. We're all about safety and making Delaware, Dover, better. Right now we need to work on what's best for Dover, and it's not a homeless situation that's not part of this ordinance. It absolutely needs to be addressed, and issues need to be addressed that are not included in this bill. The homeless, the panhandling, and figuring out a better solution absolutely needs to be addressed, but that's not what this bill about. This bill is about keeping everybody safe, and I think it it's it's flipped. And what needs to have happened what needs to have happened is we all need to work together and find a solution and call it as it is. There is a homeless population problem, there is a panhandling problem, and there is a mental health issue that needs to be resolved separate from this bill. I implore you to pass this to help better Dover. We need to make Dover the hotspot it can and should be, and worry about the issues. This bill has gotten a lot of runaround on different stories, but we need to focus on what it really means. It's being twist and turned and flipped and flipped. If we want to do a homeless bill, let's work on it. Let's call everybody out that hasn't helped. If we want to do a mental health bill, that's ordinance, let's work on that. Let's not twist something that's here to help and here to make Dover better because of semantics. It doesn't make sense. It needs to be called out that there are absolutely issues in Dover that need to be addressed. They're not getting addressed, and I agree with you guys. Absolutely, I agree with you. And it's time to make our voices heard and stop twisting and and twirling safe ordinances into something they're not. It is an absolute safety issue of
Play from 1:23:20Public Speaker
multiple different levels and including that it's a trash issue, because there's often trash in the middle of the medians. And then, who's responsible for picking that up? So that's just a side note,
Play from 1:25:11Public Speaker
The value The points that have been spoken this afternoon are very valid, and there are multiple different issues that need to be addressed, but this ordinance is not the time or place, because what you're actually doing is taking away the real problem and the real things that need to be addressed by focusing on something that has nothing to do with the homeless and the panhandling and the mental illness that's happening in Dover. It's absolutely a safety issue, not a panhandling issue. And that's what needs to happen, is we can't get it clouded, because at the end of the day, if it's muddied, we're never going to get this situation fixed. And that's what needs to happen, is we need to separate the true issue and get this passed, and then work on the issues that are at hand and not sugarcoat anything and call it out by the city, by the state, and that's what needs to happen. We can't sugarcoat anything and hide it behind whatever it's going to be. This is a safety issue. This is a good ordinance, and I'm very much behind it. Thank you very much.
Play from 1:25:23Katrina Stubbs
Hello. My name is Katrina Stubbs, as clerk just stated, and I have been homeless multiple times since 2016. And as she perfectly just stated everything, um this is totally different. Homelessness, panhandling, mental health totally different. This is something dealing with safety. And I have been in a vehicle where individuals have jumped right in front of us to get the resources that they were individuals were wanting to get. It is a safety issue, and I think you should definitely vote for this. Um like I just stated, I've been homeless multiple times. I've never had to, thank God, never had to be out on the street to panhandle because I've had resources from churches, food stamps, and other community leaders include including councilmen that have helped me, both Councilman David Anderson and Councilman Brian Lewis. They have helped me and have directed me into the different resources that needed to that I needed to receive. And as the lady just stated, there is a homelessness situation. And I and when that meeting takes place, I definitely want to be a part of that, because the average person cannot afford close to $2,000 a month. I mean, the rent is so expensive. And again, that's a whole totally different issue than what this is um what what tonight is about, but I would definitely pass this because it is safety. And I've been in a vehicle where individuals have jumped in front. Thank you.
Play from 1:26:30Jeff Molinda
Good evening. I'm Jeff Molinda, and I live in the Third District here in the city of Dover. I'm pretty new, and so I'm not well versed on open meetings and that sort of thing. So I'm just going to register
Play from 1:28:21Public Commenter
register a record objection to this ordinance being heard tonight. I'm not clear that you've met the notice requirements, but the other thing that I noticed is that the ordinance that was displayed at the beginning of of considering this had two amendments to it, two and three, that were not on the version of the ordinance that I downloaded today um from the city's website. So I'm not sure that the city's made its its notice um requirements there. Um so after that, um it looks to me that this this ordinance is aimed at poor people, folks who were charged to help rather than to punish. Um chief said that this gets people that this ordinance provides for the ability to remove someone from the ordinance. I'm looking at the ordinance and it says violators may be charged a fine as specified in Appendix F, and there's a warning, there's a $15 fine, there's a $50 fine. Nothing in the ordinance permits an officer to remove the person from the median. The next thing is this is going to be a mess to enforce. The first driver who gets a ticket under this, and I'll say this to you as a former public defender, that driver's going to have their lawyer go out and measure where the person was standing, and then we're going to because in order for to to effectively enforce this against a driver, you have to prove that the person that they were handing the money to or whatever was violating the uh the ordinance. That's here in Section D. So you've got to prove, first of all, that there was a violation by the person standing there. Second, you got to prove that the person violated that. I'd much rather have the police officer cite the four people that went on that left-hand turn through the red light, which is a Delaware tradition I'm finding that I moved here, um than than write the or write the fine for the person who um who gave over the money. So you got a mess to enforce. The signage required is going to cost more to install and maintain than it'll ever bring in. Not a good use of council, police department, or city court to enforce it time.
Play from 1:28:28Reggie Daniel
Uh, good evening, Council. Uh, first and foremost, it's just something--
Play from 1:31:27Reggie Daniel
Oh, yes. Uh, I live in Townsend, Delaware. Um, just something that I think needs to be addressed is I've heard it uh a couple of times in previous meetings a concern about the activists, the advocates, the activists, the advocates--
Play from 1:31:33Public Commenter
And in this time of Lenten season, and as a minister at Solid Rock Baptist Church, and to those who share my faith, I think it's important that we remember who our first activist was: Jesus Christ, the one who paid for our sins, those who believe in that. And though I may not live in Kent County or Dover anymore, I came here in 2000, now we moved out in 2025. I'm 27 years old. I've spent 98% of my life here. I grew up in Kent County. I was educated in Dover, I worship in Dover, I work in Dover, I volunteer in Dover. So while I may no longer be a resident, I'm still working to invest in the community that has invested so much into me. And while I understand the concern for safety, I do not believe that this can be resolved in the way in which we are doing so. I think what we need to address primarily, first and foremost, is this common denominator of a lack of affordability, a lack of access to resources, and a lack of a continuum of resources. Uh not too long ago, just last week, I had a conversation with an individual at the Railroad House who told me that um Dover Fire Department asked for $300,000 that could be going towards building a fence to protect their area from people who are struggling from addiction. But that $300,000 could go towards renovating any of the vacant properties in the area. Governor Meyer just put out his first budget where they've included $48 million towards affordable housing, homeless homelessness programs, community projects, and $1 million specifically allocated to address homelessness along with building hope centers in Kent and Sussex uh County. Dover Interfaith, at the same time, said in their IMA Social Action Committee meeting they are at 90% capacity. They need transitional housing. These are the things I think that we should be addressing. We need to continue to work towards addressing homelessness and drug use, but that funding and money are scarce. And those are the things I think City Council needs to be advocating to the state, and that while we always rely on charities and churches, charities and churches are not enough. A community is only successful when its leaders invest in its most vulnerable members in the same way we come to be activists and advocates. I ask that you be activists and advocates for your community, for the city of Dover, and sometimes that means that we have to get uncomfortable. We have to sometimes puff our chest out a bit. And to those of us especially in our City Council who are African-Americans, you know our history, that we've had to be uncomfortable, we've had to be in those spaces, we've had to say, 'Hey, I can't move on this, no matter what it looks like to me. I'm seeing between the lines, I'm seeing that devil in the details, and because of that we have to say no.' Thank you.
Play from 1:31:45Chris Beardsley
Did you violate the FOIA requirement by not moving the date for this?
Play from 1:34:39Chris Beardsley
Sure. My name is Chris Beardsley, uh also running for US Senate, and I live in Townsend, Delaware. I I asked a question.
Play from 1:34:44Chris Beardsley
Did you violate the notice request when you moved the date to today for the...
Play from 1:34:56Public Commenter 2
Was there a violation of the law for public meeting notice when this meeting was posted on the agenda last week as being first reading and then was changed at the last minute to a final reading? It was scheduled for a final reading on March 9th. Was that a violation of the public notice rules?
Play from 1:35:13City Solicitor
Thank you. Um, so the the public meeting notice requirement only requires that an agenda or notice include the a general statement of the major issues to be discussed at the meeting. And the Delaware statute of the Open Meetings Law specifically provides that it may be amended from in advance of the meeting. So the agenda as originally posted included a general statement of the major issues to be addressed during tonight, and it was amended in accordance with FOIA.
Play from 1:35:58David L. Anderson
Did you violate Council rules? I I don't know what Council rules you're talking about.
Play from 1:37:16Public Commenter 2
The rules on the procedure of an ordinance that was sent back and then notified to the community as being a first reading at tonight's meeting.
Play from 1:37:21Public Commenter 3
What we need to discuss is that we want people to understand we need we need to make this about homelessness, okay? In high school, my driver's ed teacher sat us in front of us and gave us a short quiz. He said, "Is driving a right or a privilege?" We learned, contrary to what most of us wanted to believe, that driving is a privilege and not a right. This is the third hearing that I've been to, and it's beyond a level of frustration to listen to a logic of privilege that prioritizes the logic over rights. Yet this is the reality that we are all trying to survive in. How can we make the most vulnerable exist in the world of the privileged? The rights of free movement free movement are so natural that we have gotten so far that we don't even realize how unnatural the world that we are living in is. Even in the limited victory in the settlement between the LC ACLU and the AG, we have listened to countless upon countless hours of Council President, Councilman Anderson, the police chief, and the solicitor general tiptoe around violating the AG settlement. By tiptoeing and trying to be clever by half, you are knowingly walking into a lawsuit that is going to cost the city time and resources when they're at their lowest. This is a reactionary measure perpetuated to cause more pain than any real solution. Countless of countless of people are trying to survive this very moment, and here we are asking ourselves how we can make it worse, not better. I worked at the
Play from 1:37:38Public Commenter
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and we're seeing continued increases of homelessness. We had to delay the PIT count again. And when I worked there, we would ask ourselves how could anyone pass these types of legislations which they know are going to have a disparate impact on the homeless and still decide to pass them? We spent five months, as my colleague Cheyenne Miller said, and we would prefer to have spent five months dealing with the core issue. Why are people out there in the streets to begin with? Okay, people are homeless and need resources. You talk about making Dover, Delaware, we talk about wanting to make Dover, Delaware, caring for the people of Dover. You said about saving one life. What about all the lives that are out there every single day struggling in and day in and day out? Do any of those lives matter to you? It seems like we only care about the people that are in cars or separated from all the separated from all the pain. My family has been homeless. They're not drug addicts. And recently I got them help, not because of the state, but because I was able to pull family together. We need more help, and you've wasted five months of everyone's time on something that is causing more pain and more sorrow. And I commend you for mentioning Ramadan because I had to break my fast to come to this outside, but this is a time when we need to draw ourselves closer to people in pain, not towards people in privilege. And I hear people talk about dogs, that's messed up, and I want to say that. Thank you all.
Play from 1:38:18Council Member
Did she write in the chat, Crystal? I can't read that far. Did she write her comment?
Play from 1:40:26Mimi Sublist
All right. So, I've been listening to people talk about unhoused folks like they're drug addicts and violent violent jumping criminals. So, I need everyone to listen really, really carefully because a few isolated incidents do not give you permission to smear an entire group of people. I've been harassed. And yes, I'm also a victim of abuse to the person who said that, but I would never assume that everyone asking for help is like that. Assault is illegal. Harassment is already illegal. If someone attacks someone, prosecute that person. If someone jumps into the
Play from 1:41:00Public Commenter
is already enforceable. Do not pretend this ordinance is a crime-fighting strategy. My partner was on the streets as an addict. He said most people out there aren't dangerous, they're not looking for trouble, and they're not criminals. They're people who are knocked down and cannot get back on their feet, because getting on your feet requires support. He found support, and most people don't. These are not "those people." These are people. Someone's child, someone's sibling, and someone's parent. Do you do you think my my partner's mother just woke up one day and say, "Well, my kid's going to grow up to be an addict on the streets"? No! That is not how this works, and you know it. One crisis, one eviction, one medical bill, one relapse, one abusive situation, and that is you out there. People get sick, people get hurt, people lose jobs, people lose housing, people lose support. And and you can say all day this is not about panhandling, you can say it's not about homelessness, but why does this ordinance only make sense when you picture a poor person on that median? The law does not care what you say; it cares about who it hits, and this will hit poor and unhoused people. And I heard, what did she say, it it gives them a warning and time to get help? Help from where? Which guaranteed low-barrier bed? A warning is not housing. If your goal is truly to get people off the intersection, get those programs you keep talking about up and running first, and reduce street presence that way. Stop punishing people when you have no clear alternatives. Please vote no on this ordinance. Thank you.
Play from 1:41:34Miriam Dede. Um
Hi, my name is Miriam Dede. Um, I'm Wilmington, Delaware, but I often come to Dover. Um, and, um, yes, uh, I'm asking for council to please oppose this ordinance. It is both cruel and futile. Um, as many people have said today, people that are panhandling, the obvious target of this ordinance, are people. And fining people and ticketing them for simply trying to survive is is cruel. I also want to highlight how futile it is. Mimi stole what I was going to say. Um, all of the examples that we've heard today, first of all, are saying that there's behavior that makes them scared, or thing was caused by people that are panhandling, it's already illegal. Uh, banging on windows, that's harassment or disorderly conduct. Stepping into the way of traffic when not in a crosswalk and not with the light, that's jaywalking. Uh, jumping on a car until someone gets the resources they needed, that's that's robbery. Um, if the police are saying that they need tools for this behavior, they have those tools. But in order to use them, they're going to need to get out of their cars, they're going to need a community police, they're going to need to talk, and I think if they did that, um, we would have be having a very different conversation today. The police, when asked multiple times
Play from 1:44:06Public Commenter
claims about whether there have been accidents caused by people who are panhandling, essentially said—I will summarize—that they know of no accidents caused by panhandling in Dover. This ordinance says that it's trying to solve a problem that simply does not exist.
Play from 1:44:51Public Commenter
And what I think is most important is that while we talk about this, we are wasting time. There is a real problem with people who are unhoused in our state, in Dover, and in municipalities across Delaware. And while we talk about creating new laws to ban behavior that isn't a problem or is already banned, we're wasting time that could be used to talk about creating more housing options, creating more treatment options. There are more people that are unhoused than there are beds for them in our state. People have to exist somewhere, and ordinances like this waste time and waste resources when we could be talking about real solutions. Thank you.
Play from 1:45:03Adam Witten
So, um, I want to make a potential suggestion for an amendment that I think could bring us to an understanding here. Uh, so I hope you'll hear me out.
Play from 1:46:12Adam Witten
I think, um, there has been a lot of focus, uh, on the homeless here, but I think that this, uh, ordinance could be applied to another group that really hasn't been talked about.
Play from 1:46:20Adam Witten
Um, there's this gang and they look like they're doing drugs to me, and they're all wearing the same color.
Play from 1:46:30Adam Witten
I've seen them way out past the median many times, and they steal hundreds of dollars from their victims rather than asking.
Play from 1:46:34Adam Witten
Um, I think we should add the amendment that targets these people, um, and they're called the police.
Play from 1:46:41Adam Witten
Um, I haven't seen any panhandlers, uh, causing accidents, but I have seen a cop on 95 throw a Black man over the road railing and then tase him. What about that man's public safety?
Play from 1:47:14Adam Witten
I've seen a lot of people, uh, talking about, is this about panhandling or not?
Play from 1:47:23Adam Witten
Why are we pretending like Dover City Council isn't working with the state, with AG, uh, to have a statewide joint effort to basically harass people trying to make ends meet?
Play from 1:47:28Adam Witten
The skyrocketing rent and these kind of laws, uh, to satisfy the landlord's greed, these are connected. This is the prison-industrial complex playing out in real time. I've heard a lot of people make appeals to the teachings of Jesus. The only God these people serve is money. Thank you.
Play from 1:47:38Sean Sennett
Maybe. Um, my name is Sean Sennett and, um, I live in Middletown, Delaware. As a healthcare provider who has spent over a decade in emergency pharmacy and trauma—
Play from 1:48:01Public Commenter
trauma, I'm reminded daily of the experiences of people living at the intersection of poverty, disability, mental illness, and housing instability. That's the intersection we're talking about right here. It's an intersection of humanity and the community we want to be. This ordinance is not careful governance. It attempts to manage visible symptoms rather than address underlying causes. Respectfully, this is not the band-aid you think it is. This is not fundamentally a safety issue. It is a social and healthcare issue being routed through enforcement. Last week before the Joint Finance Committee, the Chief Judge of the Delaware Supreme Court reminded lawmakers that we cannot incarcerate our way out of the societal afflictions we are seeing. From a healthcare perspective, that is exactly on point. The people impacted by this ordinance are often the same individuals cycling through emergency departments, crisis units, and shelters because systems have already failed them. They are patients before they are problems. Safety risk reduction comes from stability and from security and from community, not from knee-jerk reactions. The prescription is not more fines, fees, citations, or processing. You're not going to get the fees and fines from these people that have nothing to eat or a place to sleep. There are real legal, legal risks, as courts are increasingly scrutinizing these ordinances regulating panhandling and survival behaviors. Advancing legislation in this space invites litigation while failing to address the root causes. If council wants meaningful change, invest upstream. We can't fine our way out of poverty or legislate it away. We just can't do that. This is an expensive gamble. And to those who have opined on the challenges they've faced, I'm truly sorry. I'm sorry that you've experienced those events. Our society needs help. This isn't it. We should be building solutions and not citations. I'm gravely concerned that the council's choice to bring this hearing on short notice, less than a week prior, and after a record-setting storm hit this region. We need you to communicate better. It's above and beyond clear that we need more discussion on this ordinance and this issue, and your constituents deserve that. These are people, and if you have this many angered at what this ordinance does, doesn't do, or purports to do, this isn't a prescription I'd recommend. If panhandling isn't the target, you've clearly missed the mark on communicating how you're hoping to solve this problem, one which I would reiterate is at best poorly articulated and at worst privilege. Responsible government doesn't legislate out of fear. I ask that you vote no or at the very least table this for further discussion.
Play from 1:48:08Fred A. Neil
That that is the last of the people who have signed up and anybody who wishes to speak who has not spoken already, would you please come forward and provide your name, come forward, provide your name?
Play from 1:51:07Public Commenter 2
Councilman Neil, I want to speak on this ordinance. I already spoke, but I want to speak on this one.
Play from 1:51:16Fred A. Neil
You can speak uh on this ordinance cuz you did not speak on the ordinance before. But we have him up.
Play from 1:51:19Anthony Floyd Jr.
Good evening, uh, Council. My name is Anthony Floyd Jr. I'm a retired Philadelphia police commander. I commanded the third most violent police district in the city of Philadelphia. I commanded over 250 officers in North Central Philadelphia. Former chief of police at Lincoln University. I am I'm a resident of Dover, Delaware. What we need, I'm offering suggestions. We have natural resources right here in the city of Dover. We have several doctors right here in City Council. We have an MBA, Masters of Business Administration, professional in City Council. We have three schools of higher education: Delaware State University, Wilmington University, and DelTech that has advanced degree people who we can tap upon to provide a focus group, a coordinated effort to find out successful ways of dealing with unshelteredness and homelessness. The last thing we want to do is criminalize those that are at the bottom the bottom of their lives. They didn't expect to be this way, and we criminalize them, and I appreciate the chief for backing off. And what the chief is not going to tell you, staffing levels in the in the Dover Police Department are stretched for this, because you have robberies, you have shootings, robbery point of gun, robbery point of knife, simulated weapons, robberies, carjacking, and we're and the police department devoting resources to folks that are asking for money to eat? Where is the humanity? We need humanity at this time. HUD is getting ready to cut 60%. The fudge funds is 60%. What are we going to do when those people Capitol Green, Simon Circle, uh Liberty Court when they're out on the street? What I'm asking this council respectfully is let's find ways to address critical issues that look like it's not going away. Public-private partnerships, our city can actually float a bond specifically to address the homelessness right here in the city city of Dover. Like I said, we can have academicians coming together collectively to develop a strategic plan for sustainable solutions to address the issue. We can do that. It's a positive thing. But what we don't do is criminalize poor people. Thank you very much.
Play from 1:51:27Mr. Faust
Thank you for acknowledging me. We all care about safety. I did 10 years as an EMT. I was an ER tech for 5 years. If you really want safety, let's address the gun violence in our city, first of all, because that a bullet doesn't discriminate who it kills or who it maims. Secondly, why don't we go after the prostitutions? They spread STDs
Play from 1:54:41Public Commenter
these, other criminal activities. Let's address that. Let's be prudent. Last, let's deal with the drug dealing that drills other things, criminal acts, robberies, rapes, whatever it may be. This ordinance is not going to increase safety. You can't have our resources stretched where you have an officer there 24/7 to make sure little Suzy or little Johnny doesn't come back after they get forced off. Where is the common sense? Let's use our manpower to stop the gun violence, stop the drugs, stop the prostitution. The mayor and council should be talking to the attorney general to start prosecuting these people that the officers, bravely are arresting and before the paperwork is dry, they're out on the street committing another crime. We need to do better by our citizens, and this ordinance is not going to prove security or safety a thing. I'm more concerned about the gun violence, because one of these days you're going to have a little child, five, three years of age, or, God forbid, I'm not saying this to be a smart-ass, an officer's going to get killed. I don't want to see our public servants, our hardworking EMS, fire, police officers' life in danger because we're not using our resources wisely and prudent. Please vote no on this ordinance, because as it stands now, will not pass public scrutiny or legal scrutiny, because there's going to be a lawsuit. We have a budget issue, because Council President Neil told we got 40% non-profits. Well, that didn't come overnight. I came to the workshop for the budget. We're in deep trouble. Pick our battles. We need to take care of our people. We need to do something because we're going down faster than the Titanic. So I'm praying that the mayor, I mean the council votes no on this ordinance as it's currently written. Thank you.
Play from 1:54:41Bonnie
Hi, my name is Bonnie. I live in Dover. I just want to say I've been sitting here listening the whole night and I would say vote no because, let me tell you why, I was in Camden today and I was talking to a lady with a baby. She lost her job. Now she's homeless. She has no place to go, no place to put that little baby. I told her to call social services. What's the other number? 211, call anybody she can call. She's called everybody. You know what they told her? "We don't have no more funding. You're going to have to sleep out on the street." What is this? This is the city of Dover. I've lived here 20 years. And as far as I'm concerned, I I drive Route 8 every day. I drive to Sam's Club every other day. I'm over by Walmart every day, and I can tell you right now, I've not once had no pedestrian approach my car. I've had more people on West Denny's Road walk in front of me than I've had pedestrians and uh panhandlers come to my window. And as far as I'm concerned, if there's somebody out there that needs something to eat, I'm going to feed them just like I would expect all y'all to feed me.
Play from 1:56:55Public Commenter
My point is you don't need to sit here and judge these people when each and every one of y'all are all in the same boat. We're just floating a little higher than the ones on the ground. How do you know I might not be there? Is this the way I'm going to get treated after 20 years paying my city taxes?
Play from 1:57:57Public Commenter
So I'm tired of this sneaking in law stuff, lying about pedestrians. I see these panhandlers every day and not one of them approached my door. Yes they walked by and looked in my car. I ain't got nothing to hide. If you need the shirt off my back I would give it to you off my back, as long as I don't get a ticket for indecent exposure.
Play from 1:58:18Public Commenter
So that's my point. The point of it is everybody sitting here saying stuff about these panhandlers that is not true. I have not once seen it, and believe me I'm all around Dover. So that's all I have to say. I vote no and I hope y'all vote no too cause y'all the ones got to sleep on it and not me.
Play from 1:58:43Fred A. Neil
Thank you. We have uh, uh, representative um Sean Lynn? Uh, before uh Sean comes on, you can speak. Please come forward. Just name and address.
Play from 1:59:47Tyler Mock
My name is Tyler Mock, I'm from Dover, Delaware. And we can sit here and we can yell, or we can go to committee meeting and we can ignore other council members that we saw their song and dance, we can waste another couple of hours and a couple of hours of folks' nights to be able to sit here and play the agenda swap-around game and the Robert's Rules orders and all that stuff to be able to try to manipulate folks and weaponize incompetence by not hearing people at the microphone when they ask a direct question and understand that it's a question.
Play from 1:59:59Tyler Mock
Or we could talk about sturdy beggar law, which is what this is. You want to figure out a way to get people that you don't think you should provide services for to be able to be pushed off to some magical, ethereal place where their constituency deals with them. It's the Kensingtons in Wilmington, and Wilmington's in Dover, and Dover's in Georgetown, and Georgetown apparently is somewhere else whenever a constitutional sheriff in Wicomico County needs them. So I guess we're going to sit here and ignore the fact that instead of being both decent citizens, decent, most of you, Christians, decent religiously and morally bound folks with a duty to actually serve a person in front of you, treat it like a Wawa. Open the door for the guy in front of you, right? You hold the door for the guy behind you, right? Do you, or do you sit here and say they're obviously on drugs, I see them all on drugs. What are their names? Have you met them? Have you asked the chief if he's a cop or if he's a paramedic first? Because that's important, because we've been put in front of us that the reason the chief cares about so much health and safety in this situation is the actual paramedic side of the chief's heart. And yet I saw all but one member sit here and rezone a property for increased foot traffic without doing a study to be able to measure whether that would keep them safe. So are you hypocrites or are you incompetent?
Play from 2:00:28Fred A. Neil
Uh, ladies and gentlemen, uh, Representative Lynn has emailed uh uh to the members of the council in which he is opposed to this ordinance. He believes that it is unconstitutional. He's made his remarks very clear and they are going to be included in the record. And with that--
Play from 2:01:37Andre M. Boggerty
Council President? Yes, sir. I would ask that the Rep- Representative Lynn's um, comments be read into the record?
Play from 2:01:58Andre M. Boggerty
Okay, well I can read it into the record, because he did send me a copy if, if if allowed.
Play from 2:02:08Andre M. Boggerty
"Madam City Clerk, please accept the within as my office formal opposition to proposed City of Dover Ordinance 2025-21 and all of its iterations. I would respectfully request same be distributed to the members of the Dover City Council. First, the proposed ordinance violates the doctrine of preemption and is facially illegal under the Delaware Code. Specifically, the Delaware Code controls the abatement of nuisance along public highways. The power to abate those nuisance along public highways granted by the state to only the City of Wilmington, see 17 Del. C. Section 516. The specific disambiguation, ambiguation of the City of Wilmington by the Delaware General Assembly mandates that other municipalities, including the City of Dover, lack the statutory authority to abate nuisance along public roads. Simply stated, the city lacks the authority to adopt this ordinance. Additionally, I would draw the city's attention to Title 21 Chapter 41 Code 4147 of the Delaware Code. By occupying the field in the manner prescribed in Section 4147, it is clear that state law preempts municipal actions pertaining to the solicitation of occupants of motor vehicles along Delaware roadways. Secondly, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution affords the solicitation of funds a protected speech. Attempts like this proposed ordinance to mask this blatant attack on free speech as safety measures have been repeatedly struck down by the courts. I am confident that this proposed ordinance, similarly disguised as a public safety measure, will be similarly struck down on judicial review. Lastly, I would suggest that the city consider addressing the cause of the conduct: poverty, addiction, mental health issues, affordable housing, and a general lack of opportunity. The city is focused on--"
Play from 2:02:14Roy Sudler, Jr.
symptoms of this social issues, not the disease causing same. I would encourage city to reconsider this course of action, and spend its time on pursuing real solutions to these problems. As a city taxpayer and as a representative of roughly 25,000 Dover residents, I think there are other uses of city funds that would serve our collective residents better than paying out damages to plaintiffs who will invariably sue the city and win.
Play from 2:04:31Roy Sudler, Jr.
While a lifelong and staunch supporter of the ACLU, I would prefer that our city neighbors not underwrite that organization through the adoption of this ordinance. Our friends and neighbors are struggling enough in this economy. Please vote down this measure. Please contact me with any questions, concerns, engendered by the above. Yours very truly, State Representative Sean M. Lynn.
Play from 2:05:05Roy Sudler, Jr.
Thank you. Thank you Council, um, President, for allowing me to read that. Uh, thank you for allowing me to read that into the record. Hopefully I didn't misrepresent him. Uh, I tried my best. It was a little long, but thank you.
Play from 2:06:07Fred A. Neil
No, you did not. We all know him, and he was going to get in whether he sent it or not. Councilman Anderson.
Play from 2:06:15David L. Anderson
Uh, thank you, Mr. President. That, uh, we have heard over the last five months from many people. We know that the citizens of Dover, particularly the voters of Dover, are in support of this effort. We also know, we also know that that, we also know, very importantly, that, uh, this is not based upon, uh, unlike what somebody, uh, said, upon a, uh, law that is no longer in force, because that misses the whole point of having this. The number one, um, Mr. Solicitor, is this, uh, uh, with, it as you wrote it, and especially as amended, not reflecting the, the Seaford city ordinance, uh, as well as the model by the Attorney General?
Play from 2:06:22City Solicitor
So I, I think as I understand what the issue raised by, by Representative Lynn and what you're asking about is, does the, does this ordinance, is it preempted by state law? And, and the issue of preemption is a pretty complicated one. There's really two types of preemption. There is issue preemption and field preemption. Issue preemption is where a municipality attempts to legislate in an area where the state has already legislated, and the municipality's legislation is inconsistent with or different from the state's legislation, then, in that case, the municipality's legislation is preempted by the state. We cannot enact anything that's inconsistent with state law. Field preemption—
Play from 2:07:43City Solicitor
emption is there might not be a state law directly applicable or comparable to what the municipality is doing, but the state has expressed its intention to regulate that field to the exclusion of municipalities.
Play from 2:07:47City Solicitor
So, here, I'm not sure whether the issue is issue preemption or field preemption.
Play from 2:08:06City Solicitor
What I would say is when we invited the Attorney General's input on the ordinance, the Attorney General's office provided us with a similar type of bill that the Attorney General's office has presented to the General Assembly.
Play from 2:08:13City Solicitor
And that similar type of bill also is a pedestrian safety type of bill, also includes similar language about median width. And so,
Play from 2:08:32City Solicitor
I will tell you, I took that to mean that, at least in the Attorney General's view, the state has not enacted it has not determined that there is a already a comparable state statute.
Play from 2:08:43Fred A. Neil
Thank you very much. Do you happen to, uh, uh, have the, the letter that the Attorney General sent handy? Uh, if we're going to read one into the record, I'd like to read both into the record.
Play from 2:09:39Council President / Member
The, yeah, ma'am, is while you're doing that, You do, you have it now? Thank you.
Play from 2:09:54City Solicitor
It is a February 12th, 2026 letter from Dan Logan, Chief Deputy Attorney General of the Department of Justice, to the Dover City Council. "Esteemed members of City Council, thank you for your invitation to address the legality of pending ordinance 2025-2021-21. We appreciate the gravity of this issue for Dover's residents and business community and appreciate the weighty, nuanced debate
Play from 2:09:59City Solicitor
that you must navigate. Unfortunately, it would be inappropriate for us to provide the legal analysis that you request as the DOJ does not legally represent the city of Dover and would not be the attorney of record were the city to enter litigation.
Play from 2:10:27City Solicitor
The city retains a capable solicitor, we defer to his research and guidance on this ordinance's legal merits and to your judgment on its political merits.
Play from 2:10:41City Solicitor
To assist with your work, we are resubmitting for your review model legislation that our office developed more than a year ago. We believe that this model represents constitutionally sound replacement for the loitering and solicitation statute, should the General Assembly choose to pass it.
Play from 2:10:49David L. Anderson
Thank you. And if uh Thank you very much. Just Just wanted to clarify that, because uh when you drafted, you did not draft it based upon uh something that was no longer operational. Um and and uh while there's been
Play from 2:11:08David L. Anderson
from both sides uh over the over many years, um there have been certain commonalities, um which have been which uh basically Sandy City and Louisville and other places have have found and based uh ordinances upon which uh look a lot like this one. Is that not correct?
Play from 2:11:32Legal Counsel
I don't know that I would use Sandy City as a Sandy City was an Eighth Amendment issue, whether or not um requiring people to relocate homeless camps was an Eighth Amendment violation.
Play from 2:11:54Legal Counsel
Oh, you're You're correct. But the the Sandy City at the the similar federal cases that have addressed whether or not a pedestrian safety ordinance, a purported pedestrian safety ordinance is an impermissible violation of First Amendment rights looks at a lot of factors. It looks at um things like has the council done sufficient pre-enactment investigation to make sure that it's narrowly tailored to um only impact um the the most minimal uh number of people, whether or not there are alternatives um to um if if constituents want to express their right to free speech and freedom of assembly, are there alternatives available other than medians, um statistical evidence of um of um injuries or fatalities, things like that. Uh so it's It's sort of a balancing test to make sure that the the ordinance is narrowly tailored enough that constituents have a First Amendment right of free speech and freedom of assembly that they can express, um but that the government takes as narrowly tailored approach as a as it possibly can.
Play from 2:12:07David L. Anderson
Which is why we explicitly talked about sidewalks, etc., the yeah, and and just outlined several things to make sure people had adequate places to express their First Amendment rights.
Play from 2:13:18Legal Counsel
The The The limitation of the size of the median, in particular, I think, is one that courts look at, because I I I think the idea there is that uh if a median is very, very wide and large, that is an area where people congregate to to protest or to express their First Amendment rights. If If If a municipality can narrow the size of the median so that larger medians, um over, for instance, seven feet or so, um people could still congregate there um and express their First Amendment rights, um courts would like to see that the size of the median be narrowed so that it only applies to those where people aren't really congregating for protest purposes or for freedom of uh for First Amendment reasons.
Play from 2:13:34Roy Sudler, Jr.
Thank you, Council President Neil, for recognizing. This is uh for the City Solicitor. And I heard you mention in in your quick briefing um about should the General Assembly choose to pass it, so this is a framework that they still have to make a decision on. And when do when—we don't know for sure—but when do you anticipate, do you think it could happen? I think the session is almost over now, right?
Play from 2:14:25Nicholas Rodriguez
My understanding is it was given to them about a year ago and and no action has been taken.
Play from 2:14:41Roy Sudler, Jr.
Okay. And additionally, um as the ordinance is is written, I'm thinking, would would there be any penalty for anyone who not didn't give didn't give money, but gave food to individuals? How would we address that? Would they be ticketed for giving food?
Play from 2:14:44Nicholas Rodriguez
I think both giving money and giving food are considered First Amendment rights.
Play from 2:14:56Roy Sudler, Jr.
Okay. Okay. So this leads me to, you know, the feeling of, you know, just because we may have the right to to do it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. And so I'm going to move that we deny Proposed Ordinance #2025-21 Amending Chapter 106 - Traffic and Vehicles, Article III - Stopping, Standing, and Parking, by Adding Section 106-139 - Pedestrian Safety.
Play from 2:15:25Brian E. Lewis
I'll I'll second the motion if that's uh if you if you're making a motion.
Play from 2:15:45Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.
Thank you, Council President. Um this is directed towards City Solicitor. Um I thought I heard you say, I might be misinterpreting, but um in reference to what the General Assembly has, did did you say that if if it's the intent of the state or am I did I mishear what you what you said?
Play from 2:15:51Nicholas Rodriguez
If if there is legislation by the state which makes it very clear that the state intends to regulate in this field exclusively, then a municipality cannot enact its own um ordinances uh if the state has expressly reserved that field for itself.
Play from 2:16:32Nicholas Rodriguez
No. But I we would be if the if the bill that the state that the Attorney General's Office has circulated, if that bill ultimately gets enacted into law, uh then we might be in that area.
Play from 2:16:48Nicholas Rodriguez
they are in the same they are in the same field um and to the extent there is any conflict between this provision and the state, and I haven't really analyzed it to any great detail, but if there are competing provisions, the state's provisions would prevail.
Play from 2:16:57Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.
So would that automatically negate this ordinance if that time came?
Play from 2:17:31City Solicitor
consistent with the state law. And and again, I I just haven't done enough of an analysis to figure out whether there are are inconsistencies between this and the proposed bill from the state.
Play from 2:17:37City Solicitor
I I think that's correct. I think I read an article that suggested that certain lawmakers are unaware of the bill.
Play from 2:17:47Brian E. Lewis
Okay. And that was the concern that Representative Lynn had shared in in in what Dr. Sudler had read to us.
Play from 2:17:50City Solicitor
I understood his concern to be a preemption issue. That either there's already state law on the books, um which um conflict with this provision, or the state has expressed its intention to um occupy this field exclusively.
Play from 2:17:56Brian E. Lewis
And in your opinion, do you believe that what is currently on the books, does this ordinance, this proposed ordinance conflict with that with that?
Play from 2:18:07City Solicitor
No, I don't I don't think the Attorney General's office would be circulating a draft bill if it believed that there was already um a a sufficient statute on the books on this issue.
Play from 2:18:14Roy Sudler, Jr.
Um I don't know if it's permissible. Um, Coun- uh Representative Lynn has has text me in regards to this matter, but I think uh from his understanding that uh the Department of Justice bill that they just read does not even have a sponsor and it has never been heard in the committee. This is what Coun- Representative Lynn is saying. And that Townsend pulled his name off of that bill after the Spotlight Delaware article. Uh that bill doesn't even have a sponsor. That's Representative Lynn said, and he- and you can we can confirm. So, um I just want I just thought that was important, um since we were having that discussion. But I I can't, I mean just reading from, you know, um a message, so I can't he he'd have to get, you know. But um I yield for further discussion before we vote.
Play from 2:18:48Andre M. Boggerty
Thank you. I'll I'll save my comments for later, but um if it be possible, based on the way my colleague entered the motion, um he he my colleagues uh um uh made the motion to vote no on the matter. So therefore, can you clarify what a yes vote by voting the way he made the motion or a no vote, because it can sound conflicting that based on the motion was, and so I just want to make sure it was clarity based on the way the motion was entered.
Play from 2:19:49Andre M. Boggerty
Well, he made the motion and said, "I make the motion to vote no."
Play from 2:20:13Andre M. Boggerty
Right. So I just want to clarify. So if you hear Yes is no and no means yes. So I just wanted to clarify that. You all know I'm kind of Columbo. I just sit here and makes sense of things a little bit, so so you all can clarify if you...
Play from 2:20:44Fred A. Neil
Someone votes yes, it means no. And votes no means yes, unless my esteemed colleague would like to re-iterate the motion
Play from 2:20:54Tricia K. Arndt
I I have thoughts and comments, but I was confused as to how the motion was stated. I just want to make sure that I knew which way I was voting based on the motion, so I appreciate that.
Play from 2:21:02Roy Sudler, Jr.
Okay. In regards to item 26, proposed ordinance #2025-21, amending chapter 106, traffic and vehicles, article 3, stopping, standing, and parking by adding section 106-139, pedestrian safety, the motion is to not accept to to deny the proposed ordinance.
Play from 2:21:10Roy Sudler, Jr.
Yeah, it's it's basically saying you're denying them, or you're not in support of, to vote no on the proposed ordinance. As I have been saying tonight, please vote no, I'm saying vote no to proposed ordinance. I move to not approve the proposed ordinance.
Play from 2:22:00David L. Anderson
Thank Thank you, Mr. President. Um look, you can do it, but negative motions are often confusing, and really it's just easier to um uh just do uh the regular way, which is a motion to approve, and then people vote yes or no. Um if uh so therefore, I would like to I'm going to make a motion to uh lay on the table the motion that was uh just made.
Play from 2:22:13David L. Anderson
at least can lay it on the table so we can just do it the normal way.
Play from 2:23:01Roy Sudler, Jr.
Uh, Council President, I would I would ask that um we refer to our city solicitor to see that the ordinance of which I have presented is amenable and in order of parliamentary procedures.
Play from 2:23:04Nicholas Rodriguez
Yeah, and it it might be a little confusing, but that that doesn't mean it can't be done. And uh and I think and I would encourage council members, especially on a on a on a matter that has generated this much um publicity, to express your uh reasons rather than say yes or no. Um, but um and I think it'll be clearer from the expression of reasons uh which way each council member is voting. So, uh it it appears right now the voting the motion is to um uh to deny the ordinance.
Play from 2:23:14Roy Sudler, Jr.
And I thank you, I thank you for your infinite wisdom and clarity. I prefer to hear from you that I know I'm in good legal standing. Thank you, I yield.
Play from 2:23:32Fred A. Neil
Okay. Um, as Council President, I have a few comments. One of which is that we have attorneys that stand on both sides of the law. And when you have a justice inside,
Play from 2:24:03Fred A. Neil
We've heard people say, "Why don't you get rid of prostitution? Why don't you do this?" We can't because the Attorney General said, "Stand away. We're not going to prosecute prostitution or other crimes that are basically eating away at the city." Two,
Play from 2:24:10Fred A. Neil
this is nothing more than a safety issue, whether the state does it or whether we do it, but we have no guarantee the state is going to be doing this.
Play from 2:24:30Fred A. Neil
Basically, the issues that people bring up about homelessness, it's absolutely correct, this does not deal with homelessness. There are all kinds of things that the city can't do because it's not in our charter. We can't do education. We can't do health. We can't do uh social work, all of which is a part of trying to get people off the streets.
Play from 2:24:41Fred A. Neil
We have a quality of um uh of a a law enforcement, a behavioral unit, that went extensively to try to get the people who were on the street off the street and the help that they need. They were turned down.
Play from 2:25:05Fred A. Neil
I had a young lady who spoke tonight. She and I had a very nice conversation on housing, which is a desperate need, absolutely desperate need, and it's something I've been fighting since 2003 when I came here to when I moved here, and it's still a big problem.
Play from 2:25:21Fred A. Neil
And basically, the discussion we had was that these people have refused the help that was offered to them, they refuse. And she pointed out that a lot of these people basically have been very disappointed with the help that they were offered and have chosen this as a means of life.
Play from 2:25:38Fred A. Neil
So it's not just that. And the other thing is, if you're going to do that, if we're going to uh start adopting the homeless and finding places for them, you're going to get more homeless. They're going to come down here, and the burden is going to be on the taxpayers, and the same people who are making the complaints do not want to raise taxes.
Play from 2:26:00Fred A. Neil
It costs money, and we have basically have to preserve what we have in order to get what we have to do and try to do for the people who are out there. We've been through this process. It is, if you haven't gotten a copy of what the police have done, contact me directly and I'll send you the copy to so that you can see exactly what was there.
Play from 2:26:17Fred A. Neil
And we're dealing with people, sometimes just not rational. They're not rational. So this is the problem that we face. This is a safety issue. It is nothing more but a safety issue.
Play from 2:26:40Fred A. Neil
And with that, if there's no other contracts, I want I I I will suggest that we call the question. Um are you amenable to calling the question? The question now.
Play from 2:26:52Fred A. Neil
A yes vote means that you're going to deny the bill. A no vote means that you're turning it down and accepting the ordinance. Okay, is that understood?
Play from 2:27:06Andre M. Boggerty
Well, I wouldn't say you're accepting the ordinance, what you're just saying is that you're that if
Play from 2:27:17Fred A. Neil
You're not basically saying that you don't agree with that motion. Then we have to bring that motion up then you
Play from 2:27:21City Clerk
Okay. So, the motion was to deny proposed Ordinance 2025-21. So if you vote yes, you are voting to deny the adoption of the ordinance. If you vote no, then you would be in favor of passing the ordinance. So, Ms. Hall?
Play from 2:27:31Donyale M. Hall
Thank you so much. And I'm going to take the advice of our esteemed solicitor and give my $0.02 on why my vote is the way that it is. Months ago, I made some very similar observations that I thought that we might perhaps be able to find better use of moneys to address this issue. And secondly, I also made mention that the outcry behind this ordinance would surely draw a legal challenge, and we recently had a conversation regarding how much we had allocated for legal recourse and that we were probably somewhere in the neighborhood of about 50% of what we had already budgeted right after quarter one of this fiscal year. And so, I don't feel that it is wise and in the best interest of the taxpayer dollars to welcome more legal challenge that will ultimately put us in a deficit for having to defend this, especially in light of the fact that the state is trying to find a pathway forward to deal with this issue. And so, I am not in support of this ordinance, and I vote yes to deny the ordinance.
Play from 2:27:48Andre M. Boggerty
Um, from the beginning, I've stated what my position was. In in no way, shape, or form, and under this matter, am I supportive of fining of of charging fines and/or fees to individuals. That has been my position from the start. Um, I also still would wanted to yield to the framework of of the state. I spoke to both sides of this matter. I spoke to individuals who I haven't spoken to, and and I'm not throwing shots, but individual voices who I have not heard from on both sides of the matter. So, um, so I wanted to spend my time hearing new voices, different voices. I spoke to clergy for and against. I spoke to legal for and against. I spoke to business owners and and constituents alike. Um, my my my while while I'm disheartened, I'll be honest with you, and it's part of what we do, while I'm disheartened by some of our decorum on this matter, um, that's things that we will have to prove upon that we can have robust discussions without personal attacks and/or attempt to humiliate individuals. That's, I'm going to say that, because it doesn't have to be that way when you disagree. Um, I also I also state that my my position is that we have a lot of legal...
Play from 2:29:57Andre M. Boggerty
matters before us. We simply cannot afford another one. I'm also going to call for the legal matters before us and the costs associated with them during the budget hearings so we can see, if that's possible, so we can see why we have to be very mindful of how much we spend in, in our, in, in legal matters. That said, I love the City of Dover. For those who attempt to attack my—I'm going to step into this—my personhood as a pastor, as a clergy, you don't know my record. You don't know the record of the Boggerty family. You don't know how much money we have given out of our own pockets. You don't know the people we have we have housed. You don't know the people we have fed. So to insult me or attempt to insult me, my works are unto the Lord so I don't need your approval. Everybody who knows, knows, and there's individuals out here knows what I do. I don't take pictures. I don't embarrass anybody at their lowest moments. So I will let you and the Lord deal with that. I have several, so to shorten it, because I have a lot to say, but I don't want to be like anyone else. I want to keep my integrity and my composure. Now, so I'm going to vote yes in this in the sense that I am not for this ordinance in this at this time and in this framework. I just believe it exposes us too much. I don't believe the the impact will the net gain is not worth the investment. I do think that we should find a means or methodology of encouraging individuals. I've witnessed individuals slip off the median. I've witnessed individuals just not be safe. But at the same but at the same time, these individuals are adults and they have rights and privileges as well. I commend your efforts, Councilman Anderson, but I ask you to go back and revisit it and shape it. I commend so we can do something positive to all the business owners. They are individuals we want to bring to the table to find a working solution. So with that said, I'll stand by my decision. I will vote yes to not to not support this at this time, and I'll still wait for the state's decision. But in the meantime, I ask I ask our police officers and I ask others to do the level best to work within the guidance that that is permitted within our state ordinance that's already that already that's already available to do the best we can with what you have. So, I vote...
Play from 2:30:44David L. Anderson
All right. Thank you. I vote no because this is absolutely needed. We've we've addressed every issue first,
Play from 2:33:49David L. Anderson
Think of the number 3.4 million. That's how much the city of Dover has invested in helping to open up new shelters and transitional housing, which is beyond the scope of what we're expected to do in our charter. We've done the other work. Now we have to do this work.
Play from 2:34:00Julia M. Pillsbury
I also vote no. Um the overwhelming majority of the people in my district that have reached out to me are not in favor of having people on the medians in West Dover, at least in our neighborhoods. Um the sidewalk is very accessible, it's wider, the cars can still stop and support them. I I empathize with the needs of the people, but I'm very concerned about safety. And if one person gets killed, the poor soul that hit hit them unintentionally is likely to be sued and lose everything they've ever had and be out on the corner as well. I think it's a very uh serious problem. I do agree we need to find good solutions, and all of the concerns voiced, I understand them, but I have to represent my constituents. So I do not support this uh proposal.
Play from 2:34:26Tricia K. Arndt
Thank you. Um so my my opposition or my my thoughts on the ordinance have not have not changed, but I'll just reiterate some of my points um to justify my decision. Uh so first and foremost, for me it comes down to choice. Um if others choose to give their money um while in their car at a light, um who am I to dictate when and if their charity is permissible? Um to me that's an individual's choice, not the government's decision. Um I also have concerns with how it would be enforced, um as written
Play from 2:36:40Tricia K. Arndt
um, it states 200 ft for certain road classifications, 100 ft for other road classifications. Um, it'll be marked by a sign, but not where impractical. So, sometimes there'll be a sign, maybe sometimes there won't be a sign. Um, but it's still enforceable even if it's not marked. Um, so in in my mind that is a lack of clarity, both for the public and for law enforcement, um in terms of enforcing where you can stand and where you can't stand.
Play from 2:37:17Tricia K. Arndt
I also have concerns about the penalties. Um, so it's a warning initially, um and then fines for repeat offenders. Um, someone else had made the point, I I I agree that the police have their hands full with speeding and and actual crime um without having to monitor intersections for the exchange of a few dollars uh and give warnings while also being expected to to reach out and provide services to to find out why folks are on the median and determine what help they need. I just think it's it's too much to put on our police force that is already stretched.
Play from 2:37:42Tricia K. Arndt
Um, the and lastly, I'll just mention the the fines. Um, so repeat offenders can be fined $50, I'm sorry, $15 up to $50. Um, and I understand that the purpose of the penalty is to affect change, um but I just can't get past the irony of fining people asking for money to get them to stop asking for money. Um, so for for those four reasons primarily, I'm going to vote yes, which is to deny the ordinance. Thank you.
Play from 2:38:10Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.
So, I really, you know, this is just me talking, I'm not voting yet, I'm just thinking and and and contemplating. I don't know if I heard a strong enough legal opinion to move this ordinance forward.
Play from 2:39:10Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.
Um, I'm waiting to hear case laws, things of that nature come about, and I didn't hear anything being quoted that says that this law, or this ordinance, if passed, is going to is going to um pass the litmus test in a lawsuit. And based on uh you know what Representative Lynn, who to me carries a lot of weight because he's a he's a he's a lawyer, and you know, I can't take what he said for granted. Although I do I do want to side with the ordinance because of the safety portion of it, um does it pass the the litmus test from a legal standpoint? And I'm I'm I'm now not convinced that it is. So, I'm going to vote yes on this ordinance. And you know, it took me a long time to get here. Um, I want to commend Michelle Paul.
Play from 2:39:24Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.
I don't always agree with everything that she presents at the podium, but she did it the right way this time. She did it the right way. And, you know, it might be AI or whatever, but she did it the right way, and it caused me
Play from 2:40:16Andre M. Boggerty
to think, and it caused me to wait to hear the answers, and they didn't come. And and I think, you know, it wasn't as convincing to me today even though, you know, I I want I want the safety of those individuals in the median um to be put at the forefront of this ordinance. That's that's the only reason why I supported the ordinance up until this point. But now does it pass the litmus test from a legal standpoint is what I'm weighing today, and I didn't get the the the confidence in the answers that I heard from tonight, which is the reason why I flipped. We all do that. We we we are we can flip. So don't don't bash a flip-flopper when they don't go in your favor, and now, all of a sudden, I'm a flip-flopper and it's okay. But I, you know, and I do honor my constituents. You know, I have constituents that I talk to on both sides, so I do honor those that have the same concerns that I do for the pedestrian safety. But when you when I weigh it across the board, I'm I'm making a conscious decision, and I have to I have to say that, you know, I'm not totally convinced from the legal standpoint. I think we may end up with more problems than we need right now, not to say that we couldn't dust this thing off in the future, but right now, this is where I stand. It's a yes to Sudler's motion, and I yield.
Play from 2:40:33Roy Sudler, Jr.
Thank you for recognizing me, Madam Clerk Rivera. Um, first, I want to say I concur with Councilman Boggerty. He's been attacked, and I also have been attacked. People know that my family has a lawsuit right now, and I've been attacked by someone's wife, which which I've never done that to any one of you, and I don't appreciate it. But I never let that be why I'm in opposition. I'm in opposition because I don't think that this is the right thing to do. I believe that it is a safety issue, cuz I'm the one who manifested this whole idea, and Dave, you know that. But the way and the route that you took, I don't agree with. And for those reasons stated, and I hope, Ms. Jeanie, I hope you you never do that to me again, cuz I've never done that to you, and you know what I'm talking about, the $350,000 comment. So, I need to address that cuz that's that's how I'm built. Nevertheless, I'm voting yes, and I want to commend the council president for the way he conducted this meeting. It was honorable. I like the way how you you didn't do the public forum right then and there, but you still allowed the public to speak, and and I appreciate that. And I know the position you're in, and how tough it can be, and I want to say you did a hell of a job tonight. I yield.
Play from 2:42:55Brian E. Lewis
Thank you. We've been going back and forth with this for five months now, and I've heard the opposition
Play from 2:43:43Brian E. Lewis
I've heard from those that support it, and I prayed on this. I prayed for guidance, and God put on my heart that we're dealing with people, and and people are people. And I've heard everybody speak tonight that was out there, and you are 100% correct, we need to help our brothers and sisters that are out there. We need to help them. They're suffering. We can't be judgmental. I heard the one lady say that we're so judgmental today. We can't be judgmental. There's only one, okay, that can judge us, and that's God Almighty. We should not be judging one another. The two concerns that I had with this ordinance is that, number one, it will drastically affect those that are already down on their luck or suffering from hardships. So these people are out there because they're suffering and they're down and out on their luck. That's why they're out there doing what they're doing. I understand the safety aspect of it, 100% I understand it. But what are these people to do? What are they to do? The resources are limited. The second reason is that it will persecute those who are attempting to help those in need. So if you and I go out there trying to give a bottle of water, cash, whatever it it'd be, there's a possibility of us getting a ticket. And I don't think that's right, and that really bothers me. Um, so they're the two main concerns that I had with this ordinance, um, that are telling me to vote yes on Mr. Sudler's motion. Okay, but let me leave you with this: the buck stopped with us.
Play from 2:43:50Brian E. Lewis
The buck stops with us, okay? We can't be pondering back and forth, it's the AG's fault, it's this person's fault, it's that person's fault, it starts with us. We need to do something. If we can't do it, we need to ask the state and federal government for help. But we're the legislative body of this city. And it needs to start with us. So whatever committees people want to start to address this, count me in. And I vote yes.
Play from 2:45:54Fred A. Neil
I'm voting no, and I'm voting no, as I think that began the idea that it's a safety issue. The other issues are real. The issues of people who are incapable of taking care of, of being rational, because whether it's drug addiction, whether it's mental, or whether they've kind of given up hope, we've offered help, we have to offer help, we will continue to offer help, but for those who reject it, we still have the problem. We'll go back to the drawing board and see what we can do, but I'm voting in principle, that if a person strikes and hurts or kills somebody, it scars them for life. We should not have that,
Play from 2:47:07Fred A. Neil
And that person should not have been hit, should not have been injured, and should not have been killed. And my vote is no.
Play from 2:47:07City Clerk
At this time the ordinance fails with a vote of six yes to deny and three no.
Play from 2:47:20Fred A. Neil
The mayor is not here, so we come back to council members' announcements. Yeah. Dr. Sudler.
Play from 2:47:39Roy Sudler, Jr.
Uh thank you, Council President, for recognizing me. I just want to uh bring something to council's attention that um we I've gotten a lot of concerns in regards Excuse me, everyone. We're still in session. Um, I've gotten a lot of uh calls in regards to when the snow plow that it's going in front of of uh individuals' homes who are seniors and and and have some medical issues. And so I would ask that we try and do something about when our snow plowers plow the road, which, you know, maybe we can get some contractors, a list of contractors that's willing to at least assist seniors
Play from 2:47:45Roy Sudler, Jr.
or vulnerable population that be that will be at risk for code violations. And also, there's a lot of seniors, the one that I helped this um this previous snow shovel just had major surgery and so the if things went left, they would not be able to have the um, you know, paramedics to go up their driveway and everything because it was blocked due to the to the plowing. So, you know, if we can just um put that on our, you know, agenda mindset, maybe um with the Safety Advisory and Transportation, we can try and work something out uh in the in the near future. So I just want to bring that to the attention. That's the only announcement I have.
Play from 2:49:03Brian E. Lewis
Thank you, Mr. Neil. Uh just to piggyback off the um Just to piggyback off the uh Councilman Sudler's uh comments. Um uh I had some concerns from from residents. Uh I mean we had a detrimental winter, and I had some concerns from residents with regard to plowing, salting, and all kinds of other stuff. So I get in contact with Ms. Duca, and first of all, I want to thank you, Ms. Duca, for uh responding uh expeditiously and and trying to address uh many of the concerns that the the citizens uh had with these two past snowfalls. But I'm going to ask if you could possibly get together with with uh our City Manager, Mr. Hugg, and and give a report uh at the next uh Committee of the Whole or council meeting on, you know, the costs and No, no, uh the next meeting, and and if you could basically give a cost so the residents residents are aware of what's going on uh as far as, you know, how much it costs for salt and and and what you guys did. What you guys did. And I applaud the workers. I want to applaud the workers. You know, 100%. You know, I don't care what the critics say, uh you guys, you know, did a phenomenal job in trying to address the matter. Hey, there's going to be hiccups
Play from 2:49:46Brian E. Lewis
you know, because this past winter is is been, you know, a hell of a winter. And I want to thank code enforcement, too, for doing their job. And that's all I have.
Play from 2:50:23David L. Anderson
Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to uh first of all, thank the uh citizens of Dover for their support uh on the ordinance. And second, I I'd like to uh promote a something that's coming up on Saturday, the 28th. Uh Beginning and Seated Career Academy is sponsoring a clean up a Dover Community Cleanup Day. Uh the
Play from 2:50:37David L. Anderson
[laughter] Uh probably if it rains uh that probably won't be an issue. Um, but the uh it is uh 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Uh, people can start gathering at 9:00 at the uh Zimmerman parking lot, corner of uh Division Street and Governors Avenue. Uh, and it's uh a Join Us to Beautify Our Community. It is uh posted on my Facebook page, as well as I'm sure other places. Uh, and uh people who are interested in participating can uh email uh bedford1369@gmail.com, and uh that's Bedford, b-e-d-f-o-r-d, 1 1369@gmail.com. Or, and there's other ways that are on the flyer that is posted. It It's important to keep the community um it it's clean and decent because uh we we know that's one of the big problems that's driving away investment uh downtown. It's uh just the appearance, and uh it we have to join together as a community to to do something about it. We've been doing that, of course, with different days, and and this is another opportunity. The The and then uh would want to uh people who've said they're interested in affordable housing uh need to keep on the next next couple Council Committee of the Wholes. Of course, we've dealt with this before, but there's uh some presentations that people are want to be interest that'll be interested in, including uh one from NCALL tomorrow, and also one from the the uh one from uh Little Living, um which is um the which will be on the uh 10th uh of March. So, uh I would encourage uh people who are interested to participate in that either in person or online. Thank you.
Play from 2:51:05